IDENTITARIAN COMMENTARY ON EXODUS

“And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls:” (1:5)

The Exodus writer(s) (Moses, etc.) recorded the number of Jacob’s genetic descendants specifically because this was the group from which all ethnic Israelites would emerge. The new nation’s identity as God’s chosen people was to be founded upon their bloodline connection to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

“And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.” (1:7)

Israel’s seventy blood descendants who entered Egypt benefited from a high fertility rate that made them “mighty.” Modern people of European descent scattered throughout the world have below replacement level fertility rates in every country in which they dwell. No ethnic group has ever grown mighty by failing to reproduce. The Israelites evolved from an extended family unit into a huge ethnic multitude. This multitude constituted an entire nation after the four hundred years of living in Egypt. The book of Exodus indicates the way in which Biblical nations are formed by blood and history rather than by propositions (as the United States claims to be). Ethnicities and races are extended family unites descended from common ancestors. Because of this family connection, the members of an ethnicity have special obligations towards one another.

“And [Pharaoh] said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come let us do wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join our enemies, and fight against us… Therefore they did set taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens…” (1:10, 11)

As numerous sociological and psychological studies have shown, ethnic diversity breeds distrust and conflict. [1] The Egyptians knew the Jews represented a foreign presence within their borders, and a threat in times of war. While the reader’s instinct is to side against Pharaoh’s interpretation of the danger Israel might have posed, it is worth asking whether the king was right to worry. Is there any reason Israel would have avoided fighting against the Egyptians? The Joseph’s death at the end of Genesis already demonstrated that the Hebrew vizier of Egypt possessed so little loyalty to the country he worked for that he ordered his body carried back to Palestine. If the Pharaoh of Exodus 1 was from a completely different dynasty (as the text suggests) he had good reasons to suspect an insurrection from a foreign ethnicity who had once supported his enemies.

Many who ascribe to liberation theology argue the Exodus story represents a divine condemnation of American slavery. Besides the obvious problems with this interpretation (God reestablishing ethnic based slavery when organizing the Promised Land), it is worth noting that American slavery and Egyptian slavery had opposite objectives. The Egyptians forced slavery upon the Israelites to destroy them as an ethnic group. Pharaoh ordered the extermination of the male Israelite babies in 1:16. American slavery, however, encouraged the multiplication of Africans in America, and slaveholders shipped the foreign ethnic group to their plantations from thousands of miles across the ocean. American slaveholders introduced their slaves to Christianity whereas the Egyptians wanted to exterminate the Israelites. American slavery must be viewed in a far more positive light than its Egyptian counterpart. From an ethical perspective the two cannot be accurately compared.

“And when [Pharaoh’s daughter] opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, this is one of the Hebrews’ children.” (2:6) “…and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son.” (2:10)

Pharaoh’s daughter is portrayed positively in almost every modern depiction of the Exodus story. In retrospect, however, we see that this early case of interracial adoption led to the destruction of the princess’ own people. Moses’ adoption into Pharaoh’s house was a precursor to his effectiveness in bringing Egypt to its knees. The princess’ compassion was God’s tool to ruin the Egypt her father was trying to protect.

Today, American Christians trans-racially adopt from every corner of the globe (especially low IQ African children genetically predisposed to violence). These Christians believe that by acting in compassion they are doing the will of God. Perhaps they are, in helping him destroy their nations and humiliating their people and societies.

“…when Moses was grown, he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren… he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.” (2:11-12)

Like most youths adopted by people outside their ethnicity, Moses eventually had an identity crisis. He was raised an Egyptian, but knew his real identity, his genetic blood, was Hebrew. Twice in this passage the Exodus writer emphasized that the Israelites were Moses’ “brethren.” Being raised in the home of an Egyptian king was not enough to erase the bonds of DNA.

 United States citizens fantasize about every ethnic groups assimilating into a unified US identity and producing a truly “propositional nation,” but wishful thinking is not enough to overcome the real ethnic connections God created as part of a human being’s core identity. God did not err when creating ethnicity and DNA; they are a crucial parts of how we must see ourselves and others. Moses could not escape the reality of who he was. Neither can we.

Trans racially adopted children can never fully integrate into their new families. I have personally known African-American children adopted by Euroethnics [2] who were torn by the conflicts the scenario caused. One of these boys was tormented enough to tell me he was racist against his own ethnicity. During a long discussion one night, he revealed that he struggled with his identity, and that he would never date or marry someone belonging to his own ethnic group. He told me he wanted to be white. On the surface, my friend was perfectly integrated into “white society,” inwardly, he was torn by the conflict.

“And [the daughters of Jethro] said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds…” (2:19)

Some claim the ancient Egyptians were ethnically sub-Saharan despite the considerable scientific, forensic, and archeological evidence contradicting that thesis. The daughters of Jethro believed Moses was an Egyptian despite his Semitic and Babylonian heritage (through Abraham’s line). This mistake suggests the ancient Egyptians looked similar to the Semitic peoples of the Middle East, and that they did not resemble the dark peoples of the African south.

“…and [Jethro] gave Moses Zipporah his daughter [to wife].” (2:21)

Moses’ marriage to Zipporah is among the few uncondemned Biblical examples of interethnic marriage. There are several possible explanations for this exception. The most likely is that Zipporah was a descendant of Abraham through one of his later wives (1 Chronicles 1:32-33). This would mean any children Zipporah bore Moses would fall completely under the ethnic promises God made in Genesis. Zipporah’s family must have been closely related to the Israelites because they never abandoned Yahweh worship.

However, there were still important differences between Moses’ in-laws and the Israelites. This becomes a point of contention in Numbers 12 when Meriam attempted to discredit Moses by claiming Zipporah is a “Cushite” (a term likely referring to the ethnic Arabian kingdoms). Even a small amount of diversity was enough to cause conflict.

“And God heard the groanings, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect for them.” (2:24-25)

God’s respect for the Israelites was not based upon their personal morality, their loyalty to him, or any other factor besides the promise of ethnic greatness he had given the Israelite’s ancestors. As discussed in Genesis, God’s loyalty to the Hebrews was primarily a product of their DNA.

“…I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (3:6)

God chose to reveal his identity to Moses by appealing to Moses’s ethnic identity. God might have said he was the creator of the world, the creator of Moses, the one and only God, or any other descriptor, but he chose to describe himself to Moses by making an ancestral connection with him. God suggested that he was worth communicating with because he also conversed with Moses’ forefathers. To a modern, God’s reasoning might seem strange and tribal. Perhaps God could communicate better with us if we valued our ethnic identities.

“And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” (3:8)

God displaced the ethnic natives of Canaan so that his people, the Israelites, could inhabit the land. There are obvious parallels with the European colonization of the New World: a godly foreign ethnic group gradually displaced the pagan immoral inhabitants of the American continent.

“Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.” (3:10)

Interestingly, the Egyptians were not included in God’s description of “my people.” Ethnic Israel had a special place in history, and the difference between God’s people and outsiders rested on the “accident” of birth, ethnic identity, and DNA. If God favored His own ethnic group over others why should modern Euroethnics not do the same? In Exodus, God established a moral basis for intra-ethnic partiality.

“The God of your fathers.” (3:13, 15, 16)

In all three of these verses God is referred to as the God of the Hebrew fathers. One is tempted to question whether God was also the God of Egypt’s fathers. Although he is the creator and sustainer of all mankind, God has reserved special attention and favor for some ethnic groups. God was not concerned that every ethnos have egalitarian access to him and his blessings. This might explain why Europeans have been blessed with Christianity for thousands of years longer than the nations of Africa and pre-Columbian America.

“…and ye shall say unto [Pharaoh], the Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us…” (3:18)

God named himself the “Lord God of the Hebrews.” He appears to have been encouraging the Israelites to think ethnocentricly: God was fighting for the Israelites, he was not the God of the Egyptians, and he was not fighting for the Egyptians.

One may argue that, in the long-term, the Egyptians spiritually benefited from God destroying their country and showing his power. However, it is important to remember that this benefit is not discussed in Exodus. The Biblical perspective is the narrow ethnocentric view of the Israelites. If ethnocentrism is inherently evil why did God encourage it amongst his ancient people?

“…and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.” (3:22)

God said he would soften the hearts of the Egyptians so that they would willingly forfeit their wealth to the Israelites. God was engaging in ethnic favoritism to advance the interests of one ethnic group at the expense of another.

“…the Lord God of their fathers…” (4:5)

Another reference to God as the ancestral Hebrew deity.

“And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt…” (4:18)

Moses was drawn back to his ethnic family in Egypt. Moses could not escape his true identity despite being raised by Egyptians, marrying his distant cousin in Arabia, and having never spent much quality time with his own ethnos. The bonds of blood run deep.

“And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.” (4:23-24)

God has shown ethnic favoritism towards some groups of people at the expense of others. God’s threat to Pharaoh suggested the Israelites were his favored and special people while the Egyptians were less important. If the Egyptians refused to let Israel go, their firstborn would be slaughtered. #EgyptionLivesDon’tMatter? Israel was God’s firstborn, and they received special privileges based upon their arbitrary birth order (primogeniture). The scenario God justified in this passage was an affirmation of birth order inequality, ethnicity, and vengeance. The book of Exodus presents God as an archetypal anti-liberal.

“Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go…” (5:1)

With Moses and Aaron’s proclamation in 5:1 the long process of freeing Israel from Egypt began. Interestingly, God did not desire the children of Israel to fight for better working conditions, end segregation, or agitate for equal political and social rights. God wanted his people to leave Egypt and form an exclusionary ethno-nationalist state after ethnically cleansing Canaan. God did not want Israel living in a pluralistic society. The Biblical Exodus was so different in its aims from the American abolitionist or civil rights movements that no moral parallels can be logically drawn between them.

“And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to “Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.” (6:7-8)

Rather than establishing a multiethnic state in Egypt, God pledged to take the Israelites out of Egypt and establish a new ethno-national state in Canaan. If one sought to compare American slavery to Egyptian slavery one should learn from the Exodus story that when the bond of master and slave is violently broken no peace is possible between the two ethnic groups; they must go their separate ways. Just as God did for the Israelites, African-Americans should have been resettled in a different land following the Civil War.

Throughout the narrative, God claimed he was fulfilling his ancient promise by delivering the Israelites from bondage. Their liberation was not the result of good behavior, but of God’s desire to fulfill his oath to their forefathers. If the Israelites reaped where they did not sow (gaining deliverance because of their ethnic heritage) why do modern Christians recoil from the idea that God grants special favor to some modern ethnicities (for example, some ethnic groups have higher genetically inherited intelligence)? God has always produced inequality between people and groups.

An ethnic group without its own land is subject to the whims of a host nation. The Israelites were under bondage because they possessed no sovereign political entity. Ethno-nationalism is among the only ways an ethnicity can gain security and political dignity. Few nations have been able to thrive and exert their will whilst behaving like homeless gypsies. God appears to have been aware of the connection an ethnicity should have with a parcel of land. For this reason, Abraham and the patriarchs were promised both a great multitude of descendants AND a territorial country in which those descendants could dwell.

“These be the heads of their father’s houses…” (6:14-25)

The average reader may find the Biblical genealogies among the most boring passages in scripture, but to identitarians they represent valuable information regarding the kinship connections of ethnic identity. Verses 14 through 16 demonstrate how the nation of Israel was a massive extended family unit that emerged from just a few individuals. The kinship connections which constituted Israel justified its evolution into a landed nation-state. If Israel had not had these common ancestral connections there would have been no argument for its existence as a single political unit.

In contrast to ancient Israel, it is easy to see why the modern United States has no legitimate unifying principle. The people of America once justified their unity by pointing out a common ancestral and Christian heritage. [3] Today, the United States is united neither by ethnic nor religious ties, and it is balkanizing into competing interest groups vying for power in a zero-sum-game. The USA is no longer a single nation despite the maintenance of a single political body in Washington.

 Some may argue the United States is united by a common idea, but even if this were a legitimate unifying national force no group can agree upon what that idea is, nor do different groups interpret the Constitution in the same way. The “propositional nation” is neither biblical nor practical.

The only political state God ever specifically established was a nation of people sharing common ancestors. The ethno-national state was ordained by God. The writer of Exodus demonstrated this by identifying nations with their common familial founders (Midiantites from Midian, Edomites from Esau/Edom, Israelites from Israel/Jacob, Canaanites from Canaan, etc.). In Exodus 6, the Israelites successfully proved their common ancestral ties, and therefore demonstrated their legitimacy as a nation.

“And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them. ” (7:3-5)

God consciously, and by his own admission, ethnically discriminated between the Israelites and the Egyptians. God chose to harden Pharaoh’s heart so he could multiply his wonders upon Egypt (i.e. send more plagues on the ethnic Egyptians). Those who argue that God would never approve of targeting entire ethnic groups with political policy (rather than treating each person as an individual) should read their Bibles; God targeted ethnic groups despite many of their members being innocent. Many of the first born God killed during the last plague were blameless children. The false idea that the individual is the only unit of responsibility in the world represents the fraudulent thinking of post-“enlightenment” liberalism.

Exodus 7:3-5 clarifies that the Israelites were not Egyptian despite living in the land of Egypt. Modern Westerners often claim a person’s status as an “American,” “British,” or “French” person should be based upon birth-place and citizenship rather than ethnicity. In contradiction to this modern idea, the Israelites never become Egyptians merely by being born on Egyptian soil. In the same way, Africans do not become Englishmen simply by being born in the United Kingdom. Birthplace does not change one’s ethnic nation.

“…[The Egyptian Priests] cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” (7:11-12)

Personally, I believe the Exodus narrative insinuates that the Egyptian gods were real. Their reality set up a conflict between the ethnic God of the Hebrews (Yahweh) and the ethnic Egyptian gods. This conflict culminates in total victory for Yahweh. God acknowledges this battle in 12:12.

Unless the Egyptian gods are read as being real it is difficult to interpret the meaning behind the pagan priest’s ability to imitate several of Moses’ signs. The implication seems to be that the Egyptian gods have power, but that Yahweh has more of it. The priest’s rods, representing multiple gods, turned into multiple serpents, but the one rod of Aaron, representing the single Hebrew deity, devoured all of them by itself.

After all the pagan gods were individually defeated in the plagues, God let loose on the Egyptian people themselves, targeting Pharaoh, in the death of the first-born. Perhaps, after the greatest Egyptian god (Re) was crushed in the plague of darkness there remained no line of defense to save the Egyptians from Yahweh’s vengeance. The gods, land, and people of Egypt were defeated, and the God of the Hebrews was exulted.

“Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve me.” (8:1) “…that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God.” (8:10)

Two references to the exclusive relationship between God and Israel. In these passages, God and Moses made clear references to the relationship of favoritism which existed between the nation and its God. The idea that ethnic distinctions should not be made is refuted by God’s special relationship with Israel; a relationship he did not have with the Egyptians.

“I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth. And I will put a division between my people and thy people: tomorrow shall this sign be.” (8:21-23)

God created ethnic segregation between the Egyptians and his people. Many of the Egyptians, especially the children, would have been innocent of any evil committed against Israel, but God’s policy of ethnic segregation during the plagues, designed to protect one ethnic group over another, was ethnically discriminatory. If our Father was willing to stoop to the level of making messy political decisions than who are we to shrink from them? Stereotyping is sometimes necessary and righteous.

“And the Lord shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel.” (9:4-7)

God discriminated against ethnic Egyptians during the plague against the cattle and arbitrarily exterminated their herds. No distinction was made between good Egyptians and bad Egyptians. All were made to suffer together as an ethnic bloc. Meanwhile, God’s favored people were protected from harm.

“And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians.” (9:11)

The Exodus writer said the disease of boils was upon ALL of the ethnic Egyptian. Even the innocent children were not spared. God sent no boils upon the Israelites even though many of them were probably more wicked and ungodly than the Egyptians. Why? Because the Israelite’s in-born ethnicity protected them from God’s plague. God factors ethnic identity into his decisions.

“And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee [Pharaoh] up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” (9:16)

God said he raised Pharaoh to power so that he could harden his heart and bring the plagues upon the Egyptian people to further his glory. The suffering of the ethnic Egyptians was not just the result of their own wickedness, but because God chose them to be destroyed for his exaltation.

If God was willing to ethnically discriminate on such a colossal level, why do Western Christians believe ethnic discrimination is sinful? Many moderns accuse God of evil by holding this position.

Why do modern Christians believe the God of the plagues would shrink from creating genetically inherited intelligence differences between ethnic groups? Do those who hold this position really believe the God who targeted an entire ethnos for destruction is a God who would avoid creating an inequality of intelligence and talents between two people groups? The Exodus narrative renders this egalitarian position absurd.

“And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.” (10:2)

Ethnicity is an extended family, and religion is a family affair. God knew the significance of a people’s history in creating their identity. By ordering the Israelites to recount the exodus story to their children, God ensured that their religious and physical narrative would be preserved. This story helped form the Hebrew children’s identity as a member of the chosen ethnic group.

 Common history unites cousins and generations across time and space. The offspring of common ancestors grow closer by remembering their common past, just as couples grow closer by recalling the story of their romance.

“Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people go, that they may serve me. Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast.” (10:3-4)

Three times in the above passage God asserted that he was definitely the God of the Hebrews. He said, the Hebrews are “my” people. Many modern liberal Christians claim God does not take sides in political, ethnic, and social struggles. The Exodus narrative refutes this idea. The God of Israel backed the Israelites unequivocally; even at the expense of many Egyptian lives.

“And they shall fill thy houses, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians; which neither thy fathers, nor thy fathers' fathers have seen, since the day that they were upon the earth unto this day.” (10:6)

All of the Egyptians found their livelihoods destroyed: good, evil, adults, children, man, women, unintelligent, brilliant, mentally handicapped, and sane. No one was spared. Meanwhile, not even the worst Israelites suffered from the locust plague. God practiced ethnic discrimination. Most of the Egyptian people had no power over the working conditions or enslavement of the Israelite people, but they were forced to suffer alongside those who did. Why? Because they were born with Egyptian blood. Ethnic identity matters.

“[The Egyptians] saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.” (10:23)

Why did the Israelites have light and the Egyptians did not? Because they were born Hebrew. God ethnically discriminated.

“But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.” (11:7)

 God plainly demonstrated his ethnic discrimination between the Egyptians and Hebrews. He directly stated his intentions. God killed the Egyptian first born so that they would know that “the Lord doth put a difference” between the ethnic groups. The Egyptians would die, the Israelites would not. The last plague advertised which ethnos God had chosen.

“And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.” (12:14)

God appears to have believed in ethnic continuity. Unlike today, as those of European descent gleefully discuss their own displacement, [4] the Israelites were told to preserve their ethnic history, culture, and holidays throughout the generations. They were to celebrate these things within a land that was to be their own; the ethnic inheritance of their parents and ancestors. Ethnic Europeans should not seek to share their land and societies with every people group on earth. Like the Israelites, they should preserve their unique identity.

“Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.” (12:19)

Ethnic strangers within Israel’s ethno-national state were forced to live by the religious and cultural rules of their host population. There was no religious freedom in the nation state of Israel. No ethnic stranger had the right to ignore the social traditions of the native demographic. Multiculturalism has no legitimacy within a Biblical tradition. Ethnic strangers who committed grievances against the culture of ancient Israel suffered capital punishment.

The Bible calls ethnic minorities “strangers.” These minorities possessed no political rights, never became Israelites, and never became citizens. Admonitions to treat the stranger with dignity must be interpreted within the reality of ethnic identity. No ethnic minority had the right to become a political figure in ancient Israel (Deuteronomy 17:15). God did not design a pluralistic state.

 America was born a European and Christian country, and practices contradicting that tradition should be constrained. No religious dissenter or competing cultural traditions (Islam, Amerindian, atheism, humanism, etc.) should possess any power to manipulate or restrict the socio-political operations of a Euro-Christian nation.

“For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.” (12:23)

God sought only to plague the Egyptians with the death of the first-born. He did not damage his own ethnic group. To protect them God gave the Israelites a specific sign to identify them. The lintel blood separated the Egyptians from the Israelites, and segregated the chosen people from the damage God inflicted on the ethnic “other.”

“And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this [Passover] service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.” (12:26-27)

God told the Israelites to commemorate the destruction of the oppressive ethnic “other.” Rather than feeling guilt for the tragedies that befell the Egyptian people, the Israelites were told to remember the death of their neighbor’s children, and to worship God because of it. The destruction of the Egyptians was the salvation of the Israelites. In many important ways, Israel’s identity was built upon the devastation of their enemies.

“And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.” (12:29)

Liberal utopianisms seeks to convince people that humanity is capable of creating happiness and peace on earth. Christians know better. In this age of sin, the sun rises and falls as God created it, and the God who will one day bring eternal day is the same God who presently works at midnight to kill his enemies and conquer the demons of Egypt. We must not think God incapable of “getting his hands dirty” while carrying out his divine will.

 As human beings, we must often make tough political decisions that result in many people’s suffering. This is the work of our age, and it is work an all-holy God was willing to do. We should not shrink from it. If God was willing to go to war, at the cost of the innocent, we must be willing to follow his example.

Modern Christianity, with its feminized theology and liberal concepts of individual guilt, cannot fathom the slaying of the first-born. This story is repulsive to the modern conscience: it is “racist” in that God targeted a specific ethnic group for suffering, it is violent and seemingly unmerciful to the innocent, and it even offends animal rights activists who cannot imagine why God would strike down naïve cattle. The story is dark, bloody, and takes place at midnight. It involves the smearing of blood across the door frames of houses. This is the sinful world as God knows it to be, not as wishful modern liberals envision it. This God is not the pacifist’s god, or the feminist’s, or the cultural Marxist’s, and he is the reason these groups cannot theologically engage the Old Testament. The God of the Exodus is alien to the modern theologian.

“Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (12:40)

The Israelites never became Egyptians despite centuries of residency. Nationality is defined by blood. Ethnic Arabs will never become British regardless of how long their families remain in the British Isles. No matter how long Africans dwell in America they will never become members of the historic American nation. A people’s identity arises primarily from their ancestors rather than superficial ties like geography. Two ethnic groups do not become one regardless of how many generations they dwell in the same land. The modern American idea of nationality is a falsehood that runs contrary to the Biblical definition of nation.

“This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof.” (12:43)

Non-Christians should not eat the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist), likewise, no ethnic stranger was to partake in the Passover feast. The Bible endorses exclusionary religious systems from beginning to end. The Biblical tendency is against inclusion. Rather than allowing for an “open table,” as some left wing Christian’s do, [5] the Passover was a closed table meant only for in-group members. In early Christianity, many segments of the worship service were barred to outsiders.

Christians should not worship with people of other faiths. The Israelites were God’s only chosen people, and Christ is the only way to the Father. Non-Christian religions are sometimes insightful, but ultimately damning if they serve as one’s primary spiritual expression. Christianity stands against inclusion.

“And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee…” (13:5)

God did not want a multi-ethnic or multi-religious political state. The ethnic Canaanites had to be annihilated before the Israelites could properly inhabit the land.

Today, religious liberals support multiculturalism in Euroethnic countries. This idea is against the nature of man, and against God’s pattern for the children of Israel. When the Hebrews embraced multiculturalism they fell away from God and were corrupted. The Bible does not portray diversity in a positive light. Religious and ethnic pluralism cause division and conflict.

“The Lord shall fight for you…” (14:14)

God has taken sides in ethnic and religious conflicts. God is not the neutral god of the pacifist or the cultural Marxist; he is a God who fights and participates in history. The ethnic groups are not equal before God. Some ethnos are worth fighting for, while others are worth drowning in a sea.

“Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore.” (14:30)

The dead bodies of the Egyptians were the sign of God’s salvation. God is not always pretty or beautiful. He is the God of corpse choked beaches.

“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (15:3)

God is no pacifist. He killed people to accomplish his will. Only after God demonstrated his own battle prowess by destroying the Egyptians did he command the Israelites to war with the Canaanites. God set an example for his people.

“…all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.” (15:13-16)

God displaced the ethnic “other” so that Israel could dominate the land. In a similar situation, the Amerindians paralleled the Canaanites in their human sacrifices to evil gods; [6] thanks to Heaven, these savage societies were destroyed by the godly European settlers who arrived in the New World.

“And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.” (15:20-21)

The Israelite women literally danced over the dead corpses of the slain ethnic “other.” Egyptian bodies became symbols for the festivity of God’s deliverance. The Israelites appeared to be following God’s will in celebrating the death of their ethnic enemies.

Chapter 16

Ten times in chapter 16 the Israelites are referred to as either the “children of Israel” or the “house of Israel.” Both titles indicate the ethnic nature of the multitude. They were a nation united by a common ancestor. They were the descendants of Jacob’s sons.

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. . . For he said, Because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” (17:14-16)

God pledged to commit ethnic genocide against the Amalekites. He vowed to erase the ethnic descendants of Amalek from memory regardless of how many generations of conflict it might take. One may argue that the younger Amalekites did not deserve this treatment from God, but they were targeted for erasure because of their ethnicity.

“And Moses told his father in law all that the Lord had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, and all the travail that had come upon them by the way, and how the Lord delivered them." (18:8-10)

Both Moses and Jethro rejoiced over the defeat of their ethnic enemies. They did not feel guilty over the ills that had befallen the Egyptians, and they did not attempt to atone for the evils of the plagues. The men found joy in their God given success. The current invasion of ethnic European nations (from the Middle East and Africa into Europe, and from Latin America into the United States) is often justified as a sort Euroethnic atonement for the imagined sins of colonialism. But the Israelites saw no need for atonement after they destroyed both the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Humans are not obliged to feel guilty for their people’s triumphs.

“Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.” (18:11)

The world’s religions are neither equally true nor equally virtuous; some gods are more powerful than others. Religious inequality is the rule. Islam is not as peaceful as Christianity. Exodus rejects religious toleration and pluralism. Non-Christian gods and religions should be discarded.

“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers…” (18:22) “And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (18:26)

Moses’ court system was both patriarchal and hierarchical, and the final authority of the nation rested with one man. Women were not included among the rulers of Israel. Moses derived his authority from God, and the men Moses appointed to be judges derived their authority from him. The leadership of Israel was never democratic; it was always hierarchical. All men are not created equal, some men are better than others and deserve to be rulers. Moses created an aristocracy of virtue to serve as judges.

Why should debased immoral liars be allowed to rule over others? Western democracies have demonstrated the parallels of mob rule. Democratic nations are often ruled by sociopaths willing to feed the people lies to get elected.

“…the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob…” (19:3)

God referred to the children of Israel as the extended family of Jacob. Biblically speaking, nations are united upon common genetic lineage. The members of an ethnicity are held together by their common heritage. The bond of blood should be stronger than that of “common values.” We owe a loyalty to our kin which we do not owe to those outside our ethnic group. We should look after our own people first.

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (19:5-6)

God promised to favor the Israelites above other ethnic groups. No other ethnos has been given the chance to become God’s favorite, and to receive special privileges. If God favored his chosen ethnic group over others, why should Euroethnics not favor their people over others? God discriminated in favor of the Israelites (“his” people), why should those of European descent not discriminate?

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (20:3)

Monotheism is, by its very nature, exclusionary. All other religious traditions must be jettisoned if there is only one worshipful God. The religious “other” is in error; its ways are false and evil. God is not an advocate of religious tolerance. God is a jealous God.

“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” (20:5)

God wanted Israel’s exclusive adoration. He did not want their praise adulterated with religious pluralism.

God is a god of inherited justice. The offspring of those who hated him would suffer because of their parent’s sin. In this passage, God said he would punish the great-grandchildren of a sinner to extract justice for the evils of their ancestors. God targets people because of their birth. He targets people before they are born. If God is willing to punish the descendants of a wicked person, why do modern Christians think him unwilling to curse entire ethnic groups to perpetual genetic inferiority? If God is willing to “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third or fourth generation” how could one argue he is unwilling to produce inequality of genetically inherited intelligence amongst ethnic groups? Sometimes the innocent must struggle because of their ancestor’s choices.

“…thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle…” (20:10, 17)

Twice, while discussing the Ten Commandments with Moses, God mentioned the Israelite’s ownership of slaves. Nowhere did he condemn it.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work… nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” (20:10)

Ethnic strangers were not permitted to ignore God’s law while within Israelite territory. No religious liberty was allowed, no cultural accommodation was given, no excuses were made for the ethnic “other” who visited the land of Israel.

Nations should not be forced to recognize religious plurality in their lands. Muslims should not be permitted to build mosques, publicly pray, wear their ethnic clothing, or do anything else within Christian lands which inconveniences or offends the Christian religion.

“Thou shalt not kill.” (20:13)

If this command was meant to condemn capital punishment why did God precede to list six offenses, within the same monologue, for which people were to be executed (21:12,15,16,17,23,29)? If this command was meant to condemn war why did God order the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanite population (23:27-33)? Clearly, the command concerned murder.

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.” (21:2,5-6,8)

God discussed slavery almost immediately after giving the Ten Commandments. Rather than condemning or abolishing the institution, he established, regulated, and affirmed it. In Exodus 2, God discussed the selling of what today would be regarded as sex slaves (although that term is now applied so liberally it barely retains meaning). God allowed men to sell their daughters into slavery, and he allowed men to buy them. The passage offends more modern sensibilities by ending with a command not to sell one’s daughter outside her ethnic group.

These verses represent a complete rebuttal to the liberal, multicultural, cultural Marxist, and feminist theological complex. The passage is patriarchal, oppressive, affirms slavery, and includes a “racist” provision. God was definitely not a modernist theologian. While almost no contemporary Christian seeks to reestablish the ability of a father to sell his daughter into sex slavery, these passages demonstrate that God’s moral code is compatible with even the most “oppressive” social structures.

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.” (21:21)

Modern Christians often argue that God opposes slavery because he would never approve of someone owning another person. Exodus flatly disagrees. God himself argued that slaves are their master’s “money.” Slaves were their master’s material possessions. Exodus 21:21, and numerous passages like it, demonstrate that God approves of slavery.

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” (22:2)

An Israelite was justified in killing a thief at night. The Exodus law code affirms the Ferguson, Missouri shopkeepers who gunned down the African-American mobs who ransacked their stores and stole their livelihoods.

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife… “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (22:16-20)

Severe penalties were assigned for sexual promiscuity (God did not approve of sexual revolutions), witches were to be put to death, the punishment for bestiality was capital, and exorcising one’s religious liberty was grounds for being “destroyed.” Nothing about post-“enlightenment” liberalism was approved of. God legislated morality.

“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (22:21, 23:9)

Today, Bible passages admonishing the Israelites to avoid oppressing ethnic strangers are used to argue against expelling refugees and ethnic minorities from a territory, stopping them from living out their unique cultural and religious traditions in Euroethnic states, and even enacting voter ID laws. The problem with these interpretations is that ethnic minorities possessed NO liberal rights in ancient Israel. If a strangers practiced their religion, or ignored Israelite tradition, they were sentenced to death (12:19). In chapter twenty-three, God spent six verses explaining how he would help the Israelites violently evict the ethnic strangers from Canaan. Immediately following, he forbade the Israelites to allow ethnic minorities to dwell in their land (23:33). Later, God ordered the Hebrews to commit ethnic genocide against several nations. God’s definition of “oppression” was vastly different than that of modern liberals.

It can be safely said that those of European descent are permitted by God’s laws to defend their countries from Third-World migrant invaders.

“If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” (22:25)

Charging interest on loans is discouraged throughout scripture. Few historical societies have considered usury to be moral or good. Today, banks have caused incalculable damage to people’s personal lives (and the broader economy) by allowing their contemptible loan policies to drive up prices on everything (including basic necessities like housing).

“…the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.” (22:29)

Birth order has little to do with a person’s virtues or choices, but Exodus ensured its importance in defining personal identity. Birth order was important to God. We are not just the product of our individual choices; genetics and birth are matters of weight. The Pentateuch’s emphasis on birth order contributed to the justification of primogeniture in matters of inheritance.

“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” (23:2)

When “the people” choose an evil course their will becomes irrelevant. Those who follow the near religious faith of liberalism hold democracy in reverence. They fight wars for democracy (“To make the world safe for democracy.”), they write books reinterpreting history around democracy (“The March of Democracy”), and they expand democracy by giving low IQ ethnic minorities the franchise.

Democracy is another failed god. It has led the West into same-sex marriage, abortion, suicidal birthrates, pointless wars, moral degeneracy, bankruptcy, and the abandonment of Christianity. The vox populii (“will of the people”) is nullified the moment it contradicts truth.

“But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.” (23:11,12)

The book of Exodus does not support the capitalist maximum profit principle. The economy must serve the people, even the poor people, rather than the reverse. Wealth is not an end unto itself. Rest is good. Christians should not put much effort into squeezing a profit out of everything. God stripped ten percent of his people’s productivity by instituting the seven year rule on agriculture.

“For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.” (23:23-24)

The ethnic “other” was to be quickly destroyed, everything about its culture was to be destroyed, and everything about its religion was to be destroyed. The ethnic “other” was useless and wicked. It was fit for nothing but to be abolished as a group. Effectively, the ethnic “other” was to be erased from memory so that the land of Canaan could belong exclusively to the Israelites. God was uncompromisingly against multiculturalism.

“I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.” (23:27-33)

God anticipated total ethnic cleansing; the erasure of any ethnic minorities who might have lived side by side with the Israelites. God did not permit the Israelites to make treaties with these groups. God chose sides in a socio-political territory war. God is not a neutral health and wealth God who has no place in human history.

The Apostle Paul said that God establishes national borders. [7] In this narrative, God is shown to have created the borders of his ethno-state. Other ethnic groups were not permitted to move into this land nor treat it as their own. The pre-Israelite inhabitants were to be exterminated. God set the precedent for ethnically homogeneous countries. This appears to be God’s designed plan.

The Israelites were never told to religiously convert the natives of Canaan. The Canaanite ethnic groups were not given the chance to convert. The cleansing of the Holy Land was about both religious and ethnic purity.

Upon reading Exodus 23, it becomes difficult to ignore the similarities between the Amerindians of the New World and the Canaanites who were purged from Palestine. Just as the Canaanites were slowly removed, so the Amerindians were gradually vanquished from North America as settlers moved west. In America, there was no reasonable compromise to be made between the wicked native people who refused Christianity and the invading Euroethnics who could not intermix with the natives without polluting their bloodlines and destroying their godly way of life.

If anything should be indicated to differentiate the conquests of Canaan and North America it should be said that the Europeans were much more patient than the Israelites. The Europeans gave the Indians numerous chances to convert, and showed much restraint in their treatment of the Amerindian women and children. The Israelites, by contrast, mercilessly slaughtered the Canaanites without discretion, fully intending to wipe them from the earth.

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord . . . . And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” (24:4-7)

Chapters 20 through 23 constitute a single dialogue regarding the words God spoke to Moses. Moses wrote this dialogue in a book and presented it the people. Modern Christians have been quick to honor the Ten Commandments as relevant in the twenty-first century but slow to honor God’s other commands against religious pluralism and ethnic minorities. How can one affirm the first part of God’s sermon while rejecting the latter half? To say the least, this approach is inconsistent. To be obedient to God, the children of Israel had to follow the Ten Commandments AND drive out ethnic minorities from their land. The Hebrews could pick and choose which of God’s commands to ignore. God’s will is not a buffet. The same God who gave the Ten Commandments gave the order to genocide the Canaanites.

“And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.” (28:1)

This is the first of many verses (40-41, 29:9, 15, 19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 32) discussing the hereditary nature of the priestly profession. Aaron’s sons and descendants were chosen to inherit the position of the high priesthood from their fathers. Was Aaronic family’s actions more holy than those of other families? Certainly not, even a cursory reading of the history will discredit such a notion. God chose the descendants of Aaron to be priests because of their genetic relationships.

 If Aaron’s descendants were to inherit privilege from their ancestors simply because of the family into which they were born why do many modern Christians criticize those of European descent for inheriting privileges from their own people (“white privilege”)? Christians should not argue inherited privilege is wrong when God himself established inherited privilege in his priestly caste (and later with the various monarchical dynasties).

“And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.” (29:45-46)

God gave Israel a privilege no other ethnic group was uniquely given the chance to receive: his very presence. God dwelled among his chosen people. The God of heaven and earth became the ethnic inheritance of the children of Israel; he became a part of their unique identity. Modern Christians should favor members of their ethnicity just as God bestowed blessings upon his chosen ethnic group.

“…make atonement throughout all your generations.” (30:8, 10, 31)

Ethnic continuity was the assumption. The religious worship of Yahweh was to be passed down through blood descendants. God’s religion was founded upon inter-generational ties.

“So [Aaron and his sons] shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.” (30:21)

Aaron’s family inherited the privileges of priesthood throughout their generations. It was therefore necessary for God to remind them that no matter how many priests came and went they must always maintain certain religious traditions.

Even within the people of God there remained distinctions of role and caste. If all ethnic groups are equal before God this does not eliminate the possibility that some of them hold a special place among their peers. Europeans are distinct among the world’s ethnic groups just as Aaron’s family was distinct among the families of Israel. Even if all humanity represented God’s chosen people, this would not eliminate the different roles and privileges God has bestowed separately on various groups.

“…cut off from his people.” (30:33)

Whether this phrase indicates death or exile it ultimately represents the awful fate one would suffer after being separated from one’s ethnic people and identity. Perhaps the Israelites saw death and exile as equally horrible.

“See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,” (31:2-3)

God grants talents and intelligence unequally among people. In chapter 31, God gave amazing talents to Bezaleel without giving them to everyone. It may be “unfair,” but it is reality. Some people are born to cruel parents, crippled, unintelligent, mentally handicapped, or poor. The world is not fair, and God is the author of inequality. If God routinely creates inequality between individuals why would he not create inequality between ethnos?

“And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us;” (32:1)

Despite the liberal romance with the “will of the masses,” mobs of people usually make horrible decisions. The democratic desire of the Israelites was to abandon Yahweh and have their newly anointed high priest manufacture gods for them.

Human societies must always find someone or something to tell them what to do. In this case, they bowed before a dead piece of gold and claimed it had led them out of Egypt. Either Christians will take charge and lead, or the masses will begin to worship more debased gods.

“Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.” (32:9-14)

God contemplated committing genocide against the Israelites. In so doing, he suggested raising up a new nation from Moses. God knew he needed a man’s genetic linage to create a nation. God would not create a “propositional nation,” he needed real genetic kinship to form an ethnic group.

 Moses managed to dissuade God from destroying the Hebrew nation only by reminding him of his promise to their ancestors. Israel’s behavior was horrible, and their decisions were evil, but God spared them because of their inherited privilege.

“Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.” (32:26)

Moses sought to slaughter those who had disobeyed God with the golden calf. Moses, being a Levite, naturally inspired the loyalty of his fellow tribesmen. The Levites’ rapid support indicates the extent to which family ties work to create political order.

One wonders if Aaron would have survived his idolatrous betrayal had he not been Moses’s brother. One certainly wonders how he retained his status as high priest.

“…the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:” (33:1-2)

God continually reaffirmed his promise to Israel’s ancestors by promising to expel the ethnic Canaanites from the Promised Land.

“For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.” (33:16)

The Children of Israel were to prove their loyalty to God by ethnically segregating themselves. Today, Moses would be regarded as an archetypal “racist” for using religion to justify ethnic separation.

“And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount…” (34:3)

God is not an egalitarian. He did not allow free and equal access to himself. His authority flowed down from Moses. People are not entitled to religious or socio-political equality. God is hierarchical; Jesus is the monarch of the church, and the absolute dictator of our lives.

“The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth…” (34:6)

God is a God of truth. He does not support the lies and distortions of egalitarian and liberal ideology. Christians must tell the truth about ethnic differences in intelligence and talent.

“…visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (34:7)

God discriminates based upon genetic inheritance. God has used ethnic and family heritage to target people for blessing and cursing. Only modern Christians shrink from ethnic discrimination. God does not.

“And [God] said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee.” (34:10-12)

God made an exclusive covenant with the ethnic Israelites. He agreed to show them things he had never shown another ethnic group. God pledged to annihilate the Israelites ethnic enemies, and he forbade his people from making covenants across ethnic lines. God defies liberalism.

“Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” (34:16)

The book of Exodus displays the same concern for ethnic and religious purity that the Genesis patriarchs displayed for their own descendants. The Israelites were not to make covenants with the Canaanites lest they intermarry with them and corrupt their religious and ethnic heritage. God was against inclusion. He planned to protect his people’s purity by annihilating the ethnic “other” in Canaan.

“For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders.” (34:24)

God purged the ethnic “other” from Canaan to make the Israelites more powerful and prosperous.

“And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.” (40:15) [8]

No other verse more clearly established the Aaronic priesthood as a genetically inherited office. The priesthood was not based upon merit. It was based upon inherited privilege. The descendants of Aaron possessed unequal access to God and his ceremonies. God is the author of inequality and family identity.  


NOTES 

[1] See Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone.”

[2] Euroethnics are those people descended from the ethnic groups of Europe. This primarily includes those labeled “white” in Europe, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

[3] John Jay in the “Federalist Papers.”

[4] European-Americans will fall to less than 50% of the population before 2050 (according to estimates). Allegedly, this is to be a cause for celebration because it is supposed to inaugurate a new era of ethnic pluralism.

[5] I am referring to the “open table” position that allows non-Christians to participate. It is my belief that popular blogger Rachel Held Evans supports this position.

[6] See Bernal Diaz’s “Conquest of New Spain.”

[7] This sentiment is expressed in both Acts 17:26 and Deuteronomy 32:8.

[8] All scriptures taken from the King James Version.

Comments