Identitarian Commentary on Acts of the Apostles
There are twelve major Identitarian themes I have sought to explore in this commentary on Acts: (1) inequality through God’s uneven granting of miraculous power, ecclesial authority, and opportunity, (2) the universality of the gospel message never erased distinctive ethnic identity, (3) God’s kingdom was ruled through a hierarchical rather than egalitarian structure, (4) early Christians were not concerned with strict language control (i.e. being “kind,” precise, or inoffensive), (5) God honored inherited privilege in the individual and the ethnos,
(6) there is more continuity between the Old and New Testaments than moderns usually admit; there was no great worldview change between them, (7) diversity breeds social problems, (8) the early Christian gospel was internally focused rather than external; it would reject modern social justice reinterpretations, (9) the Kingdom of God is exclusive rather than inclusive, (10) the book of Acts does not support pacifism, (11) the concept of the “ethnos” (ethnic group/nation) is affirmed in Acts, and (12) the New Testament is Eurocentric.

Many of these themes overlap, and I have not mentioned all the topics I will cover in this document. Together, these themes form the core of an anti-liberal reading of the Acts of the Apostles.

Basic information: Acts was written as the second volume of a single work that included the Gospel of Luke. Acts was written by Luke the companion of Paul around AD 65. It includes information about the founding of the Church and its spread through Palestine, Anatolia, and Europe.


“…he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen:” (1:2)

God chose some men to receive special guidance through the Holy Spirit while others were not given this privilege. God created inequality between Christians with the gifts and blessings he bestowed.

“…ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (1:8)

Jesus knew the gospel was to be preached to every ethnic group on earth, despite this knowledge, he chose to stay within his own nation and avoid the ethnic “other.” The universality of the gospel does not disallow the practice of tribalism among believers.

“…ye men of Galilee.” (1:11)

Both Jesus and his Apostles were Galileans. Jesus’ ministry was remarkable for its lack of diversity. All of Jesus’ closest followers were both Jewish and native to the small part of Palestine where he grew up. Christ did not value diversity in his missionary or church leadership teams. Our Lord strove for homogeneity.

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (1:22)

The Apostles could have chosen an apostolic candidate from a different background to encourage diversity, but they did not. “They have to be exactly like us” seems to have been the foundational qualification for replacing Judas as one of the Twelve. There appears to have been no consideration given towards furthering diversity or representing “underprivileged minorities” within the body of Christ.

Lest anyone believe Christian equality was meant to arise after the Apostles died, Acts records a situation in which the church hierarchical structure was rebuilt after the death of an Apostles. Church policy never included equality. The kingdom of God was meant to be ruled from the top down with control vested in a homogenous group of males.

“And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” (2:5)

Luke exaggerated. There was almost certainly no one at Jerusalem representing Mesoamerica. Exaggerating, stereotyping, and the use of extreme language can be found throughout the Bible. Christians need not be obsessed with precise accuracy and politically correct speech in order to be please God.

“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

Some have argued (N. T. Wright, for example) that the Acts 2 Pentecost represented a reversal of what happened at the Tower of Babel. According to this interpretation, God created ethnic division at Babel but reestablished ethnic unity in Acts 2. This view is superficially appealing, but quickly collapses when closely examined.

Firstly, if God intended to reverse his work at Babel it must be concluded that his efforts were weak. God’s ancient act of division was instantly and permanently successful. His second act, on Pentecost, did not, however, accomplish the task of reuniting humanity. Did God fail to fix the “problem” he created at Babel?

Secondly, nowhere does the Bible indicate a connection between Babel and Pentecost. The gift of tongues, which gave some Christians the ability to speak different languages, was discussed numerous times throughout the New Testament; nowhere, however, is it connected to the Tower of Babel or an end of ethnic differences.

Thirdly, Peter explained the gift of tongues in Acts 2. In his sermon, Peter connected the gift with an Old Testament passage found in Joel 2:28-29. To suggest a connection between Babel and Pentecost is to ignore the biblical explanation of the tongues phenomenon and draw one’s own arbitrary conclusions.

The parallelism that many modern theologians hope to draw between Babel and Acts 2 appears reasonable only if one views God’s creation of divided ethnic groups as an unfortunate act. If one approaches the passages from an Identitarian perspective, and view the different ethnic groups as a blessing rather than a curse, the argument collapses. Why would God reverse his created order? The Apostles saw no evil in ethnic separation, and their explanation of the tongues phenomenon was radically different then what many modern liberal and Cultural Marxist theologians wish it had been.

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;” (2:30)

Peter taught that Jesus was a biological descendent of David, and that this connection was necessary for him to fulfil prophesy. Today, many Christians like to downplay the importance of one’s genetic heritage. God, however, saw genetics as immensely important in bringing about his will for the world. Jesus could not have come through any other family. God discriminated against other families by requiring the messiah to come through the Davidic line. God ethnically and genetically discriminated.

Jesus is a hereditary monarch. Humanity did not vote for Jesus, Jesus shares power with no one, and Jesus does not rely on the consent of the people to rule. Jesus’ monarchical claim was handed down to him as inherited privilege from his ancestor David.

“Until I make thy foes thy footstool.” (2:35)

Peter affirmingly quoted God’s promise to help David subdue his enemies. The “other” would be conquered.

“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” (2:39)

Christianity is not just an individual religion. Christian faith should be a family and ethnic tradition passed to one’s children and kin. The gospel hope is a people’s inheritance. Salvation is God’s gift to our identity groups.

“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.” (2:42-43)

Early Christianity was not an egalitarian utopia ruled by consensus. The Apostles exorcised full control of everything taught, done, and distributed (common goods) in the early church. There was no equality. Inequality of God’s blessings, talents, and authority was and is the rule of human existence.

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”

Hardline capitalists, and those who ascribe to liberalism’s “right” of private property, have tried for years to dismiss the communitarian and even socialist implications of this passage. Identitarians, however, read a call to community from these verses. At any moment, Christians, who are members of larger and more important identity groups, should be willing to invest our material possessions for the good of our people. God given resources are meaningful only in so much as they are utilized to strengthen groups and communities. Possessions have no value as hoarded personal wealth. Nothing is our own. Christians have no “human right” to private property.

Identitarians should dismiss the modern connection between identity and consumption/wealth. What one consumes and owns should have almost nothing to do with one’s sense of self. Faith and ethnic family should render worldly possessions nearly meaningless.

“And a certain man lame from his mother's womb…” (3:2)

Was God being “fair” when he crippled a man from birth? In John 9:3, Jesus said God blinded a man from birth to show his power through him. God creates and desires inequality.

“The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus…” (3:13)

Even during New Testament times, God was portrayed as an ethnic god with a long and special relationship with the Israelite people. Peter said “God is the God of ‘our’ fathers” as he appealed to the ethnic kinship he shared with the people to whom he was preaching.

“And killed the Prince of life…” (3:15)

The language of monarchy and feudalism is consistent throughout the Bible. God and Jesus are “Lord,” “King,” “Prince,” etc. Our modern villainization of these socio-political structures has contributed to the Bible’s “outdatedness.”

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (3:19-21)

Peter commanded the people to repent of their sins to prepare for the beginning of a heavenly age. Noticeably, Peter did not command them to create the heavenly age on earth. The crowd was called to a moral and internal task.

Humans are not meant to “immanentize the eschaton.” We cannot create utopia, or “heaven on earth,” by our own efforts. There are numerous passages throughout Acts explaining the meaning and purpose of the gospel message. On almost every occasion, the repentance of sins is recorded as crucial, but there is no mention of ending poverty, creating socio-political equality, ending warfare, or advancing social justice. The gospel is a call to purity, humility, and repentance; it is not a political revolution. Jesus told his disciples to ask for God to make it “on earth as it is in heaven.” God alone can bring the New Heaven and New Earth. Humans cannot accomplish this. We cannot create utopia.

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (3:25-26)

Christianity’s universalism was already embedded in Judaism thousands of years earlier. The New Testament does not represent a radical break from the Old Testament worldview. The Old Testament’s outlook concerning ethnicity and genetic privilege are everywhere affirmed in the New. God told Abraham that all the “kindreds” of the earth would be blessed. All the kin groups/extended families/ethnicities. “Kindred” is a synonym for ethnic group. Ethnic groups are extended family kin groups.

The Israelite’s were still God’s chosen and special people in the New Testament. They were the first ethnic group to receive God’s message through Jesus. Jesus’ earthly ministry was meant only for the Jews. Matthew 15:24: “He answered and said, ‘I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”

“But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” (4:19)

God expects nothing less than spiritual and intellectual rebellion against corrupt and wicked societies. Christians should ask themselves whether the godless United States, with its exporting of every evil (LGBT “marriage,” abortion, sexual anarchy, ivy-league secularism, pornography, etc.) across the globe, is worthy of their support.

“The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.” (4:26)

No earthly power can nullify the rise of the ultimate King. In the end, there will be no pluralism. God will destroy all other religions, he will destroy everyone who has opposed him. Those who fail to believe in Jesus will be thrown into Hell. Christ is against total inclusion.

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (4:34-35)

Early Christian “socialism” was possible only because of the homogeneity of the early believers. The passage states they were “of one heart and soul.” They trusted each other because of their similarity. They knew one another’s motives because they shared principles, identity, beliefs, and meaning. Communalism can never function effectively in a diverse setting because trust disintegrates between those who are different. If two groups diverge religiously, ethnically, or culturally they cannot form effective community. Diversity breeds distrust and fear.

Scandinavian socialism worked extremely well because the populations of those countries were exceptionally homogenous in ethnicity, talent, and faith. Today, huge influxes of African and Middle Eastern migrants into that region is breaking down the system and causing chaos. The once pleasant countries of Northern Europe are committing suicide by diversity. Part of having “all things in common” is sharing a common religion, language, ethnicity, culture, and worldview. It is impossible to peacefully share physical goods without these prerequisites. Communalism is possible, but only within homogenous groups.

“Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.” (5:5-10)

The story of Ananias and Saphira is inconvenient for Christian pacifists who argue war and capital punishment were repudiated by Jesus. Why was striking two people dead among the Apostle’s first recorded acts if Jesus brought a new era of non-violence? Modern Christians can confidently conclude that opposition to capital punishment did not rank highly among the apostle’s priorities. The God of the New Testament is identical to the God of the Old. He killed people for disobedience and enforced the authority of his chosen leaders.

“And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.” (5:11)

The apostle’s execution of Ananias and Saphira inspired the people to fear them. In 5:13, Luke recorded that the people magnified the Twelve. God used fear and punishment to motivate people to righteousness. Modern governments and churches should not hesitate to follow this example.

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (5:31)

Jesus’ mission was not to inspire social justice or Marxist utopia, Christ called Israel to repent of their sins. Socio-political equality was not part of our savior’s agenda.

“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” (6:1)

Diversity increased as the Christians multiplied, and community trust diminished with diversity’s rise. The relatively small amount of regional diversity that existed in the Jerusalem commune sparked accusations of discrimination. Diversity reduction is necessary for the functioning of a healthy commune. Diversity evolves into extra stress.

“…they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.” (6:5)

Seven Grecian Jewish men were chosen to look after the Grecian Jewish widows. The leaders could have chosen a “diverse team” to look after them, but they did not. They were wise enough to recognize that birds of a feather flock together. The men’s natural affiliation for their own women would help them succeed in their new job.

“And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” (6:8)

God gave Stephen faith and power, but he did not give everyone these gifts. Stephen was special, he was more than equal to everyone else. Stephen was elite, he could do great wonders others could not.

“And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,”

Stephen’s rhetorical strategy was to appeal to the ethnic ancestors both he and his audience shared. This common history provided common identity. It was only after Stephen’s interpretation of the common history diverged from his audience’s that he became the “other” and they sought to murder him. A group of people can only share identity by sharing a common interpretation of their mutual history. If this is not the case, the group members possess competing narratives and must, to some extent, become enemies.

Modern Americans often agree upon a common general history, but their interpretations of this history are radically different. One example is the difference between the “oppression” and “genocide” narrative endorsed by the Cultural Marxist Left versus the patriotic narrative embraced by the nationalistic Right. These competing visions create different identities, values, and interests.

Some African Americans claim the Israelites were of sub-Saharan ethnicity, Stephen made it clear that Abraham, the ethnic patriarch of the Israelites, was from Mesopotamia; an area we know to have been inhabited by Caucasians.

“…yet [God] promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” (7:5)

Stephen affirmed God’s desire to ethnically discriminate by giving Canaan to Abraham’s seed alone. The ethnic and national perspectives of the Old Testament are reaffirmed throughout the New Testament. There was no great break with the old perspective.

“And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.”

God judged the ethnos that held Israel in bondage (the Egyptians). God targeted the ethnic Egyptians as a group regardless of their individual guilt in oppressing his people. The whole nation of Egypt suffered because of their collective genetic identity. Stephen did not shrink from God’s discriminatory tactics. Stephen did not critique or reinterpret the books of Genesis or Exodus. Rather, he echoed their viewpoints. Christians have no reason to assume the worldview of the Pentateuch has been condemned or repudiated by Jesus’ coming.

“But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers…” (7:17-19)

Stephen spoke from an “us versus them” perspective. The ethnic “other” (the Egyptians) were evil and wicked while Stephen’s ethnic group was chosen by God. Stephen spoke of “our kindred” against a “strange land” and “another king.” Stephen used the language of ethnic and religious tribalism; a tribalism endorsed throughout the Old Testament. The Bible never repudiates it.

“And seeing one of [his brethren] suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” (7:24-25)

In Stephen’s version of Moses’ exile story, Moses was justified in slaying the ethnic “other” but was misunderstood by the Hebrew people who did not know God had chosen Moses to deliver them from bondage. In some ways, Stephen’s story was more ethnocentric than the original. Stephen affirmed Moses’ ethnic loyalty in defending his nation from the “other.”

Stephen dismissed Moses’ adoption as having little impact on his ethnic identity. Neither culture nor adopted parent played much role in Moses’ identity formation. His identity was defined by his genetic blood. Moses, raised as the grandson of Pharaoh, was intent on abandoning his privileges to join his true people. Moses’ story is an example of the power of ethnic ties. Interracially adopted children are rarely assimilated properly. Even seemingly well integrated interracial adoption cases often suffer identity crises. 

“Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;” (7:45)

Stephen affirmed the eradication of the Canaanites from the land of Palestine as the work of God. If the New covenant had brought about a different way of viewing nation-states and ethnic loyalty there was no hint of it in Stephen’s retelling of Isreal’s history. Even ethnic cleansing drew no critique or revisionism from the Christian Stephen.

Lest we imagine Stephen was unwilling to revise or retell the original story, however, we read in 7:48 that he repudiated the idea of God dwelling in a temple made with hands. In a story filled with genocide, ethnic discrimination, and tribalism the only critique Stephen offered was against an outdated vision of God’s earthly dwelling place.

“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost…” (7:51)

Like his Lord Jesus, Stephen was willing to insult his religious opponents. The disciple leveled offensive criticism towards them during his speech. Today, many Christians believe that being “Christ like” means being kind and peaceful. One wonders if those who hold this view have ever read the Bible. The early Christians were often violent in their rhetoric and condemnations.

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” (8:5)

The beginning of chapter eight demonstrates that the Samaritans were not truly regarded as outside the Jewish ethnic group. They were quickly brought into Christian fellowship without incident. This contrasts sharply with the entrance of the gentiles into the church in chapter ten which began a scandal that did not subside for the remainder of Acts.

From an Identitarian perspective, this fact about the Samaritans is important because many modern theologians argue that by speaking with and preaching to Samaritans Jesus was directing his ministry to the ethnic “other.” This is not the case. While the Samaritans were looked down upon for being “less Jewish” they were never considered equivalent to the gentiles. Jesus was not doing anything drastic by preaching the gospel to them, and he certainly was not challenging the ethnic Israelite’s preeminent religious position in the plan of salvation.

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:” (8:14-15)

There was a clear hierarchy in the early church. Philip may have converted the Samaritans, but he did not have the power and authority to give them the Holy Ghost. God did not create an egalitarian church.

“Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” (8:19)

Simon the Sorcerer recognized that the power to give the gift of the Holy Ghost was not something every Christian possessed. He intuitively understood that there was a hierarchy of power and authority, and he sought to purchase a high position from the Apostles. The power and authority was not for sale, however, and no one could earn it. The apostolic positions were filled by Jesus’ personal choice.

“…behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.” (8:27)

Modern Christians love to discover people of color in the Bible so as to pretend their faith is more in line with the multi-racial zeitgeist of the twenty-first century. One of the most common black Africans discovered in the Bible is the Ethiopian Eunuch. Unfortunately for modern Christians, however, this man was probably not ethnically sub-Saharan.

Firstly, no one knows what country Luke was referring to when he wrote “Ethiopian” (literally, “Cush”). “Ethiopia” or “Cush” could have been located almost anywhere in the ancient Near East. The Romans used the term to refer to the region around the Ganges River in India. The kingdoms of southern Arabia, in modern day Yemen, are a likely place of origin for this eunuch. These kingdoms are often referred to as “Cush” or “Ethiopia.” Moses’ wife, Zipporah, was called a “Cushite” (rendered “Ethiopian”) in Exodus, but we know she was from Arabia. Some have claimed “Candace” was a Nubian queen. Perhaps, but it still would not prove she was ethnically African because ancient Yemen ruled the area around Nubia for centuries.

Secondly, even if one assumes the eunuch was from sub-Saharan Nubia it is still far more likely he was merely an ethnic Jew in the service of the native ruler. We know from history that there was a substantial Jewish population in that area during the first-century. The eunuch likely would have come from that group. Some have objected that if he was ethnically Jewish he would never have been castrated, but this is a weak argument considering the prophet Daniel and his peers in the service of the Babylonian government were Jewish and castrated.

While it is ultimately irrelevant whether the eunuch was ethnically sub-Saharan, the evidence indicates he was not black.

“…for [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.”

God set Paul aside for a special purpose. God’s election of some Christians for specific duties continues today and produces inequality within the Christian family. Some people are chosen by God for specific tasks while others are not. Equality would eliminate all differences between people, this is both impossible and undesirable. Individual Christians are different, and they have been given different missions and identities.

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.” (10:7) “…[Cornelius] called two of his household servants…” (10:1)

Contrary to those who claim violence and slavery are sinful, God chose a military commander and likely slave holder to become the first gentile convert to Christ. Cornelius was described as a pious man despite his profession and likely role as slave master. Nowhere in the text was Cornelius told to abandon his violent career or release the slaves he likely owned. Slaves comprised about 15% of the Roman Empire’s first-century population.

“And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.” (10:24)

Religious faith is not a merely personal issue. Cornelius wanted to bring his entire household into the religion he was entering. The individualization of human identity is a liberal concept in need of deconstruction.

“Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (10:28)

In speaking with Peter, God repudiated the religious prohibitions against eating with the ethnic “other.” For this reason, Christians do not use their faith to condemn other ethnic groups as unfit for the gospel. However, in recent years (post-1950s), some theologians have argued that the allowance of inter-ethnic fellowship in the Christian era represents a mandate against socio-political systems like American segregation, slavery, and South African apartheid. The problem is that none of these systems relate to the relevant passages. None of these “evil” social structures labeled any ethnic identity religiously unclean or unfit for the gospel. In fact, all of these governments and social systems were strongly influenced by Christianity and sought to convert the ethnic “other” to the faith. These hierarchical racial systems were not founded on the religious abhorrence of anyone; they were merely socio-political arrangements created to protect the ethnic identity of Europeans and the political order they had created.

All of these ethnic organization systems (American slavery, Apartheid, and segregation) were necessitated by the vastly different average intelligences of the European and African ethnic groups. They were the product of practical and biological considerations rather than spiritual abhorrence or a decision to separate people from full access to God. Those who argue the anti-segregation position (social justice warriors) have badly misapplied a spiritual problem to an issue of practical socio-political judgement.

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (10:36-35)

After the Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius’s house, Peter never assumed ethnicity had been eradicated, or that the ethno-national system God had established was going to be declared evil, nor did he seem to think Christians should begin integrating into a single giant anti-ethnic identity. Peter’s conclusion was merely that God accepted people from all nations (“ethnos”) who fear him and work righteousness. Peter presented no bold socio-political pronouncements, he simply understood that God’s saving message could be accepted by people of every ethnic group.

“God raised [Jesus] up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” (10:41)

Lest one believe God’s modern lack of ethnic partiality has made him an egalitarian purveyor of equal opportunity, Peter pointed out that God only allowed a few chosen witnesses to commune with Christ following his resurrection. God accepts worship from people of every ethnic identity, but he does not grant authority and spiritual privileges equally. God distributes opportunities unequally. By only allowing some people to witness the resurrection of Christ, God created a religious elite who would rule the church for decades.

“And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (10:42-43)

Christians are supposed to preach Jesus’ ability to redeem people from their sins. Peter could have told his audience to further social justice, eradicate poverty, end slavery, or advance the cause of women’s rights and political equality; but he did not. The message of the gospel is spiritual liberation, not physical liberation.

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (11:18)

The only thing that changed upon the conversion of the gentiles was that they could be regarded as fellow participates in the “repentance unto life.” There was no hidden social agenda associated with the inclusion of the gentiles within the plan of salvation. The conclusion of the Jewish Christians in 11:18 was not that the Gentiles were now Jews, or that the Jewish ethnicity had been eradicated, but simply that the gentiles could be saved.

“But [Peter], beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison.” (12:17)

God allowed James to be beheaded, but he miraculously intervened to save Peter. Was this because Peter was better than James? No, it appears God simply needed Peter to live longer. For his own purposes, God treated the two Apostles unequally. No two people receive the same blessings; not even two Apostles. Life is inequality.

“And immediately the angel of the Lord smote [Herod], because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (12:21-23)

Pacifists are gnostic in their belief that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are fundamentally different in their view of violence. Passages about Ananias and Saphira and the execution of Herod make it difficult to denounce capital punishment from the book of Acts. If God wanted Christians to embrace non-violence why did he strike people dead for immoral behavior?

“Then Saul… filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness.”

The modern feminization of Christianity has led to the idea that Christians must always be kind, gentle, inoffensive, and nonaggressive. In Acts 13, however, the Holy Ghost led Paul to brutally insult his opponent and then supernaturally strike him blind. Paul was following Jesus’s example. Our Lord often insulted his religious opponents, and, on at least one occasion, violently vandalized the temple and held the area hostage. Feminized Christians do not read their Bibles.

“The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.” (13:17)

God opened the gospel message to the gentiles, but his favoritism towards the Jews was real and good. The intense privilege that God bestowed upon one ethnicity at the expense of all others justifies ethnic discrimination in the modern era. At one time in history, God ethnically discriminated, why do modern Euroethnic Christians think it immoral for us to follow his example?

“And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.” (13:19)

God’s command to holocaust the ethnic Canaanites and construct a homogenous ethno-nationalist political state was never condemned, reinterpreted, or avoided in the New Testament. Jesus’ followers saw God’s actions as a positive good in history rather than something to be ashamed of. There was no early Christian movement to apologize or pay reparations to the “first nations” of Palestine for the “sins” of Israel’s genocidal past. The Jewish Christians lauded their ancestor’s extermination of the ethnic “other,” and they talked about it with pride.

If ancient Jewish Christians felt no compulsion to apologize for the systematic slaughter of every man, women, child, and animal during their ruthless conquest of Canaan (a land they still inhabited) there is no reason for European American Christians to express regret for making African Americans drink out of separate water fountains. The Trail of Tears was a merciful episode when compared to the brutal conquest of Canaan.

“…[God] raised up unto them David to be their king…” (13:22)

God has never advocated liberal democracy. He created an eternal dynastic unelected monarchy for his kingdom.

“Of [David’s] seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” (13:23)

God practiced ethnic discrimination when producing humanity’s savior. Not only did the messiah have to come through the ethnic Israelites, he had to come from a particular royal bloodline within that ethnicity. Did every Jewess have an equal opportunity to birth the Christ? No, one’s fitness for such a position was partially dependent upon one’s DNA. If God genetically discriminated when birthing his son into the world, upon what moral grounds could one argue he would avoid producing genetic differences in intelligence and temperament? God does not distribute blessings equally to individuals or groups.

“Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham…” (13:26)

One’s identity as a member of the nation of Israel was dependent upon one’s identity as a child of Abraham. National identity was the product of one’s ancestral bloodline.

“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again…” (13:32-33)

The Jews were privileged by God to have the ancestral promise of a coming messiah passed down as a part of their ethnic heritage. Other ethnicities did not have this promise, and many millions of people have died in a lost condition because they did not know about the Israelite savior. God’s favoritism towards the Jews, even after the dawn of the gentile age, was a momentous act of ethnic discrimination.

“For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption.” (13:36)

Paul appears to have believed the Old Testament idea that our ancestry remains important after we die. We are buried with our people. Our ethnic heritage may have meaning even after we pass from this life.

“Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.”

Even after the founding of the church, God was still ethnically discriminating in favor of the Jews. As God’s historical people, the Jews received the gospel before any other ethnic group received the chance. God, Paul, and Barnabus were making ethnically discriminating decisions in the New Testament. The early Christians believed that ethnic identity was an important factor when deciding upon a course of action. We too should believe this.

Even during the Christian era, the Israelites did not cease to hold a special place among the world’s nations. They were to be a shining light to the world’s ethnos. God is not above giving some ethnicities a special place among their peers. God has created collective ethnic destiny.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (13:48)

The book of Acts develops a theme in which God “ordains,” “adds,” or “elects” people to be saved. The act of salvation is an act of privilege bestowed by God upon some people and not others. The salvation of the chosen (“elect”) is a display of God’s unequal treatment of men.

“…preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” (14:16)

At first glance, verse 16 might be confused for a call to end separate ethnic identities. In context, however, Paul’s message it clearly about idolatry, religion, and the worship of the one true God.

“And when [Paul’s company] had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” (14:53)

Paul did not allow for the democratic election of church elders. The congregation did not appoint their own elders, Paul appointed their leaders from his hierarchical authority position.

“…they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.” (14:27)

Opening the door of faith to gentile ethnic groups is far less dramatic then eradicating ethnic differences and creating a “third race” of people. Christianity is not a socio-political program of identity annihilation. God created ethnos as a way for humanity to organize itself. Why would he have suddenly ordered their erasure with the coming of his son?

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (15:1) “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (15:19)

Chapter 15 is among the most important chapters recorded in the New Testament. Many have used it to defend their own theological interpretations of modern Christianity. Today, most people choose to interpret the passage from a purely religious perspective. In my opinion, however, it is easier to evaluate it from an ethnic one, and to think of it in terms of ethnic identity and expression.

In verse 1, Judaizers visit Antioch and tell the gentiles they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Effectively, they were instructing the gentiles to become Jewish proselytes. By proselytizing, the Antioch gentiles would have de facto become ethnic Jews and abandoned their own unique ethnic identities. These gentiles would have been embracing an identity which was not written in their own ancestral blood. The Judaizers represent the globalist universal “third race” position held by modern leftist Christians, they wanted to destroy ethnic division within the body of Christ by forcing everyone to become Jewish.

The Acts 15 council of Jerusalem ultimately rejected ethnic unity and sent a short letter to the gentiles instructing them to avoid things related to idolatry (temple prostitution, drinking of blood, eating meat offered to idols). The council’s decision argued that people from other nations did not have to follow the Law of Moses and become Jews. Instead, they could retain their own separate ethnic identities. Rather than downplaying the importance of ethnic differences, the council acknowledged their importance and created two different religious systems for Jews and Gentiles. The council moved to block the annihilation of separate ethnic identities that would have been accomplished by the Judaizing teachers.

This discussion effects the question of the Mosaic Law. The Jerusalem council appears to have rejected the Law only for gentile believers. The council issued no pronouncement in relation to the Jewish Christians and, in fact, the Jewish Christians went on practicing the Law as they had before. In chapter 21, the Apostles order Paul to visit the temple and take an Old Testament vow to prove to the Jewish believers that he was not telling their ethnic kin abroad to forsake the Law.

The Mosaic Law represented a God given ethnic identity marker. This marker could not be fully abandoned by the Jews to whom it was given, but it had never been given to the gentiles because their identities and histories were different. Because God never gave the Law to the gentiles, they never needed to keep it after converting to Christ because it was historically irrelevant to their identities.

To make modern application, this perspective builds continuity between the Old and New Testaments by demonstrating that the views of the Old Testament were never repudiated. The moral code of the Old Testament was never revised. There is no reason to believe God established a radically new worldview in the AD era of history. The organic structure of human society with its families, ethnic identities, social institutions, and governmental systems did not become “oppressive” and “outdated” after the coming of Christ. All the ethno-nationalism, slavery, and ethnic identity concepts formed in the Old Testament are still valid today and represent a model for us to follow.

The entire modern Christian argument against “racism” and ethnic discrimination is founded upon the belief in a radical transformation of God’s ethical system from one testament to the other, but, when viewed properly, no such radical transformation ever occurred.

“Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek.” (16:1) “Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” (16:3)

Timothy was the son of an inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriage. This split identity caused problems for him. After he followed Paul he was essentially forced to abandon his Greek identity in favor of a Jewish one. Diverse family units are a curse rather than a blessing. Timothy’s mother was devout, but his father was not. Any large division of this type within a family will create negative effects upon a child’s sense of self. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Some good people can arise from such unions, but it is only with much stress and pain.

“…[they] were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia… After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not… And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” (16:6-10)

God explicitly directed Paul’s missionary party into Europe. Perhaps God had already ordained a special place for Europe in Christian history.

Modern theologians and Cultural Marxists decry the Eurocentric nature of the Christian religion. Over the last two thousand years, Christianity has been a predominantly European legacy. It was Euroethnics who globalized Christianity over the last five centuries of the second millennium.

Few have acknowledged that the New Testament was a Eurocentric document from the very beginning. The vast majority of the recorded missionary work in Acts relates to the spread of the gospel into Europe. The Bible contains no records of missionary travel to Africa or eastern Asia (even though we know missionaries went to those regions).

Six of the epistles, Romans, I & II Corinthians, I & II Thessalonians, and Philippians, were written for European churches; together, they form the majority of the epistle writings in the New Testament sent to specific churches. The book of Hebrews, probably written to Jews at Jerusalem, is the only epistle not written to a church located north of the Mediterranean and west of Jerusalem. None of the New Testament writings were directed towards Africa or eastern Asia. Even when considering the territory of ancient Asia-Minor, where all the non-European epistles were sent, it remains accurate to label this region a kind of proto-Europe considering that great Western stories like the ‘Iliad’ take place there (a story in which blonde and redheaded hero’s battle each other for supremacy). The book of Revelation was sent to “the seven churches of Asia” which were all located in the western part of Anatolia near the ancient city of Troy and the fourth century BC Athenian Empire.

All of the New Testament documents were originally written in the European language of Greek. The New Testament is a collection of writings that were clearly directed towards the European world.

A major theme in Acts is the Jewish rejection of the messiah. The Israelites were given a special religious role in the history of the world. Evaluating Christian history suggests God chose those of European descent to maintain the faith for a thousand years before carrying it to the ends of the earth.

“And when [Lydia] was baptized, and her household…” (16:15)

Religion is not a merely personal issue. The conversion of one family member to the early church, especially the head, often lead to the immediate conversation of the entire household. The idea of faith as a merely personal identity issue is a modern outgrowth of liberal individualism. During the early missionary efforts in Europe, the conversion of the monarch or tribal leader of an ethnic group often led to the conversion of his entire people. The early church grew rapidly in Europe due to these mass ethnic conversions. Many claim these mass conversions were not “real” conversions, but we find their miniature family prototypes in Acts.

“These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city…” (16:20-21)

Ethnic diversity was a huge problem in many Roman Empire cities. Riots and ethnic violence based on genetic, cultural, and religious differences brought cities to the brink of chaos. Often, the only stabilizing force were the swords of a Roman legion. Identity groups have sought to form their own homogenous socio-political states since the beginning of time. Only the threat of violence is capable of forcing two ethnic groups to live side by side. Research and experience have demonstrated that diversity breeds discontent, distrust, and violence. The New Testament records at least two riots caused by ethnic diversity, and they will be discussed later in this document.

“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” (16:33)

The father conversion led to the immediate conversion of his entire family. Religion is not just a personal matter.

“…these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.” (17:7)

Jesus is an unelected absolute monarch. There is no democracy in the Kingdom of Heaven.

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” (17:26-30)

Paul’s reference to all nations being created from “one blood” has been used by numerous Christian groups to argue that there are no biologically distinct ethnicities, and that all ethnic identity groups should ignore their “superficial” differences and unite. This idea has been popularized by the creationist group Answers in Genesis.

Firstly, Paul was definitely talking about ethnicity when he said “nations” because the Greek word is “ethnos,” and Paul discussed “blood” rather than language or culture.

Secondly, Paul’s argument was that all ethnic groups should worship God because he created the heaven, earth and all the nations. Because all ethnicities share the earth, sky, and common blood from which they arose God is truly the God of all people and not just the Israelites. The fact that the gentiles abandoned God and “did their own thing” did not remove God from his place of authority over them.

Thirdly, nowhere in this passage did God repudiate the fact that he created ethnic separation at Babel and disunited man for his own purposes.

Fourthly, nowhere in this passage did God miraculously remove the deep and lasting biological differences between the ethnic groups, or suggest they will ever be removed.  Nor was there any suggestion that the nations should abandon their separate identities and become one. The relationship discussed was entirely a vertical one between each individual nation and the God who created them.

Finally, I want to suggest that not only is the “one blood” unity idea, as put forward by Answers in Genesis, scientifically indefensible it is theologically dangerous. It is dangerous because it threatens to collapse the entire Old Testament narrative into either total incoherence or absurdity.

For example, if there is no genetic or biological justification for ethnic differences why did God promise Abraham he would create a nation from his own “seed” and spend four hundred years turning Jacob’s seventy genetic offspring into a million person ethnic group? If ethnicity has nothing to do with genetic uniqueness or biological reality then God’s actions become pointless. The biblical story would rapidly devolve into a weird unjustifiable serious of activities unrelated to created reality.

Why did the Israelites receive special privilege among the ethnic groups if their claim to being the actual genetic seed of Abraham was false? If there was no actual difference between the Israelites and all the other random people walking around on earth why did God treat them as if there was? Why is the Bible concerned with bloodlines and genealogies (Jesus’, for example) if there was no biological or genetic reality to them? Why did the Bible spend so much time talking about who the different ethnicities are descended from in Genesis 10 if their genetic ancestry was meaningless to their identity as a people? Why did God bother relating religious identity with Abrahamic blood if it meant nothing?

The Bible clearly indicates that ethnic groups evolve from extended family kin groups. If we take the position that ethnicity and genetics have no connection, then we are forced into the absurd position of saying that genetics and family units have no connection either, and then we must say that there is no genetic relationship between parents and children.

It is impossible to maintain the importance of God’s Old Testament actions and still believe there is no genetic reality to ethnic differences. The “one blood” Answers in Genesis perspective renders the Old Testament little more than a weird incomprehensible experiment that God forfeited on his way to embracing the mongrelization of all human biological identities.

“Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” (18:6)

At some point, God will abandon even his chosen ethnic group. The Jews no longer had a privileged place in God’s historical plan. Euroethnics have enjoyed being the sustainers of God’s religion for thousands of years, but we should learn from the Jews and avoid rejecting God’s will and being removed from our position of privilege.

“…having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” (18:18) “…I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem…” (18:21)

Paul continued to practice the Law of Moses because it was a part of his ethnic identity as a Jew. His gentile converts, however, never practiced it because it was not part of their heritage.

“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (19:6) “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:” (19:11)

Paul, being an apostle, had the authority to give the Holy Spirit to others. This was an authority and gift possessed only by a select elite group of men. This gift marked them as unequal among their peers.

“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.” (19:19)

Modern liberals and Cultural Marxists like to mock the medieval church for burning books and suppressing ideas, but they had Biblical precedent for their actions. The idea that immoral anti-Christian filth should be allowed to freely pervade society has only been popular for the last several decades. Pornography, for example, was banned in early modern America, and heavy penalties were associated with its distribution.

“And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre… But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (19:29-34)

Ethnic and religious diversity causes chaos wherever it is found. This is the first of the diversity riots recorded in the book of Acts. A mere reference to the ethnic “other” incited the confused crowd to a rousing two hour condemnation.

“Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (20:21)

Once again, Luke explained the message of Christ. Once again, the message was one of repentance and faith. Nowhere was the social justice gospel preached. Nowhere were the aims of social, cultural, or political revolution expounded. Nowhere was the end of ethnic identity mandated. The utopian Marxist and liberal theologians will not find ammunition for their pronouncements in Acts.

“And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.” (20:26)

Paul was not talking about the shedding of physical blood through violence seeing as how he had thrown people in prison and executed them.

“And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.” (21:30-31)

This is the second diversity riot recorded in Acts. This time, the Jews believed Paul had brought a gentile into the temple and corrupted it. Diversity never produces trust nor peace.

“And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee…” (22:14)

Paul appealed to the genetic kinship connection between the crowd and himself. It was only because he spoke in their ethnic language that they listened to him.

“And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” (22:21)

Paul merely mentioned the ethnic “other” and the mob wanted to kill him. Diversity leads to violence and disunity.

“And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” “And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.”

Modern theologians may speak of Euroethnics needing to sacrifice their “white privilege,” but Paul utilized his birth privilege for the Gospel’s benefit. Euroethnics need not abandon the identity they were given at birth. Rather, they should use it for God’s glory.

When the centurion informed Paul he gained his own citizenship by paying for it, Paul responded by asserting his own civil identity was worth more because it was inherited. Paul did not believe that the “self-made man” was superior to the heir. Paul may have believed the opposite. Inherited privilege was more special than earned privilege.

“Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?” (23:3-4)

Modern feminized Christians claim that reviling and insulting people is against Christianity, but the author of half the New Testament did not agree with them. Paul only retracted his insult after realizing the man he insulted was a major authority figure. Paul, like Jesus, never shrank from using insults to instill his message.

“And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.” (23:16)

Paul’s blood kin helped save his life.

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” (24:14) “Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” (24:17)

Paul seemed deeply rooted in his Jewish ethnic identity and the Mosaic Law even at this late period in his ministry. There was no great shift in his concept of ethnic loyalty. He was not advocating for a “third race” or a multi-ethnic utopia despite being a missionary to the gentiles for years. Paul described the Jews as “my nation,” and said he was not what they would label a religious heretic.

“My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.” (26:4) “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers.” (26:6)

Paul made two appeals to his ethnic identity. First, he referenced being raised among his “own nation.” Second, he referenced “our fathers.” Paul never renounced his ethnic identity. On the contrary, he seemed proud of it.

“Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (26:17-18)

God told Paul he was sending him exclusively to the gentile nations. Paul was to base his ministry upon the ethnicity of the people he preached to. Throughout his ministry, Paul made decisions based on ethnicity. God told Paul to ethnically discriminate. Why do modern Euroethnics shrink from considering ethnicity in their social and political decisions?

“…things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.” (26:23)

It was planned from the beginning that the gentiles would be brought into fellowship with God. This was not a dramatic post-Jesus alteration.

“But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.” (28:19)

Paul called that the Jews “my nation.” Even in the New Testament there was a clear idea of distinct ethnic identities.

“Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.” (28:28)

Among the last verses in the book of Acts is a proclamation that the gospel will be accepted by the gentiles. The gentiles did accept it, and it was European people who sustained and strengthened the Faith for the following two millennia.