People will fight about all kinds of things, especially the law, and everyone has their own agenda. Without some clear guide on what to implement, we may never know what rules are right and what are not. We would just end up with the law of the jungle and a “might makes right” system, that serves nobody but the ruling elite. In the animal kingdom, the biggest and strongest males take the spoils; everyone else either dies or picks up the scraps. Humans need something more sophisticated; therefore, we need a final authority in all legal disputes that supersedes the richest and most powerful.
The idea of making God’s word the judge on all matters is confronting to our liberalised culture. So much of his law violates what polite society considers acceptable. Regulations around how to treat bondmen and women are a good example. Since the concept of indentured servitude is foreign to most of us today, and offends “modern” sensibilities, it is easy to dismiss without thought. Atheists love pointing to the laws around servants that are property, while scoffing and accusing the Bible of supporting slavery. However, they are incapable of looking at God’s word in a reasonable manner so their analysis always falls short.
If we look at the laws surrounding bondservants in a genuine effort to understand them, we can see that they are all perfectly reasonable. Far from “condoning slavery”, they merely accept the reality of servitude and protect all parties within the transaction. In our society a person can go into piles of debt, then declare bankruptcy if it all goes wrong. If they are unable to pay their bills that is too bad for their creditor. Things were not always like this, people used to have to pay their debts and if they were unable, they had to work it off. That meant debtors became the property of someone else, but as “cruel” as it sounds to some, it did keep people honest.
Once we accept the reality of indentured servitude, whether you agree with it or not, we can analyse the laws themselves. When we do this, we see that they actually makes sense.
”If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.”
– Exodus 21: 2-6
The main thing people should note from this passage is that Hebrew (Israelite) male bondservants always went free in the seventh year. This means it was not a lifelong sentence for them, after his service was finished he could chose to leave. Bondmen also had the choice to stay on for life, if that was their will. One might ask why someone would do this, but that is because we today have the idea that all slave-owning masters are somehow evil. This just is not the case, there were good masters just as there were bad ones, and a job for life might appeal to some.
Note also the mention of wives taken, and children born to the servant while the he was in bondage. If he were to go out free, he would lose his wife and kids. Female servants were the property of their master for life, meaning, if she married a servant, he would go out while she would stay. The choice of living alone, or with their wife and family, a job for life and a good boss, but lacking freedom, was always there. Unless, of course, he was able to redeem her with money, which, as they were unpaid servants, was usually not possible. A master who allows a bondservant to marry one of his maidservants is likely not the worst boss in the world either.
You may consider this cruel but look at it from the point of view of the master. If letting a bondman marry one of his bondmaids meant losing her, he would probably not allow them to marry. It would not be worth the loss, so the answer would invariably be to deny the request. At least this way a male servant has a chance at marrying a girl he loves while he is the property of someone else. Further, if he does, the master then knows he is likely to have a male servant for life, so everyone’s needs are satisfied.
As we can see, some laws might seem unjust to our modern sensibilities, but are perfectly reasonable given the situation. They protect everyone’s property and interests, and everyone knows where they stand. If your response is “what about the women,” the answer to that is to take it up with the fathers who sold their daughters. God’s will is that women are always subject to a man, whether their father, their husband, or their master. This is for the best and we will go into this deeper in a later chapter.
Moving on to the more important issues, one area of the law that is not so obvious is that of national membership. We would call this “citizenship” but that term comes out of Roman law, as opposed to the natural law of the Bible. Since God’s law is perfect, and God created nations, you would expect Biblical law to touch on this issue and it does:
“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.”
– Deuteronomy 23: 7-8
This means that children with one Israelite parent and one Edomite or Egyptian parent, were not officially part of the nation. Some might argue it says that people of other nations who have been living in the territory for four generations, gain membership. This is a silly argument that makes very little sense. If that was the case, a hostile nation could simply move into a territory, and then conquer their host by outbreeding them. They could take over all institutions and the land would become theirs over time.
This just so happens to be the exact strategy that Islamic invaders have used for hundreds of years, and are using right now. They enter a land, and then multiply as much as they can, until they become the majority. Once they have taken over, they impose their own will on everyone else through force. If you believe God supports this kind of action, you have not been paying attention. Given a nation is a people; the only logical conclusion is that God is talking about children of international marriages.
He is clearly telling us that children begotten of nations considered friendly shall not enter the “congregation of the Lord” for three generations. Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob’s brother, and Egyptians hosted Israel for centuries. God also mentions nations he hates in the same chapter:
“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:
Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.”
– Deuteronomy 23: 3-4
Since we have both the standard of entry for friendly nations, and unfriendly ones, it is safe to use both as a guideline. Children begotten to foreigners should not gain membership of a nation until at least the third generation. This means only their children’s, children’s children can own land, be a military leader, become a judge, or hold any kind of official position. Other than that, they can do what they like under the rest of the law. Not only does this protect the demographics of a nation and their territory, it gives outsiders a chance to enter it and truly assimilate.
The strategy of demographic replacement that is destroying the West today becomes impossible with this law. There are no short cuts, only long term assimilation over several generations, thus birth, makes one a member of a nation. Given nations are families, as well as geo-political units, this makes total sense; it is the perfect legal solution to the mass-immigration invasion we are suffering today.
One counter to this you might have is that in the New Testament the congregation is now open to everyone through Jesus. While it is true that all have access to the church through Christ, in the Old Testament the congregation was something slightly different:
“Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:”
– Exodus 12: 3-4
This is the first instance of the word “congregation” in the entire Bible and it refers to the nation of Israel. What this means is that before Christ, the term had both religious and national connotations. In the New Covenant, these two characteristics are separate, but neither is obsolete. Therefore, when God talks about the congregation in the Old Testament, we can know for sure he is talking about membership of the nation.
We see a direct application of this law in the story of Ruth the Moabite, who marries an Israelite and becomes King David’s great-grandmother. Nothing in the Bible is incidental or accidental; therefore, it is unlikely that this is merely coincidence. As such, we need to figure out what God is trying to tell us. On one hand, it shows that even Moabites could gain the Lord’s forgiveness. This despite him stating clearly that an Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation even unto the tenth generation. On the other hand, it is telling us that it takes four generations before an individual can take up a leadership role. Heritage is understandably important to God when it comes to who is in charge.
The Bible also makes it very clear that only the sons of Aaron were to administer the holy tabernacle and animal sacrifices. That God puts an emphasis on lineage, when selecting those who were part of the priestly class, matters. It indicates that fathers should look to hand the reins over to their sons, and that family is significant in the administration of the holy. We are no longer under this ordinance in the New Testament, but just because a law is obsolete does not mean we cannot learn from it. Not only do we need to pass on salvation to our children, but we should also endeavour to leave them a worldly inheritance.
Strangers and servants in the Old Testament could be circumcised and call on the name of the Lord, but they were never children of Israel. That title went purely to those who inherited it from their fathers. To become fully-fledged members of the congregation, only one of their great-grandparents could be a foreigner. As strict as this might sound, God’s reasoning is always right, regardless of our opinion.
As with the rest of the law, limiting land ownership, high office, and military leadership to only the kin group actually makes perfect sense. An individual with mixed heritage can never be completely loyal to one nation or another; they will always have split familial (genetic) interests. The only way to make sure of someone’s allegiance is to know that he is entirely part of your kin group. This does not mean society should treat mixed individuals poorly, or punish them more harshly for crimes; it just means they should never be in charge or control the foundation of a nation’s prosperity (land).
If you think that people with mixed heritage are never going to have questionable loyalty then you have been living in a box. In Australia, there are many people calling themselves “Aboriginal” despite having majority or overwhelmingly Australian blood (Anglo-Celt). These people are often the loudest and most fervent critics of Australia, and the most active in fighting against it. Full-blooded Aborigines tend not to care about politics, and mixed individuals make up the vast majority of “Indigenous” activists.
Another example is former US President Barack Obama; the media and the establishment touted him as the first “black” President, despite being half-white. He then proceeded to do all he could to turn the country into a communist state, while he bombed Middle-Eastern civilians. Never once did he do anything to advance the interests of Americans (white people), in fact he was notably anti-white. History, and the world today, is full of examples just like these. You simply cannot trust a mixed heritage individual to act in the interests of a homogenous ethnic group.
That is not to say that mixed individuals will never be loyal, but it is simply not worth the risk. Just as some women are capable of reasonably commenting on public matters, given most cannot, it is best for everyone that they all remain silent. Exceptions often prove the rule, and there is no reason to break God’s law just because someone seems different. The Lord always knows best and the statutes in Deuteronomy 23 are no exception.
Holy Justification for Nationalism
As we can see, Biblical law is often confronting and challenging given the culture of the current year. However, once you accept that God is always just and his law is perfect, it starts making sense. If you look at a commandment and find it upsetting then you are the one with the problem. The Lord knows better than we do, no matter how badly we want to believe otherwise.
The other side of this is that once we accept that God’s law is always right, we can use it to further our own interests. His word is powerful and, when utilised, gives holy justification to the nationalist movement, and others. The Satan worshiping ruling class cannot stand against unified ethnic groups fighting against their agenda, and white ethnically consciousness Christians are their worst nightmare. Failing to use this weapon is handing victory to the enemy and I would much rather win forever.
“He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.”
– Proverbs 28:9