Black Hebrew Israelites in Washington D.C.

Last week, while evangelizing at California State University – Northridge, I met a pair of young men who seemed interested in discussing the Bible, Jesus — the whole shebang. The men were Black, but they wore stars of David around their necks, and as the conversation progressed it become increasingly clear that they were operating with a profoundly bizarre theology: They believed that only Israelites could be saved, that non-Israelites were damned and couldn’t hope to find salvation even if they repented and put their faith in Christ. They believed that Black Americans were the real Jews (not metaphorically, mind you; literally). And so on in that vein.

I responded by focusing on the strictly theological claims, choosing to pass over the odd ethnography in silence for fear of bogging the discussion down in tangents and distractions. I invoked Galatians 3:28 with its clear affirmation that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek”, but that we are one instead. They dismissed that as a twin reference to the Jews of Palestine and then the Hellenistic Jews living among the Greeks. I mentioned the Samaritan woman of John 4 and how she, despite not being an Israelite, found salvation in Christ. No dice: according to my conversation partners the Samaritan woman was never saved; Jesus was just “toying” with her.

At this point I could see that I wouldn’t get anywhere citing Bible passages in some casual way since everything I said would be countered with some strained Bible twisting on their part. So I told them that I’d think the matter over and come back next week with a more detailed defense of the historic Christian belief that Jesus saves even non-Israelites. They heckled me as a coward and said I was running away. I assured them that I had to take my kids to ballet (which was true) but that I would work something up for next Monday and I mentioned that the Bereans were commended for taking their time while evaluating new religious claims in Acts. They seemed to accept that (partly) and I left.

Well, after some research I’m a bit better informed: The men I spoke with are apparently part of a group called the “Black Hebrew Israelites“, a Black supremacist hate group that, according to a report prepared for the Justice Department, thrives in prisons as the Black counterpoint to such White supremacist faiths as the Aryan Brotherhood’s Odinism and Asatru. Black Hebrew Israelites (from here on referred to as BHIs) think that they, along with Latin Americans and American Indians, are the true descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel. They further think that mainstream Jews are just imposters. White people are the descendants of Esau. And Jesus (who is, of course, Black) will one day return to enslave all the White people and force them to labor for the true Israelites. BHIs also deny that American Blacks are descended from Black Africans and further assert such strange things as that King James of England was Black, that Europe is named after a Black woman, and that the word “Scot” (as in “Scotland”) means “Black”. They often resort to vulgar street preaching and, while they’re concentrated on the East Coast, they’ve put in appearances here in Hollywood (see the video here; careful, the languge is pretty rough at times).

Despite my misgivings, I intend to be true to my word and continue my conversation with the two BHIs this Monday at CSUN. I’ve prepared a written response and I fell that it might be helpful to post it here for the benefit of people involved with the BHIs seeking to learn about their views and whether they can really be sustained in the light of actual scholarship. So, without further ado, here’s the paper, organized around specific issues. (All Bible verse are drawn from the King James Version — the BHIs favored that translation.)

Thinking Critically Pleases God and Is Our Duty

Rather than be intellectually lazy about our faith, the Bible tells us that we are to love the Lord with all that we are, including our minds.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;”

Luke 10:27a

Further, the Bible tells us to investigate all the religious claims that we are presented with, weeding the bad out from the good. This process necessarily involves an element of critical thinking and reasonable skepticism.

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Indeed, the Bible praises those who investigate to see whether the theology they’ve been given really squares with what the Bible says.

“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Acts 17:10-11

Let’s then, all of us, be faithful to the calling of our heavenly Father and seek to discern whether what we’ve been told about God is true to the teachings of the Bible. Let’s also do so in conversation with one another, seeking to persuade each other of the truth as we understand it. But let’s do so with the calm and respectful spirit that the Bible demands of us.

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Ephesians 4:1-3

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”

2 Timothy 2:24-25

In the Bible, the Word “Jew” is Used to Refer to All Israelites, Not Just Judahites

It is certainly true that, etymologically speaking, the word “Jew” derives from the name of the Israelite tribe Judah. At the start of King Rehoboam’s reign, Israel split in two, with the ten northern tribes breaking away from the established power in Jerusalem. The confederation of the northern tribes was thereafter called “Israel”, and the southern remainder was called the “Kingdom of Judah”, after the most populous tribe in the area. When Assyria invaded, it annihilated the Kingdom of Israel and scattered its inhabitants within its empire. That left only the southern kingdom, Judah. In the course of time, the Kingdom of Judah would itself be taken into captivity, only to return under the Persians. When the descendants of the former inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah returned to Jerusalem, however, the name of the Kingdom had been transferred to the people: they were now called “Jews”. However, this name, “Jews” was used to refer to Israelites from all the different tribes, not just Judahites. Indeed, it even was used to refer to Israelites who were refuges from the northern Kingdom of Israel who had made their way back to Palestine individually.

“In the strictest sense, this appellation … Jews, belongs only to the posterity and tribe of Judah. … But as the ten tribes were afterwards, in a manner, lost in the Assyrian captivity, and the kingdom of Judah only continued through succeeding ages a body politic, the name Jews came to be applied indifferently to all Hebrews and Israelites, whether they belonged to the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, or to the ten revolting tribes, whether they returned to Judea (as no doubt some of the ten, as well as of the two, tribes did, Ezra vi.17) or not.”

John Oswald, A Dictionary of Etymology of the English Language, 9th ed. (Adam & Charles Black: 1859) pg. 258

“JEW (Heb. Yehudi), originally meaning a member of the tribe of Judah. … The word became synonymous with the ‘descendants of Abraham’ and is found in Esther 2.5 referring to ‘Mordecai … a Benjamite.’ Hence, Jew developed into a common appellation.”

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 2nd ed., Adele Berlin ed., (Oxford University Press: 2011) pg. 396

“Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;”

Ester 2:5

Paul’s writings indicate that he uses the word “Jew” with this latter, broader meaning to refer to all Israelites and not just Judahites. Consider Paul’s own self-professed tribal identity:

“I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”

Romans 11:1b

Then notice how Paul, a Benjamite and not a Judahite, calls himself a Jew:

“I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 2:14-16

In the New Testament, “Gentile” Does Refer to a Non-Israelite Person and Thus All Can Be Saved

In our conversation, a major point of contention was the meaning of the word “Gentile” in the New Testament. In the New Testament of the Bible (both the King James Version and others) the word “Gentile” is generally a translation of the Koine Greek word ethnos. The BHIs asserted that, in the New Testament at least, “Gentile” does not actually refer to non-Israelites but to Israelites who had been scattered among the nations and which had adopted some of their pagan customs. In response I contended that “Gentile” is used in the New Testament in much the same way that it is in the Old Testament: as a reference to non-Israelites, period. Below is an excerpt drawn from arguably the single most authoritative Koine Greek lexicon in the modern English-speaking world, which indicates that “Gentile”, ethnos can indeed mean a non-Israelite. As it says, ethnos means:

“1. A body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions, nation, people
2. people groups foreign to a specific people group
a. those who do not belong to groups professing faith in the God of Israel, the nations, gentiles, unbelievers
b. non-Israelite Christians, gentiles of Christian congregations composed of more than one nationality and not limited to people of Israel”

The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., Frederick William Danker ed. (University of Chicago Press: 2000) pg. 276-277

Given, then, that “Gentiles” in the New Testament refers to non-Israelites, and given further that “Jews” is used as a general reference to all Israelites, when a New Testament author mentions both groups—Jews and Gentiles—the author therefore means “all Israelites and all non-Israelites”, or, more directly, all people of any ethnic and racial background whatsoever. Paul’s writings (and Acts) therefore demonstrate that anyone, regardless of racial pedigree, can be saved by God’s grace as revealed in Jesus Christ:

“Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Romans 3:29

“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.”

Romans 9:22-25

“When they [i.e. the Jewish Christians] heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

Acts 11:18

“And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.”

Acts 14:27

The Samaritan Woman Was Saved by God’s Grace through Christ

In our discussion, the BHIs asserted that the Samaritan woman of John 4 was never actually saved. Rather, they made the somewhat strange claim that Jesus was just “toying” with her. Given the wider themes and teaching of the Gospel of John, that claim simply cannot stand. Consider that the Gospel of John opens with these words concerning Christ:

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name…”

John 1:11-12

Then, somewhat later in the Gospel, Jesus himself states:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

John 3:16-17

And, again, just a bit later, Jesus also states:

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

John 6:37

And finally, the Gospel of John nearly concludes with these words:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

John 20:30-31

Now consider the Samaritan woman against the backdrop of these verses: The woman approaches Jesus, after a meandering conversation she comes to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (vs. 29), and then she even leads others to meet Jesus and share in her own faith in the man (vss. 39 & 42). On top of this, Jesus himself even tells the woman that, were she inclined to receive it, he would grant her salvation (vs. 10, cp. vs. 14). Given all this, John’s implication is clear and unavoidable: the Samaritan woman and many of her countrymen came to believe in Jesus and thus found salvation.

King James Wasn’t Black

The ethnicity of King James, the commissioner of the King James Version of the Bible, has no bearing on how we are to interpret the Bible. Similarly, James’s ethnicity cannot either prove or disprove any particular piece of theology. Nevertheless, as the BHIs have claimed that King James was Black, it seems helpful to correct them.

King James I

The portrait on the right was painted by the artist John De Critz the Elder, one of King James’s two official court painters, around 1606, and it depicts King James. James sat for the portrait; it is as close to a photograph of King James as one can get. The portrait was formerly housed in the British Museum and currently resides at the United Kingdom’s National Portrait Gallery. As it clearly shows, James was White, not Black. Now I don’t imagine that the men I spoke with just dreamed up the idea that King James was Black; rather, I suspect that someone else told them this and they believed it because they trusted the person (or persons) who told them. If the people who lied to them about the racial character of James are also the same people that have taught them the deeply racist and inaccurate view of the gospel they espouse, I hope that the revelation of James’s “Whiteness” will cause them to reevaluate the level of trust they have placed in their theological teachers and therefore the level of trust they have placed in their racist and anti-biblical ideology.

Matthew Stuart

Mary Stewart

To further establish the point, here are two additional portraits. The portrait on of the left depicts Matthew Stuart, sometimes called Lord Darnley, King James’s father. The portrait on the right depicts Mary Stewart, sometimes called Mary Queen of Scots, King James’s mother. Again, both are obviously White. In fact, they seem to have been “Whiter” than most White people

Also, King James Was a Homosexual

As with his ethnicity, James’s homosexuality doesn’t discredit the Bible translation he commissioned, nor does it prove any particular piece of theology either right or wrong. Still, given the BHIs’ strange eagerness to claim him as a Black man, they probably should know that he was gay. Will they still want him on their ‘team’?

“James’s personal character did little to increase his prestige. He was a homosexual, and his favorites enjoyed unmerited privileges and power in his court and government.”

Justo L. Gonzalez (PhD, Yale University; Professor at Chandler School of Theology & United Theological Seminary), The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2 (HarperColins: 1985) pg. 152

“James’s homosexual orientation seems indisputable, although some historians try to underplay it.”

Jonathan Goldberg (PhD, Columbia University; Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of English at Emory University), James I and the Politics of Literature (Stanford University Press: 1989) pg. 269

“King James had rather different ideas about selection. In the early years of his reign, he built a palace near the village of Newmarket in East Anglia, seventy miles away from London, which he hated. It was the King’s favourite bolt-hole. ‘Away to Newmarket, away to Newmarket!’ was the signal for extravaganzas of drunken feasting, masques, jousting and horse racing. At Newmarket, James paraded his homosexuality for all to see, as he indulged and openly fondled Robert Carr, George Villiers and other male lovers.”

Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, White Cargo (New York University Press: 2007) pg. 72

And consider this personal letter from King James to George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham

“My only sweet and dear child, notwithstanding of your desiring me not to write yesterday, yet had I written in the evening if, at my coming out of the park, such drowsiness had not come upon me as I was forced to sit and sleep in my chair half an hour. And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this present, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you and that we may make at this Christmas a new marriage ever to be kept hereafter; for God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.

James R.”

Cited in David M. Bergeron (PhD, Vanderbilt University; Professor of English at the University of Kansas) King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire (University of Iowa Press: 1999) pgs. 173-175. Photo of the original letter on the right; original housed at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University.

“Scot” Doesn’t Mean “Black”, Neither was Europa a Black Woman

The word “Scot” (as in “Scotland”) lacks a well-known origin. A variety of possibilities have been put forward by scholars, but none of them assert that “Scot” means “Black”.

“There does not seem to be the least agreement as to the origin of the name Scot. Each etymology receives no acceptance further than the individual to whom its advance is due…”

John Brownlee, The Origin and Distribution of Racial Types in Scotland (Oliver and Boyd: 1924) pg. 21

“Many etymologies have been given of the word Scot. All the more ancient writers concur in representing it as the same with Scyth or Scythian, and opinion which prevailed to the present century. Of late, Dr. McPherson supposes Scuit, or Scot, to signify a small body of men; Mr. Whitaker, wanders or refugees. Others more plausibly derive it from Coit, a wood, or from Schut, a boat or small vessel, as Ireland abounded with woods and the Scots attacked Britain in such vessels. Others from Scutten, to shoot.”

John Pinkerton, An Inquiry into the History of Scotland Preceding the Reign of Malcolm III, Vol. 2 (John Nicholas: 1794) pg. 44

“The Pict is but the Caledonian under a new name; the Scot deserves a word of further notice. The Romans applied the name to all the inhabitants of Ireland, but the Scot proper was the Scuit, the ‘man cut off’ or ‘broken man’…”

Charles Oman (Professor at Oxford University), England Before the Norman Conquest (Putnam: 1910) pg. 157

“The etymology of ‘Scot’ has been derived from ‘Scuite’, or ‘Sguit’, a Gaelic word signifying ‘scattered’ or ‘wanderers’…”

James Paterson, Origin of the Scots and the Scottish Language (William Nimmo: 1863) pg. 42

As for mythological figure Europa, while it’s true that the continent of Europe is named after her, there’s no reason to believe that she was Black. According to her mythology, Europa was a Phoenician from the city of Tyre. Phoenicia no longer exists as a political entity, but the territory it once controlled (including the city of Tyre) is now the modern nation state of Lebanon, and the Lebanese often refer to themselves as “Phoenicians” with pride. Both the ancient depictions of Europa and the modern population of what was Phoenicia reveal that Europa, were she more than a merely mythological figure, was not Black. As evidence, see the photo of a modern Lebanese woman on the left, and the ancient painting of Europa recovered from Pompeii on the right—she’s the one on the bull.

There Are Plenty of Real Black Role Models

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN

I can’t help but wonder if the reason the Black Hebrew Israelites have sought to co-opt the heroes and leaders of other races, as if they were part of ther own, is because they think that by doing so they ennoble themselves. But if that is the case then there is no need to pretend that White and Phoenician people were Black; there are plenty of bona fide Black heroes and great historical Black leaders.

On the world political scene, there was Mansa Musa—the great “King of Kings” of the Malian Empire in Africa during the 14th century. More recently, Kofi Annan, another genuinely Black man, has served as the Secretary General of the U.N. Even in our own nation, the current President, Barack Obama, is half Black and tends to identify with that group. While all these men (like all men in general) may have their flaws, they are genuinely Black men who have achieved great power and prestige—so much so that there is no need to try to “steal” King James of England.

Peter Akinola, Abp. of Nigeria

When it comes to religion, a great many Black men are notable: Consider the founders of the Telwahedo Church in Ethiopia and beyond, men who were among the first in the world to embrace the message of Jesus Christ. Also, look at the recent Black Anglican archbishops of Africa, men like Peter Akinola, John Rucyahana, Emmanuel Kolini and so on. While their White counterparts in places like the U.S. and the U.K. are busily watering down the gospel and embracing all sorts of perversity, these Black men are holding the line against sin and depravity with almost unbelievable courage and determination. Two of my very own mentors in ministry, Percy Manuel of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Portland, OR and Joseph Bryant Jr. of. Calvary Hill Community Church in San Francisco, CA, are Black and I am deeply indebted to them both for their guidance and encouragement.

Leonard Pitts Jr., Pulitzer Prize winner

And in matters of culture, Black people once again have real leaders. Everything from film, to television, to music, to literature has been taken up to great success by Black men and women. Indeed, in this area particularly, the notable Black individuals are so numerous it would be impossible to mention them all.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist

Those currently aligned with the Black Hebrew Israelites can also be a part of the meaningful and uplifting Black leadership at work both in this country and around the world, benefiting their own families and their wider communities. But that will be extremely difficult so long as they cling to racist ideologies, a distorted interpretation of the Bible, and the pseudo-history that they’re shared with me.

Further, as men and women who at least claim to respect the Bible, considering the disrepute that Black Hebrew Israelites bring upon the gospel through their hateful antics, they would do well to consider the Bible’s teachings regarding such groups as theirs:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2 Peter 2:1-3