In Part One of this note [1], we examined briefly the theoretical truth that the Bible contains truth both in its stories (or myths) and in its logic. The purpose of this part is to show this truth through taking a single truth from scripture and examining how it is demonstrated through different means in the scripture.
The truth I have chosen to examine is the truth that it is worship and culture, and not ethnicity, that is important to God. To be more precise, the truth is that grace has always trumped race throughout the entirety of scripture, so that there is no place for racism or ethnocentricity in the Bible. This proof might seem to be a tall order, and since it is not possible in a short time and reasonably short post to examine this exhaustively, let us seek to make our best approximation by examining as many ways as possible how this truth is conveyed in scripture. Since our subject is the harmony of the truth of muthos (myth) and logos (logic), we should expect that the ‘stories’ and the ‘law’ within scripture will lead to the same conclusion. With this expectation in mind, therefore, let us divide our search into muthos and logos, starting with logos.
The Unimportance of Racial/Ethnic Origin In Scripture: Logos
The sorts of evidence that would be considered as “logic” or propositional reasoning would be laws, sermons, genealogies, and debates. Wherever inspired reasoning or formal presentation of the truth that racial/ethnic origin is unimportant, we shall expect to find it here. Let us examine how in all four of these ways, the truth that God does not care about ethnic origin may be found.
One Law For All
Instead of allowing the existence of multiple polytheistic legal systems (like allowing Sharia law as a parallel administration to the civil and criminal law of a Western country), the Bible clearly shows that there is to be one legal code for all. For as there is one God over the whole world, there is to be one law under which all are governed with no partiality. As the Bible says in Exodus 12:49: “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” The same legal standard applies to all, without regard to where someone was born.
Additionally, this was not only meaning that foreigners were not able to import their own legal codes into a nation, but also that the legal code was not to target or exploit foreigners by denying them of legal protection. The Bible specifically forbids the mistreatment and exploitation of foreigners, in Leviticus 19:33-34: “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” From the Mosaic law of the Bible, therefore, we see that God had no concern with someone’s ethnic origin, but had a fair and consistent standard by which all were held accountable. God is the God of all, not just of a particular race or people.
No Prophet Is Accepted In His Own Country
In front of Jesus’ own hometown audience in Nazereth, he gave a sermon message that upset his neighbors (and probably relatives) by pointing out a sermon the unimportance of ethnic origin to a crowd of Jews, in Luke 4:24-27: “Then He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zerephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”
Here in this passage Christ is very clear that even in the times of the prophets of old it was not race, but rather belief, that led to blessing and favor from God. God was not concerned with “race” in the Old Testament and “grace” in the New Testament. Rather, the same standard and the same desire for all to repent, and to grow into the character and likeness of God was present from the start. God was the God of the whole world from the very beginning (Exodus 19:5-6).
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
If there is one genealogy you look to in order to find out the truth about whether race matters to God, the best place to look is the genealogy of Jesus Christ given in Matthew 1. There are four women listed in this genealogy, and every single one of them is a non-Israelite who by grace entered the family of God (additionally, each of them has an interesting story, but that is for another place). Matthew 1:3 reads: “Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar.” Matthew 1:5 reads: “Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab. Boaz begot Obed by Ruth.” Matthew 1:6b reads: “David the king begot Solomon by who who had been the wife of Uriah.” At least three of these four women was non-Israelite.
The first three of the women are easiest to understand. Tamar was a righteous Canaanite whose first two husbands had been killed by God (see Genesis 38 for her story). Rahab had been an innkeeper in Jericho, a profession tantamount to being a prostitute in the ancient world (see Joshua 2). Her son Boaz then married a beautiful young Moabite widow (see the book of Ruth). It is more difficult to trace Bathsheba’s ancestry, but not impossible. 2 Samuel 11:3 states that Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite and the daughter of Eliam. 2 Samuel 23:34 states that Eliam is the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. Giloh is said to have been a city in the Judean hill country (Joshua 15:51), but Bathsheba had married a non-Israelite with no divine condemnation whatsoever. From Jesus Christ’s own ancestry we see the unimportance of ethnicity.
On Jews and Gentiles
We even find the unimportance of ethnicity to God when it comes to debates. Paul, in Galatians 2:11-16, comments that no one will be justified by the flesh and bluntly calls the refusal to fellowship and eat with Gentile brethren to be hypocrisy. There is no place for ‘segregation’ among the children of God. James himself in the debate at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15:16-17 understood that Gentile believers were one body with Jewish ones, by quoting Amos 9:11-12: “After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord who does all these things.” We see therefore that according to logic–law and argument, that God is not concerned with ethnicity, but rather with belief.
The Unimportance of Racial/Ethnic Origin In Scripture: Muthos
Likewise, we see the unimportance of ethnic/racial origin in the eyes of God through stories. In fact, there are far too many stories in the scripture that demonstrate this truth, though many of them have been referenced above regarding the “logic” of scripture, and many of them have also been previously examined in this blog. In the interests of brevity, let us examine the truth of the unimportance of ethnicity to God through stories, poetry, and prophecy.
Better To You Than Seven Sons
There are several stories that reveal the truth of God’s lack of concern with ethnicity. In the story of Judah and Tamar (see Genesis 38), Judah is forced to admit that Tamar, a Canaanite woman who bore children for Judah out of wedlock and had pretended to be a prostitute, was more righteous than he (Genesis 38:26). Naaman, a leprous Syrian general, was brought to a genuine faith in God through the work of Elisha the prophet (see 2 Kings 5, [2]). My favorite example, though, happens to be the book of Ruth (and not only because Ruth is my grandmother’s name), which tells the story of how a lovely and godly Moabite widow became an ancestress of David through a levirate marriage with Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer (and a type of Jesus Christ), and close relative of her deceased husband [3]. In all of these cases the ethnic origin of the believer is irrelevant, and the believer is considered to be a full Israelite no matter their ethnic origin.
This One Was Born There
Additionally, two psalms deal specifically with the issue of Gentile believers being counted as Israelite. One of them is Psalm 87, one of the psalms of the Sons of Korah [4]. Psalm 87: 4-6 reads: “I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to those who know me; Behold, O Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia: ‘This one was born there.’ And of Zion it will be said, “This one and that one were born in her; and the Most High Himself shall establish her.” The Lord will record, when He registers the peoples: “This one was born there.”
Likewise, Psalm 117, a psalm that Jews sing every single year at their Seder, reads as follows: “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples! For His merciful kindness is great toward us, and the truth of the Lord endures forever. Praise the Lord!” This psalm, which should be very familiar to Jews because of its use as part of the Haggadah, explicitly claims that the lovingkindness and covenant loyalty of God applies to Gentiles as well as Jews. There is no partiality with God–all who believe are counted as children of Israel.
The Gentiles Shall Come To Your Light
We have already seen the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 quoted that the Gentiles among those who call on the name of God will be established as part of Israel in the rebuilt ‘tabernacle’ of God. This is not the only prophecy to refer to Gentile believers, though. Isaiah 60:1-3 states: “Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. for behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and deep darkness the people; but the Lord will arise over you, and His glory will be seen upon you. The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.”
Isaiah 19:23-25 specifically refers to the salvation of the Gentile peoples of Egypt and Assyria: “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria–a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.” These verses leave no room for ‘racial’ pride on the part of the children of Israel, for they point to God being the father of all.
Conclusion
We have seen, therefore a vivid and clear example that God speaks the same truths through a variety of means so that mankind is left without excuse. Whether one reads the law, follows genealogies, takes notes of the important sermons and debates within the Bible, reads the moving stories of Ruth or Naaman or Tamar, closely studies the Psalms, or is a prophecy buff, the truth that God is calling and has always worked with all people regardless of their ethnic origin is a truth accessible in the scripture to all with an eye to read and an ear to hear. Therefore, those who believe in kinist heresies are without excuse according to the truths expressed in scripture by means of either muthos or logos.
[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-truths-of-muthos-and-logos-in-scripture/
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Nathan,
Really interesting!
I’m curious — what do you say to the story of Jesus telling the Greek woman who begs Him to drive demons from her daughter: “First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she replies, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
Then He tells her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.” (Mark 7:27-29, NIV)
Thanks so much, Carley
LikeLike
I’d say it was a test of her faith, and a setup of his disciples. This is better understood when reading the parallel account in Matthew 15:21-28. Matthew 15:23b reads: “And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” And after she has wisely and humbly answered that even the dogs eat the crumbs from the table, Jesus’ reply is much more mild, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.”
What we see from this precise example is that Jesus’ disciples were much more influenced by the racist views of the time than Jesus himself. Witness, for example, the fact that Jesus conversed quite easily with a Samaritan woman, without any sort of embarrassment or ethnic hostility–a quality rare in his time (and ours–see John 4:1-38), commenting to the disciples after the experience of talking to the people of the village that the fields were ripe for the harvest of salvation–the fields including the hated Samaritans. There may also be another factor at work. We see from John 2:1-12 that Jesus gave what sounds like an initially negative response to the request of his mother to make wine for the wedding in Cana (“Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” Yet she rightly expects him to respond favorably (“His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”). And Jesus does indeed turn water into wine, despite what we would see looking at the dialogue alone as a negative, even rude response. Therefore, it appears at least possible that just as Jesus gave what looks like a rude reply with a mischievous twinkle in his eye to his mother, perhaps he did so as well to the Gentile woman of Matthew 15 and Mark 7, subtly encouraging her through nonverbal communication while giving her a superficially hostile response.
LikeLike
Nathan,
I like your “take” on Jesus — I like the idea that Jesus often (I presume) had a twinkle in His eye as He also sometimes appeared superficially hostile.
Jesus also appears — to me anyway — to be frankly honest. He doesn’t mince His words, but says exactly what is needed at exactly the right moment. For example, He corrects the Samaritan woman at the well, reminding her quite bluntly that she has had many men, not just one. Yet, He is tender to her offering her a drink of “living water”, i.e. Himself.
Thanks so much, Carley
LikeLike
Well, the “twinkle in the eye” is the easiest way to understand why a comment that would appear on the surface to be discouraging would be encouraging in reality, and especially helps explain how he communicated particularly effectively with women (his mother, the Samaritan woman, and the Syro-Phoenecian woman, to give three examples) while his disciples were caught flat-footed by his use of irony and failed to discern his indirect communication. That said, you are right that he was pretty blunt and direct as well many times, especially with the corrupt religious authorities of the time. He varied his approach depending on his audience, showing gentleness to the downtrodden and ferocious bluntness to the corrupt authorities among his people. I try to learn from the example and apply it for myself.
LikeLike
Pingback: Psalm 111: In The Assembly Of The Upright And In The Congregation | Edge Induced Cohesion
Pingback: Book Review: Sacred Stories | Edge Induced Cohesion