Some Honest Questions About Determining Race and Ethnicity

Left, U.S. Open women's singles champion Naomi Osaka poses for photographers with her trophy, Sunday, Sept. 9, 2018, in New York. Center, Former President Barack Obama speaks in Urbana, Ill., on Friday, Sept. 7, 2018. Right, Tiger Woods tees off at the 10th hole during the third round of the BMW Championship golf tournament in Newtown Square, Pa., Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018.

By Michael Brown Published on September 12, 2018

I don’t have an axe to grind. I’m not trying to prove a point. I’m simply looking for clarity. How do we determine the race or ethnicity of the child of mixed parents?

The reason I ask is that Naomi Osaka, the 20-year-old winner of the U.S. Open women’s champion, has been hailed as the first Japanese player to win a Grand Slam tennis event. For that achievement, there is much cause for celebration.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even thanked her on Twitter for “giving Japan a boost of inspiration at this time of hardship” (with reference to recent natural disasters).

But why isn’t she also being hailed as the first Haitian to win a Grand Slam tennis event? After all, her mother is Japanese but her father is Haitian, hence her unique appearance.

She was given her mother’s last name, Osaka, to make it easier for her as a child in Japan. But she certainly doesn’t look like your average Japanese person. (She also spent almost all of her life in America.)

Why, then, is she called Japanese? Does it go by the mother?

That certainly wasn’t the case with Tiger Woods, who is normally viewed as an African American. Yet his mother was from Thailand while his father was a black American. And while his eyes are not as pronouncedly as Asian as Naomi Osaka’s, he clearly shows his Asian heritage as well.

Why, then, isn’t he also hailed as a great Thai golfer?

What Makes a Person Black?

Again, I don’t have a point to prove or an argument to make. I’m simply trying to get clarity.

Osaka, with a Japanese mother and Haitian father, is primarily referred to as Japanese. Woods, with a Thai mother and a black American father, is primarily referred to as African American. (Woods’ father, to be exact, also had Asian and Native American blood.)

Am I missing something?

What about President Obama? He has made history as our nation’s first black president, and he is clearly not Caucasian. His wife is also black, as are their children. All that is clear.

But Obama’s mother was a white American — a Caucasian — while his father was Kenyan.

If we followed the example of Tiger Woods, then this would make sense. You go by the father, and Obama is therefore black (or, African American).

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

But that brings us back to Naomi Osaka. Why, then, isn’t she Haitian rather than Japanese? Or at the least, Haitian-Japanese? (That is not how she is normally referenced.)

If we go by skin color, then Tiger Woods is black, Barack Obama is black, and Naomi Osaka is black (at least, when compared to your average Japanese person).

What of the Role Social Issues Play?

Interestingly, the question of Tiger Woods’ blackness came up recently, but in a politically-charged context. The outspoken sports commentator Stephen A. Smith was upset with Woods for his failure to speak against President Trump.

In Smith’s view, Woods as a black man is duty-bound to speak out against Trump — but that’s only if he’s truly black.

Smith said,

First of all, we don’t know what Tiger Woods believes [about his own ethnicity]. He’s Cablinasian [the term Woods coined for himself]; he’s not black. When he got arrested, he was black. He was listed as black on the report. So let’s understand that. That’s the issue that the African-American community has always had, because always from a historical perspective, obviously if one-third of you has a darker hue, a darker pigmentation, the bottom line is you are black, and it is that simple.

Why, then, isn’t Naomi Osaka black? What am I missing here?

On the other hand, was Smith questioning Woods’ blackness when he was at the top of the sports world? (I’m not accusing. I’m asking.)

Smith noted that Woods has never wanted to disassociate himself from his mother’s ethnicity, so the golf great has always been clear about that. But Smith also feels that, since Woods is perceived to be a black man, he has a responsibility to speak out on certain social issues, to have a “social conscience.”

His failure to do so, according to Smith, has disappointed other black Americans. So, as far as his appearance, Woods is black, but as far as his social voice, he is not.

Can Someone Clarify?

This reminds me of some of my conservative, black colleagues. Their friends have told them they are not black enough, meaning, because they are conservative (and/or, Republican), they are not really black.

It would appear, then, that “black” also refers to political affiliation.

But that is another subject entirely.

For the moment, I’m just trying to find out why Barack Obama is black (or, African American) and Naomi Osaka is Japanese.

Can someone clarify for me?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Dave

    This guy places a lot of importance on trivial matters.

    • Ronky

      In fact this guy is pointing out that it is the media and other approved public commentators who have for some reason decided that Osaka must be referred to simply as “Japanese” 100% if the time and never as “Haitian” or “Japanese/Haitian” or “American” and he is merely asking why this is so important to them.

      He might have added that the umpire in the Open final is from Portugal and so in US terminology, “Hispanic” and therefore “non-white”(!) – and yet he was accused of racism against another “non-white”!

      • Dave

        I’ll bet you could discuss this like Lionel Ritchie, all night long. Have at it.

        • Ronky

          No, like the author, I’ll just put the questions out there and check back from time to time to see if anyone can come up with a rational answer. I won’t hold my breath though.

        • I bet you couldn’t…

        • William B Travis

          All night…All night…All night long…

  • Paul

    “For the moment, I’m just trying to find out why Barack Obama is black (or, African American) and Naomi Osaka is Japanese.

    Can someone clarify for me?”

    Because she decided that for herself and so far it is working sort of. I’m curious if she’s actually a naturalized American citizen.

    Since you’re trying to question ethnic/racial category terms (which delights me since I pretty much hate the whole melanin divisions), white is not synonymous with caucasian as you’ve made it here. Neither is it synonymous with anglo saxon. Scandinavians are neither, but are deemed white by those who demand such division.

    When do we get to judge people by their character instead of their skin shade? I thought that was the goal.

    • JohnYouAreSoCorrect

      And very few people who are classified as ‘white’ are actually white (millions of Asians are more white than millions of ‘white’ people).
      Millions of people who are called ‘black’ are in fact brown.
      Most who are called ‘red’ are really brown.
      And is anyone actually ‘yellow’?

      • Paul

        Jaundice makes people yellow, silver poisoning can make a person blue, albinos are as close to white as we get and there is melanism that makes a person as close to black as we get

  • Stephen D

    In Australia, apart from relatively recent immigrants, people are mostly either white (descended from colonists) or Aboriginal (descended from the original inhabitants). There are lucrative government welfare programs for Aboriginals, along with prestigious government and university posts earmarked for Aboriginals, and positions running Aboriginal enterprises.
    At present anyone who “identifies” as Aboriginal is classed as such. Most of those in that category are either half-caste (one white and one Aboriginal parent) or quarter-caste (the grandchild of one Aboriginal and three white people). As a result many of those who appear in the media as representatives of Aboriginals are practically white, and have none of the typical features of Aboriginal physiognomy.
    Often they are prominent Aboriginal activists. They will accuse the white population of (for example) massacring their ancestors. Ironically it never seems to occur to anyone, that often the majority of the accuser’s own ancestors were responsible (as themselves white colonists) for the alleged offences!

    • Andrew Mason

      Not exactly true. There are twice as many Chinese in Australia as Indigenous Australians and roughly as many Indians or Muslims. Yes I’m aware Muslim isn’t an ethnicity and that they come from scores of different countries but there is a unity of identity and their sum total is comparable. You’ve also overlooked the fact that there are Whites who identify as Aborigine and whose family identify as White. There was a court case a number of years ago where a left-wing judge ruled against a columnist who questioned the identity of assorted members of the intelligentsia who has benefited from the perks you mentioned as being available for those in cities who identify as Aborigine. Had Rachel Dolezal been Australian those who questioned her blackness would have been hauled up in front of a judge and punished. A while back one of those involved with the courtcase was involved in a public spat at their book tour with one of the columnists’ supporters. The really ironic thing was the person from the court case accused the supporter of racism – a white person attacking a black person, and yet the supporter actually was a quarter-breed or somesuch and could actually prove their Aboriginal ancestry unlike the one selling the book.

      Race really is a strange thing! 🙂

  • Andrew Mason

    Is Osaka Japanese though, or is she American? The family moved to the US when she was 3 and she’s lived there her entire life. She’s not fluent in Japanese nor is she pure bred – she’s consider hāfu, Japanese for half breed. Her grandfather had no contact with her mother for more than a decade upon learning his daughter was involved with a black man, though may now be proud of his granddaughter’s accomplishments. The fact she represents Japan in sports doesn’t make her Japanese, nor does it seem like young Japanese look at her as Japanese. The fact Whites and Polynesians have been and are employed in some sports shows being Japanese isn’t a requirement in representing the country.

    As for African- I find that a highly misleading term. I’ve known a number of Africans over the years, and the one thing they all had in common was white skin – one was even a red head!

    Race seems to be a very nebulous term. Historically it was based on pigmentation and features, but with miscegenation becoming increasingly common, and producing increasingly diverse and fascinating blends the old linguistic paradigm is breaking down. American is always safe as that’s a nationality, and the English are a mongrel race of assorted white ethnic groups that have interbred over the millennia, but what about Chinese? Do you have to be Han to be Chinese? Do the Uyghur count as Chinese, or does the fact they can have CaucasianWhite features, including redblond hair, mean they aren’t really Chinese? And what of black Africans e.g. Mondari, who frequently have low-rooted nasal bridges and accompanying Oriental (almond shaped) eyes? On the other hand it seems to be increasingly common for people to identify with a race they weren’t born to, and perhaps have no genetic basis to claim. Where race was once a semi-scientific concept it seems to increasingly be a political one. If that’s the case then Whites and Japanese can identify (or be identified) as Blacks, and Blacks who profess the wrong views can be deemed other despite their ancestry, skin pigmentation, and facial features. While we exist in that transition stage both definitions may be used and it will be left to the readerlistener to determine which definition is being used.

    • Nice synopsis of the situation. I think the ability for the human race to travel so easily and widely has contributed to the increasingly fluid concept of race, whatever it is.

  • Jed

    ” Race is a Social Construct ” according to Sociology and Cultural Anthropology.
    As such, “race” is an identity projected onto an individual (a minority) by a more powerful self-identified “majority” — or — Selected by an individual as his/her personal identity. This concept accounts for the dissonance between perception/appearance (physical) and country, heritage, parentage, economic status, political affiliation, etc etc.

    In short, confusion is the result of an attempt to fit a binary 1:1 correlation between physical appearance “race” and a social category.
    ————————————————-
    The above is my critique of current intellectual theory — I don’t intend it as “Truth.” Clearly, physical attributes are real, descriptive, inherited … which do not fit easily into any “racial classification” system, no matter how nuanced. The “Social Construct” school goes too far in denying a physical basis for race given the classification connundrum …. AND as one can see, “social construct” is a useful rhetorical device for accommodating ANY political narrative one chooses.
    ————————————————-

    • William B Travis

      The 1790 Naturalization Act, passed shortly after the ratification of the US Constitution, clearly says that only “free White persons of good character” could become citizens of the US.

      So much for the “social construct” theory.

      • Jed

        “Social Construct” Theory holds.
        You have provided prima facie proof of a self-identified racial and dominant majority projecting a different race identity onto less powerful minority or outsiders.

        • William B Travis

          That’s funny. You just completely failed to make an argument. You made an appeal to “prima fascie” evidence which you failed to cite.

          1. The first Congress of the United States of America passed a citizenship law wherein only “free white persons of good character” could become citizens.

          2. The United States Census asks all citizens to provide their race and has for as long as it has been in existence

          The FBI reports crime statistics by race. Most, if not all, universities ask for it on applications. Certain races are more prone to specific diseases than others, medical literature is filled with this. I could go on…

          Your attempts at using critical theory are an abject failure. Most black people will be happy to know, thanks to you, that there is no such thing as black enslavement since there is no such thing as black people . White people will be equally grateful to you since there is no such thing as “white oppression” or “white privilege”.

          The level of foolishness in the critical theory nonsense that you tried to apply unsuccessfully is revealed in this statement “onto less powerful minority or outsiders”.

          Please tell us, which “less powerful” minorities or “outsiders” are you referring to specifically?

          Probably worst of all is that you just tried to argue for Jews being a race of people in another comment which completely undermines your critical theory gaslighting of race as a social construct in your other posts .

          • Jed

            Last things first.
            In the comment on Jews, I didn’t use the word “race”
            but rather accurate references: “cultural inheritance” “cultural heritage” “cultural identity” “family history” “descent of modern Jewry” “common male ancestor”

            First things last.
            A “social construct theory” and “critical theory” are different concepts; and certainly ” a critique of social construct theory” is not the same as “critical theory”
            ————————————-
            You and I agree on more than perhaps you realize.
            If you (care to) read my posts a bit more carefully, you may realize that.

          • William B Travis

            🙂 I did. You may want to re-read your own post(s) and/or think through their implications.

            “The descent of modern Jewry is attested by cultural inheritance AND DNA.”

            “ACTUAL GENETIC descendants of Abraham”

            “common male ancestor”

            Let’s see. So, science (DNA) indicates that a certain group of people just so happens to have specific, shared biological marker(s) indicating common ancestry. And it just so happens that that same group of people is referred to as Jews, the biological descendants of Abraham. Just think of the implications!

            Your linguistic gymnastics aside (“I didn’t use race”), your own attempts at argument establish race. If biological evidence points to someone being a direct descendant from a race of people known as Jews (John 8:33, 37) then let’s take a stab at what race that person descends from?

            Here are some bonus questions to chew on over the weekend.

            If someone’s DNA indicated African descent, what color would you imagine that person to be, Jed?

            If someone’s DNA indicated descent from Europe, what color would you imagine that person to be?

          • Jed

            I still suspect we are in more agreement than you realize. Race really is an ambiguous concept. “Linguistic gymnastics” — also known as “diction” — I’m trying to avoid ambiguity in favor of phrases that more accurately convey my ideas. “Linguistic gymnastics” — could also refer to a charge of “rhetorical evasion.”

            So, I claim to have used proper diction in my comments, and now you are concerned about “implications.”

            But in an ongoing dialogue such as this, you really need not worry about “implications” — because you can just ask.

            For example:
            Statement: ” … identity. Not race. DNA doesn’t change the model.”
            Response: “Next joke, please.”
            ————————————————————–
            Seriously. Do you consider that respectful?
            Are we having a mature adult conversation, or not?
            ————————————————————–
            To address my suspicion that we agree, (and the unfortuante alternative that you may be a troll) … I’m requesting that you respond to your own questions, honestly and genuinely.

            “If someone’s DNA indicated descent from Europe, what color would you imagine that person to be?”

            “If someone’s DNA idicated African descent, what color would you imagine that person to be?”

  • Jed

    Mr. Brown — many universities have experienced a schism within a single Department of Anthropology over this very issue … divorcing into distinct departments of Physical Anthropology … and Cultural Anthropology. This may help give context, definition and boundaries i.e. an encapsulation of the very real, relevent and contentious questions you have addressed in this article.

    See: Stanford – 1998

  • monkeyup

    We are all children of God and leave it at that. To do other wise is to become part of a blood cult.

  • Marty Roth

    Interesting question.

    Insofar as Jews are concerned, Jews are not the true, racial descendants of Abraham, something which was proved by the National Geographic genome project. Jews like Shlomo Sand and Kevin Alan Brook in his book “The Jews of Khazaria” have throughly engaged this subject and come to similar conclusions that the Jews of today are not the racial descendants of Abraham.

    One need not look any further than the US Census to discover that race is a reality. As far as mixed-raced determination being a concern, that’s a red herring. Only 2% of the US population is considered mix race. If it came down to a concern for immigration policy then the same DNA science used to determine ancestry could be applied.

    The bottom line is that diversity is not a blessing to America, immigration needs to stop altogether & the millions of illegals need to be sent back to their countries, and the wall needs to be built.

    • Andrew Mason

      You make a lot of assertions, but supply no evidence to back it up. The claim that Jews are derived from the Khazars is a myth with no factual basis. Sand is of the radical Left and anti-Zionist whilst Brooks appears to be self employed peddler of his Khazaria concept. Neither would appear to have much authority.

      The US census is based on self identity not reality. You can choose to identify as any race you like, and could even change your mind each census. Since DNA is even more confused than appearance – Obama is of half White descent, he would be deemed mixed race rather than Black, that 2% would increase many times over. It’s entirely possible Whites would cease being a majority overnight given how many have have an Indian or Negro ancestor centuries back and thus could be classified as mixed race by ancestry.

      I agree that diversity isn’t the blessing that regressives claim it is, but I’d prefer a fact based argument against it.

      • Jed

        The descent of modern Jewry is attested by cultural inheritance and DNA.
        If a modern person claims Jewish cultural heritage because of family history, name, general appearance, whatever — no one can really question that.

        But within those modern people who claim Jewish ancestry …. Ashkenaz in northern and eastern Europe; Sephardic in southern Europe … and various minorities scattered about (the Lemba of east Africa)

        there is DNA evidence “the Cohanim Modal Haplotype” that points to a common male ancestor about 3500 years ago in the Middle East.

        Important to note that NOT ALL modern claimants of Jewish cultural heritage have the DNA, and some people DO have the DNA but not the cultural identity.
        But those that have both, suggests that actual genetic descendants of Abraham are present on the earth today, and they have managed to transfer that cultural knowledge down through all of those generations. Quite amazing, in fact.

        • William B Travis

          No such thing as Jews as an identifiable race of people, Jed. Remember, race is a social construct.

          Besides that, the national geographic genome project is widely known and well respected and demonstrates that the vast majority of Jews are of Turkic descent.

          Beyond that, it would be impossible for any Jew to prove descent from Abraham since any records that could be used to substantiate as much were destroyed milenia ago.

          • Jed

            Modern Jewish identity is just that — identity. Not race.
            The use of DNA doesn’t change the model.

            My critique of the “Social Construct” theory of race stands.
            Someone may want to label modern Jewish identity as a race, but it is not. In the case of the NatGeo project, they use that same concept to “demonstrate” that modern Jews aren’t who they say they are (whether Jews self-identify as a race or a culture).

            Finally, read up on the genetics. Resolution matters.
            The NatGeo project focuses on genetic markers calibrated to thousands – tens of thousands of years. Others are useful for 1-8 thousand years. And those used in ancestry / genealogy … a few centuries.

            The NatGeo project is indeed widely known … but not as widely respected … and certainly demonstrates NOTHING. It is an inductive process … that “indicates” very “general” “subject-to-change” “answers” to very “general” questions.

          • William B Travis

            “The use of DNA doesn’t change the model.”

            Next joke, please.

            Let’s see.. I can run an ancestry DNA test that says I’m 90% African.

            I wonder what the chances of that person being black are, Jed?

            Care to run the odds on that one?

      • Marty Roth

        You just made an assertion that you didn’t back up.

        The National Geographic genome project has already established beyond dispute that Jews are not the racial descendants of Abraham. The authors cited simply substantiate what science has already proven despite your attempts to discredit them with meaningless labels.

        “The US census is based on self identity not reality. You can choose to identify as any race you like, and could even change your mind each census”

        Tell that to doctors who says diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Or, who say that black Americans are three times more likely to die of asthma than white Americans. The argument that what I self-identify as isn’t reality is idiocy. I was born on a specific date, I enter that date. My birthdate is reality. Same goes with name, race, etc. I can put my name down as Santa Claus but that doesn’t make me Santa Claus.

        “Since DNA is even more confused than appearance”

        The only thing that is confused is you.

        “that 2% would increase many times over”

        You missed the entire point. The point was 2% of the entire US population identifies as mixed race, which 2% would naturally include Obama.

        “I agree that diversity isn’t the blessing that regressives claim it is, but I’d prefer a fact based argument against it.”

        Thanks for acknowledging your conclusion(s) on that matter aren’t based on reality or object analysis of situation. You can start your analysis by looking at crime statistics in the US as diversity has increased. You can also go look at the increase of crime in European countries like Sweden as the number of rapes has dramatically increased with the influx North Africa blacks.

        You just off’d yourself as a Hasbara troll BTW. What are they paying you guys these days?

        • Vincent J.

          Wow, you have a negative feel about you. Are you a Christian? Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

      • I don’t appreciate how Marty Roth misrepresented my viewpoint and how Andrew Mason blindly believed this misrepresentation. I never wrote that Ashkenazim don’t have any Israelite ancestry. The third edition of my book “The Jews of Khazaria” includes clearcut statements against the Khazar hypothesis and in favor of our Israelite ancestry on such pages as xiv, 204-205, 207-208, and 217. This is very different from Sand’s arguments. The genetic evidence is very obvious. Sand denies the new evidence, whereas I embrace it.

  • tz1

    You often talk about “Jews”, not merely as a religion but as an ethnicity. Consider Israel – is it for Jews (religious) or Jews (ethnic)? Your questions apply even more strongly there, and it doesn’t seem that you are so confused about who is or is not a Jew there.

    How can anyone be accused of anti-Semitism if the definition of “Semite” which is racial or ethnic?

    Either there are no races (including Semites, Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews or Palestinians), or there are.

    Either such matters or not. We are either all created equal or not (whatever it means).

    Africans v.s. Europeans (Caucasians) is a greater gap than Arabs – from Ismael – v.s. Israelis – from Isaac.

    Pick your poison. Total racial equality means Israel is an evil apartheid regieme (content of character), or racism is justified to some extent (not slavery, but the color of one’s skin or ancestry matters as a factor).

    • Andrew Mason

      If I recall the situation correctly Israel is the land for ethnically (racial) Jews rather than religious Jews, though don’t quote me.

      Anyone opposed to Jews or the Jewish nation is anti-Semiticanti-Jewish.

      Why is the situation binary? Why can’t race be a social construct which defines particular differences? Whether the racial difference is Jews v Arabs, or Republicans v Democrats, a difference does exist.

      Being created equal doesn’t mean differences don’t exist. Some are male, some are female, some have red hair, some have black, some are black skinned, some are white skinned, some are Jewish, and some are Gentile.

      Black Africans versus European may be genetically further apart than Jews and Arabs, but does that matter? What degree of difference is required?

      Why must one choose an extreme? Why isn’t a middle position appropriate?

      • Marty Roth

        There is no outstanding promise of land to the nation of Israel.

        The Jews were cutoff from covenant relationship with God for their rejection of Christ, whom they murdered.

        Matthew 21:43
        Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

        The Jews killed Christ (aka deicide) and God’s wrath has come upon them to the uttermost. Paul also says they are enemies of mankind.

        1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
        14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

        15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

        16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

        The death of Christ on the cross meant the ending of Old Covenant (God’s covenant with the Jewish people).

        Hebrews 8:13
        In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

        The end of that covenant meant the ending of all promises under that covenant. The Jews ceased to be God’s chosen people & all promises made to them were reduced to a pile of ashes with the ending of their covenant.

        The Jews theft of Israel & genocide of the Palestinian people has nothing to do with God. Its all a product of a political/criminal project (Zionism) launched in 1897 known at the First Zionist Congress where Jews decided they were going to steal Palestine from the Palestinian people.

        • Andrew Mason

          God’s promises don’t come with cutoffs. Conditions sure but not cutoffs. As for the Jews murdering Christ, sure you can make that claim, but the vast majority weren’t involved, and more importantly God chose to be there.

          As regards Matthew 21:43, that was directed at the chief priests and Pharisees not Jews in general.

          1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 does show the same degree of distinction but states that Jewish leaders persecuted the Jewish church.

          Your Hebrews 8:13 covenant states several verses earlier that God would establish a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah. The old covenant may indeed have been supplanted, but that is not the same as saying the Jews have been supplanted. The Jews remain God’s chosen people. Remember that Revelation for instance directly mentions them.

          Theft isn’t theft when it’s your own property. The Jews were evicted from their land by the Romans, and now they’ve reclaimed some of what God promised them. There has been no genocide against the Palestinian people. Nor should you refer to a Palestinian people as the Arabs concocted that identity mid to late twentieth century. The true Palestinians are the Jews – the term traces back the the Greek era when the Jews and Philistines lived in the land.

          • Marty Roth

            “God’s promises don’t come with cutoffs.”

            God’s promises are predicated upon covenant relationship. No covenant, no entitlement to promises.

            Hebrews 8:13
            In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

            That’s pretty simple. If you have no covenant, you have no basis for promises.

            “Conditions sure but not cutoffs.”

            The condition(s) for the Jews under the Old Covenant (law) was obedience (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 3:11, Romans 10:5, Mark 10:17-19), which obligation(s) they failed miserably (Romans 9:31).

            Heb 8:8-9
            8 For finding fault with them [Jews], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

            9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; BECAUSE THEY [Jews] CONTINUED NOT IN MY COVENANT AND I REGARDED THEM NOT, saith the Lord.

            This same language of God putting an end to the Old Covenant & the Jews being cutoff as God’s chosen people is echoed in Hosea 1:9-10, which very OT context is referred to by Paul in Romans 9:25-26 to establish the Jews being cutoff as God’s chosen people in favor of a new covenant people.

            Hosea 1:9
            Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye [Jews] are not my people, and I will not be your God.

            Romans 9:26
            …Ye [Jews] are not my people…

            As for your appeal “with the houses of Israel and Judah” Romans 9:6 & Galatians 6:16 establish the NT church as the true Israel, something which the following verse makes abundantly clear.

            Romans 9:8
            That is, They which are the children of the flesh [Jews, flesh & blood descendants of Abraham], these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise [Those in Christ] are counted for the seed [true seed of Abraham, Galatians 3:29].

            Next is this gem: “As regards Matthew 21:43, that was directed at the chief priests and Pharisees not Jews in general.As regards Matthew 21:43, that was directed at the chief priests and Pharisees not Jews in general.”

            No, it was directed at the nation of Israel, the Jews as a collective people, something which the previous verse makes abundantly plain, thereby establishing how Matthew 21:43 should be interpreted.

            Matthew 21:42
            Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone [Christ] which the builders [Jews] rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

            Paul further establishes that this was in reference to the Jews as a collective [“Israel”] in Romans 9:31-33.

            “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 does show the same degree of distinction but states that Jewish leaders persecuted the Jewish church.”

            Eisegesis. Please try reading the context next time. v. 16 plainly states “ forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved”

            Cambridge commentary has something interesting here: “As much as to say: ‘These Jews, if they had their way, would prevent us speaking a single word to you about the Gospel; they would willingly see all the Gentiles perish!’ This stamped them as enemies of the human race.”

            “Theft isn’t theft when it’s your own property.”

            For which argument there is ZERO legal basis. If the land belonged to the Jews then there would be no need for the UN Partition Plan of 1947 to grant a piece, the whole of which, according to your sophistry, was wholly the possession of the Jews.

            “There has been no genocide against the Palestinian people.”

            This is beyond dispute. Anyone looking on looking for the truth on this can just search YT for “Norman Finkelstein Gaza 70 years of Genocide” or “Norman Finkelstein The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. Human Rights statistics are readily available on that subject as are never-ending UN condemnations of Israel for that very thing.

          • Andrew Mason

            And again you misquote. In verse 8 of the same chapter it says “… the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,”. God promised Israel a new covenant, but your contention is what, that He lied?

            Yes and no. First you’re making the assumption that there was a single covenant in action, which isn’t the case. You have a long list of references, but are they relevant? Jews don’t recognise the NT, and it didn’t exist during OT times. Not all the references are relevant either. Romans 9:32 for instance notes that the Jews pursued the law as a matter of works rather than faith. They aren’t condemned for a failure to obey but a conflation of style over substance.

            What does the Jews failing to continue in the covenant mean? Does it refer to the judgements that befell Israel when they went astray? Does it reflect the idea that the Jews had stopped seeking God, something disproven by the existence of the Jewish church and the seekers and faithful duringprior to Christ’s ministry? According to various commentaries this passage may be interpreted as the ‘nation state’ had pursued other gods, apostatized, and substituted their own version of truth for Gods. Certainly that would be the case with the Pharisees, and with much of the Christian Church today.

            Yes God has at times past rejected Israel, though only after they have rejected Him, however that didn’t translate to a rejection of covenant promises. Consider, in verse 27 of Roman 9 Isaiah states that though the sons of Israel will be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved.

            Except Romans 9:8 does not make anything abundantly clear, in fact verse 6 and 7 explictly deny your contention. Not all those descended of Israel belong to Israel, not all the children of Abraham are counted as his offspring. There is Israel, and then there is if you will a spiritual Israel. Paul writes in verse 3-5 that it his kinsmen of the flesh – Jews, to whom belong the adoption, glory, covenants, giving of the law, worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and the racial kinship of Christ. It is only after he makes that point that he introduces the notion in verse 8 that a distinction exists between children by the flesh, and the children of God.

            In verse 23 Jesus enter the temple and was approached by the chief priests and the elders of the people whilst He was teaching. In verse 32 He states that you (the Pharisees etc) did not believe John the Baptist when he came but that the tax collectors and prostitutes – those outside the protection of God according to the elite, did, and in verse 31 He says that those same despised groups are entering the Kingdom of God and that the Pharisess have not. The Parable of the Tenants certainly could be read as a criticism of Israel, but follows the aforementioned Parable of the Two Sons demonstrating a distinction between individuals.

            And again I don’t see the solid connection you’re asserting. I presume you’re contending that stumbling stone = rejected stone.

            You presuppose that verse 16 has relevance. Paul was a Jew. Are you now contending that he opposed the gospel? Jew in this context means Jewish religious leaders and others under the infuence opposed to JesusChristianity rather than any and all those who may be identified as Jew.

            Ah law. So when the law makes Christianity unlawful ought we obey? The Jews largely lost control of their land in the 1st and 2nd century. The First Jewish–Roman War (66-73AD) saw more than a million Jews killed according to Josephus, with thousands of others being enslaved or fleeing to other areas around the Mediterranean. The Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 AD) largely saw the end of Israel as a Jewish nation with some scholars describing Roman efforts as genocidal. According to a Roman historian of the time 580,000 Jews were killed, with many more dying due to famine or disease, 50 fortified towns and hundreds of villages razed to the ground, and thousands of captives sold into slavery. In the aftermath Hadrian outlawed Toroah law, banned the Jewish calendar, executed Jewish scholars, replaced Judea and Israel with Syria Palaestina on maps, and banned Jews from Jerusalem. The goal was to destroy any association of Jews with Judea or Israel and forbid the practice of the Jewish faith. Though the diaspora started before the wars in question and continued after, the consequence of them was to see the majority of surviving Jews be found outside Israel, though Jews remained the largest single group in the land until perhaps as late as the early 5th century – others suggest they had lost their majority by the 3rd century.

            The UN Partition Plan of 1947 was about assigning control not simply a matter of law. Since the Arabs formed the majority occupying the land at the time, and the UN didn’t wish to dispossess them, some sort of partition was necessary.

            Finkelstein is a Far Left anti-Zionist verging on the anti-Semitic – yes I’m aware he’s also the son of Holocaust survivors. On his own site he’s argued that any two-state solution is unjust as it allows Israel to retain some control, but even a one state solution would be unjust so long as it allowed some Jewish ownership. Basically any Jew whose ancestors can’t trace their existence in the land back to the Bar Kokba Revolt or somesuch should be forced to leave. He denies this is ethnic cleansing but it’s little different to Hamas’ drive the Jews into the sea position. And while he denies the Jewish Right of Return he insists those Arabs born in Arab nations, but who are identified as Palestinian, have a right to return. In short he believes that Jews have no right to their own land, but that Arabs have a right to it instead. As for the Human Right statistics, why on Earth would you quote those? The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has within its own membership some of the worst offenders against human rights, and yet has spent more resolutions in attacking Israel than all other countries combined.

            If you’re going to quote something or someone you need to do so accurately, and rely on a reasonable source.

          • Marty Roth

            “And again you misquote. In verse 8 of the same chapter it says ‘… the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,”. God promised Israel a new covenant, but your contention is what, that He lied?’

            Heb 8:8
            For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

            I know this is probably hard for you to understand, but there’s this thing called translations. In these things called translations there are differences in the English language for a given verse.

            Now, see if you can follow me.

            The above verse I just cited is from the KJV and it says, “Behold, the days come”.

            In the NKVJ it is rendered as “Behold, the days are coming”.

            Catch that? So, its the translation’s particular rendering of a verse, which, hopefully you’ve gathered by now, is not a “misquote”.

            Take the weekend to meditate on that if you need to. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

            “Romans 9:32 for instance notes that the Jews pursued the law as a matter of works rather than faith.”

            That’s not what the context says. You can’t pursue the law by faith.

            “They aren’t condemned for a failure to obey but a conflation of style over substance.”

            That’s meaningless. They’re also condemned in Hebrews 8:9 for not obeying.

          • Andrew Mason

            Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you really this obtuse? It doesn’t matter which translation you use – with the exception of something like The Message, all state something akin to “… I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”. Either God committed to a new covenant with Israel, and then didn’t do it making Him a liar, or Israel retains a covenant relationship with God. Which is it?

            The context is Gentiles received righteousness via faith, but the Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness failed to do so as they pursued it as a matter of works rather than faith.

            Actually Hebrews 8:9 is derived from Jeremiah 31 in which the Jews are condemned for breaking the covenant with the Lord, but in later verse God declares that Israel will never cease to be a nation before Him despite everything they have done.

            You are changing the boundaries. I never contended Jews are born children of God, I argued that Jews are born of Israel – the Chosen people of God. I explicitly stated that you have Israel and what you might term a spiritual Israel.

            Belong may not be in the Greek text, but it definitely appears to be in keeping with it. Feel free to suggest an alternative translation if you like. As for race not being relevant to salvation, so what? I never argued that it was.

            Paul doesn’t actually name anyone in verse 33. I read it as a reference to Jesus, but the text doesn’t actually state that.

            As previously mentioned, the Romans exterminated a large proportion of the Jews living in Israel, enslaved others, and still more fled to other regions. As the state passed from Roman to Eastern RomanByzantine control they became a minority, and then the land was conquered and occupied by Muslim Arabs with control passing between various Muslim regimes and finally ending up under Turkish control. According to one source there were only about 300,000 people living in the entire country at the start of the 19th century, of which 90% were Muslim Arabs, about 10% Christian Arabs, and less than 3% Jews. Yes I’m aware this adds up to more than 100% – the figures are rough. With Turkey’s defeat in WWI by the Allies control passed to Britain which had committed to re-establishing a Jewish homeland. It was initially unclear what numbers would be involved so the declaration of a Jewish home rather than a Jewish state was deliberately ambiguous, but leaving the door open to migration organically leading to a Jewish majority and a Jewish state. As some British officials stated Arab countries should be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews.

            Um no he’s really not from my brief read up on him. He’s a hero of the Left and of anti-Semites, but no hero.

            What relevance does the UN have to granting legitimacy? Taiwan is a fully functioning nation state and its government has been operating for over a hundred years. Despite this the UN refuses to recognise them as a legitimate state and instead treats them akin to Arab Palestine or Vatican City. Furthermore the Arab invasion of Israel, and its subsequent defeat provided further grounds in establishing Israel, and delegitimizing the concept of Arab Palestine – a nation which has never existed despite copious references to it.

          • Marty Roth

            “Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you really this obtuse? It doesn’t matter which translation you use – with the exception of something like The Message”

            You’re embarrassing yourself now.

            You originally said, “And again you misquote. In verse 8 of the same chapter it says “… the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,”

            Wonder what the definition of “misquote” might be?

            misquote (v.) – quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately:

            Did I quote the verse exactly as it is in the KJV? Answer: Yes. So, it wasn’t misquoted.

            “The context is Gentiles received righteousness via faith, but the Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness failed to do so as they pursued it as a matter of works rather than faith.”

            The scripture doesn’t support the “Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness”. In fact, it explicitly says that God never intended righteousness to be found via the law (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 3:24), the law was given that sin might abound (Romans 5:20, Galatians 3:19). Christ is a lamb slain BEFORE THE FOUNDATION of the world which means God never intended righteousness to be found under the law. Think.

            “I never contended Jews are born children of God, I argued that Jews are born of Israel – the Chosen people of God. I explicitly stated that you have Israel and what you might term a spiritual Israel.”

            More equivocation from you. Romans 9:8 plainly says the the Jews ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD.

            Romans 9:8
            That is, They which are the children of the flesh [the Jews], these ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: but the children of the promise [those in Christ] are counted for the seed.

            Its evident you aren’t very conversant with scripture, at least on the level that you should be.

            “Belong may not be in the Greek text, but it definitely appears to be in keeping with it. Feel free to suggest an alternative translation if you like. As for race not being relevant to salvation, so what? I never argued that it was.”

            Hosea 1:9
            Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye [Jews] are not my people, and I will not be your God.

            Romans 9:26
            …Ye [Jews] are not my people…

            So much for covenant pertinence/adoption.

            “Paul doesn’t actually name anyone in verse 33. I read it as a reference to Jesus, but the text doesn’t actually state that.”

            Romans 9:33
            As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

            “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

            Wonder who that might be? lol. Santa Claus, perhaps?

            “As previously mentioned, the Romans exterminated a large proportion of the Jews living in Israel, enslaved others, and still more fled to other regions.”

            Which bears no relevancy whatsoever on who has legal title to the land. What the Romans did to the Jews was the judgment of God upon Israel for its rejection and murder of Christ. Jesus prophesied those very judgments in Matthew 24 & Matthew 21:41.

            “What relevance does the UN have to granting legitimacy?”

            More humor. Who was it that the Jews approached as the legitimate vehicle for pursuing Jewish statehood, again?

            Your lying is getting boring. Based on your consistent gaslighting comment history on Stream beginning back on 07/07/2017 its abundantly clear your a paid propagandist. And a poor one at that.

            “the concept of Arab Palestine – a nation which has never existed despite copious references to it.”

            And yet you could fly KLM airlines to Palestine back in 1931 and the Balfour Declaration explicitly mentions “Palestine”.

            You need to look for a new job.

          • Marty Roth

            “Are you being deliberately disingenuous or are you really this obtuse? It doesn’t matter which translation you use – with the exception of something like The Message”

            You’re embarrassing yourself now…

            You originally said, “And again you misquote. In verse 8 of the same chapter it says “… the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,”

            Wonder what the definition of “misquote” might be?

            misquote (v.) – quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately:

            Did I quote the verse exactly as it is in the KJV? Answer: Yes. So, it wasn’t misquoted.

            “The context is Gentiles received righteousness via faith, but the Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness failed to do so as they pursued it as a matter of works rather than faith.”

            The scripture doesn’t support the “Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness”. In fact, it explicitly says that God never intended righteousness to be found via the law (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 3:24), the law was given that sin might abound (Romans 5:20, Galatians 3:19). Christ is a lamb slain BEFORE THE FOUNDATION of the world which means God never intended righteousness to be found under the law. Think.

            “I never contended Jews are born children of God, I argued that Jews are born of Israel – the Chosen people of God. I explicitly stated that you have Israel and what you might term a spiritual Israel.”

            More equivocation from you. Romans 9:8 plainly says the the Jews ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD.

            Romans 9:8

            That is, They which are the children of the flesh [the Jews], these ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: but the children of the promise [those in Christ] are counted for the seed.

            Its evident you aren’t very conversant with scripture, at least on the level that you should be.

            “Belong may not be in the Greek text, but it definitely appears to be in keeping with it. Feel free to suggest an alternative translation if you like. As for race not being relevant to salvation, so what? I never argued that it was.”

            Hosea 1:9

            Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye [Jews] are not my people, and I will not be your God.

            Romans 9:26

            …Ye [Jews] are not my people…

            So much for covenant pertinence/adoption.

            “Paul doesn’t actually name anyone in verse 33. I read it as a reference to Jesus, but the text doesn’t actually state that.”

            Romans 9:33

            As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

            “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

            Wonder who that might be? lol. Santa Claus, perhaps?

            “As previously mentioned, the Romans exterminated a large proportion of the Jews living in Israel, enslaved others, and still more fled to other regions.”

            Which bears no relevancy whatsoever on who has legal title to the land. What the Romans did to the Jews was the judgment of God upon Israel for its rejection and murder of Christ. Jesus prophesied those very judgments in Matthew 24 & Matthew 21:41.

            “What relevance does the UN have to granting legitimacy?”

            More humor. Who was it that the Jews approached as the legitimate vehicle for pursuing Jewish statehood, again?

            Your lying is getting boring. Based on your consistent gaslighting comment history on Stream beginning back on 07/07/2017 its abundantly clear your a paid propagandist. And a poor one at that.

            “the concept of Arab Palestine – a nation which has never existed despite copious references to it.”

            And yet you could fly KLM airlines to Palestine back in 1931 and the Balfour Declaration explicitly mentions “Palestine”.

            You need to look for a new job.

          • Andrew Mason

            If you check a thesaurus you’ll see quoting out of context is listed as one variation for misquoting. You quoted a particular passage to make a point whilst ignoring a nearby verse that destroyed your claim.

            Feel free to quibble over my phrasing but that exact passage is “Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.”

            And again you’re arguing I point I didn’t raise.

            Again quoting completely out of context. The rest of Hosea 1 recognises the Jews as God’s people.

            Okay. Except Turkey was stripped of its legal control of the land and whilst Britain had control it intended only temporary administration not permanent control. That means a void existed. While your Matthew 24 point about the destruction of the Temple certainly fits, your Matthew 21 point contending the parable should be read as prophecy is somewhat more of a stretch. You also ignore the fact that if God’s judgement resulted in Israel losing their land, then it stands to reason that God’s judgement also saw the restoration of Israel.

            Britain. The UN didn’t exist in the early days.

            My lying? Sorry think you’re confusing me with someone else. And no clue what the 07/07/2017 reference is to. If I am a paid propagandist then someone’s certainly late with their payment!!! I’d also love to know who is supposed to be paying me – Israel, the Koch brothers, Soros …?

            Most of us didn’t fly KLM back then. Besides, Palestine is a term used for the region dating back to the Greek era. It’s a bit like you can talk about Formosa, Taiwan, and the Republic of China. All pretty much the same place, just different terms.

            Since I visit here for pleasure not payment, I think not.

          • Marty Roth

            “If you check a thesaurus you’ll see quoting out of context is listed as one variation for misquoting.”

            Wow. So a Thesaurus now lists full definitions instead of words? Cool. Can’t wait to see this. Link?

            “And again you’re arguing I point I didn’t raise.”

            Did you say, “the Jews who had the law and should have found righteousness failed to do so as they pursued it as a matter of works rather than faith.”

            Answer: Yes. BTW, pursuing righteousness by the law and “as a matter of works” is the same thing.

            “The rest of Hosea 1 recognises the Jews as God’s people.”

            What rest of Hosea 1? lol. There are only 2 more verses. Beside that, Paul exegesis of the closing verses of Hosea 1 (Romans 9:25-26) establishes that its talking about the Jews no longer being God’s covenant people.

            “You also ignore the fact that if God’s judgement resulted in Israel losing their land, then it stands to reason that God’s judgement also saw the restoration of Israel.”

            That would stand to reason if they have a covenant, which they don’t.

            As for the 07/07/2017 reference that’s when you began your comment gaslighting campaign on Stream which closely approximates the Christian Zionist flavor of your comments elsewhere. Go look at your comment history on Stream and you’ll find it began on 07/07/2017.

          • Andrew Mason

            Try https://www(dot)freethesaurus(dot)com/misquote

            From memory your claim was that all Jews are the Children of God. This argument has gone on too long, with each post being far too long, for me to want to attempt to scroll back and confirm though. It certainly didn’t pertain to the Jews, righteousness and the law, though possibly you didn’t mean to associate the two bits.

            Not … exactly. The Jews has the law and keeping it was a way of serving God. Post-Mosaic Law we know that good works in and of themselves aren’t righteousness, that the emphasis is on faith. While faith took precedence OT too, it wasn’t emphasized in the same fashion.

            There are 11 verse in Hosea 1, you only reference one of them. No Paul makes no such exegesis. His Romans comment references 2 sections of Hosea and the passage from 2:23 which he applies to the Gentiles was originally applied to wayward Israel. I’m not contesting his usage but yours.

            I contend that God continues to have a covenant with them, but you raise an interesting point, what verse has God promising a restored Israel? Note I don’t see this necessarily being restricted to NT verses as any prophetic verse e.g. Daniel would suffice. Isaiah 27 or 66 for instance are OT, and Daniel 9 is likewise suggestive. Revelation 11 references a restored temple which, while not requiring a restored Israel, is hard to explain without it given the mosque currently occupying the Temple area. In Acts 1 Christ implies that Israel will be restored but doesn’t express when or under what circumstances – “it is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” Similarly Acts 15, quoting Amos 9, talks of the rebuilding of the ruins of David’s boothtentsheltertabernacle. Something like Luke 21:20-24 is perhaps most explicit. Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies and made desolate, those in Judea should flee, and during the time of vengeance Jews will be slaughtered and enslaved. Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Now that Israel controls Jerusalem Gentiles are no longer able to trample it underfoot. Is our time done?

            I still find that comment bizarre! My profile is set to private – I’ve no interest in being stalked, so you ought to be incapable of seeing past comments without engaging in extracurricular activities. I’ve also made enough comments that backtracking my entire history is … troublesome. From what I can tell though your 07/07/2017 comment is pure fantasy. As for Christian Zionist comments elsewhere, while I appreciate being identified as a Christian Zionist, what comments elsewhere? Are you meaning some non-Stream site? As for gaslighting, no clue what you’re on about, unless that’s a Freudian slip and you’re trying to push a non-reality based version of the past?

        • Kevin Carr

          Will yo go to your Bible and rip out Romans chapters 9-11. Nine deals with Israel’s past, 10 the present, and 11 Israel’s future. The promises about Israel being the apple of God’s eye and it’s future were unconditional as was the Abrahamic covenant.

          • Marty Roth

            Romans 9 establishes that true Israel is the NT church (Romans 9:6), that Jews are NOT the children of God (Romans 9:8), and that near next to nothing of the Jewish people would be numbered among God’s new covenant people (Romans 9:27, 29).

            Romans 10 expands on so few Jews would be numbered among God’s new covenant people. Namely, that they have rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            Romans 11 corrects the notion that Jews might be altogether cut off from the possibility of salvation because of their rejection of Christ, Paul citing himself as an example (Romans 11:1-2). It further explains that the sovereign plan of God for humanity is for the “fulness of the Gentiles” to be saved along with a small remnant of Jews, something which Paul had already established in Romans 9:27, 29.

            At no point in Romans 11 does Paul makes any assurance that some mass of Jews would be saved.

            Romans 11:14
            If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

            “IF by any means..” “MIGHT save some”. Clearly not language of assurance (IF, MIGHT).

            Romans 11:23
            And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again

            “IF they abide not still in unbelief”. Again, clearly not language of assurance.

            Its abundantly clear that Romans 11 has NOTHING to do with some mass, endtime, ingathering of the Jews. Romans 11:5 proves this.

            Romans 11:5
            Even so then AT THIS PRESENT TIME also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

            Paul is not referring to some future occurrence, he’s explaining the state of affair in HIS DAY (“at this present time”).

      • tz1

        Is Apartheid evil?
        Why are white – European and American ethno-nationalists condemned as neo-Nazis for not wanting Somalis, Arabs, or Afghanis in their country raping their women?
        Race is either genetic or cultural, but either way, I don’t care to have a large number of rapists that don’t see anything wrong with it from Africa or Afghanistan living near me.

        • Andrew Mason

          In theory or in practice? I recall one woman saying years ago that ending apartheid in South Africa was a mistake. I presume her reasoning was that giving power to those who formerly had none and continue to lack education, wealth, opportunities etc simply sets the scene for more problems. Given the SA government is now talking of stealing White land, of creating White refugees, and destroying SA’s food security, her comment seems enlightened if controversial.

          Condemned by whom? If anti-White bigots condemn folk for not wanting to see their countries collapse I don’t see that as a problem. The real problem is the prevalence of such bigotry.

          If race is cultural then you could take a Black baby and raise it White, or conversely give away a White baby and have a Black raised – yes I’m making assumptions here. That person may identify as the race they’re raised as, but does identity=race? And given the genetic mixing now occurring how do we define race? I’ve friends in White-AsianAsian-White marriages for instance. How do you determine the race of their kids? Call them Coloured as in South Africa – arguably accurate given their 50:50 genetics, or identify them by how they look?

    • William B Travis

      Excellent post.

  • It is called; convenient hypocrisy…

  • HugoandBecky Morales

    That is an excellent observation and a nice deviation from the heavier issues surrounding us at the moment. Could it not be that the bi-racial individual has the privilege of dual race and the privilege to identify as both? Or maybe it should not even matter, and we can champion their success based on exactly that, their success and not their ethnicity or race. Let both races applaud their success. SMH

  • Priscilla Freeman-Miller

    Japanese is a Nationality, folks. Her story has both Japan and Haiti proud by way of her parents. BUT, Osaka is registered under the Japanese Tennis Association by her parents. “We made the decision that Naomi would represent Japan at an early age,” Osaka’s parents said in an email. “She was born in Osaka and was brought up in a household of Japanese and Haitian culture. Quite simply, Naomi and her sister Mari have always felt Japanese so that was our only rationale. It was never a financially motivated decision nor were we ever swayed either way by any national federation.” …Even though tennis is an individual sport, there is a lot of pride in a player’s country, especially for events like the Fed Cup and the Olympics. Shinji Yoshikawa, the JTA coach for the women’s national team, was at the U.S. Open to watch Osaka’s final, but not in her box in the stands.”

    “She chose us,” said Mari Sakamoto, a representative of the JTA. “All the staff in the JTA are so excited. We are very proud to have Naomi as a Japanese player.” Source: Wall Street Journal 9/12/18

  • Mikaela

    This is all another example of a fact that has been kept from millions of ignorant people for decades yet has always been clear enough for those who do the biological and historical research: Race is a social construct! We created it! That’s why it doesn’t make sense in so many situations! There are not actually different categories, kinds, or races of human beings! We all have different genes and different phenotypes but there is absolutely nothing factual to justify choosing some of those phenotypes to separate some humans from others! When we see someone with blonde hair no one suggests that’s a whole different type of person who should be considered wholly different from someone with red hair, for example, but when someone has skin a few shades darker we act like they must be a whole different sort! It’s all based on faulty reasoning from as far back as the Scala Naturae of the medieval ages. If you won’t accept this please do the research first!

    • Marty Roth

      lol. Mikaela. Sure. 7 AM in Jerusalem now, huh? Up pretty early aren’t you?

  • pseudo-intellectual

    Down with the phrase “people of color.”

    Meaningless, as “white” is a color too,

    Just a virtue-signalling excuse for racism.

  • Hebrewhelena

    Great post, Dr Michael Brown!!

Inspiration
No Room for Christ at the Inn
The Stream
More from The Stream
Connect with Us