Race and Confusion (4)

Church officers are confusing the people of God by changing the meaning of 'race', replacing it with the word 'culture,' and coining the ambiguous phrase 'people group.'

Introduction

A big part of the fame of Abbot and Costello came from their well-known skit, “Who’s on first?”¹ It is a classic example of “talking past one another.” The words are heard, they enter the ears, but the meaning is not understood.

This skit is a helpful illustration to describe the confusion that exists today among Christians debating the issues of race. In today’s discourse a large part of the confusion arises because church officers are changing the meaning of race, replacing it with the word culture, and coining the ambiguous phrase people group. In the end, I’m afraid that an actual shift in thought has occurred and not just the words we use to describe them. I suppose the Protestant Church could stop using the word sacrament to describe the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, but that would be unhelpful because the church has used it for centuries and it is well understood—although not being found itself in our English Bibles.

Either way, one reason why you should consider pondering the racial conflict of today is due to how much confusion there is on the issue. This confusion needs to be cleared up so that we can proceed with a meaningful discussion and arrive at a reasonable solution.

In this article I will do three things. First, I will describe the confusion that currently exists by using a few men as a sampling of those who are contributing to the confusion. Second, I will demonstrate the historical use of the term race in American and western society from well-respected authors which demonstrate the historic understanding of the term. Third, I will provide a biblical explanation for race according to the historic and second usage of the word. I understand the term race to mean both: (1) the common brotherhood of all men as part of the one human race (2) and also the different people we see around the globe that come from different ancestry or lineage (Black, White, etc).

Part 1 – Confusion in the church

We now turn to the first section. Consider five points regarding the confusion in today’s public forum on race.

1. There is confusion over whether race is a biological reality.

I remember a conversion I had with a sincere young Christian man who was very bothered by Michael Spangler’s articles on Christian Race Realism.² I told him how, in some corners, the church was denying the existence of human races and that others in the visible church were bothered by the new trend. He turned his head and said, “What? People are denying the existence of human races?” I said, “Yeah, there are some people that are denying the reality of race – like that White people and Black people are from different races of men. Instead, they insist that there is only one race—the human race and that this is the only proper way to use the term.” He looked at me with a confused face. He then made a comment about how human races are self-evident and that obviously there are biological differences among mankind that warrant the use of such a term. This man firmly understood that race was a biological reality and yet, he was also firmly opposed to Mr. Spangler’s articles.

The reason why this personal anecdote is important is because it captures what was historically a common consensus but is now fading. People used to believe their “lying eyes”, but now they trust the “experts.” Some of my readers, especially if you are unaware of the current debate on race issues, would be surprised to hear that there are credentialed teachers in the church denying that race is a biological reality. But I am afraid to say—this confusion exists.

Dr. David VanDrunen, a theological professor at Westminster Seminary in California, wrote an article back in 2021. He said:

“Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word, is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality. The human community simply is not divided into half-a-dozen (or whatever) racial groups united by distinct genetic markers or a common culture.”³

It is important to note that he admits that there is a history of usage agreeable to the second part of my definition above when he writes, “… in the typical American sense of the word...” This is telling. Furthermore, it is alarming to me that this man is still followed by many as a faithful expositor of God’s word. This teaching is nonsense and is confusing the people of God. Whatever percentage of biological difference experts attribute to the human races, that difference is enough to account for what we see around the world with our “lying eyes.”⁴

2. There is confusion on whether race is a practical reality.

Many others refrain from going as far as VanDrunen. They will affirm the reality of biological difference, but in their manner of speaking, they deny that this difference has any practical significance and assert that the term should be abandoned. Therefore, they deny the existence of race in practice. They will refuse to use the term race to describe a subcategory of mankind and firmly insist that there is only one race—the human race. Of course, it is true that there is only one human race and that usage of the term is well established. The point is that they deny the second usage of the term.

For example, Owen Strachan, a popular theological professor and writer, said:

“We are all one human race. We were made one human race from the beginning. Every person is an image bearer... Every one of every skin color is equally an image bearer... We are all different shades of melanin. We are one human race. We are not different races. Acts 17:26—we are one human race.”⁵

Pastor Darrell Harrison said:

“I have a one verse apologetic for you against the idea, the worldly idea of race. One verse. It is Acts 17:26…. It says, ‘and he,’ that is God, ‘made from one man,’ that one man being Adam, ‘Every Nation on the face of the earth.’ That word ‘nation’ in the Greek is not speaking about geographical boundaries...that word in the Greek is the word ‘ethnos’ from where we get the word ethnic… It is ethnicity. It is not race.”⁶

Unfortunately, his argument does not follow (non sequitur). No person in this debate denies the idea of nations. It is a question regarding the idea of race. He would need to provide further analysis. The comment generated a hearty applause from the crowd, but the more discerning understand that he has not proved his point.

Pastor Voddie Baucham said in a popular sermon on YouTube:

“There is only one race. There has always been one race. There will always be one race—all descended from Noah, who was descended from Adam. There is but one race.... Stop using race as a category. If you believe Genesis 10... why would we ever use race as a category? ... I despise being called African-American. I believe it is a racist term... There is less than a 0.2% genetic difference between any two people in this room. ... We are all the same color. The color in your skin and the color in my skin all comes from the same chemical—it is called melanin.”⁷

There are three things to note about Rev. Baucham’s quotation. First, he did not completely deny all biological difference. Second, he commanded the audience to not use the term. Ironically, he still refers to racism—as if that is a thing—but how can there be racism if race does not exist? Maybe we should call it Ethnicisim? Third, he denied the historic second use of the term race along with Strachan and Harrison.

In the end, I find all these men to be unhelpful and confusing. No orthodox Christian denies the unity of the race as one species created equally in the image of God. But to urge Christians to stop using this term today in its second meaning, as it has been commonly used in the past, is confusing. Their methodology is a practical denial of the reality of race. I suspect the common person on the street proves wiser than the “educated elite” on this matter.

3. There is confusion over the term “people group.”

I have noticed a strong tendency among preachers to use the term people group instead of race. The problem with this phrase is that it is ambiguous and frequently takes equivocal meanings by the same speaker in the same context. In other words, some men recognize the reality of the second usage of term race, but instead of using the historic term, switch to a new term—people group.

Dr. Frank Smith, in his book Race, Church and Society, defends both uses of the term race as I described above, but is still unclear. He writes:

“This book began by discussing the whole idea of what is meant by the term ‘race.’ It was noted that, properly speaking, ‘race’ refers to all of mankind, but that the term can also be used in a metaphorical way to refer to a subset of humanity, such as with respect to ethnicity. These various ‘races’ or, better yet, people groups, though sharing a common humanity via common parentage of Adam and Eve, nevertheless are distinct, having been established by God.”⁸

If Dr. Smith would like to use the phrase people group and the term race synonymously, he has that right. However, the confusing part is that he also uses the phrase people group in his book to describe a different idea. In the following quote, the phrase seems to be synonymous with nation and tribe:

“One does not have to accept Dr. Custance’s particular interpretation or conclusions, in order to acknowledge that various strengths are associated with a nation, and that these strengths can be described as being generally characteristic of that nation or tribe or people group.”⁹

I wonder if, in the last phrase of the above quote, Dr. Smith is using people group synonymously with race, but it is unclear because others in our society will use the phrase people group to mean culture or some geopolitical entity. But still others, especially in anthropology and sociology, will use the phrase synonymously with the idea of a social group —a social group being defined as a collection of individuals who share a common identity based on language, culture, or social practices. If you are confused—that is precisely my point. People group can mean whatever you want it to mean or whatever it is perceived to mean. It is general and less specific and is often used as a euphemism.

In my reading of Reformed theologians, people group is entirely a modern phrase. For example, I recently finished reading W.G.T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. He uses the term race to refer to the different ancestries of men. He never uses people group. He was no advocate of slavery and had no sympathy with the Confederacy. He also was not Darwinian but critiqued Darwin heavily. Here are two examples:

“The objections to the biblical account of the origin of man drawn from varieties of color and of race are not serious.”¹⁰

“The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”¹¹

Shedd speaks about the origin and varieties of man and uses the term race to denote that variety. My reader will notice that he affirms the unity of mankind in the first pair—Adam and Eve.¹² He does not use the term people group. It does not show up in his entire work which was originally published in 1894.

Particularly distressing is a sermon entitled, “The Call to All Nations” preached by Rev. Jonathan Mattull.¹³ To understand the broader context of the below quote, my reader needs to understand that Rev. Mattull, although not mentioning Michael Spangler by name, was clearly responding to what Spangler had recently posted online regarding Race Realism. My point in bringing Rev. Mattull’s sermon up is not to correct his doctrine. I believe that there is a call to all nations to hear the gospel and be saved (as Michael Spangler does). Rather, the point is to show that this preacher goes out of his way to describe the variations of mankind by using many different terms, but without using the term race.

“In this very room, there are different subgroups. There are different backgrounds. Different belongings. Different financial strata are represented here. Different heritages. Different incomes and so on. Different interests. Different sorts of tribes and backgrounds in these ways.”

Why not use the term race? What does “different belongings” even mean? When this preacher uses the term race in the sermon, he seems to be denying it as a good term:

“Now, we emphasize this because when the alternate view is embraced and when it is that different nations and so-called races are said to be superior or inferior, it necessarily postures us to be loose with the emphasis of the Scriptures.”

Rev. Mattull seems to only believe in “so-called” races. This quote seems to indicate the denial of the term as a proper form of speaking about mankind. I find that distressing. Indeed, it must be an awkward moment in his congregation when they sing the following words out of the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter:

“O ye that are of Abr’ham’s race, his servant well approv’n; and ye that Jacob’s children are, whom he chose for his own.” (Psalm 105:6)

In this verse, race is being used undoubtedly for blood ancestry. It is synonymous with “Jacob’s children.” This is often the sense in the total 13 times that the term is used in this psalter.¹⁴ Something for Rev. Mattull, and others like him, to ponder.

Furthermore, while I listened to this sermon, I was bothered that Rev. Mattull abandoned such a commonly received term. I am not against “modern” terms per se—if we have a reason to coin one. But mankind has been around for a while now, and the church has been discussing these things for just as long. I suggest we not use new terms. It would be like a Presbyterian minister today referring to the Sacraments by a new term. Even if his doctrine of the Sacraments was left unchanged, it would raise eyebrows and cause unnecessary confusion.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, the term people group arose during the era of the civil rights movement. Considering the Marxist tendency of those days and the liberalism of Martin Luther King, the church should not adopt their term. At the same time, if someone wishes to use a different word than race to avoid associating with Darwinism, I would disagree with him but would not necessarily take offence if he was not being divisive about it or strongly implying that it was wrong to use it.

4. There is confusion over “culture.”

So many people who discuss the issues of race, will refer to culture instead of race. I commonly experience this when talking about race issues with friends and other ministers. For example, Christians today have the habit of referring to “cross cultural marriage” and not “inter-racial marriage” when the marriage in view is clearly between two people who are both from different cultures and different races. Furthermore, in my experience, people will often use the word culture without any definition. Although, we are not required to define every term we use, in my experience, the frequency of the term culture calls for a clear and agreed definition. The assumption that all are agreed on this term is causing confusion.

I provide a basic definition of culture as a set of behavioral norms which are accepted by a particular society. The word culture could refer to various things in context: sports culture, work culture, church culture, Black culture, Mexican culture, etc. Race and culture are related but different ideas. Race is not a result of culture, but culture is primarily a result of one’s race. I say that culture is “primarily” but not “only” caused by race. Many things do impact one’s culture (religion, language, traditions, geography, etc). However, race seems to be the biggest factor for one’s culture. Some think that religion is the biggest factor. Regardless of how much race shapes one’s culture, the two terms to not carry the same meaning and should not be used as synonyms. However, Christian leaders are beginning to use the terms either as synonyms, or in a way that blurs the issue of biology.

Consider one example from Dr. Nathan Eshelman’s sermon “What is Man?: Unity of Race” on Acts 17:26-28:

“And he [Paul] goes on and talks about how there are times and boundaries of dwellings and those categories of persons, we would put into categories of culture and nation and language and these sorts of categories...and from the table of the nations, you can see all of these great divisions of the great cultures of the ancient world, but when we back that up we understand that there is still one human race. Not divided races, one race. Divided customs and cultures.”¹⁵

Perhaps Dr. Eshelman is distinguishing what he means well enough, but it is still confusing. I focus on the very last phrase in the quote. No doubt there are different customs and cultures throughout the world, but when it comes to describe the one human race, he says, in effect, that all we have is “divided customs and cultures.” I agree that we have divided customs and cultures, but we also have separate nations, tribes and even races that have biological, not just behavioral differences. In the last phrase, this preacher uses terms that describe behavior to refer to a biological and blood reality. It suggests that the only differences among mankind are cultural differences, not biological differences. He may not deny the second usage of the term race, but it is confusing—and that is my point.

The following scenario will help illustrate the differences between culture and race. A German family adopts a black child from the interior of Africa. The Black child grows up in Germany all his life being raised by Germans. He speaks German, has developed a taste for German food and understands German customs and culture. In many ways, he has adopted a German culture, but he is still from the Black race. He has adopted the German culture, but he still belongs to the Black race and carries with him the biological characteristics of that race—despite his German culture.

Consider another example. An Oreo (obviously deriving etymology from the popular black and white cookie) is a Black man (or woman) who has adopted certain aspects that are characteristic of White people. If you have lived in the south and are accustomed to being around Black folks—you know what I am talking about. I am not rebuking the Oreo for being an Oreo, nor do I think he is less authentic for rejecting common aspects of the current Black culture in America, instead I am illustration the difference between culture and race.

On the phone, the Oreo, sounds more like a White man. He does not use a vocabulary common among Black people, instead, he uses vocabulary common to White people—even his accent. Also, a male Oreo tends to be more masculine and does not cave as easily to the matriarchy that is so prevalent among Blacks. He is a good father and is responsible at work. He marries one woman and is a faithful husband all his life. He has developed a liking and habit for reading. Whites do not have a monopoly on these traits, but it is an accurate commentary on reality where I am from. This “Oreo” has adopted aspects of culture that are characteristic of White people, but he still has characteristics of the Black race. This example about an Oreo, helps distinguish between the meaning of culture and race. It is a distinction that we need to stop conflating. They are related terms, but different. Stop the confusion.

5. There is confusion over the connection between the term “race” and Darwinism.

One of the reasons people have stopped using the term race is out of a genuine desire not to countenance evolutionary thinking. I am not a Darwinist nor an evolutionist, but I am not bothered by the fact that Darwin, who first published in 1839 and wrote his famous Origin of Species in 1859, used the term race to communicate his errors. Just because Darwin drank water doesn’t mean we should stop drinking water.

Many Christians today believe that Darwin made this use of the term popular, but they are wrong. He no doubt used the word, but he does not have a monopoly on it, nor does it mean that his every use of the term was wrong. Yes, mankind is of one blood, whereas Darwin denied it. But that does not mean the church today must jettison the term from its vocabulary. Consider the following assertions about the connection between the term race and Charles Darwin by three different ministers.

Dr. Nathan Eshelman said: “So these racial divisions that we’ve seen over the last two centuries are a result of Darwin’s theories...”¹⁶

Rev. Drew Poplin said: “And so, the term race is narrowly defined and it holds to what is called the permanence of race after their ... narrow definition. And in other words, they’re following the same claim of the evolutionists. They are in line with Margaret Sanger, and Eugenics, and Planned Parenthood.”¹⁷

Rev. Edgar Ibarra said: “It should be noted that the way the word ‘race’ is used today stems from an evolutionary model of humanity.”¹⁸

What is clear from these three ministers is the belief that using the term race in its second usage countenances Darwinian thinking. I recognize that Rev. Poplin’s quote limits the use of the term to how Kinists (whatever that means) use the term, but my point is still well established. But are their claims true about the origins of the term race? I assert that it is not true. My proof will be found in the second part of my article.

Moreover, it is important to note that the church approved Psalter that these three ministers use includes the second usage of the term race. In selection 44C (Psalm 44:24), one will find the following phrase, “O why are You hiding the light of Your face, forgetting the burden and grief of our race?” The context makes it clear that the psalmist refers to Israel—the ethnic people of God in the Old Testament.

Part 2 – The historic use of ‘race’ among respected Christian authors

Consider the following quotes from well-respected men in church history. These men either wrote before Darwin or did not adopt his views on the origin of man. These men demonstrate that they used the term race not only to describe the one human race, but the variations of mankind.

1. The American and Presbyterian minister, A.A. Hodge (1832–1886), wrote in 1860:

“Ethnology - the science of the divisions of the human family into races and nations, and of their dispersion over the world - which traces their origin and affiliations and their varieties of physical, intellectual, moral, and religious character, and the sources and modifying conditions of these variations.”¹⁹

2. The American and Presbyterian Minister, Charles Hodge (1797–1878), wrote his commentary on Romans in 1835. On Romans 9:3, he uses the idea of race to describe the different families of mankind:

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.”²⁰

3. In a book authored in 1953, by the Secretary of Negro Work, Board of Church Extension, of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, we find these words:

“This is a day of agitation, of suspicion, and too often of bitterness between the races. It is a time when the race issue is being made a political football in many quarters, and when many impractical and unwise solutions to our problems are being offered by leaders of both races. These problems are complex and difficult. The way before us is not an easy one, and there are many points at which we are not agreed among ourselves. There is one point, however, on which we can agree. The Negro needs Jesus Christ. Evangelism and Christian Education are his hope, just as they are the hope of the White. Only if we have Christian leadership in both races, shall we find the way to a better day.”²¹

4. Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), the beloved Scottish Presbyterian, in answering the question, “Whence is it that this man rather than that man is crowned as king?” uses the term race in its tighter usage. In other words, race has been used for a long time as referring not only to White and Blacks, but also on a smaller scale to refer to someone’s more immediate lineage.

“And whence is it – from God immediately and only – that this man rather than that man and this race or family rather than that race and family is chosen for the crown?”²²

5. The American and Presbyterian minister, J.G. Vos (1903–1983), who was an abolitionist in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) twice described the Black man as “the Negro race.” He was not quoting his opponents but was using this term as part of the common nomenclature of his day:

“The notion often advocated in the slavery controversy in the previous century in America that Genesis 9:25 involves a curse upon the Negro race, or even affords a divine warrant for keeping the Negro race in a condition of servitude, is wholly untenable.”²³

It is important for those in the RPCNA to recognize that their very own beloved minister used this term and did not use people group. Furthermore, would the sons of the Covenanters assert that their beloved Vos was brainwashed by Darwinism? I doubt it. Read his commentary on Genesis.²⁴

6. J.R. Wilson (1780–1853), another beloved abolitionist minister of the RPCNA said in 1837:

“Against immediate emancipation it is often plead that it would lead to an amalgamation of the Black and White races. Nothing is more false or unphilosophical. By setting the colored people free, and giving them access to the lights of literary and religious instruction, marriage would soon be regarded and practiced among them as a sacred institution. Among the free colored people of the northern states intermarriages between the Whites and Blacks scarcely ever occur. In the slaveholding states, the process of amalgamating the two races advances with gigantic strides in all the loathsomeness of the most abominable illegitimacy.”²⁵

Dabney refutes Wilson’s claim about the prevalence of mulattos in the South.²⁶ But regardless, I will point out that Rev. Wilson had no problem with the term race and used it before Darwin. He used it because it was a common way of speaking about this reality. It is also interesting to note that Wilson seems to be against the amalgamation of the Black and White races.

7. B.B. Warfield (1851–1921), the beloved American Presbyterian and theologian, who was no advocate for American slavery, said:

“… the relations between the White and Black races are now in progress of peaceful and friendly adjustment… it may be that advance has been made toward an adjustment of relations between the two races…”²⁷

8. J.W. Alexander (1804–1859), another beloved American Presbyterian minister, spoke on Acts 16:3 regarding Paul’s use of Timothy (a man of mixed race). Here Alexander uses the term race to describe the difference between Greeks and Jews.

“As one reason for selecting Timothy was no doubt his connection with both races, fitting him to be an instrument of good to both, Paul acted on the principle avowed in 1 Cor 9:22...”²⁸

9. William Perkins (1558–1602), the famous English puritan, used race in his discussion on the lawful degrees of consanguinity in marriage in his book Christian Oeconomie. He said:

“The right line ascending is the race of all the ancestors, and it has sundry degrees.”²⁹

In conclusion, stop the confusion and historical revision. We would be wise to take counsel from Dr. Frank Smith:

“God has both made man from one set of parents, and also created variation which is expressed not only individually but also in terms of groups. Therefore, on this matter, let there be humility and mutual forbearance on what term(s) to use. As long as the word “race” is carefully defined, so as not to buy into an evolutionary paradigm, there should not be any problem.”³⁰

In my next section, I will give my defense of the use of race, not from Darwin, science nor nature, but from the Bible. It is important that we not blindly follow these older men cited above. It is possible that they were wrong. Is there a biblical basis for understanding the differences of mankind under the term race and use this term to refer to biological differences based upon a line of a common ancestry? I argue in the affirmative.

Part 3 - A biblical defense of the second meaning of ‘race.’

Steve Sailer gives a helpful definition of race: “A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.”³¹ His definition is helpful because he agrees with the basic point of my earlier definition, namely that a race is a group of people who have a common blood ancestry. Therefore, race is a matter of blood. It is a biological reality, not just a cultural reality. This is demonstrated to be true by the testimony of Scripture.

Genos - γένος

Some English Bible versions, to include the King James, do not use the word race. However, the English Standard Version does in a few places. Romans 9:5, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” The Greek word translated race in the previous sentence is genos (γένος). It appears 21 times in the New Testament. It can denote different ideas, but according to one lexicon, the first meaning is “descendants of a common ancestor.”³² It does not take a Greek scholar to recognize that the Bible is infallibly verifying for us that certain people belong to a long line of ancestors from a common stock. Again, the ESV text reads, “…and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ…” Christ came, through Mary, from the race of Israel. This use of genos is also found in Acts 4:6, 36, 7:13 and Mark 7:26 (not to mention other examples in the Septuagint). It is important to note that, although some translations like the KJV do not contain the word race, the idea is biblical.

But we do not want to be a “pettifogger of words, “ as Turretin warned when he argued against the heretical Arians.³³ The idea of race, as a biological reality, is not found just in a mere usage of a word. My definition of race is also proved from Scripture in other ways.

Noah’s Prophecy

Consider Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

A moments reflection on this passage will render the verdict clear. Did Japheth, the actual son of Noah, live literally in Shem’s tents or was Noah saying that his descendants (as opposed to Ham’s) would dwell in Shem’s tents? The answer is obvious. Therefore, race understood as blood ancestry, must be a biblical concept. Furthermore, did Canaan, the actual son Ham, become a “servant of servants” to his own brothers and uncles or was he referring to those still in his loins? Is not Noah giving a blessing and a curse to the races of these men? And were not the races or descendants of these men clearly delineated in the table of nations in the next chapter?

Perhaps they inter-mixed some at first, but eventually their descendants branched off and developed their own unique family traits and Noah’s prophecy would be fulfilled in them over time according to their ancestry and lineage. Thus, race is proven because it must exist in order for these prophecies to be fulfilled. In other words, there must be a group of people that come from different lines and who eventually are treated differently (in God’s providence) in order for this prophecy to have any meaning or significance.

Noah’s prophecy, and the subsequent history in Genesis, is what Paul refers to when he says in Acts 17:26, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation...” All three sons came from one blood—Noah and his wife. And yet, this one human race, also became three separate races of people who would then inhabit the world and have different histories. The airplane was not invented yet. These descendants married those near to them and became inbred to some degree—just as it is common today despite the presence of modern transportation. After the tower of Babel, this pattern continued. So, we can see here that race, a matter of blood ancestry, is a biblical reality.

Furthermore, we can speak of the one human race and also of other races without being Darwinian. Sticking closely to the Scriptures, we can rightly say that there are three races of mankind: Shemites, Japhethites and Hamites. If someone wants to make further distinctions based on observation and history, that is plausible, but not my point here. Scripture speaks of three races and all three are human and made in the image of God. And in God’s providence, these three men would spread throughout all the world, “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread (Gen 9:18-19).”

Not only are the nations in Genesis 10 divided up by these three men, which suggests that they were “inbred” to a large degree, but the text continues to emphasize that they populated the world, “after their families” (v.5, 18, 20,31,32). This indicates that “inter-racial” marriage (as we know it now) was not common. These descendants closely resembled the traits of the three sons of Noah and developed into three distinct races of men.

From the History of the Jews

Try telling a Pharisee, in Christ’s day, that his race was not a biological reality.³⁴ If there was anything that Pharisees believed, they were of Abraham’s blood. “...We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man...” (John 8:33). By the way, here is another word that can describe the idea of race—namely seed (sperma σπέρμα). It can take different connotations, but here the idea is lineage or natural ancestry. Paul asserted the idea of race firmly. He said of himself that he was, “... Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock (genos) of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews...” (Phil 3:5). One can also reference 2 Cor 11:22 and Rom 11:1.

Furthermore, the gospels give two accounts of Jesus’ genealogy —Matthew 1 and Luke 3. According to my count in Luke’s passage, 74 men are mentioned between Jesus and Adam. Of course, no person denies that He has a blood ancestry going all the way back to Adam. The point is that Jesus was prophesied to have come, not only from Shem, not only from Abraham, not only from Judah, but also from David. And this lineage, or race, must be kept for the Messiah to come. If it was not for the rampant confusion on this issue, I would be embarrassed to point to Jesus’ genealogy. Who does not know these things? Nor am I asserting that the men I cited above in part one deny the humanity of Christ. Rather, my point is that race is an idea clearly described in the Bible. Furthermore, keep in mind that the Jews are not the only nation that has a common stock.

Objections

Some may object by saying that inter-racial marriage still occurred, slaves were still taken in war, foreign women captives were still taken as wives, and people still are mixed and thus the racial lines are less defined. I admit that, even in Scripture, you have several accounts of these types of things like inter-racial marriage (Zipporah, Ruth, Rahab, etc). But this did not change the overall distinctions of any given race, or in the case of Christ, His Jewish line.

I recently met a Christian man who had an ancestor who was from the First Nations in Canada. Either his grandfather or great-grandfather was a full-blooded First Nations Indian from Canada. Yet, every other person in his lineage was full-blooded Dutch (as I understand it). I wouldn’t have noticed it, unless his relatives joked with him about it in a friendly manner. He had normal White features and blue eyes, but he was a bit darker than the others in his family. The interesting thing is that he married a Dutch woman, and his son is as Dutch as it gets—fair skinned, blue eyes and light hair. He may have been mixed, but over time, those genes were replaced by the overwhelming Dutch blood of everyone else in his ancestry.

Consider also that, Ruth’s blood and Rahab’s blood, although it is now flowing through the Savior’s veins, is a drop in a large pool of blood. I do not mean to be crass. It needs to be made plain to people who are otherwise confused. The dominant Dutch genes are still in my friends blood and the dominant Jewish genes are still in the Savior’s, and the trait of their ethnicity and race come through. The lines are clearer than some people like to say. And I will add that, my personal antidote above about the Dutchman, is an experience that the average person knows better than the many “educated elite.” It is just common sense. The cross-breeding that has taken place does not change the overwhelming number of incidents when cross-breeding does not take place.

Conclusion

Race refers to a blood and behavioral reality. Culture refers to a behavioral reality. These are different but related matters. People group is a new term that is ambiguous and that is not best to be used as a replacement for the term race. I lay aside any dependence on Darwin, and I appeal to accepted historical usage by respected men and to Scriptural principles. Although Scripture is not a book on Ethnology or race, it tells us something about it and that is all that is needed for my purpose.

Now, if race is a matter of blood ancestry, then this must be quantified. One may ask, “How are the races distinguished among themselves? Is it just a matter of skin color and levels of melanin?” In the forthcoming articles, I will attempt to answer these types of questions and will shift from preliminary considerations on race, to the doctrine of race itself.

However, before the doctrine of race can be wisely taken up, there is one more preliminary consideration that must be addressed. “Race and Grace”—what is the relationship between the gospel and the racial differences within mankind?

1

2. https://www.pactuminstitute.com/the-pactum-blog/christian-race-realism-part-1-introduction

3. VanDrunen, David. “Reflections on Race and Racism.” Ordained Servant Online, March 2021. https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=874.

4. Some have asserted that there is a 99% sameness in DNA between the races. I am not sure of their source, but for now will concede to them that this is true. Either way, that 1% is all the difference anyone needs to discern obvious natural differences among the races (i.e. skin color). I have also heard that there is a 98% sameness in DNA between monkeys and humans, but who would deny from Scripture and nature the enormous differences between these two species?

5. Strachan, Owen. “Christianity and Kinism.” Sermon at Grace Bible Theological Seminary Pre-Conference on The Gospel and the State, September 2023. YouTube video, 1:01:45, posted by Grace Bible Theological Seminary, October 18, 2023.

6. MacArthur, John, Darrell Harrison, and Phil Johnson. “2019 Shepherds’ Conference Q&A with John MacArthur, Darrell Harrison, and Phil Johnson.” Panel discussion at the Shepherds’ Conference, March 2019. YouTube video, 1:09:36, posted by Grace to You, March 8, 2019.

7. Baucham, Voddie. “Voddie Baucham: Our concept of race is not biblical, its artificial.” Sermon at an unidentified event, 2019. YouTube video, 3:55, posted by BTWN News, June 2, 2020.

8. Smith, Frank J. Race, Church, and Society. Cumming, GA: Presbyterian Scholars Press, 2021, 185.

9. Smith, Race, Church, and Society, 53.

10. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 399.

11. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 379.

12. Ibid, 439. “That man was created a species in two individuals appears also from the account of the creation of Eve.”

13. Jonathan Mattull, “The Call to All Nations,” sermon delivered at Sovereign Grace Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, Missouri, July 21, 2024, SermonAudio, audio, 48:48. Michael Spangler’s first article was posted on July 1^st of that same year. It was clear to those aware of the controversy that this sermon was speaking to Spangler’s articles. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/72224174319930

14. The 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter uses the term race in at least two senses. See Ps 12:7; 14:5; 37:28; 49:19; 78:5,6,8; 95:10, 145:4 (both versions), 148:14 (2^nd version).

15. Eshelman, Nathan. “What is Man?: The Unity of Race.” Sermon at Orlando Reformed Presbyterian Church, Orlando, FL, October 27, 2024. MP3 audio, 37:48. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102924133446766.

16. Eshelman, Nathan. “What is Man?: The Unity of Race.”

17. Poplin, Drew. “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” Sermon at 1st Reformed Presbyterian Church, Durham, NC, September 22, 2024. MP3 audio, 54:56. https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=92324195329263.

18. Edgar Ibarra, “A Response to Kinism: A Critique of an Unbiblical Anthropology,” in The Covenanter, vol. 2 (Spring 2025): 66.

19. Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. Reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999.18.

20. Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975. 298.

21. Smith, Frank. Race, Church, and Society (pp. 81-82). Kindle Edition.

22. Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982, p.6 Question 4.

23. Vos, Johannes G. Genesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2006. 166.

24. Vos, Genesis, 21-23. On p.23 he summarizes his evidence for a 6 literal day view for creation, “Although neither view is without its difficulties, it would seem that on the whole the literal interpretation is to be preferred.”

25. James Renwick Willson, “African Slavery,” in Political Danger: Essays on the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ Over Nations and Their Political Institutions, 1809–1838, ed. Gordon J. Keddie (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2009), 362.

26. Robert L. Dabney, A Defence of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1977), 234-235.

27. Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. Selected Shorter Writings. Edited by John E. Meeter. 2 vols. Reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2001. 743.

28. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Acts of the Apostles, (1857; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 103.

29. William Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, vol. 10, ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and J. Stephen Yuille (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 131.

30. Smith, Frank. Race, Church, and Society (p. 23). Kindle Edition.

31. Steve Sailer, Noticing (Passage Publishing, 2024), 136.

32. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 155.

33. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 39.

34. Here I use the word race more narrowly to refer to the Jews. This is common usage. I have noticed in some older biographers that when they come to describe the ancestry of the person written about, they speak of their race. It is the narrow sense of the word. It basically just means his or her immediate ancestry.