By Pastor Jim Jester
June 11, 2023
SCRIPTURE READING: I John 3:1-6
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Who are the “sons of God” and the “sons of men?” These terms should be the same; but sometimes there are variations in meaning which reveal certain types of men. The sons of God should be identical with the sons of men, if men refer to Adam, correct? Adam is called the “son of God” in the genealogy given in Luke 3:38, “The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” And, sons of God automatically imply there are daughters of God as well. The “children of God” should also be added as synonymous with the other two phrases: sons of God and sons/daughters of men. But strangely enough, the first time “sons of God” appears in Genesis chapter six, it seems a bit odd, as if it were a mistranslation. And that appears to be the case. But, there are times when these phrases reveal different characteristics of men.
Since Genesis chapter five has declared this book to be the “book of Adam, these “men” of chapter six are also of Adam and they took wives of the daughters of men, who too were of Adam. Of course, there is nothing wrong in this case for we have kind marrying kind. But confusion comes in because further in the chapter it is evident that something terrible was going on, race-mixing. The phrase “sons of God” causes a conflict in Scripture. This indicates a corruption in translation. Other manuscripts have the word “angels” rather than “sons of God,” as well as Josephus in his History of the Jews.
Further evidence in support of “angels” being correct is found in verse 4:
The Nephilim [“giants” in KJV]were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men [“giants” in LXX] that were of old, the men of renown… (Gen. 6:4, RSV)
In Genesis 6:5 it is evident that these illicit unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” were evil, and had resulted in God ’s destruction of that old society in the great flood. Yet Noah, who was “perfect in his generations”, was spared along with his family. The word rendered as “generations” in the first clause of Genesis 6:9 in the KJV is toledah, and means descent, or race. Since Noah was the exception to the sin described in thispassage, that he was “perfect in his race,” was because the blood of Noah and his sons had not been tainted by the race-mixing described here.
Further comments on this chapter from William Finck’s Genesis study:
Most of the words for man and men in verses 1 through 4 here are from the Hebrew word adam(Strong ’s #120), signifying those men of the Adamic race which had descended from Adam through Seth. The word for man in verses 5 through 7 is also adam, so it is they who would be held accountable and punished for these sins. Yet the Hebrew word rendered men in the phrase “men of renown” in verse 4 is enosh (# 582), which is a different, less specific word for man and merely refers to a mortal man, regardless of his race. Then in that same verse, the Hebrew word גבורor gibowr (#1368), which describes a strong man without any connotation of race, is translated as “mighty men”, also being plural. While the word enosh is sometimes used of Adamic men, it is also often used disparagingly, or even in contrast to adam, where men of non-Adamic races are referred to. Examples of this are found in Daniel 2:43 in the Aramaic equivalent enash (Strong ’s #606), and in the 90th Psalm where we read: “ 3 Thou turnest man [enosh] to destruction; and sayest, return, ye children of men [adam].” All mortal men, or enosh are destroyed since all men face death, but only the children of Adam are returned, which is to say, resurrected in the last day. (Finck, Genesis Commentary)
Therefore, in this case (Gen. 6), we have the wrong use of the phrase “sons of God,” for we know that the sons of God refer to all the sons and daughters of Adam; likewise, the “sons of men.” All the race of Adam is children of God.
The judeo-Christian world would obviously dismiss anything from the Old Testament and try to claim the New Testament as being different than the Old. They fail to see (or do not want to see) that the Bible is a harmonious whole and refers to the same people throughout. Therefore, race is quite often a subject that appears just as much in the New Testament as it does the Old. And we shall see just a sampling of this phenomenon in this study.
The following Scripture passages will give us just a hint of how these terms are generally used.
Sons of God verses (KJV):
Romans 8:14, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Philippians 2:15, That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
I John 3:1, Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
These verses show that the sons of God mean good men (not evil men as shown in Genesis 6, which involved race mixing).
Sons of men verses (KJV):
Psalm 33:13, The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
Psalm 58:1, Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
Psalm 145:12, To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.
Daniel 5:21, And he was driven from the sons of men[enash]; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
These verses show that men can mean all kinds of men, good, bad and questionable. So this term has a wider meaning and application. Only in the Daniel reference is “men” enash (a Chaldean word).
Children of God verses (similar to sons of God — both phrases are used in Romans chapter 8 — Bible translations vary):
John 11:52, And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Romans 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
Romans 8:21, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Galatians 3:26, For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
I John 5:2, By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Like sons of God, these verses show that the children of God are good men and women of the Adamic race.
So overall, these are speaking of the same kind of “men” in the original word, with one exception, although equivalent: the Aramaic enash in Daniel (language change). There are other instances in the Bible where the word for “man” is adam,enosh or ish(all Hebrew). But Genesis six clearly stands out as the wrong English translation with its term “sons of God” instead of “angels” or “giants.”The phrase, “sons of the gods” would have been a better choice; again, another mistranslation among many in the KJV.
We have often heard the statement, “We are all God’s children.” This is the cry and claim of universalism: Masons, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and even Protestants. But it’s not true. Genesis chapter six clearly reveals a racial mix that is not of God’s family. I ask: Nephilim, giants, or what have you, can these creatures that took the daughters of men believe and be “saved” by the blood of Jesus Christ? Not according to the Bible. The judeo-Christian world thinks that everyone can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. But belief has nothing to do with it. They must be a part of the covenant family before they can actually believe. These human beings not of Adam cannot believe, nor can they hear the word of God.
In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul says:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh… 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. (Eph. 2:11-19)
Is this passage a call to universalism, as most Christians believe? A thousand times no! Why? Let’s ask a few questions to identify the true children of God.
In verse 11, “in time past” who were these “Gentiles?” Answer: The House of Israel in dispersion.
In verse 12, who were “strangers from the covenants of promise?” Same answer: Israel in dispersion, “having no hope.”
In verse 13, who were “far off” but made “nigh” by Christ? Same answer: House of Israel (the northern ten tribes).
In verse 14, who is the “both” made “one?” Answer: The two Houses of Israel: Israel in the north (10 tribes), capital Samaria; and Judah in the south (2 tribes), capital Jerusalem.
In verse 15 (a follow up from verse 14), how is “twain” made “one new man?” Answer: The sacrifice of Jesus the Christ was the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant, thus joining the two into one.
In verse 16, who is “both?” Same answer as in verse 14 (two Houses of Israel).
In verse 17, who was “afar off” and who was “nigh?” Answer: Israel of the ten tribes were far away in the east (captivity: Halah, Habor); and Judah at this time was still in existence, or “near” (land of Judah).
In verse 19, what is the “household of God?” Answer: Both Houses of Israel united again as the children of God. They are all the same racial family of Adamkind.
The word for “household” is oikeios. Thayer Definition:
1) belonging to a house or family, domestic, intimate
- belonging to one ’s household, related by blood, kindred
- belonging to the household of God
- belonging, devoted to, adherents of a thing
In other words, it is the racial family of God. The judeo-Christian world needs to know and accept this truth. Furthermore, they need to drop “Judeo” from “Judeo-Christian” and only recognize Christian exclusively, for the two philosophies are not compatible.
One either accepts the Bible as a single complete revelation of God with race is a part of that; or one rejects the Bible as a whole and makes up his/her own theories about race and the family of God. You can’t have it both ways.
The commentary of the Preacher’s Homiletical had this to say about our Scripture reading:
1Jn. 3:2. “See Him as He is.”—Compare 2Cor. 3:18. “The Divine image which was lost in the Fall shall be restored.”
1Jn. 3:3. “Hope in Him.”—There is certainly more point if this is referring to Christ. Hope in God is too general, since John is addressing Christians and dealing with their distinctive hope of being fully like Christ. “Purifieth Himself.”—The wordhagnizo is used chiefly in a technical sense of ceremonial purifications; and St. John, in Rev 1:6, represents Christians as made “kings and priests unto God.” The Christian ’s “purifying himself” must be seen in its harmony with the other side of truth [morally] which St. John presents. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us [Christians] from all sin.” “As He is pure.”—The holiness of Christ, as the holiness of a man living on earth under human conditions, is our model and inspiration. Such holiness is an attainable thing, because it has once been attained.
1Jn. 3:4. “Committeth sin.”—Better, “doeth the sin, doeth also lawlessness.” This should not be taken as a merely general statement; it is specific to those whom St. John addresses. A Christian who willfully does sin must not for one moment imagine that his standing in Christ has freed him from the grip of the law. St. John had in mind the Gnostics, who considered the moral law to be no longer binding on the enlightened, as a rule of life. [My note: The Gnostics gave license to sin.]
1Jn. 3:5. “Take away our sins.”—Not the same as “blot out our sins.” Two reasons are given for the sinlessness of Christians: 1. To take away the love and the power of sin was Christ ’s work. They would not want to sin if Christ was really doing His work in them. 2. Christ was the model Christian, and His example was distinctly one of sinless-ness, in this sense, that He never wanted to sin. Those who are sons with Christ through the new spiritual birth never want to sin. They may be overborne by frailties; they never will to sin.
1Jn. 3:6. “Whosoever sinneth.”—Purposely, willfully, persistently, proves that he has not in him that new life which comes with the spiritual birth. Not having the life, he has not the vision which alone can see Christ, nor the apprehension that alone can know Him, because these belong exclusively to the new life.
John is sometimes known as the beloved disciple. The things that John remembered about the Lord Jesus during his ministry were the things that captured his attention. It is a general biological law, that we remember things according to the amount of attention we give them; and that law is used when Divine inspiration and conviction comes to a person. Only John records our Lord ’s interview with Nicodemus;only John gives us the idea of the Christian life coming from a Divine birth. “Ye must be born from above.” The apostle evidently made this a chief idea in his ministry. Closing the previous chapter, he had said, “If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of Him.” That word “begotten” brings to him a favorite thought, and he is at once carried away by his feelings, and led to exclaim, “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us!” That begetting of the Father makes us spiritual sons; even though we already are genetic covenant sons by birth as children of God. We can see what responsibilities and obligations that a new birth brings. It delivers us from wanting to sin; and lays upon us an earnest self-purifying.
Race is everything. What we see happening in America with Wokeism and open borders is nothing short of a communist (anti-Christ) revolution with the goal being White genocide. All one has to do is look around to see that White folk are being replaced by the darker races: black, hispanics, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc, and all such mixtures, including Jews. This is required policy for all traditionally white countries; other countries are exempt from this rule; there are no Black nations that must submit to White immigration.
Then there is the homosexual movement and interracial “marriages,” with the aim to stop reproduction of the White race. Dr. James Lindsey in the globalist speech at Davos, Switzerland, said, “Wokeism is Marxism with an American flavor.” This is admitted proof of a communist revolution underway.
These facts are proof that Christian Identity is correct in its view that the Bible has a definite racial context, both in open racist declarations and in symbolic language. The reason mainline Christianity cannot see this is because their minds are already conditioned by “equality” doctrine taught as fact, so that they automatically reject any semblance of “racism” from their minds. Thus, they do not see race as relevant, when actually it is the main issue. Shame on the churches that largely are party with this. They need to realize the Bible is the history of a particular race, Adamkind (White). Without the White race, true Christianity and Christian culture will disappear. This is why we see violence across the land. Will White people continue to allow their own extinction?
What began with Adam has its fulfillment in the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). And remember, it was entered into by God himself, as Abraham slept. Ponder that for a while: no conditions, no beliefs, no works; just the Almighty God fulfilling His purposes for His chosen people. There is no inclusive covenant for all the races of the world. The New Covenant exclusively pertains to the same people that were under the Old Covenant. The race of Adam alone is God’s supreme creation — it is not “White supremacy” (per se), nor is it “Jewish supremacy” (sic), as many nominal Christians believe — it is God’s supremacy.
“My loved ones, now we are children of God, and at present it is not clear what we are to be. We are certain that at his revelation we will be like him; for we will see him as he is.” (I Jn. 3:2, BBE)