Episode Transcript
[00:00:06] Speaker A: Welcome to the Truth Exchange podcast. This is a weekly program with Doctor Jeffrey J. Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics, and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Guillotine, and this is another edition of the director's Bag.
Regarding the last dicta on the pagan Bronze Age mindset, Doctor Fontelli, you tackled some of the rising of chemists and blood and soil ethnicity pushes that we're seeing in some particular circles, especially in reformed circles. And you've had some engagement with some other ministers outside of Nay park and some within, like the crEc. One conversation was with Toby Sumter, who is a pastor in Idaho, and you guys had kind of a back and forth. And one of the things that Toby agreed with you that there is certainly a push with some of these followers, some of these fans are embracing a pagan notions of partiality.
And sometimes, he says, I do wince at the way the matter is put. But I don't think regarding your dicta, he says, I don't think that your article is getting at some of what their concern is and some of the scriptures that he used in combating gently your dicta. And some of the passages I have seen float around on the interweb are texts like first Timothy, chapter five, verse eight, and I'll go ahead and read that for our listeners. But if any, provide not for his own and especially for those of his own house. He has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. Another text that is used is Galatians 610. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. And then last is Romans, chapter one, verses 31. Without understanding covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, who, knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Jeff, how would you respond to some of those texts that are being used to argue for a blood and soil, ethnic centric, kind of hermeneutic applied to life, having that partiality for them versus God's universal church?
[00:02:50] Speaker B: Sure. So I would say a couple things in response to that. Number one, this is not simply a matter of excess or emphasis. Scripture flatly condemns the sin of partiality, full stop. And we demonstrated that with respect to the nature of God himself, who is not partial with respect to interpersonal relationships and with respect to societal relationships in the church in particular, and with respect to public justice. So we're talking about something a bit different. So I think that what's happening here is we're seeing kind of a proof texting, two horning of trying to push back to justify sort of the blood and soil deal. But of course, as with Toby and everyone else that claims Christ, we're going to look at the scriptures and see how that looks. So the first thing I would point to, let's take the Timothy passage. The first thing I would point to, though, in the Timothy passage is let's look at the purpose of why Paul is writing the Timothy in the middle of that text. Paul says this, and this really helps us contextualize everything else that happens. He says, this is in chapter three, verse 14, I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that if I delay, and here's the purpose clause, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. And so we need to understand that Paul's articulations of doctrine and of ethics here is designed for conduct within the church. What happens is with some of these blood and soil folks is they're taking that ethic and trying to universalize it to the entirety of creation. So they have a category mistake at the outset of. And then I think we need to understand how does Paul use this phrase, especially the household of faith? Well, he uses it before chapter five. He uses it in chapter four, where he talks about God is the savior of all men, especially to those who believe. So it's kind of an interesting rhetorical device that he is using there. So we need to be careful not to put too much weight on that particular issue. So then we get to chapter five. The burden of chapter five is caring for widows and orphans. And what Paul sets forth is a charitable scheme. There is an enrollment process. He says that the church can be burdened to take care of certain categories of orphans, of widows, not all of them. A widow has to be 60 years of age and have no children.
And so Paul says, if she has children and grandchildren, they are the ones to bear the burden of taking care of the widow, not the church. He says it very clearly that so they do not burden the church. And so when he talks about this notion of taking care of those of the household of faith, he's talking about the children of widows taking care of their parents, and even goes ahead and alludes to in chapter five, verse four, to honor their parents as to their parents. Here we see an allusion to the fifth commandment that's always looming. The Torah is always looming in the background of Paul. He alluded to it, of course, in chapter one of one Timothy on how to use the law. Well, now he's using it again in chapter five. In verse four, he says, as to their parents. And so who is he speaking to? The children, the grandchildren that take care of the widows. So what we have here are near demonstrative markers that confine and cabin off the descriptor, especially to the household of faith. And then to make the point even perfectly clear, or to use a big word, elucid, we see that in one Timothy 521, he says, all this stuff I've given to you above, don't do it with partiality.
Nothing to be done with partiality. So he makes it very, very clear that this is no exception or anything like that with respect to that. So I don't think the first Timothy passage in any way supports a blood soil Kinnist, for those five or six reasons I've given you, yes.
[00:07:34] Speaker A: At the same time, I have also heard it's usually used to as a tax approved tax for taking care of one's own personal household. So you take care of Heather and the children, and if you had decided to jump ship of your work, you are worse than an infidel in that sense.
[00:07:53] Speaker B: Well, yeah, good example of, oh, I just can't wait, I need to go to the Democratic Republic of the condo or Burkina fossil because there's people starving and I'm not providing for my own family.
That's the kind of thing that I think is also prescribed there. It's like, look, it's just like where he says earlier. Think about this one, Joshua, looking toward leaders in church. Do they govern? Do they manage their own household? Well, because they can't manage their own household, how are they going to manage the household of God? So we see this kind of, you could call it the catholic doctrine. I think it's a christian doctrine of subsidiarity. Those closest to the issue take care of the issue. And that's exactly what Paul's echoing here. He's actually creating it. I mean, it's a form of sphere sovereignty, but it's also a proximity argument.
[00:08:43] Speaker A: Yes. And then they use Galatians six. I cannot figure out how they are using this text as a proof text for their blood and soil, but I'll read it again. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all Mendez, especially into them who are of the household of faith.
[00:09:01] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm befuddled by that. I suspect they're reading it through modernistic lenses saying, oh, especially means to be partial to which Paul has already dealt with that in chapter three of Galatians, where he's eliminated false distinctions or externalistic distinctions, something that Topi recognizes there, that we can't have those kinds of distinctions.
I think that what that says is we need to understand, brothers and sisters, remember who he's writing to. He's writing to the churches, plural, in Galatia. And so he's marking them off to be able to do good. And so then we see him in that same region, right in Corinthians, telling the people, hey, thank you for the collection. I'm going to help these other churches. We got that. Those are the kinds of things that are referenced. He's not making a political discourse here at all. And so we see a category mistake where some of the so called christian nationalists want to universalize, but it's the gospel that universalizes. It's not the political theology, even though this is bad political theology, actually, and let's just be clear, blood and soil to which the christians must understand is the shed blood of Christ spilled on Golgotha.
That's the identification that we have. That's the only identification that we have. We are not of the donkey. We are not of the lion. We are of the. I said of the elephant. We are the lion, who is the lamb. And so the blood and soil that matters, that distinguishes people is the one of Jesus shed really on Golgotha. And that becomes the question of identity. Are you in Christ or are you still in Adam? And so to confuse that with this idea, I mean, it's almost as bad as we saw the former president talk about certain people do crimes because they have bad genes.
What does that say about anthropology? That God created from one that we all descended from Adam? I mean, there are genetic defects, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, down syndrome. Those are results of the fall. But to suggest that the genes made me do it. I'm going off on a tangent here, but it's really irritating to see this kind of eugenic mentality come back into the public discourse. There were. There were professors that published a book at MIT, published it, I think one of them's names Homer, one of them's names Thornhill. And they said that sexual assault, rape is just a function of survival men mechanism, and you really can't blame the perpetrator. You know, basically the genes made them do it. Well, that is not a christian view of justice. I'm sorry, we can't. We. This was years ago, people. So anyway, these are evolutionary biologists.
[00:11:55] Speaker A: Okay. Last text was the Romans, chapter one. Without understanding covenant breakers, without natural affection. And I've heard them also go on to say, we'll look at Paul later on down in the epistle to the Romans, is he is clearly has natural affection for the Jews, but he says, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, who, knowing the judgment of God, et cetera, et cetera.
[00:12:19] Speaker B: Yeah, I think the Romans one passage is easily disposed of as well. There. Paul is talking about an exchange. And what is that exchange? He's talking about a worshiping of creation rather than the creator that manifests itself in ethics. Sexual deviant. And so the natural would be create would be the creational norm of men attracted to women and women attracted to Mendez. And the leaving of the natural faction would be essentially homosexuality or other sexual deviance. That's clearly the context. And he's actually drawing upon, you know, earlier greek texts, I think. Well, I didn't look it up, but I think it's periphysin, this idea of same sex attractiveness. Plato uses the term and that sort of thing. So, yeah, it's one weird. It's just really weird. Yeah. That text has nothing to do with the blood and soil argument. Paul's affection is a covenantal affection for those of ethnic Hebrews, and that's plainly the case. And what does he tell them to do? Come to Christ. He doesn't say, hey, you know what? Continue out in the kubits and the synagogues and cetera and just be your own thing and be. No, he reckons them, I beg you, come to Christ. And then he goes on to say, all Israel is not Israel. Why? Because blood and soil that matters is that which is the blood and soil of Christ.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: This concludes the recording of the directors bag. For more resources from Truth exchange, please visit us online at www.truthexchange.com. you can follow us on X as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth exchange. Be sure to join us next week for more questions from the directors bag. I'm your host, Joshua Guillot, and this, this is the Truth Exchange podcast.
