Bishop Nathanyel and the Misinterpretation of the Bible

How can Bishop Nathanyel be so illiterate with the Bible? He doesn’t understand basic Bible reading skills. How can someone so lost when it comes to the Bible, be leading the biggest Hebrew Israelite cult group today?

Bishop Nathanyel, IUIC & The Hebrew Israelites

This is Bishop Nathanyel. He leads the group IUIC (Israelites United in Christ).

I heard him recently speak about a go-to passage of Hebrew Israelites to prove the Israelites were black. The Song of Solomon is one of their favourites to prove Solomon was black.

Then, based on this, they say Israelites are black. I’m going to obliterate his false teaching in a moment and show you how he misrepresents Christians too, to deceive his followers into thinking he’s right.

Examining Bishop Nathanyel’s Teaching

I’m going to quote part of his recent teaching. This was from the beginning of his weekly message. Before going to any Bible verses, he starts by looking into some history books.

As I was watching, I could not believe what was said. His reader reads from a book…

He said that King Solomon, the wise man of our Bible, proudly acknowledged that he was black.

The question every sensible person has to ask is: when did King Solomon proudly acknowledge he was black?

The Misrepresentation of Christians

This is where Hebrew Israelites will go crazy. This is not about hiding the complexion of Solomon; this is about truth.

If King Solomon did say this, there would be no problem with any true Christian agreeing with this. But look at what Bishop Nathanyel says, as he starts attacking Christians…

“So the scholars know that King Solomon acknowledged he was black.”

He’s going to say more in a moment, which shows how deceived he is. But imagine what he did. He hears one scholar say Solomon was black, and then leaps to say, you see, the scholars know that King Solomon acknowledged he was black.

One scholar doesn’t turn into multiple scholars. Plus, who is this guy saying this, and is he even a scholar?

Investigating the Source

I did what any wise person would do and I went to get the book. I read what is being quoted here, but also the whole section of the book.

If I had more time before making this, I’d read the whole book, but you can’t make this up. Let me read the note at the start of this section in the book. It says,

“From Over the Color Line by Charles Fred. White. Note: This was written as a series of articles paralleling those of Ray Stannard Baker in the American magazine a few years ago and was published by a New England newspaper. It has been delivered as an address before two Philadelphia audiences, one Jewish and one colored.”

Analyzing the Content

White is writing to uplift darker-skinned people, and trying to talk sense into people who think all people are not equal. He wants people to know, especially white oppressors, that all are equal.

If people grasped in a true way what God says in Genesis 1, that mankind is made in the image of God, it would change the world.

I found no reference to where Solomon made this claim in the book, so this is a claim with no source. Bishop Nathanyel is taking this claim with no source, then acting as if this is fact, or as if this should be credible just because it’s said. That is not how you prove something.

Further Misinterpretation

But Bishop Nathanyel says this next. He knows where King Solomon proudly acknowledged being black, obviously.

It’s only Christians today that read the Song of Solomon and say, ‘Oh, that was written by a black woman.’ You got these effeminate men and these feminists that say that, but it’s a lie. Solomon wrote the Song of Solomon.”

Catch the slander and misrepresentation of Christians. He is linking this quote in the book to the Song of Solomon. But he says, it’s only Christians today that read the Song of Solomon and say, “Oh, that was written by a black woman.”

The Christian Argument

If we follow the flow of conversation according to Bishop Nathanyel, the Song of Solomon is the place where King Solomon proudly acknowledges he was black.

But Christians say this book was written by a black woman, not Solomon. I don’t know any scholar who says King Solomon did not write the Song of Solomon but a black woman wrote it instead.

And this is where it gets worse. It’s clear, crystal clear, he either doesn’t understand the Christian argument or is a deceitful serpent like the devil.

I don’t know which is worse: to act knowledgeable about reading the text but not understand basic grammar, or to lie like a devil to recruit people into your cult. It’s the latter. But I hope he isn’t deceiving.

The Song of Solomon

The argument we use as Christians is not that a black woman wrote the Song of Solomon. Christians believe King Solomon wrote the Song of Solomon, but it’s clear what’s happening in the Song of Solomon once you start reading it.

Many Hebrew Israelites like to highlight verses 5-6 and say Solomon is speaking. But if you do, you must take the surrounding verses too or you’re not consistent in your interpretation.

The moment you do this, you are in BIG trouble. Let me show you as we read a few verses. Then I’ll show you how he buries himself even more.

This buries all Hebrew Israelites, in fact, who use this verse (and others) as a proof text to present King Solomon as black.

Verse Analysis

Starting with verse 1, it says,

“The song of songs, which [is] Solomon’s.”

The book starts by saying it’s Solomon’s song. Why would any Christian with even a little sense say it was not Solomon? And when I say this, I’m not including critical scholars, obviously, who say the Bible’s written hundreds of years after the fact.

They are not relevant to this discussion.

Verse 2 highlights the problem for Bishop Nathanyel right away.

It’s easy for anyone with basic reading comprehension to grasp. I guarantee you, I’m still going to get illogical comments from them. It happens whenever I cover this topic.

It says,

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine.”

If us dumb Christians follow his dumb logic, we’d believe Solomon’s writing and talking to a man.

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine.”

This dumb Hebrew Israelite interpretation turns Solomon into a sodomite. This guy is so addicted to dark skin, he will manipulate the Bible into absurdity.

Further Absurdities

But it gets worse. Look at the next verse. According to Bishop Nathanyel, Solomon says in verse 3,

“Because of the savor of your good ointments, your name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love you.”

Based on their interpretation, Solomon is praising this man and saying all the women love him. Look at what Bishop Nathanyel thinks Solomon is saying in verse 4:

“Draw me, we will run after you. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will remember your love more than wine. The upright love you.”

Solomon wants a man to draw him close??? This other man Solomon is writing about is not an ordinary man but a king??? Solomon wants a king to take him into the chamber??? Solomon will remember and rejoice over the love in that chamber more than wine??? 😮 😮 😮 .

This is Ludicrous.

Addressing the Misinterpretation

How does no one sitting next to him every week, not have the boldness to remove this man from office? Better yet, how can they hold to such an egregious belief here?

They will force you to believe Solomon is saying this stuff, instead of calling each other out for his poor Bible exegesis.

He can’t even break down a simple passage in the Bible. This is why I say talking to them is like the men in black.

You tell them the truth, and then it’s like they get neuralized and cannot remember what you said. It’s madness.

After Solomon apparently says all this stuff, we now arrive at verse 5.

The Key Verses

This is one of the two verses they use in the Song of Solomon to prove Solomon was black. Solomon now, according to them, says,

“I [am] black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.”

You might think I’m going too far here, but Bishop Nathanyel thinks this is Solomon speaking. (watch the next 20 seconds and see for yourself)

If you are consistent, you cannot say Solomon is speaking here but not in the previous verses. You have to take this verse along with the other verses before and after because it flows, there isn’t any major disconnect.

The Logical Conclusion

But look at the foolishness and absurdity thinking Solomon is speaking here takes you to. Even a child could understand the problem.

Solomon saying, “I am black and beautiful.” means he’s telling the daughters of Jerusalem, he is black, but beautiful. He’s black like the tents of Kedar, also black like the curtains of Solomon.

They want you to believe Solomon is saying, he’s black like his own curtains. Solomon could speak in the third person here, but the context doesn’t agree. You’d only be making it up to prove a point. That’s eisegesis though, not exegesis.

The Context

The next verse tells us why the person is black, but according to their logic, this would still be Solomon speaking. So after Solomon tells us he’s black like the curtains of Solomon, he then continues and says in verse 6,

“Look not upon me because I [am] black, because the sun has looked upon me. My mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards, but my own vineyard have I not kept.”

Don’t look at me, because I’m black. I’m black because the sun has looked on me.

Their interpretation means Solomon’s siblings were angry with him; they made him work all day outside in the vineyards, but he wasn’t able to look after his own. Utter folly.

The Reality

Notice in these two verses Solomon is speaking about black being a bad thing. Black, but beautiful as if black is bad. Black, because I’ve been working all day in the sun. This is not Solomon speaking. Even if it was, it would be Solomon hating his skin tone.

This is not someone who has identity issues. This is someone working all day in the sun and getting sunburnt.

Look at the next verse.

Solomon says to this man,

“Tell me, O thou whom my soul loves, where you feed, where you make your flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turns aside by the flocks of your companions?”

When you read the Song of Solomon, it’s clear Solomon is writing the song, but Solomon is not the person here in the song saying these lines. I mentioned this when speaking about Song of Solomon another time…

It’s clear as you read this, in Solomon’s Song, he is writing it from the perspective of a man and a woman. This would be like reading Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. Shakespeare writes from the angle of Romeo and also the angle of Juliet. This is what King Solomon is doing in the Song of Solomon.

If Solomon did say those lines, like I showed you, he would be into clear sodomy, something no king following the Law of Moses would ever do.

But it’s clear from verse 2-7 this is not a man speaking; this is a woman speaking in the song. You can’t say Solomon is speaking in the song as the man saying, “I’m black.” It’s clear the woman is speaking in those verses.