In this article, I continue to address some of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.
Article 1’s Legislative Usurpation
Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines a “legislator” as “a lawgiver, one who makes laws….”1 How does this definition and Article 1’s Legislative Branch comport with what the Bible declares about legislators?
Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 declare that Yahweh2 is the exclusive legislator. There are no others, period! Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statutes, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the sin begun by Adam and Eve. The same is true for any one of us who would modify Yahweh’s triune law.
Any legislation antithetical to Yahweh’s turns evil to good and good to evil (Isaiah 5:20). When man rejects Yahweh’s standard of morality, it is inevitable he will make legal what Yahweh has made unlawful (e.g., infanticide and sodomy) and make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful (e.g., monotheistic Christianity outside the four walls of church buildings).
Yahweh is the only lawgiver because as Creator He’s the only one with the authority to determine what is good and evil. His morals as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments determine what is right and left. Anything left of His right(eousness) is left, liberal, and ungodly.3
This Biblical truth did not dissuade the constitutional framers from legislating or providing for a legislative branch of government in perpetuity. Is it any wonder America is drowning in an inestimable number of “laws,” most of which conflict with Yahweh’s morality?
As the source of morality, Yahweh is the source of all true law. Because legislation enacts morality, morality and legislation are indivisible. Yahweh holds the monopoly on legislation and thus on the determination of what is good and what is evil….
Article 1 begins, “All legislative powers herein granted….” Granted by whom? You will look in vain to find any reference (inside or outside the Constitution) in which the framers affirmed the government’s legislative powers were granted by Yahweh. Neither did they ever affirm the laws of Yahweh:
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)
And yet the men at the Philadelphia convention are lauded for their disregard for Yahweh and His law. Any attempt to legislate outside Biblical parameters is sedition against Yahweh. To usurp a legislator’s power is to dethrone him:
“[The God of Puritanism] stripped of his antique powers [by the constitutional framers] … had no recourse but to enter as a weakened prince into the temple of individualism, and there to seek refuge.” (Richard Mosier, The American Temper (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1952) p. 70.)4
The moment the Constitution was ratified by the States as the supreme law of the land (per Article 6), 17th-century Colonial America’s Christendom (Christian dominion on behalf of Christ) became merely Christianity, confined to people’s hearts and the four walls of their church buildings. Christianity very quickly became salt that had lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the feet of man (Matthew 5:13).
The legislation agreed upon by the framers and authorized by the Constitution is frequently inconsonant with and antagonistic to Yahweh’s law:
“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1)
If we believe all morality originates with Yahweh, then we must conclude any law that adds to or subtracts from His law represents lawlessness, unrighteousness, and immorality.4
America teeters on the precipice of depravity and destruction because the framers’ failed to expressly establish the Republic upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His law.
Because Yahweh is the sole legislator, only His legislation is law. Any attempt to make laws contrary or in addition to His laws is ultimately futile, as demonstrated by the fickle propensity of constitutional “legislators”:
“Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U. S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal. “(W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4, quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 644.)4
This has been the inevitable pattern ever since the Constitution was adopted.
Psalm 19:7-11 declares that Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments are more desirable than gold. The framers obviously did not desire them because they replaced them with their own edicts.
“…they that handle the law knew me not…. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit…. For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:8-13)
Because Yahweh’s law is perfect [Psalm 19:7], endeavors to improve upon it, via human legislators, are attempts to dethrone our King and commandeer His throne. This is what happened in the Garden, at the Tower of Babel, and when the people chose Saul over Yahweh as their king. It is what has been attempted every time our forefathers rejected Yahweh’s laws and chose man’s laws to replace them.
“Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment [of men].” (Hosea 5:11)4
R.J. Rushdoony explained that “since there is only one true God, and His law is the expression of His unchanging nature and righteousness, then to abandon the Biblical law for another law-system is to change gods.”5 In other words, man’s choice of legislator(s) determines his god:
If Christians truly believed Isaiah 33:22, they would refuse to use the word “legislators” for yesterday’s constitutional framers or today’s senators and representatives. They certainly would not regard the unbiblical decrees of these “legislators” as law.
“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever.” (Deuteronomy 4:39-40)6
Stay tuned for Part 4.
Related posts:
Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation”
Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?
1. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “Legislator” (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).
2. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
3. Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?
4. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
5. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 20.
6. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
I greatly appreciate the clarity in your message that there is only One LawGiver, even YHWH, Who has spoken to us in these last days through His Son, Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, an act of rebellion and idolatry for His people to submit to ‘aliens’ who neither acknowledge nor submit to Him, His Law or His Authority in Christ. It is for all of this, and more, that Christ is calling to His own people in this day to ‘REPENT’ and to ‘COME OUT OF HER’; to repent for having been deceived into submitting to imposters and to ‘come out’ by forsaking the faith we have placed in those who have demonstrated their enmity toward Christ, to be restored to Him in time to manifest Him and His Rule in and through us on this earth, before His enemies advance any further in carrying out the satanic plot against our King.
Being one who no longer desires any contracts with any Luciferian-run municipal corporation, and has ended those I can and taken authority over those I can’t (convincing the muni-corp agents is another matter), and also seeing your excellent efforts trying to get the body to come out of the world system, I thank Yeshua for keeping you strong until he calls you Home.
Again, Mr. W, an excellent analysis, and a dash of cold water on the mostly Antinomian lawless ‘impastors’ out there, whose morality changes with the election of the next apostate individual. God’s people, under God’s Law, for God’s Promised Land- as it was in ancient Israel, so as it is today.
“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, ON EARTH, as it is in Heaven.”
(using the present continuous tense in Greek- meaning, it endures as long as Man endures on Earth.)
I do not.
I looked at a few of this person’s articles. I would advise anyone to be very careful. There appears, in my opinion, to be a very strong bias toward white supremacy with some measure of Christian philosophy thrown into the mix.
I could not find the author’s name anywhere or any other information about him (her). Even the About page at the top left has nothing of this sort. Personally, I do not trust anyone who isn’t willing to put his (her) name behind what is said. When we are dealing with Christian law, principles, and doctrine, we should be bold in our declarations and not afraid that someone will actually see who we are or what we believe.
Thanks Roger! I am extremely concerned that the heresy of “Christian Identity” might be promoted by Mr. Weiland and some of his followers. Praise the Lord for your comment and diligence to truth. I am a theonomist and quite concerned about those who preach a different gospel than the one we have received in Holy Scripture. Also, for the most part I adhere to the Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century and am very leery of those who claim to have some sort of “new” knowledge or interpretation of Scripture.
Angela, I think some clarification would be prudent.
First, I do not employ the term “Christian Identity” for my beliefs because it’s an umbrella term that is usually employed to include doctrines that I have not only publicly denounced (such as white supemacy and racism) but in, some instances, have written books against. For example, my book “Eve: Did She or Didn’t She?,” which exposes the two-seedline doctrine that Cain was a physical descendant of Satan and Eve as completely without Biblical merit.
That said, do I believe there’s been a mistaken identity when it comes to today’s physical descendants of the Biblical Israelites–that is, that instead of today’s Jews, it’s someone else? Absolutely! Now, please explain what’s so heretical about believing this?
As I’ve pointed out to you previously, even many Reformed leaders know that today’s Jews are not physical descendants of Jacob/Israel. Many Jewish authorities (their own encyclopedias, Almanacs, anthropologists, and historians) also teach the same thing. For example, what follows is taken from the 1980 Jewish Almanac. In fact, its the first sentence in this Almanac, in a chapter entitled “Identity Crisis”:
“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a
‘Hebrew.’” (Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins, eds., “Identity Crisis,” The Jewish Almanac, (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3.)
I can provide you a photocopy of this page if you would like.
If, in fact, today’s Jews are not physical descendants of Jacob/Israel but are instead descendants of the Khazarians and are known as Jews not because of any Israelite extraction, but instead because their ancestors ( between the 7th and 10th centuries AD) adopted the religion of Judaism–then someone else must be today’s Israelites, that is , if you believe, for example, Hebrews 8:8-9.
I would like to know if, in fact, you do believe Hebrews 8:8-9 and Jeremiah 31:31-37 from which Hebrews 8:8-11 is quoted. Before answering this question, pay special attention to Jeremiah 31:23 and Hebrews 8:9, both of which identify the recipients as physical Israelites.
Whether or not you’re personally ready to embrace Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding physical Israelites, the Israelites have not gone out of existence (Jeremiah 31:35-37, etc.) and someone therefore must be their descendants today. So, I ask you again, what’s heretical in trying to identify who they are, especially in light of the myriad of Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant that can only be fulfilled by Israelites?
You and I may disagree as to their modern-day identity. But neither you nor I have the right to change the recipients of those Old Testament prophecies to someone else without making the prophet a liar, and Yahweh impotent to fulfill those prophecies with whom He inspired the prophet to identify as the recipients.
I doubt you have studied this issue enough to where you’re competent to know whether it’s heretical or not. Why not take me up on my previous offer for a free copy of “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” I assure you that you will be provided irrefutable Biblical information therein that you have probably never considered before–for example, the Biblical definitions for the word goyim and ethne, regrettably translated “gentiles” in our English versions.
My offfer for a free copy of this book is extended to all participants and readers of this blog.
Angela, I’d like to encourage you to take Ted up on his offer of a free copy of his book “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” I, too, am a theonomist and a member of a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America) which embraces the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechism and the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Additionally, we use the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563. I have read Ted’s book twice because I found it so fascinating and compelling. I have shared it with one of my teaching elders and he and I will be meeting soon to compare notes on our respective readings. He has commented to me on several occasions that he, too, finds the book fascinating and that it provides a whole new basis for reading and understanding Paul’s New Testament writings as they relate to Israelites. The book is written in much the same exegetical style as Keith Mathison’s “Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope” if you have had the opportunity to read that. Ted’s book is a scholarly work product and worthy of an objective reading. That God might actually be saving the Israelites in the manner Ted describes is God glorifying in such a miraculous and mysterious manner that it actually puts one in awe of the lengths God will go to in keeping His promises. I found the book to be precise in its Biblical consistency. Read it and provide your thoughts on this blog. I think you’ll be glad you did.
Dear PCA Reader, The PCA is a mixed bag and I am extremely sorry and concerned that you and a teaching elder are so easily led astray. Might I suggest you find a more theologically discerning church for Worship? Perhaps an OPC is in your area?
Angela, you really should quit while your ahead. Now, your accusing PCA Reader of being led astray, once again, without producing one shred of evidence to prove your accusation. Does this reflect how the OPC goes about addressing precieved error in others?
Angela, you have made false accusations based on absolutely NOTHING. You have shown the propensity for concluding a matter without hearing the evidence: “He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” (Proverbs 18:13)
Listen up folks… I plan to do a more thorough examination of Ted Weiland and his theology in the near future, but for now I’ve done my duty by warning you all that it appears to be riddled with error and specifically that of some sort of “Christian Identity” belief (which is racism). Sorry to be so blunt, but it seems y’all need plain speaking. I’ll get started on the examination of Bible Law vs. the Constitution next week and post my thoughts on my blog “For Christ’s Crown & Covenant.” http://4christcrowncovenant.wordpress.com/
Have a nice weekend.
Angela: “I plan to do a more thorough examination of Ted Weiland and his theology in the near future….”
Does this mean you’re taking me up on my offer and would like me to send you a copy of “Mystery.” Otherwise, how do you intend to do a “more thorough examination” of my theology regarding today’s Israelites and the gentiles? Once again, I would ask, why are you so fearful of accepting my offer for a free copy of this book?
Angela: “I’ve done my duty by warning you all that it appears to be riddled with error….”
Why would you feel it necessary to warn others about something that only “appears to be riddled with error”? Isn’t that a violation of Proverbs 18:13? How will you prove this to be true without reading the book that specifically addresses this issue?
You’ve implied that my beliefs are racist. I believe both Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-37), the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:8-9), and Paul (Romans 9:4) that the New Covenant was made with a remnant from both the house of Judah and the house of Israel through the blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Chrsti. Does this then mean that you likewise believe Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews, and Paul (and the One who inspired them) are all racist as well?
Dear Ted, I am not fearful of accepting a copy of your book… But my time is limited and I don’t know when I would be able to get to it, as I’ve already committed to reviewing your book “Bible Law vs. the US Constitution.” In a matter as serious as this, I am praying to be thorough and objective of your work. My use of the word “appears” is accurate because I haven’t thoroughly examined your work. I don’t think I am in violation of any commandments by warning others to be cautious. And if you are an open minded man, then you’ll read my reviews of your work (yes, I said reviews because with a book that lengthy I’ll probably have to do a series) with a spirit of humility. Who knows but that we’ll both learn from this experience. 🙂
Of course, I will read your reviews. As for being objective, you have thus far proved to be anything but objective in your responses (including this one, it’s clear you’ve already made up your mind) thus far (and I doubt anyone who has read your responses would disagree me). Consequently, I don’t have much hope you’ll be objective in reviewing my book either. However, if we both pray about it, who knows.
I would still like to hear your answer to the following question: You’ve implied that my beliefs are racist. I believe both Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 31:31-37), the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:8-9), and Paul (Romans 9:4) that the New Covenant was made with a remnant from both the house of Judah and the house of Israel through the blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Does this then mean that you likewise believe Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews, and Paul (and the One who inspired them) are all racist as well?
Sorry, Ted, I missed this response… You wrote:
I believe both Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 31:31-37), the author of Hebrews (Hebrews
8:8-9), and Paul (Romans 9:4) that the New Covenant was made with a remnant from
both the house of Judah and the house of Israel through the blood atoning
sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Does this then mean that you likewise
believe Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews, and Paul (and the One who inspired
them) are all racist as well?
Ted, are you familiar with Covenantal theology? I am reformed and have been taught from O. Palmer Robertson’s “The Christ of the Covenants.” Of course I don’t think Jeremiah or Paul was racist. They were looking beyond “bloodlines” to the heart – the faith – of God’s people. I will repeat that it is my belief from what I’ve seen, that you are off on a tangent with this bloodline teaching, and in the name of Jesus Christ, I refuse to join you. I’ve got my eyes on the “big” picture here and I’ll not be pulled into an argument on who are true Israelites according to their bloodline. Someone else can argue that point with you. I am going to review your book on the Constitution because it is the hook you are using to catch some reformed theonomists, of which I won’t be one. Now if I find that you have a good grasp on covenantal theology, I’ll make a public apology. Until then, please leave me alone. Thanks.
So, are you telling me that O. Palmer Robertson trumps Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews, and the Apostle Paul? Who cares what some non-inspired finite says, especially if it contradicts clearly stated Scripture. What’s important is, “Thus saith the Lord!”
So, what does He say through these three Holy Spirit-inspired men? Let’s just take Hebrews 8, for example:
“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: 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….” (Hebrews 8:8-9)
Note that the people whom the author of Hebrews declares Yahweh made the New Covenant with (of course, via the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) are identified specifically as “the house of Israel and … the house of Judah,” the physical descendants of the Old Covenant Israelites whom Moses led out of Egypt. If that’s not what you take away from this passage, go back and read it again and again and again… until all of the cognitive dissonance has been erased from your mind because THAT’S what it says.
Now, I accept that’s what it says and the second and third witnesses in Jeremiah 31:31-37 and Romans 9:3-4, all of which declare the same thing. For this, you’ve implicated me as a racist. Therefore, since I’m only repeating what these inspired men declared, if I’m a racist, then consistency demands that you identify Jeremiah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews as racist as well.
I’m saying O. Palmer Robertson trumps Ted Weiland. End of discussion.
Once again, you’ve done a great job of evading the issue.
I meant to give you another heads up on a more complete reply to Bill Fortenberry. Scroll to his comment which begins: “I’ll take you up on that challenge, Ted.” You’ll find the more complete esponse three posts underneath his.
If nothing else, I am discovering a pattern of you accusing those who disagree with you of “evading the issue.” The truth of the matter is, you appear to use a different method of reading and understanding Scripture than those who are of a systematic background. These insights might prove to be useful once (Lord willing) I can get time to reviewing your Bible Law vs. the Constitution book. Thanks. Have a nice day and there is no need to alert me when you respond to others.
You can prove my accusation untrue by specifically addressing the three passages I’ve repeatedly presented to you in one the following fashions:
1) By declaring that you do not accept them for what they say and provide your reason(s) for why you do not accept them for they say.
2) By admitting that consistency demands you also identify Jeremiah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews as racists, or
3) Retract your statements implicating me as a racist.
Angela, I’m curios to discover where you find your Biblical authority to rebuke Mr. Weiland, outside the umbrella of your husband’s cover, especially when said rebuke is nothing but slander? It is an absolute LIE, that Ted labels all who disagree, with the “evading the issue” tag.
The truth is, for whatever your “reasoning”, you ARE evading the issue repeatedly. You commit “drive-by” attacks, unworthy of one claiming to be an advocate for Christ and Crown. By your insults, you display a lack of humility. Even your comment, “O. Palmer Robertson trumps Ted Weiland”, reeks of arrogance. Whether that be true or not, you failed to provide even ONE Scriptural reference to validate your claim.
As for your MISUNDERSTANDING of Covenantal theology, the Reformers miss the mark. It is imperative to have an understanding of the consistencies of the intended subjects of Yahweh’s Covenants throughout Scripture. Due to Reformed theology’s inability to correctly identify the players, their views on Covenantal theology results in a faulty scorecard, akin to their own version of replacement theology. Covenantal theology DID NOT start with the Reformers. It started in the Garden, and the gameplan hasn’t been altered one iota. Ted understands this, but he is NOT the only one who does.
By your labeling Ted, and his correct interpretation of Covenantal theology, as racist, you have, by implication, also labeled me as racist. I ask that you repent, and humbly apologize four your Ninth Commandment violation against me, as well as Ted, and ANYONE else here who understands the deep, ever-abiding love that Yahweh has for His people, as demonstrated by the very nature of His Covenants, an understanding that, for whatever reason, Yahweh has yet to reveal to you.
Mr. Price, I praise God that you dislike me and sincerely ask Him to see to it that I never cross your path again. You are displaying the qualities of a hateful bully who in reality is probably not a man of much notice. Please do not ever try to converse with me again or I might just complain to my husband who is a man of noticeable qualities; including being over 6 feet tall and weighing over 200 lbs. Please also know that he is all muscle – with no fat or laziness. he would probably deal with the likes of you before even having breakfast.
Angela, I just wanted to give you a heads up to my first reply to Bill Fortenberry’s response to me in which I state 10 foundational Biblical truths regarding the Israel issue under debate.
Still hoping to hear that you would like to review “Mystery.”
Angela, I appreciate your comments.
I, too, have some disagreements with Mr. Weiland about certain things, but that can be said about everyone and is no deterrent to our working relationship. I am sure that I would have some concerns about your stated beliefs and that you would have some about mine. To see a small sample of what I think and believe, go to my blog:
http://christianusa.us/gideonproject/
I have not seen everything Mr. Weiland (Ted) has written, but I can say that I have never seen a “heresy” of Christian Identity in his work. Heresy is a strong term and should not be used lightly or without just cause and solid evidence. For that matter, any doctrine or teaching could be construed as heretical by any person who disagreed with it.
That the “heresy” of Christian Identity MIGHT be promoted by Ted and SOME of his followers does not mean that it is. That’s a pretty loose statement. Do you have any good, solid evidence that makes you believe they are linked? If so, please present it. If not, then you should retract your claim.
Finally, it is my belief that Ted is NOT claiming to have any “new” knowledge or interpretation of Scripture. Even though I disagree with some of his conclusions, I think that they are biblically-based and very strongly reasoned. In fact, there are many Christian writers who could drastically improve their writing if they cited the scripture as much as Ted does.
Again, do you have any evidence where he has made claims of this nature? Or not? Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Please bring yours to the table so we can determine if it’s any good.
Roger, thank you for coming to my defense. Angela’s accusations are interesting especially in light of the fact that many of those who hold to term “Christian Identity,” consider me their worst enemy.
That said, I don’t want to mislead anyone here on this blog or anywhere else. Whereas, I do not hold to the term “Christian Identity” for the reasons I stressed to Angela (I prefer the term “Christian Israel,” if a term must be used at all), I do accept Hebrews 8:8-9 at face value–that is, that the New Covenant was made with a remnant of Israelites from the house of Judah and the house of Israel via Christ’s blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. In other words, no automatic salvation by race or lineage. I also believe that whereas the covenant is specific to Israelites (Romans 9:3-4, Hebrews 8:8-9, etc.), unlike most Identity folk, I also believe that non-Israelites can be proselytes to the New Covenant just like they could under the Old Covenant.
I also believe it can be proven Biblically, archeologically, and historically that today’s Israelites are found in today’s Celtic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples. In fact, I believe I can also Biblically prove that if this is not the case then Yahweh is an impotent liar who cannot fulfill His New Covenant promises.
I extend my offer to you or anyone else here who would like to take me up on both my offers to Angela–that is, for a free copy of “The Mystery of the Gentiles,” and if, after reading it, you don’t believe I prove the case concerning the word “gentiles,” as translated from “goyim” and “ethne,” I will send you $100.
Please let me know, I would love to send you a copy.
Sure, I’ll take a copy. You should have my address in your database. I haven’t studied this issue at all and wasn’t even aware that a controversy existed until now. I like learning new things and hope that I’m always coming closer to the truth.
Roger, I believe that you will find Ted’s book “The Mystery of the Gentiles” quite revealing. It’s amazing what we automatically presume to know, based upon the many false teachings of Romanism, teachings that the Reformers also took for granted. As the great philosopher Mark Twain is reported to have said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I expect I will. Ted’s work usually is.
Personally, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Scripture says that “there is no more Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female but we are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)
If I read this correctly, then there is no distinction between anyone who is born again and in the service of Jesus Christ. No distinction at all. We are all the same in His eyes. Why then is there so much ruckus made as to who is the “true” Israelite or who is “gentile”?
As far as I’m concerned, there are only two groups of people on this earth–those who are His and those who aren’t. I don’t really care what their ancestry is or might be.
Wow! Is that “sacreligious” or what?
Jesus came to set people free and one of the things I have been set free from is a prejudicial attitude towards others. It doesn’t matter to me anymore who they are, where they came from, or what they look like. My duty is to love them the way Jesus did–without bias.
Roger, I just wanted to give you a heads up to my first reply to
Bill Fortenberry’s response to me in which I state 10 foundational
Biblical truths regarding the Israel issue under debate.
I didn’t see that at the top of this page. Perhaps I missed it or is it on another post?
Because it’s a reply to a reply …, you’ll need to scroll down to Bill Fortenberry’s responses. Look for the one that has an outline form to it and my response with 10 points.
Roger, this is another head’s up regarding a much more complete answer to Bill Fortenberry. Look for his response that begins “I’ll take you up on that challenge, Ted.,” and then scroll down to the third post following it, which should be a long reply from me.
I’ll take you up on that challenge, Ted. There is no need to send me a copy of your book. I’ve already got a copy, and I’ve read through the first four chapters so far. I’ll keep reading, but I think that I’ve already uncovered enough to demonstrate that I don’t believe that you have adequately proven your case. Here are a few of the notes that I have jotted down so far:
I. Ezra records that people from all twelve tribes of Israel returned to the land after the Babylonian captivity.
a. “the men of the people of Israel” – Ezra 2:2
b. “and all Israel in their cities” – Ezra 2:70
c. “the children of Israel were in the cities” – Ezra 3:1
d. “the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel” – Ezra 4:3
e. “the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity” – Ezra 6:16
f. “the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity” – Ezra 6:21
g. “all they of the people of Israel” – Ezra 7:13
h. “I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me” – Ezra 7:28
i. “there assembled unto him out of Israel” – Ezra 10:1
j. “and all Israel” – Ezra 10:5
k. “Moreover of Israel: of the sons of Parosh…” – Ezra 10:25-43 (ten families; one for each of the ten tribes)
II. Nehemiah referred to the people who returned as the people of Israel.
a. “the welfare of the children of Israel” – Neh 2:10
b. “the men of the people of Israel” – Neh 7:7 (quote from Ezra)
c. “and all Israel, dwelt in their cities” – Neh 7:73 (quote from Ezra)
d. “the children of Israel were assembled” – Neh 9:1
e. “the residue of Israel” – Neh 11:20
f. “And all Israel” – Neh 12:47
III. Return of both Judah and Israel was foretold by Jeremiah.
a. “they shall come together out of the land of the north” – Jer 3:18
b. “which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country” – Jer 23:8
c. “I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah” – Jer 30:3
d. “the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together” – Jer 50:4 (during the days of the Medo-Persian Empire)
IV. Other prophets also spoke of the reuniting of the two kingdoms.
a. “and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all” – Eze 37:22
b. “and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel” – Eze 39:25
c. “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together” – Hos 1:11
V. The New Testament blends Jews and Israelites together.
a. “I am verily a man which am a Jew” – Acts 22:3
b. “I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” – Rom 11:1
c. “Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I.” – II Cor 11:22
d. “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews” – Php 3:5
VI. The New Testament recognized a distinction between Israel and the Gentiles.
a. “through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles” – Rom 11:11
b. “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles” – Acts 21:11
c. “yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” – Acts 28:17
d. “the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness … But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness” – Rom 9:30-31
You can send me the $100 through paypal. Just let me know your email address, and I’ll send you a link to my account.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Luke mentions Anna who was of the tribe of Aser (Luke 2:36), and Paul references “our twelve tribes” in Acts 26:7.
I would also like to add Walter Martin’s booklet “Herbert W. Armstrong & The Worldwide Church of God”, on page 15 quoted one of the greatest Hebrew scholars David Baron, as saying “…when we read that the “king of Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away into Assyria,” we are not to understand that he cleared the whole land of all the people, but that he took the strength of the nation with him.”
One can get the booklet at: http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Armstrong-The-Worldwide-Church/dp/0871232138
Also it would be very great if one the download and read one of the best book on the subject “The History of the Ten “Lost” Tribes Anglo-Israelism Examined”, by David Baron
http://ia700401.us.archive.org/35/items/historyoftenlost00barouoft/historyoftenlost00barouoft.pdf
Thank you, Gregory. Baron’s book looks very intriguing, and I have downloaded the Kindle version to add to my reading list.
Very good. Everybody who is dealing with this issue I hope they would do the same if they haven’t already (and that include Ted).
Some more resources that I would like to recommend are:
1) “Anglo-Israelism and the United States & Britain in Prophecy”,
http://www.gci.org/prophecy/usb
2) “DESTROYING THE MYTH (British Israelism) OF THE 10 LOST TRIBES”
http://www.forhisglory.org/PDFs/DestroyingTheMyth.pdf
3) “The British-Israel Myth- Christian Identity and the Lost Tribes of Israel”, by Nick Greer
http://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080419_090424_78173659.pdf
4) “The Legend Of British-Israel”, by C.T. Dimont, D.D.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_legend_dimont.html
Bill, let me begin by restating my offer as first declared
to Angela:
“Angela, the way you’ve employed the word ‘gentiles’ here,
as if the term automatically means non-Israelites, is indicative that you do not understand the Biblical definitions of the Hebrew word ‘goyim’ and the Greek word ‘ethne,’ from which ‘gentiles’ was translated. Even your capitalization of the word is incorrect. Once again, I hope you will take me up on my offer for a free copy of ‘The Mystery of the Gentiles.’”
“If you read it and you think I failed to prove this claim, I’ll pay you the suggested price of $10 for the book. In fact, let me make this even more appealing; I’ll pay 10 Xs the suggested price.”
Bill, note the word “this” in the second paragraph. Following is how I restated it to Roger:
“I extend my offer to you or anyone else here who would like
to take me up on both my offers to Angela–that is, for a free copy of ‘The Mystery of the Gentiles,’ and if, after reading it, [if] you don’t believe I prove[n] the case concerning the word ‘gentiles,’ as translated from ‘goyim’ and ‘ethne,’ I will send you $100.”
My offer was very specific regarding the Biblical definitions of the Hebrew word “goyim” and the Greek word “ethne” as they relate to the word “Gentiles,” as found in our English Bibles, none of which you addressed in your reply.
However, had you proven your point on the separate issues to
which you did respond (like you think you have,) I would still be pleased to send you the $100. Lord willing, I’ll address both the issue regarding the “gentiles” and your issue below in separate emails, as time permits. In the meantime, I wonder if you’ll extend the same offer to me—that is, if I prove your points in
this response incorrect, will you send me $100?
If I’m not mistaken, the proposition made in your fifth chapter that “some of these gentiles fulfilled Bible prophecies that were intended for Israelites” is contingent upon the claim in your first four chapters that “Yahweh dispersed the house of Israel throughout the nations, and eventually their identity was forgotten by the other nations.” I have demonstrated that the foundation of your position is flawed. If Israel was not scattered throughout the nations and forgotten but rather returned to the promised land along with Judah, then it seems to me that your entire argument falls apart. But perhaps I am mistaken. Maybe you could explain to me exactly how Deuteronomy 32:26 was carried out in accordance with your view.
As for me offering you $100, God has not given me any funds to bandy about in such a manner, so you’ll simply have to be satisfied with the potential assurance of the accuracy of your claims.
Bill, thank you for reinforcing the concept that one should always be diligent in their studies. I have now been able to see you in a new light. I once thought you to be of a fairly well developed intellect, but I see now that you masquerade your blindness as scholarship.
“I have demonstrated that the foundation of your position is flawed. If Israel was not scattered throughout the nations and forgotten but rather returned to the promised land along with Judah, then it seems to me that your entire argument falls apart.”
You have demonstrated NO such thing. Your confusion of terminology is remarkable.
“V. The New Testament blends Jews and Israelites together.a. “I am verily a man which am a Jew” – Acts 22:3
b. “I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” – Rom 11:1
c. “Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I.” – II Cor 11:22
d. “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews” – Php 3:5”
First, what is your definition of “Jew”, as it pertains to the time of Christ? Are you aware that, at the time of Christ, there were Israelite Jews (Judahites), Edomite Jews, AND Palestinian (Ishmaelite) Jews? Are you distinguishing between ethnic Jews (Judahites) and geographical Jews (Judeans)? Are you claiming that Herod the Great, an Edomite, and therefore NOT an Israelite, was “blended together” with the Israelites? Is it your contention that ALL Israelites are Jews, and (or) ALL Jews are Israelites? Is it your understanding that gentile ALWAYS means non-Jew or non-Israelite? If so, are you claiming that Herod the Great was both a Jew AND a non-Jew?
Your “expose” of the errors in Ted’s book needs a major overhaul. It is quite understandable the confusion when you begin the process with erroneous suppositions firmly entrenched. The very nature of your “discovered inaccuracies” in Ted’s book, point to your inability to leave all predetermined biases at the cover page. And for the record, if you truly had uncovered errors in Ted’s book, he would be the FIRST to humbly thank you, and send the book to the printers for a redo. But, in this matter, that is not the case. Please don’t make the mistake that some do, in presuming that Ted is surrounded by nothing but uneducated sycophants, following his every word. Some of us actually graduated kindergarten. Though it may be difficult to believe, there are probably two or three of us here who can even read on a post-graduate level, like at least second or third grade.
***Disclaimer: The last two sentences above are intended purely as sarcasm. Like Jethro Bodean, I graduated sixth grade!***
The History OF THE TEN “LOST” TRIBES. ANGLO-ISRAELISM EXAMINED , BY DAVID BARON
“III. The final overthrow of the northern kingdom
took place, as we have seen, in the year B.C. 721 ; but
when we read that the ” King of Assyria took Samaria
and carried Israel away into Assyria,” we are not to
understand that he cleared the whole land of all the
people, but that he took the strength of the nation with
him. There were, no doubt, many of the people left
in the land ; even as was the case after the overthrow
of the southern kingdom by the Bab3^1onians later on
(2 Kings xxv. 12). The historical proof for my assertion
is found in the fact that about a century after the fall
of Samaria, we find in the reign of Josiah some of
Manasseh and Ephraim, ” and a remnant of all Israel,”
in the land, who contributed to the collection made by
the Levites for the repair of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and joined in the celebration of the great Passover in the eighteenth year of that zealous and promising young king. ”
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/35/items/historyoftenlost00barouoft/historyoftenlost00barouoft_djvu.txt
http://ia700401.us.archive.org/35/items/historyoftenlost00barouoft/historyoftenlost00barouoft.pdf
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyoftenlost00barouoft#page/n3/mode/2up
Lord willing, I’ll get to your first paragraph of this post after I’ve responded to your previous post. However, before going to it, it would seem you’re not too confident in your theology on this issue. If you were, you would likewise be confident that you wouldn’t being paying me $100.
Let me know when you have read Chapter 5 of “Mystery,” please.
First Response:
Bill, if this response is from you is indicative of how you also approached and read “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution” and “Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government (or anything else I’ve written), I’m concerned about your capacity to lay aside pre-conceived ideas and to read someone’s work without bias. Frankly, seeing you did essentially the same thing in your review of Dr. Frazer’s book “The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders,” I’m not at all surprised.
You said you had already read the first four chapters. I recommend you go back and re-read them, without prejudice. Many of your points are answered in a careful unbiased reading of those chapters.
For the sake of time and space, I’m going to assume some
foundational issues that I believe you are Biblically astute enough to know and concur with me. Correct me, if in any of my assumptions about your concurrence I’m incorrect.
1) During King Saul’s and King David’s reigns, the kingdom of Israel consisted of all twelve tribes and was a united kingdom.
2) During King Solomon’s reign, the kingdom was divided into two distinct houses: the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
3) The house of Israel consisted of the ten northern tribes.
4) The house of Judah consisted of the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with Judah being the principal tribe and the reason why it was called the house of Judah. (The Levites also remained with the house of Judah.)
5) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Israelites. Instead,
they were Hebrews.
6) The first Israelites were Jacob/Israel’s twelve sons. The
reason for this is because they were descended from a man whose name was changed to Israel. Consequently, those twelve sons and their descendants were known as Israelites.
7) Therefore, it is incorrect to identify Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any other Hebrew before Jacob/Israel’s twelve sons as Israelites.
8) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs (including Judah) were not Jews, better rendered Judahites.
9) That it wasn’t until after the split between the house of Israel and the house of Judah that the Bible ever identifies anyone as Jews (2 Kings 16:6) and that the term was NOT employed in reference to all twelve tribes, but only to the descendants of the house of Judah.
10) Therefore, it is incorrect to call any Hebrew or Israelite before the split or those from house of Israel Jews or Judahites.
For now, let’s make sure were on the same page on these ten foundational points. If you’re in agreement with all ten points, just simply respond “Agreed.” If on any point, you disagree with me, please explain why you disagree.
All of your statements were true before the return of both Judah and Israel from their captivity in c. 450 BC. At that point, the two nations were blended into one nation again, and the names “Jews” and “Israelites” became interchangeable terms used in reference to people of that united kingdom.
I have read chapter five, but I have not compiled my notes from that chapter yet.
Your response is exactly how I expected you would answer. I will get to a more detailed reply first opportunity I get. In the meantime, would you also agree for there to have been a reuniting of the house of Judah and the house of Israel at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah that both the house of Judah and the house of Israel would have had to have been present in the land of Judah at that time for this alleged reuniting to have occurred?
If by the land of Judah you are referring to the promised land, then that is correct.
I’m referring to the land that Ezra and Nehemiah and those with them returned to from the Babylonian captivity that you claim both the house of Judah and house of Israel returned to and were reunited in.
Then, yes, in order for there to have been a reuniting of the two kingdoms at that time, members of both groups must have been present in the land.
Ted, it has been several days since your last comment. I have read more of your book, and I keep coming back to the fact that your entire argument rests on the supposition that only the descendants of the kingdom of Judah returned to the promised land after the Babylonian captivity. I provided evidence above to show that this assumption is incorrect. Can you prove that descendants of the kingdom of Israel did not return to the land at that time? If not, I would appreciate it if you would follow through with your offer and send me the $100 that you promised.
With the ten previous agreed-upon facts (from my previous
reply) in hand, let’s now take a look at whether you’ve proven your points in your post above. In your last response, you agreed that in order for there to be a reunion of the house of Judah and the house of Israel at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah that both houses had to be present in the land that Ezra and the others returned to from Babylonian captivity—that is, in the land previously occupied by the two-tribed southern house of Judah. Consequently, it is incumbent upon you to prove the house of Israel’s presence in that land at that time, especially in light of the following facts:
1) The house of Israel was still in Assyrian captivity/dispersion at the time.
2) Their captivity/dispersion was never prophesied to end at the same time as the house of Judah’s captivity.
3) The prophecies that are time specific regarding the reunion of the house of Judah with the house of Israel were to be fulfilled under the New Covenant dispensation, as per Jeremiah 30 & 31, Ezekiel 37:15-28, Micah 5:2-6, etc. (I’ll discuss these prophecies in more detail later.)
4) Jeremiah’s prophecies referred to in Ezra 1:1 are clearly only about the two-tribed house of Judah; they do not include the ten-tribed house of Israel in any sense.
As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, most, if not
all, of your points are answered in Chapters 1-4, Chapter 2 specifically. You said you had read these chapters prior to your post above, but it would seem not very closely or with an intent to understand them. Otherwise, you would never have used the arguments in your previous post to try to prove your position.
You begin by asserting that “Ezra records that people from all twelve tribes of Israel returned to the land after the Babylonian captivity.” The fact is Ezra did NOT record that people from ALL twelve tribes returned to the land of Judah. You either need to retract that claim or provide a verse that actually says that. Ezra 1:1 declares that what occurred was in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jeremiah 25) and had nothing to do with the ten northern tribes of the house of Israel. See Jeremiah 25:1-12.
Your entire argument that all twelve tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity rests upon the fact that phrases employing the appellation “Israel” are found throughout Ezra and Nehemiah. Indeed, they are. But that does not prove your point. Were Judah and Benjamin ISRAELITE tribes? Of course they were. Therefore, because they were citizens of the house of Judah they were known as Judahites (or Jews) and because they were descended from two of the twelve tribes of Israel, they were also known as Israelites or collectively as Israel.
It is true that the term “Israel” in Ezra and Nehemiah MIGHT be referring to descendants of all twelve tribes. However, it is just as true that “Israel” might be referring to ONLY Judahite Israelites from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Consequently, the context (and the related prophecies) must be used to determine whether it’s referring to all twelve tribes or only the
two-tribed house of Judah.
By themselves, Ezra 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1-12 prove that only
a remnant from the house of Judah returned from the house of Judah’s Babylonian captivity. Next, consider Ezra 10:
“And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; and that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away.” (Ezra 10:7-8)
Note the phrase “ALL the children of the captivity” and the judgment (property confiscation and excommunication) upon any who did not gather in the allotted three-day period. Nearly everyone (at least, representatives of all the tribes who had returned from the Babylonian captivity) would have done his level best to be at this meeting. If, as you contend, both the house of Judah and the house of Israel were present and reunited, then certainly all twelve tribes would have attended this meeting. But, that is not what occurred:
“Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves
together unto Jerusalem within three days.” (Ezra 10:9)
Why only the men of Judah and Benjamin? Because ONLY the
house of Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity and ONLY the house of Judah returned from Babylonian captivity. This perfectly fulfills “the word of YHWH by the mouth of Jeremiah,” as per Jeremiah 25:1-12.
Although Jeremiah’s prophecy and Ezra 10:7-9 is proof enough
that only Israelites from the two-tribed house of Judah returned from Babylon, following are some additional passages that prove the same thing:
“Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites [who had remained with the house of Judah at the time the united kingdom was severed into two houses], with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of YHWH which is in Jerusalem. …with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem.” (Ezra 1:5-11)
“Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city.” (Ezra 2:1)
“Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto YHWH God of Israel.” (Ezra 4:1)
“And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by
genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, these are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city.” (Nehemiah 7:5-6)
In other words, there is no textual evidence whatsoever for any reunion of the house of Judah and the house of Israel at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nor is there any evidence that all twelve tribes became known as “Jews” at this same time.
You also attempted to employ Paul as evidence for your argument that the terms “Jews” and “Israelites” applied to all twelve tribes of Israel:
“V. The New Testament blends Jews and Israelites together.
“a. “I am verily a man which am a Jew” – Acts 22:3
“b. “I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the
tribe of Benjamin” – Rom 11:1”
Hopefully, you recognize your error. Indeed, Paul is great example of the fact that the terms “Israelites” and “Judahites” were interchangeable ONLY for citizens of the house of Judah. Paul is not evidence that all twelve tribes of Israel became known as Jews or Judahites. Instead, he provides further confirmation that only the house of Judah was identified by both terms: Paul was a Benjamite Judahite Israelite. A Benjamite by tribe, a Judahite by house, and an Israelite by nationality or lineage.
You also attempted to use Anna of the tribe of Asher, cited in Luke 2:36, as evidence for the same. However, Anna is never identified as a Judahite, nor is she used as evidence for an already accomplished reunion between the house of Judah and the house of Israel.
Because this response is already quite long, I will not go into great detail regarding the time-sensitive Old Testament prophecies concerning the reunion of the house of Judah and the house of Israel, except to say the following:
1) Not only do they indicate that this reunion would occur during the New Covenant dispensation, some of them (like Micah 5) are messianic prophecies.
2) In Ezekiel 37, David is mentioned. But which David—the first
David or the second David? It has to be the second David (i.e., Christ), because by the time Ezekiel made this prophecy, the first David had been long dead and buried.
3) Jeremiah 31 is a continuation of the prophecies in Jeremiah 30, and Jeremiah 31:31-32 is clearly specific to the New Covenant. For more, see “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” at missiontoisrael.org/mystery-of-gentiles/index.php, or for anyone who doesn’t already have a copy, I’ll be pleased to send you a free copy of the book. (Perhaps, even Angie will now take me up on my offer.)
By the way, it so happens that three weeks ago (before this discussion commenced), I providentially began an expository
series on the book of Ezra. This past weekend, I preached Part 2, in which I began to address some of this same material. If anyone is interested in listening to this audio series, let me know and I’ll add you to either our regular CD mailing list or our general email list so that you can receive the CDs and/or the links. Email me at tweiland [at] vistabeam [dot] com. Let me know which way you prefer receiving them and provide me either your snail mail and/or email address.
That’s very interesting, Ted, but I’m curious. Why did you not consider the remainder of Ezra 10? In particular, I would like to know what you think of verses 25-43 which specifically mentions the men of ten different families who were said to be “of Israel.” Who were these ten families if not the members of the ten tribes of Israel who returned along with Judah?
Also, I would very much like to know your opinion of Jeremiah 50:3. Who was the nation from the north that made war against Babylon? Do you think that this is a reference to the Medes and Persians?
My apologies, I overlooked your point regarding Ezra
10:25-43. I’m glad you’ve mentioned it, so I can address it now.
First, it is nothing but supposition that because the text mentions ten families that they must represent the ten tribes of the house of Israel. Even if these families represented house of Israel Israelites, it would still be conjecture that ten families are cited because there are ten tribes in the house of Israel. However, there is no reason whatsoever to conclude anything
differently about the Israel in these verses than anywhere else in the entire book, especially being that verse 9 of this same chapter identifies them as being Israelites of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Had they been otherwise, they would have been excommunicated and dispossessed of their properties for not
having shown up at the previous meeting.
Furthermore, the lists of those who are here described as
repenting of their sins are essentially no different (other than they’re provided in reverse order) than the lists provided in Chapter 2: Priests, Levites, singers, porters (i.e., servants), and the Israel who returned from the Babylonian captivity in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies in Jeremiah 25. Note, neither here nor in Chapter 2 is Judah and Benjamin specifically listed. Why is that? Because they’re generically identified by the term “Israel” in both locations.
Consequently, Ezra 10:25-43 can no more be used to prove the
presence of the house of Israel in the land of Judah at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah than can any of your other arguments.
I will address your question about Jeremiah 50 in a follow-up email, AS TIME PERMITS.
Thank you for providing your explanation of Ezra 10:25-43. I believe that you are mistaken in your understanding of this passage, and I will explain why as soon as you are able to answer my question regarding the nation from the north mentioned in Jeremiah 50:3. I’m surprised that you did not include an answer to this question in your comments about Ezra 10. After all, I’m only looking for a simple yes or no response. Most commentaries say that the nation from the north mentioned in Jeremiah 50:3 is the nation of the Medes and Persians. Do you agree with this conclusion or not? There’s no need to explain your answer. A simple yes or no will do.
As for Jeremiah 50, let me begin by providing what I believe is irrefutable evidence that the reunion of the house of Judah and the house of Israel did not take place until the New Covenant Dispensation. The following list is what I came up with off the top of my head. There is a plethora of additional evidence that, had I time to dig it up, could be added to this list.
1) The events in Ezra and Nehemiah are the fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:1-12, which has nothing to do with the ten-tribed house of Israel.
2) The lack of any concrete textual evidence in Ezra or Nehemiah, demonstrating that the house of Israel was present at the time of the house of Judah’s release from their Babylonian captivity, eliminates any possibility that the reunion occurred at that time. (Don’t forget that “all the children of the captivity” are identified as consisting of “all the men of Judah and Benjamin” in Ezra 10:7-9.)
3) As stated in my previous response, Jeremiah 30 & 31, Ezekiel 37, and Micah 5 all associate the reunion in question with the New Covenant.
4) Also, Hosea 1:11’s “one head” corresponds with Ezekiel’s 37:22-25’s one king, shepherd, and prince, who is identified as David—that is, the Second David, Jesus Christ.
5) The same is true with Jeremiah 30:9’s David. (If you believe this isn’t referring to Christ, the second David, then was the first David raised from the grave at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and then never mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah or anywhere else in the Bible?)
6) Romans 9 and 1 Peter 2 identify Hosea 1’s prophesied reunion as being accomplished under the New Covenant.
7) Romans 11 provides the New Covenant fulfillment of Ezekiel 37’s two-stick prophecy.
8) Jeremiah 30 and 31’s reunion prophecies are New Covenant specific (Jeremiah 31:31-32), as further verified by Hebrews 8:8-9.
9) The reunion prophecy in Micah 5 is identified with the first advent of Christ. If the reunion was not definitively fulfilled at the time of Christ’s (the second David’s) first appearance and the commencement of the New Covenant, then there is likewise reason to believe Jesus was not the New Covenant Messiah.
Jeremiah 50 is arguably a difficult passage. However, unless you can refute each of the above points, we should expect Jeremiah 50 to harmonize with these conclusions. Is there any evidence in Jeremiah 50 for a New Covenant reunion? Yes, there is. In six locations in Jeremiah 50, we find language that is New Covenant in nature:
1) In the KJV, verses 4-5 speak of the children of Israel and the children of Judah joining themselves to Yahweh in a perpetual covenant. The term “perpetual covenant” is translated from the same two Hebrew words translated “everlasting covenant” in Ezekiel 37:24-26: “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. …and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them….” This comports with Hebrews 13:20: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant….”
2) Verse 6 refers to the two houses (or flocks) as “lost sheep.” The house of Israel continued as lost (dispersed) sheep long beyond the time of Judah’s return from Babylon. They were not to be gathered into one fold with the flock of Judah until the New Covenant dispensation, as depicted in John 10:14-16: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine … and I lay down my life for the sheep [the house of Judah]. And other sheep I have [the house of Israel], which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
Do not overlook the last two words “one shepherd.” John 10:14-16 not only fulfills the reuniting of the two flocks of Jeremiah 50, but also the one shepherd prophecy of Ezekiel 37:24: “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd….”
3) Verse 20 describes a perpetual forgiveness for both Judah and Israel. The only perpetual forgiveness for anyone is through Christ’s blood-atoning New Covenant sacrifice and resurrection.
4) Verse 20’s declaration that Israel’s and Judah’s sins would “be no more” corresponds with Jeremiah 31:34: “…they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith YHWH; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
5) Verses 15 and 29’s declaration (“as she has done, do unto her”) is quoted in Revelation 18:29 regarding mystery Babylon, which Revelation 11:8 identifies as Jerusalem where Christ was crucified.
Jeremiah 50 provides us with five good reasons to believe that its prophecy regarding the reunion between the houses of Judah and Israel occurs during the New Covenant dispensation. This harmonizes this prophecy with my opening nine evidences for a New Covenant reunion.
You asked if I believe “the nation from the north mentioned in Jeremiah 50:3 is the nation of the Medes and the Persians.” I’m not sure. In light of the above material, I tend to believe verses 1-3 is probably referring to mystery Babylon, which was Jerusalem. I believe its prophesied destruction was fulfilled by Titus and his army when they destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, which consummated the Old Covenant dispensation. However, the language is difficult and I don’t rule out a possibility that verses 1-3 are Old Covenant (in which case “the one” from the North would be the nations of the Medes and the Persians) and verse 4 and following are New Covenant.
I am sorry to see that you find this passage so difficult to understand. Personally, I found this passage to be very clear and easy to comprehend, so perhaps I can help you to understand it better. The identity of the nation from the north mentioned in Jeremiah 50:3 is remarkably easy to ascertain. All you have to do is read the next chapter and see that God Himself identifies this nation when He said “Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it.” Here we have a direct statement from God that the nation brought against Babylon to destroy her was the nation of the Medes. Therefore, your second possibility, which you admitted that you do not rule out, is the correct understanding of the nation from the North. Jeremiah 50:3 is speaking of the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon which occurred in 539 BC.
Now, perhaps you would like to argue that a single verse in the next chapter is insufficient evidence for identifying the nation from the North as the nation of the Medes and the Persians. I think that this verse is sufficient, but just in case you do not, let me point out a few other indentifying statements.
In chapter 50 verse 1, Babylon as being in the land of the Chaldeans, and thus this cannot be a reference to Jerusalem as a spiritual Babylon. The Chaldeans ceased to exist as a distinct people group after the conquest of Babylon by the Medes and Persians.
In verse 2, we read: “Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces.” According to historical records, Bel and Merodach were names given to the national god of the Babylonian empire.
Verse 8 again identifies Babylon as being in the land of the Chaldeans.
Verse 9 identifies the conquerors of Babylon as an assembly of great nations. This is an accurate description of the nation of the Medes and the Persians which was a confederation of many nations.
Verse 10 once again identifies Babylon as being part of Chaldea.
Verse 17 identifies the Babylon which is destroyed in verse 3 with the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.
Verse 21 indicates that the cities of Merathaim and Pekod were destroyed at the same time that Babylon was destroyed, and both of these cities were in the area of the physical city of Babylon.
Verse 25 identifies the destruction of Babylon along with these other cities as “the work of the Lord GOD of hosts in the land of the Chaldeans.”
Verse 35 again identifies Babylon as a city of the Chaldeans.
Verse 41 again mentions the confederacy of kings that made up the nation of the Medes and the Persians.
Verse 43 seems to be a direct reference to the then future prophecy presented to the king of Babylon by the writing of God’s own hand upon the wall of his palace as recorded in Daniel 5. This occurred just before Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians.
Verse 45 again identifies Babylon with the land of the Chaldeans.
Chapter 51 verse 4, also identifies Babylon with the land of the Chaldeans.
Verse 11 states directly that Babylon would be destroyed by the kings of the Medes.
Verse 24 again identifies Babylon with the Chaldeans.
Verse 27 states that Babylon would be defeated by a group of nations including the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashchenaz. These have been identified as members of the Medes and the Persians.
Verse 28 confirms that the nations mentioned in verse 27 were confederate with the kings of the Medes.
Verse 34 identifies Babylon as the same city over which Nebuchadnezzar was king.
Verse 35 again identifies Babylon with the Chaldeans.
Verse 44 again associates Babylon with Bel which was a reference to the national god of the Babylonian empire.
Verse 54 again identifies Babylon with the land of the Chaldeans.
Verses 60-64 clearly state that the Babylon referred to in this prophecy of Jeremiah was close to the Euphrates River. The only Babylon that was near the Euphrates River was the Babylon which was conquered by the Medes and the Persians in 539 BC. Therefore, the conquering nation from the North which is mentioned in verse 3 of Jeremiah 50 must be the nation of the Medes and the Persians.
With this solution firmly in mind, let’s give some additional consideration to Jeremiah 50:4. This verse begins with the phrase “In those days, and in that time.” This, of course, leads us to ask which days and which time is being spoken of. The answer is obviously the days and the time spoken of in verses 1-3. In other words, Jeremiah was prophesying that the event described in verse 4 would take place during the same time period as the events of verse 3. We have already established that verse 3 is a reference to the conquering of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians. Thus, the event in verse 4 must have taken place during the time that the Medes and the Persians ruled over Babylon. You have already admitted that verse 4 is a prophecy of members of both kingdoms of Israel being reunited. Therefore, we can conclude that Jeremiah 50:4 is a prophecy that the two kingdoms of Israel would be reunited after the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon.
Now, let me address your six instances of supposedly New Covenant language in Jeremiah 50. Your first point was a claim that the perpetual covenant mentioned in verse 5 is a reference to the everlasting covenant mentioned in Ezekiel 37:26. However, there is a distinction between these two covenants that you have overlooked. The everlasting covenant mentioned in Ezekiel was a covenant initiated by God, but the perpetual covenant mentioned in verse 5 was initiated by the people. They said of their own accord “let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant.” This covenant initiated by the people is a perfect match for the covenant which was made by the people during the time of Nehemiah as recorded in Nehemiah 9:38 where we read: “because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.” This was a covenant initiated by the people after they were taught the Law of God. Thus, it is a better match for the prophecy of Jeremiah 50:5 than the everlasting covenant promised in Ezekiel 37:26.
Your second point has already been disproven in that I have shown that the two kingdoms were reunited during the time of the Medo-Persian rule of Babylon.
In regards to your third point, it should be noted that verse 20 does not mention anything at all about a perpetual forgiveness. It mentions forgiveness, but it does not say anything at all about that forgiveness applying to sins which occurred future to the events of that time. In fact, the verse begins with the same description of time as was used in verse 4. This indicates that this particular forgiveness of Israel and Judah took place at the same time as the event recorded in verse 4.
Similarly, your fourth point is also incorrect. Verse 20 does not state that the sins of Israel and Judah would “be no more.” It simply states that at that time their sin would not be able to be found because of God’s forgiveness. This verse does not in any way imply that Israel and Judah would be incapable of sinning any more. It simply means that God wiped their slate clean when He brought them back to the Promised Land. The reunited nation of Israel stood before God without sin at that particular moment in time.
Your fifth point is easily dismissed, for Revelation 11:8 does not identify Jerusalem as Babylon. Rather, it refers to Jerusalem as “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.” There is nothing in this verse which links Jerusalem with Babylon. The fact that Jerusalem is spiritually called Soddom does not mean that every statement in the Bible about Sodom is to be read as if it were written about Jerusalem. There was a literal Sodom which was judged long before God used the example of that literal Sodom to describe the judgment of Jerusalem. Similarly, there was a literal Babylon which was judged long before God used the example of that literal Babylon to describe the judgment of an unnamed city in Revelation 14-18. The similarity of language here no more makes Jeremiah 50-51 a reference to the city of Revelation 14-18 than the similarity of language between Genesis 19:28 and Revelation 9:2 makes Genesis 19 a reference to the bottomless pit. Two items can be similar and can even be described with similar language while still being two separate and distinct items.
When we recognize that Jeremiah 50:4 does in fact prophesy a reuniting of Israel and Judah during the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon, then we can turn to the account of the return expecting to find both Israelites and Judeans among those who came back to the promised land. This is exactly what we find in Ezra 10:25-43.
You have only mentioned two objections to the claim that Ezra 10:25-43 is a reference to the ten tribes of the Northern kingdom of Israel. First you said that verse 9 identifies these men as being of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but this conclusion ignores the events which took place between verse 9 and verse 25. The men in verse 9 were only from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin because the proclamation of verse 7 was only sent out through Judah and Jerusalem. This is why the proclamation only allowed three days for the men to assemble. It would have been impossible for men scattered throughout the Promised Land to have responded within three days to a proclamation given in Jerusalem. Those in Dan, for example, wouldn’t even receive news of the proclamation within that time. This is clearly stated in the text in verse 13 where the men assembled in Jerusalem said “neither is this a work of one day or two” when they were told that the men had to separate themselves from their strange wives. In fact, verses 15-17 tell us that it took a total of three months for all the men of the land which had taken strange wives to come and appear before Jonathan and Jahaziah.
Verses 18-24 then provide us with an account of the men among the priests, the Levites and the singers who had taken strange wives as well as those among the sons of Immer, Harim and Pashur. Then, after already listing these men, verse 25 begins with the phrase “Moreover of Israel.” This indicates that the families in verse 25-43 were somehow distinguished as being different from the families in verses 18-24. That distinction cannot be limited to the distinction between priests and Levites and the rest of the people for Immer, Harim and Pashur were listed in verses 18-24, but they were neither priests nor Levites. The only indication we have of the nature of this distinction is that the men in verses 25-43 were men “of Israel.” This means that Immer, Harim and Pashur along with the priests and Levites were not men of Israel. The only thing that these men could have been other than men of Israel is men of Judah. Therefore, Ezra 10 records men from both Judah and Israel reunited in a single nation as prophesied in Jeremiah 50:4.
Your second objection was that the men listed in Ezra 10:25-43 were included in the list of those returning from Babylon in Ezra 2, and I agree. This means that the men identified in Ezra 10:25-43 as being men “of Israel” as distinct from the men of Judah in Ezrah 10:18-24 were included in the list of those who returned to the Promised Land after the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon. Therefore, the northern kingdom of Israel did not remain lost as you assume, but rather it was reunited with the southern kingdom during the time of the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon as Jeremiah prophesied, and both kingdoms were allowed to return to the Promised Land where the nation of Israel was once again established as a united kingdom.
Thank you for your input on this. You’ve provided some points
worthy of consideration and examination in light of ALL the Bible has to say on this issue. At the same time, there are many points herein that I believe are erroneous and can be proven wrong. However, I do not have the time to continue debating you over these. Readers will have to do their own study and decide for
themselves who has provided the best case for when the reunion was to take place.
Hey Roger… I’ll not retract any statement I’ve made regarding Mr. Weiland. But I will be taking a very close look at his Bible Law book and posting my views (pudding) on it at my blog: http://4christcrowncovenant.wordpress.com/. Please know I’m a very good cook! 🙂
Sounds like a theologically dangerous blog: http://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/our-race-is-our-home/
This is what I call wacky theology and it is dangerous. My advice is for all those who subscribe to this siren’s (serpent’s) song to repent and follow Jesus Christ who is found only in Holy Scripture. Christianity is not bound by a region or race of people. If it were, why was Paul sent to the Gentiles? And why are we given the Great Commission to disciple the nations? Folks, flee from those who are preaching a different gospel than the one found in Scripture.
Angela, the way you’ve employed the word “gentiles” here, as if the term automatically means non-Israelites, is indicative that you do not understand the Biblical definitions of the Hebrew word “goyim” and the Greek word “ethne,” from which “gentiles” was translated. Even your capitalization of the word is incorrect. Once again, I hope you will take me up on my offer for a free copy of “The Mystery of the Gentiles.”
If you read it and you think I failed to prove this claim, I’ll pay you the suggested price of $10 for the book. In fact, let me make this even more appealing; I’ll pay 10 Xs the suggested price.
I think you are “straining at gnats” and I will not be joining you. May the good Lord grant you repentance.
Repentance for what? As you know, 1 John 3:4 describes sin as a
violation of Yahweh’s moral law. Just what law have I transgressed by wanting to correctly identify today’s Israelites or for wanting to be Biblically accurate in my use of the word “gentiles”?
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship[a] from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Tim. 1: 3-7)
“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1)
Scriptures above are taken from the ESV Bible.
Angela, please provide anything from my writings that promotes endless genealogies.
Is Jeremiah and the author of Hebrews to be likewise condemned for declaring the New Covenant was made with physical Israelites?
Should I be condemned for wanting to correctly identify the recipients of the Old Testament prophets?
You’ve made some very serious accusations, none of which you have provided one shred of evidence for. It does not speak well of your Christianity.
Well, Ted, I plan to review your Bible Law book and when I do, I’ll try to be more specific. Stay tuned…
In other words, you’ve made these accusations without knowing if they’re true, but now that you’ve been challenged you’re going to go and look for what you hope will justify your presumptions.
Why don’t you begin by accepting my offer for a free copy of “They Mystery of the Gentiles,” which specifically addresses the issues were discussing? Why are you afraid to accept this offer?
Clear, concise, to the point. When people rule themselves under the law of God (Yahweh), there will be no need for “legislators”, senators, presidents, or kings.
Very well said Mr. Weiland. I have read that when Governor William Penn was first asked what he would use for law in Pennsylvania his reply was, “The Bible.” Now, he apparently never fully followed up on that principle (but his first …can’t remember the exact title) establishment of law is a pretty awesome document in terms of a man trying, with limited human help, to do the right thing as a Christian administrator. I believe that in the founding era there were Puritans and some others who understood the basic message that you have communicated. However, I have never seen that any colony simply enacted Biblical law and then set the churches to training judges to apply that law. Somehow, we never quite got that start. However, we still work for an advancing kingdom.
You’ve piqued my curiosity again, Ted. You said that “To usurp a legislator’s power is to dethrone him,” that “any law that adds to … His law represents lawlessness, unrighteousness, and immorality,” that “Any attempt to make laws … in addition to His laws is ultimately futile” and that Christians who truly believe the Bible “certainly would not regard the unbiblical decrees of these ‘legislators’ as law.” This string of comments has introduced two questions that I hope you can clear up for me.
First, I am curious as to what you think of the law written by Mordecai as recorded in the book of Esther. Was Mordecai’s law an attempt to dethrone God? Was it actually lawless, unrighteous, immoral and futile? Should the Jews have ignored his law since it wasn’t part of the written Law of God?
Second, I’d like to know what you think of laws such as speed limits, zoning ordinances, fire codes, laws requiring motorists to slow down and move over for emergency vehicles, etc… Are these laws attempts to dethrone God? Are they in fact lawless, unrighteous, immoral and futile? Should Christians ignore these laws since they are not part of the written Law of God?
Bill, thank you for the good questions. However, before answering them, I would like to first ask you a few questions: 1) In asking these questions, what’s your motivation? Is it to discover how Yahweh’s law applies in these situations or to protect the framers’ and the Constitution? Unless you’re inclined to publicly answer it, this first question is meant only for you to search your own heart. I hope you will do so because which ever paradigm you’re working from makes all the difference and speaks volumes as to whether or not the Constitution is an idol to you.
2) From a purely theological perspective, do you believe Yahweh’s triune moral law (commandments, statues, and judgments) is perfect, upright, and altogether righteous (Psalm 19:7-9) and still as ethically applicable now under the New Covenant as they were under the Old Covenants?
3) In other words, would you describe yourself as a pro or an antinomian and, if pronomian, to what degree (1/3rd–commandments only, 2/3rds–commandments and statutes only, or 3/3rds–comandments, statutes, and judgments)? I would appreciate if you would provide an answer to these last two questions.
Now to your questions: First, adding to or subtracting from has everything to do with formal and declared declarations to Yahweh and His law as supreme. For example, as a father under my declared subordination to Yahweh, I obviously have the right to declare house rules (for example, to require my wife and children to convene for family devotionals at 8:30 every morning, or that my children be required to brush their teeth two times a day, every day), provided any additional stipulations are not contrary to Yahweh’s stated morality as codified in His law. On the other hand, without such a stated subordination, everything I do as a man, husband, and father boils down to rebellion to Yahweh or, at least, counts for little (except for any household laws I enforce that by mere coincidence comport with Yahweh’s law). I will be addressing this a little more in Part 4 of this series.
With this in mind, outside those regarding Purim, we have scant record of the laws Mordecai was responsible for. As for Purim, being it would appear to have been enacted as a holiday in recognition of Yahweh’s victory provision over the the Judahites’ enemies, I see nothing unbiblical about it. All other laws enacted by Mordecai would have to be judged individually under the conditions I explained above.
As for the traffic laws you enumerated: Under today’s renegade, unbiblical Constitutional Republic, I’m GLAD we’ve got them. Under this system, without them, we would all be less safe on the highways and biways. However, although necessary, they’re poor replacements for Yahweh’s perfect law. Under Yahweh’s triune law, particularly His judgment lex talionis (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and it’s additional judgments), there would be no need for edicts, for example, against speeding, or drunk driving.
Lex talionis would also eliminate our unethical insurance system. Additionally, tax-subsidized, intrusive bureaucracies such as OSHA and the FDA become superfluous. For more, regarding this, see Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt17.html.
This said, under a Christian government, I see no problem with a community providing recommended speeds, and places it be prudent to stop, etc. However, there would be no consequence (such as speeding tickets or jail time) for doing otherwise, unless someone or their property were damaged as a consequence. For example, on back country roads, when I can see clearly that there’s no approaching traffic, I often ignore stop signs. However, if I were to miss something and cause an accident, I would, of course, be responsible for damages.
If anybody else has input on any of this, I’d love to hear your take on these things.
Thank you for responding, Ted. To answer your questions, let me say that any time I ask a question, it is for the purpose of discovering the truth. In regards to the Law, I hold to the view expressed by Jesus in Matthew 5:18 that “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” However, I am also of the opinion that you do not understand the Law as much as you think you do, and my questions are intended to aid me in determining which, if any, of the things that you have said are actually true of the Law of God.
The answers that you have given are great examples of why my questions are necessary. You have claimed that laws such as traffic laws, zoning ordinances, fire codes and etc. are valid in the same sense that you as a father have authority under God to make rules for your house, and yet, you have no problem violating traffic laws when you think that it is safe to do so. Do you allow your children to take this same approach to your rules? Can they simply ignore your authority whenever they think it is safe to do so? I sure hope not. The Bible teaches that children are to obey their parents in all things (Col 3:20). If you require your children to brush their teeth two times a day, and one of them decides on his own that it would be safe to skip brushing his teeth one day, that child would be violating not only your law but the also the Law of God. This is equally as true of your decision to run stop signs when you think that it is safe to do so. God commanded that we be subject to those who rule over us in all of their ordinances (I Peter 2:13-15). He did not give you the option of choosing whether to obey traffic laws or not. You are commanded to do so, and to decide differently on your own is a violation of the Law of God. Thus your answer has revealed an area in your philosophy which should be rejected by those who seek to follow God.
In regards to the law written by Mordecai, you said that you see nothing unbiblical about it, but that does not seem to fit with your view of human government. Mordecai’s law was written as part of the law of the Medes and Persians. The Medo-Persian empire, was a heathen nation, and as far as I know, its laws at the time of Esther did not contain any recognition of God’s authority. By participating in this government and even going so far as to write a law under its authority, Mordecai seems to have been doing the very thing that you condemn Christians for doing in America, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your position. Would you mind explaining why it is acceptable for Mordecai to participate in the government of the Medes and Persians but not for modern Christians to participate in the government of America?
BillFortenberry…On the issue of roads did my post above answer your questions? Roads are to be privately owned, and the bible give private owners the liberty to make regulations concerning their property provided they are not breaking any biblical law or teaching in doing so.
Government is to only punish evildoers and praise those that do good, see for example Romans 13:1-7, this only is God’s purpose for government nothing else, everything else biblically is off limits for government, we are not to go beyond that which is written 1 Corinthians 4:6, nor lean on our own understanding Proverbs 3:5, Proverbs 14:12, Judges 21:25.
Not exactly, Greg. My question is not about whether roads should be publicly or privately owned, but rather it is whether Christians should submit to the traffic laws currently in place in America. Do you think that Christians have a responsibility to submit to these kinds of laws?
Since roads are not part of government’s God given responsibilities Christians are not bound to obey government’s traffic laws. Biblically its illegitimate for governments to own roads and make traffic laws, and whats illegitimate has no biblical force, nevertheless a Christian should always wisely consider what hills are worth dying on, and those that don’t worth it. If roads and traffic regulations are privately done then that’s a different story provided you are not required to go against the bible by such regulations.
Thank you for providing that answer, Gregory. You appear to have the same view of traffic laws that Ted has, but I do not want to jump to conclusions about his position. I am still waiting for him to let me know if my analysis of his view is correct. If he chooses to respond to my request, then I will answer both of you at the same time.
I would just like to say, and please take note, me and Ted don’t speak for each other, Ted can speak for himself, and I can do the same for myself as well.
I would like to let you know that I’m from and live in St. Kitts, West Indies, and that I don’t share Ted’s Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Israelite theory. I think that its full of too much errors at best.
I have in the past debated it with Ted.
Without going into detail, there are points of argument in this article with which I agree. There are also points of argument that have no relevance to what I believe. There are, of course, points of argument which I believe are Biblically errant, some of which will be exposed as such in my answers to Bill Forenberry, Lord willing, yet to be posted.
Let it also be known that I have and never have had anything to do with the World Wide Church of God, which I believe is a cult.
Bill, could you please answer my questions 2 & 3, specifically. Your answer leaves much to be desired.
Concerning what you think is either a violation of 1 Peter 2:13-15 (and I would guess Romans 13:1-2 and Titus 3:1) or at least an inconsistency on my part: you might find this surprising (said with tongue in cheek) that you and I don’t agree on the interpretation of these passages. I’ve written a commentary on Romans 13:1-7 (in which I also address 1 Peter 2:13-15 and Titus 3:1) entitled “Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7.” If you’re interested you can find it at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/Store.html#B028.
What you perceive to be an inconsistency regarding Mordecai is answered in part that Mordecai and Esther were part and parcel of the Judahites in captivity to the Persians, much the same as Daniel and his compadres, which we’ve discussed previously.
All of this said, how about addressing the fact that under Yahweh’s perfect law (lex talionis specifically), traffic laws are superfluous.
I thought that my answer to questions 2 and 3 was fairly straightforward. Perhaps you could restate the questions in order to show me what my answer leaves to be desired.
In regards to I Peter 2:13-15, I have read the book that you referenced, but I did not see anything in your book which deals directly with the issue of violating such laws as traffic laws, zoning ordinances, fire codes and etc. I did arrive at an impression that I think may be correct, but since it was not stated plainly, I would like to make sure that it is a correct view of your position before I address it.
Your view seems to be that
1) Christians have no duty to obey governments which violate the Law of God.
2) The government of America violates the Law of God.
3) Therefore, Christians have no duty to obey the American government.
4) Since Christians have no duty to obey the American government, it is entirely up to each individual Christian to choose whether to submit to laws which do not directly violate God’s Law such as traffic laws, zoning ordinances, fire codes and etc.
Is this an accurate statement of your position?
Questions 2 and 3 were very specific in natu5re to which you gave only a general answer, which, depending upon by what you mean by you “hold to the view expressed by Jesus in Matthew 5:1,” leaves a lot to be desired. Consequently, I will restate my questions:
2 a) From a purely theological perspective, do you believe Yahweh’s triune moral law (commandments, statues, and judgments) is perfect, upright, and altogether righteous (Psalm 19:7-9)?
b) Do you believe Yahweh’s perfect law is still as ethically applicable now under the New Covenant as it was under the Old Covenants?
3 a) In other words, would you describe yourself as pro or an
antinomian?
b) If pronomian, to what degree (1/3rd–commandments only,
2/3rds–commandments and statutes only, or 3/3rds–ommandments, statutes, and judgments)?
I still don’t see what is so difficult to understand about my answer. According to Jesus Christ, the Law is in effect until it is fulfilled. This is the view that I hold to. The Law says “Thou shalt not kill.” Therefore this command is in effect until God demonstrates that it has been somehow fulfilled. Of course, I do not think that there will ever come a time when this particular law is fulfilled in the sense that it is no longer in effect, but other laws have been fulfilled in that sense. For example, the law requiring a sacrificial lamb to be slain on Passover was fulfilled when Christ died as the ultimate sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, the laws requiring animal sacrifices have been fulfilled and are no longer in effect.
I believe that most of our disagreement over the implementation of the Law in modern times has to do with erroneous understanding of the Law on your part. I could be mistaken in this, and it could be that I am the one who is in error, but most of our disagreements are of this sort. For example, our disagreement over election comes not from a difference of opinion on whether the biblical model of government should be followed, but rather from a conflict of opinion on whether the biblical model includes elections. Had you been able to demonstrate to me that I was wrong in my conclusion that the biblical model includes elections, then I would have gladly conceded that point. Unfortunately, you very quickly reached a point in the discussion in which you were unable to answer the challenges that I presented to your position, and you became petulant and refused to discuss the issue any further.
I hope that this does not happen in this discussion as well, and I trust that you will help me understand your position better by answering whether the above analysis is an accurate statement or not.
Thank you for providing a little more detail. However, I would like for you to answer the questions as specifically asked. After doing so, please explain what you mean by “erroneous understanding of the Law” on my part.
Obviously, we are experiencing somewhat of a language barrier here. Let me see if I can restate my response in terminology that you can understand. From a purely theological perspective I believe that God’s Law is perfect, upright and altogether righteous. I do not believe that God’s Law has lost any of its ethical applicability as a result of the New Covenant. I would not object to be labelled as a pronomian if, by that label, you are referring to someone who agrees that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, but I am not certain that this is what you mean by that particular term. While I recognize the three categories of Law that you mentioned, I do not view them as being ethically distinct from each other.
In regards to your statement regarding lex talionis, let me point out that traffic laws are as superfluous under current American law as they would be under the legal system that you think is God’s perfect law. I would like to explain this further, but I need to make sure that I fully understand your point of view before I do. Would you mind letting me know if my previous statement of your position is accurate?
“Obviously, we are experiencing somewhat of a language barrier here. Let me see if I can restate my response in terminology that you can understand.”
“I would not object to be labelled as a pronomian if, by that label, you are referring to someone who agrees that “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, but I am not certain that this is what you mean by that particular term.”
Bill, I completely understand AND comprehend Ted’s perfectly clear and concise language. Since you stated that you were not certain about the meaning of the term pronomian, in the context of Ted’s use of said word, perhaps Ted might need to consider restating his questions “in terminology that YOU can understand.”
I certainly do not mean to disrespect you in any way. However, this would appear to be a perfect example of two people, both highly literate and intellectually well armed, speaking the same language, but each with a distinct dialect, incompatible with one another. Many who read Ted’s writings, not only comprehend what he clearly communicates, but apprehend subtleties that may escape others. Perhaps your inability to completely understand might cause you to resort to condescension. If that is so, it is sad to see. The air of superiority is not becoming of a Christian apologist. Could it be possible that part of the confusion stems from your erroneous understanding of the ever-abiding validity of Yahweh’s perfect Law?
If you’ll notice, Ed, I admitted several times that I did not understand why my previous answers were unacceptable, and I requested that Ted restate his questions in a way that would help me overcome that misunderstanding. Ted has not done so. He simply repeated and repeated his insistence that I answer the original questions while I made attempt after attempt to do so in language that he would find acceptable. I hope that by including Ted’s own terminology in my answers, we will be able to overcome this barrier and proceed with the conversation.
You should also note that I admitted in this thread (and, I believe, in every other discussion that Ted and I have had) that it is quite possible that I am the one who is wrong in my understanding of the Law of God. I don’t recall Ted ever making a similar admission to me; perhaps you could point one out. If Ted can prove to me that I am wrong, I will gladly abandon any error in favor of the truth. Unfortunately, Ted does not seem to have the same attitude, and he has consistently dropped out of the conversation whenever my challenges to his point of view have become too difficult for him to answer. I certainly hope that he will not do so again, and that he will at least let me know whether the analysis that I gave of his position on traffic laws is correct or not.
Bill, I’m wondering how you can know what my motives are for having “consistently dropped out of the conversation,” as you put it? To know my motives is to know my heart, something only Yahweh can do. You have therefore placed yourself in the position of judge of my heart and thereby usurped the place of Yahweh.
Furthermore, with this judgment, you have also publicly labeled me a liar. I informed you of my reason for ending previous dialogues with you, that is, because of, what in my opinion, has been a fairly consistent evasion of weightier matters and that I didn’t have time to chase you around “bushes.” It is my prerogative to bow out of any conversation (including this one) at any time I believe it no longer merits the time involved to continue therein. It’s your prerogative to do the same. But, neither of us are justified judging each others motives.
We are all finite men, which means none of us have perfect doctrine, which then means our doctrines are always apt to need fine tuning or even a major overhaul. This goes for anything I teach, including my perspective on the law.
I intend to answer your previous questions in this current dialogue, as time permits. However, not until I feel you have adequately answered the questions I put to you first. I haven’t yet read your last response to me. I’ll get to it first opportunity I have.
In your latest response, I hope you answered what would seem to me were straight forward questions that I think anyone could have answered with merely a yes or no or a simple response, for example, 1/3rd, 2/3rds, or 3/3rds. We’ll see.
I’m still waiting for a reply to my response to this. Perhaps, you didn’t see it, so I’ll reproduce it here:
Bill, I’m wondering how you can know what my motives are for having “consistently dropped out of the conversation,” as you put it? To know my motives is to know my heart, something only Yahweh can do. You have therefore placed yourself in the
position of judge of my heart and thereby usurped the place of Yahweh.
Furthermore, with this judgment, you have also publicly labeled me a liar. I informed you of my reason for ending previous dialogues with you, that is, because of, what in my opinion, has been a fairly consistent evasion of weightier matters and that I didn’t have time to chase you around “bushes.” It is my prerogative to bow out of any conversation (including this one) at any time I believe it no longer merits the time involved to continue therein. It’s your prerogative to do the same. But, neither of us are justified judging each others motives.
We are all finite men, which means none of us have perfect doctrine, which then means our doctrines are always apt to need fine tuning or even a major overhaul. This goes for anything I teach, including my perspective on the law.
I intend to answer your previous questions in this current dialogue, as time permits. However, not until I feel you have adequately answered the questions I put to you first. I haven’t yet read your last response to me. I’ll get to it first opportunity I have.
In your latest response, I hope you answered what would seem to me were straight forward questions that I think anyone could have answered with merely a yes or no or a simple response, for example, 1/3rd, 2/3rds, or 3/3rds. We’ll see.
I cannot see your heart, Ted. I only expressed what I deduced from your fruits. If that offends you, then perhaps you do not love the Law of God as much as you claim that you do.
Bill, is this response supposed to somehow justify you?
You’ve boasted several times about how you’re willing to admit when you’re wrong (while at the same time attempting to implicate me and misrepresenting the fact that I’ve done so with you on this blog). I’m confident, following my expose’ of your 48 points in the 7-part “Straining at Gnats…” articles, that everyone here who read your claim that I hadn’t disproved any of your points found it as fantastic as I did and had to, therefore, wonder if you’re capable of admitting when you’re in error. Saying and doing it are two different things.
Well, here’s an opportunity for you to admit your sin and repent: You DID judge my motives and thus my heart and you consequently accused me of being a liar about my motives, which only Yahweh are privy to. To this point, it would seem your persisting in your sin.
When would you object to being identified as a pronomian?
Please explain what you mean by “ethnically distinct” in your statement “While I recognize the three categories of Law that you mentioned, I do not view them as being ethnically distinct from each other.”
You’ve yet to answer my question as to what you mean by “erroneous understanding of the Law” on my part.
Well, just for example, I would not agree to being called pronomian in the same sense that Judaism could be called a pronomian religion.
My wording was “ethically distinct” not “ethnically distinct.” I do not see God’s commandments, statutes and judgements as having varying degrees of ethical application to our lives.
When I referred to your “erroneous understanding of the Law,” I was referring to the fact that I believe you to be mistaken in your understanding of various aspects of the Law of God. For example, I believe that you are mistaken in your understanding of the use of election to determine leaders. I’m afraid that I don’t have enough time to provide you with a complete list of areas in which I think you are mistaken.
I’ve never heard Judaism, which is one and the same as the traditions of the elders Christ so vehemently denounced while here on earth (e.g., Matthew 15:6-9), and was circa 500 AD codified into what today we know as the Babylonian Talmud (which is antithesis of the Old Testament law on almost every moral issue) ever identified as pronomian.
1) Perhaps by Judaism, you’re meaning something different than what I just described. If you are, please explain what you mean by the term, and
2) Why you’re opposed to being labeled pronomian like as with Judaism.
3. The “n” was a slip of my forefinger on the keyboard. I meant ethically distinct. So, if you would, please explain what you mean by “ethically distinct” in your statement “While I
recognize the three categories of Law that you mentioned, I do not view
them as being ethically distinct from each other.”
Please forgive me for overlooking this comment. I must have skipped over it in your flurry of statements.
I am surprised that you have never heard of Judaism being described as pronomian. Perhaps you are not as familiar with this term as you think you are. Here are two instances in which it has been used in this manner:
“In this book, which is one of the last century’s great spiritual classics, Soloveitchik provides powerful evocations of the metaphysical dream of Judaism, a pronomian vision of swimming joyfully in the sea of Talmud.”
( http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/12/loving-the-law )
“The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that there was a fanatical Nazirite and Hasidean style of fierce religious ascetics in the Qumran area. They were Zealots and nationalists as well as obsessive pronomians.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=iSfMR0xDghIC&pg=PA228 )
I would prefer not to be identified as pronomian by either of these authors for the simple reason that they might assume that anyone being referred to by this term is a follower of Judaism which I am not. In contrast, I would not mind at all being referred to as a pronomian by Mencius Molbug. Different people use this label in different ways, and I am always hesitant to accept any label that has such a wide range of applications.
When I said that I do not view God’s commandments, statutes and judgements as being ethically distinct from each other, I was conveying the idea that there is no distinction in our ethical responsibility to God’s commandments as opposed to His statutes or between His statutes as opposed to His judgements. All three categories are to be viewed as equally applicable. One cannot say that God’s judgements are more important to be followed that His commandments or vice versa. They are both the instructions of God and thus are of equal authority in the lives of men.
Let me remind you that, while I am attempting to answer all of your questions, I am still waiting for you to answer mine. Your view seems to be that
1) Christians have no duty to obey governments which violate the Law of God.
2) The government of America violates the Law of God.
3) Therefore, Christians have no duty to obey the American government.
4) Since Christians have no duty to obey the American government, it is entirely up to each individual Christian to choose whether to submit to laws which do not directly violate God’s Law such as traffic laws, zoning ordinances, fire codes and etc.
Is this an accurate statement of your position?
Well, Ted. It has been several days since your last comment. Should I conclude that you have no intention of answering my question, or is the question so difficult that you have not had enough time to formulate a response?
Bill, Lord willing, you will be receiving a response later today to your “$100-dollar claim” reply.
In the meantime, I still waiting for a response to the following:
3 days ago, you wrote:
I cannot see your heart, Ted. I only expressed what I deduced from your fruits. If that offends you, then perhaps you do not love the Law of God as much as you claim that you do.
And, 2 days ago, I responded:
Bill, is this response supposed to somehow justify you?
You’ve boasted several times about how you’re willing to admit when you’re wrong (while at the same time attempting to implicate me and misrepresenting the fact that I’ve done so with you on this blog). I’m confident, following my expose’ of your 48 points in the 7-part “Straining at Gnats…” articles, that everyone here who read your claim that I hadn’t disproved any of your points found it as fantastic as I did and had to, therefore, wonder if you’re capable of admitting when you’re in error. Saying and doing it are two different things.
Well, here’s an opportunity for you to admit your sin and repent:
You DID judge my motives and thus my heart and you consequently accused me of being a liar about my motives, which only Yahweh are privy to. To this point, it would seem your persisting in your sin.
You’re right, Ted. It was wrong for me to judge your motives as if I were in the place of God. I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me, and that you will not take further offense at my indiscretions.
Definitely! Thank you for your apology.
I do intend to get back to this but there’s only so many hours in a day. Along with other ministerial duties, in addition to this blog, I also post on a dozen or other blogs daily, many of which also need follow up attention. I hope it doesn’t offend you, but this one is not priority to me, at this point. Also, I anticipate that my answer may be lengthy. So, I ask for your patience. I also have a question or two or more I want to ask you regarding your position on the law before getting to my answers to your questions.
I hope you’ll understand if I don’t believe you. It’s been six days since I originally asked you to verify if I understand your position correctly. Surely, if you intended to answer, you could have done so several times over by now.
Well, that didn’t take long. In less than 24 hours after you allegedly repented of judging my motives and calling me a liar, you’re essentially right back to doing it all over again.
Furthermore, what arrogance to think that my schedule must correspond with your schedule. You may not realize this but you’re not the only fish in the pond. The snake pit runs deep and there are no shortage of vipers that have to be dealt with on a daily basis, not to mention a lot of great people who deserve answers and my time. Whether you can humble yourself enough to accept it or not, I have so much going on right now that I’ve put a book project on the back burner in order to stay on top of blog responses that I believe merit replies.
Until you demonstrate otherwise, in my opinion, you are a Pharisee type and as such, need to be dealt with as such. That said, anything coming from you will be answered when I choose to answer it, if at all. Frankly, at this point, the only reason I answer anything from you is when I believe it will prove helpful to others.
As for the particular questions you’re here referring to, I still intend to get to them. However, I already warned you that they are not high on my priority list and, with this latest response from you, they just got lowered.
You two are hilarious! Let me remind you of a few things that you have said.
Ted, here are several comments that you have made about me:
To employ these quotations to this end is merely more wishful thinking.
Mr. Fortenberry’s audacity in ascribing Biblical practices as the basis for constitutional procedure (which the framers themselves never claimed) is alarming, to say the least.
Your arguments and definitions for elections and voting and all of the passages you’ve cited as alleged proof are just more examples of you straining at gnats.
In you’re desire to make the Constitution Biblical…
I am likewise amazed at what appears to be an attempt on your part to circumvent the principle point of this discussion
this is merely more “straining at gnats” on your part to avoid what is central to this discussion
Tragically, the only thing this proves is how hard you’ll work to protect your idol.
This idol and its proponents are especially tenacious.
Mr. Fortenberry has taken it upon himself to find anything in the Bible that remotely resembles something in the Constitution in order to assert the Constitution is a Biblical document.
“With all due respect to Mr. Fortenberry, I have sorrow knowing the land is filled with this brand of Baal worship” – Tragically true.
What an incredibly audacious claim.
This demonstrates the idol the Constitution has become
in so doing, become complicit in the framers’ sedition against Yahweh.
do you ever intend to admit your error in any of your other points and in your promotion and complicity in what is a seditious document to Yahweh and His law?
people, like you, who keenly desire for those men to be Christians and the Constitution to be Biblical, have no other alternative but to read such things into the Constitution and/or minds of its framers.
This is just more Bill Fortenberry attempting to read the Bible into the minds of dead men.
Of course, you know they didn’t respond in such fashion
you are so intent on protecting your idol that you avoid the weightier issues by nitpicking (gnat straining) the insignificant.
In my opinion, your idol has blinded you
what arrogance to think that my schedule must correspond with your schedule
The snake pit runs deep and there are no shortage of vipers that have to be dealt with on a daily basis
you are a Pharisee type
wonder if you’re capable of admitting when you’re in error.
I’m concerned about your capacity to lay aside pre-conceived ideas and to read someone’s work without bias.
You said you had read these chapters prior to your post above, but it would seem not very closely or with an intent to understand them.
it would seem you’re not too confident in your theology on this issue. If you were, you would likewise be confident that you wouldn’t being paying me $100.
_________________
And, Ed, here are several of your comments:
You are quite disingenuous in your methodology.
having witnessed your subterfuge…
You have shown the inability to acknowledge that you could possibly be in error in ANY matter
You make the mistake of not respecting the intellect of your opponent.
Your arrogance is truly remarkable.
Your air of “perceived” superiority would be LAUGHABLE, save for the risk of others being infected with your venom.
you have been thoroughly vetted, and found wanting.
I sincerely and humbly pray that you repent of your prideful arrogance
I once thought you to be of a fairly well developed intellect, but I see now that you masquerade your blindness as scholarship.
The very nature of your “discovered inaccuracies” in Ted’s book, point to your inability to leave all predetermined biases at the cover page
______________________________
And here I thought that I was supposed to be the big bad guy audaciously claiming to know the secrets of your hearts. The two of you obviously know far more about the intent of my heart than I could ever hope to know of yours. What a joke!
Bill, I admit that my statement regarding the Constitution being your idol was judging your heart. It’s not hilarious but was hypocrisy on my part. I have asked our heavenly Father to forgive me of my sin against you and ask that you would do the same.
Get thee hence, Fortenberry: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Bill, I believe that Ted has exhibited much more generosity and patience than you deserve. I may not be so kind. If Ted thinks I am out of line, he will certainly say so. Your arrogance is truly remarkable. Your air of “perceived” superiority would be LAUGHABLE, save for the risk of others being infected with your venom. Your propensity to exude condescension is quite telling. Your blindness is visible to all who have sight.
When Ted provided you with a detailed, though by no means exhaustive, examination of your lack of understanding AND knowledge concerning the reuniting of Israel and Judah, your reply was “That’s very interesting, Ted, but…”. Years ago, my adopted “uncle”, Donald B. Elliott, always had a saying, whenever I responded to his comments with “that’s interesting, but…”. I didn’t like it at the time, but in my case, he was ALWAYS right, and I learned more from him than anyone else. His Elliottism was at least on par with Yogi Berra. According to the tenets of Elliottism, whenever one is presented with an irrefutable argument, and the response begins with “that’s interesting, but…”, it is almost certain that:
1) They were not (are not) paying attention to, listening to, or reading what was said.
2) They did not (do not) UNDERSTAND what they saw, heard, or read.
3) They were (are) ashamed or embarrassed to admit that they did not (do not) know.
4) They were (are) LYING!
I refuse to follow your example, and say that I don’t believe you (you’re lying). Without evidence, that would require the ability to see your heart. However, by the fruits of your spirit, it is blatantly obvious that you are guilty of the first three tenets of Elliottism.
Ted will not tell you this, but I will. He has been suffering from an almost incapacitating pain, for quite a long time. He gone months at a time without any sleep. He was (is?) making out of state trips weekly for alternative treatments to help with the underlying cause of the pain. Through all of that, he has made trips to speak at conferences, including this one here in Springfield, Mo., at the Firearms Freedom Symposium:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=343-ZPSqJ9c
Despite his pain, and his travels, he still manages to care for his ministerial duties as much as Yahweh allows him to do so. So when Ted Weiland tells you that, Lord willing, he will continue with a topic AS TIME PERMITS, you can count on something rare and novel: HE WILL DO AS HE SAID! That you “don’t believe” him, and that you feel his schedule is as empty as yours, is inconsequential. I DON’T CARE, and neither should Ted, or anyone else. The only concern should be that Yahweh is glorified in all of this, and that your spiritual blindness does not lead others into the ditch. Once again, you have been thoroughly vetted, and found wanting.
I sincerely and humbly pray that you repent of your prideful arrogance, and even more so, of your sinful implications, if not outright false accusations.
You also never responded to the fact that under Yahweh’s perfect law (lex talionis specifically), traffic laws are superfluous.
On the matter of roads being privately owned, has very little rules, and maximum safety I would very strongly recommend watching and reading:
Shared Space
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Shared+Space&oq=Shared+Space&gs_l=youtube.12..0l4j0i5l2.9927.9927.0.11093.1.1.0.0.0.0.102.102.0j1.1.0…0.0…1ac.1.11.youtube.382VN97u3RY
…………………………………………………………
Introduction to Shared Space (1 of 2)
………………………………………………
introduction to Shared Space (2of2)
………………………………………………
Shared space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Space
…………………………………………………….
Privatizing Roads (by Walter Block)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Roads++Walter+Block&oq=Roads++Walter+Block&gs_l=youtube.12…12345.23723.0.24409.33.18.0.0.0.5.133.1550.12j6.18.0…0.0…1ac.1.11.youtube.fUIEYEMlW5Q
…………………………………………………………………………
Privatization of Roads and Highways, by Walter Block (Nov 2, 2012)
http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-Highways-Walter-Block/dp/193355004X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369152004&sr=8-1&keywords=privatization+of+roads
Gregory, thanks for these. I look forward to viewing these.
My question is what did the early 1st and 2nd century Christians do? Why did they not fight back against Rome? Greece? Why did Yeshua not leave specific instruction to develop a Christian “government”? What was meant by “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s ? ”
Why do so many today think that in-fluxing against our governmental corruption is a better tactic that evangelizing Truth? What’s more important, claiming a hierarchical dominion-ship here on earth, a place that is not a Christians home, or seeking the greater reward that is heaven? Christ’s Kingdom is here on earth, just as it was immediately following his Resurrection. Should we do thing differently than that of early church fathers?
We have no example of the Christians in the New Testament trying to overthrow any government, but it is full of Christians disobeying governments. Also they tell us that we ought to look to the Old Testament to know what it means to live the Christian life, and that we ought to follow the examples and teachings of the Old Testament saints, see for example 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Hebrews 11:32-34, Psalm 149:6-9, which include the overthrowing governments for righteousness sake in obeying the bible or God’s word..
2 Timothy 3:16 is verse that needs to also be compared with 2 Peter 1:20. We should look to the prophets of old. But does that mean that all 613 statutes, precepts and laws should be instilled still today? If we follow one of the Old Law’s, then should we not follow all of them? Or do we pick and choose from what we want as men? I am not say insinuating we give up and give in, but what did the first and second century Christians do? Did they even attempt to overthrow the persecuting emperors? Did Nero meet any opposition? No. All martyrs trusted in God, Christ and the Spirit. Hebrews 11:32 – 34 is a great comparative verse as well. But are we being told to fight, or to stand fast, pray and evangelize? Look at Hebrews 11:1-3 for example. I think it is safer to say that the first Christians held to such biblical example as 1 John 2:15 more than they did trying to pick and choose from verses like 2 Timothy 3:16. All Scripture ( OT writings described here ) is inspired by God, profitable for instruction and reproof and training ….. this dosent mean we continue on the Mosaic Covenant that Christ fulfilled …. Aaron’s Order does not trump the Order of Melchizedek …. we are equipped for every good work and those works do not mean we slowly try and over throw this secular worlds government and society’s ….. this world is not our home …. it’s a last chance effort for Satan to drag down as many of us as he can.
2 Timothy 4:1-8 should be looked at with just as much emphasis as 3:16. Establishing the Kingdom of Christ was done at the Resurrection. It is our Christian duty to evangelize and bring others to Him, to join His Kingdom. Not to slowly overthrow the state.
Keep in mind …. ALL scripture, not just the parts we choose ….
Those parts of the OT that the NT explicitly or implicitly say that are not for today we don’t have to keep, the rest we keep because we ought to obey the law Romans 3:31.You have not shown that I have misinterpreted 2 Timothy 3:16, what I said still stands, you have not disproved it in anyway.
Yes, Nero and the rest governments did meet opposition from the Christians when they commanded the Christian to disobey the bible, Acts 5:29.
Hebrews 11 does tell us “…to o stand fast, pray and evangelize”, it also in verses 32-34 presents to the Christians the overthrowing of evil or nonChristian governments as Christian examples to follow from the OT as well.
If I follow your logic, if I’m married and my wife is being attacked and raped and I can use physical force to stop it that I shouldn’t because we don’t have any examples in the NT of Christians using physical force to defend themselves or their loved ones when they came under physical attacked (even though Christ told His disciples to go and buy swords for their protection). That is you logic.
The bible say you ought to look to both the OT and the NT to know how to live and what you ought to do, God didn’t intend for the NT to have in everything for the Christian. Nevertheless we interpret the OT in light of the NT.
Sir, that is NOT my logic. The OT can not be without
the NT, and vis versa. 2 Tim 3:16 declares all Scripture … all it is saying is that is good, it can be used for reproof and educating … guidance, etc.
I still say its your logic, anyone can read and see that I’m correct.
I would say you ned to study more. What does Christ say in Matthew 22:15-22? I believe taxes were paid. Your logic suggests that Christianity become’s some-what violent and begins to take control over secular governments. Again, your own idea of Christianity seems to prove false in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitude’s. You are trying to base Christianity today off of what Israelites did in the OT. Key word “you” … Has it ever dawned on you that Christ ( God ) ended ( fulfilled ) all the 613 Levitical Laws? Again, does the Order of Aaron trump the Order of Melchizedek? In Matthew 23: 2-3 Jesus spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair [Gk. cathedras] of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice.” Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra(with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Lk 10:16; 2 Cor 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16, 26, 16:13). So how are we to continue on a legal system ( Christian domnionship in a non-Christian place that is not our home ) when Yeshua the Christ already put an end to it? Love is the answer.
I think that you are reading too way much into Matthew 22:15-22. I agree with Ted’s reading of the passage, it reads as follows:
“Caesar or Yahweh?
In Mark 12:17, we find Jesus’ oft-misused statement “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Many people interpret this to mean Yahweh and Caesar have separate jurisdictions, powers, and possessions. Is this true?
The term “Caesar” is used today to represent government in general. However, at the time Jesus made this statement, Caesar was a flesh and blood Roman dictator. What was it that Jesus was saying should be rendered to the Roman Emperor? Did the bodies, souls, and spirits of man belong to Caesar? Did reverence and obedience belong to Caesar? Did the people’s land and other possessions belong to Caesar? What about taxes? Romans 13:7 tells us to “render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” In Verse 6, Paul indicated all these things are due to God’s ministers or servants. Did Caesar qualify as one of the ministers of God described by Paul in Verses 3 and 4? Jason and his Christian brethren certainly did not believe Caesar was due unqualified submission:
…they [“lewd fellows of the baser sort”] drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also… and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)
It is unfathomable that Jason and the others turned around and supported that to which they so strongly objected:
But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own?9
To have done so, Christians would have financed their own and others’ murders.
Because only Yahweh determines what is good and what is evil (Romans 13:4), the government described by Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is clearly a Christian government established upon the moral laws of Yahweh.10Therefore, the taxes Paul described as due to God’s ministers, are Biblical taxes. Are we to believe Jesus was suggesting Christians pay Biblical taxes (tithes) to Caesar?
What belongs to Yahweh? And what belongs to Caesar? The answer to the first question answers the second question. Yahweh reigns over and owns everything:
The earth is YHWH’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. (Psalm 24:1)
What does this leave for Caesar? Even Caesar didn’t belong to Caesar.
Jesus’ answer was merely another example of His trapping the Pharisees with their own words – in this instance, forcing them to choose their god, Yahweh or Caesar. Christian11 Constitutionalists should take heed. Because no man can serve two masters, the Pharisees eventually made their choice clear:
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth … and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar. (John 19:12-15)
When interpreted correctly, Romans 13:1-4 proves that, apart from the areas where his law agreed with Yahweh’s law, Caesar had no legitimate power or authority – except over those who, like the Pharisees and Herodians, had chosen him above Yahweh. Mark 12:17 was never meant to be general instruction to everyone, but only to those who forsake Yahweh’s authority. The same is true of the Constitution and its Republic. Ultimately, the only power belonging to a non-Biblical constitutional government is whatever is attributed to it by the people who believe in it – as it is with all idols and the governments fashioned in their likeness.”
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/print-biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt19.php
But even if you wrong interpretation of the passage was the correct one, remember your logic still is if there is no explicit example in the NT of the Christians doing something then it wrong for us today to do it. This is you logic. And there is nowhere in the NT showing us of Christians actually paying any tax. All we have is just teachings on it. So therefore base on your logic its wrong for us to pay taxes.
You have to show me how what I’m saying is contrary to the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.
Hebrews 11 and many other NT scriptures gives us OT examples of the saints that we should follow it faith.
Those parts of the law that the NT says implicitly and explicitly that are not for today we don’t have to keep, the rest we have to, Romans 3:36.
Your explanation of Matthew 23:2-3 sounds a lot like the Roman Catholic heretical nonsense. On that issue I would very strongly recommend the book “The Roman Catholic Controversy” by James White, (and also the rest on the same page as well) at:
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/roman-catholicism-91/books.html
See also: http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/roman-catholicism-91/roman-catholicism.html
You can listen to him at:
http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html
The scribes and the Pharisees who sat in Moses seat were to be obeyed in as far as to what they said were in line with the bible, if they said anything contrary (and there were many such heretical errors) to the bible then what they said was to be rejected since it was contrary to the bible. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus teaching on the corban rule (Matt. 15:1-20) which they said came from Moses, and so on Jesus showed that The scribes and the Pharisees who sat in Moses seat said many wrong things and those errors were to be rejected by the people because they were contrary to the bible.
In the scriptures there is no spiritual/secular dichotomy, everything in the bible is spiritual, the scripture say do everything to the glory of God, Colossians 3:23, 1 Corinthians 10:31. This spiritual/secular dichotomy is a worldly (Satan’s) thing not a bible thing.
I agree with the majority of what your saying. Christ taught to survice and persevere persecution, not to vehemently fight back. I realize and agree that God controls and owns everything. Lets keep in mind Christ is God though, so when he said render to Caesar what is Caesars, it can said as do what you have to do for now, but to get to involved with this secular world. In a round about way, that is what was said. Mission to Israel is a mand made, humanistic organization with a twisted version of Scripture. I own every article you advised me to read. “Catholic heretical nonsense …. ” So you worship the Bible …. based on what , 2 Tim 3:16? You and Mr Weiland ( and James White ) decide for your selves what the Bible can or can not mean …. your logic, right? You base your ignorance off of the Puritans I assume?
The world is Gods. But He has given us free will. Again, this creates the testing ground we live in. Those that choose Him, are blessed by Him. This can’t be forced, as your logic would presume.
The Scripture were composed by fallible men in a infallible mannor …. the Holy Spirit guided them. If you believe the Scripture to be true and spiritual, then why do you not see what Christ preached in the NT to be peace and love?
You said, “Christ taught to survice and persevere persecution, not to vehemently fight back.”
I must say that Jesus never meant such in an absolute or universal sense for there is a time for self-defense, etc.
People read too much in the statement when Christ said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mark 12:17 – English Standard Version (©2001). To get a proper understanding of the statement one have to ask what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? Everything belongs to God Psalm 24:1-2 that includes Caesar as well. That mean nothing belong to Caesar. So we ought to give to whom the Lord say we ought to give to and also what we ought to give them, and that takes a lot of bible study to know to whom, and what to give when it comes to man and his institutions. The government has biblical limits and is to be ruled and guided by the bible to be biblically legitimate. Its not as easy as you may think.
The Roman Catholic state church is man made and easily takes the cake when it comes to twisting and perverting the Holy Scriptures.
I don’t worship the bible I worship the God who gave us the bible and tells us all in the bible to be fully obedient to His word, the Holy Scriptures.
The bible has the monopoly on all truths, and its the axiom and postulate of true Christianity.
Man don’t have any freewill since God knows everything, and is absolutely all sovereign over all His creation. We are nothing more than His mere puppets and robots for Him to do with us as He pleases for His glory.
The Holy Scriptures were breathed out by God to us His creatures via sinful men, His prophets, etc. The bible is a miracle from God to us. The bible is the plenary, verbal, all sufficient, perfect, infallibly, inerrant word of God.
So apparently the Bible fell out of the sky? Who wrote it? Infallible men? Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The traditions are the gospel and the word of God which the gospel is a part of. Can you tell me of any word or teaching of Jesus and the men who wrote the NT that they said that are in some tradition but not in the bible? Where can I find the documentation for such traditions?
Gregory, don’t expect any more answers from Clint Ufford. After warning him, he’s promoting Catholicism, which is against our posting policy. I have therefore blacklisted him.
Black listed? I would recommend creating a “page” to defend your ideals about Catholicism Mr Weiland. Attempting to draw all of the “republican”, “conservative” good ‘ol boy away from the Constitution and into Christianity is a great idea and I applaud you for it, but the issue lies at your own version of Christianity. You see Jesus was “blacklisted ” as well, from men who claimed there idea of the Scripture was mightier than His. Catholic doctrine is not false. Corruption has existed all throughout Catholicism, but the Church has prevailed, as Christ said it would, through it all. Over 1000 hours of sermons and only a few about the most dominate Church in the world? Ever you claim against Catholicism, I would write another book. “Popery” doesn’t cut it.
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).
Bible only Christians say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
When it comes to the one and only true bible soul saving from hell to be forever with God in His kingdom gospel message I would most strongly recommend everyone to read the article “Gospel Atonement” at this link: http://outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual universal Christians might.
For sure Christ’s church is not the the Roman Catholic state “church”.
Your “KJV” ….
James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions.
His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a “George Bush Bible” have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible.
Neither the Roman Catholic state “church”.
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. See John 18
Please don’t pit scriptures against scriptures, because their are scriptures that gives us the authority to defend ourselves.
Peter was using his sword to prevent Jesus from going to the cross even though Jesus told him more that once that this is why He came to earth and that its The Father’s will. But Peter will have none of it using the sword to stop the reveal plan of God, not depending on God’s reveal plan but on his use of the sword. And thus choosing to live by his sword rather than by the clear reveal plan of God to him. And if he continue in that way he will die by the same sword.
Nevertheless Jesus told him to put back up the sword, not to destroy it or throw it away. Why? Because he may have use of it later at the proper time to use it.
If Jesus was against them having weapons why did He allow them to have swords in the first place?
How I am pitting Scripture against Scripture? Peter took the guards sword ….. If your wife was being raped you’d be foolish to just sit there …. I wouldn’t … and no, that is not my logic. My logic however is also not to “take over” here on earth. You pick, choose and make Scripture into what you want, what you think it should be. ” Nevertheless Jesus told him to put back up the sword, not to destroy it or throw it away. Why? Because he may have use of it later at the proper time to use it. ” … Your logic, not biblical logic. I suggest reading deeper into historical biblical history. Also, try and see things out of your comfort zone.
You said, “Peter took the guards sword” now where in the scriptures did you get that from? When I read the scriptures I see the disciples already having their own swords before the army or guards came, Luke 22:38. Logically its not far-fetched to say Peter owned one of the two.
Tell me, where does the scripture say “Peter took the guards sword”?
Tell me, where does it say the Apostles had a sword?
Luke 22:38 says the disciples already had their own swords before the army or guards came.
So having swords make’s them dominion seeking disciples … or does His warning against “living by the sword” just a few verses later indicates that He had, at most, self-defense in mind, rather than a life of violence? Peculiar to Luke. 35. Luke 9:3; 10:4. 36. It seems fairly certain that Jesus meant these words here in a figurative sense. Hitherto the Apostles had lived in peace and were without want, but now they will soon be confronted with all sorts of hardships and trials. To meet these dangers they must be prepared and armed with spiritual weapons. Isaiah 53:12. Understanding the words of 36 in the literal sense, the Apostles missed the point completely. Jesus replied, “Enough,” i.e., let us drop the subject. The Apostles’ misunderstanding of our Lord’s words about the sword is shown in Matthew 26:51f and parallels.
So where does the figurative begins and ends. Based on you logic and argument Jesus told them to figuratively sell their figurative clothes to figuratively buy their figurative swords. And they had two figurative swords already. One of which Peter use to chop off the servants ear.
The words are literal. This passage is just before Jesus’ arrest in the garden. The area that they were traveling in was well known for robbers. The swords were for personal protection. They were not for offensive attacking of another person. Later when Peter cut off a man’s ear while Jesus was being arrested, Jesus healed the man and warned against unnecessary violence — “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”.
Exodus 22:2-3 (King James Version)
2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Basically, self defense when one’s life is in danger is allowable. But, killing a robber when lesser means of dealing with him is avilable is not allowed.
John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Basically, the thief is an armed robber and it is permissible to defend oneself in such a case.
Basic princlple, it is ok to use force to repeal a violent attacker to preserve life. Rahab, was in the hall of faith ( hebrews 11 ) because she lied to save the spies lives. I use her as an example of it being ok to do something to preserve life. Jesus healed on the sabbath, by doing so he was following the Jewish concept of saving a life or making a person whole when immediate action was required to do so.
But using your logic if you can’t find a saint in the NT doing a thing then its wrong. So therefore it wrong for saints to defend themselves and love ones, and pay taxes because you don’t find any saint in the NT doing such, that’s you logic and argument, remember.
Luke 22:38 is biblical instruction for Christian anarchy? Again, your logic is ill-logical. So why did James allow his head to be cut off? And John the Baptizer? Did Peter not suffer under Nero? Why did he not fight to the death? Paul … his head was removed without a fight … how about Stephen in the Acts …. Saul had him stoned and he didn’t move an inch ….
There is a time for everything a time to fight and a time not to fight. A Christian have to use wisdom to know the times. If its always wrong to fight then I can’t physically defend my wife from being raped because its always wrong to fight, there is no example of the saints fighting in the NT to defend themselves and love ones. That is you logic and argument. Then you ignore Hebrews 11 that gives us examples of OT saints fighting, for Christians to follow in faith.
The NT don’t have in everything for the Christian to follow, the Christian also has to go to the OT for examples to follow as well.
Friend, I agree. I have not said to not fight …. the issue with modern day Israelism, as most Christians claim they know it to be, is a mad-proclaimed opinion of biblical ideals that just dont fit with what Christ taught. ( 2 Peter 1:20 ) Alos, 1 John 2:15 does a great job at explaining our role here on earth and it does include a take over. Christ came and Christ did what He did because of fools who thought they had it figured out better than God.
I don’t hold to Ted’s, erroneous Israelism theory. True Christians love their fellow men and want the best for them and thus their nation or country, and to that end they will work. Thus they will work to bring righteousness to the nations of the world via the gospel, and living out the bible in the power of the gospel, Proverbs 14:34.
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ~Romans 12:9-14
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Roman 12:19
The very interesting thing about the above scripture passages that you quoted just above is that you can’t be a Roman Catholic and still be obedient to them. Both are mutually exclusive.
Anarchy is going against the bible, not the going against man’s so called laws, esp. when they are contrary to the bible.
Based on your logic if the NT don’t record the saints doing or ever did something then its wrong for us to do it. Therefore the NT don’t record the saint ever defending themselves or love ones from physical attack, so therefore based on your logic if I’m married and my wife is being raped I shouldn’t use physical force to stop it and defend her because there is no example of the saints in the NT ever defending themselves or love ones from physical attack. That’s you logic plain and simple, don’t run from it, face it.