Blessed New Year to All

Seeing that it is the first Sunday after Christmas Day, Here is the collect for today from the 1662 Prayer Book. I hope it will be the sincere prayer of everyone that passes this way:

Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin; Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

And the Evening Scripture is Isaiah 40:

1: Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
2: Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.
3: The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
4: Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
5: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
6: The voice said, Cry.  And he said, What shall I cry?  All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
7: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
9: O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
10: Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
11: He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
12: Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
13: Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?
14: With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
15: Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
16: And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.
17: All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
18: To whom then will ye liken God?  or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
19: The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20: He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
21: Have ye not known?  have ye not heard?  hath it not been told you from the beginning?  have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
24: Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
25: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal?  saith the Holy One.
26: Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
27: Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
28: Hast thou not known?  hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?  there is no searching of his understanding.
29: He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.
30: Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall:
31: But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Though we may this year see the terrible results of sin, we are reminded that, for the elect ones of God, our iniquity is pardoned for Christ’s sake. Have we not known; have we not heard? Our ears are dull and our minds are distracted, but God giveth more grace. Pray for strength to walk through the coming storm.

** I will hopefully soon resume the “nagging question” series.

 

Dr. Lee has gone home

I just learned this from his website:

In September 2011, Dr Lee was diagnosed with incurable Motor Neurone Disease, alias Amytropic Lateral Sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

At 7.50 am Friday 23rd December, 2011, Nigel Lee was taken peacefully to his Lord.

May God be with his family in their loss. The world has lost a great voice for the truth of the Reformation, the clarity of the Gospel, and the application of God’s Word and Law. Dr. Lee today sees with greater clarity now what we see only through a glass darkly. Gus an Breach an la, Dr. Lee.

Merry Christmas

I hope all will remember in these dark days the Light of the World who has come and dwelt with his people, as well as look eagerly for his coming again.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son :
and to the Holy Ghost ;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and
ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

The Jews and their Lies

Yes, the title is intentional. Here is one more example (as if we needed it) of precisely what the Jewish position on Jesus Christ is. I do not follow sports, and cannot speak with any authority about Tim Tebow or his faith. The fact of the matter is that he does profess publicly the name of Jesus, and that is what they hate, as shown in this article. I don’t think it was intended for goy consumption, but I doubt it will have any effect on the judeo-christians this Sunday. Father, glorify thy son.

The Nagging Question, Part 3

The history of Adam’s race is sad and glorious, often at the same time. The image bearers of God have walked through the beauty and the darkness of the world and carried the consequences of sin for many long millennia. The history of the Nation of Israel is the best and worst of all. Sin worked its foul evil in Israel too; the house of David was rocked with tragedy and death. David committed adultery, David’s own son rebelled against him. Mighty and wise Solomon forgot his God and followed the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes in his alien wives as is recorded in I Kings 11, resulting in the momentous and awful words of verses eleven to thirteen:

11: Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
12: Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.
13: Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.

The Sovereign God’s plan takes another turn after the death of Solomon, as the sins of the fathers fall on the heads of the children. But God remains faithful to his Covenant. The Kingdom was divided under Rehoboam, with Judah, Benjamin, and most of the Levites going to the Southern Kingdom, afterwards known as Judah. A man named Jeroboam, of the tribe of Ephraim (I Kings 11: 26-32) became the king of the Northern Kingdom, afterwards known by the old name of Israel, and often colloquially as Ephraim, for the promise was coming to fruition; to wit, his seed shall become a multitude of nations. Afterwards, the two were often at odds, playing out a tragic fratricide for centuries. It is in this mix our next clues are found.

A corollary to the question “Who is Israel?” must be “Who are the Jews?” The words are not synonymous, as it is now time to demonstrate. II Kings 16: 1-6 records -

1: In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
2: Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father.
3: But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
4: And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5: Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.
6: At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

There are three kings: a King of Judah, a King of Israel, and a King of Syria. The Kings of Israel and Syria are in alliance against Judah, resulting in the King of Syria driving the Jews from Elath and recovering it to Syria. Now, if, as is commonly taught, “the Jews” are synonymous with “Israel,” then Rezin must have turned on his ally! At the least, this would evidence confusion in the text. Surely the Holy Spirit can use the correct word to convey the intended meaning. Actually, the word rendered “Jews” is Yhuwdiy, Strong’s number 3064, defined as “a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (i.e. Judah) — Jew.” There is some confusion and redundancy here, as the word can mean either a descendent of Judah, or someone living in the land of Judah regardless of their ancestry. At any rate, 5/6 of the nation of Israel could never possibly be known as “Jews” as they neither dwelt in Judah nor were descended from the patriarch Judah. They ought not be called Jews today. Why, then, do we hear the word used as such? Can it be ignorance or is something darker at work?  To be continued. . .

The Nagging Question, Part 2

In the first section, we examined Scriptures that bear on the nagging question of Israel. It is, I think, one of the most momentous questions of history with bearing on everything from prophetic understanding to finance and politics. Who is Israel? The question is basic to the Bible because the Bible is the record of Israel and the actions of God Almighty in and through Israel. “Who is Israel” is a question that always hangs in the background and is rarely acknowledged, far more rarely answered, almost never answered correctly.

Return to the Bible. If there is an answer, it must be found in the revelation. Four hundred plus years after the events recounted in the previous installment, the family of the man Israel has become the whole nation of Israel, consisting of the familiar twelve tribes. All should be familiar with the story. God had visited and redeemed his people. Exodus 12 records the departure from Egypt thus:

30: And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
31: And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said.
32: Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.
33: And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
34: And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
35: And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
36: And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required.  And they spoiled the Egyptians.
37: And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
38: And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
39: And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.
40: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Did you notice verse 38? A mixed multitude went up with them. Two groups left Egypt: them, or the Israelites, and a mixed multitude, distinct from the Israelites. Strongs tells us that the word here for mixed is ereb which is defined as a mixture, or mongrel race. It is number 6154 in Strongs if any do not believe me. From the beginning of the Exodus there was a mongrel race present within Israel, yet recognised as distinct. The Bible could not be plainer. This did not change after the conquest of the land, rather it grew more acute and problematic because the people did not do as the Lord commanded, but allowed the Canaanite peoples to remain within their borders.

Israel was brought to settle within their lands after the forty-year wandering due to sin. Moses records a beautiful song echoing Jacob’s earlier words to his sons in Deuteronomy 33, verses 13-17 -

13: And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
14: And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,
15: And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,
16: And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren.
17: His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Read carefully Moses’ words. If we use the literal historical-grammatical method of interpretation, Moses is telling us of an action by the tribes of Joseph (with the double portion from Genesis 48:22 remember) reaching to the ends of the earth. Why then do we see these and similar passages passed over by teachers and casually applied to “the Jews?” Where in this passage, or elsewhere in the entire Bible, is any descendent of Joseph called a Jew? Why is it dispensationalists, with the cry of “literal interpretation” do not apply this to those of whom it is written, Ephraim and Manasseh? If the word of God cannot be broken, where have Ephraim and Manasseh done this? When has this happened? Where, and who, is Israel? Much consideration ought to be given the rest of the song and the words addressed to the rest of the people, but it will become apparent why the focus is on Ephraim and Manasseh as we go farther.

Leap now over much history in this brief survey. Remember the last days of Samuel, the final and greatest judge. Israel has demanded a king. What they received was Saul, a Benjamite, and not of the line of Judah as promised by Jacob. I believe this was done for the specific purpose of showing the “stiff-necked and rebellious people” that they ought not have asked for a king “as all the nations round about.” But God in his mercy proceeds forward with the divine plan of the ages long before foretold through Jacob’s words to Judah. After tragedy on tragedy, David, of the house of Judah, receives his throne. This is a high point in the history of the Israel nation. II Samuel 7: 8-16 records -

8: Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:
9: And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.
10: Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,
11: And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies.  Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12: And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13: He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14: I will be his father, and he shall be my son.  If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16: And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

This is God’s Covenant with his servant David. The passage is very obviously filled with important Christological tones; let it in no way be overlooked that the throne established forever belongs to him “whose right it is” as uttered by Jacob back in Genesis. Verse 10 is the interesting verse for our purposes. Israel is in the land of Canaan, just beginning the great rise to glory under David and Solomon, but notice what God promises here: to appoint a place for his people, to plant it, that they may move no more. Think, Christian; Israel was currently dwelling in a place of their own, namely Canaan. Why, if Canaan were the final place for “the Jews” as dispensationalists teach; if it be the most important place on the Earth even in eternity, then why does this verse (at the beginning of the history of the Davidic Kingdom) speak of God appointing a place? If the place of Canaan has already been appointed, and was being inhabited, then he must be speaking about another place, else grammar and word order is meaningless. Why is this not discussed and pondered more closely by a people who claim to believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of an inerrant and infallible Bible? What is God, who knows and ordains the end from the beginning, going to say and do?

To be continued. . .

The Nagging Question

I need to write about something that is not popular, not even among those who are both spiritually alive and racially aware. It is a topic that is whispered in hushed tones, or loudly denounced (but rarely objectively considered) even by those with traditional social mores. It is something that looms large, always casting a shadow on Bible study, history, politics, religion, current events. That topic, that nagging question, is of Israel and the Jews, and who is Israel, and who are the Jews. This simple man is firmly convinced by the Bible, by the witness of the Church militant, by history, and by the witness of the enemies of God and God’s people that the Christians of the West have been lied to, whether deliberately or through ignorance. I do not seek popularity nor approval, but the truth.  Hear the issues, consider the evidence, and remember: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Every first grade Sunday School child knows the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and David.  What the children are not taught, and what theologians, even great and godly men, have somehow missed, are the prophetic details in these Bible stories. These accounts are the foundations of the Faith. If we miss something here, we miss, not salvation of necessity, but important facts which God gave for our instruction. Because the Bible is the recorded witness of God about his people Israel, and the Incarnate Son of God/Son of Man Jesus Christ, it is inexpressibly important that we understand correctly this word. Failure to do so is the root of the errors of ignorance sadly prevalent in the Church. Why is it that the topic of Israel, which occupies such a vast portion of the Bible, should be one that is so misunderstood and divisive? Why do Protestants, who claim sola Scriptura, have so many differing ideas about Israel? Why do we have replacement theology and dispensationalism? What does the Bible say?

Who is Israel? The simple answer is that Israel is Jacob. Genesis 35:10 declares -

And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.

The man Jacob’s name was changed to Israel by God after he wrestled with the angel, which happened back in chapter 32. This is simple and straightforward. It is the next verse which must be read and pondered carefully:

And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins

Do you see that? Israel is given a command with an annexed promised: be fruitful and multiply (command) and a nation AND A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS SHALL SPRING OF THEE (promise with emphasis added). Do you believe the Bible, Christian? Why is it, then, that you believe and teach that “Israel” is equal to or synonymous with “the Jews?” Even if the Jews of 2011 form a part of Israel, the Bible teaches that a multitude of nations shall spring from Jacob/Israel’s fruitfulness, not just one nation. That is the promise given here by God almighty, and there is no way to spiritualise this verse to refer to anyone who believes. It does not mention belief, it mentions reproduction. We have here a nation, singular, which history and the Scripture calls Israel after its father, and a multitude of nations, which with the Lord’s help we will seek to identify.

Jacob had already began to be fruitful. The Lord blessed him with 12 sons. These sons are Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph, and Benjamin. These sons gave their names to the twelve tribes of the (nation) Israel. However, before that, something happened to Joseph. His brothers sold him into slavery because of jealousy. While in Egypt, he was given a wife and two sons, Manasseh the eldest, because God had made him forget all his labour and his father’s household, and Ephraim the second, because God had made him fruitful in the land of his affliction. (Genesis 41:51,52.) In the course of time, Jacob and his other sons came into Egypt, Joseph revealed himself to them, and the family of Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, a thing God had already revealed to his friend Abraham (Genesis 15:13.) When Jacob’s days were ending, he called for the sons of Joseph and blessed them, receiving them as his own sons (Genesis 48:13-22).

13: And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near unto him.

14: And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

15: And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,

16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

17: And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head unto Manasseh’s head.

18: And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

19: And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

20: And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

21: And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.

22: Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

It is a source of amazement to me that this passage is so casually passed by. When I first saw what was being said it was like a slap in the face, or a splash of cold water.  Even the eminent and Godly commentator Matthew Henry does not mention one word of the prophecy of verse 19 in particular. It is almost as if even the faithful men of God in the past had a blind spot to these things. Perhaps in His providence, they did.

What does the passage teach? Joseph has brought his sons, at Jacob (Israel’s) request, to his dying father. Joseph held them for the blessing, the same blessing Jacob had received at the hand of Isaac. That blessing included the Abrahamic promise from Genesis 12 as reiterated in Genesis 17, promising Kings and Nations, plural. Israel was the rightful holder of that promise. In verse 13, Joseph places the eldest toward Israel’s right hand, with the younger toward his left. However it was not to be; Israel, old and nearly blind, deliberately placed his right hand on Ephraim’s head before blessing Joseph and claiming the two boys as his own (verse 16.) Joseph was displeased by this as seen in verse 17, but Israel refused to change it; he was under the spirit of prophecy. Read verse 19 carefully – his (that is, Ephraim’s) seed shall become a multitude of nations! Nations is in the plural, not the singular. As an interesting note, the word used is goy which is sometimes rendered with the Latin derived gentile. Ephraim’s seed shall become a multitude of gentiles! This is Israel’s promise from Genesis 35 passed to Ephraim. He concludes with the passing of the Birthright, the same one received from Isaac and sold by Esau, to Joseph in verse 22. That is the double portion. Now, the question: what does this mean, and why do we hear nothing about this in Christian teaching? All Scripture is given for instruction, correct? Why has the error that the Jews are Israel been allowed to go to seed in dispensationalism? Very few things are stated more clearly in the history of the Bible than the promise of many nations belonging to Israel through Ephraim. The Jews are but one nation, so that fact by itself is enough to refute the error. Now one might then say yes, but this is referring to all who believe regardless of their nationality. How can that be? To believe is to be in Christ. Jesus Christ is the Davidic King of the tribe of Judah, therefore believers are related to Judah in that respect. The promise of His coming is found in Judah’s blessing. Judah’s blessing is received in Genesis 49:8-12. What part does Ephraim play in the Messianic lineage? None. If the Bible is true (and it is) then this must refer to something else.

This portion of the story is not done. In Genesis 49 Israel announces another prophecy to his sons; “that which shall come to you in the last days.” For the time being, consider what is said to Joseph in verses 22-26:

22: Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:

23: The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:

24: But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

25: Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

26: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

Israel promises to Joseph (and by extension to the sons of Joseph just received in chapter 48) fruitfulness in spite of vicious attacks. Joseph’s life had already been a testimony to that preservation. Pay careful attention to verses 25 and 26. All these blessings are promised to Joseph – that of the heaven above and of the depth beneath. The fact that these are tied together suggests that this refers to natural prosperity or the fruits of the earth’s bounty. The rains of heaven above and the bounty of the waters beneath will fall on Joseph’s posterity. He is prophesied agricultural bounty and the bounty of the sea. This will last “unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills” or, as the Geneva Bible renders it “unto the end of the hills of the world.” Christian, do you believe the Bible? Is there any indication that this has been rescinded? Can God lie, or is He unfaithful to his Word? If you believe the prophecy in 49:8-12 concerning Judah and the messiah, what about this prophecy? What do you believe about this?

To be continued. . .

Behold the Good Fruit Which Comes From the Poisoned Tree

As previously promised, here is the review of yet another Russell Moore article. The Southern Baptist Convention has allowed, rather has encouraged, Communist, Talmudist teaching in its seminaries. Why King’s Dream Overcame “Christian” White Supremacy ought to make that quite clear. The correct question ought to be why did King’s dream overcome Christian white intelligence, and the correct answer is because Christian men forget Christ, and loved darkness rather than light. This particular bit of pandering, flagellation, and Talmudic double talk was written, appropriately enough, to honour the day set aside for Saint Michael King in 2010. Does anyone else see the irony in the Baptist disdain for ancient Saints’ days and feast days of a liturgical calender, but the eager embrace of a day to remember this adulterous pervert? Who or what is being worshipped here?  Can there be a remedy for this apostasy?

Dr. Moore begins with a heart rending tale of a little boy at Sunday School being chastised by a substitute teacher for placing a dirty object in his mouth:

One of my earliest memories is of a substitute Sunday school teacher chastening me for putting a coin in my mouth. “That’s filthy,” she said. “Why, you don’t know if a colored man might have held that.” It might just be my imagination playing tricks on me, but it seems as though she immediately followed this up with, “Alright children, let’s sing ‘Jesus Loves the Little Children, All the Children of the World.’”

Immediately we should see that this has nothing to do with the subject matter at all, but is a cheap emotional stunt to prejudice the reader against the evil white supremacist Sunday School teacher. She probably went right after the sermon and threw rocks at the coloured children. Every right thinking person knows that is what Baptist Sunday School teachers did on Sunday afternoons before 1965. The interested reader can consult the United States Centers for Disease Control if he wishes to see the higher rates of communicable disease prevalent in the Negro population (and therefore the legitimate concern of the teacher), but for our purposes I would be more interested in seeing a logical connection between telling a child to not put something dirty in their mouth and providing a rational reason for it with Jesus loving all the little children in the world or not.

The real thesis of this propaganda piece is this paragraph:

On the question of civil rights in the American Christian context, there is little question that, with few exceptions, the “progressives” were right, often heroically right, and the “conservatives” were wrong, often satanically wrong. In the narrative of the dismantling of Jim Crow, conservatives were often the villains and progressives were most often on the side of the angels, indeed on the side of Jesus.

First, notice two things: the use of weasel words and the use of quotations to draw attention to the weasel words. Progressives goes down so much smoother than Communists, doesn’t it? Yet that is what they were and remain. The destruction of distinctions, particularly racial distinction, is one of the most critical demands of the Jewish run Communist program. The CPUSA has always had racial amalgamation as its platform. Dr. Moore places himself and the Baptist Convention of 2011 and attempts to place Jesus Christ and the angels, on the side of the Communists.

What does the Scripture say? From the mouth of the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:17-18 -

17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Dr. Moore has a problem. He would (presumably) have us believe that the fruit produced by the progressives is/was evil except for this one apple. How did the tree that gave us the Ukrainian genocide, the Vietnam War, Chairman Mao, the feminist movement, the sodomite rights movement, et. al. produce one good apple? Or, does Dr. Moore believe all these fruits are good and simply cannot say so for fear of alienating Southern Baptists? Either he (and presumably the Convention as a whole) believes so, or he does not believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:17-18. For he would have us believe that not only has this evil, antichrist tree brought forth a good fruit in direct contradiction to this teaching of the Lord, but it has done so in direct contradiction to another, namely Matthew 12:25:

 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

So, to review, the progressive movement not only defied the teaching of the tree and its fruits, it also has defied the teaching about the house divided. Somehow, God had to use Communist Christ deniers, led by an adulterous plagiarist pervert posing as a Baptist preacher to teach the Church, unto which Christ promised the Holy Spirit who would teach all things, the truth concerning so-called civil rights, a concept not found in the Bible and which is a child of another Communist invention called the fourteenth amendment. Millions of Southern Baptists have swallowed this swill.

In an effort to prove this flawed, irrational, unbiblical thesis, Moore asks the question:

. . .why is it true that a segregationist would be barred (and rightly so) from speaking at the SBC Pastors’ Conference of 2010 and wouldn’t be at the SBC Pastors’ Conference of 1950? Isn’t it because the people wouldn’t tolerate it?

Perhaps it is because the people have been led by Communists posing as clergy? It happened in Catholic seminaries, do we really believe it cannot happen in Baptist ones? In 1950 the American mind, particularly the Southern mind, had not yet become as enamoured of the doctrines of devils pushed by the one-world system as they are now. The voices of the civil rights pioneers are persuasive, not only to mainstream America but to conservative Christians, because conservative christians know on which side their bread is buttered, and the corporate nature of the denominations is far more controlling than anything a Baptist would reject in Rome, Constantinople, or Canterbury.

Dr. Moore knows this, as evidenced by his appeal, through King, to Jefferson:

In the political sphere, leaders such as King pointed out how the American system was inconsistent with Jeffersonian principles of the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Politically, Americans had to choose: be American (as defined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) or be white supremacist; you can’t be both. King and his compatriots were right.

Precisely what the Jeffersonian principle (written by a slaveholding segregationist incidentally, who ought to have known far better than “Dr.” King what he meant) has to do with the Bible is not clear. The statement is only true in a limited and proscribed sense anyway. Americans “chose” to reject what was in the Constitution: ourselves and our posterity. Actually, Americans had the choice forced down their throats at gunpoint by an out of control internationalist government, and now fifty years after the fact every single horror predicted by the evil segregationists has come to pass with usury.

Of course, this had to infect the churches in order to ultimately reach the souls of men:

But the civil rights movement was, at core, also an ecclesial movement. King was, after all, “Rev. King” and many of those marching with him, singing before him, listening to him, were Christian clergy and laity. To the churches, especially the churches of the South, the civil rights pioneers sent a similar message to the one they sent to the governmental powers. You have to choose: be a Christian (as defined by the Scripture and the small “c” catholic apostolic tradition) or be a white supremacist; you can’t be both. They were right here too.

Calling oneself a reverend doesn’t make you one anymore than calling oneself a brain surgeon qualifies you for that task. Michael King was and is a documented Communist agitator. The appeal to catholic apostolic tradition (I thought Baptists didn’t believe in that) is too laughable to need comment. Catholic tradition calls for national churches organised around the specific liturgies of a people under apostolic orthodoxy. One should read the English Protestant Reformers before making such nonsensical statements.

Next come the emotional appeals without substantiation:

How can white supremacy be true, they would argue, if humanity is made from “one blood” in the creation of Adam? How can one segregate evangelistic crusades if the cross of Christ atones for all people, both white and black? If God personally regenerates repentant sinners, both white and black, how can we see people in terms of “race” rather than in terms of the person? If we send missionaries across the seas to evangelize Africa, how is it not hypocrisy not to admit African-Americans into church membership?

Without getting into a specific exegesis of the one blood passage, what does it have to do with whether or not white supremacy is true (white supremacy being defined as the higher intellectual, moral, and social development of the white nations) ? Can God not make of one lump different vessels? Even if all men are brothers, don’t families have children of different capacities? The argument simply does not address “white supremacy” as such. As for segregation, is there some reason given why separate preaching services will somehow prevent the gospel from being heard? Do Negroes have to sit next to whites in order to hear and believe the gospel? And what was that about white supremacy?

The real danger in that paragraph is in the sentence “If God personally regenerates repentant sinners, both white and black, how can we see people in terms of “race” rather than in terms of the person?” Why does this only apply to “race?” (Don’t you hate it when progressives put ordinary words that children 50 years ago knew the meaning in quotes like it is a strange new concept?) Ask the question with slightly different wording:  If God personally regenerates repentant sinners, both male and female, how can we see people in terms of “sex” rather than in terms of the person? If God personally regenerates repentant sinners, both parent and child, how can we see people in terms of “familial relationship” rather than in terms of the person? This is raw unfiltered Jacobin Communism. Mark these words: The Church is philosophically defenseless now against the sodomite movement, against the feminist movement, and against the UN Rights of the Child declaration. This revolutionary threat has blown the defenses wide open because of the embrace of amalgamation.

The conclusion offers nothing new; just the tired old meme that segregation denies the gospel. I do wish that Baptists could get straight what they mean by the gospel, because if it is only the method in which an atomised individual is saved from hell, then one must wonder how social segregation can interfere with that. If it is the whole declaration of the fulness of the Incarnation past, present, and future, then one must still wonder exactly how forcible social integration serves the end of Jesus Christ’s Kingdom. One does not need to wonder, however, how it serves the end of the Communist revolution, because they have written very openly on that very subject. If only Southern Baptists had listened.

Fear and Loathing of the White, part II

As promised, this is the conclusion of the examination of Dr. Russell Moore’s Racism and the Great Commission Resurgence. Little needs to be said for this purpose about the body of the text, as the real underlying assumptions and falsehoods are found in the introduction and the conclusion. Truly, the introductory swipe at white people in the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the essay, which is an exaltation of interracial adoption, duly crowned with hearsay about some (unnamed) missionaries in Texas forbidden, by official church action (the churches are also unnamed), from speaking because of the fact that their Tanzanian-born children are of a different ethnicity than the people (sic) church.  It sounds like a story about my cousin’s friend’s cousin who saw a ghost (or maybe it was a Grand Wizard.) Dr. Moore does admit that he cannot verify this bit of yellow (or maybe black?) journalism, but, true or not, “the very question ought to make us think.” It certainly makes me think. It makes me think that I cannot believe what I read in Southern Baptist publications. Nonetheless, it makes for a perfect storm of white self loathing, once we have established that these evil non-persons who are not even mentioned in the Bible have the gall to interfere with their own ethnic destruction, which after all is what the gospel is all about, isn’t it? That no actual, verified evidence is provided matters not, what matters is that a Very Bad Thing happened in “some churches” in (white) Texas, and all whites ought to feel Very Bad. Somehow I doubt that a dean of a school of Theology would allow this kind of nonsense in student papers to pass by without rebuke. Perhaps this is what Southern Baptists mean by the phrase ministerially speaking.

The concluding remarks are no more factually or theologically sound than the opening statement. The Dr. writes:

As I’ve written so many other places that I’ll not reiterate it here, white supremacy is idolatrous and not consonant with a gospel that finds us in Christ Jesus, a gospel that reconciles us to God and to one another (Eph. 2-3) and that crucifies every ounce of pride in the flesh (Phil. 3).

Please keep in mind that this man is a Doctor of Theology. Not only that, but he is a Doctor tasked with the oversight of students of theology, many of whom will soon be in Southern Baptist pulpits. Apparently, the work of Jesus Christ in reconciling sinners to God includes reconciling “us” to “one other.” Who is the us and the one another? Is us the white people we were just told are not in the Bible? Is one another the Negroes? Dr. Moore does not say whether or not he thinks they are in the Bible. Does he think that the Apostle in speaking of the middle wall of partition in the referenced Bible chapters was, after all, talking about white people who otherwise are not in the Bible? What Paul speaks of in Ephesians is the Law of Commandments which standeth in ordinances, and has nothing to do with social amalgamation. It has to do with the end of the Levitical system. Likewise, Philippians 3 deals with those who seek a righteousness outside of Christ. Were the imaginary white supremacist Texas Baptists relying on their ethnic identity for righteousness? The article does not say.

The final paragraph leads one to once again question the author’s familiarity with the Bible:

If we’re going to be missional, if we’re going to resurge together for the Great Commission, it will mean first recognizing that racial bigotry isn’t just “politically incorrect.” It’s of the spirit of antichrist, and must go.

I have heard the buzzword missional, but this resurge is a new one. The dictionary defines it thus: to rise again, as from desuetude or from virtual extinction. Once again allow me to repeat, I did not know that the Great Commission had ever ceased, fallen into desuetude, or become extinct.

Far more interesting, however, is the identification of racial bigotry (and presumably comparing white people with lepers does not fall into that category) as the Spirit of antichrist. A Doctor of Theology ought to be able to back such a statement with a clear Bible statement, or a good and necessary inference. Such evidence was not forthcoming for the assertion that there are no white people in the Bible, and one is not provided here. The Bible is very clear on what is the spirit of antichrist, and racial bigotry is nowhere to be found. I John 2:21-23:

21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

How exactly one gets racial bigotry from the denial of the Incarnation is not explained. A little logic concerning the Incarnation ought to tell us that the Lord Jesus became a man, and a man has a specific identity as a member of a tribe, a nation, an ethnos. The Son did not become generic “man” with no identity, as the gospel evangelists take great pains to demonstrate his lineage from Abraham, David (remember bright and ruddy David?), and blushing Adam. This same Jesus who ascended shall also come again, and if he is the same Jesus, we can safely conclude that he will be a member of the same nation he was when he left. To deny the particularity of  ALL the white nations is at least partly an implicit denial of the Lord’s particular identity in the Incarnation. “Racial bigotry is the antichrist” is a statement without Biblical backing and without orthodox theological precedent. There is very little of it anyhow, but it does make for a fantastic strawman that won’t fight back. No white person of any tribe is allowed any expression of identity at all. Bigotry, a simple minded brute dislike for anything different, is quite rare. What is not so rare is a love for ones own, and a desire to see it preserved. That is the real target of those who plague the Church with Communist propaganda. In a future review, we will see an even worse example of it, right in the heart of the Southern Baptist world.

Fear and Loathing of the White

In the previous entry I made the assertion that “The Protestant Institutional Churches, all of them, are in the hands of red revolutionaries.” This revolution is the continuation of the Communist-Jacobin-Jewish-Babylonian/Nimrod-Satanic war against the people of God that has been the undercurrent of history since the Garden. The Lord has promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church, and I believe the enemy knows this very well. However, he still seeks to cause as much damage as possible, to the obscuring of the truth, the ruination of souls, and the death and misery of as many as possible. It is far easier to do that from within than from without. Falsehoods take root much quicker when received from a pulpit or a seminary publication rather than from an atheist’s pen or a revolutionary’s screed. The purpose of the leadership of religious institutions today, by their own words, is the promotion of what was considered abnormal just a few years ago. The gospel, which is used as a catchphrase and a cloak for this mischief, has been replaced by another gospel, which is no gospel, but is the exact same message preached by the one-world amalgamationist, the Communist, and the red revolutionary of past generations.

The Southern Baptist Church is apparently desirous of achieving the lead position in this march of knaves. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is teaching the same anti-white, anti-European, integrationist, miscegenist message that was pushed in years past by the Communists in the World Council of Churches and the apostate mainline denominations. The tragedy of it is that despite all the problems inherent in Baptist theology in general, the Southern Baptist churches (plural) held on to their character for longer than any other large assembly. That is no longer the case.

Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology of Southern Baptist Seminary, is a revolutionary to watch. One can safely assume, I believe, that a man with such a position in an institution does not speak contrary to the position of that institution, so his published words may fairly reflect what is considered acceptable Southern Baptist orthodoxy. This topic, and the following, should have been covered prior to the immigration topic, but immigration is so much in the foreground now especially since the Convention and its resolutions are on folks’ minds. This man’s published statements on the race question form the background for his program of white displacement via the immigration question. Compare the two as you read.

In his October 31, 2009 entry, Dr. Moore wrote about Racism and the Great Commission Resurgence. This is apparently a hobby horse topic with the doctor. Immediately one wonders why the Great Commission needs a resurgence. Where did it go in the first place? Has the Holy Spirit had some sort of difficulty in the 2000 years since the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Saviour with calling each and every one of those that the Father has given to Christ? However, that quibble is the least of our concerns.

The opening paragraph of this integrationist propaganda piece reads thus:

A few weeks ago, I told the folks in my congregation to forget all the pictures of white people they’ve seen in their childhood Sunday school Bible story books. The only white people in the Bible were lepers.

From the outset, we can see that Dr. Moore’s intention is to degrade, denigrate, and browbeat the (white) folks in his congregation and to lay on them the collective guilt of their whiteness. That has always been the tactic of the subversive, particularly of the liberal  against the European Christian. In this Communist ideology masquerading as Christianity, to belong to any of the white, Caucasoid nations is the original sin. This statement ought to be rejected on that ground alone; however, there is a worse problem. Here is the sight of a doctor of a church, tasked with teaching God’s flock and teaching future ministers, who either does not know what the Bible says, or is deliberately denying and obscuring what the Bible says. The Lord Jesus Christ asked how, if we believe not earthly things, shall we believe heavenly things?

Does Dr. Moore’s assertion, presented as a fact to his congregation and presumably his students, comport with the Scripture? Genesis 2:7 says:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

“Man” in the statement is Adam, which is in Strong’s concordance number 120, defined as “from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being.” The word is the same as the name Adam, so his name and his description match. This is a common occurrence in the Bible: a person’s name often tells us something about their appearance or their personality and intangible characteristics. In the context of the first man, it is his appearance, his physical characteristics that are in view. The root given, number 119, is the same word, and its definition is:

to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy: — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

I do not think a great deal of explanation needs to be given on this word. Answer the question “what ethnic group has this characteristic” and you answer the question “to what group did Adam belong.” Words mean things, and if we believe that all Scripture is given by God and is profitable, then this must be given by God. Had the Almighty wished to convey some other idea concerning Adam, he could certainly have chosen a different word. There is at least one white person in the Bible.

Are there others? II Samuel says so. Chapter 16, verse 12:

And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

This verse is speaking of David. It is clearly describing his physical appearance. The Bible, which Southern Baptists claim to be the infallible, inerrant word of God, says he was ruddy. The Hebrew word is admowniy, Strongs number 132, meaning:

from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion): — red, ruddy.

Note its root is also from 119, the same as Adam. Who has red hair or complexion? There are two people groups in the world that have natural red hair: the Celts and the Sephardic Jews. Does Dr. Moore count either of these groups as white or not? Is he aware of some other, non-white group, unknown to science or anthropology, that possesses these characteristics? If not, then he should tell his congregation upon what basis he confidently makes his boast, because it plainly does not come from the Bible.

We are told that David was “of a beautiful countenance.” He was a handsome boy. The word for beautiful is yapheh, from the root yaphah, meaning “bright. ” He was not tall, dark ,and handsome. He was bright, ruddy, and handsome; in fact his brightness was his beauty. If this does not describe a white man I do not know what it describes. Once again, can not the God of the Ages select words to convey his intended meaning? Here are at least two white people in the Bible.

Perhaps Dr. Moore just made a mistake. Perhaps these were overlooked. After all, they do require some examination to get the literal meaning. Well, is that not what a Doctor of Theology, a dean of a seminary in charge of seeing that the next generation of ministers is fully equipped for their work, supposed to do? Two mistakes do not ruin good intentions, do they? Surely there are no more white people in the Bible.

Lamentations 4:7 says otherwise:

Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

Plainly, Jeremiah is describing the physical bodies of the Nazarites. “Ruddy” here is the same word, number 119, as it was in Genesis. In fact, it is ADAM. He clearly declares that they were whiter than milk. In contradiction to Moses, Samuel, and Jeremiah, Dr. Moore says that there were no white people in the Bible. The very best thing that can be said is that the dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Seminary has not read Genesis, II Samuel, or Lamentations. The other explanation is that he has read them, and his desire to promote the new religion of anti-white hatred and destruction which is Talmudic and Communist rather than Christian is more important than what is in the Bible. Obviously, there are white people in the Bible, at least in the Old Testament. It hardly needs to be said that there are white people in the New Testament.  I have no idea what colour he would have us believe the Greek Luke, the Roman Cornelius, or the entire Gallic population of Galatia were, since he believes the only white people in the Bible were lepers. I think the real point is that Dr. Moore believes, in agreement with the modern liberal faith, that white people are themselves lepers, and the sooner we are all dead or mingled, the better. After all, did he not write that we could have 1970′s Bible Belt America rather than the Kingdom of God?

More to come. . .