The Religion That Started in a Hat

Corruption of the Civil Law and Remedies                                                                   by Jack Kettler

Corruption of the law can refer to legal corruption, which refers to the abuse of power by public officials or politicians that is unethical or outright instituting wicked practices, as seen in the bullet list below. Such an idea is not a foreign concept in the Scriptures.  

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Psalm 94:20)

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed.” (Isaiah 10:1)

The above passages highlight the conflict between man-made laws and divine laws. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day had more than 600 man-made laws they were required to obey, but God’s laws for the world are found in the Bible.

In the case of Israel, as seen above, justice had been corrupted, and man’s manufactured law, instead of being in accord with God’s Law, Israel had become opposed to it. Man’s law was working towards injustice and unrighteousness. This corruption seemed unbearable because the rulers of the day claimed to be acting according to the law, seeking to hide their unrighteousness under the cover of the law.

While both passages deal with the corruption of law in the Psalmist’s and Isaiah’s day, the problem is just as pronounced now. One example is how wicked leaders use the machinery of the law to crush and ruin their opponents and advance their interests.

The Western world law codes are based upon biblical law:

The influence of biblical law on Western legal systems is a topic of much debate. While it is true that the Ten Commandments and other directives contained in the Pentateuch of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures have informed our notions of right and wrong, some would argue that it is difficult to say to what extent they have influenced Western law codes.

That being said, Christianity has had a profound impact on Western culture, and the rule of law, in particular, has profoundly influenced virtually everything that makes the West unique. The societies where the rule of law exists are the societies that hold a belief in a divine lawgiver standing over and above his creation as judge and jury. Historically, the rule of law prevails, whereas monotheistic Christianity shapes the consensus worldview.

Christianity has played a significant role in shaping Western culture and its legal systems. Law codes did not arise in a void absent from the influence of a worldview.

For example, to name first, and second-degree murder, manslaughter, rape, self-defense, restitution, bearing false witness, kidnapping, adultery, fornication, laws of inheritance, and crimes of passion. The modern-day application of eternal principles from the Old Covenant is one of the many aspects of the Judeo/Christian worldview that has made an indelible impact on the law codes of modern nations.

Examples of modern-day governmental corruption of the law:
 
•    Favored status for sexual deviants
•    Abortion
•    Putting debt upon future generations
•    Favored status for the pagan religion of Mohammedism
•    Failure to follow its own laws
•    A Two-Tiered Justice System
•    Banning biblical truth from the public square
•    Intrusion into the marketplace, creating financial bubbles (housing, stock market) that burst
•    Pagan indoctrination of children in government schools
•    Political public lying
•    Anti-Christian foreign policy
•    Confiscatory levels of taxation or theft by the government
•    Onerous levels of regulatory abuse
•    Debasing the currency
•    Corruption and mistrust of elections
•    The rise of police state tyranny

What should Christians do when civil authorities make unjust laws? Like the Psalmist, believers should pray:

“Pronounce them guilty, O God! Let them fall by their own counsels; Cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions, for they have rebelled against You.” (Psalms 5:1)

“When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office.” (Psalms 109:7-8)

“His trouble shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.” (Psalms 7:16)

“Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none.” (Psalms 10:15)

“O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.” (Psalms 58:6-8)

“Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more! Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!” (Psalms 104:35)

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Proverbs 29:2)

The Prophet Isaiah pronounces woe upon wicked rulers:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Calvin’s comments are correct to the point when the law is perverted:

“20. Wo to them that call evil good. Though some limit this statement to judges, yet if it be carefully examined, we shall easily learn from the whole context that it is general; for, having a little before reproved those who cannot listen to any warnings, he now proceeds with the same reproof. It is evident that men of this sort have always some excuse to plead, and some way of imposing on themselves; and, therefore, there is no end to their reproachful language, when their crimes are brought to light. But here he particularly reproves the insolence of those who endeavor to overthrow all distinction between good and evil.”

“The preposition l (lamed), prefixed to the words good and evil, is equivalent to of; and therefore, the meaning is, they who say of evil, It is good, and of good, It is evil; that is, they who by vain hypocrisy conceal, excuse, and disguise wicked actions, as if they would change the nature of everything by their sophistical arguments, but who, on the contrary deface good actions by their calumnies. These things are almost always joined together, for everyone in whom the fear of God dwells is restrained both by conscience and by modesty from venturing to apologize for his sins, or to condemn what is good and right; but they who have not this fear do not hesitate with the same impudence to commend what is bad and to condemn what is good; which is a proof of desperate wickedness.”

“This statement may be applied to various cases; for if a wo is here pronounced even on private individuals, when they say of evil that it is good, and of good that it is evil, how much more on those who have been raised to any elevated rank, and discharge a public office, whose duty it is to defend what is right and honorable! But he addresses a general reproof to all who flatter themselves in what is evil, and who, through the hatred which they bear to virtue, condemn what is done aright; and not only so, but who, by the subterfuges which they employ for the sake of concealing their own enormities, harden themselves in wickedness. Such persons, the Prophet tells us, act as if they would change light into darkness, and sweet into bitter; by which he means that their folly is monstrous, for it would tend to confound and destroy all the principles of nature. (1) (under-line emphasis mine).”

Some pertinent human observations regarding when the corruption of the law happens:

“When government engages in the involuntary transfer of wealth, that’s nothing more than legalized plunder. There is nothing noble or laudatory about it. It is contemptible, evil and profoundly wrong.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“To make no decision in regard to the growth of authoritarian government is already a decision for it.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“When the Christian is treated as an enemy of the State, his course is very much harder, but it is simpler. I am concerned with the dangers to the tolerated minority; and in the modern world, it may turn out that most intolerable thing for Christians is to be tolerated.” – T.S. Eliot

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand-fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” –  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

“True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us to do as absolutes which are sinful- which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these things the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

Courses of action in response to the corruption of the law:

Beyond prayer, we must act positively against public manifestations of evil. Personal sanctification is a given. Christians are called to do more than live in our circle of influence.

The “Lesser Magistrate” and the jury system, if appropriately utilized, can be a powerful bulwark against the evil laws of men:  

“If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.” – Lysander Spooner

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.” – Lysander Spooner

The precedent of taking advantage of safeguards found in America’s Republican Social Contract is established by the Apostle Paul:

One of the most well-known examples of Paul asserting his rights as a Roman citizen is when he used the provocatio procedure to move his trial from the jurisdiction of the provincial governor of Judea, Festus, to Rome. This significant move allowed Paul to be tried before Caesar, which was considered a privilege for Roman citizens. The provocatio procedure was a legal right that allowed Roman citizens to appeal to the emperor in cases where they felt that their rights were being violated.

By invoking this right, Paul was able to ensure that he received a fair trial and that his rights were protected:

“Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, with a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.” (Acts 22:27-28)

Today, judges never inform a jury of their right to nullify unjust laws, which is a perversion of the law itself by judges. In reality, today, if a judge suspects a juror knows of this historic right, the juror will be thrown off the jury.

An example to illustrate the importance of a Juror’s right to judge the law:

Imagine a King making a law that whenever a person hears the King’s name, they must fall and kiss the ground, and if not, the offense is the death penalty. A properly informed juror would conclude that an individual may have broken the law but, since the law was unjust, refuse to convict.

Today, citizens may be ignorant of the power of a juror; historically, this was not so considering the Magna Carta.         

The Magna Carta, the Great Charter, is a medieval document signed by King John of England in 1215. It was created to address the grievances of the English barons against the king’s arbitrary rule and to protect their rights and privileges. The Magna Carta established that everyone, including the king, is subject to the law. It also established the right to a fair trial and due process of law. English Common Law exists because of the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta is considered one of the most significant legal documents in history and has influenced many constitutional documents worldwide, including the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the title page of the 1774 “Journal of The Proceedings of The Continental Congress” features an image of 12 arms grasping a column on whose base is written “Magna Carta.” The image was probably included to accentuate the importance of the Magna Carta in establishing the rights and freedoms of English colonists in America, sometimes referred to as English Common Law. The Magna Carta cannot be understood apart from a biblical view of history; the document did not arise in a theologically free void. The Judeo/Christian worldview is unmistakably the source.

Before the Magna Carta, King Alfred of the Anglo-Saxons reigned from 886 until 899. King Alfred’s law code is of particular interest. In the prologue to Alfred’s law code, one finds the Ten Commandments of Moses, and Alfred’s code incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code, which became what is known as the English Common Law.

Building on the Magna Carta, consider the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Nullification logically is built upon the Tenth Amendment:    

The states come first! The states created the Union. Therefore, under the doctrine of nullification, and since the states are the foundation of the Union, they have the power to renounce unconstitutional laws. Ultimate authority resides in the states, not an entity formed by the states.

Nullification maintains that the states have the right to overrule any unconstitutional laws. Nullification is the ultimate check on the balance of power and removes power from the Supreme Court and the federal government and its agencies in extreme cases.

In essence, some states, before ratifying the Constitution, maintained that they had the right to leave the Union. For example, Virginia made the right to secede from the Union unambiguous in their agreement to sign the Constitution.

Consider the following selection from Virginia’s delegation:

“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes.”

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 was a series of resolutions passed by the state legislature protesting the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Kentucky Resolutions. Virginia passed similar resolutions drafted by James Madison. These resolutions were a protest against what Jefferson and Madison wisely considered a dangerous usurpation of power by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 was the most radical of the resolutions and asserted that states had the power to nullify the laws of the federal government:

“The representatives of the good people of this commonwealth [of Kentucky], in General Assembly convened, have maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to [the ongoing debate and discussion of] … certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained…. Our opinions of these alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency, and with temper and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union…. Faithful to the true principles of the federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Lest, however, the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced… therefore,”

“Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in… [the Constitution], conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact… and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments… will be the inevitable consequence: [That the construction of the Constitution argued for by many] state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extant of the powers delegated to it, stop not short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and, That a nullification of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare, that the said Alien and Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution…. although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet, it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt at what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact…. This commonwealth does now enter against [the Alien and Sedition Acts] in solemn PROTEST.”

Moreover, as seen above, the wording of the Tenth Amendment strongly supports Jefferson’s and Madison’s view of nullification.

Another modern-day example of restrictions placed upon public servants or officeholders is that employees of the United States Government, including all members of Congress, must take the following oath before assuming elected or appointed office.

5 U.S.C. 3331:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

The above oath is made before the God of the Bible, similar and historically to the juror swearing an oath before God with their hands on the Bible.

In light of this oath, the breaking of this oath is an act of treason. As noted, the above public oath is made before God. Therefore, the violators are essentially spitting in God’s face when making unjust laws contrary to God’s Word. The Latin equivalent of this phrase, “spitting in God’s face,” is literally “in faciem Dei spuere.” 

Relevant observations:

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

“We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates – a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.” – John Calvin

A none serious cynical solution, yet to the point:
    
“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.” – H. L. Mencken

In closing, from John Calvin, a biblical course of action:

“He was compelled to obey God, and he neglected what the king had ordered in opposition to it. For earthly princes lay aside all their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them whenever they are so restive and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from heaven.” – Commentary on Daniel 6:22

The English phrase “utterly to defy them” in Latin was conspuere in ipsorum capita, literally: “to spit on their heads.” The present writer understands that this brief quotation, if taken in isolation, does not represent in totality Calvin’s view on submission to governing authorities.  

What are the costs of no action?

“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it.” – T. S. Eliot

There is reason for hope that our efforts can bear fruit because of what is noted by Calvin:

“Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow.” – John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1

The historic Presbyterian approach of John Knox: 

John Knox, a Scottish Protestant preacher, believed in the right of armed resistance against ungodly rulers. In 1558, he wrote a series of pamphlets justifying this stance. He also attacked female rulers as “monstrous” in one of his works. Knox’s views on the roles of both secular and religious authorities were based on his religious beliefs and political authority perspectives. While he was concerned with political influence on the church, his allegiance was not to any mortal being but God.

Therefore, it can be inferred that John Knox believed that ungodly rulers could be removed from office through armed resistance.

Reconciling the differences in approach between Calvin and Knox can be found in the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. It should be noted that Knox sat at the feet of Calvin’s preaching in Geneva.

The Lesser Magistrates must stand up:

Today, the equivalent of Israel’s Judges are the lower magistrates, i.e., governors, judges, sheriffs, county commissioners, and elected representatives. Some on this shortlist have begun to stand up against fed gov tyranny. Pray that many more like Samson of old will stand up for righteousness and freedom and cast off the yoke of the modern-day Philistines and their system of wicked, unbiblical laws!

Those holding to the Judeo/Christian worldview have every right to fight to restore the biblical influence to modern-day civil law codes:

Just like in history, the pagans will fight to keep their dominance in civil law. However, Christians have the advantage since the pagans have a materialistic worldview that leads to nowhere. The materialistic worldview cannot even explain the use of or justify the meaningful discussion of ethics, logic, and the basis for rational scientific research. The best the materialist can appeal to are arbitrary social conventions.

Moreover, the philosophy of non-belief contradicts itself when it claims not to know (uncertainty, agnosticism) and to know (certainty, atheism). Both atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same coin. Thus, the non-believer is left with contradictory uncertainty and certainty, which are manifestations of his epistemological inability to derive meaningful intelligibility from the materialist’s scheme, an ultimate irrational, meaningless universe.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.    John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Isaiah, Volume VII, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p 186.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Transcendental Proof                                                                                     by Jack Kettler

The four following quotes utilize transcendental or presuppositional arguments for God’s Existence. The argument will be restated after each quote, utilizing logical form or structure.   

“Only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence, revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live. So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is totally explicable in terms of physical processes, and since physical processes are categorically non-moral, moral considerations have no place in his worldview. Thus, for the materialist to say that stealing is morally wrong makes as much sense as saying that the secretion of insulin from the pancreas is morally wrong. [This is not to say, however, that atheists never act morally. Atheists feed their children, give money to charity and often make good neighbors. But atheists cannot give a justification for their actions. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, they are living on “borrowed capital” from the Christian worldview. Thus, they profess one thing, but their actions belie this profession].” – Michael Butler, Mr. Butler is Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s protégé and teaches philosophy and apologetics at Christ Theological Seminary.

Premise 1: Only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience, as it alone makes sense of the world in which we live.

Premise 2: The Christian worldview includes the belief in an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind, providing the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian worldview is necessary for making sense of morality, as only it can provide the foundation for moral evaluations.

Premise 3: Atheists/materialists reject the existence of a personal Law Giver and believe that all that exists is matter in motion.

Premise 4: Matter in motion is inherently non-moral, and according to the materialist worldview, the world is solely explicable through physical processes, which are categorically non-moral.

Conclusion: Hence, according to the materialist worldview, moral considerations have no place, and it does not make sense for an atheist/materialist to denounce any action as morally wrong.

Premise 5: Atheists may still act morally in their lives, but they cannot provide a justification for their actions, as their worldview does not support the existence of moral principles.

Conclusion: Therefore, atheists live on “borrowed capital,” and their worldview is bankrupt.*

“If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology.” – Cornelius Van Til, “Cornelius Van Til was a Dutch-American reformed philosopher and theologian, who is credited as being the originator of modern presuppositional apologetics. A graduate of Calvin College, Van Til later received his PhD from Princeton University.” – Wikipedia

Premise 1: If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point.

Premise 2: If a man seeks knowledge within himself as the final reference point, he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality and hold that without such understanding, he has no true knowledge of anything at all.

Conclusion: Therefore, if one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon God’s original self-knowledge and consequent revelation to man, they will be stuck in a dilemma where they must either know everything or know nothing. This dilemma applies to every form of non-Christian epistemology.

“The atheist who asserts that there is no God asserts by the same words that he holds the whole universe in his mind; he asserts that no fact, past, present, future, near, or far, escapes his attention, that no power, however great, can baffle or deceive him. In rejecting God, he claims omniscience and omnipotence. In other words, an atheist is one who claims that he himself is God” – Gordon H. Clark, “Gordon Haddon Clark was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a leading figure associated with presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years.” – Wikipedia

Premise 1: The atheist who asserts that there is no God implies that he holds the entire universe in his mind and that no fact or power can escape his attention or deceive him.

Premise 2: By rejecting God, the atheist claims omniscience and omnipotence, as he assumes that he has the knowledge and power to assert the non-existence of a higher being.

Conclusion: Therefore, an atheist is essentially claiming that he is God, as he assumes the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence in rejecting the existence of a divine being.

“The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.” – Greg Bahnsen, “Greg L. Bahnsen was an American Reformed philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full-time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.” – Wikipedia

Premise 1: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.

Premise 2: The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality.

Conclusion: Therefore, God’s existence is necessary for the intelligibility of proof, and the atheist worldview lacks the necessary foundations for logic, morality, science, and intelligible experience.

Historical Non-Presuppositional Arguments for God’s Existence:  

A Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence:

Premise 1: The universe and everything within it has a cause or explanation for its existence.

Premise 2: The existence and order of the universe cannot be adequately explained solely by naturalistic or scientific explanations.

Premise 3: The best explanation for the existence and order of the universe is the existence of a transcendent being, namely God.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the best explanation for the existence and order of the universe.

An Ontological Argument for God’s Existence:

Premise 1: God, by definition, is a being that possesses all perfections.

Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.

Premise 3: It is more perfect for a being to exist in reality than merely in the mind.

Premise 4: If God only exists in the mind, then a greater being, one that exists in reality, can be conceived.

Premise 5: But this contradicts God’s definition as a being that possesses all perfections.

Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist in reality, as the concept of a being that possesses all perfections implies existence in reality.

An Aristotelian first-cause Argument for God’s Existence:  

Premise 1: Every event has a cause.

Premise 2: The chain of causes cannot proceed infinitely into the past.

Premise 3: If there were no first cause, then there would be no subsequent causes.

Premise 4: Therefore, there must be a first cause that initiated the chain of causes.

Premise 5: This first cause must be timeless, immaterial, and powerful enough to bring about the existence of the universe.

Conclusion: The existence of a first cause implies the existence of a necessary and powerful being that we refer to as God

A Moral Argument for God’s Existence:

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties exist in the world.

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties cannot be grounded solely in subjective human preferences or societal consensus.

Premise 3: The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is the existence of a transcendent moral lawgiver.

Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of objective moral values and duties implies the existence of a necessary and moral being that we refer to as God.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 17 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

* Assistance from AI Chat and Grammarly

The Invasion by Millions and the Death of America                                       by Jack Kettler

Illegitimate Joe’s regime is saying that there are already 6 million so-called migrants that have come into the country since the 2020 election theft, which they plan on taking care of regarding health care, food, and housing. President Trump believes there are over 10 million. Whatever the number, no one knows.

In Panama, six daily buses have loaded more migrants heading North to America. Real America’s Voice network sources say the number has risen to 20 buses per day. If this is true, the nation as we know it cannot survive. In addition to possible terrorists coming across the border, this will put tremendous downward pressure on the wages in the labor market at a time when crushing inflation is wiping out many middle and lower-income families. 

The invasion is accelerating; over 80 percent of the invaders are high-testosterone, military-age men. Many Chinese nationals and Middle Eastern countries are represented along with an increasing number of so-called migrants from African Muslim nations that are traveling groups, according to witnesses, and many appear to know each other and are well dressed.

A Necessary Digression into the globalist elites and their plans:  

Why does the shadow government that controls the West hate Russia, particularly in America? Russian President Vladimir Putin is singled out for special verbal wrath.

According to researcher Dr. John Coleman, of particular interest is that for over 150 years, the West has been controlled by a shadow government called “The Committee Of 300.”

Dr. Coleman’s comments about the “Committee” are interesting:

“I would point out that Vladimir Putin came as a surprise to the 300. A tough-mined nationalist leader, Putin promises to be a thorn in the side of the 300, a man with his own vision for Russia.” – Dr. John Coleman, “The Committee of 300,” 4th Edition, p. 312.

Consider Putin’s view of the New World Order:

“VLADIMIR PUTIN: “THE NEW WORLD ORDER WORSHIPS SATAN” –

https: // ortho christian. com/88285 .html (remove spaces to reconnect the hyperlink).”

How ironic, whatever one thinks of Putin, the Russian borders are secure, and millions of so-called military-age migrants are not invading Russia.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, Congress is fiddling while the country is being invaded and about to collapse financially with 33 trillion in debt and growing exponentially. What can the citizens do when the migrants/invaders become overcome with envy, looking at your homes, or when terrorist cells activate? The FBI just issued today, as reported by The Gateway Pundit, warning of a significant threat of terrorism by members and sympathizers of Hamas.  

The nation is descending into a severe recession; tax revenues are plummeting and even discounting potential terrorists. Who is going to feed these people? Mass gang-styled robberies are happening in Democrat cities. Illegals are overrunning Chicago and NYC, putting the larger population at risk. Desperate people do desperate things. In particular, the failed Democratic big-city mayors cannot buy hotels fast enough to house these migrants/invaders.      

Action Items:·         

Obtain a supply of food, water, and water filtration
Obtain barter items like gold and silver coins
Obtain self-defense items, guns, and ammunition
Security doors
Security protection for windows, bars, steel mesh

Safety in numbers, the police will not be there to help; they will be overwhelmed: 

Start preparation discussions with neighbors about neighborhood defense, such as cars set up to block access into the neighborhood, and at the appropriate time, have citizens set up positions with firearms to stop motorized gangs of marauders from accessing the neighborhood.

How real is this? Consider how just a small number of terrorists could paralyze almost the entire country:

Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath                                                                                                                                                 

Published by Spectrum Literary Agency, Inc.

By William R. Forschen

A review by Jack Kettler

Author’s Bio:

William R. Forstchen has a Ph.D. from Purdue University with specializations in military history and the history of technology. He is a faculty fellow and professor of history at Montreat College. He has authored over forty books. Forstchen coauthored the New York Times bestselling Gettysburg and has written numerous short stories and articles about military history and military technology.

What others are saying:

“Bob Petersen arrives with his daughter at the Middle Grade school in Maine where he teaches, expecting another regular day but worried about what recent ominous news reports might portend. Suddenly his school — along with many others across the United States — is under attack. Gunmen burst in, slaughtering children and adults alike. This novella by New York Times bestselling author William R. Forstchen imagines a horrifying scenario where, in the course of one day, the terrorist group ISIS carries out massacres in schools and on highways across the United States. With a surprisingly small but well-organized and ruthless force, the nightmarish devastation brings America to a state of near-paralysis. Author of One Second After and Pillar to the Sky, this heart-stopping novella brings home just how fragile our defenses and infrastructure really are. It is also a story of heroic efforts to save lives, while sounding a wake-up call to American citizens and their government. From the ISIS leader in Syria, to the murderous rampages throughout the U.S., Day of Wrath reveals with chilling effect how national panic and paralyzing terror at the spiraling violence can bring a mighty country to a near-standstill. Petersen’s fight to save lives and stop the merciless gunmen provides edge-of-the-seat drama. Day of Wrath is a provocative work that should stimulate an intense national debate. One Second After was cited on the floor of Congress as the book everyone should read. “A THRILLING – AND TERRIFYING – TALE OF WHAT COULD BE OUR NEXT 9/11!” – W.E.B. Griffin & William E. Buttersworth IV, #1 Wall Street Journal & New York Times Bestselling Authors”

A Review:

Forschen’s book is a fictional account of an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) within the United States. The scenario in Forschen’s book is not far-fetched considering the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had proclaimed himself the caliph, the successor to Muhammad, and promised to bring Jihad to America.

William Forstchen’s book “One Second After” was one of his best sellers about an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. It is a frightening story about what would happen when a nuclear bomb is detonated above the earth’s atmosphere, leading to the frying of modern electronic circuits and an almost certain societal collapse. “One Second After,” has surely, helped fuel the “prepper” movement.

Forstchen’s book “Day Of Wrath” is a truly frightening fictional story of what may lie in store for the United States of America if the current regime that is wedded to politically correct anti-American multiculturalism and the open border policy is not stopped.

The reviewer has imagined several similar scenarios, none of which compared to the persuasive story told in this book. Dr. Forstchen’s book is so realistic that the reader will think they are listening to and viewing live news coverage that is parents’ and patriotic citizens’ worst fears. The book generates many vivid mental images.

The value of this book is that the reader is confronted with the reality of how vulnerable the country is. In this fictional account, a hundred terrorists could bring the country to the brink of a complete breakdown.             

Forstchen’s book is an easy one-day read. The scenario is completely real and convinces the reader of the nation’s vulnerability.

Obtain this book!

If the reader is looking for a source to obtain gold and silver, let this blogger know of your interest.

“Elections have consequences and stolen elections have catastrophe consequences.” – Steven K. Bannon

Our leaders have betrayed the nation.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Introduction

The Christian argues that scripturalism (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles; in the Christian case, it is the Bible).

The Bible contains the Christian’s starting principles or presuppositions. God speaks to individuals in the Scriptures (special revelation) with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong. Consequently, the strength of the Christian worldview is seen by the impossibility of the contrary. The impossibility of the contrary can be asserted because, as of this day, no non-Christian anywhere has shown how their worldview can account for the use of science, logic, and ethics.

It can be said that philosophers of the stature of Plato and Aristotle tried to account for ethics within their worldview. For example, Plato tried to ground truth in the world of ideas. The world of ideas interpreted the temporal world of Plato’s forms. The temporal forms were imperfect replicas of the eternal, perfect ideas. One problem he ran into was perfect dung and filth in the ideas world. Did Plato and Aristotle succeed in developing and justifying an ethical system in their worldview? Has anyone heard of an appeal to a body of Platonic or Aristotelian ethical laws lately? Biblical ethics, on the other hand, has undergirded the Western legal system and is with us today. Has it been heard of the commandments not to murder, steal, bear false witness, and commit adultery and rights of appeal? 

Why is the non-Christian unable to articulate a coherent theory of knowledge? Because as said, the non-Christian worldview has no basis or explanation for the use of science, logic, and ethics. The non-Christian uses logic and talks about ethics. The atheist does so without justifying or demonstrating how their worldview can account for these things. In other words, as said, the question is begged, and the non-Christian steals from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of things. Christian apologist, Cornelius Van Til gave the example of a child sitting on the father’s lap and attempting to slap the father as the father explained things to the child. When informing non-Christians of their theft, get ready for emotional responses or ad hominem attacks. 

Chapters

Chapter One: The Presuppositional Argument for God’s Existence and its Implications Stated, and Atheism Challenged

Chapter Two: The Cult of Ayn

Chapter Three: Evaluating the Omnipotence Paradox

Chapter Four: Favorite Quotations                                                                                

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Dies Irae: Day Of Wrath                                                                                                                                                 
Spectrum Literary Agency, Inc.
By William R. Forschen

A review by Jack Kettler

A fictional account of an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL) within the United States. This is not far-fetched at all considering, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has proclaimed himself the caliph, the successor to Muhammad and promises to bring Jihad to America.

Author’s Bio:

William R. Forstchen has a PhD from Purdue University with specializations in military history and the history of technology. He is a faculty fellow and professor of history at Montreat College. He has authored over forty books. Forstchen coauthored the New York Times bestselling Gettysburg and has written numerous short stories and articles about military history and military technology.
His book “One Second After” was one of his best sellers about an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack. It is a frightening story about what would happen when a nuclear bomb is detonated above the earth’s atmosphere leading to the frying of modern electronic circuits and an almost certain societal collapse. “One Second After” most surely, has helped fuel the “prepper” movement.

Bob Petersen arrives with his daughter at the Middle Grade school in Maine where he teaches, expecting another regular day but worried about what recent ominous news reports might portend. Suddenly his school — along with many others across the United States — is under attack. Gunmen burst in, slaughtering children and adults alike. This novella by New York Times bestselling author William R. Forstchen imagines a horrifying scenario where, in the course of one day, the terrorist group ISIS carries out massacres in schools and on highways across the United States. With a surprisingly small but well-organized and ruthless force, the nightmarish devastation brings America to a state of near-paralysis. Author of One Second After and Pillar to the Sky, this heart-stopping novella brings home just how fragile our defenses and infrastructure really are. It is also a story of heroic efforts to save lives, while sounding a wake-up call to American citizens and their government. From the ISIS leader in Syria, to the murderous rampages throughout the U.S., Day of Wrath reveals with chilling effect how national panic and paralyzing terror at the spiraling violence can bring a mighty country to a near-standstill. Petersen’s fight to save lives and stop the merciless gunmen provides edge-of-the-seat drama. Day of Wrath is a provocative work that should stimulate an intense national debate. One Second After was cited on the floor of Congress as the book everyone should read. “A THRILLING – AND TERRIFYING – TALE OF WHAT COULD BE OUR NEXT 9/11!” – W.E.B. Griffin & William E. Buttersworth IV, #1 Wall Street Journal & New York Times Bestselling Authors

His book “Day Of Wrath” is a truly frightening fictional story of what may lay in store the United States of American if the current regime that is wedded to politically correct anti-American multiculturalism is not stopped.

I have imagined a number of similar scenarios, none of which compared to the persuasive story told in this book. Dr. Forstchen’s book is so realistic, the reader will think they are listening to and viewing live news coverage that are parents and patriotic citizens worst fears. The book generates many vivid mental images.

The value in this book is that the reader is confronted with the reality of how vulnerable the country is. In this fictional account, a hundred terrorists could literally bring the country to the brink of a complete break down.

Updated comments: Since illegitimate joe opened the border, 6 to 8 million illegals have enter the U.S. with at least one million got aways, many of who may be terrorists. Theses terrorists are sleeper cells waiting to be activated in what play out like the scenario in Forstchen”s book. Prepare and pray for God’s mercy.

Description

“The early Christians, every one of the reformers, the people of the Reformation, the founding fathers of this country, faced and acted in the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, that government has been made GOD. … CHRIST MUST BE THE FINAL LORD AND NOT CAESAR AND NOT SOCIETY.” – Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

• Does Romans 13 on submission to government contradict other portions of Scripture? 
• The limits of subjection to ungodly authorities                      
• Biblical grounds for resistance against evil political leaders                         
• Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?

When a human government oversteps its authority, where does the Christian draw the line and say no? The most common response is when or if the government forbids Christians to worship, then that edict must be disobeyed. The above answer is correct, however, this example barely scratches the surface of examples where a Christian must say no to government laws. 

The above chapters will be followed by six additional chapters dealing with issues that inevitably come up when discussing ungodly governments abusing the citizenry.

Under the guise of submission, are Christian complicit in supporting government tyranny?

The thesis of this present work is that Christians must not obey tyrannical laws that necessitate disobedience to the Law of God.

According to Revelation 1:5, Christ is referred to as the “prince of the kings of the earth.” This title implies that Jesus holds authority over earthly rulers and governments.

The recognition of Jesus as King has implications for civil magistrates. Civil magistrates have an obligation to acknowledge Jesus’ authority and rule in their governance. They are called to govern in accordance with His principles and values, seeking justice, righteousness, and the well-being of their subjects. This includes upholding moral standards, promoting social justice, protecting human rights, and ensuring the welfare of their citizens.

The Magdeburg Confession: 13th of April 1550 AD. The Magdeburg Confession is the first known document in the history of man to formally set forth the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates. The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when a superior authority makes unjust laws or decrees, the lesser authority has a God-given right and duty to resist those unjust laws or decrees.

Chapters

Chapter One: Does Romans 13 on submission to government contradict other portions of Scripture? 

Chapter Two: The limits of subjection to ungodly authorities                     

Chapter Three: Biblical grounds for resistance against evil political leaders                         

Chapter Four: Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?

Chapter Five: Church, Incorporation Part 1

Chapter Six: Church, Incorporation Part 2

Chapter Seven: Should Christians be involved in politics? 

Chapter Eight: The Social Contract Theory of Government   

Chapter Nine: Does federal government law prohibit a minister from talking about political issues from the pulpit? 

Chapter Ten: Rebuilding Society and the Tax Protest Movement: A Biblical Opinion and Strategy 

Appendix One: Biblical reasons for opposing Red Flag Order, an opinion                    

Appendix Two: Was America founded as a Christian nation? 

 Appendix Three: The Tactics of and The Theology of Christian Resistance                                         

Other books by the author:

The Religion That Started in a Hat

The Five Points of Scriptural Authority: A Defense of Sola Scriptura

1 Corinthians 15:29 Revisited: A Scriptural based interpretation

Christian Apologetics in the marketplace of ideas

Studies in Soteriology: The Doctrines of Grace Magnified

Doctrinal Disputations

What Does the Bible Say? Vol. 1-5                                                                                                 

An Addendum to The Religion that Started in a Hat

A Sampling of Heresies and Theological Errors

A Selection of Book and Film Reviews,

Covenant Baptism

Romans 13 and the limits of submission to un-godly rulers

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is nearly 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did!

For the last two years, central banks around the world have been buying gold. Why? The writing is on the wall, the world is starting to move away from U.S. dollars. The dollar is losing its world reserve currency status.   

If need have gold for bartering, consider smaller coins such gold or silver dimes.

Lear Capital advertised on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for 16 years.

Don’t be a fool on a hill, or just a plain fool.

Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.

Alex Alexeff​

Senior Account Executive

(800) 576-9355 Ext. 249       

(310) 571-0194

http://www.LearCapital.com

1990 S. Bundy Dr., Suite 600, Los Angeles, 90025

What does “the stars in their courses” mean?                                                 By Jack Kettler

“They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.”  (Judges 5:20)

Consulting the Hebrew for Judges 5:20 using the Strong’s Concordance:

 “from their courses

מִמְּסִלּוֹתָ֔ם (mim·mə·sil·lō·w·ṯām)

Preposition-m | Noun – feminine plural construct | third person masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 4546: 1) highway, raised way, a public road” (underlining emphasis mine)

Strong’s Concordance, “courses” means “highway,” “raised way,” “public road,” which implies movement. The Earth’s Sun is a star; is it also on a highway? It would seem so.

In Judges 5:20, the stars fighting is a metaphor for God’s intervention in the battle. Their enemies outnumbered the Israelites, but God intervened and delivered them from their foes. The stars fighting refers to how God sent a storm of divine judgment to defeat the enemy.

Parallel passages:

 “The stars fought from heaven, from their paths they fought against Sisera.” (New American Standard Bible) (underlining emphasis mine)

“From their pathways in the sky the stars fought Sisera.” (Contemporary English Version)

“The stars fought from the sky; as they moved across the sky, they fought against Sisera.” (Good News Translation)

“From the sky the stars fought, from their paths in the heavens they fought against Sisera.” (The NET Bible)

“From the heavens they fought: The stars from their highways fought with Sisera.” (Young’s Literal Translation)

“The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera.” (New Living Translation)

As seen from several parallel passages, מִמְּסִלּוֹתָ֔ם whether it be translated as orbits, paths, pathways, moved across the sky, highways, movement is implied and is inescapable. Thus, far it is seen that stars move across the heavens in their pathways. Furthermore, it can be deduced that Judges 5:20 teaches that the stars move.

In addition, one sees the movement of the Sun in Judges 5:21:

“So, let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.” (Judges 5:21)

The Judges 5:21 verse is an exclamation of praise to God for his victory over the enemy. It is a poetic expression of joy and victory, highlighting God’s power and protection over his people. The “torrent of Kishon” refers to a river in the plain of Jezreel, where the Israelites had defeated the army of Sisera. The verse praises God for the strength and power he provided to the Israelites so that they could overcome the enemy.

For a critic who would say that Judges 5:20-21 should not be used as a proof text since the passages are metaphorical and, therefore, should not be understood to be teaching anything literally.

Can a literal metaphor or a literal paradox be used in the same sentence?

Indeed, a literal metaphor and a literal paradox can be used in the same sentence. For example, “The fire burned hot, yet felt cold.”

Could this be how Judges 5:20 is to be understood? If so, the stars fighting is metaphorical, and the star, in their courses, is literal.

In his “Literal Metaphor, Literal Paradox,” Northrop Frye observes that these “two modes of understanding take place simultaneously in all reading.” *

* A Website Dedicated to Northrop Frye

Consider the following cross-references:

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So, the Sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:12-13)

In contrast to Judges 5:20-21, which implies the movement of the heavenly bodies, the above passages from Joshua say the “Sun stood still,” which is not normative. Consider the three following that agree with Judge 5:20-21:

“He set the tabernacle for the Sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit [journey, route] unto the ends of it.” Psalm 19:4-6 (NKJV)

“The Sun also rises, and the Sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“He commands the Sun, and it does not rise…” (Job 9:7)

The above citations from Joshua, Judges, Job, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes show that the Sun moves unless, by a divine act, it stops in its movement.

Does the Earth move?

“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

This verse from Chronicles encourages believers to fear and revere God, to recognize his power and authority over the entire Earth. It is also a reminder that God created and sustained the world, and it is ultimately under his control. He is the one who keeps the world from being “moved.” When believers put their trust and faith in Him, they can have hope and stability.

“The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” (Psalm 93:1)

The above verse from Psalm 93:1 is a declaration of the majesty and power of God. It is a reminder that God is sovereign and that He is clothed in strength and power.

The comments on the above two passages from 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93: do not rule out the literalness of the two texts, also teaching that the Earth does not move.

The following material on the rules for Biblical interpretation is necessary to help understand the above passages accurately.

General abbreviated rules of Biblical interpretation:

·         Identify the kind of literature or genera of text.

·         Consider the context, historical setting, and grammar of the passage.

·         The Reader should look to the text for its plain and understandable meaning.

·         The simplest explanation is preferable a more complex one (Occam’s razor).

·         The Scriptures are the best interpreter of Scripture.

·         The Scriptures should be literally interpreted unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise.

A more in-depth look at Hermeneutical Principles by R. C. Sproul:

“Sacra Scriptura sui interpres”

“Scripture is to interpret Scripture. This simply means that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. For example, if a given verse is capable of two renditions or variant interpretations and one of those interpretations goes against the rest of Scripture while the other is in harmony with it, then the latter interpretation must be used.”

“Since it is assumed that God would never contradict Himself, it is thought slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an alternate interpretation that would unnecessarily bring the Bible in conflict with itself. The analogy of faith keeps the whole Bible in view lest we suffer from the effects of exaggerating one part of Scripture to the exclusion of others.”

“Interpreting the Bible Literally”

“The literal sense offers restraint from letting our imagination run away in fanciful interpretation and invites us to examine closely the literary forms of Scripture. The term literal comes from the Latin litera meaning “letter.” To interpret something literally is to pay attention to the litera or to the letters or words being used. To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature. That is, the natural meaning of a passage is to be interpreted according to the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax and context.” (1)

Observations and conclusions:

Using principles of interpretation stated above by Sproul, the idea that the earth moves and the sun and stars do not must be proved from Scripture. No outside interpretive grid should be imposed upon Scripture. Why is this important? To illustrate, using recent newspaper stories to interpret apocalyptic eschatological portions of Scripture has plagued premillennial Dispensationalism since its inception. An error like this has been called newspaper exegesis.  

For example, Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” and Chuck Smith’s “End Times: A Report on future survival” provide insight into the future. These two books are classic examples of reading into Scripture sources from outside of the Scriptures. Moreover, both books are case studies in crackpot eschatology. Both Lindsey and Smith made sophomoric historical anachronisms. Indeed, no one today would try to defend Lindsey and Smith’s eschatological errors in these books. Are there safeguards to avoid errors like this? 

As the reader moves through the following material, does the historical interpretation of the men of the Reformation, like Luther and Calvin, do justice to the Scriptures? A sampling of citations from the ancient Church Fathers can be marshaled in support of the older classical pre-Copernicus interpretation of the above passages is in order.     

Biblical Cosmology and John Calvin:

“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds, we must indeed confess that the devil possess them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So, it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so, it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.” (2)

In addition, Calvin said:

“The heavens revolve daily and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–no disturbance in the harmony of their motion…. How could earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand?  By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (3)

More from John Calvin:

“The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (4)

God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed, forever” (Psalm 104:5). “Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.” (5)

“I beseech you to tell me what the foundation of the earth is. It is founded both upon the water and also upon the air: behold its foundation. We cannot possibly build a house fifteen feet high on firm ground without having to lay a foundation. Behold the whole earth founded only in trembling, indeed poised above such bottomless depths that it might be turned upside down at any minute to become disordered. Hence there must be a wonderful power of God to keep it in the condition in which it is.” (6)

Martin Luther:

“Luther called Copernicus an upstart astronomer and referred to him as a fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.” (7)

“People gave ear to an upstart astronomer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” (8)

Is the Bible without error in all that it teaches? The above verses present the Sun and Stars moving and the Earth being stationary. Is God using human language in such a way to accommodate how humans, in their limited understanding, understood the creation? If so, why would God not correct human misunderstanding and set forth a different view? If the Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture when they wrote the Word of God, why would God allow them to write false or misleading information to accommodate human ignorance? God often used the inspired writers to correct ignorance and false doctrine.

The preponderance of the totality of Scripture sets forth a Biblical cosmology that includes the Earth being motionless and the center of God’s creation. Was it an accommodation to science that led to a reinterpretation of the above Scriptures, a different paradigm? The sheer number of passages speaking of the Sun rising and setting makes it difficult to accept that it was nothing more than a figure of speech that did not correspond to reality.  

In addition, the Biblical cosmologists would ask, “How deceptive of God to speak in such a manner unless He meant what he said.” Calvin and others got their understanding from the simple reading of Scripture. Are the Scriptures in error? Since Calvin and other church leaders got their understanding of the Sun moving and the Earth stationary from the Bible, was God teaching falsehood? Were Calvin and Luther ignoramuses in the area of Biblical teaching and science?

Was the Church wrong in its interpretation of the passages listed above and others, or was God wrong in what is conveyed in the above Scriptures? From a skeptical perspective, trying to blame the Church for misinterpretations of the Bible relevant to cosmology is a trick that does not work. The trick of hiding behind the Church does not work. Many Protestants like to think this was just a Roman Catholic dispute with Galileo.

This writer, a Protestant, is well aware of the Church succumbing to false doctrine. However, Biblical cosmology is a somewhat unique case. Unlike soteriology, the Biblical view of cosmology had a unified front in the early Church leading up to the 15^th Century. Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Gregory Nanzianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian were some of the familiar Church Fathers from both the Eastern and Western Church were unified in their understanding of Biblical cosmology. Moreover, Protestant reformers, the likes of Calvin and Luther, agreed.

The Calvin and Luther quotes were for a purpose. Calvin and Luther were not alone; virtually all of the Reformation leaders agreed on Biblical cosmology. Commentator Matthew Poole, Puritan John Owen, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, John Knox, Heinrich Bullinger, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, and many others can be added to the list. Historically, the Eastern, Western, and Protestant Churches did not permit women to be ordained as elders or priests. Similarly, these same churches agreeing historically on Biblical cosmology cannot be dismissed.     

A pertinent quote:

“It is certainly supposed in Scripture that the earth is at rest in the midst of the heavens, and that the heavens revolve about it. The Scripture speaks of the sun’s rising and setting, and of its going forth and its circuit, as things frequently done; and of the stars also, as being ordained for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. I suppose that he who believes the Scripture must necessarily believe, that the earth is in the midst of the heavens, and immutable, and the heavens revolve about it.” (9)

In order to prove that this writer’s interpretation of the Scriptural references mentioned is incorrect, one must rely on evidence directly from the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, the only acceptable standard for disproving this writer’s historic interpretation of the Scriptural references. The Scriptures alone are the final court appeal.

Bonus material, inconvenient observations by scientists in moments of candor:

“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved.” – Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations.” – Paul Davies in Nature, an English physicist

“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect” – Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Yale University, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University

“When you look at CBM map, [cosmic microwave background (CMB)] you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” – Lawrence Krauss (2006) Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis

“Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“In other words, assuming the cosmological red shift hypothesis, the quasars…are arrange on 57 spherical shells with Earth in the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.

(1) Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups show that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.

(2) Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.

(3) The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” – Henri Poincare, French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and philosopher of science

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” – Henrick Lorentz, Dutch physicist

“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” – Lincoln Barnett, editor at Life Magazine

“This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort.” “We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” “Such a favored position is intolerable.” – Edwin Hubble, American astronomer

“The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle.” – Max Tegmark, physicist, cosmologist and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

For more study:

Did the Sun stand still in Joshua 10:13-14?  http : // Undergroundnotes. com/ Joshua.html

Geocentricity, is it true and does the Bible teach it? http : //www .undergroundnotes .com/ Geocentricity.html

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, Abridgement is from Chapter 3: Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation, (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP 2009) pp. 41.

2.      John Calvin, “Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24”, Calvini Opera Selecta, Corpus Refomatorum, Vol 49, 677, trans. by Robert White in “Calvin and Copernicus: the Problem Reconsidered,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), p233-243, at 236-237.

3.      John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms 93:1 Vol. VI, see also Commentary on Joshua 10:12, Vol. IV and Psalm 148:3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979).

4.      John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), pp. 6-7.

5.      John Calvin, pp. 148-149.

6.      Ibid. p. 469.

7.      Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958), pp. 30, 42, 43.

8.      Helmut T. Lehmann and Theodore G. Tappert, Luther’s Works Table Talk, (Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress Publ., 1967), pp. 358-359.

9.      Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 2, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), p. 390.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is nearly 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did!

For the last two years, central banks around the world have been buying gold. Why? The writing is on the wall, the world is starting to move away from U.S. dollars. The dollar is losing its world reserve currency status.   

If need have gold for bartering, consider smaller coins such gold or silver dimes.

Lear Capital advertised on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for 16 years.

Don’t be a fool on a hill, or just a plain fool.

Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.

Alex Alexeff​

Senior Account Executive

(800) 576-9355 Ext. 249       

(310) 571-0194

http://www.LearCapital.com

1990 S. Bundy Dr., Suite 600, Los Angeles, 90025

Covenant Baptism

Chapter One – Introduction to Covenantal Theology

Chapter Two – Covenantal Discontinuities and Continuities

Chapter Three – Promises of the Covenant

Chapter Four – What is a Sacrament?

Chapter Five – Circumcision a Covenantal Sign

Chapter Six – Ezekiel 36 and the Sprinkling of Water

Chapter Seven – Mark 7 How did a Pharisee Baptize Couches and Tables?

Chapter One

What is a Covenant and what covenants are seen in Scripture?  

The idea of covenant is the interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures and the idea of covenant plays a central role in Biblical theology. Said another way, Biblical theology sees the idea of covenant as the model for understanding how God works with man. In short, covenant theology is the knowledge that God enters into a contract or agreement with mankind. Man is therefore, obliged to fulfill the terms of the covenant. In this book on God’s covenants, the reader will look at a number of leading theologians that will prove to be valuable in understanding God’s covenants.

To understand baptism in the New Covenant, one must understand the stipulations and promises attached to the covenant in the Old Testament. The reader will see that conditions and promises are rooted in the Old Testament covenants. Having this understanding as will be seen will minimize or put in context the debate over the translation of certain Greek words, for instance, baptism, “baptizo,” immersion.

For those coming from a dispensational background, this material on the covenants may seem daunting at first. However, diligent study of the covenants will reveal that covenantal theology is Biblical and dispensationalism (a 19^th century invention) is inadequate to understand God’s dealing with mankind.

Moreover, the Protestant theologians cited below come Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches, so, the theology of the covenants in a general sense is not divided along partisan lines.

The Scripture are unintelligible without an understanding of God’s covenants. God’s covenantal dealings with mankind are so common in Scripture, the importance and significance are impossible to miss. For example, in Sunday children taught about the rainbow and Noah.   

The remainder of this chapter will feature citations from some the best theologians on God’s covenant dealings with mankind in Scripture.          

To start, what is a covenant by C. H. Spurgeon?   

“ALL GOD’S dealings with men have had a covenant character. It hath so pleased Him to arrange it, that he will not deal with us except through a covenant, nor can we deal with Him except in the same manner. Adam in the garden was under a covenant with God and God was in covenant with Him.” (1)

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was professor of theology at Geneva and an outstanding Reformed theologian:

“A covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged…This is called two‐sided and mutual because it consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties: a promise on the part of God and stipulation of the condition on the part of man.” (2)

Herman Witsius, was a Dutch theologian, pastor, and a leading professor of the seventeenth century:

“A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.” (3)

Charles Hodge, (1797-1898), an American Presbyterian theologian’s thoughts on the Covenant from his systematic theology:

“1. The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant”

“The plan of salvation is presented under the form of a covenant. This is evident, —

First, from the constant use of the words בְּרִית and διαθήκη in reference to it. With regard to the former of these words, although it is sometimes used for a law, disposition, or arrangement in general, where the elements of a covenant strictly speaking are absent, yet there can be no doubt that according to its prevailing usage in the Old Testament, it means a mutual contract between two or more parties. It is very often used of compacts between individuals, and especially between kings and rulers. Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant. (Genesis 21:27.) Joshua made a covenant with the people. (Joshua 24:25.) Jonathan and David made a covenant. (1 Samuel 18:3.) Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David. (1 Samuel 20:16.) Ahab made a covenant with Benhadad. (1 Kings 20:34.) So, we find it constantly. There is therefore no room to doubt that the word בְּרִית when used of transactions between man and man means a mutual compact. We have no right to give it any other sense when used of transactions between God and man. Repeated mention is made of the covenant of God with Abraham, as in Genesis 15:18; 17:13, and afterwards with Isaac and Jacob. Then with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. The Old Testament is founded on this idea of a covenant relation between God and the theocratic people.”

“The meaning of the word διαθήκη in the Greek Scriptures is just as certain and uniform. It is derived from the verb διατίθημι, to arrange, and, therefore, in ordinary Greek is used for any arrangement, or disposition. In the Scriptures it is almost uniformly used in the sense of a covenant. In the Septuagint it is the translation of בְּרִית in all the cases above referred to. It is the term always used in the New Testament to designate the covenant with Abraham, with the Israelites, and with believers. The old covenant and the new are presented in contrast. Both were covenants. If the word has this meaning when applied to the transaction with Abraham and with the Hebrews, it must have the same meaning when applied to the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel.”

“Secondly, that the plan of salvation is presented in the Bible under the form of a covenant is proved not only from the signification and usage of the words above mentioned, but also and more decisively from the fact that the elements of a covenant are included in this plan. There are parties, mutual promises or stipulations, and conditions. So that it is in fact a covenant, whatever it may be called. As this is the Scriptural mode of representation, it is of great importance that it should be retained in theology. Our only security for retaining the truths of the Bible, is to adhere to the Scriptures as closely as possible in our mode of presenting the doctrines therein revealed.

[…]”

“3. Parties to the Covenant”

“At first view there appears to be some confusion in the statements of the Scriptures as to the parties to this covenant. Sometimes Christ is presented as one of the parties; at others He is represented not as a party, but as the mediator and surety of the covenant; while the parties are represented to be God and his people. As the old covenant was made between God and the Hebrews, and Moses acted as mediator, so the new covenant is commonly represented in the Bible as formed between God and his people, Christ acting as mediator. He is, therefore, called the mediator of a better covenant founded on better promises.”

“Some theologians propose to reconcile these modes of representation by saying that as the covenant of works was formed with Adam as the representative of his race, and therefore in him with all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation; so, the covenant of grace was formed with Christ as the head and representative of his people, and in Him with all those given to Him by the Father. This simplifies the matter, and agrees with the parallel which the Apostle traces between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 47-49. Still, it does not remove the incongruity of Christ’s being represented as at once a party and a mediator of the same covenant. There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties.”

“This is a matter which concerns only perspicuity of statement. There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of his people, and those who distribute them under two. The Westminster standards seem to adopt sometimes the one and sometimes the other mode of representation. In the Confession of Faith it is said,”

“Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [i.e., by the covenant of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.”

“Here the implication is that God and his people are the parties; for in a covenant the promises are made to one of the parties, and here it is said that life and salvation are promised to sinners, and that faith is demanded of them. The same view is presented in the Shorter Catechism, according to the natural interpretation of the answer to the twentieth question. It is there said,”

“God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.”

“In the Larger Catechism, however, the other view is expressly adopted. In the answer to the question,”

“With whom was the covenant of grace made?” it is said, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as his seed.” (4)

Louis Berkhof, (1873 – 1957), was a Reformed theologian who is best known for his Systematic Theology.  His comments on the Biblical definition of the Covenant will be of importance:

“1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Hebrew word for covenant is always berith, a word of uncertain derivation. The most general opinion is that it is derived from the Hebrew verb barah, to cut, and therefore contains a reminder of the ceremony mentioned in Gen. 15:17. Some, however, prefer to think that it is derived from the Assyrian word beritu, meaning “to bind.” This would at once point to the covenant as a bond. The question of the derivation is of no great importance for the construction of the doctrine. The word berith may denote a mutual voluntary agreement (dipleuric), but also a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on another (monopleuric). Its exact meaning does not depend on the etymology of the word, nor on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties concerned. In the measure in which one of the parties is subordinate and has less to say, the covenant acquires the character of a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on the other. Berith then becomes synonymous with choq (appointed statute or ordinance), Ex. 34:10; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36; 33:20; 34:13. Hence we also find that karath berith (to cut a covenant) is construed not only with the prepositions ’am and ben (with), but also with lamedh (to), Jos. 9:6 ; Isa. 55:3 ; 61:8 ; Jer. 32:40. Naturally, when God establishes a covenant with man, this monopleuric character is very much in evidence, for God and man are not equal parties. God is the Sovereign who imposes His ordinances upon His creatures.”

 “2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, what is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.” (5)

Herman Ridderbos is considered one of the twentieth century’s most influential New Testament Reformed theologians. His views of covenant, will likewise be of importance:

“In the Septuagint διαθηκη is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word συνθηκη. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-sided grant. This corresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh. 9:6, 15; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone. This does not rule out the fact, of course, that it involves religious and ethical obligation, namely that of faith and obedience (Gen. 17:9-10), and that thus the reciprocal element is taken up in the covenant. Still, such an obligation is not always named, and there is no room to speak at all of a correlation, in the sense that each determines and holds in balance the terms of the other, between the promise of God and the human appropriation of it. It is not the idea of parity, or even that of reciprocity, but that of validity which determines the essence of the covenant-idea. God’s covenant with Noah, for example, lays down no stipulations, and it has the character of a one-party guarantee. It does of course require the faith of man, but is in its fulfillment in no respect dependent on the faith, an it is validly in force for all coming generations, believing and unbelieving (cf. Gen. 9:9). And in the making of the covenant with Abraham, too, in Gen. 15, the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded — he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12, 17). True, in the Sinaitic covenant, the stipulations which God lays down for his people sometimes take the form of actual conditions, so that the realization of the promise is conditioned by them (cf. Lev. 26:15 ff. and Deut. 31:20), but this structural change in the covenant-revelation can be explained in connection with the wider promulgation — it is to extend to the whole nation of Israel — of the covenant, by means of which the covenant-relationship takes on a wider and more external meaning. It comprises not merely the unconditional guarantee of God to those who walk in the faith and obedience of their father Abraham: it also lays down a special bond constituted by the offer of salvation, on the one side, and by responsibility, on the other side, for those who will not appear to manifest a oneness with their spiritual ancestor. Meanwhile, of course, the fact remains that in all the different dispensations of the covenant of grace, God’s unconditional promise to Abraham constitutes its heart and kernel. Consequently, when the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:33) is announced, one thing is expressly made clear: namely, that the disposition which is indispensable for the human reception of the covenant-benefits will itself be granted as the gift of God Himself. In other words, that very thing which in the Sinaitic covenant was so plainly set down as a condition, belongs in the new covenant to the benefits promised by God in the covenant itself. The New Testament concept of διαθηκη lies quite in the line of that development, particularly as Paul thinks of it, as is evident in [Galatians 3 and 4], and in such a place as Rom. 9. That New Testament concept points to a salvation whose benefits are guaranteed by God and as a matter of fact are actually given, because in Christ and through Him the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.” (6)

The Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant seen in Genesis 15:17 from Keil and Delitzsch:

“When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on (היה impersonal), “behold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces,” – a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. תּנּוּר, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth. In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire, – both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Psalm 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc.), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Exodus 3:2). – To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:12). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Genesis 22:16, or by His life in Deuteronomy 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jeremiah 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.” (7)

The Puritan, John Gill says this on the Abrahamic Covenant:

“God made a covenant with Abram, as appears from Genesis 15:18; and, as a confirmation of it, passed between the pieces in a lamp of fire, showing that he was and would be the light and salvation of his people, Abram’s seed, and an avenger of their enemies; only God passed between the pieces, not Abram, this covenant being as others God makes with men, only on one side; God, in covenanting with men, promises and gives something unto them, but men give nothing to him, but receive from him, as was the case between God and Abram: however, it is very probable, that this lamp of fire consumed the pieces, in like manner as fire from heaven used to fall upon and consume the sacrifices, in token of God’s acceptance of them.” (8)

The following is an excellent overview of Covenant theology and the covenants from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Theological covenants

“The nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his creation is not considered automatic or of necessity. Rather, God voluntarily condescends to establish the connection as a covenant, wherein the terms of the relationship are set down by God alone according to his own will.”

“In particular, covenant theology teaches that God has established one, eternal covenant, under different administrations.^[1] Having created man in His image as a free creature with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, God entered into a covenant of works whereby the mandate was “do this and live” (Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12). “Like Adam, they have trespassed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7) is the classic reference to the covenant of works; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 the reference that explains God’s work of redemption in the Covenant of Grace.” ^[2]

Covenant of redemption

“The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem his elect people from the guilt and power of sin. God appointed Christ to live a life of perfect obedience to the law and to die a penal, substitutionary, sacrificial death (see penal substitution aspect of the atonement) as the covenantal representative for all who trust in him. Some covenant theologians have denied the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, or have questioned the notion of the Son’s works leading to the reward of gaining a people for God, or have challenged the covenantal nature of this arrangement. Those who have upheld this covenant point to passages such as Philippians 2:5-11 and Revelation 5:9-10 to support the principle of works leading to reward; and to passages like Psalm 110 in support that this is depicted in Scripture as a covenant.”

Covenant of works

“The covenant of works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who represented all mankind as a federal head. (Romans 5:12-21) It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam, and all mankind in Adam, broke the covenant, thus standing condemned. The covenant of works continues to function after the fall as the moral law.”

“Though it is not explicitly called a covenant in the opening chapters of Genesis, the comparison of the representative headship of Christ and Adam, as well as passages like Hosea 6:7 have been interpreted to support the idea. It has also been noted that Jeremiah 33:20-26 (cf. 31:35-36) compares the covenant with David to God’s covenant with the day and the night and the statutes of heaven and earth which God laid down at creation. This has led some to understand all of creation as covenantal: the decree establishing the natural laws governing heaven and earth. The covenant of works might then be seen as the moral law component of the broader creational covenant. Thus, the covenant of works has also been called the covenant of creation, indicating that it is not added but constitutive of the human race; the covenant of nature in recognition of its consonance with the natural law in the human heart; and the covenant of life in regard to the promised reward.”

Covenant of grace

“The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a “seed” of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace.”

“The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19-24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant founded and fulfilled in Christ. These individual covenants are called the biblical covenants because they are explicitly described in the Bible. Under the covenantal overview of the Bible, submission to God’s rule and living in accordance with his moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Commandments) is a response to grace – never something which can earn God’s acceptance (legalism). Even in his giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces his law by reminding the Israelites that he is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt (grace).”

Adamic covenant

“Covenant theology first sees a covenant of works administered with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Upon Adam’s failure, God established the covenant of grace in the promised seed Genesis 3:15, and shows his redeeming care in clothing Adam and Eve in garments of skin — perhaps picturing the first instance of animal sacrifice. The specific covenants after the fall of Adam are seen as administered under the overarching theological covenant of grace.”

Noahic covenant

“The Noahic covenant is found in Genesis 8:20-9:17. Although redemption motifs are prominent as Noah and his family are delivered from the judgment waters, the narrative of the flood plays on the creation motifs of Genesis 1 as de-creation and re-creation. The formal terms of the covenant itself more reflect a reaffirmation of the universal created order, than a particular redemptive promise.”

Abrahamic covenant

“The Abrahamic covenant is found in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 17. In contrast with the covenants made with Adam or Noah which were universal in scope, this covenant was with a particular people. Abraham is promised a seed and a land, although he would not see its fruition within his own lifetime. The Book of Hebrews explains that he was looking to a better and heavenly land, a city with foundations, whose builder and architect is God (11:8-16). The Apostle Paul writes that the promised seed refers in particular to Christ (Galatians 3:16).”

The Abrahamic covenant is:

 “1. Exclusive: It is only for Abraham and his (spiritual) descendants. Genesis 17:7

 2. Everlasting: It is not replaced by any later covenant. Genesis 17:7

 3. Accepted by faith, not works: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Genesis 15:6

 4. The external sign of entering into the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision. Genesis 17:10, but it has to be matched by an internal change, the circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah 4:4

 5. According to Paul, since the Abrahamic covenant is eternal, the followers of Christ are “children of Abraham” and therefore part of this covenant through faith. “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.” Galatians 3:7

 6. Paul makes it clear that baptism is the external sign of faith in Christ “…you were baptized into Christ…”), and that through faith in Christ the believer is part of the Abrahamic covenant (“Abraham’s seed”). This provides the basis for the doctrine that baptism is the New Testament sign of God’s covenant with Abraham.”

“Galatians 3:26 “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Mosaic covenant

“The Mosaic covenant, found in Exodus 19-24 and the book of Deuteronomy, expands on the Abrahamic promise of a people and a land. Repeatedly mentioned is the promise of the Lord, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (cf. Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12), particularly displayed as his glory-presence comes to dwell in the midst of the people. This covenant is the one most in view by the term Old Covenant.”

“Although it is a gracious covenant beginning with God’s redemptive action (cf. Exodus 20:1-2), a layer of law is prominent. Concerning this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant, Charles Hodge makes three points in his Commentary on Second Corinthians: (1) The Law of Moses was in first place a reenactment of the covenant of works; viewed this way, it is the ministration of condemnation and death. (2) It was also a national covenant, giving national blessings based on national obedience; in this way it was purely legal. (3) In the sacrificial system, it points to the Gospel of salvation through a mediator.”

Davidic covenant

“The Davidic covenant is found in 2 Samuel 7. The Lord proclaims that he will build a house and lineage for David, establishing his kingdom and throne forever. This covenant is appealed to as God preserves David’s descendants despite their wickedness (cf. 1 Kings 11:26-39, 15:1-8; 2 Kings 8:19, 19:32-34), although it did not stop judgment from finally arriving (compare 2 Kings 21:7, 23:26-27; Jeremiah 13:12-14). Among the prophets of the exile, there is hope of restoration under a Davidic king who will bring peace and justice (cf. Book of Ezekiel 37:24-28).”

New Covenant

“The New Covenant is anticipated with the hopes of the Davidic messiah, and most explicitly predicted by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 31:34). At the Last Supper, Jesus alludes to this prophecy, as well as to prophecies such as Isaiah 49:8, when he says that the cup of the Passover meal is “the New Covenant in [his] blood.” This use of the Old Testament typology is developed further in the Epistle to the Hebrews (see especially chs. 7-10). Jesus is the last Adam and Israel’s hope and consolation: he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-18). He is the prophet greater than Jonah (Matt 12:41), and the Son over the house where Moses was a servant (Hebrews 3:5-6), leading his people to the heavenly promised land. He is the high priest greater than Aaron, offering up himself as the perfect sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 26). He is the king greater than Solomon (Matthew 12:42), ruling forever on David’s throne (Luke 1:32). The term “New Testament” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek New Covenant and is most often used for the collection of books in the Bible, can also refer to the New Covenant as a theological concept.”

“Covenantal signs and seals In Reformed theology, a sacrament is usually defined as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.^[3] Since covenant theology today is mainly Protestant and Reformed in its outlook, proponents view Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two sacraments in this sense, which are sometimes called “church ordinances.” Along with the preached word, they are identified as an ordinary means of grace for salvation. The benefits of these rites do not occur from participating in the rite itself (ex opere operato), but through the power of the Holy Spirit as they are received by faith.”

The above outline is online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

References from Wikipedia:

1. Westminster Confession of Faith. vii, 5,6.
2. M. E. Osterhaven, ‘Covenant Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, ed. 279-80.
3. Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. XXVII Sec. 1.

This book is available to purchase at Amazon. God Bless, Jack Kettler

Our nation is on the brink of a financial collapse. The interest on the national debts per year is over 1 trillion dollars and growing fast. Not sustainable! If you have a liquid IRA, now is the time to do a roll over into gold. I did! If need have gold for bartering, consider gold dimes.

Contact my friend Alex and let him know that I referred you.

Alex Alexeff​

Senior Account Executive

(800) 576-9355 Ext. 249        

(310) 571-0194

a_alexeff@learcapital.com    

http://www.LearCapital.com

1990 S. Bundy Dr., Suite 600, Los Angeles, 90025

How is Jesus like a snake in John 3:14?                                                             By Jack Kettler

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.”  (John 3:14)

Superficially looking at this comparison, a novice may think this sounds almost blasphemous, yet Christ made the comparison. Furthermore, the comparison is perplexing because the Devil is referred to as a serpent.

Consider Barnes’ Notes on the Bible to shed light on the text:

“And as Moses – Jesus proceeds in this and the following verses to state the reason why he came into the world and, in order to this, he illustrates His design, and the efficacy of his coming, by a reference to the case of the brass serpent, recorded in Numbers 21:8-9. The people were bitten by flying fiery serpents. There was no cure for the bite. Moses was directed to make an image of the serpent, and place it in sight of the people, that they might look on it and be healed. There is no evidence that this was intended to be a type of the Messiah, but it is used by Jesus as strikingly illustrating his work. Men are sinners. There is no cure by human means for the maladies of the soul; and as the people who were bitten might look on the image of the serpent and be healed, so may sinners look to the Saviour and be cured of the moral maladies of our nature.”

“Lifted up – Erected on a pole. Placed on high, so that it might be seen by the people.”

“The serpent – The image of a serpent made of brass.”

“In the wilderness – Near the land of Edom. In the desert and desolate country to the south of Mount Hor, Numbers 21:4.”

“Even so – In a similar manner and with a similar design. He here refers, doubtless, to his own death. Compare John 12:32; John 8:28. The points of resemblance between his being lifted up and that of the brass serpent seem to be these:”

“1. In each case those who are to be benefited can he aided in no other way. The bite of the serpent was deadly, and could be healed only by looking on the brass serpent; and sin is deadly in its nature, and can be removed only by looking on the cross.”

“2. The mode of their being lifted up. The brass serpent was in the sight of the people. So, Jesus was exalted from the earth raised on a tree or cross.”

“3. The design was similar. The one was to save the life, the other the soul; the one to save from temporal, the other from eternal death.”

“4. The manner of the cure was similar. The people of Israel were to look on the serpent and be healed, and so sinners are to look on the Lord Jesus that they may be saved.”

“Must – It is proper; necessary; indispensable, if men are saved. Compare Luke 24:26; Luke 22:42.”

“The Son of man – The Messiah.” (1)

Regarding the serpent, Barnes says, “There is no evidence that this was intended to be a type of the Messiah.” However, could Jesus be the anti-type of the serpent? Furthermore, other commentators disagree with Barnes and his claim about no evidence regarding the serpent being a type of Christ.

Cross-reference:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” (Numbers 21:8-9)

The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament does a remarkable job of explaining the symbolism of the snake in the third paragraph:

“At the command of God, Moses made a brazen serpent, and put it upon a standard.”

“Whoever then of the persons bitten by the poisonous serpents looked at the brazen serpent with faith in the promise of God, lived, i.e., recovered from the serpent’s bite. The serpent was to be made of brass or copper, because the colour of this metal, when the sun was shining upon it, was most like the appearance of the fiery serpents; and thus, the symbol would be more like the thing itself.”

“Even in the book of Wis. (Numbers 16:6-7), the brazen serpent is called “a symbol of salvation; for he that turned himself toward it was not saved by the thing that he saw, but by Thee, that art the Saviour of all.” It was not merely intended, however, as Ewald supposes (Gesch. ii. p. 228), as a “sign that just as this serpent hung suspended in the air, bound and rendered harmless by the command of Jehovah, so everyone who looked at this with faith in the redeeming power of Jehovah, was secured against the evil, – a figurative sign, therefore, like that of St. George and the Dragon among ourselves;” for, according to this, there would be no internal causal link between the fiery serpents and the brazen image of a serpent. It was rather intended as a figurative representation of the poisonous serpents, rendered harmless by the mercy of God. For God did not cause a real serpent to be taken, but the image of a serpent, in which the fiery serpent was stiffened, as it were, into dead brass, as a sign that the deadly poison of the fiery serpents was overcome in this brazen serpent. This is not to be regarded as a symbol of the divine healing power; nor is the selection of such a symbol to be deduced and explained, as it is by Winer, Kurtz, Knobel, and others, from the symbolical view that was common to all the heathen religions of antiquity, that the serpent was a beneficent and health-bringing power, which led to its being exalted into a symbol of the healing power, and a representation of the gods of healing. This heathen view is not only foreign to the Old Testament, and without any foundation in the fact that, in the time of Hezekiah, the people paid a superstitious worship to the brazen serpent erected by Moses (2 Kings 18:4); but it is irreconcilably opposed to the biblical view of the serpent, as the representative of evil, which was founded upon Genesis 3:15, and is only traceable to the magical art of serpent-charming, which the Old Testament abhorred as an idolatrous abomination. To this we may add, that the thought which lies at the foundation of this explanation, viz., that poison is to be cured by poison, has no support in Hosea 13:4, but is altogether foreign to the Scriptures. God punishes sin, it is true, by sin; but He neither cures sin by sin, nor death by death. On the contrary, to conquer sin it was necessary that the Redeemer should be without sin; and to take away its power from death, it was requisite that Christ, the Prince of life, who had life in Himself, should rise again from death and the grave (John 5:26; John 11:25; Acts 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:10).”

“The brazen serpent became a symbol of salvation on the three grounds which Luther pointed out. In the first place, the serpent which Moses was to make by the command of God was to be of brass or copper, that is to say, of a reddish colour, and (although without poison) altogether like the persons who were red and burning with heat because of the bite of the fiery serpents. In the second place, the brazen serpent was to be set up upon a pole for a sign. And in the third place, those who desired to recover from the fiery serpent’s bite and live, were to look at the brazen serpent upon the pole, otherwise they could not recover or live (Luther’s Sermon on John 3:1-15). It was in these three points, as Luther has also clearly shown, that the typical character of this symbol lay, to which Christ referred in His conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:14). The brazen serpent had the form of a real serpent, but was “without poison, and altogether harmless.” So, God sent His Son in the form of sinful flesh, and yet without sin (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22-24). – 2. In the lifting up of the serpent as a standard. This was a δειγματίζειν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, a ́ (a “showing openly,” or “triumphing”), a triumphal exhibition of the poisonous serpents as put to death in the brazen image, just as the lifting up of Christ upon the cross was a public triumph over the evil principalities and powers below the sky (Colossians 2:14-15). – 3. In the cure effected through looking at the image of the serpent. Just as the Israelites had to turn their eyes to the brazen serpent in believing obedience to the word of the Lord, in order to be cured of the bite of the poisonous serpents, so much we look with faith at the Son of man lifted up upon the cross, if we would be delivered from the bite of the old serpent, from sin, death, the devil, and hell. “Christ is the antitype of the serpent, inasmuch as He took upon Himself the most pernicious of all pernicious potencies, viz., sin, and made a vicarious atonement for it” (Hengstenberg on John 3:14). The brazen image of the serpent was taken by the Israelites to Canaan, and preserved till the time of Hezekiah, who had it broken in pieces, because the idolatrous people had presented incense-offerings to this holy relic (2 Kings 18:4).” (2) (Underlining emphasis mine)

An aside:

It is also perplexing why the medical symbol used today is a snake on a stick. 

In ancient times the snake symbolized health and healing because it could shed and regenerate its skin. The snake also produced venoms which killed many parasites in the body. The current American Medical Association logo is the Staff of Aesculapius, a single staff with one snake entwined thereon.

In Biblical symbolism, how can Jesus be both a type of the serpent and an antitype?

In Biblical symbolism, Jesus is both a type of the serpent and an antitype. The serpent symbolizes evil and temptation, while Jesus is a symbol of salvation and atonement. As a type, Jesus can be seen as a symbol of temptation, as seen in the Garden of Eden when he tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As an antitype, Jesus can also be seen as a symbol of salvation, as He was willing to take the punishment for the sins of humankind. Furthermore, Jesus’ death on the cross was an act of atonement, and His resurrection symbolized a new life in which humankind could be reconciled to God.

In closing:

Not only is Jesus the antitype of the serpent, but the serpent also signified Christ, who was in the likeness of sinful flesh. Thus, the story of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21 serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and grace. Everyone in the human race has the venomous poison of sin that separates us from God. Therefore, Jesus would be lifted up on a pole or cross. Moreover, Jesus referenced this story as a reminder of God’s power to save us from sin (John 3:14-15). By looking at the bronze serpent, the Israelites were able to be rescued from their punishment, and the story serves as a reminder that we can be saved from our sins through Christ.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, John, Vol. 1 p. 1076.

2.      Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Numbers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1985), p. 140-141.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

The Book of Ruth, an Overview                                                   by Jack Kettler

Chapter One:

Ruth chapter one shows the unfolding of God’s gracious plan of redemption amidst a suffering people. Naomi, a woman of Israel, lives in a foreign land and has lost her husband and two sons during a famine. In her sorrow, Naomi urges her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, to return to their people and find new husbands. Orpah reluctantly complies, but Ruth chooses to stay with Naomi and make a new life in Israel. In doing so, Ruth displays her faith in God and her allegiance to the people of Israel. This loyalty is seen as an act of faith in the Lord, and God rewards Ruth’s faith by providing her with a new husband and a place in the lineage of King David. Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi and her faith in the Lord serve as powerful examples of what it means to trust in God’s grace and mercy. Through Ruth’s story, we see God’s love and faithfulness are available to all, and He will always provide a way of redemption, even while suffering.

Chapter Two:

Ruth 2 begins with the Lord showing his kindness to Ruth by blessing her with a field to glean. Next, Boaz, the field owner, shows Ruth even more kindness by ensuring she is safe and well-provided while she works. Boaz also shows grace to Ruth by allowing her to glean grain from his fields and encouraging his workers to help her. In response to Boaz’s kindness, Ruth blesses him and expresses her gratitude.

The chapter ends with Boaz showing his generosity to Ruth by providing her with a significant amount of barley and offering to become her kinsman-redeemer, a significant gesture of grace and mercy and a reminder that God is always watching over and providing for us. Through Boaz’s kindness and mercy, God shows His love for Ruth and all of us. He is faithful to us, and His grace and mercy are abundant.

Chapter Three:

In Ruth 3, Naomi instructs Ruth to approach Boaz, a close relative of Naomi’s deceased husband, and ask him to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, which would involve marrying Ruth and redeeming Naomi’s family property. Ruth follows Naomi’s instructions, and Boaz is pleased with her actions. Boaz promises to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, but he must first go through a legal process to ensure he is the closest relative who can redeem the family property.

From a reformed theological perspective, chapter three of Ruth displays God’s sovereignty and faithfulness in providing a redeemer for Naomi and Ruth. God uses Boaz to fulfill the law of the kinsman-redeemer, which ultimately displays God’s faithfulness to His people. As Boaz is willing to fulfill the duties of a kinsman-redeemer, so also God willing to fulfill His promises of redemption and salvation for His children. Furthermore, God’s sovereignty is displayed through the legal process that must be fulfilled for Boaz to redeem the family property. It is only through God’s providence that Boaz is the redeemer.

Chapter Four:

Ruth 4 begins with Boaz approaching the closer relative of Elimelech, asking him to redeem the land of Elimelech and to marry Ruth. The relative refuses, but Boaz can redeem the land and marry Ruth. In doing so, he can restore the name of Elimelech and provide an heir for Naomi, an imperative event in the lineage of Jesus, as Ruth becomes a great-grandmother of King David, an ancestor of Jesus.

This chapter demonstrates God’s sovereignty, faithfulness, and care for His people. Through Boaz, God brings restoration and redemption to Naomi and her family. The redemption provided by Boaz serves as a reminder of God’s commitment to his covenant people, as seen throughout the Old Testament. Finally, it also points to God’s ability to bring beauty from ashes, as He brought restoration and a new family line through Ruth and Boaz. It shows the power of God to work amidst tragedy and to provide hope in the darkest times. Ultimately, this chapter serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness, providing for His people in seemingly impossible circumstances.

In closing:

The book of Ruth highlights the importance of faithfulness, loyalty, and commitment. Ruth’s decision to leave her homeland and follow her mother-in-law to a new land is a testament to her faith in God and her willingness to trust him even in the face of fear and uncertainty. Ruth’s faithfulness is rewarded when Boaz, a wealthy Israelite, decides to marry and provide for her and her mother-in-law, which exemplifies God’s faithfulness (and love) to those who are faithful to him.

The book of Ruth also serves as a reminder of God’s redemptive power. After suffering the loss of her husband, Ruth finds redemption through Boaz and is ultimately rewarded with a lineage that includes King David. *

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

* This article is an experiment. It was written by ChatGPT and perfected with Grammarly