The Religion That Started in a Hat

John Bunyan B. 1628 – D. 1688

John Bunyan was an English writer and Puritan preacher best remembered as the author of the Christian allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress. In addition to The Pilgrim’s Progress, Bunyan wrote nearly sixty titles, many of them expanded sermons. Bunyan came from the village of Elstow, near Bedford. Wikipedia

John Bunyan Quotes:

“Prayer will make a man cease from sin, or sin will entice a man to cease from prayer.” – John Bunyan

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.” – John Bunyan

“I will stay in prison till the moss grows on my eye lids rather than disobey God.” – John Bunyan

“Just as Christian came up to the Cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, fell from off his back, and began to tumble down the hill, and so it continued to do till it came to the mouth of the sepulchre. There it fell in, and I saw it no more!” – John Bunyan

“Fear, lest, by forgetting what you are by nature, you also forget the need that you have of continual pardon, support, and supplies from the Spirit of grace, and so grow proud of your own abilities, or of what you have received from God.” – John Bunyan

“In times of affliction we commonly meet with the sweetest experiences of the love of God.” – John Bunyan

“…Great sins do draw out great grace; and where guilt is most terrible and fierce, there the mercy of God in Christ, when showed to the soul, appears most high and mighty…” – John Bunyan

“Wake up, see your own wretchedness, and fly to the Lord Jesus. He is the righteousness of God, for He Himself is God. Only by believing in His righteousness will you be delivered from condemnation.” – John Bunyan

“The glory of the next world that will never wear out, while the good things of this world will vanish.” – John Bunyan

“Pure religion and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” – John Bunyan

“My name at the first was Graceless.” – John Bunyan

“The pilgrim’s progress: from this world to that which is to come, delivered under the similitude of a dream, wherein is discovered the manner of his setting out, his dangerous journey, and safe arrival at the desired country.” – John Bunyan

“(Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, esteeming the reproach of the Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt. – Heb. 11:25-26)” – John Bunyan

“Christ is my righteousness. I am neither less righteous for my ill deservings nor more righteous for my good deservings, for Christ is my righteousness, and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” – John Bunyan

“Blessed Cross! Blessed grave! Blessed rather be The Man who there was put to shame for me.” – John Bunyan

“Even as the law uncovers sin and forbids it, it does not provide the power to subdue it.” – John Bunyan

“Our sins, when laid upon Christ, were yet personally ours, not his; so his righteousness, when put upon us, is yet personally his, not ours.” – John Bunyan

“that we fulfilled the law by Him, died by Him, rose from the dead by Him, got the victory over sin, death, the devil, and hell, by Him; when He died, we died, and so of His resurrection. Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise, saith He. Isa. xxvi.” – John Bunyan

The International John Bunyan Society

What Happens To Those Who Never Hear The Gospel? By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, definitions will be looked at along with scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

In this study, the answer will be stated at the beginning, and then Scriptural proof will be marshaled in support of the answer. There are those who struggle with answering this question. If a person were lost who has not heard the gospel, some would say this is not fair.

First off, there are many today and in times past who have not heard the gospel. What happens to them? Are they sinners or not? What about those who perished in the flood? Were they sinners or not? Did the pre-flood sinners hear the gospel or not?

What is natural revelation? Natural or general revelation is God speaking and making Himself known in His creation.

God has spoken to all of humanity through natural revelation:

The answer to this question is simple. Since all are sinners, they are lost whether they have heard the gospel or not. Those who have not heard the gospel will not be punished for not hearing the gospel, but for not responding to God’s testimony in nature. God has spoken clearly to all of humankind through natural revelation.

All have heard God’s voice and suppressed it:

“His handywork is seen in creation.” Moreover, “there is no pace in heaven or earth where His voice is not heard.” In the New Testament book of Romans, the apostle Paul refers to Psalm 19 and in particular 19:4. “But I say have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world” (Romans 10:18). A fallen man may try to evade this testimony, yet he cannot escape it. All humankind is guilty.

God’s natural revelation is so clear, that is why according to Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

It can be concluded that all whether hearing the gospel or not are justly under God’s condemnation.

Is it fair?

The problem in answering the starting question is that emotions and feelings govern or interfere with interpreting the Bible to find the answer.

To answer the question one must not let experience, feelings or emotions influence the interpretation of God’s Word. God is holy and righteous and whatever He does is right simply because He does it. There is no standard higher than God is. Are you O man, going to hold God to your standard?

Think about it, holding God to your standard. That would mean your standard is higher than God is. Consider O man who would dare to be God’s counseller:

“Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?” (Isaiah 40:13)

“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counseller?” (Romans 11:34)

“Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, what makest thou? Or thy work, He hath no hands?” (Isaiah 45:9)

“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20)

In contrast with natural revelation. Special Revelation from Article 2 of the Belgic Confession:

“Secondly, he makes himself more clearly and fully known to us by his holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to his glory and our salvation.”

Scriptures and commentary on the universal sinfulness of all humanity:

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

From the Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 6:5:

“Verse 5. – And God (Jehovah, which should have been rendered ‘the Lord’) saw – indicative of the long-continued patience (Calvin) of the Deity, under whose immediate cognizance the great experiment of the primeval age of the world was wrought out – that the wickedness (ra’ath; from the root raa, to make a loud noise, to rage, hence to be wicked) of man (literally, of the Adam: this was the first aggravation of the wickedness which God beheld; it was the tumultuous rebellion of the being whom he had created in his own image) was great (it was no slight iniquity, but a wide-spread, firmly-rooted, and deeply-staining corruption, the second aggravation) in the earth. This was the third aggravation; it was in the world which he had made, and not only in it, but pervading it so “that integrity possessed no longer a single corner” (Calvin). And that every imagination – yetzer, a device, like pottery ware, from yatza, to fashion as a potter (Genesis 2:7; Genesis 8:19). Cf. yotzer, a potter, used of God (Psalm 94:9, 20). Hence the fashioned purpose (ἐνθύμησις) as distinguished from the thought out of which it springs – “a distinction not generally or constantly recognized by the mental philosopher, though of essential importance in the theory of the mind” (Murphy) – of the thoughts – mahshevoth; from hashal, to think, to meditate = ἔννοια; cf. Hebrews 9:12 (T. Lewis) – of his heart – or, the heart, the seat of the affections and emotions of the mind. Cf. Judges 16:15 (love); Proverbs 31:11 (confidence); Proverbs 5:12 (contempt); Psalm 104:15 (joy). Here “the feeling, or deep mother heart, the state of soul, lying below all, and giving moral character to all” (Lewis). Cf. the psychological division of Hebrews 4:12 was only evil continually. Literally, every day. “If this is not total depravity, how can language express it?” Though the phrase does not mean “from infancy,” yet “the general doctrine” (of man’s total and universal depravity) “is properly and consistently elicited hence” (Calvin).” (1)

“The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalms 14:2, 3)

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary captures the Psalmist’s thought on verse 3 from Psalm 14 perfectly:

“3. Filthy—literally, “spoiled,” or, “soured,” “corrupted” (Job 15:16; Ro 3:12).” (2)

“But we are as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Isaiah 64:6:

“(6) We are all as an unclean thing . . .—Better, as he who is unclean, scil,* like the leper of Leviticus 13:45.

Filthy rags point to that which to the Israelite was the other extremest form of ceremonial uncleanness, as in Ezekiel 36:17.

Have taken us away – scil, afar off from the light and favour of Jehovah.” (3)

* Scil is equivalent “to wit”

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9

Again from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on Jeremiah 17:9:

“(9) The heart is deceitful . . .—The sequence of ideas seems as follows: If the blessing and the curse are thus so plainly marked, how is it that man chooses the curse and not the blessing, the portion of the “heath in the desert” rather than that of the “tree planted by the waters”? And the answer is found in the inscrutable self-deceit of his nature blinding his perceptions of good and evil.

Desperately wicked.—Rather, incurably diseased, as in Jeremiah 15:18; Jeremiah 30:12; Jeremiah 30:15; Isaiah 17:11, and elsewhere. Wickedness is, of course, implied, but it is regarded rather as a moral taint following on the deliberate choice, than as the choice itself.” (4)

“There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:11-12)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Romans 3:11:

“There is none that understandeth; a more particular proof of the corruption of the soul, and the faculties thereof; and first of the mind, taken out of the forecited Psalms, which may be compared with the scriptures which speak of the ignorance and blindness of the mind, Deuteronomy 32:29 Job 32:9 Isaiah 1:3 Jeremiah 4:22 10:14.

There is none that seeketh after God, a proof of the corruption of the will, which follows also in the forecited Psalms.” (5)

From the Westminster Catechism question 60, which answers the starting question:

Q. 60. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?

A. They who, having never heard the gospel,[253] know not Jesus Christ,[254] and believe not in him, cannot be saved,[255] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature,[256] or the laws of that religion which they profess;[257] neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone,[258] who is the Savior only of his body the church.[259]

Scriptural proofs:

[253] Romans 10:14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

[254] 2Thessalonians 1:8-9. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. Ephesians 2:12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. John 1:10-12. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

[255] John 8:24. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[256] 1Corinthians 1:20-24. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them, which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

[257] John 4:22. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Romans 9:31-32. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone. Philippians 3:4-9. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

[258] Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[259] Ephesians 5:23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

In closing:

A fallen man can lay no claim on God’s favor. Because of man’s entirely corrupt nature, resulting from the fall, God is under no obligation to save anyone. Once more, what about those who have not heard the gospel? They have heard God’s testimony in nature, Psalm 19:4 and suppressed it and are awaiting God’s wrath Romans 1:18.

Historically, the people and nations who have not heard the gospel are “heathen.” The fact of those in spiritual darkness without the gospel has always been the prime motivator for missions to the heathen nations. Pray that God will give increase to the missionary zeal of the Church.

Notes:

1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Genesis, Vol.1., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 103.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 411.

3. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 570.

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Jeremiah, Vol.5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 63.

5. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 487.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

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 the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

General revelation: the universal disclosure of God in nature, in providential history and in moral law within the heart (conscience), whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. (Romans 1:18-20).

Special revelation: God’s self-disclosure in redemptive history and in the interpretive word of Scripture whereby He makes Himself and His truth known at specific times and to specific people. God cannot be known redemptively except as He reveals Himself to us. Jesus is the culmination of God’s self-disclosure to man and since Jesus cannot be separated from His word; the Scriptures are the ultimate form of divine revelation from God to us, for without them, we would know nothing certain about Jesus or any of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity.

The Biblical laws for Quarantine and Sanitation By Jack Kettler

What do the Scriptures say about quarantines? When you have a plague or an infectious disease in the land, which biblically is required to be quarantined? What about the contemporary phrase “social distancing.” Is this approach biblical? In this study, biblical quarantine and sanitary laws will be surveyed. Surprisingly, if followed, out of control, problematic health issues can be solved without infringing upon civil liberties or destroying businesses.

A study like this is relevant considering the panic of government officials over the latest of the yearly flu virus, the so-called Wuhan China flu. The panic is at least partially due to the question of the Wuhan virus, possibly being a human-engineered weaponized virus. To put things in perspective, 10 to 60 thousand people die from the flu each year in the U.S.

Most of the time, politicians from large decaying cities in America are not in the least concerned about public health issues accept for political purposes. For example, the West coast large city mayors and governors are not concerned with giant rat-infested homeless camps and humans defecating on the streets, real breeding grounds for infectious diseases.

With that said, a biblical study on how to handle a virus or plaque seems prudent. In general, compared to biblical law, political operatives have things ass-backward. God has provided biblical principles, if followed, to solve many public health emergencies.

A number of passages will be surveyed. A complete listing in this study of passages is not necessary to avoid redundancy. The majority of the passages will be from the Old Testament. How can passages from the Old Testament, which were for Israel, have anything to say today? Let us see.

The Scriptures on quarantine laws:

“But if the spot is white in the skin of his body and appears no deeper than the skin, and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall shut up the diseased person for seven days.” (Leviticus 13:4 ESV) (All passages will be in the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted).

“He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp.” (Leviticus 13:46)

“And if the priest examines the itching disease and it appears no deeper than the skin and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for seven days, and on the seventh day the priest shall examine the disease. If the itch has not spread, and there is in it no yellow hair, and the itch appears to be no deeper than the skin, then he shall shave himself, but the itch he shall not shave; and the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for another seven days.” (Leviticus 13:31-33)

“The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’ He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp.” (Leviticus 13:45-46)

“Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell.” (Numbers 5:2-3)

“And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance.” (Luke 17:12)

Quarantines Today by Gary North, author of more than fifty books:

“The question then arises: Is priestly quarantining biblically legitimate today? There is no indication that any of these named diseases survived the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There is also no indication that the laws of quarantine by a priest continue into the New Covenant. On the contrary, they could not have survived the demise of the priesthood. The quarantine laws were part of the Levitical laws of the Mosaic Covenant, and, I think, to some degree were connected to jubilee land laws of Leviticus 25. These laws all perished with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. With the collapse of the judicial boundaries of the nation of Israel, there was a collapse of those ritual boundary laws that had governed the people of Israel even before they entered into the land of Canaan. There was no longer any tabernacle to be excluded from, and there was no unclean place outside either the camp or the city to which anyone could be banished. In other words, these laws related to plague, and plague in Mosaic Israel was judicial rather than biological.

In New Testament times, we can study biological afflictions as a separate class of phenomena, and we can also see them as the judgments of God. We do not have the ability to identify the specific sin, either corporate or personal, that leads to most sicknesses, with the exception of venereal diseases. Neither did the priest of the Mosaic Covenant in most cases. The priest was not asked to identify the sin that had led to the individual’s affliction. The priest was required only to identify the affliction and deal with it judicially. We can therefore say that in New Testament times, afflictions of a biological nature can be dealt with either through medical techniques or by public health techniques. Contagious people can either be cured or they can be quarantined. The quarantining process, however, is based on considerations of the contagious nature of the disease, not the judicial status of the individual. Public health laws in the modern world are to be governed by statutes, and statutes must be predictable. Individuals must know in advance the penalties or sanctions that will be imposed for specific kinds of behavior. Thus, an individual who comes down with a disease cannot be said to be a threat to the community merely because he has come down with a disease. The judicial diseases of the Mosaic Covenant are no longer with us. Therefore, the diseases that afflict us today are like the common diseases that afflicted people inside and outside of Mosaic Israel. They are to be dealt with in similar ways: by medical care, by quarantine, by prayer, or by anointing by the elders (James 5:14).

To Protect the Public

The idea of quarantine in the 13th chapter of Leviticus is based on the need to protect the public. The spread of the disease, or other forms of God’s judgment, was to be halted by removing the afflicted individual from within the city. The concern was public health, but it was not a concern about biological contagion. It was concern about the willingness of God to afflict other individuals with the disease or other afflictions because of their unwillingness to enforce His law. Thus, the quarantining process of Leviticus 13 was primarily judicial. In fact, it would probably be safe to say that it was entirely judicial. Only by the extension of the principle of the protection of others within the city is it legitimate to classify today’s diseases as being subject legally to the Bible’s quarantining process.

Does this qualification alter the legal status of the civil government? For example, does this mean that in modern times the civil government is required to finance an individual who has been quarantined? The State has brought sanctions against him in the name of the health of the community. This was also the case in Mosaic Israel. The State has put him under quarantine because he is biologically contagious. This was not the case in the Mosaic Israel. Does the shift from judicial affliction to biological affliction change the legal requirements of the civil government? Does the change from the contagious legal status of the individual to his contagious biological status change the requirements of the civil government? In other words, do the quarantine laws of the civil government go through a fundamental transformation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?

It is part of English common law that when a city is on fire, the authorities have the right to knock down an individual’s house in order to stop the spread of that fire. It is also part of common law that the city and the community do not owe anything to the individual who has had his house knocked down in this way. It is presumed that the fire would have destroyed the house anyway. It is also assumed that by destroying the individual’s house, other houses within the community will be protected. This law was for generations basic to the protection of cities. If the fire-fighters had to worry about the cost of repayment each time they knocked down a house, it is unlikely that they would have had the same kind of incentive to knock down the houses. Obviously, if the price of an action goes up, less of it will be demanded. In this case, it means that the city would have been less likely to be protected from the “plague” of fire because of legal obligations to repay those people who were unfortunate enough to be caught in the line of fire, and whose houses, if knocked down, would have allowed the creation of a fire break. It was assumed that the safety of the city was of greater importance than the loss to the individual. Because the house probably would have burned down anyway, it really was not a net loss to the owner.

Consider a contemporary individual who has contracted a contagious disease. He has become a threat to the community. If the community is required by law to finance this individual until such time as he recovers biologically from the disease, it is less likely that the community will take the necessary steps to isolate him. Common law therefore does not require the civil government to compensate the quarantined individual. Neither does biblical law. This is why quarantine is a devastating event in the life of the individual. Historically, quarantined people have not been permitted to leave their homes. Others have not been able to come into those homes without falling under the ban. While it is assumed that charity will be forthcoming to help the quarantined individual in his time of need, it has been assumed until very recently that the State has no legal obligation to support that person during the period of his confinement. To do so would raise the cost of confining individuals, and it would therefore lead to an unwillingness on the part of public health officials to confine them. This would increase the risk of contagion and disease in the community.

The contagious nature of the disease, in effect, is a form of violence. It is violence conducted by a third party, namely, the biological organisms that transmit the disease, but it is still a form of violence. The carrier places other people at risk. Thus, common law determined that an individual who becomes a threat to the community must be removed from the community so as to reduce the likelihood of this indirect form of violence. Public health measures are directed against the disease primarily and against its carriers secondarily.” (1)

As can be seen from North’s commentary, quarantine laws applied to those with infectious diseases, not healthy people. Moreover, as in the case of a house on fire, the police and larger society is not to bear the cost of the quarantine.

Gary North is an American paleolibertarian writer, Austrian School economic historian, and leading figure in the Christian Reconstructionist movement. … He is known for his advocacy of biblical and libertarian economics and as a theorist of dominionism and theonomy. Wikipedia

R. J. Rushdoony on Biblical Quarantine Laws

“The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” has, as its positive requirement, the mandate to preserve and further life within the framework of God’s law. Basic to this framework of preservation are the laws of quarantine…To return to the quarantine laws with respect to diseases, those cited in Leviticus 13 and 14 are generally described as leprosy and plague. The term leprosy has changed its meaning extensively from its biblical and “medieval” meaning. The meaning then covered a variety of infectious diseases. In terms of this, the meaning of this legislation is that contagious diseases must be treated with all necessary precautions to prevent contagion. Legislation is thus necessary wherever society requires protection from serious and contagious diseases. The state has therefore a legislative power in dealing with plagues, epidemics, venereal diseases, and other contagious and dangerous diseases. Such legislation is plainly required in the Mosaic Law (Num. 5:1-4). Not only is it declared to be a matter of civil legislation, but also an essential aspect of religious education (Deut. 24:8).

It is clear, however, that this legislation, requiring some kind of quarantine or separation for those who are diseased, or who handle the dead (Num. 5:2), has implications beyond the realm of physical diseases.” (2)

R. J. Rushdoony and quarantine laws through history:

“It is also important to note that the observance of these laws helped eliminate Hansen’s disease, or true leprosy, faster in Europe than in other continents. In Europe, there were at least 9,000 hospitals for leprosy alone, maintained by Christian charity. Louis VII of France left legacies to more than 2,000 hospitals for lepers in his country; no ruler of our times has manifested any comparable charity. The Normans in France applied quarantine strictly, both in Normandy and in England. Thus, the very wealthy and influential Knight, Amiloun, was expelled from his castle to become a beggar when he contracted leprosy. The Lateran Council of 1172 required that special churches be built for lepers, and, in time, both hospitals and churches were available for lepers.” (3)

R. J. Rushdoony bio: a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as being the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement. His followers and critics have argued that his thought exerts considerable influence on the evangelical Christian right. From Wikipedia

The Scriptures on Sanitary Laws:

“And an earthenware vessel that the one with the discharge touches shall be broken, and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.” (Leviticus 15:12)_

“Encamp outside the for camp seven days. Whoever of you has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. You shall purify every garment, every article of skin, all work of goats’ hair, and every article of wood.” (Numbers 31:19-20)

“If any man among you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he shall go outside the camp. He shall not come inside the camp, but when evening comes, he shall bathe himself in water, and as the sun sets, he may come inside the camp.” (Deuteronomy 23:10-11) Burying human waste

“Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment, have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.” (Deuteronomy 23:12-13 NIV)

An excerpt from The First Book of Public Hygiene:

“On the positive side, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, provide tremendous insight and relief concerning disease prevention. Remarkably, the Pentateuch is regarded as the earliest evidence we have of sound public health and sanitary practices. These ancient writings, when used in conjunction with modern medicine, can break the mode of transmission of virtually every scourge known to humanity.

What follows is a brief summary of the biblical instructions pertaining to public health and sanitation. Bear in mind that these regulations were practiced some 3,500 years before the germ concept of disease was discovered (mainly by the creationist Louis Pasteur)!” (4)

The full article is a goldmine of wisdom. As an aside, when God gave the Pentateuch and all of the wisdom included therein to the people of Israel, the continent of Europe was not much more than bands of savages.

Concluding thoughts:

Regarding the continuing validity of Old Testament principles:

“To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4)

The “general equity” refers not to the specific law, but an abiding principle in the law.

For example:

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [railing] for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Examples of the enduring continuity would be:

1. Having a fence around your swimming pool.

2. Having your yard fenced in if, you have a potentially vicious dog.

Some buildings and apartments have rooftop recreational areas. Of course, you would want some type of barrier or railing for protection. In modern jurisprudence, there is a whole body of liability laws that deal with things like this. The bottom line, it is about protecting your neighbor and limiting your liability.

Many of the case laws are more difficult to find principals that have modern applications. A passage from Mark 12:31 is the key to finding continuing principles of applications.

“The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31)

Instead of locking down entire states, closing down businesses, and placing people essentially under house arrest, the biblical solution is only the person with infectious disease is quarantined, not the public at large. People are free to visit and care for the infected at their own risk. Many Christian charities do precisely this.

The contemporary phrase “social distancing” can be good advice from health and state officials. Likewise, reminding people of personal hygiene such as washing hands.

On closing churches, this should be the call of the elders of the Church in consultation with health officials. Any responsible official would seek the advice of the local clergy before issuing an edict, forcing churches to cease normal functions.

Defining churches as non-essential is an egregious overreach on the part of the state. The Church, at the very least, should protest being labeled as non-essential vigorously.

We can pray that this present crisis does not turn into a yearly-politicized flu emergency.

Here is a quote from Martin Luther when he faced the Black Death Plague:

“I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance inflict and pollute others and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me, and I have done what he has expected of me so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above. See this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.”

Historically, Christians have never run away from plagues. “God has not given us the spirit of fear.” (2Timothy 1:7)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Notes:

1. Gary North, BOUNDARIESAND DOMINIONAN ECONOMIC COMMENTARYON LEVITICUS VOLUME 1, (Dallas GA, Point Five Press), p. 292-293.

2. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Craig Press), p. 293.

3. Rousas John Rushdoony, Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Leviticus, (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2005), p. 144-145.

4. David Wise, The First Book of Public Hygiene, (Originally published in Creation 26, no 1 (December 2003): 52-55. https: //answersingenesis.org/biology/disease/the-first-book-of-public-hygiene/

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 the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

None of These Diseases by S. I. McMillen

The Bible, its various genera’s, and the implications for interpretation by Jack Kettler

The Bible uses many literary forms. For example, the Bible uses genera’s such as law, historical narrative, wisdom, poetical, gospel, didactic letters, or epistles, predictive, and apocalyptic literature.

In this primer, the different genera’s will be looked at, in addition, other interpretive factors such as Literal, Figurative, Allegory, Symbolic, Metaphorical, samples of language will be considered. Then briefly, the importance of recognizing typology, context, scope, grammar, syntax, and hermeneutics will be surveyed.

A contemporary definition of the genre is a type of art, literature, or music characterized by a specific form, content, and style – examples: fictional, non-fiction, mysteries, westerns, science fiction, dystopia, and romance.

A particular challenge for the interpreter, each genre has its own set of general rules.

Examples of biblical genera or category:

Law: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

In these books, one will find legal codes and divisions of the Mosaic Law, civil, ceremonial, and moral.

Poetical: Psalms, Song of Solomon.

In these genera, a collection of spoken or written words expresses ideas or emotions in a vibrant and artistic style. This style utilizes a particular rhythmic and metrical pattern such as Hebrew parallelism.

Wisdom literature: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.

In this literature, one finds teachings about spirituality, and virtue and how to attain it.

Historical narrative: Genesis, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Acts of the Apostles.

This type of literature uses the writing of history in a story-based form.

Gospel is also historical: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Didactic: Letter or epistles like Romans, Ephesians, and James.

Biblical didacticism is a type of literature that educates the reader, in soteriology, ethics, ecclesiology, and eschatology teachings.

Predictive or prophetic: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

This type of biblical literature describes or predicts things that will happen in the future.

Apocalyptic: Daniel and Revelation.

Apocalyptic literature has features, principally involving the prediction of future events by incorporating symbolism or imagery.

Additional interpretive factors:

Literal language means what it says.

An example: The dog is black.

A biblical example: Jesus died on the cross.

Figurative language: uses similes, metaphors, hyperbole, and personification.

An example: He drowning in a sea of grief.

A biblical example: Isaiah 55:12, “the trees will clap their hands.” Jesus’ figurative language is seen when He said, “I am the door” in John 10:7, 9.

Allegory language: involves characters and events that stand for an abstract idea or event.

An example: Animal Farm by George Orwell is a political allegory about the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the rise of communism.

A biblical example: The parables of Jesus

Symbolic language: A symbol is a thing that stands for another thing, giving it a particular meaning.

An example: The dove is a symbol of peace.

A biblical example: The Song of Solomon

Metaphorical language: A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not applicable.

An example: He is doing a tightrope walk with her grades this semester.

A biblical example: When James, Cephas, and John are called “pillars” of the church, in Galatians 2:9, it is evident that the word “pillars” is a metaphor.

Words of association: One word stands for something else. Examples: Circumcision meaning the Jews. Israel referred to by God as a vineyard.

Typology: The Bible identifies certain things, people, and events as typical. That is, beyond their place in Old Testament history, they foreshadow the realities of the gospel. For example, the ceremonial rites and laws of Israel portrayed the gospel and have been fulfilled by it. They have, therefore a unique place in biblical interpretation, but they must never be used to establish a doctrine that cannot be established by the plain statements of Scripture.

Simile: a comparison between unlike objects.

A biblical example:

“They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts.” (Judges 6:5 NIV)

Context: the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

Example of the Bible verse taken out of context:

“Do not judge or you also will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

This verse is not saying, “do not ever judge anyone or anything.” This verse is a warning against unjust, hypocritical judgments.

Scope: The scope of a passage under consideration sets the borders of what the writer means to say. The scope will often help in understanding a problematic expression in a text. Considering the author’s goal in writing the passage and setting the text under deliberation in its proper context will help the reader, grasp its sense.

Grammar: The study of how words and their parts combine to form sentences.

It also involves the study of structural relationships in language or in language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history.

Syntax: a set of rules for or an analysis of the syntax of a language.

Hermeneutics: is the science of interpretation. From the Greek hermeneuo, “to explain, interpret.” Hermeneutics is known as the science of biblical interpretation. The apostle Paul nailed it about the goal of all accurate hermeneutics in 2Timothy 2:15 when he said, “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

The grammatical-historical hermeneutic:

The goal of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic or method attempts to recognize what the writer intended and what the original hearers would have understood it to mean. Grammar and syntax are used to determine the various parts of the thoughts in the text and how they are to be understood.

In consideration of all the above examples of the types of language, and an accepted recognized hermeneutic, and now the interpreter is ready to dig into a text. How is it done?

Exegesis, the interpretive Norm:

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι’ to lead out’) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage, it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text and the term “Biblical exegesis” is used for greater specificity. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text, which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

Eisegesis, the Interpretive Danger:

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s personal ideas, reading into the text. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning of the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete.

The next entry is an excellent overview of biblical interpretation.

Hermeneutical Principles by R. C. Sproul. The article is abridged:

The Analogy of Faith

“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.

The Bible may be a very special book, being uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that inspiration does not transform the letters of the words or the sentences of the passages into magical phrases. Under inspiration a noun remains a noun and a verb remains a verb. Questions do not become exclamations, and historical narratives do not become allegories.

Literal Interpretation and Genre Analysis

The term genre simply means “kind,” “sort” or “species.” Genre analysis involves the study of such things as literary forms, figures of speech and style. (E.g. Miracles – Jonah; Hyperbole “a statement exaggerated fancifully, for effect” [see Mt. 9:35]; Personification “a poetic device by which inanimate objects or animals are given human characteristics” [see Isaiah 55:12]).

The Problem of Metaphor

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (e.g., Jesus saying: “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved.”).

The Medieval Quadriga

The “fourfold” method of interpretation examined each text for four meanings: literal, moral, allegorical, and analogical meanings. The literal sense of Scripture was defined as the plain and evident meaning. The moral sense was that which instructed humans how to behave. The allegorical sense revealed the content of faith, and the analogical expressed future hope. Thus passages, for example, that mentioned Jerusalem were capable of four different meanings. The literal sense referred to the capital of Judea and the central sanctuary of the nation. The moral sense of Jerusalem is the human soul (the “central sanctuary” of a person). The allegorical meaning of Jerusalem is the church (the center of Christian community). The analogical meaning of Jerusalem is heaven (the final hope of future residence for the people of God). Thus a single reference to Jerusalem could mean four things at the same time. If the Bible mentioned that people went up to Jerusalem, it meant that they went to a real earthly city, or that their souls “went up” to a place of moral excellence, or that we should someday go to heaven. During the reformation there was a firm reaction to this type of allegorizing. The Martin Luther rejected multiple meanings to biblical passages, he did not thereby restrict the application of Scripture to a single sense. Though a scriptural passage has one meaning, it may have a host of applications to the wide variety of nuances to our lives.

The Grammatical Historical Method

The grammatical-historical method focuses our attention on the original meaning of the text lest we “read into Scripture” our own ideas drawn from the present. Grammatical structure determines whether words are to be taken as questions (interrogative), commands (imperative) or declarative (indicative). For example, when Jesus says, “You shall be My witnesses” (Acts 1:8), is He making a prediction of future performance or issuing a sovereign mandate? Though the English form is unclear, the Greek structure of the words makes it perfectly clear that Jesus is not indulging in future prediction but issuing a command.

Other ambiguities of language can be cleared up and elucidated by acquiring a working knowledge of grammar. For example, when Paul says at the beginning of his epistle to the Romans that he is an apostle called to communicate “the gospel of God,” what does he mean by of? Does the of refer to the content of the gospel or its source? Does of really mean “about,” or is it a genitive of possession? The grammatical answer will determine whether Paul is saying that he is going to communicate a gospel that comes from and belongs to God. There is a big difference between the two, which can only be resolved by grammatical analysis. In this case the Greek structure reveals a genitive of possession, which answers the question for us.

Source Criticism

For example if we follow the notion that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke had Mark’s Gospel in front of them as they wrote, many of the questions of the relationship of the Gospels can be explained. We see further that both Luke and Matthew include certain information that is not found in Mark. Thus it seems that Luke and Matthew had a source of information available to them that Mark did not have or did not choose to use. Examining further, we find certain information found in Matthew that is found neither Mark nor Luke, and information that is in Luke that is found only in Luke. By isolating the material found only in Matthew or only in Luke, we can discern certain things about their priorities and concerns in writing. Knowing why an author writes what he writes helps us to understand what he writes. In contemporary reading it is important to read the author’s preface because the reasons and concerns for writing are usually spelled out there.

Authorship and Dating

If we know who wrote a particular book and know when that person lived, then of course we know the basic period when the book was written. If we know who wrote a book, to whom, under what circumstances and at what period of history, that information will greatly ease our difficulty in understanding it. By using methods of source criticism we can isolate materials common to particular writes (e.g. – most of the material we have about Joseph is found in Matthew because he was writing to a Jewish audience and the Jews had legal questions concerning Jesus’ claim of messiah-ship. Jesus’ legal father was Joseph, and that was very important for Matthew to show in order to establish the tribal lineage of Jesus).

Grammatical Errors

When Martin Luther said the “Scriptures never err,” he means that they never err with respect to the truth of what they are proclaiming.” (1)

In closing:

Why understanding language is essential:

“Suppose the word mountain meant metaphor, and dog, and Bible, and the United States. Clearly, if a word meant everything, it would mean nothing. If, now, the law of contradiction is an arbitrary convention, and if our linguistic theorists choose some other convention, I challenge them to write a book in conformity with their principles. As a matter of fact it will not be hard for them to do so. Nothing more is necessary than to write the word metaphor sixty, thousand times: Metaphor metaphor metaphor metaphor…. This means the dog ran up the mountain, for the word metaphor means dog, ran, and mountain. Unfortunately, the sentence “metaphor metaphor metaphor” also means, Next Christmas is Thanksgiving, for the word metaphor has these meanings as well.” (2)

We must not abandon literal biblical revelation:

“When Paul in human Greek says that God justifies believers, did he speak the literal truth or some other, unknowable kind of truth that is not truth at all? A phrase similar to “human language” occurs frequently in other authors. They contrast “human logic” with “divine logic.” But do they dare make explicit what this phrase means? Human logic says, if all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. But if divine logic is different, then all men can be mortal and Socrates can be a man, yet Socrates will not be mortal. Or, again, if human mathematics says that two plus two is four, and if divine truth differs from ours, then for God two and two are five or ten or anything but four. The point here is that human logic and divine logic are identical. Human logic is a part of the divine image in man. It is God’s trademark stamped upon us. Only by rejecting the Biblical doctrine of God’s image can one contrast human language with divine language and divine logic with human. Finally, if human language cannot be literally true, any assertion “language is not literal” cannot be literally true. The position is self-refuting, and one can have little hope of explaining how “language formed on mythical patterns” can convey God’s truth.” (3)

As a principal interpretive rule, Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture the plain statements of Scripture is the best explanation of a text!

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

From the notes of the Geneva Study Bible on 2Timothy 2:15:

(1) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

(2) The fifth admonition: a minister must not be an idle disputer, but a faithful steward in correctly dividing the word of truth, in so much, that he must stop the mouths of other vain babblers.

(3) By adding nothing to it, neither deleting anything, neither mangling it, nor rending it apart, nor distorting it: but marking diligently what his hearers are able to bear, and what is fit to edifying.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, Abridgement is from Chapter 3: Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation, (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP 2009) pp. 41-56.

2. Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 49-50.

3. Gordon Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation), p. 161-162.

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 the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

More Study:

Biblical Hermeneutics – A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry

Does federal government law prohibit a minister from talking about political issues from the pulpit? A primer By Jack Kettler

Does a minister have the freedom to address political issues from the pulpit? Assuming yes, should he do this? Should a minister endorse a political candidate? Should the state through its agencies have the right to say what a church may or may not say? What is the principal focus of the pulpit ministry? What is a political issue? Is it different from a biblical issue? It is the intent of this primer that the reader will come away with answers to these questions.

Some history of churches and politics in America:

Last century Congress modified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code § 501(c) (3) to restrict the speech of non-profit, tax-exempt organizations, which included churches in 1954. This legislation became the Johnson amendment for Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in July of 1954.

Before the Johnson amendment, there were no restrictions placed on churches by the government. The main stipulation in the amendment was that churches were not to endorse or oppose candidates for public office. The Johnson amendment does not prohibit church involvement in voter registration and even political debate forums among various candidates.

However, after the Johnson amendment became law, churches now had to limit the time discussing political issues and candidates for public office. Spending too much time could put at risk the church’s tax exemption status. Remaining silent would protect their tax exemption. Silence is not necessarily golden. Forfeiting the 501 (c) (3) status is a possible strategy for the continuing of political discussions and debate in the pulpits without fear of the IRS agents coming for a visit.

This primer does not believe the Johnson amendment is justified. This amendment in the hands of unscrupulous men can be used against Christ’s Church. At the same time, the amendment is not the end of the world issue for churches.

The crux of the matter, how is a political issue defined?

The term “political issue” can refer to things such as abortion, taxation, government welfare spending, public or private or homeschooling, sexual perversion, and immigration policies regarding foreign trade issues to name a few.

Can a political issue be a biblical issue? The student of Scripture will immediately recognize that the issues mentioned earlier are spoken of in the Bible. It can be argued that there are only biblical or moral issues. Because of the supremacy of the Bible in defining right and wrong, the Johnson amendment can be viewed as a trickster ploy, forcing an artificial redefinition of terms in order to silence and limit debate. The state cannot restrict how much time a church devotes to biblical or moral issues.

In 1Kings, we learn of Ahab as the seventh king over Israel and as a man who did more evil in the sight of Yahweh than any king who lived before him. Ahab engaged in politics, which were, at the same time, moral or biblical issues. Under the Johnson amendment, would Elijah have been able to rebuke Ahab and call for removal from office? Could Elijah have endorsed another candidate for office?

In 1Samuel 16, Samuel anoints David to be king. The anointing of a king is even stronger than endorsing a candidate. Would the IRS have moved against Samuel for violating the Johnson amendment? Biblically speaking, the IRS has no authority to determine what may be said in churches. The IRS is a tax collection agency, not speech monitoring agency, or is it. Will it next become a thought control agency?

Have ministers lost their freedoms? Can a minister speak against political, moral corruption in light of the Johnson amendment? Is this a quandary for ministers?

The so-called political issues listed above are, in fact, biblical issues; they are the same. The minister of God has the moral high ground. We can expose the Johnson amendment canard for what it is; it is a bald face attempt to switch definitions and silence the ministers of God in the pulpit.

The real quandary is for representatives from the IRS and their attempts to enforce the Johnson amendment:

What qualification does a representative from the IRS have to talk about biblical issues? Do they have biblical training in the science of exegesis? Since Congress created the IRS, constitutional restrictions apply to them also.

Representatives from the fed gov will not acknowledge this line of reasoning regarding them, and biblical qualifications to necessary distinguish biblical issues. No, not any more than an atheist will concede that his worldview cannot account for or justify the use of science, logic, and ethics.

The conflict between the Johnson amendment and the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Question: Does the Johnson amendment overturn or restrict rights that come from God enumerated in the First Amendment?

Answer: Yes, it does. Precisely, it does by violating “…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

Consider an example of the absurdity of so-called political issues and the Johnson amendment:

Which came first, the Scriptures or the “Johnny come lately,” Johnson amendment?

Consider the life issue in Scripture:

Just as the Scripture says, the babe in the womb is a baby:

“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe [βρέφος] leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe [βρέφος] in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke1:41-44)

Strong’s Lexicon:

Baby

βρέφος (brephos)

Noun – Nominative Neuter Singular

Strong’s Greek 1025: an unborn or a newborn child

God knows the distinct personalities of the unborn:

“The children struggled together within her, and she said, if it is thus, why is this happening to me? So she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said to her, Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger. When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.” (Genesis 25:22-26)

The death penalty is required for the killing of an unborn baby:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined…. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life….” (Exodus 21:22, 23)

These above passages are relevant to the modern day pro-life pro-death battle. Is the pro-life and the death-loving abortionists’ battle political? Alternatively, is the battle one of religious apostasy versus faithfulness to the teachings of Scripture? It may be political; however, it is first, Biblical!

When the above passages on babes in the womb were written, the land of North America was a harsh wilderness. The IRS was nowhere to be found.

Clarification:

This primer is not advocating the pulpit on Sunday to become a forum to expound the politics of the day. In addition, the previous statement should not be understood as to deny the Church of Christ through its various ministries the right to speak the truth with complete freedom.

Things put in perspective for activist hot heads:

What is the principal role of the pulpit ministry?

The church is to remain faithful to its primary mandate of Scriptural teaching and preaching and evangelism:

First, what type of preaching or teaching is best in the pulpit to support worship? Traditionally, in many Reformed Churches, there is catechetical and expository preaching.

Catechetical preaching uses a catechism such as the Heidelberg to organize the weekly sermons. Since the Heidelberg, catechism encompasses all of the essential doctrines of the faith. In time, the congregation will be well schooled in the Scriptures or the whole counsel of God.

Expository preaching starts with a passage of Scripture, and then it considers the grammar, the context, and the historical setting of that passage. This method is called the grammatical-historical method. Expository preaching usually comes, from a book-by-book, verse-by-verse exposition. Similarly, the book-by-book, verse-by-verse preaching, will in time teach the congregation the whole counsel of God.

These two methods may seem to limit the pulpit preaching when a biblical topic such as perverse sexuality is a hot button issue in an upcoming election. The church has many options to address issues outside of the pulpit.

Both the catechetical and expository methods cover the entire scope of the Scriptures or the whole of Scripture. When the Bible talks about sexuality, the preacher will preach on the topic. For example, the pastor is teaching on Romans 1:26-27, the issue of homosexuality will be covered.

Consider several ways to solve the problem created by the Johnson amendment and the need to address an issue biblically and expediently.

First, the church could declare the Johnson amendment null and void and an ungodly attempt to silence the churches’ moral authority. We should obey God rather than a man.

Second, the following are ideas for a biblical course action living within the reality of the Johnson amendment:

First, during Sunday school classes, topics can be covered in a more timely fashion that may be relevant to an immediate pressing biblical issue, like a pro-life march or collecting signatures for ballot initiatives. At a church announcement time, a verbal or printed handout can identify times and locations where important moral issues will be discussed along with plans of action.

Second, pastoral and congregational prayers can be used to petition the God of Heaven for relief from ungodly laws and political tyrants. Pastoral prayers necessarily involve praying for political leaders. These prayers in extreme circumstances could even be imprecatory.

Third, today, ministers can write books, write blogs, send e-mails, and give radio and television interviews on biblical issues. The Bible settles the debate on Scriptural issues, not fed gov representatives.

Forth, the Puritans in New England had Election Day sermons. An Election Day sermon was not on Sunday, but before voting. It could be in the morning, the day of the election or night before. The Election Day sermon was not a Lord’s Day sermon. It is therefore not a violation of the regulative principle of worship. A meeting like this could be handled by a ruling elder or someone appointed by the session of the local church. It could be at the church or a separate location. A separate location has the advantage of attracting more people.

The Puritans utilized a covenantal understanding of Scripture that taught the civil government is founded on an agreement between God and the people. Civil magistrates swore an oath of office similar to a minister’s ordination vows. Both the clergy and magistrates are ministers of God. The elected leaders were obliged to follow God’s laws from which the laws in a Godly society were built.

Blackstone expresses this Puritan understanding of government well:

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures…[and] are found upon comparison to be part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” – Sir William Blackstone

As long as the civil leaders were faithful to their swearing into a public oath of office to keep God’s laws, the people were to obey. If the leaders acted contrary to the terms of the oath of office, the people were to resist. Unfortunately, this concept of resistance is somewhat of a novel today.

“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” – John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)

“Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” – John Knox

Churches that teach the whole counsel of God will have a biblically educated membership. The biblically educated church members will go into the market place of ideas and press the biblical claims of truth. The members of the church can go as citizens into the political realm and press the claims of Christ where it may be prudent for the clergy to remain invisible.

The Priesthood of All Believers authorizes the individual church member to be representatives of Christ in society. The Priesthood of All Believers is the genius of Protestantism. Now we have a biblically educated spiritual army, rather than the limitations of the professional clergy. Limitations should be understood as numerical.

Is refusing the 501(c) (3) status, a solution allowing the church the freedom to endorse political candidates? Yes. Although theoretically, this may not satisfy a radical secular state.

If a church does choose disincorporation, it does not free the church from other biblical considerations relevant to the church and state relations.

The Church is Not Politics. The Church is the Church and is separate from the state. Even in the Old Testament, in Israel, there was a sharp distinction between the priesthood and kingship.

Practical reasons for a church not to endorse political candidates:

There is a danger for a church to engage in certain activities, such as endorsing political candidates. It has been a great temptation for churches to endorse political candidates throughout the ages. The church like everyone wants stability and security. Gaining the favor of politicians may seem like a reasonable course of action. A political endorsement is one way to gain favor. However, one of the dangers is that since churches cannot predict the future actions of political candidates, it is unwise for a church to place Christ’s stamp of approval on a political candidate who may in the future commit evil acts. An endorsement of a candidate who becomes evil will bring reproach upon Christ.

Theological reasons the church why should not endorse candidates for office:

Centuries before the Johnson amendment, the question concerning Christ’s Church endorsing political candidates has always been a theological issue. Many Reformed and Presbyterian churches have held to the position known as “sphere sovereignty.” Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian, and Prime minister, formally developed this position.

Kuyper summarized sphere sovereignty as follows:

“In order that the influence of Calvinism on our political development may be felt, it must be shown for what fundamental political conceptions Calvinism has opened the door, and how these political conceptions sprang from its root principle. This dominating principle was not, soteriologically, justification by faith, but, in the widest sense cosmologically, the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos, in all its spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible. A primordial Sovereignty which eradiates in mankind in a threefold deduced supremacy, viz., 1. The Sovereignty in the State; The Sovereignty in Society; The Sovereignty in the Church.” (1)

In addition to the God-ordained sovereignty of the threefold spheres, the confessional standards bind elders in Presbyterian Churches. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith in section 31:5 reads:

“Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.”

As seen in the above quotation from the Westminster Confession, the confession itself restricts the political activity of churches at the synod level. This section of the confession reflects the doctrine of “sphere sovereignty.”

Additional reasons for limiting the mingling with the state at the local congregation level:

Blurring the distinction between church and state is not wise. Consider the historical dispute between Protestants and Roman Catholics regarding the state. For those familiar with church history, it will be apparent that we have a far better situation than our forefathers. If independent churches and Protestants begin endorsing political candidates, will the Roman Catholics follow our lead?

The dangers of this:

The Roman Catholic Church in the past controlled political rulers. Tens of thousands of Protestants paid with their lives. In Colorado, for example, there are over four hundred thousand Roman Catholics. There are probably no more than two thousand people of Reformed convictions in the state. It is not difficult to figure out who will dominate politically. Large blocks of Roman Catholic following the decrees of Marxist utopian Pope is not a good political situation.

The fruit and the power of the pulpit ministry in Reformed Churches:

This may be why John Calvin has been called:

“The virtual founder of America.” In addition, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” – Harvard professor and historian George Bancroft.

John Adams, America’s second president, agreed and declared: “Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty in the West owes Calvin much respect.”

“Calvinists are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” – French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893)

“Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government.” – Lorraine Boettner

Consider Gordon H. Clark, a Presbyterian philosopher, and theologian’s essay on the role of civil magistrates:

“Where the Roman church controls the government, Protestants suffer oppression and physical persecution. Their churches are bombed and their ministers are murdered . . . . In our own land the Romanists are constantly attempting to divert public funds to their own purposes. A while back they were advocating an ambassador to the Vatican, and will probably push it again when they see an opportunity . . . . And bills have been introduced into Congress to honor the Virgin Mary by issuing commemorative stamps for the Marian year. Unfortunately, there are also Protestants who want a close tie-in of church and state.” (2)

At the current time, many Roman Catholics and Protestants work together on issues such as pro-life. Cooperation like this is a good thing. This cooperative arrangement is far better than reverting to radical sectarianism.

In conclusion, the above explication of ideas shows how the pulpit ministry can remain faithful in the duty of teaching the whole counsel of God and practical solutions for addressing the biblical issues of the day. The Church of God should never give up ground to pagan government representatives advancing the canard of redefining biblical issues into only so-called political issues.

In closing:

Does a minister have the freedom to address political issues from the pulpit? Yes

Should he do this? He may, but this depends upon other factors like not interfering with teaching the whole counsel of God. If unrestrained political activity is the norm, will the church be the church or an appendage of a political party or its own party?

Should a minister endorse a political candidate from the pulpit? Generally, no. Possibly yes, during extreme circumstances. As an individual citizen, ministers can endorse candidates.

What is the principal function of the pulpit ministry? It consists of teaching the whole counsel of God.

What is a political issue? A political issue can refer to things such as abortion, taxation, government welfare spending, public or private schooling, sexual perversion, and immigration policies regarding foreign trade issues, to name a few.

Is it different from a biblical issue? Yes and no. First, yes, Soteriology, eschatology, and studies in redemptive history would not be political issues. Second, no, the issues of abortion, taxation, etc. are biblical and not fundamentally different from many political issues.

Regarding the IRS and the Johnson amendment:

The state should allow the church to speak the truth, to all issues instead of silencing what a church may or may not say.

No agency of the state has the right to bind the church on speaking to the moral issues of the day.

Therefore, Congress should formally repeal the Johnson amendment.

The minister should follow the apostle Paul:

“For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27)

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. Abraham Kuyper, Lectures On Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted 1981), p. 79.

2. Gordon H. Clark, Essays On Ethics And Politics, (Jefferson, Maryland, The Trinity Foundation, 1992), p. 24.

For more Study:

The following books are useful helps for Catechetical preaching and gaining a knowledge of the whole counsel of God.

1. Thomas Vincent’s The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture. Banner of Truth.

2. Thomas Watson’s The Body of Divinity (in three volumes). Banner of Truth Trust. (Cf. each one of the three volumes deals with the chief portion of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)

3. Thomas Boston’s Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Vol. 1 & 2, Still Waters Revival Books.

4. G. I. Williamson, the Shorter Catechism, vol. 1 & 2. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company.

5. Thomas Ridgeley’s Commentary on the Larger Catechism, Vol. 1 & 2, Still Waters Revival Books.

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 the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com