—Martin Luther, the Gospel, and Government

By on

Martin Luther wrote,

“The world and the masses are and always will be unchristian, although they are* baptized and nominally Christian.  Hence a man who would venture to govern an entire community or the world with the Gospel would be like a shepherd who should place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep.  The sheep would keep the peace, but they would not last long.  The world cannot be ruled with a rosary.” (from Ch. 14 [p.239 of Hendrikson’s 2017 441pp., Hb. printing; 20.00 + P&H] of Here I Stand (1950) Bainton)

[* This might be better translated, “though they be”, because the world’s masses are not baptized, nor do the world’s masses imagine themselves on a basic level as being “Christian”; therefore the indefinite verb tense should be used, which then merely refers to those who fit this description, and not actually the world’s masses en toto.  “Though they be” would carry more of a connotation as, “even if they are”.  Note mine.  R.A.B.]

Luther’s statement is interesting, but has many flaws, and in other statements he draws wrong inferences from various passages of Scripture, and had a confused notion that government did not have to be Christian in order to function successfully.

This is true, untrue, and invalid.  It all depends on what one considers “success” and it all depends on presuppositional factors.

First of all, the sheep would not “keep the peace”.  That is a silly notion.  They would simply be a testimony concerning how not to be aggressors, and like good pacifists, die horribly without putting up any resistance.

However, if our bodies are the temple of God and God forbids us to defile them, is it then not also a sin to let someone else defile what is God’s? (our bodies) to which they have no right?  If it is a sin to steal, is it not a sin to stand idly by and let your neighbor be robbed?  If it is a sin to murder, is it not a sin to stand by passively and let your kinsman-neighbor be murdered? your very family be murdered? yourself be murdered?  

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (I Timothy 5:8)  

This passage from a Pastoral Epistle... does it not apply equally to self-defense as well as to providing food, raiment, and shelter (and education, including godly instruction)...?

I believe Luther was wrong in some of his opinions concerning the Crusades and the Turks.  

[I was floored that Luther said the best government on earth was that of the Turks who had no civil or canon law and were ruled only by the Koran! —and that he was opposed to theocracy!  Of course, different things that he said or wrote could have been written at different periods of his life when he had greater or lesser light; and presumably later in life he did not still hold to some fallacious things that he had expressed earlier in life; if he changed his mind about the Jews, I would hope he did about the Muslims / Islam also.  Count Dracula, Vlad Tepes III. “the Impaler” (1431-1476) also “kept the peace” and ruled quite successfully... but the term Draconian fits him perfectly.  He delighted in impaling people upright from their rectum upward on sharpened poles fastened in the ground (as the American Indians did too)... even hundreds of victims at a time, during his garden parties.  He impaled people equally for large or great offenses, for murder or for stealing a piece of bread or short changing someone a nickle.  While people were afraid to commit any crime in his jurisdiction of Transylvania, and his enemies of foreign nations feared him even more, I would certainly not suggest that his was the best government on earth—and that characterization applies identically to the Turks / Islam.  The end does not justify the means.  God gave us His people the best government on earth via Theocracy and His Word.  When we obeyed God our nations experienced their Golden Ages.]

It is “one-eyed” thinking to imagine that if God sends evil nations against us that we are not to defend ourselves because it is God’s Judgment.  THAT is only the case if there is a prophet of God on earth and God CLEARLY REVEALS THROUGH THAT PROPHET (like He did with Jeremiah) not to resist but accept Judgment.  Without such a Prophet, how could anyone know that the enemy invasion was Judgment, regardless of how they were to respond to it?  What if it was a “test” (or God’s method of a national cleansing, culling out those God ordained to be removed) and not terminal Judgment?  If God expects us to accept invasion by enemy alien nations why then would God require the blood of the watchmen on the wall if they saw but did not warn of the enemy’s approach? —if we are simply to allow the “scourge of God” to pass through our nations unopposed and destroy us?  In one rare example at the end of the Kingdom of Judah God told the inhabitants of Jerusalem through Jeremiah not to resist the conquering Babylonians; those who surrendered (the good figs) would live; those who resisted (the bad figs) would die.  This was a rare exception, not the standard modus operandi that God expected of His people.  If God desires us in some specific situation to surrender and not resist, then would He not tell us in some way, since that is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself?

God also kills 2 birds with one stone: He sends savage aliens to chasten His people, but He also gives savages opportunity to fill up the measure of God’s Wrath, so that they will be fully deserving of the Judgment that God has ordained for them.  However, if God’s people gave up whenever savages attacked, God’s people would have become extinct long ago.  The righteous sometimes suffer with the wicked, as even godly King Josiah was struck by a stray arrow in battle (even as the evil King Ahab had been).  Everyone must die and God determines how and when.

Again, as I have long stated, when meeting on the field of battle in sport or war, if one side religiously follows a rigid set of rules and the other side follows no rules, without outside intervention the side that follows no rules will win every time.  

However, it is not the job of sheep to lay down their lives for the wolves (nor for the dogs, pigs, or serpents).  The fact that sheep are not the aggressors in sheep-wolf interaction is not a truth that is to be generalized to any area of life or thinking.  Wolves and sheep are not supposed to be together, and therefore, to imagine a society in which they are together is otherworldly.  In the Kingdom the fear and aggression of animals toward one another and toward man will be removed, and those creatures that God has ordained to continue to exist in the Kingdom will live in harmony as before the Flood and as (briefly) in Eden.  However, such passages are only talking about the creatures so mentioned (lion, lamb, ox, adder, etc.) and are not to be falsely generalized to all mixes of people alive today on the earth (many of which God did not plant, or those whom He created as vessels of wrath).  God clearly says that He will make a full end of all the nations whither He scattered His people, but He will not make a full end of His people.  There will be only one people in the Kingdom—God’s people; and Christ said that when He returns that He will command the angels to uproot every plant that His Heavenly Father had not planted (hybrids: corruptions of His creation).  Wishing-well theology, spiritual fantasy, and all other forms of humanism are not of God and have no bearing on reality and those who embrace their own humanistic fantasy instead of the Doctrine of the Word of God, are the enemies of God.

Christ indeed said that He sent forth His disciples as sheep among wolves—but those wolves were mostly their own people (instigated to aggression by alien imposters as leaders, wolves masquerading in sheep’s clothing, with sheep “name-tags”).  And furthermore, the purpose of sending the disciples out as sheep among wolves was not to convert the wolves but to rescue the sheep!  

Christ trained His disciples to be “fishers of men”—not of just any men, but of God’s people.  The “other sheep” that Christ said that He had were those of His people whom God had scattered abroad throughout the earth whom He promised to regather.  Christ was sent to organize the beginning of this regathering.  That is the reason why He was training His disciples to begin seeking out the sheep (first locally under His direct supervision; then worldwide).  

God said that He would send out hunters, not to kill, but to track (and thus, “trackers” would have been the better translation; the Hebrew word means “to chase”) and to lead the sheep back; and He said that He would send out many fishers—for His people; that He would make a full end of all the nations whither He would scatter His people, but not make a full end of His people.  God calls His people alone “sheep”.  

The prophecy upon Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh (who, being the most prominent, often represented the whole House of Israel) was—

“The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Genesis 48:16)

The word translated, “grow” is a hapax legomenon; it is the Hebrew #1711 dawgaw and means, “to move rapidly, spawn like a fish”.  It would seem reasonable to assume that a word used only once in all of Scripture may be something of which to sit up and take notice.

Christ commanded, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs [the children’s Bread—Christ] nor cast pearls before swine”.  It is the duty of the fishers of god-men to bring in the fish that God has ordained to be brought in—it is not the duty of the fishermen to throw themselves overboard to the sharks!  THAT is the error of modern missions which violates all that God commanded and all that Christ taught in these areas.  In the parable of the fishes (which follows the parable of the tares) Christ says all sorts / kinds of fish were brought into the net.  The GOOD were kept and the bad / vile (PUTRID) were cast into a furnace of fire!  What was a furnace doing on the beach? —which is where fishermen sorted the day’s catch.  God does not use words for no reason.  The “good” are those whom God has called of His people, who have received substitutionary atonement through Christ and justification whereby His Righteousness is imputed unto them.  

One of the main gates into the city of Jerusalem (where only God’s people were to be admitted—that was the purpose of walls and gates and watchmen) was the “fish gate”; and another was the “sheep gate”.  Coincidence?  Meaningless?  
The Prophet Amos recorded:

“2The Lord GOD hath sworn by His Holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that He will take you away with hooks, and your posterity with fishhooks.  3And ye shall go out at the breaches, every cow at that which is before her; and ye shall cast them into the palace, saith the LORD.  4Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years.” (Amos 4)

Understand, words in italics in the King James Version of the Bible are words that are not in the Hebrew or Greek Manuscripts, but words that are added by the translators for clarity; most often the are correct, but not always.  Many words can have more than one meaning and sometimes they picked the wrong meaning, missing the contextual intention.  “Cows” may seem out of place, but declares,

“1Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink.”

In my Bittersweet Impressions & Inspirations* I render this whole chapter (as I do many other chapters of Scripture) in verse, paraphrasing, but also at times using more literal intention of the words.  I render these four verses of this chapter:

[poems and a few short stories, 310pp., pb., 20.00 + P&H.]

O hear ye heifers strong and proud, that feed upon the mountains high;
you press o’er others who are weak, and crush those who do gasping cry;
and orders to your masters give, with brazen eye and sneering face;
“Bring to us now so we may drink, that we may have a drunken race.”
By Holiness My own I swear—know Yahweh Elohiym am I:
your evil one day I’ll repay, I’ll pour down Judgment from the sky;
your lips I’ll pierce with hooks and more, and your own seed that’s gone astray;
I’ll string you up like captur’d fish, and then I’ll carry you away.
Like cows who mindlessly escape, through many breaches in the wall,
hurl ye yourselves from the high place, but none shall catch you when you fall;
stumble ye on in blindess vain, follow the blind who leads the way;
but ye shall soon full dread the night, and then you’ll curse the light of day.
Come, come to Bethel and transgress, to Gilgal heap you up more sin;
continue on in wickedness, and wallow in your filth and grin;
ignore the coming Judgment hard, go through the motions for the poor;
maintain the pretense of your heart, here soon you’ll worship Me no more.

This translation is the correct meaning.  It is true that Scripture often mixes metaphors.  In v.1 God’s people were referred to as “kine [cows] of Bashan”.  The word fishhooks is used, because the brutal Assyrians often put a fishhook in the lips of their victims, tied to a fishline, and the prisoners would have to keep up the pace or suffer incredible pain.  If the hook ripped through the lips, it seems most likely the hook was put back in, in another spot.  

However, God ordained for the Assyrians to employ this practice of using fish-hooks because it also parallels the capture of fish.  Thus, the metaphor may continue referring to kine / cattle, or it could refer to fish (or at least convey that secondary concept to the mind that understands the language and Bible prophecy).  The breaches could refer to compromised spots in a fish pond, where fish would escape or be swept out from a high plateau reservoir, to be washed down the waterfalls and cataracts; or breaches could refer to gaps in the pasture enclosure through which stupid cattle escape (and thus no longer being safe from predators or poachers / thieves).  In the Bible the general term cattle refers to all domestic ruminant livestock, large cattle (cows, oxen) or small cattle (goats, sheep).  Though this chapter of Amos begins speaking specifically of a special breed of wild bovine (wild symbolizing “lawless”), the concept of escaping through breaches or gaps in a fence or hedgerow apply to sheep and goats as well; all such ruminants being a bit dense-minded and stubborn—not being content with the luxurious bounty provided for them, but always thinking that there is something better just on the other side of the lawfully established boundaries.  God’s people are no different.

However, “palaces” as a translation seems to be completely misconceptualized.  The intention is not a palace, but a high place.  The cows of Bashan were extremely powerful due to their breed and the rich pasture land of that highland area fed by the mineral-rich rivers from the mountains even higher up.  Being powerful, they were also haughty, and they thought that they were invincible, and occupied the high places in the plateaus or mountains where they grazed.  But God declares, not that they would be thrown into “a palace” (a completely senseless notion), but that they would be cast down from their high places.  This is what God’s people were condemned for in v.4 and in many other passages of Scripture: They had a fondness for having “learned the way of the heathen” and polluted the true worship of God with pagan practices which rituals of worship and sacrifice were observed in the high places (on tops of hills, mounts, or even man-made structures, the Tower of Babel being the epitome of the concept—the intention was not a tower that literally reached to the heavens, but a tower that had at the very top a shrine for the worship of heavenly bodies: sun, moon, planets, comets, etc.; as I explain in my book, What Was the Mark that God Placed on Cain?, 584pp., pb., 30.00 + P&H).
Christ Himself, rebuked the Israelite elite, the Pharisees and others, who exalted themselves in another fashion; not necessarily worshiping in high places in the groves (though many did pervert the Word of God and even replace it entirely with their own tradition), but exalting themselves and oppressing others:

“1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, 2Saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.  4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.  5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, “Rabbi, Rabbi”.  8But be not ye called “Rabbi”: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.  9And call no man your “father” [in terms of the elders in the Temple or synagogue] upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in Heaven.  10Neither be ye called “masters”: for one is your Master, even Christ.  11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted’.” (Matthew 23)


“7And He put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when He marked [noticed] how they chose out the chief rooms [for themselves]; saying unto them, 8‘When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; 9And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, “Give this man [your] place”; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.  10But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, “Friend, go up higher”: then shalt thou have worship [honour] in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.  11For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted’.” (Luke 14)

And James declared

“1My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons. 2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, ‘Sit thou here in a good place’; and say to the poor, ‘Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool’: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?  5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?  6But ye have despised the poor.  Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?  7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?  8If ye fulfil the Royal Law according to the Scripture, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” (ch.2)

[Understand: Like many passages of Scripture, this is not a general statement that applies to every possible situation.  It is specific to context.  This applies to situations within the church, please of meeting.  It does not apply in personal situations, nor professional.  God Himself determines who will sit at Christ’s Right Hand, and His Left, and who shall be cast into outer darkness.  The passage is also talking of status, wealth, possibly education; it is not talking about morality or responsibility.  If the person in vile raiment was a drunkard and let his family go without while he spent the lion’s share of income on himself, promiscuously, then certainly this invitation would not apply either, even in the Sanctuary (where he would not even be admitted).]

It is from these high places that God says that they would be cast down; not that they would be thrown “into palaces”.
In Jeremiah 16 God declares,

“16Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters [trackers, trappers], and they shall hunt them from every mountain [large nation], and from every hill [small nation], and out of the holes of the rocks.  17For Mine Eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from My Face...”

Christ sees Peter and his brother Andrew plying their trade by the seashore, mending their nets, and commands, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:18).  Coincidence?  God said that He would scatter His people as wheat and regather whom He scattered; and Scripture prophesied, “Smite the Shepherd and scatter the flock” (Zechariah 13:7).  Christ said, “he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12:30).  God said that He would harden the hearts, blind the eyes, stop the ears, stiffen the necks, close the minds of His people because of their unrepentant sin (Isaiah 6:10).  Christ declared, at the beginning of His Ministry—shocking those in the synagogue”

“18‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord’.  20And He closed the Book [Scroll], and He gave it again to the minister [“under-oarsman”, thus “subordinate”, “assistant”, sexton], and sat down.  And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him.  21And He began to say unto them, ‘This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears’.” (Luke 4)

Christ then told the disciples, at the beginning of His Ministry, in the First Great Commission to go to no one but the Lost sheep of the House of Israel, locally.  The Second Great Commission did not change the target, only the scope: worldwide whither God had scattered them.  God said that He scattered His people as a farmer scatters wheat (which grows and produces more, which is planted and grows and produces more) until finally God would regather the final crop of whom He originally scattered—His people true Israel,* the wheat; not the tares; not the weeds, thistles, briers, stubble, insects detritus, or vermin in the field.  Again, God said that He would make a full end of the alien nations whither He scattered His people (from whom they were to be separate, not amalgamate) but He would not make a full end of His people (Jeremiah 30:11; 46:28).

[* —the true peoples of Christendom, the true descendents of Biblical Israel; not the Jews, who are the Edomite-Canaanite imposters who stole true Israel’s identity.  See my book, Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance, 192pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H, Hb. 28.00 + P&H; and my booklet, God’s Chosen People, 88pp., 6.00 + P&H.]

God commanded His people to be the aggressors at times, going out against evil people to cut them off from the land of the living.  Some may argue that this was solely civil government, but that is a fallacy.  The civil government itself was comprised of the same people following the same laws given by God—and there was an entire company of Levites who were singers who sang praises to God—and even went before the army into battle with the chief priests (as in a campaign of King Jehoshaphat against the Ammonites and Moabites in II Chronicles 20:21; or against the Benjamites for protecting the handful of homoperverts in Judges 19-21), and priests who blew trumpets often followed behind the army.  Furthermore, the Izharite, Chenaniah, Chief of the Levites, was skillful in song and called “master of song”—however, his sons, Levites, were officers and judges!  Phinehas himself was a priest, but when the judges were slow to act, he acted boldly with zeal to obey God and struck down a prince of Simon and the alien princess with whom he was fornicating.  God did not intend for the ecclesiastical and civil arms to be a left hand that does not know what the right hand is doing but for them to be woven together and act in unison—one body, with different, but interrelated functions.

There is also a difference between authority and power.  Just because someone is in the seat of power does not make him legitimate authority.  The Herods were illegitimate puppet kings over Israel—but they were not established by God, by the priests, or by the people, but set up by Caesar (to have a Shylock in power who would be loyal to Caesar, not to God or to the Israelites).  However, God forbade the Israelites to set up over them as ruler any man who was not a pure kinsman—no alien (Deuteronomy 17:15); and this included all mongrels, whom God always commanded to be sent away with the alien wives.  Thus, while God certainly, as Benjamin Franklin declared, “governs in the affairs of men”, God indeed ordained the Herods or other evil illegitimate usurpers to be in positions of power but that does not mean that God expected the people to obey them.  That is part of Judgment: being between a rock and a hard place; trying to kick against the pricks (ox-goads); having to swim against the current; against the wind; laboriously travel uphill with a heavy burden.  The road back is not an easy road, but it is the only road.  It is a fine line to straddle (existing under alien rule, even oppression).  Look how Daniel and the 3 Hebrew men Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah refused to bow down.  How many others did bow down? —THEY were the ones who deserved the fiery furnace and the lion’s den; and that is why God delivered those who refused to compromise, while all the masses of Israelites who cowardly prostituted themselves in idolatry have no lasting testimony to their honor, and they probably died in judgment.

Indeed God sent Philistines and Midianites and others as oppressive overlords over the Israelites, during the period of the Judges; and the Israelites were not even allowed to have their own sharpening instruments (lest they make weapons) and they had to take their farm tools to the enemy to be sharpened!  But understand: Any Israelite who had his own sharpening tool or who made weapons was not sinning against God, any more than Gideon sinned by secretly threshing his wheat so that the illegitimate authority—the occupying enemy could not know how much increase that he had and tax him on it.  Ehud, Shamgar, and others, who “resisted” these illegitimate powers (though those powers were ordained by God for the purpose of oppression, not for legitimate rule) were not in sin against God.  

Each situation of an Israelite “resisting” the oppression of the controlling enemy power must be adjudicated on its own merit, based upon the specific circumstances and based upon the heart of the individual Israelite.  If the individual’s heart was right with God, then the oppression was not sent for him, though the overflow affected him.  Thus, if an evil-hearted Israelite, for whom God sent the oppression, attempted to resist the power, then most likely he would be slapped down because God sent the oppressors to judge people like him who refused to repent of their sins before God.  So just because God has ordained evil rulers to fill an evil role to oppress His people to chasten those of the elect who are in sin, to bring them to repentance, this does not establish the oppressing, ruling enemy as legitimate authority; they were established by God for a different purpose.  

[For more info on this see my book, The War Between the Children of Light and the Powers of Darkness (1995) 506pp., pb., 20.00 + P&H; Hb., 30.00 + P&H.]

In the nations of Christendom, people had a general concept of right and wrong (until the invasion of the Third World and the ascension of Antichrists to pollute our society and minds) because God promised to write His Law upon the hearts of His people.  Other peoples do not share these basic concepts of morality because they are not of God.  Luther may have expressed something like a belief in the basic goodness of man, but that is not what he meant; (though he did not so express it, at least not as quoted in Bainton’s biography) Luther meant a degree of blanketing of God’s people with General Grace whereby in their consciences, they knew that certain behaviours were immoral.  However, the recognition of this morality has changed as we have absorbed aliens.  To many of the invading aliens, stealing, murder, adultery (especially against “infidels”, but also against their own people) are considered “virtues” and those who commit such acts against our people are considered heroes...!  And these are the people that our corrupt, treasonous, criminal politicians are importing en masse into all of Christendom—to our destruction.

[God send a pestilence of Bubonic proportions! and turn the weapons of the enemies back on themselves!  Go down Babylon!  Let the perverts and antichrists no longer be a reproach and parade their filth blatantly and proudly and fearlessly.  Give them reason to fear; have them run and hide in a closet in their basement from Your Wrath.  Where is the God of Elijah!  Arise and put on Judgment as a garment!  Gather Your lambs into Your Arms and send a plague on the wolves, dogs, pigs, serpents, vermin and bottomfeeders.

“7For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his dwelling place.  8O remember not against us former iniquities: let Thy tender mercies speedily prevent us: for we are brought very low.  9Help us, O God of our salvation, for the Glory of Thy Name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for Thy Name’s Sake.  10Wherefore should the heathen say, ‘Where is their God?’ let Him be known among the heathen in our sight by the revenging of the blood of Thy servants which is shed.  11Let the sighing of the prisoner come before Thee; according to the Greatness of Thy Power preserve Thou those that are appointed to die; 12And render unto our neighbours* sevenfold into their bosom their reproach, wherewith they have reproached Thee, O Lord.  13So we Thy people and sheep of thy pasture will give Thee thanks for ever: we will show forth Thy Praise to all generations.” (Psalm 79)  

{* Note: The word translated “neighbours”, like the numerous Hebrew and Greek words for “stranger”, even as the Hebrew and Greek words mistranslated “Gentiles” are all like pronouns—they are generic words and can apply to any people, of our own or alien nations.  CONTEXT (immediate in the passage and in harmony with overall Scripture) ALONE determines exactly to whom these words apply.  Clearly, in this passage, David is referring to alien, heathen, hostile, cursed nations that surrounded Israel.  He is not talking about his kinsmen living in the next house or the next Israelite village.  For detailed studies of this topic, see my series Apologetic Expostions: Acts 13, 15; Isaiah 56; Galatians 3; II Corinthians 3 (all 88pp., each, 6.00 + P&H each) and John 4 (46pp., 4.50 + P&H).}

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O Arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old.” (Isaiah51:9)]

One of our Founding Fathers, First Vice-President and Second President of the U.S., John Adams, expressed,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [Christian*] people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”  

[When the Puritans, Pilgrims, early Colonists, Founders used the word “religion” they referred to Christianity: for they knew there is only one true faith, only one true God, and other peoples did not have “religion” but paganism or superstitions.  Referring to false religions as “religion” gives them a false sense of legitimacy in the minds of the liberals and in the minds of the ignorant, into thinking that all religions are valid, acceptable, and have value—when they are not and they do NOT.  What part of “no other gods” don’t Christians understand...?  It might be good for the average Christian to begin working on an answer to that question now—for they will soon have to answer that question before God.  All roads do not lead to Rome.  False gods and idolatry are abominations that God will judge—and He will also judge those who tolerate, support, recognize, and “defends the rights” of such EVIL, even if they do not personally engage in it.  And that is what all false religions are—EVIL.  False religion and idols are not merely notions that humans have devised.  Scripture tells us that demons [most often mistranslated “devils”] have deceived God’s people (and the heathen as well) into worshipping THEM (those demons) through those idols and false religions (I Corinthians 10:20,21).  While indeed, much of the pagan mythologies of our people (Norse, Britonic, Saxon, Roman, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, etc.) were a combination of our Israelite history and elements of the true faith that were corrupted and mixed with more-recent history of those individual tribes, and paganism, it was Satan and demons who deceived our kinsmen into corrupting that which was true into that which was false (Romans 1:16-25).  God ordained it all during the period of our national blindness; but sadly, a percentage of our people, the moral dregs, cling to that which is corrupt and reject that which is true—even as in the Old Testament.]  

Our original form of government is not possible in a multicultural, inter-“faith”, gender perverse society, because those who are antichrist play by a different set of rules: They are not “hard wired” for morality, they are not the same, and our Founders did NOT extend to them equal rights.  No sane society gives equal rights to those who are not the same, not equal, not legitimate, not truly “US”.  Again, that is like sheep and wolves voting on what to have for dinner (a concept attributed also to Franklin).  You cannot have a fair vote or a safe society if more wolves are being imported to stack the voting ballot.  As Adams expressed, our form of government is only suitable for a moral, Christian people.  And THAT is why the conspirators are importing tens of millions of aliens; who reproduce 10x faster because they don’t care about the quality of life of their offspring—they are merely breeding an army; like wolves, once the offspring have learned to fend for themselves, they are on their own.  The aliens also produce much faster because of all the welfare handouts that our treasonous politicians bestow on them, robbing us.  May God SWIFTLY judge all such traitors and have them REAP the revolution, the treason, and the violence that that they have sown!  Only fools expect a “fair fight” or a “peaceful society” between such savages and lambs!

[See my short parody booklet, New “Department of Farmland Security” Mandates Effective Immediately, 20pp., 2.00 + P&H.]

Luther did not realize that the “successful” administration of secular government is only possible when it is our people who fill every level of government and society to rule over our people who fill every community.  Later in life, Luther seems to have realized some of these things more clearly; but not in the beginning.  Furthermore, he could not have possibly—without a Divine vision—foreseen that all the alien heathen savages of the world would not merely invade Christendom—but that they would be invited to invade Christendom by treasonous wolves in sheep’s clothing in every level of church and state.  Later Luther explained that the antichrists were unconvertable and that the secular public schools were incubators of evil to which no parent should send his children.  So much for the “successful” secular state that does not need to be Christian.  

God gave His people the Dominion Mandate: “Tread down.  Subdue.  Have dominion.”  It is not a “gentlemanly affair”, in which one “requests permission” while wearing white gloves and a tuxedo.  It is not the inane, insane and (thankfully) archaic British notion of a “fair fight” in which both sides line up on opposite ends of a field, stand exposed in their ranks, and take turns shooting volley of lead into each other!  Why did such engagements not begin with the generals shooting at each other...? then the majors, captains, and other officers—AND THEN the common foot soldiers? —because it was abominable nonsense, the generals knew it, and they immorally allowed it and did not stand up to the king or the president and say, “NO, I will not put my men in harm’s way to be slaughtered like swine!  Maybe if YOU and the enemy king can stand in an open field and shoot first, then I will reconsider!”

[It was General George Washington who saved the day.  General Braddock was foolishly carrying out the standard “gentlemanly” battle array, having his men stand exposed, while the British had employed Indians who were carrying out guerilla warfare!  After General Braddock was shot, Washington took charge and told the men “fight fire with fire”; that is, to take cover, and like the Indians, hide behind rocks and trees and shoot from a safe place, and not stand out exposed.  While this practice of each side taking turns shooting AS SITTING DUCKS the other army’s men all lined up neatly in a row on the other side of the field was the EPITOME OF FOLLY, doing so against Indians who did not play by the same rules, who were shooting from behind rocks and trees, was DOUBLE FOLLY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.  See the fantastic book, Faith & Freedom: Christian Roots of American Liberty, Hart, 384pp. excellent; one best books on Christian roots of U.S.; out of print, good used pb./Hb. copies; inquire.]

When God had His prophets and apostles write the Scriptures concerning the topic of “authority”, the Scriptures dealing with that topic were all based on presuppositions, founded in previous Declarations and Commands—in harmony, that is—with the entire Word of God that had already been given.  When God gave any Command in Scripture, it did NOT come with the added memo, “This Commandments replaces all previous Commands which are now obsolete and no longer binding”.  If there seems to be a contradiction—YOU are CONFUSED.  Find the resolution; don’t EVER throw out the old and then VIOLATE it, and anti-intellectually attempt to understand the new all by itself (which would be like trying to use a 4-legged table after you have sawn off and discarded 2 of the legs!  Each subsequent Command was in perfect harmony with each previous Command—and THAT is how each is to be understood.   God commanded His people to be separate from alien peoples.  NOTHING will ever change that.  God is True.  That is His Nature.  He cannot be untrue.  He is Immutable, Perfect, and Holy.  He never changes.  Why don’t you believe that?  If you do, then interpret His Word consistently, just as you would understand every other book, not forgetting all you learned in previous chapters and acting like information in subsequent chapters is “entirely new” and “unrelated” to previous information.  Truth BUILDS ON previous Truth.  It does not matter if you are talking about apples, oranges, or peanut butter.  Instructions: 1. Get a jar of peanut butter.  2. Open the jar.  Gosh... I’m confused.  What jar could the instructions possibly be talking about?  Sadly, that is how most “Christians” interpret or “understand” the Word of God.  Follow the flow of the story.  The Theme and Rules and People NEVER change.  The Plot NEVER changes.  If you are driving from Maine to Arizona, just because you don’t drive in a straight line, but visit other cities along the way, does NOT mean that the destination has ever changed.  The plot does not change, but like any good novel, it takes twists and turns (of which the reader is usually ignorant) to eventually lead where the author intended for it to lead all along.  There are no mistakes along the way of God’s Novel—they are all learning experiences for us, and for His Glory; even if man, with his tiny brain, cannot understand how some things can be for God’s Glory.  His Thoughts and Ways are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8,9).  It is amazing that “Christians” forget key verses they know so well—JUST WHEN THEY NEED TO REMEMBER THEM...!  “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!” (Isaiah 45:9)

Aliens had no place in the society of God’s people and were to be shunned (aliens are not to be confused with kinsmen “strangers”, that is, those lateral branches of the same Adamic family (those who had not amalgamated with the nonadamites and those who had not mixed with cursed peoples of the world), or those very brethren who were raised in foreign lands, for whatever reason:

- such as Ruth being born in Moab after her parents had relocated to the fields of Moab to escape famine; though Elimelech and Naomi later followed with their sons, who had been born in the land of Israel, and so, Elimelech and Naomi’s sons were not foreign born;

- such as Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh being born in Egypt, because Joseph himself had been sold into slavery when young, and he was raised by God to prominence in Egypt.  

[This is another reason that Jacob adopted (“let my name be named on them”) Ephraim and Manasseh, splitting the tribe of Joseph among them.  Joseph was the true firstborn of Jacob, as I explain in several of my books.  Jacob intended to marry Rachel only; he was tricked into marrying Leah.  Joseph was Jacob’s firstborn by Rachel.  The first-born son received a double-portion of the inheritance of the other son(s).  Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, partly because they were grandsons and not sons, but also partly because they were foreign born, apart from the body of Israel, and thus “strangers”; but kinsmen-strangers, not “aliens”.  Ephraim and Manasseh would only have been aliens had Joseph sinned and married an alien woman—which God forbade and never “overlooked” and anyone who thinks so errs and does not know the Scriptures or God.  God is Holy and Immutable and Just.  The original Egyptians were a pure Hamitic (white) people.  They became what they are today, after Israel (their several million Hebrew slaves) exodused and left Egypt a shambles.  Egypt then imported Nubian slaves from father south in Africa, to aid in rebuilding the nation; and eventually the Egyptians intermarried with the nonAdamic Nubians and other cursed peoples (like Turks, who are Hittite-Canaanites; and with the eventual mongrelized progeny of Ishmael)—and this was the means by which God fulfilled His Prophetic Decree that Egypt would never again be a nation of any significance in the world.  Also, the Aramaean Hyksos or “Shepherd Kings” ruled Egypt shortly before Israel entered Egypt, and thus the ruling class of priests and kings could have been Aramaean, and there is evidence that seems to support this.  Regardless, had Joseph sinned and married an alien, God would have commanded him to put away his alien wife and send her and all children by her away.  This is what God commanded.  God does not violate His own Law and make some keep it and others not.  The other instances in which God does not rebuke are evidence that there is information missing in the story, which information I supply in many of my books; such as Ruth; Rehoboam’s mother; Hagar; Moses’ “Ethiopian” wife, and his wife, the daughter of the priest and prince of Midian (Reuel (his priestly name) /  Jethro (his princely name).  God hid truth so that those unworthy of it would not see it.  Those who assume that God contradicts Himself, will never know truth, except on an elementary level—and full of doubts.]

God forbade us setting up any alien—any man who is not our legitimate kinsmen—to rule over us. Had Ruth been a Moabitess (rather than a pure kinswoman born in the land of Moab), had Rehoboam’s mother been a racial Ammonitess (rather than a pure kinswoman born in the land of Ammon) King David and Solomon and all of the Kings of Judah would have been ineligible to be King of Israel—and Christ would have been ineligible to be King or Redeemer (Saviour) and He would have been with spot and blemish and of people whom God cursed forever!

[* See my book, S.T.E.C. on Ruth: The Truth About Ruth—Ruth, the Israelite, 328pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H.  As I expressed to someone who emailed, about some terrible statements that Col. Gordon “Jack” Mohr made in one of his books, Christianity’s Ancient Enemy, in that Mohr mindlessly wrote:

“Racial discrimination and segregation were not practiced strictly in the time of David and Solomon, as can be seen by David’s adulteress affair with Bath-sheba, who was a Hittite.  (Zionist apologists say she was a Jewess married to a Hittite, but this is mere supposition.  She was the daughter of Ammiel but I have been unable to find out what her nationality really was.”

This is shameless, unscholarly, and typically, illogical.  Mohr dismisses as “mere supposition” the position of what he calls “Zionist apologists” (without defining what he means by that term)—but then he maintains that his position is correct even though he confesses ignorance of Bathesheba’s racial identity (which makes what he himself says, “mere supposition”).  Furthermore, he was a very poor researcher if he did not know Bathsheba’s identity, which I have explained in numerous of my books.  If Col. Mohr had used his Strong’s Concordance, he would have very easily discovered that Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam (II Samuel 11:13).  Mohr thinks that she was the daughter of Ammiel, either because he did not do his homework, or because the truth did not fit into his “theory”.  He took I Chronicles 3:5 as all the truth that existed in the Scriptures concerning Bathsheba.  If he did a simple search, he either made no effort to reconcile the seeming discrepancy, or he simply chose to believe what he wanted to believe and refused to do any real study.  It is also odd that he did no further investigation, because in this passage Bathsheba (“daughter of an oath) is not called by her common name, but by the name Bathshua (daughter of wealth).  Some think this is a scribal error (the Hebrew letters that comprise the discrepancy being very similar).  However, there is no reason for that false assumption.  Many people had several different names, nicknames, pet names, new names assumed after a monumental event, names in different langauges, etc., which is common throughout Scripture.  Is it any surprise that Ammiel and Eliam are the same person, the name being reversed?  Ammiel means, “people of God”; Eliam means, “God of the people”.  Whether this represents another scribal error, or the fact that Eliam was called both names, we cannot know for certain; but we have no reason to assume the text contains a scribal error when there is a perfectly good explanation.  Naomi herself said, “Call me no longer Naomi [pleasant] but Mara [bitter]” (Ruth 1:20).  While these two names bear no affinity, that is immaterial; as not all name changes were similar linguistically in the words’ appearance, but in their meaning.  Peter (“a piece of rock, fragment, stone” in Greek) was also called Cephas (“rock” in Helenized Aramaean, from keyf, meaning—ironically, “a hollow rock”), as well as Simon (the Hellenized form of the Hebrew Simeon).  Thus, we see that Mohr filled who knows how many people’s minds full of abominable false doctrine, because he was too lazy or dull minded to do his homework.  

I don’t mean to insult him, but his mindless (or dishonest) declaration is a serious matter that any half-rate scholar could have cleared up in 5 minutes.  I admired Jack for his dedication; but he was no scholar, thinker, or writer—though he did produce a prodigous amount of pamphlets, booklets, and books, they do contain major flaws, and thus, the value of most are “hit or miss”.  I always, out of respect for his long dedication, mailed him a complementary copy of every new book of mine, for over a decade.  He always had nothing but the highest praise for each.  I made several suggestions to him.  One of my simple, perfectly reasonable suggestions was to put a date inside the front of each of his works.  He said that he did not because he did not copyright them.  I replied that I did not suggest that he copyright them, but put a date in them—how else could anyone know how current or how obsolete were the statistics that he might mention unless there was a date in which the work was written?  How else could a person know, without a date, at what point in Mohr’s life he wrote the work (for people change their views on certain points).  One might also wonder why Mohr may not have referenced material that was well known, or why Mohr clearly makes a case for something that was fully disproven.  If this new information came out 10 years after Mohr wrote his book, then his not knowing is understandable.  If the information came out 10 years before he wrote his book and he still wrote error, that tells us he did not do thorough research, or chose to ignore that which disproved his point.  Sadly, my suggestions always fell on deaf ears (it indeed is hard to teach an old dog a new trick).

Moving on, of Eliam’s genealogy, Scripture informs us:

“Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maachathite, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite” (II Samuel 23:34)

Furthermore, based on the above information, and the knowledge that Eliam was Bathsheba’s father, an incredible mystery of Scripture is cleared up.  David’s trusted counsellor Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather—and that is why he (seemingly so inexplicably) turned against David for revenge, and even counselled Absalom to defile David’s concubines.  You reap what you sow!

Mohr, like most of those without spiritual understanding, simply assume that God contradicts himself and allows sin and the pollution of His House--and that He is erratic, inconsistent, and untrue. Rehoboam's mother could not have been a racial Ammonite, Ruth could not have been a racial Moabite.  Mohr makes a terrible blunder here thinking Bathsheba was a Hittite, which would also have rendered Solomon a bastard and ineligible for the Throne.
Finally, there is NO proof that Uriah was a Hittite.  He was honorable.  In the list of all of David’s honorable men (II Samuel 24:22-39) in which Uriah is mentioned, they are all known by their city, thus, there must have been a city known as Hith or Heth, and Hittite refers to the town Uriah came from (even though we have no knowledge of that town)—even as all other of David’s might men are described by the town from which they came.  Furthermore, as logical evidence against Uriah being a Hittite racially (in repudiation of Mohr’s terrible, unscholarly claim), mongrelization was NOT ignored in David’s day.  David himself had been for many years on a campaign exterminating alien blood from Israel’s territory.  The Philistines were a pure Hamitic people (descended from the Egyptians).  Goliath was not a giant because he was a Philistine—but because he was Amorite-Canaanite.  Philistine women, if pure and they put away their pagan idols and practices, could marry into Israel (though of course many fine families would have preferred their son to marry a nice Israelite girl and not have to worry about “Philistine-baggage”) and Philistine men, if pure, if they put away their pagan idols and practices, could join unto Israel and approach the “Court of the Gentiles [Kindred] Nations”.  While David was not perfect, he was a man after the Lord’s Own Heart (the only person in all of Scripture so called) and it is preposterous to imagine him having a racial Hittite—a Canaanite, which people God forever cursed—as one of his most-trusted guardsmen!  When David sinned, God rebuked him, and David repented.  Nowhere does God rebuff, “Well, if you had not had that cursed Hittite as your bodyguard you would never have lusted after his wife!”  Had Uriah been a racial Hittite, quite possibly Bathsheba would have been defiled and God would not have allowed Solomon to ascend the Throne.  It is sad the false doctrine people spew simply because they cannot think.  For far more in-depth information on these and many other topics, see my books: Apologetic Expositions series; Sacred Truth Expository Commentary series; Ten Commandments for Youth; What Was the Mark that God Placed on Cain?, and my highly annotated editions of Kind Unto Kind and Races in Chaos.  Email, write, or search sacredtruthministries.com for more details.]

While indeed the “rosary”* or the Gospel cannot be used to rule the world, that is a non sequitur and false inference.  That’s like saying “An anvil cannot be used as a broadsword”.  That is true, but utterly irrelevant.  Just because the anvil cannot be used as a broadsword does not mean that the anvil has no purpose; and it does not mean that the blacksmith himself cannot be a warrior—and forge a broadsword upon his anvil with which he can go into battle.  

[* —which Luther mentioned tongue-in-cheek, as a dig against the papacy for thinking that it could rule the whole earth by its superstitions.]

Likewise, it would be senseless to give an orchestra sheets of mathematical equations rather than musical scores.  This does not invalidate the need for mathematics, nor the usefulness of orchestras; neither does it deny that the musical scales themselves indeed have mathematical structure and relation.  However, the musical scores are based on math, and when put in musical form, it is beneficial for governing the orchestra’s playing.  So it is with the Gospel.

The Gospel was not meant to be the means by which the world is ruled, but the spirit by which those who rule, would rule it according to the Law of God.  The Gospel is not the handbook for government legislation; though the 12 Apostles will rule the 12 Tribes of Israel in the Kingdom—and they will rule it by the unchanging Law of God.  The Gospel is not in opposition to the Gospel any more than a dishwashing machine is in opposition to the stove!  They both have different functions; one cleans up the mess the other makes.

The Gospel is the “Good News” for God’s people—the Revelation of the fulfillment of God’s Promise to Redeem His people who had sold themselves to sin.  The Gospel is not without the Law; but in harmony with it.  Without the Law there would be no need for the Gospel.  Without the Law, God could not have declared, “The soul that sinneth shall die”, because without the Law there is no sin.  With sin, there is no curse; without the curse there is no need for “good news”.

The Gospel reveals to the elect of God’s People God’s Plan and Method of for the forgiveness and restoration of His people.  Christ, Who delivered the good news, also declared that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law or the Prophets.  Likewise, if the Law was abolished (which Christ said it was not and never would be), there would be no need for Christ to have died, no need for forgiveness.  Christ forgave and said, “Go and sin no more”.  Law and Grace are not enemies, but a two-part epoxy.

The Gospel is the means by which God’s people get their hearts right with God, so that they can successfully rule by the entire Law of God, none of which has been abolished.  When we sin, God does not hear our prayers.  Sin is violation of the Law.  He who turns his ears from God’s Law, his prayers are actually an abomination to God.  However, when a man’s ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.  The Law does not save.  Christ saves.  This does not mean that the Law has no purpose!  If the parents give their children a set of rule by which they are to abide, such as “no playing with knives”, the purpose of that rule is to prevent cutting themselves.  The Gospel is stitches and a band-aid, if the child sins and plays with a knife and cuts himself; and the Gospel (that Christ died for the elect of His people) is also restoration to fellowship and reconfirmation of the parents’ love, and re-opens the path of communication and blessing, once the child repents and asks forgiveness for having disobeyed.  Keeping the Law does not save.  It was never intended to.  It cannot.  The Law is God’s House Rules that He commands His children to obey.

There should be no separation between Church and State in terms of immunity and non-influence of one from the other.  They are two separate spheres established by God to operate based upon the same morality, though each with different (though overlapping) jurisdictions or job descriptions.  However, each is a check against the other and also complements the other.  

Solomon and David set up the courses of priests; and the high priests anointed the kings, and even, on occasion, resisted and replaced them (as did prophets, who were, in one sense, like priests, but “free agents” or “private independent contractors” rather then employees of the Temple).  Similarly, at the return of the Ark of the Covenant, David coordinated the sacrifices, even as Solomon did at the dedication of the Lord’s Temple.  Scripture says that David or Solomon “sacrificed”, but they did not actually themselves perform the sacrifices (which only the Levitical priests could do) any more than Solomon actually himself built the Temple and got his hands dirty.  However, David (who was also a prophet) and Solomon organized and officiated at some of the ceremonies of both Church and State.
Finally, if one is a zookeeper, one does not govern the inmates of the zoo as he would govern his own family or community.  But Luther could no more have envisioned in the mid 1500s the invasion of all of Christendom by Antichrists who opened the gates to the entire Third World, any more than he could have invisioned space aliens from other planets invading planet earth.  Regardless, his thinking was flawed in some areas, having freshly come out from one of the largest world-wide brainwashing organizations in history; to be surpassed only by the subversive notion of the Zionist so-called “Judeo-‘Christian’ ethic” and godless, polluted notions of “political correctness” masquerading as true Christianity and spirituality.  Protestantism came out of neither Catholicism or Judaism.  Protestantism cleansed the Christian Church of Roman superstition and paganism.  Judaism is not the religion of the Israelites of the Bible, but it is Talmudism—which has crept into the Christian Church and of which it has not yet been purged, but God declared that one day it will:

“and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.” (Zechariah 14:21)