Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 73

EVANGELICALS AND CULTURAL MARXISM

[image error]PMW 2018-091 by Ardel B. Caneday

Cultural Marxism, a designation Leftist advocates despise and naïve evangelical proponents reject, has always exploited Orwellian Newspeak to identify itself lest its origins with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels be exposed. It began long ago after Marxism’s failure to achieve worldwide revolution following WWI. Marxism began to morph under the ingenuity and directives of Italian Antonio Gramsci, Hungarian György Lukács, and the multiple members of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research who birthed Critical Theory, with its various iterations, all appealing to pompous, pretentious, eggheaded, erudite sophisticates at America’s universities who imposed the poison pill upon a whole generation of students beginning in the 1960s, perverting their morals and ethics and twisting their reasoning, Cultural Marxism continues its Long March through the Institutions under various designations but always with the same Marxist agenda.

Once college and university students of the 1960s and 1970s who had joined the Long March graduated, they perpetuated the Transforming of America by imposing Critical Theory upon the American society and culture. Advocates of Critical Race Theory hijacked the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s by shifting the achievement of Equality Before the Law and the demise of Jim Crow Laws. How did they accomplish this? The Critical Race Theorists of Cultural Marxism achieved it by exploiting Newspeak with the hope that Useful Idiots would hear “Equality Before the Law“ when they fully meant “Equality of Outcomes.” They exploited the same Newspeak appeal when speaking of equality of the sexes. The naïve, the ingenuous, and the Useful Idiots applauded the affirmation that male and female are equal, which is a truism if the context is “before the law,” but the apparatchiks of Cultural Marxism had in mind utopia, the eventual erasure of all distinctions between males and females as their substitution of “gender” for “sex” presaged. Instead, they spoke of Equal Outcomes as they patiently bided the time until they could make their demands more explicit in subsequent generations. For a generation they have touted their slogan, ad nauseam, “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” which was actually established by law (Equal Pay Act of 1963), but the facts have never deterred Cultural Marxists from their repetitive sloganeering that denies reality and subverts the truth.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

College graduates who had been subjected to Critical Theory’s doctrine of Equal Outcomes brought the dogma with them into their careers, whether law, politics, industry, or education. Thus, Cultural Marxism’s Critical Theory took on various iterations but always advanced its universal cause that invariably entails its design for cultural revolution, the notion that equality within any society is fictional and immoral unless that society achieves Equal Outcomes. Perhaps its most influential domain became government-sponsored education where “Outcome-Based Education” (OBE) which sounds so noble and righteous, mingled with the “Self-Esteem Movement,” became crucial features of the philosophy of education that reigned supremely from the 1970s onward, though the buzzwords have changed. Outcome-Based Education has corrupted every generation of American students since its inception. Thus, apart from parental instruction and guidance, children and grandchildren of the 1960s generation became Cultural Marxism’s compliant and unwitting apparatchiks.

Since its beginning, Cultural Marxism’s Long March through the Institutions, that has exploited Newspeak Political Correctness, eventuated in the rise of President Barack Obama who instantiated and embodied the essence of Critical Theory, with all its nuances and iterations concerning world cultures, race-ethnicity, male-female, same-sex sexual relations, etc., as well as all the features of Cultural Marxism with his outspoken agenda to Transform America both domestically with Class Warfare and internationally with the mantra that no culture is better than any other culture, derogating the United States of America as he did during his first 100 days in the presidency in 2009 while on “The Apology Tour.” Thus, Rush Limbaugh rightly stated, “I hope President Obama fails,” a statement which, despite his full and adequate explanation that he was referring to Obama’s “Transform America” agenda, the Useful Idiots of the Mainstream Media seized upon it as an ad hominem and racist attack upon President Obama.

Teaching for a Change[image error]

(by Norman De Jong)

Calls Christians to a biblical philosophy of education that deals with human nature, revealed truth,

and a child’s need to be transformed.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Of course, the politically ambitious Community Organizer from Chicago could never have become President Obama apart from the corrosive, destructive, and poisonous Long March of Cultural Marxism’s Critical Theory through America’s institutions. Critical Theory’s exploitation of its subjects by way of Sensitivity Training, a form of brainwashing, during the 1960s with its varied iterations since has subjugated subsequent generations to the tyranny of Political Correctness, the holiness speech code of Cultural Marxism. Since the 1960s Cultural Marxists have used a variety of designations for Sensitivity Training that conceal their continuity with the early forms of brainwashing that more palatably appeal to subsequent generations of gullible recipients, designations such as Diversity Training or Cultural Competence and more recently as Cultural Intelligence (CQ), Cultural Awareness, Implicit Bias Training and Unconscious Bias Training. Regardless which banner or slogan the disingenuous apparatchiks exploit to advance their deceptive cause, the agenda is always the same: subversion, corrosion, and destruction of individuality and of society. To accomplish their semi-veiled agenda, they exploit legerdemain and trickery as they project upon their political, cultural, social, and theological domestic opponents their own mischief and faults to divert society’s attention from their own destructive activities and agenda which they impose with nimbleness upon their naïve, ingenuous, gullible dupes.

Twenty-seven years ago, in 1991-92, when I was a young college professor, Cultural Marxism began to target Christian universities and colleges for cultural transformation. Cultural Marxism marched onto campuses under . . . .

To finish article: click

[image error]Author:

Ardel B. Caneday, Ph.D., is Professor of New Testament & Greek, University of Northwestern—St. Paul.

GENTRY COMMENTARY UPDATES

[image error]THE DIVORCE OF ISRAEL

Thanks for your interest in my forthcoming Revelation commentary titled: The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation. I completed its research and writing in early 2016. It will be a two-volume set of around 1700 pages.

The publisher is Tolle Lege Publishers. They are currently working on a second proofing. Due to the size and complexity of the work (deeply exegetical; voluminously footnoted), it is taking them longer than anticipated to complete. In fact, in the Spring of 2018 they brought on another proofer to assist them.

They are currently estimating that they should be through the proofing by the end of January, 2019. This will lead to laying out the pages for printing, which may take about a month. After that it should only be a couple of months before it is available in print — Lord willing.

Though I am disappointed at the delay in its completion, I am thankful for the meticulous care (and expense!) that Tolle Lege is putting into the commentary’s final preparation. They want it to be right — just as I do. I hope that it may be available in Spring of 2019. It will be released first in hardcopy, then eventually in digital format. Thanks again for your interest.

In the meantime, you might appreciate two introductory works to Revelation that I have written: The Book of Revelation Made Easy, which hits the high points of Revelation, explaining the fundamentals of its preterist interpretation. Navigating the Book of Revelation, which focuses on several key issues of debate in the preterist interpretation of Revelation. They are available at my website: KennethGentry.com.

[image error]OLIVET DISCOURSE RE-VISITED

I am working on a commentary on Matthew 21–25, a distinct unit in Matthew’s Gospel. This is the narrative setting of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus’ climactic discourse of the five around which Matthew’s Gospel is constructed.

This literary unit is clearly marked off by Christ’s important movements (along with other editorial markers which I will present in my study): It opens with his coming (Gk.: erchomai, Matt. 21:1, 9) into Jerusalem (recorded for the only time in Matthew) to declare the judgment of the nation of Israel (Matt. 23:37–24:34). It closes with his coming (Gk.: erchomai, Matt. 25:31) to the world (in his Second Advent) to execute the judgment of all the nations (Matt. 25:31–46).

Thus, this distinct section in Matthew opens with prophecies about the conclusion of Israel’s special role in the history of the world (as the old covenant typological work ends). And it closes with the conclusion of world history itself (as the new covenant redemptive work is completed). All that is in between in Matthew 21–25 is designed to affirm his authority to do so — both over the nation of Israel and the nations of the world.

Consequently, as Matthew presents these crucial scenes: Jesus comes into Jerusalem in the presence of the Jewish crowds (Matt. 21:9) as the Messiah who will be rejected. Then at the end of this section, he comes to the world and gathers all nations before him, as the Lord who will judge all men, saving the elect and judging the non-elect. In this section, the transition from the AD 70 judgment of Israel to that which it pictures, the Second Advent at history’s end, occurs in Matt. 24:34-36.

This is a significant concern of Matthew since he is the only Gospel writing who provides Jesus’ Missionary Discourse, which limits the Disciples ministry to Israel. It is also significant in that Matt. 21-25 greatly emphasizes Jesus’ authority — and authority over Israel and the nations. This section is important to getting to Matthew’s conclusion: the Great Commission over all nations. Interestingly, Matthew intentionally ends his Gospel on an open note, with Christ on the earth giving his promise that he will be with his church “all the days” (literally). Unlike Luke, he does not mention his Ascension into heaven where he leaves the Disciples behind.

As one important feature of my commentary on Matthew 21–25, I will more fully draw out the transition occurring in Matthew 24:34–36 than in my The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. This is crucial for showing that Jesus is not simply a Jewish sage, interested only in the destiny of Israel and functioning as another John the Baptist, as it were. Rather, he is the universal Lord with all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18–19), determining the destiny of all men while functioning as the Lord of lords and king of kings.

The commentary will not be as large as the Revelation commentary. Nor will it be as small as The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. It will be “just right” — you might say, if you are a Goldilocks fan (as I am sure all of you are). I am aiming at somewhere around 250 or so pages. It will be semi-technical, but quite accessible.

[image error]Due to how long I worked on my Revelation commentary, and how long it is taking to get into print, I know you think this about me, so I created a shirt that I must wear around, called “I See Slow People.”

FRANTIC SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

[image error]PMW 2018-090 by Henry Richter (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

I am constantly amused by the ongoing vigorous efforts by many scientists to find some sort of life at places other than the earth. Daily in the media, there are conjectures about microbes in deep lakes on the Saturnian moons Enceladus or Titan. Or maybe the source of organic type compounds on Mars. And on and on.

Let’s approach this from two angles: how does life originate? And how does life survive, advance and propagate?

If life starts from some sort of single cell, how could that cell form, and how could it beget life? Even the simplest cell is an immensely complex factory and object. It is suggested that a cell, over the course of extremely long timeframes, could just `come together’ from apparently inorganic chemicals, to form the original building blocks of life in some sort of primordial soup, via chemical evolution (aka abiogenesis).

A cell consists of a number of vital parts. It needs a membrane to contain the internal parts and to gather nutrients and expel waste products. It needs genetic information which controls the operations of the cell, and this is stored on the DNA molecule. It needs transport proteins to move and control operations, and enzymes that are the ‘tools of life’. These are at the very least, crucial elements. Each protein comprises hundreds or thousands of building blocks arranged a precise sequence, controlled by the information on the DNA, which must be decoded. But DNA has the instructions for its own decoding machines, still a huge problem for the origin of first life!

And, if they did, what jump-starts this process which we call life? Life means that all these mechanisms start working, producing energy, metabolizing, growing, taking in nutrients, expelling waste products the very first time it appeared. The accidental production of a complex cell would defy any reasonable mathematical odds. Consider two cells, identical in structure and composition, one alive and one not so. What was lost to cause the cell to die? Why can’t it jump start again? It is because of the arrangement of information in the cell. Information comes from a greater source of information. It does not happen by chance. For a thorough demolition of chemical evolution, see Origin of life: An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis (or biopoiesis).

[image error]Spacecraft Earth by Henry Richter

Evolutionists believe the universe, the earth and life came about by chance events and processes. In this book, a Dr Richter, a pioneer in aerospace, challenges these views by exploring what is required for us to exist in the universe. He shows that our planet can be thought of as a sophisticated spacecraft designed for our benefit.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A very thorough discussion of what is needed for a cell to form spontaneously, develop life, and reproduce is given by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati in the CMI book Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels.1

Spacecraft Earth

If a habitable planet did exist somewhere, could we expect undirected evolution to once again bring about anything on the level of the beauty and complexity of life we find here on Spacecraft Earth?

But let us be generous and assume that somehow a live cell exists somewhere in the universe, what conditions are necessary to allow it to survive, to propagate, and to expand its functions—that is, to evolve to higher life forms? We can examine the one example we know about for sure, and that is spacecraft earth. We know a great amount about the earth, and know many features, conditions, and elemental substances available to allow life.

In searching for life elsewhere, it is necessary to find all the enabling conditions and raw materials first even before jumping to the conclusion that just because some organic molecules are found, the life must be there.

So when searching for life the seekers hypothesize the existence of simple cell organisms, but many resources are dedicated to looking for higher forms (intelligent) of life. But what conditions and substances must be there for life to exist? When looking at the earth do we know there are essential minimal requirements. And not just a few of these conditions, but all of them must be there.

Life, but not life as we know it?

Former NASA/JPL specialist, David Coppedge, and I spend a good part of a chapter of our book Spacecraft Earth – A Guide for Passengers, examining the earth and identifying necessary features.2 Life needs to be carbon-based to have all the different organic molecules and compounds available for life forms. We know of no other element that has all the features and versatility that carbon has. Some have suggested a silicon-based ecology, but although there are some silicon compounds that duplicate the carbon ones, the selection is very limited—(see below). Carbon has literally millions of compounds available.

However, many of them are fragile, susceptible to damage from heat, cold, energetic particles, ultraviolet light, chemical attacks, etc. This is particularly true of organic compounds in life forms, particularly DNA (although this has been found in dinosaur bones!). The survival of life forms centers on protections against damaging forces. The other main consideration is the availability of beneficial compounds and chemicals to allow and promote growth—and the absence of other compounds that would destructively react with the beneficial ones, including other beneficial ones!

A number of carbon atoms are needed to form proteins, amino acids, esters, alcohols, enzymes, fats, carbohydrates, and so on.

A suitable planet needs the following:

A ‘habitable zone’ is the orbital radius around a star where liquid water—and presumably life—could exist. As we shall see, there’s a lot more required for life than just being ‘in the zone’. Earth’s distance from the sun—ranging from 147.1million to 152.1 million km (average about 149.6 million km)—keeps it always within the habitable zone. That zone is pretty narrow. Venus is well outside the inner edge and Mars is outside the outer edge. If the Earth’s average distance from the sun were 5% percent greater), temperatures would drop such that most of the Earth’s water would freeze in a ‘runaway ice age’. If the Earth were just 5 percent closer to the sun, on the other hand, the polar caps would melt, more water would evaporate, and a ‘runaway greenhouse effect would ensue, turning Earth into an inhospitable hothouse.

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But that’s just one of the numbers in the ‘cosmic lottery’ that our Spacecraft Earth got right. More information about habitable zones has added further requirements. From the literature of astrobiology, we can identify ten or more other zones required for habitability, in addition to circumstellar distance:

• Galactic Habitable Zone: the solar system must be localized in a narrow band within the galaxy. Our sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius, where a star’s orbital speed matches that of the spiral arms. In other places, the sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to supernovae.3

• Continuously Habitable Zone: the habitable zone must not vary significantly.

• Temporal Habitable Zone: the habitable zone must last long enough for life to persist.

• Chemical and Thermodynamic Habitable Zone: the planet’s chemistry and heat transfer mechanisms must permit liquid water to persist.

• Ultraviolet Habitable Zone: the planet must filter out ionizing radiation from its star.

• Tidal Habitable Zone: the star must not tidally “lock” its habitable planet to force one hemisphere to always face the star (this rules out red dwarfs, which means most stars).

• Obliquity Habitable Zone: the star must not “erase” its habitable planet’s tilt through tidal forces. (While not eliminating the possibility of life, a planet without a tilt would have no seasons, drastically reducing its habitable surface area.)

• Eccentricity Habitable Zone: the planet must have a nearly circular orbit so that it stays in the proper place in the zone.

• Stellar Chemistry Habitable Zone: the star must have the right chemical composition to remain quiet and well-behaved. A G2 main-sequence star like our sun is ideal.

• Stellar Wind Habitable Zone: the star must not be given to extreme “space weather” that might strip off a habitable planet’s atmosphere.

• Inhabited Zone: recently, two astrobiologists suggested that to be habitable, a planet needs inhabitants! “…there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the idea that our Planet will not be the same if we remove every single form of life from its surface,” a news report said.

In thinking over all the factors, Patrick Young, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, said:

Habitability is very difficult to quantify because it depends on a huge number of variables, some of which we have yet to identify.” It’s likely, therefore, that this is only a partial list. Spacecraft Earth scores an “A” on them all.

A special sun and solar system

. . . .

To continue reading and to see all footnote: click

[image error]Dr. Henry Richter graduated from California Institute of Technology where he received a BS (1952) and PhD (1956) in chemistry, with physics and electrical engineering minors. He was hired by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which later became incorporated into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He was a leader in the development of America’s first earth satellite, Explorer I.

WILL THERE BE ANOTHER ICE AGE

[image error]PMW 2018-08 by Cody Guitard (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

I remember the first time I saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow.1 I was fairly young, with a wild imagination, so when our community experienced a hailstorm shortly after, I thought we were about to experience another ice age. (I even started planning how my family and I would survive.) Now, years later, with a more informed understanding of the science behind the (actual) Ice Age, I am convinced that there is no reason to fear we will experience another ‘big freeze’. Unfortunately, most people don’t know what caused the Ice Age, and that only the biblical creation model explains it. This has resulted in some (I think unwarranted) panic and confusion on issues like ‘global warming’ and whether or not the earth is heading into another ice age as in the above movie. Let’s put those worries to rest.

Different models, different conclusions

Today, ice sheets and glaciers cover approximately 15 million km2 of the earth’s total land mass—roughly 10% of its land surface. Both young-earth and old-earth scientists agree that this is left over from an ice age. But there is much disagreement as to the number of ice ages that have occurred throughout Earth’s history, as well as over what causes an ice age to start and end. A proper understanding of these issues will help us with regards to whether Earth might face another ice age in the future.

Old-earth models

Those who believe the earth is billions of years old argue that there have been multiple ice ages throughout Earth’s history, the most recent of which ended about 10,000 years ago.2 Proposed causal mechanisms for these massive glaciations have included large meteorite impacts,3 supervolcano eruptions,4 and changes in things such as atmospheric carbon dioxide,5 the sun’s output,6 and the moon’s orbit.7 The most popular model today relies on so-called Milankovitch cycles, which posit that fluctuations of about two degrees in the earth’s axial tilt every 41,000 years, and changes in its elliptical orbit around the sun every 100,000 years, would produce a cooler climate.8 The proposed effects of these mechanisms are much reduced precipitation, with rainfall half of what it is today, and global average temperatures about 5–10°C below today’s.9

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A major difficulty with all these ideas is that the proposed effects on global temperatures are too small to trigger an ice age, leading old-earth scientists to further propose ‘positive feedback’ mechanisms to amplify the change.10However, these are unsubstantiated.11

An even bigger problem is that, while the proposed changes could account for the freezing of the oceans,9 simply cooling down the earth’s temperature will not cause ice to build up on the continents. Instead it would create a cold desert, like most of northern Siberia and Antarctica today.12 In order for continental ice build-up to occur, there would need to be increased precipitation of ice and snow12 and, unfortunately for old-earth scientists, all of the proposed theories can only account for temperature change. A plausible explanation for an ice age needs a mechanism13 that would provide not only lower temperatures but also increased precipitation of ice and snow.

And finally, proponents of these views remain in the dark as to why an ice age would end—that is, why the snow and ice would cease to accumulate and begin to thaw.14

The young-earth model

Contrary to old-earth ideas, models based on biblical history propose that only one Ice Age has occurred and that it took place subsequent to and as a direct result of the global Flood (about 4,500 years ago). This Ice Age is understood to correspond to what old-earthers call the Pleistocene Ice Age (1.8 million years long in the old-earth timeline), though taking place over a much shorter span of time—about 700 years. As for the supposed ‘earlier ice ages’,2 examination of the evidence indicates that their features are different from those of the Pleistocene one. They are better interpreted as huge underwater landslides caused by massive sediment movement during the Flood.15

Unlike old-earth scientists, young-earth scientists have a scientific model, drawing on the events of the Flood, that can explain both the beginning and the end of the Ice Age.16 The catastrophic, tectonic and volcanic activities during the Flood would have made the post-Flood oceans warmer than they are today (evidenced in ice core samples). This caused much greater evaporation, leading to increased precipitation of ice and snow, allowing ice to accumulate on the continents.

[image error]Understanding the Creation Account

DVD set by Ken Gentry

Formal conference lectures presenting important information for properly approaching the Creation Account in Genesis. Presents and defends Six-day Creation exegesis, while presenting and rebutting the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, all that volcanism would release fine volcanic dust and aerosols high into the atmosphere, reflecting a larger percentage of sunlight back into space, keeping the interiors of the continents cooler in summer than today. This would prevent the snow and ice that fell on the continents in winter from fully melting the following summer, allowing the ice to build up from year to year. . . .

To read footnotes and to complete the article: click

 

[image error]

BORDERS, IMMIGRATION, AND THE BIBLE (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-087 by Victor Couture

(This is part 2, continuing the previous article)

Standing Precedent Considered

Let’s now consider God’s “no molesting [vexing] a stranger” commands from Exodus and Leviticus. Israel’s Remembrance of being strangers/sojourners in a far off country was to be of special interest in observing this command.

In what way, and where, were they strangers? There were three particular incidents of this sojourning happening (which Peter Leithart dutifully notes in his study – as linked later-on in this article). Except for the one ordeal that spanned five centuries, they were rather short dramas of intrigue.

Two occurrences of famine brought both Abraham and Isaac down to Egypt, or very near in the latter case of Isaac. When they were vetted by princes and legates of Egypt, both were less than honest and it caused a rift with Egypt’s kings.

Though these two scenarios speak of their times, regarding the need to vet honestly – along with God’s protective/redemptive and prophetic blessings upon Abraham’s seed, we are mainly considering just the one that precedes Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.

Joseph became a chief governor of Egypt, which protected Israel’s household during famine (Genesis 45, 46). His position secured sojourner status for his brethren. In a sense, he sponsored their status as permitted sojourners. They were legally known/registered people, who were afforded the leased land of Goshen. However, after many years of blessing, these known/approved sojourners (these ger) in Egypt were oppressed. They were oppressed for 400 years.

Let’s not forget the very personal side to God’s reminder of Israel’s slavery, by way of how Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. They betrayed him, by way of perverted judgment. Such is the very description of the molestation that God commands against: in Leviticus 19:33 (YLT)

“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34) But the stranger that ‘dwells’ with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

| https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-33.htm |.

The slavery that Israel suffered was God’s chastening for their betrayal of Joseph. As Joseph’s brothers betrayed his standing with them, Egypt betrayed Israel’s standing.

It should be noted, here, how Joseph humbly sidestepped his brethren’s hinted concern of Yahweh’s retribution, in Gen. 50:15-21. Starting with verse 15)

“15) And when Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will perhaps hate us, and will certainly pay back to us all the evil which we did unto him. 16) And they sent a messenger unto Joseph, saying, your father did command before he died, saying, 17) So shall you say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray you now, the trespass of your brothers, and their sin; for they did unto you evil: and now, we pray you, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father. And Joseph wept when they spoke unto him.  18) And his brothers also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we are your servants. 19) And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? 20) But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive. 21) Now therefore fear not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spoke kindly unto them.”

| https://biblehub.com/kj2000/genesis/50.htm |.

Joseph may also have known of God’s 400 year slavery pronouncement to Abraham (Gen. 15:13-14) but Joseph did not betray his brothers. Family love obligated him.

A needed observation should be made here, also. All of Joseph’s brothers pledged themselves to be his servants. Here, then, is yet another key tie between the class of approved sojourning subjects and the brotherly-treatment rule.

This was the main reason why Israel was not to likewise oppress vetted/approved and honest sojourners. It’s as simple as that. There had to be law breaking for there to be distress placed upon permitted sojourners. The Hivites were recipients of this covenantal arrangement: in this respect, they were to be treated “as one born unto them.” 

Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview[image error]

Ed. by David Hall

No other Christian teachings in the past five hundred years have affected our Western culture as deeply as the worldview of John Calvin. It extends far beyond the theological disciplines.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Observations on recent online debates

What follows here are some continuing notes from Facebook dialogues, along with lexical studies and supplemental observations. After this a few linked observations from Peter Leithart, James Hoffmeier, and Bojidar Marinov will also be briefly considered. I will then, afterwards, provide a summary of observations.

In a posting from Facebook, a person, arguing OPEN BORDERS posited Deuteronomy 23:15. I’m including a response to this, to showcase normal and serious interactions of Israel with the known (vetted) sojourner of the land. A more lexical approach is therefore ensued, here. I hope, thereby, to also show the gain of being a known/vetted permitted stranger (a sojourner). It was the same gain as enjoyed by the Gibeonites. Here is a Bible Hub reference of that passage (my apologies for not plastering this article with ‘printed’ references).

| http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/23-15.htm |

This Deuteronomy 23:15 passage (as presented) deals with the sanctuary city rule that was first provided to all Israelites, as well as to an already established sojourner. Notice that he is a servant of an Israelite and has status; therefore he is not to be oppressed, even for his class.

Joshua 20:1-9 gives us the full picture | http://biblehub.com/kj2000/joshua/20.htm |. Sanctuary cities are first for an Israelite, who may be presumed guilty by an avenger of blood. A foreign “assimilated” slave may also flee to this city. Also, an established sojourning stranger (a ‘ger’ גֵּ֤ר | http://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/25-47.htm ) can also flee here. This was for safe refuge by citizen and permitted sojourner alike. The Deuteronomy passage, however, does not say from what situation (or way) that fleeing servant came from. He may very well have been implicated in the death of another slave or family member of the master. This is observation of one Law for all.

Some have argued that protected treatment in the land is general proof of no restriction. I believe this actually showcases unprejudiced justice for distinct classes; therefore, discernment of non-sojourning strangers was expected, especially when we consider the worth of the vetting that Joshua gave the status-gaining Gibeonites.

The main issue is in meeting the standards/requirements of being in league with Israel (in subjugation in this case). Now, in Leviticus 25:39-45  we learn an Israelite can be indentured to another Israelite; but they may not be enslaved in the same manner as a former combatant (e.g. an assimilated foreigner-of-war, who indeed is still not a fully-subjugated stranger – הַגוֹ ים | http://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/25-45.htm ). So then, another distinction is again noted.

Lev. 25:47 also speaks of how a sojourning rich permitted-stranger (a ‘ger’ – גֵּ֤ר) can receive a poor Israelite as an indentured servant, with an obligation to release them later. You need known sojourner status, for all this observance. The only guarantee of protection is for those who are ‘ger’ (along with kə·ṯō·wō·šāḇ – כְּתוֹ שָׁ֖ב ), who is like a hired servant ( כְּ ש כִ֥יר – kə·śā·ḵîr ), and none else. If anyone could hope to, please show such protection for any other type of stranger, such as ‘ben nekhar’, or ‘nokhri’ (an unvetted stranger). The difference shown in enslaving heathen (of the nations about) as bond-slaves, versus the ‘sojourning’ hired-servant (as I showed in Lev. 25:39-46), proves a distinction observed.

Notice, in Numbers 9:14 | http://biblehub.com/text/numbers/9-14.htm | that the root of all words for stranger and sojourner are of ‘ger’ and ‘gur’. These only were afforded peace, according to this passage. The ‘nokhri’ or ben ‘nekhar’ were not presumptively afforded this, ever. One has yet to show me a convincing argument, with scripture, where they are. A far away ‘nokhri’ peoples, however, are allowed to entreat for peace and sojourner status, as we are yet to observe. As mere unvetted aliens, ‘nokhri’ have some latitude, whereas ‘nekhar’ do not.

The ‘ger’ was an assimilated Israel-compliant (non-inheriting) dwelling/sojourning-stranger. They also reflected the city-dwelling/sojourn-class of enslaved-Gibeonites, who all had regulatory dispatched-duties of overland servitude. By logic of scriptural-perspicuity, we can deduce that a captured/vetted non-sojourning hostile-alien (a ‘nekhar’) gets enslaved – at the least. ‘Nokhri,’ however, may travel to Israel (for the sake of being vetted).

In his ‘First Things’ article, Peter Leithart says the sojourning stranger “has permission” and is not an illegal alien.

| https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/10/strangers-and-aliens |

Please take note that I whole-heartedly champion how the permitted stranger should not be treacherously mistreated and/or oppressed (“vexed”).  A level of Justice should also be allowed for any non-vetted stranger (even ‘nokhri’); however, they do not automatically have the presumed freedoms (of ‘peace’) as does a ‘ger’. There is a permission factor present here that distinguishes the two.

Notice, again, what the ‘stranger’ (‘ger’) adopts for this acceptance: subjugation to Israel’s rule of the land. Such requires a witnessed vetting, with stipulations that are agreed to, as Leithart should logically acknowledge (and I believe does). He can’t argue against, and I believe doesn’t so argue, that Israel’s permitted sojourner status is what Egypt violated. He should agree that this, along with the unbrotherly betrayal of Joseph, is the teachable history for Israel’s divine instruction to not betray (i.e. not molest) sojourner trust.

Further Lexical considerations and their significance

Here’s some additional lexical notes, in random order. Some have extended dialogues. After reading through the next several pages, it would be appropriate to ask yourself the following question: if the Open Borders hypothesis is correct, what purpose do these sophisticated distinctions and legislative determinations have? They certainly fit well within my view without modification or forced fitting. The burden of proof is on the other side to account for the scriptural distinctions listed below, not on me.

Leviticus 25:45 | http://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/25-45.htm | shows that a non-recognized sojourner (a non ger), a hat·tō·wō·šā·ḇîm ( הַתּוֹ ש בִ֜ים ), was not presumptively afforded protection. This was not of the ‘ger’/’gur’ class of known/resident sojourning strangers. Unassimilated heathen slaves were property and not indentured servants.  Lev. 25: 39-46| http://biblehub.com/kj2000/leviticus/25.htm | prompts our attention, to such an understanding.

Notice the differentiation between bondservant (abed עָֽבֶד ) and hired servant (equal to sojourner ). Unvetted heathen aliens were not the same as the ‘ger’ class of sojourner. At no time is the ‘ger’ class of sojourner to be oppressed, or denied due process.  It should even be noted (in Judges 19) how a travelling Levite sought such refuge in Gibeah.

I did find that there is another term for a respected sojourner, namely: kə·ṯō·wō·šāḇ ( כְּתוֹ שָׁ֖ב ), who is like a hired servant ( כְּ ש כִ֥יר kə·śā·ḵîr ). These are also the same as peculiarly permitted ‘ger’ sojourners and not to be merely regarded as heathen combative aliens.  Combative aliens (hag·gō·w·yim הַגוֹ ים – ‘of surrounding nations’) had no guaranteed right of passage. This is evidenced in that these combative heathens were often severely subjugated, through battle, and later oppressed as recognized bond-slaves. They lacked the same assimilated respect of permission, though the earning of respect (through assimilation) was still possible. Christianity has altered this mechanism somewhat; however, immigration border controls are still allowed by scripture for many national reasons (cf. Lev. 25:39-46).

We should also take note of how, in Proverbs 27:13, a stranger (a ‘Zar’ > זָ֑ר) is to be discreetly comported with useful pledges. Such a safeguard is considered wise (Proverbs 27:13 http://biblehub.com/text/proverbs/27-13.htm ). This should answer any lingering questions about the requirement for exhibiting general regard for strangers. Exercising caution (prudence) is a good thing.

img class=”alignright size-full wp-image-7442″ src=”https://postmillennialismtoday.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/covenantal-theonomy-resized-e1449764589468.png”; alt=”” width=”102″ height=”150″ />

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Challenges to the thesis

On the 16th of February 2017, I received this Facebook notice from Martin Selbrede.

“Victor, I noticed that the lexical argument you’ve mounted here (and elsewhere) has been challenged by at least one writer (Bojidar Marinov). I’d be curious how you would rebut the polemics presented in this link: http://www.christendomrestored.com/blog/2014/11/hoffmeiers-abuse-of-the-bible-in-the-immigration-debate/”

What Martin was referring to (if you trigger and read the above link | please do), was Bojidar Marinov’s critique of the work by Trinity International’s Professor James Hoffmeier | https://www.cis.org/Use-and-Abuse-Bible-Immigration-Debate | “The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Immigration Debate.”

The main critique that Mr. Marinov advances is premised upon a prayer of King Solomon for the stranger from afar. Mr. Marinov here believes that Israel was to somehow embrace the purported universal goodness of man. He proposes Solomon’s use of the word “nokhri” as proof of indiscriminate open arms.

Yes, there was to be discretion of opportunity for gentile believers; however, it was not ever to be a foregone conclusion. I will flesh this out further below.

Again, please read Mr. Marinov’s entire Hoffmeier rebuttal (in the link, above). Here is the portion of Solomon’s prayer that Mr. Marinov posits, from 1 Kings 8, suggesting the word ‘nokhri’ as biblical license for open-borders. Starting at verse 41:

41) “Moreover concerning a stranger (“nokhri”), that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name’s sake; 42) (For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house; 43) Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger ‘calls’ to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name.”

Marinov believes this passage exempts all immigrants from scrutiny.

The very clear indicator, in the relevant portion of this prayer, is that the “nokhri” term of status refers to the actual status rightly perceived at the time of departure for Israel, and not the subsequent status gained after a proper vetting. In such vetting (for even the Queen of Sheba) the status gained (afterward) would be “ger.” Before that occurs, she is still numbered among the “nokhri.” This is fairly straightforward, requiring no nuance to properly grasp. Also, “nekhar” bears the meaning of “disaster” while “nokhri” does not.

Solomon here emphasizes the evangelical power of conversion (with some weight of New Covenant prophecy in play). Therefore, he rightly uses the proper alien-status term “nokhri” (at departure) for the eventual “ger.” He chose the correct term for those starting the journey to the house of prayer for all peoples, but that status is not forever set in concrete once the pilgrims enter the land of promise.

Note that “nokhri” is even further differentiated from “nekhar.” “Nokhri” (meaning only a stranger that is not yet known as “heathen” or “sojourner” | check Strong’s) is what any “stranger” is first perceived as being by default prior to vetting. Therefore, in pleading for the Lord’s ear towards the converted stranger, Solomon simply continues using the same term to avoid confusion (to emphasize the marvelousness of future evangelism). Had he used “ger” in his prayer, the sense would have been incoherent: people who’ve never entered Israel before cannot be “ger.” The cart is before the horse.

There is also an intended non-specificity, since there was no sure knowledge of what other far-away strangers would convert. Solomon, and the Lord, did not want the people fixating only on those who were already sojourners. God was considering everyone/everywhere: He had His eyes set upon the world.

Further, this is a somewhat hypothetical event that Solomon prays about within the hearing of those attending his public petition. The King, with his God, wants the people to be waiting/watching and wise concerning the Lord’s work in a stranger’s heart. The Spirit of the Lord is in this prayer. Israel must thereby hope for the demonstration of favor, professed by the mere stranger, since following any obligated prerequisites would suffice as proof that they were not like earlier deceivers (i.e., the Gibeonites). The view I defend herein is self-consistent in these respects.

Mr. Marinov tries to make undue capital out of an entirely natural circumstance, exploiting it as if it were a lexical smoking gun, which we have just shown to be untrue. He would have to prove that the pilgrims never become “ger” upon arrival, but this crucial step in his argument is omitted.

His other argument about not abusing strangers, through mere vetting (i.e. discriminating discernment) for immigrant status, seems to discount Israel’s submission requirements for even far away countries (such as those we have already discussed). Along with the Decalogue, Israel laid upon new sojourners some ceremonial considerations (not all) within both camp/country and within the temple courts.

Since this was Marinov’s central argument against Hoffmeier, we need go no further unless he later raises a better argument for his view. Absent this supposed prooftext for Marinov’s model, what remains is considerable latitude for any nation (let alone a Christian nation) to enforce border entry restrictions upon non-citizens.

American naturalization laws acknowledge this. U.S. naturalization is a vetted immigrant’s citizenry process.  It involves honest/registered (allowed/monitored) residence. This was put in place by George Washington in the Naturalization Act of 1790 but similar principles were enforced by the individual colonies prior to their union under the Constitution.

Summary

In this study we have pointed out how  Israel’s defense of Gibeon evidences how truly protected an actual/permitted sojourner was. If your hosts are willing to go to war to protect you and your families, that is hardly evidence that you were oppressed, betrayed, or vexed by the manner in which you entered that arrangement.

The Gibeonites were identified. Their place was known. They had a sojourner status that was under severe penalty of servanthood; thereby, with Yahweh’s explicit blessings and direction, they were defended by Israel. This was not molestation (perversion of justice), as we are also sure that God duly blessed Israel’s oath of sojourning status upon Gibeon. Vetted allowance has benefits of obligated national goodwill, by sworn oath.

Please consider the weight of what I’m saying. Oaths of allowance are a decision process within vetting. America makes these responsible decisions every day. Many legal aliens prefer this avenue because they have good track records that they want recognized, and they don’t want the culture that they fled from to follow after them.

The Gibeonites had to also have considered all that befell them through that confirming vet. They sided with Israel, and God blessed their endeavor which resulted in a trusted/protective indentured relationship. The Hivites changed cultures. Who knows, maybe the unsung hero of Ecclesiastes 9:13-15, was a Gibeonite.

These type of scenarios, though significantly of lesser magnitude, are likely played out on many a border. Being allowed into a preferred country, with known stipulations and benefits for gained trust, is a good thing to many peoples. There is trusted obligation to protect the honest immigrant.

Hopefully, none of today’s America-bound/vetted sojourners are found in need of similar punishment such as that suffered by the Gibeonites; however, if so, they may yet find mercy in their hapless “straightforward” attempts.

Let’s not thwart the good process that God has used for the blessing of many immigrants, both far and near, and both past and present. Why should the revisionist rose-colored bias of multicultural socialism have a place at the table in any discussion of immigration? Borders are protection for many immigrants, as was the case for the Gibeonites.

The Gibeonites asked for league to be made with Israel, and Joshua made league with them, believing them to be far-away sojourners, who sought peace with Israel. A people seeking peace don’t mind proving it. Yes, the Gibeonites deceived, as was fully conceded earlier; however, they knew the stipulations and did seek to abide by them. Even though they chose against their former associations among the Canaanite nations, they were still subject to their new nation’s laws/judgment in regard to the misrepresentation they attempted.

There really ought not to be protest for a restriction on immigration because the vetting process is the means of discovering those who would do harm against those who would not. Though Christianity has changed much of the engagement on some of these issues, an Open Border policy cannot simply be assumed to be one of those changes. No biblical proscription against border control exists (which repositions the burden of proof upon those who claim otherwise). However, there are obligations to be discharged under oaths of protection. There is also an obligation to keep the Law of God in respect to all human life. America needs divine help here.

Whether one is caught as a supposed trespasser, or is a brother suspected of murder, a just trial of the case must ensue. This was expected throughout all of Israel: judicially (once within Israel’s jurisdictional boundaries), there can be no respect of persons.  A just weight and measure were the sworn obligation of Israel to all peoples (vetted or not) within their land, to the end that their inheritance not be voided.

Joshua met this obligation. He should be a model to us. When the borders of our nation are severely threatened with deception, and even of our own failings, we have the God-given liberty and requirement to protect our culture from subversion. Like Joshua, let us require and be obligated to one Law, administered equitably unto all who would honestly reside within our borders.

I believe it then is clear, that there is biblical allowance for nations to secure their borders through reasonable and non-oppressive immigration control. This is most true for nations and peoples in theonomic, biblically-based cultures, regardless of what level of erosion has undermined that culture. More erosion in the name of a false magnanimity is not the answer to today’s pressing issues.

Addendum

Gratitude expressed

Tremendous Thanks to both Ken Gentry and Martin Selbrede, for taking early notice of my shorter study.

Martin’s great help, in editing this writ, is also greatly appreciated.

There is lot more that The Book of Joshua, as well as all of scripture, has to say on the topic of immigration and of vetting. How much further the writ of this study may yet go is not fully ascertained by yours truly. I’ll rely on the good advice of Masters Gentry and Selbrede, to bring some ‘knowing’ on that matter.

Notes

While true that the Levites were supposed to be distributed throughout Israel, note what is unique about this particular Levite: he is traveling.

This is not a concession to statism, which amounts to a caricature of the position I’m defending. The borders of a nation delimit the domain over which the civil magistrate wields his sword: there is a change of jurisdiction as one passes over a national border, and this observation is biblical and not evidence of humanistic statism. Statism comes in with respect to the legislative content driving each jurisdiction. Leaping to this straw man accusation against national borders is unwarranted and amounts to a shortcut to evade grappling with more germane points.

Martin’s interest is in having each side present the best possible case for its position, following Warfield’s dictum that on important matters we should we willing to listen to every plausible argument to arrive at the biblical truth.

We can add in passing that “a house of prayer for all people” surely intimates that nokhri from afar would travel there to honor the living God (no differently than the queen of Sheba’s visit), but Israel has the sure right to ascertain that they were in fact coming to the house of God to worship Him rather than destroy His temple.

The temple court boundaries constitute a jurisdictional microcosm that essentially mirrors the nation’s political borders: conditions had to be satisfied to pass through such boundaries. The dissolution of these religious boundaries when the temple curtain was torn upon Christ’s death did not alter the boundaries between nations.

As referenced earlier, this construction arises by taking “we are your servants” as prima facie evidence for a desire to become sojourners. Opposing arguments have been considered above in the interest of completeness.

It is a smokescreen to argue “but the vetting was flawed: Israel’s elders didn’t perceive who the Gibeonites really were!” This argument is raised to draw attention away from the fact that a vetting actually was attempted in good faith on Israel’s part. The defect wasn’t in the vetting process considered in itself. In a sinful world, no vetting can be perfect, and neither is justice this side of the Final Judgment perfect. Operating in terms of a counsel of despair hardly marks an argument as being a legitimate Christian viewpoint: our obligations are not up for grabs.

The counter-arguments to this position have, in the interests of fairness, been considered earlier in this paper.

The idea that immigration control is inherently oppressive, such as charged by Marinov, is an attempt to win an argument by redefining terms (on the principle that he who defines, wins). To be circumcised as an adult would be considered fairly vexing by today’s standards, and yet God is not a God of confusion when He required this of proselytes in the Old Covenant: if circumcising someone isn’t oppressive, then neither is vetting at the border.

BORDERS, IMMIGRATION, AND THE BIBLE (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-086 by Victor Charles Coutre

Dr. Kenneth Gentry has asked me to expand on some observations of mine (which first appeared in varied Facebook groups on February 16, 2017) regarding Joshua 9 and how it pertains to immigration and the associated sojourner classifications and obligations of the Pentateuch. Note that all web-source quote referencing is enclosed using the “pipe” character | throughout this study, and that I’ve used Bible Hub throughout for referencing scripture (for KJ2000, YLT, and word studies).

Let us first consider one of the known scripture passages that contains Yahweh’s pertinent command:

17) “You shall not pervert the justice due the stranger ….. 18) But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you from there: therefore I command you to do this thing.” (Deut. 24:17-18).

God is serious enough about this command that He later has His people swear to keep it (Deut. 27:19).

It should be noted how Leviticus 19:33 offers an additional stipulation concerning compliance. God gave Israel this duty, especially “if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land.” This was intended to be observed after Israel was in the land. Since Joshua is in the process of possessing the land, this passage has obvious importance.

Considering all this, it may now be good to take time to reacquaint ourselves with the ninth chapter of Joshua.

God’s commands concerning sojourners

What all does God’s sojourner command entail? How does Joshua 9 (and the two chapters that bookend this passage) address and answer any concerns of obligation concerning sojourners for us today? What borders and boundaries of compliance are set and explained? What other scriptures speak to this matter, and what do other select commentators have to say? We shall soon see.

At the end of Joshua 8, after crossing the Jordan and destroying both Jericho and Ai and now in actual process of possessing the land, Joshua reads all the Law to native born and stranger/sojourner alike. None were exempt from this recitation. All inhabitants were subject to hearing the Law of God. This occurs inside the borders of the land prior to Joshua’s subsequent encounter with the Gibeonites.  Again, this is what Leviticus 19 pointed to.

Please read Joshua 8.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Joshua and Israel have just been blessed in the land, a blessing premised on the people’s obedience, and now come some strangers who claim to be from a “far off country.” It is my contention that Joshua then interacts to vet these people, who are actually some crafty Gibeonites earnestly seeking to escape certain judgment from God. Let’s consider the factors that would support that contention.

Evidence for a vetting protocol in Joshua 9

First, take notice of the Gibeonites’ knowledge of Israel’s stipulations. It was already well known who the nation of Israel was and what they were about. These travelers also knew of Israel’s protocols and of their military successes achieved through God’s might. There were many avenues by which they could have come by this knowledge, such as by intelligence gained through traders, through witnesses of recent campaigns, and by way of the renowned history of Yahweh’s people. These “ambassadors” sought sojourner status, because they knew that to be the surest way of evading annihilation.

Notice that the travelers first introduce themselves, in verse 6: “We are come from a far country: now therefore make you a covenant with us.” This is evidence that they sought accepted status with Israel.

Joshua’s interrogation of these men bears the marks of a vetting protocol:

“And the men of Israel said unto the Hivites, peradventure ye dwell among us; and how shall we make a league with you? And they said unto Joshua, We are thy servants. And Joshua said unto them, who are ye? And from whence come ye?”

At this point these sly Hivites pander their story of adoration for Israel’s God and His people’s history, and so seek a league of preferred sojourner/dweller status with Israel. Observe that there was an explicit expectation of a covenant to be made. This expectation didn’t take the princes of Israel by surprise: from all appearances they treated this as standard operating procedure. They are readied for the eventuality of a covenant being consummated, treating it as the normative pursuit for such an assembly of travelers. “We are your servants,” the Gibeonites replied. It should also be observed that these desperate, fear-wrought souls likely exhibited a modicum of sincerity here.

After the officers hear of their long, well-intentioned journey and inspect the supporting evidences (worn-out clothes supporting their tale of traveling from afar, etc.), we are then told:

“And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation swore unto them.”

By concluding a league – a covenant – with these men, the Israelites had unwisely omitted to seek God’s counsel on the matter. This challenge posed by these unexpected men approaching their camp was met with a measure of unilateral autonomy on Joshua’s part, who couldn’t walk back his decision the way Nathan could later withdraw permission for David to build the house of God. The covenant was made in God’s Holy Name and was now inviolate. Their error wasn’t in attempting to gain information from these individuals (which was intrinsically prudent to do), it was their failure to consider the suspicious timeframe and peculiar nature of the entire scenario. The entire encounter had a surreal component to it.

After so vetting them, Joshua’s ruling is to let them live and to give them the status as sojourners; however, he and all of Israel eventually realized they were deceived, and the Gibeonites subsequently pay a price for securing an inviolable covenant with Israel under false pretenses (Joshua 9:16-21).

We shall soon read that the Gibeonites, through their deceit, lost some of what they gained; however, keep in mind that they still obtained what amounts to vetted status, and thus were not molested (at least not until Saul tried to subvert the covenant much later). They were not entirely stripped of every preferred-stranger privilege they had gained. We shall learn that they retained a standing as tributes to Israel.

While their crime enslaved them, they yet maintained some hybrid standing of at-large servitude. (Note that Israel’s form of slavery must not be viewed through Southern U.S. pre-Civil War lenses (nor of those most anywhere of that period).

Again, here’s the Joshua 9:16-21 account, of how all this occurs (as was above linked).

“And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbors, and that they dwelt among them. 17) And the children of Israel journeyed, and came unto their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim. 18) And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes. 19) But all the princes said unto all the congregation, we have sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them. 20) This we will do to them; we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them. 21) And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation; as the princes had promised them.”

Was not the other option present, to have these pretenders killed? Perhaps the Hivites might have suffered, had Israel sought the Lord’s face (Josh. 9:14); however, we know that the princes did not seek the Lord’s face, even though they would later swear a dutiful oath in His name (Lev 19:12). Why was that? I have an answer.

There were already guidelines, as we shall see, that God gave for “vetting” far-away non-Canaanite cities, which this group claimed to be. Part of that process is asking if that faraway city will submit, and be subjugated to serve, or to be slaughtered – with families being enslaved (Deut. 20:1-15). This was an unconditional relationship toward pagans; though, it did also offer some options.

A patterned approach was to be normally exercised by Israel, while there was no clear command that they had to seek God’s face in such an instance – as presented by the Hivites.

I believe Israel’s failure to seek Yahweh’s face (by appeal to the Urim and Thummim) was mentioned, for the fact that this unusual interaction was not the instructed norm. Israel had to have had pondering doubts about making league with these timely “opportunists.” Remember their doubts led them to inspect and taste the provisions of the “Hivites.”

It should also be asked, why seek God’s face at all if no vetting action was even warranted? They had every good reason to seek God’s face. This leading wisdom from the Holy Spirit, however, was not heeded. It’s an entirely legitimate way to understand the critique given to them for their error.

Let us now quickly consider God’s commands regarding how Israel was to deal with far away pagans, as compared to nearby pagans. The two types of dealing are nearly similar, and there was some peaceful discretion allowed in one of them; however, accountable subjugation (of each individual) was to be the normal outcome. We here contend that sojourners should be seen as those in known/vetted league to and with Israel. Let’s take a closer look

Deuteronomy 20:1-18

“1) When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses, and chariots, and a people more than you, be not afraid of them: for the LORD your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. ….. 5) And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, what man is there that has built a new house, and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house. ….. 9) And it shall be, when the officers have finished speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people. 10) When you come near unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11) And it shall be, if it makes to you an answer of peace, and opens unto you, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall be subject unto you, and they shall serve you. 12) And if it will make no peace with you, but will make war against you, then you shall besiege it:  13) And when the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword: 14) But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shall you take unto yourself; and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.  15) Thus shall you do unto all the cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16) But of the cities of these people, which the LORD your God does give you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes: 17) But you shall utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD your God has commanded you: 18) That they teach you not to do according to all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so that you should sin against the LORD your God.”

Notice that even the far-off cities are vetted (according to the processes laid about above). Will those cities submit or be destroyed? Are they willing sojourning tributes or will their survivors be slaves?

Also notice the Lord’s expectations of “Officers” (leaders: Princes, Judges). Their presence and responsibility, which includes true sworn oaths, is not minimized. Representative government is the norm and expectation of any godly people of Yahweh. Their role, in this regard, is laid out in the text.

Obviously, there was no heeding of any anarchistic presumption of “non-aggression”. Israel was not an anarchistic libertarian open-armed horde. It is doubtful that such social utopian notions will easily fit the template that Deuteronomy 20 appears to lay down.

Some will say all this merely reflects military posturing and conditions, and not vetting. But assertion is not proof. Needed questions were asked, for the sake of deciding the biblically proper course of action upon peoples. So far as Deuteronomy 20 is concerned, the focus is all about agreeably satisfying divine stipulations.

With respect to the Hivites, or any other peoples, it was paramount that they were likewise approved as being non-hostile. It’s clearly what vetting was for. Protection of Israel’s people was desired by Joshua and his God.

This “far-off” group came in, already openly submissive, and on this hypothesis was most willing to be subjugated. The Gibeonites knew many of the stipulations, just like those south of America’s border also know many of the stipulations for gaining status.

Israel acted on the normalcy of pre-drafted instructions. Even their eating of some of the “spoils” was on their mind, during the vetting (see again Deuteronomy 20:14). Again, this was partly due to checking the veracity of the pretenders’ story.

This event, however, was not entirely in the above-outlined playbook of Deuteronomy 20; consequently, they should have consulted God, while failing to do so. The timing of Israel having just entered the land, and the immediacy of this troupe’s arrival, should have caused some consternation. They were fairly on track; however, they did not listen to their hearts. I believe this is what was key.

In a way, Israel was partly falling prey to a “we’re nicer than Yahweh” syndrome (reflective of modern times).

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It is my opinion that they became vain, with the accolades of attraction from “far off” self-subjugating kingdoms enticing them to move forward without full due process (e.g., neither Joshua nor Israel’s elders ever received a proper answer to the question: where did they – these men – come from?). The main point here is that a covenantal status was achieved and respected by Joshua, the officers (Princes/Judges), and the people (murmuring at first, but agreeable in the end once subjugation terms were laid out in their favor). This is very key.

So it somehow became known three days after consummating the covenant that these ambassadors were indeed Hivites (of Gibeon). Perhaps the “ambassadors” had all returned home and word snuck out, or maybe some had stayed in camp and intentionally leaked the deception. Whichever the case, there was surely an accountability issue that arose, and Joshua and Israel responded en masse.

The Hivites had a great worry, though it was an expected one, when the begrudged Israelites came unto their cities. Joshua and the officers called them forth; the whole city did not come out, only the leaders of the people that came forth. A delegation. It could have been as few as five. They represented the Kingdom.

The Sojourner oath, which Joshua and the officers swore to – in Yahweh’s name – was for all the inhabitants of that kingdom. At least it was effective for all towns, in Israel’s sight. This was a small group of Gibeonites, representing the larger group. Some of the travelling “ambassadors” were likely in this delegation.

So a small representative group had need of being vetted, and they gained their people’s status from that vetting, on the sly. This clever stratagem worked.

Just consider the times, as to why vetting was necessary, when even Caleb and his fellow spies were earlier identified as such in Jericho (where Rahab’s vetted helpfulness found her promised sanctuary).  Small groups, back then, obviously did not escape notice.

Influx of cultural influence, which God listed as to why Canaan kingdoms were to be utterly destroyed, is also to be considered for today’s nations that espouse (at least) some remnant of godly ethics. This is especially true if these nations are mainly Protestant/Christian in their founders’ faith. This means Christians of such nations have every right to fight for fostering and maintaining a Christian culture that can bring glory to God (while maintaining a suitable outward missionary effort to draw all nations to Christ).

It should go without saying in the United States that MS13 is a band that any country would have every right to forbid entrance to. How do you determine if a candidate for immigration is MS13 or not? By vetting them. Let’s therefore strive for an honest vetted citizenry.

Rushdoony on immigration and borders

Here is a quote of Dr. R.J. Rushdoony, on this matter, from: “Help save America” |http://helpsaveamerica.us/2016/r-j-rushdoony-on-the-relationship-between-land-and-immigration |:

“Our federal government thinks nothing of allowing in as immigrants an increasing number of people who are religiously and racially hostile to us. They see no relationship between faith and land. As a result, the United States and the Western world have embarked on a suicidal course. They reject the concept of Christendom and embrace instead the humanistic “family of man,” and thus immigration policies in the U.S. and Europe are based on myths and illusions of a destructive nature.”

From this citation it appears that Rushdoony was not an Open Borders proponent, though some have been known to stridently contend otherwise. Nevertheless, one Bojidar Marinov has tried to spin the ‘brotherhood of all peoples” concept, in a manner that opposes to Rushdoony’s position above. At times, he’s hinted that Rushdoony was (by some measure) an advocate of open borders. That theory surely runs against the grain of citations from Rushdoony, such as the one above. We should all require more than innuendo, to set aside Rushdoony’s stated views – when he’s explicitly speaking to this topic – as presented above.

Preservation of Christian culture is what R.J. Rushdoony understood, based upon his family’s urgent need to escape from Armenia and legally immigrate into America | https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/rousas-john-rushdoony-a-brief-history-part-1-i-am-armenian |.

This is definitely a precarious time, in America. It is a time that was planned for (by those who intentionally hope to have created a top heavy baby-boomer population of seniors) by way of 60 million abortions. Workers are needed for social security benefit-payments. It is not too far afield to see this as an intended means of long-range destabilization of our nation. With that in mind, let’s not forget Margret Sanger’s fascist ties and Germany’s pre WWI Reconquista scheme with Mexico. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram |

Though it may seem a bit presumptive to suggest such a covert endeavor, long range planning is not foreign to foreign invaders. Without defaulting to a knee-jerk “Bolshevik under every bed” paradigm, it remains true that history is replete with such campaigns.  First-century Muslim invasions were often preceded through long-term strategic immigration, and current similar strategies are in evidence.

It should be considered that weakening our nation’s political resolve to control the border could allow an increased influx of military grade individuals (some to organize insurgent “disenfranchised” peoples).

Any loss of US sovereignty ought not to be encouraged by American citizens, whether it be overt or covert invasion.

Summary of the vetting argument

Let’s reiterate, then, the view that Joshua 9 demonstrates a true gaining of sojourner status by the Gibeonites, premised on a pre-existing norm of conduct that extended beyond merely military operations. This status was secured when a solemn vow was made by both parties to it. It was not made by a few fanatical well-meaning Open-Border families, who hoped to be living on the outskirts of Israel. It was made by the Officers of the nation, who do represent the nation. They rightly made an oath, in the Lord’s name (again, Lev 19:12). This much is straight forward.

[image error]

Standard Bearer: Festschrift for Greg Bahnsen (ed. by Steve Schlissel)

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy. Also chapters on apologetics, politics, ecclesiology, covenant, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Deceptive Gibeonites (who were truly not to be welcomed) come to Israel, to be acknowledged as “sojourners,” a covenantal status secured by covenant. This, I argue, was their request. Israel’s peaceful sojourning class had already been established, and vetting was occurring, to allow “accountable peoples of peace-seeking nations” to sojourn among them.

This argument, in all its parts, provides biblical evidence of vetting for entry. It then logically follows that this vetting process was to be replicated and continued throughout the settled land, border to border, year after year.  Though the process was (from our vantage point) rushed in Joshua 9, it was no mere cursory or trivial action being taken by Israel’s new leader: swearing an oath in Jehovah’s name was serious business (which is why the oath was inviolate).

Look at the outcome of Joshua’s vetting. The Gibeonites gained protected status. Israel let them live without molestation and God even blessed Israel’s later defense of the Hivites. They treated these Gibeonites as they should an accepted sojourner, as they should a brother, who they yet rightly enslaved for their misrepresentation. Was that enslavement an unjust oppression of the Gibeonites, or justice? It was most definitely justice.

I don’t think some Open Borders proponents realize how their position suggests a ridiculous concept of no contact whatsoever. Being incognito, however, is not how being “unmolested” finds application. Molested means, as we shall see in Deuteronomy 24:17, a perversion of justice (e.g. betrayal of: family, vetted-sojourners, and sworn words-of-promise); therefore, an intelligent application is required.

Cultural protection is what God was wanting Israel to accomplish. Joshua almost succeeded with that vetting, and would have, had he also sought God’s ruling (through Urim and Thummin*). He didn’t follow the heart of the matter. They were rushed in their decision making. |* https://biblehub.com/exodus/28-30.htm |

Israel’s vetting of the Gibeonites was not what scripture judged. It was the rushed process that was judged! Contact actually brings about decisions, based on vetting. This contact is unavoidable, and so also is the associated vetting. For some today, this seems a difficult concept to grasp.

There is no commandment that says the mere vetting-for-passage of another individual, or group, constitutes molestation; remarkably, there are those who claim it is! Consider Israel’s given laws that required lawful discernment, as in this case of failing to discern Gibeon’s false witness.

The realities, seen in this very early event of Israel’s Canaan conquest, point to controlled borders. What happened within Israel’s boundaries was normative, and modern attempts to evacuate meaning from that circumstance have yet to be convincing.

As far as I can see in studying the biblical data, what happened after the fall of Jericho and Ai, with the Hivites, was purely a vet. The Gibeonites disguised themselves, and showed evidence sufficient to pass the vetting process. If they had not disguised themselves, they would have failed the vetting process, and they knew it.  This is proof that they knew a vetting process was in store for them. We will see they knew of Israel’s other norms. They were being vetted in respect to a treaty, and a literal rendering of their repeated assertion that they were Israel’s servants puts meat on the bones of that treaty’s content. It is no big stretch, in that light, to argue that the treaty established sojourner status and reciprocal terms thereof. Opponents would have to show that the treaty, especially in its final outworking, did not satisfy these criteria.

If there was no vetting process then why would Joshua say: “Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying, we are very far from you; when ye dwell among us? Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.”

The Gibeonites thus lost even a full sojourner status (which was equivalent to a hired servant or contractor). They were to never be freed from being bondmen (an actual enslaved nation); nevertheless they gained an accepted status, in Israel’s mercy.

Gibeon passed and then failed the vetting process (which actually happened); however, their gaining a form of sojourner status paid off, when in Joshua 10 we see Israel defending them from the wrath of “dishonored” Kings, having God’s blessing. They expected this. They knew it would be their lot. Because of this, they pled to Joshua on the grounds of being servants (those in league with Israel), and on the grounds of being those who had received sojourner status (Please do read Deuteronomy 10 in this regard.)

Israel could have just shrugged their shoulder, when the Hivites were besieged by angry armies; however, such would have been a betrayal of a sworn obligation that they fearfully kept. They had Joseph’s remains with them (until reaching Shechem, cf. Josh. 24:32), reminding them of what such betrayal would reap.

Some may be asking: “How could such a chain of events be of any interest to us, here and now”? As far as I know, neither Mexico nor any South American country are provided subjugation/sojourner treaties with the U.S.A. No such treaty is likely, nor perhaps advisable, either. However, similar (colonial-like) treaties have had reciprocal advantages with US commonwealths (e.g.  The Federated States of Micronesia, Puerto Rico & many others). Certain ‘friendly’ countries, like Israel, also enjoy a bilateral defense treaty with the US. Such represents the use of vetted-covenants, between sovereign states.

…

(To be continued in next blog posting)

Notes

A dispute might arise as to whether they were being vetted as immigrants or being vetted as partners in a mutual defense treaty (covenant). Oaths were not to be entered into rashly so vetting at that level isn’t controversial. While the idea of a “mutual” defense treaty has been defended (“The treaty evidently included provisions for mutual defense as well…” Howard, David M. Jr., Joshua (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1998), p. 219), it must be observed that while there’s evidence that Joshua defended the Gibeonites (Joshua 10:1-27), the evidence is thin going the other direction (perhaps being laid entirely on the shoulders of one single man, Ismaiah the Gibeonite of 1 Chron. 12:4, who led the thirty mighty men of David). The other potential challenge, to the immigration theory -being defended herein, arises from the verb Joshua uses at Joshua 9:8, as Howard notes: “The Gibeonites stated in v. 6 that they had ‘come from a distant country’; the verb form here makes it clear that, in their minds, they had reached their destination, that is, they had “arrived from a distant country.” By contrast, when Joshua questioned them, the verb form he used made it clear that he believed the Gibeonites were merely passing by. We might paraphrase his words as ‘from where are you coming as you pass by here?’ (Joshua perceived that their journey was still in progress),” op. cit., p. 225, a peculiarity that Lange also notes, John Peter: Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: 1912), p. 89. This author contends that Joshua took their arrival in normal stride, being prepared for anything.

“The Gibeonites respond by indicating to Joshua, who continues to play a central role, that they are his servants. This expression may be nothing more than a form of common oriental politeness (Gen. 50:18), although with a

view to the treaty that is desired the words may express future subservience (see also v. 11).” Woudstra, Marten H, The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981) p. 58. Neither does Keil take the phrase at face value: “…the Gibeonites simply said, “We are thy servants,” (ver. 8), i.e., we are at thy service, which, according to the obsequious language common in the East, was nothing more than a phrase intended to secure the favour of Joshua, and by no means implied a readiness on their part to submit to the Israelites and pay them tribute, as Rosenmueller, Knobel, and others suppose; for, as Grotius correctly observes, what they wished for was “a friendly alliance, by which both their territory and also full liberty would be secured to themselves.” Keil. C.F., Commentary on Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984 reprint), p. 97. Lange supports that opinion as well: the Gibeonites “say, with true oriental adroitness, apparently submissive and humble: “We are thy servants.” This was no sincere declaration of submission (Serar., C. A. Lap., Rosenm., Knobel), but simply a form of courtesy, as in Gen. 50:18 and 32:4, which was, however, very well designed and cunningly addressed” (Lange, op. cit.) Howard, on the other hand, supports the literal rendering: “The Gibeonites attempted to defuse the situation by depicting themselves as subordinates (‘We are your servants’).” Howard, David M. Jr., Joshua (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1998), p. 225. Matthew Henry does likewise, asserting that the Gibeonites “make a general submission,” and neither Calvin nor Hengstenberg argue otherwise.

Hengstenberg, however, deviates from my reading of Deuteronomy 20 thus: “In ver. 15 it is expressly stated that the decree has reference only to foreign enemies; and its false application to Canaanites is expressly contested in verse 16-18 and their complete extermination commanded.” Hengstenberg, Ernest Wilhelm, History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005 [1872]), p. 431. While not a crucial element of my thesis, this point warrants future study and a wider canvassing of the data than is possible here. We (Author & Editor) would however contend that the pattern here would apply more generally; thereby arguing from the lesser to the greater, and the likely distinction is that tribute could be by voluntary covenant from non-hostile nations, and still be compulsory – via involuntary covenant, for foreign enemies.

It could certainly be urged, on the basis of Joshua 9, that the Israelite leaders were too open-armed with the Gibeonites and learned their lesson thereafter: do your homework with incoming peoples you don’t fully know.

This article doesn’t specifically deal with other legitimate companion grounds for vetting, such as the contagion question. Quarantine is a purely biblical concept, and the mechanism for enforcement parallels the issue above.

Whether this was determined by stationing Gibeonite spies at Ebal to hear Israel’s official policy, or extrapolating from the laws and principles of nations with which they were familiar (but spinning it to put Jehovah at the focal point of their motivations), the result would be the same.

This word “spoils” is not merely in reference to the fact the bread was spotted (moldy) and thus partially spoiled, but to the fact that the victuals functioned as ambassadorial gifts, as was customary in the region. It also reflects the commanded norm of eating the food of those far-off nations who have been subjugated.

The bulk of commentators believe that they were within a day’s march from the Gilgal location where the covenant was entered into: the covenant likely was struck in the evening, another day was devoted to marching, and the morning of the third day they met the Gibeonites again. This would make Gibeon the next target for Israel’s march through Canaan.

We should observe here the actual depth of the Hivite motivation: this was a people who knew what refugee status was all about, and weren’t willing to repeat that ordeal with an even worse outcome. As Jamieson notes of the Gibeonites, “having been expelled from mount Seir, to make way for the tribe of Esau, and having obtained a settlement in the four cities of Canaan, they foresaw the certainty of their being again dispossessed by the descendants of Esau’s brother, Jacob.” Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), chapter on Joshua, p. 24).

Rahab being a “known quantity” to Jericho’s leaders meant her word was sufficient to deflect attention away from the spies she hid in her home. This is the essence of being vetted, where an objective basis of trust is established.

Warfield pointed out that creating a situation you cannot control is an inherently immoral act. He used the example of someone mixing up chemicals in an orphanage, and when the mixture explodes, that man excuses himself on the grounds that he could not control it. If he could not control it, he had no right to manufacture it in the orphanage in the first place. Thus, while vetting is not perfect control, it surely reflects minimal control within the kind of moral framework Warfield was arguing from.

We note (in passing) Dr. Rushdoony’s refusal to use the term “sovereignty” or “sovereign” except in respect to God Himself; while ‘we’ use the term in a looser, more conventional sense, without intending to step on God’s toes.

As follows from a literal (versus ceremonial/diplomatic) reading of their assertion, “We are thy servants,” a concept that recurs in this text.

Article by Victor Couture[image error]

WHAT DOES “THE SON OF MAN” MEAN?

[image error]PMW 2018-085 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

During his earthly ministry, Jesus repeatedly refers to himself as “the son of man” (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; etc.). But what does this self-designation mean? How is it used in the Gospels?

As we consider this phrase in the Gospels, we must keep three important issues in mind: (1) Jesus is the only one who ever uses this phrase. Never do his disciples, the Jews, or anyone else mention it. (2) The phrase is always used with the definite article: “the son of man” (3) In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus himself does not even begin using it until Matt. 8:20. Each of these points is significant.

In the Gospels, we find four key predicative-expressions serving to identify who Jesus is: (1) “the son of David” (Matt. 12:23; 22:42); (2) “the Messiah” (Matt. 16:16, 20; 26:63); (3) “the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63; 27:43, 54); and (4) “the king of the Jews/Israel” (Matt. 27:11, 42). And these are often used by persons other than Jesus — even by God himself (Matt. 3:17; 17:5), Satan (Matt. 4:3, 6), and demons (Matt. 8:29).

The phrase “the son of man” is a technical term, but not a term of identification pointing out who Jesus really is. That is, we never find it mentioned as a predication, such as “he is (or is not) the son of man.” Despite modern popular opinion, it does not function as a christological title. And it is not a substitute for “Messiah.”

The Glory of Christ (book by R. C. Sproul)[image error]

From the angels’ revelation of Jesus’ glory to the shepherds outside Bethlehem,

to Jesus’ life-changing revelation of His glory to Paul on the Damascus road, Sproul guides us to a deeper understanding of Christ’s glory.

For more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Even though Jesus constantly speaks of himself as the “son of man” either to his disciples or in their presence, they never pick up on this phrase and refer to him as the “son of man.” They do not even do so in the very contexts where he has just declared himself to be the “son of man” (Matt. 8:18, 20; 10:5, 23; 12:1, 8; 13:36, 41). In fact, when he specifically asks his disciples who people say “the son of man” is (Matt. 16:13) and who the disciples themselves believe he is, Peter responds “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:15). He does not say “you are the son of man.”

And when the disciples declare Jesus’ identity, they do not call him “the son of man.” Rather, they use one of the other identifying phrases such as “the son of God” (Matt. 14:33) or “the Christ” (Matt. 16:16).

What is more, Jesus even warns his disciples not (yet!) to tell others that he is “the Christ” or “the Son of God” (Matt. 16:16, 20). [1] He never tells them not to tell anyone he is “the son of man.” Charges are brought against him for claiming he is “the son of God” (Matt. 26:63–65; 27:42), but not for claiming he is “the son of man.”

The reason “the son of man” does not occur before Matt. 8:20 is because in the first section of his Gospel (Matt. 1:1–4:16), Matthew is establishing Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God.” [2] The climax of this first section is God’s own declaration: “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17). Once that has been established, Matthew has Jesus beginning to call himself “the son of man.” And for an important reason.

Matthew is pressing home the point that Jesus is the son of God. But once he has established that all-important, foundational truth, then he shows that in his earthly ministry the Son of God has become . . . a man, a particular man, “the son of man.” And as a man (God in the flesh) he must suffer (Matt. 8:20; 17:9, 12; 26:24, 45). And as a man, he will judge all other men (Matt. 13:37–43; 25:31–46; cp. John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31). [3] And it is only as this man, “the son of man,” that Jesus as the God-man effects full redemption for sinners (Matt. 18:11; 20:28).

[image error]

Keys to the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Provides the necessary keys for opening Revelation to a deeper and clearer understanding.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, Jesus the Son of God has become flesh so that he might die on the cross. In Matt. 16:21 (where Matthew’s second section begins; see Note 2) Jesus begins making this point to his confused disciples (cp. Matt. 17:23; 20:18). Until his resurrection they do not fully understand that he must die as the “son of man” (Matt. 16:21–23; cp. John 20:9). Jesus’ redemptive work depends on his being “the son of man,” a particular, historical man.

And, again: this “son of man” will be the judge of all men — which will be the concluding point of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 25:31–46).

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew’s perspective. My research will demonstrate that Matthew’s presentation demands that the Olivet Discourse refer to AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–35) as an event that anticipates the Final Judgment at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46). This will explode the myth that Jesus was a Jewish sage focusing only on Israel. The commentary will be about 250 pages in length.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!

Notes

1. This prohibition only continues until he has fully revealed his redemptive plan to them and they understand it. For in the Great Commission, they are commanded to God and baptize people in the name of Jesus as God’s Son. But this point must await another article!

2. Note the phrase marker is: “from that time Jesus began” (Matt. 4:17a and 16:21a). See my article “Matthew’s Outline; Jesus’ Identity.”

3. This point will be significant in my forthcoming commentary on Matt. 21–25. There I will show that all men need to be judged at the end of history (cf. Matt. 25:31–46) — not just Israel in AD 70.

MALE AND FEMALE?

[image error]PMW 2018-084 by Bill Smith (Kuyperian Commentary)

Gentry note:

With accelerating collapse of American culture and morality, we are witnessing the denial of some of the most basic realities, such as our gender. I have written on this topic myself. But I found this article insightful. If the postmillennial hope is to turn around our culture from its current nose-dive into the void, we must understand the issues. This is a good article for Postmillennial Worldview — even though I have no idea if Bill Smith is a postmillennialist!

Now for the article!

Male and Female?

by Bill Smith (Kuyperian Commentary)

“Transgender” people have been around for quite some time. Up until recently, we haven’t really had to take them seriously as a culture. They were always on the fringe. In many ways they still are. However, now our culture is not only tolerating them, but they are being praised for their courage of breaking free from “social constructs” of male and female foisted upon them by the interpretation of their anatomy and becoming the sex (or gender) they really feel they are on the inside. The media that feed our society are pushing the rest of us to sympathize and celebrate these new heroes. Gender identity has become so fluid that the binary distinctions of male and female aren’t enough. Facebook has dozens of options and a “Custom” button for the user to choose an identity.

The question that confronts the church is one that many of us haven’t had to ask in the West for quite some time. With our Christian heritage, we have accepted the categories of male and female for centuries. But now we must give an account for why believe these are still valid categories. Some dismiss this out-of-hand as silly, requiring no argument. But as we take the gospel to our culture, this is a question we may have to answer. Does the gospel speak to this issue? Does it really matter if someone believes he’s a female even though he has a male anatomy (or vice versa)? Does this have any bearing on whether or not someone is a Christian?

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of American culture and to our Christian influence in culture. In this sermon series Dr. Gentry tackles the homosexual question head on.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Some will say that it doesn’t. Some Christian churches are throwing their arms open wide to these folks without questioning these fundamentals of our existence. These things don’t ultimately matter, they conclude. Behind these conclusions lie reasonings that males and females are not distinct. “Male” and “female” are only external, peripheral realities. We are bags of sexual skin with an androgynous humanity filling them up. We are not male and female through-and-through. Consequently, when you change the peripherals, you aren’t really denying anything about your humanity. The peripherals are inconsequential.

But are they? Does male and female only go skin deep? No, it does not. This is something that should be obvious from biological evidence alone. We are different all the way to the cellular level. Muscle structure, bone structure, fat storage, as well as reproductive organs are all different. We think differently. According to some research, we even dream differently! When God created us a male and female in his own image, he created us as infinitely distinct, yet harmonious, individuals. The outward appearance of our bodies that are the public declaration to us and to the world that we are male or female, proclaim what is true throughout our embodied existence. We are not superficially male or female. We are not merely functionally male or female. We are male and female.

This is not an inherent weakness of creation that must eventually be overcome by androgynous salvation. Christ himself shows us that when we follow him in the resurrection of our bodies, we will do so as transformed males and females. We will retain our maleness and femaleness throughout eternity.

Transforming Homosexuality[image error]

What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change

by Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

Is same-sex attraction sinful, even if it is not acted on? Denny Burk and Heath Lambert challenge misconceptions on all sides as they unpack the concepts of same-sex orientation, temptation, and desire.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Our being male and female is part of the very good creation of God and is a gift to us. Just as with every gift of God, we have a responsibility; and this is where the gospel speaks to our culture in this area. The first responsibility we have before God is to acknowledge how he created us and give thanks for it. The refusal to give thanks is the first step down the spiral of depravity that leads to all of this sexual perversion (Rom 1.18-32). God created us male and female. He imposed upon us our identity. A fundamental step of faith is to acknowledge his creation of us, not merely as generic humans, but as males and females. The gospel calls for submission to Jesus’ lordship over our lives. If a man or woman cannot submit in this most basic area of life and begin to operate within the parameters of male and female, is he or she submitting to the lordship of Christ? . . .

To finish the article click: here

[image error]Bill Smith has been married to Susan for right at twenty-eight years, has six children, a daughter-in-law, and is the proud grandpa of one granddaughter and one grandson. He is now the pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church in Carbondale, IL.

ANCIENT NEAR EAST APPROACHES TO GENESIS?

[image error]PMW 2018-083 by Paul J. Barth (Aquila Report)

Gentry note:

The Genesis Creation Account is not only foundational to a biblical worldview, but to the Bible itself. Too many evangelicals waffle when it comes to Moses declaring that God created in six days. I could only wish they had the same problem as Augustine: Why did it take so long? But they don’t. They are trying to maintain academic respectability before the secular, God-denying world. And that is tragic. This is a helpful article for a (postmillennial) worldview.

Now let us hear Paul J. Barth on the matter.

False Assumptions of Ancient Near East Literary Approaches to Genesis

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.” 1 Timothy 1:4

Dr. Richard Belcher Jr. summarizes Dr. C. John Collins’ theory from his book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? about how ancient Near East literature and cosmology should influence our interpretation of Genesis:

“[Collins argues that] Genesis 1-11 is historical in the sense that it is referring to actual events, but because the author uses literary and rhetorical techniques there is a high level of figurative and symbolic description. In fact, he talks about the benefit of a pictorial approach to the Bible as explaining ordinary experience.

“The view that Genesis 1-11 exhibits a high level of symbolic description is confirmed when Genesis 1-11 is read in the context of the Mesopotamian stories of origin. These stories are the proper literary background for reading Genesis. Thus the Mesopotamian stories give us clues as to how we are to read Genesis. These stories are historical in the sense that they are referring to actual events but they are not to be taken literally. They manifest historical preferentiality clothed in imaginative description. It is reasonable to expect Genesis to take the same approach. For example, Enuma Elishdescribes the formation of the earth and heavens as the result of a battle between the gods where Marduk defeats Tiamat and slays her. He cuts her body in two pieces and with one half of her body he forms the earth and with the other half he forms the skies. This story refers to actual events, such as the formation of the earth and skies, but it does so in a way that is full of symbolism that is not true to reality (imaginative description). On the basis of Collins’ argument concerning the relationship of Genesis to these ancient stories, one could draw the conclusion that we should understand Genesis 1-2 the same way. Genesis is talking about real historical events but doing so in a highly symbolic way which should not be taken too literally. Collins concludes that Genesis 1-11 has an historical core. This core includes the historicity of Adam, but there is uncertainty concerning how the body of Adam was formed. Thus we should not understand Genesis 2:7 in too literal a fashion.” [1]

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This theory rests on two historiographic assumptions. [2]

Assumption 1: That ancient Near East religious-cosmological concepts were contextually formative to the writing of Genesis.

Assumption 2: That Mesopotamian myths were not taken in a “literalistic” fashion by ancient Mesopotamians.

These assumptions are problematic for the following reasons:

Ancient Near East Concepts Were Not Formative to the Composition of Genesis

In the first place, it is not entirely clear that certain Babylonian myths existed prior to Moses. For instance, the earliest extant fragments of the Epic of Gilgamesh are believed to overlap the time period Moses wrote the Pentateuch; which was written first remains an open question. [3] Likewise, Dr. Noel Weeks states “all evidence indicates that Enuma Elish was not yet written when Moses wrote Genesis.” [4] While other scholars think these were indeed written before the Pentateuch, it is tenuous enough to weaken confidence in theories that are dependent on these myths being widely prevalent before Moses wrote.

Secondly, the ancient Near East was not necessarily as uniform as this theory assumes. When we speak of the ancient Near East, we are talking about several individual cultures over a wide geographic area, not one homogeneous culture. Dr. Weeks warns:

“We should be very wary of any interpretation built on the claim that something was ‘just what everybody did or thought in those days’. It assumes a uniformity which is not necessarily the reality. As I have mentioned, it is common to take Babylonian practice as though it is the standard for the whole of the Ancient Near East. Yet there are significant differences between Babylonia, Egypt, the Hittites and Ugarit.” [5]

[image error]Understanding the Creation Account

DVD set by Ken Gentry

Formal conference lectures presenting important information for properly approaching the Creation Account in Genesis. Presents and defends Six-day Creation exegesis, while presenting and rebutting the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Much of the ANE writings have not survived to this day—they were not providentially preserved like the Bible was. Some texts have survived due to the material they were written on and due to the climate, such as in Iraq and Egypt, and these are often fallaciously assumed to be representative of the entire ancient Near East. Dr. Weeks explains:

“If, from the immediate environment of the Old Testament in Palestine, very little survives, but from other countries, there is a lot of material, what will be the likely result? It will be to treat the material from other cultures as though it is relevant to the Old Testament. And sometimes that will be the case. The problem is that it is not always the case.” [6]

While some idioms, motifs, and conventions genuinely appear to be widespread, it is tenuous to assume that the beliefs of one pagan culture, or even a few, would be commonly accepted everywhere or among the Hebrews.

Most of the things we can learn from ANE texts are either known from Scripture already, or do not make a very big impact on our understanding of the text one way or another. [7] Occasionally outside sources can provide insight into certain puzzling passages or curiosities of language and literary allusion, but these are almost universally auxiliary insights that merely add context, they do not radically alter the meaning of the text and the momentum of the narrative. ANE studies are best used to support and confirm the teaching and history of Scripture, rather than to question or undermine it.

Ancient Near East similarities to Scripture are secondary and derivative

Most importantly, the historical account of Genesis, passed down orally from Adam to his posterity, which Moses committed to writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the original and infallible account. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: …” (Exodus 34:27). . . .

To read full article with footnotes: click

[image error]Consider the Lilies

A Plea for Creational Theology

by T. M. Moore

Moore calls us to examine the biblical doctrine of general revelation from the perspective of what he calls creational theology. In this artful introduction to creational theology, Moore helps us develop the skills and disciplines for doing theology as we look upon and interact with the world around us.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

TEMPLE DESTRUCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT (3)

[image error]PMW 2018-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and final article in a brief series showing how the destruction of the temple in AD 70 pointed to and even symbolized the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment.

In the last article I noted that the Jews believed the temple was permanent, existing as long as the world would last. So many scholars comment on this religious perspective in Judaism regarding the temple’s relevance to the world order.

The temple’s relation to the world

Lee I. Levine (2002: 246) notes that the temple “was where God dwelled, this was the cosmic center of the universe (axis mundi), the navel (omphalos) of the world that both nurtured it and bound together heaven and earth.”

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Randall C. Gleason (2002: 111) points out that “the Jewish connection between Temple and cosmos was such that the glory of the Temple in Jerusalem symbolized the stability of the Jewish world.”

Shaye J. Cohen (1982: 24) agrees: “the temple was more than a building and more than the home of the sacrificial cult. It was the sacred center of the cosmos, the place where heaven and earth meet.” He continues: “the temple was more than a building and more than the home of the sacrificial cult. It was the sacred center of the cosmos, the place where heaven and earth meet.”

Peter Hayman (1986: 176) cites Sefer Yesira regarding the “edges” of the universe: “the Holy Temple [is] exactly in the middle, and it supports them all.”

The temple’s decor and the world

That the temple’s destruction points to the world’s destruction would be fueled by the temple’s decor itself. For, according to Josephus, the Jews believed that the temple veil and the high priest’s vestments each picture the fact that “God made the universe of four elements” earth, sea, air, and fire (Jos., Ant. 3:7:3 §183-84).

Then later, he explains the colors of the temple veil as “a kind of image of the universe” (J.W. 5:5:4 §212–13; Ant. 3.6.4; 3.7.7). This is because “the Temple, its vessels and even the high priest’s vestments were depicted as representing the entire universe and the heavenly hosts” (Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern 1974: 1: 906). As Seth Schwartz (1990: 42) notes, Josephus’ description of the special temple articles “are said to symbolize parts of the cosmos [and] may imply that for Josephus the Temple as a whole symbolized the cosmos as a whole.”

[image error]

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And this information is not simply a Josephan peculiarity. In Sirach 18:24 we read of the high priest: “on his long robe the whole world was depicted.” Schwartz (1990: 43) argues that this statement “clearly implies the cosmic nature of the priestly vestments.”

Philo agrees, noting that the high priest’s dress seemed to be “a copy and representation of the world” (Spec. Laws 1:16 §84) and was arranged so that it provided “a representation of the universe” (Spec. Laws 1:17 §95). He (Mos 2:24 §122) points out that “some who have studied the subject” see the shoulder stones on the high priest as “emblems of those stars which are the rulers of night and day, namely, the sun and moon.” The twelve stones on the breastplate are emblems of “the circle of the zodiac” (Philo, Mos 2:24 §124).

James Davila (2005, 17) therefore writes that “the Jerusalem Temple is a microcosm of the universe.” D. D. Kupp (1996, 133) agree that “the Jerusalem Temple explained YHWH’s active presence in his created order and functioned as a spiritual and symbolic microcosm of the macrocosm.”

Thus, at Christ’s death the temple veil (picturing the stellar universe) is “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mk 15:38//). The rending of the veil, then, was a “clear sign of impending destruction of the Temple” (Richard A. Horsley 1987: 162). In fact, due to its embroidery with the starry heavens “its tearing would be an apt symbol of the beginning destruction, not only of the temple (which itself even as a whole symbolized the cosmos) but of the very cosmos itself” as the new creation process is begun in Christ’s death (Gregory K. Beale 1997a: 189).

So just as Christ’s overthrowing the moneychangers’ tables pictured the overthrowing of the temple, the destruction of the temple with all of its cosmic imagery pictured the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment. The temple is a microcosm of the cosmos and therefore it destruction symbolizes the destruction of the world itself.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew’s perspective. My research will demonstrate that Matthew’s presentation demands that the Olivet Discourse refer to AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–35) as an event that anticipates the Final Judgment at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46). This will explode the myth that Jesus was a Jewish sage focusing only on Israel. The commentary will be about 250 pages in length.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!