NEW CALVINIST POLITICAL CHURCH
IX Marks is
the church planting organization of
Mark Dever, the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist, a
Southern Baptist
church located on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
six blocks from the United States Capitol.
Jonathan Leeman is the Editorial
Director of IX Marks which ministers to a network of over 4,000
churches internationally.
Jonathan
Leeman has Masters degrees from the London School of Economics and
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also has a Ph.D. in
“political theology” from the University of Wales which was
established by Royal Charter in 1893 and whose Chancellor is Prince
Charles of Wales. The London School of
Economics is not found in Leeman’s
various biographical profiles probably because it
was funded in 1894 by the
Third-Way socialist/fascist
Fabian Society which established
the LSE to
educate and train an elite workforce to carry out the
schemes of
the British Eugenics Society. IX Marks, the organization of
Cambridge-educated Mark Dever, equips pastors and church leaders to
preach and put into practice the Social Gospel.
Most of the Reformed
leadership have advanced degrees from universities in the United
Kingdom—Oxford,
Cambridge, London School of Economics, University of
Edinburgh—whose liberal theology and politics
have liberalized the Church of England and the
UK.
Graduates of these institutions of Marxist learning
have migrated to the U.S. as agents of social change. They have
infiltrated our seminaries, colleges and denominations for the
purpose of shipwrecking Christian faith in America, especially of
university and seminary students. The Reformed New Calvinist
movement has theologically and often physically taken over Christian
churches. Posturing as the
“conservative
resurgence”
(launched in the late 70s by Banner of Truth Trust UK) Reformed
operatives are now peddling every liberal theological and political
position of the radical Left, including sexual perversion, abortion,
Marxism, Gnosticism, racism, illegal immigration, etc. (See
Thomas Littleton's articles)
In the photo below, Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman
are speaking to pastors at the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention on
the need to abandon their conservative convictions,
such as pro-life, in order to advance political agendas for
social justice. (See
“9Marks
Dever & Fabian Socialist Lecture Pastors on How to Ditch Your
Pro-Life Voting Habit”)
Apparently in the Reformed Calvinist SBC a doctorate
in
“political theology”
from a secular university qualifies one as a theologian who is
competent to counsel Christian ministers about moral issues like
abortion. Jonathan Leeman’s
political theology degree sounds more like a religious cover for
political operatives like him to move conservative Christians away
from sound doctrine into liberal theology and politics. Interesting
that Dever and Leeman chose to publicly advocate for pro-abortion
voting as a Christian option just months before the 2018 elections
which filled the vacated Republican seats in the House of
Representatives and many state governments with radical liberals.
Who knew that the prospect of
legalizing infanticide would follow in the soon to be euthanized
USA? Did Dever and Leeman have prior knowledge of this plan to
legalize the murder of newborn babies? Abortion leading to
infanticide will pave the legal road to euthanasia which will
lead to the mass extermination of Christians, which is the subject
of this report.
There are many such left-wing political operatives in
the New Calvinist movement. Having assisted the ruin of the faith and morals of
future generations with their pseudo apologetics, the New SBC
Calvinists are now positioned to offer their predetermined
alternative to conservative Christianity and Western Civilization
through their Fabian Socialist spokesman, Jonathan Leeman, who also
advocates for
revolution in his book,
Political Church: The Local
Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule:
“I am not
positive there is biblical license for overturning an unjust
government, but I think there probably is, and I believe that
Genesis 9:5-6 provides that licence...
“Rebellion
is justified not according to the withdrawal of consent (since
consent is not what creates the obligation to obey); rebellion
is justified when the government fails to do what God has
obligated it to do (since God creates the obligation to obey by
assigning government with its task).
“In other
words, the formally designated holder of the sword has no
authority to set aside the demands of the justice mechanism in
the process of fulfilling its mandate, lest it boomerang back
and strike him as it does the vigilante. The mere fact that a
particular government is in place by God’s secret providence
does not mean that all its actions or directives are morally
legitimate. God gives authority to government for certain ends
only, and its rule is legitimate to the extent it pursues just
ends by just means. A characteristically unjust government, by
virtue of its injustice, has exceeded its authorization and
self-refuted its own mandate, thereby triggering the operations
of God’s Noahic justice mechanism to strike back. And precisely
because Scripture does not specify how a society must form a
government, it just might leave a society with the freedom to
topple an unjust ruler and to establish a new one by just means.”
Leeman, Jonathan. Political Church: The Local Assembly as
Embassy of Christ’s Rule (Studies in Christian Doctrine
and Scripture) (pp. 195-196). InterVarsity Press.
Political Church is not a theological treatise
of “Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture” as stated in the
subtitle. It is political propaganda which
advocates for the replacement of secular governments, which have not
produced the desired utopia, with a global theocracy.
The book promotes the Jewish Polity (government by theocracy) of the
Old Testament, with a flimsy, legalistic application to the New
Testament Church. (Polity; 1. a form or process of civil government
or constitution. 2. an organized society; a state as a political
entity. New Oxford Dictionary)
“...my
political theology depends upon a doctrine of two ages... Just
as the state is a political institution because it has been
authorized by a King to borrow and wield his own sword in the
‘age of creation’
upon rebellious subjects, so the local church is a political
institution because it has been authorized by a King to borrow
and wield his own office keys for declaring who is and who is
not a citizen in the
‘age of new
covenant.’....
Local church membership, like good works, is the mark, proof,
badge or, to use citizenship language,
‘passport’
of a true Christian.” (p. 295)
This description resembles the
“political theology”
of the Roman Catholic Church which blended Old Testament theocratic
rule with Babylonian worship. We have seen how their
“church polity”
has turned out. (See Mystery Babylon:
Catholic or Jewish?) In fact, political theology is a
course of study in Catholic universities such as the
Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and
Villanova University in Pennsylvania.
Jonathan Leeman's
Political Church is calculated to Judaize and politicize the
Christian Church. Leeman conceives of the New Testament Church as a
political institution having a legal contract with God—a
‘new covenant’
which is an extension of the old covenants between Yahweh and his
former
‘subjects.’
Leeman’s version of the new covenant minimizes the personal and
intimate relationship between the Jesus Christ and His Church.
Salvation is a legal arrangement, a contract, after which the
Christian is
‘tasked’
as a
‘citizen’
installed in the
‘body politic’
of Jesus’
‘regime’
with the civic duty of displaying God’s righteousness to the world.
THE POLITICS OF JESUS AND
HIS PEOPLE
“Jesus.
We start with Jesus. The New Testament declares Jesus to be the
new Adam, the offspring of Abraham, the true Israel and the son
of David who will rule over Yahweh’s new covenant body
politic....
“I
will argue that Jesus Christ came as the new Adam to execute
God’s kingdom rule through the new covenant in the salvation of
God’s people, thereby establishing them individually as God’s
citizens and corporately as his model body politic before the
nations....
“Jesus
Christ, as the new Adam, manifested God’s rule through the
prophetically promised new covenant by saving God’s people, the
church. Specifically, he fulfills these prophetic promises by
declaring that the nations belong to him, forgiving
once-rebellious subjects by offering a new covenant in his
blood, installing them as citizens within his regime, tasking
them with displaying the heavenly Father’s righteousness and
justice in their political life together before the onlooking
nations, and granting them his Spirit to these ends.”
(p. 297)
Jesus’
regime? The
language is absurd, portraying Jesus as a military dictator instead
of a Savior.
Did God so hate the world that
he sent his only begotten Son to establish a
‘regime’
and a
‘political
institution’ to improve his image and enforce his commands in the
world?” Maybe in the Political Bible but not in the inspired
Word of God.
The problem is with
Leeman’s Reformed Calvinist theology, which is the man-centered
Dominionist /
Reconstructionist philosophy of Rousas Rushdoony that the Church
must create an earthly Kingdom of God before Jesus returns. Jesus
Christ is not the “new Adam,” as Leeman avers, but the “last Adam”
according to Scripture. “And so it is written, The first man Adam
was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit.” 1 Cor. 15:46 (KJV) The accurate translation of this
verse is crucial to understanding the Cross, the Gospel and
Christian sanctification.
A very helpful exposition of 1 Cor.
15:45-47 is found in Watchman Nee’s
classic, The Normal Christian Life:
“The
death of the Lord Jesus is inclusive. The resurrection of the
Lord Jesus is alike inclusive. We have looked at the first
chapter of I Corinthians to establish the fact that we are
‘in
Christ Jesus’. Now we will go to the end of the same letter to
see something more of what this means. In I Corinthians 15:45,47
two remarkable names or titles are used of the Lord Jesus. He is
spoken of there as ‘the last Adam’ and He is spoken of too as
‘the
second man’. Scripture does not refer to Him as the second Adam
but as
‘the
last Adam’;
nor does it refer to Him as the last Man, but as ‘the
second man’. The distinction is to be noted, for it enshrines a
truth of great value.
“As
the last Adam, Christ is the sum total of humanity; as the
second Man He is the Head of a new race. So we have here two
unions, the one relating to His death and the other to His
resurrection. In the first place His union with the race as
‘the
last Adam’ began historically at Bethlehem and ended at the
cross and the tomb. In it He gathered up into Himself all that
was in Adam and took it to judgment and death. In the second
place our union with Him as
‘the
second man’ begins in resurrection and ends in eternity—which is
to say, it never ends—for, having in His death done away with
the first man in whom God’s purpose was frustrated, He rose
again as Head of a new race of men, in whom that purpose shall
be fully realized.
“When
therefore the Lord Jesus was crucified on the cross, He was
crucified as the last Adam. All
that was in the first Adam was gathered up and done away in Him.
We were included there. As the last Adam He wiped out the old
race; as the second Man He brings in the new race. It is in His
resurrection that He stands forth as the second Man, and there
too we are included.
‘For
if we have become united with him by the likeness of his death,
we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection’ (Romans
6:5). We died in Him as the last Adam; we live in Him as the
second Man. The Cross is thus the power of God which translates
us from Adam to Christ.”
(The
Normal Christian Life)
Jonathan Leeman’s
reference to Jesus Christ as the
‘new
Adam’
and
‘second
Adam’
is calculated to leave the office of
‘last
Adam’
vacant, to be filled by another. As Thomas Littleton wrote, “On
the issue of the Last Adam
–
the idea of a second Adam
–
as if to leave the door open for another looks like the perfect door
for anti Christ. There is no need for another to come. No need for a
second but for the last Adam
–
because this is the resurrected Christ
–
the Prince of Life whom death could not hold, talked about in the
great Resurrection chapter
– 1st
Corinthians 15.”
Leeman must resort to
misquoting Scripture to support his false “second
Adam”
teaching. His misleading interpretation of the Cross of Christ
continues:
“Recommissioned in Adam’s
office. For our purposes here, we are interested in the fact
that the church identifies with Christ in his Adamic office, and
that the church is deputized as possessing a renewed Adamic
commission. Just as Adam played the role of Everyman and
federal head, meaning that all humanity received the commission
given to him, so Christ plays the role of
second Everyman and second federal head for a new
humanity (see Rom 5:12-19). If, then, Adam’s office
transmits to Christ, it would seem that the same office likewise
transmits to Christ’s people. Greg Beale observes, It is
important to recall that Jesus’s titles
‘Son of Man and
‘Son of God’ reflect respectively both the
OT figures of Adam and Israel. This is because . . . Adam and
Israel are two sides of one coin. Israel and its patriarchs were
given the same commission as was Adam in Gen. 1:26-28. . . . The
church is also identified with what it means to be the true
Adam, especially in its identification with Jesus, the true
Israel and last Adam.
“Just as the church receives
Christ’s righteousness, so the church receives Christ’s perfect
Adamic sonship. All Christians are declared and named ‘sons’ of
God and the new humanity (e.g., 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26, 4:6;
cf. 6:16). This is our identity by virtue of the new covenant
and new birth. And just as the church ‘puts on’ Christ’s
righteousness, so the church
‘puts on’ Adam’s political and priestly
vocation. This is our authority and work, again, by virtue
of the new covenant and new birth. This combination of identity,
work and authority is nothing other than an office, and it is an
office for every Christian. Scripture, by referring to
Christians as ‘sons’ and ‘born again’ and ‘new creations,’
commission every saint to occupy the office of priest-king with
Christ.”
(pp.
303-304)
“We also saw that God
intended to use a special people to model for the nations what a
true politics looks like. When Israel failed at this task, it
was handed to the divine Son, who came to do what Adam and
Israel could not do. This second Adam, new Israel and
Davidic son came to rule obediently by laying down his life for
the sins of the nations and rising from the grave. In so doing,
he offered a new covenant in his blood, so that all who would
repent and believe might receive a pardon from sin and a share
in his kingly authority. To that end, he granted them the keys
of the kingdom, enabling them to fulfill their covenantal
responsibilities to identify themselves with God and one
another, distinguish themselves from the world, fend off any
serpentine intruders and pursue together the life of
righteousness and justice that rightly represent the Son, the
Father and the Spirit.” (p. 390)
Nowhere does God’s Word say, “the church puts on Adam’s
political and priestly vocation.” Leeman’s political theology, which
is liberal theology, gives him license to expound a social gospel
which is about fixing this world system. Note the reference to
tikkun olam (the repair of the universe) in the excerpt from his
book below. The social gospel fosters
preoccupation with worldly affairs and law-keeping...
instead of the believer’s heavenly citizenship with all spiritual
blessings in Christ.
Jonathan Leeman seems to have a low view of the
‘new covenant’
(lower case) as being
inferior to the old covenants. The new covenant
is merely added onto the series of
God’s
covenants—the Adamic,
Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic—which are incorporated in what is
(falsely) termed the Noahic Covenant.
“After
the fall, God’s rule was given institutional expression through
common and special covenants. His rule exists comprehensively by
virtue of the fact that he is creator, which means that human
life is intrinsically and comprehensively political, but these
political realities formally institutionalize through the
covenants. The biblical covenants provide the
“constitutionalization’ and “institutionalization’ of human
relationships. Daniel Elazar writes,
“The
Bible necessarily holds that the covenantal relationship is
the only proper basis for political organization—that is,
the structured allocating of authority and power among
humans—as well. In a political sense, biblical covenants
take the form of constituting acts that establish the
parameters of authority and its division without prescribing
the constituting details of regimes.
“Thus,
the Sinai covenant establishes once for all God’s
kingship over Israel and the partnership between God and
Israel in tikkun olam* (the repair of the
universe). It does not establish any particular
political regime.
“We
can therefore define politics as the mediating of God’s
covenantal rule, a definition that encompasses the concept both
narrowly conceived (in reference to a society’s governing
institutions) and broadly conceived (in reference to all of
life).
“Politics
narrowly conceived implements God’s sword-wielding
covenantal rule invisibly through the justice mechanism of
the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:5-6) and visibly
through the oaths and institutions of the special covenants.
“Politics
broadly conceived is the acknowledgment that all of life
exists within the jurisdiction of God’s comprehensive rule
or judgment (as indicated in the Adamic covenant),
yet it awaits the visible performance of that judgment in
the eschaton (the larger share of the Noahic
covenant: Gen 9:1-3, 7-17).
“Also,
a righteous politics gives rise to righteous and just political
communities. The common covenants call all humankind to the
citizen’s life of righteousness and justice; the special
covenants bear the purpose of putting this just body politic on
display as a model to the nations. They make God’s rule
visible through (1) the covenantal signs, (2) the terms of the
covenants and (3) the activities of salvation or judgment that
they either enact or anticipate. Salvation and judgment
represent the execution of God’s rule, or the asserting of his
royal prerogatives.”
(pp. 236-237)
[*“‘Tikkun
olam’ (Hebrew for
‘world repair’)
has come to connote social action and the pursuit of
social
justice. The phrase has origins in classical rabbinic
literature and in Lurianic kabbalah, a major strand of
Jewish mysticism originating with the work of the
16th-century kabbalist Isaac Luria.”
(Tikkun
Olam: Repairing the World)]
Citing the work of two Jewish
professors of political science, Leeman elevates Jewish polity over
Christian and other traditions which, they claim, emphasize
“structure”
or
“regime”
over relationships:
“The
Bible does not moralize the manner in which a government should
be formed or the earthly foundation of its sovereignty. In this
regard, Christian political philosophers have something to
learn once again from Jewish counterparts. Daniel Elazar and
Stuart Cohen offer an instructive word from their own tradition:
The Jewish political tradition, like every other political
tradition, is concerned with the question of power and justice,
but it differs from the political traditions growing out of
classic Greek thought in that it begins with a concern for
relationships rather than structures. More specifically, it is
less concerned for the best regime than with the proper
relationships between power and justice, the governors and the
governed, and God and man.” (pp. 189-190).
“Elazar
and Cohen argue the same. They spend the entirety of a book,
The Jewish Polity, chronicling the precise path of
institutional change in both the Jewish Bible and post-biblical
Jewish commonwealth, while observing the common threads that run
through all such changes. They observe that “no single form of
political organization is mandated by Jewish law or tradition”;
rather, “a Jewish polity is one which embodies a proper set of
political relationships rather than any particular structure or
regime,” and “there is latitude in choosing the forms of
government as long as the proper relationships . . . are
preserved.” (p. 230)
May we ask, was the Jewish
nation on display in the Old Testament a just body politic
until God overthrew the whole system in 70 A.D.? What about
the
“post-biblical
Jewish commonwealth”? Have the Jewish people been a stellar
example of righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ since they
crucified Him? By what standard does Jonathan Leeman evaluate
“a
proper set of political relationships?” Does God require a
“proper set of political relationships”
or does He require people to be in a proper relationship with
Himself through faith in His Son?
Under the Noahic Covenant, the stated divinely ordained purpose of
human governments is to enforce the worship of God and the
religion of the Old Testament.
“Specifically,
I will argue (1) that God rules over all humanity after the fall
as a king over subjects with the power of the sword,
requiring obedience and worship; (2) that he uses covenants
to enact and publicize that rule; (3) that he specifically uses
the common covenants to command all people to worship him
by acting as his image-bearing citizens; and (4) that he
specifically uses the special covenants to create a people who
will model true citizenship and worship. The key lies in
properly relating the common covenants (the covenants with Adam
and Noah) and the special covenants (the Abrahamic, Mosaic,
Davidic and new covenants)...”
(pp. 180-181)
“Seventh,
the governments of this world exist to aid and abet the cause of
true worship by providing the platform for the activity
of Adamic citizenship... The proximate goal of government may be
judgment. But this proximate goal must not be separated from the
ultimate goal, which is to help subjects become citizens and
worshipers.
“,,,it
makes no sense to say that the Noahic covenant as a whole merely
serves
‘common cultural
concerns’
and not the cause of worship or religion. Governments
invisibly mediate God’s rule over matters of temporal judgment
for the larger purpose of abetting God’s plan of salvation. They
exist to implement his judgments, which is why Oliver O’Donovan
goes as far as to say that
‘within every
political society there occurs, implicitly, an act of worship
of divine rule.
When people assent to a government’s decisions, they implicitly
assent to God and thereby honor him. Indeed, this is the very
nature of mediated rule. Also, relatedly, common cultural
concerns like politics can never be separated from worship.
People’s political and cultural convictions always root in their
valuations of who or what deserves worship.”
(pp. 208-209)
Jesus, however, said that true worship is in the Spirit and
sincerity, not in religious ceremonies to be seen of men...“the
hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to
worship him.” John 4:23
God rejects worship that is coerced, however, Lucifer will force
mankind to worship himself during the Tribulation period.
“And he had power to
give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast
should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the
image of the beast should be killed.”
Rev. 13:15
God does not command all people to worship Him but He does command
all men everywhere to repent.
Acts 17:30
Where did Jonathan Leeman
come up with this Judaized version of Christianity?
The Chabad Lubavitch Worldwide
Institute of Noahide Code presents the same false interpretation of
the Old Testament covenants that Jonathan Leeman presents in his
book, except the Chabad does not mention their plan for the New Testament
Church.
The Noahide Code
“G-d gave the first six commandments to Adam
and Hava (Eve), the first human beings.
“These commandments were repeated to Noah,
and a seventh commandment was added, when, after the Flood,
G-d established the Covenant of the Rainbow with Noah and
all of the world’s creatures. This covenant is not dependent
on mankind’s observance of these Seven Laws of Noah. Rather,
the Noahide Code established the context and the eventual
goal for a renewed world in which this covenant could be
the open and enduring expression of G-d’s love for His
creation…
“The entire Book of Genesis, and the Book of
Exodus up to and including the arrival of the Israelites at
Mount Sinai, were dictated by G-d to Moses when they arrived
there. There was then a first covenant made between G-d and
the Israelites on that first part of the Written Torah,
which included their acceptance of the Noahide Code. Thus,
the Divine moral code of Seven (Universal) Commandments was
renewed, after it had become neglected by the rest of the
nations. That was four days before the Ten (Jewish)
Commandments were spoken openly by G-d to all of the
Israelites, at which point they became the Jewish people.
“At Mount Sinai, G-d taught the essentials of
the Torah’s precepts through Moses, and this is called the
Oral Torah.
Included in this are the details of G-d’s
directive for all Gentiles to observe their Seven Noahide
Commandments.
These details, as G-d specified them to Moses, are the true
foundation of the
universal
Noahide Code.
A righteous Gentile merits to receive a place in the eternal
future World to Come, in the Messianic Era, through
observance of these commandments. That is a Gentile’s part
in the Torah of Moses, which is G-d’s “Tree of Life”
(Proverbs 3:18). It all begins with
recognizing the perfect Unity of the Creator.”
The Institute of Noahide
Code is an NGO in
Special Consultative Status of the United Nations.
See also the
Institute of
Noahide Code on Facebook:
On the list of
UN NGOs is also the
Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention. As previously mentioned, Jonathan Leeman is the
Editorial Director for the IX Marks church planting operation of
Mark Dever, who is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist which is
Southern Baptist. Leeman also has a Masters degree from
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an adjunct professor
and lecturer at SBTS and is affiliated with the ERLC.
THE NOAHIDE LAWS
Professor Leeman does not
enumerate the laws contained in the Noahic Covenant except to state
that they incorporate the commands of the covenants God made with
Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham and David. The Jewish Encyclopedia
states that 7 Laws were derived from the Torah by Jewish Rabbis who
codified them as the Seven Noachian Laws and made them binding on
all mankind. These seven laws actually originated in the Babylonian
Talmud.
LAWS, NOACHIAN:
By: Isidore Singer, Julius H. Greenstone
The Seven
Laws.
“Laws
which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon
mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which
are still binding upon non-Jews. The term Noachian indicates the
universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was
supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone
survived the Flood. Although only those laws which are found in
the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, before the record of the
revelation at Sinai, should, it would seem, be binding upon all
mankind, yet the Rabbis discarded some and, by hermeneutic rules
or in accordance with some tradition (see Judah ha-Levi, ‘Cuzari,’
iii. 73), introduced others which are not found there.
Basing their views on the passage in Gen. ii. 16, they
declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon
Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of
God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5)
not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9,
xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder ‘Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner,
ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, ‘Yad,’ Melakim, ix.
1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat
flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. ix. 4). Thus,
the Talmud frequently speaks of ‘the seven laws of the sons of
Noah,’ which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind,
in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites
only (Tosef., ‘Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.”
Like Jonathan Leeman’s
Noahic Covenant, the Noahide Laws are an
abridgement and distortion of the Noahic Covenant plus the Mosaic
Law. (“As
in the days of Noë”
Matt. 24:37). What might be the source of Leeman’s
deceitful handling of God’s
Word?
The
Political Theology Network lists the
Talmud
among the “classical” texts of political theology.
The Babylonian Talmud, which is the bible of modern
Judaism, permits the
sacrifice of
children to Moloch, also called infanticide, which was just
made legal in New York. Also commended in the Talmud are
pedophilia and bestiality. The Talmud
states that Gentiles are subhuman animals and blasphemes Jesus
Christ as the illegitimate son of a harlot and a libertine father.
“Yeshu”
was also a magician who was initiated into the secret doctrine and
deceived the people by means of miracles. (See:
The Talmud
Unmasked,
also a review of this book,
Genuine verses from the Talmud.)
The Talmud encourages Jews to
commit all manner of criminal activity without fear of punishment,
but the Jewish Encyclopedia
states that the penalty for Gentiles who violate even one of the 7
Noahide Laws is death. Note the disparity.
“Due
process”
is not required in the criminal prosecution of a Noachid / Gentile
and the death penalty does not apply to Jews,
“In
the elaboration of these seven Noachian laws, and in assigning
punishments for their transgression, the Rabbis are sometimes
more lenient and sometimes more rigorous with Noachidæ than with
Israelites. With but a few exceptions, the punishment meted
out to a Noachid for the transgression of any of the seven laws
is decapitation, the least painful of the four modes of
execution of criminals (see Capital Punishment). The many
formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an
Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachid. The
latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on
that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had
no warning (‘hatra’ah’) from the witnesses; and a single judge
may pass sentence on him (ib. 57a, b; ‘Yad,’ l.c. ix. 14).
With regard to idolatry, he can be found guilty only if he
worshiped an idol in the regular form in which that particular
deity is usually worshiped; while in the case of blasphemy he
may be found guilty, even when he has blasphemed with one of
the attributes of God’s name—an action which, if committed by
an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal (ib. 56b;
see
Blasphemy).
Procedure.
“The
Noachidæ are required to establish courts of justice in every
city and province; and these courts are to judge the people
with regard to the six laws and to warn them against the
transgression of any of them (ib.; ‘Yad,’ l.c. ix. 14, x. 11;
comp. Naḥmanides on Gen. xxxiv. 13, where the opinion is
expressed that these courts should judge also cases other than
those coming under the head of the six laws, as, for example,
larceny, assault and battery, etc.). In the case of murder, if
the Noachid slay a child in its mother’s womb, or kill a person
whose life is despaired of (‘ṭerefah’), or if he cause the death
of a person by starving him or by putting him before a lion so
that he can not escape, or if he slay a man in self-defense,
the Noachid is guilty of murder and must pay the death-penalty,
although under the same circumstances an Israelite would not be
executed (ib. 57b; ‘Yad,’ l.c. ix. 4; comp. ‘Kesef Mishneh,’
ad loc.).”
The Noahide Laws are also found in Freemasonry, the
secret fraternal organization which descended from the medieval
order of the Knights Templar—the
Knights of the Order of the Temple of Solomon. According to Albert
Mackey’s
History of Freemasonry, Rev. James Anderson, the
Presbyterian minister and theologian who wrote the Constitutions
of Freemasonry, developed the Noachide legend from Ancient Egyptian
mystery religion of Hermes Trismegistus, author of the Hermeticum,
and the moral laws for Freemasons which were derived from the
Rabbinic laws of Talmudic Judaism. Mackey wrote concerning the
importance of Noah and the Noahide laws in the Constitutions and
Charges of Freemasonry.
“It is not, therefore,
surprising that Noah should have become a mystical personage,
and that the modern Speculative Masons should have sought to
incorporate some reference to him in their symbolic system...
“In the Dowland MS. and in
all the other manuscripts of the Legend of the Craft that
succeeded it, the reference to Noah is exceedingly meager, his
name only being mentioned, and that of his sons, from whom
descended Hermes, who found one of the pillars and taught the
science thereon described to other men...
“Anderson, who, in the
Book of Constitutions modified and enlarged the old Craft
Legends at his pleasure, calls Noah and his three sons ‘all
Masons true,’ and says that they brought over from the flood the
traditions and arts of the antediluvians and communicated them
to their growing offspring. And this was perhaps the first time
that the Patriarch was presented to the attention of the
Fraternity in a Masonic character.
“Anderson seems to have
cherished this idea, for in the second edition of the
Constitutions he still further develops it by saying that the
offspring of Noah, ‘as they journeyed from the East (the plains
of Mount Ararat, where the Ark rested) toward the West, they
found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there together as
NOACHIDÆ, or sons
of Noah.’ And, he adds, without the slightest historical
authority, that this word, ‘Noachidæ’ was ‘the first name of
Masons, according to some old traditions.’...
“Having thus invented and
adopted the name as the distinctive designation of a Mason, he
repeats it in his second edition or revision of the ‘Old
Charges’ appended to the Book of Constitutions. The first of
these charges, in the Constitutions of 1723, contained this
passage: ‘A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral
law.’ In the edition of 1738, Dr. Anderson has, without
authority, completed the sentence by adding the words ‘as a true
Noachida.’...
“About that time, or a
little later, a degree was fabricated on the continent of
Europe, bearing the name of ‘Patriarch Noachite,’ one peculiar
feature of which was that it represented the existence of two
classes or lines of Masons, the one descending from the Temple
of Solomon, and who were called Hiramites, and the other tracing
their origin to Noah, who were styled Noachites... the
term...has become of so common use that Noachida and Freemason
have come to be considered as synonymous terms.
“What does this word
really signify, and how came Anderson to adopt it as a Masonic
term? The answers to these questions are by no means difficult.
“Noahchida, or Noachides,
from which we get the English Noachite, is a gentilitial name,
or a name designating the member of a family or race... And so
Noachides, or its synonymous Noachida or Noachites, means
descendant of Noah.
“But why, it may be asked,
are the Freemasons called the descendants of Noah? Why has he
been selected alone to represent the headship of the Fraternity?
I have no doubt that Dr. Anderson was led to the adoption of the
word by the following reason.
“After Noah’s emergence
from the ark, he is said to have promulgated seven precepts for
the government of the new race of men of whom he was to be the
progenitor.
“These seven precepts
are: 1, to do justice; 2, worship God; 3, abstain from idolatry;
4, preserve chastity; 5, do not commit murder; 6, do not steal;
7, do not eat the blood.
“These seven obligations,
says the Rev. Dr. Raphall, are held binding on all men, inasmuch
as all are descendants of Noah, and the Rabbins maintain that he
who observes them, though he be not an Israelite, has a share in
the future life, and it is the duty of every Jew to enforce
their due observance whenever he has the power to do so.
“In consequence of this,
the Jewish religion was not confined during its existence in
Palestine to the Jewish nation only, but proselytes of three
classes were freely admitted. One of these classes was the
‘proselytes of the gate.’... They were not admitted to all the
privileges of the Jewish religion... So that, although they were
Noachidæ, they were not considered equal to the true children of
Abraham.
“Anderson, who was a
theologian, was, of course, acquainted with these facts, but
with a more tolerant spirit than the Jewish law, which gave
converted Gentiles only a qualified reception, he was disposed
to admit into the full fellowship of Freemasonry all the
descendants of Noah who would observe the precepts of the
Patriarch, these being the only moral laws inculcated by
Masonry.”
(Mackey, pp. 406-410)
CHABAD LUBAVITCH
On January 17, 1951, the
Orthodox Jewish Chabad-Lubavitch elected Rabbi Menachem Mendel
Schneerson to be the Lubavitch “Rebbe.” The “Rebbe,” who is
regarded by the International Lubavitch Movement as the “messiah,”
was also recognized as a moral leader by many U.S. presidents,
starting with President Richard Nixon. According to the
Chabad-Lubavitch, the Rebbe enjoyed an especially close
relationship with Ronald Reagan, who began the process of giving
legislative status to the Lubavitchers’ “ Seven Universal Laws”:
“The President was an
early and enthusiastic adherent of the Rebbe’s call to make all
people aware of the Seven Universal Laws, based on the belief in
a Supreme Being. The Rebbe’s call for a moment of silence in the
public schools, and his persistent belief that America must
export to the world faith-based moral values, were among the
themes that found a welcoming ear in President Reagan.”
