Please stay as far away from New England as possible. Those of us who appreciate at least the semblance of our representative form of government will appreciate it.
Constitution of America by Enyart is right or wrong?
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
Please stay as far away from New England as possible. Those of us who appreciate at least the semblance of our representative form of government will appreciate it.
I've already been to New England. And I'm even in the same time zone.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Bump for Turbo! I hope he responds.
Turbo, first off , thanks for having a dialog with me on this topic.
Secondly, I'd like to ask since God did say a monarchy was useful to His purpose. Isn't this the case for Israel alone? I mean think about it. God saying
So it seems from the reading of the text is God goes along with it cause He makes the plan (knowing their thoughts at the time) that Jesus Christ will come from this linage. Not that He approves or sets up a king for them. They did that themselves. Israel, let God choose the King for them, yes. But that is all. God didn't say in the Duet. passage that He was going make them a King for them.
Turbo, first off , thanks for having a dialog with me on this topic.
Secondly, I'd like to ask since God did say a monarchy was useful to His purpose. Isn't this the case for Israel alone? I mean think about it. God saying
Dueteronomy 17:14 “When you (Israel) come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you (Israel), and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I (Israel) will set a king over me (Israel) like all the nations that are around me (Israel),’ 15 you (Israel) shall surely set a king over you (Israel) whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you (Israel) shall set as king over you (Israel); you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
So it seems from the reading of the text is God goes along with it cause He makes the plan (knowing their thoughts at the time) that Jesus Christ will come from this linage. Not that He approves or sets up a king for them. They did that themselves. Israel, let God choose the King for them, yes. But that is all. God didn't say in the Duet. passage that He was going make them a King for them.
doc-
You misspelled Deuteronomy.
You misspelled Deuteronomy.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Since you asked Turbo, I'll let him answer.
The Berean
Well-known member
When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws. The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."
Please pay close attention to Deuteronomy 4:5-8: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"
That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.
The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)
God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."
drbrumley
Well-known member
That's a good post Jefferson. The problem though is children obeying their parents is a universally moral thing to do. Isreal having a king is not. They had a King, and that was God. As God told Samuel, "they do not reject you, they reject me." Having said that, obviously the Deut. passage is prophetic. As the text surely points out in all its' detail, Isreal told God they wanted a King, not God telling them they should have one. So my point still stands unanswered.
In Abraham's time (way before Israel demanded a king) God foreshadowed Israel's Messiah as both king and priest by the man Melchizideck who was the king of Salem and priest of the most high God. And Christ came after the order of Melchizideck.
Furthermore, centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses to write in Deuteronomy 17:15, "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses."
History and prophecy show that God planned to establish Israel's Monarchy 1,000 years before Christ. Israel refused to wait on the Lord for a king in God's own time so God was angry with them for that. But 400 years before Samuel, God commanded that Israel's future kings should obey the Law.
One generation prior to God's own timing, Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC. So Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing.
Furthermore, centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses to write in Deuteronomy 17:15, "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses."
History and prophecy show that God planned to establish Israel's Monarchy 1,000 years before Christ. Israel refused to wait on the Lord for a king in God's own time so God was angry with them for that. But 400 years before Samuel, God commanded that Israel's future kings should obey the Law.
One generation prior to God's own timing, Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC. So Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Jefferson, the Melchizideck example does not allow for any other understanding than that this was an appearance of God Almighty in the Old Testament. Just look at everything about him.
Yes, cause if you look at verse 14 of the same chapter, it says, "14 “When you (Israel) come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you (Israel), and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I (Israel) will set a king over me (Israel) like all the nations that are around me (Israel),’"
So Jefferson, by the reading of that verse, it does not say God will set a king. He was the King. But it says Isreal will set a king. God went along with it, but he was rejected. As He told Samuel, they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me.
drbrumley
Well-known member
14 “When you (Israel) come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you (Israel), and possess it and dwell in it, and say,
That's a positive.
‘I (Israel) will set a king over me (Israel) like all the nations that are around me (Israel),’"
That is a negative. Because if you really look at it, God thru divine inspiration is saying Isreal is making the choice to have a King. Notice what Isreal says. "I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.
Then further, Isreal is barking at Samuel.
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
That's a positive.
‘I (Israel) will set a king over me (Israel) like all the nations that are around me (Israel),’"
That is a negative. Because if you really look at it, God thru divine inspiration is saying Isreal is making the choice to have a King. Notice what Isreal says. "I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.
Then further, Isreal is barking at Samuel.
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Last edited:
Says who? Our imposition of democracy in Iraq today stems from the belief that monarchy's are inherently immoral and that democracy is the only moral form of government.
Is how a father chooses to structure his authority over his family a moral choice? Is how a business owner chooses to structure his authority over his employees a moral choice? Is how a pastor chooses to structure his authority over his congregation a moral choice? Then explain how a government chooses to structure their authority over their populace is not a moral choice.
God only mentioned kings in the Bible. He didn't suggest any other forms of government because He didn't want to tempt us with any bad ideas. The only other form of government He mentioned was anarchy and that was because it was already a part of human history. And He condemned it.
What verse of scripture gives man the authority to tell God what a moral system of governance should look like?
The Deut. passage is not prophetic as the rest of the passage proves:
"But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel." (Deut. 17:16-20)
Every single one of the above so-called "prophesies" were "unfulfilled" by most of Israel's kings. So it's not a prophetic passage, is it? These were commands that most of Israel's kings sinned against in varying degrees.
That's because, "The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts" (Romans 2:12-16).
God was detested by the fact that the king made them slaves, not that there was a king.
A king has the authority to do whatever he wants. He can even abdicate and create a democracy if he wants. Yet Israel's most righteous king, king Josiah, never did that, yet the bible still calls him righteous. Why?
And if democracy is such a wise system of rule, then why did king Solomon, perhaps the wisest ruler to have ever lived, not impose democracy?
My view is that God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing which was supposed to be 1000 years before King Jesus inherited the throne. To prove this, let me ask you a question:
Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC., just 1 generation shy of 1,000 years before Christ came. Coincidence?
King Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." Coincidence?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status