General: The new covenant

 
 From:  danny 19 Jun 7:36 
 To:  ALL 1 of 3 
3.1 
OK, it seems my original post of this was deleted in the topic "Marriage Validity" but I have been assured by Ken that it will be acceptable to post the substance of it in a new topic, since I feel it is worthy of further discussion.

There was a key issue here: what exactly is miscegenation under God's new covenant with believers? Has God's original definition of "miscegenation" for the Hebrew race (that is following the miscegenation of Moses which was not condemned nor required to be annulled of course) changed under the new covenant, or is it still the same as under the subsequent prohibitions which Moses, Ezra and Nehemiah etc. laid out under the old covenant?

I believe we must be careful as believers under the new covenant not to mindlessly mix the world's anthropological and Christian issues together, attempting to prove something from this integration which The Lord God may not intend. Jesus said we are in the world but we must not be of the world. Thus we should consider doctrine from a spiritual new covenant perspective rather than a worldly academic viewpoint.

We must look carefully at what is supported in Holy Scripture. There are for example dispensational differences between the old covenant (Old Testament) and the new covenant (New Testament). As an example, Jesus stated in Matthew Chapter 5, v 38 to 48 several things which in effect put away a number of commands which Moses had given in the law, and Jesus replaced them by new commands, such as for example, Moses commanded that an eye should be given for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus now commanded that under the new covenant we should not resist evil, but turn the other cheek; we should in effect give good in return for evil, and so on. Yet in v 17 to 19 He makes it clear that the law is not passed away and that key parts of it still stand; it is just that He as God now modifies it under the new covenant. There is a fine balance in how we now must interpret these things to be sure.

I suggest that we must thus look at the teaching of Jesus and of His Apostles to understand our total position under the new covenant. (Most of the Christian church has latterly wrongly taught that the law is now passed away completely, but this is clearly not true according to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. It is just modified and as Paul teaches we are no longer under the law in the sense of the old covenant. So if a man breaks one commandment of the law which previously demanded being stoned to death, now he is under grace and can repent and seek forgiveness. He must try to not commit that sin again and he is now under the grace of God. (The intent not to sin must be in his heart thereafter for grace to work of course.)

Nowhere does Jesus state that any form of miscegenation in marriage is prohibited to believers under the new covenant. He did not state that Moses had sinned in marrying a Midianite woman, nor that his children were the offspring of miscegenation and could not thus be true Israelites. None of the Apostles are recorded as ever having taught that Moses had sinned in his miscegenation, nor that any form of miscegenation in marriage is now a sin under the new covenant. What they did teach was that marriages amongst believers must not be unequally yoked - that is a believer must always marry only another believer.

Of course the teaching on marriageability, fornication and adultery still stood as under the law, but now again Jesus modifies the law for the new covenant, and now our righteousness must be better than that of the Scribes and Pharisees under the law; to even look at a woman to lust after her is now to commit adultery in a man's heart. No longer shall a man have the right as under the law of Moses to put away his wife, except where she has committed fornication or adultery prior to the marriage and given her virginity to another, other than her supposed husband.

The new covenant in many ways is more demanding than the old! So what we must consider carefully is whether the decisions concerning miscegenation of the Hebrew race under Moses (who himself had committed miscegenation), Ezra, and Nehemiah are relevant to those under the new covenant? If they were Jesus and the Apostles would have made that clear, as they did with all other aspects of important doctrine. It is clear that these constraints do however still apply to Jews, who do not yet accept their promised Messiah, are not under the new covenant and who have for years grossly now abused their racial purity. (Would God have chosen a leader to bring His chosen race out of Egypt, who had committed miscegenation if He was angry at that as a sin? I think not.) If we could conclude that the decisions made by Moses, Ezra and Nehemiah relative to miscegenation within the Hebrew race still apply to believers under the new covenant, then supposedly we would also have to conclude that animal sacrifices are still necessary also as under the law? Of course some things have changed; Jesus was the final Passover Lamb, and His blood is so efficacious that it is enough to cleanse the sins of the whole world for eternity, Hallelujah! Animal sacrifices are thus no longer needed under the new covenant, and some other features of the law have changed also for those under the new covenant.

Additionally, Jesus made it clear that He had come to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel - that is "Israel" as opposed to Judah. However, by the time Jesus was on earth the lost sheep of the house of Israel (often referred to as Ephraim), having left Assyrian captivity had migrated Northwards and where their blood line went is not entirely clear now. It seems that they probably intermarried with European stock, and became part of what is now considered to be Nordic. God knows well where that blood is. However, also Paul explains to us that anyone who believes and becomes one of the Elect of God is assimilated into the house of Israel, whether originally gentile or having the now mixed blood of the lost sheep of the house of Israel also…[Message Truncated]

View full message.

 
 From:  Ken (LOVEEXISTS) 19 Jun 22:48 
 To:  danny   20 Jun 6:37 2 of 3 
3.2 In reply to 3.1 
Danny stated "I believe we must be careful as believers under the new covenant not to mindlessly mix the world's anthropological and Christian issues together, attempting to prove something from this integration which The Lord God may not intend. Jesus said we are in the world but we must not be of the world. Thus we should consider doctrine from a spiritual new covenant perspective rather than a worldly academic viewpoint." I would like to respond to this by saying that we drive vehicles, use computers and equipment of high technology. Not all of the engineers and scientists that developed these things were Christians; of course you understand that. Generally, when we use these advanced, industrial inventions, we do not do it "mindlessly"--we have to think how we use them. Christians have benefited by the intelligence and work of the unbeliever in material things. If we don't believe this, then should we drive cars, use industrial equipment and computers? No! But, on the other hand, most of us do believe this is OK for the temporary and for that reason it is also an indication to us that we may be benefit even more so by the intelligent unbelievers' work in studies such as genetics and anthropology, sciences that must be explored further, especially by the masses. However, I believe Christians must decide what is moral and ethical in any matter, howsoever small it may be, and that we should not let unbelievers dictate what we are to believe or rule over us; God must rule over us. We can use the positive works of the unbeliever including scientific advances and studies, the point is we must not follow the unbeliever in spiritual things because such do not know and follow the Lord Jesus. As to spiritual things which Christians may realize without the aid of the scientific unbelieving, the command of patrilineal inheritance, as given to the people of Israel by Moses, is instruction to provide a distinct form of genetic anti-miscegenation, and method of real estate succession (Numbers 36): "5And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. 6This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. 7So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. 8And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. 9Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance. 10Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad: 11For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father’s brothers’ sons: 12And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father. 13These are the commandments and the judgments, which the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho." (See <nowiki>http://www.kennethbillings.org/clubsite/scrnu36.html</nowiki>.) Through these Godly, patrilineal inheritance laws (genetic laws--Semitic--from the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), the people of Israel developed their race! (Not that all the people were from an absolute pure genetic makeup, but that the people of Israel would be determined by Israeli-Semitic, patrilineal biology.) Later on in time, even women who were not born according to this patrilineal law (an Israelite father) were not permitted to stay among the people of Israel as wives to the men. A covenant among the congregation of Israel was established in Ezra, which corrected miscegenation and the men who married women outside of the genetic clan . The women of different genetics (non-Hebrew fathers) than the Hebrew women were expelled along with their mongrel children. (See <nowiki>http://www.kennethbillings.org/law.html</nowiki>.) Today, we are given an extreme false impression (or lack) of Biblical good tradition of racial and cultural homogeneity through the Japhethian, Talmud-following children of the devil. They fool people with the Star of David hoax, as if they were Semitic like David, even calling themselves “Jews”. Modern-Talmud Judaism is not the Judaism of King David, nor does it tolerate the Torah (law of Moses) and covenant of Ezra. The star of David is a fraudulent misrepresentation that alludes to a holy king in token, but their doctrine denies Israelite biological precepts of progeny and inheritance according to Berith (covenant) and Torah in deed. And many Christians have not really looked into the good things of anti-miscegenation as they should have because of the strong opposition of those who would destroy the general concept of Land And People. (See <nowiki>http://www.kennethbillings.org/finance/money101.html</nowiki>, <nowiki>http://www.kennethbillings.org/goyim-jewhoax.html</nowiki>, <nowiki>http://www.kennethbillings.org/index-moralobligation.html</nowiki>, and the links and referrals mentioned at these pages.) So, to sum up briefly, Danny, if you assuming or proposing the law and covenant, and the New Testament have no effect today as to anti-miscegenation, racial and cultural homogeneity, you are deceived and incorrect, and after the following I see no use to discuss the matter further with you or look further into your heresy. The law supported the covenant of Ezra (Ezra 10.3). The New Testament refers to the law and the covenants "Wh…[Message Truncated]

View full message.
EDITED: 19 Jun 23:00 by LOVEEXISTS

 
 From:  danny 20 Jun 6:37 
 To:  Ken (LOVEEXISTS)   20 Jun 8:33 3 of 3 
3.3 In reply to 3.2 
Ken, I am sorry that you seem to have taken my post to mean an number of things which it clearly did not. Of course I accept that we are in the modern world as it is today. We accept and use most of the technological developments of today, as being in the world. (I am a highly-qualifed Engineer myself.) However even here there are some areas where we have to be careful not to be of the current world. For example, violent or blaspemous computer games, pornography, some unacceptable TV and movies. I have to say sadly that some people claiming to believe do venture into these areas of evil and sinful uses of technology etc. "mindlessly".

You state "So, to sum up briefly, Danny, if you assuming or proposing the law and covenant, and the New Testament have no effect today as to anti-miscegenation, racial and cultural homogeneity, you are deceived and incorrect, and after the following I see no use to discuss the matter further with you or look further into your heresy. The law supported the covenant of Ezra (Ezra 10.3). The New Testament refers to the law and the covenants "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises..." (Rom. 9.4, http://www.kennethbillings.org/clubsite/tenpercent2.html). "

Clearly I was not assuming nor proposing that the law and the old covenant have no effect today, and I took great trouble to emphasize that, if you will look again at my post. All I was suggesting was that we as believers today under the new covenant have to duly consider and understand in The Holy Spirit which parts of the Old Testament form obligatory commandments which we still have to follow today under the new covenant, and which do not; it is clear that some are no longer applicable to us (Jesus specifically stated that), and most of us are not Hebrews. The difficulty for most of us is understanding which commandments are still obligatory. (Clearly the whole of the old covenant is still obligatory for true Jews.)

I explained that although I essentially come to the same conclusions as you, concerning significantly disparate intermarriage, I do so for different reasons, under the new covenant. If you consider that to be heresy as you claim in your post I find that rather strange, since I am not opposing you. Jesus took His disciples to task when they were indignant about a stranger who was not one of them and was casting out devils in The Lord's Name, and they proudly told Him that they had chastised this person for doing this. Jesus stated that they should not do that, because he who is not against us is for us. I am not against you. How is that heresy?

The other thing I find a bit worrying is whether there is an implied tone of general denigration towards all non-whites under the new covenant. (I am by the way pure Nordish stock, and as white as they come.) Do you believe that all non-whites are in some way inferior to whites (in the sense of Nordish, Nordic, Nordid, Aryan, Arian and Caucasian)? Do you believe that non-whites do not have the same right to redemption as whites have? Do you not believe that God does not see any difference in any of the human races which He has created before Him, under the new covenant? Is this not what is described in The Revelation Chapter 7, v 9? When believers are changed "in the twinkling of an eye" they will not have discernable colour or race any longer. We shall be as the angels - spirit beings, and females will have all been changed into males.

The other point which I feel is significant is that you have avoided responding to my point about the miscegenation of Moses as a Hebrew, in marrying a Midianite woman, why God did not evidently treat this as sin (particularly also with his failure to circumsize his son as God had commanded to Abraham) and why Moses did not put away his wife and mongrel children banishing them from the chosen race? "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." - Malachi Chapter 3, v 6. Then there is the case of King Solomon also. There does not appear to be any record of his non-Hebrew wives and mongrel children being expelled from the kingdom? Then what about Esther and her miscegenation to replace Vashti; this effectively saved the dispersed Israelites from a potential holocaust, but clearly involved serial adultery also in an adulterous marriage?

So please understand that I am not against you, nor heretic as you seem to conclude. I am just trying to clarify the issues for all those who believe.

In The Lord,

Danny
 


Back to the Directory

YouTube PlaylistsVideos

Download Now! Sermons Videos

Burn our videos and files to your cd or hard drive: Video Selection


Sign and Billboard Promotion
DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE CD NOW!