WHY OUR CONTSTITUTION ISN'T WORKING

 

2020 has been a year for which millions of people would like to get a "do-over." Turn on the TV or radio news, read newspapers, examine the magazines and there’s civil upheaval. Riots. As of September 2020, estimates show the financial cost of the rioting in this one year is on its way to $2 billion, making it the most expensive in history. There have been riots in 140 U.S. cities in 20 states and Minneapolis could become the costliest civil disorder of all time in the United States. The destruction at the hands of rioting mobs has left business owners destitute, people injured, and some people dead. This is what accompanies anarchy.

A lament goes up to heaven that the destroyers are left unpunished, unjudged, and uncondemned by constituted authorities who seem to give their approval by their silence and inaction. To compound the problem, the academic world gives its sanction and the wealthy contribute to provide funds to get the few who are arrested back out on the streets to let loose their dogs of war once again.

In all of this, where is the United States Constitution, one of the greatest documents to come from the quill of man? Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R. C. Gutzman seek to answer that question in a book they wrote called, "Who Killed the Constitution?"

Many will jump to the conclusion (always a dangerous athletic event) by answering, "Those Democrats!" Wait a minute. The authors say, "No." The answer is, "The Republicans and the Democrats." Both are guilty, and, as they point out, their assault on the document began over a hundred years ago.

But let's view another answer concerning why our Constitution isn't working. This answer is one given by two men far wiser than you or I and they were there at the creation of the American Republic: John Adams and George Washington. Their answer has biblical roots so it goes beyond the answer of "Who Killed the Constitution?"

John Adams, that most prolific writer, stated the answer which has come down from the hallowed halls, fresh out of the Constitutional Convention: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion (read "Christianity"). Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (From: "John Adams to Massachusetts Militia," October 11, 1798).

George Washington agreed with Adams' assessment as pointed out by Susan Hanssen: "Adams, like George Washington, believed that no polity could eradicate the sinfulness of man, so any man who disparaged the place of morality and religion in public life was a traitor.

"In the twilight of his life, James Madison [the "Father of the Constitution] wrote,"Belief in a God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources." Only in a culture that 'bristles with hostility to all things religious' could such a common-sense view fall into controversy--or neglect." (Ibid.) [If anyone should know, it's he.]

"A culture that bristles with hostility to [Christianity]?" How's this for "bristle?" In Portland, Oregon, in August 2020, rioters burned a stack of Bibles.  In a report by Dan Dupee we learn that: "The entire California State University system stopped recognizing Christian fellowships on campus whose only fault is to insist that their leaders actually be Christians." Those are two big "bristles."

The basic reason that our Constitution has ceased to work is a spiritual, not a political, one: Ephesians 2:3: Men are by nature the children of wrath. The American Constitution "has no power capable of contending with human passions [the inherent sin nature] unbridled by morality and religion."

 

INSULTING OF THE PRESIDENT

 Pride, that sin that God hates, prevents us from saying, “I was wrong and I apologize; please, will you forgive me?” We saw this pride firsthand, live, and in living color on national television during the heated presidential race between Gore and Bush.

That was a contested election that wasn’t decided until December because of the infamous hanging chads, and who knows what else went on in those equally infamous smoke-filled rooms.

There was one man a cable news network chose to interview, a choice which turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and it does. But politics in the heat and passion of the moment makes people say pure nonsense. And that’s what this passionate fellow spouted for one and all to hear.

He was in a white-hot heat about his belief that votes in FL were being suppressed and, he said that the votes of a particular minority group were not being recorded by the voting machines in the Sunshine State.

And then it happened, the newsman interviewing him asked, “How does a voting machine know when a member of a minority casting his or her vote?” The speaker quickly realized that what he’d just said was both nonsensical and impossible; he'd been caught.

What did he do? He looked to his right. He looked to his left as if pleading for help for whoever of his party might be standing there off camera. No cavalry was coming to his rescue. All the viewer heard and all the speaker heard was nothing . . .  pure cold marble silence. He had no answer.

What did he do? He looked at the camera and, instead of admitting he was wrong, he said, “I stand by my statement.” The interview was over. He left never to be heard of again. That was a good thing.

Humility involves admission of wrongdoing, confession of sin, letting people know we make mistakes. There was one man who was known as a humble man. He made a serious blunder which haunted him for the rest of his life: he did something that one is never to do with the president in office. He talked about and physically demonstrated what they talked about. That's a no-no. He admitted he was wrong, apologized, but his error haunted him for the rest of his life.* He never got completely over it and the president said, "I never want to see that man again."

He admitted another wrongdoing--he would, at times, fall into the perils of political partisanship, taking sides that alienated millions from his message. He apologized for that late in his life. Then there was the time during which he thought no one would hear his remarks, he said some denigrating things about the Jews that, unbeknownst to him, were recorded and later the world heard them. "I was wrong," he said. Upon retiring, he admitted he’d neglected his family and that he watched too much television.

It’s good to remember his humility in our day of leaders and the well-known who are always right in their own eyes. 

Billy Graham set us a good example of humility.
____________________________________________________________________________
*For what Billy Graham did in regard to President Truman on that day, go to: https://www.presidentialcrossroads.com/harry-s-truman-meets-billy-graham/

THREE THINGS NEEDED TO OVERTHROW AMERICA

 There are three things every revolution needs to succeed. All three are now in place for the overthrow of America. The three things are:

1. An ideology to drive the revolution. An ideology is in place: it is right to judge people as a collective not as individuals; it is right to force people to violate their conscience; it is right to force people to violate their faith; it is right for feelings take priority over facts; it is right to limit diversity of thought; it is right to punish people if they say what they think; it is proper to hate one's country.

2.  Foot soldiers to push the ideology. These include educators, journalists, college graduates, and college students, celebrities, TV news reporters, social media, entertainment which includes motion pictures, sports, and television programs. This would include foot soldiers politicize everything from funerals to entertainment. These are the venues of the foot soldiers. The foot soldiers are ubiquitous.

3. The suppression of any expression verbal or written of ideas contrary to the ideology of the revolution. This suppression would include invasion of one's private life, invasion of or destruction of one's private property, lawsuits, fines, public ridicule, interruption of a person's daily life, intimidation, threats, fear, loss of job, and forced resignations. 

All three were in place in Israel 2,000 years ago: the ideology of the Pharisees (legalism); the foot soldiers to push the ideology such as the mob that chanted before Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar;" those who picked up stones to put Jesus to death; those who loved darkness rather than light. The suppression of a contrary idea as seen in John 9 with the threat of excommunication from the synagogue to anyone who expressed their belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Excommunication meant the loss of one's job and social isolation. In Acts 4 which records the mention of Jesus' name as being forbidden (hate speech) by the religious authorities.

All three are now ingrained in the American culture. The ship has sailed. There is no turning back.

LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT

 There's a song from the days of yesteryear, a song that stayed at the U.S. number one spot for nine consecutive weeks called, "Little Things Mean A Lot" as sung by Kitty Kallen. It's a love song, but we might apply that to the way God sometimes works in history, a long time ago, like history 503 years ago. 

The little things that meant a lot back then were a hammer, a nail, a sheet of paper, and lots of Latin. The man who used those little things had no idea that what he was about to do would change world history forever. When he wrote the Latin, then got a nail and a hammer, he was an obscure, but well-educated Roman Catholic monk among a multitude of other obscure monks. He was also a professor in Wittenberg, a position he had held since 1512. He had a doctorate in theology and in that capacity, he had given lectures over the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians.

On the paper he had written 95 statements (called "theses"). When he nailed that paper to the now- famous Wittenberg Castle church door, he was doing what many a person had done--it was like putting a note on a public bulletin board for the purpose of making some kind of announcement. What Luther was doing was calling for a discussion of his 95 statements, a debate of some things that were bothering him about the Roman Catholic church to which he'd sworn fealty for the rest of his life. He was merely announcing his desire for a discussion when he placed the paper on the door that day of October 31, 1517.

One of the 95 statements, Number 82, particularly bothered Luther: it concerned the sale of indulgences. Indulgences were based on two beliefs: 1) the sacrament of penance did not completely eliminate the guilt of the sin forgiven through absolution alone; one also needed to undergo temporal punishment (“penance”) because one had offended Almighty God and 2) indulgences rested on belief in purgatory, a place in the next life where one could continue to cancel the accumulated debt of one’s sins.

Number 82 said: "They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose."

That hammer, that nail that paper, those little things were like an explosion of an atomic bomb whose fallout would change Western Civilization. When Luther was nailing his Latin to the door, he had no idea of an explosion or of any fallout. To him those statements were an invitation which said, "Let's meet and discuss reforming the system." 

Five hundred and three years ago, on October 31, 1517, those little things didn't mean much. But later, they did, they really did. What you might consider a little thing in acting on your biblical convictions today can turn into something magnificent in the hands of God.

DEADLY DECEPTION

 DEADLY DECEPTION

We find deliberate deception in the New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses).  About their “Bible,” here are some responses:

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded the translation " . . . has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation . . . It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest.” 

British scholar H.H. Rowley: “From the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated. This translation is an insult to the Word of God.”

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation “a shocking mistranslation.” 

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” 

Dr. William Barclay concluded, "It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

It is interesting that the Jehovah’s Witness organization has always resisted efforts to identify members of the translation committee. The reason was they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the credit and glory for this translation. However, as former Jehovah witness David Reed says, “An unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses should have blushed in shame when the names of the translators of The New World Translation were revealed. The reason for their shame was the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education). The fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, he failed a simple Hebrew test.

In court, Franz was asked if he knew Hebrew and he said, "Yes." He said he had a command of various languages including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, and French. When asked if he speaks Hebrew, he said, "No." He was then asked if he could translate the fourth verse of Genesis into Hebrew. His answer was, "No." The fact was that Franz, like the others on the committee, did not have the knowledge to translate Hebrew or Greek. The truth is that Franz dropped out of the University of Cincinnati after his sophomore year and even while there, he had not studied anything related to theological issues.

The New World Translation is not a translation. It is filled with additions to and subtractions from the Word of God. It is a tampering with the Bible to force it to fit the heresies of the cult. The deception of the Jehovah's Witnesses can only be classified as deadly.

FILL IN THE BLANKS

Love. It's the major theme of song writers and poets. We have a special day devoted to it. We send cards and buy gifts on that day. Sermons extol it. 

Paul wrote about it and what he wrote is often the centerpiece of many a wedding. But is it all so many words? 

Here's a convicting exercise: read I Corinthians 13, the text where Paul tells us what love is and what love is not, and as you read it, take out the word "love" and put your name in its place:

⁴ _______ is patient, _____ is kind and _______ is not jealous; _______ does not brag and _______ is not arrogant, ⁵ ________does not act unbecomingly; _______ does not seek its own, _____ is not provoked, ________does not take into account a wrong suffered, ^{6 ________}does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but ________rejoices with the truth, _______bears all things, _______believes all things, ______hopes all things, ________endures al things. 

Enough said. 

THIS IS MY BODY BROKEN FOR YOU

 It's a well-worn statement at thousands of the Lord's Supper services when they pass the bread: "This is My body which is broken for you." That is what Jesus said, isn't it? Or is it? Let's see, taking a look at the institution of the Lord's Supper from the King James Version:

Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body."

Mark 14:22: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."

Luke 22:19-20: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

(John, lest the reader thinks that eating the bread and drinking the cup have salvific merit, de-emphasizes the ordinances and therefore doesn't record the institution of the Lord's Supper.)

The omission of "broken for you" fits with the Old Testament in which we read about the Passover lamb--it was not to have a bone broken. John recorded the fulfillment of the hoary prescription for the Passover Lamb when he wrote about the crucifixion: "For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of his will be broken.'" The Scripture to which John refers is Exodus 12:46 and its instructions for sacrificing the precise lamb. 

Yet, when we come to I Corinthians 11:24 in the same KJV, we read, "And when He had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 

Broken? I thought that John said no bone of Jesus was broken. He did say that. And in all of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the three Gospels, in the same KJV, Jesus never said that the bread was symbolic of His body's being broken. (The bread had to be broken to be distributed; the reference is to Jesus' body.) The Old Scofield Reference Bible (KJV) includes a note, replacing "is broken for you," with "is for you." The editors caught the problem.

So, what's going on here? Andrew Kuyvenhoven explains: "1 Corinthians 11:24, reads: '[He took a loaf of bread] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" The words "which is for you" beg for some addition, such as "which is given for you" or "which is broken for you."

"So from early times, scribes have been adding such words. As a matter of fact, the word "broken" was inserted in the Greek text on which the King James Version was based. But the true text reads: "This is my body which is for you." And that's how we find it in all newer versions. [As Dr. Charles Ryrie said, "Thanks to textual criticism, we have a New Testament which is 99.9% pure." Such additions have been noted.]

Kuyvenhoven continues, "However, because of that added word, a misunderstanding has crept into the tradition that surrounds the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If we love truth more than tradition, we must now make clear that breaking bread has nothing to do with a broken body. 'Breaking bread' is a term for sharing food. In Bible times, bread was not cut, nor did it come sliced and packaged, but broken and then given to guests or members of the family. "Breaking bread together" means eating together."

By far, the modern translations, over 30 of them, omit "broken" from I Corinthians 11:24. Thus by a scribal addition, a tradition was born, one which has been repeated throughout church history without the speaker's being aware that what he's reciting means that Scripture can indeed be broken. His addition of "broken" contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as John's wrap-up statement of the crucifixion that not a bone of the Lord Jesus was broken.  

The moral: tradition in word and deed must be examined to see if it has a biblical root.