Book review: "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church," by Marvin J. Rosenthal

Of all the doctrinal topics that divide evangelical Christians, the study of Eschatology ("last things" or end-times prophecy) is surely one of the most polarizing, particularly where it touches on the "rapture" of the church. While evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ will personally, physically return to the earth someday, and that He will literally "catch-away" His believers at some point before setting up His Millennial reign, there is a great deal of disagreement as to exactly when these events will take place, or whether they truly are separate events at all. Pre-tribulationists insist that Christ will rapture His church prior to the beginning of the seven-year "Tribulation period," also known as the "70th Week of Daniel." Mid-tribulationists, as their name implies, see the rapture occurring in the middle of the 70th Week. Pre-wrath adherents see the rapture taking place at some point during the last three-and-one-half years of the 70th Week, just prior to the period of time when God will begin pouring out His wrath on Antichrist's world kingdom. Finally, post-tribulationists see the rapture taking place at the same time as the glorious appearing of Christ, which all four viewpoints agree takes place at the very end of the 70th Week.

Like many Christians, including myself, Marvin J. Rosenthal was once a card-carrying member of the pre-tribulationist school, the viewpoint which has dominated evangelical Christianity for the last century (see the best-selling "Left Behind" books for a fictionalized version of this eschatological timeline). In time, however, as he studied the topic in greater depth, Rosenthal came to believe that pre-tribulation rapturism was fatally flawed, and he began to re-evaluate prophetic teachings in search of the truth behind the rapture question. The "Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" is the culmination of that effort; and, while I do not agree with Rosenthal's conclusions in total, I would argue that he has made a valuable contribution to the rapture debate.

Points of agreement:

The most effective aspect of "The Pre-wrath Rapture" is Rosenthal's critique of pre-tribulation rapturism, and this alone is enough to recommend the book.

Rosenthal brilliantly debunks pre-tribulation rapturism. He demonstrates that the "Day of the Lord" (the final out-pouring of God's wrath on Antichrist's kingdom) is not the entire 70th Week of Daniel (nor the Millennial Kingdom, as some contend). He does so by citing Joel 2:31, in which the Day of the Lord (DOTL) is described as beginning with very specific cosmic signs: the sun is darkened, the moon turns red as blood, and the heavens and the earth are "shaken." Rosenthal shows that these signs are the same as those described by Jesus in Matthew 24:29, and those that follow the opening of the 6th seal in Revelation 6:12, an event that takes place deep within the 70th Week. Additionally, Rosenthal points out the fact that both Christ and the Apostle Paul (see Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 2:3) taught that four events must precede the rapture of the church, namely the "coming of Elijah," a "falling away" (a mass apostasy), the revelation of Antichrist (the "man of sin"), and the cosmic signs of the DOTL, thus destroying the central pre-trib pillar of "imminence," (the idea that the rapture could happen "at any moment," with no prophesied events preceding it).

Rosenthal develops these points with excellent exegesis and logic and, in my opinion, utterly devastates pre-tribulation rapturism. Toward the end of the book, he takes time to evaluate a number of common pre-trib arguments, and does so effectively.

Where Rosenthal fails, I believe, is in his attempt to establish a pre-wrath rapture.

Points of disagreement:

Rosenthal teaches that the rapture will occur at some point during the second half of the 70th Week, immediately following a time of intense persecution known as "the Great Tribulation," and in conjunction with the signs marking the DOTL (the 6th seal in Revelation), but prior to the actual out-pouring of the wrath. This, Rosenthal tells us, is consistent with the promise of scripture that Christians are not "appointed to wrath" (I Thessalonians 5:9). He presents the "great multitude" of Revelation chapter 7 as the raptured church in Heaven.

And while Rosenthal comes very close to the truth, unfortunately, certain assumptions cause him to deviate into theologically indefensible territory.

Scripture very clearly teaches one, visible second coming of Christ in glory. Rosenthal gets it right when he says, "Not once does the Bible speak of two comings -- not even by hint or implication," (p. 229); nevertheless, he maintains that the second coming includes the rapture, the DOTL, and Christ's final appearance in the clouds, all of which, in his view, necessitate a "coming" that lasts for an extended period of time. However, just as there are no passages that teach multiple comings, there are no passages that teach a prolonged coming or a coming in stages. Rather, the Bible teaches that the rapture will take place when Christ appears in glory, at which point He will be visible to the whole world.

In Matthew 24, the famous "Olivet Discourse," Christ's disciples asked Him, "What will be the sign of Your coming [singular], and of the end of the age?" (NASB) Christ proceeded to answer their question without correcting their assumption that He would come only once more. Indeed, He tells them not to be deceived but to watch for the DOTL signs (verse 29), which He says will come, "after the tribulation of those days". If you read the passage, you'll see that this is a reference to the "Great Tribulation," the persecution that will follow Antichrist's desecration of the Jewish Temple and his demand to be worshiped as God.

Matthew 24:30-33 - "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." (NASB)

Notice that Christ says He will gather His elect at His visible coming, and notice how this language compares to that of the Apostle Paul in I Thessalonians 4:15-17 -

"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." (NASB)

And in II Thessalonians 2:1-3 -

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him...Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." (NASB)

Consider that, in both of his famous rapture passages, Paul refers to a singular coming of Christ, and how he attaches our "catching-up" and "gathering to Him" with that one event. The language of II Thess 2:1 is especially telling in its reference to "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to Him." According to the rules of Greek grammar, when you have two nouns of the same case (in this instance, "coming" and "gathering"), connected by the word Kai ("and" in English), and the first is preceded by a definite article but the second is not, the nouns should be grouped together (for another example, see Titus 2:13-14, where "the great God and our Saviour" both refer to Jesus Christ).

Clearly, the glorious appearing of Christ and the rapture are simultaneous events, meaning that the rapture must take place at the end of the 70th Week (thus it is post-tribulational). To argue otherwise, one has to obscure or twist the very plain meaning of the passages in Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians. For further evidence, consider that, in the account of Christ's ascension into heaven in Acts 1, the angels that appeared to His disciples told them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (NASB) And in Revelation 1:7, John tells us: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." (KJV) These important scriptures also support one visible, physical return of Christ to the earth in glory.

In regard to the wrath of God, I fully agree with Rosenthal that Christians will be exempt from it (I Thess. 5:9); however, I cannot find any teaching in scripture that says that Christians will be removed from the earth during it. No secret coming or coming in stages is taught. Nor does this promise for deliverance require the removal of Christians in order to be valid. God is able to protect His people from the effects of His wrath during the 70th Week, just as He protected Noah and his family from the great flood, and just as he protected the Hebrews living in the land of Goshen from the plagues of Egypt.

I must also disagree with Rosenthal where the great apostasy of II Thessalonians 2 is concerned. Rosenthal states that this will be a Jewish apostasy in that the nation of Israel will place its faith in the promises of Antichrist (as it once turned to Antiochus Epiphanes), whereas I believe that this passage is speaking of a general apostasy among believers. Rosenthal justifies his view with four main points: 1) that the only other time "apostasy" is used in the NT is in reference to the Jews (Acts 21:20), 2) that the Greek in II Thessalonians 2 has the definite article, thus making it "The Apostasy," and the Jews historically referred to the time when many of them allied with Antiochus Epiphanes as "The Apostasy," 3) that those Paul warns Timothy will "depart from the faith" in the latter times (see 1 Timothy 4:1-2) are not apostates but false teachers, and 4) that if believers can apostatize "then the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer in this age must be seriously questioned. And that cannot be allowed to stand." (p. 199).

In reply, I would point out the following:

1. In the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, when "The Apostasy" occurred, the Jews were the "people of God." Since then, the gentiles have been "grafted in," and thus the equation has changed (Galatians 3:8 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." KJV) Furthermore, the Apostle Paul does not specifically apply this future apostasy to the Jews, thus the burden of proof is on Rosenthal to establish that it only applies to them, and he is not able to do so compellingly. Indeed, by Paul's time the Jewish nation as a whole was already apostate in that it had rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah. This is still the case today, so I find it necessary to ask how an already fallen nation could experience a great apostasy (this would be like arguing that people standing in the rain will, at some future point, get wet).

2. Paul used the definite article in II Thessalonians 2 because he is referring to a specific, major future event, not some "nebulous apostasy at the end of this age," as Rosenthal argues. This is one of the poorest arguments in the book.

3. The Greek word translated as "depart from the faith" in I Timothy 4:1 is "aphistemi," not "apostasia," as Rosenthal says; however, if you check these words in a concordance, you will find that they are extremely similar in meaning. Even so, there is no reason why a genuine apostasy cannot take place in addition to the emergence of false teaching; indeed, false teachings may in part lead to the apostasy.

4. Rosenthal says that challenges to the doctrine of eternal security cannot be allowed to stand; however, I find it ironic that many evangelical Christians feel the same way about pre-tribulationism, which Rosenthal is openly challenging in this book. For that reason, it seems odd to me that Rosenthal would ask us to thoughtfully consider a challenge to pre-tribulationism, but eternal security should not be questioned at all. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, but, as it happens, there are good reasons to question to the doctrine of eternal security (Visit the Pristine Faith Restoration Society's position papers on eternal security for a discussion of the problems with this doctrine: http://www.pfrs.org/osas/index.html).

Rosenthal does address post-tribulationism on a few occasions, but his critiques are brief and seem to be based on the writings of those who don't defend it very well. For example:

First, Rosenthal claims that the fact that the church is not mentioned in Revelation chapters 4-21 is a problem for the post-trib view (p. 224). Yet, what Rosenthal does not appear to consider is that his argument assumes a strictly earthly focus; since the church isn't mentioned by name where earthly matters are concerned, he concludes that it cannot be present there. Unfortunately for Rosenthal, however, this argument cuts both ways; for, if the church is in Heaven at some point between chapters 4-21, it is not mentioned by name there either (including the "great multitude" passage of Revelation 7, which Rosenthal views as depicting the raptured church)! Thus, if the presence of the church can only be established by an express use of that one term, we cannot find it at all in chapters 4-21, and so it could be anywhere.

However, while the church is not mentioned by that specific term in chapters 4-21, there are other references that are equally applicable to believers, such as "saints" (Paul greets the "saints" many times in his epistles), and the "saints" are clearly depicted as being located on the earth (note that Antichrist makes war against them in Revelation 13:7). We also find references to those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ," in Revelation 12, and it is clear that they are also on the earth, as the "dragon" (Satan) makes war against them after he and his demons are cast out of Heaven. In Revelation 18:4, when Babylon is about to be destroyed, God warns "my people" to "come out of her" lest they share in her destruction. And finally, in Revelation 19:7, immediately before heaven is opened and Christ appears, we're told that "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." As most Christians know, the church is often called "the bride of Christ," so why is it that the bride is not said to be ready until Revelation 19 if she has been raptured in Revelation 7? And who is God calling out of Babylon? It might be argued that these references to Christians on earth during the Great Tribulation apply to a special group of "Tribulation Saints," but this argument assumes the church has been removed prior to the Great Tribulation, it does not prove that this is so.

Second, Rosenthal appeals to the argument that, if the rapture occurs at the end of the 70th Week, then it would be possible to know the day of Christ's coming (1260 days after the Abomination of Desolation), whereas Matthew 24 tells us that "no man knows the day or the hour." (p. 248) This seems like a compelling argument at first, but it falls apart under careful scrutiny:

1. If you view Matthew 24's description of Christ's "gathering" His elect as a rapture passage, which is certainly the most obvious reading, then you must also equate the glorious appearing to the rapture (since Christ said that unbelievers would see Him coming at that time, something that doesn't happen until the glorious appearing). However, in order for Rosenthal's objection to succeed, one must separate the rapture and the glorious appearing by a fairly lengthy span of time. The problem here is that Christ did not do this; on the contrary, He made it clear that the "tribes of the earth" would see Him coming and would mourn, and *then* (the text implies that it happens right away) He will "gather together His elect." He mentions no delay from the time that He becomes visible to those who dwell on the earth, until the gathering of the elect begins, and there is no natural or compelling reason (aside from the defense of doctrine) to insert such a delay in this passage.

Indeed, there is no reason to draw the DOTL out over a lengthy period of time, either. Scripture gives every indication that the day is a literal 24-hour day, not an indefinite span of time. Consider Revelation 6:12-17. In this passage, the 6th seal is opened, the DOTL signs are given, heaven is opened, and the "kings of the earth, and the great men" call for the rocks and mountains to fall of them and hide them from the Lord: "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" This fits quite naturally with Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, in which we are told that the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see Christ coming in glory (an event which is, once again, connected with the rapture). Also, consider Zechariah 14:6-8, where we are told that the day of the Lord shall be "one day which shall be known to the Lord," and that "at evening time it shall be light." This language can only be applicable to a literal calendar day.

2. As Christ said in Matthew 24, it is not possible at the present time ("no man knows" - present tense) to know the day or hour of His glorious appearing; however, it will be possible to know this day in the future. Again, given the fact that the Abomination of Desolation occurs precisely at the mid-point of the 70th Week, that leaves three-and-one-half years (1260 days) until the glorious appearing. Therefore, anyone who observes the Abomination will be able to calculate the date of the glorious appearing (although they still will not know the hour. Note that Christ emphasized the hour even more than the day in Matthew 24).

I could go on, but I think that the points I've listed constitute the most glaring problems with "The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church."

In summary, Rosenthal does a wonderful job of critiquing pre-tribulation rapturism, and, I might add, does so in a humble and gracious fashion. However, he falls short of proving a pre-wrath rapture, mostly due to the fact that the Bible so clearly links Christ's appearing in glory to the "catching-up" of His saints. For a thorough presentation of the post-tribulation rapture view, I would again recommend the very fine work done by the Pristine Faith Restoration Society, and particularly by its founder, Pastor Tim Warner.

The Higher Powers: Martial Law vs Christian Responsibility

The "Higher Powers": Martial Law vs. Christian Responsibility

It is one thing to know something intellectually, and quite another to see it suddenly happen before your eyes. I experienced such a moment in 2005, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when I watched (via the Internet) as police officers went door-to-door in New Orleans neighborhoods, forced law-abiding citizens into the streets, cuffed them, and then searched their homes for firearms before leaving them bewildered and helpless. There were no warrants involved. No probable cause was mentioned. No charges of wrong-doing were filed. Intimidation and brute force were the order of the day. And as much as I wish I could believe otherwise, I’m afraid that what we saw in New Orleans is merely a preview of coming attractions.

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has been busily advancing preparations for the day when it might impose martial law throughout the United States, thus presenting us with the specter of the sort of thugery we witnessed in New Orleans being carried out all across this “land of the free.” A quasi-legal apparatus has already been put into place for this, via such legislation as the PATRIOT Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Security and Homeland Security Directive. But legislation, although important in creating the illusion of legitimacy, is only one of the two boots with which the authoritarian state tramples freedom; the other is propaganda, and it is even more essential than force because it allows the state to conquer by stealth, and thus with a minimum of effort.

The state that employs only force to achieve its aims will rule only as long as it can subdue the people; but if it can successfully use propaganda, it can rule indefinitely because the people will subdue themselves. Propaganda deludes the slave into seeing his servitude as sacrifice, even as an honor. It transforms political prisoners into the enemies of the people, turns massacres into purgings, makes partisanism look like saintly perseverance, sells torture as retribution, portrays dissent as sabotage, and masks aggression in the guise of crusading. As Adolf Hitler observed in Mein Kampf, “By an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa, the most miserable kind of life can be presented as if it were paradise."

And of all the varied forms of propaganda, religious propaganda is by far the most effective; for, it provides fallible men with the sanction of heaven, which must not be resisted nor even questioned. Our government is well aware of this and, from all indications, is ready to use religious propaganda in order to help pacify the American population in the event that martial law is declared.

For years, rumors circulated to the effect that the U.S. government would use members of the clergy in efforts to pacify Americans should martial law ever be declared. Many scoffed at the idea, calling it so much conspiracy theory nonsense. Then, in 2007, KSLA Channel 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana, reported that, following Hurricane Katrina, “clergy response teams” were utilized to assist the government with public relations (click here to watch the video). According to the story, such teams will likely be used in future emergency situations, with an emphasis on their potential role in a martial law scenario. Here’s a quote from the story:

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

A member of one such clergy response team, Dr. Durell Tuberville, was interviewed by KSLA, and stated that Christians have a responsibility to obey the government, no matter what. “The government’s established by the Lord,” said Tuberville. “That’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.

As a Christian myself, I understand where people like Dr. Tuberville are coming from. I remember my ninth grade Government teacher telling our class (Christian school, mind you) that Soviet citizens had no right to defy their government because, no matter how oppressive the Soviet State was, it was “ordained by God” (when asked about whether the American patriots were right to rebel against England, however, he equivocated). This reasoning is based on several passages of scripture, but particularly on the following remarks made by the Apostle Paul in Romans, chapter 13 (as the KSLA news story pointed out):

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

With these things in mind, I’d like to take some time to examine the issue of how Christians should react to the prospect of martial law in America.

Government officials are not the highest “authorities” in America

The first thing I would like to point out to people like Dr. Tuberville, who think Christians should obey government officials no matter what because they are “the higher powers,” is that there is another, yet higher power to which even such officials are beholden: the Constitution of the United States.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. Article VI, Section 1.

It is from the Constitution that our elected officials, both federal and state, derive their office and legitimate powers. Their powers are delegated, not inherent; concrete, not elastic, and, as clearly set forth by the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, they are limited to the specific areas of authority that the Constitution either grants to the Union or denies to the states. Further, our elected officials are “bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution and its provisions, including the limitations placed upon their own powers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution… (Article VI, Section 3).

Thus, in taking up the powers and responsibilities of political office, our elected officials are also agreeing to place themselves under the law. This is one of the foundational ideas of the American political system: the concept that everyone is under law and equal in its eyes. For this reason, if government officials violate the Constitution, their actions are illegal and void of authority, and they are no better than common criminals. It is absolutely critical that Christians understand this when they contemplate their relationship to the government. Our elected officials are not the source of their own power; rather, they are representatives who have been entrusted with the authority of the American people as defined in the United States Constitution. If they violate that trust, they are as much criminals as the guy who robs your local 7-11 store; they just dress better, make other people use the guns, and almost never go to jail.

Martial Law is Unconstitutional and, therefore, Illegal

The Constitution does not directly address martial law; however, it does contain a provision that clearly makes martial law impossible. Consider Article IV, Section IV:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Republican government is civil, representative government; martial law is military rule. Since the former is specifically guaranteed here, the latter is necessarily precluded. This provision, which our government officials are sworn to support as being part of the supreme law of the land, makes martial law unconstitutional and thus illegal. The moment that martial law is declared, the federal government will have stepped outside of its sphere of lawful powers. In fact, in a very real way it will have conducted a revolution, as it will have overthrown the legitimate government of the Constitution by force of arms.

The President is Commander in Chief, not Dictator in Chief

The “war powers” of the President are a woefully misunderstood aspect of constitutional law, thanks primarily to the success of Abraham Lincoln’s war and further developments under those who inherited his theory of government. Said theory boils down to the idea that, technically, anything the government does in order to “safe-guard” the country (really its own power) is constitutional.

The Constitution itself differs with that idea. It describes the “war powers” of the President in Article II, Section II, where we read:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

That’s it. That is the sum total of all the Constitution has to say about the war powers of the President. Everything else that has developed since the adoption of the Constitution where such powers are concerned, from ‘peace-keeping’ missions to covert operations, is extra-constitutional (and largely a perversion of the war powers the Constitution grants to Congress in Article I). Indeed, the military powers that presidents exercise today would have seemed kingly to our country’s founders. Under the American system, presidents were to be limited chief executives, not self-empowering monarchs who could overthrow the rights of the people or commit the country’s military to action for any reason whatsoever. The history of centuries of blood-letting under the crowned heads of Europe had taught Americans better than to trust such powers in the hands of one individual. They forgot that lesson rather quickly once they were free to determine their own affairs, but that initial understanding is enshrined in the Constitution’s language to this day, and the reasoning behind it is still just as sound.

The Commander in Chief clause, read as it is plainly written, gives the President authority to act as a sort of commanding general of all U.S. armed forces in their constitutional role of providing for the common defense. It makes him a unifying military leader, capable of coordinating the country’s defenses in order to repel an aggressor; it does not make him a dictator, nor does it authorize him to use the military offensively or for law enforcement purposes. Note that the authority granted in Article II, Section II is military, not civilian, and that it does not release the President from his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, nor does it revoke the right of the states to a republican form of government.

In response, some will undoubtedly argue that we now face dangers that our country’s founders could not have envisioned, and, for that reason, certain things must change. But the founders provided us with a means of changing the Constitution in the face of new circumstances or new wishes on the part of the people. We call this provision the “Amendment Process” (see Article V). So why is it that our leaders are not using this legitimate, constitutional tool, if indeed they believe that they require additional powers in order to meet modern challenges, and if indeed their motives are pure? Defenders of the Bush administration and its congressional allies (particularly Christians seeking to invoke Romans 13) should give serious thought to this question.

Consider that nearly seven years have elapsed since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and yet, in all that time, in spite of all the powers that Bush and Congress have usurped, they have not once prepared or even suggested a constitutional amendment to legitimize any of it. And the reason for this? Quite simply, they don’t believe they need to legitimize their actions. They do not recognize any authority above themselves, neither the Constitution of the United States nor the people who elected them.

Beware Government Agents quoting Scripture

The common perception of propaganda is that it is the art of telling lies, but in fact lies are only part of the picture. No, the true master of propaganda is skilled not only in telling outright lies, but also in employing distortion and half-truth.

For an example of this, consider Romans 13 again. The standard snake oil sold by the Dr. Tuberville’s of the world (unwittingly or not), where this passage is concerned, is that government is the “higher power” and must be obeyed in all things. This is what you’re likely to hear when a clergy response team member shows up on your doorstep, flanked by national guardsmen and demanding that you hand over your firearms, supplies, and/or valuables, or that you accompany them to Hotel Halliburton. Yet, as we have already seen, the Constitution, not the government, is the highest “power” in the United States of America, and those who act outside of it are criminals.

Note also that the Apostle Paul was arguing that Christians should support the “higher powers” because government is ordained by God to be “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” “Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior,” Paul tells us, “but for evil,” after which he admonishes us to be “in subjection not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” So what then of a government which, instead of punishing evil, actually practices evil itself? Can Paul have been suggesting that Christians should view the evil actions of a lawless power as somehow bearing the approval of God? Can a Christian either condone or submit to evil doings “for conscience’ sake”? Is it possible to do good by sanctioning, submitting to, or participating in evil? As Paul himself was fond of saying, “God forbid!”

When in Rome?

At this point, some might argue that the Roman Empire was evil in many ways, and that if Paul informed Christians that they needed to be in subjection to such a regime, surely today’s Christians have no excuse for resisting the will of the U.S. government, constitutional questions aside. And while I would agree that Rome was certainly a ruthless and brutal government, there are three important things that should be kept in view here:

1) Rome did not rule under a supreme Constitution such as we have.

2) While Paul instructed Christians to recognize Roman rule, he never once suggested that they should sanction or participate in Roman brutality. Indeed, the Bible contains a number of passages that instruct us to aid the oppressed (not to aid in their oppression):

Proverbs 24:10-12: “If you are slack [weak, feeble] in the day of distress, your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider {it} who weighs the hearts? And does He not know {it} who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Isaiah 1:16-17: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.”

Jeremiah 21:12: “O house of David, thus says the LORD: ‘Administer justice every morning; And deliver the {person} who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor, that My wrath may not go forth like fire and burn with none to extinguish {it,} because of the evil of their deeds.’”

Jeremiah 22:2-3: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of {his} oppressor. Also do not mistreat {or} do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.’”

The above passages make it clear that no one who claims to fear God should have anything to do with oppressing the innocent; but, rather, they should actively “reprove” those who do such things and “deliver” those who are being victimized. Genesis 14 tells the story of how Abraham attacked and overcame a group of kings who had taken his nephew, Lot, captive; and, in Job 29, we’re told that, among the good deeds Job was known for, he “delivered the poor who cried for help, and the orphan who had no helper,” and “broke the jaws of the wicked and snatched the prey from his teeth.” The Bible refers to both Abraham and Job as “righteous” and “upright.” Further, in I Timothy 5:8, the Apostle Paul, who wrote Romans 13, remarks: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Surely “providing” for one’s own involves protecting them from those who would do them harm.

3) Two recorded instances from the Apostle Paul’s own life demonstrate that a Christian need not submit to injustice simply because it is perpetrated by agents of the state. Both examples come to us from the book of Acts.

The first is recorded in Acts 22, where Roman authorities questioned Paul in relation to his part in a riot that had just taken place in Jerusalem. Not satisfied with his answers, the Roman chief captain ordered that Paul be subjected to a bit of enhanced interrogation, 1^st Century style (they were going to scourge him while questioning him further). Now, Paul was a Roman citizen, and under Roman law it was illegal to scourge a citizen. Paul pointed this out to his captors in Acts 22:23, and was spared the torture in favor of a trial.

The second example comes from Acts 25. Paul, who was then on trial before Porcius Festus, the Roman governor of Judea, saw that the governor was probably not going to give him a fair trial, and so he invoked the supreme right of a Roman citizen: he appealed to Caesar himself in hope of justice. He did this respectfully, but resolutely.

Clearly, the Apostle Paul had no problem with questioning authorities or appealing to the law in his defense, and I see no biblical reason why modern Christians are under obligation to act any differently. The Constitution is our supreme law, our supreme authority; we have every right to appeal to its provisions and to demand that those provisions be respected and not overthrown.

Conclusion

In summary, be aware of the fact that our government has already begun using religious propaganda to get its way, and that it fully intends to do so again. Beware those who would preach to you concerning how you should obey them as authorities over you, if they refuse to obey the authority over them. Beware those who talk about the law if they themselves are law-breakers. Beware those who would speak to you of “duty,” if they themselves have broken their oaths and violated the trusts of their offices. Contrary to the propaganda you’re likely to hear in the event of a martial law situation, neither Romans 13, nor any other passage of scripture, can be twisted to the effect of forcing Christians to buckle under to, participate in, or otherwise sanction, illegal actions or outright atrocities committed by the state.

You who are members of the clergy: could you go door-to-door telling people that God wants them to turn in their guns (or fuel, or food, or gold) and to leave themselves bereft and helpless because the state says so? You who are members of the military or law enforcement agencies: could you force yourselves on, or actually fire on, otherwise law-abiding American citizens who might only be trying to defend themselves, their property and their families against those who have decided to toss the law out like yesterday’s garbage? Could you justly take part in unjust actions? How many of history’s wars and other atrocities could have taken place had those ordered to carry them out simply said “No.”? Could Rome have enslaved and tortured millions of people without the consent of its soldiers? Could any of the tyrants of the past have plundered their citizens had they been forced to wield the sword by themselves? Could a single Southern farm have been burned had Northerners not consented to Lincoln’s rampage? Could Stalin or Mao have murdered tens of millions of their own countrymen without the assistance of their “Peoples’” armies? Make no mistake, if the United States government ever decides to oppress its own people, for whatever reason, it will not be the President or members of Congress, or the Joint Chiefs who go around intimidating people, kicking in doors, muzzling protest, dividing families, jailing and/or torturing dissenters or carrying off property. It will be you. They will expect you to do these things for them. The question is: can you live with it? And even more importantly: can you answer to God for it?

II Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (Note – I see no exceptions granted here for those “acting under orders”).

Finally, don’t wait for the crisis to come before you act. The day martial law is declared is not the time to begin doing something about it. That time is now, today, before it happens. Start by familiarizing yourself with passages of scripture such as those I’ve listed above; and always consider what the Bible says for itself, not how others would interpret it to their own advantage. Familiarize yourself with the Constitution, with relevant legislation and presidential executive orders, and with the history of martial law situations and military occupations both here in the U.S. and in other countries. Share what you learn with your friends and family. Consider joining up with groups like Ron Paul’s new Campaign for Liberty, where you can work for change alongside other concerned Americans. Never forget that an intimate knowledge of truth is the best defense against the lies, distortions and half-truths of the propagandists.

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is available for hire as a freelance writer. All scripture references used in this article are from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Can Christians serve in the modern army?

The following is a great article by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, in which he addresses the question of whether Christians can serve in the modern American armed forces with a clear conscience:

***

Can Christians Serve In The New World Order Army?
by Chuck Baldwin
May 7, 2009


Many patriotic Americans, including many retired and former military personnel, are increasingly chagrined at the direction the U.S. armed forces are taking. For one thing, there were numerous instances in the Clinton and both Bush administrations when American GIs were required to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Does anyone remember the Michael New case? How can any American GI, who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution, willingly surrender himself to a foreign commander, flag, or uniform? That is a potential conflict that has caused many to question modern military service.

Another potential moral conflict in modern military service (at least for Christians) is the inter-sex training and quartering that is now required in every branch of military service (except the Marine Corps). To put healthy young adults of the opposite sex in such close and, many times, compromising environments is more than problematic for those wishing to stay morally pure. (Christian parents should know that many state colleges and universities now require students to live in coed dorms, including using coed bathrooms and showers.) Add to this President Barack Obama's determination to expunge the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, thereby allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military. All of the above has many Christians questioning the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to today's U.S. military.

Another disconcerting element of modern military service is the reality that today's American military is more and more being used as the tool of globalists to forge an international New World Order. For instance, both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations will send U.S. military personnel (including the National Guard) to guard the borders of foreign countries, but never ask them to protect our own borders. Sending the National Guard overseas, especially, strains the principles of constitutional government. But maybe that explains why we have so many foreign troops on U.S. soil. After all, did President George W. Bush not ask foreign troops to monitor our borders and skies in the weeks and months following the attacks on 9/11?

Using U.S. troops as international "peacekeepers" only serves the interests of the international New World Order; it has nothing to do with protecting the lives and property of the American people. In fact, an argument could be made that every war the United States has fought since World War II has been unconstitutionally waged: for the purpose of fulfilling the globalistic aspirations of world leaders and not for the defense of the United States. Accordingly, many Christian parents are hesitant to give their children to modern military service.

If all of the above is not enough, we read this story from Reuters and One News Now: "The U.S. military is confirming that it has destroyed some Bibles belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan.

"Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty--including those based in places like Afghanistan--from trying to convert people to another religion.

"Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09)

For any Christian, this episode highlights a very serious conflict of duty. Any genuine Christian must take his Lord's command to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" very seriously. In fact, how can any Christian not witness to others--whoever they are--of Christ's redeeming grace? To refuse to do so amounts to willful rejection of Christ, in which case, it is doubtful that genuine salvation is even present.

Therefore, how can a Christian dutifully obey his Savior and Lord on the one hand, while, at the same time, obeying a military order forbidding him or her from "trying to convert people"? And how could any genuine Christian chaplain willingly confiscate and DESTROY God's Holy Word? I could be mistaken, but I don't believe even Adolf Hitler burned Bibles. He burned a lot of books, but I've never read that he burned God's Word.

Now, no one has more respect and admiration for military personnel than I do. My dad and his two brothers proudly served their country in World War II. One brother served in the U.S. Marines and was wounded in the Pacific. The other served in the Navy, and Dad was selected to work on the Atomic Bomb. I have a nephew who served in the Marines in Gulf War I, and some of my closest friends are former, retired, or active-duty military.

I feel the same way about law enforcement personnel. In my youth, law enforcement was my chosen career. Some of my dearest friends are either retired or active-duty law enforcement officers. It is a noble profession.

We have to be honest enough to admit, however, that both the U.S. military and many of our law enforcement agencies are being co-opted by a politically correct leadership that is in the process of changing the rules of conduct--not to mention the rules of engagement.

Our military personnel are more and more resembling international policemen, while our local and state peacekeepers resemble military forces. Neither bodes well for U.S. sovereignty and independence, or for liberty at home.

When we have federal police agents, with no justification or authority, brutally beating an innocent pastor; when FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights; when U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders; when U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen; when military chaplains are ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles; and when soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith; then it is apparent that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better.

It is for good reason that many Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter) are looking twice at modern military service. In fact, a retired high-ranking military officer (whose name I will not divulge) recently told me, "Chuck, there is no way I could recommend that anyone volunteer in the U.S. military today."

Obviously, we have a host of honorable men and women of sound character and conviction still serving in both the U.S. military and in various law enforcement agencies. Thank God!

It is also obvious, however, that the powers that be are quickly "remaking" (to use Barack Obama's word) our military and law enforcement agencies into an image never desired or designed by America's Founding Fathers. Thus, the conflict between good men and bad policies will only worsen. And many will continue to question the wisdom of giving their sons and daughters to modern military service.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that it is at such a time as this that good men are all the more needed in the U.S. military and in law enforcement. That is a very valid argument, by the way: as long as those good men realize what they will be required to risk when their superiors order them to surrender allegiance to the Constitution or to sacred principle. But then again, we are all required to share in that risk, are we not?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090507.html

Christianity and War

The following is an excellent article by Laurence M. Vance entitled "Christianity and War." It offers a scathing, and I believe much needed, critique of Christian views concerning the state and warfare. Highly recommended!

Here's an excerpt:

We hear more from the pulpit today justifying military intervention in the Middle East than we do about the need for missionaries to go there. It is appalling that instead of the next military adventure of the U.S. government being denounced from every pulpit in the land, it will be preachers who can be counted on to defend it – and more so if it is another Republican war. To compound all of this, many of the church and denominational leaders who don’t follow the Republican Party line and don’t support the war in Iraq are strangely silent. Not a word about the immorality of the Iraq War. Not a word about U.S. imperialism. Not a word about the lies of the U.S. government. Not a word about the pseudo-Christianity of the president. Not a word about Christians naïvely supporting the latest U.S. government pronouncement. Not a word about the CIA and the military being no place for a Christian young person. Not even a mild word of warning about the evils of the U.S. government. I don’t buy the excuse that these leaders are merely preaching and teaching the Bible and choosing not to dabble in politics. They are not silent about the evils of rock music, trashy daytime television, abortion, and pornography, even though the Scripture doesn’t mention these things, yet they are silent about the evils of war. Perhaps their churches contain too many current and former members of the military and they don’t want to rock the boat. Perhaps they are veterans themselves and feel embarrassed to now criticize their former employer.

If there is any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent, the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such unholy opinions. The adoration they have toward President Bush is unholy. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy. The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The thirst they have for war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward killing foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward the state is unholy.

For the full article, go here, and thanks to Laurence Vance for writing such a great piece.