Thursday, June 6, 2019

Ancient Israel and Republicanism, Once Again

Mr Wm Federer quotes Pres Woodrow Wilson to this effect:

"Recalling the previous experiences of the colonists in applying the Mosaic Code to the order of their internal life, it is not to be wondered at that the various passages in the Bible that serve to undermine royal authority, stripping the Crown of its cloak of divinity, and held up before the pioneer Americans the Hebrew Commonwealth as a model government.

In the spirit and essence of our Constitution, the influence of the Hebrew Commonwealth was paramount in that it was not only the highest authority for the principle, 'that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,' but also because it was in itself a divine precedent for a pure democracy, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy or any other form of government."

Again the question must be asked, Does the Bible ‘undermine royal authority’?  Does the history of the Old or the New Testament teach us to rebel against kings?

And again the answer is flatly No.

Among the Israelites, monarchy grew up naturally from the early patriarchs. If you think monarchy only started in the time of King Saul, guess again. In Genesis God promised that Abraham would be the father of princes and we see that from the very beginning, even before they were a unified nation, the Israelites had monarchial government for the individual tribes. Numbers 1:44 states, “These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: each one was for the house of his fathers”. We can safely assume that if God found monarchy inherently wrong he would have prevented this from happening. However, the tribes and their princes simply grew up naturally out of the obedience children had for their parents and extended family members toward their family patriarch. Given how long people tended to live in the early Old Testament, the descendants of one man would have easily been numerous enough to be considered a “tribe” in his own lifetime and that one man, according to natural filial piety, would have ultimately held authority over all of them.

It is also in the book of Numbers that we see the princes, ruling over “thousands” as having a place of not only political but spiritual importance. Numbers 7:84 states, “This was the dedication of the altar, in the day when it was anointed, by the princes of Israel: twelve charges of silver, twelve silver bowls, twelve spoons of gold:” and so on. So, it is important to keep in mind two things; monarchy existed on the tribal level from the very beginning and these princes had a temporal and a spiritual role from the beginning.

Ecclesiastes 8:2-5 says, “This I say: obey the command of the king, for the sake of the oath of God; do not rashly transgress it; do not be stubborn when the cause is not a good one, since he acts as he thinks fit; for the word of the king is paramount, and who dare say to him, ‘Why do that?’ He who obeys the command will come to no harm and a wise man knows there will be a time of judgment”.

If anyone doubts how seriously God takes an oath they need look no farther than the story of Jephthah in Judges 11 and 12. It is made clear that our obedience to anyone is due only because of our obedience to God, which should not make it any less real to us but to the contrary even more so. We should be able to make the simple distinction made in Scripture on this issue.

Psalm 118:8-9 says, “I would rather take refuge in God than rely on men; I would rather take refuge in God than rely on princes”. Clearly, no mortal power can take the place of God but this fact does not excuse us from the command in Proverbs 24:21-22, “Fear God, my son, and fear the king: do not rebel against either of them; for suddenly their vengeance will arise, and then who knows what ruin both of them will send?”

Clearly there is no contradiction and God’s expectations are made plain. However, some would argue that these commands apply only to Israel and their own royal house, with no practical value for anyone else. Yet, according to the prophet Daniel, even concerning the pagan King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, it was God who gave him his kingdom, majesty, glory and honor a generation before (Daniel 5:18).

Likewise, in the New Testament, the case remains exactly the same, even when the people of Israel are under the ultimate rule of the pagan Emperor of Rome. People have a hard time, in spite of the evidence already given, accepting the idea of giving their loyal support to someone who is less than exemplary in the eyes of God. Most in the modern age justly feel that they owe nothing to anyone that is not ‘deserved’. Yet, how fortunate it is that God does not use this same standard, treating us only as we deserve. Even as Christ was dying on the cross He was pleading with the Father that we would NOT be treated as we deserved.

In his first letter, chapter two, the apostle Peter says, “For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every social institution: the emperor, as the supreme authority, and the governors as commissioned by him to punish criminals and praise good citizenship. God wants you to be good citizens, so as to silence what fools are saying in their ignorance. You are slaves of no one except God, so behave like free men and never use your freedom as an excuse for wickedness. Have respect for everyone and love for our community; fear God and honor the emperor”.

It should be remembered that at the time Peter wrote this letter the reigning Emperor of Rome was none other than the notorious Nero who later had Peter himself put to death for preaching the Gospel. We can only speculate if Peter had some idea of the fate in store for him, even as he wrote these surely controversial lines, for he goes on to be even more direct:

“Slaves must be respectful and obedient to their masters,” says the apostle, “not only when they are kind and gentle but also when they are unfair. You see, there is some merit in putting up with the pains of unearned punishment if it is done for the sake of God but there is nothing meritorious in taking a beating patiently if you have done something wrong to deserve it. The merit, in the sight of God, is in bearing it patiently when you are punished after doing your duty”. Peter then calls on them to follow the example of Christ, who suffered despite being the only truly pure and innocent man to ever walk the earth.

Here, Peter hits on the very heart of the matter regarding our duty to kings and princes. In the end, it is not about what sort of man is in charge, our duty to obey him personally or whether he is popular, wise or even benevolent. That is not finally the point, good things though they might be. What is at the bottom of all of these commands and principles and teachings is the same issue Samuel and the Israelites of his time struggled with: trusting in God’s plan for the world.

Because the early Christians obeyed God and thus remained loyal to the emperor, even as they were martyred for their faith, they set an example of innocent and heroic virtue that ended in the conversion of Rome and the establishment of Christianity as the leading religion in the Western World. What could have been an alternative to this? If the early Christians had instead fought a rebellion against Rome, they would have undoubtedly suffered the same fate as the Jews: they would have been crushed by the Emperor’s legions and most Romans would have felt they died a just traitors death and remained committed to their pagan gods. No souls would have been saved, no nations converted and in all likelihood Christianity would have withered on the vine.

It all relates back to trusting God’s judgment rather than our own. Any legitimate ruler must be chosen by God rather than man. The word ‘republic’ (res publica or people-rule) is never mentioned in the Bible, but in Hosea 8:4 the people are reprimanded by God who says, “They have set up kings, but not with My consent, and appointed princes, but without My knowledge”.

The creation of the united monarchy was obviously part of God’s plan and destined to come to pass. However, God’s anger was with their reason for demanding it at that particular time; because they had lost trust in God. In the same way, Israel brought down the wrath of God whenever they tried to replace the legitimate king with a more ‘popular’ choice. Hosea 8:10 includes the warning that, “I am going to disperse them this minute; that will soon put a stop to their anointing kings and leaders”.

 . . . the Scriptures seem quite vocal in support of Kings.

Since the New Testament interprets the Old, let’s start there:

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.” (I Peter 2:13-14)

“Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” (I Peter 2:17)

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (I Tim. 2:1-2)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the “King” and the “King of kings.” He is not referred to as a president, chairman, prime minister, spokesperson, or figurehead.

Jesus and the Apostles knew about democracy. According to Fr. Joseph Gleason (Antiochian Orthodox, Omaha, Iliniois): “In the New Testament, many people spoke Greek, and the entire Roman empire was deeply influenced by the Greek culture, which had already been aware of democracy for over 500 years. Yet, Jesus and the apostles never suggest that we should replace monarchies with democracies (or with any other form of government).”

Gleason provides a nice list (very minimal) of Old Testament endorsements of monarchism:

·         In Genesis 14, King Melchizedek prophetically acts out the first proto-Eucharist in Scripture, blessing Abraham with bread and wine.
·         In Genesis 17, God promises to bless Abraham with kings for descendants.
·         In Genesis 35, God promises to bless Jacob with kings for descendants.
·         In Genesis 49, God promises that Israel’s kings will come from the tribe of Judah.
·         In Deuteronomy 17, Moses lays out the blueprint for Israel to have godly kings.
·         In 1 Samuel 2, Hannah prophesies about the coming monarchy (verse 10) in a very positive context, focusing on the Lord’s anointed monarch.
·         When Israel’s kings are very good, Scripture never suggests that
they should have been “good enough to abolish
monarchy, and establish some better form of government”.
·         Similarly, when Israel’s kings are very wicked, Scripture never suggests that “being a king” was part of their sin.

Proverbs 24:21 best sums up the biblical argument against the overthrow of monarchism: “Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials.”

 . . .

Biblicists who oppose monarchy are quick to turn to I Samuel 8, as it is the best passage, if not the only passage, that provides some kind of rationale for something other than a monarchical government.

In the story, Samuel has led Israel well for decades as a “judge,” not a king, but his sons are corrupt, and the elders insist that Samuel install “a king to judge us like all the nations.” Samuel is displeased, prays about it, and God tells him to do what they asked. “They have not rejected you, but rejected me,” God says, “that I should not reign over them.” (I Sam. 8:7)

On it’s face, this passage seems to provide nice ammo for refuting monarchism, but it has a number of serious weaknesses.

♦ Firstly, it is strange for Israel to get rebuked for wanting a king when a few hundred years before Moses laid out some rules for kings in Israel: “When you come to the land … and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses.” (Deut. 17:14-15)

♦ Secondly, Israel wasn’t rebuked for wanting a king. They were rebuked for wanting a king “like all the nations.” (This seems to fit with the previous point that God had already made proscriptions for a king.) Biblical scholar James Jordan points out that this phrase “like all the nations” can mean, in the original language, two possible things.

1: A king, as other nations have kings.
2. A king that acts like other nations’s kings, not one tied to Moses’s code of laws.

Jordan believes, because of the context of the passage, and Deut. 17, that the elders of Israel were asking for the second option. And this explains the verses surrounding both Deut 17 and I Sam. 8, warning against kings multiplying horses, gold, and wives. Other nations’ kings built military machines (horses), heavily taxed their subjects (gold), and sported large harems. Moses and Samuel both warn Israel’s king not to go in that direction.

♦ Thirdly, the days of Israel’s judges was no panacea for godly society. The book ends with a woman being raped in front of her passive husband, who then chops her up and sends the pieces to the twelve tribes to point out how corrupt things had gotten. The book is filled with similar atrocities. Judges ends by saying, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21:25). According to Gleason, “the lack of monarchy implies anarchy.  The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.”

♦ Fourthly, one of the reasons the Israelites were rejecting God by asking for a king was because to do so, at that time, would be violating the mosaic law. Jacob declared at the end of his life, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah.” (Gen. 49:10). The Israelites knew their king was to come from Judah, but that tribe was temporarily disqualified due to sexual immorality: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:2)

Judah had slept with his daughter-in-law Tamar (unwittingly—she posed as a prostitute), and she gave birth to Perez (see Gen. 38, a rather bizarre interruption to an otherwise thrilling drama about Joseph). The tribe of Judah was in it’s ninth generation when the elders of Israel demanded a king. Saul had to be taken from another tribe, Benjamin. But he was replaced a generation later by David, from the tribe of Judah, who was now qualified to be king.

The writer of Ruth makes this crystal clear at the very end of the book, naming ten generations from Perez to David: “Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David. (Ruth 4:13-22)

Pretty cool, huh? (Jordan explains this point well in the podcast link already provided, and Gleason writes about it here.)

♦ Lastly, those who use I Samuel 8 to argue against monarchy certainly cannot use it to argue for democratic republics as we know them today. The system under Samuel was a theocracy, a nation under specific laws from God. Whatever is argued for today, whether it be democracies, republics, loose confederations, or pseudo-anarchism, to argue that Israel before its monarchy modeled the ideal government is to argue for something even more radical for today’s sensibilities than monarchy. A few actually do this, but everyone else needs to chill a little bit.

Pres Wilson’s (and Mr Federer’s) rather glib assertion of a ‘pure Hebrew democracy’ is quite overturned.  But why on earth is Mr Federer quoting Woodrow Wilson as an authority on the Bible in the first place?  He was an utter globalist, the very man who signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and then went on to push for the creation of the League of Nations, both of which were very large steps towards the destruction of national boundaries and the creation of global government.

One researcher had this to say about Pres Wilson:

1913-1921 Woodrow Wilson, 28th. President of the United States (D) Unknown Mason status. However, his loyalty to the constitution is in question because of his mentor " Colonel " Edward Mandell House, who was the major founder of the earlier American Institute of International Affairs, known today as the Council of Foreign Relations (C.F.R.). The C.F.R. is an outer layer of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Great Britain), whose purpose was to retake the United States as a British colony, and then unite the world under British control, which is another outer layer of the Round Table Organization, which to is an outer layer of the main core of a secret establishment called the Circle of Initiates founded in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes. ( John Coleman, Committee of 300) Cecil Rhodes is a known Satanic cult member , who has helped pave the way for the New World Order. (Fritz Springmeier, Illuminati Bloodlines) Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, 1913-1921. Unknown Mason status. Edward Mandell House, an agent for the Rothschild- Warburg- Rockefeller cartel (avowed Illuminists), gained national prominence as chief advisor to President Woodrow Wilson. It was House who persuaded President Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act. President Wilson is quoted as saying "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (Constitutional Money and The Banking Procedure, Catherine B. Dalton). Woodrow Wilson almost destroyed this nation and Constitution.

Let us hope that Mr Federer will be more careful in selecting his sources in the future.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!


  1. I struggle to understand. If indeed, "Again the question must be asked, Does the Bible ‘undermine royal authority’? Does the history of the Old or the New Testament teach us to rebel against kings? And again the answer is flatly No."

    What then of the antebellum South and her fateful decision?

    What then of your "Anathema to the Union"? (With which I heartily agree, and have all my life!)

  2. Very briefly, Washington City ain't no king. The Southern colonies should have remained under the authority of the King of England way back yonder in 1776. Breaking away from the American Union is an opportunity for the South to either establish a monarchy of her own or to return to the English monarch as her subjects.

    1. My apologies; I misinterpreted. I shall have to re-examine the article. Out of curiosity, would you prefer a Southron monarchy or allegiance to the United Kingdom -- both/either from an antebellum perspective and from a modern one?

  3. I will defer that question to the wisdom of a gathering of Southern elders. One other option to consider is for the South to become a protectorate of the Russian Tsar, should he reappear.