A Glimpse @ John 12:20f


John 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; 21 these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip *came and *told Andrew; Andrew and Philip *came and *told Jesus. 23 And Jesus *answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. 26 If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.

Jesus Foretells His Death

27 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

I.) The Inquiry (20-22)

A.) Identity of “The Greeks”

In vs. 19 the Pharisee’s lament that “the world has gone after him.” In vs. 20 we meet some of those who part of that throng who were going after Christ.

There is some debate among the commentariat on who exactly these Greeks are. It seems likely that these Greeks were what we call proselytes. They were non-Jews who had converted to the monotheistic religion of Judaism.  It may be that these are some of those whom Jesus spoke of when he said earlier that,

10:16 Other sheep I have also, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one sheepfold, and one shepherd.

If these Greeks are non Jews then John may be hinting here at the missional purpose of the Gospel. This is especially so as the request for an audience with the Lord Christ is immediately connected to the idea of Christ’s death and the fruit such a death will bring forth (23f).

These Greeks go to a disciple with a Greek name (Philip)  a person whom Jesus had called near the start of his earthly ministry (1:43). Philip contacts Andrew and together they attempt to make “Introduction,” and so arrange audience between Jesus and the Greeks.

Doubtless, they had heard about the recent raising of Lazarus from the dead.  And as seeing is believing in John’s Gospel (6:14, 30; 19:35; 20:27),  when the Greeks ask to see Jesus, they are, perhaps, expressing their desire in matters pertaining to salvation.

B.) Philip & Andrew’s role

Whatever there intent was in desiring to “see Jesus” the request from the Greeks channeled through Philip and Andrew brings a response on Christ that focuses on the matter of the Greeks, and mankind’s salvation.

II.) The Response

It seems the desire of an audience with Christ by the Greeks triggers a connection in Christ’s thought. There is something about this request that the Lord Christ associates with His death. Could the appearance of the Greeks be themselves the fruit of His death that He speaks of now? Isaiah spoke of the connection between the offering up of the Messiah with the fact that such offering for sin would mean that the Messiah shall see his seed (Isaiah 53:10). In the request of the Greeks Jesus perhaps sees His seed — that is His numerous spiritual posterity and so speaks of His death.

A.) The Glorification of the Son is Identified w/ His Death

It sounds odd, should we pause to think about it, that Christ’s connects the idea of His Glory with His death. And yet that is exactly what He does. Christ is to be glorified in His Death because in His death there is the salvation of His people. Of course, what lay on the other side of the humiliation is the exaltation of Christ. The glorification of Christ thus is both His humiliation and His exaltation but never the exaltation apart from the humiliation.

The centrality of Christ’s death is something we must never move from the center of our understanding of our Faith. It is true that the life of Christ is, in many ways, one to be emulated and followed. But Christ’s primary purpose in coming was not to set an example (though He certainly does that). Christ’s primary purpose in coming was to be lifted up in humiliation and then Exaltation. When we reinterpret Christianity from Christ as our bloody substitute to Christ the great moral example we have shifted the meaning of Christianity from Christ’s performance for us to our performance for Christ. The Cross and Christ’s work must always be at the center of our thinking just as it was at the center of Christ’s thinking here in John 12:20f.

In vs. 28 we see the glorification of the Son is at the same time the glorification of the Father. In the death of Christ the Father is glorified. We might ask ourselves how this is so?

And the answer is that in the glorification of the Son the Father is glorified because in that death of Christ, whereby the demand of God’s law for death for sin and sinner, as they fall short of God’s glory, is kept, the Father is seen as Holy and as Just as He never ceases to be. God’s honor and glory is kept. No accusation can be brought against His character as “liar” or “unjust” for not giving to Sin what Sin deserves in the death of His Son as substitute.  No accusation can be brought against the Father’s glory as “unloving” or “un-merciful” for not providing a means by which men can sue for Peace with God.

In the Cross all the potentially contradictory attributes of the Father are harmonized and reconciled. Love and Justice Kiss. The tenderness of Mercy and the demands of Holiness find agreement in the Cross of Christ. God’s Faithfulness to Himself in upholding His law-Word and to His Son in rewarding Him with a people, and to sinners in providing a means of redemption are all present in the Lifting up of the Lord Christ.

B.) The repeated usage of “Hour” in John’s Gospel

Johannine Texts:

  • Jesus, to his mother, at the Wedding at Cana:
    2:4 – “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.”
  • Jesus, to the Samaritan at the well:
    4:21 – “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.”

    4:23 – “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.”

  • Jesus, to the Jews:
    5:25 – “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”

    5:28 – “Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice.”

  • Jesus, to the Jews (using the word “kairos”):
    John 7:6 – Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.”
    John 7:8 – “Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.”
  • The Evangelist/Narrator:
    7:30 – Then they tried to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come.
    8:20 – He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
  • Jesus, to his disciples, after Andrew and Philip tell him that some Greeks wanted to see him: 
    12:23 – “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”
    12:27 – “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.”
  • The Evangelist/narrator, beginning the “Book of Signs”; introducing the Washing of the Feet:

    13:1 – Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

  • Jesus, praying to his Father, at the end of the Last Supper Discourses:

    17:1 – After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you.”

    What might we learn from this usage?

    Well, clearly there is underneath all of this the sense of God’s predestinating Sovereign hand. A hour is coming that can neither be hastened nor delayed. One gets the sense from this overview that “the hour” spoken of is a certainty and a divine appointment that can not be altered, and further one gets the sense from the passage that the Lord Christ is fully cognizant concerning the timing of “the hour.”

    All of this should be comforting to us. Our lives are not lived in a haphazard patch-worked series of uncertainties. Our lives are designed and determined by the sovereign creator of the Universe. We live in the context that God holds all of our “hours” in His hands. There is no divine appointment that we will fail to keep. No opportunity that we will miss. No instance where we will wonder if God somehow fell asleep. He holds all our Hours just as He held that significant “Hour” of the Lord Christ.

III.)  The Consequences of Christ’s Death

A.) The bearing of much fruit

B.) Judgment upon the World

This idea of Judgment is associated with condemnation. Because of the death of Christ the “world” is condemned.

But how we to understand the word “world” here? Is it the physical world that is condemned?

John uses the word “world” in ten different ways in his Gospel.

1. The Entire Universe – John 1:10; 1:3; 17:5

2. The Physical Earth – John 13:1; 16:33; 21:25

3. The World System – John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 (see also similar usage in Gal 1:4 — Paul)

World in this usage has to do with the realm or sphere that is actuated and moves in terms of evil and the evil one. It is mankind as alienated and hostile from and to God. It is the City of Man as opposed to the City of God. 

John 8:23

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath, I am from above: ye are of this world, I am not of this world.

John 14:30

30 Hereafter will I not speak many things unto you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nought in me,

John 15:18-21

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the  world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.

John 16:11

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

John 18:36 — Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would surely fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

In John 12:31f then we take “world” to mean the operating systems of men that has Satan at its head and finds his agents in the the Jewish people who rejected him, their leaders who instigated the Jewish zombies against him, Judas who betrayed Christ, Pilate who sentenced Christ for political gain, and the Roman soldiers who crucified Him.

4. All humanity minus believers – John 7:7; 15:18

5. A Big Group but less than all people everywhere – John 12:19

6. The Elect Only – John 3:17

7. The Non-Elect Only – John 17:9

8. The Realm of Mankind – John 1:10;

9. Jews and Gentiles (not just Israel but many Gentiles too) – John 4:42

10. The General Public (as distinguished from a private group) – not those in small private groups – John 7:4

One simply cannot read John’s Gospel aright unless one understands the different connotations and denotations of the word “world” in John’s Gospel. As just one example, when we read John 18:36 (“My Kingdom is not of this world”) as if it means “My Kingdom is not in this world” we end up developing theologies that insist that the Kingdom of God does not intersect or bring leverage upon the institutions, social orders, and public squares in which we live.

C.) Casting Out of Satan

In the crucifixion Satan wins the battle but loses the War.

D.) Drawing of all men

IV.) Christ’s Dying and Ours (25-26)

Now as much as there is here about the Son’s glorification and the Father’s glorification there is some here that deals with the characterization of the Disciple. He must lose his life.

Christ alone dies as the substitute and in that substitutionary death there is the bearing of much fruit that will abide.

Still, when God calls men to Christ He bids them to come and die.

So … for Christ, if there is to be fruit He must die

And for the followers of Christ there must be a willingness to die for the cause of Christ.

Throughout the Gospel Christ gives this call to prioritize Him above all else one holds dear including their own life.

Mt. 10:37-39

Matthew 16:24-26

Mark 8:34-38

Luke  9:23-26

Luke 17:32, 38

We die to all else but Christ.

Practically speaking, for us, I think this means dying to our desire to be popular… dying to our desire for “fun” as those outside of Christ count “fun.” It means standing up for Christ and His authoritative word even when to do so invites the sure to come scorn and ostracization of others.

We are surrounded by those today who refuse to prioritize Christ over other high loves. Recently one of the Presidents of Bob Jones University (B. J. III) apologized for agreeing with Scripture in 1980. However, there have been those who have surrendered all to not be ashamed of Christ.

The Proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On hearing that he was, he tried to persuade him to apostatize, saying, “Have respect for your old age, swear by the fortune of Caesar. Repent, and say, ‘Down with the Atheists!’” Polycarp looked grimly at the wicked heathen multitude in the stadium, and gesturing towards them, he said, “Down with the Atheists!” “Swear,” urged the Proconsul, “reproach Christ, and I will set you free.” “86 years have I have served him,” Polycarp declared, “and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”

“I have wild animals here,” the Proconsul said. “I will throw you to them if you do not repent.” “Call them,” Polycarp replied. “It is unthinkable for me to repent from what is good to turn to what is evil. I will be glad though to be changed from evil to righteousness.” “If you despise the animals, I will have you burned.” “You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and is then extinguished, but you know nothing of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. Why are you waiting? Bring on whatever you want.”



A Peek At John 3

John 3:14-21

Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”


Note during the advent season that the passages keep drawing us back to the Person and work of the Jesus Christ. Each week, during Lent, we are reminded of the centrality of Christ and the Cross.

Week #1 — Christ’s Baptism and it’s relation to the Cross work
Week#2 — Peter’s rebuke of Christ for speaking about his coming suffering and death
Week#3 — Jesus Cleansing of the Temple and His coming death & resurrection as a confirming sign for his authority
Week#4 — Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus regarding about Christ’s coming “lifting up.”

Lent then, in our Lord’s Days is emphasizing the work of Christ. This season is not so much about our work as it is about Christ’s work for His people. Christ and His Cross-work is our contemplation during this season. The season is only about our self denial in light of Christ’s self-denial in making Himself of no reputation and so becoming obedient even unto the death of the Cross.

Lent brings us back to the Cross and it is good that we should be brought back. There are those who would tire of the Cross saying, “Yes, yes, we know all that. What we need is instruction on how to live the Christian life.” And that is true. We do need instruction on how to live the Christian life but the beginning of all instruction on how to live the Christian life is a firm grip on the meaning of the Cross. That this necessity exists to get a firm grip on the Cross is due to the fact that there is no living the Christian life that is acceptable to God apart from the premise of the Cross. That this necessity exists to get a firm grip on the Cross is due to the fact that apart from the preaching of the Cross it is sure to be the case that instruction in godly living, as disconnected from the Cross, will likely result in some form of ugly self-righteousness because we see ourselves as such good people because of how we please God.  Apart from the preaching of the Cross our obedience is likely to become “legal” as opposed to “evangelical.” It has been my experience among Theonomists that our zeal for God’s law often times keeps us from returning to the Cross. It is as if we forget that the Cross is not merely the beginning of the Christian message but rather is the message that is interwoven with all our attentiveness to God’s Law.

And so during Lent we preach Christ and Him crucified. We don’t preach that in a vacuum. We don’t preach Christ Crucified apart from Christ as the incarnation of God’s Law Word. We don’t preach Christ Crucified as if Christ crucified as no implications for our ongoing sanctification.

Here we come to John 3 and Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus. Nicodemus comes  under cover of night in order to try and get his mind around Jesus of Nazareth. We might say that Nicodemus, as a ruler, is of the establishment and He is here trying to understand what to him is the anti-establishment. In the context of this discussion Jesus reaches back to an OT account and help define Himself and His intent to Nicodemus.

I.) Christ’s Appeal To Revelation

OT Wilderness Serpent Account — Numbers 21:4-9

In the account from Numbers, referenced by our Lord Christ in John 3, God’s people murmured against God’s calling them into the wilderness. As a punishment God sent poisonous serpents into the Israelite camp. When the people repented, God told Moses to fashion a serpent out of bronze and lift it on a pole, so that anyone bitten by a serpent could look and live. The serpent, thus in the Numbers account, was a mark of God’s anger and God’s mercy. God’s people might be saved by the mercy of God from the anger of God, if only they would look upon the image of that which would have brought about their death.

We might note then, that just as a likeness of that which destroyed the Israelites was lifted up as the ordained means of their salvation in the wilderness, so the Lord Christ, who was born “in the likeness of Sinful flesh,” (Romans 8:3) is lifted up as the ordained means of our salvation. As they then must look outside themselves, to the likeness of the serpent, as on a pole, in order to be saved, so we must look, outside ourselves, to He who was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, as impaled on a pole, in order to be saved.

Further we would note that in both cases destruction and salvation are found in God. God sent the serpents to destroy and God sent the bronze serpent as the cure to their destruction. Just so with Christ. God sends the Lord Christ as man’s destruction (“He who does not believe in Christ is condemned already” vs. 18) and God sends the Lord Christ as man’s salvation (“He who believes in Christ is not condemned”).

They looked to an image that was causing their destruction in order to be saved. The Lord Christ would have us look to Himself as the exact representation of God’s nature (Hebrews 1:3) as the one who is receiving our destruction that we might be saved.

This passage reminds us again that there is no salvation for those outside of Christ apart from looking to a known Christ. Away with all notions that there is salvation outside of a known Christ as combined with a knowing looking to Him as our only salvation.

Further, we would note that there is no salvation apart from the grace given understanding that we have been sin bitten and so apart from a healing look upon our savior there is only condemnation.

II.) Christ’s Language of Being “Lifted Up.”

The Lord Christ says he must be ‘Lifted up”

This idea of being lifted up becomes a mini-theme in John’s Gospel. It is used here in connection with the OT account of serpents raised for healing. Once that connection is made then we can hear the same connection where it is used elsewhere in John’s Gospel.

—  John 8:28, 12:32,  19:18

8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, so I spake these things.

12:32 And I, if I were lift up from the earth, will draw all men unto me…. 34.) Repeated back to Christ by audience.

“Lifted up” (hypsoo) — The word can also mean “exalt.” It could be said that “one was lifted up to a high position.” As such we hear it as a referent both to Christ’s own Crucifixion and to His exaltation.

So, when the Lord Christ speaks of his being “lifted up” there is communicated a double meaning. The first meaning of course is as a pointer to the Crucifixion. Christ will be lifted up on the Cross and suspended between Heaven and Earth giving a visual of being the Mediator — the one who stands between God’s Wrath and Man’s Peace with God. Here the idea of Christ’s being lifted up speaks to the apex of His humiliation.

However, the idea of being “lifted up” can also refer to the exaltation of Christ as He is “lifted up” from the Dead and is “Lifted up” to the right hand of God, communicating power and majesty, in His ascension.

So, we would say that in terms of human agency, of course, the cross is a “lifting up” that communicates a profound humiliation and defeat. But in Christ’s language, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension are collapsed into a single movement of divine agency: Jesus is “lifted up” by God.

III.) Clearing Up The Usage of “World”

A good many Evangelicals make the mistake with John 3:16 to make it read that God loves each and every individual that has ever lived. This is simply not true. The word “world” in John 3:16 is used in order to reveal that God’s program of redemption was not merely for the Jewish tribe. Our Lord Christ says “world” here so that the Jews might understand that His work went beyond the borders of Israel. We know that “world” here does not mean each and every individual who has ever lived because of John’s own Gospel. John’s Gospel is perhaps the most Calvinistic of all the Gospels. In John’s Gospel we chapters 6, 10, and 17 we find Jesus repeatedly making distinctions between people he came to save and people He didn’t come to save.

6:39″And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here John, quoting Jesus, clearly makes a distinction between people whom the Father has given to Jesus and people whom the Father has not given to Jesus. Why didn’t the Father give everyone to Jesus? The answer is because the Father does not love everyone.

10:26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

Here the inspired Apostle clearly records Jesus saying that there is a distinction between those who hear His voice and those who don’t and goes on to say that the reason that they do not believe is because those who do not believe are not His sheep.

Why are they not His sheep we might ask? The answer is clearly because the Father does not love them.

Note also here the verse that teaches that those who belong to Jesus can’t not fall away.

17:9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Jesus here prays for His people and decidedly not for those who are not His people. Jesus makes a distinction between those who are His and those who are not His.

Why are some His and some not His? The answer is that the Father does not love all people.

God does not love everybody. Jesus did not come to die for everybody though the death of Christ is sufficient for whosoever believes. If you have been given belief you can be sure that Christ died for you.

This is because there are a few that are like Esau whom God hates (See Romans 9). These were hated before they were born or did anything good or bad.

However, having said that we note that God sent Christ that those set apart for salvation might be saved (17), and in the doing of that the whole Cosmos will be saved and renewed by the finished work of Christ. The fact that Christ has come to save the world indicates an expansiveness of God’s grace. True … all will not be saved but so many will be saved that it will be rightly said that the whole world was saved and renewed by the death of Christ.
IV.) Series of Sharp Anti-thesis

condemnation (17-18) and salvation (17)

(Condemn = Penalty after sentence // Language from the courtroom)

This text reminds us that all people stand either in the way of salvation or in the way of condemnation. There is no third way or tertim quid.

Reminds us that our problem is forensic or legal and so requires a legal solution.

Part of the problem in the church today is that we make Christianity about our subjective experiences or our emotive disposition but Christianity, while affecting those realities primarily speaks to our objective legal position. We are either in the way of legal condemnation or we are in the way of legal vindication (salvation). God has a lawsuit against us and our condemnation or vindication rests not upon our experience or emotive dispositions but rather the verdict rests upon our legal relation to the one who God provides as our legal substitute. If we believe in and upon Christ we are vindicated (saved) if we believe not we remain in the legal position of being condemned.

This brings us to another anti-thesis

belief and unbelief (vs. 18)

stay in the darkness and come into the light (19)

This preference for darkness among those who belong to darkness should serve as a reminder for our evangelism. Men do not refuse to come to Christ because they cannot understand the the light of truth. Men refuse to come to Christ because their preference for darkness will not consent to understanding the light of truth. The problem in evangelism is often not the message but those hearing the message. This is absolutely necessary to keep in mind.

John begins this chapter by telling us that Nicodemus comes in the dark. By the end of John’s Gospel (19:39) Nicodemus is out in the light.

do evil and doing what is true (20)


The Cross

R. J. Rushdoony Contra The Chalcedon & North / McDurmon Makeover

Lesser Known and publicized quotes by RJR on the subject of egalitarianism that is now supported by Institutional Reconstructionism.

RJR speaking against proposed reparations in 1967. He is protesting in this statement and is being sarcastic.

“In other words, white America must pay a heavy tax for some time to come because of ITS INITIATIVE AND SUPERIORITY.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 615

“In any case, the goal is, whether directly or slowly, total destruction of Christian civilization. Some have called for … a long period of chaos and revolution, of anarchy, RACIAL AMALGAMATION, and the total destruction of civilization.

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg, 618

“The demand of humanism (and of its child, socialism) is for a universal ethics. In universal ethics we are told that, even as the family gave way to the tribe, and the tribe to the nation, so the nation must give way to a one-world order. All men must treat all other men equally. Partiality to our family, nation, or race, represents a lower morality, we are told, and must be replaced by a ‘higher’ morality of a universal ethics.”

Rousas John Rushdoony

“The only logical conclusion of the present concept of civil rights is communism. It demands ‘full equality.’ And where does equality stop? Economic, political, cultural, racial, personal, and every other kind of equality is demanded….‘Full equality’ means that no differences can be tolerated with respect to race, color, creed, economics and all things else. THIS MEANS THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE VERY ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY WHO HAVE MADE OUR CIVILIZATION.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 581

Audience Member: — Is there a condoning of miscegenation in the bible or a direction against it or any remark about it?

Rushdoony Answers

Yes, the Bible requires us, and the Bible itself pays a great deal of attention to heredity and to genealogy. You have long genealogical tables because family is important. You have strict instructions given to parents, you have the prohibition for example of marriages with unbelievers, so first you have the prohibition of marriage with those who are not of the faith. Second, you have in the Mosaic law the prohibition of marriages with people who may be of the faith but represent and inferior background. There is to be in other words no integration with them even in worship. So that in the Mosaic Law some peoples were not to be included in any common congregation until the 3rd generation, in other cases the 10th generation. The 10th generation would be several centuries. Why? Because these people coming from a much lower, much inferior background genealogically, hereditary wise, it would take centuries of faith and of the standards of faith to produce genetically the same character and caliber and superior strength. So that, some people had to be kept out of the congregation till the 3rd generation, others till the 10th.

So the Bible is not at all equalitarian.Start at 31:00 minute


“St Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization… (Deut.22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?’ Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Helpmeet’ means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband.

The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association. … Cross-cultural marriages are thus normally a failure… A man can identify character within his culture, but he cannot do more than identify the general character of another culture.”

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Institutes of Biblical Law:

“Moreover, if she is to be ‘a help as before him,’ a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible.

The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet—bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh—sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.”

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Doctrine of Marriage

“Men remain feeling guilty, for a false sense of guilt has no cure save the truth, and this is not forthcoming. Since the citizens are now guilt-ridden because of their education and political indoctrination, they are more amenable to robbery, and even murder. If the white man feels guilty towards the Negro, he is less capable of defending himself against the Negroes who turn into a revolutionary rabble, bent on theft and murder. The state finds it easier to rob men when men feel guilty for what they are and have, and the state drones on and on about the needs of the poor of the nation and of the world.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Politics of Guilt and Pity – pg 46

“The U.N. position, ostensibly anti-racist, is no less racist than the most fervent champions of race in history. Indeed, the liberal, religion of humanity faith is simply a form of racism. There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself a mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. For both positions, racial membership is the test, the ticket of admission and the guarantee of status. Against this expanded or liberal form of racism, as against all forms of racism, orthodox Christianity enters a dissent. For the Christian, character, born of faith, is the test of man, not a particular race or the human race. Racial differences are recognized as real and as God-given, but the determinative fact concerning man is his relationship to God, not the fact of his humanity. This is the Biblical position; it is also the position which makes for progress by emphasizing quality. Quality is sought out and emulated. A people, discriminated against at one time, by emulation advance themselves, as witness the Irish in America. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the Christian faith and detrimental to man.

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Nature of the American System, p. 142

“Man is now defined as humanity rather than the individual, and this great one, humanity, to be truly a unity, must exist as one state. In this picture, any assertion of individuality, local or national independence, or the reality of races, is viewed with hostility and as a sign of mental sickness; it is an assertion of plurality which challenges the reality and unity of the universal.“

R.J. Rushdoony
The One and the Many, p.17

“That phrase (Judeo-Christian) should be anathema to any conservative Christian, because “Judeo-Christian heritage” involves a contradiction in terms. The Judaic heritage is Phariseeism. And this we have no part of. Nor can we ever subscribe to it. Whenever you have such a phrase, you have Modernism or ignorance. You have social gospel which is a form of Phariseeism. And no Christian should use this phrase.

The phrase “Hebrew-Christian Heritage” is acceptable. But when you say “Christian” you are talking about the Old and New Testament. So you don’t need to have a prefix. But Christian heritage, or the Biblical heritage is sufficient. But “Judeo-Christian” is nonsense. It is comparable to the expression “Christian Atheism” which is beginning to pop up. I was using that term a year ago to express the idea of contradiction, but I find now articles written about “Christian Atheism”. There’s nothing impossible with some people now a days.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Rushdoony cites,

‘This is George Crocker’s column for May 22, in the Examiner – Sunday Examiner. Once a week his columns appear.”

~ Rushdoony Quoting From and Reading George Crocker’s column,

Prejudice? Not at all. Why some of my best friends are liberals. I mean they talk liberalism. I mean I am invited to dinner parties at which charming people certify their own credentials as liberals. This is done by dropping into the conversations the stock cliches about ghettos and by going on record in favor of forced integration of public schools and residential areas. There was a gentleman sipping at cocktails munching on hors d’oeuvres as he expounded on the need to close the cultural gap. Integrated housing was the answer he thought. If different races live in the same block or apartment house they will observe how others deport themselves and all (indecipherable) will tend to disappear.

“You have a good idea there,” I said. “Think of all the people who could benefit by watching you and your family deport yourself. What a shame that your home is tucked away in Hillsboro. Now, Bill, I nominate you to lead the way.”

He glared at me as if I had struck a low blow.

There was the lady at my right at dinner who spent the entire salad course telling me about an article she had read. The author, a sociologist, had explained why defacto segregation in the schools must cease. In a mixed classroom the less bright children are stimulated by the bright ones but the latter are not slowed down at all. “The culturally deprived ones” (it was her term not mine) “acquire better habits while emulating the ones from better homes but the latter are not led into worse habits by associating every day with the farmer. Psychology has discovered this,” she informed me.

“Yes … yes,” I said. “I am familiar with the theory.”

She was chewing a piece of Belgian endive. My tone seemed to disconcert her.
The tempo of chewing decelerated…. then stopped. “Do you dispute it”, she asked.

“Tell me”, I replied, “don’t you think the theory should be tested by the people who advocate them and not by people who don’t believe in them?”

She put her fork down.

“Now I know what you’re getting at. Yes, we do send our Son to a private school. We can afford it and – well I don’t say it because I am the Mother; the Pediatrician as said it from the first, – our Son has a unusually quick mind and he should have special attention. And, well, we believe in integration and all that but ….”

“No need to explain,” I told her. “The Kennedys never do. Nor the Roosevelts, the Scrantons, the Lindseys , nor a thousand other rich liberal clans I could name.”

I was mistaken. Lindseys has been smoked out of the bushes. Last month, a heckler asked, “Why do you send your four children to private schools instead of New York public schools?” The Chairman quickly adjourned the meeting.

Last Sunday, Lindsey was ready when the question came on TV.

Because he is Mayor, he said, he wants his children to have the highest degree of privacy.

He neglected to mention that his children went to private schools before he was Mayor too.

The sociologists theory is being tested in this country but not on the children on the Lindseys or any of the wealthy liberals I know.”

-End Rushdoony’s reading of Crocker’s article-

Rushdoony comments

“Which I think is well put.”

R. J. Rushdoony

“No, there is no connection. They don’t pretend to be Biblical, they’ll just read something in order to say they’ve read the Bible. As a matter of fact, the early church was segregated. First of all, in New Testament times it was segregated between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. And there was… a good reason for that. The Jewish believers were so far superior that to integrate the two would have meant more often confusion. And when you realize that in, say the Corinthian church, they didn’t even know that fornication or adultery was a sin because in the Greek world there was nothing wrong with that. After all the chambers of commerce in Greece and Corinth and elsewhere… in Corinth the chambers of commerce maintained regularly around two thousand prostitutes for all visiting businessmen. It was a manufacturing town and so on… and no one thought there was anything immoral about that. Or about men having relations with prostitutes. This was all taken for granted. So in the Gentile churches the moral standard was pretty low. It was a lot of hard work for a couple of generations and more to bring them up to any kind of standard. Well, the Jewish congregations represented a far higher moral standard and Paul saw nothing wrong with that, nor did any other apostle. So the principle of segregation was present there from the beginning.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Audio – On Segregation

Today there are both liberals and conservatives that categorically deny that there is even such a thing as race. Now of course you and I have both encountered that. It is given the scientific respectability and a number of scientists ridicule the idea that there are such things as races. Well, some of the races of the world are championed because they insist on their integrity, and we’re told that we cannot believe in it. So it’s a very very absurd and contradictory situation.

Otto Scott: Well, it’s much like Dr. Johnson’s response to Bishop Berkeley. When Berkeley said that “Nothing material is real”. Johnson kicked a stone and said “I refute him thus”. And those who say there are no races should look around. There are obvious differences in humanity which go far beyond the verbal. It’s bigotry to even mention the existence of the White race. The term arouses suspicion. And of course to say that you’re a Christian … means that many doors automatically close and many minds close as well.”

R. J. Rushdoony & Otto Scott
Audio – On Race

“Thus it would appear from the evidence of the law that, first, a restrictive membership or citizenship was a part of the practice of Israel by law. There is evidence of a like standard in the NT church: instead of being forced into a rigid uniformity, Gentiles and Jews were free to establish their separ…ate congregations and maintain their distinctive character. Moreover, Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, makes clear that the differences in cultural heritage and stages of moral andspiritual growth made possible major conflicts in case of uniform membership. As a result, separate congregations were authorized. On the other hand, Jews were not barred from Gentile congregations, so that, while restrictive groups were valid, integrated groups were not invalid.”

~ Dr. Rushdoony,
Institutes of Biblical Law_, pps.99-100

“Identification [declaring all people identical] is used as a means of negating the particularity of the law, and of reducing it to nonsense by merging all reality into one inseparable unity. Unity, identification, is thus a substitute for law and truth by its erasure of all boundaries…

Justice then ceases to become the function of government, and identification by enforced equalization is the goal. In the Negro problem in the Southern States, the concern of federal action is less and less civil justice and more and more identification. That the Negro should have justice is certain, but compulsive identification is not justice and is actually injustice, and can obscure radically the Negro’s just claims before the law… The “freedom” which Dr. King envisions is not merely freedom from domination or discrimination but a freedom from difference. This is the heart of the matter, and in every stratum of society, there is a lust for “a freedom from difference” and a resentment against any who claim such a right…

As a result, the inevitable outcome of the practice of identification is the growth of moral detachment. Since the concept is basically anti-ethical, it culminates in an unconcern with moral issues. As yet, in the West, the Christian inheritance is responsible for an extensive hangover of moralism, at present used as a facade and justification for identification… It destroys the meaning of both particularity and universality… The particular loses meaning, in that the whole alone is real, and the whole, having no real differentiation, becomes an empty universal, and moral categories disappear in the face of moral relativism. The ultimate outcome, therefore, of identification in Western society will be, if its inherent logic triumphs, the rise of a radical inhumanity and the collapse of all true progress as total relativism takes over…

With most peoples there can and must be a separate but peaceful co-existence…

A nation bent on the world establishment of the concept of identification will operate on the premise that the goal must be unity or union and will work to that end, sacrificing itself constantly in terms of that hoped-for consummation. But a nation aware that some issues are irreconcilable, while avoiding any ungodly plunge into conflict, will recognize that there can be no compromise, and that peaceful co-existence in such instances is an illusion…

The biblical summons to holiness is thus a call to separation.

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Politics of Guilt and Pity, pp.80-86

“Paul…makes clear that mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers are forbidden. It is unequal yoking. For Paul the meaning of mixed marriages is religious. Men have often opposed marriages which bridge class barriers, i.e., the nobility and the commoners, or upper class with lower classes. Again, the mixed marriages problem is viewed racially. Paul concerns himself with neither; these he leaves to the realm of personal or historical considerations. It is religiously mixed marriages of believers with unbelievers which is forbidden as unequal yoking.”

R. J Rushdoony
Systematic Theology Vol. II pg. 971

This quote begins with a quote by historian Kenneth Stammp from his book ‘The Peculiar Institution,’ from there Rushdoony dissects Stammp’s statement.

“Today we are learning much from the natural and social sciences about the Negro’s potentialities and about the basic irrelevance of race, and we are slowly discovering the roots and meaning of human behavior. All this is of immense value to the historian when, or example, he tries to grasp the significance of the Old South’s ‘peculiar institution.’ I have assumed that the slaves were merely human beings, that innately Negroes are, after all, only white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less. This gives quite a new and different meaning to the bondage of black men; it give their story a relevance to men of all races which it never seemed to have before.”

Rushdoony next unmasks the universalist abstractions propagated by Stammp that wind up undermining, in fact denying history:

“If Negroes are only ‘white men with black skins, nothing more, nothing less,’ then, conversely, white men are only Negroes with white skins, nothing more, nothing less. this means that all cultural differences, hereditary predispositions, and historical traditions are irrelevant and meaningless. It means, in other words, that history is meaningless. And how can one be an historian if it is his purpose to deny history?

The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration. Elizabeth E. Hoyt has cited Dr. Simon Biesheuvel’s comparisons, a deliberately extreme contrast, to pinpoint certain cultural ideas, African and Western. From Tennyson’s Ulysses is cited ‘a typically Western expression of man’s purpose’:

To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bounds of human thought…

To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the Western stars, until I die…

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

By contrast, illustrating what Africans call Negritutde, is “the following cry from Aimee Cesaire of Martinique’:

Hurray for those who have never invented anything.
Hurray for those who have never explored anything.
Hurray for those who have never conquered anything.
But who in awe give themselves up to the essence of things.
Not intent on conquest, but playing the play of the world.

This contrast is an oversimplification, and one designed to be flattering to both races, but it does indicate the reality of racial differences. Men like Stampp would, of course, seek to negate every historical citation of differences as merely ‘cultural differences.’ The men behind the respective cultures are the same men. It is therefore held to be wrong to cite histories against any race.

A more absurd position can scarcely be imagined. If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our heredities as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.”

R. J. Rushdoony
20th Century Reformed Theologian
“The Biblical Philosophy of History” – pg. 88-89

“Ah, yes … uh, true, God has created the diversity of mankind and therefore each of the Christian cultures will begin with the sovereignty of God and the authority of His Word but there are areas where their particular talents and diversities will be expressed, so that, even as I, for example, have aptitudes in certain areas while a very dear friend of mine has aptitude in another area and is every bit as zealous for the Sovereignty of God as I am but when he talks in the area of sciences he loses me in about the second or third sentence. But he is applying the word of God in the context of his situation. Now that’s a little more extreme than cultures or nations, but there is no question that different peoples have different aptitudes and abilities. We tend today, just as I.Q. tests are today artificially constructed so that they will eliminate sexual differences (women will come out ahead in most fields except the two I mentioned) and racial differences because their are variations.People of one ethnic background will have marked abilities in one area and not as marked in other areas, but they don’t want to believe that there are these differences you see, therefore they try to eliminate them. Well, in a Godly culture we will consider those as blessings of God to be developed.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The New Absolutism – 44:00 minute mark.

Liberalism — An Introduction

Liberalism seldom comes to us in a systematic theology text book. That is likely one of the reasons that Liberalism has advanced so successfully. If Liberalism came to us as Liberalism from a theology textbook one would then be able to point to a Liberal Systematic theology textbook and say, “this is what Liberalism believes.” Instead liberalism advances by being amorphous. It seldom sets out its tenets explicitly, in a Systematic type style, knowing that doing so would mean a wider rejection of it as a belief system.  In point of fact, as we shall see, Liberalism, as a belief system, is merely the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition of Porn as compared to the Communism of porn magazine, “Hustler.”  Liberalism is Marlene Dietrich singing “Black Market” in a cabaret in 1920’s Berlin as compared to the Communism of Miley Cyrus singing “We Can’t Stop” on a M-TV video. Liberalism is the same thing as Communism only in smaller doses.  Liberalism suffocates with a pillow while Communism suffocates with a garrote.

One point of contact between Liberalism and Communism is the insistence that man’s nature is either good or at least malleable. Unlike Christianity, which teaches that man’s nature is fallen and so man is depraved through and through, Liberalism teaches that men are born tabulae rasae, blank slates to be written upon as any narrative that a ruling elite might desire.  Per J. Salwyn Shapiro in his book, “Liberalism; Its Meaning and History” Man, according to Liberalism is born ignorant, not wicked.” Liberalism, thus eschews the Christian doctrine of original sin holding instead that only the Christian doctrine of original sin could be construed as original sin.  It was this view of man that the French Philosophes championed as the guillotine was employed to help men embrace their perfectibility and discover their unlimited potentiality.

From this doctrine of the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man comes the Liberal doctrine of Social Engineering, Utopia, and the inevitability of progress. If men do not suffer from the tragic consequences of original sin, so that they can only be redeemed by the work of a Transcendent God, then these plastic men with inherently good natures can be shaped and fashioned, via social engineering programs, to create a better, if indeed not perfect world. String together enough good men and eventually one will arrive at Utopia. In point of fact, the denial of Original Sin requires Liberals to believe that men can be made better and better via the work of social engineering. This faith commitment was recently demonstrated by an Obama State Department Spokesman Marie Harf in answering questions on how Muslim Terrorists need to be stopped,
“… We  cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs.”

We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

Note here that the even Terrorists can be socially engineered out of their depraved ways. Terrorists are malleable and only need to have their environments changed in order for them to realize their inherent goodness. Terrorists are perfectible. And if terrorists are perfectible and capable of being redeemed by social engineering how much more so non terrorist Americans? Why, with Social Security, Welfare programs, and Obama-care Americans will be social engineered into a progress that will one day lead to Utopia.

The Liberal conviction of a Social Engineering that can bring us to Utopia leads us to another tenet of Liberalism and that is the conviction that man is what he is because of his environment.  Liberalism, refusing to find depravity or original sin in man, instead locates depravity and original sin in man’s conditioning environment. Man, considered singularly is perfectible, inherently good, or at worse ignorant. However, the cultures and institutions that men build are rife with that depravity which explains why men don’t automatically rise to their best selves. Because sin is found in environments that so keeps individual men down, what must happen is the employing of social engineering in order to change men’s environment. The conviction of Liberals is that if the environments of men are changed so that those environments ooze out the juice of Utopia the result will be the sanctified New Liberal Man. It is environment that makes man less then what he might be and it is only a changed environment that will make men all that Liberals are convinced that man inherently is. The Liberal seldom pauses to ask how it is that inherently good men ever built such awful environments.

The Liberal conviction of the absolute necessity to Socially engineer environments that are in their view “wicked” so that the basically good men can discover and embrace their perfectibility unto the building of Utopia explains why Liberalism, when consistently pursued, ends up in the French Revolution Guillotine, The American Civil War Revolution war on civilians, The Russian Revolution Gulag Archipelago, and the American Abortuary. If cultural and institutional environments are the only thing that stands between basically good men and their socially engineered Utopias then breaking a few human eggs to arrive at a Utopian omelette is a small price to pay. So, the Jacobins tortured and killed their Catholic enemies to arrive at Utopia, Northern Transcendentalist Jacobin abolitionists tortured and killed Southerners in order to arrive at Utopia, Jewish Bolsheviks tortured and killed Christian Kulaks and Christian members of the White Army in order to arrive at Utopia and today our Jacobin Government makes provision for Jacobin Mommies to torture and kill their children to the tune of 4000 per day. From the Liberal worldview and belief system all of this is the small price that one pays in order to arrive at Utopia. None of this would have happened or would happen apart from the tenets of  Liberalism, (sin in environment as fixed by Social Engineering, allowing man’s basically good nature to shine forth unto the building up of Utopia) being pursued. All of this explains why Liberalism should be thoroughly hated in any man or woman who call themselves “Christian.”

End Part 1

Part II — The Liberal tenets of Rationalism (Self-evident truths), Historical Optimism (Liberal postmillennialism) and Educationalism (Education as malleable man’s Savior).


Locate the Presuppositions and you know the Answer before the Question is Finished


1.) Man (ISIS) is basically good
2.) If Man (ISIS) is not good then the problem is his environment
3.) Make his (ISIS) bad environment good  with jobs and man (Isis) will become good
4.) Hence the project is nation building and more social engineering

Page 1 of 35212345»102030...Last »