Separatism as a Fundamental Principle, 2B

Separatism as a Fundamental Principle of Christian Agrarianism, Part 2-B
Posted by Michael Bunker editor@biblicalagrarianism.com

Before you read this part, go read Part 1-A

Read Part 1-B

Read Part 2-A

Mammon

“Worldly-mindedness is as common and as fatal a symptom of hypocrisy as any other, for by no sin can Satan have a surer and faster hold of the soul, under the cloak of a visible and passable profession of religion, than by this; and therefore Christ, having warned us against coveting the praise of men, proceeds next to warn us against coveting the wealth of the world; in this also we must take heed, lest we be as the hypocrites are, and do as they do: the fundamental error that they are guilty of is, that they choose the world for their reward; we must therefore take heed of hypocrisy and worldly-mindedness, in the choice we make of our treasure, our end, and our masters.” (Matthew Henry)

In the next several parts we will be discussing separation and its importance as it relates to the Kingdom of God. In this part we will specifically be discussing the Kingdom of This World and the system of Mammon which gives it power. Throughout all of human history, and throughout the entire Bible, there are two opposing kingdoms in view. We will be discussing these contrasting kingdoms in depth, but it is necessary here that I discuss some very important principles concerning these kingdoms; principles that are often forgotten or confused by students of the Word.

The Kingdom of This World

There is a kingdom, which is actually made up of all the worldly kingdoms (Matt. 4:8), which is referred to by Jesus repeatedly as “this world”. This kingdom has a ruler or spiritual prince (the word “prince” means “ruler”) also called “the god of this world”, has other spiritual principalities and powers, has earthly princes or kings, has its own wisdom, and has a fashion (an external condition, a culture, style, or system) also known as a “course”. It is important to note that Satan, the prince of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, Eph. 2:2), is not the rightful King or Prince of the earth. That position was originally given to Adam as man. Satan, therefore is a usurper prince, who has gained his authority by deceit and by the willful consent of the governed, and not by rightful inheritance.

This kingdom of this world is referred to throughout the Bible and in many of Jesus Christ's discussions, sermons, and teachings. It is important that we point this out, because the modern mantra of “in the world, but not of it” - taken to mean “just like the world in the flesh, but spiritually separate” - teaches that there is no discernible difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of This World. There are two prominent errors, mentioned before in this series, that lead to a dangerous and erroneous view of the Kingdoms:

1. The futurist and dispensationalist view that the Kingdom of God is still future, and that no one enters the Kingdom until they die. In this view, the Kingdom of God is heaven and the spiritual realm, and Christ was bringing and instituting no real Kingdom during His earthly ministry. This view invalidates separatism because in it there is nothing to separate from and nothing to separate to; and it promotes worldliness and denies all that Christ had to say about the Kingdom of God.

2. The Kingdom Now, Theocratic, or Reconstructionist view that the Kingdom of God came fully and completely during the time of Christ or shortly after that, meaning that Christ has already come and instituted His Kingdom, which is of this world, and things will get better and better as Christians “christianize” wordly institutions and bring all things under the rule of Christ. In this view, as we have mentioned before, the Kingdom's of this world have already become the Kingdom of God, and God has no intention of returning to destroy the wicked and to bring a new heaven and a new earth. Christ has already returned (at some point invisibly) to rule, the seventh trumpet has sounded, and there is no difference between “this world” and Christ's kingdom, therefore there is no need for separation. This is the worldview and system that the Papists have tried to push for over 1400 years, and the Church of England and other national “churches” have tried to institute for several hundred years.

We will discuss the two separate and distinct kingdoms more in the next part, but for now it is important for us to examine what Jesus Christ and His Word has said about the difference between “this world”, and the Kingdom of God.

First, we should note that the Kingdom of this World is not vanquished and overthrown until the last trumpet:

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15).

Paul confirms that this last trumpet will not be “invisible” or some confusing and indiscernible moment in history (like the destruction of Jerusalem), but will be the moment when all Christians of all time are “changed” and are given incorruptible bodies. The earthly bodies of corruption will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God, but those who are Christ's will be changed and given incorruptible bodies. This is true of the righteous dead, who at this time will rise from the dead, and of the living:

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1Co 15:50-55).

It is naturally in the Devil's interest to confuse the kingdoms and to cause professing Christians to err by convincing them that they have nothing to fear in worldliness. Both the futurist and the preterist, both the dispensationalist and the reconstructionist, are able to deceive people by convincing them that they can stay in the world without fear or danger. But the Bible says that the two kingdoms, The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of This World, will remain distinct and separate until the last trump, when God's children will be changed and receive incorruptible bodies. If you have not received your incorruptible body yet, then the last trumpet has not sounded, and you are accounted with either the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of This World. You live according to the fashion (or “course”) of one or the other (1 Cor. 7:31). The Bible says that if you live according to the fashion or course of this world, then you are still deceived and in the power of the Prince of This World:

“Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2:2).

John Gill says this of the “course of this world”: “the course of it is their custom, manner, and way of life; to which God's elect, during their state of unregeneracy, conform, both with respect to conversation and religious worship: great is the force that prevailing customs have over men; it is one branch of redemption by Christ, to deliver men from this present evil world, and to free them from a vain conversation in it”. Because of the prevalent errors in discerning between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of This World, most professing Christians have been convinced that there is no difference, and that there is no “course” or “fashion” of this world that identifies men according to which Kingdom and Prince they serve.

Like I said earlier, we will get into some depth on the subject of the Kingdoms in the next parts, but for now it was necessary that I identify and prove that the Kingdom of God is separate and distinct from this world, and that it has separate and distinct characteristics, and operates according to different principles. The Kingdom of God came with Christ, because Christ IS fundamentally the Kingdom of God, and as in any other Kingdom, Christ's Kingdom has its own society and culture, its own economy, its own fashion and course. It came with Christ, but will be fulfilled and perfected at Christ's return at the last trump.

Knowing that there are two separate kingdoms with two separate masters, let us hear what Christ says about one of the fundamental differences that exist between the two kingdoms:

“No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him” (Luk 16:13-14).

Now, let me tell you that there are some of you reading and hearing this right now who believe yourself to be in the Kingdom of God, and to be under the Headship and Kingship of Jesus Christ, but who serve mammon and mammon alone. Now it is time that we study what this means, so we can identify error. Separatism naturally involves a sword: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). Note that the Bible says that covetousness and the service of mammon identify those who are still servants of the Prince of This World. The “passport”, mark, or citizenship papers of the children of this world lies in covetousness and the service of mammon. I want to note again that this is why Satan and his prophets push the prevailing errors concerning the two Kingdoms. Deception requires that men not be able to see God's intention and purpose in separation. People remain in the Kingdom of This World, and subject to the Prince of This World, because they cannot see the Kingdom of God - “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). In order to be able to separate from the Kingdom of This World, you need to be able to see it, and in order to see it, you must be born again.

Ok, all of this has been preface to our latest history lesson. Today we are going to track some of the history of the Kingdom of This World, and its system of mammon, so you can see what it looks like today.

Mammon is defined several different ways, and we can get a more full understanding of the essence of it by studying these definitions:

1. Riches, wealth; or the god of riches.

2. The false god of riches and avarice.

3. Wealth, wordly gain.

Mammon is the personification of the earthly and worldly desire for more wealth or money than is necessary. The Bible teaches, “And having food and raiment let us be therewith content” (1 Tim. 6:8). The service of mammon is the sign or mark of those whose hearts are on this world, and not on the world to come. It is critical that we understand these things, and that we know history, because an understanding of money (and mammon) is necessary in order for us to know God's mind when it comes to separatism and agrarianism. It is the love of money and the service of mammon that keeps men in bondage to the world.

The History of Money

In studying the history of money, it is important that we first get rid of the colonized deceptions that pervade our thinking. Money as we know it (coins and paper) are a relatively recent invention. When the word “money” is used in the Old Testament, it is not speaking of coins and paper used as currency. First let me say that the word “money” is actually from the Latin moneta, which means "mint, coinage," and is derived from Moneta, a title of the Roman goddess Juno. Coins were minted outside of the temple of Moneta, and it is from this practice that man has derived the name of money. Please also remember that, from this time, money became an inexorable part of human worship in the Kingdom of This World, and became a central pillar of most worldly religions. It is not unimportant that our Lord, the rightful King of Creation, was betrayed for money.

Some will insist that money has been around forever, and that it has always been a central reality in the history of God's people, but when you read the term “money” in the Old Testament, for example when Abraham bought the cave and field of Machpelah for money, it is not at all speaking of coinage and paper that we call “money” today. Let us read the account:

“And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth. And he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and intreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar, That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a buryingplace amongst you. And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went in at the gate of his city, saying, Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee: bury thy dead. And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land. And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there. And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him, My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead. And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Gen 23:7-16).

This event happened sometime around 1859 BC, but the use of silver as money had been around for some time before that. We read here that the “money” used by Abraham was actually silver. It was not paid in coins, but had to be weighed out in “shekels”. The shekel weight had been established by the Babylonians as part of the Babylonian system we are studying here from around 3000 BC and it was related to an established weight of barley. The word shekel did not refer to a coin, but to an established weight (such as a “gram” or an “ounce” is an established weight). The word “money” in our English Bible is translated from the word kehsef which means “silver”.

Back Even Further

For the first 1600 years of the world, exchange, and commerce were accomplished through trade and barter. In some cases and places, due to an intrinsic problem with barter (called “the coincidence of wants”) a system of credit was created, where a basic standard was set, and an intermediate nonperishable item was used to eliminate the coincidence of wants. For example, if you raised dates or figs, which are perishable, and you desired to trade for wheat or goats – it would be necessary (in order for there to be a straight trade) that someone “coincidentally” was wanting to trade goats or wheat for figs or dates at precisely the time when your crop was harvested and ready for trade. This problem is called “the coincidence of wants”. In order to mitigate against this problem, a third crop or item may be utilized to bridge the distance. You might go ahead and trade the figs and dates for a future crop of wheat or for some future number of goats. In the interim, the owner of the wheat or goats might give you some valuable item that is valuable but nonperishable (like wine, salt, or silver, etc.) to hold until which time he is ready to redeem them with the wheat or goats that you need. But the point is that for 1600 years mankind had no real need for what we call money. Until the wicked descendants of Cain began to build cities (which necessitate money, debt, and specialization) every man lived an agrarian existence, and he produced from the ground most, if not all, of what he needed to survive. Trade and Barter existed, but they were actually quite rare. Most men survived by God's providence from the land, and did not have any need for more than they could eat, drink, wear, or live on for their survival. It is so common for man to look at history through glasses tinted by his own experience, that it is very difficult for modern man to even conceive of a world without money.

Abraham was considered a very wealthy man, and it is said he had gold and silver, so people automatically assume that he was one of the idle rich like we have around today. But wealth in that time was measured in a wholly different way. You see, there was no need – in fact it would have been wasteful and ridiculous – to have more than you need. It is said that Abraham was “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2). Note that cattle is mentioned first, because it was the primary measure of wealth and store of value. The term “cattle” meant cows, oxen, sheep, asses, and camels. So it is true that Abraham was wealthy, but we must also remember that Abraham was the patriarch of a very large clan. His family and servants numbered in the many hundreds, if not thousands. Abraham had a lot of mouths to feed, and he properly managed his large herds and flocks for the maintenance of himself, his family, and all those for whom he was responsible. Abraham was considered wealthy, as we have seen, but an examination of the time and culture will cause us to reject that Abraham's wealth was anything like what we call “wealth” today where men gather to themselves mountains of irrelevant and unimportant items, and invest large amounts of money in decorations, entertainment, and so called “stores of value” (like stocks and bonds). There would have been no need for more animals than could be managed for the production of food, clothing, and supplies for the amount of people for whom Abraham was responsible.

I pause here to note that we read in Genesis the 13^th Chapter that Abraham was wealthy and had many cattle and herds, and so was his nephew Lot. They were both so wealthy that they could not dwell together in the same land anymore, so Abraham desired to separate from Lot (who evidently operated on different principles) and so he gave Lot the choice of what direction he will go. Lot chose the plain of Jordan near the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham chose to dwell in the land of Canaan, which was without cities, and was more conducive to agrarian success. Ok, I will return to the discussion of the wealth of Abraham, but we have to take a side road here to discuss Lot – since, although Lot ought to be the poster-boy of separatism and God's preference of agrarianism over urbanism, Lot seems to have become the hero and spokesmen for worldlings everywhere who all fancy themselves to be Lot. So let us look at this for a moment...

It is said by worldlings and syncretists that Lot was saved for his own righteousness, but the Bible says he was saved by the intervention of Abraham (an agrarian separatist) (Gen. 18) and because “God remembered Abraham” (Gen. 19:29).

It is said that Lot is not an example of separatism, though God clearly took vengeance on the wickedness and urbanism of Sodom and Gomorrah, and separated Lot out from it before it was destroyed.

Let's review the story...

Lot, due to his choice of living near the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah, lost his wealth and was rescued by God's grace alone from the destruction of those cities. God determines to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, even with Lot and his family in it, but Abraham intercedes with God to spare Lot (Gen. 18), who is his kinsman. Lot and his family (his wife and two daughters) are physically removed from Sodom in order to save their lives. Lot is ordered by God in a Christophony not to stay or stop in the plain, but to flee all the way to “the mountain”. The mountain is a type of Mount Zion and of Christ's Kingdom. Lot is too afraid to flee to the mountain, even though his eventual destruction in the plain of Jordan is evident, so he begs God to allow him to stay in a small city (Lot even mentions twice that it is just “a little one” ), and God agrees for Abraham's sake not to destroy that one small city (Gen. 19:17-21). Lot and his daughters are scarcely saved and his wife perishes even as Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. It is said that Lot is spared for Abraham's sake, not his own (Gen. 19:29). Later Lot repents of staying in the small city, and flees to the mountain, only to there become (by God's providence) the father of the wicked Ammonites and the Moabites.

So just maybe worldly syncretists do not want to claim Lot as their spiritual father.

Back to our discussion of wealth. The system of barter and trade changed slowly. First, as we have seen, men began to look for an intermediate commodity, such as salt, wine, or silver, that could be used as a store of value to help with barter and trade. So long as men lived rural and agrarian lives, there was little need for much silver or gold, and very small amounts of these metals were held as a store of value – and then only to offer relief from the “coincidence of wants”. With urbanization and specialization, came the need for money and for the ability to acquire, hold, and expand it. The Babylonians first systematized the exchange and use of money, as it became fundamental to the new Babylonian urban culture. Hammurabi, the first king of the Babylonian Empire, in his famous code, created extensive rules and laws governing the creation, use, and exchange of money. This is the beginning of the world's system of mammon.

For another 1000 years, the Code of Hammurabi and the first Babylonian system of commerce was used throughout the known world. But then, even as this first Babylonian system of money and exchanged reigned in the world, Nebuchadnezzar came to power in Babylon.

There are two main events in the life of this Nebuchadnezzar that we need to study. The first is the dream he had in Daniel the 2^nd Chapter.

In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king awakens from a dream that he cannot remember. The dream troubles him, so he calls forth all of the Chaldean mystics and Magicians, and all the astrologers and sorcerers, but they are unable to tell him either the substance or the meaning of the dream. Because of this, Nebuchadnezzar grows very angry and orders the death of all the wise men and advisors in Babylon. Arioch, the king's captain reminds the king of Daniel, the wise man of of the captives of Judah. Daniel tells the king he will give him the interpretation after prayer, and retreats to be with his friends and pray for the interpretation. The interpretation is given to Daniel, who then gives it to the king:

“Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure” (Dan 2:31-45).

Here Daniel gives the king of Babylon both the dream he had dreamed, and the interpretation thereof. The king had dreamed of this great image (an idol or statue) made of various metals and materials, and he had watched as a large stone, cut out without hands, crushed the statue, which crumbled into dust or chaff and was blown away of the winds. The stone that smote the feet of the statue then grew into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Now, Daniel also gives Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation of the dream. Nebuchadnezzar would be the first of four great kingdoms which would ruler over the people of the earth. The Babylonian empire, of which Nebuchadnezzar was the king, would be the gold kingdom. The kingdom would eventually fall and be replaced in order and time by three subsequent empires. The second kingdom, the silver kingdom, is given for us in the Bible as the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persions (or the Kingdom of Medo-Persia). The third kingdom, the kingdom of brass is the Empire of the Greeks. After the fall of the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire (the fourth kingdom) will arise. The fourth kingdom is very interesting and deserves our attention. The fourth kingdom will be the kingdom that remains in power until the end of the age. The fourth empire begins as iron, then as it travels down the legs and into the toes of the statue (through time) it becomes a conglomeration of iron and miry clay. From history we see this fourth kingdom develop first as the Roman Empire, which after it's fall becomes the empire of the Roman Papacy, which reigns through its conglomeration of secular and religious power, in an ever weakening way, until the Lord comes to destroy it.

Now, we need to note that this whole system is one statue. It is one system, even if it is ruled and shaped at different times by different world powers. Each system flows into the next, and the single beast portrayed by the statue still exists as one beast when it is destroyed by the stone, which is Christ.

Daniel tells the King that a very great and awful beast system will be developed, and that he, Nebuchadnezzar is the head and originator of that system. This system will be a culture, a dynasty, a financial and an economic system, and a single kingdom (called the Kingdom of This World) that will dominate history until it is destroyed by Jesus Christ. The final incarnation of this beast will have attributes of all the previous kingdoms, and will add the attributes of each successive system as they are amalgamated into one beast.

Let's move on to the second important event of Nebuchadnezzar's life.

In Daniel Chapter 3 we read that Nebuchadnezzar, apparently smitten with the fact that he was the head of gold, or having become obsessed with gold, and possibly in an attempt to forget or eradicate the idea that his golden kingdom would be replaced by lesser kingdoms in succession, built an image much like the one in his dream, only he had it built (or gilded) completely in gold. Let's read about it:

“Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon” (Dan 3:1).

So we note that Nebuchadnezzar made the image 60 cubits high, and 6 cubits wide, which number, 66, is the precursor of the mark of the eventual beast it prefigured, 666, which ought to help direct us in the right direction concerning the spiritual root and direction of image and its purpose. The number 6 is the number of man, and the eventual beast (the system begun here at Babylon but completed in the end of time during the fourth (or Roman) period, would be a system of worship that is man-centered, so the final six would not be evident in this typological image of gold. The image of gold was built for worship, and as a religious idol, it was forced upon the people of Babylon as a god. It prefigures a man-centered system of economics, and society that will have all the attributes of the four kingdoms built into culture and lives of the people. The event was being held, it was said, during an economic convention in Babylon where all of the great men and authorities in the kingdom were coming together to unite under this kingdom of gold. Howard B. Rand in his Study in Revelation says this:

“Here we have an account of the birth of the gold standard, when by solemn decree it was made a controlled medium of exchange, the possession of which became essential to those who would buy and sell in the world markets”

From this point onward, the world had created a system for itself where wealth was no longer defined as the ability to abundantly feed, clothe, and care for your family and servants from the land. From this point on, wealth required the acquisition and holding of the means of exchange, instead of actual property, land, cattle, etc. The intermediate means had become the idol, and metals – which you cannot eat, which will not provide you shelter, and with which you cannot use to clothe yourselves – had become the primary form of “currency” and measure of wealth. As is natural among wicked men, the rationalization was eventually made that carrying and holding gold and silver was no longer practical. Soon coins of inferior materials were substituted for those of gold and silver. Silver, the original form of money, was soon phased out in favor of gold backing alone. It was not long before paper money came into existence, originally backed by gold held in storage at “banks”, but eventually it was backed by nothing but the word of lying governments. Paper and coin would be phased out in favor of digital money, wealth would be measured by blips on computers, and by the amount of debt one can handle while still appearing wealthy. All of this was designed in order to allow wicked men to fall farther and farther away from the garden from which they originated. Without this system of money and without this Babylonian economic system, cities would collapse, and men would be forced to return to the land and produce from it – or perish.

God, in the brilliance of the creation, had abundantly provided for Adam and all of his progeny. So long as God's children remained separate from the system of “the world”, and so long as they were solidly based in an agrarian system according to God's command, they flourished and produced untold wealth. But man, through covetousness and greed, created an economic system that enslaved him; that would not allow him to buy or sell (trade within the urban economic system) unless he was willing to become fully invested in the system; unless the system was worshiped and enthroned in his life. This system, the Babylonian beast, is the system we call “The Kingdom of This World”.

Since the blood of the Babylonian system is money, the love of money (greed and covetousness) became necessary for success and survival in that system. This system and love is what is called Mammon in the Bible. Mammon is not just a corrupt money system, but it is worldly-mindedness and the culture and society that is created, through the generations, by Mammon worshipers.

Contrasted here are the two systems:

The Kingdom of God, where God's sanctified people rely on Him solely for their food, shelter, clothing, etc. and for the means of life.

The Kingdom of This World, where worldlings rely on themselves, mammon, and their corrupt economic and social system for the means of life.

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” (Mat 6:19-25).

This is to say that today, as you read this, you serve either God or mammon. One or the other. And this is not a mystic declaration. It is real and practical and has real evidences. If you life in the world, according to the rudiments, course, and fashion of the world, then you are serving mammon – regardless of where you say your heart is. You cannot say that you live in and according to the world culture, but you are separate from it in your heart, because that would be to say that you are successfully serving two masters, which Jesus says is impossible.

This is not to say that in no way should you concern yourself at all with eating, drinking, or for raiment for your body. This is saying that the use of unauthorized means in order to obtain these things is forbidden. To rely on the world is idolatry. Reliance on the world, and its Babylonian system, is the serving of mammon. God is not changing his mind here and telling us that utilizing proper means (agrarianism, farming, gardening, etc. whereby God provides for us) is wordliness. In the proper Agrarian/Separatist system, it is God that provides for us, and according to His own principles, not according to the rudiments of the world.

Separatism is a fundamental principle of Agrarianism because both are pillars of God's Kingdom, and both are necessary for a right view and a right mind towards God's Kingdom.

In the next part, if the Lord wills, we will discuss the two kingdoms, and we will go into greater depth on how the great deception concerning them has progressed.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Separatism as a Fundamental Principle, 2A

Separatism as a Fundamental Principle of Christian Agrarianism, Part 2-A
Posted by Michael Bunker
editor@biblicalagrarianism.com

Before you read this part, go read Part 1-A Read part 1-B

Becoming Babylon

We have established in the first two parts that Separatism is:

a) Reflected in the entire teaching of the whole Bible.
b) Not contrary to, or in contest with, evangelism or missionary work.
c) Commanded by God

Now it is important that we view Separatism in its relationship with Christian Agrarianism, and we will begin to do so in this part. When examining an issue like this, it is beneficial to have a vision (Prov. 29:18) of what God's intent was for the happiness and perpetuation of His people, and it is also valuable to be able to see the panorama of human existence and activity as man has fallen further and further from God's original intent. History, it is said, is a light by which we may guide our feet, and it is surely for this reason that God saw fit to give us the history of mankind, and of Israel, in written form.

God first placed man in a garden (not a city, or a disordered wasteland, or a jungle or thicket, but a well-ordered and planted garden), and commanded that man till and tend the garden for his provision and for the health, happiness, and perpetuation of his life. God put man in the garden with the command that he dress it and keep it, and immediately, before ever there was a fall or sin or death, He gave a command for man to be separate from sin. God commanded man to stay separate from a particular tree, a tree which provided access to that unauthorized knowledge which would not tend towards his happiness and obedience:

"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:15-17).

Here again we see the pattern of separation. Now look at the entire pattern as it played out:

God created the light, and separated the light from the darkness (Gen. 1:3-4

God created the firmament, and separated the waters from the waters (Gen. 1:6-7

God separated the dry land from the waters (Gen. 1:10)

God caused the green grass and the herbs and trees to come forth out of the ground (Gen. 11-12)

God created the lights in the firmament, the stars, moon, and sun, to separate the night from the day and to divide light from darkness (Gen. 1:14-18).

God caused the fish and the birds to come forth abundantly (Gen. 1:20-22).

God caused the animals and creeping thing to come forth by separating them from the earth (creating them from dirt) (Gen. 1:24-25).

God created man by separating him from the earth and giving him dominion over it. He put a separation between man and the animal kingdom by making man King over it. God commanded man to have dominion and to manage the earth and subdue it, and to bring it under authority for God's glory (Gen. 1:26-28).

God separated the Seventh Day unto Himself as a perpetual sabbath day of rest, and rested from His own labors on that day (Gen. 2:1-4).

God separated man by command and law from all that which, however enticing and beneficial it might seem, would not be conducive to his life and happiness (Gen. 2:15-17).

As we have mentioned, God planted man in the Garden of Eden, and allowed him access to all of the trees of the Garden except for that tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God separated man from that tree by way of command, that he touch it not, neither eat from it, lest he die.

Let's take a moment and review some of our principle terms, because I am going to make an illustration and it is critical that you understand what I am saying. There are two opposing positions in view here:

1. Separatism - an advocate of separation from something established - ecclesiastical, political, cultural, or social. From the term separate, which means "to divide, sever, or set apart", or "to set apart from a number for a particular service".

2. Syncretism - the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

Now, as an ironic aside - worldling Christian professors and theologians believe that there is a "syncretism" or compromise that can be had between even these opposite two worldviews. Since everything they are and everything they believe is based on syncretism, they must conclude that there is even a compromise between syncretism and separation. This compromise creates nothing but a monster, since it is really just syncretism repackaged in order to salve and silence the conscience of man, who knows instinctively that God commands separatism from the kingdom of this world.

Back to the garden. So the separatist would see God's commands in the Garden of Eden as absolute. Do not have anything whatsoever to do with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God was unequivocal - Do not eat from it, lest ye die. The syncretist would say, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Surely you may eat of it and not die. You see, God is interested in your heart! If your heart is right, it doesn't matter what your body is doing. God wants you to be clean and separate in your heart, so as long as you feel clean and separate in your heart, then go ahead and eat of any tree you like, even the forbidden tree, because God knows your heart". This is what they are saying when they say, "Go ahead and live however you like, God doesn't care. Every legal occupation, every worldview, every way of life is equal, so long as you feel good about it and accept it in your heart". This is also what the dominionist or reconstructionist is saying when he says, "Yes, we confess that the world is evil, and that the prince and ruler of it is God's enemy, and that its foundation and principles are fundamentally contrary to God's way and order, but... God is using us to reclaim the world and to bring it under the dominion of Christ. So... in order to convert the world, we must live like the world. Live however you like so long as you put Christ's name on everything you do, and so long as you try to convert the world around you to this same type of syncretistic "christianity""

That is the fundamental difference between Separatism and Syncretism. Syncretism always says, "Yea, hath God said?" and tries to find a way to continue in disobedience by salving and anesthetizing the conscience.

It is not unimportant that we mention here that there was another tree in the garden – a tree from which our first parents might have freely eaten. That tree is the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9). We know that this Tree of Life is representative of Christ, of whom it is said He was “separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). Christ, who called men out to be and live separate from the world, and who was Himself crucified “without the gate” (Heb. 13:12), and calls His own beloved to come to Him “without the camp”, is that Tree of Life that the sons and daughters of men are always rejecting in favor of the tree of knowledge (wordliness).

We have established that before the fall, God's command was very plain and unequivocal. God put man in the Garden and commanded him to keep it and till it (Gen. 3:15) - so man was created as an morally neutral but upright, holy, and innocent creature, capable of serving and glorifying him, but also capable of disobeying him. Man's vocation was to be an agrarian one, and he was designed and intended for the working and ordering of God's creation for God's glory. This command of God has never been rescinded, nor has His intention for man changed in the intervening millennia. After the fall we find the command re-established:

"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen 3:23).

I hope you understand that from this point, it is necessary that I give a sweeping panorama of man's folly on this planet, and I am going to do so in less detail than I would like – but, like Stephen who prophesied using history to those who would stone him, it is necessary that we cover the intervening thousands of years in a few short breaths.

Man was sent forth to till the ground, to take dominion over it, and to manage it for God's glory. Immediately we see man's intention to do otherwise, and to build cities, and to conglomerate and unify in order to bypass God's intentions. We also see God's opinion and hostility towards the building of cities, and to the attempts of men to come together and pull together for their own perceived worldly benefits.

Adam and Eve, following their rebellion and after they were barred from the garden from whence they came, conceived a son named Cain who, though he was originally a tiller of the ground, was a covetous rebel, and became the first murderer. And what is his curse? God says he will no longer will be a successful farmer: “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength” (Gen. 4:12); and he shall be a wanderer on the earth, subject to the whims of the earth and the people thereon. He will be subject to the worlds culture, and a slave to the prince of the earth (Satan). Upon hearing that he has been removed and terminated from his divinely given vocation as a farmer, what does Cain say?

“And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear” (Gen. 4:13).

Going out from the presence of the Lord, and continuing in his rebellion, Cain determines to build a great city, the shining monument to his sin. This city he names after his son Enoch (now, this is a different Enoch than that righteous son of Jared who “walked with God” (Gen. 5:21)). Many who have studied this subject in much depth have concluded that this city, built by Cain, was the city archaeologists and historians know as Tenochtitlan, which is modern day Mexico City, the largest city on the earth today. Remember that the earth was not divided at this time, meaning that the continents as we know them, divided by the seas, did not exist. The earth was divided at the time of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). We can't know this for a fact, but it is interesting that it is very likely that the city that Cain built might still be with us, and that it might be the largest city in the world today. That city is the archetype of every city in the world today.

Now, the earth became corrupt and filled with violence, because mankind had corrupted his way upon the earth (Gen. 6:12), and had refused the commands of separation and agrarianism given by God. Many writers and commentators have written about this time of corruption and violence, but we know that as man moved away from his true vocation, as he built cities and engaged in idolatry, he moved further away from God. His way was corrupted because man always believes he has a better plan, and that his way will bring him to glory without what he considers the stifling rules and commands of a just God. There are several different theories as to what type of corruption prompted God to destroy the whole earth. One theory says that the sons of Seth, sons of the righteous bloodline, took to themselves wives of the daughters of Cain (Gen. 6:2). John Gill, who holds to this theory, has this to say:

“According to the Arabic writers, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God: and now these were adjured, by Seth and by succeeding patriarchs, by no means to go down from the mountain and join the Cainites; but notwithstanding in the times of Jared some did go down, it seems; and after that others, and at this time it became general; and being taken with the beauty of the daughters of Cain and his posterity, they did as follows: and they took them wives of all that they chose”

In this theory, which seems to be the most widely held, the Sethite line violated the command of separation and purity, corrupted themselves by their syncretistic and miscegenetic marriages with the worldly Cainites, and brought destruction upon the whole world.

A second popular theory claims that angels, falling and leaving their first estate (Jude 1:6), began to lust after the daughters of men (mortal human women) and took them as wives, creating a race of giants (Gen. 6:4) who were not fully human, and therefore not subject to redemption. It is interesting to note that the Jude 1:6 verse, which tells us that the angels left their first estate, is followed by this:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jud 1:7).

Supporters of this theory take from this that the sin of the fallen angels (leaving their first estate) was sexual in nature, and involved “going after strange flesh”, which means going after different flesh, or, that which is of a different kind, race, or species – in this case, leaving heaven permanently to cohabit with human women, and, in doing so, producing mongrel offspring. This too violates the principles and commands of separatism.

Ok, so in either theory we can conclusively determine that the singular sin which brought forth God's most destructive and damning judgment – in all of the history of the world – was a sin against God's command of separation. Herein we see God's mind on the subject, and we come to know God's intention in that judgment he will bring in the future.

God saves Noah and his progeny through the means of separation – he causes them to go into the ark, and he shuts the door, and rains down vengeance on those who are now His enemies – those who refused the preaching of Noah, and who would not separate from the corruption of the world.

After the world and every living thing in it is destroyed, God commands Noah and his family to go out from the ark, and to take the animals forth that they may breed and replenish the earth, and in Genesis 8:20 through 8:22 God institutes the type of sacrificial worship, and again, using agrarian terminology, commands man to live separate agrarian lives, holy unto him:

“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen 8:22).

God gives forth threatenings and promises to Noah and his family, who are to go forth and be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth (Gen. 9:7); and Noah understood this to be a command to him to be engaged in agrarian work, as it is said, “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard” (Gen 9:20). Note that Noah did not decide to build a city.

Noah's son Ham, like Cain a rebellious and wicked son, uncovered his father's nakedness and sinned against Noah and against God, and for this he and his line were marked and cursed to be servants to the lines of Shem and Japheth. Ham's son Cush begat Nimrod “who began to be a mighty one in the earth”. John Gill says, “that is, he was the first that formed a plan of government, and brought men into subjection to it”. The Jews say that Nimrod was the first king after God. Nimrod fundamentally re-ordered life throughout his dominions so that man was no longer free under the authority of God and His righteous commandments alone, but now suffered to be put under the dominion of a human king who ordered things after the commands of Satan, the Prince of this World. Nimrod patterned or copied his kingdom after a corrupt version of the kingdom of God, even forming a golden crown for himself after “seeing the figure of a golden crown in heaven” (John Gill Commentary).

“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city (Gen 10:10-12)”

So here again we see how the wicked, who despise God's authority and who desire to usurp Him and to replace Him, immediately begin to build cities and gather men to themselves under their own pretended authority.

It is in this Babel, built and founded by Nimrod, that a tower begins to be built:

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Gen 11:1-9).

Here we have the model of what has become modern urbanism and syncretism. All of the agents of syncretism, no matter how religious and spiritual they sound, have as an unstated mission statement “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth”. Please note that the enemies of God are saying that, if man does not join together in urban and worldly fellowship, he will be scattered upon the face of the whole earth – which was God's command concerning man. Man scattered over the earth, tilling it and managing it for God's glory, will be free and unencumbered by the capricious tyrannies of wicked men. Man will be free to produce and harvest food from the ground (God's increase), and to worship God according to his conscience, and will not be enslaved to human economies, false currencies, debt and credit schemes, etc. This is what Satan did not want, so he puts it in men to come together and to live urban lives in close fellowship with their fallen brethren.

Whether they are using the argument of missionary evangelism, or Christ's eating and drinking with publicans, all syncretists – like Nimrod, Ham, and Cain – desire that man will not separate from worldliness and from the “kingdom of this world” as God has commanded. No matter how they howl and moan at the inference, they are agents of Babel, and God is found in His own Word to be steadfast against them.

From Babel (which became Babylon) we have the foundation of two antichristian systems:

1. Our current political, economic and social model – the urban nation state or kingdom being dominant over God's heritage and the freedom of the individual - including a monetary system which is designed to enslave men to an urban system of currency, debt, and credit.

2. The Babylonian religious system, which evolved into Talmudic Judaism and modern apostate Christianity, which is codified and represented by Papal Catholicism (the birth mother of the Charismatic/Pentacostal movement, and almost all modern nominal "Protestant" sects).
   

We will look at these two systems in more depth in a future part. It is important now to review, before we go on to the next part.

Review

A close study of Biblical history shows that our modern Babylonian system is a result of 6000 years of rebellion against God's commands concerning those who would worship Him in truth. Babylonianism, pushed by the prophets of worldliness and syncretism, is that same beast and sin which brought about God's judgment at the great flood, and the confounding of the languages on the plains of Shinar. This Babylonian sea-beast, depicted for us in the 13^th Chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, is at perennial war with the true Saints of God (Rev. 13:7). God's opinion of syncretism and worldliness is well known, and we can be certain that His judgment will fall against this world, and all the proponents and false prophets of it.

In the next part we will examine how the modern Babylonian system of politics, economics, industry, and culture, captures, enslaves, and trades in the souls of men. We will study the root of the love of the world, which is mammon, and we will study the love of mammon, which is that love – antithetical to the love of God – which is called root and basis of all evil.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

Separatism as a Fundamental Principle, 1B

Separatism as a Fundamental Principle of Christian Agrarianism, Part 1 - B
Posted by Michael Bunker
editor@biblicalagrarianism.com

(This first article is long and will be divided into several "parts" for this blog)

Before you read this part, go read Part 1-A

The “Great Commission”?

Let me start this section by making a few points. I include this discussion within the larger discussion of Separatism, because "missionary evangelism" is a topic used as the primary argument against the right doctrine of Separatism (as if the two are contradictory or exclusive, which they are not). I find the argument to be tiresome for a couple reasons:

1. Generally (or most often, in my experience) the person who uses the “missionary evangelism” argument against the doctrine of Separatism does no evangelism himself. For example, I have traveled somewhere around 3 million miles, and preached to literally hundreds of thousands of people on 3 continents (as a Predestinationist Separatist!) in the last 7 years. These numbers do not include the millions who have heard the gospel on our websites, or the thousands of people a day who either read or listen to my audio sermons. I do not say this to pump up myself or the ministry - or to take credit for anything that God alone has done. I only mention it to illustrate a point... I am the product of what I believe to be true. But most of those who I have engaged
in debate on Separatism, and who have used the “Great Commission” as an argument for Syncretism – have not gone on missions on any real scope, preached or evangelized at all! A few may have, but most have not. So the point is that there is a very high probability that the person who is using missionary evangelism as a "trump card" against separatism, is neither a missionary, nor an evangelist.

2. In the same way, the advocates of modern missionary evangelism (and Syncretism) rarely consider the product of their worldview, nor do they themselves examine which Gospel is being preached.

In a recent letter challenging my teaching on Separatism, a writer alternately charged us with worldliness (for going to stores, for having an internet site and for evangelizing) and at the same time he accused us of some wicked, cultic form of separatism which denies Christians the opportunity to evangelize the world. It seems that any stick is good enough to beat true Christians! Even when those sticks are contradictory. It is usually a good sign (as Christians)
when you are being crucified between two thieves. This is an important issue, and it is one that needs to be handled very precisely. One of the great mantras within professing Christianity is called "The Great Commission". The commission is indeed great, but if it is handled improperly, it is a great commission of evil and source of befuddlement for God's true church. Just look how this blunt instrument is now being used against the doctrine we have just illustrated (Separatism), a great commandment of God.

We want to start out by saying that we DO believe that God raises up some (but few) individuals; and we believe He can and does send these individuals “out” with the Gospel of peace. We would never deny the great works done through people like George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson and Hudson Taylor. What we intend to examine here is the modern idea of “The Great Commission” and how Missionary Evangelism has corrupted the true gospel.

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

Applying this verse recklessly to the whole Body of Christ has been one of the great victories of the modern apostate religious system. Please note before we start that I AM NOT SAYING that the gospel should not be preached to every creature. Nor am I claiming that any particular Christian does not have the obligation to preach the gospel, or that we ourselves are not obligated to hear the Gospel and obey it. What I am trying to do, is properly understand this verse in light of what God would have us look like and how He would have us act today. In short, What is our duty?

Let's take a look at the preceding verse:

"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen" (Mark 16:14).

Note that this great commission is given specifically to the "eleven", and it is specifically given because of their unbelief. The resurrected Jesus Christ appears to his eleven remaining disciples and the primary purpose for his appearance before them is to “upbraid” (or strongly rebuke or scold) them for their unbelief! Read verses 9-11. Mary Magdalene goes and tells the eleven disciples that Jesus lives, but they refuse to believe her. Then, in verse 12 he appears personally to two of the "eleven" and these two go (in verse 13) to tell the other nine (the residue) and these nine also refuse to believe.

Remember that Jesus Christ had told these eleven men personally that he would be resurrected, and every one of these eleven men had claimed to believe Him. So Jesus was dealing in this section of scripture with a rampant issue of unbelief among those who He had personally picked... those who had been "with Him" (verse 10). But why, we must ask, did they not believe? Had they not walked with Christ? Had they not talked with Him? Had they not witnessed his many and manifold miracles? Why would they refuse to believe? Well, as we well should well know, belief is not within the power of man. Belief is a gift of God (Phil. 1:29, John 6:29). It was not yet given unto these disciples to believe, and it is evident that the gift of belief had been
temporarily withheld from them for God's own glory. No one can believe in God (and all that He says about Himself) without belief being given from God. The Holy Spirit needs to reside with us, helping us to believe. So Jesus sends out these particular eleven hard-hearted disciples, with the specific injunction that they are to go to the entire known world at that time and preach the "good news". Then, because of their unbelief, and knowing that no one would naturally believe them, He gives these "eleven" signposts so they can know when someone has truly believed:

1) They that are spiritually regenerated (born-again) by the baptism of the Holy Spirit will be the saved.

2) And those that are not given the gift of belief shall be the damned. Now we know that the following verses, apply to the eleven only – because in verse 20 it says "and they went forth". Who are "they" who went forth? It must be the specific "eleven" to whom He is speaking. And it is confirmed to us plainly that they (the eleven) fulfilled this scripture by "preaching every where". And it is confirmed that verses 18 and 19 refer to the "eleven", because here in verse 20 it says that God "was working with them" to confirm the signs of their apostleship with the signs and miracles that He had promised. So this section of scripture is a treatise on UNBELIEF and not on evangelism. God sent broken and unbelieving vessels out to preach His gospel, so that when the gospel was spread about, HE would get all the glory. He confirmed His message in them particularly and fulfilled this scripture before the eyes of the world. It was necessary that Christianity was to spread far and wide quickly so that it could not be stamped out by persecution; and it was also necessary that it grow organically and not organizationally, so that it could not be wiped out by the Romans or corrupted by the Jews.

So we have proved our point "positively", in that we have shown in context that it was written specifically to the "eleven". Next, I will prove our point "negatively", in that I will show that it could not have been written to the whole church.

So now let us look at this section of verses "negatively". Can it be that this verse is supposed to apply to the "whole church", as in every Christian that ever lived? I believe that it cannot, because the context does not allow that meaning, and because that interpretation would contradict the plain teaching of scriptures elsewhere. If I (according to the opinion of modern “christianity”) am to apply this scripture to my life, then I must ask myself why I am currently
sitting at my home? (and why are you?) I still live and breathe, and I have not been martyred or taken home to heaven, so why am I not physically going forth to every country preaching the gospel to every creature? The acts of “preaching” and “teaching” are used synonymously in most of the Bible. Our primary verse in this study is Mark 16:15 which commands the eleven to “preach the gospel”. The exact parallel verse in Matthew 28:19 commands the eleven to “teach all nations”. So in our context here, preaching and teaching are synonymous. So why would James say, “My brethren, be not many masters (teachers or preachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1)? It doesn’t make much sense to tell people not to be teachers, if Jesus is contradicting this exhortation by commanding EVERY CHRISTIAN to
“teach all nations”. And, of course, Paul asks in 1 Corinthians the 12th Chapter “Are all… teachers?” The answer is… OF COURSE NOT. We are all (all believers) placed in the body with different and important gifts, to be employed on God's behalf for the edification and the growing of the body. So we must ask. If the Bible commands us in Mark chapter 16 to personally travel and evangelize, then why does the Bible openly encourage some people to stay home and live peaceably and to do good? If this scripture is meant to apply to every Christian, then almost every Christian that has ever lived has failed miserably in fulfilling it. And despite what the charismatics say, I can personally tell you that every “so-called” manifestation of miracles that I have seen from those who claim to be Christians has come from practical religious athiests who have convinced themselves that emotion and manipulation is the fountainhead of the miraculous. And, after all, if this is a universal verse, then all who believe are also to take up serpents and to drink poison (Mark 16:18).

Why, I ask, when the apostles themselves gathered together in Acts the 15th chapter to consider everything that is commanded of those who believe in Christ, do they command this: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Why did the Jerusalem council not reaffirm the Great Commission, having specifically considered all that was to be required of Christians? Why are we commanded by Paul and all the other apostles to keep God's commandments, the moral commandments and particularly his Royal commandments (to love God and to love our neighbor) as the fulfillment of our total duty to God? Why is "missionary" evangelism absent from the Decalogue? And why is it not shadowed forth in the Old Testament? In the Old Testament, we do not see God sending Israelites out to evangelize and convert the surrounding heathen, in fact, in most places in the Bible they are encouraged to stay as separate as possible from them. However, we do see in the Old Testament where God sent specific, chosen vessels (whether they be angels or men) to gather His elect together out of the heathenish peoples. God scatters and re-gathers His elect according to His own glorious and supernatural power. He utilizes a very few, very select, very chosen vessels in which to accomplish His tasks.

Modern corporate “Christianity” (whether purposely or not, we shall eventually see) has totally missed what true Christian evangelism is. We are commanded by God to be Christians (to live our lives as Christ commanded). That one act is our fundamental duty. We are commanded to live Christian lives by grace and to work Christian works by faith. This, alone, is our duty to God and to man. Modernist evangelistic “christianity” has become so wrapped up in “preaching
the gospel”, while simultaneously rejecting the pure and true Gospel of Sovereign Grace completely. It is as if they were to say, “We care not what food we feed to the poor and the downtrodden. If it is a poisonous and deadly meal, we care not. But we must give them more of it, or they will never have their hunger satiated”.

So here is the main point:

THE GOSPEL IS NOT FOR UNREGENERATE UNBELIEVERS! IT IS FOR THE CHURCH!

The Gospel exists for this reason: "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Colossians 1:10-13).

The Gospel is for the CONVERSION of the elect, not for the REGENERATION of sinners. Only the power of God through the quickening of the Holy Spirit can regenerate a lost sinner. The Gospel is to convert to Christianity and to right-mindedness those whom the Spirit has already regenerated.

Note that Paul says this in Romans: “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Romans 1:15).

So Paul says he is ready to preach the Gospel in Rome to "you" that are there. Who is the "you" he is talking to? Let's look: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7).

Interesting don’t you think?

But, some might argue, just look at verse 16 of that chapter. It says that the Gospel is "it is the power of God unto salvation". This is the principle memory verse of many Gospel salvationists. But read the next half of the verse, where it says "to every one that believeth".

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes! It does not say that they are saved by the Gospel; it says that the inward work of regeneration is shown forth as salvation through their belief. They were given belief first!

Here is an even greater proof:

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Paul specifically states here that gospel does not save (as in eternal salvation/regeneration). The applying by the Holy Spirit of the benefits of the Cross to the elect of God is what saves eternally. Paul does not "baptize" or "quicken" eternally. He preaches the Gospel. Let's look at the next verse: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18). To those who ARE SAVED, the Gospel is the power of God. It brings about conversion of the mind. Now when we preach, we do not know who is regenerated, and who remains in an unregenerate state. So if we are called to preach, we preach the fullness of the true Gospel to all creatures. But to those who are perishing without grace, the preaching will be foolishness. It will have no eternal effect. But to those which are the elect of God, this same preaching will bring forth out from them the internal work of salvation, which must have previously been wrought by the Holy Spirit in them. The next objection will usually come out of the book of Romans: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:14-17)

Because of the sometimes confusing structure of this section of scripture, it is often used to preach "gospel salvation". Let's take it really slowly and examine those parts of the verses that can be easily confused. First, the average reader will be unaware of what is referred to when it says "Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" Let's look: Isaiah 53:1 says: "Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of Jehovah revealed?" And of course this is a good encapsulation of our question. We know that the "arm of Jehovah" is Jesus Christ. So to whom
has Jesus Christ been REVEALED? John speaks of this same section of Isaiah when he says: "so that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, 'Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them'” (John 12:38-40). John here tells us that ISAIAH is saying that only those to whom the Lord is revealed, can BELIEVE on Him. So, knowing that scripture does not disagree with scripture - let's look at Romans again. Romans chapter 10 says that hearing is a necessary prerequisite for believing, and we wholeheartedly agree. But how can they hear, so that they can believe? This is the question that this section Romans addresses. So our scriptures say, "How can they hear without a preacher". Which is to say, How can they hear on their own? Don't they need a messenger? The word "preacher" here, means "herald" or "messenger". Every "herald" or "messenger" must be sent. The preacher issue will end up pretty moot, because Paul will tell us in verse 15 that many who have had the Gospel preached unto them do not believe it. This, at last, is the whole point of these scriptures! Paul is saying, how do people hear the gospel? The tension builds… HOW DOES THIS ALL TAKE PLACE?

It is at this point that Paul brings in the story of Isaiah, who proves that God must reveal His Son to those who He has not personally hardened and blinded. He must cause those to see who previously could not see, and He must cause those to hear who could not hear. How does He do that? Well, (Paul says) “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God”. We must keep this in mind, because here is where much of the confusion comes in. In verse 15, Paul admits openly that many preachers are sent to preach the Gospel. But there is a problem. In verse 16 he admits that many who hear the Gospel do not believe it. They do not obey what they
hear. So regular "hearing" (through the ears) is not the cause of faith, and it is not what brings about salvation. So Paul asks the question that Isaiah asked... "Who shall believe our report?" Well, I will tell you who will believe it. All those to whom the Arm of the Lord is revealed will certainly hear it and believe it. So, knowing this, we can know that faith comes by hearing. Not the hearing that is mere "listening" through the ear canals. But faith comes by spiritually being allowed to hear the Gospel. How does this happen? It can only happen by the Word of God! But this word "Word" is not speaking of the written word (The Bible) at all. This word "Word" is the Greek word “rhema”, which means - the spoken word, or a direct command So now it all clicks. It all starts to come together. Faith comes by hearing, but we can only hear by the direct command from God. God says to me particularly, "you will hear" and then I hear. When Jesus Christ is revealed to me I will hear Him and believe Him. Now first I must be enabled to hear, so later when a preacher or teacher declares Christ to me, I can hear him preach the Gospel and say, "WOW, I BELIEVE THAT!" Now I can believe in Christ. Now I can receive the gift of faith so that my belief in Christ will not be merely a superficial form of mental ascension, but it will be a saving faith in Christ.

So Paul says:

1) Not everyone can hear.
2) The Lord must be revealed FIRST, before He can be believed upon.
3) Hearing comes from the direct command of God, and that command is not universal, but is particular to whom God will reveal His Son.
4) The Gospel can only be "heard" if God, through His spoken command concerning us particularly, allows us to Hear it.

This is what we have always said. And this is what we teach.

So we do not believe in "Gospel Salvation" or "Gospel Regeneration". We do believe in Holy Spirit Regeneration, and Gospel Conversion. Let us look at another objection. To the Corinthians, Paul says this: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).

Some will say that these verses teach that we are saved by the Gospel. But that is not what these verses say at all. We must remember that our Bible has been translated into the English tongue from another language which has differing speech patterns. Paul is dealing in this chapter with those who deny the resurrection of Christ (verse 12). He specifically mentions that those who are saved are those who have believed the gospel "which I preached unto you". There is now another gospel which is being preached, and that gospel denies the resurrection of Christ. Paul says that if we stand fast and firm in HIS Gospel (that of the truth of the resurrection) we are saved. So if we stand in this truth, then we are saved and we have not believed in vain. So this is another verse that cannot be used to prove Gospel salvation. These verses give us a deeper understanding of what the Gospel is for: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

As the Doctrines of Grace openly proclaim, the unregenerate cannot receive the Gospel, nor can they hear it. Only the regenerate mind/heart can hear the Gospel and believe it. We know that the Gospel has been truly, spiritually heard when it is obeyed. The Gospel is a means of CONVERSION, and it was designed to make lost sheep into found sheep. It was never designed to turn goats into sheep, which is impossible. Paul calls the Gospel a "mystery" (Ephesians 6:19), and it accepted by all those who believe in the power and glory of God that "mysteries" must be unveiled to the spirit by the Holy Spirit of God. It is evident that the Gospel has been hard locked away from billions of people who have lived and died on this planet, having never had the Gospel preached unto them. Arminians believe that the Gospel must be preached to "every creature" so that they can stand or fall in judgment based on whether or not they "believed
the gospel". But the Arminian has no explanation as to why God would keep the Gospel from millions and millions of humans, who perished without ever hearing the good news of Christ at all. The Arminian must, then, believe that there are billions in hell who are there because mankind failed to preach the gospel to them. The Arminian is therefore logically to deduce that (since he always assumes he is saved) he personally will be in heaven because of LUCK or CHANCE. He just happened to be born in a time and place where the gospel (or, shall we say, "a" gospel) is preached everywhere all the time. So it is CHANCE + GOSPEL + WORKS + The Work of Christ = SALVATION for the Arminian.

They may deny it, but it is the logical conclusion that can be drawn from what they believe. Now, sadly, many who believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace also have fallen for this same error.
So let me say regarding evangelism that we DO preach the Gospel. But the true Gospel is not what most modernist “christians” think it is. The true Gospel is the Gospel of God’s Sovereignty and His Grace and Mercy towards His sheep. We preach the Gospel, not by pushing a decisionist gospel on the whole world without any consideration of the truth. We preach the Gospel by living live that are set apart and holy unto God. We preach the Gospel by having a right worldview and by rejecting false gospels and false worldly ways. We preach the Gospel by being Christians, and by declaring the truth to those who ask us about the hope that is in us.

Does God have evangelists today? Of course He does.

Is everyone an evangelist? Of course not.

I absolutely believe that the true Gospel should be preached. God knows that there are elect of God out there who have never heard it, and it is the power and means of their conversion and it shows forth their salvation, if indeed they are the saved. Many millions have been converted by the preaching of the Gospel. Many lost sheep are brought back into the fold by means of the Gospel, so preach it we must. But let us examine two very different ways in which evangelism can be viewed:

1) The Sovereign Grace method - which was utilized by the Reformers, the Puritans and the early church in America. This was the evangelism which made parts of the American continent a paradise on earth. Evangelize your family, and submit your own ways unto God. Keep His commandments; be a peculiar people. Separate from the world and all worldliness, and be Holy unto God. Invite ALL to come unto Christ, but make sure the Christ that is lifted up is the real Jesus Christ of the Bible, for He says "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me." (John 12:32) Christ draws men unto Himself. Christ saves men, and he saves them before they ever hear the Gospel - as Paul himself can attest from personal experience.

2) The Pharisaical method, which is nowadays called "missionary evangelism". This form is based on the false idea that if WE do not evangelize, men will not be saved. This method denies that God has manifold and wonderful ways to save souls, and does not need men in order to do it. Jesus said this: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than
yourselves." (Matthew 23:15).

God does raise up evangelists and missionaries. There is no doubt that He does. But the true ones (like George Whitefield) will be known by the Gospel that they preach. I challenge you to find more than a handful of missionaries or evangelists who preach the true Gospel in the world today. Instead, hordes of Americanized missionaries preach the devilish gospel of Arminianism,
swarming foreign shores - consuming the people and leading them into error. These lands are not benefited by Christianity, but the churches and ministry boards are benefited greatly by the huge sums of money they can raise by emotionally manipulating fat, dumb American "christians" to fulfill the "great commission" by paying large sums of money (with only a small portion) to be
used to send someone else bastardize the gospel. I say we evangelize best by being Christians, and by learning the true Gospel and by living it every day. We will see what true evangelism is when we live what we say we believe. We will see it in a most powerful way. Then we will see the power of true evangelism. Agrarian friend Franklin Sanders pointed out the great conversion story of Lieutenant-General Ewell during the war for Southern Independence. I include the story here, most ably presented by the Reverend William Jones, a Southern Chaplain from Northern Virginia:

“At a council of war, one night, Jackson had listened very attentively to the views of his subordinates, and asked until the next morning to present his own. As they came away, A. P. Hill laughingly said to Ewell, "Well! I suppose Jackson wants time to pray over it." Having occasion to return to his quarters again a short time after, Ewell found Jackson on his knees and heard his ejaculatory prayers for God's guidance in the perplexing movements then before him. The sturdy veteran Ewell was so deeply impressed by this incident and by Jackson's general religious character, that he said: "If that is religion, I must have it;" and in making a profession of faith not long afterwards he attributed his conviction to the influence of Jackson's piety.”

While this story is often used to illustrate powerful prayer, piety and character – I would like to point out the most obvious (but obviously overlooked) element of the story. Stonewall Jackson was in his tent... by himself! God used this time of supplication and prayer to call one of His children to Himself, and He didn't need a missionary board to do it. Nor was Stonewall found proselytizing on a street-corner or in a feed store. Separatism works, and evangelism is most properly a Christian life lived.

So let us address the real question, and focus on the real answer.

Preaching missionary evangelism is really a dodge for the incorporated church system. When someone throws up missionary evangelism as a challenge to Separatism, it is not usually because they themselves evangelize; nor is it because they desire that 99 percent of Christians (or even 5 or 10 percent) engage in evangelism. The last thing most churches and pastors want is everyone in their church heading out to the mission field. What they want is for 99% of the people to pay for corporate or denominational evangelistic efforts – no matter how eternally successful they really are. Missionary evangelism is a cash cow, and it successfully takes the focus away from the real issue. Before we send our “christianity” abroad, we should first examine our Christianity. Most people do not want to examine their own lives to see if there is real fruit borne of their professed faith. When I say that evangelism is primarily “being Christians” I mean that our time and efforts should first be spent in assuring that we are in the faith. Christian, evangelize thyself!
While most Christians refuse to heed the scriptures concerning separation and personal holiness, they concern themselves with obligations that they do not even understand, and seek to obey commands that were not even given to them. It is not that they cannot practice Biblical Christianity, it is that they will not. It is not that most Christians are overwhelmed with a conscience that demands that they evangelize; it is that they are pressed hard and weighed down by a conscience that demands that they be Christians. In order to avoid the latter, they must focus on the former; and since they usually will not “go” themselves, they feel better when they give money to missions, and thus the seared conscience is salved.

Evangelism starts at home. When you are satisfied that you are in full obedience to what is required of you by the Gospel; when you are separated from religious whores and all papists mythologies; when you are certain that your family is evangelized and your house is properly ordered; when your worship aligns with the Word of God; and when your worldview is consistently Biblical throughout; THEN should you concern yourself with missionary evangelism. But you will find that, for the most part, if you have done all these things well, you will have little need to evangelize… because your Christian walk will have alienated and scattered all the goats and wolves, while the sheep (both lost and found) will have been powerfully evangelized by your life and behavior.

I cannot emphasize enough that our earthly success as missionaries and as ambassadors depends upon a right view of both the Sovereignty of God, and the obedience that is required of us in the scriptures. As a last point I want to examine the idea that Christians are supposed to
“leaven” the rest of the world. This is where some true Christians can find areas of conflict, and I pray that all sides of the issue are considered calmly and objectively. I agree with this quote from our friend Franklin Sanders concerning some errors in modern Christian behavior:

“...feckless Evangelicalism... withdraws from confronting the world because underneath it fears that Christianity has no answer. This is what John Milton sneered at as a "fugitive & cloistered virtue" in "Areopagiticus." Therefore we have Chreestyun bookstores, and Chreestyun music and Chreestyun theme parks and Chreestyun radio and I don't know what all else, most of it functioning at the lowest possible aesthetic and intellectual level, utterly indistinguishable from
the world -- oh, the Chreestyun rockstars grab their thigh rather than their crotch, but differ in little else. Whatever happened to Rembrandt? The Chri