Skip to comments.
RUSH: How Did This Happen? The Left Corrupted Language, Undermined Morality - There was No Pushback
www.RushLimbaugh.com ^
| March 29, 2013
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 03/30/2013 6:50:54 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Edited on 03/30/2013 8:09:00 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
How Did This Happen?The Left Corrupted the Language, Undermined Morality -- and There was No Pushback
March 29, 2013, by Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, back to this gay marriage and language business. I don't mind having to re-explain this.
I have learned over 25 years that it takes oftentimes ten different ways to explain something in order for some people to understand it.
Now, yesterday I said that gay marriage is inevitable.
There are two elements to this.One of them:The Republican Party signaled there isn't gonna be pushback against it.
But, secondly,
and that's just as important.
The institution of marriage has been targeted for destruction, essentially,and the road to destroying it is being paved,and the way that this has been started is to change the definition.
I'll tell you what's coming next.
After this "civil right," they'll move on to "liberating" illegal aliens, and then taking away our civil right to bear arms.
They will also continue to push a carbon tax on the basis of climate change and whatever else.
They'll continue to corrupt the public school system, however they manage to do that.
I've looked at it, and in all instances, one of the things that is fundamental in the attack on all of these institutions and traditions which have defined America's greatness, isan attack on the language.
Here's another one that's under assault, and that is borders.
"Immigration" is being used to destroy the meaning of "borders."
Now we got open borders?Without borders, there would never have been the United States of America in order to create the economy that is drawing people here in the first place.
"Food stamps" and "disability" are another couple of words that have lost their purpose and meaning.
"Food stamps" and "disability" now simply mean unearned money.
Food stamps and disability have a totally different meaning than their original intent. Deficit.
Deficit is now something that simply is triggering the printing of money.
That's all a deficit means:An excuse to print money.
Unions.
Unions are used to destroy companies, entire industries on behalf of the Democrat Party.
Unions are formed to acquire unfunded "benefits," and the pretense of educating children is the vehicle for that scam.
Environmentalism is an excuse to acquire government grants to increase taxes and regulations, to grow government, and to limit freedom.
Environmentalism is another word for attacking the very fuel of the engine of freedom, and that would be fossil fuels --and let there be no mistake.
Fossil fuels are under assault.
Fossil fuels have become a great enemy.
Oil and natural gas have become enemies, evil things that the left must wipe out!
They hide behind environmentalism, trying to clean up the environment,and all oil has done is further the spread of freedom all over the country and the insurance of our own freedom,
and it has been fundamentally responsible for the vast increase in prosperity in this country and all over the world.
Crisis, as you know, is an excuse for government action.Crisis here! Crisis there!
Everything's a crisis.
This is now a word used to justify the expansion of and the intrusion by government in every walk of life.
Every faction of the Democrat Party is now a battering ram.Destroy the institution of marriage,
destroy borders,
destroy education,
destroy private sector health care,
destroy private property,
destroy the Constitution,
destroy free markets!
The Democrat Party is nothing more than a battering ram,
and they're using the language to disguise what they're doing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I'm gonna make b>an assumption, and I'm sure that it is applicable to some of you in the audience.
Some of you are probably sitting out there scratching your heads, asking yourself,I mean, you've heard about gay marriage all your life.Well, not all your life, but for a long time.
You've heard about homosexuality, and you're aware of militant homosexuality,and you remember back in the early AIDS days they would file into St. Patrick's and throw condoms at Cardinal O'Connor.
You remember all that, and one day you wake up and it finally hits youthat gay marriage is all of a sudden, out of nowhere, in the Top Five Most Important Issues to everybody under 30, or 35,
and you're wondering,"How does this happen?
What is going on?"
Some of you might instinctively say,"It's gonna be the education system.
It's gotta be the media.
It's gotta be Hollywood, television shows, you name it."
I have here a story in the Washington Times.
When I saw this, I thought,"I better not mention this story.
This is gonna do nothing but get me into trouble,"
because it really is incredible.
But I figured in light of how I have now been made the pope on gay marriage in media and on Twitter and on Facebook -- even C-SPAN!
The next sound bite reports that I am official.
I'm not just a political analyst, but I've also crossed over now.
I am an official celebrity because I influence the celebrity crowd now.
All because of yesterday's program.
Now, this Washington Times story,if anybody went on the radio, if anybody went on the TV and said this as though it was their own thoughts,
they would be vilified and run out of the country.
But it was published in the Washington Times. I'm gonna read portions of it to you.
It's by a writer named Paul Rondeau, R-o-n-d-e-a-u. Headline: "Hooking Kids on Sex: Start 'Saturation Process' in Kindergarten."
Here are a couple of pull-quotes:"So if you ever wonder why more and more young people accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as ho-hum, look no further.
.. Young children are encouraged to masturbate and explore their bodies with mirrors to introduce them to sexuality.
[educational video moderator Michael Hichborn] says of the graphic pictures used to 'educate' pre-pubescent children,'If a dirty old man showed these things to a ten-year-old in a park, he would be arrested.
"But when Planned Parenthood shows them to kids in a classroom, it gets government money.' "
And that's the point of the story, that Planned Parenthood has a program that's promoting "anything-goes sex" to five-year-olds."While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House,
President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.
"This is not your grandmother's sex education about how things work and what can go 'wrong.'
In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP):Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP,which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style 'comprehensive' sex-ed programs
where no type of sex is wrong
and the only sexual behavior [Planned Parenthood] considers 'unsafe' is becoming pregnant.
"More than one-fourth of the funds -- $20 million -- has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates,operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health,
to implement HHS's TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites.
In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate.
PP is funded with our tax dollars to market sex to our children in our schoolsunder the guise of sex education, anti-bullying, diversity, and tolerance.
"Once sexualized, those children then become PP sex customers for contraceptives, STD testing, and abortion. 'A glance at the teacher outline for Lesson 1A ... shows exactly how abstinence plays out in the sex-encouraging scheme at Planned Parenthood.
'Abstinence,' it says, 'means choosing not to do any sexual activity that carries a risk for pregnancy or STD/HIV,' says Rita Diller, national director for STOPP.org.
'In other words, abstinence has nothing do with abstaining from sex acts.
"So long as the student avoids STDs and pregnancy, and is comfortable with what he or she is doing, it's an anything goes.'"
It is at this point in the story that even those who thought they knew Planned Parenthood will be shocked."American Life League (ALL), released a video titled 'Hooking Kids on Sex,' graphically detailing just what Planned Parenthood sex education is.
It went viral and was viewed almost one-quarter million times in the first weekbefore a [Planned Parenthood] activist got YouTube to suspend it.
"ALL(AmericanLifeLeague) came back with Hooking Kids on Sex (II).
Even those who thought they knew Planned Parenthood were shocked.
The video's moderator, Michael Hichborn, argues that[Planned Parenthood] follows the same business model as a drug dealer,"
in the PREP program, Personal Responsibility Education Program, Planned Parenthood.
This is the video that was made to expose the program.
This is not a Planned Parenthood video.
This is a video that people alarmed about this made,and Planned Parenthood got the video pulled off of YouTube.
(Right mouse click above video and watch in another window)
It's a video that critics made to illustrate what Planned Parenthood is doing as part of Obamacare,
and the moderator of the video is a guy named Michael Hitchborn.
He"argues that [Planned Parenthood] follows the same business model as a drug dealer:
The Young children are encouraged to masturbate and explore their bodies with mirrors to introduce them to sexuality.
Hichborn says of the graphic pictures used to 'educate' pre-pubescent children,'If a dirty old man showed these things to a ten-year-old in a park, he would be arrested.
"But when Planned Parenthood shows them to kids in a classroom, it gets government money.' "
I saw that story and said, "I can't tell people this. It's just over the top!
I don't even know if this is true."
I looked into it and that video was on YouTube, and it did get pulled down.
Again, it's not a Planned Parenthood video.
It was a video made by people who found out what's going on in the program to alert people,and Planned Parenthood succeeded in getting YouTube to pull the video down.
So the Washington Times has the story.
If you're wondering why so many young people seem to have no problem with gay marriage and this or that,it's 'cause unbeknownst to you (chuckling) kids have been exposed to this for years.
So that's part of the reason.
But it's not the entire reason.There's also peer pressure, a number of other reasons for it.
It's just the natural evolution of things.
When you are able to blur... It's not even blur.
When you are successful in making fun of and laughing at something as old-fashioned and quaint as morality,why, then, you are that much ahead.
Then when you play games with the language,and are able at young ages to convince people that words don't mean what they mean,
and that people that want to hold fast to definitions are bigots,
then you can make serious inroads.
There's another story in the UK Daily Mail.If this story showed up in the US media somewhere, whoever did it would be drummed out of the media.
Some reporter here for the UK Daily Mail went and found a guy who'd been adopted by two gay parents and was abused for ten years,but the social workers ignored the complaints because the parents were gay.
Now, that's just one example,and you can't extrapolate from one example and say this fits the bill for everybody,
but if you look hard enough this is the kind of stuff that is out there in the media.
That's the UK Daily Mail.
There's no pushback on any of it,
and in fact the Politico had that story yesterday quoting two Republican guys saying,"Yeah, the best thing for the party would be for the court to just make it legal all over the country
and take the issue away
and that way we can't be called bigots."
It boils down to natural evolution of one half of the culture in this countrycombined with the fact there's no pushback on where it's headed.
So it's inevitable.
Combined with the fact that they're not gonna let it go.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, to the phones, and it's Claire in Wilmington, Delaware. I'm glad you called.
Great to have you here. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Uh, I want to make a debate with you.
I don't think we have lost the language.
What I think we have lost in this culture is both our religion and an honest media, and I'll tell you why.
If you appeal to the gay marriage thing on a man's level as a human,you can make the arguments that make sense.
But if you take it to a biblical perspective that Christians, Jewish people, the Islam faith,We've lost our God.
We all unite that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But no one seems to want to tie that.
Everyone's afraid to mention God, and I think the media is the other culprit.
Never do you see the media play the people that are against gay marriage, the people that are against abortion.
It's always that they play the people that are for it, and that's the only position you hear.
Now, California is the most liberal state, in my opinion, that's out there.
Maybe Massachusetts, too.
But even as liberal as they are, they united and said,but they're being overturned.
So that, I think, is trying to discourage people with,"Oh, I guess everyone really wants it."
Oh, I don't want it. There's a lot of people that don't want this,and it's not because I have anything against gay people.
I know gay people and I think some of them are wonderful.
But I do believe -- and I don't care how fuddy-duddy I sound -- that from a biblical perspective, marriage is between a man and a woman.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: They are the two that can create a family.
RUSH: And the way you have just set it up now, in the common...'Cause the language does matter,
and I'll argue this with you 'til the end of the program.
You are now a bigot by citing religion.
CALLER: You know what, Rush?
RUSH: You are bigoted becauseyou are wanting to deny happiness and freedom to human beingswho only want what you have in a country that promises them the pursuit of happiness.
CALLER: Rush, you know what?
This is how I feel.
I had to speak at a meeting the other night where I know when I walked out,I was probably getting snickered at behind my back.
People have gotta get a backbone in this country.We have allowed God to be removed.
We've allowed the education to be dumbed down.
We have told our children "acceptance"rather than other people to come into our country for assimilation.
Is it any wonder we're losing our culture?
RUSH: You know what the Jesuits said?
I'm paraphrasing, but the Jesuits used to say,"Give us a child to the age of 12, and they are ours for life."
Well, the left knows that, too.
CALLER: Well, that's true.
But you know, there used to be a day in this country where there were stay-at-home mothers, and I don't care...
This is another point:No one's raising a lot of the children today.
There used to be a time when some things they're teaching our children,you'da had a group of stay-at-home mothers that knew what was going on with the children in their schools in one meeting at the school.
RUSH: You're just confirming what I'm saying.
Wherever it's coming from, there isn't any pushback.
CALLER: Well, that's it.
I don't think the Republican Party and people in general want to push back.
No one wants to be shot down or made to look one way, but if you really believe these things --and I found the strength in it myself the other night.
If you truly believe it, you can say it, and you don't care if you're laughed at.
You have to go in and just say it.And, trust me, there are plenty of people that believe this,
and I believe it's still probably 50-50 in the country, or close to those margins,
that you might be able to convince an extra two to three percent you need.
But if you have to speak up.
RUSH: Well, wait a minute, now. Let's talk about that for a second.
What good does this really do?
Let's say that the country is divided 53-47,
but that division is stark and that there is no commonality between the two divisions?
Where are we as a country, anyway, in terms of what you're talking about?
You're sayingwe've lost the moral code, we've lost the moral backbone, we've lost the moral foundation.
So where are we as a country?
Even if the morality side could muster a 3% majority victory,where are we as a country anyway, with that great a division?
CALLER: Well, that I don't know. I don't know how to answer that question.
I guess, if I can make my point in a roundabout way, I'll try to come around to that.
RUSH: Feel free.
No, I'm not trying to argue with you.
You're hitting red buttons for me that are expanding my fertile brain.
CALLER: I AM A CONSERVATIVE. I'm NO LONGER Republican.
There was a time when I believed -- I was foolish -- that Republicans were always right.
I was a fool, and I don't side with a majority of them. I do side with a few of them today.
I like Ted Cruz.
I like some of the people that are fighting for the freedoms.
Rand Paul, sometimes I disagree with on things.
But you have to be able to speak, because there comes a time...Yes, you look like a fool.
But there comes a time when the opposition that you're speaking against that has the majority --especially when what they're trying to promote is so false -- will break down.
When it breaks down, people will go back and say,"Hey, I remember this one saying that."
RUSH: When? When? (crosstalk)
Wait a minute. Well, I've gotta take a break.
I don't have time to ask it.
I've been waiting for it to break down for 35 years, and it's going the other direction.
Nothing's breaking down. That's the whole point.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hey, Claire in Wilmington, I didn't have a chance to tell you,but don't change and keep it up.
It's gonna be people like you who will engage in the pushback.
You describe that you have no fear of being laughed at.
Unfortunately, many people who push back get much more than laughed at.
They're targeted for destruction.Their businesses get boycotts.
I mean, you name it.
So it ends up being much more than that,
and it becomes increasingly more difficult to do the more prominent you become.
But don't change.
Hang in.
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
- RushLimbaugh.com: We Lost Once We Modified the Definition of the Word "Marriage" - 03.28.13
- Washington Times: Hooking Kids On Sex: Start Saturation Process In Kindergarten - Paul E. Rondeau
- UKDM: My Adoptive Dad Abused Me For Years But Social Workers Ignored My Complaints Because He's Gay
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: children; school; sexeducation; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-117 last
To: little jeremiah
101
posted on
04/01/2013 7:02:38 AM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
Rush is right about the following:
Every faction of the Democrat Party is now a battering ram.
Destroy the institution of marriage,
destroy borders,
destroy education,
destroy private sector health care,
destroy private property,
destroy the Constitution,
destroy free markets!
102
posted on
04/01/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(DHS HAS secured: 1.6 BILLION bullets - 2.700 tanks and 35,000 drones ...to use on American soil...)
To: Springfield Reformer
the Jeremiah New Covenant prophecy is unambiguously applied to the contemporary Christian church I think we're on the same page - this has been my argument with fortheDeclaration.
103
posted on
04/01/2013 7:52:29 AM PDT
by
PapaNew
To: fortheDeclaration
You know, I'd really like to bring this thread BACK to the original topic.
How Did This Happen?The Left Corrupted the Language, Undermined Morality -- and There was No Pushback
BUT it has gotten sidetracked into
Are Christians "Under the Law".
Also your statement:
"The New Covenant replaces the requirementthat the Jew was under while under the Mosiac Law,
so he will NOT BE under that Law in the Millennium."
I cant let that go, because "The Law" IS in effect now, and the only reason that one asks for "forgiveness" is for breaking God's Law.
- What is Repentance?
- Has Grace Becomes "Permission" to Break God's Law?
- What is "Grace"?
Getting back to
"How Did This Happen? ... - and There was No Pushback",
a lot of the explanation is in
comment #25,
and those destructive and VILE people we have allowed into the GOP need to be ridiculed and gotten rid of.
We need to CLEAN HOUSE !
104
posted on
04/01/2013 7:56:53 AM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: GOPJ
105
posted on
04/01/2013 7:57:35 AM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: little jeremiah
Jeremiah was famous for ‘jeramiads’, long moralistic works which lament the wickedness of the society and prophesying doom. Good username.
I take the long view. Civilizations and cultures come and go, but humankind remains, dealing with each crisis and cultural horror as it comes along.
There has always been injustice and moral decay. Slavery has been a worldwide phenomenon since the first society was formed and is still not extinct although universally condemned.
In my lifetime, people have had to deal with serious threats to our life and liberty from Nazism, Communism, etc.
So my advice is deal with your own family first, giving them your values. If you do that then your children will be immunized from values and practices distasteful to you—unless they have a genetic propensity for them which is another argument I hope you never have to deal with.
Then you can raise your voice to your neighbors and to your community to change the values you don’t like that are supported by law.
106
posted on
04/01/2013 8:40:32 AM PDT
by
wildbill
(You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
To: wildbill
Okay, got it. The homonazi agenda is okay by you.
BTW Jeremiah was right.
107
posted on
04/01/2013 9:01:44 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: little jeremiah
You really need to have more faith in God’s work and plan, including the separation of man and woman into different sexes.
I don’t believe for a minute that He plans to have 1-2% of the population corrupt the rest of us against his plan for all time.
Be steadfast in your belief and faith and don’t doubt Him and all will be well.
Ok, Jeremiah was right. But unless you count yourself as much of a prophet as Jeremiad, I’m loath to take your opinions as a warning that we’ll all be exiled to the modern day equivalent of Babylon.
I mean, where would that be—San Francisco?
Have a nice day.
108
posted on
04/01/2013 12:51:14 PM PDT
by
wildbill
(You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
To: Yosemitest
The Law isn't in effect today, we live by grace. We confess our sins (1Jn1:9) because we have sinned and God's grace puts us back into fellowship.
All of the Law is summed up by loving God and our neighbor as ourself, we keep that law by walking in the Spirit, not looking at the Law itself.
We are now under the royal law of love (Ja.2:8)
109
posted on
04/02/2013 4:38:06 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: Yosemitest
No theory, it is Bible.
We are not under the Law we are under grace.
If you put yourself under the Law, you are required to keep all of it-which you can't.
110
posted on
04/02/2013 4:39:57 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: Springfield Reformer
I am making a distinction because the Bible makes it.
Heb 8 is not discussing the Old Testament, it is discussing the Old Covenant.
Interesting on a thread about the importance of words, so many are sloppy Bible readers.
A Covenant isn't a Testament.
That the Gentiles would be saved was never a mystery, it will happen during the Tribulation period.
The rebuilding of David's tabernacle refers to the Millennium period, not the church age.
You will note in vs14 'at first' and then in vs 16 'after this', there are two callings for the Gentiles, one during the Church age and one 'after this' during the Trib. period.
What is unique about the mystery of the Church, is that both Jew and Gentile are one Body, neither Jew nor Gentile.
The Council was explaining that Gentiles were always intended to be saved, but there are two callings of them for two different ages.
111
posted on
04/02/2013 4:53:39 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: PapaNew
No, it isn't referring to the power of the cross and gospel for us, it is for the Jews in the Millennium, that is why it says 'Covenant'.
The Church is never under a Covenant.
The Blood atonement is mentioned throughout the Epistles (Eph.1:7, Col.1:14).
You are reading a Bible with the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.
112
posted on
04/02/2013 4:58:35 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: PapaNew
I have many times, Heb.8 is referring to the Jewish Covenant, not the Testament (Heb.9).
It is a quote from Jer.31:31-34.
The basis for the New Covenant is the shed Blood in Heb.9, but the New Covenant is Israel, not the Church.
113
posted on
04/02/2013 5:00:15 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: fortheDeclaration
Getting back to "How Did This Happen? ... - and There was No Pushback", do you havbe anything to add?
Glad to know you agree that we keep the Law.
114
posted on
04/02/2013 11:07:13 PM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: fortheDeclaration
Getting back to "How Did This Happen? ... - and There was No Pushback", do you have anything to add?
Do you BREAK the Law, after receiving God's Grace ?
115
posted on
04/02/2013 11:08:48 PM PDT
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: fortheDeclaration
I am making a distinction because the Bible makes it. I wish that were true.
But there are so many threads that run a line from Israel to the church that no reasonable reader, even reading at genius levels of efficiency and accuracy, could be expected to ignore the obvious application of these passages to the contemporaneous church.
Look again at how James used the passage he quoted from Amos. In context, at the first must be associated with the report of Peter, how God poured out His Holy Spirit on the house of Cornelius after Peter obeyed the heavenly vision, and offered such as proof to the Jerusalem church that God meant for the Gentiles to be included in the Church Christ was building at that very moment in time.
But Amos was a prophecy spoken of the fall and ruination of Israel and the House of David, for their grievous sins against God. The only temporal aspect of the After this of Acts 15:16 that we can be sure of is that the rebuilding of the House of David comes sometime after the punishment had been executed. And it can hardly be argued that at the time of Christ, the division of the kingdom, the dispersion of the Jews, and the extreme humbling of the line of David was already long underway, so the rebuilding spoken of by Amos could easily be coordinate in time with the first appearance of Christ.
And how better to restore the line of David to the full measure of glory than by the appearance of the Christ? It is in this context that James applies that passage, not to some second future calling of the Gentiles, but to the truth God is right then and there impressing on the Jewish believers, that Gods Gospel of Christ must be for everyone, including Gentiles. Indeed, the Greek word used here for build up is based on the same verb Jesus uses in Matthew 16:18, oikodomeō, when he says he will build his church.
In short, reading two callings of Gentiles into this is an impossible stretch, at least for me, and by no means a required reading of the text. They are one and the same calling.
Honestly, I understand how it is being a dispensationalist, how everything has to be force-fitted to the separate destinies paradigm, no matter how flimsy the evidence. And you can get so good at it that you can get to where you dont understand why not everyone sees it as easily as you do. I get that.
But I can no longer go there, because I have to be honest with myself first of all, and I would be kidding myself to pretend I believed that James here just jumps out of the immediate context and weirdly pulls in some reference to the distant future, when the simpler understanding is that He took Amos to be speaking of what was happening then and there, and thats why he used the text as he did, to validate the contemporaneous acceptance of Gentiles as full, Spirit-filled members of Gods church.
As for covenant versus testament, you make bald assertions that they are unrelated terms, yet you offer no proof, other than, apparently, a perceived differentiation that is really a product of modern English and not of Biblical word study. BTW, do you happen to be a King-James Onlyist? Im only curious because that could explain why you are camping so hard on a distinction that exists mainly in modern English. But I assure you, the two terms can be used interchangeably in most cases, and that the naming of our Scriptures into Old and New Testaments was intended to correspond to the Old and New Covenants.
The word in question is diathēkē, which is variously translatable as either will or covenant, because, as I said at the first, the two concepts overlap with each other. It is as artificial and misleading to overlook the similarities as it is to overlook the differences. Testament, BTW, is just Latin for covenant.
Picking up that a will is being discussed is a matter of context. As I said before, a will is just a promise made that is to be kept after the death of the promisor. But it is still primarily a promise, the setting forth of an obligation between two parties, i.e., a covenant. Indeed, most wills are written as impliedly between two or more living parties, the testator(s) and the beneficiaries, with the intent for the obligations of the promise to kick in after the death of one or more of the testators, just as Hebrews 9 teaches. I am an attorney. I write these things. This is what they are. I am sorry if that disappoints you, but what can I do? I dont make the rules.
Here are some passages variously translated in the KJV as covenant or testament. They all use diathēkē:
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
2Cor 3:5-6 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; [6] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Note in the Corinthian passage that Paul uses the term diathēkē of his contemporaneous ministry of the Gospel of Christ. Again, remember, testamentum is just Latin for covenant. So unless you are relying on the KJV to supply inspired information not present in the Greek, there is no deep dark mystery here. Testament is covenant, generally speaking.
But knowing how these things go, and having been a devoted dispensationalist myself at one point, I ask you to consider yet another passage:
Exodus 19:6 "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
There can be no doubt God is here speaking as the Covenanting God, who has acted to secure a people for himself, and who in the very next chapter will lay down the law, literally, that is to govern the Covenant.
And yet we see Peter, who has received a vision of the Gentiles being welcomed into the church, has seen the Holy Spirit poured out on those Gentiles, has been rebuked by Paul for treating Gentiles in the church as if they were obliged to keep the Old Covenant, using this exact passage, the covenant declaration of God claiming a people for Himself, in reference to contemporaneous Christians:
1 Peter 2:9 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;"
God spoke it to Israel, yet Peter attaches it to the church. It is an amazing thing to be loved of God, is it not?
Peace,
SR
To: PapaNew
Agreed. BTW, ping to 116. Should have included you but the trigger finger was quicker than the brain. It bites not being perfect like these other folks. :)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-117 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson