This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Some self-criticisms of my own Biblical exegesis

For members who wish to post useful reviews of books or other references which they have read.

Some self-criticisms of my own Biblical exegesis

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:17 pm

Perspectives and some self-criticisms of our Biblical exegesis, an explanation of some of the shortcomings I see in my own work, and here specifically relating to Christreich.

This was written for the Topical Discussion podcast I offered on July 30th, 2016, and this part related to a discussion on Facebook.

Talking about Social Media, while Facebook is usually a major pain in the ass, especially with the attitude of so many so-called Christians, I want to discuss one way that it is actually helpful. This is in reference to our book, Christreich.

One mistake I think I made when I wrote Christreich is that I took it for granted that at least most Identity Christians know certain things, when they do not. Some fools cannot even get past the title. They see the word “Reich”, which is only a German word for kingdom, and they think it’s a “Hitler book”. Like most German words, the word Reich was around for over a thousand years before it passed through Adolf Hitler’s lips. Of course, Christreich would be a reference to the Kingdom of Christ, and I will never back off of that title no matter how stupid people are. But I had this same mistaken belief while doing many of my earlier podcasts, that Identity Christians were on the same page about at least most of the Biblical and historical basics. Now that I have realized that they are not, in my commentaries on Paul and the minor prophets, and even with the Acts series and perhaps Luke, I have made an effort to be much more diligent in explaining everything I can, even if it means that I have to repeat a lot of basics. I hope to continue to improve, and to carry that diligence through to a second edition of Christreich, which I hope will be completed within the next two years.

Discussing things with people in social media such as Facebook actually helps me write my commentaries, because for me it brings to light different things that many Identity Christians do not know or understand. So occasionally I take the time to engage in such discussions, when the people I am engaging with can intelligently discuss their viewpoints, and when they can encounter disagreement without getting butt-hurt and offended. A little later this evening, I will talk about one of those individuals who could not countenance disagreement. Most people in places like Facebook would rather argue than learn, and every other clown is a know-it-all who in reality knows little of nothing.

Facebook also tends to make people think they are a lot tougher than they really are, and they quickly say things that they would never say to your face. Wow, how many people, men and women, I have wanted to simply slap the shit out of on Facebook, for the way they have responded to simple questions or truthful answers.

So I have been discussing the Two Witnesses of Revelation chapter 11 with one individual, who just doesn’t get it. But at least he has not gotten disrespectful, at least yet. Revelation 11:8, speaking of the slaying of the two witnesses says: “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” This individual insists that Revelation 11:8 should be interpreted literally. Although there has been no Sodom now for 4,000 years, and Jerusalem was not in Egypt, he insists that the phrase “where our Lord was crucified” must refer to the literal Jerusalem. In fact, when John wrote the Revelation, Jerusalem the city had not existed for around two dozen years, as it was destroyed and leveled by the Romans in 70 AD.

Where in this verse it says "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt", in prophecy, Egypt is often merely an allegorical reference to the captivity of Israel. Israel went into captivity for their sins. If you don’t think the captivity of Egypt was the result of sin, you should ponder the steps that led the children of Israel to Egypt in the first place, a process which began when Joseph’s eleven brothers conspired against him in Dothan (Genesis chapter 37), considered killing him, and betrayed him to aliens instead.

As for the later children of Israel who went into captivity, Egypt is nevertheless representative of captivity, and Sodom is representative of their sins, at least in part. Jerusalem is not mentioned in Revelation chapter 11. It was already leveled by the Romans when the Revelation was given to John. But where it says "where our Lord was crucified", that too is an allegory. Sodom representing sin, and Egypt representing captivity, the reason why Christ was crucified was to make reconciliation for the sin and captivity of Israel. If there was no sin and no captivity as a result of sin, there would have been no need for the sacrifice made by Christ in His crucifixion. So Christ was literally crucified in old Jerusalem, but He was allegorically crucified in Sodom and Egypt.

Of course, I do not remember what was going through my mind when I wrote the commentary for Revelation chapter 11, but I might be thinking that one aspect of the prophecy needs to be discussed, while not considering the need to discuss other aspects because not all of my potential readers are on the same page – even within the limited Christian Identity audience. So I hope I have improved, and can improve my work further in that regard. But not everything I can say about a scripture will ever get into a commentary, and neither is it fitting to do such a thing. Scripture has such a great depth, that a chapter may take weeks to cover, and a book would never be printed.

But one cannot understand the prophecies of God from a purely literal perspective, and trying to do so often makes a mockery of Scripture. Understanding the prophecies requires a reflection on all of its allegory and symbolism, and such an understanding can only come after one acquires a thorough understanding of Scripture, and of history, through much study. I will hopefully remember to expound on this passage, as well as many similar passages, in this same manner when I expand on Christreich. If Yahweh God is willing, I hope to do that in the near future.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Some self-criticisms of my own Biblical exegesis

Postby Kentucky » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:10 am

wmfinck wrote:Of course, I do not remember what was going through my mind when I wrote the commentary for Revelation chapter 11, but I might be thinking that one aspect of the prophecy needs to be discussed, while not considering the need to discuss other aspects because not all of my potential readers are on the same page – even within the limited Christian Identity audience. So I hope I have improved, and can improve my work further in that regard. But not everything I can say about a scripture will ever get into a commentary, and neither is it fitting to do such a thing. Scripture has such a great depth, that a chapter may take weeks to cover, and a book would never be printed.

I just recently finished a 10 part series on prophecy and it was just a dent on the subject. I thought the last segment would be appropriate, covering the two witnesses of Rev. 11. I listened to your program Saturday evening and it resonated in a humbling sort of way. Nobody has all the answers, but some have more than others and if they are right, they should be respected. When we are wrong or didn't quite have the right exegesis, we should be quick to make the corrections in our theology and grow in grace. I know it's difficult dealing with those in our community who still have the residue of churchianity dripping from their universalist tongues. I'm finding the duel pronged premise that the racial alien was not created by God and that they will eventually be destroyed, every last one of them, is too much for some people who call themselves Christian Identity. They don't get it, because they have an underdeveloped racial consciousness and are too proud or dopey to understand it.

I believe the two witnesses can only be understood from a Christian identity perspective. I had this thought in Part 10: "Why waste a lot of time debunking one antichrist universalist theory after another when the two witnesses can be understood with the key word “My.” Verse 3 says “My two witnesses” just like “My people” and “My sheep.” Am I oversimplifying the syntax that is woven throughout the Word of God? Pinch me if I'm dreaming right now, but “This is the book of the generations of Adam” Gen. 5:1. So why wouldn't the two witnesses of God not be Christian Israelites? It's a no-brainer!"

"I don't think I can be dogmatic as so many other interpretations of this verse have been, but rather identifying the spirit of John's vision. The two witnesses will have the authority to preach a humble ministry of repentance (which is the stock and trade of most prophecy), suggesting the Old and New Testaments, Moses and Elijah (representing the Law and the prophets/prophecy, which Christ said he did not come to destroy); it is incumbent upon them to be overcomers and baptized in the authority of God's Spirit for their special mission. The next verse gives us the racial context, “These are the two olive trees, which are also the two lampstands which are standing before the God of the earth” Rev. 11:4. The parable of the wild olive branch (in Romans 11:24) explains succinctly that the so called gentiles are Israelites in dispersion and thus the branches gone wild were to be grafted back onto the main root, which was Judah who sustained her identity in spite of her failings. Other species of trees cannot merge into hybrids as that violates God's Law of preserving 'kind after kind' i.e. His Creation. Likewise the “two sticks” merging in Ezekiel are Israel and Judah. Both houses constituting the 12 tribes are the two witnesses." From http://kinsmanredeemer.com/future-prophecy-part-10

And that's where we're at today, in what appears to be the end times or last days, and an Elijah ministry is emerging from within Christian Identity while dogs bark and swine squeal over their pet doctrines. I recommend 'Christreich' and that people shouldn't judge a book by the cover. "If My people shall humble themselves..." yeah, they've heard it a million times and they're still "equal, but separate" from the racial alien. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the the non-Israelite is our equal or that God created them as our equals. To the contrary, He created us "above all." Of course they are too dumb to know where that is (Deut. 7:6) nor do they care, because reading and studying the Bible would take up their valuable time from watching the ball game or a stupid movie.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am


Return to Book Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests