Spiritual Disobedience
|
Contents |
|
1. Introduction |
Introduction
Qinael: Most holy and loving Father in heaven...
We thank you for this opportunity you have provided for us to gather
together in your name.
We ask your blessing upon this meeting, that all may receive something
of eternal value. In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Abraham: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Zahakiel: I don’t think today’s topic is going to be anything particularly new. It is, however, a vital one for our current situation, and if we consider it in a way that I think we haven’t really so for, or at least not expounded upon it this way so far, it will expose the true satanic nature of those who are seeking to restrict religious liberty for the sake of protecting what has become an earthly organization with a worldly, human power.
Today’s study is called “Spiritual Disobedience.” It may sound similar to “civil disobedience,” and the concepts are indeed, related. But the latter term, civil disobedience, is defined in secular dictionaries this way: “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.” [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company] Culturally, the term has been taken to mean the disobedience to certain laws or rules due to the belief that they are morally wrong, and that’s a little nearer to a meaning we’d prefer to apply to it, although neither really capture the essence of what it is the CSDA Church and its members must do when faced with the enemy of souls’ attempts to silence the messengers of the last Gospel declaration to a doomed world.
I’ll begin by explaining the phrase, “Spiritual Disobedience,” in terms of its difference from the definitions I have provided here.
Spiritual vs. Civil
Zahakiel: First of all, we are not attempting to influence policy or legislation; at least, this is not the intent of our actions. If, as a result of our stand for religious freedom, the Lanham act were amended, or some other law were passed to prevent this particular kind of injustice we are currently facing from taking place ever again, we believe that the United States, and the world in general, would be a better place for it. But we know the prophecies, and we do not believe that this will come to pass. We believe that the true, and lasting, solution to the problem is for Yahweh Himself to replace this corrupted system of human rule with His own divine Kingdom, a Kingdom that has first begun in our hearts, and will come soon to rest upon the world like the mountain in Daniel’s vision.
We read of that here: “Thou, O king [Nebuchadnezzar], 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.” (Dan 2:31-35)
Let me know when you’ve read that.
Crystle: Finished.
Naraiel: Done.
Abraham: Done.
Tain: Done.
Qinael: Finished.
Zahakiel: The rest of that chapter has Daniel giving a partial interpretation of these symbols, identifying Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon as the head of gold, (verse 38) and speaking of the great mountain as the everlasting kingdom that Yahweh will establish from Heaven. (verse 44)
For the most part, we agree with the standard Adventist interpretation of the events portrayed here. We see this last generation as essentially Roman in underlying principle, with religious corporations being the norm and pagan superstitions strangling almost any possibility of truly enlightened reading of the Scriptures. This is the iron mixed into the feet and toes. We see the earthiness and worldliness of human beings of the Laodicean age mixed in with this also, and because of this combination of factors (and the fact that even they do not blend well) things are falling apart.
We agree fully that it is in this troubled time that Yahweh will send His Son to establish His everlasting Kingdom, although we understand the methods and mechanisms of this process a little differently from mainstream Adventists. We believe this is a difference, an understanding, which we can support far better in light of the current signs of the times, and a proper understanding of the predictions made by Ellen G. White over a century ago.
This, we believe, will be the solution to the problems now facing our world. So our disobedience, as it is now called, does not really fit the first definition. But what about the common use of the term… disobedience because we feel that a law is morally wrong? Well, that is close, and we may even say this is true to a degree… but it goes beyond that as well, as we will see in the next section. But essentially, our actions go beyond what is merely moral, because morals are somewhat dependent upon the society in which they exist. In other words, culture and background have something to do with morality, while spirituality is concerned with much more absolute concepts, things that Yahweh with infinite wisdom has declared to be “good” or “evil.” Spirituality deals with ultimate good even if (and this is a difficult concept for some people) it does not appear to be “good” to those witnessing the short-term or immediate impact.
We’ll talk a little bit here about the Biblical principles underlying this idea, but are there any questions for now?
Naraiel: No.
Qinael: No.
Abraham: None.
Tain: No.
Crystle: A couple, but they can wait, for I do not want to sidetrack.
Zahakiel: Ok.
Biblical Principles
Zahakiel: So how is it that something can be ultimately good, but not appear that way to observers? There are actually quite a few examples in the Scriptures. We read one place: “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” (Heb 12:11)
Here is another: “And [Yah] said, ‘Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’” (Gen 22:2)
Perhaps, though, the most dramatic example of this is the cross itself. We read of that experience, “Then were there two thieves crucified with [Yahshua], one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, ‘He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He be the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.” (Mat 27:38-42) And we know that Yahshua’s followers at the time did not, to any degree, see this event as a good thing.
If we are going to be spiritually, as opposed to morally, disobedient, then we have to face the fact that very few people who are not truly spiritual themselves will understand why we are doing what we do… much less agree with our position. There are many who are bothered by the fact that “few” can understand the mindset of Heaven, but this is a necessary factor for preparing to exist in that society. And, for that reason, “few” find the way of life.
Perhaps partially because it is impossible for the worldly mind to understand, it is absolutely critical that we understand the reason for our position on religious freedom, and we must understand it to the degree that we can properly articulate it to others. Like other evangelists of the CSDA Church, when I first begin to speak about the Trademark Issue, and the persecution we are facing because we believe that Yahweh gave the name “Seventh-day Adventists” to all faithful believers, I encounter a number of barriers.
When speaking with non-Adventists, of course, we meet the fact that we must first establish that the SDA Church used to be the true Bride of Christ. But even among SDAs themselves, there are severe problems.
Most, if not all of you, have already read my article “The Five Towers.” It demonstrates, beyond question, the fact that when a religious organization falls into error, and in that state incorporates secular power to enforce or support its existence and security, in invariably becomes a tyrannical force in the world, and the Spirit of Yahweh, which uses no force at all, departs and a new Bride is called. This process always happens exactly the same way.
The Scriptures tell us that we must establish all things by the mouth of “two witnesses.” There are in fact five clear witnesses to this concept, including the related doctrine of “corporate accountability,” by which not only the knowledgeable leaders of these structures are bound for judgment, but also those under their spiritual authority. I bring this up to give an example of what I am talking about regarding the problems with speaking to Adventists on the subject of the Trademark.
In speaking by phone to one woman (I’ve told some of you about this already)… she was an Adventist that had been in the Church for many years, and I spoke to her about each of the five “towers” that fell. I pointed out that when the faithful believers before the flood established an earthly kingdom for themselves and attempted to use civil power to control conscience they were destroyed and a new people was called. She agreed fully with that. I spoke of the Jewish nation, how they united with Rome and crucified the Messiah; in so doing they fell, and the Apostolic church was called. She agreed fully with that. Then we spoke about the Apostolic church falling into apostasy, and uniting with Rome, leading to the Protestant movement. She agreed with that also. She also agreed that when Sunday-keeping Protestantism stagnated, refusing to advance, and incorporating themselves with worldly powers, Adventism was brought forth to continue the Gospel work. Things seemed to be going so well…
Then I pointed out to that this same pattern had been fulfilled once again, that the Seventh-day Adventist church had done what its four predecessors before it had done, uniting with the world and attempting to force the unwilling to bow to this amalgamated image. Suddenly, her understanding fled. But why, I asked? Do you not see the same pattern? She stumbled over that for a while, but then admitted it was the same process. I asked her, “Do you see that the promised made to Adventism were exactly the same as those made to previous incarnations of the Bride?” She could not argue with that. I spoke to her about quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy regarding Yahweh using the same judgment for every aspect of His work among men. In other words, there is no favoritism with the Almighty. So… what was the problem?
Her reply was simple, “I don’t believe this could happen to my Church.”
Though most people will word that same reply a bit more elegantly, few do it more honestly. There is no doctrinal defense for the SDA Church’s members remaining in a union of Church and state. They can no more defend their membership there than a Roman Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Mormon.
Crystle: But how could she not see it when she just said she understood what you explained about the church following its predecessors? I mean, how could she say that it could not happen to HER church?
Zahakiel: Well, as I explained, this had become a conversation about her church. When it became personal... touching her life... then the theory loses its power.
If you understand something only intellectually, it doesn’t have a lot of power to change your life.
Crystle: Oh, so really it did touch her heart but she denied it so therefore could not gain any further understanding?
Zahakiel: Well, no, if it had touched her heart, she would have been more inclined to look at it seriously. It’s fine as long as it’s happening to other people, just not to her.
Crystle: Hmm... okay.
Zahakiel: A lot of people think that way. But to be an SDA today, you have to ignore or deny that. And this puts them in the same boat as Sunday keeping Protestants and other groups that claim to believe the Bible, but then their beliefs and/or practices don’t match up.
The Scriptures simply do not teach what any of these organizations hold as fundamental, and in fact strongly condemns several practices they hold dear. Adventists, in fact, teach that unions of church and state, and laws that attempt to regulate religious observances, are the sign of a structure about to fall, a spiritual house about to collapse; and they, in fact, teach that when this happens those inside must flee – regardless of the high estate from which that house has fallen.
And what this has to do with today’s topic is this: If we are going to be spiritually disobedient to both man’s laws and the laws supported by corrupt religious organizations, we must be able to explain very clearly our reasoning for doing so. When I speak with people such as those I’ve mentioned, it begins with resistance, but after I explain myself, and our beliefs, what I get is a very different result – silence. It usually goes silent, either because the individual looks at me while searching for a verse to prove me wrong, or they’ve stormed away and refused to continue the conversation. What we’d like to see happen is that this silence turns into an initially tentative acceptance that what we say is true… Although this is a far rarer occurrence, the possibility of this happening is the motivation for why we speak about this as we do.
This is the only safe response. Those who just go quiet, or even tell you, “I’ll think about it for a bit,” do not generally survive their hesitation to at least acknowledge that we have the correct view on this. It is as if the ravens come and snatch away the seeds we have planted because (and we’ve seen this time and time again) by the time the second conversation rolls around – if there even is one – the individual will have already forgotten much of the discussion, and come up with new and brilliant arguments for the things we have already answered the first time. We have phone conversations, emails, live discussions, that go this way very frequently, and we have transcripts showing exactly this over and over again, even from people who are otherwise quite intelligent.
The only safe course, when one is presented with the potential for spiritual disobedience, is to accept it. Now, civil disobedience… whether or not you accept a call to unite with those doing this is a case for you to decide based upon your own morals. Spiritual disobedience… this is a case of your own soul. If what we say is true, this is Yah’s desire for mankind in this last generation, and this is where concepts such as unity, baptism, Church membership, etc. come into play.
And again, because it’s so easy to misunderstand, and so often misrepresented by those who have been visited by the seed-stealing ravens, we need to make it clear that we are not taking this lightly. We agree fully with what is taught in the Scriptures regarding obedience to the laws of our lands:
“Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” (1Pet 2:17)
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Rom 13:1) Some have used this verse to say that any civil disobedience (or, in our case, spiritual disobedience) is outside of Yahweh’s will, but we find in the Scriptures that there is a balancing concept as well.
“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” (Acts 5:29)
“And [Yahshua] said unto them, ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.’” (Luke 20:25)
These two verses form the principal witnesses to the underlying principle. What we must decide is, “What belongs to Caesar, and what belongs to God?” And after we have determined that, if Caesar asks for something that belongs to God, we must politely, but firmly, tell him that he cannot have it. It is at this point that we must “obey God rather than men.”
Tain: You stated, “The only safe course, when one is presented with the potential for spiritual disobedience, is to accept it.”
Zahakiel: Right. If they accept this message, they will become spiritually “disobedient” to what I called above the laws of corrupt organizations and those secular rules that go against Yahweh’s instructions.
Tain: Ok, so, that has nothing to do with us being “spiritually disobedient.” By the fact that we are going against the current world’s religions, we are being spiritually disobedient... it has nothing to do with someone else not accepting the message.
Oh... we aren’t disobedient to Yah... but to the world.
Zahakiel: Right, that second one. Those who accept this message must have it clearly explained to them, that we’re not just being rebellious against the laws of men for no good reason. Even though it is often misunderstood or misinterpreted, we are doing the right thing. And then... they have to be willing to bear that same load themselves.
Tain: Thank you.
Zahakiel: What it boils down to is that verse from Acts about obeying God rather than men, but we must then determine what Yah has actually said. So in our case, what is it that Caesar is asking for that belongs to God? Can anyone think of that, and some verses to support it?
Crystle: Our freedom to choose who we want to serve… but I cannot think of a verse right off.
Zahakiel: That’s a big part of it, yes. Any other ideas?
Daphna: To obey him and make him a god, rather than the God who made the heavens and all that is in them.
Zahakiel: Yes, that’s a lot of it also. I have a few verses that do support that idea. “And thou shalt love Yahweh thy Elohim with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” (Deu 6:5)
“For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exo 34:14)
And again, “Give unto Yahweh the glory due unto His name; worship Yahweh in the beauty of holiness.” (Psa 29:2)
Ok, some might say, “Well, the trademark law is not telling you to worship or not worship anyone.” But they misunderstand, as many do, what true worship is. Worship is acknowledging Someone as supreme, as able to direct our actions, authorized to give us an identity, and to whom we offer willing obedience. In effect, worshipping Someone means making that Someone the object of our “religious observances,” and that’s a key term. Remember, we covered this in a previous study… worship is NOT the same as a religious observance, but this is the way they fit together, the religious observance is directed at the object of worship, is for the glory of the one unto whom we perform the mental and spiritual exercise called “worship.”
If someone other than God, whom we worship, attempts to direct our religious observances, including what we call ourselves AS the people of that particular God, and the way we express ourselves during evangelism and missionary activities, they are really saying, “Worship me. Allow me to control your form and manner of worship.” Does everyone see that really clearly? And if anyone things I am exaggerating that, bring it up… because we have to explain very clearly what “worship” means to us.
Ye: It is very clear.
Tain: I understand.
Abraham: That became the problem in the post 1888 church, with the leaders wanting to direct the actions of their members
Zahakiel: In the human courts, worship is not properly understood. We are told, “You can worship God under any name you choose.” But if they truly understood worship, they would know that the One we worship is the one who chooses the name. There is no name that WE can choose that would be appropriate as a means of corporately identifying ourselves as the worshippers of Yahweh. If He gives us a name and we choose, of our own will, another, are we truly allowing Him to direct our religion? Are we truly considering Him, as I termed it above, the One “to whom we offer willing obedience?”
Modern Application
Zahakiel: As I said, this topic really serves to expose the satanic purpose of those who oppose us, because it shows the hypocrisy and double-standard being applied here. In terms of the SDA Church, there are a few quotes I can share with you about what Adventism teaches we are to do when faced with what it is that we are currently facing. Ellen White never, to my knowledge, used the term “civil disobedience,” and perhaps because it’s not fully accurate for our position, as I have explained. But the right concept is certainly there. We read:
“The happiness of man is in his obedience to the laws of God. In his obedience to God’s law he is surrounded as with a hedge and kept from the evil. No man can be happy and depart from God’s specified requirements, and set up a standard of his own which he decides he can safely follow. Then there would be a variety of standards to suit the different minds, and the government taken out of the Lord’s hands and human beings grasp the reins of government. The law of self is erected, the will of man is made supreme, and when the high and holy will of God is presented to be obeyed, respected, and honored the human will wants its own way to do its own promptings, and there is a controversy between the human agent and the divine.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Six, page 338]
That is precisely what has happened in our world. And as a result we come to this place:
“I saw that it is our duty in every case to obey the laws of our land, unless they conflict with the higher law which God spoke with an audible voice from Sinai, and afterward engraved on stone with His own finger. ‘I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people.’ He who has God’s law written in the heart will obey God rather than men, and will sooner disobey all men than deviate in the least from the commandment of God. God’s people, taught by the inspiration of truth, and led by a good conscience to live by every word of God, will take His law, written in their hearts, as the only authority which they can acknowledge or consent to obey. The wisdom and authority of the divine law are supreme.” [Counsels for the Church, page 314] And for the record, we see obedience to the Trademark Law as a violation of the first, second, third and fourth of that which was spoken “with an audible voice from Sinai.”
But what does this mean? This means that we are being persecuted, by Seventh-day Adventists, for doing precisely what Seventh-day Adventists are taught to do in our situation, and under identical circumstances. Those from that body who do not wish to admit this will protest and say, “But you aren’t following God’s law anyway, because you disagree with us.” But if you look at the wording from that second quote, those who are “led by a good conscience” can only acknowledge God’s authority on religious matters. That being the case, if they truly wished to promote religious freedom, they would say, “Well, we disagree with your teachings and conclusions (especially about the mainstream SDA Church), but we cannot intrude upon your perceived obligations to God.”
Instead, the only way they can get around that is to claim we are not “led by a good conscience,” but must have some dark, ulterior motive for doing what we are doing. They must attack, not our doctrines, but our characters. And that’s precisely what they have done. They do not attack our teachings our beliefs, ultimately, but our motives. They say we are stealing the identity of the SDA Church (although such an act would make us ashamed for a number of reasons). They claim we are defrauding the public by falsely trading upon the good will of the mainstream Adventist organization (although we are saying that they have no “good will” in this matter, and we are certainly not trading anything). They say we are threatening to take away their consumers – this is the term they use for their members – and tarnishing the value of the name of the Church including, they have said, its “monetary” value. That is so outlandish it needs no rebuttal.
I don’t want to go on with those specifics for too long… we all know them already. But what I am pointing out is that our doctrines are firmly rooted in the Bible, and no successful attacks have ever been made on anything we currently hold true. So, in order to prove us wrong, and silence us, our motives for holding these doctrines (though true doctrines!) must be undermined.
But if we, even while holding doctrines that are diverse from mainstream Adventism, do exactly as they would do in our situation, I would contend that it is only a satanic fury, and an entirely corrupt mind, that would not have sympathy for such a people. The enlightened, spiritual mind would say, even of those with whom they disagree, what is recorded in the Book of Acts:
“Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; and said unto them, ‘Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:34-39)
Adventists, if they are Biblically-minded, will say this very thing. They may say, “The Reform movement came up, but their numbers are few and dwindling, so they have never been a threat to us. The Shepherd’s Rod appeared also, and some followed them, but they also are scattered, fragmented, and have not harmed us. And now these CSDAs, if they are of men, they also will fade away, or become insignificant, but if they are of God, be careful – though they are few – lest you find yourself on the wrong side of this spiritual conflict.”
But this is not what they do. Instead, we are told that we are doing “irreparable harm” to the SDA Church by our very existence, by the very exercise of our religion. I can’t think of anything more absurd as to think that we few believers could do anything against the God of Heaven and His people (as they claim themselves to be) if we are in error. And if we are not, well… they cannot even countenance that possibility in their current state. But in the very act of claiming such a thing before human courts, these men are declaring themselves as unbelievers. They are unbelievers in the power of God to protect His people. They are unbelievers in the fairness of God to defend the rights even of those who are of different (though sincere) faiths. They are unbelievers in the message we bring, of true freedom of religion and victory over sin. They are unbelievers in simple human emotions such as sympathy for the persecuted, who are doing exactly as they would do if their anticipated Sunday Law should come to pass… and we know this, because it is in the writings they hold as inspired. But if they truly believed those writings… well, they are unbelievers of a fair portion of that as well.
Are there any questions so far?
Tain: No.
Naraiel: No.
Qinael: No.
Ye: No.
Abraham: No.
Crystle: No.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: In conclusion, then, I would just like to submit the term “Spiritual Disobedience” for your consideration. Think on it. When you do Bible studies, look for other examples of the principle, and learn how to explain our understanding of the Third Angel’s Message (because that is exactly what this is – a call to both resist the evil, and to unite under the good) to others in such a way that we can bring them gently to silence. For perhaps from there they can learn to grasp what we say, and thus escape the wickedness of this generation.
Brother Abraham, would you close our study with a prayer?
Abraham: Dear and Holy Father in heaven,
Thank you for your love in giving your plain direction for all to
understand and to accept. Grant to us
the love and patience, along with the knowledge and wisdom, of how we may stand
for your truth, even when besieged as we now are; and to be thankful in all
things. May your blessing be upon all
that desire to do your will. I pray in
Yahshua’s name. Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Daphna: Amen.
