government theory

Chapter 25 Who is this heir? (8)
Was it not in him that he "re-established the ancient and primitive generational succession to the patriarchal government"?Or was it about the heir to the throne—his youngest son Solomon?Or was it on Jeroboam who ruled over the ten tribes?Or is it in the body of Athaliah, who has nothing to do with royal blood for six years?If "this original and ancient right of patriarchal government" was re-established in any of the above-mentioned persons or their descendants, then both elder brothers and younger brothers could have "patriarchal government" the original and ancient right of man" which can be re-established in him as long as he is alive.For whatever rights the younger brothers can acquire, like the elder brothers, by "primitive and ancient right of inheritance," every living person can also acquire this right by inheritance. Right, Sir Robert or even anyone is included.What a heroic right it would be if every man could have that right, which our author wants to defend, and re-establish the right of succession to the "Patriarchy" or "Royalty" of the government ?Leave it to everyone to think about it.

162．Our author, however, adds: "Whenever God chooses a particular man to be king, he also predestined his descendants to enjoy the same benefit, though only the father is mentioned in the conferring of the throne, No reference is made to descendants, yet this interest is already considered to be fully contained in the father." However, this does not help the question of succession in any substantial way.For even if it were true, as the author says, that the favor bestowed by the monarchy would be transmitted to the descendants of the person who inherits it, then this does not refer to the right of inheritance.why?For since God has given something to a man and to his descendants, it is impossible for the man who has the right to be a particular descendant.That is to say, everyone who belongs to this family of people will have equal rights.If our author meant the man's heirs, I think the author or anyone else would be just as willing to use the word, so long as it suffices his needs.

But Solomon, who succeeded David as king, and Jeroboam, who ruled the ten tribes after David, were both descended from David, though they were also not his heirs, so our author has reason to avoid mentioning that God predestined To make the heirs inherit such a rule, because in the matter of succession, such a statement is impossible, our author can not object to this, and has no reason to object, so his theory of inheritance is self-defeating, as if He didn't say anything on the subject like that.If God bestows kingship on a man and his descendants, just as he gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants, doesn’t that mean that everyone has the right, or that everyone has a share?Then, some people will also say that God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants. According to God’s grant, it can only belong to one of his descendants and not to all other descendants. It is like saying that God The dominion is given to a man and "his descendants," but according to this grant, the dominion belongs only to a particular person among all his descendants, and does not benefit the rest.

163．How, however, does our author prove that "Whenever God chooses a particular man to be king, he predestinates his descendants (I assume God means his descendants) to enjoy the same benefit"?In the same verse, he says, "When the children of Israel returned from oppression, God took great care of them, and chose Moses and Joshua as kings to rule over them".

Had he so soon forgotten Moses and Joshua, and the judges whom God had appointed?Since these princes have the authority of "the highest fatherhood", don't they have the same power as the monarch?Since they were specially chosen by God, shouldn't their descendants have the same benefit of that election as did the descendants of David and Solomon?If the patriarchal power they had was directly placed in their hands by God, why didn't their "children" get the benefits of this bestowal, and didn't inherit this power?If they had received this power as heirs of Adam, and since they were not mutual heirs, why should not their own heirs enjoy it after their death, according to the right bequeathed to them?Was the power of Moses, Joshua, and the judges the same as that of David and the kings of Israel, and derived from the same origin?Is it necessary that the power possessed by one person cannot be possessed by another?If this power is not "fatherhood," God's own elect are governed by those who have no "fatherhood," and those rulers can govern just as well without it; As for those who exercise this power, they are specially chosen by God, so what our author says "Whenever God chooses a man to be the supreme ruler (I don't think that the name prince has any magical power) , where the real difference is not in title but in power), he predestined the same benefit to the descendants of that person" and the rule is of little use.Because, from the time when the Israelites came out of Egypt until the time of David (the period was 400 years), any son, except that after the death of his father, he inherited his right to rule with the judges and judged the Israelites, the descendants never Not "as fully contained in its father".If in order to avoid this, it is said that God often chooses a successor, and transfers "the power of the father" to him, and does not allow his descendants to inherit.Then obviously this is not the case in the story of Jephthah (Judges, Chapter 11), where Jephthah makes a covenant with his people and they make him a judge to rule over them.

164．So, what our author says about "whenever God chooses a certain person" to exercise "the power of the father", if this does not mean "being king" (Actually, I would like to know the difference between a king and an exerciser. What is the difference between people with "paternal authority"), then it is useless to say that he predestined this person's descendants to also enjoy the same benefits.Because, we have seen that all the powers of the judges are limited to their own bodies and are not passed on to their descendants.If the judges do not have the "authority of the father", I am afraid that I will find it difficult for our author or any friend who believes in his doctrine to tell us, who has the "authority of the father" at that time?That is to say, to rule over the rulership and supreme power of the Israelites.I am afraid they will have to admit that God's chosen people have continued to exist as a people for hundreds of years without knowing or thinking of this "power of the father" and perhaps without any government with a monarch.

165．To fully understand this, one need only read the story of the Levites recorded in the last three chapters of Judges, and the story of the war between the Israelites and the Benjaminites because of the Levites. History will do.When we see that the Levites demanded revenge from the people, it was the tribes of Israel and their Sanhedrin who discussed, resolved, and directed the actions at that time, then we can only draw one conclusion: either God The "rights of the fathers" are not "carefully preserved" among their own electorate, or, where there is no monarchy, "the rights of the fathers" may be preserved.If the latter, then, although the "Right of the Father" may be demonstrated with great validity, no monarchical government can be deduced from it; "So sacred and inviolable among the sons of men, without which there can be no power or government, yet among his own elect, even while he is setting up a government for Is it not strange that this great and fundamental point in relations which lays down the laws to be obeyed, the most important and necessary point of all other things, should have been hidden and ignored for four hundred years, Can't believe it?

166．Before I leave the question, I am compelled to ask how our author came to know, "Whenever God chose a particular man to be king, he predestined that man's descendants to enjoy the same benefits." "Woolen cloth?Did God speak through natural law or revelation?According to the same law, he must also say which of his "children" should have the throne, that is, who is his heir, otherwise it will cause his "children" to divide or fight However, these two situations are very absurd, and at the same time, this kind of benefit originally bestowed on "children and grandchildren" will be destroyed.When someone presents evidence that God has declared this way, it is our duty to believe that God did mean it, but before our author presents any evidence, he should give us some better grounds, and then , we are obliged to regard him as a credible revealer of God's will.

167．Our author says: "Although he only mentioned the name of the father when he bestowed the throne, yet the offspring is fully included in the father." But when God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham (see more See "Genesis" Chapter 13No.15), he believes that "his descendants" should also be included, similarly, the priesthood is given to "Aaron and his descendants", God did not only give the throne To David, and likewise to his posterity, however much our author assures us: "When God chooses a man to be king, he predestined that man's posterity also to enjoy the benefit." Yet, However, we see that when God gave Saul the throne, he did not mention at all what would happen to his descendants after Saul died. In addition, the throne would never belong to his descendants.

Why did God, when he chose a man to be king, designate his descendants to enjoy the same benefit, but not when he chose a man to be judge of Israel?I would love and would like to know the reason for this: why God, when bestowing the "power of the father" on a king, includes his "children" but does not include the same gift on a judge. what about this?Is it true that the "power of the father" should pass only to one man's children and not to another man's children and grandchildren according to the right of inheritance?Our author really needs to explain the reasons for this differential treatment.If what is bestowed is "the power of the father", and the way of bestowing is also God's choice of the person, in this case there is still a difference, then the difference must not be just the name.For, since our author speaks of "God made the judges," I think he would never admit that it was the people's choice.

168．But since our author so confidently asserts that God carefully preserves the "fatherhood," and boasts that all this he says is based on the authority of Scripture, we may expect what nation will give We give the clearest example of God's expressed concern for the preservation of patriarchy in a nation whose laws, institutions, and history are largely contained in the Holy Scriptures, and to which it is acknowledged that God has given special care.Let us see, then, what has been the state of this "father's power" or dominion among the Jews since they became a people.According to our author's confession, during the period of more than 200 years from their entry into Egypt to their escape from Egypt's bondage, this power was completely absent, and from that time until God chose a king for the Israelites, about 400 years. The author of this article has only made a brief description of this issue.It is true that for so long there was not a whit of patriarchal or royal politics to be found among the Jews, yet, says our author, "God has re-established the old direct line of patriarchal government."

169．Now that I have seen what the "direct succession to the patriarchal government" was then established, I need only consider how long this went, that is, until they were imprisoned, about 500 years in between, and from then to 600 Many years later, during the period of being destroyed by the Romans, this ancient nation once again lost the "right of direct succession to the patriarchal government".Thereafter, in the absence of such power, they remained a people in the land God had given them.It can be seen that in their 1750 years as God's special people, the Jewish people kept the hereditary monarchy for less than one-third of the time, and during this period, there was no trace of "patriarchal government" , and there is no sign of re-establishing this ancient "direct line of patriarchal government," whether from David, Saul, Abraham, etc., as we think it, or from the only true Source - Got it from Adam...

(End of this chapter)