separation of church and state
Separation of Church and State
The following is a transcript from a lecture from Pastor Stephen Bohr entitled Prophecies Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I pray that you might find the time to watch Pastor Bohr’s lectures as they are remarkably informative, and in harmony with scripture. The following lectures on the two beast’s from Revelation, as well as “The Image to the Beast”, “The Number of the Beast”, and “The Mark of the Beast” are an absolute must watch series, and you will learn volumes if you invest some time into watching these video’s, and then prayerfully studying the transcripts. Pastor Bohr heads a media based ministry called Secrets Unsealed and you can visit his website by clicking here.
separation of church and state
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
separation of church and state
Shall we bow our heads for prayer. Father in heaven, as we open your Holy Word to study this very important subject, We ask that you will open our hearts and our minds that we might be able to hear your voice. separation of church and state
We ask Lord that you will take away any preconceived ideas that we might have that we might only hear what you have to say to us today, and we thank you Father for hearing our prayer for we ask it in the precious name of Jesus Amen.
Prophecys Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Prophecys Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Basically Daniel 7 has four beasts, and I want to review the meaning of those four beasts, you have first of all a lion, that lion represents the kingdom of Babylon, after the lion you have a bear, the bear represents the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians, then you have in the third-place a leopard, and the leopard represents the kingdom of Greece, and then you come to the fourth beast in this series of beasts, and this beast is called the terrible nondescript beast, because there’s no beast in real life that is similar to it. Actually even though the word is not used, it is a dragon. And what I want us to notice is that this fourth beast has four consecutive stages of existence, or dominion. So we have Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and of course the fourth beast, the dragon beast represents Rome. separation of church and state
But I want you to notice that Rome has four consecutive stages of dominion. Go with me to Daniel chapter 7 and verse 23 and we’re going to find these four stages of dominion in Daniel 7, it says there in Daniel 7 verse 23.
“thus he said the fourth beast shall be a fourth Kingdom on earth which shall be different from all other kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth trample it and break it in pieces.
Now that fourth beast represents as I mentioned the Roman Empire, you have Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and the Roman empire But now I want you to notice in verse 24 that this dragon beast has a second period of Dominion. It says in verse 24
The ten horns are ten kings, Who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them;..
The ten horns because this dragon has ten horns it says, Kings or Kingdoms.
So you’ll notice that the Kingdom exists before the ten horns come out of its head, because it says that the ten horns come out of this Kingdom in order to come out of the Kingdom, the Kingdom must already exist.
so here we have two stages of this fourth beast, we have first of all the beast ruling by itself, then this dragon beast sprouts ten horns, and of course the ten horns represent the divisions of the Roman Empire as a result of the barbarian invasions, but now I want you to notice that there’s a third stage to this fourth beast. separation of church and state
Let’s go once again to verse 24
The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones, And shall subdue three kings.
So notice three stages so far of this fourth beast, you have first of all this dragon Beast ruling by itself, then the dragon beast sprouts ten horns, those are the divisions of the Roman Empire.
And then among the 10 rises a little horn, and I want us to notice some characteristics of this little horn Daniel 7 and verse 25 speaking about this little horn the third stage of the fourth beast. separation of church and state
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High (don’t forget these details because we’re going to come back to them in a few moments) he shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High and shall intend to change times and law. Then the Saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.
So notice that this little horn after it rises, is going to rule time times and half a time, which is equivalent to 1260 days, but in prophecy days are equal to years. In other words after this little horn rises to power it was going to rule 1260 years.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that this stage of Rome represents the Roman Catholic papacy of the Middle Ages. An empire that ruled for over a thousand years in the territory of Europe. separation of church and state
Now you’ll notice here that this little horn speaks pompous words, he persecutes the Saints of the Most High and he thinks that he can change times and laws. So far we have three stages of this fourth beast of Rome, number one, the beast or the dragon ruling by itself, number two the dragon beast with the ten horns, number three, the dragon beast with the little horn which rules 1260 years, but I mentioned that this fourth beast has four stages of existence. separation of church and state
Now you say where in Daniel is the fourth stage? The fact is that the fourth stage does not come through clearly in Daniel chapter 7, it is only implicit it is not explicit, but when we go to Revelation in a few moments were going to notice that what is implicit in Daniel 7 is very explicit in Revelation chapter 13. separation of church and state
Now go with me the Daniel 7 26 and 27 where we have the fourth stage of this fourth beast implied. It says there in verse 26 speaking about what’s going to happen to this little horn,
But the court shall be seated, And they shall take away his dominion, To consume and destroy it forever.
but the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his Dominion to consume and destroy it forever.
So let me ask you? Is this little horn going to be ruling when Jesus comes? Obviously yes, because it says that his dominion is going to be taken away and he is going to be consumed and destroyed forever. In other words this power is going to be ruling the world when Jesus comes to set up his everlasting Kingdom, now what this means is that the 1260 years of Dominion was not the end of the career of this little horn because it was gonna rule 1260 years, but it was going to be around when Jesus comes it must mean that it is going to surface again, it is gonna rise to power again in order to be the power that will rule the world when Jesus comes. separation of church and state
Now you say how do you know that this power is going to rule the world when Jesus comes? Verse 27 makes it very clear when the previous verse says that this little horn would be consumed and destroyed forever, we’re told
Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’
So this little horn is going to be destroyed when Jesus comes to set up his everlasting Kingdom, which means that it must have another period of Dominion beyond the 1260 years. separation of church and state
Now you say okay Pastor, that makes sense it’s implicit it doesn’t come out clearly in the text, but when we go to Revelation chapter 13 what is implicit in Daniel 7 becomes explicit. separation of church and state
Go with me to Revelation chapter 13 and we’re going to read verses 1 and 2 and then I’m going to
jump down two verses 5 and then verse 7, let’s see if we can find the same four stages of this fourth beast in Revelation 13 it says in verse 1 of Revelation 13.
Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.
And now comes the key verse notice,
Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.
Do you see the same four beasts mentioned in Revelation chapter 13? You have the lion, you have the bear, you have the leopard, and you have the dragon beast, who by the way has the ten horns.
If you go back to Revelation chapter 12 it speaks about a dragon that stood next to the woman to devour her child as soon as the child was born and that dragon beast has ten horns, just like the dragon beasts of Daniel 7 had ten horns. So in Revelation chapter 13 you have the same sequence of powers, you have the lion the bear the leopard the dragon beast that has ten horns and then I want you to notice that the dragon beast that has ten horns. separation of church and state
By the way those are the first two stages of the fourth beast, of the dragon beast because you have the dragon, and you have the ten horns we’re told in Revelation chapter 13 that we have a third stage after the Dragon and the ten horns, notice Revelation chapter 13 and verse 2 once again.
Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.
So the dragon with ten horns gives his power to the Beast just like the dragon beast with the ten horns and Daniel 7 gave his authority to the little horn, now notice what this beast does who receives his power from the dragon, notice verse 5 it says in verse 5 of Revelation 13
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies…
Is that the same thing that the little horn did in Daniel chapter 7? separation of church and state
Obviously yes, and let’s just jump down to verse 7 and we’ll come back to verse 5 again in a moment Verse 7.
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.
It was granted him to make what? War with the Saints and to overcome them, Is that what the little horn did in Daniel 7, was he given authority to make war against the Saints of the Most High?
Absolutely, Now what about the period of time, times, and half a time, do we find that in Revelation 13? also with regards to the Beast? Yes;
Let’s go back to verse 5
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
Authority to continue, how long? to continue 42 months. And you say well 42 months is not the same thing as time, times, and half a time: but actually it is because time, times, and half a time; are three and a half years x 360 days per year comes to 1260, 42 months x 30 days each month multiplied, comes out also to 1260 days or years. separation of church and state
So let me ask you are the activities of the little horn and the Beast the same activities?
Yes they are. Is the sequence of powers the same in Daniel 7 and revelation chapter 13?
Absolutely; you have lion, bear, leopard, dragon, ten horns, and then in Daniel 7 you have little horn, in
Revelation 13 you have the beast.
But we’ve only seen three stages in Revelation 13, we have the dragon beast by itself the dragon beast with the ten horns and then the dragon beast gives his authority to the beast for 42 months. separation of church and state
Now where is the fourth stage in Revelation 13 of this fourth beast?
We have to go to Revelation chapter 13 and verse 3 here what was implicit in Daniel 7 becomes explicit in Revelation chapter 13, and verse 3. It says here, speaking about this beast. separation of church and state
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded…
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been what?
‘mortally wounded’ When do you suppose he received the deadly wound, do you think he received the wound at the beginning of the 1260 years, at the middle of the 1260 years, or at the end of the 1260 years? separation of church and state
It would have to be at the end because if he received it at any time before then, he could not have ruled 1260 years.
So the deadly wound must have been given at the end of the 1260 years, but now I want you to notice that this is not the only stage of the beast, or the little horn, because the verse continues; once again verse 3
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.
Question! How many stages is the beast going to have” separation of church and state
Two, one during the 42 months or the 1260 years, and then the period after its deadly wound, is what? Healed.
So in Daniel 7 and revelation 13 you have four stages of the fourth beast, dragon, ten horns, little horn, or beast, ruling time times and half a time 42 months and then this power receives a deadly wound and rules the world once again.
But now we need to ask some very important questions about the deadly wound; Allow me to share those questions with you.
With what weapon was the Beast wounded when it received its deadly wound?
Second question; What does the sword represent? Because we’re going to notice that he was wounded with the sword. What does the sword that he was wounded with represent?
Question number three; What is the meaning of the deadly wound, that’s kind of strange what is the deadly wound does it mean that he was that he was going to cease to exist, that he was gonna lose his power that he was going to lose his territory what is the deadly wound?
Next question; What keeps the deadly wound from healing what keeps the deadly wound in place in other words?
Another question; Was the deadly wound healed in 1801 or in 1929?
And finally the question; When how and by whom will this deadly wound be healed?
Now let’s go to our first question with what weapon was this beast wounded? Go with me to Revelation chapter 13 and verse 10 and remember that this wound is given at the end of the 1260 years. By the way that’s the Year 1798.
What was the weapon that wounded the beast in other words? Revelation 13 and verse 10: separation of church and state
He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.
Now somebody might say, well pastor but it doesn’t say that the beast led people into captivity, or that the beast was wounded with the sword, it says simply he who wounds with the sword will be wounded by the sword. separation of church and state
Well let’s go to verse 14 and see if it was the sword that gave the deadly wound to the beast verse 14 it’s speaking here about a second beast that we’ll discuss a little bit later, It says in verse 14; separation of church and state
And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.
And he (this second beast) deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast (now notice this) telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the Beast (that’s the Beast that ruled 42 months) to make an image to the Beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.
Question: Who was wounded by the sword? That first Beast, the Beast that ruled 42 months or twelve hundred and sixty years.
Now the question is. What is represented by the sword, what is symbolized by the sword? Whenever I ask this question people say well the sword represents the Bible, the sword represents scripture, and it’s true that
the Bible interprets the meaning of the sword as scripture. separation of church and state
Notice Ephesians chapter 6 and verse 17 here the Apostle Paul says:
And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.
So the first meaning of the sword is that the sword represents, what? It represents the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.
Now allow me to share with you some details about this sword, this sword is to be used by the church, the sword is to be used in preaching the Word through, the power of the Holy Spirit, it is a sword of persuasion, not a sword of coercion, everyone is free to accept or reject the testimony of that sword, that is of the word of God. separation of church and state
If anyone teaches or practices contrary to this sword, to the Word of God then they can be excommunicated from the church, and the Word of God will judge them in the last day, in other words this sword belongs to the church, it is to be used by the church through the preaching of God’s Word in order to persuade people to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now allow me to say that this is not the sword that wounded the beast, and you say why isn’t this the sword that wounded the beast? separation of church and state
For the simple reason that scripture tells us that the sword that the beast used to wound with, to kill with, was the very sword that was going to kill him. Now that being the case, let me ask you. Did the Roman Catholic papacy use the Bible to kill people?
Of course not, and so it’s impossible to say that the sword here can represent the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God because the Beast did not use the Word of god to try and persuade people to accept the gospel, it must have used a different sword. During the 1260 years the Bible was not used by the beast to kill, and therefore it cannot be the sword that eventually killed him. separation of church and state
Now the question is then, What does this sword represent the sword that the beast used to kill with which, would give him the deadly wound the fact is that the Bible gives another meaning to the sword. separation of church and state
Go with me to Romans chapter 13 and verse 1-4 This is another sword, another meaning of the sword, here the Apostle Paul is talking about the government, about the ruling authorities, about the civil government and he says this.
‘Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? (that is of the civil government) Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he (that is the Civil ruler) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; (now notice this) for he does not bear (what?) the sword in vain; for he is God’s Minister, an Avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil’
Let me ask you; Who is it that bears the sword? It is the state; this sword is borne by the governing authorities, in other words by the Civil rulers. Let me ask you, Did God establish the civil government according to this passage? He most certainly did.
The Bible says that the civil government is God’s Minister. Did God also established the other sword, the sword of the Spirit? Absolutely so in other words the church has it’s sword, which is the Bible, the Bible is preached, people give their hearts to the Lord by persuasion.
The state also has its sword; It’s the sword of coercion, it’s the sword that is to preserve the civil order. Now the problem that we will find in bible prophecy is when the church uses the state’s sword, or the state uses the church’s sword, you see there are two swords but the two swords are to remain forever separate, the church is to use its sword the bridging of scripture to persuade and convert people to Jesus Christ. separation of church and state
The state is to use its sword in order to preserve the civil order.
By the way, Jesus refused to allow his followers to use this Civil sword to advance his kingdom, you remember when the mob came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane the Bible tells us that Peter drew his sword and it cut off the ear of the high priests servant, now Peter who supposedly according to some was the first pope, was using the temporal sword, or the physical sword to defend Christ’s Kingdom, let me ask you. Did Jesus encouraged and condone Peters behavior when he used the physical sword of force to advance and defend the kingdom of Jesus Christ, did he commend Peter?
Absolutely not, he rebuked Peter, and by the way he used words very similar to those that we read in Revelation 13 and verse 10, then notice what Jesus said in Matthew 26 and verse 52 separation of church and state
but Jesus said to him, put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword, will perish by the sword.
Is that very similar to Revelation 13 verse 10? Very very similar, Jesus is saying don’t take the sword, the
literal sword the sort of force the sword that belongs to the state to defend and advance my kingdom.
By the way a few hours later when Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king; Jesus promptly replied in John 18 verse 36
‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight’
What would his servants do if the kingdom of Jesus was of this world? They would take the sword of the state and they would defend Christ’s Kingdom by force, but Jesus says here; If My kingdom were of this world My servants would fight so that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now My kingdom is not from here. separation of church and state
Let me ask you, What is the sword of Christ’s Kingdom?
What is the sword of the Kingdom of this world?
The sword of the State, to preserve the civil order.
Now we need to ask the question; What then, is the deadly wound? If the sword that the beast used to kill with, is the very weapon that kills him, it must mean that the sword of the state, that the church used, was now going to rise against the church, are you understanding what I’m saying? Now what is the deadly wound, is the deadly wound the confiscation of the territories of the beast of the papacy, is it the elimination of the Roman Catholic Church as a church? separation of church and state
Absolutely not. So what is the deadly wound, what does it mean when it says that this power, the papacy that used the sword, and the sword was going to be used against him? It simply means folks; That the power of the state, or the civil power that the papacy used to persecute the Saints of the Most High; that very “sword of the state” would arise to give it the deadly wound.
In other words the deadly wound is the removal of the sword of the state from the hands of what? From the hands of the church, now the question is. How did the papacy obtain that sword? I want to read several statements now that describe how the papacy acquired this sword originally. The first of these statements is found in a book written by Henry Edward Manning, where he explains in the following words how the papacy got the power of the sword, that it used to persecute with. He says this
‘the papacy waited until such a time as God should break its bonds asunder, and should liberate it (notice this) should liberate it from subjection to civil powers (how did the papacy gains its power, by being liberated from what? From subjection to civil powers) and enthrone it in the possession of a temporal sovereignty of its own.’
So what needed to be removed in order for the papacy to acquire the sword?
The civil power had to be what? Had to be removed. separation of church and state
Also R.W. Southern, a church historian says this,
during the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal Authority, (speaking about the papacy) exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of the Roman Emperor.
So you have the state, you have the church using the sword of the state during the period of the Middle Ages, and finally another church historian John N Figgis had this to say, separation of church and state
In the middle ages the church was not a state; it was the state, or rather the civil authority was merely the police department of the church,
In other words when the Roman Empire fell the Pope not only became, not only was he the religious, or spiritual ruler of the roman empire, but he had to step in and also become the temporal, or the Civil ruler, and now the church had possession of the sword.
By the way in the year 1302, pope Boniface the eighth, wrote a very famous bull, the name of this bull was unam sanctam. Where he spoke about the two swords, because the Roman Catholic Church believes that they have possession of the two swords, one the spiritual sword of God’s Word, and the 2nd the temporal sword of civil power. Notice what he said in this famous pastoral letter, or personal letter. He says this;
We are informed by the text of the Gospels that in this church (that is in the roman catholic church) and in its power are two swords, namely the spiritual and the temporal, both therefore are in the power of the church, that is to say the spiritual and the material sword, but the former that is the the material sword is to be administered for the church but the latter, that is the temporal sword by the church, the former in the hands of the priest, the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
So notice that the physical sword, the sword of the state is to be used by the church according to this statement, but it is to be used at the will and sufferance or desire of the priest. separation of church and state
So in other words, the Roman Catholic church itself says that it has possession of the two swords, the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God and the temporal sword of civil power that is mentioned in Romans chapter 13.
So the question is, What is the deadly wound? If having the sword means that the Roman Catholic papacy has civil power to enforce its decrees and its beliefs, it must mean that the deadly wound is, when the sword turns against it; and the sword is removed from its hands.
Now is that what happened? – Absolutely! separation of church and state
Now I want to read some statements from historians about what happened in 1798, at the conclusion of the French Revolution, one historian says this. George Trevor;
The papacy was extinct; not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defense. The eternal city had no longer prince or pontiff, it’s bishop was dying captive in foreign lands and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in its place.
In other words when the pope was arrested and taken prisoner by Berthier, under the direct orders of Napoleon Bonaparte, we’re told here by this historian the papacy was extinct, not a vestige of its existence remained, and no power in Europe arose to help it.
Another historian Joseph Rickaby has this to say about the deadly wound, in 1798 separation of church and state
No wonder that half of Europe thought Napoleon’s veto, (Napoleons veto is that the Roman Catholic Church would no longer have temporal power), No wonder that half of Europe thought Napoleon’s veto would be obeyed and that with the Pope the papacy was dead.
Interesting terminology, the papacy was dead. Another historian T.H. Gill had this to say about what happened in 1798
Multitudes imagined that the papacy was at the point of death, and asked, would Pius VI be the last pontiff, and if the close of the 18th century would be signalized by the fall of the papal dynasty.
Finally one other historians said this
The papacy had suffered its deepest humiliation, and appeared to be annihilated, (interesting terminology) the revolution (that is the French revolution) also dealt it the wound (notice the terminology) the wound which it seemed did not want to heal, until far into the 20th century.
The interesting thing is that, and this is by the way ironic, France was the power that gave the deadly wound to the Roman Catholic papacy, and France was the first Kingdom that gave that power to the Roman Catholic papacy when Clovis gave the papacy the keys to the cities of France in the year 508, so the very power that first gave the sword to the papacy, now in 1798 the eldest daughter of the papacy as France is called, takes away the sword and gives the deadly wound by the power of the state.
But prophecy tells us that this power is going to regain the sword and it is going to recuperate from its deadly wound. In fact let’s talk about the deadly wound, revelation 13 and verse 3 once again,
And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world marveled and followed after the Beast.
let me ask you, What would the healing of the deadly wound be? It must mean that the sword which was removed from the hand of the beast will be what? Will be restored, once again to the beast. separation of church and state
In other words the civil power that it used which was taken away from it, once again will be given to it, the deadly wound will be healed, and once again it will be able to use the power of the sword, in other word the power of the state, in order to persecute God’s people.
You see the papacy is not only a church, the word papacy is actually a code word that refers to a system that is a combination of church and state, that is the papacy, so the papacy when it recovers the power of the state in order to be able to enforce its decrees it will once again have not only the sword of the word, but it will have the sword of the civil power.
Now some people believe that the deadly wound was healed in the year 1801; it is a little-known fact even in Adventist circles that are new Pope was elected just three-and-a-half years after the deadly wound was given in February of 1798, not only was a new pope elected in 1801 but this Pope was also allowed to retain his Italian principalities, and to retain his possessions, so some people say the deadly wound was healed in the year 1801. separation of church and state
Allow me to read you a statement from an historian Arthur Robert Pennington, about Napoleon’s concordat with the papacy in the year 1801, this is what he says. separation of church and state
Napoleon felt that, as the large majority of the inhabitants of France knew no other form of faith than Romanism, it must become the established religion of the country. Accordingly we find that he now began negotiations with the Pope which issued in a Concordat in July, of 1801, whereby the Roman Catholic religion was once more established in France he also left Pious in possession of his Italian principality.
So once again there’s a pope, and he has his Italian principalities, Why is 1801 not the healing of the deadly wound? There are several reasons, first of all Bible, prophecy says as we’re going to notice that it will be the United states of America that will heal the deadly wound, that will return the sword to the beast. Secondly, we know that after the Pope was placed on his throne again in 1801 there was no Country in Europe that wanted anything to do with him, the image of the beast was not raised up, the mark of the beast was not imposed on pain of not being able to buy or sell, or on pain of being killed.
In fact we know that the power of the papacy was severely restricted by the French government even though there was a new pope, for example the bishops were elected by the state, and the clergy was also paid by the state, and the Pope’s had to give an oath of allegiance to the Government of France. So 1801 was not the healing of the deadly wound, the sword was not returned to the papacy in 1801, the whole world did not wonder after the papacy, nobody in the world wanted to worship an image, or much less received the mark of this power, in fact the powers of Europe didn’t raise one finger to help the papacy when it fell in the year 1798. separation of church and state
Now another little little known fact by Adventists, is that the papacy received a further deadly wound in September of the Year eighteen seventy, in other words September twenty, eighteen seventy, this date Victor Emmanuel II who was king of Italy, confiscated the papal states, in other words Italy was composed of a series of like little countries which were known as the papal States, these were confiscated by Victor Emmanuel II, and he said, you’re not going to have any dominion over Italy again. He lost most of his territory, in fact he only was left, the Pope was only left with a few buildings there in the Vatican.
In protest pope Pius IX, and his successors proclaimed themselves under house house arrest, and from 1870 through the year 1929, no pope stepped outside the Vatican, no popes stepped out of the buildings that had been conferred, or allowed by the Italian government for them to retain. By the way Pius ar Pius IX was quite a pope, he ruled the longest of any Pope in history, 46 years was his period of rule, and there in his period of rule he greatly alienated the countries of Europe who wanted democracy, and he greatly alienated the United States of America. First of all he was very instrumental in the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854, this really infuriated Protestants in the United States, also he published the syllabus of errors in the year 1864 where he railed against democratic governments and against the separation of church and state, and against the idea that the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t the only true church in the world. That further alienated the nations of Europe, and alienated the United States of America; and then of course he was the one who called Vatican Council I in 1870 where the dogma of papal infallibility was proclaimed, and this was the final straw, this really infuriated the governments of Europe, and infuriated the United States as well. separation of church and state
Now some Adventists have believed that the deadly wound was healed in the year 1929, But was the deadly wound really healed in the year 1929? Actually there are several reasons why the wound was not healed in 1929.
You say, What happened in 1929? Well for those who are well-versed in history, you’ll notice that what happened in 1929 was that the government of Italy returned the Vatican to the papacy, and once again allowed them to have an independent separate government within the country of Italy.
And that was done by a concordat, or by an agreement between the Italian government and the Vatican.
You say, Why wasn’t the deadly wound healed in 1929? Allow me to share several reasons, first of all, this Concordat that was signed between the Vatican and the Italian government had nothing to do with the wound that was given to the papacy in 1798, it had everything to do with the healing of the wound that was given to the papacy in the year 1870. I’m gonna prove that to you, so it deals nothing with the wound that was given in fulfillment of prophecy in 1798, it has everything to do with the healing of the wound that was given in the year 1870. separation of church and state
Further more, prophecy makes it very clear that it will be the United States of America that will heal the deadly wound, and in this case it was Italy that made the agreement. See 1801 cannot be it because it was France, 1929 cannot be the healing of the wound, because it was Italy, Bible prophecy contemplates the United States being instrumental in healing the deadly wound.
Furthermore the whole world did not wonder after the Beast after the year 1929, the image was not raised up, and the mark of the beast was not imposed, so the question is. Where did Adventists get the idea that the deadly wound was healed in the year 1929?
The answer is because of an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, the same day in which this agreement was signed between the papacy and the Italian government, it’s an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on the 11th of February, of the year 1929, and I want you to notice what the title of that article was “Vatican again at peace with Italy after long quarrel” that’s the large lettering, and then it’s small lettering you have this subtitle “Heal Wound of Many Years” I want to read to you the the portion of the article where Adventists have gotten the idea that the deadly wound was healed in 1929, It says here, and I’m only going to read the portion that has directly to do with the the wording that appears to fulfill revelation 13. I quote.
The Roman question tonight was a thing of the past, and the Vatican was at peace with Italy, the formal accomplishment of this today, was the exchange of signatures in the historic palace of St. John Lateran by two noteworthy plenipotentiaries; Cardinal Gasparri for the Pope Pius XI, and premier Mussolini for King Victor
Emmanuel III, in affixing the autographs (that is the signatures) to the memorable document healing the wound (see there’s the expression healing the wound, but now notice) which has festered since 1870, extreme cordiality was displayed on both sides.
To what did that article refer to, to the deadly wound of 1798? No, To the deadly wound of what? 1870, it ended the 59 years of self-imposed house arrest by the Pope’s, so in other words the deadly wound did not heal because it was the wrong wound, secondly it was a wrong nation, the United States is going to heal the deadly wound, every country of the world did not follow the Beast, did not worship the Beast, the image was not raised up, and the mark was not given.
So we need to be very careful about using the newspapers to try and give a meaning to Bible prophecy, we must better understand Bible prophecy, and then go and understand what we find in the newspapers. Now the question is then if the deadly wound has not been healed, why hasn’t it been healed, what is it that keeps the mortal wound in place? I’d like to read a statement by Malachi Martin, ever heard of Malachi Martin, the man who wrote, this Jesuit who wrote the book “The Keys of This Blood” in 1986 he wrote this, separation of church and state
For 1,500 years and more, Rome had kept as strong a hand as possible in each local community around the wide world (So for over 1,500 years Rome had kept a strong hand in every local community around the wide world and then he says this), by and large and admitting some exceptions, that had been the Roman view (In other words dominating every local community) That had been the Roman view until 200 years of inactivity had been imposed upon the papacy by the major secular powers of the world.
What is it that keeps the deadly wound in place? Malachi Martin doesn’t really, or didn’t really understand what he was saying here as it fulfilled Bible prophecy, he did understand what he was saying in the sense that it’s true, but he did not understand how this fulfills the prophecy of revelation 13, because he’s saying 200 years. Now if you go back from 1986, 200 years where does it take you too, very close to 1798 when the deadly wound was given, and he says what keeps the deadly wound in place, the inactivity in place, is the fact that inactivity has been imposed upon the papacy by the major secular powers of the world, in other words by the states of the world.
Ellen White agrees with Malachi Martin, only she wrote about a hundred years earlier than he did, in the book the Great Controversy page 564 Ellen white says this about the healing of the deadly wound,
Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments (did you catch that) let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed, and Rome be reinstated in her former power and there would speedily be a revival (that’s giving new life isn’t it) a revival of her tyranny and persecution.
So what is Ellen White saying? She’s saying that if the restraints are taken away. And who puts the restraints? The secular governments. She says.
So what is the healing of the deadly wound folks? The healing of the deadly wound is when the sword that the papacy used, the sword of the state that it used during the 1260 years, is restored to it after 200 or more years of inactivity, the deadly wound will be healed because she will be able to behave as she did in the past, the sword that wounded her will be returned to her, and she will once more be able to kill with a sword. Are you understanding what I’m saying?
Now John W Robbins, a reformed theologian in his book ecclesiastical megalomania also saw this, I want to read a rather lengthy statement from his pen where he says this.
Ayn Rand, was right when she wrote in 1967: The Catholic Church has never given up the hope to re-establish (by the way that means healing of the wound in different terms) to reestablish the medieval union of church and state, with a global state and a global theocracy as its ultimate goal. The Roman church-state is a hybrid a monster of ecclesiastical and political power. Its political thought is totalitarian, and whenever it has had the opportunity to apply its principles, the result has been bloody repression, if, during the last 30 years it has softened it’s assertions of full, supreme, and irresponsible power, and has murdered fewer people than before, such changes in behavior are not due to a change in its ideas, but to a change in its circumstances. (In other words if it slays people with a sword it has nothing to do with a change of character, but with a change of circumstances. Now what is the change of circumstances? He continues saying, and I
don’t believe that he understands revelation 13 the way we do, he says) The Roman church-state in the 20th century, however is an institution recovering from a mortal wound. If and when (I would eliminate the if part) if and when, it regains (by the way is at the healing of the deadly wound?) if and when it regains its full power and authority, it will impose a regime more sinister than any the planet has yet seen.
You understand a little better what the deadly wound is, you understand the idea of the two swords, to whom does the sword of the Spirit belong, the church, how do you use it? By what by cutting people’s heads off; right. No, by preaching to the power of the Holy spirit persuading, if people reject, God will judge them by that same word in the last day, but the church cannot do the judging they can excommunicate the person from fellowship in the church but they can’t impose civil penalties.
The state also has a sword, it is to preserve the civil order not to help the church but to preserve the civil order, the laws of the state in other words. Now the question is, How is this deadly wound going to be healed,who is going to be instrumental in healing it? Go with me to Revelation 13 and verse 11, here we find an introduction to the power that will heal the deadly wound. You see there’s a second beast in Revelation 13, it says there in Revelation 13 verse 11 separation of church and state
then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like (a what?) and spoke like a dragon.’
Now that’s interesting that’s why the title of this lecture is Prophecies Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or we could call this beast a schizophrenic beast, because we’re told here that it has two horns like a lamb, but it speaks like a dragon, now I want you to notice something important here. The prophecy does not say that it’s two horns like a lamb are broken off, and then it speaks like a dragon, no, we’re told that while it still has the two horns like a lamb on its head simultaneously at the same time it speaks like what? It speaks like a dragon. separation of church and state
Now my question is, What does the dragon represent in prophecy? Well actually it represents two things, it represents Satan of course, the Devil and Satan, but the dragon also represents Rome, doesn’t the Bible say that the dragon stood next to the woman to devour the child as soon as the child was born?
Yes, Absolutely. Now who was it that stood next to Jesus to try and slay Jesus when Jesus was born? It was Herod the Great, according to Matthew 2 and verse 16, so the dragon represents Satan, but it also
represents the power of what? Of Rome, and then you notice that this dragon that has ten horns, he gives his seat and his power and authority to the beast, so I ask you, does the beast also do the bidding’s of Rome, you’re not with me are you? of course if it receives its seat of power and authority from the dragon it must be a power that does what the dragon says, and then we find this beast that has two horns like a lamb but it speaks like a dragon. It must mean that it not only speaks like Satan but it also speaks like what?
It speaks like Rome, exactly according to Bible prophecy. Now I want you to notice a statement from Great Controversy page 442 where it refers to the speaking of this beast. Now what does a beast represent in Bible
prophecy? A beast represents a nation, or a kingdom, and we’re told in Revelation 13 that this beast that rises from the earth does what? He speaks. what must this mean? It must mean that the nation represented by this beast in some way speaks, But it speaks like who? Like the dragon, it speaks like Rome, in other words. Now how does a nation speak? A nation speaks through its representative government, a nation speaks through a government of the people by the people and for the people, notice what Ellen White has to say in Great Controversy page 442 she says
The speaking of the nation is the action of its legislative and judicial authorities, by such action it will give the lie to those liberal and peaceful principles which it has put forth as the foundation of its policies.
By the way, if you look at bible prophecy every beast obliterates and destroys the previous beast,
this is the only case where a beast actually helps the previous beast recover its power; interesting. Now let’s talk a little bit about this beast, about this second beast that is going to return the sword to the first beast.
Let me ask you, what does a beast represent? We already said that a beast represents a kingdom, allow me to read you a statement by the great commentator Adam Clark, who by the way was not a Seventh-Day Adventist. He says this about this beast of Revelation 13 verse 11 he says,
As a beast has already been shown to be the symbol of a kingdom or Empire the rising up of this second beast must consequently represent the rising up of another empire.’ Is he right? Of course he is beasts represent kingdoms, in Daniel chapter 7 we have a lion we have a bear we have a leopard we have a dragon beast, in Daniel chapter 8 we have a he goat we have a ram each one of those represents a nation or a kingdom, so in Revelation 13: 11 this must be a kingdom or a nation, but now we must ask about the two horns like a lamb.
What do these horns represent? Well the fact is that in the Adventist Church we’ve always said that the two horns represent two principles, and I believe that by extension the two horns represent two principles, but what I believe is that these two horns actually represent two kingdoms. The two kingdoms represented by the two swords. You say how do you know that? Well allow me to read you a statement first of all from Adam Clark that great Bible commentator who was not an Adventist, and then we’re going to go to the Bible to prove this. He says this
As the seven-headed beast is represented as having ten horns, which signifies so many kingdoms lead together to support the Latin church, so the Beast which rises out of the earth also has two horns, which must consequently represent two kingdoms, for if horns of a beast mean kingdoms in one part of the Apocalypse, kingdoms must be intended by this symbol whenever it is used in a similar way in any other part of this book.
Is he right? See we can’t say that the ten horns on the dragon Beast represent kingdoms, and the two horns that are found on the head of the ram represent kingdoms, that horns represent kingdoms, but here the two horns like a lamb don’t represent kingdoms. In some way horns represent kingdoms, so what we have here is one nation composed of how many kingdoms? One nation composed of two kingdoms, now you say. Is there any biblical precedent to that? Absolutely; go with me to Daniel chapter, 8 the closest biblical parallel, Daniel chapter 8 and verse 3 and also verse 20, it says there in verse 3
Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the River was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last.
So we have a ram, How many beasts? Just one right, a ram, And the ram has how many horns? Two horns. So how many kingdoms are we talking about here? We’re talking about one nation, but that nation is composed of two what? Two kingdoms, notice verse 20, the interpretation the Bible gives very clearly.
The ram which you saw, having the two horns – they are the kings of media and Persia.
So you have one nation composed of two what? Two kingdoms side-by-side. so in Revelation chapter 13 you must have one nation because you have one beast, but this one nation has to have in its midst two what? Two kingdoms. Now the question is, What kind of kingdoms?
Do you know that this is the only time in bible prophecy where the kind of horns are identified, in all other places it simply says horns, but here it says horns like a lamb, that must be an important detail if that distinction is made, now do you know the revelation the word lamb is used 29 times, in every single time that the word lamb is used it applies to Jesus Christ.
So somehow these two kingdoms must be kingdoms that Jesus what? That Jesus taught, and Jesus recognized, because there are two horns like a lamb and the horns represent what? Kingdoms. And the beast is a nation, so it must be a nation that is composed, or recognizes two kingdoms and they are the same two kingdoms that who recognized? Jesus. Because their horns like the horns of a lamb.
Now you’re saying what two kingdoms did Jesus recognize, what two kingdoms did the lamb recognize? Go with me to Matthew 22 and verse 15, see scripture interprets scripture, this is when Jesus had the discussion over whether your supposed to pay taxes or not, it says there, beginning in verse 15
Then the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, nor do you care about anyone, for you do not regard the person of men. (In other words you don’t make any distinction between one person and others, people are people verse 17) Tell us, therefore, what do you think? is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?
Now Jesus knew that if he said yes the Jews would be against Him because they hate paying taxes to Caesar, but he also knew that if he said no don’t pay taxes to Caesar he would have the Roman government against him, and so Jesus had to go the indirect route verse 18
But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said. ‘why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show me the tax money.’ So they brought him a denarius. And he said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ (In other words whose face is on this coin and whose name is on it) They said to him ‘Caesar’s’ And He said to them render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Let me ask you did Jesus teach the existence of two separate kingdom? Yes One kingdom was the church, and the other Kingdom was what? The state, the power of the state, the power of the state belong to Caesar. Whereas the power of the other Kingdom belong to God, so let me ask you, were there two kingdoms in the one Roman Empire according to Jesus? Absolutely; there were, by the way in a private conversation between Jesus and pilot, we once again see that Jesus believed in two separable kingdoms within the Roman Empire.
You remember that Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, and Jesus said indeed I am. Notice what else he said in John 18 and verse 36 Jesus said
My Kingdom is not of this world.
Is Jesus recognizing the existence of two kingdoms here? Of course, he says my kingdom is not of this world so there’s two Kingdoms, His, and the world’s; he says
If My Kingdom were of this world my servants would fight.
In other words they would take out the sword of the civil power the material sword and they would fight
so that I should not be delivered to the Jews but now My Kingdom is not from here.
Does Jesus here explicitly state that his followers are not to use the sword to defend and advance His kingdom? Very clearly, His kingdom does not involve fighting with the physical sword,
His Kingdom conquers the world by preaching the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit with the sword of the Spirit; that is at the same time.
Did Jesus recognize the divinely ordained legitimacy of the civil power of Rome? He most certainly did. Notice John chapter 19 verse 11 Jesus is going to tell Pilot you could have no power at all against me unless it had been given you from above. So did Pilot receive his right to rule from above, was his Kingdom legitimately given to him by God? Absolutely two Kingdoms in one Empire, the Kingdom of Jesus which is the church, and the Kingdom of Rome which is the Kingdom of the State.
By the way it’s a sobering fact that Jesus was killed by an unholy alliance between church and state, similar to the one that existed during the period of papal supremacy. When the Jewish Sanhedrin, which by the way was the Church of that day and age, took Jesus before Pilate that is before the State, they had every intention of executing the death penalty against Jesus.
But as a church they had no authority to execute the death penalty they needed the sword of the civil government to execute Jesus Christ, in a certain rudimentary way folks, Pilot recognize the existence of two separate Kingdoms, Pilot himself had it clearer than God’s own people, because he said to the Jewish leaders, he said, you take him and judge him according to your law.
So you have two sets of laws, you have the law of God which is the law of the church, and he said you judge Him by your law. I have my own laws, my civil laws of the state, thus pilot, perhaps inadvertently, recognized that there were two kingdoms with two separate laws within one nation, Rome.
But then the church leaders revealed to Pilot what they really had in mind, they said in John 18:36 ‘
It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death
In other words they couldn’t execute the death penalty, they needed the help of the state, they needed the help of Pilot in order to give the decree to kill Jesus Christ, remarkably Pilot publicly announced several times that Jesus had committed no crime, at least three times than I can count.
He said this man is innocent, I see no crime, He hasn’t broken any laws of mine, no laws of the civil government, yet he condemned an innocent man to death, under the direction of the Jewish Church of that day and age.
Rome became the sword in the hands of the Church, of that day and age to slay Jesus Christ. Now you tell me in what way is that different than what happened in the Middle Ages? Not at all.
By the way in John 19 and verse 12 we find these words, from then on pilots sought to release him but the Jews cried out, saying if you let this man go you are not Caesars friend whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.
This is the reason why Pilate gave up an innocent man to be killed, it was because of political expediency, he did not want to lose his political position, and therefore he delivered an innocent man to be killed. Now let me ask you this, what Kingdom that arose around 1798 recognized explicitly, in its founding documents the legitimate simultaneous existence of two kingdoms in one nation the same kingdoms that Jesus believed in. The answer folks is unmistakable and irrefutable; there’s only one nation around 1798 that recognize these two kingdoms within one nation, in its founding documents by its founding fathers.
Let’s review a little bit about the history of the United States of America, the history of the United States can be divided into two great periods, the colonial period which is from 1620 to about 1776 we’ll say, from the time that the Declaration of Independence was signed, and the constitutional period which we would say is from 1776, till the present time.
The Constitutional fathers of the United States, this is the second great period of history of the United States, the constitutional fathers of this country such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and others, recognize three very important things, they knew ,three very important things, first of all, they knew the history of the church in the middle ages, secondly they knew the history of the united states in the colonial period, and in the third place they knew their Bibles.
First of all they knew the history of a church in the Middle Ages, in fact you know this just dawned on me recently, they were actually living in the closing years of the 1260 year prophecy.
Have you ever stopped to think that the declaration of independence in 1776, the constitution in 1787, and the bill of rights in 1791, all were put in place before the papacy received his deadly wound. In other words the founding fathers were living in the period when the papacy was reaching its final moments of Dominion.
The constitutional fathers knew that when the church and the state are joined together the inevitable result is a denial of civil rights and persecution. They knew all about the mechanism of the Inquisition, they knew very well the history of what happened to John Hus when he was delivered to the stake to be exterminated because his religious views were different than the views of the church. separation of church and state
They knew that: And they said we are not going to have a system of government like that which existed in the middle ages. The constitutional father’s also knew all about the history of the Colonial period of the United States, they knew that atheists, Jews, Quakers, Baptists, and others were deprived of their civil rights because they did not agree with the established religion or the
established church of the Colonies. They knew about Sunday laws that compelled people to attend church on pain of fines, flogging, imprisonment and in one case, death. They knew that only members of the established church could serve in official positions of the civil government, they knew that people’s taxes were used by the government to remunerate pastors of the established churches, they knew all about Roger Williams who was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for strict teaching of separation of church and state, they knew all about how he established Rhode Island, they knew how for three weeks had to flee in the dead of winter because he had been banished from the colonies.
They said the Constitution of the United States is going to establish a power totally different than during the Colonial period. When church and state were joined together and as a result people were deprived of their civil rights and liberties, the system we’re going to establish is different than that which existed in the Middle Ages when church and state were joined together, we’re going to have a different type of government. And by the way as we will notice in a few moments the founding fathers also knew their Bibles very well, much more than Christians know their Bibles today, if Christians followed what the Bible says they would not be playing with fire at this time with making overtures to the Roman Catholic papacy. separation of church and state
Now in 1776 as we all know the Declaration of Independence was signed, and the basic idea was that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was revolutionary in itself; 1787 the constitution of the united states was ratified and in 1791 the Bill of Rights the first ten amendments to the Constitution was also approved. I must underline that all of this happened immediately before the papacy received its deadly wound, in other words as the first power was coming to its end the next power was rising to take its place. The constitutional father’s folks, believed in the existence of two swords, but they believe that these two swords were to remain separate, the church was to use the Spiritual sword of the Spirit to persuade while the state was to use the material sword to preserve the civil order. separation of church and state
We might call these two principles Republicanism and Protestantism. You say well those are two principles, the two horns represent two kingdoms, well the fact is that the idea of two principles comes from the idea of two what? Of two kingdoms, the basic ideas that you have two kingdoms, one Kingdom has a style of government which is a Republic, Republicanism and the other Kingdom is Protestantism, which has as its final authority the Bible, or the Word of God. In other words republicanism means a representative civil government, whereas Protestantism represents, or means a representative religious government.
You see during the middle ages all civil matters were decided by the King. Whatever the king said, the people did. In religious matters all decisions were made by the Pope, he was the court of appeal. When the Pope spoke people were required to obey. In other words it was a totalitarian monarchical system of Government.
The King ruled in civil matters, and the Pope ruled in religious matters, but the founding father said that is going to change under this new republic. separation of church and state
Instead of having the power flow from up down we are going to have the power flow from down up, in other words it will be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people a government in which church and state will be kept separate, Each will use their own sword, each will prosper in their own right, people will have full civil rights and they will have full religious rights, to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. separation of church and state
This folks was a revolutionary experiment in the in the history of the world. A government of the people by the people and for the people. I’d like to read a statement that we find in Great Controversy page 441 where Ellen White speaks about the system that existed in the Middle Ages, and the system that the constitutional fathers envisioned. She said this, and this is on page 441.
Among the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance (what two kingdoms do we have represented in those two statements, what would royal oppression be? A monarchichal State Government, right. And priestly intolerance. What would that mean? A religious system where the priesthood dominated and controlled, and dictated. So she says)
Among of the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance were many who determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation (now notice this) of civil and religious liberty (are those the two horns? They most certainly are, a state without a king, and a church without a pope, if you please she continued saying) their views found place in the Declaration of Independence which sets forth the great truth that all men are created equal and endowed with the inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right of self-government providing that representatives elected by the popular wrote shall enact and administer the laws. (then she says this) Freedom of religious faith was also granted, (you see the two ideas) freedom of religious faith was also granted every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. (Then she says this) Republicanism (that is the representative style of State Government) and Protestantism (A representative style of church government, she says) became the fundamental principles of the nation. These principles (listen to this) are the secret of its power and prosperity.
You see things happening in these United States, tornadoes ,and floods and disasters and economic woes, you say well you know it’s the devil. Yes, ultimately it is the devil; but Ellen White says that the secret to the power and prosperity the United States is not in its military, it is not in its financial resources, it is not in its people, the secret of power and prosperity is found in the idea of a government by the people in church and state separate from one another. Two kingdoms within one nation. By the way do you know that all of us probably, perhaps not all of us but most of us here are citizens of the United States. Do you realize that right now you’re members of two kingdoms in this one nation, the United States. How many of you are Church members? Raise your hands, you’re church members. So do you belong to Christ’s Kingdom? Yes; How many of you are citizens of the United States, so do you have dual citizenship?
Yes; But you have dual citizenship citizenship in one nation, in the United States of America. Are those the two Kingdoms that Jesus Christ recognized? Yes, Two horns like what? Like a lamb.
She also says in Great Controversy
The founders of the nation wisely sought to guard against the employment of secular power on the part of the church, with its inevitable result, intolerance and persecution.
You know it’s becoming very fashionable today among right-wing evangelicals, and Catholics to say that separation of church and state was established to protect the rights of the church from the encroachment of the State. But just the opposite is true, history, particularly history of the middle ages and of the colonial period shows clearly that the greater danger is for the church to try and use the state to accomplish its purposes. separation of church and state
In fact today many right-wing evangelicals and Roman Catholics love to say that the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitution. This is true, if you mean that the actual expression separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. But the concept of the separation of church and state is clearly and explicitly taught in the Constitution of the United States, specifically in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Allow me to read the first amendment. By the way, do you know that in the First Amendment you have these two horns like a lamb? The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees religious rights, and civil rights, there you have in the First Amendment engraved in the First Amendment the two horns like a lamb the two kingdoms that Jesus Christ recognized, the two horns like the horns of a lamb. Notice what the First Amendment says, separation of church and state
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Many today are reinterpreting that, and they’re saying well what the First Amendment forbids is establishing a religion above another religion, or a church above another church. The fact is the First Amendment does not say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or a church, it says religion. In other words Congress cannot make any law that has anything to do with religion.
That’s the first Clause, of the First Amendment. Now what is the second Clause? It says.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That’s why they became known as the “Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause”. In other words, Congress cannot make any law that establishes any religious observance, or forbids people from practicing their religion according to the dictates of their conscience. But it’s interesting to notice that the First Amendment continues by guaranteeing civil rights, this is what the rest of the First Amendment says. I read the whole thing again. separation of church and state
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…
Is that a civil right? You know people say it’s my first amendment right. Unfortunately we never say it’s my first amendment responsibility, but anyway. separation of church and state
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (that’s a civil right), or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I underline once again folks; that the First Amendment does not merely forbid the establishment of a church, or a religion above another; the First Amendment forbids establishing, or forbiding the free exercise of religion; period.
In this sense, the Constitution clearly contains the concept of separation of church and state because, the First Amendment forbids the state to make laws establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thus the state can have nothing to do with religion, except to protect everyone’s right to practice it freely, according to the dictates of their conscience.
By the way Thomas Jefferson, the architect of the constitution in the eyes of many, in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists Association 1802, explained what he understood the first amendment to mean; this is what he said.
Believing with you, that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith, or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, (and then he explains by saying) thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Do you think Thomas Jefferson knew more about the meaning of the First Amendment than scholars today, who claim to know so much about the First Amendment? separation of church and state
Obviously; he was one of the ones who participated in the writing and the approving of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
He says what it means is that there is a wall of separation between “Church and state!”
So did the founding fathers then understand that there are two swords? Yes they did.
Did they understand that there are two kingdoms? They most certainly did. Did they put those two ideas in the Constitution of the United States in the Bill of Rights? Absolutely. separation of church and state
Now the Constitution doesn’t have the the expression ‘separation of church and state’, but that’s the way in which Thomas Jefferson understood the meaning of the first amendment. By the way, it’s very interesting that the moment that a State, establishes religious observances, people lose their civil rights.
Is that right? Let’s take a case that is not Christianity, let’s take for example, the Taliban. Remember the Taliban, who were in Afghanistan, is that a union of church and state in Islam?
Of course it is, they had a repressive style of government.
Were people deprived of their civil rights, did they impose their view of religion?
Most certainly! – So did their view of religion infringe on people’s civil rights? separation of church and state
You know people couldn’t play soccer, you couldn’t have a free press, You know people could not shave off their beard, if people disagreed with the religion they were shot in the head, one of the ultimate civil rights and an inalienable right in the sight of God, is the right to life. And so what would be different between Christianity using the state to enforce religion, or Islam using the state to enforce religion, is there really any difference? separation of church and state
There is absolutely no difference folks, and this is something that many people who belong to the evangelical movement do not understand, and that is that when you join church and state the result is a loss of civil rights and ultimately persecution. separation of church and state
Now you remember that I mentioned that the founding fathers understood their Bibles, they knew the content of their Bibles. Now I’m going to give you a few illustrations from Scripture of how the Bible upholds, and actually amplifies the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Let’s think for a few moments about the stories of Daniel: 3 and Daniel: 6.
These two stories actually illustrate what happens when the first two clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution are violated. Let’s go to Daniel: 3 first of all; here we find King Nebuchadnezzar attempting to establish religion.
Would you agree with that, that he tried to establish religion?
Yeah, he raised up an image. And he said what? Everyone; all peoples nations and tongues must worship this image. So is he establishing religion? He most certainly is. What did he say would happened if people did not worship the image that he set up, his established religion?
He said whoever refuses to comply will be cooked in this fiery furnace. Would that entail a loss of a civil right, which is the right to life? Absolutely! – So the minute he establishes religion what happens as a result? – As a result your life is in danger, thus when the King tried to establish religion, this automatically led to persecution against those who failed to comply. separation of church and state
Let me ask you, Were these three young men respectful of the authority of the King; of his legitimate civil commands, were they respectful, did they obey? They most certainly did, but, when the King crossed the line, between the separation of religion, and the civil power; they drew the line in the sand.
And they said, you are exercising a power that does not belong to you. Let me ask you, how much of a court of appeal did the three young men have? separation of church and state
The King, who established religion by the power of the State, had all the power in his hands, in fact Ellen White says that when Nebuchadnezzar said,
and what God will be able to deliver you from my hand.
She says that ‘his face looked like the face of a demon, and he raised his hand defiantly to heaven. Says ‘who will be able to deliver you from my hand. In other words, he was thinking that he was the last court of appeal and the last protection for God’s people if they did not follow his established religion.
And yet we find that the final court of appeal was in the hands of God; not in the hands of the King, and in spectacular fashion the Bible tells us that these three young men were delivered from the fiery furnace by Jesus Christ himself. He had to overturn the law that was given by the King, to have those three young men killed.
Now the story of Daniel: 6 is similar, but it’s different. Because in Daniel chapter 6 we see what happens when the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is violated, you see in Daniel chapter 6 King Darius did not establish religion. King Darius forbade the free exercise of religion, he says you can’t pray. He’s not saying you have to pray like this; that would be establishing religion, he said you can’t pray to any God, for a period of 30 days. Are you understanding the difference between Daniel: 3 and Daniel: 6? In Daniel 3 Nebuchadnezzar is violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, although the Constitution obviously did not exist, but the principles are in the Bible, because he establishes religion by putting up the images and says everybody has to worship in this way. separation of church and state
But in Daniel: 6 the King is not saying you have to worship this way he’s saying you cannot pray in the way that you normally pray, for a period of 30 days. In other words he’s violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. separation of church and state
Let me ask you what happened as a result; The Bible tells us that once again, all the power seemed to be in the hands of whom? Of the princess, and of the King. And by the way, the king was very very sorry because the Bible tells us that the laws of the Medes and the Persians could not be revoked or changed. In other words it appeared that the last court of appeal had doomed Daniel to death. But the final court of appeal was not the King, the final court of appeal was God. And Daniel who trusted in his God, the Bible says when he was thrown into that den of lions, all that night those Lions behaved like they were just simply house cats, they did nothing whatsoever to Daniel. separation of church and state
The angel of God was sent into that Lions Den to deliver Daniel from the mouth of the Lions, in other words when they exercise their right to free exercise of religion, when the three friends of Daniel exercise their rights in spite of the King establishing religion it looked like all of the power is in the hands of the state, but the final court of appeal was actually found in the hands of God. By the way, after these two episodes, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius still didn’t get the point that God was trying to teach them, because immediately after the three young men are delivered from the fiery furnace Nebuchadnezzar says.
Now I give a decree that if anyone says anything bad about about the God of these three young men, they’re going to be cut in pieces, their houses are going to be razed to the ground because there’s no God who could deliver like this one.
Once again he’s establishing religion, and with Darius, after Daniel is delivered from the Lions, Darius gives a decree and he says,
I now give a decree that everyone is obligated to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel;
they still did not get the point, that you cannot establish or forbid the free exercise of true religion, or a false religion for that matter. Because the conscience belongs to man’s relationship with God. separation of church and state
Now you say what does all this have to do with the end time? The fact is that Ellen White has stated in harmony with what we find in Revelation chapter 13, that the United States of America is going to come to the point where it will violate both the first and the second Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The United States will once again join church and state, in fact it will restore the sword to the Beast that was wounded by the sword, it will take that sword of the state, by joining church and state and it will return it to the beast, and once again persecution will ensue, in fact Ellen White explains that this second beast that has two horns like a lamb but speaks like a dragon, is actually going to establish the observance of Sunday as the day of worship, and eventually the United States is not only going to establish Sunday as a day of worship, the United States is going to forbid your right to keep the Sabbath. separation of church and state
In other words both the establishment and the Free Exercise clauses to the Constitution are going to be violated. This is what the Bible means when it says that this nation; this beast has two horns like a lamb. In other words it has these two principles based on the idea of two kingdoms. In its first amendment to the Constitution of the United States it confesses these two Kingdom as Christ believed in, separate from one another for civil and religious liberty. But at the same time that it has this idea of two kingdoms, or two principals. At the very same time it is going to speak like what? It is going to speak like a dragon, it is going to speak like Rome when Rome had the sword in its hand. separation of church and state
Ellen White has said this in the book Maranatha, page 177. She said,
The time will come when men will not only forbid Sunday work, but they will try to force men to labor on the Sabbath.
Now then not only will they try to force you to observe Sunday, but they will try to keep you from observing the Sabbath, that is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, she continued saying.
And Men will be asked to renounce the Sabbath and to subscribe to Sunday observance, (now notice this) or forfeit their freedom and their lives.
Civil rights, yes or no? Absolutely
But the time for this has not get come, for the truth must be presented more fully before the people as a witness.
Now somebody might ask and say Pastor Bohr. Wouldn’t the establishment of Sunday by Congress as a national day of rest be a clear violation of the First Amendment and thus be unconstitutional? separation of church and state
I mean it’s a no-brainer isn’t it? And wouldn’t a congressional law forbidding the observance of the Sabbath also be a violation of the First Amendment and thus also unconstitutional?
The fact is that any rational person in the United States would be willing to say that a Sunday law, or a law forbidding the observance of the Sabbath would be unconstitutional. It’s a clear infringement of the First Amendment of the Constitution which says that Congress can make No law enforcing religion, or establishing religion, and can make no law forbidding you to practice your religion or the free exercise of religion. separation of church and state
I’m quite sure that when the time comes, the constitutionality of a Sunday law will be questioned, in fact the Federal Government will be taken to court. Folks where not to expect the eradication of the First Amendment of the Constitution, in other words it’s not that they’re going to remove the First Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, they’re going to keep that, but at the same time they’re going to write, Congress is going to write laws that are clearly unconstitutional, because they establish religion, and they forbid the free exercise of religion. separation of church and state
In other words this schizophrenic beast if you please, this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde beast is going to have the two horns like a Lamb and it’s going to say we believe in in the separation of church and state, and we believe that there’s two kingdoms in the United States of America, we believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution; but, by their actions they’re going to contradict what the First Amendment to the Constitution actually teaches, and has to say.
In fact, if I read the Spirit of Prophecy correctly, and I’ve read several statements. What is going to happen is that the Supreme Court is going to declare unconstitutional laws constitutional. Now let me talk a little bit about our system of government.
Our system of government is composed of three branches, like in many other nations, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. As you know, the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch and forces the laws, and the judicial branch, interprets the laws. I frequently ask people which of these three branches of government is more powerful? And most of them say oh, it’s the executive branch, but actually folks, the most powerful branch of government is the judicial, particularly the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And why is this? separation of church and state
The answer is actually very very simple; Congress can write a law, but if the Supreme Court declares that law unconstitutional the bill dies and will not become a law, the flip side is also true. Congress can draw up a bill for a law that is unconstitutional, but if the Supreme Court declares that law constitutional, it will be enforced. If you don’t think that the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government, remember election 2000, there was a lot of finagling and fighting lawyers and Supreme Court of Florida here and there getting involved; but when the Supreme Court said George W Bush is the President of the United States: case closed, it is finished. separation of church and state
There are now five Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and by the way, this is no reflection on them as persons; But it’s significant that they belong to the Roman Catholic Church, which means that they believe in the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. The chief justice in fact John Roberts is a Roman Catholic, also Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito.
There’s nothing to indicate that the trend of naming Roman Catholic judges is going to change anytime soon, and I can almost guarantee you that if we have a conservative candidate that wins the presidency of the United States, we will have more Roman Catholic judges on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Because several of the liberal judges on the court are getting up in years, and most likely they will be replaced within the next eight years or so.
Can we fathom what it will be like to have seven or more Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States, with the idea of the Union of Church and State, and with their loyalty to Rome. Allow me to read you what Ellen White has to see in the Review and Herald December 11 1888, she says separation of church and state
They (that is Christians) do not see that if a Protestant government sacrifices the principles that have made them a free independent nation and through legislation brings into the Constitution, principles that will propagate papal falsehood and papal delusion, they are plunging into the Roman horrors of the dark ages.
And you might say, well Ellen White is being alarmist here; Isn’t it true that the Supreme Court justices are patriotic Americans, and that they would never return the United States to what it was in the middle ages, to what the power was during the middle ages?
The fact is that Ellen White has this to say about individuals who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and these people on the Supreme Court are not just any Roman Catholics, they’re super educated Roman Catholics; Great Controversy page 580 Ellen White says. separation of church and state
The Roman Catholic Church, with all its ramifications throughout the world, forms one vast organization under the control, and designed to serve the interests of the papal see, its millions of communicants, in every country on the globe are instructed to hold themselves as bound in allegiance to the Pope. (all over the world) Whatever their nationality, or their government they are to regard the authority of the church as above all other, though they may take the oath pledging their loyalty to the State, yet back of this lies the vow of obedience to Rome, absolving them from every pledge inimical to their own interests.
Ellen White further describes what is going to happen in these United States of America in the book Maranatha page 179 she says this is really tragic and sad, you know; I’m, a patriotic American. I love these United States of America, maybe because of the principles upon which it stands which are divine principles, the principles that Jesus believed in the two kingdoms separated from one another, the two swords separated from one another, that’s what makes this country the greatest country in the history of the world. Is the principles upon which it was built; that’s why this is so saddening, she says.
When the land which the Lord provided as an asylum for His people that they might worship Him according to the dictates of their own consciences, the land over which for long years the shield of Omnipotence has been spread, the land which God is favored by making it the depository, the depository of a pure religion of Christ: when that land, through its legislators, abjures the principles of Protestantism, and give countenance to Romish apostasy in tampering with God’s law, it is then that the final work of the man of sin will be revealed. (and then she makes this amazing statement) Protestants will throw their whole influence and strength on the side of the papacy, by a national act (what is the national act? that has to be federal law; Right not only State but Federal she says) by a national act, enforcing the false Sabbath, (Now notice the terminology) they will give life and vigor (is that the healing of the deadly wound, so is the healing future? Absolutely) they will give life and vigor to the corrupt faith of Rome reviving (See there’s the word again) reviving her tyranny and oppression of conscience, then it will be time for God to work in mighty power for the vindication of His truth.
In other words the united states of America will form a mirror reflection of the beast, it will make an image of that beast that united church and state. Because that’s what characterized that beast in the Middle Ages during the 1260 years. A Joining of church and state, a mirror image would be a similar style of government and this nation will impose the mark of the beast which is the change in the law that the papacy made during the 1260 years. separation of church and state
During the middle ages the beast thought that he could change the law of God, by changing the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday. The second beast is going to enforce this change, and the whole world will be led to follow the example of the United States of America. And you say how in the world Pastor Bohr could the whole world follow the United States of America in enforcing a Sunday law when the reputation of the United States is so bad all over the world?
The fact is folks that we haven’t seen anything of what’s going to happen in this world yet, we think things are bad, let me tell you that it is only when you have an economic collapse, unparalleled natural disasters, unheard of crime, and spectacular communications from the spirit world, as Ellen White said saying, we have come from the dead sent by God to tell you that you’re supposed to keep Sunday as the day of rest, only in the midst of incredible events, worldwide events and communications from people who purportedly are the dead, then you are going to see real strange things happen in the United States of America for national survivals sake. Ellen White has said this, Testimonies volume 6 page 18 separation of church and state
As America the land of religious liberty shall unite with the papacy (listen to this) shall unite with the papacy, enforcing the conscience, and compelling men to honor the false Sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example it will be a universal union of church and state a universal Sunday law imposed by the different States.
In Great Controversy Page 566 Ellen White has said
Protestants have tampered with, and patronized popery, they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are surprised to see, and fail to understand. (how in the world can Protestants do this, this is too good to be true, even Catholics can’t understand the concessions that Protestants are making, she continued saying) men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism, and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the advances (now notice this) the people (that is us folks) the people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty.
Do we have same two principles all over again there? Absolutely. separation of church and state
Now you say how in the world would legislators proclaim a national Sunday law and ultimately a universal Sunday law when they realize that it’s unconstitutional, how would they ever do something like that, how would they proclaimed persecution against God’s people. When they know that Congress can’t make any law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, how could they do something like that? separation of church and state
The fact is the same reason for which Pilot delivered an innocent man. Listen to these statements as we bring this to a close. Testimonies volume 4 page 451, by the way Ellen White is simply amplifying what we already find in Revelation 13 see revelation 13 speaks about this beast the horns we’ve dealt with this biblically we’ve dealt with that historically, you know making the image it’s an image reflection of this system of government that this beast had there in the middle ages in other words we already notice what Scripture and history have to say, now we’re reading a few statements from Ellen White who wrote this during a time when nobody thought that the papacy was going to resurrect the power, nobody wanted to touch the papacy with a ten foot pole when she wrote this. separation of church and state
Because it was during the time of Pius IX, when he angered Europe, and he angered the United States, the United States wanted nothing to do with the papacy. But Ellen White said all there’s the day coming, when the United States is going to profess one thing and it’s going to do another. She says this in testimonies for the church volume 4 page 451
To secure popularity and patronage (by the way that means votes, case you wondered) To secure popularity and patronage, legislators will yield to the demand for a Sunday law.
And even a more direct statement, Review and Herald December 24 1889 she says,
Plans of serious import to the people of God are advancing in an underhanded manner among the clergy men of the various denominations, (is an underhanded work going on among the clergyman of the various denominations and she says) and the object of this secret maneuvering is to win popular favor for the enforcement of Sunday sacredness. If the people can be led to favor a Sunday law then the clergy intend to exert their United influence to obtain a religious amendment to the Constitution, and compel the nation to keep Sunday.
Do you think we’re almost there, by what we see happening in the United States John Paul II’s funeral, three presidents of the United States kneeling before his casket, Ronald Reagan, you know they can Holy alliance with the papacy to overthrow communism, our president today consulting regularly with the papacy on public policy and political matters. The United States as a Protestant nation has no idea what it is entangling itself with; its a system that has not changed, it’s the same system. In fact Ellen White says that behind the variable appearance of the chameleon is the invariable venom of the serpent.
The day is coming folks, when we’re going to have to stand like Daniel and his three friends, when religion is established, when the free exercise of religion is also implemented as law, God’s people will have to do the same thing as those worthies back in the Kingdom of Babylon, in the face of death, God’s people will have to say. We do not recognize the illegitimate authority of the government, to establish religion and to enforce, or takeaway the free exercise of religion. And therefore we will practice civil disobedience because you are going beyond your sphere of authority. separation of church and state
And it will appear like all of the power is in the hands of the rulers, and the religious leaders, but as we found in the story of Daniel three and in the story of Daniel six; the political powers of the world will not have the last word. God will have the last word.
God will intervene in a spectacular fashion, to deliver his people from the threat of death, his people who were faithful to God, who proclaim that it is more necessary to obey God rather than to obey men. Right now we are making decisions that will determine where we will stand in that day. It’s in the small decisions of life where we are preparing for the great decisions of life.
Jesus said he who is faithful in the little, will be faithful in much, Jeremiah said if you ran with with men and you got tired, how do you think you’re going to run with the horses? In other words if you can’t pass a little test now, how are you going to pass the great test later. Folks, as a people we must go out to the world and proclaim these things, let the United States of America know the dangers that we face, so that many that are deceived in this regard, might make their decision to stand with the Lord and be faithful and be saved, ultimately in God’s kingdom.