Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Gebruikersavatar
freek
Berichten: 5711
Lid geworden op: 24 nov 2005, 13:55

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door freek »

albion schreef:
memento schreef:
Theocratie in een land waarin de meerderheid niet-christen is betekend, in uiterste consequentie, een dictatuur...
Zo zag ds. Van der Poel het toch niet (dacht ik)... ;)
Dus?
albion
Berichten: 7514
Lid geworden op: 27 dec 2007, 18:23
Locatie: ergens in nederland

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door albion »

freek schreef:
albion schreef:
memento schreef:
Theocratie in een land waarin de meerderheid niet-christen is betekend, in uiterste consequentie, een dictatuur...
Zo zag ds. Van der Poel het toch niet (dacht ik)... ;)
Dus?
Democratie vond ds. van der Poel niet bijbels.
De halve waarheid is funester dan de onjuistheid (E. von Feuchtersieben)
Gebruikersavatar
memento
Berichten: 11339
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 11:42

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door memento »

albion schreef:Democratie vond ds. van der Poel niet bijbels.
Waarom meedoen aan iets wat in haar wezen niet bijbels is?

Getuigen is m.i. de taak van de kerk. Als zodanig vind ik het jammer dat partijen als de CU en de SGP bestaan. Hierdoor nemen de kerken (mn de kleine kerkgenootschappen) niet hun verantwoordelijkheid in het publieke debat. Laten de kerken zich voortdurend uitspreken! Laat hen voortdurend getuigen. Zowel door middel van evangelisatie, als door het wijzen op Gods woord in het publieke debat.
Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9086
Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
Contacteer:

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door Bert Mulder »

Op. 12:
13 En toen de draak zag dat hij op de aarde geworpen was, zo heeft hij de vrouw vervolgd die het Manneken gebaard had.
14 En aan de vrouw zijn gegeven twee vleugelen eens groten arends, opdat zij zou vliegen in de woestijn, in haar plaats, alwaar zij gevoed wordth een tijd en tijden en een halven tijd, buiten het gezicht van de slang.
Terwijl de staat aan God verplicht is alle geboden Gods te onderhouden, staan de taken en plichten van de kerk en de staat gescheiden. De kerk mag zich niet met de staat bemoeien, en de staat moet van de kerk afblijven. Wetende, ter zelfde tijd, dat om de zonde, het onmogelijk is voor de staat om de geboden van de eerste tafel van de wet te onderhouden, net zo als ze al moeite genoeg hebben met de tweede tafel.

Maar, zoals we in Op. 12 leren, bevindt de kerk zich, geestelijk gezien, in de woestijn. Sorry voor het engels, een citaat van Ds. Hoeksema uit 'Behold, He cometh":

http://spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/behold31.htm
The beginning of this passage calls to our mind what immediately precedes: "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth..." We will remember that these words refer to the battle which was fought in heaven, as pictured in the words immediately preceding those of the present passage. We found that this war was a battle between spirits. For that very reason we also drew the conclusion that it was indeed a very real war, but nevertheless one which must not in all respects be compared to the battles fought among men. It was not fought with sword and cannon, and it did not leave the battlefield strewn with wounded and killed. But it was a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual weapons of intellect and argumentation, of righteousness and law, a war which could only end in the casting away from the battlefield of one of the opposing parties.

Michael, so we found, was the general on one side. He is not to be identified, so we found, with the Christ; but Scripture pictures him to us as an angel who is a prince over other angels, and whose special task it is to fight the battle against Satan in behalf of the people of God. This is also true of the passage we studied in the last chapter. In this instance he was fighting against the devil, the old serpent, the great red dragon and opponent of God.

As to the time of this battle, we concluded that it would not have been the time before the entrance of sin into paradise, and therefore could not refer to the first rebellion of Satan and his angels in heaven, for the simple reason that the text calls him the accuser of the brethren and that also in other ways it indicates that already during the time of this battle there were people of God, saved in Christ Jesus, upon the earth, saints who loved not their lives even unto death. Nor is it the time of the end in the strictest sense of the word that is referred to in the preceding passage. For even after this war has been fought, there are still saved of God who have the testimony of Jesus and keep the commandments of God on earth, which certainly could not be the case were the war that is here fought one that must be placed after the glorification of the saints in Christ. We concluded, therefore, that it is a war which is fought all during the time of the old dispensation. Only in the old dispensation there are brethren on earth that love not their lives even unto death, as is so beautifully recorded in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is a war fought between Michael and his angels and the devil and his angels all during the time of the old dispensation, and that too, for the prize of the saints who had died and had been glorified in heaven in the days of the old dispensation.

Thus understood, all is clear. Then we understand that the devil had to fight this war just as well as the battle to prevent the coming of the Great Seed was fought by him on earth. For Christ had not yet come. And the devil, on the one hand trying to prevent His first coming, on the other hand claimed that the dead who died before He had come and before their sins were atoned belonged to him and had no right to glory. Then we could also understand why the devil is called the deceiver and the accuser of the brethren, the slanderer of God's people. For all during this period he must have slandered the people of God who had died in the days of the Old Testament and accused them of their sins before the countenance of God. And then, finally, we also understand that when the man child is brought forth and caught up to God's throne in glory, the battle between the spirits ,in heaven must come to an end, and the devil must be defeated.

For it was exactly through the suffering and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the man child, that Michael and his angels were placed in the right as they defended the right of the Old Testament saints to their glory in heaven. And the result was, on the one hand, that the devil and his angels were cast out from heaven, so that he can no more carry on this war there; but at the same time the result,is that he is cast down to the earth, so that he will pay all his evil attention to the church in the world. Here our text begins, and it speaks of the tremendous conflict between the woman and the dragon.


The Woman In The Wilderness


We must call attention, in the first place, to the fact that in the words of this passage we have a continuation of the symbolism which we met with in verses 1 to 6. Here we have no plain reality, but a symbolical representation of the things that are mentioned here. That was not the case in verses 7 to 12. In that passage there was nothing to indicate symbolism; and therefore without any difficulty we took it as plain reality, as a real war fought between real beings with a real purpose and with real results. Literally we explain that portion. But that is not the case here. There is no one who takes this woman for a real woman. Nor are there any interpreters who understand the dragon as a real animal, or the stream which he casts out of his mouth as a real stream, or the wings which the woman receives as real wings. In so far there is no difficulty.

But in spite of this, it is necessary that we remind you of the fact that here we have no literal presentation of facts, but rather an allegory, which does not allow of literal interpretation. For although all agree that this is not a real woman with real eagle's wings, and that the dragon mentioned here is not a real dragon, and that the stream of water he casts out after the woman is not a real stream of water, yet there are interpreters who make the mistake of singling out that wilderness and of maintaining that it, at all events, must be taken in a literal sense of the word. The woman, so they say, is at this time evidently in Jerusalem, the Old Testament holy city. And as she is attacked by the enemy, she flees into a literal wilderness somewhere in the vicinity, where she is hidden twelve hundred sixty days, even as at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the disciples fled to Pella. Now this is violating one of the most fundamental rules of interpretation, and especially of the interpretation of the Apocalypse. And we must guard against it. There is no right to single out one element in an allegorical representation of things and to take it in the literal sense. And therefore it is well that we remember from the outset and bear in mind throughout our interpretation of this passage that here we have a continuation of the symbolism we met with in the first portion of this chapter.

In the second place, it may also be said that the symbolical representation as such is very clear. There is no difficulty in obtaining a picture of it in our minds. The woman who has brought forth the man child, - of whom we have lost sight for a moment because of the record of the war in heaven that intervened, - is still on earth. And as is plain from the seventeenth verse of this chapter, she brings forth still other children. For that verse speaks of the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The dragon now comes down to the earth. He has failed in every respect thus far. He failed to prevent the birth of the man child, and he failed to devour it when once it was born. And he also failed to gain his point in the war which he fought with Michael and his angels in heaven for the possession of the saints of the old dispensation. And because of this absolute failure, on the one hand, and because of the fact that he also realizes that he cannot continue to fight indefinitely and that his time henceforth is short, he is filled with raging fury. And thus he comes down to the earth for the purpose of persecuting the woman who brought forth the man child. But the woman receives wings of a great eagle. Already in the sixth verse we read that the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God. But now we are told once more, and definitely, that she received wings of a great eagle and that with them she flees into the wilderness. The idea is clear. She cannot outrun the dragon. If she comes into contact with him, she cannot stand in the battle. And therefore there is but one place of escape, and that is the wilderness. There the dragon cannot live, for there is nothing for him to feed on. There the woman is nourished in a miraculous way, and there she is hid from the face of the serpent. And at the same time, there is but one way of escape, and that is through the air. And therefore it is in perfect harmony with the symbolism of the entire passage that the woman received wings, and that she flees away from the face of the serpent into the wilderness. The serpent pursues her up to the very edge of the desert, but cannot follow farther. And therefore in his rage he casts a stream after her, not to drown her exactly, but evidently to carry her away and out of the wilderness, so that he may be able to approach her. But the earth opens her mouth and swallows up the stream, which again is in perfect harmony with the idea of the arid desert, where the water easily disappears. And finally, the dragon, seeing that also now his efforts are vain and that all his attempts to destroy the woman meet with failure, turns to her individual children, in order that at any rate he may destroy them. Thus is the,symbolism.

In the third place, there are also some elements in the symbolism which we understand immediately and with which we have met before and which we do not have to interpret again. The woman, so we have learned, is the church. In the first part of the chapter we have become acquainted with her. But there is a little difference between the woman as she appeared in the first part of this chapter and as she appears in the present passage. In the first passage she was still travailing to bring forth the man child; and therefore she represented the church of the old dispensation. There she was the symbol of the people of God, of the church, as the mother of Christ. But here she appears after she has brought forth the Christ, and therefore in the new dispensation, as the mother of the New Testament believers, the rest of her seed. In parentheses, we may notice that also here the Word of God teaches us the essential unity of the church of all ages. It is the same woman all the time, representing the same church, only in different dispensations. And therefore it will not harmonize with Scripture to maintain that there was an essential difference between the church of the Old and of the New Testament days. But this in passing. The second element in the symbolism with which we are acquainted is that of the dragon. He is the devil. He is the great opponent of God. And we must remember that as the opponent of God his great and only purpose is to prevent the establishment of the kingdom of God and to maintain his own sovereignty. It is for that purpose that he battled against the woman in the Old Testament, to prevent the birth of her man child. It is for that same purpose that he went to heaven to question the right of the Old Testament saints to enter into glory. And it is again for that same purpose that he now attacks the woman as we meet her in our present passage. The devil does not care for the woman as such. He does not care for her seed as such. But he knows that she must be instrumental in the completion of the kingdom of God and in the realization of God's counsel, and therefore fights her to the last ditch.


The Attack Of The Devil


This last thought brings us to the next question: why does the devil persecute the woman after she has brought forth the man child? Why does the devil still persecute the church after she has given birth to the Christ?

Was it merely a streak of vengeance that led him to do so? That is sometimes the impression that is received from the symbolism in the text. The dragon, so the idea often is, has failed twice in his attempts to thwart the plan of God. He failed to devour the man child, and he also failed in his war in heaven to bring down the saints of the old dispensation to hell. And now he is just raving mad. The woman really has served her purpose, and she is of no account to him any more. But in spite of that fact, and in spite of the fact that the dragon well knows that he is defeated and that his attack upon the woman will not help him even if he should succeed to destroy her, he just means to wreak vengeance and to empty his raving madness and fury upon the head of the poor woman.

But we might know from the very outset that this is not the case. The devil is not a mad fool. He certainly is a fool, and he also is mad. But he is not a mad fool in this sense, that he does things that have nothing to do with the plan of God Almighty. And you may depend on it, if the woman after she has brought forth the man child was of no account any more, the devil would not trouble himself about her. He has but one purpose, and he lives from but one principle. It is the purpose and the principle of opposition against God Almighty. This principle he never denies. And whatever has nothing to do with that principle he leaves severely alone. That is already plain in the individual lives of the people of God on earth and in the church. If you are of no account to the coming of God's kingdom and are in no way related to the glory of God, the devil does not trouble his head about you. It is only when he begins to surmise that you also are one of the followers of Christ and that you confess Him that he begins his action against you. Thus it is also with the woman. The very fact that the dragon in raving madness indeed turns against the woman, to persecute her, already causes us to surmise that she is still of great importance to the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of His plans.

Nor need we search very long to find the answer to this question. What is the motive of the devil in persecuting the woman even after she has brought forth the man child? This woman, as we have had occasion to notice before, is the church, the visible church as she exists on earth. In the former passage we noticed how she appeared as the mother of the Savior, of the King in the kingdom. The church brings forth the Christ. Christ is the great seed of the woman. He is the Son of Mary, out of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, born from Israel, out of the loins of Abraham, in the line of Shem and Seth, and finally born from Eve as the spiritual mother of the holy seed. But this is not all. The church as she exists in the present dispensation is not only the mother of Christ, the great seed. But she is also the mother of us all. She is the mother of the true, spiritual children of God. As such it may be said that the church visible, as a visible institution on earth, brings forth the church invisible, true believers, from age to age. The church is the mother of the true children of the kingdom. These are born from her, are baptized by her, are nourished through her, receive their strength and life and all the blessings of God's covenant in her bosom. And it is as such, evidently, that the church appears in the words that we are now discussing. For as we have maintained already, the passage makes mention of the rest of her seed, of her spiritual children. She is the mother of all the true children of God, of all the subjects in the kingdom that is to be established in the future. That is her great importance.

Now the devil knows this.

He knew from the beginning that the Great Seed which this woman is to bring forth is the all-important factor in the entire war which he wages. If he can prevent His coming or devour Him as soon as He is born, he does not have to trouble himself about the rest of her seed. And therefore all his efforts are directed toward that end in the old dispensation. And because he is so certain that he will succeed in that battle against the woman and surely prevent the birth of the Great Seed, he also thinks it strange and without justice that all the saints who are born and die before the coming of Christ go into glory. But he has failed.

And now he knows too that the church still exists. He knows that even as that same woman has not only brought forth the Great Seed, but was also the mother of Abel and Enoch and Noah and the patriarchs and Moses and all the prophets and all the faithful believers of the old dispensation, so she will continue to bring forth seed in the new dispensation. Also in the New Testament day she will have children. She will bring forth children of the kingdom who will fight the battle of the kingdom here below and who will enter into the glorious kingdom hereafter. And since he cannot fight directly against the King of the kingdom any more, Who is caught up to the throne of God, and since he cannot go to heaven any more to dispute about the right of the glorified saints, he will persecute the woman and try to destroy her at all events, before she has brought forth many more children who will serve as subjects of the kingdom that is to be established. And therefore he goes and persecutes her.

Now the text tells us that when the dragon comes to persecute the woman, two wings of an eagle are given to her, in order that she might fly into the wilderness. The question as to the meaning of the eagle's wings, as if they could be interpreted to mean work and prayer, or anything else, is certainly irrelevant. The figure has perhaps been obtained from Exodus 19:4, where we read that Jehovah says: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagle's wings and brought you unto myself." And the idea is evidently that God Himself provides the church with means to escape the fury of the devil.

Different, however, it is with the idea of the wilderness. Also this has been obtained from the episode of the people of Israel's history in the desert. Even as there God delivered His people from the fury of the world-power in Egypt by bringing them into the wilderness, so also now He brings His people into the wilderness to escape the rage of the devil. But the difference is that in Israel's case it was a real wilderness into which they were led, while evidently in this case the figure is employed to represent something different. And the question is: what is the meaning of this wilderness into which God enables the church to fly in the new dispensation in order that she might escape the wrath and persecution of the devil?

It has been said that the wilderness is here used to depict the want and deprivation which the people of God must suffer in the world. They are the despised of the world; and there are not many noble and mighty among them. They must suffer all kinds of persecutions and deprivations in the world. And therefore that world is a real wilderness to them. And, of course, this is true in itself. But it is not the meaning of the text. For, in the first place, the church is driven into this wilderness after the birth of Christ and after His exaltation. But it cannot be said that the being subjected to want and deprivation of all kinds is peculiar to the people of God in the new dispensation only. Also the long list of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 11 could tell you of them. And therefore, this cannot be meant. In the second place, it is difficult to see how this could possibly be a means of hiding them from the face of the devil, so that he could not attack them. Yet this is evidently the purpose of it all. The woman received these wings to fly into the wilderness in order that she might be able to escape the wrath of the devil, and so be safe. And, in the third place, the wilderness is a place prepared for her by God, where she does not suffer want and deprivation, but is nourished by God for a time, and times, and half a time, or twelve hundred sixty days. And therefore, that cannot be the meaning of the term wilderness in our present passage.

We would rather adhere to the symbolism, and derive the meaning from the representation itself. In the literal and natural sense of the word the wilderness, or desert, is a place in the world, but not of the world. It may lie right in the midst of the world, yet it is absolutely separated from the life of the world. There is no plant life, no vegetation to speak of, no animal life, no human life; there are no houses, no cities, no rivers and streams. It is a place in the midst of the world, yet separated from the world. If one is in the wilderness, he is separated from the life of the world.

If we adhere to this meaning, the explanation of the symbolism cannot be difficult. It reminds us of the words of the Savior, "In the world, yet not of the world." And it tells us that the visible church in the new dispensation is an institution separate in every respect from the worldpower as such. It exists, indeed, in the world; but it exists as a separate institution. That is not true of her children individually. They live right in the midst of the world, and they live the life of the world, even though they are spiritually separated from that life, and live it from the principle of the kingdom of God. But that is true of the church.

The church as such is a separate institution in the world. She has her own King. And as an institution the church does not recognize any other ruler. No earthly king has any dominion over her. There is no worldly ruler, be he king or president or dictator, who can exercise dominion over the church as the mother of her spiritual children. Only Christ is King. From this it follows that the church has its own laws. There may be laws established and ordained by the worldly ruler regarding the existence of the church in this world, regarding her buildings and property, etc.; but the church in this world, in regard to her real existence and life, acknowledges no other power, no other sovereignty, than that of Christ. No world-power, no emperor, or king, or president, can formulate her creed. She does so herself, in obedience to Christ her King. No world-power can regulate her worship, can compose her hymns and her forms, can dictate how she must pray and what she must preach. No world-power can tell her how and when and why she must censure her members and exercise discipline over them. The church as an institute is a separate institution. She has her own King, her own laws, her own life. She does not mingle in politics as such. She may instruct her children how to behave in regard to the powers that be; but she herself does not mingle in the politics of the world. She has no armies. She does not fight with the sword. Again, she may instruct her children that even in regard to the battles of the world they must be subject to the authorities, and obedient; but she herself, as an institute and as the mother of her spiritual children, does not take part in the battles of the world. She lives in separation. Even as the children of Israel in the desert lived in separation from the world-power in Egypt, and even as they received their own laws from their own King in that wilderness, so also the church of the New Testament is in the wilderness with regard to the world and its power and its life. The church does not do business. The church does not mingle with the affairs of this world. She owns no property for its own sake. She has no factories. She has no army or navy. She fights her own battles and does her own work. The church as an institution is separate from the life of the world. She has received a God-prepared place in the wilderness.

Only in this sense can we see, in the first place, that this condition commenced actually in the new dispensation and with the exaltation of Christ. In the old dispensation, among Israel, church and state were intertwined in the theocracy. Israel was the people of God. Israel was the church. They were not identical, but they were inseparably combined. For that reason the people of God also could have an earthly king, could fight the battles of Jehovah with bow and sword, could have an earthly country of their own, could have possessions and do business as a people of God. With the new dispensation this is changed. The church does no more live in a certain land, but is spread all over the world and among all nations. One and the same church, with the same King, with essentially the same faith, with the same life, now exists among all the nations of the earth. And as the most general confession has it, "I believe an holy catholic church." But at the same time, and for that very reason, the church is now in the wilderness. It is separated from the world-power. It does not acknowledge any other authority for her life as such than the authority of Jesus Christ.

But, in the second place, it is also very plain that this is exactly her safety in the present dispensation. The world-power is and remains on the earth, earthy. It has a temporal purpose, and ultimately shall unite, as we shall see, to make war against the Christ and His kingdom. If the church did not live as a separate institution, living her own life, acknowledging her own King, regulating her own affairs, making her own laws, establishing her own forms of belief, and controlling her own worship, she would be gone, and would ultimately unite with the power that rises against the Christ and His kingdom. No matter whether this would realize itself in one or in the other, whether the church would have dominion over the powers of the world and over the affairs of the world, - as the Romish Church would have it, - or whether the power of the world would exercise authority over the church of Christ as an institution in the midst of the world, the same result would necessarily follow, namely, the destruction of the church as the mother of the faithful subjects of the kingdom of Christ. The church is in the wilderness of this world, separated from the power of the world, and must needs be in that wilderness for her own safety.

The measure of time here indicated need not detain us very long. It is plain from the context that time, times, and half a time is the same period as the twelve hundred sixty days mentioned in the first portion of this chapter. This leads us to the conclusion that time, times, and half a time indicates three and one-half symbolic years. One symbolic year, and two symbolic years, and half a symbolic year. One symbolic year is calculated to be three hundred sixty days, which, multiplied by three and one-half, gives us the twelve hundred sixty days. And again, this is evidently. the same period as the forty-two months of the two witnesses. For, taking a symbolic month to contain thirty days, forty and two months would again give us twelve hundred sixty days, or three and one-half years. All these indications of time refer, therefore, to the time of the new dispensation, from the exaltation of Christ to the very end, as has become plain before.

Only, the three and a half times indicate this period, in the first place, from the point of view that the history of the world is divided, as it were, into two halves, because of the coming of Christ. If seven is the symbolic number indicating the completion of all that God does in time, and therefore also indicating the complete period of the history of the present world, both before and after Christ, then it is plain that three and one-half must indicate the period of one dispensation, in this case that of the dispensation after the coming and exaltation of Christ Jesus. And, in the second place, this number also indicates that the period of the church's being in the wilderness shall be cut short. The days shall be shortened for the elects' sake. But whatever this number, which also occurs in Daniel, may indicate, certain it is from a comparison of the different places in which it occurs, that it points to the entire period of the new dispensation, even to the end. In this entire period the church has to suffer from the attacks of the dragon. In this entire period God has prepared her a place in the wilderness in separation from the powers of the world, and that too, to her own safety.


The Devil's Failure


That this is actually so is also plain if we study for a moment the manner in which the dragon attacks this woman in the wilderness, and how he fails.

Symbolically the text indicates this by saying that the dragon, when he saw that he could not pursue her into the wilderness, cast a stream of water after the woman, in order that she might be carried away with the flood. Evidently this does not mean that the devil makes an attempt directly to destroy the woman while she is in the wilderness. On the contrary, especially the original gives us reason to believe that the purpose is different. He knows that he cannot approach the woman in her isolation in the desert. He cannot touch her. She must remain there. He must leave her alone. Hence, he casts a stream of water after her, that she might be borne up by that flood and be carried out of the wilderness. Especially the word used here in the original gives us that very idea. He does not mean to drown her: that would be impossible. But he means to lift her from her isolation. And therefore he casts a stream after her, in order that she might be carried away by the stream, and thus be borne into the world from which she fled.

Understood in that sense, the meaning is not difficult to grasp. The devil realizes that in the isolation of the church as an institution from the powers of this world lies her strength, and that as long as the church remains in this state of separation he cannot do anything against her. And therefore he makes the attempt to establish an alliance, to unite the church and the world. He tries to carry the church into the world and either offer her the dominion over the powers that be or subject her to the powers of the world. Then he may be sure that her strength is gone. Then he is certain that she will also bring up her spiritual children as subjects of the kingdom of the world, which is his kingdom. Then he is certain that the kingdom of the Christ shall at least be deprived of its subjects in the new dispensation. Clearly you may see this attempt. Now the devil tries to subject the church as an institution to the powers of the world, and establish a state church, as in various countries of Europe has been and still is the case. In that case the worldly rulers are at the same time the rulers of the church, and they establish its creeds and forms of worship and confessions. The church is ruled by the worldly power. Now he tries to gain his point along the way of offering the church dominion over the powers of the world, as in the time of Constantine the Great, and ever since, in the Romish Church.

But the devil always failed. That does not mean that he never saw results. He surely did. Church after church was affected by this stream of water he spits after the woman. Now the church is actually subject to the state; now she has absolute sway over the powers of the world. And every time she lost her true character. But it never succeeded completely. The woman always remained in her isolation. And even today, although the tendency is once more to bring the church into the service and the subjection of the worldly power, and although the church has a hard fight to remain in her God-appointed place in the wilderness, nevertheless in many places the church stands as a separate institution; and also in our own land the separation of church and state is still constitutionally established. And therefore, the devil fails in principle. And our text tells us that he will fail. Surely, also in the future many a church will be carried away, and her subjection and unification with the worldly power will be one of the factors in her apostasy. But nevertheless, the church shall always stand, shall always remain as an institution and as a separate institution, shall always bring forth and nourish her spiritual children, till the last one of God's elect shall have been gathered into the glory of the kingdom.


The Devil's Turning To The Rest Of Her Seed


If we have understood the text correctly thus far, it is not difficult to understand the last verse of this passage, where we read that the dragon, being enraged with the woman and yet realizing his impotency to destroy her as such, goes to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

At first sight we may think that this is a somewhat strange expression. Is the church after all not the sum-total of all her seed? And how, then, must we conceive of this idea that the devil, after he has failed to destroy the church as such, can still turn to her children, to the rest of her seed?

This is not difficult to understand, however. The woman represents the church as such, the church as a visible institution in the world. And as such she is the mother of the true spiritual children of God. At first the devil makes the attempt to destroy the church as an institution by making her part of his own kingdom and by uniting her with the power of the world. But when this fails, he turns to the individual believers, in order that he may persecute and destroy them and bring them to apostasy. These individual members move about in the world. In every sphere of life they claim that they must live according to the principles of the Word of God, that they must keep His commandments, and that they must proclaim that Jesus Christ is King over all. And so they attempt to realize these principles in the midst of the world. They have been brought up in the commandments of God by their mother, the church; and they have learned to embrace and keep the testimony of Jesus. And therefore, in every sphere of life, in the home and in society and in the state, wherever they go and whatever they do, they keep these commandments and refuse to live from the principles of the world. They come into contact with the world, and therefore the devil can approach them. He can employ that world to make life hard for them, in order that by his persecution he may bring them to destruction. It is not told us in this chapter how the devil attempts to accomplish this. The following chapter pictures to us this tremendous attempt in detail; for there we have the description of the power of the Antichrist.

Let us now close this particular passage with the application of the text. In the first place, the church is in the wilderness. Neither must she attempt to rule over the powers of the world or to mingle with the affairs of the world, nor must she subject herself to these powers. Christ is King, and no other beside Him, over the church. There are many rulers in the world; there is but one King in the church. In the second place, love the church as your spiritual mother. More than once we find this presentation of the church in relation to her members. She exists for your spiritual care and nourishment, that through her you might be strengthened with the bread of life, and that too, through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. In the third place, walk as her faithful children in the midst of the world. Keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. And finally, be assured that all the attempts of the devil shall surely fail. He shall fail in his attempts to destroy the church as such. She shall remain, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. And if you must experience the wrath of the great red dragon as her individual children, never you fear: Christ has overcome the world!
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Gebruikersavatar
jvdg
Berichten: 12063
Lid geworden op: 12 okt 2006, 14:07

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door jvdg »

memento schreef:
albion schreef:Democratie vond ds. van der Poel niet bijbels.
Waarom meedoen aan iets wat in haar wezen niet bijbels is?

Getuigen is m.i. de taak van de kerk. Als zodanig vind ik het jammer dat partijen als de CU en de SGP bestaan. Hierdoor nemen de kerken (mn de kleine kerkgenootschappen) niet hun verantwoordelijkheid in het publieke debat. Laten de kerken zich voortdurend uitspreken! Laat hen voortdurend getuigen. Zowel door middel van evangelisatie, als door het wijzen op Gods woord in het publieke debat.
Met deze redenering kan ik meegaan.
Kerken (hun leden) dienen inderdaad voortdurend te getuigen.

Maar ik acht het uiterst zinvol dat ook in de politek het getuigen c.q. waarschuwen aanwezig is.
Wij moeten toch op en bij zoveel mogelijke gelegenheden het Evangelie verkondigen en waarschuwen tegen de zonden, en heen te wijzen naar Christus?

Dus niet alleen als kerk, maar ook persoonlijk en in de politiek, ja in elke configuratie....

In mijn visie doet de SGP echt haar "best".
Gebruikersavatar
memento
Berichten: 11339
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 11:42

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door memento »

jvdg schreef:
memento schreef:
albion schreef:Democratie vond ds. van der Poel niet bijbels.
Waarom meedoen aan iets wat in haar wezen niet bijbels is?

Getuigen is m.i. de taak van de kerk. Als zodanig vind ik het jammer dat partijen als de CU en de SGP bestaan. Hierdoor nemen de kerken (mn de kleine kerkgenootschappen) niet hun verantwoordelijkheid in het publieke debat. Laten de kerken zich voortdurend uitspreken! Laat hen voortdurend getuigen. Zowel door middel van evangelisatie, als door het wijzen op Gods woord in het publieke debat.
Met deze redenering kan ik meegaan.
Kerken (hun leden) dienen inderdaad voortdurend te getuigen.

Maar ik acht het uiterst zinvol dat ook in de politek het getuigen c.q. waarschuwen aanwezig is.
Wij moeten toch op en bij zoveel mogelijke gelegenheden het Evangelie verkondigen en waarschuwen tegen de zonden, en heen te wijzen naar Christus?

Dus niet alleen als kerk, maar ook persoonlijk en in de politiek, ja in elke configuratie....

In mijn visie doet de SGP echt haar "best".
Rechtvaardigt dit handelen tegen eigen principe in?

Wat ik bedoel is: Elk kamerlid belooft met een eed de wet uit te zullen voeren. Maar, in die wet worden allerlei zaken genoemd, als abortus e.d....
Gebruikersavatar
jvdg
Berichten: 12063
Lid geworden op: 12 okt 2006, 14:07

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door jvdg »

memento schreef:Rechtvaardigt dit handelen tegen eigen principe in?

Wat ik bedoel is: Elk kamerlid belooft met een eed de wet uit te zullen voeren. Maar, in die wet worden allerlei zaken genoemd, als abortus e.d....
Nee, dat ben ik met je eens, maar als je die lijnen zo doortrekt naar andere "regeringsinstituten" zoals schoolbesturen, kerkenraden en verenigingsbesturen etc., dan zou een christelijke inbreng nergens meer mogelijk zijn.
Gebruikersavatar
memento
Berichten: 11339
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 11:42

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door memento »

jvdg schreef:
memento schreef:Rechtvaardigt dit handelen tegen eigen principe in?

Wat ik bedoel is: Elk kamerlid belooft met een eed de wet uit te zullen voeren. Maar, in die wet worden allerlei zaken genoemd, als abortus e.d....
Nee, dat ben ik met je eens, maar als je die lijnen zo doortrekt naar andere "regeringsinstituten" zoals schoolbesturen, kerkenraden en verenigingsbesturen etc., dan zou een christelijke inbreng nergens meer mogelijk zijn.
Als het goed is in een schoolbestuur, kerkeraad en verenigingsbestuur Gods woord de maatstaf, en hoef je niet iets te beloven wat ingaat tegen je principes, toch?
Gebruikersavatar
jvdg
Berichten: 12063
Lid geworden op: 12 okt 2006, 14:07

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door jvdg »

memento schreef:
jvdg schreef:
memento schreef:Rechtvaardigt dit handelen tegen eigen principe in?

Wat ik bedoel is: Elk kamerlid belooft met een eed de wet uit te zullen voeren. Maar, in die wet worden allerlei zaken genoemd, als abortus e.d....
Nee, dat ben ik met je eens, maar als je die lijnen zo doortrekt naar andere "regeringsinstituten" zoals schoolbesturen, kerkenraden en verenigingsbesturen etc., dan zou een christelijke inbreng nergens meer mogelijk zijn.
Als het goed is in een schoolbestuur, kerkeraad en verenigingsbestuur Gods woord de maatstaf, en hoef je niet iets te beloven wat ingaat tegen je principes, toch?
Idealiter gezien heb je gelijk, maar je weet heel wel dat, ondanks het feit dat Gods Woord de maatstaf is, er talloze compromissen (moeten) worden gesloten die zwart/wit gezien tegen principes (hetzij links, hetzij rechts) ingaan.
Gebruikersavatar
Ariene
Berichten: 2687
Lid geworden op: 08 jul 2005, 15:44

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door Ariene »

memento schreef:
jvdg schreef:
memento schreef:Rechtvaardigt dit handelen tegen eigen principe in?

Wat ik bedoel is: Elk kamerlid belooft met een eed de wet uit te zullen voeren. Maar, in die wet worden allerlei zaken genoemd, als abortus e.d....
Nee, dat ben ik met je eens, maar als je die lijnen zo doortrekt naar andere "regeringsinstituten" zoals schoolbesturen, kerkenraden en verenigingsbesturen etc., dan zou een christelijke inbreng nergens meer mogelijk zijn.
Als het goed is in een schoolbestuur, kerkeraad en verenigingsbestuur Gods woord de maatstaf, en hoef je niet iets te beloven wat ingaat tegen je principes, toch?
Hoe zie jij dit in het licht van een zoutend zout te zijn?
Is het gebed uw stuurwiel of uw reservewiel?
Gebruikersavatar
memento
Berichten: 11339
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 11:42

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door memento »

Ariene schreef:Hoe zie jij dit in het licht van een zoutend zout te zijn?
Die tekst heeft m.i. betrekking op de persoonlijke levenswandel, en niets met politiek te maken.

Maar de vraag blijft: Hoe kan een christen naar eer en geweten de eed afleggen die nodig is om in de kamer te komen, daarmee belovende dat hij de wet zal uitvoeren als bestuurder (waaronder dus de abortus en euthanasiewet), en waarmee hij belooft de democratie in stand te houden (wat dus een verloochening van de theocratie is)? Tenzij daar een antwoord op komt, wat écht principieel is, acht ik participatie aan de democratische politiek onverantwoord.

Daarnaast: Hoe kan een christen voor een democratie zijn? Heeft hij geen theocratie om na te streven?
Gebruikersavatar
ndonselaar
Berichten: 3105
Lid geworden op: 29 dec 2001, 12:34
Contacteer:

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door ndonselaar »

Ik kan alleen maar van harte instemmen met wat Memento poneert.

De kerk is haar roeping vaak allang vergeten. Ds. Visscher zal dan ook de uiterste consequentie moeten trekken uit zijn betoog. Die noodzaak is er zeker, gezien het artikel van Prof. Dr. H.M. Kuitert vandaag in het RD. Hij doet een vurig pleidooi voor een seculiere staat.

In een seculiere staat is geen plaats voor een christen. Hij kan geen wetten onderschrijven die tegen Gods Woord ingaan.

Maar als je beide opinies leest, zit er wel een dreigende ondertoon in. De staat wordt niet geleidt door God, door Allah, of door welke godsdienst dan ook. De staat is van ons allen. Zo betoogt Kuitert. Maar mijn vraag is: wat is zijn leidende principe? De helft plus één.

Mag ik door redeneren. Als nu de meerderheid besluit om de minderheid uit te roeien. Wie houdt die meerderheid dan tegen? Door een beroep op de moraal. Welke moraal? De meerderheid heeft toch beslist! Nu is abortus beperkt tot 24 weken. Barak Obama zal, als hij president wordt, een wet ratificeren die toestaat om babys eerst geboren te laten worden en vervolgens te doden. Één ding wordt duidelijk. Ze laten zien dat leven geen enkele waarde heeft en dat ongeboren vrucht geen ongevormd klompje cellen is, maar ongeboren leven. Door God geweven. In Nederland houdt de abortuslobby met alle macht vast aan dat klompje cellen. Maar zodra men instemt met de wet van Obama komt openbaar wat ze voorstaat. De macht over alle leven. De echo van Adolf Hitler klinkt hier. Leven moet voldoen aan bepaalde voorwaarden. Zonder die voorwaarden is leven ondragelijk. Wie vult die voorwaarden in? De meerderheid, die op dit moment luistert naar een aantal bepalende ethici, zoals genoemde Kuitert.

Als je dit overdenkt, wordt je vervuld met huiver. Inderdaad geen plaats voor een christen. Kerk versta je roeping. Geeft getuigenis van het levend geloof. De kerk, Gods kerk, zal overleven. Jazeker! Maar ze zal alleen hier overleven als ze als een lichtend licht is. Kerk versta uw roeping. De dijken houden de vloedgolven van zonde niet met pleisterwerk. Dode orthodoxie die wat roept over de oude palen, als het over een vertaling gaat, zal geen standhouden. De HEERE zoekt vruchten van geloof en bekering. Eeuwen geleden zong Jesaja een klaaglied. Het lied van de wijngaard. De Wijngaardenier, de HEERE nam van de vruchten van de wijnplanten. Proefde en .............? Het was stank. Het oordeel werd uitgesproken en uitgevoerd. En wij? Als God ons in de mond neemt en als het ware onze harten proeft. Vindt Hij dan vruchten van geloof en bekering. Getuigen wij door onze levenswandel van een priesterlijke bewogenheid voor onze naaste. Wie onze naaste is lezen we in de Schrift. Met dit getuigenis is de Vroege Kerk gebouwd. De HEERE is nog niet veranderd. Ook vandaag niet.
David J
Berichten: 863
Lid geworden op: 21 jun 2004, 18:18

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door David J »

memento schreef:
Ariene schreef:Hoe zie jij dit in het licht van een zoutend zout te zijn?
Die tekst heeft m.i. betrekking op de persoonlijke levenswandel, en niets met politiek te maken.

Maar de vraag blijft: Hoe kan een christen naar eer en geweten de eed afleggen die nodig is om in de kamer te komen, daarmee belovende dat hij de wet zal uitvoeren als bestuurder (waaronder dus de abortus en euthanasiewet), en waarmee hij belooft de democratie in stand te houden (wat dus een verloochening van de theocratie is)? Tenzij daar een antwoord op komt, wat écht principieel is, acht ik participatie aan de democratische politiek onverantwoord.

Daarnaast: Hoe kan een christen voor een democratie zijn? Heeft hij geen theocratie om na te streven?
Het eerste punt is een lastige. In feite is dit een vraag naar verantwoordelijkheid. Elke Nederlander is gehouden zich aan de Nederlandse wet te houden, dus inclusief de abortusbepalingen en andere wetten waar hij zelf niet achter staat. Jij mag niet de ingang van een abortuskliniek blokkeren, bijvoorbeeld. Door je Nederlanderschap te behouden, beloof je je aan die wetten te houden. Is dat voor jou een reden om je Nederlanderschap dan maar op te geven? Waarschijnlijk niet, hoewel je daarmee een zekere verantwoordelijkheid neemt voor die wet. De reden daarvoor zal wel zijn (het is tenminste de mijne) dat je persoonlijk niet verantwoordelijk kunt worden gehouden voor de abortuswet. Plus dat je door je Nederlanderschap tenminste nog kunt stemmen voor een partij die abortus af wil schaffen. Stel nu dat je geroepen wordt om minister van Volksgezondheid te worden. Je hebt dan enerzijds veel meer verantwoordelijkheid, maar anderszijds veel meer mogelijkheden om er iets aan te doen. Die afweging lijkt mij een persoonlijke keuze. Waarbij wat mij betreft de Bijbelse gegevens dat de overheid een dienares van God is en dat wij niet geroepen zijn uit de wereld te gaan, zwaar mee moet wegen.

Mijns inziens is dus geen principieel verschil in dezen tussen een willekeurige Nederlander en een politicus. Beiden zijn gehouden aan de wet. Beiden dragen verantwoordelijkheid. Beiden hebben mogelijkheden om iets te doen tegen slechte wetten. Alleen de gradaties verschillen.

Wat betreft je twee punt: het is mijns inziens een grote misvatting om theocratie en democratie tegenover elkaar te stellen. Theocratie hoort niet thuis in het rijtje tirannie, monarchie, oligarchie en democratie. Die laatste zijn staatsvormen, manieren om de macht op aarde te verdelen tussen mensen. De eerste is een geloofsartikel, geen staatsvorm. Welke staatsvormen er op aarde ook zijn, alle macht is altijd van God afkomstig. Hij regeert de koningen, maar net zo goed de presidenten en premiers. Zo je wilt, is de democratie een invulling van de theocratie, net zo goed als de tirannie dat is.

Het is daarnaast bepaald niet zo dat de geschiedenis zou laten zien dat in de gemiddelde monarchie of tirannie Gods geboden beter worden nageleefd dan in de gemiddelde democratie. De westerse democratieën zijn er in geslaagd samenlevingen te creeëren waarin een mate van rechtvaardigheid en gericht (zowel in de juridische als in de economische/sociale zin) heerst die nergens anders is gerealiseerd. Wij mogen als christenen daaar blij mee zijn, en kunnen van harte daarin participeren.
David J
Berichten: 863
Lid geworden op: 21 jun 2004, 18:18

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door David J »

ndonselaar schreef: Nu is abortus beperkt tot 24 weken. Barak Obama zal, als hij president wordt, een wet ratificeren die toestaat om babys eerst geboren te laten worden en vervolgens te doden. Één ding wordt duidelijk. Ze laten zien dat leven geen enkele waarde heeft en dat ongeboren vrucht geen ongevormd klompje cellen is, maar ongeboren leven. Door God geweven. In Nederland houdt de abortuslobby met alle macht vast aan dat klompje cellen. Maar zodra men instemt met de wet van Obama komt openbaar wat ze voorstaat. De macht over alle leven. De echo van Adolf Hitler klinkt hier. Leven moet voldoen aan bepaalde voorwaarden. Zonder die voorwaarden is leven ondragelijk. Wie vult die voorwaarden in? De meerderheid, die op dit moment luistert naar een aantal bepalende ethici, zoals genoemde Kuitert.
Je moet Obama wel recht doen, ndonselaar. Voor zover ik weet, heeft hij tegen een wet gestemd die het doden van babies die geaborteerd zijn, maar desondanks levend ter wereld komen, zou verbieden. Dat zijn dus foetussen die geaborteerd mogen worden volgens de huidige regels, maar bij wie de abortus deels 'mislukt'. Uiteraard is het bijna te gruwelijk om over na te denken dat deze kinderen dan alsnog gedood worden, alhoewel ik niet weet wat hun overlevingskansen überhaupt zijn. Maar het is in elk geval iets heel anders dan voldragen babies geboren te laten worden en dan te doden.

Tegen abortus zijn geeft ons niet het recht halve waarheden te vertellen.
eilander
Moderator
Berichten: 16786
Lid geworden op: 15 okt 2007, 21:42

Re: Gaat de SGP morrelen aan artikel 36 NGB?

Bericht door eilander »

memento schreef:Maar de vraag blijft: Hoe kan een christen naar eer en geweten de eed afleggen die nodig is om in de kamer te komen, daarmee belovende dat hij de wet zal uitvoeren als bestuurder (waaronder dus de abortus en euthanasiewet), en waarmee hij belooft de democratie in stand te houden (wat dus een verloochening van de theocratie is)? Tenzij daar een antwoord op komt, wat écht principieel is, acht ik participatie aan de democratische politiek onverantwoord.

Daarnaast: Hoe kan een christen voor een democratie zijn? Heeft hij geen theocratie om na te streven?
Naar mijn mening is een Kamerlid geen bestuurder. Lijkt muggenzifterij, maar ik vind dat toch wel een principieel verschil: een minister van Volksgezondheid moet (zoals al is opgemerkt) een persoonlijke afweging maken of hij verantwoordelijkheid kan nemen voor onbijbelse zaken (lijkt mij echt een moeilijke afweging).
Een Kamerlid controleert de minister, en kan hem/haar blijven wijzen op diens verantwoordelijkheid, en dat de overheid een dienares van God is. Een Kamerlid draagt niet direct verantwoordelijkheid.

Er is ook nog een (andere) staatsvorm nodig om een theocratie te hebben. In Davids tijd bijvoorbeeld was dit de monarchie. Dus helemaal vergelijkbaar zijn deze begrippen niet. Blijft wel staan dat democratie de macht van het volk is, en dan ontstaat toch wel spanning met bijbelse principes. Welke rol speelt gezag dan nog?
Plaats reactie