Available for a suggested donation of $7.00.
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Ratification
The Fifteenth Amendment, the last of the three postbellum reconstruction amendments, was adopted on February 3, 1870. The specific purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment was to secure voting privileges to all African black men who had been recently freed by means of the Thirteenth Amendment and who had become United States citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment. All other male non-Caucasian citizens were also guaranteed the same voting privileges.
Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth was ratified by dubious means, by what amounted to extortion:
Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment on February 2, 1869. But some states resisted ratification. At one point, the ratification count stood at 17 Republican states approving the amendment and four Democratic states rejecting it. Congress still needed 11 more states to ratify the amendment before it could become law.
All eyes turned toward those Southern states which had yet to be readmitted to the Union. Acting quickly, Congress ruled that in order to be let into the Union, these states had to accept both the Fifteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to all people born in the United States, including former slaves. Left with no choice, the states ratified the amendments and were restored to statehood.1
The principal incentive behind this Amendment was political – that is, to establish the Republican Party in both the North and the South, based upon the belief that blacks would support the political party that had ended slavery. They needed more black votes in order to do so:
…the Radical Republicans imposed a bold agenda of strict reforms upon the former Confederacy. Collectively, their push for African-American political rights surpassed any measure ever seen in the United States. The 38th Congress (1863-1865) quickly passed and submitted for ratification the 13th Amendment (13 Stat. 744-775) – outlawing slavery – in 1865. That same year, Congress established the Freedman’s Bureau (13 Stat. 507-509), which was charged with preparing the newly freed slaves for civic life by providing social services and education. In 1866, the 39th Congress (1865-1867) passed the first Civil Rights Bill (14 Stat. 27-30), granting American citizenship to freed slaves, and then expanded upon the legislation by approving the 14th Amendment (14 Stat. 358-359), which enforced the equality of all citizens before the law…. The act also provided strict conditions for re-admission to the Union: each of the remaining confederate states was required to rewrite its constitution at a convention attended by black and white delegates, to guarantee black suffrage, and to ratify the 14th Amendment…. The 15th Amendment (16 Stat. 40-41), which passed in 1869, enforced the right to vote for eligible African-American men. Thus, in an effort to achieve their ambitious vision for a racially transformed South, Radical Republicans drastically changed the status of southern blacks; within the space of a decade, millions who formerly had been classified as property exercised their new rights as voters and potential officeholders….
All of the 19th-century black Congressmen were Republicans, recognizing and appreciating the role that the Republican Party played in obtaining their political rights and – for many – their emancipation.2
In 1868, ten of the twenty-one Northern states already allowed blacks to vote in elections.3 Blacks had actually been voting in some Northern states for nearly a century. Because blacks were unlikely to vote Democrat, the Democrats, who controlled the Northern states, were just as politically determined to block the passage of this Amendment. In other words, little genuine altruism toward the blacks existed behind the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment from either side of the political spectrum. They were predictably looked upon as political expedients:
The right of blacks to vote became a controversial question. In March 1867, under the First Military Reconstruction Act, the Thirty-ninth Congress enfranchised black males in ten southern states as a requirement for readmission of those states. But elsewhere in the former slave states, Democratic state governments blocked Negro enfranchisement. The only exception was Tennessee, which Republicans controlled. In most of the North, especially the lower North where most blacks lived, blacks could not vote and whites rejected any change. Blacks, however, voted in New England (except Connecticut) and in four Midwestern states.
The stimulus for the Fifteenth Amendment came from the election returns of 1868. Although Republican presidential candidate Ulysses S. Grant won 73 percent of the electoral vote, he won only 52 percent of the popular vote. Without the southern black voter, Grant would have lost the popular, though not the electoral, vote. In state after state Grant and the Republicans won by precarious margins. Democrats also gained seats in Congress. And in the South during 1868, white Democrats resorted to violence and intimidation in order to prevent black Republicans from voting. Such disenfranchisement of blacks in the south, defeats in state referenda on suffrage throughout the North, and close calls in many elections convinced Republicans that something had to be done by the Fortieth Congress before Democrats arrived in force in the new Congress and in the statehouses.
Republican congressmen in early 1869 believed it was necessary to enfranchise adult black males as a counterweight against a resurgent Democratic party. Just as political need impelled Congress to mandate black voting for the South by federal law two years earlier, so now congress found it expedient to inaugurate African-American voting in the northern and border states by means of a constitutional amendment.4
Gary North gets to the heart of the self-serving political agenda of those who ratified the Fifteenth Amendment:
The black slave became a tool in the statist plans of the North’s Republican politicians. Congressman William D. (“Pig Iron”) Kelley of Pennsylvania announced this messianic humanist vision: “Yes, sneer at or doubt it as you may, the negro is the ‘coming man’ for whom we have waited.”5
Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment shifted control over voting regulations from the states to the federal government. However, even following ratification, full voting rights for all blacks did not occur until the mid-20th century:
Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the south were registered to vote.6
This came, in part, as a result of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s telling Congress on March 15, 1965, that “we cannot have government for all the people until we first make certain it is government of and by all the people.”7
Although President Lincoln helped emancipate the slaves, he would not have agreed with President Johnson or with the Congress that passed the Voting Rights Act. Lincoln did not believe that whites and blacks were equal, nor ever could be. During his campaign for Illinois senator, in his fourth debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas, his position was candidly clear:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.8
Lincoln was likewise opposed to negro citizenship.
Consequences
Most politically correct Americans (non-Christians and Christians9 alike) have been well-trained to believe the Fifteenth Amendment (and the entire Constitution) is a good thing. But this is just another example of calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20). In addition to the fact that elections are entirely unbiblical, unnecessary, and counterproductive (see Chapter 5, “Article 2, Executive Usurpation”), the consequences of Amendment 15’s ethnically blind voting privileges are compounded. Equal voting rights for all races led to blacks and other non-Israelites participating in political affairs, which led, in turn, to non-Israelites unlawfully ruling over Israelites. (See Chapter 23, “Amendment 14: First-Birth vs. Second-Birth Citizenship” for a more thorough explanation of the ancient Israelites’ genetic affinity with today’s Celto-Saxons.)10 Some of the initial proposals for the Fifteenth Amendment included provisions for holding public office:
The Senate began debating a constitutional amendment drafted by the Judiciary Committee and introduced by Republican William Stewart of Nevada that was similar to [George] Boutwell’s proposal, except that it also banned denying public office based on race, color, or previous status as a slave. …on February 9, 1869, the full Senate narrowly approved, 31-27, [defeated six days later by the House of Representatives] a proposed amendment introduced by Republican Henry Wilson of Massachusetts that prohibited the federal and state governments from discriminating in voting or office holding based on “race, color, nativity, property, education, or [religious] creed.”11
Although the language that would have allowed blacks and other non-whites to occupy public office did not make it into the Amendment’s final draft, nevertheless blacks ruling over Caucasians occurred quickly, and in several states, in such numbers that blacks very quickly dominated some legislatures:
The first African American to vote after the adoption of this amendment was Thomas Mundy Peterson, who cast his ballot in a school board election held in Perth Amboy, New Jersey on March 31, 1870. On per capita and absolute basis, more blacks were elected to public office during the period of 1865 to 1880 than at any other time in American history. Although no state elected a black governor during Reconstruction, a number of state legislatures were effectively under the control of a strong African American caucus.12
By 1877 about 2,000 black men had won local, state, and federal offices in the former Confederate states.13
The first African elected into Congress was Hiram Rhodes Revels:
When Senator Hiram Revels of Mississippi – the first African American to serve in Congress – toured the United States in 1871, he was introduced as the “Fifteenth Amendment in flesh and blood.”14
Revels was said to be the Fifteenth Amendment incarnate, not because he voted, but because he was the first black to be elected a congressman – the consequence of Amendment 15’s ethnically indiscriminate voting privileges.
Black-majority districts were essential for electing African-American Representatives, especially in South Carolina, which elected relatively large numbers of black Members. Only one man served a district whose population was less than 50 percent black: James Rapier represented, for one term, a southeastern Alabama district whose population was 44 percent black. The rest served districts whose populations were typically at least 60 percent African-American. Reconstruction–Era Republican state legislatures gerrymandered (drew districts that maximized their voting populations) southern states to boost the party’s national strength upon their return to the Union.15
It was the domino effect of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments that led to non-Israelites unlawfully ruling over Israelites here in America. Instead of re-colonizing the blacks back in Africa (as originally endorsed by Abraham Lincoln), the Thirteenth Amendment provided for their integration into American society, which led to the Fourteenth Amendment’s making them American citizens, which paved the way for the Fifteenth Amendment’s voting guarantee, which inevitably led to blacks and other non-Caucasians being elected into public office. This inevitably led to other biblically adverse problems:
These [predominately black] legislatures brought in programs that are considered part of government’s role now, but at the time were radical, such as universal public education. They also set all racially biased laws aside, including anti-miscegenation laws (laws prohibiting interracial marriage).16
(See Chapter 22, “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery” for a more thorough explanation concerning the sin of miscegenation.)17
Ruling Authority
Regarding the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:1-3 against eunuchs, bastards (Hebrew mamzer, “a mongrel, i.e., born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother,” Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon), and certain lineages participating in the congregation of Yahweh,18 R.J. Rushdoony had the following to say about the exclusiveness of Israel’s authority:
The ban on intermarriage was probably a real factor; certainly the penalty would work to make intermarriage difficult. But this does not get to the root of the matter. The ban was not on faith; i.e., it is not stated that the bastards and eunuchs nor, in Deuteronomy 23:3, that Ammonites and Moabites, cannot be believers. There is, in fact, a particularly strong promise of blessing to believing eunuchs in Isaiah 56:4, 5, and their place as proselytes was real even in the era of hardened Phariseeism (Acts 8:27, 28)…. Congregation has reference to the whole nation in its governmental function as God’s covenant people. G. Ernest Wright defined it as “the whole organized commonwealth as it assembled officially for various purposes, particularly worship.” The men of the legitimate blood line constituted the heads of houses and of tribes. These men were the congregation of Israel [Numbers 1:18, 26:2], not the women and children nor excluded persons. All the integrity and honesty required by the law was due to every “stranger” (Lev. 19:33, 34), and it was certainly not denied to a man’s illegitimate child, nor to a eunuch, an Ammonite or a Moabite. The purpose of the commandment is here the protection of authority. Authority among God’s people is holy; it does require a separateness [Ezra 9:1-5]. It does not belong to every man simply on the ground of his humanity.19 (Bold emphasis added.)
Conversely, in his dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan stated that “In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Although Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent cases have made this both a theoretical and literal reality, the same is not true under Yahweh’s law, Old and New Covenant alike. That the New Covenant was not made with all nations (albeit non-Israelites may become proselytes) but with a remnant of physical Israelites (Romans 9:27, 11:5, etc.) alone demonstrates a ruling class of citizens in Yahweh’s kingdom:
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH,20 that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)21
(See Chapter 23, “Amendment 14: First-Birth vs. Second-Birth Citizenship” for a more thorough explanation concerning the exclusive nature of the New Covenant with Israelites.)22
Equal justice under Yahweh’s law is not the same as equal status under His law, particularly as it pertains to citizenship and ecclesiastical and civil leadership:
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15)
And YHWH shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of YHWH thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them. (Deuteronomy 28:13)
Although there were non-Israelites among them, Moses appointed judges exclusively from among each of the Israelite tribes:
So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. (Deuteronomy 1:15-16)
Yahweh’s law does not permit aliens to rule over Israelites. North equates “the very definition of citizenship” with “the exercise of civil rulership.”23 On the other hand, North declares, “there can be no lawful discrimination by the State on the basis of differences in race, color, sex.”24 I wonder what North thinks Yahweh did under the Old Covenant regarding the nation of Israel? In this, North was influenced by Amendment 15 or something else, not the Bible.
Like so many modern Christians, North has tragically fallen prey to the humanists’ politically correct theology. This is, in part, a consequence of rejecting the pronouncement in Hebrews 8:8-9 that the New Covenant was made with physical Israelites and the indisputable historical evidence from the last two millennia proving who those Israelites are. (See Chapter 23, “Amendment 14: First-Birth vs. Second-Birth Citizenship” for an explanation concerning the identity of today’s Celto-Saxon Israelites.)25
It is nearly impossible to find a reformed pronomian Presbyterian theologian (such as North) who has directly addressed the transparent statements and tribal implications of Hebrews 8:8-9 – in fact, I have yet to find one who has done so. Instead, they are often found arbitrarily changing the recipients of this promise from Israelites to non-Israelites, the church, or generic man – something they would otherwise never do. Case in point, concerning Hebrews 8:10, North declares that “… the law is written in the hearts of men…. This work [Yahweh’s law] is in every man’s heart,”26 when Hebrews 8:10 clearly states that the New Covenant is Yahweh’s law written in the hearts of Israelites.27
Most people would agree that Yahweh was nationally or ethnically discriminating under the Old Covenant. To apply the same standard to the New Covenant, however, is often met with accusations of racism. If it is racist under the New Covenant, it was racist under the Old Covenant, and if was not racist under the Old Covenant, then it cannot be racist under the New Covenant. Otherwise, we would need a new commandment under the New Covenant, repudiating Yahweh’s former discrimination, which we do not have. Moreover, Yahweh’s morality does not change like man’s does. In fact, it is because of man’s fickle “morality” that Yahweh’s laws reflecting partiality and requiring segregation are today identified as racist – and this by many so-called pronomians.
The true effect of race knowledge is not to feed our vanity or rouse our boastfulness; rather, it should arouse a profound sense of responsibility…. Today especially we feel a revulsion against speaking of race at all. …I lay it down as a rule that whenever the thought of race leads us to boastfulness or contempt, there is something false in it….
The Bible is not a history of the human race at large, but one distinct strain of people amongst the family of races. All the other races are considered with reference to it…. The Bible deals with one race [more properly nation] which flows like a gulf Stream through the ocean of humanity. As the actual gulf Stream touches two continents and blesses the nations, so this race, in its origin, history and destiny, was selected and equipped for the service of the [other] nations….
Of course, many people still have their own ideas about this, and that creates a difficulty. For when people get their own ideas about things, it always leads to confusion. A man will rise and demand, “By what right does God choose one race or people above another?” …God’s grading is always upward. If He raises up a nation, it is that other nations may be raised up through its ministry. If He exalts a great man, an apostle of liberty, or science, or faith, it is that He might raise a degraded people to a better condition. The Divine selection is not a prize, a compliment paid to the man or the race – it is a burden imposed. To appoint a chosen people is not a pandering to the racial vanity of a “superior people;” it is a yoke bound upon the necks of those who are chosen for a special service.28
Unfortunately, there are white supremacists (under many names) who would use such knowledge to their own profane ends. However, the truth regarding with whom the New Covenant was made cannot be abandoned because this information is used to ungodly purposes.
Verse 9 in the following prophecy is referring to the Greater David, Yeshua29 (Jesus’ given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to Saul on the road to Damascus, Acts 26:14-15). This and other internal evidence reveals that this is a New Covenant prophecy about Israelites. In this same prophecy, Jeremiah declares that during the New Covenant dispensation the Israelites’ rulers were to be appointed from among their kindred:
Thus speaketh YHWH God of Israel, saying, … lo, the days come … that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah…. For it shall come to pass in that day, saith YHWH of hosts, that … they shall serve YHWH their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them…. And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them…. And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. (Jeremiah 30:1-22)
Jeremiah 33:25-26 informs us that as long as day and night continue, Yahweh wills that Israelites be ruled by fellow Israelites. In other words, nothing has changed since Deuteronomy 17:15. Under the New Covenant, Yahweh expects Israelites, with whom He made the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31), to be ruled by Israelites. Anything to the contrary – such as Amendment 15 – is a violation of His law.
One of the curses for disobedience to Yahweh’s laws is that Yahweh’s people would be ruled by foreigners (such as Barrack Obama):
The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. …he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. (Deuteronomy 28:43)
The genesis of this curse in America was the ratification of the United States Constitution in place of Yahweh’s laws. This curse was specifically legislated and guaranteed by Article 6’s prohibition of biblical leadership stipulations, Amendment 1’s provision for polytheism, Amendment 14’s first-birth citizenship, and Amendment 15’s non-Israelite and non-biblical voting privileges. This eventually resulted in leadership positions for non-Israelites. Yeshua described what ultimately comes from such biblical violations:
Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Matthew 12:25)
America’s house began to be divided with the ratification of the Constitution and was completely severed with the addition of Amendment 14, which paved the way for both Israelite and non-Israelite leadership. Before 1868, Deuteronomy 17:15 had been the rule. Not any longer. The United States Constitutional Republic is presently being led by a non-Christian black man, the consequence of breaking Yahweh’s laws. That Obama is neither an Israelite nor a Christian is much more consequential than his dubious United States citizenship.
The United States is not the only country that provides these “rights” to their citizens, irrespective of nationality or race:
Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political and other public activity, is an indefeasible law.
Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, the establishment of any direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.
Article 123, Constitution of the USSR
One might wonder whether the current United States Congress did not borrow some of their proposed hate-crime legislation from the USSR.
Legislation reflecting the culture and ethics of non-Israelites often causes Yahweh’s people to rebel and fall under judgment – the ultimate consequence of the Fifteenth Amendment. Instead, Yahweh intends for Christian Israelites to rule according to His superior and magnanimous laws.
Yahweh’s laws, including Christian-Israelite rule, is not detrimental to non-Israelites, but rather for their physical betterment and spiritual enlightenment. When assessed logically and biblically (essentially one and the same thing), the Fifteenth Amendment benefitted neither the nation, the blacks, other non-Caucasians, nor Caucasians.
Few people today understand the importance of Christian leadership, let alone the necessity of kinsmen leadership. Remember, Yahweh’s morality does not change and, therefore, neither can His laws. Deuteronomy 17:15 is just as applicable today under the New Covenant as it was under the Mosaic Covenant, especially when one understands that the New Covenant was made with Israelites, the same as was the Old Covenant:
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come [reckoned from Jeremiah’s day, Jeremiah 31:31-33], saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [in effect since the death of Yeshua, Hebrews 9:14-17] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:8-9)
Consequently, we have every reason to apply Deuteronomy 17:15 to the New Covenant in the same fashion we apply it to the Mosaic Covenant. This is reason enough to reject the Fifteenth Amendment.
Click Here to Read Chapter 25
Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:
- The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
- The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)
End Notes
1. “People & Events: Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment,” American Experience, <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/grant/peopleevents/e_fifteenth.html>.
2. “The Fifteenth Amendment in Flesh and Blood: The Symbolic Generation of Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1887,” Black Americans in Congress, <http://baic.house.gov/historical-essays/essay.html?intID=3>.
3. “People & Events: Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment,” American Experience, <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/grant/peopleevents/e_fifteenth.html>.
4. “Amendment XV to the U.S. Constitution,” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, <http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xv-to-the-u-s-constitution>.
5. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 224.
6. “15th Amendment to the Constitution,” Primary Documents in American History, The Library of Congress Web Site, <http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/15thamendment.html>.
7. Lyndon B. Johnson, quoted in “15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870),” 28 July 2010, <http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=44>.
8. Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln’s Fourth Debate with Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, Primary Sources: Workshops in American History, <http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/fourthdebate.html>.
9. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
10. For an even more thorough explanation of the ancient Israelites’ genetic affinity with today’s Celto-Saxons, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 639363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
11. “Black Voting Rights: The Creation of the 15th Amendment,” Harper’s Weekly, <http://15thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=03Creation>.
12. “Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
13. “The Fifteenth Amendment in Flesh and Blood: The Symbolic Generation of Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1887,” Black Americans in Congress, <http://baic.house.gov/historical-essays/essay.html?intID=3>.
14. “The Fifteenth Amendment in Flesh and Blood: The Symbolic Generation of Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1887,” Black Americans in Congress, <http://baic.house.gov/historical-essays/essay.html?intID=3>.
15. Ibid.
16. “Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
17. For an even more thorough explanation of the sin of miscegenation, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $6 donation.*
18. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
19. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 85.
20. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty of correcting this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
21. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If you have questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
22. For an even more thorough explanation of the exclusive nature of the New Covenant with Israelites, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
23. North, p. 834.
24. Ibid., p. 845.
25. For an even more thorough explanation of the identity of today’s Celto-Saxon Israelites, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
26. North, p. 971.
27. The nations (poorly translated “Gentiles”) whom Paul identified in Romans 2:14-15 as having the law written on their hearts are also Israelites. For a more thorough explanation regarding the correct translation and identification of the goyim in the Old Testament and the ethne in the New Testament, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*
28. William John Cameron, lecture in Dearborn, Michigan (1933), quoted in The Covenant People (Merrimack, MA: Destiny Publishers, 1966) pp. 2-9.
29. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua, with which He introduced Himself to Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14-15). For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God (without resorting to unjustified and unscriptural extremes), “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.
Click Here to Read Chapter 25
|
Most Recent Article
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Most Recent Message
The Uncircumcised
Important Books
Visit us on:
|
Printable version.