New Covenant vs. Covenant Control: The Rise of Kingdom Movements

Music Hello and welcome to another episode of the William Brandham Historical Research Podcast. I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Brandham Historical Research at William-Brandom.org, where history proves that truth, or at least their version of it, is truly stranger than fiction.

I've been wanting to do this for quite a long time. I've actually mentioned it in a few podcasts, and I'm certain that some of you have caught it, but I've wanted to talk through the covenants.

And this is a big deal because as I'm watching the comments and I'm reading through what people are sending me as far as questions, and even just watching some of the back and forth between people who are in the comment feeds, I come to realize that with regards to the covenants, it is though people are speaking a different language. For example, I had one person who strongly attacked one of my guests, which that's another story for another day, but the guest made some comment about being in the new covenants and how we're no longer bound

under the law. And this person who clearly did not understand the covenants, and especially the new covenant, started saying that and mentioning all of the different passages, saying that yes, we're still bound by the law, the law is still in effect, we're under the mosaic law.

He didn't use those words, or she didn't use those words. I don't know if it was male or female, but essentially the sum of what they're saying is you don't have this new covenant thing that you believe you have. You're still kind of under the old covenant, and you're also under the new covenant.

And to a person who's in mainstream Christianity who has gone through, I don't know, the different study groups, or even just listening to casual sermons, somebody reading that would just think, well, what on earth does this person not understand their Bible? And it isn't that they don't understand the Bible. Well, I guess partially it is, but it isn't so much that really as the fact that their understanding is based on a different premise than what is in mainstream, in fact, just Christianity in general. Whenever you talk about the gospel, the gospel is the good news,

Jesus has come, and there's a new covenant. If you read the gospel, this is very clear. But to somebody who has been manipulated and has a different frame of reference. They can't really read the same things in the Bible. And I say this from experience because in the Brannum cults, which this is going to play a large factor into this podcast. In the Brannum cults, there wasn't really a strong concept of new covenant. We weren't a new covenant based church. We were an old covenant slash, I don't even know what you would call it, but it was partial old covenant, mostly new prophet religion. That's really what the religion was.

It wasn't based on the gospel. In fact, most of the people that I encountered while I was in the cult, and almost all who I've had conversations with, who try to give me push back through either email or comment feeds, almost all of them don't understand what is the new covenant. In fact, some of them don't understand the covenants in general. Anyway, I wanted to have this conversation.

I wanted to give some frame of reference because my history in the Brannum cult actually impacts what you see in the New Apostolic Reformation today, which I'll get into that a bit. But the reason that I have held back so far is and waited this long to do this.

Initially, I thought it was a theological discussion. We're talking about the new covenant. This is the new covenant of grace. This is essentially a key component of the gospel if you understand it. And so that's a theological issue. I tried to avoid theological issues because you have so many different people with so many different theologies that it just turns into a debate that never ends.

I usually try to stay with the history, which is black and white. But thinking on something that my grandfather told me about William Brannum made me realize that this is actually a historical issue as much as it is a theological issue. So for this podcast, I'm going to try to do a few things.

Number one, I want to break down the language barrier. We have people who believe that you're under the old covenant and don't really understand the difference between the covenants. Some of them don't understand what a covenant is at all. You have people who are on the outside looking in thinking, well, these people just simply don't read their Bibles. And I want to break down the communication barriers because in each category of people in conversation about this, they can't really understand each other because they are speaking a different language.

And simply put, the New Apostolic Reformation today reveres William Brannum as one of God's generals. Quote, unquote, God's generals, I should say. They believe that he was a man who was sent by God, had angels on the platform with him, was the messenger for a Covenant, which that's a separate category of covenant. I'll get into that later basically the messenger for the last age and then he went astray. So he was a good general, then he got messed up and turned into a bad general. That's the common misconception.

However, if you look at the dates of when William Brannum was most popular, he was by almost all accounts the leader of the post-World War II healing revival. So everybody who's joined into that revival, all of the ministries that came out of it, like Oral Roberts came out of it, Billy Graham has an intersection, he wasn't part of Laterane or anything like that, but there is an intersection. You have multiple movements that developed into the New Apostolic Reformation because Brannum helped lay the framework for the apostolic networks that eventually evolved into what we see today.

And before the years that they consider him to have gone astray, Brannum upended what is the understanding, the Christian understanding of the Covenant. And I remember my grandfather telling me this story. I clearly remember the first time I heard it, I was writing with my grandfather, we were going down to Bowling Green in Kentucky, we were in the car, I was sitting in the back seat, and I think I was reading a book if I remember correctly, I was doing something while they were talking to entertain myself. And Grandpa started telling this story and he mentioned Brannum, so my ears perked up because I'm a Brannumite. I want

to say it's probably age 16, maybe 17 at this point. Anyway, we're traveling, he says, and one day I was reading through and he mentioned one of the gospels, I wish I could remember which, and he said, I came to realize that salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ, and it's a blessing that's giving to you, not anything that you can do. And I think he referenced Ephesians where it says it's by grace, you're saved through faith, not of works, blessed no man should boast if you know that passage. And he said, I remember years ago,

and my grandfather came into this movement in the mid-50s. So this is in the height of Brannum's laterane career. And he says, I'm sitting alone with, and he said, Brother Brannum, so I'm using that, that awful word, Brother. I was sitting with Brother Brannum at the table and I was explaining what I had just read. And he said, Brother Brannum got this quiet look on his face and he looked around like this and this and said, don't you never tell nobody that. And Grandpa was simply talking about salvation. And William Brannum, you know, at the time, I thought, well, man,

it must be a great mystery. We must not want all of these other people to be saved. And I got to thinking about all my friends back home who were in school, you know, and different things were running through my head. And I was thinking, well, that's...

That's a little bit sad, you know, why would we not want to share this information? But that's how it was. Branum did not understand that it was for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.

The framing of what is the target of the new covenant was altered in Branum's view. And remember, he's the leader of this revival, so everybody's coming to him, gathering his information. Some of them may have disagreed, yes, but they still touted him as the great leader.

And he was still influential. And many crowds would come to listen to him. Even churches that did not fully agree with Branum would invite their entire church to come listen to one of these healing revival speeches and then watch the healing lines because they were...

The intent was to focus on the great miracle of signs and wonders. The theology, what took second place to the miracles, and that's part of the problem that evolved into the charismatic movement in New Apostolic Reformation.

The focus on the gifts is much more strongly enforced than the focus on the doctrine. So you had these churches that were gathering together, listening to the leader who doesn't understand the gospel and in fact wants to conceal the gospel if you understand what he was telling my grandfather.

And it all comes back to the discussion of the covenants. So first, let's talk a bit about New Covenant gospel. There are... If you are unfamiliar with this term, number one, you can just simply go to a church that is not a cult, independent, not something that developed from this framework.

Go to any mainstream church and they are very clear about the gospel. That's the focus and then they add their doctrines on top of it and that's why they have denominations. But at its core, they will tell you what is the New Covenant and what is the gospel.

Everyone that I have tried out and I've attended a few different ones, they all in one way shape or form will go back and tell you what the covenants are, especially if you get into the study groups.

But basically, the New Covenant was established when Jesus came to earth, died on the cross for the salvation of the sins. And there is a liberation that happens and you have to understand the covenants to understand what this liberation is and why.

You also have to understand the historical context of the words that are spoken by Jesus. Many people read the Bible as though it's one static timeline written to you. But Jesus was coming to earth, Jesus came to earth, according to the gospels, to speak to the Jews who were still under the mosaic law.

And so many of the things he said are in reference to a law for a covenant that was still in place. So when you read things like I came to full. filled the law. Yes, he did. He's talking in that time frame. They're still under the mosaic law, the mosaic covenant. So you have to understand the time frames. And then once you understand this, you can read through passages like Luke, I think it's Luke 18, Luke 4, 18 through 19, talking about the gospel mission that's coming, the liberation, the language, without any theocratic coercion. And that's really the key if you're studying the New

Apostolic Reformation. Most people have misconceptions because other doctrines have been tacked on or stapled on very loosely to what is the New Covenant under the New Apostolic Reformation. So there's different passages you can read that talk about the Covenant. The book of Hebrews, if you just simply read it, it talks about the old Covenant, the some of the issues with it, and then now we have a new high priest. So it goes through, it walks you through this. The book of Galatians very often, if you're reading through Galatians, you can find things that completely overturn what I grew up with. It'll help you as well. But anyway, there are many

passages that you can read that will help you to go through this. But let's begin instead by talking about what is a Covenant. And if you are a researcher who's in a mainstream church, this part, you probably already know this and this is going to be boring to people who are indoctrinated in this type of movement, you're probably going to hear things that you've never heard before. I know I did the first time I heard them. But if you stick with me, I'm going to explain why the language barrier exists and why it's so difficult for people who are in a gospel-based church to

understand people who are in a, I don't even know what you call this, a church that has misconstrued and misunderstood what are the Covenants. So I'm going to try to break down that language barrier if I can. So let's begin by talking about what is a Covenant. A Covenant is a binding relationship that's established by oath with promises, obligations, sanctions, often a sign, and it can be between people and it can also be between people and groups of people and God. And there are multiple Covenants that are described in the Bible. I'm just going to go through some of the major

Covenants between God and humans. And you can kind of understand what's happening and why the language is being skewed a bit because without fully understanding exactly the definition of each Covenant, what happens is you find people who are teaching who don't understand the Covenants and they try to mix the Covenants. So whenever a person who understands the Covenants, who's in a mainstream church that is very open about discussing the Covenants and what how the gospel relates to the new covenant, they may be talking to a person who has been influenced who has no idea that these covenants aren't really to be mixed. It's a covenant, it's a binding

relationship that is established and pre-established to a specific group of people or between people and God. So for the reading, if you want to read more about some of the covenants, you can read, I think Genesis 15 talks about a covenant pattern with Abraham. Exodus 24 talks about a covenant that's ratified by blood, Deuteronomy, I think it's 29 talks about a covenant with oath-binding.

Hebrews is a good one to go through because you can read Hebrews and read through how there was a old covenant that established the priesthood and now we're under a new covenant, we have a new high priest. The entire book of Hebrews is a good read. If you really want to understand the separation between the covenants, my favorite is to just go to Galatians and read what Paul says about the covenants. But there are some major covenants between God and humans and most ministers who have heard in all categories, whether it's Pentecostal fundamentalism, the cults,

mainstream churches, etc. Most of them understand the covenant with Noah because this is a very easy thing to understand. God told Noah, I will never destroy the world by flood and I'll put a sign of the rainbow and you will know that I have made this covenant with you. It's very difficult to mix that covenant. You're not going to mix it safe, for example, with the mosaic law covenant where you can't eat shellfish. You don't find too many ministers saying, and God won't destroy the world by flood and there's a rainbow sign and therefore don't eat shellfish. It's very difficult

to mix that one. There is a covenant with Abraham. There's a promise of blessing to all families on the earth. You can read that. I think it's Genesis 12, if I remember correctly, maybe 15. I think the covenant is confirmed. You can go through and read. If you just start reading around chapter 12 in Genesis, you can read about this blessing covenant that's established and you will find it mentioned frequently and there is a little bit of mixture here because you will find it mixed people talking about the covenant with Abraham, how his seed will be blessed and all of the

children of Abraham will be blessed by God. Well, that blessing for Abraham and his seed, it is mentioned in the New Testament and so therefore without fully understanding how the covenant's work, that gets applied to the New Covenant. And while yes, you can say that the New Covenant is the New Covenant.

Christians are under this blessing because of the Trail of History, they are in fact two separate covenants. One is to Abraham, one is the New Covenant that was established. So understanding the difference is key because if you don't understand the difference, you begin to mix the covenants and in doing so you have created a New Covenant that doesn't exist. If you think in terms of a contract, which a covenant is much much more than a contract, if I have a covenant with my bank that I'm going to have a car, I'm going to lease the money for this car, I'm going to pay the bank

back, they've created a covenant partially. It's just simply a contract. If it were to be a real covenant, they would say, and you will get the blessing of driving your car, you will get the blessing of breaks that will not fail you. I will put a sign in the heavens and you will know that this is your car. I had a different covenant with a house and same deal. I would never mix these, I would never make a house payment for my car and I would never make a car payment for my house.

It doesn't make sense to do that. The contract that is written for my car doesn't really apply to the house. Maybe it's the same bank. Do I owe the bank the money? Yes, I do. But they're not going to care if I send them a check that's written to the bank for that account for my car. If I'm laid on a home payment, they're going to still hit me pretty hard because I failed to make a payment to my house. Those are contracts. They're not really covenants, but think of the covenants much in the same way. They're established separately. Yes, God, if you in that example, God might be the bank.

You might say, yes, it is the same God. Yes, you may be receiving some of the same blessings, but they are two separate covenants. Now, the one that gets really mixed, and this is where it really goes into more of a historical conversation than it does a theological conversation, is the mosaic covenant, the mosaic law. You can read through Exodus and through Deuteronomy, you can kind of get pieces of this, but unless you really dig in, it's going to be difficult to understand.

From my own experience, as I read the Bible over and over and over after leaving the cult, I will say that it was truly difficult for me to understand the covenants. And so what happens are people read through them without any background. They just start reading the text. And without having that understanding of the custom of a covenant, you really can't grasp what was made between God and man. A good way to think about the complexities of a covenant. What is a covenant?

Think about today's world. In today's world, we have the United States Constitution. and that is our civil code of conduct that is basically it's it's establishing a set of rules and guidelines that we in the United States follow as part of our civil law and we have amendments to that constitution for things ongoing that we see need a civil decision made and here is the ultimate source of truth for those decisions that's the United States Constitution. There was an attempt to separate church in state although the new apostolic reformation is trying to break down those barriers but there was initially an attempt to separate

church in state so much that we could understand the constitution as not a religious code but it was a civil code but in the ancient world there was not such a thing your religion your church your state it was all one bundle when you think of Judaism you think of Yahweh when you think of Rome you had the different Roman gods that were part of each custom and civilization city in that civilization so you had a strong binding between the God of the people and the conduct code of the people it was no different in ancient

Israel so you had civil law you had ceremonial law religious law etc and a good example of this is Matthew 19 the Pharisees corner Jesus and they ask him about marriage and divorce and Jesus says something to the effect that Moses allowed this because of the hardness of your heart so those who were in the debate that between the old covenant the new covenant whether it's established fully by God and fully enforced by God think of that one single example Moses allowed it what is being discussed here is a civil code of conduct Moses mediated the mosaic law that's why it's called

the mosaic law and mediated through Moses divorce was permitted and he required a certificate in that scenario because not because divorce is good but because apparently people were already doing it so why would Moses permitted it all Jesus gave the reason because of the hardness of your heart I think that's Matthew 19 eight and this means essentially that Israel's law included concessions to limit damage in a sinful society so the law had specific limits in it and the certificate basically function like a constraint and a protection especially for women who could not be discarded so rather than put females into this this horrific state this

this was allowed in the civil code of conduct and that civil code was part of the mosaic law so again when you think of I use shellfish as an example but let's use a different example there's an example for stoning your children if they disobey in today's world our civil law would permit that, we, in fact, you would go to prison if you were to kill one of your kids.

Under the mosaic law, this was different because that was part of their civil code of conduct. That was their culture. It was a more of a civil code than it was a religious code, and people who leave religion altogether because they've been taught this narcissistic version of God. It's often because of examples like this. They attribute the civil code, the custom code to what the deity is pushing in our case Yahweh. And they leave it all together because if God looks like this, we won't know part of it. Because in today's code of conduct, we would not stone our children. Moses and the ancient Israelites had customs that were establishing

what would become a kingdom. You'll find in the mosaic law all kinds of different categories of code. You'll find religious code, ceremonial code. You'll find things in the mosaic law and those passages that are talking about how not to grow mold in your huts. And when you listen to a minister who's preaching a mixture of law and grace and saying, yes, we're still bound by the old covenant, you often don't find them talking about mold growing in your huts or the shellfish conversation.

In fact, you'll find many of the ministers who are trying to put people under that old covenant eating at all you can eat buffet on Sunday afternoon and eating shellfish. It's kind of funny when you think about it. And there are passages in the New Testament that say if you try to uphold the law, which is the old covenant, and you fail in one piece, you're guilty of the whole law.

What does this mean? Say that I've paid off my house. And this is a very loose example because a covenant is much more than a contract, but say I'm in a covenant, a contract from my house.

And I tell the bank, okay, I'm done paying and I've missed a payment. Well, they're not going to give me the house, man. It's a binding contract. Well, a covenant was bound by oath. It was a two part. In some cases, it was two parts. In some cases, it was just a blessing of God. I will never do this thing. I'll never destroy the water, the world by water. You'll see a sign in the rainbow.

And you'll remember that I have made this covenant with you that you do nothing for. You just simply live and I won't destroy the world by water. That was a one way covenant that wasn't a contract. So understanding the separation of the covenant is key. There's also a covenant with David. And if you understand the Davidic covenant, there are key elements of that covenant that has messianic language. And because of this, you'll find some ministers who try to mix the Davidic covenant with the new covenant of grace.

When you do this, again, if you try to mix two covenants, what you end up with is not either. They're separate. Another way to say this, I have, I have all my desk different books and I've got, looking over here, I've got, Dilbert, Dilbert book, all dressed up, all dressed down with nowhere to go and I've got, I don't know, a far side book.

So I've got these two books on my desk right now that I have been reading as research content. And if I were to tell you that I'm going to take these two books and combine them together and I'm going to have all dressed, all dressed down with nowhere to go except the far side.

I can say that all I want, but those are two separate books and when you open them up, you're going to see the far side cartoons, you're going to see the Dilbert cartoons. No matter how I try to stretch the truth, these are two separate books, they can't be combined.

No matter how hard a minister tries to take two different covenants and combine them, you can say that some elements may cross over, but you cannot combine them. They are two separate covenants. Have you ever wondered how the Pentecostal movement started or how the progression of modern Pentecostalism, transition through the latter reign, charismatic and other fringe movements into the new apostolic reformation?

You can learn this and more on William Brannum Historical Research's website, William-Brannum.org. On the book's page of the website, you can find the compiled research of John Collins, Charles Paisley, Stephen Montgomery, John McKinnon and others, with links to the paper, audio and digital versions of each book.

You can also find resources and documentation on various people and topics related to those movements. If you want to contribute to the cause, you can support the podcast by clicking the contribute button at the top.

And as always, be sure to like and subscribe to the audio or video version that you're listening to or watching. On behalf of William Brannum Historical Research, we want to thank you for your support.

So I mentioned that this was going to be a historical podcast and everybody who's listening thinks I just went into theology. What I actually did was I just simply described what I read, which any of you can read without a theologian.

You just simply need to open up the Bible and read the passages. Now I'm going to go a little bit deeper into the new covenant of grace. And it's going to sound like I'm getting into theology a bit, but I have to, before I get into the history, and there's a reason for this.

So as I've described, there were covenants, there were multiple. The one that I focused on last was the mosaic covenant, which is basically, when you hear people talk about the mosaic law or they're under the law, they're in a works righteous faith, there's different phrases.

that are used by people who are on the outside looking in, that people on the inside looking out can't understand. Why is this? Because of that merging of covenants that I described earlier, you had the mosaic law, which Moses was the mediator, the, he was the executor.

He was the one who was the interface between God and man. And you had the new covenant, which was established by Jesus. The other thing to understand about covenants as it relates to the contract examples that I gave, in the examples I gave with the contract from my car, the contract from my house, there is a clear starting point and a clear ending point.

In those contracts, I begin, I take out a bank loan, I owe, I don't know where it is, $5,000. They give me the $5,000 loan. I start paying the loan at the end of the $5,000 plus interest.

Then the car is mine, and I'm no longer bound by that contract. I'm free. I'm free. Welcome, welcome to freedom. Well, in these covenants, some of them have starting in date, some of them do not.

There is no in date mentioned that I can find for the covenant with Noah. There will always be a rainbow that was the sign given to the covenant. I will never again destroy the whole world by water.

So that's a never ending covenant by between God and man that really has nothing that man should do to keep that covenant. In other words, in the contract example, I'm not making any more payments.

It's just free. The car is yours. The mosaic law was a bit different. And it's not so much that an in date was declared in the covenant itself, but some covenants have replacement covenants.

And the best way to understand that is to read the New Testament when it talks about clear examples where the covenant that God established with Moses was being replaced by the New Covenant. My favorite book for that is Hebrews.

You can go to Hebrews 8, verse 13 says, in that he say at the New Covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away, I'm reading in the Queen's English, the KJB.

So when people who are on the outside looking in have a conversation about the New Covenant of grace and make the statement, but you're under the old covenant and people who are in that mindset where they're still perpetually in that old covenant, they're usually referring to this exact specific point.

When a New Covenant is established that is replacing the old, the old one goes away. A good example of this, a refinance my car. Again, a contract is much more simplistic than the Covenants, but say with the bank, I took out a loan for 5,000.

I still owe 2000 and I want a better interest rate. I take out another loan. Well, I'm not bound by that first contract when I replace the second one. So a new covenant with my bank has been established and I'm using air quotes on covenant because now I have a new contract and the new contract is supersedes the old contract and there will be verbiage that says, your old contract goes away.

That is exactly what the book of Hebrews is. It is a statement of transition between the old covenant and the new covenant. In verse 86, it says, we've obtained a more excellent ministry, the mediator of a better covenant.

So in my example, I had a better interest rate and because I had a better interest rate, my new covenant with my bank is better than my old covenant. That's exactly what Hebrews 8 says.

Now, say I wanted to change my bank. I want to go to a different bank because the better interest rate is with the other bank. Hebrews 7, verse 12 says, for the priesthood being changed, there is made a necessity also a change of the law.

It's talking about a different priesthood. There's also a change to the law. So in my simplistic car example, there's a change of the bank. There's also a change of the interest rate. It's clearly detailing in Hebrews the changes that are being made to the covenant and entering into basically a new covenant that supersedes the old, but it's really, really explicit.

If you read Hebrews 10, verse 9, he take it the way the first that he may establish the second. In the example of my bank, the bank take it the way, the first one that I had, the one with the higher interest rate, so that they may establish the lower interest rate.

And you can find this kind of language all throughout the Bible. There's talk about the covenant, send some of them are forever covenant, some of them are contractual elements to the covenant between God and man, things that you must do.

In the mosaic law, they were blessings. If you kept the law, curses, if you failed at the law. And the New Testament says, again, if you fail in any one point, your guilty of the whole thing, which means essentially you have the guilt of all of the curses.

In the example of my bank, which is a very simplistic example, not a covenant, if I am guilty of missing one payment and they repossess my car, I'm guilty of the whole car. That's how simple this really gets.

And you can read throughout the rest of the New Testament, Corinthians, second Corinthians three, six, it says he made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit.

And what is being referred to specifically is the letter of the law. to understand the language that's being used, it's talking about those who live by the letter of the law, which is essentially saying those who live by works.

And Paul, and many of his letters, he talks about, it's not by works, but it's by grace, but yet we should also do good works if we can. I mean, that's really where it comes down to.

So understanding that there was a old covenant and that Moses was the arbitrator, the, I don't know which, there's a word for this in the ancient Jewish system, but he's basically the one who is doing the intercessory work between God and man in establishing the covenant, I think is one way to say it, very simplistic way.

Go listen to a theologian because that's theology and you can understand it better. Historically, let's get into that a bit. So historically, if you were a Christian and you were based in a gospel Christian church and by gospel, I mean someone who understands that there was an old covenant, that there were curses associated with that covenant, if you failed, has read the books of kings and understood the historical books of the Bible to understand where Israel failed, understands the context of the prophets who came to not predict futures like they tried to say in the NAR Charismatic circles,

but as voices, mouthpieces of God for that covenant, that's really key to understand. So God establishes this covenant, he's working with Moses and says, if you hold the law, I will give you these blessings.

If you fail in the law, I will give you these curses. Well, how is man going to know if God is going to give a curse back then according to what you read in the Old Testament there was the voice of the prophet who would say, because Israel, you have done this horrific thing, you've brought idolatry into the camp which includes human sacrifice and all of these other things because you did this awful thing, here's the curse that's coming.

Yes, it was a futuristic prophecy. Yes, there was a future element, but the focus was actually back on the covenant. That's why they're called old covenant, old Testament prophets if you understand that concept.

British israelism skewed all of this because in the British israel notion, which was completely pseudo-archeological nonsense. The people of the British Isles and then later extended to the United States and Canada were the descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel.

That was the notion that they created. And when they did this, there were, this was not so much a religious movement as it was a, I don't know what you call it, pseudo-political deal.

Cratic movement that was basically saying we're the good guys. Everyone else is the bad guys. That's it was more for the elite people in Great Britain. Well, once this came over into the United States, there wasn't really an understanding that it was just supposed to be a fraternal order. I think that's how it was attempting to be established. Instead, they thought, well, if it's old, if this is a descendant of the 10 tribes of Israel, it must be a religious thing. And so they started integrating religion into it. Not to say that this only happened in the United States. You can look in the history, Michael

Barkun's book is the best one I've read called religion and the racist right. You can kind of get how this history evolves over time. But it's essentially a notion that they are royalty that eventually ends up to this is a religious system that we will combine all kinds of doctrines with it. And we will reinterpret the Old Testament to find out what blessings we get because we're part of this Jewish system. And that's really the key to understand how this began to devolve and turn into this big mess. So the British Israel system, because it was a continuation

of the tribes of Israel logic, not a new covenant logic. It was more focused on the Israel side. There were ministers who began reading the Old Testament and saying things like, I see this event happening today. It looks an awful lot like a similar event happened in the Old Testament.

And because I can find a similarity, that must be a futuristic prophecy for today, written to our version of Israel that happened also in the Old Testament days, the ancient world. And so that was the shadow of the thing that we're seeing today. That was kind of the logic that was being applied. And so there were ministers who were trying to say that, yes, we are under a new covenant because we're Christian. However, we're also Israel. So we need to figure out which parts of the law we must keep to become holy. Much like the Pharisees were doing in Jesus' day,

that Jesus was condemning religious leaders were doing in the 20th, 1920s centuries. They were trying to say that we must become more holy because we are Israel. And there are numerous pathways that this comes into the Pentecostal movement, not just the two examples that I have researched heavily, but you can find the holiness movements did this by and large. But John Alexander Dowie took it to the extremes that I don't believe I've seen anybody else do. He tried, I kept using the shellfish example. He actually went through the mosaic code.

food to try to determine what foods were appropriate for his group and what foods should be condemned. And when he established the cult city of Zion City in Illinois, there were actually civil codes in Zion City that did not permit eating pork, for example, and they would ridicule anybody from the outside world who ate pork. You can go read through some of his books and sermons. The language is very derogatory. What's he doing? He's trying to pick and choose which parts of the old covenant that his group could become more holy and the idea is to

achieve perfection. So this notion of cult, this cultish notion of perfectionism mixed with British israelism, mixed with the old covenant, which was being replaced, started to integrate old covenant ideas into new covenant thought. And Dowie is, by far, the best example that I've seen for this. There was also Frank Sanford who was teaching a school doing similar things.

Both men were deeply, if you understand their theology, they were both deeply rooted in British israelism. But Frank Sanford had a school that was apparently so large that Amelia Earhart, I believe it was her, she was flying over. She thought it was mistook it for the capital of man. It was this massive, massive school that was somewhat world famous before the cult went destructive. And he was teaching British israelism. You can find him praising Cal Totten, for example, different figures in British israelism. And he's spreading the British israel doctrine.

Charles Fox Parham, who is by many accounts, the father of modern Pentecostalism, goes to both complexes teaching British israelism, to learn how he can establish his own communal city in Kansas, and learns from these two British israel teachers. Now, that's not to say that he went to the same extremes. I don't believe I have read anything about poor or shellfish or anything like this with Charles Fox Parham. But the idea, the framework of theology began to progress through Parham. And so in this early proto Pentecostal holiness adjacent movement with Dauy Sanford Parham, all of these related streams, they're selectively choosing categories of old

testament code, the code that Moses wrote, for purity, the holy community, community, God city, language, to try to establish community boundaries. And I think that's the key concept to understand. It isn't so much the theology as it is. Historically, they were trying to reinvent a partial mosaic law.

religion. And they were the ones who were basically, they were mediating their own contract. There was no interface between God telling them, you must choose this, this, and this. From the old covenant law, they were dictating what laws got adopted in their communities. And by those laws, they deemed people either holy or unholy. And so this turned into a new covenant altogether, had nothing to do with the old covenant or the new covenant of grace that's mentioned in the Bible. This was literally their own covenant for their own city. And it became part of their own

civil code. Worse, I don't believe from anything that I have read that any of these figures that I have mentioned fully understood the old covenant and its complexities. You don't find them separating and understanding what was the civil code versus the ceremonial code. With Dauy, it was all one and the same. This is all the mosaic code. We are to adopt it. But then he would take certain elements out of the old covenant law, which was very interesting if you think about it.

But what were they doing? They were establishing new communities and new standards for holiness. Because in doing so, as central figures of their movements, they could say that our group is clearly different from this other group. And they would proceed to say things that would insinuate that their group was better than the other group. So among all of the different holiness groups that had emerged, they were the elite. And as it relates to the New Apostolic Reformation, the cults, the Pentecostal cult, the Laterane, understanding the elitism is key. And that's a core part of the history of how this movement not only evolved, but separated from the gospel,

men who didn't understand the covenants, teaching parts of the old covenant law, as though it were written for today's world, combining with British Israelism to say that we are the Israelites for which this code was written. And not the best way to say it is just fully avoiding the book of Hebrews. The part where it says this was an old covenant and it's being replaced is fully wiped out in their minds. So that established the framework that was built upon fast-forward to the Laterane movement. In the Laterane movement, William Brannum, who didn't understand the gospel at all, or if he did understand it, he tried to conceal it much like the

example I gave with my grandfather. He was mentored in the Revivals by FF Bosworth, who was out of Dauy's Zion City, who was actually leadership in Zion City. So being mentored by somebody who had that background, he was also led by his campaign manager, was Gordon Lindsay, who founded later Christ for the nation.

And still today teaches all kinds of doctrine that has this root, maybe not the same level of heresy, but has this root. Lindsay's family were in Zion City, and his family had joined the params sect towards the end, and they moved out to be with John G. Lake, who was also in the same sect in Zion City.

He was a paramite. So they carried forward the param stream, the Charles Fox param stream of this doctrine. Branum was being led by a mentor, by a trained, by working with, collaborated with, wrote editorial articles for in his voice of Healing magazine, and strongly promoted leaders who had this ideology.

And they carried it a step further whenever the latter reign movement broke out. Not only did they sort of copy what, what Zion City had, they didn't take it to the same level of extremes, but they copied the idea that the mosaic code should be filtered by an apostle or prophet, as the spoken word for what they should mediate between God and man in this new version of a covenant they're creating.

Well, they took it a step further, and they tried to introduce parts of the ceremonial law, especially with regards to the feasts. They went through the mosaic code. They tried to, I don't know, tried to categorize the feasts and apply them into today's world, which can't really be applied at all, much like the example that I gave of the two books.

But they tried to, and they tried to say that these feasts will be established, leading up to the great feast, which will be the great harvest, that eventually ended up into this billion souls harvest idea.

There will be this great feast, this great celebration, and I know Brannum did, I think some of the others did, they relied heavily on the Old Testament prophets to predict futures that were being discussed as part of the Old Covenant dialogue, that basically the interface between God and man was the prophet for the Old Covenant.

We're trying to say that that interface between God and man as it related to the feasts was being spoken through the prophets of the Old Testament, but also being that shadow was being made plain to day through the new fivefold ministry concept.

And they created this hierarchical structure where there's an apostle, then a prophet, and all the way down the Ephesians, fivefold ministry tiers. They created as a pyramid where at the top you had the elites, they basically became the Moseses that were mediating the new Covenant that they were establishing while not calling it a covenant, but establishing a new covenant.

that was replacing literally replacing the old covenant of law and the new covenant of grace. They were creating something different. And Brannum was very, very clear about this. In the revivals, he would say, the word for Moses day won't work in the days of Paul. The word for Paul's day won't work in our day. What was he doing? He was saying very clearly that there was a covenant established with Moses. That was for Moses' people. There was a covenant established for Paul. That was for Paul's people. Today, we have a new covenant. During those years, it was

probably a latter reign. Later on, when he abandoned the latter reign movement, it became something even more destructive and entirely different than that. But he was essentially saying, we have now a new covenant that replaces the new covenant of grace in Paul's day. And I know that there were people who are Brannumites who aren't yet aware that he did this. But think back to one of the examples he gave was this weird vision where he claimed that he had seen the other side.

And he saw these people marching through with their leader as though Christianity were some weird leadership model. And he saw these people rejoicing and they were going to the throne to be judged. And they were Paul's people. And then he saw the most beautiful, wonderful people. And whose people are they? He asked somebody and they said, where are your people, brother Brannum? And he said, well, I've preached the same message as Paul. And they said, we're resting on that.

If you understand that idea, he was basically, if you look at the gods' generalist thing, Paul was the general for his people. Brannum was the general for his people. Moses was the general for his people. And combined that, while in that example, he said, I preach the same message Paul did.

But combined that with what he said outside of that sermon, he said that the message for Paul's day won't work today. What was Paul preaching? He was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was preaching the new covenant. You can read through Galatians. You can read through all of the books that I've mentioned. Paul is preaching the new covenant gospel. So if that won't work for today, Brannum is saying, before all of these crowds of people, all of these leadership roles that have evolved into the New Apostolic Reformation today, who did accept him at this point of time.

They believe that the word for Paul, which was the gospel, which was the new covenant, won't work for today if they adopted what Brannum said. So he essentially wiped away the old covenant and the new covenant and tried to reestablish something altogether different, which was a combination of all of those. That's why he picked some things out of the mosaic law and said, we must do these things. And he picked things that Jesus or Paul said and said, we must also do these things. And tried to establish it such that it was a contract that he was the mediator of,

Brannum, between God and man. And in this contract, you must a follow the leader that was part of his contract. If you abandoned that leader, if you walked away and said, I remain Christian, but I'm no longer Brannum, or if it was Oral Roberts, I'm no longer a Oral Roberts guy.

If you abandoned your leader, you were breaking your covenant between, that was mediated between the leader and God. So it was a new covenant altogether that wasn't the gospel, it wasn't the old covenant, it wasn't the new covenant, but it was a merger of all of the covenants of the Bible, including the Davidic covenant.

And if you understand that history and you also understand what is contained in those covenants, then understand that something new was created, fast forward to today's language, the kingdom theology, the kingdom now theology.

I've mentioned Wimbler's theology, I know people hate me for this. If you understand the language that is being said in each one of these ministries, and understand that the new covenant that Brannum had created, which replaced the new covenant of grace, it was a new new covenant.

Well, that language is being adopted in these groups and they're carrying it forward today. There's much more that I could say about all of this, but honestly, I don't know that I could go there without really going deep into theology, which is something I try to avoid.

If you want to understand that better, I recommend you go to your pastor. Most pastors will sit down and they'll talk through and explain this and try to do it in such a way that you can understand.

If you're like me and you just want to study it yourself, I've mentioned the books, but you can study Leviticus for the feasts, and I may get this wrong, you may have to go look me up, make sure that I'm correct, but Exodus has the tabernacle pattern, the tabernacle language that was being adopted in the new Apostolic Reformation Frameworks.

John, I think it is, the gospel of John has the tabernacle imagery if I'm correct, but Galatians, that's one of my favorite reads because it begins to understand that there is a clear separation between the old covenant and the new covenant.

Hebrews, it's like the historical contractual, I look at it much like it is the contract language that describes the new document that's being signed, is replacing the old document that's being signed. Hebrews walks you through the fulfillment of the old covenant, the new priesthood that's being established, the different changes that were going to happen as related to the new covenant.

And there's different passages that you can go through, but those are usually the ones that I recommend people target. And just read the Bible. I mean, start in the New Testament, read it all, and you'll find the New Covenant, because it is in the New Testament.

There is no language, does not exist in the New Testament, that says we will eventually have an Apostle or Prophet, who is going to give us a New New Covenant that replaces the Old Covenant, and you will ignore parts of the Old Covenant, and you will ignore parts of the New Covenant, and adhere to the New New Covenant, which must be executed by, led by, mediated by, interceded by an Apostle or Prophet in the New Apostolic Reformation, or its history.

You won't find that language, because it just simply does not exist, but so much more I could say, but like I say, it dives into theology, and I'll let you talk that through with your pastors.

So if you enjoyed the show and you want more information, you can check us out on the web. You can find us at www.William-Branum.org. For more about the dark side of the New Apostolic Reformation, you can read Weaponized Religion from Christian Identity to the NAR, available on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible.

www.William-Branum.org www.William-Branum.org