Daniel in Book Form

The Offence of Daniel

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Millenial Studies

Lesson: 1-12

Genre: Lecture

Track: 156

Dictation Name: RR128A1

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Let us begin with prayer. Almighty God our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto Thee that we can gather together in Thy name. To acknowledge that indeed Thou has been most gracious unto us, and that Thou has beset us before and behind with Thy mercies and blessings. Teach us our Father in all things to be grateful, to know that Thou art very near, and that Thou wilt never leave us nor forsake us. Strengthen us in faith. Encourage us in hope. Make us bold in battle. Unto the end that in Jesus Christ we may conquer. In His name we pray. Amen.

We begin today our series of studies in the book of Daniel with the first Chapter of Daniel. Our subject is: the Offence of Daniel. Daniel 1. The Offence of Daniel.

“1In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.

 2And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

 3And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

 4Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

 5And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.

 6Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

 7Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

 8But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

 9Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

 10And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

 11Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,

 12Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.

 13Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.

 14So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.

 15And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.

 16Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

 17As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

 18Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.

 19And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.

 20And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

 21And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.”

Our subject today is: the Offence of Daniel, specifically of the book of Daniel. The offence of Daniel of course is the offence of the whole of the Bible. From beginning to end, men find in the Bible something offensive to them, because in their unbelief and in their modernism they hate God. But certain portions of the Bible in particular draw this concentrated hatred and venom, and chief among these is the book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel declares itself to have been written by Daniel; beginning approximately in 606-607 B.C. going on to his old age.

According to virtually every seminary in the United States, with only one or two exceptions irrespective of the church either openly or implicitly it is taught that the book of Daniel instead of having been written in the 6th century B.C was written in the 2nd century B.C.; a difference of four centuries. That it was not written by Daniel. That it did not deal with historical happenings, that it was forgery and myth. This is the standard line. At every point it is attacked. There was no Daniel. No such events took place. From beginning to end it is not granted one shred of truth. And this is done on philosophical grounds.

The evidence is clearly against these men. Some years ago a very important study was published by a major scholar in the United States at one of our major universities a man who does not purport to have any church affiliations. In this study he demonstrated very clearly without any reference of course to the book of Daniel, but nonetheless he demonstrated that the book of Daniel has an amazing, precise, and extensive knowledge of Babylon; of the inner workings of the royal house; of things that disappeared from history when Babylon fell; and were unknown to the conquerors of Babylon and subsequent historians and unknown until recent excavations confirmed the accuracy of Daniel. Now this study was published in the 20’s. It represented the work of research of some twenty years prior to that. Has it changed the picture in the minds of these unbelievers, these modernists? Not at all. They do not allow their minds to be confused with facts. As a result they continue to assert that the book of Daniel is a myth. It is of Maccabean origin and so on.

The offence of Daniel is its context. Because Daniel asserts certain things which if the book is what it declares itself to be, make impossible all modernism and unbelief. Let us analyze briefly these central points of offence in Daniel.

First, the God of all scripture is very clearly and unmistakably the God of the book of Daniel. But so very openly what He is that there is no evading Him. The name of God is according to scripture Jehovah. This is a transliteration of the Hebrew name which no one knows for sure. The meaning of it is clearly known. Moses when he faced God in the wilderness asked God to name himself. Now a name in antiquity was a definition. So what Moses asked of God was, “Define yourself God.” And God refused saying, “I am that I am.” I am He who is the self-existent one. Now the significance of the name of God is that God is not definable because God is the definer. All things are defined by God. There is nothing above God that could define God. He is the principle by whom all things are not only created but are defined and understood.

Now Socrates when he spoke about God spoke about the epitome of the good, the true, and the beautiful. But what were these things? The good was what Socrates said was the good. What he didn’t like was not the good. The true was what Socrates by his philosophy determined was true. Everything else he excluded. The beautiful again was what Socrates said was beautiful. And god was the epitome of good, true, and the beautiful; the definition of these things. Now who was god in Socrates thinking? Socrates. Because Socrates was the one who defined the good, the true, and the beautiful. Socrates was the only one who understood what the good, the true, and the beautiful were. So if you were to know reality in affect you had to know the mind of Socrates. And of course one of the things that Socrates found to be good, true and beautiful was homosexuality because he was a pervert. And he saw nothing wrong in the public performance of this act. This for him constituted the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Now the only possible way we can have God is on His terms. And this is the first offence of the book of Daniel. It gives us God on his terms only and not an idea but as the God who acts; as the sovereign, the omnipotent, the self-sufficient God who ordains all things and governs all things. If men are going to be god how can they tolerate the true God? Solomon declared in Proverbs 16:9. “A man’s heart deviseth his ways but the Lord directs his steps.” And again in Proverbs 20:24. “Man’s goings are of the Lord. How can man then understand his own ways?”

Now this is the teaching of all scripture. But in Daniel it is not only taught it is demonstrated emphatically that this is God the total governor, the total Predestinator, the total planner. And when men are going to be their own planners such a god is very, very objectionable. The second offence of the book of Daniel is its predictive prophecy. In the book of Daniel certain things are very clearly predicted. Daniel declares among a great many other things that the Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar shall perish. It shall be destroyed by another empire. Their empire in turn shall be in turn destroyed by another empire; Alexander the Great. And this third empire shall shatter into four parts, which it did. And then be succeeded by a fourth empire; Rome. And that in the days of this fourth empire God shall bring into being a fifth monarchy, which shall begin insignificantly in and through this Messiah but shall finally cover the entire earth.

Now either this true or it isn’t. And Daniel declared it. God said the last portion has been clearly fulfilled. How are you going to get around this? If this is the case; if Daniel declared these things then Daniel’s God is the living God. So how do you get around this? First you say there cannot be any predictive prophecy; this is impossible. Therefore since predictive prophecy is impossible Daniel could not have been written by Daniel, and could not have been written when it was supposedly written. Therefore follows it was not written at that time. Therefore it follows Daniel is fraudulent. It is a forgery. It was a book that had to appear by definition after the events. Because it is was impossible to predict anything that precisely and specifically. That argument you see rests on a faith; on an anti-biblical faith from start to finish.

The third offence of Daniel is the element of miracles. Now there are miracles in many other books of the Bible, but when the Hebrews and the Judeans later looked at the Old Testament and read about the miracles that God performed, smiting Egypt with ten plagues, parting the Red Sea asunder, the miracles in the days of Joshua, and so on. They could say: “You see? God did these things for us!” but they couldn’t say that about the miracles of Daniel. Because the miracles of Daniel are God centered, and they have reference not to what He is doing for any man but to bring His purposes to pass. This is offensive to many people; it is offensive to the Jews. Therefore they just neglected Daniel. They didn’t want any part of it. “If God is going to work a miracle he better work it for me or it’s an insult to me.” That was their attitude. And so they were hostile to the book of Daniel. It is never been a popular book among the Jews either in the pre-Christian or in the Christian area.

The fourth aspect of Daniel that makes it offensive is it’s assurance of total providence. Our Lord of course declared emphatically in Matthew 10:29-30, that not a sparrow falls that your Father in Heaven doesn’t know about. The very hairs of your head are all numbered so that not a hair falls apart from the government and providence of God. This is total providence. And on this basis our Lord said fear not evil therefore. God is completely in charge. But when men are planning to make themselves the planners, to put themselves in charge and to say our total government and our total providence is going to govern the world they hate the providence of God. They react to it with hostility. And therefore the book of Daniel is offensive to them.

The book of Daniel begins very succinctly. Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem. This was not the final destruction of Jerusalem which came about twenty years later. But the policy of Babylon was as far as possible to work cooperatively with people to integrate them into this one world empire the dreamed of. If they resisted they then broke off each nation and scattered the peoples through-out the empire. The purpose of this was to destroy their old loyalties, their language, so there would be one language; one people. This was done to Judah as it was done to many other peoples but, they also worked to make this move acceptable to people because once they scattered them throughout the empire they avoided offence to these people. They had the privileges of Babylonians. Moreover they usually took the prize youngsters from the Royal house and the princely and noble families, as in this case, and took them to the king’s palace. These were boys, young boys, age ten, eleven, twelve years; picked in terms of their physical appearance and intelligence. They were very well treated. They were given various kinds of aptitude tests and then they were trained for whatever their aptitude was; administration in one or two branches of civil services, in various specialties in the sciences, or religion if they had a bend in that direction, or the Babylonian brain trust as it were, and then these peoples would then scatter throughout the empire would feel they were a part of the empire. After all there were men from their royal families back in the old days who were now powerful rulers within the empire high up in the bureaucracy. This very, very wise move on the part of Babylonians, and helped forestall a lot of the rebelliousness on the parts of the peoples.

Now Daniel and his three friends we know better through their Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshac, and Abednigo, were among those chosen; a difficult life for a boy, particularly a Godly young man. It meant of course that the very congeniality of the situation, the luxury with which he was surrounded, the high promotion that was always held out to him made it very easy for him to forget his faith and his loyalties. And he knew also instinctively that could forget his people but they would always be proud of him. They would always look up to him as one of their men in high places so that he had the advantage both ways. These were four young boys and Daniel felt that it was important to separate himself to a degree without being (demandful?) without being offensive, from this situation. He already commended himself to the chief of the Eunuchs who was in charge of the scholars and so he went to him for the request. The meat that was put on the tables before them was dedicated to idols; the consumption of it was in the palace in those circumstances a kind of communion service. They felt their youth; they felt their weakness, in making any kind of stand in maintaining their faith in this situation. So Daniel went on behalf of his three friends and himself and asked: “Can we be given just pulse and water to eat. Pulse being cereals, grains. They would thereby during this period when they were in the palace in the college avoid the idolatrous communion services. The chief of the Eunuchs, anxious to be cooperative with Daniel, said that he was afraid of the consequences of their health and mental performance should reflect the change of diet. But he agreed when Daniel asked for a ten day trial to go along with it. At the end of that time they were clearly far superior. A luxurious diet obviously was not as beneficial to the youths as this more Spartan diet was for these four boys.

When the time for examinations came after the three year course these four young men proved to be outstanding when they were examined in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar and in part by Nebuchadnezzar. And so they distinguished themselves and were given responsible positions and before too long rose to high places within the empire. So begins the book of Daniel; very simply, very modestly with the story of four boys in a very difficult situation far from home. Taken from home as lads and placed in a situation it could be easy to forget their faith and their training. It continues to be one of the most explosive books imaginable; a very great and a remarkable declaration of the power of God.

Let us pray. Our Lord and our God we thank Thee that Thou art the God of Daniel and Thou art God of our soul. We thank Thee that the very hairs of our head are all numbered. That not a sparrow falls but Thou Lord knowest. In this confidence we come to Thee to commit ourselves afresh into Thy loving care. To rejoice that underneath all the experience of life are Thine everlasting providence. Our Lord and Our God how great Thou art. We pray this in Jesus name.

Amen

[Questioner] Not recorded

[Dr. Rushdoony]Well, the point is you see, what He said to Moses: first I cannot be defined because I define all things. Then He said I cannot be redefined but I reveal myself. I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and therefore the God of Isabel, and of Dorothy, of everyone who is Mine. So God defined Himself not in terms of abstract ideas because ideas come from Him, He is the definer. But He in a sense said I am to be defined by my revelation. I reveal myself to be the God of my people.

[Questioner] I heard two different Jews say two different things about God, one was an Orthodox Jew who said that the God of the Jews was not the same God as the God of the Christians. And this was in answer to you know, all Gods are alike. And the other one said: “We gave the Christians their God.”

[Dr. Rushdoony] The Orthodox Jews of course have a different confession of God then we do. They are basically Unitarian in their belief. The Bible is Trinitarian from start to finish. But as a result of their hostility to Christianity, Orthodoxy forsook Trinitarianism for Unitarianism. The position of the liberal Judaism is basically not Unitarian but humanistic. So when they say we give the Christians their God they mean of course the social action people, the humanists in the Church, the God is love boys who identify God with feelings. This is the usual position of these two groups.

Question: Could you expound on the fact that the Orthodox Jews…The name of God… Are these different forms for the name of God?

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, they are not different forms for the name of God but there are different titles for the name of God. So that He is called Lord, He is called God, the word God or the Lord God. And there are a number of other titles for Him in terms of His revelations but only one name. Now the commandment of course declared, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and the Hebrews were so fearful of taking the name of the Lord in vain that they avoided the pronunciation of the name of God and it was regarded as best not to use it. It would be blasphemous. As a result this accounted for the fact that the very pronunciation of the name of God is lost. We are not sure exactly how it is pronounced. You liberal scholars say it is Yahweh. The older English scholars gave it a name which says Jehovah. They very definitely were not trying to reproduce the Hebrew. They were just giving something that proximate it as something that would be feasible in English. So while this was an exaggerated attitude basically it was sound in that there was reverence and a respect and awe and not casualness in regard to God which I think has come in too much into the church in recent times in particular. That is why even Jehovah until about 1900 was not too commonly used. The name would speak the word. The American Revision of 1901 used Jehovah throughout but in the King James you will find instead of any attempt to give the name of God simply LORD in capital letters. This was substituted for the name of God.

[Question] I’d like to know, to me, you mentioned Socrates and people of that type, to me they are dirty evil people, now maybe I’m going overboard I don’t know, but are we supposed to admire any of their writing that they offer that are used today in the Universities and so on?

[Dr. Rushdoony] No the writings of Socrates of Plato because Socrates wrote nothing. Plato’s work was basically about Socrates. These writings had in our western position especially in the recent years. Have been emphasized very heavily in our education and even Christian educators have made very heavy use of them. I think this is a serious mistake. Their basic premises are anti-Christian. Their morality is anti-Christian. I feel that we could do better without out them. The perspective of Plato and Socrates was total Statism, total communism. Their morality was immorality of communism. They did not believe in God. Now if we are going to learn from them we might as well go to Karl Marx and get it in a modern version. There isn’t any difference from a Christian perspective.

[Question] The point of so many people is: “But they have offered so much.”

[Dr. Rushdoony] What have they offered? They cannot be specific.

[Question] Well then I’m not wrong in my thinking?

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, Plato and Socrates are more extreme in their communism then the Marxist today.

[Question] Did the Greeks in that period use any of the books in the Bible?

Answer: None

[Question] There was no real influence on Christianity in the Greek Culture?

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, although the evidence indicates that before the time of Christ the Biblical writings were known throughout the Roman empire and as far east as China. They had no influence on the world of Greek thought.

[Question] One reason I ask is because later the Greeks Orthodox church was basically Christian. I was wondering where the connection came in.

[Dr. Rushdoony] No, the Greek Orthodox Church although it has been heavily infected with neo-Platonism didn’t spring out of Greek thought. Although it was originally very strongly Orthodox in its Christianity in the true sense of that word later it became very strongly infected by neo-Platonism and has drifted into a world of stagnation as a result.

[Question] Are you familiar with… Plato was maligned by the liberal scholars…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Impossible because in what true republic do you have a communism of women for the elite planners? In what true republic do you abolish private property? In what true republic do you have the planners going through the people like cattle and saying; “You are going to work in the fields. You are going to work in the factories. You are going to work in the weaving guilds,” and so on down the line? Now the liberals have not blamed Plato. They have glorified him and any such writer who comes to the defense of Plato. While he may be valid in what he has to say about communist or something else basically is not on our side. He is a humanist and his position is one of degree in difference from Marxism.

[Question] I would like to comment about an ad in this morning’s magazine…. Milton Bradley….indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes. There is increasing emphasis on ESP. and we had four or so generations ago a great emphasis on the Ouija Board and similar things. This is dangerous. This is clearly dangerous. The Bible forbids any such activities and involvement in such activities does produce startling and interesting results very often. But it also has the very disintegrating effect on the mind so, that no one who dabbles in this over a time does so without opening up his mind to influences that I think are basically demonic. I think if they want to go this route they can do it much faster and much more cheaply by taking LSD. The end result is somewhat similar.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] It is best to steer clear of all such things and it is forbidden by Scripture.

Question: …The hippy article, I confess I didn’t read it, did you?

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes, it is very significant. And this is increasingly a very powerful factor in the states. Sometime I hope to come spend a great deal of time on this subject.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] That I cannot say. You find it very commonly but you find a number of symbols.

[43:47] Question: Indiscernible One thing I wanted to ask you about, have you heard they are establish communism in San Francisco for the ones who would be coming to school…

[Dr. Rushdoony] Well, of course this whole religious aspect of the LSD movement is simply their attempt to get around the law. In other words by claiming to be a religious group they are saying that congress can make no law with respect to LSD. Congress does have a law forbidding the manufacture and importation of LSD. This law however is virtually unenforceable for the simple reason that there is no way of detecting LSD readily. It is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. So how are you going to detect it? How are you going to spot a shipment of it? And as a result the law is almost unenforceable but, it is a roadblock. So to get around it they simply have gone to this bit about being a religion and Larry started that. But, it’s fraudulent basically.

Question: Well the Indians used…indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] It is a natural product.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] Well, yes of course it was the New Deal that made that valid as a religion. Before the New Deal it was forbidden to the Indians. But, the New Deal justified it and called it a religion and this is a toe in the door. Basically our problem today is a matter of law. Now in one of my broadcasts today I have dealt with justice and the common law. And I pointed out that under the common law you had a broad principle and you applied this. Now under statute law you have to cover everything specifically and if it isn’t very precisely covered there’s no crime. So this means that there are many crimes committed because of technicalities are not covered and nothing can be done. For example the Black Panthers moved into the state capital. They were lead by one Black Panther who was an official with a poverty program. They moved in their thoroughly trained according to legal code as to what their rights were. So there was no ground in terms of which they could be arrested for coming into the capital and onto the floor with guns. Now the only way they were arrested on the streets of Sacramento after this episode because they violated a local ordinance. So the State is trying to pass a law now to prevent any further such incidents but, they are dealing now days you see with lawyers who are trained to take advantage with this new and basically anti-Christian type of law-statute law replacing the old Christian common law. So they started to frame a law making it illegal to walk into the capital or any part of the capital with a loaded gun unless you were a law enforcement man. Then they found out it wouldn’t work. Supposing they walked in with the gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other hand, they couldn’t do a thing to them until they loaded the gun. And if they arrested them and the gun wasn’t loaded it would be a case of false of arrest. So now they are trying to figure out how can we nail them if they have the unloaded gun in one hand and the ammunition in the other or the ammunition on the body? But again there are legal tangles. You see when you depart from the Christian common law you get to this statute common law where you have to spell it out specifically there are so many loop holes that you can reduce the crime to no crime at all.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] Yes, but we have virtually destroyed our common law and it is not taught in the schools.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] The unfortunate situation is a very, very significant one; one of the most significant things that happened to the American people today. Here the enemy knows us better then we know ourselves because the first great victory of Christianity was in this area. When Christianity moved out into the Roman Empire abortion and child abandonment were no crimes. So the common that is no crime or no sins. The state could say if there was a problem with the birth rate it is illegal to have abortions or the state had the right to require an abortion. In Plato’s Republic Plato goes so far as to say that any unlicensed birth should be aborted and the parents severely punished. This sort of thing is again being proposed. The only right in the situation is that of the state and sometimes of the husband but basically of the state. It was not a sin. It could be legal or illegal depending upon the role of the state. The same is true of children. If you couldn’t abort the child you took and abandoned it. You took it along the river and threw it there. And this was routine. Now the thing the Christians did immediately was to begin to pick up these children. And many of them came from the best families. After all the welfare families weren’t interested in getting rid of their babies. They were making a good living then as they are now out of welfare. And they reared these children as Christians. One reason why they did it was because of course because these children were also picked up by people who would rear them to be male and female prostitutes. So it was an urgent matter with these Christians who often severely taxed their resources to get out there continually and pick up these children before these scavengers got to them. And secondly they would stand against abortion as murder. And this was one of the earliest and most eloquent testimonies against the Roman Empire. Life is a gift of God and no man can take life anyone else’s or his life apart from the will of God. And how are we to know the will of God? God says only He can take life. And God provides so that life can be taken according to His will through the state for specified crimes; for murder, for kidnapping, for rape, for several other things. When the state takes life for these purposes it is not the state but God. And if the state doesn’t take the life and were not doing it now then the state is under judgment of God. The punishment that you withhold from someone else is put on you. Now abortion therefore was the first great victory of the Christian faith. They hammered away at this and they finally began to get this point through even to people who were unbelievers that this was a thoroughly contemptible thing that even an unbeliever should be ashamed of. They made it a fixed law in all of Christendom as soon as Christians came into power; no abortions. Now what this means of course is that the Christian principle that life cannot be taken apart from the word of God is being overthrown. And the most fearful thing in this is not that the state is trying to do it because we know the state today every state is basically non-Christian or anti-Christian but that the church is not as vocal as it should be. If this has been tried no more than thirty years ago every protestant and the Catholic attendentment would be told don’t you set foot in this church if you vote for such a bill. And nothing like that is being said today. There is no statement of absolute excommunication if they favor such a bill. And this bill is just opening the door to make the state again the absolute Lord of life. And if the state can say that an unborn child can be killed by its permission it can say that anyone can be killed by its permission.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] This issue is being disguised in the debate that is called therapeutic and all kinds of names are given to us to hide it. The basic thing is it gives the state control. One of the first things that the Soviet Union did was to make abortion possible. To open the country wide open to abortion. And then of course when they had lowered the birth rate too dangerously then they dropped it entirely and made it very difficult to get because now they wanted men for the factories and armies. In other words life and death are completely a matter of state will. And this is the purpose in all of this.

Question: Indiscernible

[Dr. Rushdoony] I would say and in such a case take her off of welfare and you’ll solve her problem.