Author Archives: Murray McLeod-Boyle

Obama the Magician

Posted on by
Reply

It is indeed interesting, is it not, to sit back and watch the popular Soap Opera – Political Intrigue? Okay, it’s not a real television show. Actually, it is far worse. It is in fact the spectacle of our politicians in action. In this case, the American President.

Not so long back, the President stood on a financial cliff. It made headlines. Palms were sweaty. Buttocks cheeks were clenched. What would happen? Talk about a melodrama. I hoped that America would plunge over the cliff, but, alas, the plot was rewritten by the directors.

Anyway, I digress. The financial cliff. It loomed large. Here is America in financial strife. The President opens the public purse to find naught but moths. Sad, so very sad. However, what we obviously did not understand was that Mr. Obama is a magician.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, the President was magically able to find $500 million for a gun violence package. I wish I had paid more attention because I would have liked to have seen his magic wand, cape, and which particular magic words he used. Maybe you can help me out. Did he give a, “tada!”? Maybe it was the old “abracadabra”? Anyway, off on a tangent again.

I wonder what the American people think. I looked at the American “debt clock” today and noted – apart from the scary numbers – that every American owed $52,000; that is their share of the National debt. I wonder, would the American people prefer to have their debt burden reduced or to have the government waste more money in yet another futile pursuit?

Is it even possible that wasteful government spending and futile solutions actually contribute to certain lamentable incidents like Sandy Hook? On a lesser scale, how many Americans are going to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger because of debt? How many are going to be exasperated by the President’s magic trick, when nothing is being done to relieve the debt burden and the consequent suffering?

A massacre with a gun brings attention and the magic appearance of $500 million. Flip the coin. What of the single, self inflicted gunshot of the exasperated individual weighed down by debt? Maybe the magic millions should be put in the bank to pay off debt and relieve genuine suffering. Methinks the peoples of America would find this action more satisfying.

Of Firearms, Firewalls, and Stonewalls

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting in America, we have once again witnessed the call to ban guns or at least certain types of guns. The gun debate is not new and it will not ultimately be resolved in a useful manner until righteousness is brought to the fore. In fact, the whole debate will end badly and no effectual ground will be made so long as the argument continues based on a Humanistic and unBiblical point of view. No amount of political squabbling, bickering, badgering, or name calling will win the day. It most certainly will not carry us to Utopia, the mystical safe haven of which Humanists and politicians dream!

In order to unpack this topic, we will use our title as a guide.

Firearms: The problem with this debate is that, like a murderer callously and indiscriminately firing rounds from a firearm, so too many politicians, activists and others are apt to ‘shoot their mouths off’ with the same callous disregard. They are as indiscriminate in their reasoning, target choice, and motivation as the supposedly “crazed” gunman.

They are quick to enter the fray, guns ablaze, in order to promote their cause, political position, or worldview. In doing this, these people rarely, if ever, have a moment of clarity in which they sit down and ask if they are in some way responsible for what has transpired.

The point is very simple. The debate is not about guns! It has regard to what motivates a man to action or restrains him from action. It is, in essence, a debate concerning the fact that ideas have consequences.

Therefore, when these politicians and activists support the erosion of the Biblical worldview, are they not in fact inviting mass shootings as but one consequence of their ideas? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact a libertine standard, are they not promoting lawlessness within society? When these politicians and activists argue for a top-down governance of the individual rather than for a self-controlled individual, are they not paving the road to anarchy? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact legislation that, in essence, says ‘there is no truth’, are they not encouraging a constant display of all individual ‘truth systems’ or worldviews with all the attendant consequences?

In this there is utter and absolute hypocrisy on the part of the politician and the activist. On the one hand there is a demand for and acquisition to the very ideas that bring death and tragedy to our cultures. However, in an interesting dance of hypocrisy, when tragedy strikes, it is the very liberals who created the situation that then demand the government take control and do something. Thus, liberality begets tyranny.

We saw this in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens were turned into criminals overnight. What was their crime? They owned a certain type of firearm. Like Hitler’s Gestapo rounding up Jews, orders were sent forth demanding that these people surrender their firearms.

Now, if you are not into guns, you may not find this a big deal. If that is your stance, then please be ashamed of yourself. Behind the issue of guns are principles, ethics, and many bigger questions. After Port Arthur, the item focused upon was guns. Many saw this as a victory. The big question is, “A victory for what?” Common sense? A victory for the gun lobby? A victory for a safer society? Did we see the death penalty reintroduced? Did we see a commitment to tougher sentencing for perpetrators of similar crimes? No, what you witnessed was a victory for tyranny at the hands of Big Brother.

What was established by the gun-buy-back was nothing less than the government’s ability to seize property and to compel citizens through random and tyrannical dictates. Even as one opposed to guns, you should at least be concerned that the government, without accountability, played with the Medicare / Tax system to finance the buy-back. Thus, they opened the door for future abuses by other governments.

Again, not into guns and your attitude is, “So what?” Well, the “So what?” is a phenomenal question. So, your children are killed when a car ploughs into them as they walk home (Sadly, based on a real happening). The driver is prosecuted. Okay, to this point. Then the government issues a nationwide ban on the make and model of the car driven by the offender as well on all other vehicles of the same capacity! Are you still okay? So, your children are at a sleepover at a well-to-do friend’s house. In the middle of the night a deranged arsonist attacks. All inside perish. In the wake, the offender is caught and sent off to comfy school – some call it, “prison”. Okay, to this point. Then the investigation concludes that the house was too big. It was a six bedroom house, which made it impossible for fire-fighters to successfully search all rooms in time. Consequently, the government retrospectively outlaws all houses that are above four bedrooms. Excess rooms must be permanently closed off or the whole house confiscated and destroyed. To remain in a house of modified capacity, you now need to be licensed and have the home open to government inspectors.  That which was built legally, is now deemed illegal. Home owners, who had done nothing wrong, are now criminals and face significant losses. Are you still okay? These are not silly illustrations. They are applications of the principles enacted after Port Arthur.

You see, what was endorsed was not a stance against guns, as such. Rather, it established the right of governments to outlaw and confiscate any item retrospectively and compel all citizens to pay for it, wanted or not. The pretext is unimportant now. The reality is that this principle has been set to work in our society. It can now be used against anything and anyone.

Therefore, as politicians and activists themselves indiscriminately fire into society with their godless ideas, they cause the deaths, literally, of multitudes and scores; a number that the “crazed” gunman has never come close to approximating. How so? Read on!

Firewall: A firewall is a device that is designed to save and protect. To the modern computer generation, it is a device designed to stop attacks on a computer from the realm of cyberspace. For us old people, it is probably most recognisable in your car. It is that solid panel that extends from your windscreen to your floor pan, located behind your dashboard. Its design is to protect you from the radiant heat generated by your motor and from the reality of flame should your engine catch fire. In buildings a firewall is usually seen as a brick dividing wall that is designed to stop the spread of fire.

In similar manner our governments should act to protect. Using the computer scenario, Government should provide a system that discards the offensive, stops the hostile, allows the beneficial to proceed unhindered, and all this without obvious intrusion upon the citizenry. Do they do this? Absolutely not!

As we have noted, Government is particularly hypocritical. Governments tend to speak of “right” and “wrong”, but of what do they really speak when they have no moral compass? What is right to a Humanist? What is right to an Atheist? What is right to an evolutionist? What is right to a Postmodernist?

An example of the Humanist’s concept of right can be seen in President Obama. In response to the Sandy Hook incident, Barack Obama, gave a stirring speech in which he stated that we, as a generation, would be judged by how we had treated our children. Wonderful, is it not, to see the President of America concerned for the children? What a load of drivel! In the USA, since Roe v Wade, over 50 million babies have been aborted! This year – all under President Obama’s rule – over 70 thousand children have died. This day, the day when President Obama is inaugurated for his second term, the clock is already at about 1700!

What an absolute liar and hypocrite! How dare he, especially as President, stand in public and make any speech regarding the welfare of children when this murderous horror is conducted each and every day against the most vulnerable and by those charged with their care. Not only this, but as a pro-abortionist, the President makes himself guilty of all of these atrocities because he openly fosters the practice. So once more we are faced with the position of the political animal. It is not acceptable to lose 20 children to gunfire, but it is acceptable to lose hundreds–of–times this many children to the surgeon’s hatchet! (My apologies to the real surgeons who save lives.)

Here then is the predicament. The Atheist, Evolutionist, Postmodernist, and Humanist have no standard of right and wrong. They only have a subjective concept that is as changeable as the wind.

Some time ago, there was a dog food advertisement. It was for the “Bush’s” brand. The punch line went, “Blah, blah, blah, Bushes!” In reality, that should have been the content of the President’s speech. It would have been as sincere; meant as much; and ultimately had the same overall impact. In fact, having listened to his words, I cannot help but think that they were a type of precooked mess from a tin. (Now, please understand, whilst the President is singled out for his gross hypocrisy, few Western leaders would be any different. We here in Australia suffer from exactly the same hypocrisy in our Government. I recently placed a submission on the “Exposure Draft – Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.” The submission was accepted and covered by Parliamentary Privilege – that is, all but one sentence. That one sentence equated Julia Gillard’s stance on abortion with genocide.)

The problem is that although the Government seeks to act as a firewall, it is functioning on the wrong protocols. When you turn on your computer, protected by ‘GovernmentNanny’, you are directed to the pornography websites and to the seediest part of the web. Good and wholesome are filtered out and sent to the spam folder. Ugly and perverted are walked on through and even given a blessing.

The problem is that whilst God has ordained the government to act as a firewall, governments have essentially abandoned this task, precisely because they have abandoned God. Therefore, governments become the firewall product at the cheap end of the range that claims to keep your computer safe, but never really does. It is a travesty.

Sadly, both we the people and the Government seem to continue along in our deluded state, believing that the Government can abandon the wisdom of God and then somehow effect righteousness, law, and order. Talk of group cultural delusion!

The reason that the firewall is not working is precisely, to shift the analogy slightly, because they have the wrong software installed. The problem with modern Humanistic governments is that they do not accept that man is problematic, let alone defective to his core. The Humanists are trying to teach us that man, in and of himself, will be able to triumph over all adversity through his own resources and unified action because there is good in us all. That inherent and innate good simply needs to be released – bud needs to turn to blossom. The trouble for the Humanist begins when he opens his eyes, for what he sees in reality does not accord with his belief system. The humanist believes that each man has a seed planted within. The humanist also believes that this seed is a rose, which will bloom and fill the man with colour and fragrance. The reality is much closer to the words of U2: “Plant a demon seed, raise a flower of fire!” All men are not good to their core, which is precisely why some men pick up guns and shoot children and others fly aeroplanes into buildings.

It is also for this reason that the government cannot produce an effectual answer and why the firewall is defective. Our governments are Humanistic to the core – Yes, especially the American government. I wish the brothers over the pond would wake up to this en masse – consequently they are making laws to free man from the chains of Christian morality. In so doing, they are calling on man to express the individual tenets of his personal worldview. However, in this very call, you are inviting the establishment of the debauched, depraved, shocking, and abhorrent.

Thus, Government is powerless to act effectively and decisively for a righteous outcome and that for three reasons – particularly in regard to firearms. One, the government’s worldview is uniformly defective and therefore can never clearly identify the central issue. One may even say that it carries a bias against identifying the decisive point. Two, governments of our day only understand tyranny. They predominantly realise their goal and bring about conformity to their goal through force or coercion. Three, therefore, the government will breakdown any means by which you may resist their will – at any point and on any subject. Consequently, a populace equipped with firearms presents a challenge.

Guns are not the problem. The source of the deficiency is to be found in the inadequate worldview (firewall) of hypocritical Humanistic governments and agitators whose views actually promote mass shootings, directly or indirectly, as indeed they promote all kinds of evil.

Stonewall: The only answer to the situation is to return to the solid Rock, Jesus Christ. God’s Word revealed is our stone wall. It gives a solid barricade behind which one can take shelter. It forms a solid boundary between right and wrong. Equally, it supplies a firm foundation on which to stand and view the happenings round and about.

We can argue all day about firearms. Do we ban them all or allow some. If we allow some, which ones do we allow? The arguments are endless. So let us look at some solid Biblical principles.

            First, we must recognise man as fallen, sinful, and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 15:18-19). Not every desire of his heart is pure, nor can it be without Christ. Humanism does not recognise this fact. Therefore, they throw off the chains of restraint imposed by Christian law, gleefully expectant that man will make right choices for himself and society. However, sinful man is selfish. He cares nought for his neighbour. So at the outset, it is obvious that the two worldviews lead in two distinct directions. Sinful man literally says, ‘to hell!’ with my neighbour (1 Kings 21:1 ff). Biblical man looks out and cares for his neighbour (Luke 10:25ff).

            Second, God gives freedom to man. It is only when man transgresses that he must be penalised. Therefore, to penalise the innocent is a procedure at law that is alien to Scripture (Exodus 23:7). To penalise the innocent is tantamount to blasphemy (Deuteronomy 27:25). It is to say that the Law-Giver does not distinguish right from wrong, innocent from guilty, and such is most definitely a lie (Deuteronomy 34:6-7; see also 25:1-4).

            Third, we must be willing to punish the transgressor. Because Government has rejected the Biblical view of man and has denied the operation of sin, government institutions, like courts, are being white-anted by psychological excuses. Punishments do not fit the crime, and that is if anything like a punishment is meted out! Just punishment exacts the due penalty, but it also acts as a deterrent (See page 11; Point B — Punishment and Retribution). One does not punish to deter. That is a road fraught with danger. One punishes for justice, but the execution of true justice helps to deter (Deuteronomy 17:11; 19:19b-20).

            Fourth, the application of true justice, including the death penalty, saves lives. I recently read of a pastor who killed a young woman in order to fulfil his fantasy of necrophilia. The sad reality is that he had a violent past. Had we a real justice system, the perpetrator would not have been with us to commit the crime. Similarly, some years ago I watched a documentary on serial killers. One person, who had killed around ten, I think, had, as a young man, been convicted of rape. In Biblical terms, he would have been invited to leave the land–of–the–living and, likewise, his future victims would have remained unharmed.

            Fifth, true justice is a communal responsibility. Scripture is very clear on this point. The community was to take its stand against evil. This was most clearly seen in the punishment of the transgressor. At this point the community had to come together as one (Numbers 15:35-26; Deuteronomy 21:21; 22:20-21; Leviticus 24:14-23). In exacting the punishment, people were reminded constantly of the need for obedience and conformity to the law. We can see the degradation of this principle as executions went from being a public display to that which took place behind closed doors.

A second issue here concerns the instigation of ‘police forces’. Whilst, I have nothing against a ‘police force’, as such, the instigation of such an entity with the direct implication that you, as an individual, no longer have a responsibility for or participation in the enforcement of law is questionable. A community that is aware of law, is involved in the execution of law, and participates in the sentence of the law, will be a community in which law and order are treasured. It will be a community that looks out for neighbour; a community that is aware of the bad apple; a community that will respond to crime and not one which will disengage from crime.

            Sixth, morality! In particular, God’s standard of morality. Some may ask what morality has to do with firearms. The answer is very simple. Moral men or moral and ethical men, do not gun down innocents. Thus, whilst morality does not speak to firearms in and of themselves, it speaks vociferously to the situation in which firearms are wielded as weapons of terror.

What we must see is that oft times the perpetrators of these crimes are the products of immorality. As an example, we quote the following from a Christian newsletter in regard to the Sandy Hook incident: “The story so far appears to have some grim echoes of the massacre in Norway last year perpetrated by Anders Breivik. Like Breivik, Adam Lanza (20) lost his father through divorce, which neighbours said was traumatic for the children. Anti-social and lonely, suffering from a personality disorder, Adam is said to have immersed himself in violent computer games for hours each day.” (Family Voice, January 2013. P.2.)

Here we see the rudiments of catastrophe laid bare. How many time of recent have we seen similar scenarios? Broken homes beget broken lives. Broken lives beget catastrophe. Whether it be the angry man who murders; the purposeless daughter that sells her body; the rejected wife that finds solace in a bottle or an abusive boyfriend; the dispirited teenager who cannot cope and turns to drugs or the disenfranchised lad, who never having had a real father figure, does not know how to really love a woman and conduct a meaningful relationship, the consequences are the same – pain, hurt, dysfunction, bereavement, destruction, and death.

From a humanist’s perspective, who would guess that a broken home or divorce could bring such devastation? After all marriage in their estimation is nothing more than a cultural convention. From a Biblical point of view it is a “no brainer”. Marriage is fundamental to family and family is fundamental to society. So what happens when marriage is ridiculed and trashed? The humanist would answer by saying, “Nothing!” In fact, his answer would probably be more along the lines of, “It is high time we ditched this religious hangover from a previous stage of our evolution!” Biblically, we maintain that to ditch marriage – in its true context and extent – is to invite disaster. Proof? Earlier, we cited the clock used to count the number of abortions in America. We may then ask, “Who has abortions?” On one website, they have this illuminating answer: “In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).” Does this not illustrate the point well? We could then add this statistic from the same site: “In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).” The point? Very simple. It has to do with recidivism. In other words, 44.7% of those having abortions in 2009 were repeat offenders.

Morality matters. God’s standard of morality matters most. In God’s world, by covenant and design, there are causes and consequences. We cannot jettison God and His revealed standard and believe that as a society or as individuals we will get off scot–free. Such is but one more cultural delusion.

Conclusion: Whilst Sandy Hook is a tragedy in every sense of the word, it is not impossible to define the causes for the incident. The first one is that we live in a fallen world. Evil men perpetrate evil deeds. The second cause has to do with the predominate worldview held by most governments – it is a worldview that brings carnage.

As we have seen in this article, politician’s talk of one thing while their actions belie the true state of play. A president stands and mourns 20 children brutally gunned down in a school, yet that same president allows the mass murder of the unborn. A president mourns the loss of life via a rampage, yet that same president pushes on with a liberal agenda that will not see a cessation of such incidents.

Therefore, all the talk of banning automatic weapons with large magazine capacities is useless. All the talk of restricting the sale of firearms is useless. Why? Because the problem is not to be found in the gun, the magazine, or the bullets! Each one is an inanimate object. In and of themselves they are lifeless and powerless matter. The problem is the heart of man. The problem is that evil men do evil things. The problem is that our governments, when they capitulate to a Humanistic worldview, have no answer outside of depravation. In short, the Humanist worldview will not tackle the problem of the inner man. It cannot. So those holding this worldview will attack the external. They will ban or attempt to ban firearms of all shapes and sizes. All manner of foolishness will be put forth to aid their cause. The will gloat. They will pontificate. However, when the dust settles, one pertinent question remains, “Will the acts of evil men be stopped? The answer is, No!

If the answer is deprivation, where do we start and stop? Look at the world around us. USS Cole attacked by boat. 9/11 utilised planes. Timothy McVeigh used a Truck bomb. Ted Kaczynski (unabomber) posted or left small bombs for his victims. In a call for consistency, we should then ban boats, planes, trucks, mail, metal containers, and wire.

Why should we stop there? In 2009, there were 13,756 murders in the USA. Of these, 9,203 were committed with firearms. (Surprisingly, the vast majority were with handguns, not high capacity assault rifles (6,503).) So let’s ban guns, as well as planes, boats, trucks etc. Of course this is not the sum total, so we must continue our search for items to be banned. “Knives or cutting instruments” accounted for over one thousand deaths (1,828), so these should be banned as well, obviously.

Now I face a serious conundrum. As I looked at the statistics, I see a category of “Personal Weapons”. Hmmm? I would have thought that if you owned any of the aforementioned weapons, that they would have been personal. It was obviously very personal, if it was used to take another person’s life. However, none of these concepts fit appropriately. So, I turned to the footnote for a definition. A “Personal Weapon” is considered to be “hands, feet, fists, pushed, etc.” Deaths by these “Personal Weapons” accounted for 815 deaths. Now, let’s do the math. 815 divided by 20 equals 40.75. Okay, so death by these weapons accounts for 40.75 times the amount of deaths (children) recorded at Sandy Hook. Then it seems absolutely essential that these “personal weapons” should be banned as well! After all, these weapons are not regulated. They are readily available. Most people have multiples of the specified items. Very dangerous!

I apologies if sensitivities have been encroached upon. However, it is important that we not be distracted from the essential point of the argument. Evil men will use any means at their disposal to commit their evil deeds, right down the very limbs of their body. Therefore, there is nothing constructive to be gained by any argument that revolves around the instrument only – in this case the gun. The focus must fall upon the perpetrator and that which motivates him to evil.

If governments are going to make a ruckus over incidents like this, then let them respond seriously and in sincerity. Let them respond by examining the consequence of the ideas by which they govern. Let them begin by asking themselves why they deny God and His Law.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

D. The Biblical view: When these threads are pulled together we are faced with the consistent Biblical picture in regard to Christian Warfare:

  • Lesson 1: Our warfare is Spiritual. It is powered by the Holy Spirit. The battle cannot be effectively engaged or won when clothed in any other power.
  • Lesson 2. Our warfare is spiritual. It involves powers and authorities in the heavenly. On both sides.
  • Lesson 3. Our warfare is fleshy. We are engaged in this battle as man. We oppose other men. We must act in the corporeal against the corporeal.
  • Lesson 4. Our warfare is fleshy, not fleshly. It is of man as man, not of man as sinful man; though we oppose sinful man. Harking back to Paul, our warfare is fought in the flesh, not according to the flesh.
  • Lesson 5. Our warfare, of necessity, involves action on our part. There is no warfare if the soldiers do not break camp! As with Israel, so it is with the Church. The soldiers must mobilise even though they fight for and under Yahweh.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 3)

Posted on by
Reply

C.  A New Testament View: Arriving at the New Testament, we have become used to adopting the diametrically opposite view of that dealt with above, namely that the warfare in the New Testament is spiritual, not fleshy. The locus classicus for this position are Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:10-20, but particularly verse 12:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

In this case, I am not out to prove that the warfare is spiritual. Paul has already explained this clearly. Our point here is to make it apparent that the battle so defined also includes flesh and blood. Just as the erroneous Old Testament view denied or greatly diminished the  spiritual aspect of our warfare, so the commonly held New Testament view denies or greatly diminishes the idea that men are involved in that war.

What must be grasped is that the power of our warfare is Spiritual, but that the targets of our warfare are primarily flesh and blood, even if backed by other forces. It must also be understood, as with Joshua, that we cannot leave the fight to those in the spiritual realm while we lay back on the beach and “catch some rays.” We, flesh and blood Christians, are required to do things. We are required to act. We are required to fight. Even though our weapons are Spiritual, it does not mean that we do not need to wield them. Equally, we must understand that our armament is exercised against someone or something – the foe! Paul does not equate us with ceremonial soldiers — those who dress in polished uniforms and carry replica weapons that have been polished so finely that they could blind a man at a thousand paces with the sun’s reflection, but which, in the final analysis, are only good for show. Not at all! Paul calls us to be equipped with real weapons which are to be employed against real enemies.

It seems sad that Paul’s argument has been misunderstood or deliberately denied on this point, despite the perspicuity of Paul’s words. To illustrate this point we need to read carefully the whole of Paul’s argument in Ephesians 6:10-20:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, 19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

I desire you to read this, many times if necessary, so that Paul’s words are clear. One of the problems with “well known” texts is that they are usually not that well known. We think we know what they say, but rarely have we taken the time to listen carefully to what the Spirit says to the Church. To help you, I have taken the liberty of highlighting some of the words. This is not to treat you as a “dill”, to use the vernacular. It is simply to help you grasp the point. Paul is firmly arguing that our warfare is Spiritual. However, please notice that Paul wants us to understand his point on the source of our warfare, not so that we can opt out, but in order that we may engage the battle more effectively and join with Paul in his battles – well, at least for the original readers; for us, the Apostolic battle passed to our generation.

To give clarity, it may also be helpful to break the text down and place it in a table. Hopefully, this will illuminate the point being made:

Our Action

Instrument

Positive Purpose

Negative Purpose

Be Strong

In the Lord, and in the strength of His might

 

 

Put on

The full armor of God, that

 

 

You may stand firm

 

 

against the schemes of the devil. For

Our struggle

 

 

is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore, Take up

the full armor of God

that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

 

Stand firm

 

 

 

having girded

your loins with truth, and

 

 

having put

on the breastplate of righteousness

 

 

and having shod

your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 

 

 

in addition to all, taking up

the shield of faith

with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one.

 

And take

the helmet of salvation

 

 

and (take)

the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

 

pray

With all prayer and petition at all times in the Spirit

and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints

 

and pray on my behalf

 

that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth

 

to make known

 

with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

 

 

If we look at this table, we see that the column on the left titled “Our Action” is complete. As we move from left to right, the columns tend to thin out. Of course, I must admit that there is a degree of arbitrariness about this, but, be assured, I have not just cooked up this table to suit myself. The simple reality is that this text contains 5 clear imperatives (commands).1 In other words, Paul is commanding we Christians to action. He is not simply saying, “Hey Christians, the war is spiritual, kick back, take it easy, the Lord has it under control!” No, not even close. On the contrary, as we have noted, Paul is more like a general who, giving his soldiers marching orders, directs them to the armoury so that they are in possession of the essential equipment that will enable them to fight effectively in the face of the opposition.

Analysis of this passage shows that Paul’s priority is that of urging / commanding the Christian to action. He then directs them unto their God, explaining that He is the Armoury and that they must derive their power and weaponry from Him, and in particular, His Spirit. Then they are given instruction as to how and why these weapons should be used. Last, Paul mentions the enemy in the heavenly realm. In other words, Paul’s emphasis from greatest to least is something like: 1. The Christians has a responsibility to fight. It is an “ought” not a choice; 2. The Christian’s power comes from Almighty God, and no other source; 3. This power is to be wielded in the service of Jesus Christ as He marshals His troop to defeat His Father’s enemies; 4. God, in Trinity, along with all His children have enemies in the heavenly realms.

The Christian’s warfare is spiritual, little “s”. It is so because, as we have seen, the Scriptures’ consistent message is that our battle involves another realm, a spiritual realm. The Christians warfare is also Spiritual, big “S” – sorry for the trip back to primary school! It is so because we are redeemed in Jesus Christ and our power source is nothing less than the Spirit of God and of Jesus sent into the world to enable God’s redeemed to fight and to win (John 16:5-15, 33; Romans 12:21; 1 John2:12-14).2

We need to understand the difference between our big and little esses. Most today speak of spiritual warfare in terms of the little “s”. If we, as Christians, get stuck at this point, then we may as well give up. For who of us is able of himself to war against spirits? However, Paul’s point is not to focus our attention upon spirits in the heavenly places, though this he does, but it is more to focus the Christians attention on big “S” theology. The Christian can and must engage in this battle precisely because we partake of a greater power by which flesh, blood, and spirits can be defeated. What are Paul’s opening words in Ephesians 6? “Be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might!” To use the beautiful old word, “Whose panoply is the Christian to carry?” It is God’s!

The Christian is to fight precisely because he has access to the very armoury of heaven in which are stored all the weapons necessary to “ka-thump” and “ka-pow” all of God’s and our enemies, no matter what their form. We are partakers of the power of the age to come (Hebrews 6:4-5; Ephesians 1:18-23). Understand well that this is not mere bravado; an attempt to gee–up my brethren despite reality. Colossians 2:15 tells us that Jesus has “disarmed” rulers and authorities. Therefore, Scripture gives us two sound reasons to engage in Christian Warfare: a) Christ has disarmed rulers and authorities; b) We are partakers of the power of the age to come. It is for this reason that Paul’s counsel is consistent. Consider 2 Corinthians 10:3-5:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

With this said, it is now appropriate to make the point about our struggle being with flesh and blood. Scripture is clear. It speaks as one on the issue of spiritual warfare. However, as we have noted, New Testament Christians, have relegated “flesh and blood” to the sidelines. They have failed to grasp the import of Paul’s argument with the necessary consequence that any emphasis upon man has been diminished or dismissed.

Two reasons for this can be adduced.

The first is primarily due to our infatuation with the Greeks and a tendency to introduce dualism into our theology.

Dualism is a philosophy which divides body and soul. Intrinsic to this belief is the idea that the flesh is evil, while the spirit is good or pure. Dualism has plagued the Church throughout its history and I would posit that it is again making a nuisance of itself. It is through an incipient Dualism that we have this misunderstanding in spiritual warfare. The spirit is conceived of as good and pure and the only thing of worth, whereas the body is evil. When viewed this way, man is in need of jettisoning his evil cocoon so that he can become the spiritual “butterfly”.

Equally, it has the consequence of causing men to think that the body is of less worth than the spirit and that, therefore, the emphasis should lie elsewhere, namely, in the spiritual realm. It is for this reason today that many Christians refuse to take a stand on politics, for instance. In their view, Politics belongs to this world. It is earthly and unspiritual. Consequently, they choose to deal with only the spiritual and, therefore, the significant, rather than the corporeal and insignificant – as they would understand it.

To this type of theology we must respectfully reply in the most erudite of expressions along the lines of “Bah! Humbug!” To believe as outlined is simply to deny or grossly misunderstand the teachings of Scripture. Nowhere, and I do mean “Nowhere”, on the pages of Scripture will you find a jot or a tittle that in anyway specifies or emphasises a dualism in man that promotes one part above another or relegates one dimension of his being to the garbage can.

Whilst the Bible does note that man is made up of dimensions, those dimensions are never bifurcated, relegated, or exalted. Man is always conceived of as a whole. This is God’s design. Hence, to teach otherwise is blasphemy. Even when we encounter texts that, as noted, highlight different dimensions, they never separate those dimensions. Consider the following:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

Here, we clearly see what I have labelled ‘dimensions’. Man has heart, soul, and might.3 Is man divided? No. The command here is to “love God with all”. In short, every dimension of our person is to be brought together as a whole to love God. Man as a man, in all his being, is to love God.

The second reason for a failure to properly grasp the concept of Christian Warfare stems from our lack of understanding with regard to Biblical word usage. In Scripture, many words take on a specialised meaning or usage. As interpreters, we need to make certain decisions about the form of the word and its meaning. Take, as an example, the word for “world”. In Scripture, this word has shades of meaning. The world is that thing on which we stand; it is the realm of men; and it is the thought process that is opposed to the rule of God. Therefore, when we are commanded – in Biblical paraphrase – to be in the world but not of the world, we will be greatly perplexed if we do not grasp these nuances. In fact, many are perplexed and evasive of the “world” because they have not grasped these nuances. So, as Christians, we are to live in this world – stand on the rotating orb and join the realm of men – but we are not to be of this world – hold to a philosophic mindset that opposes God’s rule.

The same is true of the Greek word for flesh. This term can refer to that filling that is stuffed under your skin and which hangs on your bones. It means the content of your Sunday roast! It can mean you as a person – “This is me, in the flesh!” It also means, particularly in Paul’s writings, that sin soaked instrument which works contrary to the will of God and as an expression of fallen human nature.

Consequently, we must be aware of these nuances, lest we go astray.

In 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, quoted previously, we see the term “flesh” used three times. If we go back to verse 2, we will see a further use. To understand Paul’s argument, we need to start in verse two, as this first use sets the tone for the subsequent usages. It is apparent that Paul has his detractors. Some are obviously suggesting that Paul’s actions are fleshly, that is, worldly and inappropriate for a Christian. Hence, he is accused of walking “according to the flesh”.

Paul then speaks of “walking in the flesh”, but not “warring according to the flesh”. To give understanding, may I draw your attention to the critical point. Four times, “flesh” is used. Please note, however, that the term “according to” is used only twice. This is extremely important. To walk according to the flesh is wrong. To walk in the flesh, is not.

Thus, Paul, having been accused of “walking according to the flesh”, repudiates this criticism and hints at dealing with its propagators when he arrives in the flesh – sorry, could not resist. He then goes on to acknowledge that even though he walks as a man, in the flesh, his warfare is not according to the flesh.

In paraphrase, we may render it like this: ‘I do not walk as the ungodly, governed by sin. Even though I live as a man, I do not war as the ungodly, for the weapons of my warfare bear no resemblance to those of the ungodly, being furnished by God.’

Properly understood, Paul joins himself to these “divinely appointed weapons”. He uses them in the flesh and against the flesh.

For understanding, let us turn to Scripture:

  • (Acts 13:4-12) So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord.
  • (Matthew 16:22-23) And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.
  • (1 Thessalonians 5:23) Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  • (Romans 6:12-13) Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
  • (Galatians 2:11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
  • (2 Timothy 3:8) And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith.
  • (Mark 11:15-18) And they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers‘ den.” And the chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for all the multitude was astonished at His teaching.

Whilst these verses cover a wide range of topics and people, they all have one thing in common – the body. Please, see this. In the first text, Paul seeks to witness. He is opposed by a man, a false prophet. This man sought to destroy Paul’s witness. So Paul fights back. Note well that he did not simply ‘curse the darkness’; no, he went to war with the man that opposed him. This he did in the power of the Holy Spirit, thus it was Spiritual warfare! Yet, his war was with a man in the flesh. Paul did not tell Elymas to stand aside so that he could engage the “spirit” behind him. Nor did Paul seek to exorcise the “spirit” so that old Elymas could be a non-combatant on the sideline. No. Paul engaged the physical enemy in front of him. The false prophet was plunged into darkness. This was a Spiritual war, man on man!

In the second example, we see Jesus rebuking Peter. Jesus had just revealed the ultimate goal of His mission – to die. Peter, no doubt with good intention and thinking that Jesus’ self-esteem was a little low, took it upon himself to rebuke our Lord and give Him encouragement. However, in doing so, he crossed a line and became a stumbling block. I fully believe that Peter took this action with integrity. Peter has just been commended for confessing that Jesus is the Christ. Having rightly identified Messiah, Peter could not think that he had come to die. The problem was that Peter’s integrity was undermined by his failure to understand Messiah’s mission and word. Thus, Jesus rightly opposed him; and He did so in no uncertain terms. Again, man against man or God-man against man. The mindset of Peter was described as demonic, but it was rebuked in the flesh with tangible words.

In the third example, Paul is placing a benediction upon the Thessalonians. He asks that they be sanctified and preserved complete at Jesus coming. Interestingly, he does this by asking that every dimension of man be preserved. Paul wants, spirit, soul, and body preserved and made complete. Do you not find this important? You should. Paul is not willing to place a hierarchy here. Paul is not out to say, “Well look, Thessalonians, I really hope that you can get yourselves into the Kingdom in a complete fashion. However, if you think you are struggling, give up on the body. It is a worthless cocoon that can be abandoned. Concentrate on saving your soul and the spiritual.” On the contrary, Paul’s theology reflects that taught elsewhere in Scripture. Man is united in his being and all these aspects must be and will be perfected in Jesus Christ.

The fourth example is placed for emphasis. If the body is not important, why is Paul so keen to teach that the body must reflect redemption? If the soul is saved and the body unimportant, why does Paul waste words encouraging Christians to cease using their bodies as instruments of sin?

The fifth example sees two Apostles engaged in a confrontation. One rebukes the poor behaviour of the other. (Positive Spiritual Warfare?)

The sixth example, gives us great insight. It is a New Testament text citing that which happened in the Old Testament. In this action we see the unity of the Scripture’s teaching. We know well that Moses was opposed by Pharaoh’s magicians. Here, again, we see that there was obviously a greater power at work on both sides. Yet, we also see that man opposed man. Paul takes this historical battle and uses it to illustrate the nature of the battle in his day and into the last days – that is, into our day. Even the Apostle’s command to “avoid such men” (v5) is instructive. Again, note well that Paul does not address himself in this section to dealing with “evil spirits”. What is Paul’s remedy? You should know it well! “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Yes, Paul did mention the “snare of the devil” in 2:26, however, in chapter three, Paul does not resort to a teaching about “evil spirits” or “demons” or any such. He tells us, as he told Timothy, to be equipped for every good work by believing and acting upon God’s word. Please note that our “being equipped for every good work” involves “rebuke, correction and training”. In other words, Paul instructs us to a human action, both to ourselves (equipping) and to those who oppose (rebuking). We are to read, study, and know God’s word! In short, Paul requires of us Holy Spirit powered human action to God’s armoury to be clothed in God’s armour in order to maintain Christ likeness!

The last example is one that is deliberately forgotten by most Christians. Just as Luther labelled the Book of James as the “epistle of straw” because he did not like its contents, so many Christians seem to wish that this passage was not in their Bible. Nonetheless, the Spirit authored Scripture tells us that Jesus went into the temple, made a whip, and drove out those who were denigrating His Father’s house. Why did Jesus do this? Surely, of all men, Jesus knew that the warfare was spiritual. Why did He not simply curse the darkness? Why did He not order Michael onto the spiritual scene to war with the demons that were moving these men? Such questions cannot be answered if an unBiblical position on Christian Warfare is adopted – for there is absolutely no justification for Jesus, or any of the others mentioned here, to have opposed men. However, if we are willing to see what the Bible teaches in its fullness –namely, that we are enjoined to a spiritual war that manifests itself in the flesh – then Jesus’ actions make full and complete sense. To oppose an evil man is to engage in spiritual warfare. To oppose the man who opposes Christ, is to engage in spiritual warfare. Equally, the Son of God clearing out the temple by force was nothing less than an act of warfare – Christian Warfare, Spiritual Warfare!

Footnotes:

1. There ar 6 if you count the ‘double duty’ in verse 17. There are also a significant number of participles, which may also take the force of the main verb making them imperatival in nature.

2. I hope to pick up the theme of victory later. For now, please begin to think it. Jesus did not come into this world for defeat. He came for victory. He came to conquer. Scripture says that Jesus is currently suppressing and defeating God’s enemies so that He may present the Kingdom to God. This is a positive message.

3. Interestingly, the New Testament quotations of this passage also add ‘mind’ (Mark 12:29-30).

A Battle Plan (Pt. 2)

Posted on by
Reply

B. An Old Testament View: When we look at the Old Testament we are immediately aware of the many battles in which Israel was engaged. Whether they were battles to enter the Promised Land; battles inflicted because of disobedience; or internal battles for either righteousness or disobedience, there were many battles.

For brevity’s sake, I will take it that this point is understood and agreed upon. The question then is, “What type of battles were these, fleshy or spiritual? As stated, the common belief is that these were fleshy battles that had little spiritual significance. Such a belief is disastrous and has wreaked untold havoc on the Church. This belief has come to us through those who have sought to place a great cavern between Old and New Testaments and treat them as though they were alien to each other. May it never be!

When we turn to the pages of Scripture, to our only rule for life, faith, and instruction, we see plainly that Israel’s battles were indeed spiritual. Consider these texts:

  • When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you. “Now it shall come about that when you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people. “And he shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. (Deuteronomy 20:1-4)
  • Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No, rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the Lord.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?” And the captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-15)
  • Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. (2 Kings 6:15-17)
  • Now when the Philistines heard that the sons of Israel had gathered to Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the sons of Israel heard it, they were afraid of the Philistines. Then the sons of Israel said to Samuel, “Do not cease to cry to the Lord our God for us, that He may save us from the hand of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a suckling lamb and offered it for a whole burnt offering to the Lord; and Samuel cried to the Lord for Israel and the Lord answered him. Now Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, and the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel. But the Lord thundered with a great thunder on that day against the Philistines and confused them, so that they were routed before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and struck them down as far as below Beth-car. (1 Samuel 7:7-11)

More texts could be adduced, but these are sufficient to prove the point we are making. Although Israel marched forward with shields, swords, bows, and spears, it was ultimately Yahweh for whom they fought and, most importantly, it was Yahweh who fought for Israel.

In the texts paraded, it is impossible to miss the spiritual overtones. Here, I would particularly highlight the texts from Joshua and 2 Kings. In the former, Joshua is contemplating how to conquer Jericho. In a moment, he notices a figure standing with sword drawn. Joshua’s first reaction is to challenge this person, presuming a) that it is his right as Israel’s captain; and b) that the One before him is but a man. The answer to his challenge made Joshua realise that this was no ordinary man. Importantly, Joshua realised that he was a man under Authority. The One before him was the none other than the “captain of the host of the Lord.” Now, whether we associate this figure with “the Angel of the Lord” or with a high ranking angel, such as a Michael, the point is the same – Joshua, the man, was aided in his war by the angelic host of heaven. The presence of this ‘host’ did not mean that Joshua could retire to his tent for a spa and a massage while the angels went forth to “kick bottom”. No, it just meant that the battle took on a greater importance and was viewed, as it were, with a wide angle lens that captured the activities of the heavenly.

The passage from 2 Kings is equally enlightening. The king of Aram was being thwarted by the prophecies of Elisha. So much so that he thought he had a traitor in his midst (2 Kings 6:11). When it was told to him that Elisha was the problem, he sent his men to capture the prophet. As the text shows, Elisha’s servant arose and saw the army sent to capture the man of God, and was quite disturbed. Not so Elisha. When the servant’s eyes were opened at Elisha’s request, he saw the area filled with flaming horses and chariots. The Arameans were indeed outnumbered and powerless.

I might also draw you attention to the first text cited, that of Deuteronomy 20:1-4. I would simply direct your attention to the covenantal and salvific overtones of the text. Israel is called, in very specific terms, to remember that God is with them. These terms are significant precisely because they speak of Yahweh’s salvation of His people and His covenanting with them – “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Salvation); “I will be your God and you will be My people!” (Covenant). Note also the role of the priest. Israel’s battles involved Israel’s God who had saved them from slavery by covenant promise and turned them into a community of Yahweh worshipping Priestly–Kings.1

Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, it seems quite ridiculous to posit, in any shape or form, that the warfare of Israel was not spiritual in nature. In fact, it was spiritual – a truth borne out by the covenantal nature of this warfare. Note well that Israel fought for Yahweh and was delivered by Yahweh only when Israel went forth in obedience. There are many accounts of Israel being defeated precisely because Israel did not act in total obedience to Yahweh’s command. One very clear example comes from the book of Joshua, just two chapters after that quoted above. High in spirits, because of the conquest at Jericho, Israel moves to take Ai. Joshua decides to spell some of his troops thinking the battle will go easily for the Lord is on their side. However, Israel was routed. Joshua perplexed. A lesson needed to be learnt. Thus we read:

But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the things under the ban, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the things under the ban, therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel … And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord God, why didst Thou ever bring this people over the Jordan, only to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? If only we had been willing to dwell beyond the Jordan! “O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies? “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what wilt Thou do for Thy great name?” So the Lord said to Joshua, “Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face? “Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things. “Therefore the sons of Israel cannot stand before their enemies; they turn their backs before their enemies, for they have become accursed. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst. (Joshua 7:1; 7-12)

This foray into the Old Testament teaches us two important points. First, the warfare of the Old Testament was indeed spiritual. Second, we are taught that the warfare is also covenantal and is therefore dependent upon obedience on the part of God’s people. These lessons need to be kept firmly in mind as we move forward in our discussion.

Footnotes:

1.  If you have any questions about how this relates to you as a Christians, may I commend to you 1 Peter 2:4-10. The typology is very hard to miss.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 1)

Posted on by
3

The Essence of War was a two part article published recently. Feedback on that article suggested two flaws or inadequacies. One asked for a “Battle Plan”. The other, thought the focus should have been more on prayer and weaponry or at least their role should have been highlighted. Taking these comments seriously, I would like to try and give some further explanation.

First, it needs to be understood that The Essence of War was not seeking to paint the whole picture. It was focussed on calling Christians to wake–up to the fact that there is a war raging. This may seem very obvious to some Christians. However, let me assure you that I have run into many who either do not understand that they are in a war or who, having grasped the concept, have little clue about the nature of the battle.

Second, the issue of Christian warfare is a big topic. At best, I hope here to scratch out a useful outline that may give direction and help people to engage in the battle effectively.

Third, please be prepared to sacrifice some sacred cows, jettison long held fallacies, and, most of all, adopt the “Berean Attitude” (Acts 17:11). One of the reasons that the Church is so befuddled today can be summed up in the term “Biblical illiteracy”. In short, as part of our compromise, Christians have stopped reading and, in particular, understanding the Bible. It would seem that they would rather read a book about the Bible, than put the effort into reading and understanding the Bible itself. The remedy can only be to re-immerse ourselves in God’s expired (breathed out), Holy Spirit authored, Christ magnifying Scriptures; accompanied by a simple yet fervent prayer that God would give us understanding and wisdom.

1. Christian Warfare.

A. Spiritual Warfare: The first issue necessary to understanding Christian Warfare is indeed to understand the terms. You will note that I have not, in general, used the more common term “Spiritual Warfare”. I avoid this term because it has become loaded with the terminology of the “other”. By this I mean that there has been an increasing trend in Christian circles to see everything as belonging to another realm or another time. Thus, many Christians, for instance, no longer believe that God reveals His wrath in time and space. They claim that God will only judge at the end of time.1 Now it is true that there is a judgement at the end of time. However, Romans 1:18 clearly tells us that the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. Another instance would be the way in which Christ is seen only as love and peace. Yet Scripture posits that Jesus is in fact God’s Judge (Acts 17:30-31). We have, in modern Christianity, seemingly lost the ability to hold two truths together. The ultimate example of this would be in regard to the character of God. We seem unable to hold together the myriad and perfect attributes of God as they are revealed in Scripture. This being the case, it is not a wonder that we have trouble with lesser concepts.

The same can be said in regard to Christian warfare. Through the influence of faulty theologies that see the Old and New Testaments as in some way opposed to each other (discontinuity or radical discontinuity), it has become popular to understand that the Old Testament was filled with fleshy warfare – swords, shields, warhorses – whereas the New Testament is spiritual warfare – prayer and evil spirits.

I would like to posit at the outset that such a delineation is an outright fallacy and a case of wrongly dividing the word of truth (Contra 2 Timothy 2:15). It is errors like these that, over time embedding themselves into Christian doctrine and teaching, have really robbed Christians both of the will and ability to understand and engage in Christian Warfare.

The simple reality is that both Testaments teach exactly the same point. It is, at best, the emphasis that differs.

Footnotes:

1. Of course there are a growing number who deny God’s judgement completely.

I’m Still Here!

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, I am still here! That news may mean different things to different people and will no doubt be met with varying emotional responses. My point is simple: The Mayan’s were wrong and the world continues.

This blog will not be long, but it will be stern, especially for Christians.

Fess up. Who thought the Mayan’s were right? Who was really good yesterday, trying to make up for past failures?

I am particularly perturbed by the number of Christians that get sucked into these apocalyptic delusions and indeed propagate them. Brethren, Scripture is very clear. When will we believe Scripture over fallen deluded men?

Jesus, speaking of the end of the world, said:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

Note two things. Jesus first proclaims the surety of His word. As God’s true prophet, His word will never fail. Second, Jesus then says that no human or angel knows the day, but the Father alone! No man. No angel. Thus, any man who says he knows when the world is ending is deluded. At best, seen in the most positive light, he is guessing in the dark. Every other possibility from there on is from the pit! Equally, no angel knows. Thus, if you have an angelic encounter and during the conversation said angel lets the date of Christ’s coming slip, rebuke that being in Jesus Christ, for it is the demonic masquerading as light. The angels do not know, therefore their tongues cannot slip!

Prior to these words of Jesus just mentioned, Jesus had already warned people about not being fooled by those who claimed that Jesus was here or there. The Apostle John (1 John 2:18) says:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.

He then adds (1 John 4:1):

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The Apostle Paul (Acts 20:28-30), speaking to the Ephesian elders, says:

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

When all these texts are pulled together, without using Numerology or the Divinci Code, or the now highly embarrassed Mayan high priest, they spell: DO NOT BE DUPED BY THE FALSE BUT BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD THE LIVING WORD!

Friends and brethren, all that we need for an obedient, fulfilled, and fulfilling life in Christ Jesus will be found in Holy Scripture. The Bible is but Jesus Christ written! If we will not believe what Jesus tells us of Himself through Scripture, messages from angels, demons, Mayans, tea leaves, or mediums, will prosper us nought.

The words of the Apostle Peter (John 6:68) – Please read them, understand them, and treasure them – Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Lines in the Sand

Posted on by
4

In recent months we have been focusing upon the fact that Christians are involved in a global war. This war, by its very nature, encompasses each of us in every aspect of our lives. That is to say, you cannot escape the impact or consequence of this war even if you choose to be a pacifist – not an option for the Christian (1 Timothy1:18; 1 Timothy 6:12). The war is religious. It is, by necessary consequence, moral and ethical. Therefore, it is cultural.

It is for this reason that you cannot escape this war. Everything around you is impacted, to some degree, by this war. The future of our culture is being shaped by the salvos fired both yesterday and today. Many, unfortunately, do not see this. Think about this for a little while and you will see the truth of the matter. We may describe it in terms of Newton’s Third Law of Motion – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a politician makes a law today, that law must have consequences.1 Indeed, at some point down the track, it will have consequences. Those consequences may be minor. It may not amount to much more than a waste of tax-payer dollars and the raising of the blood pressure of some middle level, paper shufflers firmly entrenched in State bureaucracy. On the other hand, the impact could be huge with devastating effects that are seen for generations.

Of recent, our government has seemingly been bent on introducing us to legislation and policies that fit into the last category. Even as I write, there is a draft bill on “Discrimination” that sits waiting in the wings —a Bill laden with Humanistic error and which is aimed at tearing any remnants of the Bible’s God from this nation.

It is time for the Christians of this nation to draw a line in the sand and say, nay shout, “Enough is enough!”

For far too long, we, as Christians, have acquiesced to the government’s demands. Our insipid theology coupled with a desire to be popular, has led us into a dark and dangerous place. We have willingly taken money from the government to build our “Christian Schools”. Then the mean “Piper” wanted to be paid. His money came with strings and restrictions. Was having a new building really worth being made to dance to the Statist’s tune? We have allowed the government to dictate to us what shall be taught as “religious instruction” in State schools. I ask, “How do we, with a good conscience, teach a Christless gospel?” “What do we believe we are achieving by acquiescing to these false standards?” Yes, I will be criticised. Many good Christians teach RE, however, I have not meet one yet who has told me that they are free to open their Bible and say, “Thus says the Lord God!” To a man, they have all commented that they need to, in some degree, ‘be careful’ and move within the set curriculum. Some are very inventive in navigating this minefield. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that there is a minefield in need of being navigated!  Two points must be grasped. First, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is chained! Second, these are the good teachers! How many RE teachers come from Liberal and other false backgrounds and simply spew out the State approved pabulum?

Please understand, these points are merely illustrative of the way in which Christians have, to one degree or another, modified their belief system in order to please their Statist masters. Many other illustrations could be given. In the final analysis, we must ask, “What has been the outcome of this compromise?” Has the Church finally shown that it is open and tolerant enough to be trusted by the State? Has the State been convinced by our actions that we really are trying to “fit in” and join the “brotherhood of man”? Not at all. This is a war, remember! It is winner takes all. Compromise has only weakened Christianity. The opposite effect is that it has emboldened the State to continue on with its agenda of subjugation of people to its will. Therefore, it is time that Christians drew a line in the sand.

The State continues to demand allegiance to its core beliefs. It continues to pass legislation that enforces those beliefs. All dissenters are forced, in one way or another, to capitulate to the State’s demands. The more that is gained, the more the State hungers for total control. Do you believe this? Do you see this?

We started by noting the cultural war and its impact upon you and me. Let me give some examples of this war and how the State operates to subjugate.

Case 1. Some years ago, the local council made some funding available to local community groups under the heading “Game On.” The money was to encourage local community groups to celebrate the Commonwealth Games. Our homeschool group expressed interest. We met with the artist in charge. As leader of the group, I asserted from the outset that, as a Christians group, we would like to have a text of Scripture so that the artwork reflected our identity. The artist could see no problem with this. As a group, we chose the following words: “let us run with endurance the race set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, … so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.” This text was a modified form of Hebrews 12:1-3. It was chosen both to fit the theme and reflect our Christian perspective.

All was well for months. The children went on with their art work. Then came the news that there was a problem with the artwork and some of it would need to be remade. This was at first put forward under the guise that the artwork had been damaged. We met with the artist to begin work on the parts that we could use. At that meeting, she announced that the name of “Jesus” had to go!

First, condemnation belongs to the council for their decision but also for their utter cowardice. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to turn up and speak to us in person. When we finally arranged a meeting, we were stone-walled. The decision was made; no correspondence would be entered in to. They launched a war on Jesus and then hid in their bunker.

Second, note the war on Jesus. It is reminiscent of what the early Apostles endured – “let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name” (Acts 4:17). We could have substituted Jesus name for something nebulous, such as creator, Supreme Being or God. In other words, we could have only that which was interpretable and which would be open to the majority of peoples and beliefs.

Third, and I believe in my heart that this was the greatest tragedy, I was the only one there that day that walked away from the project. All the others were willing to give up the name of Jesus to appease the Statist master and ultimately to ‘slip beneath the radar’. Please do not read this as a pat on the back for self. It is not. It is a heartfelt cry that Christians, of various denominations, would so easily give up the name of Jesus for peace — and we are talking a name on a table! What then are the Christians going to do when confronted with the barrel of a gun, deprivation, or incarceration?

Case 2. Foolishly, after the above incident, I went to work for said council. Never have I worked in such a godless place, but that is another topic. During my time, Big Brother invited me, against my will, to attend a seminar on Human Rights. What I learnt at that seminar was that the government has no respect for so called “Human Rights”. I objected to going to this meeting, but I was informed that it was compulsory. The State Government had amended legislation making it compulsory for all Local Government workers to be ‘brainwashed’ into believing the Humanistic nonsense entitled “Human Rights”.

At that time, my big boss, belonged to the Congregation of Rome. So I appealed to him. ‘This is nonsense. It cuts across what you and I believe. So why should we have to go?’ Answer: I do not want to go either, but it is compulsory!

The lesson should be obvious. We mentioned above that there is a certain rewrite of “Discrimination” legislation waiting in the wings. How is it that the same government that is out to quash discrimination, actively discriminates? How is it that the government pushing “Human Rights”, can trample all over my rights to establish theirs?

Having read parts of this draft legislation, it makes me laugh – muffled because it is serious. Have a guess at who is exempt from prosecution under this legislation? The Crown! So the Crown can discriminate without fear whilst telling others they are not to discriminate. (1:15 – The Crown is bound by the legislation but cannot be prosecuted for an offence.) You would probably also enjoy 2:21, “Special measures to achieve equality are not discrimination”. Now, it may be just me and my paranoia, but that sounds suspiciously like ‘enforced group therapy to bring about homogenous “line towing”’ is not to be considered as discrimination. Could this explain why I was compulsorily invited to attend a Human Rights seminar?

Case 3. Recently, I had a chat with a friend regarding the name of an author. I asked if he knew this person. He responded by saying, “Yes. It is me!” (Forgive the vagueness, but I wish to protect him.) Naturally, I sought an explanation for the nom de plume. It was fairly succinct. He had obtained a job in a department that wants its employees to ‘be seen to be neutral’. So it was suggested that any forays into the public arena, particularly with strongly held – and I am guessing, running contrary to the party line – opinions, were best expressed under an assumed name.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that my friend was the only one who received this advice. I am merely highlighting the fact that “he did” receive this advice.

The real point is this: Do you think that this department is governed by existing anti-discrimination legislation? I would think so. Therefore, regardless of who the employee is, such advice should not be given, it is, in fact, illegal to put forward such a suggestion, especially by a department of this type.

Again, we focus on the State’s utter hypocrisy. The State busies itself preparing legislation that is meant to bring about equality and the freedom of the individual, but then tells individuals that they cannot express certain sentiments or, if they do, they should do it under another name. It is this second aspect that is important.

The State’s anti-discrimination legislation is nothing less than a postmodern denial of truth. The theory posits that there are no absolutes, especially when it comes to epistemology. Consequently, it is asserted that the subjective opinion of each and every man is equally valid. This is what anti-discrimination legislation seeks to protect. In itself this legislation is a philosophic oxymoron, for this legislation seeks to make an absolute for governing the subjective and in so doing proposes something contradictory to its own presupposition, namely that absolutes do not exist! It is therefore a logical fallacy. However, I digress.

Having asserted that every opinion is valid, the government then legislates to force everyone to accept their nonsense position. In order to be seen to operate within the bounds of their own laws, the government does not forbid, in most cases, its employees to speak in the public square. Hence, the second piece of advice – change your name if you do! It would be obvious to all that the government was being inconsistent if it forbade people to speak, to express their subjective non-absolutes on a particular topic. However, having adopted the untenable position that they have, the last thing the government wants is people pulling their straw man apart; especially people on their payroll who can be traced back to the inner sanctum.

What is all important here is the guise! You see the government would prefer you not to be a Christian – because those odd people who believe in absolutes and objective truth are a darn spanner in the works! However, their plan “B” is to manipulate people into appearing and acting as though all operate on the same basis. It is akin to Mrs Bucket in “Keeping up Appearances.” You smooth the pronunciation of “bucket” with a French touch so that it sounds more like “bouquet” and you sit beside the phone waiting for the Queen to phone. Yet all the time you are just a commoner whose name is “bucket”. In other words, whilst the State would be happy for you to abandon your Christian belief, and this is their ultimate goal, they will settle, in the short term, for your acquiescence to their ideals (playing by their rules) and a desertion of any overt statements on your part. Therefore, hand-in-hand with their anti-discrimination legislation comes legislation that makes it illegal for you to express your supposed subjective opinions anywhere outside of your house or place of worship.

Case 4. Harking back to my foolishness in going to work for the local council, I must confess that I nearly did not. After going through the interview process and being offered the position, I received my employment contract. In that contract was a clause that stated that whilst employed by Council I could make no negative comments in the media concerning Council. I could understand the clause that said that I was not authorised to speak to the media on behalf of Council. However, this clause was different. It took away my right as a citizen to express my views in the public square, at least on certain issues. Remember, this is the same organisation that made me go to a “Human Rights” seminar whilst trampling on my supposed ‘rights’ multiple times.

Conclusion:

Having meandered through a few topics, it is time to pull them all together.

We are in a cultural war. That war is reality because of our government’s insistence on continued rebellion against God. Romans 13 clearly shows that government is a minister of God and that it is to be a righteous instrument in His hand. However, like man, it is fallen. It will be used rightly by righteous people or it will be used wrongly by those who are evil and misguided. At present, government, nationwide, is under the management of usurpers and God haters. Even where Christians exist, they seem reluctant to make a stand or incapable of putting forward solid arguments for change.

Therefore, we are constantly bombarded with legislation, policy, and directives that push us further from God’s grace and unto His wrath and judgement.

Much of this has happened because of the Christians acquiescence, for one reason or another, to the Statist’s demands. In saying this, I do not stand on the moral high ground. I have used my own poor example of how easily we can be lured into compromise. It is also worth noting that some of this is subtle. I applied for a job as a “garbo”. I simply did not expect the employment contract to contain some of the things it did. To me they were relevant because I write on social issues. To most, it would have been irrelevant. The point is, nonetheless, that it was there and people, of all beliefs, signed up to it. This Council employed over 300 people. That means that over 300 people agreed to be silent on certain issues. It means that 300 people decided “not to bite the hand that feeds” no matter what errors they encountered.

You see my friends, this is how the Statist master forces, coerces, and deceives. None of us took on a position because we were desperate to be gagged. Yet, that is essentially what happened. Despite all the various types of legislation that exist; despite all the militant lawyers looking for the big win and headlines, clauses like this are written in to contracts all the time and people, wittingly or otherwise, sign up to them.

I mentioned earlier that policies like these have a total cultural impact. Some may query this. Let’s follow this example. 300 odd people signed up to employment on the basis of not speaking against Council. This meant that, in essence, 300 inside and informed perspectives were denied to the wider community. Equally, those same 300 people were “made” to attend a “Human Rights” seminar. Thus, these 300 were abused over and over. Having been employed by Local Government, they became the government’s drones. They were denied the right to speak. They were forced to attend seminars that denied them basic rights – after all, a child can be exempt from religious instruction on the request of a parent, but we were denied that option.

Then think about those 300 people. Most had families. How did all these policies influence those wider families? Is it possible that dad does not be a proper dad now because he is trying to respect the “rights and dignity” of his 3 year old as defined by Humanism? Does mum no longer abide her place as her husband’s helpmeet because she has “rights” and is entitled to express them?

Then we must ask, “What of all the other Local Governments whose employees were also forced into these seminars?” How many do they number? The answer to that is hidden in the fact that there are over 70 Councils in Victoria all of whose employees would have been required to attend seminars similar to the one mentioned. If we allow an average of 100 employees per council, we arrive at a number of around 7000.

Then we can think of the other levels of Government. How many employees in State and Federal governments are subjected to this tyranny? Well, according to the world of Wiki, there were over 160,000 people employed under the Public Service Act 1999 for the 09-10 financial year. That figure really only accounts for the Federal Government. We could go on, but I believe that you understand my point. Thousands of people across this nation are being constrained to attend propaganda seminars run by our governments to reinforce their agenda. These operations must have an impact on our culture. Even if only 10% of these people leave those meetings convinced, it is 10% fewer that have to be convinced. It is 10% that will now operate according to and regurgitate the State’s position.

In order to drive this point home, I would like to raise two illustrations. The first is more relevant to the more mature – the polite term for aged. Those of us who were around before the “wall” fell will remember the horror with which the former Russia was described. We would revile in an instant when we were confronted with the forced indoctrination of the Soviet peoples. We saw a culture disintegrate before our eyes because the Socialist monster had denied generations the right to think or express anything but that which the State had approved. Jails were filled with people whose only crime was to speak out against the establishment or to hold an opinion that was deemed contrary to the State. I ask you, “Can you not see the parallels between the Russia of old and what is being realised before your eyes in your own country?”

The second illustration came from a mission organisation. They showed a film on Christians in Egypt. It explained how these Christians were free to worship God in Jesus and to teach their religion, but only within the bounds of the Church building. These people could not move outside their church building and say anything. To do so would bring swift condemnation. In watching this, the tragedy was that so many Christians immediately felt sympathy for these people; they were incensed at the injustice; yet it did not seem to gel with them that we are experiencing these very same laws here in Australia. It is already illegal in some parts of this country to make statements on certain topics outside of the church building. How long will these exemptions apply? How long will it be before our sermons and worship need to be approved by the State censor?

Many will scorn in answering these questions. Labels will be appended, and so on. However, none of that alters the evidence. Name calling does not dismiss the proof that is before our eyes.

These actions on the part of the government will only be stopped when Christians draw the line in the sand. We, for the most part, are the only ones who can see clearly in order to understand and repudiate the false claims of the State. This is not magic. It is the consequence of a redeemed mind and will (Romans 12:1-2). It is what happens when Jesus claims a life as His and, removing the veil of death and sin, makes a person truly alive (Romans 6:12-14). Consequently, like Ezekiel the watchmen, we must stand on the cultural parapet and cry out to our countrymen (Ezekiel 33:1-9). Sadly, it seems to me, the watchman is asleep.

If the Christians will not draw the line in the sand, who will? If the Christians truly believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and the only way of Salvation, when will they begin to resist all demands both to compromise this message and the way of life by which it is proclaimed? If government, like man and the Church, were made and instituted for the glory of God alone, when will the Christians begin to demand that the government serve God through Jesus Christ (Romans 13-1 & 6)? The line in the sand must be draw.

Let me go one step further. The line in the sand has been draw. It was draw a long time ago. It was drawn by the finger of God. The reason it is no longer visible is because the enemies of God have long transgressed that boundary and God’s warriors, the Church and the Christian, have done little to repel such incursions. Explaining it this way may help the Christians of this nation to see that it is not simply enough to assume God’s authority, draw a new line, and make peace with those that oppose God and His Christ. No. Our job is nothing other than to oust the enemy and push them back to God’s line of demarcation.

I call upon you now to draw a line in the sand and shout “Enough!”, but not in defiance of God or as a usurper of His authority. Rather, the call is in terms of a covenant and a testimony before God that our compromise and sin has been great and that this day, in full repentance, we begin to push back. May this line serve one purpose only; that of being a testimony to our compromise and a constant reminder of our need to push the enemy back to God’s line of demarcation (Joshua 4:1-7). We should look over our shoulder daily to see this new line disappear out of sight. We should look forward every day to see God’s line looming large in our sight.

Brethren, let us draws this line as a sign of our repentance and as a symbol of our dedication to God and His statutes, revealed in Jesus Christ, wriiten down and brought to remembrance through the Holy Spirit. Let us, in the Name of Jesus Christ, show our love and dedication to our God in Trinity and take back our Father’s world.

1. For example, If that law promotes evil; the opposite effect is that it must diminish righteousness. Although we are focussing on government, the same is true of the Church. If the Church preaches error, the opposite reaction is that it diminishes righteousness. If the Church preaches righteousness, the opposit effect is that evil diminishes.

Of Purity and Leaven

Posted on by
Reply

Most are aware of the Puritans. We know them as an historic bunch of nit-pickers who simply could not get out of their own road to enjoy themselves. We have even developed the label – Puritanical – to describe anyone who is a religiously strict kill-joy or, in Australian parlance, a wowser!  If you believe this summary, I am afraid you have been duped. The Puritans were religiously strict, but they also knew how to enjoy life. They drank fermented beverages. Given the size of some of their families, they were no strangers to “horizontal relaxation” or ‘the midnight cuddle’. The purpose and goal of their lives was summed up in their name – they desired covenantal purity in the eyes of God. Their lives were to be offered as fragrant sacrifices to God and, as such, had to be pure in order to be accepted. It is sad that Christians today do not see the need for purity in their lives, especially when their lives should be conceived of as an offering to God.

The Bible is very clear on the need for purity. Matthew 5:8, James 1:27, 1 Peter 2:2, and 1 John 3:1-3, to name but a few texts, all have something particular to say about the Christian’s need for purity. The opposite of the pure life is the leavened life. Let us then look at the Biblical principle of ‘the leaven’.

First, we must avoid the mistake of limiting the Bible’s teaching on leaven to a mere maxim, such as, ‘a little can affect a lot’. Whilst this concept is present, it by no means does justice to the teaching of Scripture. Second, we must see that any elaboration of this principle in Scripture is always negative. Third, the Scripture’s teaching is always aimed at the child of God. Fourth, the application of this teaching means one thing: the Christian is to be pure.

The search for wisdom must begin with God. What does God think of leaven? He despises it! This may need some modification, but it will do for now. Consider the institution of the Passover. At this juncture, Yahweh gives basic, yet explicit, instruction in regard to leaven. None is permitted (Exodus 12:15-19)! The Israelites are to do without leaven for seven days. It is to be absolutely excluded. Understand that this is no trifle. It is not simply the case that God prefers His bread flat. The concept of leaven is intricately tied to the concept of salvation. Note well the penalty for anyone found with leaven. They are to be “cut off from the congregation of Israel”. To be “cut off” means nothing less than to be severed from the covenant people and therefore from salvation itself. The seriousness of the ‘leaven principle’ is underscored when the Israelites are instructed to never burn leavened bread (Leviticus 2:11). The grain offering is most holy and it is to be food for the priest and to be consumed in a holy place (Leviticus 6:17). It must be offered unleavened. Consequently, leaven must never ascend to the nostrils of God as a “soothing aroma”.

Why is this? It seems that we could learn a lesson from the Hebrew word for leaven. The term primarily means ‘to be / make sour’. It shares the same consonantal root as the term for vinegar. Understood in this way, we must see that the addition of leaven is a contamination which sours the bread and lessens its quality. Let us underscore the severity with which God views this contamination by stating quite clearly, again, that no leaven was ever to appear on Yahweh’s altar. The Israelite could only offer leavened bread as a “first fruit” and a “wave offering” (Leviticus 23:17).

This negative concept of leaven is carried through into the New Testament. At every point where the principle of leaven is elaborated upon, it carries with it a negative connotation, either explicitly or implied. In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus warns His disciples to be alert for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is described as leaven. In Luke 12:1, Jesus describes the Pharisaic leaven as hypocrisy. Mark 8:15 is interesting. There, Jesus warns of the leaven both of the Pharisees and Herod. It is almost as though the Holy Spirit gives warning against imbibing corrupt ideas from authorities, ecclesiastic or secular. Turning from the Gospels to the Apostle Paul, we see that the same negative overtones are affirmed. In 1 Corinthians 5:6 and Galatians 5:9, Paul uses the phrase, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” This would show that the phrase was an idiom; however, this does not detract from its importance. In these passages, Paul equates leaven with arrogance, the corrupted old self, depravity, wickedness, and the necessity of circumcision. One reference, however, stands out above the rest.

In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Paul gives instruction to clean out the old leaven. In other words, it is time to wash the bowl and start again from scratch. It is time to remove all the old impurities. As Paul metaphorically throws the new lump of dough into the bowl, he calls a halt to proceedings. ‘No leaven required, thank you!’ We are unleavened bread. We are the redeemed of the covenant. We are the offering laid upon the altar of God, ascending as a pleasing aroma (1 Peter 2:4-5). We are holy. Not only do we not need leaven, to add leaven would be almost blasphemous. It would mean that we are not fit for the altar of God and as a pleasing aroma. It means that we would be “cut off” from the congregation of Israel for being in possession of leaven. Do we make too much of this. No. Paul himself makes direct reference in this verse to Jesus as “our Passover”. The Passover meal was accompanied by the unleavened bread. Jesus our Passover has been sacrificed. The unleavened bread must accompany the Lamb. We are to be unleavened loaves of “sincerity and truth.” Salvation and worship are inextricably linked in Scripture. The saved must worship and their worship must be acceptable, that is, offered in purity according to God’s standard; just as our Passover Lamb was pure and unblemished. The Apostle John tells us that the Father seeks worshippers who will worship in “spirit and truth” – worship after the essence of God (Spirit) and the nature of God (Truth).

The importance of the Christian being essentially pure is underscored when we develop this principle further by introducing Jesus’ words from Mathew 13:33. There, Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven ‘is like a woman who places leaven into a quantity of flour and then waits until all is leavened.’ Do we have a contradiction here? Not at all! Strictly speaking, Jesus’ words should not be considered as part of the ‘principle of leaven’ because there is no elaboration. In other words, there is no, “beware of …”, in which the detrimental nature of the leaven is explained or implied (Something most definitely present in the other references). In this section of Scripture, Jesus gives different parables in order to describe the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 13:33 (and the parallel in Luke13:21) Jesus uses the concept of the leaven to illustrate how the Kingdom of God must of necessity impact upon all with which it comes in contact. Note that the Kingdom is not leaven, it is like leaven. It cannot help but modify or impact upon all that it touches for that is its very transformational and redemptive nature. The Kingdom is positive in its impact precisely because it is pure and a purifier. The Kingdom purifies the corrupt. The Kingdom sheds light in the midst of darkness. The Kingdom gives life to the dead. As stated, the Kingdom is pure and transformational. Therefore, nothing needs to be added to the Kingdom. It is God’s perfective work, reclaiming all that is His through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, culminating in Yahweh’s perfect worship. The Kingdom can be compared to the action of the leaven, but it is by no means leaven!

The comparison of Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:33 with those which speak of the ‘principle of the leaven’, cannot but make us realise why leaven is forbidden to the Christian and why the Christian is essentially pure. The people of God, regenerate through the washing of Jesus’ blood, are pure Kingdom participants, whose lives, in totality, must culminate in the pure worship of God. As such, the Christian needs no leaven. The introduction of any leaven is forbidden because it corrupts the purity that is acceptable to God. Hence, the Christian is consistently warned to be on guard and to watch out for any leaven; that which is a corruption, perversion, or travesty of God. We must see that the leaven that the Christian is warned about is any ideology, philosophy, theory, or concept that is in opposition to the purity of God and His Christ. In short, the Christian is warned regarding the ideas of the “world” and the complete and utter unworthiness of their presence in the Christian as a new creature in Christ, a living sacrifice, and a fragrant aroma (2 Corinthians 2:14-17; Philippians 4:18). The Christian, as a Kingdom of God participant, is to be a vivacious force for life and purity, bringing the redemptive purposes of God to the fore in themselves and in every encounter with the world.

God is Pure. The Kingdom is Pure. The Kingdom participant must likewise be Pure. ‘No leaven, please, we’re Christ’s!’ (2 Corinthians 11:1-3.)

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 4): Cultural Catastrophe

Posted on by
Reply

In our quest for understanding into the Slippery Slope, we have laid a basic foundation. We have noted that the Slippery Slope began centuries ago with Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the Rejection of the Bible’s God. We have shown that the only two epistemological standpoints are those of Revelation or Relativism. We have explored how the rejection of Revelation must lead to Relativism and to men groping in darkness. We have also looked at the stepping stones, however briefly, that brought us to the current issues of today. Particularly, we looked at the realms of Ecclesiology and Science and saw how the works of two men, Schweitzer and Darwin, moved us further down the Slippery Slope.

In our last article, we mapped out the steps, but we did not have time to fully explore the link between Relativism and Cultural disintegration. In this article, we would like to simply unpack this aspect a little.

Our starting point is a subjective one. It is you! Regardless of whether you are a Believer in Jesus Christ or a rejecter of Him, you need to understand that the world in which you live has been shaped by the abandonment of Revelation and the acceptance of Relativism. You also need to understand that you are living in an epistemological dichotomy. Most today do not understand this position or even realise the paradigm shift. Let’s illustrate this. In a previous life, I drove taxis. On one occasion I had a male passenger who expressed the view that the individual should simply do what makes them feel good. Immediately the thought passed through my mind – ‘Hmmm, let us test this theory. Grab him by the back of the neck and bash his head against the dashboard!’ Yes, a tad unsanctified, but what do you suppose his reaction would have been? Upon explanation that “I just felt like bashing him”, do you think this gentleman would have been calm and at peace with the fact the encounter was nothing more than another rational creature simply expressing himself as he desired? I doubt it. Here we have the dichotomy. This man expressed relativism as his epistemology, but in reality he would have expected applied revelation as an outcome. In other words, his expectation of outcome would have been toward justice and retribution against the assailant – a position supported only by God’s Revelation, not his stated relativism! Therefore, it is important to understand that today’s culture is totally exposed to disintegration. People within our culture, for the most part, are conflicted. Disintegration and conflict occur because, in Biblical language, they have ‘halted between two opinions’ (1 kings 18:21). Our culture wants an epistemology that worships each individual man as if he were a god (relativism); promulgating laws that see each of his desires are fully met. However, on the flip side, he wants all his rights and privileges protected on the basis of law, morals, and ethics that transcend the individual and move into the realm of absolutes. At this point, he wants to move from relativism to revelation!

To drive to the heart of cultural disintegration we must look at this conflict. To begin, we must look at some Biblical basics. 1. God is. 2. God spoke 3. In speaking, God created. 4. To His creation, God spoke Law-Words. 5. These Law-Words are covenant terms promising blessing and curse. 6. These covenant Law-Words are the basis for the happiness, prosperity, and well being of God’s creatures. 7. Therefore, these covenant Law-Words are to be obeyed, if a prosperous culture is to be experienced. Because God is an immutable, absolute being, possessing absolute power, He not only has the right to settle the terms of life for His creatures, but he has the will and the power to bring about all that He stipulates in His Law-Word.

Using marriage as an example, we see that God made man male and female. He called man to unity in the covenant bond of marriage. This bond He blessed with a command to be ‘fruitful and multiply’. Man obeyed because God had designed this life into man. Like the bow in the sky (Genesis 9:13), the child brought forth from the womb was nothing less than a covenant sign. The child proved the essence and reality of God’s design, purpose, and promise – fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it! As man obeyed this command, God upheld and sustained the marriage covenant at every step. Moreover, God hedged the marriage covenant with law to make sure that its sanctity was upheld (Exodus 20:12 & 14; Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 10:2-12); even extending laws to protect the child (Exodus 21:22; Numbers 3:11; Psalm 127:3-5; Matthew 18:10). Thus, from first to last, marriage is a covenant of life (fruitful), culture (subdue), and salvation (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) – eternal life and culture.

As God purposed for this marriage covenant to be the bedrock of society, God added penalty to law – thus truly indicating that marriage is a God-sanctioned covenant – so that man would respect this bond. When a person betrayed that covenant, the full weight of the law was to come upon them. There was to be guilt and innocence. There was to be bounty for the faithful; depravation for the guilty. Punishment of the guilty served the true end of justice, but it was also to be a deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:12; 19:19; 22:22).

By contrast, the relativism of finite man gives nothing but disintegration. Man has no real power and certainly nothing approaching the absolute. Man’s epistemology of relativism stands in stark contrast to The Immutable. There are no law-words of worth. Those that they possess, they have stolen! The heart of man does not give definitions of love, justice, goodness, holiness, etc. All these are terms borrowed, read stolen, from the Bible’s God. So man makes futile attempts to promulgate laws that are meant to give stability to culture and rights to the individual. They knock down in order to build, but their foundation is nothing but rubble. The edifice must collapse!

Again, let us illustrate this with marriage. Having jettisoned the Bible’s God, man was left to improvise. He could see some things of worth in the design of God, but they were bound too tightly to law and penalty. Man wanted freedom, not a lot, just enough to loosen the strictures – well that is how it began. So God’s Law-Word on marriage had to be replaced by man’s relative tenets on marriage. As man was a sexual creature, what did it matter if your slippers were parked, on occasion, under the wrong bed? So, of necessity, we must decriminalise adultery. This then opened the way for promiscuity. “No penalty, so what does it matter?” is the way man thought. The problem was that as a creature made in the image of God, promiscuity did matter. Innately, one or other of the parties felt aggrieved at the betrayal and wanted ‘out’ of the relationship. Because we had decriminalised adultery, what was the aggrieved party to do? After all, no harm no foul! So, we are given the Family Law Court that has a “no fault” policy. Question! How do you divide up a family, goods, and chattels without establishing guilt or innocence? At this point, man’s relativism has begun to destroy the very nature of law. With divorce increasing, the question then became, “Why get married?” Let’s “try before we buy!” Let us simply pretend to be married. Here, we have arrived at the place wherein “marriage” has become an absolute farce. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, you and your grandmother – yes, be repulsed – is all on the table.

However, that is but the tip of the ‘iceberg’. Children, the fruit of the womb proving God’s covenant and design, are now openly attacked. Man hates God now. He is not looking for “wiggle room” but to throw off God’s rule (Psalm 2). Therefore, in true evolutionary style, the “live in lover” beats the child senseless because it is not his offspring. The couple want the pleasure of sex, but they have no interest in fruitfulness and dominion, so when the womb is bounteous they slay the contents as though of no more worth than a baked bean! The woman finds a new boyfriend and murders her children because he prefers that they were not around.

What happens to these slayers and child beaters? Nothing! Relativism has destroyed law. The fruit of the womb is no longer a covenant testimony to be honoured and treasured as life, culture, and salvation. No. It is now to be killed as burden and inconvenience; and the moral applied is “choice”. We still, hypocritically, take a dim view of child beaters and of the mother that kills her children, but we are slowly throwing of these shackles too! We now not only discuss abortion openly, but also infanticide.

Relativism is a culture of death and the death of a culture because it removes any and all meaning and therefore destroys purpose. Relativism limits everything to what it is. So, to the relativist, ‘marriage’ is nothing more than an agreement between two parties that gives some vague legal standing. It is for this reason that homosexuals, polygamists, and others push for the right to be married. To them, marriage serves no purpose beyond “recognition” or “equality”. The idea of covenant, blessing, fruitfulness, posterity, prosperity, dominion, covenant affirmation, and image bearing, are alien concepts.

Here, we have only drawn a few faint lines using marriage as an example, to show that the rejection of the Bible’s God must lead to Humanism and Relativism. The consequence of this shift must be Cultural Disintegration. We stepped onto the Slippery Slope centuries ago. We sowed the wind; we are now reaping the whirlwind! All that is upon us, all disintegration, stems from our rejection of God. Let us commit to restoration by once again embracing the One True and Living God that speaks through Jesus Christ His Son!