I have learned that the people of the Ancient Middle East believed there were several ways the gods proved they were gods. While they have no direct bearing on how one obtains salvation, knowing what these methods of declaring deity were can help us to better understand some of the more puzzling passages in our Scriptures. For example:
Continue reading “Qualifications For Claiming Deity Status In the Ancient Near East”
I saw something today that got me to thinking about the Natural Law behind the immigration issue. As with many things, understanding the definitions behind the words we use can clear up a lot of the confusion surrounding a given issue (this is actually one of the principles of Natural law: words mean things). Therefore, I propose that we take a closer look at the Natural Law principles behind the immigration issue.
First, a nation must have borders. This is part of the definition of ‘nation.’ A nation also has its own government. One of the primary purpose of all just governments is to protect that nation from invasion by outside forces. This requires that the traffic across the nation’s borders be policed. Part of this policing process is the control of who is allowed to enter and, more importantly, who is allowed to remain in and even become a part of that country. In short, immigration is connected to national defense.
Now, another part of what makes up a nation is its laws and culture. If a person comes to live in a different country (i.e. emigrates to this new country), they are seeking to become part of that country. If they do so according to the laws of that nation, and with the full knowledge of that nation’s government, this is called legal immigration. The very fact that the nation would allow them to enter and become a part of it implies legality. However, if a person enters a nation without going through the legal process, that is called illegal immigration. They have knowingly and willingly violated the laws of that nation.
We have already stated that one of the primary purposes of a nation’s government is to protect its citizens from outside invasion. This includes illegal immigration. By entering a nation without letting the government know you are doing so, you are invading that country. Now, most people think that an invasion must be done by an armed force, but this is not the case. The word can mean ‘the spread of something harmful.’ For example: a virus can be said to ‘invade’ your body. Is a virus armed? No. But it is still an invader because it is harmful to your body. The same is true of illegal immigration — especially in cases where the illegal aliens refuse to assimilate to the culture of the nation they invaded.
When a large number of illegal aliens invades a country (or State), it can start to subvert that country’s culture and, if the government refuses to enforce its laws, it subverts the legal system. This is actually an attack on that nation and its government. If a foreign government were to try to subvert another nation’s government, it would be considered an act of war. If a group of citizens of that country were to try to subvert the government from outside the legal system, that would be considered subversion and/or sedition. In most countries, this is illegal. If it is done with force, it is called a revolution. Illegal aliens are no different. Because they are illegal, they cannot affect change through legal means. And because they are illegal, they are — by definition — foreign citizens. Therefore, if illegal aliens reach a point where they start to disrupt the culture and legal system of a nation, they constitute an invasion.
This is all fact because this is all a matter of definition. An illegal alien is not an ‘undocumented worker.’ First, you do not know if they are ‘undocumented.’ The government may well have some form of documentation on them. Nor do you know they are a worker. They may have come simply to take advantage of the welfare system, which requires documentation, or they may be the children of another illegal alien. Therefore, the notion that illegal aliens are not illegal invaders is an act of lawlessness. When it is condoned by the government, that lawlessness reaches the level of breaching the Social Contract. If the People deem this breach significant enough, this is grounds to dissolve that contract, and the government along with it.
Now, if members of the government not only ignore but also condone this illegal immigration, then they become active participants in subversion/sedition. If a country has laws prohibiting such immigration — as America does — then those government leaders have declared war on the very nation they have sworn to protect. If these leaders go further and seek to import immigrant who they know will not assimilate into the culture or embrace the nation’s laws, then this is an escalation of that war against the nation they swore to protect. All of this is lawlessness, and all lawlessness is a violation of Natural Law.
But let me ask you to consider this issue one step further. What if an alien culture were to invade earth? They do not come with weapons, they just come and move in. They may even be saying they come in peace, they just need some place to live because their world died. So they settle in and among us — and not necessarily after asking or going through any legal process. They just do it. You’ve probably seen a science fiction movie like this. The old shows, “V” and “Visitors” come to mind, as does “The X-Files.” Anyway, after a while, it is revealed that these aliens have their own agenda and they have slowly been enacting it. The purpose is to ‘fundamentally transform’ the entire structure of the planet where they come to rule over us and we are made to serve them. Do you see the process? Can you understand how it works?
Now consider this:
Under this man, illegal immigration has exploded. What’s more, his Administration has imported large numbers of people who have openly stated they have no intention of assimilating. In fact, in places where the Islamic population has become large enough, such as Deeborne, Michigan, these ‘immigrants’ have started to reject our laws in favor of Shari’a law. How is it that this is not recognized as an invasion, and an invasion lead by the very people who swore to protect this nation from just such a thing as this? How is it we can see the invasion in a science fiction movie, but we cannot see the very same thing when it is carried out in real life — and for the same reasons?
A ‘fundamental; transformation’ enacted in contradiction to a nation’s laws is called a revolution. In the U.S., that is illegal. Under Natural Law, that is illegal. It is not ‘opinion,’ it is by definition. That makes it a fact. And yet, a large portion of our society accepts the lie that what I am explaining is ‘racism,’ or ‘bigotry.’ I ask you, dear reader:
How does a nation survive when it defends the very people who are destroying it, as well as the process by which those people are affecting its destruction?
And lest anyone think I am singling out any particular person or political Party, let me point out that this is being done by a large group of well-organized and well-funded people, many of whom are not even in government. And it is being done by both Parties. There are very few innocent hands in this: the majority of those people in the highest levels of our government and corporate America have openly declared themselves to be enemies of the American people. Sadly, the means by which they control us (i.e. keeping us dumbed-down through our schools, distracted by entertainment and fighting among ourselves politically) has been far, far too effective.
Oh, I almost forgot. Another way they protect themselves is to call people who explain what they are doing “conspiracy theorists.” If you are thinking that about me right now, then I don’t blame you, but I ask you to consider just how well their plan is working if they have even managed to fool you?
This post has been re-written. After careful consideration, I decided I did not like the way I originally presented my case. As it stands now, this post better represents the point I was originally trying to make. However, if the reader is interested, they can find my original post here.
Our founders were not perfect men (or women), but they tried to be the best people they could be. In the process, they aimed for what they considered to be the perfect ideal, and set principles by which they could strive to meet that ideal. Then they set high standards for themselves, both as a nation, as well as individually. They measured their success against these standards, which were, in turn, measured against their ideal. All of this produced an exceptional nation. Today, many look at the state of this nation and wonder how we could have fallen so far from what our founders created. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the 2016 Presidential race. So I started thinking. Since we can’t seem to figure out where, how or why we’ve gone wrong, maybe we should go back to them founders and see if they have any advice. In this case, I was looking specifically for advice in how to vote. I’d like to share just a little of what I found, and some commentary on what it means.
The Importance of Voting and Christian Involvement in the Political Arena
John Adams
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature . . . the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly . . . and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed. (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from “‘U’ to the Boston Gazette” written on August 29, 1763.]
Samuel Adams
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. IV, p. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. III, p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Matthias Burnett
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for [your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch over your liberties and privileges – civil and religious – with a careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson & Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
Frederick Douglass
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York, October 14th, 1852.]
Charles Finney
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it – and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
James Garfield
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883), Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, “A Century of Congress,” July, 1877.]
Francis Grimke
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . . from inward corruption – from the disregard of right principles . . . from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . . our Union . . . will be “only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from “Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black and White, Alike,” March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
Alexander Hamilton
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III, pp. 544-545.]
John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
Thomas Jefferson
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. 10, p. 235.]
[T]he rational and peacable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. 12, p. 136.]
[S]hould things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. 10, p. 245.]
William Paterson
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.
[Supreme Court Justice William Paterson reminding his fellow justices of Proverbs 29:2. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.]
William Penn
Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. . . .[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813) Vol. I, p.303.]
Daniel Webster
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
Noah Webster
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character. . . . When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States (New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.]
John Witherspoon
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
I found a few more in my own files:
John Quincy Adams
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
Elias Boudinot
If the Moral character of a people degenerate, their political character must follow. These considerations should lead to an attentive solicitude to be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers…and judge of the tree by its fruits.
Charles Carroll (signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress)
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
[The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry by Bernard C. Steiner 1907, from a letter from Charles Carroll, Nov. 4, 1800.]
James Iredell (US Supreme Court Justice under Washington)
I think the Christian religion is a divine institution and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice.
[The Papers of James Iredell, Dan Higginbotham editor, Vol 1, p.14.]
John Marshal (argued, by some to be our greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.
[letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833.]
I could continue, but I wonder, what good would that do? How many who read this will even bother to read the few founders that have been quoted here? And of those few, how many would take the time to read any more than this? I know the answer, and it saddens me. I know because it was not that long ago that I wouldn’t have been bothered to read even these few quotes I’ve posted. And herein lies our nation’s problem: we have no regard for the duties and responsibilities that accompany true liberty. We are just a collection of spoiled individuals who want our cake and to eat it too, only we do not want to work for it, nor do we want to suffer any negative side effects for eating the whole thing ourselves.
Still, if this nation wishes to restore itself to what it once was, the founders have pointed us in the direction we must go. That direction does not point to a man or woman, or to Washington D.C. and government. It points to the mirror, and to the Creator and His Law. We must fix ourselves first, and that means we must bow to and accept the Creator’s definitions of what is right and what is wrong. We are not free to make up our own morality. We must acknowledge the Creator’s universal morality, and we must live according to its laws. What’s more, we must hold each other accountable to that universal moral law. Otherwise, we will grow ever more corrupt in ourselves, and if we are all corrupt ourselves, how can we ever hope to elect a virtuous person, let alone recognize one if and when we find them?
To hammer home my point, I found a little more wisdom in the words of our founders, though I will not bore the reader with more than a few passages this time:
Patrick Henry
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.
Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
James Madison
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.
[speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788]
James Monroe
It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.
The founders were nearly universal in their opinion: liberty rests on the shoulders of a moral people, and morality can only be found in religion (i.e. belief in the Creator and obedience to His laws). The founders were equally clear on another point: if and when the people turn away from God, they will become corrupt; and when the people become corrupt, they will fall into tyranny and slavery. Now, others may wish to disagree, and in fact, I know they will. But the founders built this nation upon these principles, and it became the greatest nation in modern times. Today, we reject their ideal as well as the principles by which they strove to achieve it, then we wonder why we are no longer as great as we once were. To me the reason should be easily recognized: we are no longer the nation we once were because we are no longer the people we used to be. Therefore, if we want to be the nation we used to be, maybe, just maybe, we should start by trying to become the people we used to be once again?
THIS SERIES SEEKS TO HELP THE READER UNDERSTAND HOW THE PAST DRIVES THE PRESENT
Our schools no longer teach history. Why? Because, if you know history, and understand how the past drives the present, it is nearly impossible to manipulate you. On the other hand, if what you know about the past is a carefully crafted lie, and you embrace that lie, then you are not only easy to manipulate, but you will also protect your programming. What do I mean by protecting your programming? I mean that, if anyone tries to tell you the truth about history and/or explain how you have been deceived, you will cling tighter to your deceivers while lashing out at the person who is actually trying to free you from them. In short, you will protect the lie by destroying the person telling the truth. This is all connected to the Communists ongoing efforts to subvert this nation. Only, today, the Communists have a new ally — Islam!
OK, I’m going to be honest with you. This is going to be a long piece. That is out of necessity. There is a lot of information that has to be presented before it can all be tied together. Even then, time will not permit anything more than the most brief mention of all the pieces. Therefore, I beg the reader to stick with me until the end. There will be time for more detailed research afterward. What is imperative is that the reader first see that this nation is under attack by the very people we think we can trust.
This starts a long time ago, back in the 1800’s. But I’m going to start with Joseph McCarthy and ‘red-baiting.’ I’m going to say this right now: I consider McCarthy to have been a patriot! He did not accuse a single innocent person! History has shown that everyone McCarthy accused of being a Communist was — in fact — a Communist! This is why he was destroyed: to stop him from exposing the infiltration of our government, schools and our news and entertainment media. Today, we would think of this in terms of ‘race-baiting’ and playing the ‘race card.’. Certain political ideologies tend to push their agendas by using people of color as front men. This way, if anyone tries to expose our attack their agenda, that person or group can be labeled a racist and destroyed. Not only does this protect the agenda, but it serves as a warning to anyone else who might consider opposing that agenda in the future. This is the essence of political correctness: the destruction of anyone who dares to object to the political agenda of those in power. It is a form of terrorism, and it is a Communist invention.
Let’s go back to McCarthy. He tried to expose the Communists who were taking over the government and social institutions of this nation. Why? Because Communism has vowed to destroy this nation from within. McCarthy knew that Communist leaders had made this vow, he took them at their word and he was trying to honor the threat. In other words, McCarthy was trying to defend this nation from an outside influence that sought to destroy it.
Here is what McCarthy knew, and it goes back farther than the debated quote attributed to Khrushchev. We start with Josef Stalin’s statement of his political end goal:
World dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries … [and] when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state.
What did the leader of the Communist world want? A world dictatorship. And what was required before that could be achieved? The elimination of a certain ‘federation of republics’ by turning them into Socialist Democracies. Dear reader, that is a reference to Stalin’s intention to undermine the free Western world. How do we know?
America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.
Well, at least Stalin saw the U.S. as a country that had to be turned into a socialist democracy. But how did Stalin plan to turn America into a Socialist Democracy? Easy. He would simply apply the techniques his mentor used to take over Russia. I give you Vladimir Lenin’s keys to taking over the world:
“A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.”
So you have to start by creating a revolutionary situation (incidentally, that is what the 1960’s were all about: a Communist attempt to create a revolution in America). So, how does one create a revolutionary situation in a free republic such as America?
Destroy the family, you destroy the country.
You destroy the family by taking over the schools:
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
You also have to destroy their religious foundations:
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
Then, control the narrative by seizing control of the press — so that no one can warn the people and you can destroy those who try to do so:
The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.
Once you have the press, turn them into community organizers for the Communist movement:
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
Then you undermine the free market:
The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency.
You do this through a system of taxation and deficit spending by the government — especially on programs which give the State more control, such as education health care and Social Security:
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
And, finally, you use all of this to destroy patriotism and turn the people against their own country. You tell them their founders were all just rich old white slave owners (which is a demonstrable lie). You tell them the nation was stolen from the native peoples (a half-truth, at best). You tell the people that the nation is rigged for men, and that it wages war on women and minorities (so say they women and minority millionaires, entertainment stars, business leaders and even President). And you tell the people that their nation is the pariah of the world: that all other nations hate them because of the things for which they stand (while ignoring all the people risking life and limb to get here so they can share in those things, themselves).
Oh, I almost forgot. You need to remove all the checks and balances that protect the people from government corruption and abuse by moving everything toward direct elections (where your control over the people can control how they vote):
Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
You must disarm the people because:
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
And you can never allow any form of morality to enter into your own movement:
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Is any of this starting to look familiar yet? It should, because it is exactly what we have seen happen in this country since the Communists started to infiltrate our government and social institutions. The majority of our current problems are the direct result of these policies being put into place by Communist subversives. And now, we have the added problem of Islamic subversion on top of this.
So, where did this start? Well, it goes back farther than Joseph McCarthy. It goes back farther than FDR (yes, he was a Communist sympathizer who either placed or allowed many Communists to be placed in the highest levels of our government). In fact, it goes back farther than Woodrow Wilson, but it was with Wilson that Communist subversion first found its way into the White House. Wilson took the Progressive movement from Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans and used it as the Trojan Horse by which he could sell Communism to the American people. Wilson also appointed other Communists to positions in government and education for the purpose of turning the nation into a Communist utopia. I know this to be true because Wilson was so bold as to explain all of this in his writings. He didn’t even try to camouflage his intentions; he stated them boldly, and in plain language.
This is the truth about the history of Communist subversion in America. It may be denied, but it cannot be refuted. It has all been documented beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reason America does not know about it is because the Communists have largely succeeded. They own our schools, our entertainment media, our press and every level of government. However, once you know what to look for, you will see their fingerprints all over the news and events of the day. What’s more, I am not the only one who has been trying to warn the American people. Here are just a few of the countless other patriots who have tried to sound the alarm, and who have largely been ignored by a people who simply do not care:
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that even today, a half century after his death, his name remains synonymous with witch hunts.
But that conventional image is all wrong, as veteran journalist and author M. Stanton Evans reveals in this groundbreaking book. The long-awaited Blacklisted by History, based on six years of intensive research, dismantles the myths surrounding Joe McCarthy and his campaign to unmask Communists, Soviet agents, and flagrant loyalty risks working within the U.S. government. Evans’s revelations completely overturn our understanding of McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the Cold War.
None Dare Call It Treason is a careful compilation of facts from hundreds of Congressional investigations of communism and dozens of authoritative books on the communist-socialist conspiracy to enslave America. It dissects the failures of the Eisenhower Administration just as effectively as it details the blunders of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. It documents the concurrent decay in America’s schools, churches, and press which has conditioned the American people to accept 20 years of retreat in the face of the communist enemy. You won’t finish None Dare Call It Treason without concluding that America is in serious trouble.
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And the American Left
Former Leftist radical David Horowitz blows the lid off the dangerous liaison between U.S. liberals and Islamic radicals. With America’s battle against the disastrous force of terrorism at hand, Horowitz takes us behind the curtain of the unholy alliance between liberals and the enemy-a force with malevolent intentions, and one that Americans can no longer ignore.
And these are just a few of the many sources that have documented the Communist subversion of America, and the alliance between these Communist subversives and Islam. In fact, the Communists just perfected a strategy that Islam has been using for more than 1400 years. In practice, there is little difference between the two. Islam simply slaps the guise of religion on the face of Socialism. Take a close look at the narrative in America today and you will find that Communism and Islam both seek to dominate the United States, and both use the tactics I just described to achieve their goal and protect their agenda from exposure and attack.
What if I said:
“The biggest problem facing the world today isn’t the individual Homo Sapien animal, but ‘humanists.’ By that, I mean animals who actually believe they are humans, and that being human gives them special rights that Homo Sapien animals do not have. But the problem is much worse than this. These ‘humanists’ also believe that being human places certain duties on them, and if they are not diligent in performing these duties, they will lose their claim to being human and, along with their claim, all their rights. In other words, if they neglect these duties, they will become animals again, just like the rest of us.”
If I said this to you, how would you respond? Would you disagree? If so, why? Or better yet, how? On what grounds would you disagree? What line of reasoning would you use? What evidence would you present to support your argument? Do not dismiss my line of questioning. How you answer is critically important to understanding the real point of this essay.
If you simply object to my claim that ‘humanists’ are the biggest threat to our world today because you do not like my definition of a ‘humanist,’ then you are being ‘intolerant’ — at least as the modern world defines it. You are placing your personal feelings above mine without giving me any reason to believe they are better than my beliefs. If you go further and apply force to your objection — force of any kind — then you cross over into the realm of ‘ideological imperialism.’ In other words, you are trying to force me to conform to your beliefs simply because you think your beliefs are superior to mine. There’s little difference between this practice and those who justified slavery, or taking land from native peoples. Any attack that could be made against those who justified slavery or the taking of land from native peoples would apply equally to people who think they are justified in using force to make others comply with their belief system.
Now, before we go further, let me ask you if you understand the implications of what I just said. If you object to my definition of ‘humanists,’ but you cannot give me a reason for your objection other than how you feel, are you sure you aren’t one of these ‘humanists?’ I mean, if your only reason for objecting is the way you feel, but you still object, then doesn’t that suggest that you believe you have a right to object and a duty to correct me? Does that then mean you think I am one of the animals? So why are you objecting? I mean, haven’t I actually justified your feelings? Didn’t I provide a reason for you to feel you have the right to feel the way you do and a duty to correct anyone who disagrees? So you are humanist and you think I am an animal that needs to be corrected….
OK, do you see the slippery slope in all this? Without something to anchor us, we can ‘reason’ ourselves into circles that double back upon ourselves. So, how do we anchor ourselves? What do we use to keep us from going in these absurd circles?
In short, we are talking about the need for a consistent way of understanding the world: a world view, if you will. For most of human history, man has sought to make sense of things through reasoning. Now, there are many forms of reasoning, and not all of them are based in formal logic. Some are based in superstition, others in logic, but all have their own rational. One of the fundamental principles of all good reasoning is consistency. This requires a set of rules to guide our thinking, and the correct application of those rules to everything we consider. And one of the primary requirements for consistency is the need for fixed definitions. In fact, all reasoning is built upon definitions. Without them, we simply cannot reason. Now, let’s go back to the start of this essay and my definition of ‘humanist.’
Why might someone object to my definition of ‘humanist?’ Well, for one, I excluded all homo sapiens who might not agree with my definition. In fact, I define them as ‘animals.’ In addition to this, I categorically denied that these ‘animals’ have rights. Furthermore, I implied that the real humans (i.e. ‘humanists’) have a duty to treat the animals a certain way or lose their claim to being human, and thus, lose their rights in the process. For most of us, this is simply an unacceptable definition, but why? We know this definition is wrong, but how and on what grounds would we object to it? And by what right could we do so without admitting we are ‘humanists?’ (Do you see why I said not to dismiss my earlier line of questioning?). Now stay with me, please. I’m not going to go into a lengthy argument about the definition of a ‘human.’
I took you through all of that to make this point: objective definitions do exist and they do not depend how we feel or what we believe. Now, we may describe a definition in different terms, such as defining a human in terms of DNA or membership in the species of homo sapiens, or as moral agents, but all of those criteria exist as a material part of the thing we are calling a human. They apply to all members of ‘human.’ In the case at hand, they would apply equally to the ‘humanists,’ as well as to the ‘animals.’ Therefore, we could use these criteria to refute my definition of ‘humanist.’ This is because a thing is defined by objective criteria. This principle even applies to ideas! So let me change my argument and ask you how you would deal with this:
“God has told me that all humans who believe in him are to be called ‘humanists.’ If a person does not believe in god, they are to be considered ‘animals.’ Because they believe, only ‘humanists’ have rights. God gives them to believers as a reward for believing in him. ‘Animals’ have no rights. However, along with these rights come responsibilities, or duties. One of these duties is to obey everything god says. If a believer does not do so, they become an ‘animal’ and will be punished by god. He will send them to a fiery hell for eternity. Another of these duties is to convince all ‘animals’ to believe in and obey god. If the ‘animals’ refuse, they are to be enslaved and pay believers a tax, or they are to be killed. Still another duty is to kill any ‘humanist’ who stops believing in god, or who tries to change god’s commands. ‘Humanists’ are to obey these commands until there are only ‘humanists’ left in the world. This will bring about world peace.”
What do you say now? If you object simply because you do not like my claims, then you are being a intolerant, a bigot and an ideological imperialist and maybe even a racist (i.e. a ‘hater’ of the worst order). What’s more, if you object, you are saying that you are above god. Heck, you are saying that you are god! After all, I am saying my source of authority here is god — not me. Therefore, only god can correct me. So, I ask you again: how do you respond? Do you tell me my definition of a ‘humanist’ is wrong? On what grounds? This is god’s definition, I am just the messenger. Do you try to change that definition? So you think you are god now? Remember: ‘Humanists’ are commanded to kill you for that! How can you condemn someone for obeying god? Do you deny there is a god? Where is your proof? Again: how do you respond? On what grounds do you object? Where is the objective evidence that I am wrong?
If you haven’t already realized it, I have been talking about Islam this whole time. More specifically, I have been talking about those people who have tried to differentiate between ‘Muslims” and ‘Islamists.’ The people who try to make this distinction are the ‘intolerant, bigoted’ ideological imperialist and racist haters‘ I mentioned previously. I say this because they are forcing their beliefs onto Islam in the face of objective reality. Muhammad never made such distinctions. Muhammad said there are only Muslims (those who obey him), infidels (non-Muslims) and apostates (Muslims who disobey, try to change or leave Islam). These are the criteria which define a Muslim, and there is no higher authority as to what defines a Muslim than Muhammad. That means we cannot object to these criteria. If we do, we fall over the edge of that slippery slope I illustrated in the beginning of this essay.
I drug you through all of the above just to help you understand the mistake these people are making when they try to create ‘good Muslims’ and separate them from ‘Islamists.’ It does not matter what you and I think, in the eyes of obedient Muslims, these people are claiming to be god! Those obedient Muslims are commanded to kill such people! Therefore, if we object to the things Muhammad taught, and that true Muslims believe (true according to Muhammad — not me), we must do so on objective grounds. This can only be done by granting all of Muhammad’s claims, then proceeding to demonstrate how and why they cannot be true. Anything less than this will accomplish nothing. In the eyes of obedient Muslims, we will be affirming Muhammad’s words and justifying his commands. What’s more, the only way we are going to show that Muhammad was wrong is to assume the same type of reasoning being used by Muslims, and that is spiritual reasoning, not ‘scientific.’
This is the only way we will be able to deal with the threat of Islam and we had better start accepting this fact, and fast! Because Islam is incompatible with our world view as well as our system of government. We cannot treat it the same way we treat other religions — because it is unlike any other religion in the world. It is a political ideology cloaked as a religion, and it has commanded its followers to conquer the world for their god. The rest of the world will either accept this and act accordingly, or… Or it will be conquered by Islam!
UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: Should Believers Be Supporting Donald Trump?
As I clearly state in the ABOUT page, this blog is written for believers: to help them understand the Scriptures and apply them to their daily lives. That is what this post is attempting to do: to put the Scriptures in their proper context so that we can accurately apply them to the choice we make in our daily walk with the Lord.
My heart is heavy. It is saddened by all those believers who are saying that God is going to use Donald Trump. That the Lord is humbling Trump in preparedness for a great work. These believers have convinced themselves that God is going to use Trump to restore this nation. Sadly, I cannot stand with those who believe this. I find no reason in Scripture to believe this is what God is doing. However, I can find firm ground upon which to state that I believe the opposite is true. There is every reason to believe that the Lord is using Trump as an instrument of His judgment against this nation.
Now, let me get this out of the way right now. I know that the Lord can use broken people to work His will. I know that the Lord is the only one who knows what is in the heart of any given person. I know that the Lord can humble people. I know all of this. But I also know the rest of what Scripture tells us, and I am unwilling to ignore the whole council of the Lord simply to make myself feel better about an uncertain future.
For example: the Lord’s Word tells us we may not know a person’s heart, but we can know them by their fruit (i.e. the things they do). In that case, I know Donald Trump by his fruit, and it is of a wicked and unrepentant man. Now, people can hate me for saying this all they want. I do not mind. I’ll accept persecution for being faithful to God’s Word. I will count it blessing. All I know is that, if an honest believer looks at Trump’s life and compares it to this passage, that believer has only one judgment to make regarding Donald Trump:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
I see no evidence that Donald Trump has been saved. In fact, given his recent vindictive comments toward the Republican leadership, I see nothing but a continuation of the same person Trump has always been. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Trump is of God, and Scripture tells us a person is either with the Lord, or they are against Him. Therefore, I must consider Trump to be against the Lord.
Now, if we have reason to believe a person is opposed to the Lord, then Scripture is very clear as to how we are to treat them:
2 Timothy 3:1-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Difficult Times Will Come”
3 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, [a]haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of [b]godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.6 For among them are those who [c]enter into households and captivate [d]weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the [e]knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as [f]Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
I look to Donald Trump and I see the very embodiment of the type of person this passage speaks, and I hear the warning loud and clear:
Stay away from such men as these!
And more than this, I know what Scripture says about the person who knowingly joins themselves to such people:
2 John 9-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Once again: I look at Donald trump and I see no evidence that he follows the teachings of Christ. Therefore, if I know this and I greet him (i.e. welcome him and give him my support), I share in his evil because I did knowingly and willingly join myself to him. This is why I cannot support Donald Trump. It is also why I reject those believers telling me God is going to humble Trump and then use him to restore the nation. In fact, when I hear people talking about how God will use Trump to restore peace and prosperity to America, all I hear is:
Ezekiel 13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
False Prophets Condemned
13 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy from their own [a]inspiration, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord! 3 Thus says the Lord [b]God, “Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. 4 O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. 6 They see [c]falsehood and lying divination who are saying, ‘The Lord declares,’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of their word. 7 Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?”’”
8 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Because you have spoken [d]falsehood and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you,” declares the Lord God. 9 “So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will [e]have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, [f]that you may know that I am the Lord God. 10 It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered it?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath. 14 So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, ‘The wall [g]is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,’ declares the Lord God.
17 “Now you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own [h]inspiration. Prophesy against them 18 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the women who sew magic bands on [i]all wrists and make veils for the heads of persons of every stature to hunt down [j]lives! Will you hunt down the [k]lives of My people, but preserve the [l]lives of others for yourselves? 19 For handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death [m]some who should not die and to keep [n]others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.”’”
20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against your magic bands by which you hunt [o]lives there as [p]birds and I will tear them from your arms; and I will let [q]them go, even those [r]lives whom you hunt as [s]birds. 21 I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the Lord. 22 Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have [t]encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way and preserve his life, 23 therefore, you women will no longer see [u]false visions or practice divination, and I will deliver My people out of your hand. Thus you will know that I am the Lord.”
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear…
AND TO THOSE WHO WOULD SAY I AM ENDORSING HILLARY CLINTON: you should read this post before you affirm my opinion by bearing false witness against me.
[NOTE: the truth is, the last passage I quoted, Ezekiel 13, is actually connected to the message in my post about Obama and Hillary. Look at what all the prophets were saying, and to whom they were addressing their warnings. It is all connected to the Northern Kingdom, and to Ephraim. This is why all of this is relevant today: because America is Ephraim/Manasseh!]
BIBLICAL SYMBOLISM: What Should We Make Of The Flies And Bees Seen Around Political Leaders?
As I clearly state in the ABOUT page, this blog is written for believers: to help them understand the Scriptures and apply them to their daily lives. That is what this post is attempting to do: to put the Scriptures in their proper context so that we can accurately apply them to the choice we make in our daily walk with the Lord.
During the second Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, a fly was seen to land on Hillary Clinton’s face. This is the second time we have witnessed a fly landing on the face of a Presidential candidate in the last three election cycles [Note: it may well have happened in all three of the last elections, but I’m not sure, so I will not make that claim.] So, what should we make of this?
I have already written about the Biblical significance of flies in connection to President Obama. You can find that post here:
BIBLICAL SIGNS: Flies and Bees
Now, I am well aware that I am not alone in noting that there is a Biblical significance in all this. I’ve seen the posts referencing Beelzebub in connection to both Hillary and Obama. However, I have a very different take on what the flies and bees surrounding these two people may be trying to tell us.
First, we must remember that God rarely warns the Gentile (i.e. pagan) nations. If we will read our Scriptures, we will find very few examples where the Lord sent specific warning to those outside His chosen people. ‘The Assyrian,’ Nebuchadnezzar and the people of Nineveh are a few of those who come to mind (interestingly enough, all three are directly connected to the Biblical use of flies and bees as warnings to His people). Most times, when the Lord sends a warning, it is to His people. This is significant in and of itself, but we’ll address that significance in a moment. Right now, we need to understand that the Lord’s use of flies and bees is almost always as a warning to His people.
So what sort of warning are flies and bees meant to convey? Well, that is what I tried to explain in my previous post on this subject. Flies are used in connection with Egypt, which Scripture uses as a symbol of atheism and bondage. Bees, on the other hand, are used in connection to Assyria, which Scripture uses as a symbol of judgment and destruction. We see these two symbols together in Isaiah’s warning to Israel (the Northern Tribes):
Isaiah 7:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 In that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is in the [a]remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
Now, the full extent of this warning is found in the greater part of this passage, Isaiah 7:17-25. In the full passage, Israel is told that the Lord would send for the flies of Egypt and bees of Assyria, and that they (the people of these lands) would come and settle in everywhere within Israel, and that these people would destroy the farmlands (i.e. economy) and the people would take up arms in response. It tells of an invasion that will make it so the people of Israel can survive, but just barely. The peace will be lost along with their security and prosperity. Now, here is why this is important to us today.
First, the people being brought into this nation today are all from the region of flies (Egypt) and bees (Assyria — Syria and Iraq). They are as godless and violent today as they were when the Lord used them to punish Israel. Therefore, the flies and bees we keep seeing around President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton, could be a warning of impending judgment upon this land. But that would depend on whether or not this country has any connection to God’s people. Unfortunately for us, and whether or not the majority chose to accept it or not, America is directly connected to God’s people. This country was founded by the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, the representative tribes of the Northern Kingdom. This means the Lord’s warning to the Northern Kingdom is being repeated in exactly the same way it was before Israel was destroyed and sent into exile the first time. What’s more, this is a second witness. The first, also out of Isaiah, was the prophecy of Isaiah 9 as it is connected to 9/11 and the stock market crash 7 years later.
Here’s what God’s people need to take away from this. First, this nation is connected to the Lord’s covenant people. We may not recognize this anymore, but the Lord has not forgotten. Second, the Lord is still speaking to us in exactly the same way He spoke to His people in the time of Isaiah, and He is sending us the exact same warnings for the exact same reasons — because we have turned away from Him and made ourselves into an adulteress, a harlot. Now, if the Lord said none would be spared the first time around — not even His faithful remnant — then on what grounds should the Lord’s people expect to be saved this time? Be very careful about listening to those voices preaching safety and prosperity right now. A believer has little reason to believe their voice is of the Lord, and a great deal of reason to believe it is not!
NOTE TO THOSE WHO THINK I AM ENDORSING TRUMP: you should read this post before making that assumption.
It is well-known that I oppose Donald trump. I believe he has the makings of a dictator, and I will not apologize for my opinion. It is based in the man’s own words. However, if anyone thinks this makes Hillary Clinton a better choice, that person is an enemy of the United States of America! Yes, you heard me correctly: if you support Hillary Clinton for President, you are an enemy of the United States of America!
Now, foolish people (Glenn Beck) may try to argue that we shouldn’t use such language because we all have to come together after the election. I disagree. There is absolutely no way for an honest person to defend Hillary. She is the most corrupt politician this country has had in my lifetime (I am 50), and very possibly the most corrupt we have ever had. The only reason she has not been jailed already is because the people who are responsible for prosecuting her are protecting their own involvement in her most recent crimes. But this does not change the fact that this woman is corrupt to the core.
If a person knows that a candidate is corrupt. That the candidate refused to send aid to Americans in danger. That the candidate then put an innocent American in jail to cover up the fact she refused to send help. If a person supports a candidate who knowingly and intentionally placed classified information in a position where this nation’s enemies would steal it. If a person supports a candidate they know to be running weapons to this nation’s enemies. If you support someone who cannot tell the truth, who is an open and unashamed hypocrite and who seeks to eliminate (not just destroy) her enemies. If you support such a person — a person who is clearly an enemy of this country — then you are knowingly and intentionally lending your support to them, thereby making yourself an enemy of the nation, as well.
Now, if the Apostle, John (whom Jesus loved) tells us that anyone who greets (welcomes/befriends/supports) an enemy of the Gospel, that person participates in their evil (2 John 7 — 11). Therefore, how can we be innocent if we greet/befriend/support someone who is at war with this nation? We can’t be and we aren’t. Furthermore, this applies to those who support Trump. Both candidates have confessed to being enemies of the ideal of America. Neither of them support the Constitution. Both have openly opposed it — many times. Therefore, supporting either candidate is to join with them in their attack on this nation and its laws. The only difference is that Trump has only said he will go to war with our Constitution, Hillary has repeatedly demonstrated that she already has, and has been since her youth.
As for Mr. Beck: I ask you, sir, how does one ‘come together’ with an enemy of one’s own nation? I understand the desire to heal the rift, but it is too late for that. All that can be done now is to remove the evil from among us. Now, both candidates have said things which would suggest they will both be happy to do that. I, on the other hand, would not. The removing and rebuilding is to be left to God, sir. But it is not for God’s people to join with evil. Scripture is very clear on this point: when God’s people join with evil, the Lord destroys them along with that evil — every time. It will be no different for those who join with lawless politicians. Lawlessness is lawlessness — period! And any who knowingly and willingly side with ilawlessness become lawless, themselves.
I’d like to share some things that have happened in my life and the lives of the people closest to me. It has happened in just the past few weeks and it shows how the Lord works. It shows how the Lord uses bad things for the good of those who believe in and trust Him, as well as how He answers prayers and directs our lives. For me, the events of the last few weeks have been a powerful affirmation of my faith. This is why I want to share it: to invite other believers to rejoice with me, and to show those who are still in the darkness exactly what the Light looks like and how it works.
This latest episode in my story started a few weeks ago. I was struggling to finish a major project in my own business when I was informed that I would have to make time to learn how to build my company’s new web site. In the past, I had always had others help me with this. I knew nothing about designing a web store, integrating a shopping cart, inputting all of my products and getting it all hosted. Nor did I have time for it as I was struggling to finish that major project. However, I had to do both or lose my company, so I did it. In less than a month, I figured out how to build my new web store and finished my project.
Now, as if that had not been enough, it was during this period that the Lord told me to start reading a book I have had for a while. I had started to read it several times before and, each time, I was told to put it away. But, in the middle of struggling to build my new web store and finish my project, the Lord told me to take up this book and start reading it. So I did, and it lead me to another book that I was also told to read. I’ll be sharing what I learned with you soon enough, but the point at hand was these two books prepared me to help several friends of mine who were struggling with a spiritual problem that, had I not read these two books beforehand, I might not have been of the right mind to help them when I was called to do so. The end result was, when it came time, I was mentally and emotionally prepared to do what was asked of me, and I did my part when I was asked.
Now, helping these friends involved a lot of people, including my wife and other members of my immediate family. The situation was both stressful and emotionally draining, but we all got through it. Now, keep in mind, I was still building my webs tore and finishing this major project while this was happening. And on top of this, I was praying to the Lord for guidance in a matter that has been before me for a while.
For some time now, I have felt that the Lord was calling me to a more purposeful service. I have been praying for His help in understanding what that might be, and I still don’t think He has given me the complete answer. However, no sooner had I gotten through helping my friends than I was asked to do something else that will take a great deal of my time. Several readers of this and my other blog have asked me to put large parts of my writing on several topics into pdf format so they can be preserved. Now, please understand, I am not complaining, and you’ll know that to be true in a moment. But I am my entire business. I am a one-man show, so anything that takes me away from my shop takes me away from my primary source of income. This is why I have been praying and begging the Lord for answers. What does He want me to do?
Well, last week, yet another reader contacted me to ask how he could help me make these pdf files a reality. You see, not only will it take time, but there is also a cost connected to it that, frankly, I couldn’t afford right now. It is not that I am unwilling to pay the cost, it is just that all the time that I was taking away from actually running my business had been costing me money and I simply didn’t have it. But this other reader offered to pay the start-up cost, and he has. So I have started working on the changes necessary to move The OYL to an independent hosting site so I can do the things I need to do but which cannot be done if I stay with Word Press. This is going to take time, time I do not have, but I am going to do it.
There is one last piece of this puzzle to share before I tie it all together for you. This morning, I went to mix a product I use in my business. It is rather costly, and, as I have said, my business is under some financial strain right now. As I was just about finished mixing this product, I realized that I had been shipped the wrong item. One of the products I was mixing was not correct, but I had already mixed it. This ruined the whole batch, and I simply did not have the money to replace it which, honestly, would have put me out of business. But I stayed calm and called my vendor, who had made this same mistake in the past, and I explained what had happened. The last time, I caught it before I mixed the materials. This time, I was in a hurry and I didn’t catch it. So I asked my supplier to help.
Now, while my supplier was asking their manager what they could do for me, I received an order on my web store. The order came in just minutes after I hung up with my supplier. I did not look at it, I just printed it and stuck it in my in folder. A half hour later, my supplier called back and offered me a solution. In the end, I agreed to pay 1/3 the cost of the mistake. I still did not know where to get the money, but it was better than having to pay the full cost. So I hung up and looked at the order that had come in earlier. It was for $1.50 more than what I had just agreed to pay!
Now, let me tie things together for you. In the past few weeks, the Lord has shown me that I can trust Him. He will get me ready for whatever task He has set before me (remember those two books?). He will answer my prayers and make provisions for whatever will be required to do what He asks me to do (remember my reader who paid to start the changes to this blog?). He will even take care of my company, thus taking care of me. You see, when I messed up the mixing of my product today, I literally made it so I cannot work until the 5th. It will take that long to get replacement product shipped to me and ready for use. So I was given 4-5 days to set up the new blog page. On top of that, I received an order for exactly the amount I had to pay to cover the mixing mistake. So the Lord has shown me that He does want me to serve Him and others by setting up the new blog, and that He will not only direct my actions, but provide the time and money necessary to support my efforts. And the whole time, I see that I am serving Him by helping others — through my business, through ministry to the people closest to me and through my efforts here on The OYL.
Now, I know other believers will rejoice with me over this because they will recognize God’s hand in it. But I hope others will see that there was too much here to be simple coincidence. There were too many ‘moving parts,’ and the timing was too ‘perfect’ for any of this to have been the result of random chance. This is how the Lord works and I had to share it. I just hope it helps others to feel firm in their faith or, better yet, come to faith for the first time.
It has been some time since I have written. This is because I am learning to write only when prompted, and then, to write only about those things I am told to write. Please understand, I do not consider myself to be a prophet. I do not hear predictions or prophecy of the future. However, since the prophets were also sent to warn, and a great deal of what I am told to write seems to be in the form of a warning, I suppose I may be a prophet of a sort. But I want you to know I do not see myself that way. I see myself as someone who simply wants to obey the Lord, which is why I have a warning for all Christians who are supporting Donald Trump. I pray you will listen.
The most common reason for Christian support for Trump is expressed in words to this effect:
“God used sinners, so He can use Trump.”
OK, if this is true, I have a question: why can’t God use Hillary Clinton the same way?
If God using sinners is a reason to support a man who is not only unrepentant, but boasts about his sin, then why doesn’t that same reasoning work with Hillary Clinton? The Truth is, if it works with Trump, it works equally well with Hillary Clinton. So, congratulations, Christian: you just argued for Christian support of Hillary Clinton!
OK, now that we have that out of the way, can we — as believers — get serious about this issue and start letting Scripture guide us?
First, understand that the angel told Daniel a beast is a world government. That definition has never changed, so there is no reason to believe the beast in Revelation is a person. Sound Biblical interpretation says the beast in Revelation is a government.
The next thing we need to understand is that, if we are looking to and trusting in government to set things right, then we are worshiping government and not Christ! (If you fall into this category, I strongly suggest you give some serious consideration to what this might mean in relation to the mark of the beast).
Scripture also tells us not to be un-equally yoked. In Truth, this means a believer should not join themselves to an no-believer. Respectfully, I submit that both Trump and Clinton have told us with their mouths and their deeds that they do not follow the Lord. Understand, I am not saying they do not believe in the Lord, I am saying they have said and done things that clearly demonstrate the Lord is not the Master of their lives. The question at hand for believers is: “Is the Lord the Master of our lives?”
If the Lord is the Master of our lives, then we are only charged with doing our best to live according to our best understanding of His Word. The outcome is for Him to decide, not us. We are to trust in and rely on Him, not government, not ourselves. This is what it means to let the Lord be the Master of our lives: we must surrender to Him and His plans, not ours.
Scripture is clear on this matter: believers are not to support those who are unrepentant in their sin. We are to show them the love of Christ by the way we live, but we are not to join ourselves to them. What the believer must understand is that your vote is an outward sign of support. Therefore, we must cast our vote accordingly and leave the result to the Lord. Scripture tells us not to fear, He can and will use all things for the good of those who trust and believe.
For example: as horrible as WW II was for the Jews, the Lord used that tragedy to bring Israel back into existence. If God can bring such light from such darkness, why should we doubt Him today? Why should we be trying to take things into our own hands by creating arguments for supporting someone who Scriptures clearly tell us we should stay as far away from as possible? By arguing such foolishness as “God uses sinners so support Trump,” a believer does little more than Abraham did when he tried to rush things by having a child with Hagar instead of waiting on the Lord to give him a son through Sarah. The result was not what Abraham intended, and Ishmael became and has remained a thorn in the side of believers ever since.
I’ll close with this. I am not telling anyone how to vote. That is not my business. However, I am warning those who profess to believe in Christ that they should not be tempting the Lord by twisting His Word to support their desires. If we believe, then we trust Him — not government, not even ourselves, but Him and Him alone. And if we trust Him, then all we have to do obey His Word as best we can and leave the result to Him. He is the Master, we are the servant. Trying to force His hand by acting against His teachings is rebellion, and Scripture is clear about how rebellion turns out. So why would any believer tempt the Lord by creating twisted reasons to support someone they should recognize as an opponent of God? How can a person claim to be a believer while making excuses for supporting the ungodly? It simply does not work, so chose wisely. As for me and my house, we chose to obey and trust in the Lord. I pray you will do the same.
Recently, I heard a very well known radio talk show host tell his audience not to worry about the meaning of words. It shocked me for two reasons. First, this host is well known for telling his audience that “Words mean things,” and then defending the meaning of the word or words in question. But what shocked me even more was the words in question this time were those words we use to describe the various political ideologies in America today. What’s more, this host not only told his audience not to listen to anyone who tries to explain what these terms mean and to just accept what he tells his audience they mean. Well, this has bothered me ever since I heard it — mostly because, after saying these things, this host then proceeded to give a false meaning for many of these terms. So I had to write to help any who might be interested understand what the terms mean and from whence they came.
First things first: I trust we can all agree that the person who invents or develops an idea is the one who defines that idea. By this I mean, if you invent something or develop an idea, then you are the ultimate authority on what that idea is and what it means. No one else has the authority to come along later and tell you that you are wrong, or to change your idea and then assert that they now control it. It is your idea and you alone define it — period. Well, the same applies to those men and women who developed the various political ideologies vying for influence in America today.
Now that we have this understanding — that the inventor defines — let us look first at the political ideologies that are all vying for control of the American people. Keep in mind, I have given generalized definitions which, when investigated, will reveal themselves to be accurate, but not exhaustive.:
In the United States, this would be our founding fathers.
This has nothing to do with the ‘Liberalism’ of today. This is why those who know and understand political ideology often refer to it as ‘Classic Liberalism.’ In simple terms, Liberalism is about the individual and individual rights and liberties. However, Liberalism also contains an inherent sense of personal responsibility and accountability not only to ourselves, but also to each other and to society. In other words, Liberalism acknowledges duty and accountability to others and to society. Hence, it is dependent upon a strong moral foundation.
In the United States, developed by Teddy Roosevelt, then co-opted by Woodrow Wilson.
This is an ideology that is difficult to explain. In short, it is based on the notion that man can use science to purposely control society and direct human evolution. hence the use of the term ‘progress’ in the name. However, in the United States, Woodrow Wilson clearly and forcefully explained that ‘Progressive’ was a term chosen to sell Communism to the American people. Thus, at least in America, ‘Progressive’ is synonymous with Communism. But, no matter where it is found, the spirit of Progressivism is the idea that man is his own god and, as such, can direct his own evolution/destiny.
Developed by Karl Marx.
In theory, Communism is a political ideology whereby society just naturally agrees on everything and runs itself by this collective conscience of agreement. However, this is an impossibility. While social in nature, man is not a collective organism. Even among collective creatures such as ants and bees, there is a queen. Thus, in practice, Communism is a derivation of the old system of the son king, or ruler as god. Only, in this case, government is the god. Under this system, the government owns and controls everything. Thus leaving those who would control society to fight over control of the government.
Developed and named by Benito Mussolini (whose symbol is that of community organizers today: a fascine, or bundle of small sticks into a larger stick with an axe head built in).
Also called corporatism by Mussolini, this is the primary competitor of Communism. Whereas in Communism the government owns and controls everything directly, Fascism allows for a cooperation between business and government where private ownership and operation is allowed, but only so long as it is operated in accordance with the will of those running the government. Otherwise, there is little difference between Communism and Fascism. Here again, the struggle is to be the one in charge of the State, and hence, the nation.
This one has many authors, but one of the most prominent would be Ayn Rand.
This terms is actually a term used to describe a wide range of ideologies which all hold one primary value in common: that of self-interest above all else. Thus, it is easier to explain what Libertarianism is not. Most important to understand is that Libertarianism is not Liberalism. While the Libertarian values the individual, and individual rights and liberties, there is seldom any sense of duty or responsibility to others or to society in the Libertarian ideal. In general, the Libertarian is all about themselves. Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” is the perfect illustration of the Libertarian ideal, as is “Atlas Shrugged.”
[NOTE: Rand’s ideology is called Objectivism, and is actually a mix of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Her ideology has influenced the Libertarian and American Conservative movement, although, the American Conservative movement has no real claim tot hat name.]
In the American tradition, developed by Edmund Burke.
Like Libertarianism, Conservatism is another ‘catch-all’ term. Contrary to modern assertion, Conservatism does not stand for any unique political ideology. Rather, it is all about holding on to what already is. In this sense, a Progressive who seeks to hold on to what they have gained is a Conservative. Likewise, so is a Communist who seeks to hold on to their power, and a Fascist. A better way to look at Conservatism would be as a traditionalist, or a ‘hold-what-you-have’ type of person. What Conservatism is not is a positive assertion of any particular political ideology or set of beliefs.
Here is where we have to be discerning. These are solid operational definitions for each of these ideologies. But there is a tendency to co-opt or steal the term of one ideology so as to cloak the agenda of another. For example:
Woodrow Wilson used the term ‘Progressive’ to represent his political agenda. He spoke in Progressive terms, talking about progress and science and the scientific administration of society. However, he was also very public in stating that he preferred Communism for America and that he chose to hide his true agenda behind the term ‘Progressive’ because he thought it would be the best way to get America to accept Communism. Thus, Wilson co-opted ‘Progressivism’ to hide his Communist agenda (and he said so in his own words).
Likewise, today, the American Conservative ‘claims’ to represent the ideology of America’s founding fathers. However, upon closer examination, one will discover that it doesn’t. It actually represents the ideology of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive movement, which was Fascism by another name.
So, one must be aware of the constant attempt to take the name of one ideology and hide behind it so as to sell a secret agenda to the American people. This is done because, if the true nature of the hidden agenda were to be known, the American people would reject it. We can guard against falling into such traps by knowing what each term really means and then looking for its characteristic tells behind whatever term if being used. If someone starts the “America First’ Party and claims to stand for the individual, but then gets into power and starts to protect the State, or push a globalist agenda, you know you are dealing with Communism. If they get into power and push the State and nationalism, you are probably dealing with Fascism. And so forth.
The point is, just know what the people who developed these ideologies said they stand for and look for their tell-tale signs in whatever movement is courting your vote. This will not guarantee you will not be fooled by a deceiver, but it will make it much more difficult for the deceiver to fool you.
One of the most difficult aspects to the Christian faith is the notion of the Trinity. Our Jewish brothers and sisters really get tripped up on this. They do not see it in the Old Testament. However, once you understand the Trinity, you will find its ‘shadow’ everywhere in the Old Testament. It’s just the ‘coming to understand’ part of accepting the Trinity that causes many to stumble. The Trinity is not about the existence of three separate entities all claiming to be a god. It is that there are three separate roles or functions of God and they are treated as separate but one at the same time. I was teaching a class today which furthered the discussion I had in my post on, A Fuller Understanding of ‘The Word,’ and part of my lesson included a new way to look at Jesus’s place in the Trinity. Apparently, my analogy was effective as I several class members asked me to share my analogy here on The OYL. So, if you have a moment, I’d like to do just that.
We start by remembering that Jesus is Logos — the totality of all God’s Laws and Ordinances. Now, think of God, the Father, in terms of yourself. He, the Father, is what He is (I Am that I Am) just as you are what you are. Each of you represents the totality of everything of which you are made: body, mind, will, soul, etc.. Now think of Jesus as the sum of all the ways God says things should be. In relation to you, this would be the sum of everything you believe to be right or wrong, good or bad. It is the sum of every principle or ideal or notion you hold dealing with how you believe a person should live. But Jesus is more. So add the sum of everything you believe about how the world works, as well. Thus, Jesus is to God as the sum of everything you believe to be true is to you. Got it?
Now, God made His Logos into flesh, a man. This is Jesus: God’s Logos born fully man. Now, you cannot take everything you believe about how the world works and people should live and make it into another person, but you can write it all down into a book! So, think of Jesus as God’s Logos made into a book of flesh, and everything you believe about the way the world works and people should live as a book. Now, both — Jesus and your book — are separate things, but, at the same time, they are still one with each other: Jesus is God and your book is you. In other words, Jesus is separate from the Father, but He is still God, the Father. Just as your book of what you believe is still separate from you, but it is still you. Got that?
Now, when Jesus said He only does the Father’s will, and only testifies to what the Father tells Him, this is because He, Jesus, is God the Father, just in the form of a man. He, Jesus, is everything God, the Father, decreed about how the universe will work and how man should live. Jesus is the sum total of all God’s Laws. Just as your book is everything you believe about how the world works and the way people should live. Your book can only do or be what you wrote — because that is you and, thus, it makes your book you as well. And your book can only witness or repeat the things you wrote because it is you. Even though it is separate, it is not a person unto itself. It has no will, no thought, no ideas, no authority — it has nothing outside of you and what you wrote about what you believe. Jesus is like this (not the same, but like): Jesus is to God as your book is to you.
Now, think about the analogy we just created. If God, the Father, is not present, but Jesus is, then God, the Father, is still present. This is because Jesus is the sum total of the father’s Laws and Ordinances, His teachings, His ways. In the same way, if I have your book but you are not here, I still have you with me. Just as Jesus is the embodied Logos of God the Father, your book is a material representation of everything you believe about the world and way people should live. No one can change them. Yes, they can try to change the words in your book (or the Bible), but that is all they actually change. No one actually changes God’s Logos, nor can they change what you believe. Therefore, all something like this (i.e. changing the words in a book) all that actually does is create a false impression in the mind of the person who made the changes. It does not change the reality of God’s Logos or what you believe. This is because God’s Logos is part of Him, just as what you believe is part of you. Each is one with the whole: Jesus with God and your book with you. This leaves us with only one part of the Trinity left to explain — The Holy Spirit!
This is actually the easiest part. The spirit is that which animates you, which gives you life. When you die, your body does not die at the same time. You are said to die when your Spirit leaves your body, but your body lives on for a time. It actually takes days for every cell in your body to die. Therefore, biologically, when you die, your body does not. Whether people wish to admit it or not, this is actually evidence of the Spirit. So, your spirit is that which animates you. It is the part of you which allows you to work your will; to put your will into action. Now, God only has to speak and His will is performed, but it is still done through His Spirit. This is the Holy Spirit: that part of the Father which works His will. Now, you actually have to write or type or otherwise do something physical to write down your beliefs into your book, but this does not change the relationship. The Holy Spirit is to God the Father as your spirit is to you. Both enable the will to act. An, if you read Scripture carefully, you will find this is exactly what the Holy Spirit does: it performs God’s will. Jesus was conceived through an act of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Logos became man through an act of God’s will, His Holy Spirit. In the same way (not identical, but relational), your book becomes a reality because your spirit enables you to enact or execute your will.
This, then, is the whole notion of the Trinity: not three separate beings all claiming to be gods, but one God — the Father — working through three different aspects of His being (or three different manifestations of His being). At the same time, this also explains what Scripture means when it says we are made in His image. We have a body, mind (or will) and spirit (or soul). Now, there is more to this, as God has a three-fold nature to his character, so do we. We are made to worship, fellowship and create (in limited fashion), just as God created us to worship Him and fellowship with Him. The key here is not to limit God by thinking in terms of ‘either this and only this, or that and only that.’ Instead, we need to make God bigger in our minds by saying ‘this and that.’ If ‘this and that’ fir the pattern, then it applies. Thus, God is love and God is mercy, but God is also a perfect judge; and a perfect judge sentences the guilty without fail or mistake.
Thus, we are wrong not to think of God in terms of all three: love, mercy and judge. In the same way, we would be wrong to limit our understanding of how we are made in His image, and how we think or the Trinity. For, if He is God, He is infinite and unlimited in His power. Therefore, why shouldn’t the Father — if He so chose — manifest His being in three (or even more) ways? It seems to me that, for the infinitely powerful, this would be a simple thing. But for us, finite as we are in this world, it may not be so simple to understand…or maybe, to accept.
In my last post, I explained some of the symbolic language used in Scripture, and how to realize when Scripture is actually defining that symbolism. There is one last piece of the symbolic language of prophecy we need to discuss before we can start a serious study of Bible prophecy. This is the use of numbers to represent Spiritual concepts or ideas. This subject is often referred to as ‘numerology.’ I do not like this term because of its connection to what I consider to be an un-Scriptural abuse where people try to assign numbers to every aspect of Scripture and then use that to divine some secret or hidden message. There are many reasons I reject this practice, but they are the subject for another post. What I want to discuss is the repetitive use of certain numbers in connection to certain Spiritual themes.
While the use of numbers as symbolic of Spiritual Truths can become a complex subject, it can also be addressed in a short discussion. This is because we do not need to explore every possible use of numbers and find every possible meaning for them. The task at hand is simply to make the reader aware that numbers are used as symbolic representations of Spiritual Truths, and this symbolic use regularly appears in prophecy. I believe this is because the use of symbolic numbers was so important and so well understood by the ancient Hebrew that the prophet simply assumed his audience would be aware of their meaning.
So, how do we know that numbers are used as symbolic representations of Spiritual Truths in Scripture? By paying attention to the context. This is actually linked to Hebrew poetry. Part of the parallelism in Hebrew poetry is the way it is integrated in connection to the meaning of a number. For example: if something is mentioned seven times within a given section of Scripture, then it could be another way of stressing the number seven without saying ‘seven.’ This could be significant as, in Scripture, the number seven is connected to completion, perfection and God, Himself, as the only completed and perfect Being. Another significant number would be forty. Forty is often connected to the concept of trials and/or suffering. This link will further explain this subject:
Question: “What is biblical numerology?”
And these links will provide you with a few of the more obvious symbolic associations between a given number and a Spiritual Truth:
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE
The Symbolism of Numbers in the Bible
With my next post, we will start to apply everything we have discussed thus far in this series on Bible prophecy. We will start in Daniel.
As I said in my last post, much of the Bible is written to conceal God’s Truths from those who would take it lightly. Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before swine. Well, by teaching in parables, He did just that. In the same way, by giving their prophecies in symbolic language, the prophets ensured that only those who truly seek to understand the Lord’s Word will learn the symbolic language in which much of prophecy is written. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially believers. Scripture tells us that what is given freely or comes too easily is not held in high regard. But those things for which we must work and work hard: those things are cherished. The blessing here is that the symbolic language used by the prophets is all defined in Scripture, you just have to put in the time to read and understand it. And because Scripture is learned precept upon precept, you will have to read and re-read until the Lord can teach you what you need to know to understand His prophecies. When you get there, not only will you understand His prophecies better, you will also discover that you have built an intimate relationship with Him along the way. So now, about that symbolic language.
The first place we should start is with Genesis, then go forward. There is symbolic language in every book of Scripture, especially so in Psalms. We must learn to look for it and to recognize it when we see it.
As for the prophets, they will often explain their symbolic language themselves. If we read closely, we will usually find that the prophet defines the symbolism in his own prophecy. However, there are exceptions. Luckily, the prophet usually makes this clear, as well. For example: when the prophet tells us he was told to “seal up” a piece of what he saw in his vision, the prophet is telling us that part of his prophecy is meant for a later generation. Most times, if he tells us anything about this part of his vision, the prophet does not explain the symbolism he uses to do so. This has to be learned later. Luckily for us, we are very far down the Lord’s story-line, so we have access to a great deal of later prophecy that the ancient prophet may not have had in his day. We must teach ourselves to look for it.
The perfect example here is found in Ezekiel 4:6 when the Lord tells the prophet he is given ‘a day for a year.’ The definition, itself, is symbolic, but when we read the passage, the context tells us that the prophet was told to lay one day for every year of history that will pass in the fulfillment of this particular prophecy. There are two things we must take away from this. First, and most immediate, the number of days the prophet was told to lay equal a number of years in the fulfillment of this prophecy. These are real-time years in the lives of men; in the history of the Hebrew people. But the second thing is just as important. That is, once the Lord defines a symbolic meaning, unless He changes it at a latter date, we do not have the authority to change that meaning!
Understand, the prophets knew the Scriptures. There is a great deal of symbolism in Psalms, and the Psalms define the meanings. So the prophets would just assume their audience knew these meanings. But the prophets also paid attention to and studied each other. This is because they wanted to know and understand the Lord’s prophetic language as much as any other. So, after Ezekiel shared that a day is a year, all prophets after Ezekiel who mention a day in a prophetic timeline should be assumed to be using the day in like manner. The perfect example here is Daniel’s many prophecies which count days (just to be clear here: not Daniel’s 70 weeks, but his ‘days’ prophecies).
So, we must learn to look for things in Scripture that are used and defined as symbolic in nature. Once we find a clearly defined symbol, we must not change its meaning in our mind unless and until we find a latter point in Scripture where the Lord changes it. Outside of this, we simply do not have the authority to change the meaning of something the Lord’s Word has defined. Finally, we must build all of this upon itself until we can read passages such as this and understand it in this way:
Psalm 1:3 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 He will be like [this indicates symbolic language] a tree [one who stands upright, who is righteous] firmly planted by [a]streams of water, [who stands in grace, the Lord’s Word]
Which yields its fruit [good character] in its season
And its [b]leaf does not wither; [is not destroyed; prospers]
And [c]in whatever he does, he prospers.
We should not try to learn all the symbolic terms in Scripture in one bite. That would only lead to frustration. The symbolic language in Scripture is very deep, and it can take a lifetime to learn it well. As Scripture says, precept upon precept. Just focus on learning a little here and a little there. The Lord will guide you. The keys are to just make sure the Scripture clearly defines the meaning of a word, then hold to that meaning until the Lord changes it. If He does not do so, or add to it, then we do not have the authority to change that meaning. We must use it every time we encounter it thereafter. Just make sure the Scriptures are speaking in symbolic terms and not plain language. Look for the indicators.
Below are a couple links that will help you get started. My next post will touch on one last aspect of symbolic language we must address before we finally dive into the prophets. Next post, we look at the meaning of numbers in Scripture.
SOME HELPFUL LINKS
Symbol Meanings in the Bible
The Bible speaks to us in many different literary forms. Some of the time, it speaks in plain language. At other times, it speaks to us through poetry. There are also times when it speaks to us in figurative or symbolic language. Much of prophecy is in this third form: symbolic. Naturally, if we do not understand this symbolic language, or worse, if we try to interpret symbolic language literally, we are not only likely, but all but assured to misunderstand the prophet’s message. Now, God is not a God of confusion, so we might wonder, if nearly one-third of Scripture is prophecy, why did God give it to us in a language that is not readily understood? I asked Him this very question for many years until one day, it dawned on me. When asked why He taught in parables, Jesus responded by siting a prophecy that said the Messiah would teach in parables so that the lost would be ever hearing but never understanding. Not only was He fulfilling prophecy, but Jesus was teaching in a way that would seem foolish to the lost while making perfect sense to the saved. Why should we expect prophecy to be any different? God’s Word is designed to make us work to understand. You have to seek understanding by studying, and studying with a sincere heart. But, when you do, the Lord’s Word is good: you will find Him, and He will open His Word to you — even His prophecies. You just have to learn the language.
Now, if prophecy is heavy with symbolic language, how do we learn the meaning of those symbols? Well, we start by learning to recognize when we are dealing with symbolic language. If we pay attention (by reading closely), we will find that the prophet usually tells us we are dealing with symbolic language. The easiest and surest sign is when the prophet tells us he was having a “vision” or was “in the spirit.” These are positive indications that what follows is likely to be figurative in nature. But the prophet will usually give us other indications that many believers miss. We must watch for indicator words. When the prophet prefaces something with “like” or “like unto,” or “as” or “such as,” the prophet is telling us he is not being literal, but it trying to describe what he is seeing in his vision in terms that his audience will better understand (remember, the prophet’s audience is the ancient Hebrew).
For example: if the prophet tells us he saw something “like a gull,” we should not think he saw a bull, or even something that looked like a bull. While it is possible, we must remember that, to the ancient Hebrew, the bull was symbolic of strength. Have you ever wondered why the Hebrews kept making graven images of golden calves or bulls? It is because the bull is a symbol of strength, so if you are going to make your own god, you would naturally want that god to give the impression of being strong. Therefore, when a prophet says something was “like a bull,” we should first think like the Hebrew would and think ‘strong‘ or ‘powerful.’
So, before we start learning what the symbols in prophecy mean, we must first learn to recognize when we are dealing with symbolic language. We do this by watching to see if the prophet tells us that he had a vision or was in the spirit. But we also do this by watching for words that indicate comparison rather than physical likeness or appearance. Once we master this, we can start looking for the meanings of the symbols used in Scripture. This will be the subject of my next post: learning the symbolic language of Scripture.
A brother and good friend of mine posted something on his Face Book page today, and it caused me a great deal of trouble — until after I had obeyed the Lord and written the second of a two-part post on the meanings of ‘The Word’ and TORAH. Now I have an answer to the thing that troubled me as I read my friend’s post: ‘what does it mean to practice righteousness and sin?’ If you have a moment, I’d like to share the answer I was given with you.
Let me start by sharing the passage my brother posted:
1 John 3:3-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or [a]knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil [b]has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is [c]born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is [d]born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: [e]anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
Next, let me clearly state the issue that caused me so much trouble:
John, whom Jesus loved, appears to be telling us that anyone who sins practices sin, and therefore, is of Satan. Only those who practice righteousness are of God. However, Scripture also tells us that no one is righteous but God. So, at first glance, it would appear as though John is telling us that no one is righteous, and therefore, no one is of God. The natural conclusion from this is that no one is or will be saved. However, Scripture tells us otherwise. So, how do I resolve this conflict, and what does it mean for me, personally?
I must confess, this has bothered me for some time. I know I sin. I have several areas where I struggle greatly, and even when I am thinking of doing something I know I should not, and the Holy Spirit is telling me I am about to sin, I do it anyway. So, when I read John’s words, I cannot explain the anguish I feel within me. John seems to be telling me I do not really love Jesus, and that I am a sinner. So what hope do I have?
Luckily, the Lord has set it on my heart to study His word and share what He reveals to me through my blogging. As part of my studies, I have been studying the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages in which Scripture was originally written. I have also been studying ancient Hebrew culture, so as to better understand Scripture by putting it closer to its proper context. So, when I read my brother’s Face Book post this morning, I did not realize it, but the Lord was already helping me work out the answer to my struggles.
As I said, I wrote a two-part post on the fuller meaning of ‘The Word’ (logos) and the original meaning of TORAH. Now, I offer this caution: these two posts are not for new believers. Unless you understand what it means to ‘chew tough meat,’ I would suggest the reader seriously consider skipping those posts. But the answer to the trouble in my heart over what ‘practice’ means was given to me this morning as I finished the second of the two-part post. What’s more, the Lord also gave me a way to explain it that will not shake the faith of a new believer.
Regular readers will know that I stress the meaning of words quite frequently. This is because many solutions to needless problems can be found in understanding what the words we use actually mean. So, let’s look at the word, ‘practice:’
Simple Definition of practice
: to do something again and again in order to become better at it
: to do (something) regularly or constantly as an ordinary part of your life
: to live according to the customs and teachings of (a religion)
OK, so, using the definition above, what does it mean to ‘practice’ righteousness and sin?
Do I try to be better at sinning? No! I try to do better at being righteous. So, in this way, I ‘practice’ righteousness, not sin.
Do I try to sin as a regular or normal part of my life? No! I know I sin, even when I do things that I do not realize are sins (we all do this: we see those things we recognize as sin, but then we do things that we do not realize are also sin, so we miss a great deal of the sin in our lives). No, I try to make righteousness a routine in my life. So, in this way, I ‘practice’ righteousness, not sin.
Do I live according to sin? No! I recognize sin and I reject it when I do — even as I catch myself doing it, I reject it. At the same time, I try to live according to righteousness. So, in this way, I ‘practice’ righteousness, not sin.
So, according to the definition of ‘practice,’ I do not ‘practice’ sin, but righteousness. However, here is a word of warning:
It is not the same for someone who thinks they are practicing righteousness when they follow their own idea of right and wrong. The only thing that is righteous is God and God’s Law (i.e. the narrow path). Any deviation from this path is lawlessness, and, as John explains, sin and lawlessness are the same. Therefore, no matter how ‘good’ a person may believe themselves to be, unless they are trying to follow God’s path, they are still lawless, and thus, they practice sin.
Now, I realize that, to human understanding, this sounds narrow-minded. I am declaring that there is only one path to righteousness, and that this path is Jesus and only those who follow this path are ‘good.’ Well, yes! That is exactly what I am saying, but then, it is not me who says this, but God, Himself. I am merely defending the Word of God (i.e. logos).
Also, the believer still has to realize that this does not excuse our sin. When we stray from the narrow path, we sin, and the price for sin is death! So, even if we get back on the narrow path, we still deserve death — even if we only stray that one time! This is where faith comes in to the equation. We have to walk the narrow path by faith, focusing on staying on that path and trusting that the Lord will work out the rest. We will all stray from the path (sin), and once we do, we are eternally tarnished: there is nothing we can do to wash away our guilt. Only Jesus can do that, and that is where we have to place our faith/trust/hope.
If you have read and understood my two-part post of ‘The Word’ and TORAH, my language here is probably making even more sense to you. You know I see Jesus, ‘the law’ and the narrow path as being the same things. But even if you have not read those two posts, I pray you can see what it means to ‘practice’ sin vs. righteousness. Also, remember that those who are lost (off the narrow path) cannot see that they are lost. They see only their own desires. So, if you can see and admit you are sinning, that is a good indication that you at least know where the narrow path is, and the directions for staying on it (the Lord’s commands). If you care about staying on that narrow path, and following His directions for staying on it, even if you sin from time to time, you are practicing righteousness. However, if you do not see the path or acknowledge His directions for getting on and staying on it, or even if you do see them but do not care to heed them, then you are practicing sin (lawlessness).
I hope this will help the reader. I know it has helped me. It has put my heart at ease. It does not release me from working to stay on the path by following the Lord’s directions; it helps me to know which I practice: righteousness or sin. I pray it will do the same for you.
A WORD OF CAUTION: This post is not intended for new believers. It is meant for those who are already used to chewing ‘tough meat.’ If you do not immediately understand that reference, you might want to seriously consider skipping this post.
This post is a continuation of the discussion I started in my post about the fuller meaning of logos, usually translated as ‘The Word.’ In my studies of ancient Hebrew, I encountered something that, at first, might seem to be a false teaching. However, the more I have studied it and prayed on it, the more I have become convinced it is actually true. What did I discover? I found that, just as with the original meaning of the word, logos, the meaning of ‘TORAH’ has changed over time — and the change is significant. Continue reading “UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: What Did ‘TORAH’ Originally Mean?”
This is the 9th post in a series I am writing about end times prophecies in the Bible. If you would like to read the earlier posts, the series starts here.
The last thing we have to discuss before we can start taking a serious look at Biblical prophecy is the use of Hebrew poetry in prophecy. Even in the best cases, it can be difficult to understand exactly what the poet means by the words he uses. And this is true even when the poetry is based in something as easily recognized as meter and rhyme. But ancient Hebrew poetry is not based in meter and rhyme, but in parallelism. And even then, there are different forms and levels of parallelism. In fact, ancient Hebrew poetry often has nested layers and forms, all within the same poem. The Book of Revelation is such a book, and so are Isaiah and Daniel. Now, if we do not understand the poetry being used, then how can we possibly expect to properly understand the prophet’s message? The answer should be obvious: we can’t. Therefore, let’s look on several forms of parallelisms found in ancient Hebrew poetry.
The first thing I want the reader to understand is that this is a very deep and complicated subject, and the source of a great deal of confusion — even among the most studied of Biblical scholars. I do not pretend to have any special insight or understanding. At best, I am providing a very rudimentary and — if I might add — clumsy outline of this subject. My hope is for nothing more than to make the reader aware of just how deep the subject of Hebrew poetry runs through the Scriptures, and — if I’m lucky enough — to spark an interest in the reader that will lead to more in-depth, personal study of the matter. Now, with that said, let’s look at parallelism in Scripture.
The first thing we need to understand is that there are many forms of parallelism in Hebrew poetry. It can be as simple as re-stating two or more central ideas, only each time they are re-stated, they either add additional information or describe something from a different perspective. On top of this, the grammatical structure can also be parallel, even within another set of parallel passages. For example:
Proverbs 6:20-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 My son, observe the commandment of your father
And do not forsake the [a]teaching of your mother;
21 Bind them continually on your heart;
Tie them around your neck.
22 When you walk about, [b]they will guide you;
When you sleep, [c]they will watch over you;
And when you awake, [d]they will talk to you.
These parallels can also be contrasts to each other. One line may say one thing, then the next line could express an opposite idea. For example:
Proverbs 11:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Contrast the Upright and the Wicked
11 A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight.
Still other parallels can come in the form of a ,stair case,’ where the expressions used constantly intensify the central idea:
Proverbs 29:1-2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Warnings and Instructions
29 A man who hardens his neck after much reproof
Will suddenly be broken [a]beyond remedy.
2 When the righteous [b]increase, the people rejoice,
But when a wicked man rules, people groan.
However, there are two forms of parallelism which must be considered central to any attempt to study and understand prophecy. These are the chiasim and the bifid. Once we understand these two major forms of Hebrew poetry, we will realize that many of the books in the Bible are bifids, and a great many more contain chiasims. So, what are bifids and chiasims?
Let’s take the bifid first. Simply put, a bifid is a book that is divided in the middle, with each half telling the same story, only in a different way. Isaiah is a bifid. If you read critiques, you will find that many people have questioned whether or not the latter half of Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah. They rightly point to some differences between it and the first half. But their mistake is in not understanding that Isaiah is a bifid. It stops in the middle, then starts from the beginning and retells the whole story all over, just with different information and a different perspective. Daniel is also a bifid, but it is easier to recognize — if you read it in its original languages. That’s right, Daniel was originally written in two different languages. The first half is written in Chaldean and is addressing the Gentile world. The second half is in Hebrew and addresses the Hebrew people. Finally, the easiest bifid of all to recognize is Revelation. It starts with Christ clearly stating that he is addressing His prophecy to the Church. Then, in the middle of Revelation, Christ tells John that he (John) must prophecy again only, this time, he (John) is to address the Gentiles. In all three cases, Isiah, Daniel and Revelation, both halves of the books tell the same story, only to different audiences and with different information.
Then there is the chiasim. Most believers have heard chiasims before, but you may have never been taught that is what they are. Simply put, a chiasim is like an ascending and descending scale. The chiasim will address two or more ideas on the way up the scale, then address those same ideas again as it goes back down the scale, only, this time, it addresses them in reverse order. One of the most well known chiasims in Scripture is “Your ways are not Mine, My ways are not yours.” See how it goes up two steps, then back down two steps? Here is another example:
Proverbs 11:19-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 He who is steadfast in righteousness will attain to life,
And he who pursues evil will bring about his own death.
20 The perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord,
But the blameless in their [a]walk are His delight.
Chiasims are probably the hardest form of ancient Hebrew poetry to recognize. This is because the poets often place breaks between the steps, breaks where they discuss other things. Chiasims can also be spread throughout several chapters or even an entire book (of half of a book in the case of a bifid). And we cannot rely on the numbering system in our Bibles, either. We must remember they were added much later, and are not part of the original texts. So chiasims can be difficult to spot, and even when we find them, they can be difficult to follow. For example, Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is written in the form of a chiasim. There are also two parallel chiasims in Revelation, one in each half of the book. On top of those two chiasims in the bifid that is Revelation are also three parallels of seven, with nested parallels within those seven. So the reader should understand that, if one does not know about and have some concept of ancient Hebrew poetry, one is very unlikely to understand what the poet was trying to tell us.
OK, if you have been following me through all my posts on Biblical prophecy to this point, you should be starting to get the idea that there is much more to the language of prophecy than simply reading the English translation. And on top of everything I have discussed so far, I still haven’t mentioned the symbolic language or numerology written into prophecy. Now, if this is frustrating for you, I assure you, I understand. I can see how it might appear as though there’s no use even trying to study prophecy. I mean, how can we study it when we have to learn all this other stuff before we even begin with the prophets? Luckily, the prophets actually left us a great many clues that serve as sign posts to help us navigate our way through their prophecies. So, this is where we will finally start our actual study of the prophets and their prophecies: with the ‘sign posts’ they left for us.
You can find the next post in this series here.
ADDITIONAL READING ON ANCIENT HEBREW POETRY
How Ancient Hebrew Poetry Works: A New Description
This is the 9th post in a series I am writing about end times prophecies in the Bible. If you would like to read the earlier posts, the series starts here.
The ancient Hebrew language was very different from its modern form. Not only was it a ‘sense-based’ language, originally, its written form was also hieroglyphic. This means the language was based in concrete terms, which to the ancient Hebrew would mean terms familiar to a semi-nomadic, agricultural society. The hieroglyphics are just a natural outflow of this ‘pictorial’ form of thinking. It also lead to a language where two letter root words were used to form the basis of an entire family of words with similar or related meanings. Naturally, there is a great deal more to the ancient Hebrew language, but the way it relates to and is connected to the lifestyle of the ancient Hebrew is what is most important to understanding Biblical prophecy.
First, we will look at the hieroglyphic nature of ancient Hebrew. The word, or pictograph for ‘strength‘ was a drawing of a bull’s head (see additional reading links below). To the Hebrew, the strongest animal he had at hand was the bull, so, naturally, to a sense-based mind, the bull would be a symbol of strength. Likewise, the word or symbol for ‘house‘ was a drawing depicting the layout of an ancient Hebrew tent. Now, even though these are words, in ancient Hebrew, they are also letters. The image of each letter implies an image, and the meaning attached to that image is understood as the meaning of the word. So, when we put the bull’s head and the tent together, we get ‘strength of the house,’ which is the Hebrew word for husband or father.
Reading right to left:
= strength
= house
Another example would be a phrase found in the Bible, “The Lord is slow to anger.” The ancient Hebrew does not actually say this. The Hebrew word for ‘anger‘ is ‘nose.’ So the original Hebrew actually says “The Lord is slow to nose.” Now, remember what we said about ancient Hebrew being concrete, or pictorial in nature. When we get angry, we tend to breath faster and heavier, which causes our nostrils to flare. So, to the ancient Hebrew, nose (and nostril, which is related) are connected to anger. Now, let’s look at one last example:
The Hebrew words for deer and oak also hold the meaning of strength or leadership. The deer was seen as one of the strongest animals in the forest, and the oak as one of the strongest woods. So these words are often used to refer to strong leaders. Now, think about how this changes the meaning of a phrase such as:
“The voice of the Lord makes the deer to calve.”
or according to another translation:
“The voice of the Lord twists the oaks.”
What the Psalmist was actually saying is:
“The voice of the Lord makes strong leaders turn [from their ways, to the Lord’s].
So you can see how not understanding the nature of ancient Hebrew can and does cause confusion in understanding Scripture — and doubly so when trying to read prophecy.
Now, when we read modern Scripture, a lot of this has been translated for us, so we don’t run into these sort of problems nearly as often as they actually appear in the original texts. This is because others, who are familiar with the ancient Hebrew language, have translated the ancient texts so that we may better understand them. However, by trying to put things in more modern terms, these translators, as well meaning as they are, have inadvertently made it more difficult to understand the more difficult parts of Scripture. Part of the trouble is found in the way ancient Hebrew was written. Originally, Hebrew had no vowels. The reader had to use the context of the rest of the text to help them chose the correct word and then fill in the vowels mentally. Given than many words have the same spelling when the vowels are left out, this allows for mistranslations, even in the time of the original author. Throw in the problems of culture and the nature of prophetic vision and you can see how easily even the most well-meaning people can get confused while trying to put ancient Hebrew into modern terms. This is why we must study the original culture and language: so that we can better understand the subtle nuance of the original message [It is also something you teacher out there should make an effort to teach you flock].
So, what should we take away from this? Well, if nothing else, we should understand that the prophet or scribe probably has a different meaning from that of a literal interpretation. It also means that the Scriptures are not as ‘garbldie-gook‘ (as one Atheist put it to me) as many like to believe. It just means we do not understand the language, and, if we do not understand the language, we should not expect to get a clear understanding of the message. Once again, it would be like trying to explain computers to someone from the 19th Century and wondering why they do not understand. To them, you might be using English words, but they would not have the reference frame necessary to understand what you were telling them. Well, we are no different, only the time line is reversed: in our case, the ancients are trying to explain spiritual matters to a culture that has largely rejected the idea that such a thing as the Spirit world even exists.
Now that we have touched a little bit on the subject of how the ancient Hebrew language worked, the next thing we need to do is have a brief look at some of the more artistic uses of the language. This will be the subject of our next post: Hebrew poetry.
You can find the next post in this series here.
ADDITIONAL READING ON ANCIENT HEBREW LANGUAGE
The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language
Introduction to Ancient Hebrew
The Culture of the Hebrew Language
The Ancient Pictographic Hebrew Language
A Brief History of the Hebrew Language
AN INTERESTING NOTE ABOUT PICTORIAL HEBREW
Archeology has discovered several ancient Hebrew pictographs for the name of the Messiah. Now, they do vary a bit, but no one can make the claim that these various spellings mean they are different names. This is because all of the different spellings come from the same root word, which means that they are all related. This is the nature of Hebrew. But one of the most frequent spellings shows the pictograph for ‘behold‘ or ‘look,’ then ‘the highest man‘ then the symbols for ‘tent peg,’ which means ‘to fasten‘ or ‘nail,’ and then a letter which is literally the symbol of the cross. So, from right to left, it literally says the name of the Messiah is “Behold, the highest man, nailed to a cross.” Another related spelling for the Messiah literally reads “Behold, hand, behold, nailed.” In fact, every variation of the spelling for Messiah depicts some picture of a man or hands being nailed, often to the Hebrew letter, ‘tav‘ which looks exactly like a small case ‘t‘, or a cross. Now, keep in mind, that was written 1500+ years before Christ was crucified, and at least 750 years before crucifixion was even invented! That, my dear reader, is prophecy literally written into the very fabric of the language God’s chosen people spoke!
This should be a testimony to both Hebrew (i.e. Jew) and skeptic alike that Jesus is the Messiah, and as Messiah, He is God!
Most believers are familiar with the words of John 1:1-5: “In the beginning there was the Word.” Today, we understand ‘The Word‘ to mean Jesus, but I fear we have lost a great deal of John’s original meaning. It isn’t so much that this loss has changed anything, but more like it has robbed us of something more. If you have a moment, I’d like to explain.
First, we have to understand that the Scriptures are the Word of God. As such, He will preserve them. This is why, no matter how often skeptics try, no one has yet been able to show that the Scriptures have been altered over time. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they affirmed that the Scriptures we have today are nearly identical to those from 200 B.C. Other ancient fragments of Scripture have dated to even earlier periods, and they have affirmed the same thing: Scripture has been preserved
[The preservation of God’s Word is actually directly connected to the subject at hand. I hope you will see how by the end of this post.]
Now, Satan (which means adversary, or accuser) cannot change this. God wills that His Word be preserved, so there is nothing Satan can do about that: His Word (i.e. the Scriptures) will be preserved — period! So how can Satan combat this? The same way he always has: through deception. As in the case with Even in the Garden, this deception often comes in the form of perversion, or twisting of the Truth (telling of half-truths, or part of the Truth in a way that produces a false impression or conclusion). Well, I believe this is what has happened in the case of John 1:1-5. Only, in this case, it is not so much that Satan has twisted the meaning of John’s original words as it is that Satan has taken away a great part of their original meaning. Here’s why I say this.
First, read the passage in its original Greek (you will have to follow the link for the original Greek):
John 1: 1-5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.
Notice that the original Greek does not say ‘word,’ but ‘logos.’ Now, you might say that this is the same thing, since ‘logos‘ means ‘word’ (or Word of God). However, that is not what ‘logos‘ meant when John first used the term. Remember, John was written in the 1st Century, and he was using 1st Century Greek. Therefore, we should understand that the meaning of a word then is not necessarily the meaning of that word today. When we look, we discover this is precisely the case here. John actually re-assigned a meaning to the word, ‘logos,’ so that now, today, we understand it to mean ‘the Word of God.’ But what did ‘logos‘ mean in John’s day and how might that original meaning affect our understanding of John’s original message?
Remember, when John is writing, he is in the time when the Greek philosophers were at the height of their influence. John is in a world dominated by Greek culture, and he is writing in Greek. At that time, ‘logos‘ was understood to refer to the controlling principle in the universe. So, why would John use this term? Look at the rest of the verses:
In the beginning was ‘the controlling principle of the universe.’ Paul explains what this ‘controlling principle‘ is in Romans 1 & 2. Paul calls it Natural Law. Today, we think of it as ‘the laws of physics,’ but here is the point of my post: the laws of physics are only part of God’s Natural Law. Which then means, today, we have lost a good part of our understanding of what John meant by “The Word.” That lost part has been taken away.
Now, keep reading. John tells us that ‘logos‘ existed in the beginning. This means before the creation of the universe (keep reading, you’ll see this is what he means). And that ‘logos‘ was not only with ‘Theos‘ (the One True God), but that ‘logos‘ was ‘Theos.’ Therefore, ‘logos‘ is with God and is God. Now, let’s try to put this in more modern terms.
John has just told us that the sum total of all the laws which govern this universe are part of The One True God. This means all the laws of physics, the laws governing logic, mathematics, economics, society — everything: all these laws are part of ‘logos,’ and thus, they are God. Got it so far? Now keep reading.
Next, John tells us that all things were created through this ‘logos.’ The Greek word translated ‘created‘ here is ‘ginomai,’ which means ‘to bring into being.’ So, John is literally telling us that this sum total of governing laws he calls ‘logos‘ is the means by which God created everything that has ever been created. The very first thing we should note is that this excludes God and ‘logos,’ which means they are not ‘created’ beings. But now, let’s put this into more modern terms.
John started by telling us that the ‘governing force‘ which he calls ‘logos‘ is part of The One True God. It is the sum total of all laws which control everything that has ever been created. And that it is through this sum total of governing laws that everything which has ever been was created in the first place. Now think about what that means. We do not doubt that we are using the laws of physics when we create something, so why should it surprise us when John tells us God did the same thing in creating the universe? God, as the author of these governing laws — logos — uses them (logos) to create everything He has ever created. Simple, right? It should be. It just means the Law Giver uses His own laws to work His will. Now, what does this give us so far?
Logos (the governing force of the universe) existed — with God — before anything was ever created.
These governing principles are God (it must be, as it was not created, therefore, it must have always existed, which, by definition, makes it God).
And that it is through this governing set of principles that God created everything He has ever made.
Now, finish the passage. John finishes by telling us that in this ‘governing force‘ (logos) is life, also referred to as the light. The Greek word here for ‘life‘ is ‘zōē.’ This refers to the spiritual life of deliverance from the proper penalty for sin. In other words, this ‘zōē‘ is eternal life — salvation — and refers to all those who will ever be redeemed. Now, let’s wrap up:
In his original Greek, John was telling us that Jesus is much, MUCH more than just God as man. Jesus is the governing principle by which all things that have ever been or ever will be are made. Paul later tells us that it is through Christ (this same governing principle) that all things are also sustained. John tells us that this ‘logos’ is not only with God, but is God. So God and ‘logos‘ are one, but thought of as also being distinct from each other. This is not so difficult to accept. Your thoughts and words are one with you, but they are also separate things. How do you know that to be true? Because you speak of them as being part of you, but also distinctly separate from you in your own speech. So why should John speak of Jesus any differently? Finally, John tells us that it is through this governing principle, logos, that true redemption is found. Thus, Jesus becomes the light of the world, and all those who do not understand and accept Him are lost in darkness.
Now, there is something more I want to share, and it is directly related to John 1: 1-5. However, it is going to have to keep until my next post on this subject. Until then, the point I want to make is this:
Over time, the meaning of ‘logos‘ changed. Today, we understand it to mean ‘The Word,’ or, Jesus. But originally, logos communicated a much deeper understanding of Who Jesus actually is. By stealing this understanding away, Satan has prevented us from grasping this deeper understanding. However, by returning to the original meaning of the word, logos, we do not change our modern understanding of Christ. That remains. Nothing I have just explained changes Who Jesus is in any way. All it does is expand our understanding of Jesus. It makes Him bigger, and that is what Satan wants. He does not want us to understand just how big God actually is, so Satan steal away little pieces of our understanding, or he gets in the way so that we never gain them in the first place.
In my next post on this subject, I will try to explain how the ancient Hebrew’s original concept of God is directly tied to the way John used the term, logos, to describe Jesus, and to the way Jesus described Himself.
The Oil for Your Lamp 