The Cleansing of the Sanctuary

Disclaimer:

I have been holding onto this for a few months now, waiting for the right time to put it forward. What I present here began as a response to an accusation of anti-Semitism, directed against myself. The person that I wrote it to has not only consented to my posting this, but also actually suggested that I do so (my only censorship of the original letter has been for the purpose of maintaining his anonymity). The data presented was literally stumbled across, through a series of coincidences. Much of it can be confirmed at Wikipedia or the like, and I welcome any attempts to verify the data contained, within.

This is in no way an attempt at prognosticating the future, but merely some observations that I have made, as to Israel and the church, in light of prophetic Scripture. I welcome your scrutiny, however I only ask that you consider the observations in light of the evidence. It is very rough around the edges. The reason being that it was written over a period of four or so months, with many interruptions.

Interestingly, my first observations regarding Seventh Day Adventist doctrine came to my attention immediately prior to what has become one of the most arduous times in the life of my family. The letter you are about to read was written mostly under the anguish of the strains associated with having your family hurled into such disarray. As a result, the suffering spoken of, has been tasted, at least in finite form.

The catalyst for posting this at this time has been a wave of discussion about the Book of Revelation, on a forum that I frequent. As much as this is not an attempt at being "prophetic", the fact that it deals with prophetic themes causes me to ponder whether or not to consider this to be a "prophetic paper" (between that and the means in which the material came, as it was required, for entry into the letter). Anyway, I'll leave you to decide.

Enjoy...

_________________

Dear Friend,

I was going to send you a copy of Art Katz' 'Holocaust Book', but I considered your point that it was a big ask to expect you to read a whole book, when you had only asked of me was to watch a short video. I've decided instead to respond in my own words. Allow me to establish my viewpoint based on Scripture, so that you can work out whether or not you want to read the book.

Before I do, firstly I wish to point out a flaw in your observations of Israel. You stated that your dealings with Israel have been pleasant, and I can understand why. You see, you came to them out of concern for their soul, and helped them to see the fact that God hadn't rejected them as a people (something that Paul firmly established in the Book of Romans). It is not loving the one that comes in peace that is impressive, that is just normal human nature.

Cultural Distinctions

When I mentioned Israel's arrogance, I was referring to a global perception based on cultural behavioural stereotypes. Similar to how English people tend to appear to be serious, private and prudish, Australians tend to be easy going and lazy, Greeks passionate and quick tempered, and Vietnamese angry and impatient. The odd thing is that people from each of these cultures can display these traits amongst their own people, and still convey a message of love and appreciation to each other, while outsiders can feel uncomfortable and even rejected around them (I sometimes consider that these behavioural variations could be symptomatic of the confounding of speech after Babel, as they seem to convey things that others misunderstand, and can be far more divisive than mere words).

Granted these cultural distinctions are mere tendencies, and there are exceptions to the rule, but unless deliberate attempts are made to change them, they tend to be the norm. And note that these traits have good sides and bad, and cultural acceptance requires that the 'bad' be taken with the good, in spite of the irritation that can result from being around these differences.

In light of this, what is so bad about the Jews being seen as arrogant? It would seem that almost every Jew excels in their chosen field. They seem to ooze confidence and superior intellect. They have been responsible for discovering the Theory of Relativity and Nuclear Fission (Incidentally, Oppenheimer lamented over the "A bomb's" destructive purpose, and expressed this by quoting a passage out of the Baghata Vita during the Trinity Test. The passage he quoted referred to the personification of death being ushered into the world). They are the 'Steven Spielberg's and the 'Aaron Spelling's.

Consider even the stand out Christian speakers of today, who have brought to our attention long neglected truths. Names like Art Katz, James Jacob Prasch and of course, one who is always being accused of arrogance by his opponents, Ray Comfort, are definitely amongst those who come to mind, all of whom are Jews. As a side, I have heard both Katz and Prasch refer to themselves as "dumb jerks", acknowledging an arrogant tendency that they are constantly tempted to yield to, and acknowledging it as a cultural inheritance).

Jewish Cause For Offence

Sure, you can see this arrogance as "national pride", which to some degree, is an admirable quality, but surely you can see how their heathen enemies can be chafed by this, even if it is at times out of pure jealousy? And surely you could appreciate the plausibility of this being exasperated by means of "God's chosen people" responding to this jealousy with a cynical arrogance? To be honest, that is what I heard in that "Open letter to the world" video. If was like, "Okay, say what ever you want about what we have done, but you started it." Doesn't that seem tragically immature to you? If you don't think so, then how would you feel if the Arabs did likewise in the same circumstance? Essentially they could say that Israel was pre-emptive, by invading the Canaanite lands and having the audacity to blame their "genocidal conquest" [sic] on God (more on this later) (see the Book of Joshua).

God in Scripture clearly pointed out what would cause persecution to break out against them. Deuteronomy is where it was plainly laid out before Israel, as they were about to enter the promised land (Deut 27-30), and in Joshua Israel went on to "ratify to proposal" (Josh 24:19-25) that God put forth, thereby consenting to the conditions and means of their chastening.

Mandate To Flee From Idolatry

Judges cc1-2 summarises the situation, and the beginning of the chastening. Essentially, God mandated that the entire peoples of the Promised Land, who had prospered from placating idols, were to be wiped out from the face of the earth. This mandate was required lest Israel would be tempted to follow their example. Harsh penalties were given for failure in this area. A warning was given that only the virgin girls would be spared for marriage. Perhaps the reasoning for this was that because sexuality was such a significant part of their worship, and logic would say that, as a race of people, they would be experts in giving maximum pleasure, and therefore could cause the Israelites to direct their gratitude to the gods that taught their spouses such skills.

When Israel ignored this directive against intermarriage, which occurred in the third generation after entry into the Promised Land, God finally made good on His threat. The summary of the Book of Judges is basically a cyclic tale of Israel's idolatry, God causing a nation to rise up against them, Israel crying out to God for mercy, God sending a Judge to liberate them, peace in the land, Israel's return to idolatry, etc... The historical tale has been the same, with an interesting twist that occurred in the middle of the 19th century. But before this, allow me a little side regarding idolatry...

True Nature Of Idolatry - Self-Worship

As you may know, the main two gods that were worshipped by the inhabitants of Canaan were Ashtoreth (fertility goddess, worshipped sexually in sacred groves around 'Ashtoreth Poles') and Baal (ruling spirit over a territory who needed to be placated in order to receive his favour, sacrificed to on altars erected in 'High places'). The other lesser-mentioned god was Moloch (promised power and prestige to those who would 'pass their son through the fire', ie. throw him into a white hot furnace as a sacrifice). These gods have been manifest through various other names through history. Ashtoreth, for example, as Diana of Ephesus, Aphrodite of the Grecians, and Venus of the Romans. Paris Reidhead, in his sermon "The Dangers of Third Generation Religion", has expounded on this, by comparing these gods with the 'lust of the eyes', 'lust of the flesh' and the 'pride of life' (1 Jn 2:15-16). It goes like this:

• Ashtoreth - temptation to sexually sin (lust of the flesh)
• Baal - temptation to be "morally inventive" in order to achieve one's goals (lust of the eyes)
• Moloch - temptation to claim "ascendancy over one's fellow's" (pride of life)

Note that John cites these three things by referring to them as "all that is in the world". It's like this, God has set the standard of the Ten Commandments, and Satan agrees with the standard but offer's three exceptions to the rule. My two children (currently oldest is 6) refer to these as the Devil's three tricks, to get us to break God's Commandments. This principle that John referred to as "all that is in the world" operates like an "exception to the rule". It is as if they to us, "The Commandments are good, but this is more important." Everything in the world screams at us that this is the case, even today. It was these three things that tempted Eve with the "forbidden fruit":

"...when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..." (Gen 3:6)

... in spite of the fact that God commanded them not to eat of "that tree".

Paul made mention of the fact that an idol has no power in itself, but that its power is in our devotion to it (1 Cor 8). The real sin of the idolater is that, in defining his own god, he has become creator of his own god, and therefore a god in himself. So the act of worshipping an idol is ultimately 'self-adulation' because in worshiping a god of your own imagination, you in fact worship yourself.

Appeasing The Conscience

Considering that "temptation is the proposition presented to the intellect to fulfil a God given good appetite in a forbidden way" (Reidhead), then the purpose of the idol is to appease the conscience, giving license so that we can act upon the temptation without disturbing it. For example, in order to maintain your farm, you'll need family members to help with the work. Ashtoreth will resist your fertility unless you appease her by participate in sexual acts with her priests/priestesses. Therefore not only is promiscuity not actually wrong, but it is a necessary 'evil' in order to survive. The farm needs rain, but Baal withholds rain until a sacrifice is offered to him, because he controls the rain (call it a 'rain tax'). You see, because man could not shake the fact that he would, one day have to answer to God, he invented 'gods' who would require of us 'sinful behaviour'. This way, he can blame the idol for making him do it (ie, the "devil made me do it"). This is why John and James both told us that "friendship with the world is enmity with God".

One can note, at this point, the stark difference between the Kingdom of God, and the world. The world demands activity in order for it to yield what is required (Gen 3:17-20), where God is one who sends "rain on the just and the unjust" (Mat 5:45). In other words, the world withholds from all but those that comply with its terms, while God freely gives regardless (1 Cor 2:12).

The Second Advent Awakening

This went along fine up until the nineteenth century. A man named William Miller, a farmer in the US, came to faith in Christ after studying the Bible. He became particularly interested in eschatology and, by applying the 'year/day theory' to Daniel's prophecy, calculated the timing of Christ's return to be October 22, 1844. History will remember the 23rd of October as the 'Great Day of Disappointment', because Jesus obviously didn't return.

Out of what was refereed to as the "Second Advent Awakening" came various sects that tried to vindicate Miller for his mistakes, and amongst these are the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Watchtower Society (ie, Jehovah's Witnesses). Regardless of these people's attempts at redefining Miller's conclusions, before he died in 1879, Miller himself declared, "we expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the theories that grew out of the movement." Even critics of the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses concede that, "Miller was a sincere, godly Christian to the end of his life."

Why do I mention this? It is because something did happen in October of 1844 that is more consistent with the actual prophecy that Daniel gave.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. 18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. (Dan 8:13-19)

Now, Miller concluded that the 2300 years before the "sanctuary (would) be cleansed" (applying the year/day theory), would begin when the Temple at Jerusalem was decreed to be rebuilt by Artaxerxes (Ezra 6:14). Since historians placed this event in 457BC, that would mean its completion would be 1844AD (bearing in mind that there was no such year as 0AD). Considering that the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was the event in the Hebraic calendar where the cleansing of the temple occurred, and that Artaxerxes' decree was in autumn, Miller concluded that the event that he was expecting would occur on that day. In 1844, the tenth day of the seventh month in the Jewish calendar, fell on October 22nd.

Cleansing Of The Sanctuary, Not Christ's Return

Miller concluded that this event would be Christ's return, because it was common for the earth to be referred to as God's sanctuary, and since the earth wouldn't be truly cleansed until Christ returned. This interpretation would be fine if the Bible had no other references to the cleansing of God's sanctuary, but there are others. Ezekiel saw a vision of six men with destroying weapons in their hands, who were sent into the midst of Israel to smite all but "the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst (of Israel)". One of the six men also had an inkhorn, in order to mark the foreheads of these "sighers" and "criers", in order to identify them (Ezek 9). Logic would suggest that seeing as they were commanded to "begin in (God's) sanctuary" and go out from there, then prophetically speaking, the sanctuary could not be the whole earth. It must be something more specific.

Before I mention a possible alternative event that could be considered to be a catalyst to produce a "cleansing of the sanctuary", let me return your attention to the main points of this article.

• Israel chose to intermarry two generations after entering the Promised Land.
• The three main gods that were worshipped co-relate to how the Apostle John described, "all that is in the world", in his first epistle.
• Idolatry's ultimate purpose is to give justification to the conscience, so that we can act upon our temptation without our conscience being disturbed.

Forsaking the Lord

In Judges, God told the Israelites that he would leave the inhabitants of Canaan so that "through them (He) may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not." (Judg 2:22) After their first captivity, they returned to eventually worship their "means of worship", over the One who was meant to be the "object of their worship" (Matt 23:23). This ultimately led to God allowing the destruction of His Temple at the hands of Rome, in 70AD.

No temple meant no place for sacrifice, so a rabbi named Yochan Ben Zakkai redefined Judaism's means of forgiveness in terms of repentance (Teshuvah), prayer (Tefillah) and good deeds (Tzadakah). I have heard a messianic Jew say that if you went outside a synagogue after they finished their Yom Kippur ceremonies, and asked them if they were forgiven and they would reply, "I don't know, but I've done all that I can do." This is what most of Judaism has consisted of up until today.

You may know that Israel had no nation of their own, until 1946, but did you realise that Israel had a tendency to view Germany as their "messianic alternative" (this will be explained later) to having their own land? This is why there was such a concentration of Jews in Germany prior to World War 2. Consider that 80% of the world's Jewish population is of Ashkenazi origin, and recognise Yiddish, which is of Germanic origin, as their "mother tongue" (Hebrew being the "father tongue") and you can see some clues to substantiate this fact (Art Katz has spoken much on this, from extensive research, so again I recommend you read his book "The Holocaust: Where Was God").

Germany offered much to be desired, considering its long reputation of being the epicentre of excellence. It had spawned Luther, Beethoven, Handel, Freud, Boehme and Einstein. Its military might was second to none, and their innovativeness was, and still is, likewise unparalleled. What better place for such a nation as Israel to dwell. There was one other significant mind that Germany had spawned.

Self-Worship Unveiled

On October 15th 1844, a child was born to a Lutheran pastor and his wife, in the small village of Röcken. After the death of his father at the age of five, younger brother at six and his grandmother at twelve, his mother raised him on her own with his sister, Elizabeth who was two years younger. The young man attended a boys school and later a private school, and in 1864 went on to study theology and philology at university. After one semester, the young man stopped his theological studies and left his faith behind. Over time he wrote many works, primarily of a philosophical nature. The man's name was Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was one of the first to establish the principles of Atheism in a way that made sense. He proposed the importance of humanity establishing its own morality, without the need for an "imaginary judge" that we need to face one day. He presented a theory that portrayed the type of relationship between God and man, as a "master/slave" relationship, and then exhorted man to become their own God (Übermensch, lit. "over man” or "god man"). This in effect gave humanity the first opportunity to openly yield to temptation without the need to be plagued by their conscience, because they had now been given the right to establish their own moral code, based on their own values. Nietzsche is best know for penning the words "God is dead" in his book titled "The Gay Science".

Idolatry of Modern Israel

The veil of idolatry had finally been lifted, and men were now free to be their own God, unashamedly. In other words, the new "idol" was to become "raw selfish humanism". If you've heard Paris Reidhead's "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", you'd be keenly aware of humanism's affect on Christianity, but Judaism was also deeply affected. Room was made for the concept of "Meshiach" to be about a new social order, because sacrifices had been replaced with good works, a legalistic arrogance began to fester once again. "Salvation by works" silently carries with it the notion man is "good enough in himself", thereby not requiring God's intervention in order to "make him good". Monotheism and the Scriptures began to be thought of as a Jewish invention (after all their people gave the world Moses, David, and the prophets), and therefore, in their minds, these things confirmed their "greatness".

The Jewish culture was kept, while the God that was such an integral part of their culture, was all but ignored. The Jews had, for the most part "outgrown God". Theism was replaced by Deism, and ultimately God was tossed aside. A Jewish friend of mine, who has recently come to faith in Christ, stated that he believed that "while many (Jews) would say that they believe in God, well over 50% would live and believe essentially the same things as an atheist... Well over 50%."

You see, in the time of the Judges, it wasn't that the Israelites stopped worshipping Yahweh, so much as that they supplemented their worship with sacrifices to gods that would 'get the job done', when God wasn't answering their prayers quick enough. They honoured Yahweh with their lips, but feared and worshipped the gods of the land.

One can see this in the closing stories in the Book of Judges, where we see, for example, Micah building his own temple, filling it with idols, and then claiming that "the Lord (Yahweh) will do him right", because he acquired a Levite to serve him in his idolatry (Judg 17). God referred to this, in His Word, as "forsaking the Lord". So, here we are. Israel had chosen to go "a whoring after" their own "messianic alternative", which allows them the luxury of a self perception of greatness, in place of their Meshiach who came in brokenness, shame and humility, calling them follow in his footsteps. They chose a self-vindictive stance against their oppressors, rather than recognising them as God's promised vehicle of chastening for forsaking the Lord, to pursue their "gods".

The Sanctification of the Prophet of Atheism and Anti-Semitism

Now, considering that seven days is allotted time that is waited before a Jewish male is circumcised, and that Nietzsche was born seven days before October 22nd 1844, could it be possible that the birth of this man, who lifted the veil on idol worship, like no other, could have been the event that Daniel was pointing us to? Note that Miller would have had no reason to know about this fulfilment, because Nietzsche was relatively unknown until the twentieth century.

To add another twist to Nietzsche's role in the "cleansing of the sanctuary", his sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche married a known anti-Semite. Nietzsche wrote his sister a letter, which strongly objected to her choice of suitor, on the grounds of the Förster's anti-Semitism. This wouldn't mean much, except that on January 3rd 1889, Nietzsche suffered a severe mental collapse, which led to Elisabeth becoming executor of Nietzsche's literary estate. After Nietzsche's death in August 25 1900, Elizabeth published the book entitled "The Will to Power", by compiling Nietzsche's unpublished notebooks into one anthology.

Although the name of the book wasn't mentioned, in the sermon "Ten Shekels and a Shirt", Paris Reidhead referred to "The Will to Power" as the work that influenced Hitler to believe that the "chief end of all being" is to "gain ascendancy over one's fellows". Historians have used this book as the cornerstone of charging Nietzsche with accusations of fascism and anti-Semitism. In light of the above mentioned letter that he had sent to his sister, other historians believe that Elisabeth had selectively included material and gave the excerpts from Frederich's notebook an order different to that of his own. This led to the current opinion that her manuscript as a revisionist corruption bringing her brother's text in line with her own anti-Semitic beliefs, which he had vehemently opposed.

It would seem that, like most true atheists that I have had dealings with, of late, Nietzsche was of exceptional moral character in regard to pragmatism. His life apparently had, as a practical outworking, a consideration of others that would shame all but the most pious Christian, in spite of penning the slogan "God is dead" and ranking one's own life as its sole consideration when evaluating how one should act. Racism would have been intolerable because it is not self-serving, outside of a biased superstition based on fear and/or self-delusion. Therefore, Hitler's notions of the Jews being the "enemy of mankind" Nietzsche would have considered them to be based on paranoid delusions, as there would have been no individual element to them.

Jewish Self-Sufficiency

On the heels of the Nazi holocaust, Israel adopted the slogan of "Never again!!" and resolved to resist aggression against itself at all costs. The "Open Letter To The World" video that you showed me perfectly illustrates this. Now, before you condone or excuse away this attitude as justified, consider that Yahweh has been portrayed as a "tribal war god", in books like "The DaVinci Code", who issued orders to commit genocide and the hands of his people, Israel. In a world that is becoming increasingly atheistic, and therefore believes that gods are figments of the imagination, used by superstitious people to justify cruel behaviour, one would logically hold the nation of Israel accountable for the ruthless barbarity depicted in the Book of Joshua, for example. The issue at hand here is not one of excusing wrong, due to exceptional circumstances, but acknowledging the prophetic "cause and effect" of God's decrees and interpreting history in light of this, rather than based on mere human sympathy.

Compare Israel's arrogant response to their unjust persecution, to the description of the returning remnant, having endured seeing two out of every three of their people perish (the tragedy of the Nazi holocaust only saw one third die):

23 Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked. 24 The fierce anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it. 31:1 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. 2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. 3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. 4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry. 5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things. 6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. 6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. 7 For thus saith the LORD ; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. 8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. 9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (Jer 30:23-31:9)

The remnant shall return with "weeping" and be led by "supplications", while the holocaust survivors returned with "defiance", led by "resolve". The remnant shall cause the world to beat their swords into ploughshares and live in peace, while the survivors have fortified themselves and turned their back on the world with such indignation that even the peaceful are increasingly beating their "ploughshares into swords".

Modern day Zionist Israel is creating a rod for its own back. It has allowed itself to return to a land, thereby surrounding itself with avowed mortal enemies. All prophetic indications seem to suggest that the prophesied "Time of Jacob's Trouble" will commence in Jerusalem. If this is the case, then herding all the Jews into their land, is equivalent to the Nazis sending the Jews to the concentration camps. It is only a matter of time before the United Nations will recognise Palestine to be its own nation, and with such autonomy, the right to legally build its own army. This in turn will enable the Islamic League of Nations to import arms and support, in its resistance against Palestine's current "tyrant" [sic].

Mindsets Can Change Quickly

I say this not to endorse a Jihad against Israel, but to map out a plausible scenario. Consider world opinion as people's oil dependence, for example, leads them to conclude that Israel is the cause of all their woes. After all, if they weren't there, the Muslim world wouldn't have an enemy. Consider also how commentators and experts in warfare refer to terrorism as the only weapon available to the oppressed. If only Israel would "give Palestine its land back", then there would be no reason for them to set off suicide bombs, and therefore no need for it to spill out into the western world.

With all the great push of Islam trying present itself as a "religion of peace, with some rogue fanatical elements", this kind of philosophy could be prevalent within a decade. After all, Hitler came to power in January 1933 and World War 2 finished when he committed suicide April 30 1945. Within his twelve year reign, he had convinced German Christendom to reject the Old Testament and with it all Jewish references in Christianity, and to introduce "Hitler Youth" programs into their churches. He also convinced the nation that the Germanic people were the master race and that their genetic integrity had to be preserved, to the extreme of sterilising and euthanasing the disabled.

Change can come that quickly. I have spoken to some elderly Germans who, although they didn't agree with Hitler's "Final Solution", they figured that there must have be a point to the claim that the Jews were the source of all Germany's woes. On hindsight, however they could see how wrong they were.

Light In The Darkness

During this time there were some that resisted the Nazi's influence on the German church. These were known as the Confessional Church. Names like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth were amongst those who were pivotal in this modern reformation. The following are exerts out of the first article of their united theological declaration (for the full document, Google "Theological Declaration of Barmen"):

"The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, ... from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord .... In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members ... sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day... (T)hey are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union..., rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well...

We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church... should and could appropriate the characteristics,... becoming an organ of the State."

History has proven the validity of their objections. Bonhoeffer for one was highly vocal with his protests, from his parish in London. During the peak of the Nazi regime, he returned, claiming that he would have no right to be a part in the rebuilding of post-Nazi Germany, if he didn't share in their suffering alongside them. He was executed three weeks before Hitler's suicide, and the prison camp that he was in was liberated just days after his death.

This Confessional Church was pivotal amongst those who aided the Jewish people, during the Holocaust. They understood clearly that when Jesus spoke of the "least of his brethren" that first and foremost, his brethren were the descendants of Israel. Many who aided the Jews ended up in concentration camps alongside those that they tried to protect. There are those amongst eschatological commentators who cite this historical fact when claiming that the "Time of Jacob's Trouble" of the Old Testament and the "Great Tribulation" of the New Testament are interlinked, describing Jewish and Christian perspectives of the same ultimate event. Art Katz has often described dreams that some have had where men with balaclavas drag people out of their houses because they are amongst those who love the Jewish people. Consider a scenario where Israelites will suffer extreme persecution, based purely on their ethnicity. How much more will the suffering be for those who associate themselves with such a people, by choice?

True Love

Now, also consider this scenario in light of my earlier comments regarding the arrogance of Israel. Consider also how God's love is commended to us in the way that Christ died for us, not only while, but even before we had yet begun sinning, as His enemies (Rom 5:8-10;Mat 5:43-45). As the old saying goes, "You can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives." We are adopted into God's family. In a sense, God chose us, but at the same time, our response is to choose God. Paul compared Israel to a cultivated olive tree, and warned that we Gentles, were grafted in from a wild olive tree, and therefore it would be easier for us to be removed so that cultivated branches could be grafted back in, than the other way around (Rom 11:13-25).

Similar comparisons are made to regarding our betrothal to God, replacing Israel who had given herself to harlotry. The fact is, to give ourselves to such a husband, would require that we love all that He loves, as He loves them. To truly love someone, one must be willing to accept them warts and all; otherwise we set ourselves up to be disillusioned. Having observed many marriages, mine own included, I have noticed that only after the "honeymoon period" is over, does the marriage truly begin. Often jokes are made about how everything changes after marriage. Scott Peck, in his book "The Road Less Travelled", wrote, "The myth of romantic love is a dreadful lie. Perhaps it is a necessary lie that it ensures the survival of the species by its encouragement and seeming validation of the falling-in-love experience that traps us into marriage." Basically it goes like this:

• Boy meets girl.
• Boy thinks girl is pretty.
• Boy puts his "best act on" to impress her.
• Boy marries girl.
• Boy now relaxes and shows his true colours.

If they have reached this point, and you can be assured that the girl has been doing the same thing, there is a disillusionment that occurs, at which point "true" love can begin. Bonhoeffer wrote of this "crisis of disillusionment" in his epic work on Christian community, "Life Together". Until this point is reached, it cannot be known whether or not a relationship can withstand a significant offence occurring.

Anti-Semitism

In recent years, the church has become enamoured with the Jewish people, particularly the prophetic significance of the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel. Some eschatological commentators claim that Christ will return within a generation of Israel's return to their promised land. Great efforts have been made to assist Israelites in such a relocation. Amongst Messianic commentators are some who claim that the common opinion amongst Jews is that Christian interest in their people is purely utilitarian, because Israel's return will hasten the second coming of "their Jesus".

Sadly I feel that there is some truth to this claim. Until the church can see beyond the romantic image of Israel as God's "holy people" and realise that there are some ugly spots that need to be acknowledged and embraced, without minimising this "ugliness". Art Katz has referred to a latent anti-Semitism that exists within every Gentile. Perhaps this can be traced back to Noah's prophetic decree toward his three sons:

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan (son of Ham); a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:25-27)

Here we have three sons, who would grow into races. In fact, every human being or the planet can trace their lineage back to one or more of these brethren. One would be cursed, one would be blessed, and one would be great. Japheth (father of the Western nations) would be enlarged, and yet would require Shem (father of the Eastern nations) to provide his dwelling. Ham's descendants (the African peoples) had a curse placed on them that resulted in their servitude of their brothers, and yet because of Shem's blessing, this service would be received by God as if it was to Him. Canaan's curse was to be the expression of blessing to Shem and his "house guest". A similar curse could be seen upon the Levites, where they would receive no inheritance in the land itself, but in place of this, the Lord Himself would be their inheritance (Gen 49:5-7). Often what would initially appear to be a curse in the eyes of man is in reality the ultimate blessing in the eyes of God.

Tents of Shem

Looking at recent political scenarios, and we have a world that is being dominated by Western nations (Japheth), with these nations being dependant on oil and manufacturing from Eastern nations (Shem), with African nations (Ham) being relegated to the background, all but ignored as they wipe themselves out by civil war. Looking at this ideologically we have Western nations (Japheth) dominated by an Atheistic mindset, which is Capitalistic in nature, having to placate to the Islamic Arabs and Communistic Chinese (Ham) in order to keep their economy and power afloat. Note that Africa (Ham) has been becoming more and more Muslim and Communist as time goes on.

Both Islam and Communism are, in their purist expressions, Semite creations. The Quran being written by the Arabic Mohammed, and the Communist Manifesto by the Hebrew Karl Marx. These two ideologies could be considered to be like a great "tent" that has been spread over the world that is becoming increasingly inescapable and, despite all the military might of the Western World, they are more and more "dwelling in the tents of Shem".

Here we have the Monotheism of the Muslim, and the Atheism of the Communist, both of which are a misrepresentation of reality in relation to the truth of God. Monotheism limits God to one nonrelational entity, which is not a participant with humanity and therefore cannot save us, while retaining His integrity at the same time. Atheism, on the other hand, denies not only God's very existence, but also the need for God's existence, as discussed earlier. Both of these deny God's right to rule, in a practical sense. Islam gets around this by painting God out to be a controlling dictator who demands obedience or "appeasement via ritual" if He is not obeyed. Communism, on the other hand, goes down the road of deifying humanity as an entity, and requiring blind devotion to the human race, over the individual. We can see these philosophies prevailing more and more within society. God is seen as the distant "man upstairs", who is ignored while things are going well and blamed when things go wrong. As we have seen earlier, all idolatry, which is a false representation of God are based on self-deification, and therefore Atheism is, in essence, idolatry in its undiluted form.

False Shaming the False

The other thing about these philosophies is that they bring shame to both Jews and Christians. Jews claim to be monotheistic and yet act atheistic, because they deny God's right to rule in their day-to-day lives. Muslims on the other hand are strict adherents and guardians of "true monotheism". Christians are supposed to be defined by their love for one another, but for the most part, there is nothing but sectarianism and control of congregations by ministers who justify their behaviour by citing the amount of benevolent deeds that they perform. Communists on the other hand, function as ants in a hill, refusing to consider themselves higher than another, and pledging undying and unquestioning loyalty to their superiors. Ironically, it is the Bible that exhorts "the sluggard" to "look to the ant", and exhorts the rebellious to "obey them that have the rule over (them), and submit (themselves)".

Paris Reidhead had spoken of going to the Communist headquarters in Minnesota, as a young Bible College student, to ask about "communist teaching methods in America". The man he spoke to commented on how their greatest source of inspiration was the Bible. All they had to do was ignore the references to God. The rationale was that if Jesus' disciples were able to transform their world within a generation or two, what better historical source book could there be for a budding young revolutionary?

Instruments of Judgement

Could it be that God has allowed these two ideologies to arise in order to become instruments of judgement to both Israel and the church, due to their rejection of God's right to rule? Images of 9/11 provoke imaginings of religious zealots who were so incensed over the decadence and immorality of western nations and prepared to do something about it. While their methods appear to work against God's, one can see that this as in keeping with historical examples of God's judgement, as given in Scripture. Take the repentance of the Assyrians after hearing Jonah's preaching in Nineveh. This led to the sparing of that cruel nation who would later invade and conquer Israel as judgement for their consistent idolatry. This could also be taken into consideration when viewing Nazi Germany in light my earlier comments regarding Nietzsche's influence on atheism and anti-Semitism.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Is 29:13)

One eschatological commentator has made the observation that 9/11 was an attack on the economic and military centres of a purported Christian nation, that places the words "In God We Trust" on their currency, and has scantily clad rock and movie stars starting their acceptance speeches with the words "I'd like to thank God", while they daily display an ignorance and avoidance of God, at best, and a betrayal and dishonouring of Him at worst. Often their songs and movies are full of blasphemous statements and glorification of adultery, fornication, murder and deception. Is it little wonder that one who is zealous for the reputation of God, albeit misguided, would feel the need to act, when they see God being associated with such immorality? Historically, both Islam and Communism have served horrific persecution to both Jew and Christian alike. While I'll leave further mention of Communist influence for another time, due to current attention toward Islam and ignorance toward Marxism.

Loving God's 'Chosen People' In Their Time of Distress

If we consider all that I have presented here, we can see a melting pot, with great potential to produce the Time of Jacob's Trouble as described in Scripture. The question that we as Christians need to ask is, "What has this to do with us?" I have touched upon the answer to this question earlier, and it is found in these verses:

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. ... 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Mat 25:37-40,45-46)

Whilst I realise that this has been often used to encourage general benevolence, and this is a good usage, could it be that Jesus is also stating that a significant part of being righteous, is to be practically loving toward "his brethren", the Jews? And not just loving them while in good times, but through the distress of hunger, thirst, isolation, nakedness, poverty, illness, and imprisonment. In other words, this love will be required at the times when they will be hardest to love, when the most extreme of the above mentioned negative characteristics will be revealed.

Sharing In Israel's Suffering

The consequences of such a choice to love these persecuted ones could be catastrophic. Leonard Ravenhill was quoted to say, "The prophet is a tragic figure. He suffers for the people, with the people and by the people." Imagine the frustration that Christians will face, as they are trying to protect these Jews, who have rejected their Messiah and are distrustful of anything to do with Jesus (After all, Germany was a "Christian nation", and the Muslims have repackaged Jesus as a prophet who came as a sign against them). The love that will be required will attract contempt from the Jewish people, misunderstanding from other professing believers, and victimisation from Israel's persecutors.

Earlier I had mentioned stories told of people who had nightmares of being dragged out of their homes for associating themselves with the Jewish people. This may sound farfetched, but don’t forget that it only took Germany's Nazi party twelve years for it to rise and fall. As I mentioned earlier, in referring to the German Confessional Church, this Time of Jacob’s Trouble could be the catalyst for the great tribulation that is mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Now, realise that I am not attempting to be pontifical in my statements here, and I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong about all this, but either way, we need to be mindful of such things. The data that I have presented is factual, and can be easily verified on Wikipedia or like, whether my interpretations of the facts are correct or not. Having said all that I am persuaded that this is an accurate assessment, and could come to pass very soon. If Australia, for one is not either under Sharia Law, or in the midst of a Communist style revolution within the next five years, I will be surprised.

The Liberating Effect of Truth

My reason for writing this to you is to alert you to the need to love Israel as they are in actuality, recognising their failures as well as their strengths. Love that is based on anything but truth is a sham, and therefore mere delusion, for it is not "true love". We were commanded by Christ to love our enemies, citing as an example how God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mat 5:44-45). Note that God doesn't call his enemies "friends", but loves them in spite of their enmity. Vance Havner wisely said, "If we loved the world the way that God loved the world, then we would need to worry about loving the world the way that we shouldn't." (referring to Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn 2:15).

I have seen many pass into disillusionment over the years, and have noted that this period tends to "make or break" believers. When I consider these ones, I can easily imagine a Christendom that instantaneously turns against Israel, almost universally. The only thing that can spare us in that situation is truth. For Christ himself said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." I believe that there are many now who will state that they are of the "seed" of Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, Spurgeon, Tozer, Ravenhill, Comfort, etc.., in the face of such words. Perhaps Christ would respond to many of these as to those who pleaded their ancestry in Abraham, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (Jn 8:31-36).

When we look at events that are going on in the world, few would doubt that there is definitely "something afoot", prophetically speaking. There are many who would put their head in the proverbial sand, rather than, turn aside like Moses, to see when they encounter such a "burning bush". There are even more is who would entertain fanciful tales of escape from such a drama, rather than ready themselves for endurance. This I won't elaborate on now, but I am sure you know what I am referring to.

Conclusion

So the point of all this is to say that we are to love Israel as God's chosen people, and our love for them must be based on who they are in reality, rather than on romantic notion of who we think they should be. There are times of global distress coming, of which Israel and he Church will be principle victims. Their role as "victims" is not so much one of being innocent, but rather this is the result of their national involvement in idolatry.

In spite of all this, it must be remembered that God has foretold all of this in His Word. He is aware of the plight of His people, and has promised that those who repent and endure until the end will not only survive but will be rewarded for their endurance. God's chastening is a sign of His love (Heb 12:5-7). Often it is only though God's chastening that we will come to the point of "godly sorrow", which is what "works repentance" in us (2 Co 7:10).

May our heart for Israel and comprehension of salvation be as Paul described in Rom 10:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:1-4)

In His grip,

Aaron Ireland

Inerrancy of the Bible

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

A. That’s easy to answer: Yes! But there is this recurring problem of definition or more detailed explanation. That is why I don’t really like to get involved in these leading questions which are not framed in biblical terms. We so easily slip into the words and phrases, distractions which Paul several times warned Timothy to avoid. But having been asked the question, here is the answer.

Yes, but the only final inerrancy can be in the Scriptures originally given. And of course we don’t have them. We depend on translations or copies. This may give an excuse, if any want one, to raise questions about inerrancy. I don’t because I seek to be “existentialist.” In other words: Let’s be practical and down-to-earth.

Now I had to come down to earth to the very last word myself, because I had the privilege of spending the Twenties in the Congo, translating the New Testament into the market language of that area of north-eastern Congo, called Bangala. My brother-in-law, Alfred Buxton, had produced the first primer and made a partial translation of New Testament passages. I had time available and gave myself to producing the complete translations (as well as some parts of the Old Testament and Psalms). To do this I used my King James Version and my knowledge of Greek. Because of my years of study at public school and at Cambridge I could take back each phrase to the Greek. By these means I found completely all I needed to produce this translation. (To my joy, since the Congo became independent and adopted the name Zaire, this Bangala dialect, now called Lingala, is the official language of the whole nation, and the translation of the whole Bible has long been completed.)

But my point is that there is certainly sufficient “inerrancy” in our versions for all practical purposes, and in no place is any vital truth in doubt. Certainly there are variant readings and some few passages in question as to their real meaning, but except for linguists or theologians called to explore the most detailed accuracy, we can and do boldly say, “Yes, our Scriptures are inerrant.” And we are wise to concentrate our undivided attention on what the Spirit is saying through the Word, not on questions about the possible accuracy of one word or another. Let the Scriptures be what we hold them to be in our Union Life fellowship, and what Jesus said they are: “spirit and life.” And let us avoid those who remain in the “letter that kills.” Thank God for a totally reliable Scripture, revealing to us a totally reliable Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and Spirit.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Pantheist

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Are you a Pantheist?

A. Again the answer depends on how we define pantheism. From the Greek I had in my English schooling, I remember that “pan” is the neuter case in Greek for “everything,” and of course theism relates to “Theo” (God).

In that sense it is ridiculous that any reader of a Union Life article could think that we who so totally center all in the Living Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we know the Father by the Spirit, could conceive of God as a thing, or as “everything!” Surely we give no grounds for any such suspicion. Rather we would actually say that by this definition of pantheism, every human not born again is a pantheist. Before we enter into a living relationship with the Father through the Son, our “god” is some kind of “thing,” whether that “thing” is our own fallen selves, or some earthly god, or possibly even our “religion.” All the unredeemed are pantheists, for some thing is god to them, some form of the “everything.”

But some people get nervous and even call us “pantheists” because we do believe in God as Spirit (John 11:24) as the Invisible One manifested by His visible forms (Rom. 1:20), as He who “fills heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24), and as finally known by His universe as “All in all” (and thus known now by faith in His eternal changelessness). These are the terms commonly used of Him: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is love, light, power, and thus He must be everywhere. So in those realities we see Him and speak about Him as manifested in all His forms: the “Beyond in the midst,” the transcendent in the Immanent, the Vine expressed through the branches, the Head expressed through the body. The “whole human race lives and moves and has its being in God” (Acts 17:28). The pantheists would see Him as the forms; we see Him in them. We therefore come under the category of being “panentheists,” the all-important little Greek preposition en in that phrase meaning in. He in everything, not He everything.

A simple illustration is our human selves. We as persons are “spirits” contained in our bodies. No one mistakes us for our bodies! But because of our strong emphasis on God being manifested in all His creation, and because we call ourselves “see-throughers” rather than “see-aters,” it is inevitable that some non-understanding people will falsely label us as pantheists. Indeed we are in such union with Him that we are called by Jesus “the light of the world.” But He is that light in our form.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Neo-Orthodox?

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union life Magazine

Q. Are you Neo-Orthodox?

A. It almost makes me laugh to think that such a question could be asked of us ardent Bible-believers! But again I think I know why, though this may have a more personal source.

The term neo-orthodox was coined by the liberal theologians and preachers of Germany when one of their supposed liberal ministers produced his famous Romerbrief. That was Karl Barth’s “Epistle to the Romans.” Because of the shocks of World War I and the unrest in what had been a comparatively peaceful world, and under the strong influence of Kierkegaard, Barth radically changed his liberal position and produced this commentary on Romans, verse by verse. It not only adhered faithfully to the letter as written, but gave to his liberal colleagues an explosive new interpretation of the “wholly other God” (a favourite term of Barth’s). It proclaimed the total revealed gospel of our redemption through his Son, incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, and so sent hundreds of ministers, with little gospel in their understanding or messages, back to the Christ of the Bible. For Barth, the God of Romans was only approachable through the atoning sacrifice of His Son and the inner witness of the Spirit in response to faith. I have personally received such benefit and insights through Barth’s Romerbrief that I have read it many times. I delight in it, and said so in my autobiography, Once Caught, No Escape.

But is it also a fact that, though I never found it in his Romerbrief, Barth did not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the same total sense that we do? He admitted the possibility of Scripture containing elements of human thought. And it was this which brought out the new term “neo-orthodoxy.” For this reason, we of the evangelical world have always disassociated ourselves from neo-orthodoxy. Through neo-orthodoxy some liberals came some way back to Scripture truth and to the preaching of Christ in His atoning sacrifice as the only Savior, but they doubted the validity of certain passages of Scripture. As they grew in strength and numbers, it was necessary that we evangelicals make our disagreement known. Strong books were written, such as Van Til’s, exposing the dangers to us Bible-believers of neo-orthodoxy, and that meant naming Barth as the originator. Therefore, I presume the only reason we in Union Life have ever had the new-orthodox label attached to us is that I approve of Barth’s Romerbrief. I have always received great benefits from rescuing valuable babies from soapy bathwater, though I find no soap in that Romans book!

www.NormanGrubb.com

Existentialism

Norman P. Grubb

From the May June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Does Union life Embrace Existentialism?

A. That depends on what we understand by “existentialism”. My understanding comes from Kierkegaard, who was fiercely combating Hegel’s theories of self-improvement as the ultimate goal of the individual. Kierkegaard called him down to earth by saying, “Let’s talk in terms of practical existence, not vague idealism.” And then he proceeded to shock Denmark awake with his two books Either-Or, which exposed not only the basic rottenness of the hedonistic life, but also the so-called morality of the “ethical” life. His conclusion is that “Before God we are all wrong.” He then shows that there can be no human bridge over the gulf of our wrongness which separates us from God, and he introduces the rational “absurdity” of the Infinite God taking finite form in His Son, who makes a sufficient atonement for us. Here is where Kierkegaard made famous the phrase “the leap of faith” (which he borrowed from the philosopher Lessing). For Kierkegaard it is a leap of faith beyond reason, on the authority of God’s word, into our acceptance by God and justification by grace through Jesus Christ. And to this basic “existential” leap of faith, which he would even call the “absurdity of faith” (because it is beyond reason) I thoroughly align myself. Yes, on Kierkegaard’s terms, I am an existentialist.

But since Kierkegaard’s days, other unbelieving philosophers, led by Heidegger and consummated we may say in Jean Paul Sartre, have prostituted the meaning of the leap, saying that it is a leap into anything which we will name as our belief (or Unbelief) and attach ourselves to. Thus Sartre pitifully dies with his leap boldly declared as into death as the end of all. Curiously the present Christian world seems to have caught on to that interpretation of the leap as true existentialism, and thus made it a dirty word to Christians, and some even accuse Kierkegaard of misusing the term. They had best re-read that magnificent interpreter of evangelical faith. I am proud to remain an existentialist of the original brand!

www.NormanGrubb.com

The Pontification of the "Modern Church"

By Aaron Ireland

A Search Begins

Over the past year and a bit, God has been systematically pulling down every falsity in my life, and establishing truth. I'm by no means "there yet", but I'm now on the road that leads to life. I was already a Christian and a leader in the church, already understood the "doctrines of the Faith" and principles of revival, yet there was still something in my understanding of God that was a little "off". My "pilgrimage" all began with a deep seated knowledge that the Body of Christ, in general, is living a lie (myself included), and unless we come into the truth, in it's naked form, we may find ourselves utterly condemned on Judgment Day (John 3:16-21).

A year and a half ago, I would have been deeply offended by anyone who would in any way imply that there is anything wrong with the church. I would have risen up in "righteous indignation" toward all who would "disrespect" Christ's bride. Now I understand that most of those, who joint out these "faults" are like the "friends of the bride" who have noticed that she has unwittingly tucked her dress into her undergarment after finishing on the toilet. They simply want to spare her the shame of having her nakedness displayed to all as she walks down the aisle. Not only would her Groom respect this "rebuke" from her friends, but would also appreciate their intervention, as would she. It is with this heart that I write this.

The Death of the Pontiff

Allow me to present a little background, before stating the issue I hope to address. On Sunday the 3rd of April 2005, I awoke to the news the Pope John Paul II had passed away. Ordinarily this would have passed over my mind as any other world leader's departure, like that of Princess Diana, Ronald Reagan, or someone like that, but I had just completed an ankle deep exploration of the history of the church, in which I learned the meaning of the "Throne of St Peter", Pontiff, and Papal Infallibility. Combine this with a recent learning of the Polish participation into the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, and you have a significant lump of clay awaiting Divine digits to mould into revelation.

Among the titles of the head of Church of Rome (for clarity, I'll refer to as the Roman Catholic Church) are Holy Father, Pope, Vicarⁱ of St Peter, and The Pontiff. Historically, the connotations of each of these titles have been major catalysts of the Protestant Reformations, which led to formation of what is now known as the Evangelical (or Born Again Christian) Church. Reformers, such as Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, and Calvin all took particular issue to the idea of "Papal Infallibility", and this was the major contributor their reforms.

Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility is the idea that God will not allow the Pope to be wrong in his decrees made from the Throne of St Peter. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Jesus assigned the power to "bind and loose" in "heaven and earth" and gave the "keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" to Simon Peter directly, who He called the "rock" on which He would "build His church" (Mat 17:15-19). If this is true then St Peter is like a "liaison officer" in heaven, and a point of contact for earth, representing God. The Vicar of St Peter is therefore St Peter's equivalent on earth, sharing his thoughts and feelings. If Peter can bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth, so can the Pope, from his office. This makes papal decrees as good as God's words, just as an ambassador has the ability to make presidential decrees in foreign nations.

This authority is also implied in the title "Pontiff" inherited from the Roman Imperial title "Pontiffus Maximusⁱⁱ". Emperor Augustus claimed this title of the supreme priest of the ancient Roman religion. It was a logical progression, that if there were a "godⁱⁱⁱ" walking on earth, he would be the most, suitable choice for high priest. Once christianity became the Roman state religion, and the emperors considered the reasoning behind this title, it was handed over to the Vicar of St Peter (Pope), for after all, He "is" the "bridge maker" between God and man, through his association with St. Peter.

Please consider the ramifications of this line of thinking. If the Pope is the Pontiff, then he is God's appointed means of interaction with man. All our attempts of communication with God require the Pope as a go between. He would be the only qualified world ruler. If he said that you weren't going to heaven, then you're going to hell, period. The main point of issue that transcends all of this is this, if scripture and the Pope contradict each other, then the Pope is right!

Pontification

In this day and age, we are experiencing a time, which is a prequel to either a great apostasy or a great revival. As David Wilkerson teaches, every time God is about to do something, the devil hurried sets up a counterfeit. This counterfeit seems to be taking the form of the pontification of the church. To pontificate is to speak as if your word is dogma (dogma being the Roman Catholic term for undisputable doctrine). We've all, no doubt been in a situation where some opinionated person corrects everything you say as if they're always right and you never are. This is what it is to pontificate. Essentially, to pontificate is to be dogmatic. The idea of pontification comes from the idea of papal infallibility. One who pontificates is one who, like the pope, seems to believe that his opinions are infallible.

Truth, Lie or Fad

The issue of pontification is that of truth. We cannot create truth; it simply is, as God Himself is, because God is truth. There is a word for truth that is created and that word is LIE. As I've already stated, truth cannot be created. It can only be discovered and described. The discovery of truth is called revelation and the description this revealed truth is called prophecy or preaching. Note that the truth was always there, only now it is understood, to a degree. This is why Christians are to base all of their understanding of truth on God's Word, as revealed in scripture (Rom 10:14-17, 2 Tim 3:16). Just as something that is "not known" is "unknown", and something that cannot be explained by a "precedent" is "unprecedented", something that is not found in "scripture" is defined as "unscriptural".

A high proportion of the Body of Christ has succumbed to a cancerous deceit that says, "Just because it's not in the Bible, doesn't make it unscriptural". This mentality has led to a humanistic Christianity being preached, where man's happiness becomes more important than God's glory. The only logical end of this train of thought is a life that is governed by whimsical fads as the last "next best thing" stops working (Eph 4:14). The "five fold ministry" (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) are meant to be God's appointed method to protect us from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" until "we all come to the unity off the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" unto the "stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-14). Ironically, the same people who bring these "new truths" (ie, lies) to the church, use these "revelations" as the basis of their claim to be "five fold ministers". We seem to constantly hear the claim that "God is doing a new thing"; meaning the truth has changed, while the expression of that truth (ie, the methods used) continue to stay the same, in spite of claims to the contrary. This is opposite to the nature of God, who is truth, and is the same "yesterday, today and forever", but changes the way His truth is expressed from generation to generation.

The Timelessness of God

The nature of God is timeless, and any description of Him needs to be consistent from before the beginning of time, till after the end. This is the reasoning behind the wickedness of idolatry. It is impossible to accurately represent God as an image. Any attempt will require us to minimalise Him, rendering it grossly inaccurate (Acts 17:24-25,29-30). The only thing that we can do, is illustrate an attribute of His nature, by comparing it with something tangible. This is one of the reasons that Jesus spoke in parables.

The Lord of heaven and Earth: The Judge of All the World

While this may seem a little confusing so far, allow me to illustrate from scripture. When Israel was in their desert wanderings, God revealed Himself as someone who would lead them, care and provide for them, and protect and fight for them. Their came a point where they began to take Him for granted, and forgot that He was worthy the respect due to the "Lord of heaven and earth". They expressed this by grumbling and complaining about the way in which He provided for them, thereby claiming the right to rule over Him.

God could not allow them to think this acceptable for them to do, as it would mean that other nations would consider the "Judge of all the earth" to be a pushover. The ramifications of this misunderstanding would be countless souls going to hell, due to complacency on God's part. So rather than simply waiting for Judgement Day to display to the world that He neither can, nor will tolerate insubordination, He mercifully displayed His attribute of justice by releasing judgement upon the camp. The Bible simply says, "much people of Israel died" from bites inflicted by the fiery serpents that the Lord sent among them.

The Brazen Serpent: Illustration of God's Judgement and Mercy

When the Israelites confessed their sin and cried out for mercy, God commissioned Moses to form an image of a serpent made of brass, and lift it up on a pole, for everyone to look at so they wouldn't die. The purpose of this was for them to understand that the source of the judgement was God, and in order to receive mercy they had to look to recognise Him as judge. The brass serpent was made to illustrate an attribute of God. It was not an image, because neither He nor Moses claimed that God had the form of a serpent, but pointed toward the image as a symbol of an attribute of His nature. The serpents were God's instruments of judgement, and in order to be exempted from the consequences of this judgement, the Israelites were instructed to look toward a symbol of God, in the form of His instrument of judgement. Jesus himself made this connection in referring to this event as a type of his coming crucifixion, as his bearing their punishment in order to display the instrument of God's judgement by taking on is form (John 3:14-15).

The Symbol Becomes an Idol

Centuries later, the Israelites began burning incense to this serpent, considering it to be their Deliverer, rather than the means of their deliverance. Now the tool that God has commissioned to illustrate an attribute of His nature, was considered to be an image of His being. Rather than God being understood as a one Who "in judgement remembers mercy", He was considered to have the appearance and form of a serpent, which is a type of satan. This misrepresentation led to Hezekiah considering this divinely inspired artefact to be nothing but a "piece of brass" and break into pieces.

Misconceptions About God

This illustration shows us how easy it would be for our narrow understanding of God's character to distort our knowledge of who He actually is. Sadly, many christians become satisfied with knowing about God rather that knowing Him in Himself. Sadder still, many christians claim to have a knowledge of God, while at the same time knowing little or nothing about Him. The two are inseparable and just because we have understood one part of His character, doesn't guarantee that we understand or have even considered another.

Ignorance of the Past

We live in a time that is commonly referred to as the post-modern era. This is an era that is ruled and dictated by a mentality of "modern is good, old is outdated". To paraphrase J. Edwin Orr, "Most people think that history is a bore. I, however consider those who think that 'history is a bore' to be a bore." As I earlier stated, the Protestant Reformation sought to rectify the errors of papal infallibility. Over time, reform theology took on an air of complacency, which assumed that every one who attended a church was a christian. This led to the Revival Era, of Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, etc who attempted to correct these errors, highlighting the need for the recognition of sin for salvation. Over time, revival theology led to the belief that anyone who said the "sinner's prayer" was a christian. Which is where we are now. My point is to say that no matter how correct you think your doctrine is, it's only a heartbeat from being heretical.

Birth, Death and Rebirth of a Lie

Catholicism led to a distinction between clergy and laity, which seemed to imply that the priest alone had direct communion with God. Protestant christianity led to the understanding that every believer has access to the throne room of God, clergy and laity alike. Revived christianity led to the understanding of the Holy Spirit's involvement in salvation. Catholicism threw out the Word of God. Protestant Christianity returned to the Word of God. Revived Christianity returned to the Holy Spirit of God.

Understand this, Roman Catholics do acknowledge the Bible with their lips, yet in action, consider papal decrees as authoritative. In the same way, many Pentecostal/Charismatic christians of today acknowledge the Bible in theory, but ignore it in favour of one who comes with a "revelation from the Holy Spirit". The proof is in the living.

The Remnant

On a positive note, throughout every church age, God has kept a remnant pure. Centuries before Wesley was converted, while listening to Moravian preaching on a transatlantic ship, Martin Luther was penning the sermon they were reading from. Half a century before Luther was born, John Hus, who's writings inspired him, was hanged as a heretic. And the list goes on and on right back to Jesus.

Bible? What Bible?

The gross error of the "modern church" is one of scripture neglect. This resulted in two tragic things. In the pew, a lack of discernment, resulting in their acceptance of anything delivered from "recognised ministry". In the pulpit, a distortion of truth which has allowed humanism to rule in the church. The way this all manifests is that, rather than preaching "scriptural sermons" that risk being offensive because of their uncompromising adherence to truth, we preach "soothing sermons" that are "rationalised using scripture". The distinction between being "scriptural" and being "explained by scripture" is extremely subtle, and that's what makes it so dangerous. The former is a presentation of what God has been revealing to the preacher as he "studies to show himself approved". As God deals with his heart, he becomes a vessel, which not only preaches the sermon with words, but actually personifies the message. The later, on the other hand, is the preacher attempting to "trouble shoot" an issue that "he" thinks needs addressing, which leads to him searching the Bible for verses to refer to. Perhaps the preacher is seeking to have people attend meetings, get "revved up", or some other motive that will lead to his self-satisfaction. On the other hand, the scriptural preacher's sole motive is that God will be glorified, regardless of the sermon's affect on him personally. Better to have the congregation run from him, and to run to God, than for him to win their heart away from God. This is his constant fear.

It is entirely possible for a "scriptural sermon" to have little, or even no actual reading from a "Bible", as the preacher expresses the heart of God. He may even present some things that aren't entirely "correct" and yet truth is presented, because the hearer is directed to scripture to judge the words of the sermon. However, it is also possible for an unscriptural sermon to be riddled with Biblical quotations, which are taken out of context, therefore rendering the sermon a lie.

So What is a Lie Anyway?

Satan demonstrated this fact in both his temptation of Eve and Jesus. In both situations, the statements were factual (with Jesus, he even quoted scripture), yet the things that he said were to be considered lies, due to glaring omissions. As I've already stated, any statement claiming to be "truth" needs to be timeless. If there is a statement in scripture that appears to contradict another, then that shows that you have interpreted one of these statements wrong. God is utterly consistent, and if His Bible begins with "In the beginning. God...", without explanation, then any opinion to the contrary must be wrong, and therefore is a lie. This may seem rudimentary, but tell that to an atheist. In the same way that an atheist weeds out of the Bible references to God, leaving nothing but an excellent moral guide, the modern christian weeds out the statements that contradict his "humanistic gospel", by calling them "hard sayings" and ignoring them. This in effect is the same as what the Popes do, when they encounter scriptures that contradict their doctrines. If something doesn't change soon, we'll find ourselves at the point (if we're not there yet), where every believer will be his or her own "pontiff".

Too Judge...Or Not To Judge?

Consider the widely believed doctrine that says that Christians are not permitted to judge. This is often justified by referring to Jesus' words "Judge not". However, Jesus didn't stop there. He said, "Judge not, that ye may be not judged, and with whatever measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt 7:1-2) This could be understood as an incentive not to judge. Why then did he command us to "Judge not by appearance, but judge righteous judgements"? (John 7:24) Also, Paul wrote, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31), but then, "..I judge not mine own self" (1 Cor 4:3). Now Paul seems to be contradictory. Either the Bible has an inconsistency or I do, in my opinion of what it says. I need to ask God to show me where I missed it, so He can change my mind, because He won't change His. The answer is in 1 Cor 11:32 - "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world".

Sweet Merciful Judgment

Now we see something of a principle of judgement. Judgement in this lifetime is really an expression of mercy, because His judgement leads to His chastening, which in turn leads to our repentance. It's our repentance that is God's only condition of forgiveness. We will not be judged, unless we judge. In order to keep us from becoming prideful, in our judgement, He warns that He will use the same measure that we used on our brethren, when His "merciful judgement" comes on us. Therefore, to prohibit christians from judging others is to use a measure that says, "I have no need to repent". Any christian that refuses to "judge righteous judgements", according to Christ's command, is as negligent as a christian who claims to love the lost, yet fails to warn them of hell. They are denying another the right to repent, while at the same time denying their need to do the same (see Rom 1:32). To quote David Wilkerson, "Any man that has sin in his life will not talk about in the camp." (Reproach of the Solemn Assembly - available for free download from http://www.sermonindex.net/).

The Kingdom of God ... Or Utopian Counterfeit?

This issue of the doctrine of judgement is but one example of this pontification. The major issue of deception in the church right now is the present teaching on the Kingdom of God. This teaching isn't new, in fact it was a major catalyst for the introduction of the humanist mindset into the Body of Christ, around the turn of the 20th century, and in the 1960s and 70s it was called "Kingdom Now" theology. The teaching goes like this, the church is called to establish the Kingdom of God, on earth as it is in heaven. We are to influence the world with christian values, so that business and government become godly in their practices. We'll do this by raising up believers into positions of influence, so that we can make the world "christian".

This teaching is sinister in the subtlety of its error, and history has revealed instances when these things have happened and in turn hindered the work of God. Constantine was the first to "legislate christianity" and the progression that followed this led to the whole "papal fiasco" in the Church of Rome. A thorough study of Jesus' discourse with Nichodemus, in John 3 will reveal that God is not concerned with "society being converted" but with "people being converted". The Bible teaches that the "sinner" is lost, and the only way to save him is to alert him to the fact. Paul wrote, "our righteousness is as filthy rags".

Christianising vs Conversion

It would do more damage to a sinner to "teach him to be good" than to let him continue in defiance until God was to stop him. Consider how hard it is to see a "good man" converted, when compared to a "dirty sinner" who's hit rock bottom. What "favours" do you think would you do by "cleaning up" the sinner at the point where he is ready to receive forgiveness from God? Like the Pharisees, you'd "stop up the way of salvation" to them. To quote Art Katz "There is more hope for a man in error, who's been persuaded of his rectitude, but is in error, but is going some place in his error, ... in his well meaning intention & zeal, however wrong, .... than some starchy stick in the mud pew sitter, who has the technical qualification and can recite its credo, as a phraseological saint, but is not in motion." Sin is meant to be ugly. What an insult to God to attempt to "beautify" this sinful world, by creating a "utopian society" and calling it the "Kingdom of God"?

Kingdom Sought vs Kingdom Built

Am I claiming that God doesn't want to influence society, or that there is no place for moral laws? Am I saying that christians should be prohibited from public office or management positions? Of course not. Am I claiming that we shouldn't be "seeking the Kingdom of God"? Ahh... Here's where we get to the point. Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom Of God, and all of His righteousness", he preceded this statement by saying that we aren't to worry our food, clothing and shelter, and followed it by saying that the food, clothing and shelter will all be sorted out if we did it. Rather than agreeing with the words of Jesus, the teachers of this "false Kingdom" teach that we are to attain wealth so we can earn respect from the world, in order to influence them, and by doing so, we'll "build the Kingdom". Jesus said, "seek", where they say, "establish". "Who cares?", you say, "What difference does it make?" Well, christian, let me ask you this. Did you "find" God, or did you "establish" Him? You "found" Him when you "sought" Him, because He was already there, waiting for you to seek Him (Acts 17:27). In the same way, we can't establish the Kingdom of God, because it's already there.

We tend to think of kingdoms as geographical boundaries. In reality, a kingdom is a realm of influence. To have a kingdom, requires there to be a king and subjects. Not only that, but the king expects obedience to his laws, disregarding those of surrounding kingdoms. The key to this idea, is Jesus tying together the seeking of "His righteousness", with His Kingdom, and Paul separating the "righteousness off God" from Israel's perception of what they merely assumed it to be, all the while having a "zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom 10:1-3). The validity of a kingdom is only as good as the allegiance of the subjects. History is riddled with rebellions that were either quashed, or established the next regime, to illustrate this point. Therefore, His Kingdom coming "on earth, as it is in heaven", is about us, as God's subjects obeying Him, as the angels do in heaven. This obedience is entirely dependant on our considering our life as dead and yielding to the Spirit of God to "guide our paths in righteousness for His name's sake" (Gal 2:20). This kind obedience would require us to disregard the laws of the kingdom of the world (where we are but transient, and sojourners) when they contradict God's commands, even when they appear to be "righteous" in nature. Therefore we pay taxes, but we don't pay homage to idols. We do all that our earthly masters request, but we stop short at lying, cheating, stealing, etc, even for "noble reasons". If every christian obeyed God, in this way, then the Kingdom of God would come on earth as it is in heaven, because we would be living Jesus' life on earth, by the direct leading of God, in the person of the Holy Spirit. The people would request laws that reflect God's values. There wouldn't need the values to be forced on them by a "christian president", because God's values are now their values. If employers saw this silent witness from employees who are sold out to God, they would be forced to see that God has "set them in slippery places...utterly consumed by terrors" (Ps 73:18-19) and have to "choose this day whom (they) will serve" (Josh 24:15). This is why both John the Baptist, and Jesus hit the ground running with, "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand." It has an air of, "God's officially in charge again! Choose to bow your knee now before the choice will be made for you! Don't say I didn't warn you!" not, "Please be good, or God will get you." As Leonard Ravenhill put it, "Jesus didn't come to make bad men good, bat to make dead men live."

Godliness or Comfort

The other test is, what's in it for us Christians? Are we seeking comfort so we can be at "ease in Zion"? The apostle Paul, rather than running for emperor, to quash the Roman persecution of the church, ran around warning the christians that "all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". Is it possible that the fact that we aren't suffering for our faith means that we aren't living godly? Why then do we seek to improve our conditions, by electing godly government? Whether the ruler is godly or ungodly, God will lead the nation through him. In fact, an ungodly ruler forces us to resist our flesh, that wants us to play along with ungodly practices, where a godly one presents a temptation to be complacent toward God. I only say this to bring out the old christian cliché, "just because it's good, doesn't mean it's God".

The Seed of the Deception

How could we fall for such a lie? Simply because what God asks seems to be "too hard". We say, "Yeah, I know I have to submit my life to God, but surely He understands me holding onto this part of it. After all it is really important? He would know that I couldn't live without it." By permitting this thinking, we display either a belief that God is a liar, or that He is a "hard taskmaster" who expects too much, and that there must be another way. "But, isn't it much better to delegate the role of authority figure to someone on earth? After all, everyone always says, 'I wish God would just step down from heaven and Speak audibly.' And anyway, doesn't yielding one's life to the leading of the Holy Spirit show an immaturity that says, 'I can't do what God asks?' And isn't this a shifting of the blame for my disobedience?" Although this appears to be a noble assertion, and highly proactive, it ignores the fact that the cross is all about the fact that we are selfishly immature and need to shift the blame for our sins onto Jesus, to rectify the problem.

As Paris Reidhead put it in his sermon, Ten Shekels and a Shirt, "If you've ever seen yourself, you'll know that you're never going to be anything else than you were, because in me and my flesh there is no good thing." We need the Spirit of God to take the steering wheel of our life in order to obey Him. There is no other way. Christ's own prescription for the church is, "Take up your cross and follow me." Follow him where? Up the proverbial hill to the place of the skull, that we "might KNOW HIM, in the fellowship of his SUFFERINGS". There is no other way!

Conclusion

In conclusion, the present "fad teaching" on the Kingdom of God, is a subtle satanic counterfeit to God's Kingdom coming upon earth as a result of a massive end-time harvest of souls, which is being spread by well-intending preachers and businessmen alike. The effect of this teaching is a great rush to accumulate wealth, rather than to save souls. To teach people to be good, in order to make the world a better place, rather than to teach people that the world is doomed, and they need to flee to Christ, while he will still take them.

I am not claiming that money is evil, only that it shouldn't be the priority of our affection. As Jesus said, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". It you're spending more time scheming to win a buck, than to win the lost, then that says more about you're heart than any words can. We still need to be "good stewards" of what we have and we do have needs, but Jesus promised that if we faithfully seek God's Kingdom, and all of His righteousness as our number one priority, He'd sort all that out for us.

The overall point is, let the Bible lead you into truth and obedience, and beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Copyright - Aaron Ireland (2005)

This article has been copyrighted to prevent misuse. It should not be reprinted or translated without written permission from the author.

Permission is however given for this article to be downloaded, printed or electronically transmitted provided it is for FREE distribution, provided NO ALTERATIONS are made, provided the AUTHOR'S NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS are mentioned, and provided this copyright notice is included in each printout.

Any question or criticisms concerning any issue that has been raised or any implied themes associated with this article may be forwarded to the author personally at cjakforest@hotmail.com. Please allow up to a month for any responses, which will be sent at the earliest opportunity.

i From adj. vicarious, which has connotations of sharing imaginations and feelings of another person.

ii In Latin, Pontiff meaning "bridge maker", and Maximus meaning "supreme". Therefore "the supreme bridge builder between god and man"

iii Roman emperors were worshiped as gods

The Sin of Speculation

by Aaron Ireland

Mat 6:25-34

v34 - "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Perhaps calling speculation "sin" is a slight overkill. It is not my intention to paint every kind of hypothetical thinking as sinful, but to highlight the notion of the existence of a sinfulness that exhibits itself as distrustful speculation and consider the ramifications of our entertainment of it. These are my own thoughts that I desire to have placed on record in order to open them up to the scrutiny and discernment of the Body of Christ in light of 1 Cor 14:32. I believe that they are both based in scripture and shared by others. In light of this I bring this offering and from here we will begin.

The tendency of fallen man is to lust for knowledge and the center of this lust is the speculation of how things "might be" at the expense of how they "are". It is a kind of fantasy realm of thought which has the potential to elevate boredom while at the same time create a sense of safety as we plan for unseen and potentially dangerous instances as well as dream of preferred futures that may or may not happen. While this may seen innocent, in extreme cases speculation this can lead us to question everything to the point of inducing paranoia. These questions can be crippling to a Christian as they can create doubts in the goodness and mercy of God and can also lead us to lazy from of philosophical entertainment (Acts 17:21).

Questions in themselves are not bad, however it would be wise to be careful of ones that start off with "What if..." and "Why..." Also, we should always be prepared to receive an answer that we won't like and beware of the compulsion to demand an answer for our questions. Often times "silence" will be your answer, although experience says that few can truly appreciate "silent answers". The ability to ask questions are a gift from God, and His tool for leading us into truth.

"The true Christian insists upon stripping things down to the hard core of reality. He wants to know truth as it is: About life. About sin: Whether it is; What it is; How to get rid of his. About his relation to God: both possible and actual. Where he stands with respect to judgement to come. About heaven and about hell" - A.W. Tozer (The Voice of Reason)

Regarding eternal matters, beware of questions that are not answered in scripture.

"If you tell me 'why' 100% of all the people before the Fall sinned, and I'll tell you why 100% of the people after the fall have sinned. And the scripture doesn't tell us 'why', it tells us 'that'. And how much time is wasted on trying to produce 'why's that the scriptures don't give answers to? If the scripture doesn't tell us why, let's not discuss it. Let's stick with what it says." - Paris Reidhead, commenting on St Augustine's doctrine of "Original Sin" (The Right Use of the Law

As we consider our text, we find that we are exhorted to "seek ... first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness", with the promise that "all these things shall be added unto (us)" (Mat 6:33). What are "all these things"? Provision of necessities, viz. Food, Drink and Clothes (v31). Notice also that we are to "behold the fowls of the air" and notice that our "heavenly Father feedeth them" in spite of the fact that they "sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns" (v26). As an extended interpretation, could it be that "perceived necessary explanations" could be included in the list of "all these things"? After all, this is another thing that "the Gentiles seek" (v32) Perhaps God is often waiting for us to allow Him the right to decide the difference between what is a "necessary explanation" and what is not, before He gives it (1 Cor 2:14-16).

Many of us tend to "gather into barns" our own "crops" of opinions, ideas and philosophies, at the expense of memorising scripture itself. And this at the expense of awaiting God's explanation.

"Wherever man attacks the concrete Word of God with the weapon of a principle or idea of God there he has become lord over God." - Dietrich Bonhoffer

So, what's the big deal about "speculation" anyway? Speculation puts words and events into "future" history that don't belong there, out of a fear of what "might be" based on what "could have been" (see Rev 21:8). It could be said that oftentimes the root cause of speculation is the "fear of the unknown" and is evidence of the existance of a distrust of God. Consider this in the light of Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Speculation says, "Imagine if God did..." (Past) Faith says, "Look what God is." (Now) Speculation says, "What about if God does..." (Future) Faith says, "Look at who God is." (Now)

God dwells in the eternal "Now". This may be a little confusing, but here goes. "We" pass through "Now" from the "Future" to reside in the "Past". If I were looking into the future from 200 years ago, you would exist in the future and not yet in the past or present (unless you're really really old). Looking now into the past back from 200 in the future, you would exist in the in the past, but not in the present or future (momentarily putting aside millennial doctrines and the resurrection). God, on the other hand, is present in every moment that can be called "Now" (Rev 1:8) and not only that, He is the exactly the same at everyone of these moments (Jas 1:17). This is why He introduced Himself to Israel as "I AM" as opposed to "I was" or "I will be" (Ex 3:13-14).

Based on this "fact", there is no need to speculate as to what God "might do" as we only have to look at what He "has done" throughout history (as described in Scripture) knowing that He will be consistent with what He has done. Not only that, but we also know that He "does" what He "says He will do" (Heb 6:17-19). Because of these facts, "faith" could be defined as having confidence that what God has "already provided" in the past, will "manifest itself" in the future, in spite of it being "not visible" now, in spite of having "no other proof", than His Word and His Prior Acts (Heb 11:1). Consider our salvation, for example. God provided our salvation in the event of the crucifixion of Christ, before we had even sinned. At a fixed point in time, we appropriate that salvation by repenting of our sin, putting our trust in Christ, being baptised and receiving of the Spirit of Life. There was a point where we didn't "possess" the salvation that was given at Calvary. We made a choice, in our unsaved condition, to believe that God had already provided this salvation, that was not yet manifested in our life, but based solely on a glimpse of his integrity, with no other assurance that we would or had received it until after we had actually received His Spirit (Rom 8:16). That is saving faith (Eph 2:8-9). Either He provides what He said He will provide or we are going to be left looking silly.

How far does His integrity go? Consider now the case of God's threat to wipe out Israel and make Moses into a nation (Ex 32:7-14) to answer this. It would appear that this instance contradicts the integrity of God. God had already promised that the "sceptre shall not depart from Judah" (Gen 49:10) but here He is telling Moses, "let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Here we have God, as a husband catching his wife in the very act of adultery, reacting to the event of the blatant idolatry of His betrothed Israel with their self-made Golden Calf, which they had even named "Yahweh". In His understandable jilted jealousy, He expresses His desire to not only divorce His people, but to wipe them from the face of the earth, every tribe, including the aforementioned Judah. He then offers to make a new and great nation out of one that did not participate in the idolatry. Now, considering that Moses was of the tribe of Levi, and the sceptre would not depart from Judah, and God for all intents and purposes was about wipe out Judah with the rest of Israel, it would seem that God had painted Himself into a verbal corner. How can these two statements be reconciled while keeping God's integrity intact?

In order to illustrate the answer to this question, I will relate a true story. A family was driving through the country and the children started acting up in the back seat. The father turned around in a fit of rage and roared, "Right! The next kid to make a noise is getting out and walking home!" Suddenly the gravity of his words hit him, and he began to silently pray that they would remain silent so he wouldn't have to follow through with his threat while at the same time retaining his integrity before his children. Thankfully they didn't call his bluff.

Now obviously every illustration breaks down at a point, but consider that God knew Moses and trusted that the heart He'd formed in him over 40 years of tending sheep in the wilderness wouldn't call His bluff. If we reread God's words to Moses, we see that the condition that God attached for Himself to be able to wipe out Israel was for Moses to "let (Him) alone" (see also Is 45:11). In an incredible display of His omnipotence and omniscience God entrusted the validity of His redemptive plan to the decision of one man. And apparently it was in safe hands. In short, he took advantage of an opportunity to display His mercy, maintain His integrity and prove Moses character all at the same time.

So we can see that God is utterly consistent, even when at time He appears erratic. All the more reason to be ever vigilant to distinguish between placing our trust in our "speculations" of what God "might do" and the "facts" of what God "did do" and "is doing", knowing that He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". We can do this by considering where our opinions have their origin, in the light of scripture, out of our vital union with Him (Heb 4:9-13), be they "eternal" or "internal", "heavenly" or "carnal", as opposed to "good" or "evil", "efficient" or "wasteful".

"The man who lives under the sign of the tree of life, cannot know of himself, that which he must know, and which has therefore to be told him (to be explained and interpreted to him). The reality of Divinely given life speaks for itself. The possibility of Divine likeness does not do so. It obviously does not commend itself. Man has to be told specifically and in fact is told that from that tree he must not eat. It's not an opinion. Not an evaluation he makes, he needs to be told, and to receive the word that comes to him, from God, as being the statement of the Lord. This is the relationship that God has wanted to establish, from the first in the garden, that man is not to make his own independent assessments or determinations by the operation of his own mind, which is eating of the wrong tree, but that he recognises that there are things that he can not know." - Karl Barth (as quoted by Art Katz in "Gleanings From The Garden")

Knowledge that may have been beneficial in leading us out of yesterday's defective opinion, may be merely a "lesser deception" compared to the undiluted truth that God is leading us toward. Therefore that same knowledge that helped us I can be toxic to our walk tomorrow.

How then can we be safe from deception? Paul mentions a healthy attitude, "...let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged" (Rom 3:4). In other words if you never allow yourself the luxury of thinking that "any man" has a handle on truth, but always consider the possibility of them being wrong. Be prepared to judge their words in the light of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), their behaviour in the light of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Mat 7:15-20; Gal 5:22-24) and the "spirit" of their work (1 John 4:1-6). If we do this, then the possibility that our words and deeds will stand under scrutiny will be greatly increased. [A thorough study of 2 Timothy and 1 John would be most beneficial in this area.]

Note, that it is not my purpose here to turn people into "heresy hunters", but to exhort cautiousness in our choice of who we entrust with our spiritual input. It is possible that God can conceal truth in the most unlikely places, however it is unwise to run with a philosophy that says that "every bush is burning, but only those who take of their shoes will hear the voice from the flames". There are times that the our shoes must be left on in order to "shake the dust off" them (let those who have "ears to hear" these comments hear them). Remember, it is not about how God "can" speak and what He "would" say (speculation), but how He "is" speaking and what He "is" saying (fact).

Bear in mind that you are to judge yourself by the same standard, knowing that you come under the "every man" category also. Even Christ rebuked someone for referring to him as "Good Master" saying "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mat 19:16-17). We all know that the "punch line of this joke" is that Christ is God, but because this young man wasn't privy to this revelation, Christ applied this "eternal standard" which was later to be revealed to us through Paul's epistle (Rom 3:4). Such was his integrity. If Christ would apply this principle to himself, then who among the rest of us under the category of "every man" is exempt from being known as a "liar" apart from where his words are consistent with God's?

Why would people speculate?

Overcaution (Deut 12:32)

Some people form a hypothetical "safety barrier" around that which is clearly presented in Scripture as sin (eg. Gen 3:1-3 - Eve adds "neither shall ye touch" to God's command to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge).

Seduction (2 Tim 3:13)

Some seek to avoid responsibility to obey by rationalising. In reality they are oftentimes deceiving themselves (eg. 1 Sam 15:13-15 - King Saul justifies his allowing Amalekites to survive).

Arrogance (Is 5:20-23)

Some fail to recognise that their "righteousness is as filthy rags" (eg. 2 Sam 6:6-7 - Uzzah touches the ark to steady it, considering his hands to be cleaner than the dirt; Acts 8:18-23 - Simon the sorcerer offers money to receive the Holy Spirit).

Whether by overcaution, seduction or arrogance, speculation tends to result in self preservation. Consider the words of Jesus in Mat 16:24-25, "...If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

Being speculative is like riding a bike with training wheels. As one is starting out, confidence is increased due to increased stability. However, as they get used to riding the bike they find that the training wheels reduce maneuverability. Then as speed is increased the wheels become dangerous as the rider attempts to lean into corners. The same training wheels that helped at the onset, now hinder greatly. This "speculative protection" denies the realisation that there is "no good thing" in human flesh unless God put it there (Rom 7:18). Mankind is in need of "total redemption" and there is nothing that can be added to it (Deut 12:32). Any attempt to do so "adulterates" so "great a salvation".

So what's the answer? First, acknowledge and confess your sin calling it as He calls it (1 John 1:8-10) It's okay to disagree with God's word, if you're prepared to admit that your argument is wrong and choose God's side in your disagreement (Ps 73:25-26). Secondly, remain as humble as a child in the midst of adults (Mat 18:1-4) You don't have all the answers and that's okay because if you did, they'd probably be wrong. Thirdly, see things as they are, as opposed to how they "should be" (Prov 3:7). God knows how things are and doesn't need us to tell Him how "we think" they should be. And lastly, trust the Lord as the only one adequate to guide you through the mess that is this fallen creation, one step at a time (Ps 73:23-24): in thought (Is 55:7-9), word (Mat 10:19-20) and deed(Pr 3:5-6).

In short, in the light of all we have considered "I beseech you ... by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:1-2)

Does this describe you?

"His one purpose is the glory of God. And he's heard Christ say, 'If any man doesn't take up his cross, he cannot be my disciple.' And he's gladly gone with Christ out to the cross. And there he's brought his ego and his ambition and his vanity and his pride and all the things that once motivated him and controlled him to the cross. He has no plan and no purpose but the glory of Christ. This is the one that has heard Christ say, 'If any man does not forsake all he hath, he cannot be my disciple.' He doesn't give a seventh of his time and a tenth of his money. He holds everything as Christ's. All is Christ's." - Paris Reidhead (Agree)

If it is not, then why is that?

Recommended Reading and Listening:

"The Spirit of Truth" (text) Art Katz and Paul Vaulk

"Spirit and Truth Together" (audio) David Pawson

"The Voice of Reason" (audio) A.W Tozer

"The Right Use of the Law" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"The Timelessness of God" (audio) Ian Thomas

"Beyond Categories" (audio) Art Katz

"Gleanings From the Garden" (audio) Art Katz

"Agree" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"Prophetic Reality vs. Fantasy" (audio) Art Katz

"Romans 6 to 8" (text) Norman Grubb

"Apostolic Foundations" (text) Art Katz

"The Normal Christian Life" (text) Watchman Nee

"The Meaning of Life" (audio) Norman Grubb

Most audio listed is available free for download from www.sermonindex.net with few exceptions. If you are experiencing any difficulties locating any of these materials feel free to contact the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com and I will be happy to assist you if I can.

©2006 Aaron Ireland - Non-commercial (free) distribution is both permitted and encouraged provided this notice appears.