Multicultural Societies Lead To Oppression

 

A few days ago I shared this somewhere online,

“Multiethnic countries are not nations. They are Empires, they may be ruled by a nation-state, but they are empires. Nor are they small ones. Australia has a larger population than many historical empires. An empire is one state ruling over many nations or peoples (these words being synonymous).

Empires always require force to maintain order between the various people groups in their borders. Because those people groups will have grievances with each other. Wars between those peoples home countries, for instance, will be reflected in some ways in the foreign countries these people live. We see this in our own country, various minorities seeking to use the law to ban the opinions of those they oppose.

Hence, not only is free speech not possible in a Multiethnic society. It's simply one source of many sources that will cause internal conflicts.

Freedom is always suppressed in multicultural societies. Because without a strong hand order is fragile. The choice to become a multicultural society was a choice to destroy our way of life one new bit of legislation at a time.

And politicians are now starting to admit this.”

Someone noted that they could see why this is often the case, but what is my evidence that “freedom is always suppressed in multicultural societies”? That is a good question. So, I have decided to answer it in this blog, and send it to them, but put it out there for others to read as well.

Ok, this is going to be a relatively detailed answer with recommended extra reading. There are multiple levels of evidence that shows that for multicultural nations to exist freedom is necessarily sacrificed.

The first stream of evidence is logical. When you have widely divergent belief systems, it is not possible to have people live together without suppressing one or another of those belief systems. What happens if you have people from one faith that believe in sacrificing bulls publicly, but another who believe that is blasphemy? You will have conflict, these peoples will come into conflict with each other, and you will therefore need to suppress one or both of these faiths to some degree so that these peoples can live in relative harmony in the same city. This is simply a logical deduction.

Some people from both of these faiths will be nominal and not care. But in a large enough group you will find others who hold these beliefs genuinely. Now, for multicultural societies multiply this by orders of magnitude. You have heaps of conflicting ideas and beliefs. The authorities, the state, has the responsibility to maintain order, not propagate faith. They also have the authority to use the sword. Hence this will lead to some form of oppression, even if only moderate, because most peoples consider it oppression when they are not able to practice their beliefs freely. But some beliefs of some faiths simply do not work in a civil society.

The state will always see this as justified as well, order comes before perceived or even actual rights. As the NSW Premier said,

“The Premier admitted that his approach would encroach on personal freedoms but seemed undeterred. “I don’t do that lightly. It is impinging on people’s rights, but we cannot have a situation where, with impunity, someone can walk down the street sowing division amongst different communities and then gleefully go home whilst the rest of us are left with the implications,” he said.”[1]

The state sees this as justified, but some or many peoples will chafe under this. This is by definition oppression, even if you agree it is justified, as many do. In fact, historically, many peoples have considered it to be oppression simply to be ruled by another culture. This is because not all cultures have the same ideas, assumptions and practices. However, to maintain order in a multicultural society necessarily requires the government taking a strong hand. So, the first stream is logical.

The second is observational. Empires are always policed by military officers, rather than by simple civilian officials. Someone may turn around and note that ah, ha, Matt, you are wrong on this point, we have a civilian police for in Australia. But have you noticed that our police are now more militarized than ever? They patrol the streets in combat style gear, rather than the civilian style office gear they used to wear. Just watch an episode of blue heelers and compare how police used to dress compared to now. This is because policing is a much more dangerous and harder job in a multicultural society. It requires different operational training and tactics.

Others have noted this militarization as a concern, even if they are not aware of the ultimate source of the issue,

“Australian police are increasingly being "militarised".

Front-line officers in Queensland and Victoria, and specialist units across the country, are being trained in military-style tactics and thinking.

Lawyer and former Australian Defence Force officer John Sutton describes this "convergence" as slow and worrying.

"Typically, a close ideological and operational alliance between the police force and the military has always been associated with repressive regimes," he says.

"Australia has a very strong democracy and a very robust civic mindedness among its population.

"Nevertheless, these developments are certainly concerning."[2]

However, this article does point towards the source of the issue, “But he also believes the militarisation of police right across the English-speaking world reflects a pervasive "moral panic" over rising crime levels and increased terrorism.”[3] Not all terrorism is a result of multiculturalism, that must be stated. But some of it is, as some terrorists are recent immigrants or even refugees who have a grievance against one culture or another. Yes, it is only a tiny minority, but the threat still needs to be addressed. This is without question an issue, and it is natural for governments to seek to better equip their police to deal with more serious growing issues. More natural, but not conducive to preserving our way of life. Militarized police by definition are trained to use more force and are often given a much broader range of powers.

So, observation of how empires are policed in history, with a strong visible military presence on the streets, is confirmed by what we see in Australia itself. As our society has become more multicultural, so too have our police become more militarized. And this has experts worried. Of course, noting that this is in part a result of multicultural societies is less popular to discuss, but it has always been a reality in such societies.

Third, some of the West’s best thinkers predicted this is exactly what would happen in a multicultural or multifaith society. For instance, here is an extended quote from John Locke on the subject of the limits of toleration,

“But to come to particulars. I say, first, no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of these, indeed, examples in any Church are rare. For no sect can easily arrive to such a degree of madness as that it should think fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such things as manifestly undermine the foundations of society and are, therefore, condemned by the judgement of all mankind; because their own interest, peace, reputation, everything would be thereby endangered.

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or that the dominion of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.”[4]

Locked predicted that a strong hand of the state would be required if England became multicultural, because this would allow ideas that were considered not conducive to civilisation a chance to flourish. He wrote this in the 17^th century, which shows quite considerable foresight, because Britian is not in this exact situation. Read his whole letter on the issue, it really shows how limited toleration should be for it to actually work. 

Locke is here making the case for classical liberalism, and he is predicting that the magistrate, or police and judges, would have to use increased power to maintain order, if certain types of faiths were to live in the same nation. In other words, toleration always had to have limits to work. Otherwise, it would just create a series of nonsense contradictions and society would increasingly fracture. Toleration was always meant to be limited, it was never meant to be absolute.

It should be noted here, that when Locke refers to "Mahometan" religion in this letter, he is actually talking about Catholicism, though it was illegal for him to be so open about this while he was writing his case, so he had to speak of it cryptically. Locke saw how important it was for Protestants and Catholics to have their own spheres of influence and authority, because he saw how they would clash, and he saw how loyalty to a foreign sovereign, in this case the Pope, could cause issues in a Protestant nation, where the highest earthly authority was meant to be the king. In this way he predicted many issues that would arise across Europe. Although, it must be said, that he had already witnessed this in his own country, and in wider Europe in this day.

Fourthly, for the scientific minded, there is the 2007 study by Robert D Putnam, Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.[5] I encourage you to read the whole paper. Essentially what Putnam found is that as diversity increases social cohesion decreases, and as social cohesion decreases society fractures, and brings with it all the flow on negative effects of that loss of social cohesion, including crime. This increased crime requires an increased police presence, which goes on to decrease social cohesion even more. He argued that there were ways to increase social cohesion, but these only have limited contextual applications. Putnam proved what we have argued for logically, from observation, and historical predictions with social scientific data.

Multicultural societies require a stronger hand of the government, because there are more sources of disturbances.

List of References

---

[1] Staff Writer, 2024, https://caldronpool.com/nsw-premier-signals-crackdown-on-free-speech-to-protect-multiculturalism/

[2] Antony Furnell, 2019, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/creeping-militarisation-of-police-why-experts-are-concerned/11517266

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Locke, 7 Works, Letter Concerning Toleration, Kindle Edition.

[5] Putnam, Robert D, 2007. Diversity and  Community in the Twenty-first Century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Price Lecture, Nordic Political Science Association.

You Are Being Robbed

 

Source: Macrobusiness

You are being robbed and you are being lied to about it. It is often claimed that Australia’s high level of immigration is necessary to fill skills shortages in the nation. But the data shows that with record immigration Australia is oversupplied with low-skilled workers and no progress has been made on fixing skill shortages,

“According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1,044,160 net permanent and long-term arrivals have landed in Australia since the Albanese government took office in June 2022.

New data from Jobs & Skills Australia, collated by Justin Fabo of Antipodean Macro, demonstrates that the record net overseas migration has done nothing to alleviate high-skilled labour shortages, while oversupplying the economy with low-skilled workers:

As you can see, employers have little difficulty filling low-skilled jobs but continue to struggle to fill high-skilled positions…

…Despite two-and-a-half years of extraordinary net overseas migration, shortages of highly skilled workers have barely improved since the international border reopened in late 2021.

The vast bulk of recent migrants have been low-skilled. This is mostly due to the rise in international students, international graduates, and working holidaymakers. It also reflects the reality that the majority of ‘skilled’ migrants work in lower-skilled jobs…

…Deloitte Access Economics uncovered that 44% of permanent migrants in Australia were working in jobs below their skill level in 2023. The majority of these underemployed migrants entered through the skilled stream.

Deloitte projected that over 620,000 permanent migrants work below their skill levels and credentials. Of these, almost 60%, or 372,000, entered the skilled migration system.”[1]

The government tells us that migration must remain extremely high to fill shortages in skills in our country. But then they bring in an oversupply of certain skills, and an oversupply of low-skilled workers. Why would this be the case?

Because the goal of immigration is not to fill skills shortages. The goal of a policy is what it achieves, remember that. What does our immigration policy achieve? Social change, at a massive level. This is happening all across the West, governments are desperately trying to change their populations at a rate never before seen. But it also suppresses wages, and inflates the cost of living.

Westerners lived once in the most cohesive and wealthiest per capita societies in the world. Both these things are changing via immigration at this record speed. When the government tells you it is trying to fill skill shortages while doing no such thing, you realize that you are being lied to, whilst also being robbed.

The house you could not afford to buy. This is why.

That house you could not rent. This is why.

That job you did not get, that was given to someone from another country, who barely speaks English. This is why.

This is the goal, not a side effect, the actual goal. The goal is suppression of our way of life, because it was too independent and influential. And social change so that they can have the population they prefer. Populations that coincidentally come from societies that do not have the history of the levels of freedom that we have enjoyed in the West. Our governments do not serve our interests. This is certain. Economists have the raw data, we see the effects in our everyday lives.  

List of References

---

[1] Leith Van Olsen, 2025, https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/australian-economy-oversupplied-with-low-skilled-workers/

What is the Most Violent Ideology?

 

What is the most violent ideology of the 20^th century?

If you were to ask people this question without doubt the two most common answers many people would give is either Nazism or Communism. Nazism is officially held responsible for 17 million deaths in its short rise to power before and during World War 2.[1] This is a significant amount of people, but it pales in comparison to Communism,

“According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.”[2]

So, Communism is responsible for 94 million deaths. Nazism is responsible for 17 million, and fascism as a whole is responsible for 28 million. Presumably this is including the numbers attributed to the Nazis and other similar ideologies. But Communism is clearly the more deadly ideology of the two.  

In fact, “During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism's total by only 9 million.”[3] This is a phenomenal fact, is it not? The two worst wars in our history were only slightly more deadly than Communism as a whole. And, Communism had its part to play in both those wars, so there is a bit of murkiness here where to actually line up the totals. Either way though, people are quite correct to see these two ideologies as the causes of some of the worst bursts of violence in the 20^th century.

But they are not even close to the most violent ideology of the 20^th century. There is one that leaves these others in its dust and continues to achieve a number of deaths at a rate of almost an entire World War 2 each year. That ideology is feminism and its corollary, abortion. Since the 1973 supreme court decision of Roe v. Wade in the United States alone, 63 million babies have been aborted, at a rate of around 1 million children a year.[4] That is just in the United States. The feminists which pushed hard for the passing of liberalized abortion laws in the United States are responsible for a death toll nearly as large as World War 2. That is in just one country.

As I am writing this, March 22^nd 2025, according to Worldometer already this year there have been 9,973,890 abortions and counting.[5] By the time you read this the number will have increased by a large margin. The Worldometer website notes,

“The data on abortions displayed on the Worldometer’s counter is based on the latest estimates on worldwide abortions published by various sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO). According to WHO, every year in the world there are around 73 million induced abortions. This corresponds to approximately 200,000 abortions per day.[6]

73 million abortions a year worldwide! 73 million! Read that again, 73 million! That is more deaths than World War 2, every year! According to the Life Institute website, worldwide,

“More than 1.5 BILLION babies have been aborted worldwide in the past 50 years.[i]

An estimated 50 million abortions are carried out throughout the world every year.[ii]

One in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.[iii]"[7]

This estimate reduces the yearly death count to 50 million, but that is still a staggering amount. And this number shows no movement downwards. It continues to add more deaths each year.

Nazism was stamped out. Oh, people like to say it still exists, but wherever they say it does, it is but a shadow of the original version. A ghost that people march out to win political arguments. Communism still has a foothold in the world, but it has quietened down markedly since its heyday of blood. Feminism and one of its cornerstones, abortion, are riding a wave of power across the western world, that has killed over a billion children and it continues to march. And it has its bloody claws on the necks of unborn children in many parts of the developing world as well.

For instance, the Feminism Project notes on their website that,

“The healthcare landscape has similarly benefited from feminist advocacy. Women’s health issues, historically sidelined within both medical literature and healthcare policies, gained traction through the efforts of feminist movements. For example, reproductive rights and maternal health have become focal points in feminist agendas across Africa. Activists and organizations tirelessly campaign for policy changes that prioritize women’s health, offering comprehensive and culturally sensitive reproductive healthcare services. Such strides ensure that women’s voices are not merely heard but incorporated into the frameworks of health governance, addressing unique challenges women face.”[8]

When you hear feminists talking about reproductive rights, you know they are referring in large part to abortion. In fact, under some US presidents USAID money was used to aid this purpose,

“Promoting abortion was at least as high a priority for USAID as providing food or building basic infrastructure in developing countries with Joe Biden in the White House. This is clear from an analysis of the agency's use of funds, which, in 2022 alone, spent more than $607 million on projects related to reproductive health around the world.

The Biden administration generously funded USAID's family planning and reproductive health programs during its tenure to spread its abortion policies across the globe. In 2022 alone, the agency budgeted $607.5 million for these purposes, with African countries being the biggest recipients of this money through funding for abortion programs and organizations.

Biden and Obama pioneer use of foreign aid funds to finance abortions

This was not something he did on the sly. As soon as he got to the White House, Biden ignored Ronald Reagan's "Mexico City Rule" that prohibited a single dollar of U.S. foreign aid from going to nonprofit organizations that promote abortion or provide abortion services. Biden was the second president to cancel this rule. The first was Barack Obama, and Trump reinstated it during his first term.”[9]

Not content with the high death toll in western countries, the feminist ideologues have long continued to seek to encourage their ideology to flourish around the world, even in societies we would not think of as feminist. They continue to spread their ideas to women wherever they can.

Abortion is not the only evil that feminism has pushed avidly on the world. But it is the most violent, launching feminism ahead of any other violent ideology the world has seen. This might be a confronting truth, but it is without question the truth.

Yes, I know the 19^th century feminists argued against abortion on occasion. Yes, I know that abortion existed long before feminism as an ideology. These facts are without dispute. But what is also without dispute is that 20^th century feminism, and its granddaughters in the 21^st century, have tied their ideology deeply to abortion access,

“The topic of abortions is a focal point in feminist theories…Abortions are a fundamentally feminist topic, as they touch on bodily autonomy, sex and sexuality, private versus public sphere…

…Feminism is a large school of thought that touches on every aspect of life. It seeks not only to explain the patriarchal reasons behind the continued criminalization of abortions, but also the unfair societal expectations of people with uteruses, and how we can move towards a more equal, rights-based society.”[10]

Abortion is considered almost universally among feminists to be a necessity for allowing women to function equally with men in this “patriarchal” world. It is a pillar of their ideologies, or as this feminist notes, it is a focal point. Other forms of contraception are part of this ideology too, but abortion is the goal keeper to assure feminists their independence from their biology if the other things fail.

For this reason alone, feminism should be opposed. We need no other reason. The intrinsic connection between abortion and feminism makes feminism the most violent ideology of the 20^th century and the reigning holder of this title today. It is, therefore, truly a cancer on society that is willing to sacrifice innocent children in the quest for the elusive equality that both male and female feminists seek to achieve. They chase a phantom at the cost of innocent lives. 

Feminism, therefore, must be opposed by all moral and right thinkers in the world. I have dedicated much of my life to advocating against feminism and for seeking to teach people about its unbiblical origins, its negative effect on both men and women, and also its list of evil consequences. Feminism is a cause of many great evils in western societies, and just like cancer in the body, it has damaging and fatal flow on effects for the whole nation. We must speak against this ideology, for the sakes of the good of all, but especially the victims of abortion; helpless children. Warn people about the damage this ideology has done to our societies.

If you have sons and daughters, this starts in the home. Then it this needs to be trumpeted throughout the Church. And, by the mercy of God, may the Church be salt and light on this issue for the nations in which we live.

List of References

---

[1] Katharina Bucholz, 2021, https://www.statista.com/chart/24024/number-of-victims-nazi-regime/

[2] John Walters, 2021, https://reason.com/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kyle Morris and Sam Dorman, 2022,  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abortions-since-roe-v-wade?msockid=2652711681de61e7277a647085de6fbb

[5] https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[6] https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[7] https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/issues/the-numbers#:~:text=More%20than%201.5%20BILLION%20babies%20have%20been%20aborted,of%20Down%20syndrome%20babies%20are%20aborted%20worldwide.%20%5Biv%5D

[8] https://thefeminismproject.com/featured/how-has-feminism-affected-africans-and-the-world/

[9] Israel Duo, 2025, https://voz.us/en/politics/250206/20774/biden-turned-usaid-into-one-of-the-largest-abortion-funders-in-the-world.html

[10] https://safe2choose.org/blog/abortion-and-feminism

Fixing the Bible? An Examination of the Greek Version of Esther

 

I want to come back to Esther one more time and then move on. I have found the responses to my article interesting, and I have received some really good questions from readers in different contexts. Some of those questions I will not respond to, because my first two articles cover most of the answers, and many questions are simply, “I read it differently, why don’t you read it this way?” or some version of that. The whole point of my articles is to bring into question the more common reading, so responding to questions of this kind seems rather redundant. However, I have responded to some such questions in the comments on Substack in some detail anyway, so feel free to read them there. If you still hold to the common reading, that is fine, I just think it is less justifiable from the text.

But one question I think justifies an entire article of its own is this: Am I aware of the Septuagint version of Esther and does that version of Esther change my opinion? Yes, I am aware of it, and it is very different. No it does not change my position. I have an NRSV with Apocrypha in my study, and an electronic version of the King James with Apocrypha. They both also have other extra biblical books that go even beyond the Apocrypha in them. They both have the additions to Esther in them, one in a separate section, the NRSVA, and the KJVA has them in the actual text highlighted in blue. Many Baptists might be tempted to answer that we have the canon as we are supposed to have it, therefore the Septuagint version, which is vastly changed, does not factor in. However, I want to make a different case. I think the Septuagint version of Esther actually strengthens my position, in fact by some measure.

This is not my main source for this response, but simply of interest. If you type “the Septuagint version of Esther” into Bing you will get this description at the top of the page,

“The Septuagint version of Esther is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that includes extra text. This extra text portrays Esther as a pious Jewess of the Hellenistic period who disdains marriage with a non-Jew, eats only kosher food, and does not drink wine used for libations to pagan gods.”[1]

This short note already points to why I think the Septuagint version supports my case. It is clear that early in the book of Esther’s history, faithful Jews had issues with the book. The Hebrew version in our English Bibles is far more ambiguous, at the very least, and so it appears that some of them sought to fix this ambiguity by adding in several detailed elements of faith and expressions of faith.

For this article I am going to make reference to this fascinating article: The Book of Esther. A Septuagint vs Masoretic comparison, from the website Spiritual Discernment.[2] And to my own copy of the Septuagint text in my NRSV with Apocrypha, and my e-Sword edition of the King James with Apocrypha. All these texts quoted on this website, and in the bibles I have in front of me seem to line up, though the wording is slightly different, which is normal for different translations.

It is the general consensus that the additions to Esther in the Septuagint are extra-biblical addons from a later date. I can say this without controversy, because if this were not the case they would be in our canon. There is even a clue in the text when the Septuagint was modified and why. Of course, all the mentions of God, and visions are also this, we will come back to that, as they show that the believing Jews in later periods struggled with this book. But there is another clue, even more significant, that we should observe.

This verse is a massive clue, "For whereas Aman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadathes, in reality an alien from the blood of the Persians,…"[3] The Septuagint identifies Aman, or Haman, as a Macedonian. But he is explicitly called Haman the Agagite many times (Es. 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5, 9:24) identifying him either as a descendant of Agag the Amalekite, or at least a spiritual descendent of Agag. In fact, the Septuagint version goes even further than this, and notes that Haman’s or Aman’s, plot was to wrestle control of Persia from the Persians and hand it to the Macedonians,

“(16:10) For Aman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadatha, being indeed a stranger from the Persian blood, and far distant from our goodness, and as a stranger received of us, (16:11) Had so far forth obtained the favour that we shew toward every nation, as that he was called our father, and was continually honoured of all the next person unto the king. (16:12) But he, not bearing his great dignity, went about to deprive us of our kingdom and life: (16:13) Having by manifold and cunning deceits sought of us the destruction, as well of Mardocheus, who saved our life, and continually procured our good, as also of blameless Esther, partaker of our kingdom, with their whole nation. (16:14) For by these means he thought, finding us destitute of friends to have translated the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians.”[4]

This is an ambitious plan for a Macedonian to have well over a century before Macedonia even became a player on the world stage. Persia and Greece would war with each other in this period. But it would not be till much later that Macedonia would conquer all of Greece under Philip and then Persia under his son Alexander.

However, when you consider that in the intertestamental period, when the Jews created the Septuagint, that one of their most hated enemies was the Macedonians, you realize when they made these change and also why. They clearly wanted to bolster their argument for standing against the Seleucids, such as Antiochus Epiphanies and others. These were their Macedonian oppressors for some time in this period. In fact, Antiochus Epiphanes serves as a type of the antichrist, the evil ruler who seeks to compel idol worship from the people of God. It seems incredulous that Haman, or Aman, was both a Macedonian and an Amalekite. However, if this is a later edition this contradiction is explained.

These Macedonians were enemies of Persia and Babylon as well, at least the elite factions in Persia and Babylon, who they conquered and replaced. This would indicate that many Jews in Babylon/Persia wanted to bolster the statements of their loyalty to Persia, a power that was very friendly to Israel (ah the historical irony there, Persia is Iran).

Many Jews in the period were persecuted by the Greeks for opposing Hellenization, whereas Persia had no problem with tolerating the peoples under their power practicing their own faiths. Identifying Haman with the hated Macedonians makes sense for the Jews in this period to do. Haman, to many Talmudic Jews, is whoever opposes them in this way. He is Amalek. Amalek and Haman are spiritual synonyms in this sense. Here we see an early application of this tradition.  

The article I have referred to above comparing the Septuagint and Masoretic versions of Esther seeks to make the case that the Septuagint version is more biblical and more trustworthy because of its many references to God. I think the authors analysis is simplistic, but his intention is good. Rather these additions show us that many early Jews had the same issues with Esther that I have pointed out. Showing my framing of Esther as reflecting negatively on the Jewish leaders in Babylon is an ancient reading, one that ancient Jews thought they needed to address.

These additions read as an apologetic to seek to vindicate the actions of Esther and Haman. I think they make the case for my argument stronger. I will give a couple of examples.

First, the modified text of Esther begins this way,

“Est 1:1  (11:2) In the second year of the reign of Artexerxes the great, in the first day of the month Nisan, Mardocheus the son of Jairus, the son of Semei, the son of Cisai, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream; (11:3) Who was a Jew, and dwelt in the city of Susa, a great man, being a servitor in the king's court. (11:4) He was also one of the captives, which Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon carried from Jerusalem with Jechonias king of Judea; and this was his dream:… (11:9) And the whole righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own evils, and were ready to perish. (11:10) Then they cried unto God, and upon their cry, as it were from a little fountain, was made a great flood, even much water.”[5]

Straight away the Septuagint seeks to remove any ambiguity about Mordecai’s faith. He is immediately identified as one of the exiles taken by Nebuchadnezzar (though with alternate spelling). This would make Mordecai well over a hundred years old. The Book of Esther happened in about 486 BC to 465 BC, the exile began between 597 BC AND 587 BCE. So, if Mordecai was taken in 587 BC, then in 486 BC he was 101 years old, if he was in his mother’s womb when this began. Not impossible, but the text does not imply such advanced age, and this is very unlikely. If the text occurred in 465 BC he is even older. He is also explicitly called a great man in this introduction, and God is mentioned very early in the text, to take away any ambiguity about that. The people who wrote these additions seem sensitive to the kinds of critiques of Haman that we have made in previous articles.

Some have even wondered if Mordecai’s response to Haman was simply pride. Well, the Septuagint even answers this objection,

“(13:11) Thou art Lord of all things, and and there is no man that can resist thee, which art the Lord. (13:12) Thou knowest all things, and thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Aman. (13:13) For I could have been content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. (13:14) But I did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God: neither will I worship any but thee, O God, neither will I do it in pride.”[6]

This shows that those who made these additions were aware that some people read Mordecai as a powerful and prideful man working for more power in Babylon. This shows that this reading is very ancient, and some people thought it needed to be addressed.

Esther’s prayer is also interesting. Because the editor went out of his way to make her into a righteous Jewish woman, with a morality much like Daniel’s. Immediately they show her praying the prayer that a righteous young woman would pray in this situation,

“(14:1) Queen Esther also, being in fear of death, resorted unto the Lord: (14:2) And laid away her glorious apparel, and put on the garments of anguish and mourning: and instead of precious ointments, she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she humbled her body greatly, and all the places of her joy she filled with her torn hair. (14:3) And she prayed unto the Lord God of Israel, saying, O my Lord, thou only art our King: help me, desolate woman, which have no helper but thee: (14:4) For my danger is in mine hand.[7]

She even acknowledges the sin of Israel and God’s justice in having put the Israelites in exile.

“(14:5) From my youth up I have heard in the tribe of my family that thou, O Lord, tookest Israel from among all people, and our fathers from all their predecessors, for a perpetual inheritance, and thou hast performed whatsoever thou didst promise them. (14:6) And now we have sinned before thee: therefore hast thou given us into the hands of our enemies, (14:7) Because we worshipped their gods: O Lord, thou art righteous. (14:8) Nevertheless it satisfieth them not, that we are in bitter captivity: but they have stricken hands with their idols,…”[8]

This prayer follows some of the same beats as Daniel’s famous and wonderful prayer in Daniel 9. Only the editor has made a mistake, because in Esther’s day the people of Israel had already had their exile ended and were called to leave Babylon, “Flee from the midst of Babylon; let every one save his life! (Jer. 51:6). This is more evidence that this is a later addition.

The editor, in this prayer, also shows that Esther abhors her situation and refrains from eating unclean food, or taking joy in being married to the King,

(14:16) Thou knowest my necessity: for I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is upon mine head in the days wherein I shew myself, and that I abhor it as a menstruous rag, and that I wear it not when I am private by myself. (14:17) And that thine handmaid hath not eaten at Aman's table, and that I have not greatly esteemed the king's feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink offerings. (14:18) Neither had thine handmaid any joy since the day that I was brought hither to this present, but in thee, O Lord God of Abraham. (14:19) O thou mighty God above all, hear the voice of the forlorn and deliver us out of the hands of the mischievous, and deliver me out of my fear.”[9]

This prayer shows that she would like nothing more than to get out of this situation. This answers the objections of those who were concerned that Esther showed no resistance to becoming the wife of an unbeliever in the original text. She may have been powerless to stop this situation, but she could have at least said something. Daniel speaks up about not eating the food of Babylon. Could not Esther speak up about not wanting to be the Queen of a foreign unbelieving king? Well, in these additions she does. In these additions all the objections we have mentioned previously are addressed.

All these additions are fascinating, and I think they prove at the very least that my negative reading of the text has a long tradition. We know it does in the Church, even Church fathers found issues with this book. But now we can see these issues were even observed by ancient Jewish believers, long before the Canon was compiled. This does not mean the book is not inspired. It is. I think it is a valuable exploration of how God’s people can be corrupted by a quest for power, and how God can even preserve his people through those who are using unbiblical means.

You may read the book differently, that is fine. But I think I have made a very strong case for my position, and the ancient Jews felt the need to respond to people who read the book in a way very similar to how I and many other believers have.

List of References

---

[1] https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=931&q=the+septuagint+version+of+esther&cvid=395cf907c8864946921212f2fc4c71d6&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEDSAQkxMTEyMWowajGoAgiwAgE&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=NMTS

[2] https://discernmentzone.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/the-book-of-esther-a-septuagint-vs-masoretic-caparison/

[3] https://discernmentzone.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/the-book-of-esther-a-septuagint-vs-masoretic-caparison/

[4] e-Sword KJVA, e-Sword is a free program check it out.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. 

Helping Fix Modern Worship

 

I have written about Christian worship from time to time on my blog. One example is this piece from several years ago titled, Modern Worship is Mostly Boring. In this piece I wrote about how limited the range of topics are in modern worship. We often sing about the same small range of topics. These topics are good, necessary and should be part of our worship. But I have long felt that something was missing.

It was not until last year that I put into words what I think is the far bigger problem with worship, and that is that it is inadvertently misleading people. I wrote a piece called, Is Modern Worship Helping Deceive People? In this piece I expanded on my earlier piece, but dove more specifically into the problem with modern worship, we are accidentally catechising people into a shallow, or narrow understanding of the Bible, because of our selective range of worship topics. I even gave an example of how this causes issues,

“One thing that became clear during the covid years is that most Christians had not taken to heart what the Bible says about the corruption of political leaders in this world. This is an incredibly important theme in the Bible. In fact it is one of the dominant themes of books from Judges, through to 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, all the way through to making up much of the teaching of the minor and major prophets. Yet many Christians thought there was really only one basic passage about government in the Bible, Romans 13, and that we should just inherently trust the powerful. You could not get any further away from the message of the Bible than that. The Bible’s reflections on power and the powerful in this world are far more detailed and intelligent than that, encouraging deep scepticism of the powerful and shrewd dealings with the leaders of this world. But many Christians are unaware of this.

I would argue this is the case, at least in part, because we don’t sing songs with themes like Psalm 2. When was the last time you sang a Christian song about how this world is ruled by rebellious, conspiratorial leaders, who rage against the true king? Never? Rarely? Probably never in Church. But the ancient Israelites sung about themes like this quite a bit in their worship. Just read through the Psalms and you will see many topics which you would never hear in the average church worship set…

…Christians are incredibly deficient in understanding evil. They understand the gospel, they understand the grace of God, the mercy of God, the father's heart, and many things along these lines, because we sing about them a lot. And WE SHOULD sing about them a lot. But they don’t understand many other things the Bible talks about, because they don’t sing about it a lot. I guarantee for more Christians their worship songs give them their theology more than their pastor's sermons.”[1]

Because we sing about a very small selection of themes from the Bible, we are teaching people to have a very unbalanced view of God and the Bible. This is a serious problem. Most pastors who speak out against modern worship like to speak against this church, or that church over here or over there, because they are from different theological schools. And while I am not completely in disagreement with this, I think these people often miss the much larger issue, our songs should reflect not just core solid theology, but also the breadth of theology in scripture. As do the Psalms. This is just as important but often overlooked. Sometimes the songs written by churches that some conservatives don’t like are not bad songs, they can be exceptional songs. But they are focused on a very narrow band of topics. This needs to be fixed. We can fix it in part by singing older hymns, some of which are timeless. But there are other ways to solve this issue.

I am not a musician. I have attempted to play guitar and can play some songs adequately, and some others poorly. But I love music. I often have classical music playing while I am working. Sometimes it is Gustav Holst’s The Planets sometimes it is a mix of my favourite movie themes. I often have music on in the car. Sometimes worship, sometimes secular music I like. You do not need to be a musician to have a deep love for music, as we all know. And for many years it has frustrated me how skewed modern worship is, and how deaf many Christians are to the need to broaden their repertoire of worship topics.

But now we can do something about this issue with technology. This is why I have been putting the Psalms to music with AI, using various different styles of music. This is one online album or playlist that I have already created: Rock the Psalms, volume one.

This is a playlist of worship songs based entirely off the Psalms. The advantage of creating a playlist like this is that you can put this on in the car and not have to select another video until all the songs have been played, or do the same while working out. Feel free to download this and make use of it as an mp3 on your phone as well. The idea here is to encourage people to listen to the Psalms more and more. Already I find myself memorizing scripture again, with this simple method of singing the Psalms as songs.

And what is best about this is that my kids especially love the Psalms that I have are made into rock songs, and they are learning to memorize scripture while they are singing. This is every Christian parent’s dream, isn’t it? To have your kids asking you to play the Bible to them. This is a gift, make use of it. I encourage you to try your hand at making your own songs as well.

You can create these songs using any style of music you prefer. This song here based on Psalm 3, I have made into a blues style rock song. Psalm 3 is about how David is facing many opponents and troubles. The lyrics work perfectly for blues rock. And Suno (the program I use) does an amazing job of creating songs you can sing along with and just listen to.

You can also go so far as to write your own worship songs and then put them to music using AI as well. Here is a song I wrote many years ago as a poem. Yes, I used to write poetry. These lyrics are completely mine, I did not use AI to write them or modify them. Here they are below,

“O Lord you have disciplined my soul

My heart rose up in my chest

My pride grew to a dangerous amount

On my walk with you Lord took its toll

Your firm hand is ever there

You guide us when we stray

You watch over our every step

Oh Lord my heart could not bare

If it found that you were not there

Lord my God I am not a perfect man

But I desire to live forever for you

But often my heart is deceitful Lord

And clouds my actions what can I do?

 

I can turn to you O God

For you have given me your name

You have made me yours forever my King

Therefore I will repent when you I profane

 

I need not fear my enemies Lord

Because I know that you shelter me from them

You are my stronghold, my deliverer, my shield

I know I can trust you so to you I yield

At times O Lord I would seek to be great

And would forget before you my place

That it is by faith that I should live this life

It is by faith that I should run this race

For you know all there is

You know what is in my heart and in my mind

Yet you love me anyway

As you have always loved our kind

Though we are fallen

We can lean on you

You are my crutch

And without you I am doomed

 

Your firm hand Lord is ever before me

And I know that when I fall

You will protect me

From my enemies, myself and all.

 

The point of this post is to show that we can now do something about modern worship ourselves. There are many wonderful songs, and some amazing Christian musicians. The church is blessed. I love the worship at my own church, because each musician brings a different flavour to the worship set and they all work hard to broaden the themes that we sing in church. We are blessed at ourvchurch. I know many churches also do a great job of worship. But many have a very narrow focus in their worship. 

Now, we can go even further, we can write lyrics ourselves and turn them into songs and sing them at home. And even better, we can use the very words of scripture to make incredible music. If you have issues with modern worship you can now do something to help fix it.

This is one of my favourite songs so far Why Do The Nations Rage. You will notice if you read my article on worship from last year, the one quoted above, that this is the Psalm I referred to as one that is so different to the songs we often sing. But now I can sing this song whenever I want, and at the same time memorize the message of this incredible Messianic song. I encourage you to put your own hand to making music yourself with AI. This is an incredible gift, and I am sure more skilled hands will make even better use of this technology.

Here is my second album/playlist. I hope you are blessed by it:

List of References

---

[1] https://younggospelminister.blogspot.com/2024/04/is-modern-worship-helping-deceive-people.html