Three Biblical Pillars of Non-Interventionism (Part One)

 

Proverbs 26:17 - “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.”

The war in Ukraine has caused quite the stir. The wars in Yemen, Somalia and Syria, all involving the West and its allies, continue to be non-events as far as the media and most Aussies are concerned. But the war in Ukraine has caused a stir, and it is causing people to divide over whether or not we should intervene, or for some, how we should intervene, because many just consider intervention to be what the West should do. I want to strongly argue against intervention. I did not always see things this way, I used to be in agreement with the Neoconservative position on interventionism. I thought the West could spread civilisation via military intervention. I even informed myself on the topic by reading leading advocates of Neoconservative thought. For example, Douglas Murray, who published Neoconservatism: Why we need it, in 2005. Aside from noting the different publishing date, Wikipedia summarizes this book very well,

“Neoconservatism: Why We Need It is a 2006 book by Douglas Murray, in which the author argues that neoconservatism offers a coherent platform from which to tackle genocide, dictatorships and human rights abuses in the modern world, that the terms neoconservativism and neocon are often both misunderstood and misrepresented, and that neoconservativism can play a progressive role in the context of modern British politics.

The book was described by the Social Affairs Unit as "a vigorous defence of the most controversial political philosophy of our age".[1]

The book is an eloquent defence of the kind of military action that George Bush and his administration took when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To put it simply, the book makes the case that the West should take democracy all over the world, including by force if necessary and use their might and wealth to solve the injustices of the world. As I said, the book is eloquent, but is essentially nonsense, and in retrospect, dangerous nonsense.

The American wars in the Middle East have served to destabilize a region that has deep roots to the most ancient civilisations in the world. Societies with deeply entrenched patterns of behaviour and thought. You can’t change this with a battalion of Marines. We may be militarily stronger at the moment, but the idea that we can promote to these ancient peoples “superior” ideas at the muzzle of an M4 assault rifle and threat of an F22 jet fighter is completely foolish.[2]

So, I don’t reject neo-conservatism without understanding it very well. I once was a big believer that we should use our militaries to solve many of the world’s problems

 

The result of the Arab spring I was referring to, was the further destabilization of the Middle East. What I was ignoring at the time was the major cause of that destabilization was Western intervention in a region where we have no right to be, and where we have little knowledge of how to really navigate, and where we have continually exacerbated existing problems. The idea that a few years, or even a couple of decades of rule via imperial military force can wipe away millennia of cultural feuds and conflicts, and ideas about how civilisation can work is the height of foolishness and the peak of human arrogance.

There are civilisations in the Middle East that have forged their identity in resisting the invader, for millennia. Only the naïve think we can change this in even a lifetime. Eventually many of those who had previously supported the wars realized this was the case, and that they were foolish. There is a reason so many conservatives, libertarians, and right wingers loved Trump’s anti-intervention election rhetoric, because we had all seen how much of a disaster foreign wars could be. However, some people think we just went about it wrong, and should still try to intervene.  

When I am arguing with people about why we should not intervene in foreign wars, I am not just arguing against those people, I am arguing against young Matt, who wrongly believed the West had every right to stamp its authority on the destabilized regions of the world. After all, we have a superior way of life, were we not doing the developing world a favour by seeking to show it our wars? We have the benefit of hindsight to say intervening was a disaster. We also have the benefit of the perspective of the Bible on this issue.

As I demonstrated in my previous post on intervention, Jesus shows us that intervening in foreign conflicts is not an automatic Christian concern. Here is another example: “13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:13-14). Jesus knew there was wisdom in keeping out of a fight that was not his.

Jesus’ perspective here correctly reflects the words inspired by him in Proverbs 26:17, “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.” When someone interferes in a fight, they think they are making two friends. But more likely they are making one friend and an enemy, and sometimes two enemies. There is wisdom in not engaging in a fight which is not your concern, and a leader must be focused on doing what is necessary for their people. Even in this regard Jesus limited himself because who better to judge between these two men than him, yet he chose not to. The Old Testament shows us why Jesus felt so strongly about this.

A lot of people who discuss this topic use vague and tangential verses like the parable of the Good Samaritan or the concept of being our brother’s keeper, or of defending the cause of the needy to seek to justify intervention. But these are all passages about how individuals should treat each other or how kings should judge their own nations. They are not about geo-political issues. Those who rely on such passages are ignoring so many direct passages which actually teach foundational biblical concepts about national sovereignty and geo-politics. When people ignore the directly relevant passages, and simply seek to build up a case based on unrelated passages, you can know their case is weak, but their will to prove their point is strong. The Bible has much to say on this issue of intervention and sovereignty, and I want to give you three biblical pillars of anti-interventionism, with this first here, and the next two in part two. The first pillar is the sovereignty of nations, or the sovereignty of leaders over their own people.  

Sovereignty of Nations

God designed nations to be sovereign, and to be self-governed within their borders. Deuteronomy 32:8 – “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”[3] This passage is referring to the table of nations in Genesis 10. These nations are to be ruled by their leaders from among their own people;

“14 When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold” (Deut 17:14-17).

Israel was to ensure that they were ruled by their own peoples, not by foreigners. This is God’s ideal state for a nation. A nation ruled by foreigners, or overcome by foreigners, is a cursed nation;

“5 Ashkelon shall see it, and be afraid; Gaza too, and shall writhe in anguish; Ekron also, because its hopes are confounded. The king shall perish from Gaza; Ashkelon shall be uninhabited; 6 a mixed people shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of Philistia” (Zechariah 9:5-6).

God’s intention is for nations to be self-governed. This immediately tells us that interfering in another nation is not the correct purview of national leaders, their role is to serve and lead their own people;

“1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; 6 they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them” (Ezekiel 34:1-6).

Or as Jesus tells us, “He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Jesus is essentially summarizing the Old Testament’s theology of national leadership. Nations were to leave each other alone, and not to seek to rule over each other. They could trade with each other, but not interfere with each other (c.f. Deut. 2:6-8). When a nation is invaded, and overcome, this is a sign that God has withdrawn his favour from that nation.

This teaching really should be enough to ensure that nations do not interfere with other nations. The leaders of a nation only have authority within that nation. If they interfere with another nation, that did not provoke them, then they are stepping outside of their God-given authority. God allows this to happen in the Scriptures, for example when he allowed Babylon to rise to power. But many passages explicitly tell us that he did this as means of judgement on the nation of Israel and her neighbours.

For example, in Habakkuk God tells the prophet that he is raising up the Babylonians to judge the land;

“5 Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told. 6 For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own. 7 They are dreaded and fearsome; their justice and dignity go forth from themselves” (Hab. 1:5-7).

But this does not give us the right to think we have the authority to do this, because God also judges Babylon for rising itself up above the nations;

“9 Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, to set his nest on high, to be safe from the reach of harm! 10 You have devised shame for your house by cutting off many peoples; you have forfeited your life. 11 For the stone will cry out from the wall, and the beam from the woodwork respond” (Hab. 2:9-11).

Nations are sovereign only over their own peoples. Anything more goes beyond the biblical intentions for nations and causes nothing but strife. This pillar should suffice, but the Bible gives us even more wisdom on this topic, which we will explore in part two.

 

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism:_Why_We_Need_It

[2] Of course while some neo-conservatives want to spread democracy across the world, others believe the U.S. exists to protect Israel’s interests (for example the Israel lobbies and Christian Zionist movements), and there are of course economic interests. We cannot go into details about this here, but if you would like to learn more, watch this lecture: https://youtu.be/RTksWA1I2UI “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: John J. Mearsheimer.”

[3] A divergent manuscript traditions translates this the sons of Israel (Jacob), but Israel did not exist when the original nations were divided and established.

War is a Racket

 

“1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.”

James 4:1-2

I was in the army reserves. I joined back in 2007, and went to Kapooka, did some infantry specific training at my company headquarters, and did the weekly and monthly training for a couple of years. I did not serve overseas, I did not serve in any combat role, and I want to make that clear. I had great admiration for the soldiers I knew back then who did serve, and I still do. I think they are some of the noblest men our country produces. In fact, this is why I joined the army, I wanted to be among such company. I want to be around men who were willing to fight to defend our country. I wanted to be one of them.

Eventually my chosen profession took away the nights and weekends I needed to be a reservist, and so I left the army reserves. I share this so that it is clear that my perspective does not come out of a bias against the military, or a life-long or even current dedication to pacifism. I am not a pacifist. I think Australia should have a well equipped and deadly-capable armed forces. I am not an idealist, I recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and therefore we cannot all be like the Mennonites who shun arms completely. I also think war is a racket.

Because war is a racket. It is a money-making adventure. Not every war has this as its primary objective. Sometimes nations are provoked into war. Sometimes nations are tricked into war. Sometimes nations are led by people who believe they have a righteous cause, often they are wrong, sometimes they are right. Most of the time, there is some form of greed or avarice behind the war, “1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not” (James 4:1-2). Even for wars that are not motivated by greed, they are supplied and maintained by it. Often they are spurred on and financed by those who stand to gain the most wealth and power from them. This is even true of many of the so-called “righteous” wars that people think were necessary.

But don’t take my word for it, listen to Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, who fought in World War one, held command positions, and gives first hand evidence of how much of a racket war is, in his short and powerful book, War is a Racket.

“CHAPTER ONE

War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.”[i]

Butler goes on to highlight some of the reasons why it is a racket,

“CHAPTER TWO

Who Makes The Profits?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits -- ah! that is another matter -- twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent -- the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket -- and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people -- didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump -- or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

 There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent. Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.”[ii]

You may say, of course companies profit, war costs a lot of money for governments. It’s not their fault some people and companies are in the right industry at the right time. Well, let’s see a little more of what Butler says.

“But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought -- and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it -- so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches -- one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.”[iii]

In times of war patriotic fever rises to the highest possible levels and those who seek to critically analyse either the war or how the war is being fought, or how people are profiting off of the war are branded as dangerous, or traitors. During war the con man is given his best possible market, a populace who frowns upon critical thinking, governments and media that together stoke up hatred for the enemy, and a spirit of “lets just do something”, because nothing is worse than not doing something, so doing something becomes doing anything, and certain businesses just happen to be able to find a way to monetize those somethings and anythings. War is Racket. I encourage you to read Smedely’s book by that title, you can read it for free here.

Many people call for war, but they are not really aware of what they are calling for, who is pushing for them to call for it, and why we need to do everything in our power to avoid every possible war that we ever can. Partly, because war is a racket.

---

[i] Smedley Butler (1935, 2003), War is a Racket Feral House Publishing, https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdfButler, p1-2.

[ii] Butler, p3-4.

[iii] Butler, P5.

Ukraine, Russia and Jesus

 

“He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Matthew 15:24

Ukraine…what to say about Ukraine. I am not going to give my expert opinion on Ukraine, because I am not one (update: if you wish to hear an expert opinion click here). I am not an expert on Eastern European relations, and I have never been to either country. However, I do have an opinion; I lean strongly towards Russia being provoked by a few factors: continual NATO aggression, pressure on his country, and the plight of the Russians in the Donbass region. I also see Putin’s moves as broadly fitting in with the obvious decay of the strength of the West. It’s not a coincidence that he is moving now, after witnessing the West ruled by anxiety and fear for nearly 3 years. I have no idea of the true extent of Putin’s intentions, and I do not believe him to be a saint, however he puts his people first, and a leader should do that. Putin has also not spent the last three years directly oppressing or gaslighting Aussies like our leaders have, and continue to do to many, so I am not upset at all about the liberal world order being shaken. God shakes things when they have fallen out of his favour, and it is clear the West is under judgement. A lot more could be said and has been said by many. What I want to do is look at this whole affair from a different perspective, the ministry of Jesus.

You may immediately think: what relevance does the ministry of Jesus have to this whole situation with Ukraine? If you are a Christian, then let me tell you, this is precisely the problem with how we engage in world affairs as Christians. We think too much like the world and too little like the Scriptures, and the Lord of those Scriptures. Many Australian, and indeed American, Christians are big believers in intervening militarily in foreign wars. Never mind the fact that none of these interventions have been successful since 1945, and even the “successful” intervention of World War 2 ended up empowering the Soviet Union and is part of the causal chain underpinning the current crisis. Despite all of the West’s disasters many people believe that Western interventionism, though imperfect, is still benign and therefore should be encouraged in times of crisis. Troops on the ground prevents larger wars, sort of thinking. People believe this still, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  

This is worldly thinking. It is not righteous thinking. It is not our job, even as part of some global policing alliance, to interfere in wars of other nations with military force or support. Especially when they are far away, constituted of a very alien culture, and regard issues that are none of our concern, and I want to demonstrate that this is biblical thinking. I particularly want to demonstrate this from the ministry of Jesus.

Have you noticed how rarely if ever Jesus criticizes or speaks about the actions of the Romans? This is remarkable to observe, because Jesus was a Jewish man living under an unjust occupation of his own homeland and people, yet very rarely does he even speak about the Romans. We know from the few times he does that he doesn’t appear to like them very much (except of course the Roman Centurion c.f. Matt. 8:5-13). We never see anything even kind of similar to an, “I stand with….fill in the dots to support the current country,” statement in Jesus’ ministry. Yet, Jesus lived in the same world of conflict that we do. Look at this (the numbers are years in the first century, for example 9AD, etc.):

• “Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (9) – German leader Arminius ambushes three Roman legions under Publius Quinctilius Varus.
• Battle at Pontes Longi (15) - Indecisive battle between a Roman army under Aulus Caecina Severus and German tribes led by Arminius.
• Battle of the Weser River (16) - Legions under Germanicus defeat German tribes of Arminius.
• Roman conquest of Britain (43–96)
• 43 – Battle of the Medway – Claudius and general Aulus Plautius defeat a confederation of British Celtic tribes. Roman invasion of Britain begins.
• 50 – Battle of Caer Caradoc – British chieftain Caractacus is defeated and captured by the Romans under Ostorius Scapula.”[i]

This is a list of major wars that were happening in the general era of Jesus’ ministry (these wars dates from 9AD to 50AD[ii]). None of these wars were co-terminus with the ministry of Jesus, yet the Romans were committing all sorts of atrocities around their empire, and they had continual border skirmishes on every boundary of the empire. The Germans along the Rhine were a particular problem for the Romans and would eventually conquer Rome and pretty much all of Europe. Small scale border conflict was pretty much continual. Rome was up to its neck in attacking various peoples often.

So where is Jesus’ “I stand with Germania Libera”[iii] statement? Where is Jesus’ I stand with the victims of Roman aggression statement? We don’t have one, because Jesus was not focused on such things in his ministry. He was a Jewish man (also God in the flesh) who was concerned about how the Jewish leaders were treating his people, and he was here to achieve salvation for all people in the midst of the Jewish people.

It is important to note in this context that we never see Jesus railing against the Jewish leaders for not involving themselves in the affairs of other nations. Indeed, we never see Israel being judged for this reason anywhere in Scripture. Jesus’ ministry is thoroughly consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament, when God judges a nation’s leaders it is because: a) they have committed idolatry, b) have been unrighteous, c) have harmed their own people, d) have harmed or interfered with other peoples. There are many variations of these themes. Yet, never are leaders in the Bible challenged to solve the problems of other nations, and never does Jesus rebuke the Jewish leaders for not seeking to interfere, in say, the border regions of Rome.

Jesus was concerned with the Jewish leaders neglect of his own, and their own, people.

“35 And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Matt. 9:35-38).  

People often forget that at least one of the statements about the harvest being plentiful was in the context of the utter neglect and abandon that the Jewish leaders had shown for their people, creating great desperation and need. Jesus observed on many occasions how the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were hurting or neglecting his people, the Jewish people. This infuriated him.

“23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean” (Matt. 23:23-26).

Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders on many occasions and he was not afraid to list their many faults. Never among those faults was that they were not doing enough about issues far afield in other nations. Indeed, think about how silly such an accusation would be, national leaders have no sovereignty over foreign nations. The Pharisees and Sadducees were among the national leaders of Israel, especially the Sadducees. Remember in this day the religious and secular leaders were not distinguished, the religion of Israel was intrinsically wound up in the state. So, it is reasonable for us to observe how Jesus weighed and measured the Jewish leaders and apply this to our own modern national leaders. His priority is clearly on their neglect of their duties to their own subjects and people, and the temporary sojourner within their midst.  

Make no mistake, Jesus himself was focused on the Jewish people in his ministry. We see an interesting example of this in the gospel of Mark:  

“24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone” (Mark 7:24-30).

This is a remarkably brutal passage on the behalf of Jesus. Over the years I have seen people try to explain the response of Jesus here away, because he hits the woman with a pretty harsh statement, “27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” Here is this woman, who comes to him in need, and he appears to slap her down, almost appearing to want to drive her away. Why would Jesus respond like this?

Well, simply because he is a Jewish male, and she is a Syrophoenician woman. Matthew calls her a Canaanite (Matt. 15:22). The Syrophoenicians[iv], or ancient Phoenicians, were a Canaanite people who were often allies of the Israelites, evening aiding in the building of the temple under Solomon, but they also had an incredibly negative impact on the Israelite nation. Jezebel, for example, was a Phoenician woman, from Tyre and Sidon, and she had great influence over the corruption of the worship of Yahweh in Israel greatly encouraging the worship of the Baals and Asherah’s, “25 (There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited. 26 He acted very abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the Lord cast out before the people of Israel)” (1 Kings 21:25-26). Women like Jezebel were literally the epitome of a dangerous snare to a righteous Jewish male. Indeed, Jesus himself would speak about this in Revelation (Rev. 2:19-23). When you understand the danger such Canaanite women posed, it is not surprising that Jesus would respond with contempt and suspicion.

But this is also an important nationalist argument about the role of national leaders, the children should be fed first, before the dogs. Leaders should prioritize their people. Because Jesus is a good leader, he is prioritizing his people. You may not like how Jesus phrases this, but this is simply the meaning of his statement: I must prioritize my own people first and foremost, others can wait. Matthew states this directly in his version of the account where Jesus says to the woman, “He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt. 15:24). Jesus did not care about political correctness at all in his ministry, which is part of why he was so cruelly executed.  

The woman’s response is remarkable because she shows that she understands this. What does she say, “28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” In other words, the dogs get the leftovers. Jesus loves this answer, because it shows she is: a) not a threat to his ministry, and b) she recognizes her place as not being part of his Jewish people, and so he grants her the answer to her request, “29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.”

We see here that Jesus has a deep understanding of the role of a leader of his people. A national leader should be focused on his people. Of course, once your people’s needs are met, then it is reasonable to help others. In the case of Jesus he has unlimited resources, in the case of national leaders they do not, and they have no right to use tax power funded resources that are to be dedicated to their own peoples to help foreign peoples. Unless of course their nation is not in need of it. Such a society doesn’t yet exist does it?

Jesus’ unique love for his own people carries through to the end of his ministry,

“37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23:37-39).

Jesus loved his people, like a loyal son of Jerusalem should. Modern readers forget that most people in the world today do not, and most people in history did not, live in a state of cultural or ethnic self-loathing. This is a particularly sinister wickedness of modern westerners; any loyalty to your own nation is seen as out of date, not right, even evil in some quarters. But the Bible is not like that, read the Psalms, see how the Jews loved their nation, the Romans loved theirs just as much, as did the Greeks, so did the Persians, Egyptians, and more.

Jesus is truly a Jewish man, he truly did come in human flesh, and he felt the loyalty and love for his own that is natural for a person to feel. Of course, Jesus’ ministry has multinational implications, and his message has as much application for Gentiles as it does for the ancient Jews; but you can see in his focus a determined dedication to his own people. Now, he did not believe that people of other nations were not of value, or should not be extended grace, that is not my point at all, and I want to state that outright so there is no confusion, for the parable of the good Samaritan displays this deeply. So does Jesus’ answering this woman’s prayer. He just shows with his perspective where a leader’s loyalties should lie; with his own. This is not radical; it used to be normal; but in a globalist world it is frowned on.

If a national leader is supposed to interfere in other nations affairs, why does God never condemn them for not doing so? Why does Jesus never even broach the topic? Because this is not the purpose of a government; this is the Satanic-Babel-empire-building-corruption of the purpose of government that has infested many nations. The kind of thinking idea that leads to ideas or movements such as: nations should be joined together into empires, one king ruling over many nations with many vassal states, or nations interfering with each other for global goals, should be condemned. This is not God’s intention for the nations, it’s an evil inversion.  

God determined for nations to be separate and self-governing, limited by their own borders, “26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,” It is the human desire for empire, and for going beyond our God given role that causes us to want to do more. For a nation to seek to enlarge its borders is unrighteous, “Amos 1:13, “Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of the Ammonites, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border.” Note here it is the ripping of pregnant women and enlarging borders that are sins. In fact, Proverbs says, “28 Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your ancestors” (NIV). A government only has sovereignty up to its borders, it ends there, and its borders are not to be moved. Of course, people move them all the time and many modern borders are disputed, which is part of why we have so much trouble in the world.

But here is the good news: the Scriptures DO give believers ONE way to interfere in the power structure of other nations; through the spreading of the gospel. Jesus told us to take the gospel out into the world and command the nations to obey him (Matt. 28:18-20). When you do this, you will come up against pagan kings who are opposed to the gospel, or sometimes open to the gospel,  

“17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:17-20)

God has given us authority to come before kings and leaders of people to tell them to repent, turn to God and submit to the King of kings. I am not one of those people who believe Christians should not be involved in politics; the gospel has direct implications not just for people, but for nations, 

“1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ…” (Romans 1:1-6).

As citizens our priority as people of our nation is to work for its good, the priority of national leaders is to focus on their own people, and if there are leftovers it can go to other peoples. But as Christians we have the authority to take the gospel to all nations and seek to work for the obedience of kings and presidents and all kinds of leaders. The Church is for all people everywhere, and the world needs this message.   

I encourage those Christians who are eager to get involved in Ukraine that this is your avenue of influence: take the gospel. Stand before leaders you disagree with like the brave Roman and Irish missionaries that stood before Anglo-Saxon kings and proclaim repentance. The Church has a history of such brave missionaries. Don’t get me wrong, at times the Church was advanced at the point of a sword, Charlemagne comes to mind here. But that isn’t how we were told to spread the message. The mandate we have been given from our king, if we choose to accept it, is to say to people and national leaders everywhere: turn to Jesus and bow before the King.

But outside of this, we need to follow the example of our Lord, and stop interfering with other nations because it causes more trouble than it solves. If you love your neighbour you don’t constantly interfere and make things worse.  You treat them how you want to be treated: in this case, as a sovereign nation.

List of references

---

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_wars_and_battles#1st_century

[ii] C.E. is for losers.

[iii] Free Germania. Note the German people were not called “Germany” in Jesus’ day.

[iv] This was the name of their territory under Roman Rule.

All references are from the ESV translation, unless otherwise stated.

What Does The Bible Say About Conspiracy? Part One

 

As Christians we have a responsibility to shape our worldview around the teachings of the Scriptures. Every Christian knows this, but not everyone does this to the same degree. Some believers have never read the full Bible, or even much of the Bible. They spend much of their Christian life certain of favourite bible teachings, but never examine them themselves. Others read the Bible regularly, but through a particular doctrinal lens which comports how they read each passage. To some degree this is unavoidable, but for others it is pronounced, even advertised. Others read the Bible critically, seeking in it truth but not really believing it to be true, we call most of these people liberal scholars and high church pastors. All Christians read the Bible in light of their own current culture, and this clouds how they read about certain topics that the Bible broaches. Some grimace when they read about Old Testament punishments for Sodomites and witches. Others struggle with what the Bible says about forgiving debts and just war. Still others struggle with what the Bible says about alcohol and eating meat (it is pro-both by the way). Our culture can’t help but shape us and cause us to have blind-spots in our readings of the Bible.

One of those massive blind-spots is the area of conspiracy theories. This is a no-go zone for the respectable teacher in today’s age, unless of course your goal is to trash people who are suspicious of dishonest authorities. Because of this it is respectable to only take one approach to the issue of conspiracy: teach that it is an unwise realm to tread in. Once you label someone a conspiracy theorist, and the label sticks, they are finished as far as their public persona is concerned, at least among mainstream circles. It doesn’t matter how compelling the evidence is that someone presents, once people are stung with this tag, they aren’t considered serious thinkers. People may consider such teachers to be intelligent, but perhaps too open to different ideas for their own good. People might consider them well-informed, but overly creative in the way they have applied what they learnt. The respectable thing to do is just keep away from such topics.

Part of the problem with this is just how uninformed most people are about most things. This is partly because it is not possible to know a decent amount about everything, no one can do this. But it is also partly because people aren’t motivated to be informed. The most the average person enquires into many topics is a Hollywood bio-pic or a Netflix or Amazon documentary. After you watch a Netflix documentary then you are really informed, right? Knowledge is power, right? It is impossible to know more than a little about most things, because there is just not enough time to learn everything. Ecclesiastes 12:12 – “My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

There is also wisdom in not believing every conspiracy, and also in not seeing every avenue of research as fruitful. Just as there are many liars seeking to profit off of towing the mainstream line on most issues, there are many liars seeking to profit off of curiosity about how the world really works. If a news article can be misinformation, why not a book about conspiracies. Indeed, this had to be true, because for so many issues there are many alternate, competing and contradictory conspiracy explanations. Misinformation is not the unique property of mainstream news. It is the result of a common human flaw; the propensity of many people to just straight up lie.

With all of this in mind let’s consider these facts: in early 2020 there were people who said, the covid virus obviously escaped from a lab, two weeks to flatten the curve would turn into years, the numbers of deaths have been inflated to provoke horror, the vaccines were rushed without proper safety trials, freedom would become dependent on having a vaccine, vaccine passports would be the mechanism that took people’s freedom and masks don’t work they are just a psychological tool. There were people who saw all of this very early on in the current covid panic, and yet they were labelled as conspiracy theorists, marginalized and attacked by their friends, co-workers and colleagues as cranks. Even as all of their predictions came true very few of these people were given apologies. Part of the reason was at every stage the mainstream narrative just changed what fact made someone a conspiracy theorist. Now conspiracy theorists are those who believe this won’t end with three jabs.

This control over how people who questioned the narrative are viewed is incredibly powerful in our society. This is because people naturally tend to defend and sit themselves under authority, and attack anyone who criticized that authority. In fact, some people even do this with their kidnappers; we have a name for this behaviour: Stockholm Syndrome. This natural inclination to trust even clearly flawed and dishonest authority makes a lot of people who have genuine concerns and who are genuinely skeptical of aspects of the narrative loath to publicly question it. Standing out on a limb on this topic is harder than just going along, and just going along is therefore the most attractive option to most people.

But as Christians we are not supposed to care at all what people think of us for examining issues, as long as we are speaking the truth as we genuinely see it, then we are supposed to do this fearlessly and boldly. Our metric for truth is the Biblical teaching on any given topic, that is our guiderail. So, what does the Bible say about conspiracy, and how does this impact how we should see the world today? Also, in answering this we can answer another question: why were some people so quickly able to see the lies, and others still believe our authorities even though they have lied at almost every point? I want to answer these questions in a series of articles, this is part one. We are going to begin this series with an examination of Isaiah 8:12, then we will examine in later articles a theology of conspiracy in the Bible, and also passages that give examples of conspiracies in the Bible. You will see that the Bible says much more about this than you thought. First Isaiah 8. 

Not Everything Is A Conspiracy

The first verse that comes to mind when Christian leaders talk about conspiracy is Isaiah 8:12 - “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.” I have seen many Christians and Christian leaders use this verse to say, “Avoid talk about conspiracies, because it is unfruitful and unrighteous, Isaiah warns the Israelites to avoid such talk, so should you.” This verse is used like a club to beat people over the head to make them avoid associating in any way with conspiracies. For example,

“Are some conspiracy theories in the world be true?  Possibly.  But what does it matter?  Read the Scripture again: “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.” Isaiah 8:12 What is the benefit of believing theories?  Nothing. They are a waste of time. Even if they could be true.”^[i]

Here this verse is being interpreted to say, don’t discuss conspiracies, or at least avoid them as much as possible. But let’s evaluate what the verse says. Note first, that it does not say, do not ever listen to or entertain conspiracies. This appears to be how some people hear it, or apply it, but this is not what it is saying. It simply says two things: 1) do not call something a conspiracy, just because some people say it is a conspiracy, and 2) do not fear what those same people are afraid of, nor live in dread. So how do we understand this verse?

The first way, the one I am contesting, is to see Isaiah 8:12 as referring to Israelites getting obsessed with conspiracy in time of war. In this sense Isaiah is saying, “Don’t say there is a conspiracy here, here, or here, like these people…” Don’t fall into fear about there being conspirators around you, but trust in God. This is essentially how Oswalt reads it in his commentary of Isaiah[ii], and how I often hear this verse being explained. In this reading Isaiah is telling faithful believers to ignore conspiracies and just trust in God. A positive message for sure, in some ways. It is good to be told to not fear what conspiring men can do, but to fear God alone. But there is a big problem with this reading, it gets the verse backwards, and as Oswalt notes, this sets the verse at odds with its context.[iii]

The second way to read this passage is that Isaiah is not warning the Israelites to avoid conspiracies here, he is saying don’t believe people when they say (likely flippantly), “Oh, that’s just a conspiracy.” Don’t call a conspiracy what this people calls a conspiracy, most naturally reads as: don’t let people label things a conspiracy theory when they are clearly true. Indeed, from this reading the verse is saying: don’t define conspiracy how the people defines conspiracy, and don’t be afraid of people saying such things (v.12), rather fear God and let him be your standard of separation from the culture; aka holiness (v.13). If you trust him, he will be your solid foundation and he will also be a stumbling block to all who just call these things conspiracies (v.14). Many will fall for this line and be broken because of that (v.15). Don’t fall for it, define things according to God’s standard.

In other words, Isaiah is saying here, don’t be afraid of how people will respond to you if you say something is happening, or about to happen, and they just brush you aside. Don’t be afraid if they just call it a conspiracy theory. Trust in God, let him be your foundation and stronghold and their opponent. In other words this verse makes much more sense if you read it in context and see what God is encouraging the Israelites with. In fact, the wider context enhances this reading and vindicates it remarkably.

Isaiah’s Message and God’s Encouragement to Him.

In chapter 7 of Isaiah the prophet is told that he should tell Ahaz that he should trust in Lord, and not fear that his enemies have allied and are conspiring against him. God tells him that he will be ok if he trusts in God. However Ahaz refuses to believe Isaiah and to seek the favour of God, he even responds with what is clearly phony righteousness.

“10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?” (Isaiah 7:10-13).

Because he refuses to trust in God, and ask God for sign, God finally becomes weary of Ahaz’s wickedness and Isaiah tells him that he is going to bring a terrifying nation to judge the people of Judah,  

“14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria” (Isaiah 7:14-17).

God is warning the Judeans that they are about to be severely punished, and a big part of why is because their king, and their elites would not trust in God. This is such a familiar pattern in history, isn’t it? This is how severe this judgement will be,

“23 In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns. 24 With bow and arrows a man will come there, for all the land will be briers and thorns. 25 And as for all the hills that used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not come there for fear of briers and thorns, but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread” (Isaiah 7:23-25).

Judah is going to be severely ravaged by the King of Assyria. Which we know happened. When Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel, it also came close to taking out the Kingdom of Judah at precisely the same time. Now we know from other passages such as in Jeremiah and others, that the people of Judah had a big problem believing that God would allow hard times and military defeat to come on the Judeans, because he was their special people. The false prophets in Jeremiah’s day took advantage of this to gain privilege, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace’, when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14). After all God had promised to keep a Davidic King on the throne in perpetuity had he not (Jeremiah 33:17-26)? So, to back up Isaiah’s message God gives them the prophecy that a child will be born, to prove the prophet’s words are correct. A child to be born of a young virgin, or a young woman, “14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).This is a remarkable sign.

But still the people refuse to believe, the king refuses to believe. The Judeans look to man instead of God, so God reiterates that he is going to punish them,

“5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, 8 and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.”

9 Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armour and be shattered; strap on your armour and be shattered. 10 Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us” (Isaiah 8:5-10).

It’s in this context that we then arrive at our reference to conspiracy,

“11 For the Lord spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: 12 “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. 13 But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honour as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread” (Isaiah 8:11-13).

What is the way of this people in this context so far? Wickedness and, importantly, not believing what God’s prophet says is genuinely true. In other words, they are saying that Isaiah’s words, the words of the prophet are a conspiracy, and God is saying to people through Isaiah, don’t fall for it. Don’t fear the criticism of the people who sow doubt on God’s word, and preach peace, when peace is not coming. Isaiah says, make God your standard of holiness. What does holiness mean? Separation. In other words, don’t be afraid to stand out from the naysayers, if you are clearly trusting God over man. If you are trusting the one true Holy God, then you will stand out, and he will be your foundation and he will shame those who doubt his word.

This verse is not rebuking those who entertain what some call conspiracies, it is rebuking those who say anything they don’t want to hear is a conspiracy. Throughout this whole passage, Ahaz, and the people of Judah collectively, are rejecting God’s word, therefore denigrating the prophet’s message. What the people likely fear is that Isaiah’s message is true, and they are likely afraid to contradict the king who calls Isaiah's message false. In other words Isaiah is being written off as a conspiracy theorist here, or a man conspiring against the people. It is remarkable, because some people then take this verse, invert it, and use it to rebuke those who entertain things that the mainstream calls conspiracies. Isaiah is doing the very opposite of that. 

It is very understandable why people can read this verse precisely in this exact wrong way. Because they are either looking for a proof text to rebuke those they consider to be conspiracy theorists. Or, because people are so negative to anything that is not considered a mainstream source, that they see a verse like this and immediately think, oh, cool, this verse must be telling us not to believe any conspiracy has credence. Yet, it is doing the opposite, the verse is literally saying, don’t fall in step with those who just brush aside as conspiracies, what the elites brush aside as conspiracies. Or, to put it another way, don’t define conspiracies according to the worldview of the culture, but according to a worldview that begins with fearing God.

This is important, because if you fear man you do not want to stand out from the crowd. You will happily avoid certain topics or truths to fit in, but if you fear God, then you will not be concerned with what the people say, you will not fear what they fear, and you will not live in dread. Plus this is the only way to be wise, “7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7).

Fools will just brush aside knowledge that they don’t want to hear as conspiracy theories. This is foolish, because sometimes prophets of God like Isaiah, or just insightful but ordinary believers who steep themselves in the understanding the scriptures and culture, see things coming that others are blind to. This is foolish because we live in a world that has literally been usurped by a being called the father of lies, and therefore our world is filled with liars in allegiance with this fake king, and many have power and influence. This is foolish because the Bible actually teaches us a lot about conspiracies, which we will turn to in part two, A Biblical Theology of Conspiracy.

The beauty of this reading of Isaiah 8:12 is that it fits with everything else that the Bible says about the topic of conspiracy. However, even if you read this verse differently, the Bible still has much, much more to say on this topic, which we will explore in future articles.

List of references

---

[i] https://gracedfollower.com/conspiracy-theories-and-the-bible-isaiah-812/

[ii] John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p233.

[iii] John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p233.