Is Christianity Jewish?

 

Is Christianity Jewish?

I can see why some might be tempted to see it this way. Jesus was a Judean, his disciples were Jews. Paul, the greatest Apostle was a Benjamite, a tribe associated with Judah back in ancient times (1 Kings 12:20-24). The main text of the earliest church was the Old Testament, also known by many as the Jewish Scriptures. Ergo, Christianity is Jewish to the core right?

Wrong.

Christianity is not simply the fulfilment of the Old Testament itself, more specifically it is a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, or an Israelite. He is the father of many nations. One of those nations was the vehicle through which the promise was fulfilled, so that all could be saved, that nation is Israel. The law was a temporary set up, meant to guide humanity to the Messiah,

"15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3:15-24).

Why does Paul come back to Abraham so much in his writings? Because he is seeking to demonstrate the multinational character of the Church. He is seeking to prove that Gentiles do not need to become Jewish to be a part of the people of God.

The goal of God’s plan was always to fulfill the promise to the Gentile, Abraham, to save people from all nations. Therefore, the vehicle to bring Christianity into the world was Israel, and the Jews, but the Church is not and was never meant to be Jewish. 

Even the most senior Apostle began to live like a Gentile once this became clear. This is seen in Paul’s rebuke to Peter, “14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal. 2:14). Before certain men came from James, Peter was happy to eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:12), but he became a hypocrite when he was put under social pressure. Christianity came through people from the tribe of Judah, but it was never meant to have the character of Jewishness. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the New Testament.

The Church is neither Jewish or Gentile, it is a new race, the third race. This was a nickname that early Christians gave to the Church, because of how the gospel transformed the people of God. To say Christianity is intrinsically Jewish is to miss the message of the New Testament, that Jesus would be a light for all peoples, as we read in Isaiah 49:6,

"he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 We see this fulfilled in the New Testament,

 

“12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. 13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

 

15 “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

    the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—

16 the people dwelling in darkness

    have seen a great light,

and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death,

    on them a light has dawned.”

 

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:12-17).

To say Christianity is Jewish to its core is to misunderstand the role the Jews played. They were not the end goal, but simply a vehicle through which the Messiah and salvation came. As soon as the Apostles understood this properly, they quickly started to remove the distinctly Jewish characteristics of the law from the obligations of faithfulness for those who followed Jesus. Because Christianity is the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, a Gentile who was made the father of many nations. An Amorite of the Aramean branch, a man from Ur of the Chaldees. God took a man of the nations to create a way to bless all nations.  

Jesus doesn't make us Jews when we believe, he makes us a new creation, Christians. The Church is its own race. It is intrinsically of Christ, hence we are called Christians.

 

Why Rome Ruled The World

 

Why did the Romans rule the world? Was it their technology? No, they had similar technology to the nations around them, they even copied and learnt most of it from those nations. Was it their political system? No, they were not the only Republic, Carthage was structured in a similar way, and Greece had trialled many forms of limited democracy long before the Romans became famous. Was it their location? No, Rome was situated in the busy and shifting Mediterranean sea and was often assailed from the mountains to their north, and the seas all around them, just as many other societies in that region were.

The difference was their character. The Romans, like the ancient Chinese, had a way of life superior to virtually all those around them. Here is an excerpt from the life of Pyrrhus in Plutarch’s Lives, contrasting one of the greatest Greek Generals of his day to the character of the Romans. It should be noted that Pyrrhus was a second cousin of Alexander the Great. But look at the superior character of the Romans,

“After this, an embassy came from the Romans to treat about the prisoners that had been taken. The embassy was headed by Caius Fabricius, who, as Cineas reported, was held in highest esteem at Rome as an honourable man and good soldier, but was inordinately poor. To this man, then, Pyrrhus privately showed kindness and tried to induce him to accept gold, not for any base purpose, indeed, but calling it a mark of friendship and hospitality. But Fabricius rejected the gold, and for that day Pyrrhus let him alone; on the following day, however, wishing to frighten a man who had not yet seen an elephant, he ordered the largest of these animals to be stationed behind a hanging in front of which they stood conversing together. This was done; and at a given signal the hanging was drawn aside, and the animal raised his trunk, held it over the head of Fabricius, and emitted a harsh and frightful cry. But Fabricius calmly turned and said with a smile to Pyrrhus: "Your gold made no impression on me yesterday, neither does your beast today."

Again, at supper, where all sorts of topics were discussed, and particularly that of Greece and her philosophers, Cineas happened somehow to mention Epicurus, and set forth the doctrines of that school concerning the gods, civil government, and the highest good, explaining that they made pleasure the highest good, but would have nothing to do with civil government on the ground that it was injurious and the ruin of felicity, and that they removed the Deity as far as possible from feelings of kindness or anger or concern for us, into a life that knew no care and was filled with ease and comfort. But before Cineas was done, Fabricius cried out and said, "0 Hercules, may Pyrrhus and the Samnites cherish these doctrines, as long as they are at war with us."

Thus Pyrrhus was led to admire the high spirit and character of the man, and was all the more eager to have friendship with this city instead of waging war against it; he even privately invited him, in case he brought about the settlement, to follow his fortunes and share his life as the first and foremost of all his companions and generals. But Fabricius, as we are told, said quietly to him: "Nay, O King, this would not be to thy advantage; for the very men who now admire and honour thee, if they should become acquainted with me, would prefer to have me as their king rather than thee." Such a man was Fabricius.

And Pyrrhus did not receive the speech with anger or like a tyrant, but actually reported to his friends the magnanimity of Fabricius, and entrusted his prisoners of war to him alone, on condition that, in case the senate should not vote for the peace, they should be sent back again to him, though they might first greet their relatives and celebrate the festival of Saturn. And they were so sent back after the festival, the senate having voted a penalty ofdeath for any that stayed behind.

After this, and when Fabricius had assumed the consulship, a man came into his camp with a letter for him. The letter had been written by the physician of Pyrrhus, who promised that he would take the king off by poison, provided that the Romans would agree to reward him for putting an end to the war without further hazard on their part. But Fabricius, who was indignant at the iniquity of the man, and had disposed his colleague to feel likewise, sent a letter to Pyrrhus with all speed urging him to be on his guard against the plot. The letter ran as follows:

‘Caius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius, consuls of Rome, to King Pyrrhus, health and happiness. It would appear that thou art a good judge neither of friends nor of enemies. Thou wilt see, when thou hast read the letter which we send, that the men with whom thou art at war are honourable and just, but that those whom thou trustest are unjust and base. And indeed we do not give thee this information out of regard for thee, but in order that thy ruin may not bring infamy upon us, and that men may not say of us that we brought the war to an end by treachery because we were unable to do so by valour.’

When Pyrrhus had read this letter and got proof of the plot against his life, he punished the physician, and as a requital to Fabricius and the Romans made them a present of his prisoners of war, and once more sent Cineas to negotiate a peace for him. But the Romans would not consent to receive the men for nothing, either as a favour from an enemy, or as a reward for not committing iniquity against him, and therefore released for Pyrrhus an equal number of Tarentines and Samnites whom they had taken; on the subject of friendship and peace, however, they declared they would allow nothing to be said until Pyrrhus had taken his arms and his army out of Italy and sailed back to Epeirus on the ships that brought him.”[1]

What is notable about this situation is that Caius Fabricius was typical of Roman men in this period, not exceptional. Rome produced leader after leader just like this man for centuries, down to the lowest foot soldiers this sort of character was expected. These were men who could not be bought, who did not hanker after luxury, and who saw no honour in taking the easy way. They were much like the Spartans at their peak, except their society was structured far more successfully. Far more Roman men were able to make up the legions of the Romans rather than Phalanx of the Spartans, which enabled them to take more land and hold it.

It is not that Rome always won, either. Their armies were often bested in the field. Pyrrhus defeated several Roman armies. But such was the character of the Romans that the more they were beaten, the more men there were willing to step into their place and face the same enemy again and again. Because of this Pyrrhus was forced to withdraw even though he continually beat the Romans. From this comes the term 'pyrrhic victory'. Hannibal the Carthaginian would learn this the hard way as well, and many, many others. This never say die spirit, that allowed Rome to even come back from some of the kinds of defeats that would have caused many other great societies to fold, stemmed from a unique character, which helped them stand out amongst the decadent nations surrounding them. Oh, they would become decadent too, eventually, but before they were pulled down by the weight of their own success, they achieved more than any other nation in Europe, until perhaps the British Empire. Such was the character which drove them.

List of References

---

[1] Plutarch’s Lives, Volume 2, pp. 540-541, Castalia Library Edition.

Labor to Cancel Debts

 

Labor have committed to cancelling 20% of student debt. That's a very good policy. Any debt forgiveness is good.

“The Albanese Labor Government will cut a further 20 per cent off all student loan debts, wiping around $16 billion in student debt for around three million Australians.

By 1 June next year, the Government will cut 20 per cent off all student loans to reduce the debt burden for Australians with a student loan.

This will cut around $16 billion in debt, including all HELP, VET Student Loan, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loan and other income-contingent student support loan accounts that exist on 1 June next year.

For someone with the average HELP debt of $27,600 they will see around $5,520 wiped from their outstanding HELP loans next year.

This will provide significant relief to Australian students and workers with a student loan debt and builds on our reforms to fix the indexation formula, which is cutting around $3 billion in student debt.

This means, all up, the Albanese Labor Government will cut close to $20 billion in student loan debt for more than three million Australians.

This builds on the Government’s announcement that from 1 July next year it will reduce the amount Australians with a student debt have to repay per year and raise the threshold when people need to start repaying.”[1]

The problem is Labor are committed to high immigration. High socialist subsidies. High energy costs through renewable ideology. High welfare. High NDIS and more. All of these policies increase the cost of living and make our money less valuable. So, the amount of money they are freeing young Australians on will be completely gobbled up by their other policies.

However, this shows that debt forgiveness is becoming a mainstream issue. How can it not be? Debt is a mainstream issue. Drowning in debt is a mainstream issue. People are working out that one of the infallible laws of nature and economics is that a system that allows borrowing will always collapse under the weight of that debt, because it is not able to pay its debts collectively. The only way to avoid that collapse is debt forgiveness (this was proven several thousand years ago, before the Bible was even written, and has never been disproven).

Technically, Australia's economy collapsed just before Howard left office, or just after. On a per capita basis Australians have only gotten poorer since then, maybe even since a little earlier. But they have managed to "grow" the economy by cheating, they simply bring in lots of people, in increasing numbers, and then tax those people. Those immigrants eventually fall behind, on average like most Australians, and so they need to bring in more.

So, our economy is already broken. What do you do when a complex system is broken? As Moss would say, "Have you tried turning it off and then on again?" That's what a Jubilee is.

List of References

---

[1] https://ministers.education.gov.au/anthony-albanese/albanese-labor-government-cut-further-20-cent-all-student-loans-debt

Foreign Aid Is Immoral

If David decided to take 0.5% of the first fruits of Israel's crops and herds, turned this into money, and then gave this to Syria, Sidon or Tyre, what would the prophets have said about him? 

He has taken that which is not his, and given at no cost to himself, to people not of his kingdom. There is nothing righteous in this act. 

David himself would have condemned it: 

"24 But the king said to Araunah, “No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver" (2 Samuel 24:24). 

To give that which is not his, at no cost to himself was the opposite of righteousness or charity. David was horrified at the suggestion of it. 

This is what foreign aid is. It is intrinsically immoral. You cannot even make a case for the benefit to society from it, because once it leaves these shores, almost all accountability disappears. But to take what is not yours to give at no cost to yourself is not charity. Not even close.

The New Perspective on Paul and Christian Zionism

 

A friend of mine, who is also a fellow Baptist pastor, sent me this video and asked me what my thoughts were on the New Perspective on Paul. So, I decided to make this today's blog. Here are my thoughts on that interview and on the new perspective in general.

I think the best way I can answer this question is by looking at a case study. So, we are going to look at the book of Galatians.

What is Galatians about? If you ask the average evangelical what the crux of the book of Galatians is, if they are reasonably well read in the Bible, they will say that in Galatians Paul is arguing that we are saved by faith, not by works. They may even point to this key passage in Galatians 2, “16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16-17). This is the core passage that many would point to when highlighting the message of the book of Galatians.  

The preaching on this theme will also be very simple. Nothing you do of your own effort can save you, because no amount of effort or works can save you. You can only be saved, or declared righteous, in God’s sight by faith. This message accounts for how the so-called Old Perspective would handle this book. And this point is 100% true. None of our works can save us, we can only be saved by trusting in Jesus Christ. The problem is not with this message, the issue is that this is not what the book of Galatians is about. This teaching is simply one of the threads in the book through which Paul is making a different argument.  

Paul’s core argument is focused on who are the people of God. Or who are the real children of Abraham and the beneficiaries of the promises made by God to Abraham? He is specifically addressing this point: are people made part of God’s covenant people through faith, or through becoming Jews,

“1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Gal. 3:1-9).

Paul is not so much responding to those preaching faith + works, though his message does apply to that issue. He is responding to those saying faith + becoming a Jew is necessary to being a child of Abraham. So, when he refers to “works of the law” in Galatians he specifically means either the works of the Old Covenant like circumcision and all that goes with that. Or he means this plus the traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees believed were as authoritative as the Torah. Either way, he is rejecting the idea that you must submit to the law and become Jewish to be truly part of the people of God,

“11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal. 2:11-14).

Paul challenged Peter because he defaulted to the first century Jewish behaviour of separating himself from the Gentiles, especially while eating. Even though he should have known better than this. Peter knew better because God had poured the Holy Spirit out on Gentiles that Jewish and Gentiles believers were all made full citizens of the same people of God,

“11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:11-18)

Peter was acting against what he knew the implications of the gospel to be, so Paul had to rebuke him and remind him what they were. 

In Galatians, Paul is actually arguing against the false idea that there are two people’s of God, and only those who submit themselves unto the law can become part of the elite crowd, the Jewish believing crowd. Paul says that the truth is actually the opposite, if you seek to be more righteous by submitting to the law, and making others submit to the law, you are cut off from Christ,

“1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:1-6).

Paul obviously does not mean that circumcised people cannot be saved, because he is circumcised himself. He tells us this in Philippians 3, even though it might be a little bit of over sharing. What he means here is that if you think there are two peoples of God, Israel and Gentiles, and you think that to be truly righteous in God’s sight that you must become like the Jews and submit to their law, then you have severed yourself from Christ. Because righteousness does not come through the law, it can only come through faith in Jesus.

The Jews are not closer to God than Gentiles, because Abraham, who was a Gentile originally, was justified by his faith, not his circumcision or the law, “just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?” (Gal. 3:6).

So, Paul’s overarching argument is not that we are saved by faith not works, that is one of his subpoints. His overarching argument is that there is one people of God, and the marker of who these people are is faith in Christ,

“23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[p] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:23-29).

This is the crux of his argument, that all who have faith in Christ are the real descendants of Abraham. Your flesh counts for nothing in this equation. Only faith does.

This is where the New Perspective helps us, because it emphasizes the Jewish nature of the works of the law. Something which is key for understanding Paul’s argument in Galatians.

Many who hold to the so-called Old Perspective have so over-emphasized the message that Galatians is about how we are saved by faith not works, that many Christians have forgotten what the book is actually about. Calvin and Luther did not make that mistake, you will see this if you read them. But some who have come after them have, particularly in the highly individualized modern west.

This is why so many bad exegetes and preachers argue that Galatians 3:28 means women can be pastors. This is a complete butchering of Paul’s point, but it is a common mistake. Paul is not speaking about equality in Galatians, he is speaking about access to the covenant family, he is seeking to correct the Galatians on the issue of who the real people of God are. His argument is that the flesh counts for nothing, only faith in Jesus does. This is a core theme in all of Paul’s writings, and in his preaching in Acts as well.

The Christians who assert that there are two distinct and co-terminus peoples of God, the Church and Israel, would in large numbers hold to the teaching that salvation is about faith not works. But they have so been drilled by the message that this is what Galatians is about, that they have missed that this book actually rebukes the idea of two people’s of God explicitly. That is core thrust of Paul’s argument. They even miss what Paul says at the end of the letter while sowing up his point,

“14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:14-16).

The phrase “upon them, and upon the Israel of God” is used by some to distinguish the church from Israel. But the Greek word for “and” is “kai” and can be translated “even”, and is often used in the sense of emphasis. So, Paul is actually saying, “peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God.” He is seeking to emphasize that God offers peace to his people, as Psalm 29:11 says, “11 May the Lord give strength to his people! May the Lord bless his people with peace!” And who are the people of God? As he has argued, only those who have faith in Jesus.

In fact, in the verse previous to the mention of the “Israel of God” Paul has said circumcision counts for nothing, nor does uncircumcision, only being made new in Christ does. This fits with his message all the way through Galatians that there is one people of God and it is only the people of faith. If he now distinguishes between two peoples of God, he contradicts himself. Thankfully, the Greek does not have to be read this way.

Paul’s whole message in Galatians is focused on rebuking those who think they are better because they are Jewish and submit to the law, in other words, the Pharisees and others like them. This is an important message and can apply to any self-righteous people in the church today who think their works make them better than anyone else. But the initial application in Galatians is about there being one people of God, declared righteous in God’s sight and it is not the doers of the Torah but the believers in Jesus.

The early Church knew this. Luther and Calvin knew this. But an overemphasis on Galatians being about individualistic faith and salvation has caused people to forget this in large measure. Galatians is about who are the real community of God’s people, and the answer is only those who believe. This has both individual and social implications, the social ones being that physical Israel is no more the real people of God, than Greece, Rome or Moldova. Whereas anyone who comes from any of these places and more can be made part of Israel through faith in Jesus. The New Perspective on Paul helps us remember these communal applications, and to hone in on who are the real people of God. This is something the early church spent much of its time debating about, hence this is why scholars can see some connections between the New Perspective on Paul and the Early Church Fathers.

Fallen Means And God: Women Pastors

 

You might have noticed if you have been reading me for some time now that I often speak to the evils of feminism. Whether you follow me on my blog or on my Substack you will have seen I am not shy about calling out how feminism has caused rot to set into the home, the church and wider society. It is a pernicious evil. Feminists don’t even really have a true definition of what a woman is, and this is starting to have an impact on conservatives, who are often just pushing the views of yesterday’s liberals.

My four part (so far) series on Satanic Feminism also might come across to some as just the kind of thing that a conservative Baptist pastor might say about feminism. And to be fair you would in large part be right. But the title was actually inspired by a book published by the Oxford Academic Press by Per Faxneld called, “Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture.”[1] This book was based on Faxneld’s award winning PhD thesis, which shows that the modern world, and particularly Socialism and Feminism have deep connections to explicitly Luciferian ideas and inspirations. The abstract on Oxford’s website says,

“Abstract

According to the Bible, Eve was the first to heed Satan’s advice to eat of the forbidden fruit. The notion of woman as the Devil’s accomplice is prominent throughout the history of Christianity and has been used to legitimate the subordination of wives and daughters. During the nineteenth century, rebellious females performed counter-readings of this misogynist tradition. Hereby, Lucifer was reconceptualized as a feminist liberator of womankind, and Eve became a heroine. In these reimaginings, Satan is an ally in the struggle against a patriarchy supported by God the Father and his male priests. The book delineates how such Satanic feminism is expressed in a number of nineteenth-century esoteric works, literary texts, autobiographies, pamphlets and journals, newspaper articles, paintings, sculptures, and even artefacts of consumer culture such as jewellery. The analysis focuses on interfaces between esotericism, literature, art, and the political realm. New light is thus shed on neglected aspects of the intellectual history of feminism, Satanism, and revisionary mythmaking. The scope of the study makes it valuable not only for historians of religion but also for those with a general interest in cultural history (or specific aspects of it like gender history, romanticism, or decadent-symbolist art and literature).”[2]

It looks like the rhetoric of those conservative Baptist preachers was more correct than you could have ever imagined. And this should not surprise us, feminism calls into question everything the Bible says about men, women and their relationship to each other. The catch cry of evangelical feminists is “did God really say?”, which is precisely the most deceptive question in the Bible, especially when it is followed by the disregarding of the biblical text.

Feminists were not shy in noting their inspiration came form the very kind of subversive Luciferians that Faxneld identifies. As they write in their own auto-biographical history, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement:

“Freedom for the peasants was found alone at night. Known as the Birds of the Night, Foxes and Birds of Prey, it was only at these night assemblages they enjoyed the least happiness or security. Here, with wives and daughters, they met together to talk, of their gross outrages. Out of these foul wrongs grew the sacrifice of the "Black Mass," with woman as officiating priestess, in which the rites of the Church were travestied in solemn mockery, and defiance cast at that heaven which seemed to permit the priest and lord alike to trample upon all the sacred rights of womanhood in the names of religion and law. During this mocking service a true sacrifice of wheat was offered to the Spirit of the Earth who made wheat to grow, and loosened birds bore aloft to the God of Freedom the sighs and prayers of the serfs asking that their descendants might be free. We can not do otherwise than regard this sacrifice as the most acceptable offering made in that day of moral degradation, a sacrifice and prayer more holy than all the ceremonials of the Church.”[3]

So, they directly linked themselves to the worship of the god of nature, otherwise known as Baal, Pan or the devil, among many other names. They even show their complete disregard for the Bible,

“While woman's subordination is taught as a Scriptural doctrine, the most devout and learned biblical scholars of the present day admit that the Bible has suffered many interpolations in the course of the centuries. Some of these have doubtless occurred through efforts to render certain passages clearer, while others have been forged with direct intention to deceive. Disraeli says that the early English editions contain 6,000 errors, which were constantly introduced, and passages interpolated for sectarian purposes, or to sustain new creeds. Sometimes, indeed, they were added for the purpose of destroying all Scriptural authority by the suppression of texts. The Church Union says of the present translation, that there are more than 7,000 variations from the received Hebrew text, and more than 150,000 from the received Greek text…

…Amid this vast discrepancy in regard to the truth of the Scriptures themselves; with no Hebrew manuscript older than the twelfth century; with no Greek one older than the fourth; with the acknowledgment by scholars of 7,000 errors in the Old Testament, and 150,000 in the New; with assurance that these interpolations and changes have been made by men in the interest of creeds, we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.”[4]

So, don’t take my word for it that feminism is Satanic. Don’t even take the academic Per Faxneld’s well research and sourced word for it. Listen to the Suffragette’s themselves. They saw themselves as the ideological fulfillment in their day of the witches of the medieval and early modern era, and they had exactly as much respect for the word of God as the devil. They even confirm an argument you have seen me make, as have others, that the Bible does not teach equality between the genders, “we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.” Did you see that? They recognize the import of what these passages say about the differences between the roles of men and women, and so they seek to simply remove them from the equation, because they don’t like what the Bible says. This is literally Satanic. If we had no other evidence for their source of inspiration, this would be enough to confirm the case for most reasonable Christians.

But people are more emotional thinkers than dialectic thinkers. This is simply because we default to how things make us feel, rather than making a rigorous examination of most issues. This is especially true with women pastors. Many modern Christians just think it is mean to say women cannot be pastors, and on top of that, many of the same Christians will note that they have been blessed by a female pastor at some point. How can this be evil, if they have been blessed by it? This is a reasonable question. A very good question in fact, and I think there are some really good ways to answer it. But I want just want to focus on one in this piece.

Solomon. Specifically Solomon and high places.

This insight comes from one of the most famous passages in the Bible. As with all famous passages we need to read it carefully, because it is easy to miss things in passages we think we know very well. Look at this,

“1 Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt. He took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her into the city of David until he had finished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.

3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you” (1 Kings 3:1-5).

Verse 3 is key here, “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places.” This was a problem, a serious problem. These high places were a never-ending snare to the people of Israel, even to a king like Solomon.

The high places were places of idolatry. They were meant to be destroyed, Numbers 33:52, “then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places.” God even predicted that they would cause the fall of Israel, Leviticus 26:30, “And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you…” In this passage God is looking forwards in time to the coming judgement of Israel for their abandonment of their covenant with God. The high places would be a key part of the problem.

This process is explained in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. When Jeroboam took control of Israel he intensified this idolatry,

“28 So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” 29 And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. 30 Then this thing became a sin, for the people went as far as Dan to be before one. 31 He also made temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the Levites” (1 Kings 12).

Again and again in the Old Testament you will hear reference to what a snare these high places were to the people of Israel. The bad kings promoted these places, but even many good kings allowed this snare to flourish, “He walked in all the way of Asa his father. He did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord. Yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places” (1 Kings 22:43). Even many kings who sought to bring faithfulness back to Israel did not remove the high places.

The Bible does not mince words about the sin that these high places represented, “For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols;…” (Ps. 78:58). These high places were clearly snares. Their very existence was a blight on the worship practices of the people of God. Yet Solomon encountered God at one of these high places,

“3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you” (1 Kings 3:3-5).

Solomon loved God but tolerated the high places. In fact, he “used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar…” at Gibeon.

How could God speak to Solomon when Solomon was doing something he should not be doing? Because such is the grace of God. I cannot help but see a good comparison here to the practice of female pastors in the church today.

Today, many women are pastors. This is forbidden in the Bible, but a lot of the church just tolerates this, no, they actually endorse it, promote it and look down on churches that do not do it. Just like the high places of biblical law this are forbidden by both the Old and New Testament, however, it is tolerated. Even good kings tolerated the high places, remember. Even men in the church we would consider good have been known to make the case for female preachers. Men who are otherwise orthodox in all other aspects of their practice and theology.

These high places show us two things about this situation. One, yes God can work through forbidden means. To be hung on a tree was a curse in the Jewish law (Deut. 21:22-23), yet God saved the world through a man who was hung on a tree, or on the wood from one at least. Paul says he became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). God can work through forbidden means, he can even work through the hands of sinners to bring great deliverance. This is true for female pastors. People can be blessed by insights that some of these women share from the word of God, because God’s word is powerful in and of itself. God’s word spoken by anyone can bring blessing, even if they did not originally intend it, such is the grace of God.

But just because God can work through these fallen means does not mean we should encourage it. Solomon met God at a high place, a high place he frequented, even though he should not have. But we should not see God working through the high place as vindicating that practice, or blessing its continued use. Because this practice brought down the whole nation of Israel. This was a snare that was both predicted to bring down the people of God, and which we saw actually happened.

We have seen the many ways the Bible forbids women being pastors in previous articles. But we have also seen how many women are turning back from the role, because of the effects it has on their lives. Women should not take on this role, and many are finding out the hard way parts of the reasons why God gave this command in the Bible. The wider effect this is having on the church is also observed to be negative, the modern western church has been massively feminised. But it goes beyond just the local church, the wider effect it also has on society is a problem.

A society where women take on more and more of the roles of men, is a society that will end up having to replace itself with immigration, simply because it stops having enough children to replace itself. We are seeing this negative effect in our country and all across the West today. Rather than confront this issue and tear down this “high place”, many leaders in the church and society fail to confront it, and our whole society and church lumbers towards disaster.

Just because something is used in scripture to bring about good, does not mean we should follow that practice. Just because you may have been blessed by the ministry of a woman from time to time, does not mean we should encourage such a practice. Solomon’s example is a perfect comparison to help us understand why doing so is a disaster. He may have been blessed at a high place, but the high places ending up destroying his kingdom. The longitudinal effects of disobeying God’s word matter more than momentary blessings.

 

List of References

---

[1] https://academic.oup.com/book/1486

[2] Ibid.

[3] Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement - All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

[4] Ibid. 

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.