You Cannot Legislate Morality?

 

The statement “You cannot legislate morality” is one of the most quoted, yet intellectually shallow, statements that people make today…and yet many do still make it. So, what I want to address in this piece is the reasons why people make this statement and then dismantle their objection to legislating morality using three pillars: first the Bible, then western legal tradition and then a bit of classical philosophy.

So why do people say it? I think there are three reasons, mainly. Firstly, they mean that a law cannot force a person to love their neighbour, desire righteousness, or have a pure conscience. You can compel external compliance, but you cannot regenerate the human heart. Secondly, they mean that in a diverse, secular society, it is illegitimate for one religious group to impose its specific moral code (e.g., Sabbath observance, dietary laws) on everyone else via state coercion. You cannot mandate religion in other words. And lastly it is because they believe it is ultimately ineffective to legislate morality. Some people think that if a law outpaces the moral consensus of the people, it will be widely disobeyed and breed disrespect for the entire legal system.

On the surface, these points sound reasonable and there is even an element of truth in them. However, they commit a catastrophic logical error because they confuse the instrument of enforcement with the nature of the law itself.

The Bible’s Take

According to the Bible, law is intrinsically moral. You cannot separate law, at its base, from morality. They are intertwined.

First, the Mosaic Covenant is a unified legal-moral-theological code. The 10 commandments do not necessarily distinguish between "spiritual" sins and "civil" crimes. Idolatry, murder, theft, and covetousness are all legislated because they all violate God’s moral character. When the prophets condemn Israel, they do not criticise the existence of religious law; they condemn the hypocrisy of keeping the rituals while neglecting the "weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith" (Matthew 23:23). Jesus himself affirms that by his life and ministry the law is not abolished but fulfilled, and he re-interprets it to govern internal states, such as re-casting anger as murder, and lust as adultery, proving that morality is exactly what law is meant to address.

Second, the New Testament explicitly defines the purpose of civil government in moral terms. In Romans 13:3-4, Paul writes that the ruler "is God’s servant for your good" and that he "does not bear the sword in vain.” As we know, or at least should know, God is not saying here that the state has the right or authority to determine what is good, but rather that the state is institutionally ordained to punish evil and praise good. The very categories of "good" and "evil" are moral absolutes. If the state cannot legislate morality, it cannot fulfil its God-given mandate to restrain wickedness. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 states that "law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners..." Hence, for Jesus and Paul, as well as Moses, the law exists precisely to define and curb moral transgressions.

A law that claims to be morally neutral is a law that abandons its divine purpose. To refuse to legislate morality is to refuse to restrain evil, which is itself a profound moral failure.

Western Legal Tradition

The Western legal tradition does not originate in simple pragmatic social contracts, in fact, these “social contract” ideas can be said to have been an attempt to subvert the traditional view of western law and authority, that it stems from God. The basis of western law, particularly in Western Europe is the fusion of Roman jurisprudence, Greek Philosophy, Germanic custom, and Biblical Christian natural law.

Sir William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist whose Commentaries on the Laws of England is the bedrock of the Common Law, including Australian law, stated unequivocally, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”[1] Blackstone argued that a human law that contradicts the moral law of God has no binding force.

Historically, the West did not ask “Can we legislate morality?” In fact, anyone who said we could not would have been laughed out if the legislature. Rather it asked, “Which morality is truly just?”, at least when it was at its best. The abolition of slavery in the British Empire (1833) was not an act of economic efficiency; it was the legislative enforcement of the moral proposition that all humans bear God’s image and are therefore valuable. The prohibition of murder, perjury, and theft are all moral prohibitions before they are legal ones. The very concept in our law codes of malum in se (wrong or evil in itself) versus malum prohibitum (wrong because it is prohibited by legislation) depends on an objective moral order existing prior to the statute. Western law is based on the idea that we pass laws because they are good or at least should be. It is a moral act.

Every law against fraud, assault, or breach of contract is a legislated moral judgment. If we truly could not legislate morality, we would have no law against rape, because rape is not a violation of a "procedure"; it is a violation of the moral dignity of a person. It is because we honour that human dignity and sanctity that we say that rape is evil and should be punished. To say "you cannot legislate morality" is to undermine the moral basis of our own legal codes. The Bible said the purpose of law is to retrain evil and the western legal tradition has sought to apply it in this way.

Western Philosophy

Philosophically, the statement collapses under its own weight. It is a meaningless statement.

Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, argued that the polis (state) exists not merely for the sake of living, but for the sake of living well. The legislator’s task is to make the citizens good by forming their habits through law. For Aristotle, a state that refuses to cultivate virtue is a perversion of the political community.

Thomas Aquinas synthesised this with Christian theology, formulating the hierarchy of laws, that is: Eternal Law or God’s reason, Divine Law or that which is revealed, Natural Law or human participation in that reason, and Human Law which is the statutes or decrees of a government. Aquinas argued that human law is valid only insofar as it derives from Natural Law. A human law that contradicts Natural Law is lex injusta non est lex which means an unjust law is not truly a law. This forces the jurist or the legislator to constantly ask themselves, “Is this statute morally good?” This proves that legislation is inherently a moral exercise…or at least that it should be.

Think about it this way; from a western philosophical position, all laws are meant to be an extension of people created in God’s image exercising that Imago Dei in society for the cause of justice and righteousness. Hence, to say that you cannot legislate morality is to reject the very understanding of law passed on to us by our western heritage. The Bible says that purpose of law is to restrain evil, the western legal tradition has sought to use it in this way, and western philosophy has said to do otherwise is to act unjustly.

If law is not rooted in an objective moral standard, it degenerates into sheer will-to-power; might makes right. As Dostoevsky famously foreshadowed, "without God, all things are permitted", and that is the inevitable endpoint of a legal system that pretends morality is a private matter and should have no bearing on the law. The state cannot be morally agnostic; by wielding the sword, it necessarily takes a moral stance. In fact, to argue the state should not legislate morality will inevitably lead to alternative moralities simply taking the place of the previous ones. In fact, the very act of passing law will both be guided by the moral codes of the law givers and will create a simulacrum of morality in society anyway. It is unavoidable to include moral judgments in law making.

Conclusion

The phrase "You cannot legislate morality" is a category error. Yes, just because you pass a law does not mean you will change hearts and mind. The law cannot force a sinner to repent and love God. That role belongs to the preaching of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, laws can go far too far and become oppressive. We see that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for just this sort of burdensome approach to law in his day. A prudent approach requires wisdom and demands boundaries.

But the law absolutely must legislate morality, because justice itself is a moral concept. It is in fact a foundational moral concept. Every time a parliament criminalises human trafficking, enforces a contract, or upholds the sanctity of life, it is making a definitive moral claim. And it very much should.

The only legitimate question is not, “Should we legislate morality?” Those who ask that lack sense. The truly legitimate question is, “Whose morality will we legislate, and on what authority?” I have long argued that there are only a few sources for basing your approach to law: the Bible, ancient law codes, other religions or philosophies and the mind of modern man. There are no other choices. The Bible should not be the minor partner in your selection, as it has often being shown to surpass human efforts at establishing justice.   

To the Christian, when we ask whose morality should have the most authority, the answer is simple: the eternal, unchanging moral character of God, which is the only sufficient foundation for a just, stable, and truly free society. To abandon that foundation in the name of "neutrality" or “secularism” is not enlightenment; it is intellectual insanity. It leaves the courtroom vulnerable to the tyranny of whichever mob holds the loudest megaphone. Which, interestingly, is what we see transpiring in our own western nations today, more and more. Funny that.

List of References

---

[1] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/blackstone/cle.int.s02.html

Living Standards Drop

 

Australian living standards are dropping, as the Australian Financial Review notes,

“Australians have experienced one of the sharpest declines in living standards in the developed world since the pandemic, according to a new report from the OECD that warns real wages are set to fall even further this year as high inflation erodes workers’ incomes.

The release of the report came as Deloitte Access Economics warned Australia was facing its longest stretch of weak economic growth since the early 1990s recession, complicating the Albanese government’s efforts to argue it has made substantial progress in bringing inflation under control and easing cost-of-living pressures.”[1]

The Daily Mail likewise notes,

“Real wage growth hasn't kept up with rising inflation, resulting in Australia having one of the sharpest declines in living standards in the world over the five years since the Covid pandemic, a new report claims.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its Employment Outlook for Australia on Tuesday.

The report warned wages are expected to fall further in actual value this year, worsening the cost-of-living crisis.

Inflation has seen the value of Australian wages fall by 5.1 per cent since March 2021, compared to the average developed nation, which has seen a 5 per cent increase in wage value over the same time.

It was one of the steepest wage declines among all OECD countries and follows another OECD report that showed Australia's high inflation was second only to Iceland among developed countries.

'This sustained erosion of purchasing power points to persistent pressures on household incomes, even as the labour market has remained broadly solid,' the OECD said on Tuesday.”[2]

And it is not because Aussies are not working. Workplace participation is up,

“In a win for the Australian market, the OECD noted that Australia's labour market was relatively strong in comparison to other OECD members.

Australia's unemployment rate sat below the OECD average of 4.9 per cent at 4.4 per cent.

The country's 81 per cent labour force participation rate also made it one of the strongest in the OECD.”[3]

Australians are working more than the average of similar countries, and yet they are getting poorer. Why? Because of deliberate policy decisions which have hollowed out our manufacturing, driven up the costs of housing, rents and utilities, and all round made the money people are earning less valuable.

And we can feel the drop in living standards.

If you read the founding documents of the environmentalist movements, and even many of the socialist movements, you will see that they believe that too many westerners have too high a standard of living. They see this as a problem to be solved.

This kind of teaching even seeped into Bible colleges. At what was supposed to be an evangelical Bible college, when I was studying, I had to sit through lectures in one course where a lecturer taught that families living in standalone homes, with a backyard, a front yard, and two cars is evil, because it will kill the planet, so we have a moral responsibility to move people into condensed living in mega structures, otherwise we are not stewarding the planet well. I kid you not, this was actually taught at a Bible College I went to. What is worse is many of the students lapped it up. The lecturer even had the gall to try and argue that Isaiah taught this!

He argued that condensed housing, and mega structures were what should be pushed. People should be made to live in megacities and not have their own backyards. Anything else was irresponsible, in his view.

What I did not realize at the time is that he was just seeking to fit in UN globalist goals with loosely based biblical language. He even mentioned he had done some UN work, but I did not understand what that meant straight away. After this, I began to pay more attention to what a lot of environmentalists and socialists actually believed, and I found his teachings were all through their ideologies.

Environmentalists used stewardship of the planet to justify their anti-humanism. Socialists used the politics of envy and covetousness to motivate people to take from those who have more and give it away to anyone else, even to be squandered. This is why they give so much overseas, by the way, they believe our level of prosperity is immoral and gained through theft anyway. That is the actual motivation behind telling us this is not our land, they are seeking to drum this into our kids, and every other part of society they can, so they can move further in that direction.

And our country has been successfully taken over at the policy level by people who have this sort of ideology. And the fruit of that? Well, they are achieving their goals, we are getting measurably poorer.  

How many families do not have a backyard anymore? How many people can afford to have their wife stay at home? Less and less. Both parents have to work in most households just to pay for a lower standard of living. How many people feel like they are better off? How many older Australians are having to go back to work, because retiring well is out of their reach? Australia is being driven into the ground by people who actually believe it is moral to do that...well, to everyone except them and their state official friends.

Why do you think they are ok with digging up coal and selling it to China, India and other places? They are ok with those countries using it to lift up their standard of living, as long as our country is suppressed for ideological reasons. This is a feature, to them, not a bug.

Other countries seem to have broken out of this spell and have begun to turn their sinking ships around. But ours is still deeply steeped in this anti-humanism. And it is costing us, literally.

Someone will read this and say, "But Matt, we still have it so good." But it is not as good for families, and there is not as many opportunities for our children as we had, or as the older Australians had. The trajectory is heading downwards. It is evil to be ok with that.

That was Hezekiah's attitude.

“16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord: 17 ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the Lord. 18 ‘And they shall take away some of your sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’ ”

19 So Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord which you have spoken is good!” For he said, “Will there not be peace and truth at least in my days?” (2 Kings 20:16-19).

When Hezekiah said this he was disregarding his responsibility to pass to his children’s children an inheritance. Therefore, his attitude here was wrong. Deeply wrong.

List of References

---

[1] Michael Read, 2026, https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australians-suffer-sharp-decline-in-living-standards-oecd-20260707-p60d8t?utm_content=feed&utm_term=afr_social_eds&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=afr&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawS79ElleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETJsaGxCZjFJaVQ1ZXFwdnhqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHpbVkF0W7k7HnyhaVldOzVm6kxqHHnX4EWuZZccyC5oua9tfK4c4iIijlT58_aem_i3sOMS36ijQ0SQn567HM0g#Echobox=1783464633

[2] Ashley Nickel, 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15959307/Australia-living-standards-cost-living-wages-inflation.html?ito=social-facebook_Australia&ito=social-facebook_Australia&fbclid=IwY2xjawS79B9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETJsaGxCZjFJaVQ1ZXFwdnhqc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgm1LdEN8Ftq9BfgpgFWamnPfYUS9JINEcsJF3nYpxWCmiXs7u0HUSe_Is0f_aem_h9-5lD_LYnL0Mx09wNkrqQ

[3] Ibid.

War Has Changed Forever

 

More people are becoming aware of just how much warfare has changed, and also how much nations that have not adopted to modern drone strategy and tactics are being left behind very quickly.

“I listened to General David Petraeus this week say something that stopped me in my tracks: “Combined arms cannot survive. Tanks can’t survive on this battlefield.”

This isn’t a blogger’s hot take. This is the man who commanded US Central Command, ran the surge in Iraq, and led NATO forces in Afghanistan — telling us that the tactical grammar of warfare since 1945 has just been rewritten, in real time, in the fields of Donetsk. Here’s why he’s right, and why Ukraine’s genius was born entirely of necessity…

…For a century, the logic of land warfare was settled doctrine. Tanks punched holes. Infantry and infantry fighting vehicles poured through them. Artillery cleared the way and covered the flanks. Air power sealed the deal. This was combined arms — the method that took Berlin in 1945, drove Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, and toppled Baghdad in 2003. Every serious army on Earth built itself around it.

General David Petraeus — four stars, former CIA Director, the man who literally co-authored the standard history of warfare since 1945 — has now said, plainly, that this era is over. In a recent interview, Petraeus described how the war began in 2022 as textbook combined arms, with Russian armor columns pushing on Kyiv and Ukraine retaking ground the same way that autumn. But something changed. Cheap drones, in overwhelming numbers, turned the battlefield into what he calls a death zone — a zone artillery can barely enter before being forced to withdraw or die, a zone where, in his words, tanks simply cannot survive.

The numbers back him up in a way that should unsettle every general staff in the world. Reporting this year found that the drone kill zone along the front has widened to roughly 50 kilometers — not the ten or fifteen originally estimated, but fifty, thick with fiber-optic-tethered drones immune to jamming. Some Russian soldiers, according to their own military bloggers, now survive only twenty to thirty-five minutes once they cross into forward positions. And the result is a front line that barely moves at all: the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed that Russia’s advance on the transport hub of Pokrovsk — fought over for nearly two years — was slower than the Allied advance during the Battle of the Somme in 1916. That is not a footnote. That is one of the bloodiest and most static campaigns in human history being used as the modern benchmark, and Russia still came in slower.[1]

This is correct. The rate of battlefield progress has drastically slowed down because of drone warfare. There have been some good commentators who have been noting the changes in drone use on the battlefield for several years now. Drones have replaced artillery as the Queen of the Battlefield, as one put it. They have completely changed how war is fought. And nations which have not invested in large quantities of cheap and effective drones, and trained their militaries in how to use them, are now being left behind by those that have. Even if they have what is considered a powerful military in conventional terms.

Drones are quick and easy to produce, are capable of great ranges, and have turned the rear of the army itself into a kill zone, which has greatly enlarged the battlefield. This has made logistics much harder and it has also made the battlefield more dangerous for conventional troops. To be sure, Russia is winning against Ukraine, but only because it was able to out produce Ukraine's drone output. But the effectiveness of drones on both sides has made this a very slow war. Russia is slowly taking ground, but at great cost, because Ukraine is a major producer of cheap effective drones as well.

The drone is effectively having the same impact that machine guns + artillery did in WW1, it has completely changed how infantry can fight. Or more to point, how they cannot fight anymore in the same way. It is no longer effective to send your troops in behind the tanks and other armoured vehicles. Drones are just too good at taking both the vehicles and the men out. Drones are also cheaper than tanks, jets, and other military equipment, which means that they can be produced quickly and in large numbers. This also means that less powerful nations can now counterbalance countries that have invested billions into more expensive equipment, and have not adapted to changes in technology.

This is also why the US has lost in Iran. The Iranians can produce some of the best drones in the world in large numbers, and they are able to use them to effectively stop any possible invasion force from the US and Israel. They can use them to counter even advanced jets, and, the most scary thing for us all, they can use them to annihilate the energy infrastructure in the region which would crash the world economy. Tech worth a few thousand dollars can do billions of dollars in damage. This is a terrifying situation for the world. And one we cannot change at the moment.

The Iranians have invested in these drones for years, and have many more than Israel or America, who have focused on classic trinitarian forces (navy, air force, and army) with expensive equipment, rather than cheap tech like this. While the US was building F-35's with limited ability, their enemies were building tens of thousands of drones for a fraction of the price.

This is why we are seeing the US military fail in the region. Military tech has massively changed, and because of its funding structures it has been slow to adapt. After all, if you cut funding to tank building you undermine a congressman's local economy and seat in congress as a result. This sort of pork barrelling has effected all western countries in varied ways, and limits our ability to adapt quickly to developments in modern warfare.

That many westerns are only becoming aware of this now, when this situation has been known by others for years, just highlights this problem. Westerners still think in terms of how war was fought in the 80's. They think of badass pilots in jets and helicopters. But war has massively changed, and as a result the battlefield needs a very different approach.

The infantry man is facing now what the army soldier faced in WW1, the battlefield is no man's land again.

List of References

---

[1] Lim Tean

Galatians 6 Bible Study – Bear With One Another

 

You can watch the video of this Bible study tonight from 8PM AEST here. 

English Standard Version

Bear One Another's Burdens

1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load.

6 Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Final Warning and Benediction

11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 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.

17 From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Introduction

The sixth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians serves as a powerful and practical conclusion to his vigorous defense of justification by faith and life in the Spirit. It transitions from doctrinal argument to pastoral exhortation, offering an example for how we should live out our freedom in the gospel. The chapter is broadly divided into two sections: instructions for communal living (vv. 1–10) and a final, personal appeal from Paul (vv. 11–18).

The opening verses introduce a central, paradoxical tension of the Christian life: the call to "bear one another’s burdens" (v. 2) while recognizing that "each will have to bear his own load" (v. 5). This is not a contradiction but a reflection of life in the Spirit. Believers are summoned to gentle, humble restoration of those caught in sin, guarding against self-righteousness. This mutual burden-bearing is how the "law of Christ”, the law of love, is fulfilled. The community is called to accountability without comparison, testing one's own work rather than boasting in comparison to a neighbour.

Paul then grounds this ethic in the principle of sowing and reaping (vv. 7–9), a sobering reminder of spiritual cause and effect. Life oriented toward the flesh, or selfish desires, leads to corruption, while a life oriented toward the Spirit yields eternal life. This principle fuels perseverance in doing good, especially within the household of faith. The section culminates with Paul’s encouragement to do good to all people as opportunity arises, but especially to our brothers and sisters in the faith.

The final section, written in Paul’s own large script for emphasis, returns to the letter's core conflict; the false teaching that required Gentile circumcision for full acceptance. Paul exposes the motives of the agitators, their real concern is avoiding persecution for saying that Gentiles can be full members of God’s household. In stark contrast, Paul’s only boast is in the cross of Christ, through which his allegiance to the world system has been utterly severed. True identity is found not in religious rituals like circumcision of uncircumcision but in being a "new creation." He closes with a plea to be left unopposed, bearing in his own body the scars of his service to Jesus, and offers a benediction of grace.

Paul wants Christians to pursue God’s grace in the community of believers, rather than seek the things of the flesh.

Galatians 6, Bible study Questions

1.     What attitude and motivation should characterize the restoration of a believer caught in sin (v. 1)? Why is self-awareness crucial for the restorer?

    Cross-references: Matthew 18:15; James 5:19–20

2.     How does "bearing one another’s burdens" fulfill the "law of Christ" (v. 2)? What does this tell us about Christ's law?

    Cross-references: John 13:34–35; Romans 15:1

3.     Verses 3–5 warn against self-deception and comparison. How does testing "his own work" (v. 4) prevent the deception of thinking "he is something" (v. 3)?

    Cross-references: 2 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Corinthians 4:3–5

4.     How do you reconcile the command to bear another’s burden (v. 2) with the statement that each must bear his own load (v. 5)? What is the difference between a "burden" and a "load"?

    Cross-references: Acts 20:35; 2 Thessalonians 3:10–13

5.     What principle does verse 6 establish for the relationship between teachers and those taught? How does this reflect mutual burden-bearing?

    Cross-references: 1 Corinthians 9:11, 14; 1 Timothy 5:17–18

6.     The metaphor of sowing and reaping (vv. 7–8) is a universal spiritual principle. What does it mean to "sow to the flesh" versus "sow to the Spirit"? What are the respective harvests?

    Cross-references: Proverbs 11:18; Romans 8:5–6, 13

7.     In the context of not growing weary (v. 9), what encouragement does Paul give? How does the sowing/reaping principle fuel perseverance?

    Cross-references: 2 Thessalonians 3:13; Hebrews 12:1–3

8.     Verse 10 provides a scope for doing good. What is the relationship between doing good to "everyone" and "especially" to fellow believers?

    Cross-references: Matthew 5:43–48; 1 John 3:16–18

9.     Why does Paul take over the writing with "large letters" (v. 11)? What does this personal touch emphasize about the content to follow?

    Cross-references: 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18

10.  According to Paul, what were the false teachers' true motivations for insisting on circumcision (vv. 12–13)? What were they trying to avoid, and what did they hope to gain?

    Cross-references: Matthew 23:5; Philippians 3:2–3

11.  In contrast to the false teachers, what is Paul's sole boast (v. 14)? What does it mean that "the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"?

    Cross-references: 1 Corinthians 2:2; Philippians 3:7–8

12.  What are the "marks of Jesus" that Paul bears on his body (v. 17)? How do these validate his message and authority?

    Cross-references: 2 Corinthians 4:10; 2 Corinthians 11:23–25

Is Polygamy Biblical?

Is Polygamy biblical? The question itself is a form of trick, really, because just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is biblical. That is, just because we see something is in the Bible does not mean we should practice it. Cutting one’s self to call down the powers of the gods is found in the Bible, this does not mean we should practice such an awful ritual. Praying to images is in the Bible, that does not mean that we should practice it. Polygamy is in this category.

However, there is a growing push to reinstitute polygamy today, so I have decided to address it in my upcoming book on marriage.

Here is an excerpt from my chapter on the issue:

The Bible presents a lot of things in both a negative and positive light. The Scriptures present alcohol in a positive and negative light. They same is true with food, sex, war and many other things. So, to argue that the Bible often presents polygamous marriages in a negative light leads to a dangerous and unthoughtful approach to biblical interpretation, that any thoughtful critic could undo. Think about it, the very first two-person marriage in the Bible is a failure, as well. Eve led Adam into sin and Adam failed to lead them both out of it. Could you not, using the negative light angle, say this frames one-man-one-woman marriage in a negative light? I think there is a better argument to be made against polygamy, which we will explore now.

So, what does the Bible say about polygamy?

There is no doubt the Old Testament permitted polygamy. The Patriarchs were mostly polygamists, Moses, the prophet who led Israel our of Egypt and through the wilderness, had a Midianite wife and a Cushite wife. As we saw before God specifically says he gave David many of his wives, though Bathsheba David stole. Gideon, the judge, also had many wives, and so too did many other righteous men in the Old Testament.

We have to admit that polygamy was a concession God allowed, but it seems only very powerful, and very wealthy men benefitted from the practice…well, and their wives of course, who got access to the wealth of these men. But polygamy was not God’s intention from the beginning. Let’s got through the Bible and refresh our memory on God’s intention.

God created us to partner with one person. As Moses wrote in Genesis, “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:24-25). There is nothing more natural than a man and woman being together, and for life. There is nothing more evident than that God created men and women for each other. Men and women are created to be physically joined together and to complement each other. We balance each other out. This very intentional design is reiterated throughout the Old Testament.

Proverbs 5:15-21 says,

“15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. 20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress? 21 For a man's ways are before the eyes of the Lord, and he ponders all his paths.”

The fact this was written by a polygamist, who was taught it by his polygamist dad, only adds to its strength. Think about it, if Solomon tells you to avoid polygamy, you know he is coming from a place of experience. Right? No one knows better how wrong it can go. He is a true and genuine expert in the matter, and I don’t think anyone teaches more against it in the Bible than him.

Malachi reiterates the same standard in his short book, “But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal. 2:14). Malachi notes that God was not blessing the people of Judah because of how they broke their marriage covenant to their wife.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, the ideal of marriage between one man and one woman, is taught in the Old Testament. It was only very powerful men in certain circumstances who practiced polygamy. It was not practiced society wide, even in Old Testament Israel. But the New Testament makes the standard even clearer.

Jesus corrects the record,

“3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:3-9).

Not only does Jesus reaffirm the original intention for marriage that it should be between one man and one woman, with no exceptions, he also says it is committing adultery for a man to divorce his wife and marry another. If it is adultery to do this, then how much more is it adultery to marry another, while you are married? This destroys any chance of polygamy being legitimate for the Christian. Jesus’ words on the matter really should serve as the final word for Christians. I know of some Christian men who have tried to live in polygamous marriages and their wives have had to leave them over this. This is a legitimate reason for their wives to divorce them. Just as it would be for a man to divorce his wife if she took another man.

Paul builds on Jesus’ words and affirms that elders must be the husband of one wife, “3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,…” (1 Tim 3:1-2). The overseer “must be” present tense “the husband of one wife…” Many have seen this passage as explicitly rebuking polygamy, and I agree with them, as overseers are to be models to the rest of the congregation.

Paul reiterates the standard of monogamy in many places, including Ephesians 5,

“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands” (vv.22-24).  

Some devious people might try to argue that Paul uses the plural word for “wives” or “women” here. But he is referring to a collective group of people. Each wife should understand how what Paul says here applies to her relationship with her husband. The husband-and-wife relationship in the bible reflects the relationship between Christ and the church, and Christ only has one bride: The Church.

Now, I am going to reiterate that. There are not two peoples of God, therefore a man should not have two brides. The image of one husband one bride comes from God’s fellowship with his one bride, the church, which is all who believe in him. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7:2, “2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Paul clearly understood Jesus’ words on marriage to be the final word on the matter, because he bases all of his teachings on Jesus’ understanding of marriage, and does not negate it in any way. Hence, it is the final word on the matter for Christians.

So, we can see that the New Testament very strongly, and firmly, reasserts the original form of marriage as absolute. From Jesus’ words to Paul’s, to the end of Revelation marriage is between on man and his bride. The final picture of a wedding ceremony in Revelation 19 even illustrates this for us, “7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready…” (Rev. 19:7). Marriage is between a man and a women. Every other form of marriage invented by the mind of men is just a poor copy of what marriage actually is.

  

Christian Nationalism Is Happening

 

 

Christians on social media for whom the TGC is too right wing and feminism is right because their wives told them it is. "You can't do Christian Nationalism!" 

Texas, "Watch us."

Things are looking up. 

Many Christians, and Non-Christians in the West are becoming more and more aware that the decline of Christianity is not leading into a Star Trek style Utopia, where all of humanity lives under a tolerant liberalism that defends freedom and prosperity, but instead it is leading into a dystopian world in which everybody is worse off. 

Atheists are beginning to realize how good they had it when they were minorities in a largely Christian country, rather than just one of many anti-Christian parts of society. They are realizing that the post-religion world is not a real possibility. They are realizing that they have simply helped create a void that something else will fill. 

To see John Cleese acknowledging this is incredible. It is remarkable. I remember seeing Cleese debate with an Anglican Minister about these issues and the young Cleese did not get this. He, and other mockers like him, did not realize just how much they were attacking the foundations of the society upon which they stood. 

But as we can see in Texas and other places, this is beginning to turn around. 

Either You Do It Or The Government Will Take Everything

 

 

I've said for years that society cannot afford to sustain the aged on public money. The pension was originally designed to last two or so years on average. Not 20 or 30 years. It was originally designed not just to support people in old age, but to incentivize older people to lay down their tools so they younger people could work. It has gone far beyond its original intention, and we simply cannot afford it.

Historically people have funded their own retirement, and they have done it through a means that anyone can afford: by having children and living with them after a certain age. This was the age old method. Many families would have several generations living in the same home, and the elderly would be looked after by the young. We have now gotten away from this, and forgotten why children were considered wealth, and society is literally going broke trying to make up the difference.

For those older women who have no family, through tragedy or unfortunate circumstances, the Bible says the Church should pool resources to look after them. But for everybody else it says their family should provide for them into old age.

This worked for millennia.

But then, as we humans like to do, we thought we were smarter and thought we could get the government to care for the aged using publicly money, and we thought that we did not really need to care about having lots of children. We called it progress. Within a couple of generations our population’s birth rate is now plummeting, debt is skyrocketing, and forward-thinking policy makers can see the brick wall our society is heading towards. Liabilities are increasing and the number of people who can effectively pay for them is shrinking. 

And don't think immigration can fix it, because lots of data shows that immigrants on average learn less money, and many of them go straight onto welfare anyway. 

Ask the state to care for you too much, and it will take all you have and more to pay for it.