Make Constantinople Great Again

 

It is easy for westerners, and western Christians even, to forget just how much the Eastern Romans protected Christendom from pagan and Islamic threats. Charles Oman notes,

“To Leo, far more than to his contemporary the Frank Charles Martel, is the delivery of Christendom from the Moslem danger to be attributed. Charles turned back a plundering horde sent out from an outlying province of the Caliphate. Leo repulsed the grand-army of the Saracens, raised from the whole of their eastern realms, and commanded by the brother of their monarch. Such a defeat was well calculated to impress on their fatalistic minds the idea that Constantinople was not destined by providence to fall into their hands. They were by this time far removed from the frantic fanaticism which had inspired their grandfathers, and the crushing disaster they had now sustained deterred them from any repetition of the attempt. Life and power had grown so pleasant to them that martyrdom was no longer an “end in itself”; they preferred, if checked, to live and fight another day.”[1]

Byzantium, or the Eastern Roman Empire, truly stood as a bulwark of Christianity against the threats of the east for centuries, indeed a millennia. From the moment that Constantine built the city as the capital of Rome in the early 4^th century until its fall it took the majority of the onslaughts directed towards the Christian world from Persians and then Muslims, and other threats. 

But its efforts have been so forgotten to the West, that the comparatively minor efforts of Charles Martel are often given the credit that Emperors like Leo the Isaurian actually deserve. Not that Martel’s efforts were of no consequence, they were. But apart from the works of men like Leo the Isaurian and others, they surely would have been of very little consequence.

This also demonstrates how often the narratives we believe about history are so different to the realities of history. A similar example can be found in World War 2. Future generations will be far less emotionally opposed to acknowledging that it was Russia that won World War 2, far more than Britian, or even the U.S.. But currently many people bristle at the suggestion because of the West’s emotionalization of the reasons and achievements of World War 2. Such is the way history is handled. Often what is remembered is based in fact, but spun in such a way that it obscures the greater truth.

The Franks may have been responsible for checking the Saracens in western Europe, but they are also in large part responsible for the destruction and pillaging of Byzantium, an attack that very much led to its eventual fall and capture by the Turks.

One can hope and pray that through the work of the gospel Byzantium is again returned to Christendom and stands again as a bulwark against the incursions of antichristian forces. But until that day we should remember its efforts more accurately. Byzantium was lost, eventually, but it stood strong for so long it gave the West the chance it needed to flourish.  

List of References

---

[1] Oman, Charles. The History of the Byzantine Empire: From Its Glory to Its Downfall (p. 96). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.

Eurovision Controversy?

 

I have seen a fair bit of controversy about Eurovision online, and the discussion about the involvement of Satanic rituals, the involvement of Israel, and all sorts of other discussion. But the real controversy is that anyone watches Eurovision. Isn’t it cruel and unusual punishment to put yourself through that? Isn’t it cruel and unusual punishment to let the performers put themselves through those performances.

The real controversy is that such an event is watched by anyone, let alone consumes the concerns of people on the left and the right.

For the sake of all that is good and sane, forget about Eurovision.

Idolatry is Popular

 

Idolatry is incredibly popular in the Church, incredibly popular.

Perhaps the most prominent example I am seeing all over the place is the churches that venerate at best, but actively align with and even idolize at worst, the nation of Israel. The devotion of many modern evangelicals to this secular and godless nation is remarkable, and in some cases borders on the relic worship of the ancient Church. Those who will fly the star of Remphan[1] (Acts 7:42-43, c.f. Amos 5:25-27) next to the cross are numerous in the Church. But this is only one example of a much larger problem, it would be unfair to single this out as the only example in the Church.

Some idolize wealth or the wealthy. I heard someone say once that they could not go to a church where the pastor was renting his house, because this spoke to them that God was not blessing their household. But Jesus had nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8:20), and I have known many faithful men of God, some of them dedicated and godly pastors, who had very few pennies to their name, and did not own a home. There have been countless such men of God in history. Our Lord calls us to be willing to sacrifice, and this can look very different for different Christians in this world, yet God is still blessing them. To tie home ownership, or wealth, to being such an important metric of God’s blessing is to place money on too high a pedestal, for many it is truly is an idol.

Some Christians idolize power and the powerful and align themselves with this or that political party. Not because the current candidate represents Christian and Kingdom values, and is going to combat the evil elites who oversee our modern western nations, but because they are with team green or team blue[2]…wait this is the 21^st century, so it is team red or team blue. It is disturbing how little discernment some Christians have, just because a politician is wearing the right political colours, or the wrong ones. Some of these Christians are blind to criticism of this, and in fact become rather hostile to anyone who does criticize this. Yet did Jesus side with the Pharisees, Sadduccess, or Essenes, the dominant political/religious parties of his day? Of course not, and he was willing to receive anyone into his fold from any camp that repented of their evil ways, and he held everyone to the same standard of truth. But this team choosing can become a real idol.

In the conservative evangelical world intellectualism is another idol. This can manifest in a variety of ways; credentialism, associationism (being associated with the right class of people, rather than the right quality of people), sycophantism; that is seeking to be approved by the right cultural elites, an over emphasis on conceptual theology, rather than practical theology, and in many other ways. Idolatry can strangle the Church in many forms.

Then there is literal Icon worship, literal-old fashioned-straight-out-of-the-Old-Testament-handbook-of-what-idolatry-looks-like, kind of idolatry. This is not unheard of at all in today’s world, and occurs both in Protestant and Non-Protestant denominations. Here is something interesting about this phenomenon recorded by Charles Oman in his work The History of the Byzantine Empire,

“Image-worship and relic-worship in particular had developed with strange rapidity, and assumed the shape of mere Fetishism. Every ancient picture or statue was now announced as both miraculously produced and endued with miraculous powers. These wonder-working pictures and statues were now adored as things in themselves divine: the possession of one of them made the fortune of a church or monastery, and the tangible object of worship seems to have been regarded with quite as much respect as the saint whose memory it recalled. The freaks to which image-worship led were in some cases purely grotesque; it was, for example, not unusual to select a picture as the godfather of a child in baptism, and to scrape off a little of its paint and produce it at the ceremony to represent the saint. Even patriarchs and bishops ventured to assert that the hand of a celebrated representation of the Virgin distilled fragrant balsam. The success of the Emperor Heraclius in his Persian campaign was ascribed by the vulgar not so much to his military talent as to the fact that he carried with him a small picture of the Virgin, which had fallen from heaven!

All these vain beliefs, inculcated by the clergy and eagerly believed by the mob, were repulsive to the educated laymen of the higher classes. Their dislike for vain superstitions was emphasized by the influence of Mahometanism on their minds. For a hundred years the inhabitants of the Asiatic provinces of the empire had been in touch with a religion of which the noblest feature was its emphatic denunciation of idolatry under every shape and form. An East-Roman, when taunted by his Moslem neighbour for clinging to a faith which had grown corrupt and idolatrous, could not but confess that there was too much ground for the accusation, when he looked round on the daily practice of his countrymen.

Hence there had grown up among the stronger minds of the day a vigorous reaction against the prevailing superstitions. It was more visible among the laity than among the clergy, and far more widespread in Asia than in Europe. In Leo the Isaurian this tendency stood incarnate in its most militant form, and he left the legacy of his enthusiasm to his descendants. Seven years after the relief of Constantinople he commenced his crusade against superstition. The chief practices which he attacked were the worship of images and the ascription of divine honours to saints—more especially in the form of Mariolatry. His son Constantine, more bold and drastic than his father, endeavoured to suppress monasticism also, because he found the monks the most ardent defenders of images; but Leo's own measures went no further than a determined attempt to put down image-worship.

The struggle which he inaugurated began in a.d. 725, when he ordered the removal of all the images in the capital. Rioting broke out at once, and the officials who were taking down the great figure of Christ Crucified, over the palace-gate, were torn to pieces by a mob. The Emperor replied by a series of executions, and carried out his policy all over the empire by the aid of armed force.

The populace, headed by the monks, opposed a bitter resistance to the Emperor's doings, more especially in the European provinces. They set the wildest rumours afloat concerning his intentions; it was currently reported that the Jews had bought his consent to image-breaking, and that the Caliph Yezid had secretly converted him to Mahometanism. Though Leo's orthodoxy in matters doctrinal was unquestioned, and though he had no objection to the representation of the cross, as distinguished from the crucifix, he was accused of a design to undermine the foundations of Christianity. Arianism was the least offensive fault laid to his account. The Emperor's enemies did not confine themselves to passive resistance to his crusade against images. Dangerous revolts broke out in Greece and Italy, and were not put down without much fighting. In Italy, indeed, the imperial authority was shaken to its foundations, and never thoroughly re-established. The Popes consistently opposed the Iconoclastic movement, and by their denunciation of it placed themselves at the head of the anti-imperial party, nor did they shrink from allying themselves with the Lombards, who were now, as always, endeavouring to drive the East-Roman garrisons from Ravenna and Naples.

The hatred which Leo provoked might have been fatal to him had he not possessed the full confidence of the army.”[3]

Opposition to praying to, or venerating Icons, venerating Mary, and opposing the Popes of Rome, are generally thought of as Protestant criticisms of Catholicism, but this rejection of blatant idol worship has a long history in the Church reaching back into ancient times.

It is not hard to see why. The Ten Commandments tell us straight up,

“1 And God spoke all these words, saying,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:1-6).

This commandment does not leave any wiggle room here, but find such wiggle room the Church often has in history. Which is remarkable, so much of the ministry of the Old Testament prophets was dedicated to challenging the idols of Israel and Judah, and even though this was their faithful duty, they were often hated for it. The Baals and Asherah’s were popular in ancient Israel, and one thing that people forget is that at times the Israelites were seeking to represent the God of heaven through their Icons; their statues and idols. So this idolatry ran deep and even took a veneer of orthopraxy on some occasions. It was almost a futile attempt for the prophets to attack these idols, and even still today in the nation of Israel one of the most ancient symbols of one of these chief false gods, who goes by many names, is the symbol of their nation,

25 “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves, 27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts” (Amos 5:25-27, emphasis added).

“42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:

“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
    during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
43 You took up the tent of Moloch
    and the star of your god Rephan,
    the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon’” (Acts 7:42-43, emphasis added).

The open worship of idols died off in some measure after Israel return from Babylon, but it did not disappear, and Jesus and others criticized the leaders in Israel in the New Testament for worshipping false gods. This example here is from Stephen, the deacon. Idol worship was powerful and popular in ancient Israel, and those who criticized it were much more likely to be persecuted than heeded. For every Josiah or Hezekiah, there was countless Ahabs. Some like to credit ancient Israel with the invention of monotheism, but the reality is that the majority of ancient Israelites were never monotheistic. Even Aaron set up an idol when Moses was gone for too long on the mountain. Monotheism was something God was trying to teach Israel, not something Israel was trying to teach the world.

But this penchant for idolatry continued into the age of the New Covenant Church, as is evidenced by the efforts of Leo the Isaurian to try and stamp it out in the early medieval era. This made him very unpopular, and future Byzantine historians, who supported the veneration of Icons, did not reflect on his reign very favourably because of his goal of getting rid of Icon worship. We Protestants see in him a kind of kindred spirit, he even went after Mariolatry. But his people fought against him, the Popes fought against him (which doesn’t surprise many of us), the monasteries fought against him. If he had not had the full support of the army because of his victories against the Saracens, he might have been removed from power by various conspirators.

Idolatry is incredibly popular, and incredibly hard to stamp out. Leo had the power of the Byzantine Imperial throne behind him, and the full support of a large section of the Church leadership, and the army, and he faced incredible backlash and opposition. The reason for this is that people come to identify with their idols. They see in their idols something of themselves, something that speaks of their identity and their values, and all that they see as good, and they see an attack on their idols as an attack on themselves. This is why there is such an irrational reaction among many, even prominent Christians, over what is happening in Israel, because many of these Christians identify with Israel, they see in it the hand of God, and they perceive criticism of it as an attack on themselves and their God, when it is nothing of the sort. This is also why many Christians have strange views about money, because it is their master and they worship it. This is why when you criticize whatever idols otherwise very rational people worship, they respond in incredibly irrational ways at times. That which we hold to emotionally we struggle to think about rationally. It is part of our nature. 

Calvin once said that the human heart is a factory of idols, this means that all of us fall into idolizing things, whether sports, movies, movie stars, singers, etc. This cannot be denied. But this should not stop us from pulling down the obvious idols that we see. One way that we can identify an idol is when somebody is willing to compromise on many of their own values and beliefs to defend it. Or to put it another way, when they are willing to be thoroughly inconsistent with how they view one thing, as compared to others. Or, when an otherwise incredibly rational person gets incredibly emotional when something is challenged. Sometimes this is just because they have not thought through an issue clearly, and they default to an emotional response. Other times it is because you have hit an idol in their hearts, and this makes people reflexively upset and defensive.

All Christian leaders should be perceptive enough to identify idols, and bold enough to challenge those who worship them. But don’t expect thanks for doing so, if you are going to criticize something that people are emotionally invested in, some of those people will hate you for it. After all, the human heart is a factory of idols, and idols lead people into unchristian behaviour.

List of References

---

[1] Many Christians are not aware of the pagan roots of the Star of David, even though many Israelis are aware of this themselves. Below is a short explanation of the origins of this star, going only so far, of course, we know that the Bible tells us the origin of the association of this star with ancient Israel, it was a symbol of their rejection of God. https://blog.nli.org.il/en/star-of-david/

[2] These were famous sporting teams in the ancient Eastern Roman Empire, that often got involved in political and religious matters.

[3] Oman, Charles. The History of the Byzantine Empire: From Its Glory to Its Downfall (pp. 97-99). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.

We Will Learn

 

I think the fact that many Australian, and indeed American Christians have never experienced colonization in their lifetime, or their recent ancestor's lifetime, or serious invasion of their nations by armed forces, or subjugation by other peoples, gives them a very skewed perspective on world affairs, especially in places like the Middle East. At the very least it causes many of them to have zero, or very little, sympathy for conquered peoples, and very little understanding of what that is like for people.

But the rising demographic changes in western nations causing the decline of European Australian or American power and influence in their own nations, alongside the rising authoritarianism of our governments, co-opted by globalist elites, who are anti-Christian, and anti-European, means that many western Christians in AUS and US and beyond are about to find out what it is like to be ruled by another culture that hates you, wants your land and wealth, and considers you troublesome for not being ok with this.

One of the most basic spiritual laws of our world is, "You reap what you sow." God made this law. The failure of western Christians to properly repent of our ongoing military dominance of weaker powers (most Aussies aren't even aware of this reality), or learn from reason why we should, means God is setting the stage for us to learn from experience.

I think it was Confucius who said, "There are three ways to learn wisdom: One is by contemplation, the second is from the teachings of others, the third is from error and experience. The first is most noble, the second less noble and the third least noble." I may have paraphrased him a bit. Australian and American Christians have, in the main, refused to learn from the first two means. To paraphrase the Proverbs again, "The only hope of the foolish is to learn from bitter experience."

I am reading the history of Byzantium at the moment. After decades, indeed centuries, of nonsense and degraded culture God gave the Christian civilisation in Syria (part of the Eastern Roman Empire) over to dominance of the Saracens (Islamic conquerors). If we think we are so special as to avoid a similar fate, we guarantee our need to learn from experience, that we are not so special.

It's possible to see the world from the experience of the conquered by thinking about it and reading history explaining what it is like. If you do, it will change your mind on countless issues and help you see many ways you have been propagandized. Most people refuse to do this uncomfortable work though. So, they set themselves, or their children, or grandchildren up to learn this horror from experience.

The Bible teaches that God disciplines those he loves, who are called by his name (c.f. Heb. 12). This means that if we do not learn from him quickly, he will discipline us by getting our attention. And before anyone responds that Hebrews 12 is directed at individuals, God directs this same teaching to nations as well, he said this to Israel in the Old Testament,

“13 The people did not turn to him who struck them,
    nor inquire of the Lord of hosts.
14 So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail,
    palm branch and reed in one day—
15 the elder and honored man is the head,
    and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail;
16 for those who guide this people have been leading them astray,
    and those who are guided by them are swallowed up.
17 Therefore the Lord does not rejoice over their young men,
    and has no compassion on their fatherless and widows;
for everyone is godless and an evildoer,
    and every mouth speaks folly.
For all this his anger has not turned away,
    and his hand is stretched out still” (Isa. 9:13-17).

He also disciplined Egypt, trying to warn them several times to release his people, before he severely punished them. And he has warned that he will punish Babylon for their evil in the world as well. Whether this is ancient Rome, ancient Judea, or a future empire or nation, it shows that in the New Testament God still punishes nations.

If we do not learn, he will teach us. Our nations have committed and are supporting great evil in the world. We think we are exempt from what happened to other nations that did this in the past. We are not.

The Millennial Reign

I thought I might put up a short post explaining a bit more my understanding of how the land of Israel fits into Christian theology. My eschatology is what is called “historic premillennialism”. The reason it is called as such is to distinguish it from “dispensational premillennialism”. These theologies are very different in their understanding of the people of God, the covenants, and several other things, but many Christians today are not really aware of these differences. Because of the dominance of dispensational premillennialism among futurists, particularly in the United States and Australia, many people simply think that all premillennialists are the same. This is not correct.

However, an area where all premillennialists agree is in the idea of a future, literal millennial reign of Christ on earth, centred from a rebuilt Jerusalem. I would argue that the Christian crusades of the 11^th to 13^th centuries, and the modern Judeo-Christian crusade of the 20^th to 21^st centuries and counting, are human attempts to fulfil a prophecy that the Lord Jesus Christ himself will fulfill when he returns. In that light, then, all human attempts to re-establish a Jewish, or perhaps even Christian Kingdom, by force in the land of Israel are destined to fail eventually. And cause much global unrest in the process. 

The crusader effort failed for this reason; Christ was not riding at the head of the army. Hilaire Belloc made a practical case for why they failed in his book The Crusades. I recommend you read it, because it is fascinating history. But whatever the practical reasons, the effort was destined to fail because Christ was not yet ready to establish his kingdom. The current Judeo-Christian crusade is obviously failing for very similar and just as practical reasons. By Judeo-Christian I mean the alliance between Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists who both believe it is the Jewish peoples God-given right to inhabit the land of Israel. Israel has not managed to conquer all of the land, though, far from it. Most of the land is inhabited by non-believers who deny Christ is Lord, and therefore the covenant curses are still in effect, because only in Christ can those curses be broken. The power of the United States is diminishing, and though Israel was able to switch from British support to American support in the past, there is no rising pseudo-Christian[1] power looking to align with Israel’s quest to conquer the promise land again. This might change, but it is not looking good at the moment, and Israel’s war is only speeding up the process of causing them to lose the international support they need for their crusading efforts to conquer the land. Their quest conflicts with their means of achieving it. This is really a demonstration of the Deuteronomy 28 curses and their effect; those who rebel against God undermine theor own goals. The land is not meant to be taken back by human force.

I emphasize that the land is not going to be returned back to righteous by human force conquering it and establishing military garrisons in the region, for a reason. I think there is a possibility the land could be retaken, or reconquered by mission work, that is the spreading of the gospel among all the people’s in the land. I leave this expection here in part because I think my postmillennial friends might have a point, that the world may be completely won over, at least for a time, by the spread of the gospel. But also because I just don’t think you can ever take revival off the table. God does miraculous things through the advance of his gospel. But, be that as it may, this does not mean that humans should be trying to fulfill this through the sword. If you want to fulfil this properly then there are many Christian mission organisations that will send you. 

All this to say that the debate, for me, is not over whether Jerusalem is for God and his people, because it is. The debate is over when this occurs, for whom it occurs and how it occurs. I would agree completely with Justin Martyr, the Great Church Father and Apologist, on this issue. Martyr tells us this in his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew,

“CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT. And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?" Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”[2]

Justin Martyr taught that there was to be a literal thousand year reign where the saints of Christ, together with the Old Testament saints, who are also saints of Christ, will reign and rule together from Jerusalem. Not all Christians believed this, as he notes, some genuine believers saw it differently, these might be the precursors to Amillenialism, or some unknown theology that we do not know of today, but many “right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” I think the grand scope of biblical teaching fits with Martyr’s teaching here.

Premillennial theology is the most ancient recorded theology we have from outside the Scriptures. Irenaeus taught much the same thing as Martyr here, and he wrote even earlier, and has some connections to the Apostle John.

On many other aspects of theology Historic Premillennial theology is very similar to Amillennial, or the spiritualist, school of theology. Historic Premillennial theology also sees that Israel and the Church are a continuation of the same people of God, just with different covenants and conditions of entry. Both schools interpret many of the prophecies given to Israel as being fulfilled in the Church, or more accurately in Christ and through faith in him. Both schools believe God has cast out unbelieving Israelites from being the people of God, but that he also extends them an offer of reincorporation if they turn again to him in faith; in fact both schools believe this event is prophesied to one day happen, after the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in. 

One might ask, why then do we need a millennial reign? Why could Jesus not simply return and bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth, and save us a lot of time? The answer to this is really rather simple, if hard for some to accept. The reason for the millennial reign of Christ is to fulfil many of the Old Testament prophecies about God’s people reigning over those who reject God in this world. Many examples could be given, Zechariah 14 especially comes to mind. But there are many examples in passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, the Psalms and other Old Testament books, as Martyr himself notes. There are also indications of this in the book of Revelation, here is one,

“24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25 Only hold fast what you have until I come. 26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’” (Rev. 2:24-29).

This verse confirms two things: 1) God intends to fulfill his promise for his people, the Church (his gathering or congregation), to rule over this world. 2) These promises are fulfilled only for those who have trusted in Jesus, therefore they apply not to physical Israel, but spiritual Israel, that is the Church, which is Jew and Gentile in makeup. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will reign with him over the nations, and the Millenium serves as the time for this rule,

“1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:1-6).

As the son of David, and the Messianic heir of the Davidic Kingdom, Jesus will return to this earth to reclaim his throne, vindicate his people - that is all who believe in him whether Jew or Gentile - and he will reign over the nations of the world and his people will reign with him, “21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’” (Rev. 3:21-22). This promise is given so much in Scripture that it is hard not to take it as a literal promise that will be fulfilled in a future kingdom on this world. God tells us of a day when his people will be vindicated in this world before all who denied him and persecuted them. 

Of course Postmills believe this will be fulfilled by the spread of the gospel, but Premills believe it will be fulfilled by the 2nd advent of Christ himself, which I believe best fits with the prophesies in the Scriptures. But both schools of thought are correct in asserting that the Church will reign ascendant over this world, even before the New Heavens and the New Earth.

I do think it is possible Jesus will begin the restoration of the nations to their own proper boundaries (c.f. Acts 17:26-29) in this period, as part of his re-establishing order and justice on the earth. So there is no reason why this would not mean that believing Jews would be restored back to their promised land, if they wish to go there. But I do think that because all the promises of God are yes and amen in Christ (2. Cor. 1:20-22), there is no reason why the saints both Jew and Gentile will not rule together from the centre of God’s Kingdom on earth. This is what Martyr believed, this is what he said to Trypho the Jew, and I would agree with him.

So, the question is not is God done with the land of Canaan, and will Israel, the nation, be once again restored? The real question is when will Jesus reign from Jerusalem and who will reign with him? The answer, I think, is in the Millennium and all believers will reign with him, and be his representatives around the world. This is the level 2 that God is preparing us for, our glorious reign with him on this earth, and what a glorious day to look forward to. And after this, then there is the New Heavens and the New Earth, where we have even more to look forward to.

List Of References

---

[1] It is clear the United States is not truly Christian, nor is their militaristic ideology.

[2] Justin Martyr; Grapevine Press. Dialogue with Trypho: A Conversation on Faith and Salvation (Grapevine Press) (pp. 158-159). Kindle Edition.

The World Owes You Nothing

 

The world has no responsibility to treat you fairly.

Men’s rights activists will often talk about how men should just check out of society, get a shed in the woods, far from civilisation, and live alone with their dog, their computer, and sometimes the more degenerate advocate making sure to have access to a local brothel. The reason they advocate for this is that they note how unfair this modern world can be towards a man. How many instances do you see of a good man, a true and genuine Delta, who has been working hard, looking after his family financially, faithfully staying loyal to his wife, providing for his kids, only to come home and find that his wife has left him for Steve or Aaron from accounting, or from the office across the road from where she has lunch everyday? 

MRA’s will harp on, accurately, about how unfair this is, and how unfair our modern world often is to men. But the truth is men that the unfair nature of this world has always been the norm. Often in history men did not get the rewards they deserved for the service they rendered. Often in history men have been unfairly treated. If your hope is in the rewards of this world your chances of having that hope crushed are almost guaranteed, at least in some way. This world can be cruel to men. Here is a stark reminder of just how cruel, from the final years of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian’s life, towards his greatest and most loyal general,

“The gloom of Justinian's later years was even more marked after the death of his wife; Theodora died in a.d. 548, six years after the great plague, and it may be that her loss was no less a cause of the diminished energy of his later years than was his enfeebled health. Her bold and adventurous spirit must have buoyed him up in many of the more difficult enterprises of the first half of his reign. After her death, Justinian seems to have trusted no one: his destined successor, Justinus, son of his sister, was kept in the background, and no great minister seems to have possessed his confidence. Even Belisarius, the first and most loyal soldier of the empire, does not appear to have been trusted: in the second Gothic war the Emperor stinted him of troops and hampered him with colleagues. At last he was recalled [a.d. 549] and sent into private life, from which he was only recalled on the occurrence of a sudden military crisis in a.d. 558.

This crisis was a striking example of the mismanagement of Justinian's later years. A nomad horde from the South Russian steppes, the Cotrigur Huns, had crossed the frozen Danube at mid-winter, when hostilities were least expected, and thrown themselves on the Thracian provinces. The empire had 150,000 men under arms at the moment, but they were all dispersed abroad, many in Italy, others in Africa, others in Spain, others in Colchis, some in the Thebaid, and a few on the Mesopotamian frontier. There was such a dearth of men to defend the home provinces that the barbarians rode unhindered over the whole country side from the Danube to the Propontis plundering and burning. One body, only 7,000 strong, came up to within a few miles of the city gates, and inspired such fear that the Constantinopolitans began to send their money and church-plate over to Asia. Justinian then summoned Belisarius from his retirement, and placed him in command of what troops there were available—a single regiment of 300 veterans from Italy, and the “Scholarian guards,” a body of local troops 3,500 strong, raised in the city and entrusted with the charge of its gates, which inspired little confidence as its members were allowed to practice their trades and avocations and only called out in rotation for occasional service. With this undisciplined force, which had never seen war, at his back, Belisarius contrived to beat off the Huns. He led them to pursue him back to a carefully prepared position, where the only point that could be attacked was covered with woods and hedges on either side. The untrustworthy “Scholarians” were placed on the flanks, where they could not be seriously molested, while the 300 Italian veterans covered the one vulnerable point. The Huns attacked, were shot down from the woods and beaten off in front, and fled leaving 400 men on the field, while the Romans only lost a few wounded and not a single soldier slain. Thus the last military exploit of Belisarius preserved the suburbs of the imperial city itself from molestation; after defending Old Rome in his prime, he saved New Rome in his old age.

Even this last service did not prevent Justinian from viewing his great servant with suspicion. Four years later an obscure conspiracy against his life was discovered, and one of the conspirators named Belisarius as being privy to the plot. The old emperor affected to believe the accusation, sequestrated the general's property, and kept him under surveillance for eight months. Belisarius was then acquitted and restored to favour: he lived two years longer, and died in March, 565. The ungrateful master whom he had served so well followed him to the grave nine months later.”[1]

Belisarius had won the Roman Empire many victories, including restoring back to Rome the provinces of Italy, taking them from the Goths. He had served his master well, right up until his later years. He had also rejected an opportunity to claim the title of Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, something which he probably would have excelled at. He was a true servant of his lord and master, and he was treated disrespectfully and disdainfully, nearly losing his life from a false accusation.

Is this fair? Of course not. But only fools think this world is a fair place. Didn’t your mumma tell you, “Life isn’t fair.”

This is why the Christian hope in a restoration and vindication in the next life is so vital to remaining hopeful and joyful in this world. This world has a habit of ripping everything from a man, and treating him with disdain and disrespect. This is not just true of the modern world, it has been this way since the first man and woman rejected the Lord God in the Garden of Eden. But there will be a restoration for those who trust in Christ. We are not promised all the recognition we deserve in this life, but we are promised it in the next if we trust in him. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 4:5, “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” This is something which builds hope in the believer.

Those who trust in this world, or have their eyes set on this world, will find many disappointments. You may lose a job you have done well for 20 years. Your wife may leave you. Your friends might abandon you. So many things can happen to you. But so has it ever been. It is the duty and responsibility of the man to overcome this and not let the cruelty of this world turn our own souls cruel and hopeless. It is our responsibility, really our gift, to overcome this world. And if you have this mindset, you will find that the challenges this world sends at you will look very different. Unfair things will still happen, but you will remain steadfast when others would falter. So don’t lose hope, and don’t look at the troubles of this world out of the context of the reality of human life in a fallen world. Life has never been fair, but eternity will be. Well, in a sense. If it was truly fair we would not get the chance to go there. Only by the grace of God do we get to enjoy the next life, so continue to look to him.

List of References

---

[1] Oman, Charles. The History of the Byzantine Empire: From Its Glory to Its Downfall (pp. 60-61). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.

The Devil Hates Biblical Mothers

 

When you understand that it was a man born of a woman that defeated the devil, you can then understand why the devil goes out of his way to destroy motherhood, diminish childbirths, promote abortion, promote women delaying motherhood till it is too late, promote career over motherhood, and whatever other means he can of lessening children being brought into the world.

"Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea" (Rev. 12:17).

And this also helps you understand why he hates a religion and faith, Christianity, that promotes motherhood at a level like no other, and why he wants even those who believe this faith to be tempted to avoid motherhood as much as possible. The less women having children, and raising them in the way of the Lord, the easier the devil’s job is of spreading evil in this world.

Christianity is the only thing that can defeat evil. At the heart of the gospel message stands a righteous mother who bore her child, and a righteous man who protected this woman. What people today call the "trad life" or "trad family" was central to defeating evil in this world. Of course, our world wants to denigrate this lifestyle as much as possible, the usurper false king who rules their hearts inspires this.

 

Women Referees in Men's Sport

 

There has been a lot of talk in the media over the last few days about encounters between Rugby League players and female referees during footy games. The problem with involving women in men's sport is that what should be just about the game often becomes an annoying and degrading discussion about gender.

I think this is deliberate on behalf of the higher ups in the game, because much of corporate Australia is captured by radical gender ideology, the same ideology that dominates the parliament, universities and media. They want the gender discussion to constantly be in our faces, even when we are trying to ignore the craziness of this world and just watch football for some fun (this happens in many other areas of life now as well). Many of these corporate types believe this is moral, and they believe that you and I need to constantly be evangelized with their views.

The response by many male footy fans is to say, if women want to function in a man's space they should be treated equally, men are forceful with each other, the women have to get used to this as well. It should be equal, everyone should be treated the same. But this response is utopianism and is really just plain stupid. Equality is a silly myth.

Men and women are not the same. No man sees a big man getting in another man's face the same as a man getting in a woman's face. One is entertaining, the other is threatening. There is a reflexive thing in most men and women to recoil at that or to want to intervene, and we don't want to train this out of people. Men are the stronger sex and therefore have more responsibility to be protective. It's built into our creation. Men are commanded in Scripture not to treat women the same for a reason, God made us, he knows the different treatment the sexes need.

This is why it is vital that the wickedness of egalitarianism be challenged. Men and women are not the same, and it is vital they have separate spaces. The modern cultural elite wants to erase all of these separate spaces for men and women. They are dedicated to it. Passionate about it, and radically, ideologically driven to achieve this. And in pursuing this goal they want to masculinize women and emasculate men.

Men getting into the faces of referees has been a staple of sport for decades, it's the thing of highlight reels. Strong male referees pulling such men into line is just as entertaining, especially if its not your team. But radical gender ideologues are now going to use this normal athlete behaviour as another platform to attack men as sexist, or too aggressive, or misogynist, or some other thing. They can't help themselves, these are the discussions they want. If they can't get you to attend their boring, dreary, radical gender theory lectures on the subject, they'll invade your preferred form of entertainment to push it on you there.

Some silly person will be tempted to comment, "JuSt StOp WaTcHiNg SpOrTsBaLl." But the ideologues are doing this everywhere, like a spreading cancer attacking every cell.

The only solution is that women should be removed from men's sport. Men AND women should have separate spaces to be themselves. A world which doesn't allow this degrades both men and women.

Is Esther A Heroine?

 

I came across something interesting while doing some research for another writing project that affirms a thought I have had for some time: the book of Esther is not positive towards the remaining Jews in Babylon, but shows how Babylon had corrupted many of them.

I have long thought this, but it is good to see some commentators got their first:

"Esther is the only book of the Bible in which the name of God is not mentioned. The New Testament does not quote from the Book of Esther, nor have copies of it been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Law is never mentioned in the book nor are sacrifices or offerings referred to. This fits the view that the Jewish people residing in the Persian Empire were not following God's will. They were shunning their responsibility to return to Palestine and to become involved in temple worship. Prayer is never mentioned in the book, though fasting is. In other postexilic books prayer is important to the main characters (both the books of Ezra and Neh. are good examples), but in the Book of Esther nothing is said about Mordecai or Esther praying. Both Esther and Mordecai seem to have lacked spiritual awareness except in their assurance that God would protect His people."[i]

Add to this that in Daniel, he and the other three heroes refuse to compromise on their Jewish values. Whereas Esther and Mordecai appear to not be willing to suffer to refuse the marriage between Esther and a strongly pagan king. And it is not just that he is Persian, but that he is a pagan. It was forbidden for faithful Israelites to marry unbelievers, but there is no sign here that they take serious steps to stand against this like the three heroes do when they are asked to bow before the king of Babylon’s statue in Daniel. Mordecai appears much more keen to use worldly means to fight for his people in this book, rather than the faithful means that other Israelites in Babylon used in other books.

After Jerusalem was destroyed the centre of Jewish power became the Jewish population in Persia. This is where the Babylonian Talmud was written down and eventually became the dominant text of the Pharisees, who remained the most powerful Jewish religious group after the destruction of the Temple.

I have always thought it rather odd that the book of Esther describes Mordecai as pragmatic rather than holy, like the book of Daniel describes he and the other heroes, or the way Nehemiah is described in his account. Those other books go out of their way to emphasize the deep faith of the protagonists, Esther does not. As I have already noted, Esther should have preferred to suffer rather than marry a pagan King. Mordecai should have told her this, and the book should have emphasized this if it was commending them. The way Esther hid her identity is very different to how biblical heroes are shown to act in Babylon in the other books as well. How Mordecai and Esther manipulated their way to power is more Machiavellian than biblical. And the fact that they never once explicitly pray (though it does mention fasting but not prayers) or explicitly seek God for help has always stood out to me. And Mordecai's argument to Esther that someone else would save the Jews from Persia could be interpreted as a reference to fate, as much as to God, because of the silence about divine providence. We infer he means God, because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt, but this is not a necessary inference.

And the festival of Purim that comes out of this event is never affirmed in the New Testament. It is interesting that the only time the festival of Purim is believed to be referred to (though this is only a possibility) in the New Testament is John 5, the chapter in which Jesus accuses the Jewish leaders of having completely misunderstood both God and the scriptures, and therefore who he is.

I think it is best to read this book in light of a contrast between the faithful Israelites, and the faithless Israelites. There is the faithful remnant, many of whom returned back to Jerusalem as they were supposed to do once the exile was complete, as Isaiah says, “Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!” (Isa. 48:20). And as Jeremiah noted in Jeremiah 51:6, “Flee from the midst of Babylon; let every one save his life! Be not cut off in her punishment, for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance, the repayment he is rendering her..." and also 50:8, “8 Flee from the midst of Babylon, and go out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as male goats before the flock.” And there is also the faithless remnant who remained in Babylon and used Machiavellian means of achieving power, like Mordecai, and became increasingly powerful in the kingdom of Persia and Babylon.

These contrasting books, Daniel, Nehemiah and Ezra which juxtapose with Esther, show us the twin trajectories of the people who professed to be the people of God. I think this teaches us a lot when we see it in this light. What do you think?

List of References

---

[i] https://bible.org/question/was-it-realy-feasible-mordecai-or-ester-return-jerusalem-during-their-time-persia-it-seems-

The Woman Who Rides The Beast

 

I was leading a Bible study once many years ago and we were looking at Revelation and I read this passage,

“17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake. 19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found. 21 And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe.

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev. 16:17-17:6).

I asked the Bible study who they thought this woman, the great grostitute, was and what does her description sound like? One woman in the Bible study said something interesting, she said, “It sounds like feminism to me.” I found this interesting. Many people think this is the Catholic Church, or Rome, or Apostate Israel (I am in the third category myself), and this is what people generally say. The most common answer is the Catholic Church amongst Baptists and Pentecostals, for obvious reasons.

At first I thought she was joking and then she explained her position a little better, and I sat back and thought, I can see that. I don’t think it is the full picture, because there are many other things said about this city that need to be accounted. But I can’t help but think there is something in the fact that the Bible uses a woman to represent this false religious force.

Many people think that the Bible does not explicitly address feminism very much, but this is far from the truth. We know all the ways it counters it by emphasizing Patriarchy, but its references go beyond even this. Many times we see reference in the Bible to Baals and Asherahs. The Asherahs are a reference to the totem pole worship, and the worship of the feminine consort of Baal, Asherah, who was a chief deity among the Sidonians (Phoenicians). Jezebel was famously a proponent of Asherah, and the Baals. In the Sidonian mythology Asherah had usurped the power of El, the true chief God of the Sidonians and replaced him on the throne with Baal, who is clearly a form of the devil. The feminist undertones of this false religion are obvious. It is, therefore, not surprising that the chief proponent of this religion in the Bible, Jezebel, would usurp the authority of her husband’s throne and replace the worship of El Shaddai, or God Almighty, with this usurper Baal, or Molech. Ahab failed to contain his wife, though he was not the first man to do this.

Adam too, failed to contain his wife. When Eve was speaking to the devil all that Adam needed to do was tell the devil to be gone, and then explain to his wife again why eating of the apple was a dangerous sin. But instead he stood silent and ate of the fruit that she gave him. What is fascinating is that one of the most ancient symbols of the religion of Asherah is a woman standing next to a tree, holding a piece of fruit and offering it to the man, or to a king, sometimes with even a serpent wrapped around the tree. This religion obviously harkens back to the sin that Eve committed with the devil, and that is why Paul references this in 1 Timthy 2 about women teaching in the church. It's an ancient biblical thread rebuking what we today call feminism, or egalitarianism. 

So, the association with the harlot, the adulterous woman, whether literally in the sense of sexuality, or metaphorically in the sense of idolatry, is an ancient theme in the Scriptures and goes back to the very sin recorded in Genesis 3. Though it must be stated that in Genesis 3 this was immorality in the sense of idolatry, not sexually, however, in the ancient world these became intertwined after some time. It stands to reason, then, that this same sin would have something to do with the final representation of evil in the world, the Mystery Babylon of Revelation 16-18. It stands to reason that there is some connection with the Harlot and the Apostate Israel, or Apostate Church, or Apostate religion of Revelation 18. It is hard not to see feminism as at least a branch of this evil, and therefore where we see it influencing the church we should be very concerned, because this sinful force brings with it great danger. A danger that is warned about again and again in the Scriptures. 

 

U.S. Hypocrisy and Evil

 

Image: Unsplash

With all of the violence that is happening in Gaza at the moment, it is easy for many in the West to forget just how violent the wider western world has been towards the Middle East in the last 20 years or so. This is not an apologetic for Islam, or a call for pacificism, or anything like that. This is simply a reminder that the western world has sown much destruction and death in the Middle East, and this current conflict in Gaza is simply another expression of that.

Western leaders appear to have only one way of thinking about how to deal with problems in the Islamic world: war. And this has led to disaster after disaster for the nations of the Middle East, the surrounding regions which have had to deal with the influx of refugees some of whom were radicalized, and countless social and financial problems in the invading nations themselves, which, especially in the case of the United States, have spent many billions, indeed trillions of dollars on war and destruction in the region.

Are you aware how many Iraqis were killed in the last Iraq war? Some of the facts of the conflict are devastating to the West’s image as a force for good in the world,

“Twenty years have passed since George W Bush vowed to save the West from Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Backed by the UK and a coalition of international forces, on 20 March, 2003, the US launched a “shock and awe” bombing campaign which President Bush triumphantly declared as “mission accomplished” just weeks later on 1 May…”[1]

Those were famously mocked words, "mission accomplished". Really those early battles were the beginnings of the violent occupation of Iraq. 

What are the costs of the war?

“$1.79 trillion – The total spent by the US on the wars in Iraq and Syria, according to estimates published by the Costs of War project. This figure includes Pentagon and State Department spending, veterans’ care and the interest on debt financing the conflicts.

$2.89 trillion – Total US spending when including projected veterans’ care through to 2050.”[2]

What was the human costs of the war? They were many, but particularly to Iraqi civilians, 

“Iraqi civilian deaths

209,982 – The number of Iraqi civilians killed between 2003 and 2022, according to figures from Iraq Body Count (IBC).* In 2006 alone, 29,526 civilians were killed, making it the bloodiest year for the Iraqi civilian death toll.

600,000 – The medical journal The Lancet’s estimation of the scale of Iraqi civilian deaths.

20,218 – The number of civilians killed in 2014 due to Isis attacks as the group seized towns across the country, resulting in US president Barack Obama announcing air strikes against the group in Iraq.”[3]

I know that many westerners are not aware of the toll of these Middle East wars on civilians in the Middle East. The death toll in Gaza continues to climb, with numerous mass graves being uncovered showing that our current death toll estimates are well under the actual numbers. According to the UN more than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed, though this number does not distinguish between fighters and ordinary civilians.[4] Still its an incredibly high number. This means that the rate of civilian deaths is probably considerably higher in Gaza than the worst year for deaths in the Iraq war, 2006, as noted above. However, when it comes to total deaths, the war in Iraq far supersedes the death and destruction that has happened so far in Gaza, though the war in Gaza is of course still continuing.

I share this information for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, many parts of the Western world, including here in Australia, are looking to the United States to give leadership on this issue, and restore order and sanity to the region. But the United States has, in recent history, been a major source of destabilization in the Middle East. Remember Iraq did not attack the United States, or any of its allies, and they never found those mythical weapons of mass destruction either. Therefore, this fits the category of unjust war and all those involved should be condemned for their war crimes. 

How can we expect such a force for war in the region to be anything but a continual force for more war? The weapons and support the United States has already provided to Israel cement this reality, the US is an agent of destruction in the region.

Secondly, many Israel apologists have been arguing online that Israel is not doing anything in Gaza that the United States has not done in the Middle East. This may be true, in some measure at least. But I suspect many people are not aware of just how many atrocities the United States is responsible for in the region. This is not a vindication of the Israeli position, but a condemnation of it. 

This means, though, that the US has no leg to stand on as the force for reason in the region. Who would trust it? Wasn’t Iraq once a US ally? Look what happens when US forces change their mind. 

The West has long been a purveyor of death and destruction in the Middle East, and especially in the last 20 years. These wars have not made the world a safer place, they have not achieved increased order in the region, and they certainly have done Christianity no favours in the region either. This, to me, is one of the worst effects of these wars, alongside the deaths of so many civilians. The Christian population has shrunk rapidly since Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. It is time for the West to withdraw from the region, militarily. The more the West interferes there, the more it stirs up danger in the region and effects world trade in a negative way. For what benefit to western nations? None. 

List of References

---

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-bush-twentieth-anniversary-b2302031.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://archive.md/zdiaL