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

Feminists Can’t Solve Domestic Violence Issues

 

There has been a massive push in the media in Australia recently from the government seeking to address violence against women. Setting aside the fact that Australia is one of the safest countries on the planet for men and women, the media is making the mistake of putting forward the feminist narrative about domestic violence: that it is a men’s problem and women and children are the only victims we should really speak about.

It is for this basic reason that feminists will never be able to solve the domestic violence problem, because they are ideologically dedicated to only seeing part of the problem, violence against women and not the totality of the problem.

I think two points really drive this point home. First, should not we consider abortion domestic violence? Yes, we should. Abortion is violence between a mother, sometimes a mother and father, towards a child. This fits the basic societal understanding of domestic violence. When you factor this in then we see that women influenced by feminism are actually far more likely to be violent towards a family member than our society likes to admit. Secondly, should we also not consider a woman cheating on her husband, leaving him for another man, using the courts to take his home and his dignity, as forms of domestic violence? If coercion is domestic violence, is not a woman threating to do that to her husband or live-in-boyfriend, or actially doing it, also guilty of domestic violence? You see the issue here, feminists look at a very limited range of problems in the home and trumpet them as the totality of the issues involved, which leads to a situation where many other issues are just being neglected.

The Goodsauce has addressed this in a fantastic piece this week, it is well worth reading,

“Women are victims, men are violent”

IF YOU’VE BEEN listening to the Lying Harlot Media, politicians or feminists for the past few weeks, you’d have noticed an increasing volume of complaints about “violence against women”.

One headline shocks:

A woman is being violently killed in Australia every four days this year.

Is there any other way of being killed – “non-violent murder”?

The article uses the same gendered, exclusive language as is seen everywhere – men are killing women. It quotes a professional lobbyist who’s organisation only exists to end violence against women:

“…Another woman has been killed allegedly by men’s violence…”

“…A shocking rate of violent deaths of women this year that exceeds anything Australia has experienced in recent years.”

Last year saw 64 Australian women “violently killed”: a rate of one per 5.7 days. Of course anything over zero is terrible.

This year, after 114 days, 26 women have been murdered: a rate of one per 4.4 days.

But that’s including the psychopathic mass murder event in Bondi which any responsible statistician would exclude as an outlier, not part of a relevant sample of endemic male behaviours. If you do exclude Joel Cauchi’s psychotic rampage in honestly assessing our culture, the rate reduces to one per 5.4 days this year, just slightly higher than last year.

But we’re told this is a “crisis”, and I can’t help noticing our media and governments love using that word.

Here’s why I’m not buying that narrative.

Only 31% of homicides in Australia in 2022 (most recent data from ABS) were women.

Let me interpret that for you.

Men are being killed at more than twice the rate of women, and no one thinks that’s a crisis. No one’s holding rallies or protests or marches or vigils or starting DV shelters or getting government funding to “solve” the problem or getting wall to wall media coverage or high profile, major party politicians speeches clutching their pearls about violence against men.

The modern proverb “follow the money” might cause critical thinkers to observe the federal budget is only weeks away, the perfect time to pressure governments to be seen to be “doing something”. Like every grievance industry, real solutions only mean an end to rivers of cash from government to charities, so this won’t end well for any victims of violence or vulnerable others.”[1]

Looking at the issue of domestic violence honestly is not good for the bottom lines of many feminist organizations in Australia. There is a vested financial interest in making sure that people are continually fed a particular narrative on this issue, rather than the full truth. But refusing to look at this issue wholistically and addressing the full truth is not just wrong, it actually takes a terrible toll on society, especially on children, as the article notes,

“The third example of feminist hypocrisy is their aribtrary scale of horror which holds violence in the home as more evil than violence outside the home, the place where about 70% of female victims experience violence, as opposed to male victims, 70% of whom experience violence elsewhere.

The inconsistent standard is their typical, shameless, political support for a cultural normalisation of making the womb the most dangerous place in Australia for anyone.

Cancer killed 29,300 Australians, heart disease killed 24,400, and dementia killed 13,700 in 2017. These top three causes of death according to the ABS killed 67,400 people, while the number of living humans killed in abortion clinics numbered between 70,000 to 100,000. That’s at least 95 little girls, deliberately killed, every day.

No, the home is not even close to the most dangerous place in Australia to be a female.

The godless amorality of feminism dares to claim a vain right to “violently kill” (poison and/or tear limb from limb) a unique, living human being at any stage of gestation for literally any reason – including just being female – and then has the two-faced audacity to say that violence in the home is worse than all other violent behaviours.

Every argument “violence against women” alarmists offer is hypocritical at best, and maliciously divisive at worst.”[2]

Many Christians are aware that abortion is a great evil in society, and it is really good to see this issue addressed in the context of a discussion of domestic violence. Whether you want to put the blame for this at the feet of feminists, and to a degree we should, or at the feet of the weakness of modern Australian men, and to a degree we should, as this article points out the most dangerous place in Australia, at least in raw numbers, is the womb. THIS SHOULD NOT BE!! This is a terrible evil, a terrible wrong, and we constantly see politicians stand up and grandstand about stopping violence against women and then allow tens of thousands of baby girls and boys to be aborted each year. It needs to stop, and it needs to be recognized that this issue should be framed in the context of the wider domestic violence issue.

Feminists are not capable of stopping domestic violence because their ideology requires violence against children in the womb, including young girls, to be allowed. And the way their industry gets funding requires they present a misleading narrative about the issues surrounding domestic violence in society. If they were to be more honest about these two facts, much of their industry and much of what they profit off would disappear. This would actually have a net positive effect on society, because rather than politicians feeling pressured to address this issue from one very narrow perspective, it would allow society to honestly address the full range of problems of violence that our society has not yet dealt with.

I think working towards a society where no violence ever happens is a utopian goal, as long as sinful humans live in this world, there will be some who give themselves over to violence. But I do believe we can tackle certain issues of violence successfully to a large degree, and it is obvious that we have achieved this in many aspects of our society. The irony is that feminists claim a victims status that they exaggerate whilst also proclaiming an ideology which perpetuates the most violent act in our society today; abortion. And as Christians we should work tirelessly to see this evil overturned in our lifetime. It can happen. Pray it does.

List of References

---

[1] David Pellowe, 2024, The Goodsauce, https://goodsauce.news/violence-against-women-cant-be-solved-by-feminists/

[2] Ibid.

Karens - Another Win For Biblical Wisdom

 

Because of some things I have seen on social media, and in wider society, lately, I have been reflecting a bit on what the Bible says about ‘busybodies’. There are countless examples of this. If there is one issue I could identify in the Australian culture that underlies many other problems in our society, it is that we have a society where so many people are busybodies. So many people in our culture want to find ways to insert themselves into the business of others or take control of other people’s lives in some way. From local government all the way up to senior federal government positions we see this emphasis on seeking to control the minutia of people’s lives. But it does not just happen in government. Throughout our society in lobby groups, social groups, sporting groups, religious groups and more, we see this unceasing stream of busybodies flooding across our society coming up with new rules, new laws, new proposed rules and laws, new guidelines and more, and new things people must do. They are everywhere. 

These kinds of people got to achieve their dream society in 2020 to early 2023. You could see how much delight busybodies were taking in making and enforcing rules. This was their dream come true, the ability, and the so-called moral and ethical backing, to make their dreams of petty power become a reality. But this is not their only imprint on society. This was just an opportunity for them to be let loose in a way that they could only previously hope to imagine.

The Bible speaks of these troublesome people and indicates at least where some of them come from. We read this in 1 Timothy,  

“11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan” (1 Tim. 5:11-15).

Now, even though Paul is directly addressing widows in this passage, we know that he has a similar understanding for single women in general, because he says earlier in 1 Timothy, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:15). Paul is addressing women in general here, but particularly those who are seeking to teach in the church, and he tells them that they are not to teach, not to assume authority, but rather are to live out their faith by seeking to be godly mothers. When Paul says by this they will “be saved”, I do not think this means in the sense of salvation from sins, but in the sense of being rescued from the devil’s schemes, because this advice here matches very precisely with his advice to widows, and it also fits with protecting women from the same deception by the devil that Eve fell for (1 Tim. 2:13-14).

In other words, Paul is saying that if women do not recognize what God has called them to in life, and that is generally to be wives and mothers, they will be in danger of deception from the devil, just like Eve was. They will become troublemakers, busybodies, gossips, saying what they should not. They will become people who think they should assume an authority that they should not. They will become people who invade other people’s lives in unhealthy and sinful ways. They will be deceived and follow after Satan, just as Eve was deceived and followed after the devil.

What is interesting is how many young Christian women I have met across my life, who believed that they were not yet called to settle down, marry, and have a family, but instead were called to be social activists, or called to this or that ministry, life of service or to some other cause or thing. While I do believe in some instances God does call women to singleness, as Paul seems to indicate in 1 Corinthians 7:17-40, this does not mean that they are called to ignore Paul’s advice here in Timothy. In fact, in 1 Corinthians Paul says, “And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit” (1 Cor. 7:34). Paul is not saying that single women should be called to activism, ministry or social causes, or other things like this. He is simply saying that they have less concerns. How can they have less concerns if they go and dedicate their life to fighting some nation or international cause? They can’t.

In other words, Paul is saying in general women should marry and have children, and manage the home so that they do not become people who are tempted to interfere in other people's lives and affairs. Any woman who takes on this role, especially those who educate their children in the home, knows that this will fill their time. There is no time to be a busybody if you are doing this role diligently. So many young women ignore this, and indeed many pastors do not teach this, and you see the many issues this causes in society. The subversive 19^th century Suffragette and “evangelical” Feminist movement would be the most powerful example of the issues this can cause for a society. The modern degradation in progressive Christian churches is another. 

In fact, Paul seems to say that if a woman has the time, she should find a way to help her relatives rather than look to influence society, “If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows” (1 Tim. 5:16). Rather than take her free time and try to change the world, and therefore become a Karen who wants to rule the daily lives of countless people through an ever increasing pile of rules and decrees, she should use her time to make sure her extended family is well cared for. If you don’t have extended family, than ask the Church how you can help, so the church is not burdened. 

If our churches were to apply this, and if young women were properly taught this, there would be a lot less troublesome young women seeking to invade other peoples lives, and far less lonely single women in their forties and fifties angry that no one told them to get their act together before it was too late. But it is not just women who have an issue here. 

Paul also says,

“10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living” (2 Thess 3:10-12).

This passage is saying that men who do not work should not eat, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." The work women should do is keeping the home, if they are not engaged in this they can become troublesome. The work men should do is providing for their relatives, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). If men are not diligent in this, they too become troublesome. They too will find ways to be busybodies.

The truth is, I see this sort of busybody type behaviour less in men, than I do in women, though it does exist in men. If you include the online annoying gamma commenter it probably increases how much it exists in men, though. I think the reason you see this less for men is that society is far harsher to men who do not fulfil their God-given role, than it is to women who do not fulfill theirs. Women are actually encouraged to not be home keepers, and to not be people who take care of their relatives. Not just encouraged, but really propagandised to leave the home and work. But men are brutally and correctly told that they should be income earners, who do not live off others. So it is harder for men to be busybodies. However, just because it is less common does not mean it does not exist.

So, Paul helps us understand at least part of where this phenomenon comes from. It comes, in part, from men and women not fulfilling their God given roles diligently. The good thing about this is that once you become aware of this you can easily speak to it, or correct it in your own life. The bad news is that many people, even many Christians, have no intention of believing that Paul had better insight than them when it came to understanding our God-given roles in society. Most people think that Paul was an out of date misogynist who was simply perpetuating the outdated morality and social conventions of his day, or among those who think he was progressive for his day and a step towards the egalitarian "utopia" our society is pursuing. I think they are wrong and I think the fact that our society is filled with so many busybodies is proof that Paul was correct to tell women their role is in managing the home. The fact that our modern culture has come up with a whole new term to describe women who act this way - 'Karens' - shows that even though our society does not know the reasons for this issue, or even understands the solutions, it at least recognizes the issue is real and troublesome.

I would say this is another win for the Bible and its practical wisdom. We should have listened to it. 

List of References