Free Healthcare?

Free healthcare is a truly mind boggling thing when you think about it. We have somehow come to the conclusion that healthcare should be free. Even the suggestion that someone should pay $5 to go to the doctors to help bolster Medicare is considered extremism in our society. It is generally accepted across both sides of the isle that healthcare should be free. 

But to call it free is dishonest. Nothing is free. This is paid for by subsidies that come from tax and money printing. This has made the cost of healthcare for our society as a whole much more expensive. Whatever the government subsidizes significantly increases in price, this is a fact. This was observed with the NDIS that certain services on becoming subsidized immediately raised their prices per hour. This has happened across the medical industry and beyond. 

Across our society things are far more expensive than they should be, because of generous subsidies or welfare. I read one statistic the other day that showed the cost of housing is 50% cheaper in the USA than here, in relation to income. We mock the US often for having expensive healthcare if they don't have insurance, but if houses were 50% cheaper this would offset that a fair bit, right? This is in part because they do not have the same level of subsidies there that we do. 

So, in other words. We have created a fiction that healthcare or some other service is free. When in reality we have shifted the cost, and now we are in a situation where basic things like housing, something else the government has stimulated through subsidies and immigration, are becoming cripplingly expensive. 

To put it another way, free was a lie, we just shifted the cost burden, and now every single one of us is worse off, because we wanted to believe a lie that if the government paid for it with our money that means it is free. I would have no problem paying, $20, $30, $40 to go see a doctor on occasion. It would certainly motivate us to be more intentional about our health and why we are visiting, correct? A KFC meal is nearly $20 now. People will happily pay that to slowly poison themselves, but will violently criticize the idea that we should bear some of the cost for our own health. It is remarkable to consider that we have gotten to this place as a society. We are a very entitled people. And I don't see this changing. 

Eventually, this debt bubble will burst, and we'll end up having to pay, one way or another, all the costs anyway. No fiction can last forever.

The devil is Laughing

 

The rights of Eastern European Jews to reconquer the land of Canaan is a fascinating discussion. There is no biblical right, as the Old Covenant is finished. There is no moral right, because taking land by conquest has been condemned by universal acceptance of modern nations. But there is a might makes right position that you can assert. By that I mean that they can take it by right of conquest and if no one can take it from them it is theirs. Though our world does not endorse such actions anymore, this still happens today from time to time. And often other nations will condemn this, but not actually seek to police it happening in any meaningful ways (unless of course Russia does it).

Simple minds think that many of us oppose this conquest of Canaan because of anti this or anti that. Or because of Augustine or some other Church father. But the real reason is because we deeply understand the Bible and what the land represented and who it was for. The land is a picture of our heavenly home, it was always a shadow. not the fulfilment. To make it a fulfilment is actually really sad, just look at the constant state of war required to hold even part of it. But even in the Old Covenant the land was never just for the Jews, or Judah. Only a small part of it was, it was given to the 12 sons of Jacob, the 12 tribes, of which Judah was only one.  

Judah had no more right to Simeon or Dan’s or Reuben’s land than anyone else. When Ahab offered to buy Naboth’s land, Naboth rejected the offer, because he saw it as sinful to give his inheritance to someone not of his family. Both Naboth and Ahab were Israelites, but neither had the right to the other’s land. Hence Judah, at most, and only if you still believe the Old Covenant is still in effect in some way, only has a right to tiny bit of the land. The rest belongs to the other tribes. Who are not gone.

In the days of Hoshea king of Israel the Israelites were carried off into exile, but not very far away. We read in 2 Kings 17, “6 In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria, and he carried the Israelites away to Assyria and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” So, the king of Assyria resettled the people of Israel in Syria. These people did not disappear. They mixed with the people of Syria, and the surrounding peoples.

You get the significance of this right? The descendants of these people live among the peoples we today call Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi and more. They are mixed with the peoples and no longer practice the religion of the Bible. But the same is true of the Eastern European Jews who have sought to conquer Canaan again. They are mixed with the European peoples they lived amongst, after migrating from Babylon in the early medieval era. And they do not worship the God of the Bible or follow the religion of the Bible. They practice, if they do practice, the faith of the Pharisees, or Rabbinical Judaism, which our own Lord said was not of God (Mark. 7:1-13). Hence, how can one say they are the rightful heirs of the promises to Abraham, when they reject the very Lord Abraham believed in?

So, take this all in. This means on both sides of this fight in the Middle East there are not only physical descendants of Abraham, but physical descendants of Jacob. DNA studies have confirmed this as well. There are people who think they are Arabs, who are actually descendants of Jacob, or ancient Israel. Just as there are many people who think they are European and then find out that they are actually Jewish. This happens all the time. In other words, physical descendants of Jacob are fighting against each other, with Gentiles on both sides, for a small block of land, that is the not the real inheritance of Abraham anyway,

“13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4;13-15).

The real inheritance of God’s people is the new heaven and new earth, which is the real promised land, and it is only for those who believe in God, as Abraham did.

You’re not being biblical in supporting a claim for Eastern European Jews to conquer the whole land. You are actually leading them and their enemies astray by encouraging them to fight over a block of land that was supposed to point all of them, and us, to Jesus in whom all people’s can hope for salvation. It is a tragic misreading of the Bible, that no one who has read it should make.

The devil is laughing. Because the longer this conflict goes on the more people die in God’s name and end up going to hell. This is an incredible tragedy, and the devil has many Christians to thank for making this tragedy possible.  

Greek Equality vs Medieval Hierarchy

 

There are many people who trace the concept of equality back to the ancient Greeks. But when you examine their concept of equality, you can see it was no such thing in practice,

“When it comes to discussing the origins of the concept of structuring society along the lines of equality Creveld takes us to ancient Greece. Greece is famous for its attempt to establish egalitarian societies. But while equality was an idea that the Greeks toyed with, it is something they never really achieved, in fact they did not even come close. For example, we are told of Agamemnon, a King during the time of the Illiad, that his “tents are full of copper and many choice captive women.” And while the city states of the classical period gave the population more rights and more of a say in the decisions of the city, they did not enfranchise the slaves, or the women, or even other Greeks. The Greeks may have invented democracy, but they did not really achieve equality. Let’s have a look at the two most notable attempts to do so, in the city states of Sparta and Athens.

The Spartan way of life was based on an extreme, almost monkish, form of equality among the Spartan warrior class; the Spartiates. From the age of seven to the grave their life was one of frugal living, devoted to military pursuits, and based on a harsh form of enforced equality.

“Such was the importance Lycurgus attributed to equality that it applied even to death. Not only did he prohibit any kind of objects to be buried with their owners, but tombs were not supposed to carry the names of their occupants. The only exceptions to this rule were men who had been killed in battle and women who had died in childbirth.”^[1]

I love that the Spartans regarded mothers as honourable as warriors, but, as with all other attempts at establishing a society based on equality, Sparta never really reached its goals:

“In all this, the major deviations from equality were the fact that private individuals could not speak in the assembly; that only old men could be elected to the Senate; and that the kingship was hereditary and limited to members of just two families, the Agiads and the Eurypontids. When somebody asked Lycurgus about this his response, presented as a typical example of “Laconian” brevity and pungency, was to tell the man to ‘go and first establish democracy in your own household.’”^[2]

Even the supposed lifestyle of frugal and brutal equality that the Spartan men enjoyed, if ‘enjoyed’ is the right word, rested on the massive slave labour force they were able to bring to bear to maintain their society. While the helots, the Spartan slave labourers, toiled in the fields, and the perioikoi toiled in the house, the Spartan men could dedicate themselves to military training.^[3] There is also their famous and disgusting treatment of infants they considered not “equal” enough, which were either killed or raised as slaves. Spartan equality really was not a form of equality at all, but a monkish military elitism, that placed one class of men much higher than everyone else on the hierarchy.

Athens, is the other notable example of pretensions of equality in the ancient world. Under a leader called Solon, the Athenians began to propose the idea of equality before the law, isonomia, even at one point setting all Athenians free from debts and servitude, in an attempt to bring more equality to the Athenian people. 

“The move did not mean that slavery was abolished. Both Athenian individuals and the state could, and would, continue to own slaves. What changed was the fact that the slaves in question could not be Athenian citizens. From this point on, in other words, all Athenian citizens were, by definition, free.”^[4]

But even these free and “equal” citizens were not really equal. The Athenian people were separated into different classes by Solon, based on wealth and status, with only people of certain ranks being allowed to enter respective positions of power.^[5] Indeed, “…some modern historians have argued that, at this time, isonomia meant no more than equality among aristocrats.”^[6] Then, as now it seems, the elites used cries of “equality, liberty, fraternity” to gain more power for themselves, or to put it another way; equality for some but not for others.”

As you can see the Greek concept of equality was really a form of elitism dressed up as equality. In reality it was no form of equality at all, but was a system designed to maintain the absolute power of a small group of men, for their benefit, and what they may or may not have believed was best for their city or people as a whole.

Many philosophers and democracy advocates look back to the Greeks as the philosophical foundation of modern egalitarianism. Which you can really only do if you don’t honestly evaluate the way the Greeks actually structured their societies. Though, modern elites do use equality as a pretext to secure power for a small group of which they are the beneficiaries, so there is that similarity. 

In contrast with this mindset is that of the medieval jurists, whom I much prefer. Rather than being obsessed with equality, 

“Medieval minds were fascinated, captivated by an alternate vision – the vision of hierarchy. In real life they were ruled by hierarchies of government in church and state. But beyond this they perceived the whole universe as a great hierarchal chain of being. From God authority flowed to an angelical hierarchy in heaven to an ecclesiastical hierarchy on earth…To medieval men, divinely ordained hierarchy seemed, not just an abstract theory, but an observable fact of nature.”^[7]

This most certainly is an observable fact of nature. Everywhere we go, amongst people or creatures great and small, we observe hierarchies in action, they are unavoidable. This is not an argument for absolute tyranny either. The medieval thinkers were onto something when they sought to establish God given or natural rights, and limits and responsibilities of power. There is much good in their arguments there, and we would be foolish to reject all of the grand nobility of medieval thought, just because we are quibbling with one very minor aspect of it. Chaucer captures the medieval understanding of why God ordained hierarchy, and shows us why it is a noble aspect of the world that should be preserved, not rejected,

“Now, as I have said, since it was because sin was the first cause of thralldom, then it stands thus: that all the while all the world was in sin, it was in thralldom and subjection. But certainly, since the time of grace came, God ordained that some folk should be higher in rank and state and some folk lower, and that each should be served according to his rank and his state… but in as much as the estate of Holy Church might not have come into being, nor the common advantage kept, nor any peace and rest established on earth, unless God had ordained that some men should have higher rank and some lower: therefore was sovereignty ordained to guard and maintain and defend its underlings or its subjects within reason and so far as lies in its power, and not to destroy or to confound them.”^[8]

The Greeks used the rhetoric of equality to justify a small segment of society holding all of the power. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is very much what modern elites do, as we noted above. They make pretensions of equality but in reality they are seeking to maintain their own positions of power and authority for their own benefit.

In contrast the medievalists are open and honest about their preference for hierarchy, but they see in hierarchy both the image of God and the genius of God. God has ordained the strong that they may defend the weak, and he has ordained that we should honour those who are over us. Give honour unto to whom it is due, as Paul would say. It is not an accident that in hell no one is honoured. 

Both the Greek system and the Medieval system were in practice hierarchies. But the medievalist system is far more honest and open about the good reasons for hierarchy, and the responsibilities which the powerful have to use their power for just ways. They may not have always done this in practice, no society is perfect, but at least the philosophy of the medievalists was that all people exist under God and will be judged by him for how we use our power. So, don’t deny power, but use it justly.

But this is also why it was the medievalists who developed the idea of human or natural rights, because these rights flowed out of the network of responsibilities connected to the roles people had in the hierarchy. Greek equality could not lay such a foundation. It did make use of slaves, though, of course. Notice how our modern egalitarian cultures are always chasing cheap foreign labour? That's not a coincidence. The people at the top feel no loyalty to the people below. Whereas, a medieval Lord had a God given role to protect his charges. Which many leaders took seriously. And no peasants were not slaves. They had rights. 

We live in an age which despises hierarchy. To some degree we are all affected by this. Especially here in Australia, but also in other parts of the West. But the world was created to be hierarchical, any claims to the contrary are simply dishonest. Hierarchy is both observed and also a necessity for a healthy society. We should look more and more to the medievalists, we might learn some important things.

(Both large blocks of quotes in this article come from a new book I am writing).

List of References

---

[1] Van Creveld, Martin, 2015. Equality: The Impossible Quest. Castalia House, Finland. Kindle Edition. Chapter 2

[2] Ibid. Chapter 2.

[3] Ibid. Chapter 2. 

[4] Ibid. Chapter 2.

[5] Ibid. Chapter 2. 

[6] Ibid. Chapter 2.

[7] Tierney, Brian, 1982. Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge; Pp42-43. 

[8] Chaucer, Geoffrey, 2017, The Canterbury Tales, JKL Classics Publishers, Kindle Edition; p516

Women Likely More Than Religion

 

Religion is not the chief reason for war. It is probably more likely to be the case that women are more likely to be the reason for war. From something I am publishing soon,  

“What else is war, but the desire to steal, kill and destroy? It may not be true of both sides, at least not initially, but the longer the war goes on the more even the defensive side will find itself seeking to steal, and of course how can it win without seeking to kill and destroy? Violence, rape and pillaging are synonymous with war. Ancient peoples went to war to steal women from other tribes, this is true from the ancient Aryans to the pre-Colonial Indigenous tribes. Indeed, the historian Keith Windschuttle shows in his book The Fabrication of Indigenous History Volume 1324 that the theft of women was one of the primary motivations for war among the various bands of Indigenous tribes in Tasmania. Another primary motivation was revenge on other tribes and bands because they had attacked and stolen their women and children. But this is by no means limited to primitive band level societies.

In the Scriptures, we see that the Benjamites are allowed to attack a fellow Israelite tribe to get wives for their men. The Romans in the classical poetic story The Aeneid are likewise recorded as going to war with a local Latin tribe to get wives for their men. The most famous ancient battle of the B.C. era was the battle of Troy, which was all over a beautiful woman stolen by one man from another. And everyone knows about the Vikings, Scythians, Parthians, Mongols and other raiding peoples who made a speciality of such practices during history. It may even be not very hard to prove that the pursuit of women, in one form or another, is the primary reason for war in history. If not, it certainly is true that theft in the broader sense is, and stealing women was part of this. This is all according to the pattern of how the evil one works. It is done in his image.

There is war over women, war over water, war over arable land, war over grazing land, war over development land, and war over resources to name a few. I can think of several television shows on at this time of writing that are all about this very sort of conflict; war over honour, war over pride, war just because war is what princes and kings did. As scripture describes, “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go to battle…”325 This happens on the small scale in counties like the Lincoln County Wars in nineteenth century America, and it happens on a large scale between cities, states, nations and empires.”

Land, riches and women, in any order, were probably the three chief reasons for war in history. And land and riches got a man more access to women, historically. They do today as well. Oh, and of course glory and fame, which had the side benefit of getting a man land, riches and women.  

What is fascinating also about this topic is the fact that it was Christianity, and Christianity alone, that stopped women being the rightful spoils of war, and turned harming or taking women in war into a war crime. This was achieved by medieval monks who forced the Knights of Europe to submit to the codes of Chivalry which made sure they protected women in war, and did not exploit them.

This then spread around the world as a result of European Colonialism and international agreements, based on things like the Geneva convention in modern times, but even earlier with the European Colonial codes of warfare, which included mandates to protect civilians.

Without Christianity every woman in the world would be in danger of being kidnapped or pillaged still. And yet people try to pin war on Christianity in particular and religion in general. The gall of some people.

Isaiah the Conspiracy Theorist?

 

Did you know Isaiah was accused of being a conspiracy theorist? This is from something I am writing:

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

“Are some conspiracy theories in the world be true? Possibly. But what does it matter? Read the Scripture again: “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.” Isaiah 8:12 What is the benefit of believing theories? Nothing. They are a waste of time. Even if they could be true.”217

This person believes Isaiah is saying that we should not discuss conspiracies, or at least avoid them as much as possible. This is essentially how John N. Oswalt reads it in his commentary of Isaiah.218 In this reading, Isaiah is telling faithful believers to ignore conspiracies and just trust in God. A positive message for sure, in some ways. It is good to be told to not fear what conspiring men can do, but instead to fear God alone. But there is a big problem with this reading: it gets the verse backwards, and as Oswalt notes, this sets the verse at odds with its context.219

So, let us now evaluate what the verse says. First observe that it does not say, ‘do not ever listen to or entertain conspiracies.’ Yet, this appears to be how some people hear it, or apply it, but it does not say that. It simply says two things: 1) do not call something a conspiracy just because some people say it is a conspiracy, and 2) do not fear what those same people are afraid of, nor live in dread. So how do we understand this verse then?

In light of the context, and the context makes it clear that Isaiah is not warning the Israelites to avoid conspiracies here, he is saying don’t believe people when they say (likely flippantly), “Oh, that’s just a conspiracy.” Don’t call a conspiracy what this people calls a conspiracy, most naturally reads as: don’t let people label something as a conspiracy theory when it is clearly not. This is how Allan Harman reads it in his commentary, noting that Isaiah and his compatriots are being accused of promoting conspiracies,220 when they are actually speaking the truth. According to this reading, the verse is saying don’t define conspiracy how the people define conspiracy, and don’t be afraid of people saying such things (v.12). Rather, fear God and let him be your standard of separation from the culture; aka holiness (v.13). If you trust him, he will be your solid foundation and he will also be a stumbling block to all who just call these things conspiracies (v.14). Many will fall for this line and be broken because of that (v.15). Don’t fall for it, define things according to God’s standard.

In other words, Isaiah is saying here to not be afraid of how people will respond to you if you say something is happening, or about to happen, and they just brush you aside. Trust in God, let him be your foundation and stronghold and let him be their opponent. This verse makes much more sense if you read it in context and see what God is encouraging the Israelites with. So, let’s now look at that wider context of the passage…

…Fools will just brush aside knowledge that they don’t want to hear as conspiracy theories. This is foolish, because sometimes prophets of God like Isaiah, or just insightful but ordinary believers who steep themselves in understanding the scriptures and culture, see things coming that others are blind to. This is foolish because we live in a world that has literally been usurped by a being called the ‘father of lies’ and therefore our world is filled with liars in allegiance with this fake king, and many of those people have power and influence. This is foolish because the Bible actually teaches us a lot about conspiracies. The beauty of this reading of Isaiah 8:12 is that it fits with the immediate context, and it also fits with everything else that the Bible says about the topic of conspiracy. Now that we have removed this roadblock to our examination let’s go deeper into what the scriptures say about this topic.”

The Bible has a lot to teach us on the topic of conspiracy. A lot. It goes out of its way to warn us that conspiracy is a big problem in this world. So, teachers that take this verse out of context to try and tell us that we should not entertain the idea of conspiracy are not just wrong, they are actually doing harm to the Bible’s intention for us on this topic. God wants us to know that there is great evil working in the world, and it is often working in secret. Once you realize this you cannot look at this world the same way again. 

More to come soon...

Does Having Children Guarantee the Future?

 

We live in a day of self-indulgence. Many people have eschewed marriage and long-term relationships because they are afraid that they will be left by their wife or husband. This is foolishness to the utmost highest. To avoid a relationship because you fear that your relationship will fail is really a form of self-harm. Why would you live under such cowardice and fear? Why would you let that control your life.

I would find this completely shocking, that someone would avoid ever pursuing a relationship for fear that it would fail, if I did not remember that I thought this way myself when I was about 15 or 16 years old. I remember there was a girl who liked me that I knew liked me, but I never pursued her. I was too shy in this arena. But it was not long after that situation that I learnt from that and things changed dramatically. But I was a teenager at the time. Being an older teenager is when you work these things out. It is unseemly, and unbecoming for a man to still be in this place of fear of approaching a woman when he is in his twenties, thirties or forties. Yet, the truth is that many men have settled into this mindset, and nothing can shake them from it. Or so it appears at least.

It is common for those of us in the nationalist camp to tell people that if they do not have kids then they cannot win the future. This is most often the case. I say most often because someone could bring up the exceptions of Jesus or Paul. But this is a bit retarded, because you are never going to be Jesus, and you are almost certainly never going to have the impact on civilisation that Paul had, either. Jesus is a one off the situation. He is the Lord and King of all, his role was singular in humanity. His role was to be the second Adam, the God Man who achieved for us salvation. And Paul’s role was also to some degree singular. He was called to be the chief of the Apostles with regards to the impact of scripture and of explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ to world. This is a high calling.

Paul even appeared open to having a wife. He says in 1 Corinthians 9,

“3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?” (1 Cor. 9:3-6).

Though he did make it clear that in some way he was gifted to singleness,

“6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:6-9).

So, there is a gift to singleness, but Paul notes it is rare, and we can observe that those who can’t control themselves far outweigh those that can. Bringing up exceptions to disprove a rule is sub-standard thinking, though that is common too, is it not?

When all is laid out at the end of the day the best chance that you have for having an impact on the future is children. Having children allows even the humblest of people to have a mighty impact on the world. I think it is right for the nationalists to emphasize that in general all young men and young women should be pursuing righteous marriage and posterity through children. I have seen way too many avoiding this completely, or delaying it for a host of reasons, usually because of influence from their parents that want them to delay, or because of some idea that they need to have a lot of money before they can get married. Either way, a lot of young adults are delaying marriage.

There is also something broken in Generation Z when it comes to sex and having children. An increasing number of young men are not finding relationships, and are not having sex, but instead are turning to things like porn and Onlyfans.[1] “There has been a more than 50 per cent increase in men 18-24-years-old not having sex since about the turn of the millennium.”[2] I have even heard young men in this generation say that they are happy not to marry, and are happy to stay at home indefinitely. The cost of living today, and a host of other issues, have driven a lot of young men out of the dating pool and away from marriage, and this is an issue in the church and outside the church. So there needs to be a healthy correction pointing these young men to marriage and children. So they can lay a claim more surely on the future.

And yet, I have been reminded by my own devotions over the last few days just how much this is not simply a physical or material problem, but a spiritual issue. It is simply not completely true to say that those who have the most kids win the future, because it is more biblical to say those who have God’s favour do. This is highlighted well by a few examples in the book of Kings.

Let’s look at Ahab because this serves to really emphasize this point. God said to Ahab,

“20 Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” He answered, “I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the Lord. 21 Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 22 And I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the anger to which you have provoked me, and because you have made Israel to sin. 23 And of Jezebel the Lord also said, ‘The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the heavens shall eat” (1 Kings 21:20-24).

Ahab so angered the Lord that God told him that he was going to destroy all his descendants, just as he had done to Jeroboam and Baasha. And though Ahab repented and this prophecy was delayed (c.f. vv. 25-29), it truly came to pass. First Ahab died in battle, and then later Ahab’s son Joram was judged, and then Jezebel was judged (2 Kings 9). We read in 2 Kings 9 how the servant of Elijah anointed Jehu as king and prophesied that he would fulfil this duty,

“6 So he arose and went into the house. And the young man poured the oil on his head, saying to him, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, I anoint you king over the people of the Lord, over Israel. 7 And you shall strike down the house of Ahab your master, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord. 8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish, and I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 9 And I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah” (2 Kings 9:6-9).

Jehu then fulfills this word, by going after Joram, the king of Israel and the Son of Ahab, and Ahaziah the king of Judah, whose mother was Athaliah, a daughter of Ahab. And then he takes out Jezebel, as we noted. Then, after this, Jehu went after the 70 sons of Ahab,

“6 Then he wrote to them a second letter, saying, “If you are on my side, and if you are ready to obey me, take the heads of your master's sons and come to me at Jezreel tomorrow at this time.” Now the king's sons, seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, who were bringing them up. 7 And as soon as the letter came to them, they took the king's sons and slaughtered them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets and sent them to him at Jezreel. 8 When the messenger came and told him, “They have brought the heads of the king's sons,” he said, “Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.” 9 Then in the morning, when he went out, he stood and said to all the people, “You are innocent. It was I who conspired against my master and killed him, but who struck down all these? 10 Know then that there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spoke concerning the house of Ahab, for the Lord has done what he said by his servant Elijah.” 11 So Jehu struck down all who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his great men and his close friends and his priests, until he left him none remaining” (2 Kings 10:6-11).

But Jehu was not yet finished. Next, he ran into the relatives (NKJV says “brothers”) of Ahaziah, who was, remember, also related to Ahab and an idolator,

“12 Then he set out and went to Samaria. On the way, when he was at Beth-eked of the Shepherds, 13 Jehu met the relatives of Ahaziah king of Judah, and he said, “Who are you?” And they answered, “We are the relatives of Ahaziah, and we came down to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother.” 14 He said, “Take them alive.” And they took them alive and slaughtered them at the pit of Beth-eked, forty-two persons, and he spared none of them” (2 Kings 10:12-14).

A few verses later we read, “17 And when he came to Samaria, he struck down all who remained to Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke to Elijah” (2 Kings 10:17). And after this he went after the religion of Ahab and struck down the prophets of Baal, and the idols of Baal, “26 and they brought out the pillar that was in the house of Baal and burned it. 27 And they demolished the pillar of Baal, and demolished the house of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day” (2 Kings 10:26-27). Jehu went about making sure that Ahab had no posterity. And he was pretty thorough at seeking to fulfill this task, especially in Samaria.

Even after Jehu was gone, this word continued to be fulfilled in Judah. Athaliah, who was the grand daughter of Omri, and the daughter of Ahab, took control of Judah and killed almost all her descendants (2 Kings 11:1-3). Only one survived, Joash, the son of Ahaziah, who was taken by his aunty and hidden in the temple. This Joash, or Jehoash, was technically a descendant of Ahab, but really he was preserved so that God’s promise to David would be fulfilled, because he was a descendant of David as well. His being raised in the temple ensured that this put an end to the Baal worship of Judah for a time, after his grandmother, Athaliah, was eventually defeated,

“1 In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Zibiah of Beersheba. 2 And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him. 3 Nevertheless, the high places were not taken away; the people continued to sacrifice and make offerings on the high places” (2 Kings 12:1-3).

All of this shows that you can have all the children you want and if God’s favour is not on your side you will still lose the future. Ahab had no posterity left just as God had prophesied, “21 ‘Behold, I will bring calamity on you. I will take away your posterity, and will cut off from Ahab every male in Israel, both bond and free” (1 Kings 21:21). Ahab had 70 sons, that is just his sons, he had daughters as well, and God took it all. And one of his few technical descendants left was more closely related to David and raised in the faith of David, instead of the faith of Ahab.

So, if we want to win the future it is not just a case of having lots of children, though we should do that. It is a case of making sure that we have a physical and spiritual legacy of righteousness. Because you can have a large family but then war, disease, pestilence, or some other calamity from God can take them all away. But a spiritual legacy is a sure foundation, and a spiritual legacy that you build into your children is an even more sure foundation.

I am not seeking to rebuke or disagree with anyone who says we should be encouraging young men to get a wife and have kids. I am all for this. I just think what I saw in my devotions over the last week or more, about God taking away the posterity of the wicked is an important addition to this conversation. Ultimately this is not just a physical world, it is a physical and spiritual world, and we cannot forget this. As we read in Job 18 about the wicked, “5The light of the wicked indeed goes out, And the flame of his fire does not shine…19 He has neither son nor posterity among his people, Nor any remaining in his dwellings.” When God’s favour is not upon you there is nothing in the physical that you can do to overcome this. But if God’s favour is upon than you can overcome everything this world has to throw at you.

May you look up God for his favour. And may God favour you with an incredible posterity.

List of References

---

[1] Gregory Matos 2023, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202302/why-are-so-many-young-men-single-and-sexless?msockid=2652711681de61e7277a647085de6fbb

[2] Daniela Esler, 2025,  https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/terrifying-aussie-male-sex-trend-that-is-on-the-rise/news-story/17e8a5e71c6978cafb1a7fb684e19870?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=SocialBakers&fbclid=IwY2xjawJz7WRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsvFB81nfLljB79-hYH70zyVSNnXJJb4T37iyta5toT0haAiKbMLHGeB-ujB_aem_9sp3FVfhG3CAbHHKqYrZZA

The Perverter: Satan

 

This is from something I am writing,

“We cannot even begin to seriously understand the devil’s schemes if we do not understand his subversive, perverse, and twisted tendencies. If we understand that in the eyes of Scripture a woman dominating her husband is as sinful as a man that is addicted to pornography, we will be better equipped to understand the range of the devil’s perversions of God’s order. The devil is not just focused on outright promotion of clear moral error, but also with subtly leading people into dangerous and subversive error. This is what he does to everything that he can.

The devil did not get rid of the idea of creator; he just replaced it with a view of chaotic randomness being creator. Who does that sound like?

The devil did not get rid of the fact that society needs a saviour, a healer; he just replaced it with the view that the state, which is supposed to be God’s servant for good, is now the saviour itself.

The devil did not get rid of the idea of the dignity of women; he just perverted it by convincing women they had to become like men and function like men to have their true dignity. In the process, he ripped apart the Western home, and has diminished both men and women.

Once we understand just how much the devil has perverted, twisted and subverted our culture, we can then look to how God’s word teaches us to address it, beginning in our own lives.”

The devil does his best deceiving by using a form a spiritual Judo. He just takes good things and slightly bends them to redirect them. Any builder knows that if you are building a foundation for a house and you begin by being 1 millimetre out of alignment, you will end up going far off track. Pilots know the same thing, if they do not put in the precise right heading, accounting for wind speed and atmospheric conditions, they will end up far from their proper destination.

Once we take into account the devil’s ways of seeking to subtly pervert everything even just a bit to send us off track, we can become more attuned to seeing him at work.

The Resurrection 1000

This is my 1000th blog. I have been writing this blog since 2013. I started off with one or two a year and now I write on average 5 blogs a week, some of which I publish on my Substack. I write about history, faith, politics, theology, cultural issues, music and so much more. But I can't imagine a better topic for my 1000th blog than the Resurrection. Because our hope in Jesus matters more than anything. It matters more than even those of us who believe it often realize. It is the hope of mankind. If you read my blog I implore you today to meditate on this word from 1 Corinthians, and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ today. 

 

Today is resurrection Sunday. Actually, that is not quite true. Every Sunday is resurrection Sunday. There is nothing wrong with celebrating Easter as a unique holiday each year. Nothing wrong with that at all. But the reason Christians began to worship on Sunday, or the first day of the week, instead of the Sabbath day, is because Jesus rose on a Sunday. Sunday, therefore, is the day of the Son.

Now, I know that name Sunday does not come from the Bible. It actually comes from the pagan name “Solis” which means Sun, the Germanic word for “Sol” was “Son”. The Greeks and the Romans called the first day of the week the “day of the Sun” or “the day of Sol” (die Solis in Latin or ‘hemera heliou’ in Greek). So, I am aware that the name for Sunday does not come from Christian origins. However, do you think it is a coincidence that God set it up for Jesus to rise again on “the day of the Son”? Friday was the day of the devil, where darkness seemed to reign. The temple curtain was torn in two. The sky literally went dark. The dead wandered about. The disciples stood dejected, defeated and depressed, because their Lord and saviour was dead, nailed to cross right in front of them. All seemed dark.

But then three days later on a Sunday he rose from the grave. A new light shone in the darkness. The light of world had not been defeated, the light of the world had been defeating sin, death and the devil on behalf of his people. On a Sunday the Son of God rose again. This is why Christians set aside Sunday to worship the Lord. It is because we know Jesus has risen. Every Sunday is resurrection Sunday. But once a year we have a special day set aside to remember the day that changed everything. Today I simply want to show you what we have to look forward to, from 1 Corinthians 15. Let’s see what Paul has to say about our resurrection.

Resurrection is the Gospel Hope (1 Cor. 15:1-11)

Let’s begin by noting the simplicity of the Christian gospel, that Paul reminds us of here:

“1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”

This gives us the simple Gospel:

1.               Jesus Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.

2.               Jesus truly died and was buried.

3.               Jesus was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

4.               That Jesus appeared to Peter, then the twelve, then the 500 believers, then James, then the other Apostles, and last of all he appeared to Paul.

5.               The grace that comes from believing in Jesus is not without effect, but changes us.

This is the message that Paul took to people and that they were supposed to believe.

The gospel is really a simple message. Our sin, our rebellion, is made manifest in all our lives. It corrupts every part of us and influences all that we do. In fact, our sinfulness is so much a part of our lives and our fallenness that it even corrupts us in ways we do not fully comprehend. Because of this we can even make good things into bad things.

-        Marriage is good, but in our selfishness we can ruin it and make it a prison, or blow it up completely.

-        Sex is good, but in our lustfulness we corrupt how we approach it, and many people have sex with people they should not, or when they should not, or in ways they should not.

-        Money is good, but in our greed we become covetous and horrible in our pursuit of it.

-        Food is good, but in our gluttony we become obsessed with it and it rules over us.

-        Faith and religion our good, but in our sinfulness we make them harsh, legalistic and corrupted.  

Because we like sheep had gone astray, Christ needed to die to take the punishment that we deserve. And he rose again to make this sure. The resurrection is Christianity. It is the core of our faith. Hence resurrection Sunday.

Pity the Fools (vv.12-19)

If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then we are fools without hope,

“12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

Do you know what Paul would be if he was preaching the resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus had not risen from the dead? He would have been the fool of all fools. As he says here, “19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”

Why would he say this? Because Paul was a powerful man before he became a believer. Though young, it was he who gave the approval for the deacon Stephen to be stoned to death. Technically this was illegal, as the Romans reserved the right to all executions, so to do this and get away with it speaks to how powerful he was, “13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it” (Gal. 1:13). He was also advancing in Judaism ahead of any of his contemporaries, Gal. 1:14, “14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.”

And because of his extreme zeal and hatred for Christianity it appears he was even promoted to the highest Jewish office of the day, the Sanhedrin Acts 26:9-11,

“9 I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. 11 And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities.”

This point about Paul casting a vote against Christians shows that he was on the Sanhedrin, a powerful Jewish position to have.

Paul was so Christian we can sometimes actually forget how anti-Christian he originally was. And being anti-Christian was good for him. It got him promoted among his people, and the Jewish people had a lot of power in Rome. How do you think a Jewish man born in Tarsus could be born with Roman citizenship? There were many avenues of power for a Jewish man, who was happy to persecute Christians and work with the Romans.

And you’re telling me that he gave all this up because of a conspiracy with Peter? A conspiracy where he gave up all his power, all his fame, all his favour with his own people. And took on a ministry where he was continually hounded, beaten, imprisoned, shipwrecked, tortured, chased from city to city, and hated by his own people whom he loved desperately?

No, Paul’s example is a testimony both to the power of the gospel to change a man and also to the reality that when he says he saw Jesus alive, he really did. Why would a man who killed people he believed were misrepresenting God, start doing that himself? “15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.”

Believing that Paul and the Apostles were all in on one big conspiracy to trick people into believing Jesus rose from the dead makes no sense. They didn’t make money from it. They didn’t get kingdoms, fame, fortune, acclaim. They got persecuted and killed almost to the man. They saw something that changed them, that is for sure.

They Saw The Risen King (vv.20-28)

“20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

So, as we said, Paul completely flipped his life around his encounter with Jesus.

I can relate to Paul in a tiny way. I grew up in a Christian home. I went to church, Sunday school, things that were like youth group. I even read my Bible on occasion. But I was not a believer. Something happened when I was 12 that turned me away from the church, something to do with a false movement of the Spirit, and I grew more antichurch and antichristian as I got older, as a result.

I can remember debating with my genuine Christian friends about the truth of creation and evolution. I was against creation. I remember going to Bible study with my Christian girlfriend at the time, and debating with her bible study about the truth of the Bible. I was against it.

I was not just non-Christian, in some ways I was anti-Church, and anti-Christianity, and I argued my position strongly. But then I encountered Jesus and that all changed. It is probably why I am so vocal in my faith today, no matter who I offend. I have some things to make up for. Paul did even worse, he killed Christians.

What makes someone go from killing Christians to saying, “20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep…”?

What makes a man who is anti-Jesus certain that Jesus will conquer all God’s enemies, including death, “25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death…”?

You know what changes a man like this? The fact that he really did see Jesus alive after having defeated death,

“12 In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 26:12-15).

You know what makes death not so scary after all? Seeing someone like Jesus who died so horribly, alive again and standing before you in the sky. This changes your views on everything.

This is something only God can do, hence Paul is confident that Jesus and his Father have got things under control, “28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” When Jesus is finished defeating his enemies, then he will place himself under his Father again, and rest on his throne.

Avoid Foolish Ways (vv. 29-34)

Because Paul is certain that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he will rise from the dead, he is completely fine with missing out on things in this life,

“29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30 Why are we in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.”

Why were they baptizing people for the dead? Because they believed in the resurrection. Paul doesn’t explain what this was all about. It is a mystery lost in time. But the point is, he is showing that people have changed everything about their lives and their focus because they believe they will be raised from the dead.

Paul himself, as we noted, faced incredible hardship for his faith,

“30 Why are we in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

We have to pause for a second here, why do we gloss over the fact that Paul was a successful gladiator? “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?” He emphasized “humanly speaking” to indicate this is not talking about spiritual warfare. It was not uncommon for Romans to throw Christians into the beast fights. But even more remarkable is Paul won!!! Or at least survived, which is winning.

Now, it is possible he is speaking hypothetically, or he is referring to the people trying to kill him. But either way, Paul suffered greatly. He gave up a lot. He was constantly in danger. The man must have had the perseverance of saint, literally.

He also saw the wisdom in avoiding those who could damage his faith, “33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.” The resurrection is a life changing, way changing thing. It is not just an idea, it is a reality that once you recognize it, it reframes all of this life.

The Resurrection Body (vv.35-49) – The resurrection is not just coming back to life, it is the upgrade of upgrades,

“35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”

When we rise from the dead, we will not have these same bodies that we have now. Thank God! That creaky knee, that sore back, that broken and not quite healed arm, that need for glasses, that strength you once took for granted that is diminished, that beauty that has faded, that hair that has turned great. All of that will fade away, and we will no longer be people of the dust, but people of heaven,

“47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”

If you want to know what you will look like, then look to the Jesus. We saw this last week with the transfiguration. Jesus’ face shone like the son. So too will ours. As we gaze on his kingly brightness, so our faces display his likeness, ever changing from glory to glory, mirrored here may our lives tell his story, shine Jesus shine, shine Jesus shine!

He will make us to shine like the sun forever.

Victory in Jesus (vv.50-58)

And all who trust in this hope will not be put to shame,

“50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”

Your labour for the Lord is not in vain. Don’t forget that.

The law says we are sinners. The law lays out our just punishment. The punishment for our sins is death. Jesus paid that punishment. He both fulfilled the law in his righteous life and he also fulfilled it in paying for the death we deserved.

So where is the power of the law?

Where is the power of death?

Where is the power of sin?

They have all been defeated. Thoroughly, openly, Jesus put sin and death to shame on the cross.

And our reward simply for trusting in him? Imperishable bodies. What will this be like? Have you ever played a video game? I like to play them. They are very different to the ones we had as kids. When I was a kid you had like one or two games. Maybe a few. And you played that game over and over and over again. And in the old days games were really hard. You needed to play them again and again just to beat them.

You had to be clever, think quickly, and do it again and again. And because you only had a couple of games, when you weren’t at your friends house, or school, or outside that is what you did. You played the same mission until you perfected it.

But many old school games came with inbuilt cheat codes. There was no internet back then unless you were rich. So, you heard these legends about cheat codes, and the only way to unlock them was to beat certain levels. And the cheat code of all cheat codes, was invulnerability. Golden Eye, the classic N64 game had this code, if you could unlock it.

With invulnerability nothing could touch you. You could finish the games in any manner you wanted. You could slap your way through the game on N64 if you wanted. You were invulnerable. Imagine what that would be like.

That gives us a window into what we will be like. Right now we are on hard mode, hardcore gamers would call it that today. But one day we will be on invulnerable mode. As long as we trust in Jesus. So, I implore you, trust in him today. He died and he is risen, trust in the one who conquered death and you will rise to be with him.