Saturday, May 13, 2023

JEROBOAM - IDOLATRY BECOMES A STATE RELIGION

 (Excerpt from The Unfaithful Bride... See AMAZON for a copy, paperback or Kindle, and Nordskog Publishing for hardback or eBook versions of From Mason to Minister)

The first salvos of the battle between the Kingdom of God and that of darkness were fired in Paradise. It continued when Cain despised God’s worship. His line led to the apostasy of the line of Abel, triggering God’s judgment of the Flood. Noah was a faithful remnant. The onslaught against God’s people continued and later found its manifestation in Balak, who like Piano Man, enticed the Israelites into syncretism.

As soon as God confirmed His promise to the house of David, the old serpent reared its head again in the person of Jeroboam who set the trajectory of rebellious apostacy through the ages. Continuous battles followed but the victory over these powers was sealed at Golgotha. The serpent then turned against the church (Rev. 12:13).

Even before God’s people crossed the Jordan, God indicated to Moses and the Israelites that He would appoint a specific place for worship,

But you shall seek the place where the Lord your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. And there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the Lord your God has blessed you (Deut. 12:5–7).

The “high places” too had to be destroyed.

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. You shall not worship the Lord your God with such things” (Deut. 12:2–4).

Explains John Swann,

Generally, the Bible condemns the use of high places as idolatrous—the use of them is usually a rejection of Yahweh. The increasing use of high places—rather than the temple—is presented as a direct cause of the exile by the prophets. While the high places certainly were used for the worship of Canaanite deities, the more common use—at least during the times of Israelite dominance—was to use high places for the worship of Yahweh while continuing Canaanite practices.[1]

God provided the reasons why His people had to vandalise the high places and other places of worship.

·          Firstly, the people would be tempted to worship God in the same way as the nations (12:4)

·          Secondly, if the places of worship and the subjects of worship were not utterly destroyed[2] the temptation would be to simply refurbish the place for worship. The subjects of worship might serve as further inducement to blend true worship with false worship

·          Thirdly, worship can easily become a matter of choice. Therefore, “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8)

·          Fourthly, and probably the most important, because God “dwelled” between the cherubim on the ark of the covenant, “And there you shall eat before [in the presence] the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the Lord your God has blessed you” (12:7). The injunction to be careful not to burn sacrifice in any place you see (12:13) must be understood in this context

The way God demanded to be worshiped is unique and completely dissimilar to all other religions. The offerings, sacrifices, priestly office, the design of the Tent of Meeting (and later the Temple in Jerusalem) was of uttermost importance because it was according to God’s unambiguous design and purpose. More so, because these offices and rituals all pointed to Jesus Christ who fulfilled them all. The priests, offerings, the blood of the sacrificial animals were types or shadows of His perfect sacrifice and life to satisfy the righteousness which God demanded.

If we remember that God “dwelled” between the cherubim on the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy, in the temple in Jerusalem in the territory of Judah, we will understand Gods’ command to appoint a specific place and manner where He would live in the midst of His people. Any other place would be void of all stipulations under the old covenant which served as shadows till the promised Messiah arrived as the mediator of the new covenant.

Remember when the pillar of cloud and fire settled, and the church in the wilderness would stay put until the pillar of glory lifted and led them elsewhere? Well, the temple in Jerusalem was God’s designated locality for His worship. “Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:1). The Lord still had His people to redeem, and Jerusalem was where that redemption was going to take place!

In rebellion to God’s command, Jeroboam built high places (1Kgs. 12:31-32) and staffed them with priests who were not Levites. “Whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places” (1 Kgs. 13:33). He attempted to re-establish God’s place of worship elsewhere, i.e., in a place that was not His dwelling place. Jeroboam’s temple, priests, and sacrifices were not replicas of Jerusalem worship. It may have appeared that way, but it was a substitution of true worship. What his priests did on their altars reflected no shadow of Christ. It was counterfeit religion. It was not done “in the presence of the Lord”. What happened under Jeroboam was what had begun with the Danites in Samaria (Josh. 18:29-31). The driving force behind Jeroboam’s anti-religion was to corrupt true religion for political gain.

He was not along the bloodline of David, and as such he was the antithesis of David’s line. Jeroboam is remembered as the father of a succession of anti-Godly worship which, like a slow-burning fuse, led to the destruction of the northern kingdom. “For the Lord will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the River, because they have made their wooden images, provoking the Lord to anger. And He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who sinned and who made Israel sin” (1 Kgs. 14:15–16, cf. 11:33).

Almost all kings after Jeroboam are remembered because “they walked in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.” (See, 1 Kgs. 15:34, 16:13, 19, 25, 30, 2 Kgs. 9:9, 13:2, 6, 10-11, 14:24, 15:8, 17, 24, 17:22. Of course, there are also corresponding verses in the Chronicles.) This is tragic. It describes the downfall of Judah who later fell into the same trap (23:15-17).

For they also built for themselves high places, sacred pillars, and wooden images on every high hill and under every green tree. And there were also perverted persons[3] in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel (1 Kgs. 14:23–24, Jer. 7:30-31).

The kings Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah (see 2 Kgs. 23) who reformed God’s worship, destroyed the high places. However, the kings who succeeded them reinstated these places of worship. The Bible describes the reign of other kings, good or bad, with this phrase, “But the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high place” (2 Kgs. 12:3, 14:4, 15:4, 35, 16:4, 17:9, 11, 29).

Second Kings 17:24-40 provides interesting, but wretched, information. Afterwards the northern kingdom was overrun by the Assyrians under king Shalmaneser V (2 Kgs. 17:5-6). The Assyrian king resettled some of the Israelites back to Samaria after they had been taken into captivity. This exile had a reason,

“He [God] tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat the king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin. For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them” (2 Kgs. 17:21–22).

Some years later, king Sargon II, “brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they took possession of Samaria and dwelt in its cities” (17:24). This group of mixed nationalities and religions were not worshipping the Lord – as a matter of fact, even before their exile, the northern tribes did not worship God only! “However every nation continued to make gods of its own, and put them in the shrines on the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities where they dwelt” (17:29). So, the Lord punished them. He sent lions among them that killed some of the people (17:25).

The governor was at his wits end. He asked for counsel from his king, Sargon II. The king’s advice was to dispatch a Jewish priest from amongst the exiles to teach the folk “how to worship the Lord” (17:28). They got some teaching, but alas! “every nation continued to make gods of its own, and put them in the shrines on the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities where they dwelt” (17:29). They even went as far as burning their own children as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech.

The people indulged in syncretism. They worshipped the Lord and appointed priests from every class of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. (2 Kgs. 17:32-33). Those Israelites cottoned on to this abominable worship and added elements of it onto the worship of the Lord.  They “served their own gods—according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried away” (17:33).

In multicultural nations, at first blush, syncretism seems like a logical way to bring peace and harmony among their peoples. But only to the undiscerning! Syncretism is a false logic in that it seeks to amalgamate various religions, schools of thought (such as Atheism and Christianity), and cultures by declaring that all are equal, that none are better than any of the others. Indeed, it was only after my conversion to Christ that I slowly began to notice that what I thought was harmony was actually dissonance. Yes, Piano Man really needs to tune his piano!

Expressions of syncretism in a nation are Pluralism in the State and Ecumenism in the Church. There are many subbranches of syncretism. One that is well-known is the Baha’i Faith, which seeks to teach what it perceives to be the essential worth of all religions and the unity of all people. Yes, I naïvely did not see that this worldview was so much darkness dressed up in light, until I began reading the Bible – the Bible I had been awarded by the Freemason’s lodge I once belonged to. I have long since parted ways with Masonry. Indeed, I had a book published about my journey from Masonry to Christianity. Here’s a quote from it regarding the issue we are addressing,

Masons hold to the optimistic teaching of a someday worldwide brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God, resting on the three Masonic pillars of Brotherly-love, Relief, and Truth… I loved Freemasonry for this! For, as corny as the hackneyed term is, I believed that Freemasonry properly promoted – could bring about world peace! …

Masonry works best when God is left in the sphere of the general, and spoken of in general terms. An imbalance and disharmony is introduced to Masonry when the particulars of God are considered. In other words, the harmony of the lodge at work would be disturbed if the “triune-ness” of God were brought to the fore and specifically addressed. For then those who deny the Trinitarian Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (such as today’s Jews, the Muslims, and the Sikhs etc.) would be ostracized…

It is not hard to see that contemporary Western multiculturalism is un-Christian… And since by definition culture is the externalization of religion, it was really only a matter of time before Christians (in those nations that have adopted non-Christian multiculturalism) would be discriminated against…

It is my opinion that most of contemporary multiculturalism is a syncretistic system of religion…

Multiculturalism fails when it denies the equal ultimacy of the one and many, and places the many above the one, or vice versa. Therefore, all multicultural societies that do not have the Triune God (and His Law summarized by the Ten Commandments – which Law is also revelation of Himself) as their basis, will, as history attests, fail and eventually disintegrate. Non-Trinity-honouring and Godless contemporary Multiculturism is a serpent destined to swallow its own tail and disappear![4] 

Much has been done and said in the name of ecumenism (which is a concerted effort to promote unity between Christian churches or denominations). In itself, one cannot be against unity within the body of Christ. However, the danger with this movement, and more so the actions driven by the World Council of Churches and its branches across the world, is that pure Biblical teaching is not always the conspicuous common denominator. In fact, the opposite is true. Much of the heart of the Gospel is sacrificed on the altar of ecumenism.

In our day, there is also a concerted effort to achieve interfaith dialogue and action. Into this mix is added everything religious, which is the true nature of syncretism. In this interfaith dialogue, it is not uncommon to find elements of New Age ‘religion’, animism (the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence) and Environmentalism (which presents itself as care for the world). Keywords in these approaches are toleration, love, peace, equity, harmony, and sustainability – all of these terms are void of Biblical content.

In Australia, as in other parts of the world, a form of “mestizo” is openly practiced. In Spanish countries “mestizo” comes from the Spanish word for mixed and refers to the mixing of racial groups that has occurred throughout the region’s history.

Mestizo culture is often characterized by a shared language (Spanish), religion (Roman Catholicism), and indigenous heritage. Their clothing, for example, has a distinctive indigenous aesthetic while using textiles that were introduced by the Spaniards.[5]

In the past, official meetings in Australia were opened with prayer in the Name of Christ. This practice is now replaced by Welcome to Country. This ceremony includes singing, a speech, cultural dancing and smoke ceremonies in the name of the elders present and past with a prayer to remove ‘negative energy’. Current practice at sporting events demands that athletes bend the knee in ceremonies to remember the wrongs of the past. These ceremonies are blending elements of wokism, animism, environmentalism, Gaia, spiritism, eastern mysticism and many other into one, with the intent to replace (or mix into) Christianity. Those who don’t concur, are judged for their extreme and divisive views and attitudes.

The Syncretism Society posts contend:

Syncretism is the science of integrating and understanding all fields of human knowledge, whether it be theological, philosophical, alchemical, astrological or spiritual. All fields of human knowledge can be syncretized and unified rather than divided, dividing and separating is the modus operandi of the control system in operation today and how schools and universities run. You syncretize things in your mind, just as you synchronize things in time. The secret to this is very simple, it has always been there in religious symbols, it has always been there reminding us the simple secrets of nature and understanding that ALL things in the universe operate electromagnetically. Within Syncretism we learn this as the fundamental basis for understanding all theologies and all fields of science, ‘All is Atum’ meaning atomic and all is electromagnetic.[6]

Second Kings 17 ends with a summary of the covenant God had made with Israel. “And the covenant that I have made with you, you shall not forget, nor shall you fear other gods. But the Lord your God you shall fear; and He will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies” (2 Kgs. 17:38–39). Then the grave words of the bride who became an obstinate prostitute. After she played the harlot with the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonia (Ezek. 16:26-29) the Lord declared,

You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband. Men make payment to all harlots, but you made your payments to all your lovers, and hired them to come to you from all around for your harlotry. You are the opposite of other women in your harlotry, because no one solicited you to be a harlot. In that you gave payment but no payment was given you, therefore you are the opposite (Ezek. 16:32–34).

Israel’s identity as God’s bride was lost. She ripped up her marriage contract. The postscript on the syncretistic, self-willed, and stiff-necked bride of God reads, “However they did not obey, but they followed their former rituals. So these nations feared the Lord, yet served their carved images; also their children and their children’s children have continued doing as their fathers did, even to this day.” (2 Kgs. 17:40–41).

Can you discern the discord and dissonance in the tune of Piano Man? If not, he will lure you up a dark alleyway with the smell of rotten garbage, even the stench of something dead. “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

In my humble opinion, the “beast of the sea” is commandeering the “beast of the earth” to exercise “all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived” (Rev. 13:12–14).

Jeroboam, with his anti-religion, can be seen as an early manifestation of anti-Christ. We first meet him as “a mighty man of valor; and Solomon, seeing that the young man was industrious, made him the officer over all the labor force of the house of Joseph” (1 Kgs. 11:28). Solomon had become jealous of Jeroboam. Jeroboam fled to Egypt where he stayed until the death of Solomon. When God determined that Jeroboam would be king of the northern tribes, he was also bound by the terms of God’s covenant (11:38). However, he showed no regard for God. He rebelled against the lawful successor of the throne of David and somehow convinced the northern tribes to rebel. “So, Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kgs. 12:19).

Revelation 13 speaks of anti-Christ as a counterfeit king, someone with the power of deception who made people worship him (v. 4). In some sense his flight to Egypt meant that Jeroboam’s dream to be king received a fatal blow. When he returned, he made it his mission to deceive God’s people in idolatry. He blasphemed God and slandered “His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven” (13:6). His false prophets obeyed him by making and image in his honour (13:14).

Rehoboam was surely not the anti-Christ, but a manifestation of the anti-Christ.

Things went from bad to worse for Jeroboam.

He sent his wife to see Ahijah the prophet regarding what to do with their son, Abijah, who was sick. She was to disguise herself so that he wouldn’t know that it was her. Between that, and the fact that old Ahijah was now blind, she would’ve been shocked at what transpired:

But when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet, as she came in at the door, he said, “Come in, wife of Jeroboam. Why do you pretend to be another? For I am charged with unbearable news for you. Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: “Because I exalted you from among the people and made you leader over My people Israel and tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, and yet you have not been like My servant David, who kept My commandments and followed Me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in My eyes, but you have done evil above all who were before you and have gone and made for yourself other gods and metal images, provoking Me to anger, and have cast Me behind your back, therefore behold, I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone. Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone who dies in the open country the birds of the heavens shall eat, for the Lord has spoken it.”’ Arise therefore, go to your house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something pleasing to the Lord, the God of Israel, in the house of Jeroboam. Moreover, the Lord will raise up for Himself a king over Israel who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam today. And henceforth, the Lord will strike Israel as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land that He gave to their fathers and scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the Lord to anger. And He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and made Israel to sin (1 Kgs. 14:6-16).

Thus, we can blame the Lost Ten Tribes on King Jeroboam’s unfaithfulness to the covenant.

Much speculation has been made about the issue of the Ten Lost Tribes. Part of my introduction to Christianity in the late 1980s pertained to reading about the Ten Lost Tribes. Next to the newspaper stands in Winnipeg often were another stand that, unlike the newspaper vendors that accepted nickels, dimes, and quarters for their wares, this one gave away their magazines for free. The Plain Truth was a Worldwide Church of God publication. As a still-to-be converted non-Christian with a growing interest in Christianity, I would read their material and even sent away for one of their books which was to do with British Israelism (a.k.a. Anglo Israelism), yes, the Ten Lost Tribes apparently had made their way to Britain and subsequently North America!

Let’s not get too side-tracked, but, as we’ve already seen over and over, Piano Man loves to lead the unfaithful bride astray, (not to mention leading potential believers into anti-Trinity cults such as the Worldwide Church of God!). Therefore, it is worth a mention that some believe that the British throne and the British Empire is connected to the ever-expanding throne of David due to the geographical movements of the so-called Ten Lost Tribes.

There are books galore out there enticing people to read about the influence these tribes had throughout Europe. Some try to confirm this through national heraldry which they allege refers in various ways to these tribes, while others use questionable etymology, such as Saxons alluding to Isaac’s sons and the Danes of Denmark being of the Tribe of Dan, a play on the word for covenant in Hebrew בְּרִית (berith), becomes berith-ish, i.e., British, that sort of thing. It’s all very interesting but has less than little to do with Christ’s gospel.

The good news is that after the 1986 death of Herbert W. Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God came under new leadership, and subsequently rejected much of its previous false teaching, so much so, that it has morphed into a somewhat more Christian orthodoxy, accepting the triune nature of the covenant God along with His gospel of salvation. Yes, it’s good to know that the piano’s lid sometimes falls and bruises Piano Man’s fingers! May it ever continue be so!

William Blake’s 1804 well-known hymn And Did Those Feet was made even more popular by featuring in a film about the Christian Sabbath-honouring Scot, Eric Liddell, winning a gold medal in the 1924 Olympics. Liddell, who was scheduled to run on a Sunday but refused, said the following memorable Scriptural line in the 1981 movie called Chariots of Fire, (which is what the unfaithful bride needs to learn), “Honour God and He will honour you.” Put to a rousing (and, if you’re English, patriotic!) tune, Blake poses the question that brings us back to those supposed lost tribes, the British peoples, and Davidic and/or British thrones:

And did those feet in ancient time
 Walk upon England’s mountain green?
 And was the holy Lamb of God
 On England's pleasant pastures seen?
 And did the countenance divine
 Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
 And was Jerusalem builded here
 Among those dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Jeroboam wanted as it were to “build Jerusalem” in the northern kingdom. However, as we know from recorded history, i.e., the Bible, the Lord would not be ready to dwell elsewhere until He was done with the old Jerusalem, the “Jerusalem below” which would become the “Jerusalem above” only when the Word would become flesh and die for His people’s sins (Mat. 1:21 with Gal. 4:25-26). Thus, the timing was off for Jeroboam, but more to the point, so was his covenant keeping as king! Like him, the northern kingdom was doomed to failure and with its tribes, in the providence of God, would disappear.

Now that the Messenger of the Covenant has come, now that He has lived, died, resurrected, and ascended, now that He and the Father have poured out the Holy Spirit, now can we build as it were Jerusalem as Blake had in mind “In England’s green and pleasant land”? Well, not if we listen to Piano Man! But more on what we mean here later.


[1] John T. Swann, “High Place,” in: The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[2] The Hebrew word isʾābad (אָבַד) and not ḥāram (חָרַם). The former, as we have observed earlier, is to fully devote (for destruction). The latter “…generally refers to all manner of destruction and annihilation, not just the death of people or animals.” (Benjamin M. Austin, “Death,” in: Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

[3] The Hebrew for “perverted persons” is קָדַשׁ (qādēš ). Explains Mccomiskey, “The adjective qādēš, like the name Kadesh, means “holy,” but holy to what? The female functionaries in the pagan shrines were called qĕdēšâ, temple prostitutes, because that is what they were. The name is a sad commentary on the licentiousness of Canaanite worship. The masculine form is used similarly for the male counterpart (Deut 23:17 [H 18]). In Gen 38:21–22 the usage may be extended to refer to prostitution in general.” (Thomas E. Mccomiskey, “1990 קָדַשׁ,” in: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 788.

[4] Neil Cullan McKinlay, From Mason to Minister – Through the Lattice, Nordskog Publishing, Ventura, California, 2011, 47-51.

[5] https://helpfulprofessor.com/syncretism-examples/

[6] https://www.syncretismsociety.com

Friday, May 5, 2023

DREAMS

                                                                            Dreams

Me before I lost my ability to fly!
Dreams usually happen when we’re asleep, and daydreams when we’re awake. Obviously, we have more control over daydreams than sleep dreams. Perhaps it’s the same for everyone, but I remember when I was young deciding what to dream about before going to sleep at night. If I awoke, I could re-enter the dream upon falling back asleep. I could revisit the same dream the next night. So, how different are night dreams to daydreams? Well, now that I’m older, I’m still able to daydream, but my nightdreams seem to be beyond my control. Come morning, I find it hard to recall any of my dreams apart from the bad ones!

Perhaps, like me, you could fly as a youngster? My take-off would be similar to when we’re walking in a public place when we pretend that we didn’t really trip but that we are in a hurry. As an extension of this, I would simply soar into the air. I thought my flying would impress the girls! I could also fly to a height where the sticks and stones of bullies could not hurt me! I think now we’re getting to the point where we can see that dreams can have some meaning – impress girls, escape bullies. However, my dream experience, thankfully, is not exactly what the Bible means when it speaks of a ‘dreamer of dreams’ (Deut. 13:1,3,5).

Before God’s revelation to His people had ended with the completion of the Bible, God ‘at various times and in various ways spoke to the fathers by the prophets’ (Heb. 1:1). One of those ways was through dreams. Therefore, an Old Testament ‘dreamer of dreams’ was a prophet of sorts. And, as with the prophet, if what the ‘dreamer of dreams’ claimed to be from God was proven otherwise, such as telling the people to turn to other gods, ‘that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God…’ (Deut. 13:5). So, whether you’re Freud, Jung, psychiatrist, psychologist, local pastor or whoever, all of us need to be careful when it comes to interpreting dreams lest we invoke God’s displeasure. ‘To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Isa. 8:20). Even if ‘your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams’ (Joel 2:28; Acts 2;17) we must be careful lest we deceive ourselves. Therefore, even our dreams then, need to be evaluated against the Scriptures.

We don’t need a Joseph or a Daniel to interpret our dreams for us now that we have the Spirit working with His Word as our ‘Prophet’ so to speak. William Cowper reminds us poetically: ‘Blind unbelief is sure to err, / and scan His work in vain; / God is His own interpreter, / and He will make it plain.’

So, even though I’ve given up flying to escape bullies and/or impress girls, no doubt some psychologist or other may find some meaning in the dreams I dreamed as a youngster. However, now that I’m older I seek meaning not in my dreams but in God’s Word. Jesus is the eternal Word of God and has become also human. He is God’s first Word and He is God’s last Word, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Jesus is God’s final Word to mankind. He is the beginning and the end of His revelation: ‘In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe’ (Heb. 1:1-2). Do not trust your own dreams or those of others. Trust in Jesus!

SPARE - Prince Harry (Book Review by Stuart McKinlay)

April 2023

Stuart McKinlay

 “We are primarily one thing, and then we’re primarily another, and then another, and so on, until death – in succession. Each new identity assumes the throne of Self, but takes us further from our original self, perhaps our core self – the child… there’s a purity to childhood, which is diluted with each iteration.”

–– Prince Harry. Spare. Random House. Hardback. £28.

 Harry by gaslight

This is what Harry does and nobody does it better: He vomits his tormented guts in your face. He’s a self-seeking, self-absorbed, over-indulged self-serving narcissist who spews his troubles down your jacket when all you asked was: “Are you taking Meg?” Tell me truly: Would you invite this wazzock to your Coronation?

The recyclable floral invitation is carefully eyed by the Sussexes, rubbed between thumb and forefinger, as it were, and weighed for strategic utility. Perhaps a bargaining chip. Charles is trying discreetly to forget the treacherous outpourings splurged over the world’s eager press, the press Harry hates, but manipulates in retribution for supposed snubs and humiliations to him and his unconventional duchess.

His ruminations in Spare resonate of TMI, the “too much information” of some cathartic therapies, and Harry is on a revelatory roller-coaster. He is not only an anatomical spare part for his hierarchically superior brother but married to a voluble American actress who gives royalty the shivers. They haven’t forgotten Wallis Simpson: they even tried to have her buried elsewhere, he says.

Such deft slights are the inspiration of the book: that and his love of Meghan Markle, the woman he describes as “perfect, perfect, perfect”. His purpose is to explain his departure from “the Motherland”, “why my wife and I took the drastic step of picking up our child and just running like hell, leaving behind everything – house, friends, furniture.” Told in 150,000 words (Machiavelli managed his The Prince in 52,677, but who’s counting).

The press, encapsulated above, is the enemy if ever it were doubted, blunderbuss-happy with garish headlines touting tiaras and tantrums, broomsticks and bra straps, hormones and hissy fits. He says:

One day it was: Yuck – Meg’s bra strap was showing. (Classless Meghan.) The next day: Yikes – she’s wearing that dress? (Trashy Meghan.) The next day: God save us, her fingernails are painted black! (Goth Meghan.) The next day: Goodness – she still doesn’t know how to curtsy properly. (American Meghan.) The next day: Crikey, she shut her own car door again! (Uppity Meghan.)

Who was behind this caterwauling calumny? Was it Willy? Was it Kate? Was it a rogue PA? Or did the butler do it? His suspicions were twirling in a whirlpool of pretty colours and bewildered paranoia (see cocaine). Even blue blood was put up for microscopic examination:

…the Mail weighed in this time with an essay by the sister of London’s former mayor Boris Johnson, predicting that Meg would... do something... genetically... to the Royal Family. “If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”

The papers were heroically pertinacious with hacks wheezing tenaciously in pursuit of Meghan’s mad social whirlerama too. Aha!

Next The Sun combed through Meg’s social media, discovered an old photo of her with a friend and a professional hockey player, and created an elaborate yarn about Meg and the hockey player having a torrid affair. I asked Meg about it. No, he was hooking up with my friend. I introduced them. So I asked the Palace lawyer to contact this paper and tell them the story was categorically false, and defamatory, and to remove it immediately. The paper’s response was a shrug and a raised middle finger. You’re being reckless, the lawyer told the newspaper’s editors. Yawn, said the editors.

Suddenly, there’s a counterblast as Harry and Meghan confide their accumulated insights in Oprah Winfrey (and 17.1 million CBS viewers). Result! Well, of a sticky-bomb sort. Even two years on from that celebrated alternative-reality show, the opprobrium clings.

He trashed his father, humiliated his brother, and threw down an accusation of racism (misconstrued, he insists later), but admits now: “Several close mates and beloved figures in my life had chastised me for Oprah. How could you reveal such things? About your family? I told them I failed to see how talking to Oprah was any different from what my family and their staff had done for decades – briefing the press on the sly, planting stories.”

Quite: The Guardian of 13 January, quotes the book, quoting the Independent, quoting “a source”:

In the memoir, Harry claims that William believed his brother was being “brainwashed” by his therapist. This language was echoed this week by a source “close to the royal family” who told the Independent: “The King, Camilla and William believe the situation will remain unchanged while the Duke of Sussex remains effectively ‘kidnapped by a cult of psychotherapy and Meghan’.” This is the kind of anonymous press briefing Harry suggests comes directly from his family, although we have no way of knowing if that is the case.

The familiar whiff of betrayal drifted over Frogmore Gardens as Charles, Willy and Harry walked together in the subdued hours after the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral. The Oprah interview a month earlier was greatly on their minds. Prince Charles, says Harry, “allowed that journalists were the scum of the earth. His phrase.” 

Harry explains his stream-of-blame outburst: “Since leaving Britain the attacks on us had been increasing exponentially. We had to try something to make it stop. Being silent wasn’t working. It was only making it worse. We felt we had no choice. Willy was really steaming, shouting it was my fault for never asking for help. You never came to us! You never came to me! Since boyhood that had been Willy’s position on everything. I must come to him – bend the knee. Otherwise, no aid from the Heir.”

Charles’s summary was succinct: “Please boys – don’t make my final years a misery.” Perhaps he should also have put in a plea for Camilla, though her stare, it is said, could wilt a gorgon. Anyway, the Netflix series dropped the portcullis on that.

Harry’s scattergun strategy was both profitable and painful. The outbreak of garrulously fruitcake interviews was backed up by this journal – a pedestrian peregrination in as voluminous a compendium of genial humbug and waffle as might handily hold a kitchen door ajar. Yet it contains some sweating nitroglycerine. He and Meghan had packed their Louis Vuittons and skipped this sceptered isle, yes. Forever and ever! But headlines? He’d give them headlines.

Spare gains some moral traction from that bland undercurrent of honest Joe Citizen and a surfeit of affable self-abnegation – though multi-million-dollar cheques tend to banish any illusion of fiscal innocence. None of it, though, blunted the renowned unsavoury knavery of newspaper inventiveness: the press doesn’t do ordinary, and didn’t. It carried on regardless with unabated vigor, gutting the book for provocative squibs and malleable conjecture.

It seems in a curiously oblique way, in the weft and weave of a multi-layered mind, this memoir is a substantial feint towards conciliation (failed), through sharing it all, his foes and woes, getting off his chest a tempestuous “reality” that gave him such shattering panic attacks. And with this, another iteration of Harry comes to the fore. Can this be a further accessional step to the “throne of Self” as his latest identity assumes a further dilution from childhood’s purity: the latest of his precisely posited succeeding realities, from “primarily one thing to primarily another”? In short, ageing.

The ordinary, “primarily another” Harry, he wants to be, and to be seen to be, seems eclipsed by his own vivid habitualization of the extraordinary. He tells of killing the Taliban like chess pieces. Of losing his virginity (in a field, near the Vine Tree pub, since you ask). Of dressing up like Hitler’s little helper. Of fretting about Camilla (again). He even tells all of telling all to Oprah.

How else was he to make at least a nominal switch from rebel without a clue to reappear as a safe set of waggling tonsils on the world stage, to recast himself and “that awful woman” from bellyachers to a quiet couple to have round for afternoon tea: Another scone, vicar? Thank you, most kind. This subtly cast scenario is necessarily directed towards securing an apology from the Palace for treating him and her indoors as whining jerks. All he needs is a laptop and the world’s best ghostwriter.

JR Moehringer is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist well qualified for his task: his own coming-of-age memoir, The Tender Bar, was turned into a film starring Ben Affleck and directed by George Clooney. It is through Clooney Harry met Moehringer. The agile hack’s staccato, single-sentence paragraph style suited Harry’s delivery and he goes to work. Sentence. Full stop. New par.

Of course, JR Moehringer and Harry Sussex could be JD Salinger and Holden Caulfield for all world’s news outlets should worry. Balance and verity flew out the window in a frenzy of hype and speculation exciting a frisson of prurient voyeurism. The expectation rose of a vast reservoir of bile bursting over in a blockbuster of spectacular sputum and spit. The royal effect is, as ever, efficacious: Spare flooded a gawping market. 

As the generic source blurb puts it: “One of the most searing images of the 20th century, two young boys, two princes walking behind their mother’s coffin…” The crux of interest is always the tragedy of his mother and thence her boys. Harry relates how Charles told him of Diana’s death:

[Pa] was standing at the edge of the bed, looking down. His white dressing-gown made him seem like a ghost in a play.

What is it, Pa?

He put a hand on my knee. Darling boy, Mummy’s been in a car crash.

Pa looked down into the folds of the old quilts and blankets and sheets.

Mummy was quite badly injured and taken to hospital, darling boy.

He was in shock, it seemed.

Oh. Hospital?

Yes. With a head injury.

I thought again: Injured… but she’s OK. She’s been taken to hospital, they’ll fix her head, and we’ll go and see her. Today. Tonight at the latest.

They tried, darling boy. I’m afraid she didn’t make it.

Harry deludes himself:

Her life’s been miserable, she’s been hounded, harassed, lied about, lied to. So she’s staged an accident as a diversion and run away.

The realization took my breath away, made me gasp with relief.

Of course! It’s all a ruse, so she can make a clean start! At this very moment she’s undoubtedly renting an apartment in Paris, or arranging fresh flowers in her secretly purchased log cabin somewhere way up high in the Swiss Alps. Soon, soon, she’ll send for me and Willy. It’s all so obvious! Why didn’t I see it before? Mummy isn’t dead! She’s hiding!

Even the blood and guts of his own royal genesis are itemised mercilessly, the analogous inspiration for the book’s title. He writes:

The Heir and the Spare – there was no judgment about it, but also no ambiguity. I was the shadow, the support, the Plan B. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy. I was summoned to provide backup, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney, perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow. This was all made explicitly clear to me at the start of life’s journey and regularly reinforced thereafter. I was twenty the first time I heard the story of what Pa allegedly said to Mummy the day of my birth. Wonderful! Now you’ve given me an Heir and a Spare – my work is done. A joke. Presumably.

If a ghostwriter’s hand, however careful, can perhaps contaminate the purity of a subject’s stream of thought, it might be wondered whether another language could similarly tinker with verisimilitude. Perhaps not, yet it seems (to me) the butcher’s list of Harry’s guts is a little more ameliorative in the mellifluous cadence of French; a nice concern, but it helps. Here it is mirrored in Le Suppléant:

L’Héritier et le Suppléant – aucun jugement dans ces sobriquets, mais aucune ambiguïté non plus. J’étais l'ombre, la doublure, le plan B. J’avais été expressément conçu au cas où il arriverait malheur à Willy. Mon rôle était de soutenir, de distraire, de faire diversion et, si nécessaire, de fournir les pièces de rechange. Un rein, peut-être. Transfusion de sang. Un bout de moelle osseuse. On me l’a fait comprendre de manière explicite dès le tout début de mon existence, et répété avec de plus en plus d’insistance depuis. J’avais vingt ans la première fois que j’ai entendu l’anecdote selon laquelle Papa aurait dit à Maman, le jour de ma naissance : Merveilleux ! Voilà, tu m’as donné un Héritier et un Suppléant – mon boulot est terminé. C’était une blague. Sans doute.

No doubt however it is translated, that’s how destiny is carved up at the top table. Diana’s coyly delivered bombshell on her broken marriage is just as crisply relayed by Harry:

My mother legendarily said there were three people in her marriage. But her maths was off. She left Willy and me out of the equation. We sensed the presence of the Other Woman because we suffered the downstream effects. Willy long harbored suspicions about the Other Woman, which confused him, tormented him, and when those suspicions were confirmed, he felt tremendous guilt for having done nothing, said nothing, sooner. I was too young, I think, to have suspicions. But I couldn’t help but feel the lack of stability, the lack of warmth and love, in our home.

He frequently wondered where his mother was. He says: She’d either bolted or been thrown out, depending on whom you asked, though I never asked anyone. It is this distance, he admits, that brings the boys to accept Camilla at first, but the uneasy truce founders. The brothers, he says, pondered:

If she’d be like all the wicked stepmothers in storybooks. But she wasn’t. Like Willy, I did feel real gratitude for that. The only thing we asked in return was that he [Charles] not marry her... It would make the whole country, the whole world, talk about Mummy, compare Mummy and Camilla, and nobody wanted that. Least of all Camilla. Just please don’t marry her. Just be together, Pa. He didn’t answer.

Harry’s bitterness is acrid:

But she answered. Straightaway. Shortly after our private summits with her, she began to play the long game, a campaign aimed at marriage and eventually the Crown. (With Pa’s blessing, we presumed.) Stories began to appear everywhere, in all the papers, about her private conversation with Willy, stories that contained pinpoint accurate details, none of which had come from Willy, of course. They could only have been leaked by the one other person present. And the leaking had obviously been abetted by the new spin-doctor Camilla had talked Pa into hiring.

Against a background of such perpetual intrigue, the press remained ever alert: Harry’s confession he had killed 25 Taliban had the broadcasters frothing about his supposedly careless attitude to human rights. He is candid:

Twenty-five. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed. Naturally, I’d have preferred not to have that number on my military CV, on my mind, but by the same token I’d have preferred to live in a world in which there was no Taliban, a world without war. Even for an occasional practitioner of magical thinking like me, however, some realities just can’t be changed.

While in the heat and fog of combat, I didn’t think of those twenty-five as people. You can’t kill people if you think of them as people. You can’t really harm people if you think of them as people. They were chess pieces removed from the board, Bads taken away before they could kill Goods. I’d been trained to “other-ize” them, trained well. On some level I recognized this learned detachment as problematic. But I also saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering.

Another reality that “just can’t be changed”.

Amid the revelations of frozen personal parts in polar extremities, described in inordinate detail, cocaine snorting leading to unexpected forgetfulness (he more or less recalls), character-building expeditions, and the miscellaneous jollifications expected of his class, we have moments of personal and national solemnity.

When the Queen has gone:

She [Aunt Anne] led me upstairs, to Granny’s bedroom. I braced myself, went in. The room was dimly lit, unfamiliar – I’d been inside it only once in my life. I moved ahead uncertainly, and there she was. I stood, frozen, staring. I stared and stared. It was difficult, but I kept on thinking how I’d regretted not seeing my mother at the end. Years of lamenting that lack of proof, postponing my grief for want of proof. Now I thought: Proof. Careful what you wish for.

Or farce – that fancy dress party:

I went up and down the rows, sifting through the racks, seeing nothing I liked. With time running out I narrowed my options to two.

A British pilot’s uniform.

And a sand-coloured Nazi uniform.

With a swastika armband.

And a flat cap.

I phoned Willy and Kate, asked what they thought.

Nazi uniform, they said.

I rented it, plus a silly mustache.

The tabloids loved it: Heil Harry! Heir Aberrant! Royal Heil to Pay! Kate and Willy denied complicity, the Chief Rabbi “didn’t mince words”, and sulphurous outrage imperilled his admission to Sandhurst:

No matter what I did, the calls grew louder for me to be barred from the Army. The top brass, however, were holding fast. If Prince Harry had been in the Army when he dolled himself up as the Führer, they said, he’d have been disciplined. But he’s not in the Army yet, they added. So he’s perfectly free to be a thicko.

Moehringer has been, it seems, exquisitely careful, yet throughout the book the uneasy thought recurs: are we in sympathy with Harry or a protective amanuensis one step ahead of some charming, loopy quirk? Perhaps not – the ghost does let it run that Charles “was always sniffing things. Food, roses, our hair. He must’ve been a bloodhound in another life. Maybe he took all those long sniffs because it was hard to smell anything over his personal scent. Eau Sauvage. He’d slather the stuff on his cheeks, his neck, his shirt. Flowery, with a hint of something harsh, like pepper or gunpowder, it was made in Paris. Said so on the bottle.”

The blood has been sucked out of this magnum opus for inglorious headlines, with money to be made by anyone with an angle to dangle, but do not wither in despair. A second volume looms. At least some of the tears staining the pages of his first purging clear-out are persuasively Harry’s own; moments when his pain is your pain: the real thing, the kind of grief Harry calls simply “the stab of sorrow”. 

Where will it all end? A hummingbird flutters into Little Archie’s nursery. “You’re free. Fly away,” Prince Harry counsels the bird. “And then, against all odds, and all expectations, that wonderful, magical little creature bestirred itself, and did just that.”

Harry did, after all, bolt like his mother’s son.

Friday, April 21, 2023

MORAL INJURY

 
Human beings demonstrably are moral agents. But where do our morals come from? From our parents? Our community? Thin air? If morals are really just applied “Common Sense” then why, no matter how low they are, do none of us ever live up to our own moral standards? And why then do we judge the conduct of others to be wanting at times?

In the following we shall argue that morals are spiritual. By spiritual we mean that morals reside in the innermost being of humans, i.e., the conscience so-called, and as such, morals are invisible to the naked eye. The individual’s conscience is injured when the conscience refuses to excuse his/her thoughts and/or words and/or deeds.
Our actions (whether thought/word/deed) have consequences, moral consequences, i.e., spiritual consequences. Thus, Moral Injury is a spiritual problem.

Monday, April 17, 2023

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM

If the idea of The Case for Christian Nationalism is to generate discussion on Christian nationalism, then it has accomplished its mission. However, one is left to wonder why this subject even needs to be discussed. For even a cursory reading of the so called “Great Commission” passage of Matthew 28:18-20 would leave one not having to guess that any nation that has been fully discipled i.e., has become obedient to Christ, ought to be called a Christian nation. Verily, Christian Nationalism seeks to fulfill this Biblical goal.

I am onside with Stephen Wolfe’s conclusions about Christian Nationalism regardless of the many detours and his getting me lost up dimly lit backstreets before we arrived at his final destination. Wolfe’s Thomistic views of nature and grace, secular and sacred, upper story and lower story, and his “two-kingdoms” approach had me constantly checking the road map to see if we really were traveling in the right direction. Yes, we got there in the end, and I suppose a very useful part of the discussion on the way was about the views of Thomas Aquinas (and those under his influence, such as Roman Catholicism, and some of Protestantism) with regard to the aforementioned dualistic dichotomies. They are false! For there can be only one kingdom because there can only be one King, the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, to Whom has been given all authority “in heaven and on earth.” (See, also Daniel 7:14.)

The Case for Christian Nationalism is a must read for Christians as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission. It has a wealth of quotes and footnotes from Christians past and present. His final chapter, Epilogue: Now What? is excellent and very insightful. Stephen Wolfe has made a great and invaluable contribution to the contemporary discussion on the highly important subject of Christian Nationalism.

The following is a link to an article by Peter Leithart who also passes comment on The Case for Christian Nationalism: Christian Nationalism – Theopolis Institute

Monday, April 3, 2023

FORGIVENESS

                                                                Forgiveness

My photo of Dali's Christ on the Cross, Glasgow
‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do’ is one of the seven statements Christ made while on the cross (Luke 23:34). Another is Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). Both these statements are easily understood, even by a casual reading of the Bible – during His execution Jesus is asking God to forgive His executioners and experiences an awful feeling that God has deserted Him. For a deeper understanding (and therefore growth in the grace and knowledge of God) we must apply the three things needed for accurately studying the Bible, viz., context, context, and context!

The immediate context is that while being put to death, Jesus addresses the crowd, and He addresses God. The words forgive and forsake, (though different words in the original language), have similar meanings here. Perhaps we may sum it up thus: ‘Father, forsake their sins but why do I feel as if You do not forgive Me?’ Why would God forsake His Son if His Son had never sinned? ‘All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isa. 53:6). To forgive those who trust in Jesus to save them from being forsaken forever in hellish torments, God placed their sins on His Son on the cross where He experiences the hellish torments each deserve for their iniquities. So, the immediate context is that Jesus is asking that sinners be forgiven, and God is responding by handing over their sins to His Son. Thus His words, ‘Why Have You forsaken Me?’

The historical context is that God had promised to supply a Redeemer, a Saviour of His people, His people being all who believe in the salvation He has supplied through Jesus. Old Testament believers believed in the One who was to come, New Testament believers in the One who has come. So, Jesus on the cross is the fulfilment in history of God’s promise to forgive His people. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. 5:21).

The Biblical context is that the historical event of the cross was God’s bringing His unthwartable plan to pass, through the birth, life, and death of His only begotten Son Jesus, ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev. 13:8). And by what means were the eternal counsel of the Godhead’s plans brought to pass? ‘This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men’ (Acts 2:23). So, if we were to add ‘context, context, and context’ together we might say: God’s eternal plan to grant forgiveness to His people can be found in the words spoken by Jesus Christ on a cross over 2,000 years ago.

Did the ‘lawless men’ know God was using them to kill Jesus to fulfil His ‘definite plan’? No! Thus Jesus’s asking for their forgiveness, ‘for they do not know what they do.’ The unbelieving Jews wanted Jesus crucified and the Romans authorities unjustly condemned Him. The Roman soldiers followed orders by carrying out their sinful demands after the most unfair trial in the history of Man. What’s it all about? From our perspective it’s about forgiveness! ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’ (John 3:16). From God’s perspective? ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people’ (Rev. 21:3).

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

What is this book about?

We know we've really tested your patience, but Rudi and I are now almost finished writing our The Unfaithful Bride & The Faithful Groom paperback book. We're just dotting I's and stroking T's and then it'll be available for your reading pleasure. NEWS FLASH! Out now:

What is this book about?
The Bible is an organic unity. Although consisting of two testaments, it is one book. It begins in paradise with the first Adam and ends with a description of another paradise with the Second Adam. Sometimes we don’t see this unity. We read the chapters but miss the line of development through the Scriptures. We might prefer to read the New Testament only; but without the Old Testament we will not understand the development from first Adam’s fall to the fulfilment of Christ’s ministry as the Second Adam. What holds this story of redemption together, is God’s covenant promises. He promised fallen Adam that He would provide Someone Who would crush the head of the serpent. Christ was that Person. What He did, was to open eternal paradise for those who believe in Him.
In our book, we endeavoured to follow this line. God called His people to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:5). His people were to be His bride church. Yet, they failed miserably by breaking covenant with God, becoming the unfaithful bride. In this book, we recall the nature of the failure of the Old Covenant church and draw some lessons for the New Covenant church. We try to learn from the disappointment of her priests, prophets, and kings. Against this, we contrast the perfect ministry of Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King. We try to understand how Adam’s frustrated Cultural Mandate is restored and enlarged in the Great Commission of Second Adam who sends His disciples to the ends of the earth. To Him is given all power and authority. He gifted His church bride with the Holy Spirit to be His witnesses.
As we interpret the Great Commission in light of Christ’s Kingship, we try to rent the veil of pessimism that has obscured the bright future of God’s Kingdom on earth. Christ called His church to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-16). As Israel had a land to conquer and occupy, so the church has the world to ‘invade’ and influence nations, cultures, and lifestyles with the Gospel. There must be victory under Christ’s Lordship. But success is only secure for as long as the bride remains faithful to the Groom.
This book is not designed to be a Systematic or a Biblical theology. However, it is not void of theological truths. We deliberately avoided technical academic language. If you are a lay preacher or a Bible study leader, you will find some helpful chapters or paragraphs to glean from.
With us, read, study, love, and apply the Scriptures. Be willing to learn from the past failures of the bride of Christ. Fix your eyes on Him (Heb. 12:2). “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). Look over the levee bank; there’s a whole world to reach with the fulness and power of the Gospel message (Rom. 1:16-17). We must finish the task.
Once we have done what Christ commissioned us to do, we will enter the eternal Promised Land.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Amen.