The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church
The New Testament Meaning of Church
God revealed His Word, which is the special revelation of every and all of His Words by God the Spirit through human authors. Those words communicate plainly the will of God to man, including the nature of the church. The church is what scripture says it is through its cumulative usages in the New Testament. What the Bible says the church is, is what it is, regardless of what occurs in the world or what men may say or have said that it is.
The New Testament shows that in its rudimentary sense, the church is local only. The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means “assembly.” The church is an assembly. It is always an assembly and that’s what the word means. Even if the New Testament addresses the doctrine of the church in a generic way, a church is still what it is, an assembly. And yet today, people will say and have said that the church is mainly not an assembly, but a mystical or spiritual universal entity, not local or visible. How did this happen? It didn’t start out that way.
Historical Theology
Historical Theology or the History of Christian Doctrine can show the changes in the meaning of words and doctrine. The meaning of ekklesia and the doctrine of the church changed from its usage and teaching in the New Testament. The church changed into something it was into something it was not and is not. More than changing, outside influences through history actually perverted the meaning of church and the doctrine of the church.
The history of Christian doctrine tells a story of external factors. One of the values of historical theology is chronicling the culture of the world, governments, and other societal elements that affected the beliefs of Christianity. External factors have affected the interpretation, meaning, and doctrine of God’s Word. Instead of reading out the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, people read into the text something not in it. This is another attack on scripture by Satan and the world system.
How Changes Occurred
One of the benefits of studying the history of Christian doctrine is investigating the changes in doctrine and how they occurred. Outside circumstances affected how people understood the biblical writings and their teaching. False teaching also begets more false teaching. A major component to change is fear. The Roman Empire opposed Christianity in the first three centuries and people adapted their belief and practice out of fear. Scripture reveals how that fear can and will modify what people will believe.
In addition, teachers of scripture mix biblical teaching with human philosophies, such as Platonism and mysticism. Through the decades and centuries since Christ, students of scripture allowed the influence of other writings to affect their understanding of the Bible. Traditions sometimes took precedent over sound exegesis of the biblical text. Predominant teachers held greater sway in the minds of people. Powerful men put their thumb on the scale of their preferred scholars and instructors, giving them an oversized impact on contemporary thinking.
Once John finished writing the book of Revelation in the late first century, which completed the New Testament and the canon of scripture, apostolic authority ceased. Scripture stood as the final authority. Also, authoritative leaders were in individual churches, not anything greater than that. The New Testament shows no hierarchy. Pastor and deacons were the only church officers. The pastor presided over their prospective, individual churches, each under Jesus Christ. Individual churches would fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice.
Just Individual Churches
The New Testament shows that churches cooperated with one another in non authoritative ways. They passed around the New Testament books (Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16). Churches met together to settle disputes with one another (Acts 15). A church would host and provide hospitality to those traveling from other churches (3 John). Several different churches might send funds to help out another church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). An individual church would send support to a missionary from another church (Philippians 4).
According to the New Testament, no other church had authority over another church. Jesus was the Head of each church and accomplished that headship through scripture. The demarcation between churches could and did impede the spread of false doctrine. No evidence exists in the New Testament of one church having authority over another. The spirit of the New Testament is serving one another (Philip 2:1-5, Eph 5:21, Matt 20:25-28), not domination over one another.
Authority in Individual Churches
God gives authority to pastors over individual congregations and nothing greater than that (Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:1-3, Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17). Even the pastors with authority over their individual, separate churches (assemblies) also are themselves under the authority of their churches (1 Timothy 5:19-20). After the end of the apostolic era, this is all someone sees in the New Testament. Apostles had authority greater than one church, but no one else. The apostle Paul still submitted to church authority though, the authority of the single church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
What drew together the churches of the New Testament into unity was having the same Head, Jesus, the same source of authority, scripture, and an identical gospel, means of salvation. Jesus calls His church, “my church,” in Matthew 16:18. He congregation distinguished itself from other assemblies by the means expressed by Him in the Gospels and then through His inspired followers in the rest of the New Testament. Churches could become something less than or other than a church or a true church, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-21.
Separate Churches Protecting Doctrine and Practice
When Jesus wanted to bring back a church toward Him, so that it didn’t become a Laodicean church, He worked through individual messengers through an inspired message. He didn’t operate through a greater hierarchical system. One can understand how that having a so-called catholic church with hierarchical authority could bring immediate and widespread false doctrine, heresy, and apostasy. With the head corrupted, everything below it would corrupt too. The autonomy of individual churches could protect the truth using the means given only to individual churches.
Separate churches could protect the doctrine and practice of the church through separation. God gave each church pastors to protect the separate church and church discipline. Church discipline could not operate through anything greater than a single church. It was designed for one church. The Lord’s Table was given to a separate church, which had accountability with its own membership. Body parts function in one location with the witness of all the other parts. Parts of a body do not work together outside of a single locale, which is what “body” itself communicates.
Body, Local
The Apostle Paul in defining the body, didn’t say “we are the body,” but “ye are the body,” excluding himself (1 Corinthians 12:27). That didn’t mean Paul wasn’t himself in a body. He was, even as he says in Romans 12:5. The oneness of a body though is in a particular body, not in bodies spread out all over the globe. Unity occurs in churches, which were given by Christ the means to do so.
With the plain understanding of church in the New Testament, how did other teaching develop through the centuries? This is a story and strongly relates to a few significant factors. Judaism and then the Roman Empire persecuted the first church and then the churches proceeding from that church. Judaism crossed regional boundaries and the Roman Empire was itself spread over the then known world. The Roman Empire was mammoth and with tremendous military and political power. It threatened the very existence of the first churches that started across its empire.
More to Come
Globalism and Relativism Run Amok in the Courts
Two Recent District Court Cases
Two recent United States district court cases provide a case study on globalism and relativism run amok in the courts of the United States. These offer another example of the disintegration of the West. I expect criticism for even addressing this issue, which dovetails with the actual issue itself. Globalism and relativism are biblical content to which scripture provides guidance. It is not out of my apparent area of expertise.
For the first example, the Trump White House invoked the Alien Enemies Act for removing alleged members of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to an El Salvadoran prison. Washington DC district judge James Boasberg, Obama appointee, ordered the deportation planes turned around in order to give these illegal immigrants their due process rights. Legal experts call these injunctions. Courts have issued thirty of these injunctions so far, which is more than they issued against the first forty-two presidents of the United States combined.
In the second example, the U. S. government detained in New Jersey with the purpose of deporting the immigrant Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student activist, before it moved him to an immigration facility in Jena, Louisiana. Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, a district judge of the Southern District of New York issued a court order blocking Khalil’s deportation pending a ruling on his petition.
Immigration, National Defense, and the Executive Branch
Immigration Policy
The defendants in the two cases have in common that neither the alleged gang members nor the Hamas supporting Khalil are citizens of the United States. ABC News reports concerning the Khalil case:
The government has claimed that Palestinian protester Mahmoud Khalil intentionally misrepresented information on his green card application and therefore is inadmissible to the United States.
According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump’s administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went “beyond 2022” and that he was a “political affairs officer” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.
The executive branch of the United States enforces its immigration laws. Immigration policies directly impact national security by regulating who enters the country. Effective immigration control helps prevent individuals who may pose security risks for the United States.
National Defense
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 was a significant restructuring of the United States federal government aimed at consolidating various agencies and functions related to national security, particularly in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the events of 9/11, it became clear that there were gaps in communication and coordination among various federal agencies responsible for national security, immigration enforcement, and emergency management.
The United States Constitution assigns the power of the President for national defense. A Department under the President, the Department of Defense (DoD) is primarily focused on military operations and defense against external threats. However, its role in homeland security became increasingly relevant post-9/11. A key goal in forming the DHS was improving information sharing between agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and DoD regarding potential national security threats.
Rights of Citizens
Immigrants in the United States, who are even here legally, do not have the same rights of due process as American citizens. They have certain rights provided by the fifth amendment of the Constitution based on the precedent of decisions of the Supreme Court. No decisions of the Supreme Court have excluded the executive branch from deporting immigrants that are in the United States illegally and especially a threat to the United States.
A Supreme Court case in 1896, Wong Wing et al. v. United States made the simple ruling that protected aliens in the United States from cruel punishment. Another one in 1886, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, etc. and Wo Lee v. Same, said that the United States could not discriminate against aliens in law enforcement because they merely are here as immigrants. Most of you reading know that we should not treat non-citizens exactly the same as citizens.
The Viewpoints of Activist Judges Run Amok
From where or what does the viewpoint come, which would believe that aliens and even illegal ones have the same rights in the United States as its actual legal citizens? These two activist judges abdicate the authority given by the United States Constitution to the executive branch. You can see this occurring at an increased rate and only by a certain category of judges with a particular worldview. Two beliefs or concepts that undergird the injunctions or court actions of these activist judges.
Globalism
One, the above activist judges reveal their globalism versus and superior to nationalism. Globalism refers to an ideology that advocates for the interconnectedness of nations, economies, and cultures, prioritizing international cooperation over national sovereignty. In the context of judicial actions, a globalist agenda manifests when judges interpret laws or make rulings that align more with international norms than with domestic constitutional principles. This can lead to decisions that undermine the traditional separation of powers established by a nation’s constitution.
Nationalism asserts national boundaries, the United States versus other nations. For the United States to keep its national identity, it must protect itself against the intrusion of the rest of the world. The United States operates under its own unique standards and norms. Globalists, on the other hand, make decisions that eliminate national distinctions, opting instead for a broader, more inclusive culture. This also dovetails with multiculturalism, which deems every culture equal with the other, a political form of multiculturalism.
Outside Constitutional Framework
Judges operating outside the constitutional framework interpret laws in ways that extend beyond their original intent. They adopt expansive interpretations of laws that align with global standards or human rights conventions, even if such interpretations conflict with national statutes. They also reference international law or foreign legal precedents as authoritative sources, which can dilute the application of domestic law. When judges prioritize globalist perspectives, it leads to erosion of national sovereignty.
International norms then take precedence over national laws. Based on global standards, courts assume roles traditionally reserved for either the executive or legislative branches. The separation of powers is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. When judges operate under a globalist agenda, they create policy rather than simply interpreting existing laws. Judicial decisions influenced by globalism challenge executive actions, especially those related to immigration and foreign relations, thereby disrupting the balance intended by the separation of powers.
Moral Relativism
Two, the above activist judges embrace some form of moral relativism. They are unwilling to distinguish between Venezuelan criminal gangs and a Hamas supporter. Without objective truth, a judge cannot judge between lies and truth. Truth, goodness, and beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. These judges make these issues about power. Something is true, good, or beautiful because the powerful say it is and make it to be so. They must use their own levers of power to reconstruct their own opinions or feelings.
Enforcing the borders violates globalism and moral relativism. A government that stops someone’s admission into its country is asserting its national distinction. This offends a globalist view. It also says it can judge something to be better than something else. One culture is worse than another one. But truth and goodness are a construct of power, not absolute and objective. If these judges can continue to act in this way to irrationally stop the rightful function of the nation, this will disintegrate the nation further into chaos.
The Relationship Between Truth and Reality
Collapse of Western Civilization
Many people are asking whether the West or the Western world, once mostly called Western civilization, is on the verge of collapse. I believe people stopped using “Western civilization,” because they question the civilization now of the West. Maybe the West isn’t civilized any more. But why? What happened to the West? It relates to God and the Bible for sure, but in a more rudimentary form, truth and reality.
For many decades the leading intelligentsia of the West called Western civilization bad, because of its origins, they would say, in colonialism, racism, exploitation, and having white skin. They treat these ironically as even the sins of the West. This necessitated a kind of repentance and transformation, led by the elites of the West into something vastly different than what it once was.
The changes in the West from what it once was, from its foundational and fundamental values, resulted now in an inability to defend itself. It has no basis for its own existence, giving a good argument for those who wish to destroy it. The military defenses of the West also withered away because it spent its money on globalism, welfare programs, egalitarianism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. They sucked up revenues like quick sand.
Inclusion or Exclusion
Someone recently said that the West embraced John Lennon’s song like an anthem, that there is nothing to live or to die for, the world that they imagine. They prefer the world of their imagination, rather than the real world, the actual one in which we and they live.
The attack on nationalism combats exclusion. Nations by nature exclude, not include. This is the cause of division that gives people something to live or to die for. An irony of it is of course that it caused the rise of various groups that receive their identity from victimization. They are oppressed in many various ways by a sundry of oppressors. What proceeded is instead a fight for power all of the time.
Objective Truth or Feelings and Opinions
Powerful intellectual elites of the West started telling us decades ago, and this has only become worse, that there is no objective truth. To get there, they had to eliminate God, the supernatural origin of heaven and earth, a first cause. The belief in God was unsophisticated and again of course resulted in exclusion. The truly sophisticated said, there is only opinion. Everything is relative or only opinion. What I feel is what is.
Feeling in the new and deteriorating West trumps all facts. This is to say that the subjective is superior to the objective. If no objective truth, then also no lie, so you can’t know the difference between truth and lies. You can’t know, so you also then become very gullible to lies. Not knowing the difference between truth and lies means you also have no reason. Everything becomes irrational. A hyper-rational society, an intellectual one, becomes irrational, which is a paradox.
Reality and Truth
What really happens, happened, and will happen is reality. That is also truth. Denying reality is also denying the truth. I like to refer to the reality of the world represented in the hymn, This Is My Father’s World. The world really is the Father’s and He also wrote the Bible. The Bible, which is the truth, matches with reality. Scripture is a guide to reality.
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist. It refers to the actual state of affairs, facts, or conditions that are present in the world, independent of our perceptions or beliefs about them. A statement or belief that is true will however correspond to a fact in reality. When we deal with the truth, we are also dealing with reality. The two do not separate from one another.
Today truth and reality seem, and I say “seem,” not to correlate with one another. They diverge in this world in which we live. In that sense and in others, we live in a post-truth world. That should not surprise someone, when he reads the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4, when he calls Satan, “the god of this world.” Jesus had said in John 8:44 that Satan is the father of lies. What Satan says does not correspond to reality. He lies about reality. For instance, he told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die.”
Both heaven and earth, everything there is, operate on absolute truth. You can test if it is true, like defying the law of gravity, and find out. Whether you believe it or not, it still holds true. It’s as simple as falling from a cliff and then hitting the ground.
Truth and Power
The chief enemies of the truth today lead a pervasive population that holds to, promotes, and even enforces the unreal and false. Sometimes they defend their cause by saying that truth, which is reality, is a mere construct of power. With truth as a construct, they reconstruct a different reality and call it their truth.
Today the most consequential governing authority, the education system between kindergarten and postgraduate in the United States. won’t allow the teaching or propagation of the truth or reality. That’s not the primary interest any more if not any interest. Many other authoritative and influential institutions or entities cooperate with the bias against the truth and reality, including the legal system (courts) and the mainstream media. One entire political party is against truth or reality, the Democrat Party.
Effect on Churches
Churches succumb to this death of truth and reality. They do it mainly by questioning their own authority. The churches and their leaders undermine scripture and its interpretation, and call it humility or a basis for unity. In part this is a fear of power.
Without truth, everything becomes about who has power. Truth is not objective, so one must have power to assert his own opinions. Nothing is truth, it is only the construction of power. This goes back to the victim and oppressor narrative. Empowerment is the ability or freedom to assert ones self.
The premier institution of truth, the church, literally the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), acceded to power over fear. Churches don’t want to victimize anyone with the truth, or even just most truths, so they acquiesce to lies, which, yes, distort reality. People do not know the truth about the world God created, because of churches that fear man more than they do God.
Pushing for and Not Apologizing for Bringing Back the Bible into the Public Square
At some point, the United States ejected from the Bible as several things: evidence, truth, history, science, facts, objective moral reality, and authority. Some might consider the Bible an authority for a church, but not anywhere else. Even churches now find the Bible as passé or at least lacking in relevance as an authority. At least true believers need to use scripture with confidence, trusting it as absolute truth. It is absolute truth and believers need to talk that way.
Very often interlocutors will attempt to rely on peer reviewed research papers, statistics, apparent observations of the animal world, government studies, cultural and historical writings, and anecdotes. If they even believe the Bible, they at least stay away from it, because it counts as equal to or perhaps something less than opinion. However, as the song goes, the Bible stands:
The Bible stands like a rock undaunted ‘Mid the raging storms of time; Its pages burn with the truth eternal, And they glow with a light sublime. . . . The Bible stands like a mountain tow’ring Far above the works of man; Its truth by none ever was refuted, And destroy it they never can. . . . The Bible stands every test we give it, For its Author is divine.
Bible Final Authority
Not only is the Bible truth, like Jesus said (John 17:17), but it is the final and supreme authority for truth. It doesn’t matter what other people say about the Bible and its authority, because it also stands over them as an authority.
The Bible is not the only authority. There are others, but it is the final authority. People can refer to other sources of truth, but the Bible is still superior to all those as an authority. I’m saying that professing believers need to either start or continue relying on and then using the Bible in public forums like school classrooms, interviews, debates, podcasts, papers, books, speeches, and government assemblies, conferences, or congresses. They shouldn’t budge when someone questions their reliance on and usage of scripture as a source for their presentation.
Foundational to Western Civilization
Law and Human Rights
The Bible has played a foundational role in shaping Western civilization, influencing its legal systems, moral values, cultural practices, and social structures. The roots of Western Civilization trace back to ancient Greece and Rome, but Christianity, which proceeds from its sacred text, significantly transformed these foundations. Concepts such as “the rule of law,” asserting that no one is above the law arises from biblical teachings.
Deuteronomy 17:18-20 emphasize that kings must adhere to the law, promoting equality before it. Leviticus 19:15 advocates for equal treatment under the law for both rich and poor individuals. These principles echo in foundational documents like the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution. Belief in human dignity as created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) established a foundation for human rights concepts that are integral to modern democratic societies.
Culture and Science
The Bible shaped Western culture through literature, art, music, and philosophy. Artists and composers drew inspiration from biblical narratives. The literary canon resulted from biblical themes as seen in works by authors such as John Milton and William Shakespeare, who reflected deep engagement with biblical texts.
Christian theology was the impetus for scientific inquiry. Belief in a rational Creator who designed an orderly universe encouraged early scientists to explore natural laws through observation and experimentation. A predominant scientist such as Isaac Newton exemplified this connection between faith and science; he viewed his scientific work as a means to understand God’s creation better.
Crucial to Meaning
The meaning of words in the English language spring from the King James Version of the Bible, where they first appear. When someone says “love,” “mercy,” and “hope” among many other vital words, the Bible was the lingua franca for the culture. The United States should revert back to the idea of a melting pot, where new citizens assimilate into a national identity. The Bible was the centerpiece of that national identity. Professing believers today should talk like that is true and not apologize.
Scripture provides the right view of history with its Old and New Testaments. American society at least should keep that structure, if not everybody and every nation. God created time and history revolves around redemption. Mankind moves toward an irrepressible ending in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. He is the most important figure in history and professing believers should keep Him there.
More to Come
The United States and the War in Ukraine (Part Two)
As an issue, the war between Ukraine and Russia is a very complex, complicated situation. I hear both left and right criticizing the Trump administration on its handling of the war. When you listen carefully, you hear something about support for Ukraine. What in fact is support for Ukraine?
Support for Ukraine?
People often use “support” in a very loose manner. I find that the word “support” lacks significant commitment. Support means a small percentage of a nations gross domestic product (GDP) toward financial aid. Approximately 0.67% of the combined GDP of major European nations has been given in support of Ukraine. If Russia began dominating Ukraine in the war, indicating that Russia would defeat and gain control of Ukraine, would any European nation send ground troops to join Ukraine for the purpose of stopping this?
Instead of future ground troops, European nations could support Ukraine with a present commitment of ground troops, literally joining Ukraine in its war. Not one nation committed to sending ground troops to join Ukraine against Russia. No nation has committed to sending their own soldiers to fight on the ground against Russia.
The issue of the war between Ukraine and Russia reminds me of the commitment to the rise of oceans due to climate change. Those who express future certain dire circumstances in coastal areas refuse to sell their own coastal properties. This signals the truth of their own adherence to their own ideas about the climate change. They do not commit to act upon their own theories even if they expect more financial aid devoted to this cause. Financial aid encourages war in Ukraine and a cataclysmic large number of death and destruction for Ukraine.
Ethnic Russians
The ethnic Russian population in Ukraine constitutes approximately 17.3% of the total population, based on the 2001 census, which recorded about 8.3 million individuals identifying as ethnic Russians. This figure includes both those born in Russia and those born in Ukraine who identify as ethnically Russian. Ethnic Russians are predominantly located in specific regions of Ukraine, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the country.
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has a significant Russian majority, with approximately 71.7% of its population identifying as ethnic Russian. Ethnic Russians make up about 48.2% of the population of Donetsk Oblast, 58.7% of Luhansk Oblast, and 52.9% of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. 13.1% of Kyiv itself are ethnic Russians. 60 plus percentage of the previously mentioned regions are ethnic Russian, making up a Russian bloc of Ukraine.
Russian Language Laws
Ukraine has implemented a series of legislative measures and policies that have significantly curtailed the use of the Russian language, particularly in areas with substantial ethnic Russian populations. These actions are part of a broader effort to promote the Ukrainian language and reinforce national identity. The Constitution of Ukraine, adopted in 1996, establishes Ukrainian as the sole state language while guaranteeing the free development and protection of minority languages, including Russian.
A 2019 language law in Ukraine explicitly excluded Russian from exemptions granted to other minority languages that are also official languages within the European Union (EU). As such, while some minority languages received protections under specific conditions (e.g., Hungarian or Romanian), Russian did not enjoy similar privileges. A large majority of ethnic Russians opposed the law.
Justification for War
I write about the domination of ethnic Russians in a bloc of Ukrainian regions and this 2019 language law to highlight the complexity of the situation in Ukraine. A multiplicity of significant international issues behind the Ukraine and Russia war also exist. The war is not as simple democratic and not democratic. The actual meaning of democracy according to various factions also further complicates the motivations for the war.
Western democracy fails in its moral standing to judge and then criticize others. Do those advocating for Ukraine in war against Russia have suitable moral basis for justification of the war, when weighing all the factors? I don’t hear very good arguments. The biggest argument I hear, and almost exclusively, is that anyone who does not want Ukraine war against Russia supports Vladimir Putin and everything bad about him.
Biblical Prophecy?
I have not heard much on the subject of Russia in biblical prophecy in recent days, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1970s a lot of men preached prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 38 and 39 to defend an attack on Israel by Russia as part of the Great Tribulation period. In their system of interpretation at the time, Russia would battle Red China in the final Battle of Armageddon. Related to current events, that doesn’t look as viable now.
Even though I am a premillennialist by conviction, men might and do differ on some of the fine details. Biblical prophecy, I believe, can and should affect American foreign policy. What scripture says is true. However, men make right decisions to conduct the best activities by relying on the plain meaning of scripture. That becomes increasingly more difficult in a world and its leaders not guided by what God says. Everything is better everywhere with a right application of scripture.
No matter what happens in the world previous to the return of Christ, that won’t change what God foretells after it. For premillennialists, whatever occurs right now is not necessarily a prelude for what will occur after the rapture of the saints before the Tribulation period on earth. The United States does not appear at anything at all prophetic in the Bible. The best approach is a broader one that still does take Israel into strong consideration in U.S. foreign policy.
Israel, Wales, and Complexity of the Issue
Israel supports ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, primarily through mediation and humanitarian aid rather than military involvement or outright condemnation of Russia. At no time did Israel send weapons to Ukraine. Through the Ukraine and Russia war, Israel maintained relations with Russia. Over 100,000 Israeli citizens live in Russia and 80,000 in Moscow. 1.5 million Israelis or 17.5% of the Israeli population speak Russian. Over 400,000 pilgrims from Russia visited Israel in 2015-2016.
To understand the complexity of regional foreign wars, one might consider that England forced Wales into the United Kingdom. This occurred in 1283 but by law in the Wales Acts by Henry VIII in 1535 and 1542. England forced Wales into its kingdom by means of military conquest. Wales had and still has its own language. The United Kingdom by law allows Wales to have its own language.
I support diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the Ukraine-Russia War. The other side does not offer any viable or reasonable solutions. Left and right who oppose the diplomatic efforts, including the media, should support the efforts toward peace by not sabotaging the actions of diplomacy with Ukraine and Russia. They should stop hindering this peace process.
Profaning the Name of the Lord: How Can or Do People Do It? (Part Two)
Moses meets the LORD in Exodus 3:1-6 and I’m stopping in verse 6:
1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Moses is in the special presence of God at the burning bush. God said, “Here am I.” So He’s there. And then there God commands Moses to do something that would treat his proximity to God’s special presence as sacred. God calls this place, “holy ground.”
Holy Ground and Reverence My Sanctuary
What makes the ground holy where Moses stands? It is the nearness to the special presence of God. God is there. Moses knows it.
God gave Moses a symbolic means by which he could set apart this place where he stood, show it to be unique or majestic. Moses could demonstrate respect to God through a physical act, one that had not as of yet been established as a signal of reverence. It wasn’t just in the heart where and how this occurred. God expected and expects more. Later in Leviticus 19:30, God says through Moses to the people of God, “Reverence my sanctuary.” God doesn’t say how, assuming that they would understand how to obey this command.
A parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament for consecrating something is the truth of a “solemn assembly.” God mandated solemnity for holy occasions, again implying the knowledge of an application. By taking his shoes off, Moses could distinguish the occasion of meeting with God at the burning bush. It made the circumstance a more solemn one.
Solemnity
People today do not, as a whole, like solemnity. They want chipper, vivacious, bouncy, funny, and casual, informal, and laid back. Silly most times is better than solemn. I could give more descriptions of the variations of what people want that revolve around self-interest. True reverence in most cases is not even an option any more. It is a deal-breaker for attraction. People are in fact put to sleep by solemnity, because it’s just boring to them. In that sense, the people keeping something solemn lose their audience and ruin the meeting.
Music is a major component for promoting the opposite of solemnity and reverence. Churches choose what people want, which corresponds more to the wants of a majority. Scripture commands, “Abstain from fleshly lust,” and churches accommodate and promote fleshly lust with their music. Music can express solemnity, majesty, and something sacred. It distinguishes itself from the spirit of the age or what some today call a “vibe.”
The lack of reverence and solemnity trickles into many other various aspects of culture, which at one time did more to reflect on the nature of God. Work places and educational institutions among other spheres of authority had dress codes. The organization expected fulfilled standards for language and other forms of conduct. I was recently watching a podcast in which the spokesman used “normalcy” to describe the way it once was, but generally no more.
Put Into Practice
I’ve been alive long enough to remember when opening the top button of the dress shirt signaled a drop in the solemnity of the occasion. Someone had to keep his hair combed and completely orderly to communicate the proper respect. Churches did not look like theaters. No one would want this juxtaposition or association with the profane. The architecture of a building needed a solemn or reverent appearance larger in scale than removing ones shoes, but in the realm of that ideal.
Weddings were a holy convocation. This was a solemn covenant before God. It was not an expression of personality, hipness, coolness, or popularity. Plans revolved around the expression of God’s character or nature. As an activity, it was kept distinct from something common, playful, or vulgar. I’m using the wedding as an example so that you can imagine occasions and how they change in culture away from God.
Someone writing about the exact subject of this series, said the following in 2017:
Implicit in the rejection of the sacred is the idea that there should be no restraints for anything. It is unjust that there be anything set beyond the reach of others. It is wrong that anyone is recognized as being more than someone else.
Thus, in a society that has lost a notion of the sacred, no one stands out, no prizes are awarded, and disordered passions must never be held in check. Everyone must be equal, whatever the cost. There can be no sanctuary for any privileges. Nothing can be withheld from others. Rather, everything must be available to all.
The Separateness of God
God is High. Required solemnity acknowledges the separateness of God. To give Him His proper recognition, protocol must reflect His Highness. This is setting Him apart.
The cherubim around the throne room of God without ceasing treat God with His deserved solemnity. God requires this of these creatures, but He also reveals this scene in many places in the Bible (Ezekiel 1, Isaiah 6, Revelation 4-5). He expects people to mimic this reality. It’s not there in the Bible to ignore. These heavenly creature use two sets of six wings to cover their faces and cover their feet (Isaiah 6:2). This signifies reverence and humility, modesty and respect, ways to give God His proper due and treat Him with appropriate worthiness.
Scripture is replete with means of solemnity and reverence. Either the opposite or some variation that diverts from this solemnity and reverence is then profaning. Some kind of profaning occurs with the diminishing of reverence and solemnity.
More to Come
Answering the “Cultish” Wes Huff Podcast on King James Only (Part Three)
Scripture and Preservation of Scripture
Still in episode one, Wed Huff deals with a man named Gene Kim, who uses Hebrews 10:7 to defend his position on the preservation of scripture, and Huff makes this general statement:
A lot of these people, you know, if you build your doctrine of preservation that you have on taking verses completely out of their context to ignore how they’re read within the flow of the text and the way that the author intended them then there’s probably something very fragile about how you understand preservation.
I would agree here with Huff, that doctrine should come from what scripture says, not read into the text. Saying that, he doesn’t show how that Kim does that with his application of Hebrews 10:7. Men like Huff, I’ve observed, attack the historical and biblical doctrine of preservation, usually by erecting strawmen. I noticed this same tack recently with Mark Ward in an article he wrote, titled, “Does Psalm 12:6–7 Promise Perfect Manuscript Copies of the Bible?”
Strawmen Again
Ward then proceeds to show exactly no one who believes or says that Psalm 12:6-7 promises perfect manuscript copies of the Bible. It is a classic strawman argument, when the title itself provides the strawman. What do I believe Psalm 12:6-7 promises? God will preserve every one of His words of scripture for every generation of believer. No verse in scripture, I would agree, promises that God would preserve a physical hand copy of scripture.
I don’t know what Huff means by his words, “something very fragile about how you understand preservation.” It would have been great if he could have explained that.
The main host of “Cultish” himself then goes on to do the strawman argument, saying that people had something different back then. It seems he meant that a book was actually a manuscript. What seems fragile in his statement is that the text of Hebrews 10:7 doesn’t say the word, “manuscript.” That doesn’t come from “the flow of the text,” as Huff had explained. Just because someone handwrites a book doesn’t make it something other than a book.
None of these men explored at all what Hebrews 10:7 meant when it said, “in the volume of the book it is written of me.” At that point, could that not have been the entire Old Testament completely all together? That is an understanding that does fit with the point Kim makes about preservation found in the entire book. The host’s only answer to Kim was that Paul had not written his New Testament epistles yet. That is an inane argument. When Paul wrote that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), John had not written Revelation either.
Evidence and the Text of the New Testament
The host refers to the Nestle-Aland text in his next question to Huff. He mispronounces Nestle, like it is the Swiss candy company — think Nestle Crunch. Eberhard Nestle was a German biblical scholar, who died in 1913.
Kim makes a point about the text behind the King James Version having more evidence than the critical text. The critical text does arise from a minority of the manuscripts. The Cultish host asks Huff about this and Huff first says that the King James Version differs from the majority text in 1800 places. That’s his first point, but he doesn’t qualify that answer at all.
The Majority Text
When I started taking Greek in high school, men called The Textus Receptus, “the Majority Text.” At that time, a New Testament Greek Text known as “The Majority Text,” collated by Hodges and Farstad, did not exist. Now the Hodges/Farstad text is called “The Majority Text.” In fact, it isn’t The Majority Text because no one has yet to collate all of the New Testament manuscripts. Still today, no one really knows what “The Majority Text” is. The Textus Receptus came from the majority of the manuscript evidence, what are called the Byzantine manuscripts.
Huff goes on to explain that the later texts, which are in the majority, are a longer text. He says that scribes added words. It was, as he asserts, just natural for them to do that. For instance, instead of writing “Jesus,” they might write “Jesus Christ,” adding “Christ.” Huff does not explain his basis for this assertion. It proceeds from his naturalistic presuppositions. Naturalistic textual critics advocate for the evolution of the New Testament text, that the text evolved, becoming longer through the centuries.
Restoring a Lost Text
Wes Huff goes on to explain that the critical text doesn’t count manuscripts, but “weighs readings.” He instructs the hosts on the eclectic method of the critical text, where men choose a reading based on certain rules of textual criticism. They say, shorter and older is better, even if those manuscripts are in the minority.
If Kim makes the argument that the Textus Receptus is strictly a majority text, he is wrong. I would assume that Kim isn’t making that. He’s probably saying that the Textus Receptus is superior textually to the critical text, the text behind the modern versions. It is found far more in the majority. Truly, if the Textus Receptus represents one hundred percent preservation, the majority text us 98 percent and the critical text is 93%.
Critical Text advocates such as Huff and perhaps these men on Cultish, who interviewed him, believe men lost the text of scripture. They believe it also then is man’s job to restore that lost text. It is an ongoing, really never ending, subject exercise, which leave men with uncertainty about the text of scripture. That isn’t preservation of scripture.
The next episode of this series will start on the second part of the interview with Huff.
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief (part seven)
part one part two part three part four part five part six
When I preach the gospel to someone, I explain (1) that he is sinner; he’s not a good person, (2) that he deserves a penalty for sin: death (physical, spiritual, and eternal death), (3) that Jesus died for him, and then (4) that he must believe in Jesus Christ. Where I left off on number four, part of what it means to believe in Jesus Christ is to repent. How do I explain that?
Jesus, Not Me
You cannot believe in Jesus Christ and in yourself both. Sin is against the glory of God (Romans 3:23), so against God Himself, like David confessed in Psalm 51:4, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.” Sin is my will, not His will be done. The root of sin is self over God and wanting what you want instead of what God wants. This relates to the first and the tenth commandments of the ten commandments.
Breaking the first commandment puts another god before God and violating the tenth means coveting. Paul in Colossians 3:5 says covetousness is idolatry. Disobeying the tenth commandment is also disobeying the first.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He is the way. To take His way, you’ve got to leave your own. This is to deny self and follow Him, which is repentance. Repentance, life faith, is not a work. Acts 11:18 says, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” God grants repentance, just like He grants faith (2 Peter 1:1, Philip 1:29). “No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor 12:3).
No Longer in Rebellion Against Him
No one believes in Jesus Christ and remains in rebellion against Him. He turns from his way to God’s way, from self to God, and from his sin to Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, to turn to God from idols to serve the living and true God. Rather than worshiping the creature, his self, He worships the Creator (Rom 1:25). The Father is seeking such to worship Him (John 4:23).
In Luke 13:3, 5, both verses, Jesus commands, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” In John 3:16, Jesus says, if you believe in Jesus Christ, you won’t perish, and in Luke 13:3, 5, he says, if you won’t repent, you will perish.” Faith and repentance are two sides to the same coin. To turn to Jesus Christ, which you do when you believe in Him, you must turn from something — your will, you way, and your sin. Paul represents the two in Acts 20:21 in his preaching:
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repent and Believe
A couple of other places put the two together:
Mark 1:15: “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Matthew 21:32: “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.”
Repentance is that moment when someone relinquishes control of his life. This is seen in the sequence that Jesus preaches at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Someone recognizes his own spiritual poverty, he mourns over his sin, and then he is meek, that is, he gives God the charge of his life. The word translated “meek” was used of the horse that was broken. He now becomes useable. This is your life, God, take and use it. This is believing in Jesus Christ.
More Than Intellect, Also the Will
Faith that saves is more than just intellectual assent to facts. It involves the will. God knows when you have relinquished your self, your way, your life to Him. Many will say, Lord, Lord, Jesus says at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. He will say, Depart from me, I never knew you. It is he who does the will of the Father who is in heaven. Someone who keeps going the same direction has kept his life for himself and will lose life as a result.
More to Come
The United States and the War in Ukraine (Part One)
A Similar Series I Wrote in 2023
Like the rest of the world, I hope for the gospel to spread to and in both Russia and the Ukraine. Jesus will some day reign over the whole earth and bring true peace. In the meantime, nations must operate together in a sin-cursed world and James 4:1-2 regularly comes true:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
War is the reality of this age, yet something nations should attempt to avoid, not at all costs though. What about the war between Russia and Ukraine? Some call it a proxy war between Russia and the United States. Europe, right on the doorstep of Ukraine, does not pay for the war despite its close proximity. Neither does it send any of its own men to die with the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia.
It’s easy to sympathize with evangelical believers in Ukraine. Men spread the gospel, make disciples, train leaders, and churches start in that country. Many, I’m sure, are sadly dying in this war. Whatever good thoughts and genuine prayers for the believers of Ukraine, this is not the basis for making a decision on what’s right for the United States to do in this situation. Thousands of Christians inhabited the Roman Empire when it fell.
Before I launch into my opinion on the conflict, I will sketch out some history for us to consider.
History
Pre World War 2
Historians agree that Russia started by at least the 10th century. Kyiv, now Ukraine, was a vital part of the earliest iteration of Russia between 882 and 1240, when the Mongols invaded. Ivan the Terrible later became the first Tsar of Russia in 1547. Peter the Great declared the Russian Empire in 1721 at which time Kyiv became a part. Kyiv remained in Russia until the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 during World War I (see map of Europe in 1910). Ukraine briefly became independent, embracing Communism.
Ukraine was a founding republic of the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922. Its borders were adjusted several times during the Soviet period based on administrative decisions made in Moscow. Following World War 2, various international treaties changed Ukraine’s borders further (with little to no world protest) as it gained territories such as Western Ukraine from Poland and parts from Romania and Czechoslovakia due to shifting post-war boundaries.
Post World War 2
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had earlier granted the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933. Later at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 toward the end of World War 2, he, Churchill, and Stalin discussed post-war arrangements for Europe. They drew lines of occupation controlled by each Allied power. This agreement inherently acknowledged that much of Eastern Europe would fall under Soviet influence, and then it did.
Roosevelt wanted to maintain a cooperative relationship with Stalin to ensure Soviet participation in the war against Japan and then post-war peace efforts. This is a reason he opted for the Soviets to capture Berlin first, thinking that would strengthen the U.S. position in negotiations over post-war Europe. FDR, a Democrat, the socialist leaning, liberal political party of the United States jettisoned regions like Ukraine to Stalin.
Post Cold War and NATO Expansion
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, NATO expanded several times to include former Eastern Bloc countries and Baltic states, which Russia perceived and still perceives as a breach of trust based on early assurances from the United States that this would not occur. At a handshake level, American diplomats, such as James Baker, assured Russia against NATO expansion past Eastern Germany. Russia believes the West violated an implicit agreement that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to which Putin often refers as justification for his actions.
Many compare the threat of NATO expansion to the Russia border and Ukraine to the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The United States would not allow it.
Motivation
A common refrain in discussions of Russia and Ukraine is an expression of democracy. The United States must support democracy across the world. One could call this a doctrine of foreign policy. The present administration at least questions this doctrine and its consistency in Europe. Europe claims democracy, but it looks like “selective democracy,” which isn’t democracy at all. J.D. Vance in a speech in Munich brought out the selectiveness of European freedom, especially targeting religious freedom and freedom of speech. I haven’t heard really any answer on this from Europe.
Thousands are dying in Ukraine and will keep dying. Ukraine will not win the war. I’m not saying Russia did well in this war, but they committed to it, have more people, and enough money to keep making weapons. Could Ukraine win? No. Not just Europe, but the U. S. military would need to join in the fight. Europe does not show a true commitment to Ukraine. It pretends commitment with no endgame. At most Ukraine could inflict more damage on Russia, a very risky proposition, because Russia has nuclear weapons and a growing incentive to use them.
European Support
After the Zelensky live-televised oval office meeting with the President and others, Zelensky travelled to Europe to receive immediate support from European leaders. What does this mean? Europe has no serious proposal. It barely supported Ukraine. It dedicates an infinitesimal percentage of its budget to its own defense. Europe didn’t send troops to fight with Ukraine. Nations like the United Kingdom don’t protect their own borders, let alone Ukraine. They have emaciated, weak militaries that alone might serve as a speed bump for Russia.
From my perspective, by supporting Zelensky in public, albeit pretend support, Europe disrespected the present government of the United States, which represents the American people according to a democratic vote. Europe wants American support without giving America respect. European leaders like Starmer and Macron, and then the Canadian Trudeau, undermine a possible peace between Russia and Ukraine to stop this war. They do this without any realistic alternative.
I don’t know of one poll that asks whether the citizens of these European countries want to send troops to join Ukraine to die in its fight against Russia. Why isn’t that question being asked? It’s obvious. Everyone knows that not one nation wants a part of that. The support for Ukraine is a pretend support, essentially a lie. European support for Ukraine means less than nothing. The left and neo-cons in the United States and its media join them in this mass deception.
More to Come
People Saying They Love Who Don’t Love
Good to Say, I Love You
It’s good to say, “I love you.” Maybe we can practice it together. “I love you guys.” “Love you.”
Apostle Paul
Scripture does this. Usually the Apostle Paul will include a clear expression of love among the words of the text of one of his epistles. In Romans 12:19, he begins an address to the church at Rome with the words, “Dearly beloved.” He directs words toward individuals, such as little known “Amplias,” saying in Romans 16:8, “Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.” In 1 Corinthians 4:14, he writes:
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
“My beloved sons.” Then he calls Timothy his “beloved son” in 4:17. In 1 Corinthians 10:14, he writes: “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” He calls the same people of the church at Corinth, “my beloved brethren,” in 15:58.
John
In 2 John 1:1, John writes:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth.
He loves this elect lady and her children in the truth. Jesus said to His disciples the amazing statement of John 16:27 at the end of the Upper Room Discourse:
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
The Lord Jesus Christ Himself looked for Peter to tell Him his love for Him in that classic passage in John 21: “Lovest thou me?” The Bible records expressions of love and it is good to say it. Leadership of churches and the people of true churches should communicate their love for each other.
A few times a year, I walk through the card section of a store, looking for a card. Many will say something about love in them toward the recipient. You know what I’m telling you is true. Love is all over greeting cards, a communication of the word “love” at least. Scripture encourages to say these things, but in the nature of what? It’s definitely more than just saying something.
Strong Statements That Are Love
When Paul called people “beloved son” or “dearly beloved,” it usually comes with some strong statement of rebuke or a harsh command. He was saying something like, “Don’t think this means I don’t love you, because I do.” He said the thing he did, that was hard, because he loved. The plain implication is that people think you do not love them when you say something true and tough to them, let alone just true.
Jesus said in John 14:23-24:
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
Why would Jesus even need to say this? Well, because a lot of people say they love Jesus, but they really don’t. It’s those who keep His Words. It’s the same in 1 John 4:10: “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar.” That’s pretty strong too. You say you love God, but you’re a liar.
This is where Jesus was at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:20-23) and He said that man would say, Lord, Lord, and He will say, Depart from me, I never knew you. I never knew you. Just saying, Lord, Lord, isn’t good enough.
Included Commitment
Some people just won’t say, “I love you.” I don’t like that. It’s not something to which I commit. To me, you let people know you love them. It’s a commitment. But scripture itself is not big on just saying it.
I know and you know that people will say they love you, because very often, words are cheap. We can say, like Peter, Lord, you know that i love you, but Peter wasn’t committed. People will say, I love you, but they don’t forgive. They won’t express it and won’t do it.
They also want people to know how much they love, but while saying they love, they betray. They don’t give or even offer what’s right. Saying, I love you, is sometimes just a way to get things that you want. “I said, I love you, where are my goodies?”
Not Sentimentalism or Empathy
Several books are written on a similar theme to what I’m writing here. Love isn’t sentimentalism (part one, part two). “I love you” are not magic words to ward away the evil spirits, like they are magical words. These books are about what Joe Rigney calls, the sin of empathy.
Saying, I love you, is both hard and easy. It is hard because it means commitment. But it is easy, because those words don’t require any commitment. The commitment is the actual love. The words don’t mean anything and even mean less than anything when the commitment doesn’t come with them.
Love is of God. For something to be love, it must include God. God must be God, not an imaginary deity without the same attributes as the one and only true God.
Recent Comments