One of the Greatest Political Events in the History of the United States
The 2024 election of Donald Trump is one of the greatest political events in the History of the United States. Whatever you may think of Trump, how bad you dislike him, this is a unique moment. It’s hard to say that anyone has been opposed by more people and to a greater extent than him. I could tell you of the very powerful people, institutions, investigations, trials, and events that went against him. You know it already. He still won. This win, I would say, tops 2016 too, which is hard to do.
Historical Precedent
Many people would say that Trump would either win or go to prison. Let that settle in once again. The other side was going to put him in prison. He’s already had at least two assassination attempts on his life, one of the bullets hitting him in the head.
Other presidents set themselves apart. Four were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. I hope the Secret Service does a good job at guarding Trump, keeping a sharp look-out, because the threat is still there. What will set him apart is his resilience against the degree of onslaught.
When I declare the historical precedent of Trump’s election, president now number 45 and 47, this comes out of teaching history and government for over thirty years. I know American history. As a figure, Trump has risen to a level of greatness in United States history, compared to the events of American history. The country itself might not make it another one hundred years and it shrinks into oblivion next the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the eternal state. Still, you are witnessing something significant.
Resilience
People stuck with Trump in a major way because he wouldn’t and didn’t quit. I can’t envision anyone else standing against all this. Not only would no one else have continued, like he did, but much more than that. He won really against all odds.
What can people say? What can his enemies say? This is quite a win and quite a loss. Whatever comments someone may have even to this post — well, you lost. I’ve heard it all myself in the way of attack, nothing like what Trump has withstood.
Trump wasn’t alone. People stood with him despite the slings and arrows. It wasn’t easy for any of them to face the hatred they did. I’m happy for them, but now the hardest part, really.
Hope for the Future
I hope this victory will not be met by anything close to what happened in 2016. It shouldn’t. The American people have spoken, despite the absolute mockery and ridicule at unprecedented levels.
Things should change in the country. This ought to allow more freedom at least. Everyone reading here should think he can take this as an opportunity. When I say that, I mean for God.
Many reading here won’t like this, but it’s true. We should praise God that Trump won. God deserves the credit and the glory. I’m not endorsing Trump’s morality or testimony. Instead, it is something providential and can be very useful too.
It’s a good time to make a move on embracing everything about scripture. It is the truth. Men are men and women are women. It matches much of what God wants. Go at it with gusto and without apology. Do the will of God. Talk about Him. You’ve been given a great opportunity. Don’t let it pass you by.
Vote Trump 2024
Concession
2016/2020
In 2016 Donald Trump won the presidential election against Hillary Clinton and she did not concede the election. You say, “Oh she did. She made a statement.” Sure. Hillary said something like all the lies characteristic of the Clintons, what turned since into its own vocabulary word: Clintonesque. She lied, what some might call “parsing words.”
Hillary Clinton, even before she lost, cooked up with the rest of the establishment, but led by her, the Russia conspiracy against Trump that impeded his presidency. She preyed on Trump’s inexperience in Washington, DC. John Durham in his special counsel investigation of the Russia hoax came to the conclusion
that there was no basis to immediately launch a full-fledged investigation against Donald Trump; that the FBI failed to follow up on intelligence reports that Hillary Clinton had approved a scheme to manufacture the Russia hoax and that her campaign funded opposition research to supply to the FBI and media with the false narrative; and that FBI leaders willingly subverted FBI policy, quashed investigations into Clinton’s potential violations of the law, and more.
Disqualification and a Fake Issue
That wasn’t the only signification that Hillary Clinton and the establishment did not concede the election. They treated his presidency as ineligible or disqualified and didn’t ever accept the results. The unelected administrative state cooperated with the Democrat Party in dozens of different ways to defy the electoral victory of President Donald Trump. As an example, James Comey, the head of the FBI under President Barack Obama, leaked sensitive information about President Donald Trump to the press that precipitated the appointment of the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation.
Many arguing against Trump point to his unwillingness to concede. I don’t hear anything about the other side not conceding. Both Clinton and Trump may not have conceded either in word or action, but Clinton didn’t inhabit the White House in 2016 nor Trump in 2020. It’s ultimately a fake issue. According to my own assessment, Trump’s challenge of the 2020 election did not compare to the seriousness of what Clinton did in 2016 and following, helped along by President Obama spying on the Trump campaign.
My History
I have voted in all the presidential elections since 1980. Living in Wisconsin during my Freshmen year in College, I voted for Ronald Reagan in 80 and the same in 84. When I moved to California, I started voting there first for George H.W. Bush in 88, same in 92, Bob Dole in 96, George W. Bush in 2000, same in 2004, John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, Trump in 2016, and same in 2020.
This year I’ll vote Trump again in the state of Indiana in 2024. It wasn’t until 1976 that I really started considering presidential elections with the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter election. Even though I was alive for the 1968 and 1972 elections, I don’t remember them at all. The first political event I remember was Watergate, seeing it in black and White on our old tube television set. This will be my twelfth presidential election.
Every presidential election year from 1992 to 2020 I taught United States government in our high school. Five days a week I came into government class and commented on the election until it occurred the first Tuesday in November. I also taught jr. high history. The United States history curriculum for jr. high also included some government. The class read and answered questions about the United States Constitution.
Endorsement
Those for whom I voted president in the general election won six out of eleven times. This year could become seven. When Trump won in 2016, I wasn’t expecting it. I didn’t think he would win in 2020. Will he win this year? For the first time, I think he will. It’s hard to tell by the polls. Maybe some of you reading know about the quiet Trump voters. This affected the polls in 2016 and 2020. The pollsters and the media got the Democrat vote percentage about right. They underestimated Trump’s percentage both times. Maybe you’ve seen this data.
Nothing gets more negative commentary on this blog than a positive mention of President Donald Trump. Even if I intimate something positive about Trump without mentioning his name, I get a nasty comment. What does this do for or to me? Nothing. Easily, Trump gets far more foul comments than all the other subjects combined. Apparently these comments come from those who don’t like Trump’s meanness and nastiness.
The only hope for anything close to a Christian worldview is Trump. I’m not going to tick off all the reasons. They should be obvious. If they’re not, I don’t think there is much I can write here today that will persuade you the reader, which you haven’t already heard, watched, or read.
Information on This Blog on Psalm 12:6-7
Mark Ward and Psalm 12:6-7
In his last youtube video, Mark Ward mentioned my name again in reference to Psalm 12:6-7. He included a quote from me, which wasn’t the best one for me. I’ve written several thorough and good articles on the subject with many better quotations. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t even say the exact words he quotes anymore, partly because of a change I’ve had for ten plus years on the actual meaning of the word “miracle” in scripture. I’m much more technical about a miracle and I’d have to explain that more, but don’t want to do it in this post.
Ward put out a video on the meaning of Psalm 12:6-7, focusing on whether it teaches the perfect preservation of scripture, which is of course “no” to him. I had already reviewed his journal article on that passage, which is the basis for his video. Below I’m going to put links to articles I’ve written on that passage. Ward makes too much of the dependence on Psalm 12:6-7 for a doctrine of preservation. As an overall critique, he gets several things wrong in the video.
Steelmanning Not
You’ve probably heard of steelmanning. Here’s the meaning:
Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented.
Mark Ward does not do that with our position on Psalm 12:6-7. When he doesn’t do something like that, he then also doesn’t allow direct conversation with him. He blocks criticism of his content. I think he and I could have a very decent conversation, but he doesn’t do that, even with all his protestations about unity.
I’ve written a lot on Psalm 12:6-7. We named our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, after the words of Psalm 12:6-7. We don’t “proof text.” Historical confessions of Christianity used Psalm 12:6-7 among many other verses to defend a doctrine of preservation of scripture. I asked AI recently about this same doctrine using Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 4:4, and Matthew 5:18 about a doctrine of perfect preservation and AI reported those verses taught perfect preservation of scripture.
One of the reasons that it is popular and Mark Ward is careful not to mention (unless he’s just incompetent and uninformed) is the allusions to Psalm 12:6-7 in a multitude of various confessions. It’s obvious confessions that represent almost every true Christian in the world for hundreds of years refer in the language of the confession to Psalm 12:6-7. Crickets from Mark Ward on this. That wouldn’t make his presentation look good.
Pronouns
When Mark Ward makes his argument on the video about gender accordance or discordance in antecedent pronouns, he skips proximity as a guide for pronoun reference. He uses gender as the most important mitigating quality, when numerous examples of discordance exist. Those people in the modern version movement, who hop way back to the “poor and needy” to find a referent to “them,” won’t even mention proximity.
The presentation of Ward short shrifts the examples of purposeful gender discordance in the Bible and referred in Hebrew grammars and syntax. It just doesn’t help his cause of shooting down the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. This is not steelmanning.
Preserved Copies
Ward uses a title for his video that says that men such as myself are defending the preservation of copies of scripture. I’m guessing I’m in print saying almost one hundred times that I believe in the preservation of words. Ward still twists it for his own purposes. It makes his opposition look crazy, but they don’t even take that position. Crazy is what he wants people to think.
I don’t know one person that I’ve ever met in my entire lifetime that believes God promised He would preserve copies of scripture. No one believes that or teaches that on planet earth. What should someone think about Ward’s expertise about the teaching of preservation when he says such a thing? His echochamber would approve. I too like setting up a row of bobble-head dolls and making statements to them as a measure of my competence.
Further Reading and Research
Besides the above, I could say much, much more, but I’ve been doing that, as seen below. I hopefully may not need to say such things much longer to Mark Ward if he follows through with his published plan of disengaging on this issue in 2025. Until he does, please consider the following one stop shop for Psalm 12:6-7, where you get much more context on the issue.
Further Details in Psalm 12:6-7 Elucidating the Preservation of God’s Words
Psalm 12:6-7 Commentaries and the Preservation of Words
Gender Discord and Psalm 12:6-7
Psalm 12:6–7 and Gender Discordance: the anti-KJV and anti-preservation argument debunked (again)
AI Friday: “Did God Perfectly Preserve Every Word of the Bible?”
I’ve done more than these, but these will suffice. Enjoy.
Crucial to a Gospel Presentation: Explain Belief
What Happens
Today I went canvassing for three hours. Most of time, I go out preaching, but for various reasons, I canvassed. Nevertheless, I preached the gospel to an 80 year old woman, who did not know it. I was putting a packet on her door, and there she stood looking at me, so I introduced myself. She sat down on her porch, so I sat down on her porch, and we talked. In most ways, it was a very typical conversation, which means she did not know the meaning of the gospel. She had heard the word, but it was almost meaningless to her, and that is normal today in the United States.
Very often when I preach the gospel, I say something like this:
I have given the gospel to thousands of people. When I finish, I always ask the person hearing it if he believes what I said was the truth. I can’t remember the last time someone didn’t answer, “Yes,” to that question. Everyone to whom I explain the gospel says they believe it is the truth.
At the end of my presentation, she also said it was true.
How the Gospel Breaks Down
In my experience, gospel preaching breaks down on nearly every occasion (probably 95% plus) in one of three places.
- The listener will not relent on considering himself to be a good person.
- Someone doesn’t believe he deserves Hell.
- A person refuses to believe in Jesus Christ.
The third of these is the biggest problem, but all three connect with or depend on the other two. On many occasions, I’ve gotten by the first and second of them. The third is still the deal-breaker when it comes to salvation. Believing the gospel unto salvation requires believing in Jesus Christ. It is vital, absolutely necessary that someone believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. In one sense, this is the gospel. Someone can believe everything else within the gospel message and not believe in Jesus Christ and still reject the gospel. The first two become irrelevant without the third.
It’s important that believing in Jesus Christ is in fact believing in Jesus Christ. The hearer must believe in Jesus Christ. It can’t be something someone calls, “believe in Jesus Christ,” but isn’t. For this reason, the preacher must explain belief in Jesus Christ. He must.
What “Believing in Jesus Christ” Isn’t
- It isn’t merely praying a prayer.
- Believing in Jesus Christ isn’t accepting Jesus into your life.
- Neither is it merely accepting Jesus as Savior.
- Believing in Jesus isn’t asking Jesus to save you.
- It is not asking Jesus into your heart.
All of the above are not what it is to believe in Jesus Christ. They are, just maybe, a piece of it, a small one. More than these five could probably be listed, but they at least give the essence of what’s wrong.
Some so-called “evangelists” don’t even use “believe in Jesus Christ” as the terms for salvation. If they go to those verses, they very often just ignore those statements and what they say. They use the Bible, but they don’t rely on it. It results in preaching a false gospel, because it doesn’t get to “believing in Jesus Christ,” which is required in the true gospel.
What Believing in Jesus Christ Is
Next Time
The Fundamental Root of Division in the United States
United States History
In 1607, English settlers landed on the East Coast of America and formed the Jamestown colony. That began a colonial period until 1776 and a Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen colonies from England. They became states of the United States of America. After those states ratified the Constitution in 1788, they seated the first Congress in 1789. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the Bill of Rights.
Before states ever united under one Constitution and Bill of Rights, division began according to ideological positions termed, federalist and anti-federalist. The Federalists were a political party and supported a strong centralized government. On the other hand, another party, the Anti-Federalists argued against expanding national power and advocated individual liberties, states rights, and localized authority.
Before the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay debated federalism versus anti-federalism in the Federalist Papers, first published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and May 1788. Division along the lines of these two general positions continued in the early history of the United States. With the addition of other issues, like slavery, this division grew and then fomented into a Civil War.
Since the Civil War
The completion of the Civil War in 1865 did not end division in the United States. That continued. Some of the disunity founded by the early disparity between Federalists and Anti-Federalists persisted. Those seeds still germinate and rise in various iterations of the original ground of division.
The United States is no kingdom of Jesus Christ under the unifying power and discipline of the words of Christ. Its form of government cannot sustain oneness like that between God the Father and the Son expressed in John 17. The superstructure of this nation doesn’t portend toward biblical unity. Discord is baked in. The United States doesn’t possess the tools or instrumentation necessary to ward off significant division, even though United is its first name.
Paul taught Timothy to pray for rulers and those in authority so that the church can live peaceably (1 Timothy 2:1-3). Peaceably stands for a manifestation of unity. The government agrees not to imprison and kill believers for merely practicing scripture. It doesn’t mean the government supports the church or its positions, just allows it to operate freely.
Greater Division
Out of the soup of Federalism and Anti-Federalism comes the present and even greater division in the United States. It stems to a certain degree from the original division, but it grew in magnitude. The founders of the United States did not, maybe would or could not, put in the necessary preventatives against massive division in the country. They compromised at the beginning to hold everything together, which meant not providing the crucial deterrents for division that first turned into a Civil War and now we’re where we are.
A popular Democrat and media talking point is that Donald Trump is the number one cause of division in the United States. Their point argues that Trump operates in conflict with established political norms, which creates chaos and a very uncomfortable environment. People will describe this situation dividing families, making for an uncomfortable time at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Cause of the Division
Trump didn’t cause the division seen in the environment heading into election on November 5, 2024. Very often today people will call this clash a culture war. It already existed before Trump, but his rise reveals its existence. Trump embodies the division in the country, doesn’t cause it. It represents two completely diametrically opposed views of the world. Not everyone voting for Trump falls neatly into one of the two sides of this dispute. Some just like his policies better. The heatedness and underlying threat of war emanates from the fundamental root of the division.
The separation between the two major factions goes back a long ways, even preceding the time of the founding of the United States. It relates to epistemology, how that we know what we know. The printing and publication of scripture in people’s language took nations out of the dark ages. Arising from this was modern science and a return to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, especially seen in Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. True science started on a good trajectory, but splintered finally for various reasons (important ones to understand) into modernism first in Europe and then on to the United States.
Modernism arose in the United States after the Civil War parallel with the industrial revolution. Instead of God and scripture as a starting point, modernism shifted to human reason, rationalism, or “evidence.” Premoderns began with a bias toward God, what Stephen Meyer calls the “God hypothesis.” They believed in a transcendent, which is objective, basis for truth, goodness, and beauty. Modernism came into major institutions, influenced their leaders, and changed the culture.
Further Explanation
The insufficiency and inadequacy or failure of modernism finally led to a total rejection of objective truth, goodness, and beauty. This transformed the culture. Pragmatism in churches led to compromise, capitulation, and then cooperation with the cultural changes in the United States. The right side of the two major factions does not necessarily embrace the reality or necessity of objective truth, but it understands the suicide of not living or acting like it exists.
Many if not most would ask, “Why Trump?” That requires a long answer that many won’t accept even if it is the right answer. The country is divided and taking Trump out of the equation will not change that. It comes from deep philosophical and even theological differences and an unwillingness at least for now with either side to accept the other. Some still won’t vote for Trump even though they also don’t accept the other side.
Over a year ago, I called this a “slow moving car crash.” The cars have about arrived now. We’re days away.
AI Friday: Perfect Preservation of Scripture
I asked AI a couple of questions about three verses about the perfect preservation of scripture. Here’s what it wrote (I didn’t write it — AI wrote it).
Isaiah 59:21 and the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Isaiah 59:21 states:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Covenant Promise:
The verse begins with God declaring a covenant with His people. This indicates a solemn commitment that God will maintain His relationship with those who are redeemed. The nature of this covenant suggests that it encompasses not just spiritual blessings but also the assurance that His words will be preserved.
God’s Spirit:
The mention of “My spirit that is upon thee” implies that God’s presence and guidance through His Spirit will remain with His people. This aspect reinforces the idea that believers will have access to divine truth and understanding.
Words Not Departing:
The phrase “my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart” emphasizes that God’s words are intended to be continuously present among His people across generations. This suggests an ongoing availability and accessibility of God’s revelation to every generation.
Generational Continuity:
The reference to “nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed” indicates that this preservation extends beyond a single generation. It assures believers that God’s words will endure through their descendants, reinforcing the belief in a faithful transmission of Scripture throughout time.
Eternal Assurance:
The concluding phrase “from henceforth and for ever” underscores the eternal nature of this promise. It signifies that God’s commitment to preserve His words is not limited by time or circumstance.
In summary, Isaiah 59:21 articulates a profound assurance regarding the perfect preservation of Scripture by affirming God’s covenantal promise to keep His Spirit and His words continually accessible to all generations of believers.
Analysis of Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 Regarding Perfect Preservation of Scripture
To understand what Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 say about the perfect preservation of the words of scripture, we need to analyze each verse in its context and consider the theological implications.
Matthew 4:4 Context and Meaning
Matthew 4:4 states:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In this passage, Jesus is responding to Satan during his temptation in the wilderness. The quote references Deuteronomy 8:3, emphasizing that spiritual sustenance is as vital as physical nourishment. The phrase “every word that comes from the mouth of God” suggests a belief in the divine origin and authority of scripture. This implies that all words spoken by God are essential for life and should be preserved accurately.
The implication here can be interpreted as an affirmation of the importance of scripture’s integrity. If every word is necessary for spiritual life, it follows that these words must be preserved faithfully through time. This verse does not explicitly state perfect preservation but strongly supports the idea that God’s words are crucial and should remain intact.
Matthew 5:18 Context and Meaning
Matthew 5:18 states:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
In this verse, Jesus emphasizes the enduring nature of God’s law. The reference to “not a jot” or “not a tittle” (the smallest letters in Hebrew) signifies that every part of God’s word holds significance and will remain until its purpose is fulfilled. This statement reinforces the belief in the reliability and permanence of scripture.
The assertion that nothing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished can be interpreted as a claim regarding its preservation. It suggests that God’s word will remain intact throughout history until its intended fulfillment occurs. Thus, this verse can also be seen as supporting the concept of perfect preservation.
Conclusion on Perfect Preservation
Both Matthew 4:4 and Matthew 5:18 contribute to a theological understanding regarding scripture’s preservation:
Matthew 4:4 emphasizes the necessity of every word from God for spiritual life.
Matthew 5:18 asserts that not even a small part of God’s law will be lost until its purpose is achieved.
Together, these verses imply a strong belief in both the authority and preservation of scripture throughout time. While they do not explicitly state “perfect preservation,” they provide foundational support for such a doctrine within Christian theology.
Bold Answer:
The verses Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 imply a strong belief in the necessity and enduring nature of God’s words, supporting concepts related to their perfect preservation through emphasizing their significance for spiritual life and asserting that no part will be lost until all is fulfilled.
Zeitgeist: The Divine Requirement to Discern the Spirit of the Age (Part Two)
Aesthetics, Feelings, and A Vibe
For many years, I’ve said that the content of doctrinal statements do not change or affect people close to what aesthetics do. People’s imaginations of God do not relate mainly to specific doctrinal statements. I’m not saying that’s good, but it’s just not the reality on the ground. Aesthetics affect what people imagine about God. The kind of music a church uses does more to form its understanding of God.
The spirit of the age, the zeitgeist conforms more to aesthetics than it does the content of theological statements. The world system pushes or influences people according to their feelings than it does their thinking. In fact, their thinking changes according to their feelings or experiences first.
I would contend that if a church decided to make some changes to its statement of faith, it would cause a lesser possible negative reaction than if one changed its music, dress, or programs. This point can be seen in church growth. Leaders of churches use the aesthetics, the music, dress, entertainment, social activities, and a general feeling or vibe to affect church growth and maintaining membership. This trickles down to many of the decisions made in and by churches.
“Present World”
Scripture uses the terminology, “this world,” to describe the spirit of the age or the zeitgeist. It also uses “present world” to speak of what characterizes the world in its present iteration. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul writes to Timothy at the church at Ephesus:
For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
Demas forsook Paul because he loved “this present world” (ton nun aiona). The same Greek expression, but translated differently in the King James Version, is seen in 1 Timothy 6:17:
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.
This is the same nun aiona construction, “now world,” that is translated “this present world” in 2 Timothy 4:10. Lastly, Paul uses it in Titus 2:12. In this case, Paul compares the way of a believer — denying ungodliness and worldly lust, living soberly, righteously, and godly — with “this present world.” “This present world” contrasts with godliness, sobriety or self-control, and righteousness.
Friendship of the World
The world and in its contemporary iterations, this present world, clashes with God. It’s why James writes in James 4:4:
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
How does stay in good relations with the world system? It is by conforming to the spirit of the age. John calls these “the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15). Those who love the world, John says, the love of the Father is not in them. Loving the world is loving the things that are in the world. What are the things in the world?
Instead, Fellowship with God
When I was a child, sometimes I didn’t want to identify with my parents. I felt ashamed to associate with these “old fogies.” Children might try to separate themselves from the ways of their parents. People who confess to being God’s people might separate themselves from God by not associating with His ways. Instead, they sound, look, and act like the world. This isn’t just committing sins, but watching what the world watches, listening to what the world listens to, and looking like the world looks. It does this in a number of different ways. God does not want this.
A term in scripture used to describe association with, accommodation to, and affiliation with God is “fellowship” or “communion.” A believer aligns himself in every possible way with God, so that he fellowships with God. He is close to God, so he considers all the ways he aligns with God, acts like God, walks with God, and in every way is on the same page as God. A true believer is not taking into strong consideration as to whether he fashions himself with the ways of this world.
The New Roman Woman
The Apostle Paul confronts the spirit of the age. Besides commanding, “be not conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2), Paul gets into some detail in a place like 1 Timothy 2:9:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
Paul directly deals with some detail that represents far more than what he specifically says. In history, this woman is known as “the new Roman woman.” The contention of historians based upon literature and archaeology was a Roman world phenomena during the time of the New Testament, a type of woman in first-century Roman society who was known for her sexual libertinism and rebellion against male authority. The Apostle Paul instructs women to dress modestly and avoid excessive adornment.
Language Too
More than ever, I hear filthy communication posing as the salty, authentic speech that qualifies as Christian. Everything about the spirit of the age also affects the tongue. James addresses this especially in James 3 and ends the book to title the type of speech as “this wisdom” that “descendeth not from above.” This world produces this wisdom which in turn causes this type of speech.
Christians talked different. Now professing Christians talk the same and they’re a bit proud of it. Apparently true Christianity doesn’t have to change your mouth that much. Just the opposite, if someone speaks with a philosophical bent toward the world, he’s viewed as attractive for Christ, because he’s authentic. This is calling evil good and good evil.
The Course of This World
The Apostle Paul breaks down in other kind of detail the spirit of the age in Ephesians 2:1-3:
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Here Paul uses the language, “the course of this world.” He doesn’t say what that course is, but he characterizes it so that the audience can and will make the application. Paul emphasizes that it was how they walked, but not anymore. One should read an inherent warning concerning the continuation on “the course of this world” for those quickened, who were before dead in trespasses and sins.
The lifestyles of Ephesian believers were “in the lusts of [their] flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh” (verse 3). This isn’t guidance by the Word of God and submission to the Holy Spirit. This is allowing the flesh and its desires to lead. What is the path of least opposition? What makes it easier to live in this world and find acceptance all around?
An Example of Hairstyle
The spirit of the age affects outward appearance as seen in 1 Timothy 2 and this is conforming to this world. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Those claiming to be Christian were conforming to this world in their hair styles and in this case, their length of hair. Paul confronts hair length. Men shouldn’t have long hair. Women should have long hair. A Christian culture will follow this path, because it indicates God ordained design. God intended designed distinction between male and female to cooperate with His design.
Men rebel against God by growing long hair. And women rebel against God by cutting their hair like a man. Both men and women today, who call themselves Christians, might argue here. Instead they should be swift to hear, slow to argue, and slow to wrath (James 1:19). Hair length is a mere example of how believers correspond to the spirit of the age. Many other attitudes and practices will do this too.
Salt, Light, Identification, and Influence
Christianity should and real or true Christianity will stand out against the spirit of the age. It will not accept any of the ways that reflect, resemble, pattern, exhibit, or associate this present world. It will reject the blue or purple hair, the tattoos, male dress on women and female dress on men, the skin tight garments, all forms of godless, pagan music, all kinds of modern art, like surrealism, cubism, abstract impressionism, the overt resemblance to this world’s popular entertainment, and more.
In many ways, the point of avoiding the association and imitation of this present world, the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist is about not identifying with God and the Bible. It requires being different and set apart. People just want to fit in. They don’t have that responsibility to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ. No one knows they are a Christian. They are hiding their light under the bushel (cf. Matthew 5:13-16). These professing believers don’t have the saltiness that preserves godliness. They don’t create a barrier for the social changes encouraged by the god of this world.
Those calling themselves Christians and their churches attempt to stay relevant with this world. They walk to the world’s drum beat. God doesn’t want this. Scripture teaches against it.
Zeitgeist: The Divine Requirement to Discern the Spirit of the Age
Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist is a German or Germanic term found in books going back to the 18th century. Within a translation of the German Philosophisches Journal in 1794, the English translation reads on page 302, “Zeitgeist also works on the national spirit. Every age has its own imagination.” Zeit is the German word for “time” and geist is the German word for “spirit.” Combined it means, “spirit of the time or age.” The Oxford Learner Dictionary defines zeitgeist:
the general mood or quality of a particular period of history, as shown by the ideas, beliefs, etc. common at the time
The term was popularized in philosophical usage by the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. On August 27, 2020, Antje Allroggen writes in DW (Deutsche Welle), which is a German public, state-owned international broadcaster:
[I]t is generally agreed that Hegel was the first philosopher to recognize and address the dimension of change, which he termed “becoming” (“Werden“), in all its fullness. He believed everything in the world was in constant motion: every individual life, nature, history, society. This results in each epoch having its own particular zeitgeist, or general spirit. One historic epoch is not randomly followed by another; instead, there is a principle of logical evolution.
The concept of zeitgeist is a scriptural concept that is in fitting with the terminology, “this world” (touto aion) or “this present world.” Aion (“world”) is “age” or “epoch,” speaking of a characteristic period or time. That’s how zeitgeist fits into the “spirit of the time.” “This world” is found 38 times in the New Testament. “Present world” is found twice, but very representative of zeitgeist in those two instances. I would contend that the philosophical thinking that arose defining zeitgeist, started with the concept which was in scripture.
God’s Requirements
God requires man, and especially genuine believers, to understand or discern the spirit of the times or age, the zeitgeist. In order to obey God, follow Him, and represent Him according to His will, one must discern the zeitgeist. This is an implication or assumption of scripture. People can and should know this. I would contend that many do, but they embrace the spirit of the age. They lap it up and luxuriate in it rather than obey the God ordained relationship to it.
Jesus first uses “this world” in scripture in Matthew 13:22, when He says:
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
The thorny ground is an unbeliever in this context of the parable of the soils. “The care of this world” chokes the word with this person. Instead of embracing God’s Word, he embraces the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist. Unsaved people choose the zeitgeist over God’s Word, will, and way.
The Opposite Happening
Many churches today offer the spirit of the age to their church goers or attenders. They lure people with the zeitgeist. They fill up a trough of the cares of this world for their church people to lap up. In church growth seminars, the leaders promote or offer to their audience this as a means of church growth. They give away thorn seed for thorny ground to ruin the soil and damn souls, all the while saying that this is God at work, deceiving these people. These church leaders promote this kingdom instead of the next and then call it the work of God.
In another parable in Luke 16:8, Jesus says:
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Children and God of This World
The Lord Jesus distinguishes the children of light from “the children of this world.” These are the children characterized by the spirit of this age, something unfortunately and diabolically that churches promote today and yet call it “light.” Jesus says in John 8:23:
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
True believers, like Jesus, are not of this world. Those “of this world” are not believers. Instead of following Jesus, they follow the “god of this world,” who is not Jesus. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul says:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Be Not Conformed to this World
A classic passage in a pivotal context in Romans, the Apostle Paul commands in Romans 12:2:
And be not conformed to this world.
This is crucial. Someone conformed to the spirit of this age is not presenting himself a living sacrifice unto God. His sacrifice is at least rejected by God. He will not receive just any offering, just like He disrespected Cain’s offering in Genesis 4:5. God will not accept something that smacks of the spirit of this age.
To not conform to the spirit of the age requires knowing what is the spirit of the age, that is, what conforms to “this world.” Genuine believers should and will know the zeitgeist and reject it. Scripture assumes we can know this.
As the Gentiles Which Know Not God
Other phrases, texts, and contexts communicate the required discernment. Paul, writing to the church at Thessalonica in his first epistle, says (1 Thessalonians 4:5):
Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God
The Thessalonians and every other church are not to obtain their life’s partners “as the Gentiles which know not God.” There is a way that the world thinks and does things that is different than what the church or godly people do. It isn’t just doing something or having “the lust of concupiscence,” which is intense fleshly lust, but a way that corresponds to that. Believers acquire their spouses in sanctification and honor. That way is vastly different than “the Gentiles which know not God.” Those two ways cannot be the same, or even close. So what’s different?
Strange or Foreign
Scripture doesn’t say what is different, but the two ways have a nature, characteristics, or attributes that believers can and should discern. True believers through history have been doing this, discerning these differences. A word that characterizes “this world” in the Old Testament is “strange.” That is a King James Version word that means “foreign.” Sometimes something on your plate doesn’t look like part of the food served. It is foreign or strange, so you don’t eat it.
Whatever is “strange” in the Old Testament doesn’t fit with God’s people. Zephaniah 1:8 says:
And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD’S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.
What are these princes or king’s children doing in this verse that God will punish? They wear strange apparel or clothing. The passage doesn’t say what it is. It assumes that someone can and should know. God requires application of such principles. This assumes that God’s people can and should know.
The Application Required
“Strange apparel” is clothing that embraces or smacks of “the spirit of the age” or “this world.” Do believers know what this is? People who profess to believe have known this through the centuries. Professing believers seem to have become unable or ignorant for discernment of these differences or issues. God will still judge and punish. This principle is throughout scripture. It has not been renounced or rescinded like some of the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament.
Do you reader understand what I’m talking about in this post? Many churches don’t get it anymore. Why? Leaders don’t teach it. They act like the spirit of the age can’t be discerned. If it isn’t spelled out in exact language, then it is ‘beyond what it is written’ (cf. 1 Cor 4:6), which it isn’t. Scripture teaches this. Someone might “play dumb,” but that game isn’t true and it won’t work in the end. God requires the discernment of the spirit of the age and to act appropriately.
More to Come
A Gender Gap In the United States, Perhaps the World
Gender Gap In Polls
Some of you are reading about the “gender gap” in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. One side gets the women’s vote and the other side get’s the men’s vote. The gap between those two is bigger than ever. This itself is a scriptural issue. The gender gap manifests itself in a greater way right now than I’ve ever seen it in the United States. It’s big enough that I believe it is the biggest issue right now in the election. I don’t think it’s the biggest issue in the country itself, but in this election it is.
One report says that the gender gap is thirty points. That is a mammoth gap. Today, the Wall Street Journal wrote:
Trump’s 5-point advantage among men in the 2020 election has widened to 10 points in The Wall Street Journal’s most recent national poll, in late August. President Biden’s 12-point edge among women in 2020 has become a 13-point lead for Harris.
In a recent Marist poll, women supported Harris by 55% to 43% for Trump, while men supported Harris by 44% and Trump by 54%. Donald Trump loses the women’s vote by a gigantic margin, and the reason he still possibly wins is that he wins the men’s vote by a similar gigantic margin to offset the women’s vote. Women right now know that they have the power to put who they want into office. Will they do it? Maybe not. Enough women do not think that way that they will not go along with it.
Abortion
Those talking about the gender gap the most say that abortion is the leading issue related to the gap. I understand that women have more than one reason to vote for someone. However, the polls say that the biggest differentiating factor for women is they want the right to abort their offspring. I’m not talking for reasons of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, because even the anti-abortion states have those exceptions.
The most recent Gallup poll on abortion in May 2024, Gallup asked women if they in general were pro-choice or pro-abortion. The poll said 63% pro-choice and 33% pro-life. Gallup asked men too and that poll said 49% pro-life to 45% pro-choice. In a recent Wall Street Journal poll of the seven battleground states, 27% of women and only 8% of men listed abortion as the defining issue of the presidency. The election is about women and about women who want legalization of murdering babies.
I’ve asked my wife about this and her understanding is that women feel way more inconvenienced than men over a pregnancy. That last statement is not scientific, but it was a woman explaining, not a man (me). It does seem rather obvious.
Historical Gap
As huge as the gap as there is this year, women have determined the presidential election winner for awhile in the United States. Democrat candidates win because they get the women’s vote. Since 1980, women have voted for every Democrat candidate by at least 4%. The 4% occurred in 1992 only because of Ross Perot running as an Independent. One difference for Donald Trump, compared to all other times, is that he gets an even larger percentage of the male vote than any other Republican candidate since 1980.
Has the gender gap changed in a substantial way through history? Yes. The vote was about even until the late 1960s and early 70s. There was no gender gap in the voting. The men and women voted in almost identical fashion. It was not a concern for a campaign. Candidates didn’t run on “women’s issues.” The modern Democrat Party runs especially on gender identity. Trump may be the first candidate to run such an obvious campaign for men, even though they have a large minority of voters.
You should understand this male readers. Men are voting for Donald Trump by a large majority. The campaign for male voters for the Harris ticket looks like a campaign for soft men. They see their number one male attraction as a new definition of masculinity.
Reassuring Weakness
I saw a recent campaign speech by the Hollywood actress, Jennifer Garner. The Denver Gazette recorded her words:
Listen, I know you’ve knocked and knocked, and I know you’ve called and called. I know you’ve given and given, and you’re worn out. But the truth is, you are, you are the front lines. This is it. I mean, I’m looking at these beautiful faces, these women and these strong men. G**, is there anything sexier than a man who is like, “Men for Kamala?” Woo!
Men for Kamala apparently need the reassurance that they are “strong men.” Do strong men really need this kind of endorsement from a woman? At this point, do they even care if a female celebrity tells them they’re “strong.” Here is a Hollywood starlet also bolstering the sex appeal of supporting Kamala. She testifies that voting for Trump will diminish male sexual allure. Yet, men might get some if they vote for the woman. Imagine someone seriously saying this to a female audience. Is there anything more demeaning to manhood than a woman speaking like Gardner did? Yet, this is the norm today for Democrat politics.
Abdication and Emasculation
Men are abdicating their position or office in the world. They don’t have to do it. Men still have the ability in this world to take male headship. They don’t need to relinquish it. Men are choosing to do so, as if they’ll be better off. What’s going on in the world that men are doing this to themselves? They are agreeing that they shouldn’t have rule or leadership in society, that women should have it or take it from them. I would guess that many men reading here themselves think it’s right for men to give women charge. They prefer or want to emasculate themselves. What’s going on?
More to Come
Genesis 2:9, Aesthetics, and Objective Beauty
When one reads the first few chapters of Genesis, he notices the simple economy of words in revealing foundational truth underlying a biblical worldview. Genesis 2 begins the history of mankind with the toledoth structure in Genesis 2:4.
Toledoth
Toledoth is the Hebrew word translated “generations” thirteen times in Genesis and divides up the early history of mankind from the perspective of God. It follows the record of the people, of mankind, with God recording what occurred. Genesis 1:1-2:3 record the creation of God, a unique period in history. The earth He created begins then bringing forth as an active partner in “making.” 2:4 heads a new section in the narrative with the first toledoth emphasizing what happened with the beautiful and perfect world that God had created. It connects what precedes with what follows, pushing forward the history with another account.
The first toledoth does not use the name of a person — there was no history of men yet. However, all the history that follows proceeded from God’s creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a record of creating not begetting. When we get to Genesis 2, earth is an active partner in making. It sprouts plants (2:5) and the dust of it begets man himself, the product of earthy dust.
In Genesis 2:10-14, Moses wrote a description of the surrounding geography of Eden from a present-tense perspective of a pre-flood observer. It gave the reader in that day a sense of the immensity of the original Garden of Eden. Based on the geographic parallels in a post-flood world, the Garden was 3,500 square miles. God had major possibilities available for a faithful, obedient Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:9
The few words take on maximum importance in communicating what God wants the reader to know and how and where to focus. Genesis 2:9 says the following:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The LORD God made out of the ground to grow every tree. These trees were the means by which the pre-sin world would live. After sin and then the flood, men would survive based on the sweat of his brow, operating according to tilling a soil with thorns and thistles.
Pleasant to the Sight
The first quality of the trees of Eden God says are “pleasant to the sight” and second, “good for food.” It was important to God that the trees and the Garden looked beautiful. In modern cooking shows, chefs speak of food presentation, the process of arranging food to make it look better on the plate. This started with God and is in fitting with his nature and the nature of man.
If scripture says the tree was “pleasant to the sight,” then something must also be “unpleasant to the sight.” For beauty to exist, ugliness also exists. However, right at the beginning of creation, in the nature of God is the making of something beautiful to see.
For man made in the image of God, what was beautiful for him to see was also beautiful for God to see. God created people who would have the same aesthetic standard as Him. This is the beauty of God’s holiness. Beauty conforms to the perfections of God’s attributes, His glory. This is seen in His creation in its symmetry, order, proportion, harmony, and diversity. God Himself is the standard and everything beautiful conforms to who He is.
The Garden of Eden looked good. This was a first priority and within the nature of God. It wouldn’t be trashy, unkept, disorderly, or messy. These qualities do not conform to God. Any reader should assume that he knows what was pleasant to the eyes of Adam and Eve in their sinless conditions.
The Importance of an Aesthetic Value
My major point in this was the importance of an aesthetic value. God emphasizes the beautiful. True believers should and will judge all forms of art as to its beauty and reject what contradicts the nature of God.
Beauty is a second term issue. By that, I mean that God assumes we know what pleasantness is. The syllogism would read like the following:
The Trees of the Garden Were Pleasant to the Eyes
Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity Are Pleasant to the Eyes
Therefore, the Trees of the Garden Had Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity
You could write a similar syllogism with the adverse qualities of ugliness. The qualities of objective pleasantness must conform to the nature of God. What doesn’t is in fact ugly. Nothing is beautiful in its own way. Everything is beautiful according to the nature of God.
Recent Comments