Category: Column 3

“No man hath greater love than this, that he lays down his life for his friend.” This Scripture is frequently misused to justify war. The quote comes from a passage in John’s Gospel which is very much about love. God is love, and we are commanded to love even our enemies.

This has nothing to do with soldiering. No soldier gives his life. His mission is to kill others while staying alive himself. There’s a maxim that in war it takes a thousand bullets to kill a man. If you calculate numbers of rounds and number of deaths, that’s probably an under-estimate. If a man wants to die, it only takes one bullet. When it takes thousands, it’s clear that everybody is trying very, very hard to stay alive. Very rarely does a soldier give his life; mostly he has it wrenched away from him with pain and horror.

The repeated use of this Scripture on military graves, and elsewhere, for the purpose of glorifying war, is an iniquitous abuse of Scripture. A soldier’s life is taken by the enemy, but also by the soldier’s own decision to take up the sword, and also again by those who encouraged, or enabled, or pressured him to do so. It is blasphemy to use the words of Jesus to justify any of this.

A few basic questions about books throw an interesting light on the Bible:

How many books are there that run to over half a million words?

There are a few super-long novels that most people have never heard of. Among the famous ones, War and Peace, Les Miserables, and Gone With the Wind all come in at around a half-million. Dickens’ David Copperfield, his longest work, clocks over a third of a million. The Book of Mormon is a little shorter. The Koran and the Bhagavad Gita both have less than a tenth of a million. Marx’s Das Kapital reaches about two-thirds of a million. Mission Earth by L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, reaches over a million. The Bible has over three-quarters of a million. Not unique, but very special.

How many books were written in two different languages?

Silly question! Who would produce a book in two languages? However, the Bible was written in both Hebrew and Greek. It is probably the only book to be written in two completely different languages.

On the invention of the printing press, which book was most printed?

The Bible.

What is the most printed book today?

The Bible.

Which book has been translated into the greatest number of different languages?

The Bible.

Which books have their own special paper?

The Bible. It’s a very highly specified paper, typically about 30gsm, always known in the print industry in the past simply as “Bible Paper.”

Which books have people been willing to kill or die for?

The Koran. The Bible. Das Kapital. Mein Kampf. A number of others.

Which books have people been willing to die for, but not to kill for?

The Bible.

Which books were written partly in Palaces, partly in Prison?

The Bible. Possibly some others.

Which books have taken thousands of years to write?

Silly again! How can somebody plan to write a book over thousands of years? However, there’s the Bible.

Which book holds the record for being burned the most?

Any guesses? The Bible?

Which book has gathered the most dust ever?

Has to be the Bible!

This article is not seriously suggesting that anyone forgets what the Bible says. But it has to be significant that, quite apart from what it says, the Bible stands out quite unlike any other. Suppose there was a God who wanted to leave Mankind with a detailed witness of Himself and His desires that would pass down through time. That witness would need to be in writing. And it would need to stand out in some way or ways from everything else ever written. It would need to be preserved, and be at least potentially accessible to all people, in both non-digital and digital ages. The Bible fits those requirements perfectly. So it’s either a most improbable product of chance, or there is such a God, and the Bible is His Word. Either way it’s remarkable. Yet very few people have read it cover-to-cover even once.

 

 

Anyone who has moved in church circles for very long will be aware of the drive against Replacement Theology. This campaign is also strong on the internet, with statements such as “Replacement Theology places all the blessings of Israel on the Church and all the curses are given to the ‘Old Israel’.” The odd thing here is that I have no difficulty at all finding Christian Zionists, or Hebrew Roots people, or subscribers to Covenant Theology, (the opposite of Replacement) or churchgoers who simply have a great love or veneration for the Jews. But I don’t think I’ve met anyone who subscribes to anything like this definition of Replacement Theology. So the great campaign against such people seems to be lacking a target. What’s going on?

The Bible, obviously our most reliable source on such matters, is pretty clear. God has always sought to bless Man that He created, and has never swerved from that intention. The fact that at times He has seen fit to pour out some heavy punishment, the greatest example being Noah’s Flood, in no way alters that. Through the Flood He saved Noah and his family for a fresh start. This is how God works. Men may fail, but God always has another strategy to give us another chance. One such strategy was His choice of the Jews to receive His blessings, to be an example to other men, and ultimately to be a channel of Salvation for all men. This strategy was fulfilled in a Jew called Jesus, and proclaimed clearly to the World by another Jew called Saul/Paul. This strategy involved an awesome Salvation for all Men. The letter to Hebrews asks “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a Salvation?” Notice that this is in the letter to the Hebrews. The Gospel was first for the Jew. Only later was it preached also to Gentiles. But the order is less important than the fact that this Salvation was for all  men. And it still is.

At the present time many Jews are opposed to Christianity. This is a temporary situation, as the Bible makes it clear that at some point the Great Salvation in Christ will not merely be available to Jews as now, but will actually be embraced by many or all of them. In the meantime, Christians are the ones shouldering the crucial work of propagating the Gospel. Given the history, it seems probable that it was God’s original plan for the Jews first and foremost to be doing this. Clearly they are not, and in this vital sense at least, currently, they have been replaced by Christians. They are not those preaching the Gospel, but rather potential and greatly desired recipients of it. As already pointed out, God’s intentions, His love for all He created, do not change. He already has a plan. For Christians to comply with it, all that is required is to demonstrate God’s love, search always for truth in everything, and explain the Gospel of Christ wherever possible.

So there is currently a replacement, but not at all in the terms quoted in the first paragraph. And it is very difficult to imagine how any honest student of the Bible could arrive at such a view. Again I ask, why this great campaign against a theology that not only lacks Biblical support, but also seems to lack any actual supporters?

Is there an explanation in the two warnings in Revelation about “those who call themselves Jews, but are not, and are a Synagogue of Satan”. These verses receive very little attention, even though many Christians have a strong sense that we are in the End Times, and Revelation is the very book that focuses most strongly on that subject. Are these warnings passed over because they only refer to people “who call themselves” Jews, making it unclear who they are? In fact there is no lack of clarity: if asked my name, since I’m English, I say “My name is Keith.” If I was French, I would say “Je m’appelle Keith,” which translated word-for-word becomes “I call myself Keith.” If we add here Paul’s discourse in Romans that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly” we get an even clearer picture. Paul is saying you can “Call yourself a Christian”, “Call yourself a Jew” or “Call yourself whatever you like”, but the truth is in the heart. What anyone calls himself doesn’t matter.

So John, in Revelation, seems to be warning against people who claim to be Jews, which infers godliness, but are not really. Then he adds “but are a synagogue of Satan”. That’s a bit strong, isn’t it? For sure, Jews aren’t Christian, but neither are atheists, nor Muslims, nor Hindus, nor Pagans. What’s the difference here? The difference is that many atheists have some regard for Christ as a “Good Man”. Muslims regard Him as a prophet. Hindus often incorporate Him into their Pantheon of gods. And only last week I just had to speak with a beggar who was sitting on the pavement reading a Red Letter Bible. Her dress and her world-view were deeply Pagan, but she thought Jesus was brilliant. For Observant Jews, on the contrary, He is a liar, an apostate, a sorcerer, a blasphemer. A man, and only a man, truly worthy of crucifixion.

Back to Replacement Theology! Contrasting the great awareness of it generated in churches and on the internet, with the near-invisibility of the statements above from Revelation, does suggest a reason for the hype. The hype deflects attention from what the Bible says, and instead disseminates a belief that provides fertile ground for Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism has massive support in the USA, and therefore also plenty of money to defend and promote it. It may seem desirable to have money behind Christian objectives. But the ultimate aim of Zionism is the Restoration of Animal Sacrifice. All attempts at such a Restoration are a blatant denial of the Sacrifice of Christ. Those attempts will continue until they are successful; and will always include strategies to rally Christians in support, or at least to distract them. Christians have no need of Animal Sacrifice. But Jews, like everyone else, need to hear about, understand, and accept the Great Salvation which is in Jesus. Are they likely to hear that Good News from people who, far from seeing the need to promote the Gospel, venerate the Jews and support their programme to restore Sacrifice in the Third Temple? Is the campaign against Replacement Theology a flank attack on anyone who sees that Jews need the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, not the sacrifice of sheep?

Some twenty years ago the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster was asked this question in a TV interview. He waffled about how nobody really knew, and it was a big and legitimate question. I was shocked that a top churchman could be so ignorant. In those days I hadn’t realised that the Churches represent Constantianism, not Christianity. (See the article on Constantine’s Hijack of Christianity if you haven’t already read it.)

The answer is actually very simple. God gave men Free Will. If you haven’t yet read the Freewill and Predestination article, now would be a good time. God also determined to put men in control of the Earth, which is made clear in the very first chapter of Genesis. People may object here that God made men sinful, but that is a belief of Calvinism, so once more refer to the Freewill and Predestination article. Question answered!

However, those who choose to blame God do not give up so easily. Another criticism of Him is that He is in control of everything and nothing happens outside of His Perfect Will. If this were true, we would all be mere puppets. Such a view is nowhere presented in Scripture. God does not determine whether you have fifty-three or fifty-four beans on your toast today. He knows the number, just as He knows how many hairs you have on your head, and He cares. But that is quite different from micro-managing, second by second, every single thing that happens on the Planet. God is in Ultimate Control, not in Immediate control. Compare your control of a car that you chose to lend to a friend.

Even given the explanations above, people often argue that God has the power to stop bad things, but doesn’t. That is partly true. It is an inevitable outcome of his decision to put Man in control on Earth. He not only puts us in control; He also holds us responsible when we abuse the power He gives. All of that is very clear in the Bible, so Christians, at least, should not be arguing about it. The remaining question here is whether He does intervene at times to prevent bad things. Clearly at times He does. In the Flood He wiped out a wicked and violent generation, and through Noah and his family provided Man with a second chance. In sending Jesus, He provided another chance. These things are documented in the Bible. Does He also intervene in undocumented, lesser ways? Many people can point to events in their lives that were so fortuitous that they seem to have been planned. Were those events coincidence, or did God quietly exercise some beneficial control? In this life we will never know. But what is clear is that such interventions cannot alter the general flow of the affairs of Men, for if they did God would be reneging on his decision to give Mankind control.

This leaves the question of suffering caused by disease, wild animals, earthquakes and the like. A proper understanding of the history of our Planet is vital here, something the Churches are singularly useless at providing, since almost all concur with Darwinian Evolution over millions of years. It is necessary to understand how the Flood changed the Planet. If you are not clear, read “The Rocks Really do Cry Out” and spend as much time as you need on the Science Page. Before the Flood, the Earth really was “Very Good”. When people talk of the beauty and wonder of the World God made with reference to the World as it is today, those statements verge on blasphemy. That is because today’s World is merely the wreckage of the Pre-Flood World. The Flood destroyed everything. After it, the way animals survived was different, the climate was altered, and there was a legacy of volcanoes and earthquakes as the re-formed Earth’s crust settled. A process that still continues today. Much of what we suffer now from “Nature” is an ongoing part of the Judgement and Punishment delivered at the Flood.

Even here people will argue that God is not just, that there should be no on-going effects of the Flood. But these things are given to warn us and to make us think. There is little that is more likely to consign a man to pride and the road to Hell than an easy, comfortable life where nothing ever goes wrong. We need adversity to make us think; we need disease to remind us of our mortality; the very last thing we need is great comfort in this life if we are to think seriously about the next.

So why does bad stuff happen? The answer turns out to have several parts to it. That’s not an excuse for it to be beyond the wit of a Catholic Archbishop. Nor an excuse for it to be beyond the wit of anyone else.