God Against Patriarchy

Unfortunately, many folks look upon the Hebrew Bible as an endorsement of patriarchy - where men take the lead role in the family and society. They point out that God is portrayed as a male, most of the principal characters are male, and the Torah is addressed to males. Indeed, among the Jews, a common morning prayer begins: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman." Hence, while this view is NOT universal, we can see that it has permeated Judeo-Christian thought and does represent a widespread traditional view of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament.

Nevertheless, I believe that there is strong scriptural evidence to suggest that this view constitutes a very superficial reading and understanding of those writings. Now, there is absolutely no mistaking the fact that most of the very human authors of Scripture reflect the patriarchal societies that produced them. However, when we take a closer look at the Divine contribution to those writings, a very different picture and story begin to emerge. In fact, it is my contention that those writings reflect a Divine hostility toward the notion of patriarchy! Predisposed to dismiss what is to follow? Please, hear me out!

In the book of Genesis, there are two accounts of the creation of humankind. In chapter one, we have what some scholars have described as an abbreviated account of that event. We read: "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.' So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27, NLT) As you can see, this passage suggests that both genders (male and female) were created in God's image and given dominion over the other creatures which God had created to inhabit the earth.

The second chapter, however, makes a clear distinction between the creation of the male and the creation of the female. It treats them as two separate events with the man being created before the woman. Even so, the narrative there suggests that the woman is the perfect counterpart for the man - a helper equal to the task of facing life's challenges together. Indeed, we are told that "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (Genesis 2:24, NLT) In other words, two halves of one entity! There is no suggestion that one half is in a superior position in the relationship between the two until the fall in chapter three - when they are punished for their disobedience. (Genesis 3:16) In other words, their subsequent inequality was a result of their fallen state!

"But what about circumcision, Lonnie?" my skeptical friends will demand. "That was something specifically addressed to males," they will remind us. My reply: "YES, ONLY MALES were required by God to mutilate their genitalia!" Indeed, let's take a closer look at God's covenant with Abraham and Sarah, and the significance of the ritual of circumcision.

When Abraham was ninety-nine years old, we are informed that God appeared to him and revealed that he would give him many descendants. (Genesis 17:1-2) Then, we read: "At this, Abram fell face down on the ground. Then God said to him, 'This is my covenant with you: I will make you the father of a multitude of nations!'" (Genesis 17:3-4, NLT) As a sign of this covenant, Abraham was given the ritual of circumcision, which would be required thereafter for all of his MALE descendants. Notice the specific language of the text: "hen God said to Abraham, “Your responsibility is to obey the terms of the covenant. You and all your descendants have this continual responsibility. This is the covenant that you and your descendants must keep: Each male among you must be circumcised. You must cut off the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of the covenant between me and you. From generation to generation, every male child must be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. This applies not only to members of your family but also to the servants born in your household and the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased. All must be circumcised. Your bodies will bear the mark of my everlasting covenant. Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off from the covenant family for breaking the covenant.” (Genesis 17:9-14, NLT)

Now, as it is logical to presume that Adam was created with a penis (foreskin included), and he was included in the survey which pronounced everything that God had created as being "very good," it is hard for us to imagine circumcision being regarded as an improvement upon the original design! Indeed, under the circumstances, it would not be inappropriate to characterize this practice as a mutilation of male genitalia. In other words, Hebrew men were required to suffer a painful and permanent disfigurement of the most visible manifestation of their manhood! Given this reality, it is hard to imagine anyone regarding this as an honor or privilege not afforded to females!

Continuing, in the same account, we read: "Then God said to Abraham, “Regarding Sarai, your wife—her name will no longer be Sarai. From now on her name will be Sarah. And I will bless her and give you a son from her! Yes, I will bless her richly, and she will become the mother of many nations. Kings of nations will be among her descendants.” (Genesis 17:15-16, NLT) Now, excuse me if I have missed something. I know that someone will point it out if I have. God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would be the father and mother of many nations, but Abraham and all of his male descendants were to be required to chop off part of their manhood. Excuse me, but I don't remember reading any instructions about Sarah and her daughters being required to disfigure their vaginas! And this is to be regarded as a male privilege or advantage over females? Does God have a well-developed sense of humor or what?

Nevertheless, the patriarchs (along with most of their descendants) have regarded this ritual as a sacred and privileged symbol of their covenant with God. Indeed, you will notice that two of the patriarchs required a servant in one case and a son in another to grab their junk and swear an oath - all because their junk had been circumcised (see Genesis 24:2-9 and 47:29-31). For those who may be unfamiliar with this topic, I am pleased to recommend the article "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh" - The Patriarchal Oath by R. David Freedman (Biblical Archaeology Society Library). Oh well, boys will be boys - right?

Moreover, even within the pages of Torah, this whole notion of male circumcision quickly began to take on a more symbolic and universally applicable connotation which would foreshadow the work of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. In the final book of Torah, in an address to the entire assembly (male and female), we read: "Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn." (Deuteronomy 10:14-16, ESV) Then, later in the same book, we read: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6, ESV) In other words, this spiritual kind of circumcision would apply to everyone - male and female.

Later, in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, this same language was addressed to the MEN of Judah (whom we presume were physically circumcised). We read: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." (Jeremiah 4:4, ESV) Later, in the same book, we also read a more universal message: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV)

Unfortunately, too many folks are more motivated to identify the privileges and authority of males in Scripture than they are to discovering the universal spiritual principles found therein which apply to both genders equally. Indeed, this kind of confirmation bias is NOT intended to get at spiritual truth. Instead, it is meant to confirm the notion that God has placed men at the head of the table - in charge! In this respect, patriarchy is seen as the eternal principle being espoused, and NOT as a concession to the manmade ancient societal structure which already existed at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written! In other words, is it possible that we are making God responsible for ancient cultural artifacts which do NOT reflect "his" view of how things should operate in the human realm? After all, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that God's standard of morality/righteousness only applies to the males of our species!

In the New Testament, in keeping with his intent to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, Christ was himself circumcised as a male Hebrew baby. (Luke 2:21) Nevertheless, as a man, Christ spoke openly with women and included them in his inner circle (see the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). "Yes, but he designated twelve MALE apostles," my patriarchal friends will remind us. This is certainly true, but we should also consider what some of those MALE apostles had to say on this subject.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome: "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:25-29, ESV) Doesn't this passage suggest that a woman who keeps the Law is better off than a circumcised male who doesn't keep it?

A little later, in the same epistle, Paul continued: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.' Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4:7-12, ESV) Hence, we can see that Paul believed that Christ had rendered the physical circumcision of a male penis as being spiritually irrelevant!

Likewise, in his letter to the saints of Galatia, Paul wrote: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29, ESV) In other words, female Christians were to be regarded as God's children and Abraham's offspring - just like their male counterparts! In this same epistle, Paul went on to write: "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:2-6, ESV)

"Alright, Lonnie, but didn't Paul himself say that women should be quiet, not preach in Church, and submit themselves to their husbands?" my friends will demand. Once again, the real question which we should be asking ourselves is "Do these quotations from Paul's letter reflect cultural artifacts from the world of the First Century?" OR "Do they point to eternal spiritual principles which God intended to apply to all males and females for all time?" And, if you answered "yes" to the second question, then how do you explain Christ's statement that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30, ESV) Oops, no husbands and wives among God's people in the future! In other words, just how eternal can these principles be?

Moreover, the Apostle Paul also worked with Priscilla and Aquila (husband and WIFE) as part of a joint missionary effort, and the couple took Apollos "aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18, Romans 16:3) Paul also wrote to Timothy that his spiritual foundation in Christ should be credited to his mother and grandmother. (II Timothy 1:5) Now, you go right on believing whatever you want to about patriarchy, but don't bother trying to convince me that your belief in it originated in the mind of God! 

 

God Does Play a Role in Your Understanding!

Herbert Armstrong taught that God had revealed a number of biblical "truths" to him that had been lost down through the ages since Christ and his apostles walked the earth. He also taught that God wasn't "calling" everyone now, and that only those few whom God had "called" would be able to understand and accept the "truths" that had been revealed to him. Unfortunately, as with many of the other things that Herbert taught, these notions about understanding biblical truth were a perversion of what Scripture actually has to say on the subject.

First, Scripture clearly states that God loves the people of this world and gave his beloved Son so that they could be saved from sin and death. (John 3:16-17) Scripture also reveals that Jesus Christ is the way to God the Father, and that he came to this earth to reveal the Father to us. (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 10:25-38 and 14:6-11) Moreover, Scripture reveals that God has spoken to all of us through his Son, and that he has provided the clearest and most perfect revelation of the Father that has ever been shared with humankind. (Hebrews 1:1-3) Now, this is the context for the passage which Armstrong employed to teach that only the few folks whom God had "called" would be able to understand Herbie's "rediscovered truths."

In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, we read: "For no man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up." (John 6:44, NLT) Without the aforementioned context, Herbert claimed that this passage demonstrated that only the folks whom God had specifically called to Christ would understand his little package of "truth." However, even without that wider scriptural context, the very context of this particular passage refutes its usefulness as a prooftext for Herbert's understanding!

Christ had just told his disciples that he was the true "bread of life" - the real manna which came down from heaven. (John 6:22-42) Now, this was NOT well received by many of the folks who heard it, and they did NOT understand how Christ could insist that folks would have to consume him to be saved. Then we read: "But Jesus replied, 'Stop complaining about what I said. For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up. As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. (Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life. Yes, I am the bread of life! Your ancestors ate manna in the wilderness, but they all died. Anyone who eats the bread from heaven, however, will never die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.' Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' they asked. So Jesus said again, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever." (John 6:43-58, NLT)

Clearly, God wants EVERYONE to be saved, and he has "called" or invited EVERYONE to come to Christ in order to have access to him! Indeed, most Christians understand that Jesus was explaining to his followers that salvation is found through his broken body and spilled blood, and that he was speaking about the Eucharist which his followers would be required to participate in for the rest of their physical lifetime on this planet. In reality, NOTHING in this passage suggests or supports a claim of exclusivity of understanding!

Moreover, I believe that part of Herbert's blind spot where this teaching is concerned can be attributed to his rejection of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. "Why do you say that?" Because Scripture reveals that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL have important roles to play in our ability to understand God and his plans for us! We've already seen the role of the Father and the Son. Next, we will look at the role assigned to the Holy Spirit.

Again, in the Gospel of John, we are informed that Judas asked Christ about how he would reveal himself to them, and not to the world as a whole. Christ replied: "All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me. I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you." (John 14:23-26, NLT) A little later, in the same account, Jesus went on to say: "But I will send you the Advocate—the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me. And you must also testify about me because you have been with me from the beginning of my ministry." (John 15:26-27, NLT)

Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth that ordinary humans do not understand what God has in store for them. He continued: "But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us." (I Corinthians 2:10-12, NLT) Thus, according to Scripture, we can see that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL THREE have significant roles to play in the revelation of God's will and plans to our minds!

Moreover, the passages which we have explored together make plain that the goal of the Godhead is spiritual understanding for ALL. However, even for Christians, this is NOT a "one and done" kind of phenomenon! It is NOT accomplished over the course of a few months in a public library or by reading a series of booklets. The PLAIN TRUTH is that even Christians are expected to grow in grace and knowledge. (Ephesians 4:11-13 and II Peter 3:18) Currently, we (Christians) see through a glass darkly. (I Corinthians 13:9-12) In short, we must NOT forget that the earth being filled with the knowledge of the Lord is a PROPHECY about the future (Habakkuk 2:14), it is NOT the present reality for ANYONE (including Christians). THIS is the truth about "the truth."

Statolatry: A Recurring Biblical Theme

In my search engine's copilot, a number of interesting quotes were generated in association with this topic:

State worship, often referred to as "statolatry," is the veneration of the state or government, sometimes equating it to a form of idolatry, where the state is seen as the ultimate authority and object of loyalty.

State worship is closely related to king-worship, where the ruler is seen as the embodiment of the state. This relationship fosters a sense of unity among the populace, binding them to the ruler through a shared identity and loyalty. In such contexts, the achievements of the ruler are celebrated as collective victories, reinforcing the idea that the state's glory is synonymous with the people's glory.

The implications of state worship can be profound, leading to a culture where dissent is discouraged, and loyalty to the state is paramount. This can create an environment where critical thinking and individual rights are undermined in favor of collective identity and obedience to authority. In summary, state worship or statolatry represents a complex interplay between individual identity and collective loyalty to the state, often with significant historical and political ramifications. Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing the dynamics of power and authority in various political systems.

-Bing Copilot

Now, those are helpful in defining the parameters of our subject, but what about "statolatry" as a recurring biblical theme? Think In Christ has an excellent article entitled Modern King-worship and State-worship. In that article, we read: Since immemorable past, man has been worshipping “super”-man: kings, warriors, sages, and anyone extraordinary. King-worship can be found in almost every ancient civilization, from Egypt’s Pharaoh, Babylon’s Nebuchadnezzar, Greek’s Alexander, Rome’s Augustus, to the Son of Heaven in China. Naturally the king is the most powerful man in the nation, and king-worship is always power-worship. Man worships the king not because the king has power, as many people have power, but because the king’s power is despotic and overwhelming, both of which makes him to bear a resemblance of divinity. The king is the lord, he looks like a god, and he claims a divinity.

The article continues: The king-worship is also connected to state-worship or nation-worship. The king is the glory of the nation, as Alexander gloried the Greek, and Augustus glorified the Romans. The king is the personification of the state, as a result of the fact that the people identify with the object they worship. Through state-worship, the king-worship binds the people together and binds the people to the king through a mystic religious union. The people are part of the sacredness epitomized by the king. They would not allow their king to be dishonored because they would not tolerate themselves be dishonored. They would celebrate the achievement of the king because they consider themselves as participating in this achievement. King-worship is the foundation of national solidarity, the sinew of social coherence, and the convergence of personal inspiration. People celebrate despotism and enjoy despotism, for a reason that is deep in human heart.

Indeed, from the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel to the Beast of Revelation, we see this as the most prominent form of idolatry mentioned in the collection of writings we refer to as "The Bible." Moreover, it wasn't just the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans who were afflicted with this phenomenon. We can also see it in the history of the development of the nations of Judah and Israel.

At the end of the era of the judges, we read: Finally, all the elders of Israel met at Ramah to discuss the matter with Samuel. “Look,” they told him, “you are now old, and your sons are not like you. Give us a king to judge us like all the other nations have.” Samuel was displeased with their request and went to the Lord for guidance. “Do everything they say to you,” the Lord replied, “for they are rejecting me, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer. Ever since I brought them from Egypt they have continually abandoned me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them.” So Samuel passed on the Lord’s warning to the people who were asking him for a king. “This is how a king will reign over you,” Samuel said. “The king will draft your sons and assign them to his chariots and his charioteers, making them run before his chariots. Some will be generals and captains in his army,[a] some will be forced to plow in his fields and harvest his crops, and some will make his weapons and chariot equipment. The king will take your daughters from you and force them to cook and bake and make perfumes for him. He will take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own officials. He will take a tenth of your grain and your grape harvest and distribute it among his officers and attendants. He will take your male and female slaves and demand the finest of your cattle and donkeys for his own use. He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his slaves. When that day comes, you will beg for relief from this king you are demanding, but then the Lord will not help you.” But the people refused to listen to Samuel’s warning. “Even so, we still want a king,” they said. “We want to be like the nations around us. Our king will judge us and lead us into battle.” (I Samuel 8:4-20, NLT)

Notice that, even after Samuel had warned them about the manner in which human kings rule over their subjects, the leaders of the children of Israel still wanted to be like the nations around them! He told them that the king would conscript them into his army and confiscate a large part of their resources to support his projects and wars. Nevertheless, the impulse to have a king like the heathen nations which surrounded them was strong - irresistible in fact!

Later, the children of Israel were themselves overwhelmed by yet another powerful manifestation of the phenomenon of statolatry - the Babylonian Empire of King Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, we learn in the book of Daniel that this manifestation of statolatry would serve as the symbol of all subsequent manifestations of the phenomenon - Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon would be the "head of gold" on the image which represented all of the subsequent kings and empires prophesied to rule on the earth. Moreover, the imagery of Babylon would be employed in the final book of the New Testament - the Apocalypse or Revelation of John of Patmos!

We read there: Then I saw a beast rising up out of the sea. It had seven heads and ten horns, with ten crowns on its horns. And written on each head were names that blasphemed God. This beast looked like a leopard, but it had the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion! And the dragon gave the beast his own power and throne and great authority. I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery—but the fatal wound was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast. They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they also worshiped the beast. “Who is as great as the beast?” they exclaimed. “Who is able to fight against him?” (Revelation 13:1-4, NLT) Continuing there: Then I saw another beast come up out of the earth. He had two horns like those of a lamb, but he spoke with the voice of a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast. And he required all the earth and its people to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. He did astounding miracles, even making fire flash down to earth from the sky while everyone was watching. And with all the miracles he was allowed to perform on behalf of the first beast, he deceived all the people who belong to this world. He ordered the people to make a great statue of the first beast, who was fatally wounded and then came back to life. He was then permitted to give life to this statue so that it could speak. Then the statue of the beast commanded that anyone refusing to worship it must die. (Revelation 13:11-15, NLT)

Later, in the same book, we read: One of the seven angels who had poured out the seven bowls came over and spoke to me. “Come with me,” he said, “and I will show you the judgment that is going to come on the great prostitute, who rules over many waters. The kings of the world have committed adultery with her, and the people who belong to this world have been made drunk by the wine of her immorality.” So the angel took me in the Spirit[a] into the wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that had seven heads and ten horns, and blasphemies against God were written all over it. The woman wore purple and scarlet clothing and beautiful jewelry made of gold and precious gems and pearls. In her hand she held a gold goblet full of obscenities and the impurities of her immorality. A mysterious name was written on her forehead: “Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World.” I could see that she was drunk—drunk with the blood of God’s holy people who were witnesses for Jesus. I stared at her in complete amazement. (Revelation 17:1-6, NLT)

Now, while John was clearly referring to Rome and its empire, the language of statolatry in these passages is clear. The state is supreme. The state is worshipped. The state has enough military power that no one dares to challenge it - "Who is able to fight against him?" Is this phenomenon dead? Did it disappear in the First Century or with the fall of Rome? Can you think of any modern nations of which we could employ similar kinds of language? Are there any modern nations where the sacrifice of one's life for the sake of the nation is glorified? Are there any modern nations which glory in their military might, wealth, and power? In short, is statolatry still something which afflicts human governance?

Jesus Christ preached about a different kind of kingdom and kingship. He preached about servant leadership and government that served the needs of its citizens. He preached about humility and peace. He spoke about love, cooperation, mercy, healing, forgiveness, and kindness. Are those qualities exemplified by any nation extant on the surface of the earth today? Is it possible that this is something that we might want to give a little bit more of our attention to? What do you think?

A Little Reassurance

Too many Christians have a very flawed view/understanding of Almighty God. They think of God as a harsh and exacting tyrant, instead of the loving, compassionate and merciful entity who is the reality. Unfortunately, for too many of us, God is perpetually pissed off and just itching to zap some miserable sinning human somewhere! For these folks, we are as loathsome insects before the Jolly Green Giant who might step on anyone of us at the drop of a hat and make us all squishy and very dead! Little human tenders dangling over the fires of hell, and the string holding us above the flames is on fire! Well, you get the picture.

There are also a large number of folks who have convinced themselves (often with a great deal of assistance from the judgmental self-righteous) that they are irredeemable - that their sins are simply too great to be forgiven. These folks are convinced that there is a limit to God's patience, and that they have exceeded it. They believe that their sins are simply too great - too awful - for God to forgive. Many of these folks believe that they are headed for the Lake of Fire, and no one is going to convince them otherwise. In other words, without meaning to, they diminish God and his power to forgive sins.

Jesus revealed to Nicodemus, "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him." - John 3:16-17, NLT Indeed, even in the Old Testament, God is portrayed as someone who wanted to redeem sinners. In the book of Ezekiel, we read: "Son of man, give the people of Israel this message: You are saying, ‘Our sins are heavy upon us; we are wasting away! How can we survive?’ As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?" - Ezekiel 33:10-11, NLT Likewise, in the book of Isaiah, we read: "Though your sins are like scarlet, I will make them as white as snow. Though they are red like crimson, I will make them as white as wool." - Isaiah 1:18, NLT Notice, in both Testaments, God is portrayed as someone who wants sinners to be saved.

In Paul's first epistle to Timothy, we are informed that God wants everyone to be saved (I Timothy 2:4). In the second epistle attributed to Peter, we learn that God doesn't want anyone to be destroyed and would prefer that everyone decided to repent (II Peter 3:9). This is consistent with a God who is described as the personification of love (I John 4:8, 16). After all, the Apostle Paul stated that love is "patient and kind" and "keeps no record of being wronged." (I Corinthians 13:4-5) He went on to say that love "never gives up...is always hopeful and endures through every circumstance." (I Corinthians 13:7)

The Apostle Paul had persecuted Christ's Church and wrote to Timothy: "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength to do his work. He considered me trustworthy and appointed me to serve him, even though I used to blaspheme the name of Christ. In my insolence, I persecuted his people. But God had mercy on me because I did it in ignorance and unbelief. Oh, how generous and gracious our Lord was! He filled me with the faith and love that come from Christ Jesus. This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them all. But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life." - I Timothy 1:12-16, NLT In other words, if God could forgive Paul, "He" can surely forgive you!

In the Gospel of Matthew, we are informed that Peter once asked Christ about forgiveness. "How often should I forgive someone who sins against me? - Seven times?" - Matthew 18:21, NLT "'No, not seven times,' Jesus replied, 'but seventy times seven!'" - Matthew 18:22, NLT In other words, you must forgive them every time they sin against you! And, if that is the standard which God expects of us, then how much greater must be God's capacity for forgiveness? Humans are limited. God is without limits. Indeed, earlier in this same account, Christ said that ANY sin was capable of being forgiven by God except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). Why that one? Because the person who commits this sin has effectively declared that God doesn't have the power/ability to do something (like forgive a particularly obnoxious/bad sin)!

Paul told the saints at Philippi that the One who had begun a good work in them was able to finish it (Philippians 1:6). Likewise, Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome that "If God is for us, who can ever be against us?" (Romans 8:31, NLT) The answer of course: NO ONE! Indeed, Paul went on to say that he was "convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love." (Romans 8:38, NLT) The clear message: God is able to make right ANYTHING that you have perverted, harmed, or ruined - ANYTHING! Get over yourself! You ain't all that, and God is!

A New Year Means a Fresh Start!

"Behold, I make all things new" - Revelation 21:5, NKJV

"Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." - Philippians 3:13-14, NKJV

"But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." - Ephesians 4:20-24, NKJV