Tag Archives: Bible

Bible

Who Was Tamar in the Bible?

Posted on by

We found two women with the name Tamar in the Bible. One of them was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the son of Jacob. And the second one was the daughter of David, the sister of Absalom. However, both stories in the Bible are so significant that they left a lifelong lesson for believers. 

The Bible is full of strange stories and mysteries, and without the help of the Holy Spirit, it is not possible for humans to understand the depth of these stories. Also, we read in the Scriptures, that only the Spirit of the Lord knows the hidden things of God. “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:10

Tamar Meaning in the Bible

According to Wikipedia: Tamar (Hebrew: תָּמָר) is a female name of Hebrew origin, meaning “date” (the fruit), “date palm” or just “palm tree.” There are two powerful characters in the Bible with this name. 

Characteristics of Tamar in the Bible

We will speak only about the characteristics of the daughter of David. The biggest lesson I learned from the second Tamar is that we should never blindly trust anybody. Not even our biological brothers and sisters. We should watch out for sweet words and praises without any reason.

I am talking about Tamar in 2-Samuel, Chapter 13, the daughter of David who might save his brother from being killed by another brother if she knew the trap the devil had spread against her and her family. 

She can say to her father “I can cook food for my brother Amnon, but you should also come and eat.” Or she can ask, “I can cook food at my place and can pack a lunch or dinner box for my brother Amnon.”  Amnon was her step-brother, but Absalom was her biological brother.

She can ask Absalom to join her once she goes to Amnon’s palace. Sometimes, Christian women behave like Tamar and become so innocent that they forget to see the traps of the devil behind the sweet and praising words. As the Bible already explained in Psalm 12:2,  They lie to one another; they speak with flattering lips and a double heart. 

Tamar should not trust her step-brother and should speak to her father to send private guards with her, so her brother or any of his men cannot hurt Tamar, but she clearly lacks good leadership skills. 

Lack of Wisdom in Tamar

Wisdom is not taught in schools or in homes unless the parents are Christians or read the Bible regularly. Truth and knowledge are on one side when it comes to acting like a leader. Both things can not help you until you know how to use your knowledge.

This is called wisdom. And wisdom does not work if you do not truly understand the knowledge at your disposal. Tamar lacks wisdom if you read Samuel Chapter 13, as the Bible said it is useless to spread a trap in front of a bird.  I am not saying Amnon did good work, but if Tamar acted like a sharp leader, he might not have had a chance of misleading her and his father. 

Democrat Party Strategy to Undermine our Foundation

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins:

We often hear conservatives and Republicans say that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy the country. Just what does that mean and is there any evidence for the assertion?

When conservatives say the Democrats want to destroy this county, they do not mean they’re trying to destroy it as a foreign enemy would attempt in a time of war. They are not dropping bombs or forming armies to squash resistance (Antifa notwithstanding).

The Democrat strategy is to transform this country into a socialist state in another attempt to make the utopian dream of Karl Marx work. The problem they face is that the United States Constitution is a very conservative document that protects against centralized power. Since centralization is the key to socialism, then the constitution must be so altered or destroyed, so as to make an all-powerful national government possible.

Bible ConstitutionTherefore, the key for the Democrat Party is to undermine the foundation of the constitution and the pillars of support that give strength to our Constitutional Republic.

This nation was founded on Christian principles as noted by John Adams, our second President, who said, “This constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Patrick Henry, signer of the Declaration of Independence said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

Democrat policy, or strategy, is designed to undermine the above foundation of our country with the purpose of effectively destroying our constitution. As evidence, to discredit our founders they attack them as white male slaveholders. That is why you see the current racist policy of calling all whites racists.

They call our founders racists because they inherited the institution of slavery and failed to abolish it immediately even though most of them were against the practice. At the same time, they conveniently ignore the fact that white men fought and died to abolish the practice as evidenced by Republican President Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers of our Union who fought the Democrat-controlled South during the Civil War.Revolutionary Insights

Since the founders were predominantly Christian, they must also attack Christianity, which is evidenced by their attack on Biblical Morality. Why do Democrats support the LGBTQ community? It is because LGBTQ is opposed by Biblical morality. Why do Democrats support abortion? It is because abortion is opposed by Biblical morality. Why do Democrats support eliminating public prayer and displays of the 10 commandments, crosses, and manger scenes, it is because those public displays invoke our Biblical Heritage.

The Democrat Party ran an open socialist, Bernie Sanders, for President. There are over sixty Democrat members of Congress who identify as Socialists. The party platform itself addresses the people of America as workers, just as Karl Marx addressed the people as workers.

Therefore, when a conservative or Republican says that the Democrats are trying to destroy America, they are doing so based on the evidence as it exists. When just about all Democrat policy is based on undermining the constitution and its support, then it’s safe to say that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy this county as founded and existed until the Democrat Party began to change in the last century.

As the Democrat Party of the past was infiltrated by the left and adopted the socialist agenda, the enemy is now openly within our walls of government and the institutions of our country to the level where we are in grave danger of losing the last bastion of freedom.

Listen to my related podcast on this subject.

(My next article will address the Democrat strategy to undermine the 6 pillars.)

The Coming Civil War? The Constitution

Posted on by

The Constitution of the United States is apparently a revered historical document that is nearly held as sacred.  At least it would appear that way if all we did was listen to words and ignored actions.  Both Republicans and Democrats say they revere the constitution, but does that reverence include defending the constitution?  If a person, or party, is not willing to defend what they say they hold in high esteem, then it’s safe to conclude they don’t give it much value.

There are some people that talk a big game, but in the end, do the opposite of what they say.  I once attended a church where the pastor insisted I be a deacon.  After a few years, I relented because he said he needed someone on the deacon board who wasn’t afraid to do the right thing.  The church had an employee that we both agreed needed to be fired, so he asked me to make the motion and then he would back me if the other deacons objected.  I made the motion and then he joined the other deacons in attacking me for having the audacity for even entertaining such a thought.

Revolutionary InsightsThe pastor had said he believed the employee was hurting the church and that as stewards of God’s money, we needed to let the offending employee go.  However, when it came time to actually defend the church and use God’s money wisely, the pastor feared upsetting people in the church to the point they might leave.  In other words, he cared more for what people thought than what God thought.  He cared more about keeping people giving to the church than he did in spending the money of the church wisely.

In my opinion, that pastor was a coward, but not a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  What do we do when we encounter a real wolf in sheep’s clothing?  That is a person who says all the right things, but has as their goal the destruction of the church?  I’m not talking about a Christian who sins, since we all continue to sin because of our sinful nature.  I’m talking about the non-believer who comes into the church simply to cause problems because they don’t really believe in God or his church.

God tells us to beware of such people.  The Bible tells us we will know such people by their fruits.  In other words, what are the results of their actions?

Let’s apply this principle to the constitution as it applies to the political parties.  Both parties say the right thing, so let’s look at their fruit or actions.

The constitution is a very conservative document that limits the power of government.  Therefore, let’s look to see which party stands for limited government and which calls for government expansion?  Honestly, both parties fail too often to keep the power of government limited, but one party actually practices government expansion as a policy.  The party which supports government expansion, because they believe the government is the highest power, is the Democrat Party.Revolutionary Insights

Generally, Republicans believe in God and individual rights.  Meaning, the highest power known to man is God.  The Declaration of Independence says the following, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,…”

Can a political party that denies God, or at least his power, truly believe that our rights come from God?  If they don’t believe in God, or his power, then our rights cannot then come from God.  If our rights do not come from God, then where do they come from?

If a party believes the government is the highest power known to man, then rights come from the government, and therefore, the government can take those rights away.  If the governed consents to the loss of liberty, then our God-given rights are taken away.  However, the Declaration of Independence says our rights come from God.  That means neither the government nor the people, can consent to have those rights taken away.  The Declaration goes on to say that if the government were to try to take away our rights, then we have the right to overthrow that government.

The rights I am speaking of are defined in both the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

Let’s take a look at how some of our rights are currently being attacked and who is attacking those rights.  The First Amendment protects political speech.  The Democrat Party is currently censoring political speech they disagree with through big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter who have aligned themselves with the Democrats.

There are numerous examples of how they are censoring political speech, but the best example is what they have done to the former President of the United States who they have banned from their sites.  If they can justify banning the political speech of the former President, no matter how you feel about him, do they have the power to ban your speech?  Have the Democrats cried out he be reinstated, or do they support Big Tech?  They are in favor of banning free speech, including anyone who disagrees with their fact-checkers.

Those are the same fact-checkers that banned doctors and others, including political opponents of the left, that said Hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for Covid-19.  President Trump said it was effective and their hatred of Trump and his policies caused them to take the opposite tact on everything he said.  As a result, thousands of people died who could have been saved by the drug the Democrats censored.

Which party defends the second amendment?  Without the second amendment, there is no first amendment.  The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the people can protect themselves from government, should it ever reach that point.

For years the Democrats have been attacking the second amendment through gun control legislation and the illogical belief that guns are responsible for the action of their owners.  How can Democrats say they support your God-given right to self-defense when in the same breath they are openly attempting to take away your ability to defend yourself?!

Which party supports judges that broadly interpret the constitution and which supports judges that understand that the constitution limits the power of government?  It is common knowledge that the Democrats support judges that believe in a broad interpretation of the constitution while Republicans support judges that believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution.

For example, wherein the constitution do you find the phrase, “Separation of Church and State?”  Democrats use that phrase, which isn’t in the constitution, to justify limiting the freedom of speech of Christians through the threat of losing their tax-exempt status or implying that religion is not to influence government.Revolutionary Insights The Coming Storm

The right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the constitution, but Democrats use that constitutionally non-existent language to justify the murder of millions of unborn babies.

When the Supreme Court declared Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to be unconstitutional, he simply threatened to expand the number of justices on the court by adding enough new judges that believed in expanding the power of government.

Today, the Democrat Party is making that same threat because, in their view, too many of the justices believe government power is limited by the constitution.  Therefore, they are threatening to “pack the court” with like-minded judges who have a broad interpretation of the constitution.

Finally, and most telling, Which party would gain if our constitution was scrapped and replaced by another that allowed for the massive increase of government power?  This kind of government power is commonly known as socialism.  Since the Democrat Party has finally come out of the closet and embraced socialism, then they would gain from the destruction of the constitution.  After all, socialism and the constitution are not compatible.

The Democrat goal is globalist in nature because they believe our future hinges on world cooperation and that only government can solve problems on a global scale.  Since government solves problems, then the power of government must be expanded in order for the leaders of government to have a sufficient amount of power to force people who oppose globalism to submit to the ultimate authority of government.

If that means the constitution must be scrapped to make way for a new world order where America becomes subservient to a government on a global scale then so be it.  Why else do you think the Democrats were so offended by the term, “America First”?  In reality, when it comes to the Constitution of the United States, the Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

Being Cool

Posted on by

We all want to be loved.  We all want acceptance.  When we go to school we learn the importance of fitting in and having others think well of us.  Those that master that skill generally have advantages for the rest of their lives.  Those that don’t often struggle the rest of their lives.  Peer pressure can be a very powerful weapon when in the hands of bullies and manipulators.  The pressure to conform can be intense.

That’s why we realize at an early age that it’s important to be cool.  When I was growing up in the 70’s cool was personified by the Fonz.  To the Fonz, being cool was the ultimate goal and every one of the characters in “Happy Days” looked up to him so much that he became the central figure on the show.  Athletes are cool and perhaps none more so than Michael Jordan.  In music, the coolness was magnified by the Beatles.  There were actors like James Dean and Steve McQueen that people said was the epitome of cool.

In our own lives how important is it to be cool?  If we buy a bike, it used to be that we bought a bike.  Now, if we buy a bike we also have to buy biker shorts and a biker shirt with a biker helmet and biker gloves.  We then join other bikers and ride for 100 miles in a day and the underlining reason is usually that we want to be cool.

For young people cool seems to be measured by the latest technology and do they own it?  Is it the latest phone with the latest camera so they can take pictures to share with the world to prove they’re cool.

People who have earned the title of trendsetters can make tens of thousands of dollars just by showing up at a business venue that wants to be known as a hot-spot, trendy, and the place to be.  I once gave a ride to a guy while driving for Uber who had just flown in from New York City where he was an owner of a new hotel.  He told me about paying a woman I had never heard of $50,000 just to take selfies at a party being hosted by his hotel.  I asked why he would pay so much money to this young woman for simply showing up and he explained to me how trend-setting worked and how vulnerable young people were to it.

Why is it so important to be cool?  Well, it becomes important when we feel we have to use the worth of others to boost our own worth.  We want their approval so badly that we will conform to whatever the cool people tell us is cool.  Even to the point where if we know something is wrong, we will do wrong to keep from being ridiculed for not being cool.

Here’s a question for you.  How important is it to you to be cool?

I can ask that question in a myriad of other ways.  How easy are you to manipulate?  How important is it for you to fit in with what others say is cool?  How afraid are you to be laughed at by people for not going along with what they say is cool?

The world tells us what is cool, but who is “the world?”  The world is Hollywood and TV entertainment.  The world is rock, pop, country, rap, and hip hop music.  The world is fake news.  The world is social media.  The world is anyone or anything that tries to pull you away from God – including churches!

Not every church puts God first.  Not every Bible is the Word of God.  As it says in I John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

False prophets are not just people in the flesh. False prophets can also be Bibles that have been so altered that they cease to be the Word of God.

False prophets don’t have to be garbed in religious clothing.  They come as entertainers, athletes, newscasters, singers, politicians, or anyone who champions any way other than Jesus Christ.

A political party that rejects God is not to be followed.  Politicians of that party are not to be voted for.

Be different.  Be your own person.  Do not allow yourself to be manipulated by those who don’t have your best interest at heart.

I once had a student that was an anarchist.  He had long pink hair on one side and short blond hair on the other.  He wore an army jacket with the sleeves cut out and anarchy patches are sewn on the jacket.  He wore ragged jeans and said he was a rebel.

One day I was talking to him and I asked him why he dressed as he did.  He definitely said, “Because I’m not a follower.  I am an individual and I go my own way.”  I shook my head that I understood,  then asked, “Then why do you dress just like your friends?”

That’s when he realized that we’re all followers of something or someone.  When you break it down and analyze your choices of who you are going to follow, it boils down to one choice.  God or Satan.  God, as he defined himself in his word, or Satan, as he defines himself to the world as the world.  One choice is love, peace, and a future in heaven.  The others is hate, conflict, and a future in hell.  It sounds as if it should be a simple choice.  However, Satan tells those trying to be cool and fit in that the opposite is true.  He’s a deceiver and a liar, but some people are so afraid to be uncool that they sell their soul to Satan just to fit in with the crowd.

Be bold.  Be your own person.  Be brave and look at yourself for who you really are – a flawed person that needs help.  Who are you following?  Remember, every person in this world, no matter who they are or where they are is either following God or Satan.  If you have not faced the fact that you’re a flawed person afraid of never being accepted by a perfect God, then here’s some good news.  Jesus Christ fulfilled his perfect plan to save the people of an imperfect world and already paid for your flaws (sins) and died for you.  If you believe that and ask God to save you, he will forgive your sins, then just as he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, you too will ascend to heaven because Jesus Christ already paid the penalty for all those flaws you have.  Ask him to forgive you, accept that he is the Son of God and believe that he will save you and he promises he will save you and you will know that you are saved and have a fresh start on life.

Do you want to start over?  Trust Jesus to save you and your eyes will be open to a whole other world in which you have direct access to God.  Satan will no longer be your master because God is now real in your life.  What is your choice?

What Happens When America Falls?

Posted on by

How can Christians keep from getting depressed and discouraged as we witness the dismantling of America and see our countries Christian values and morals mocked and attacked by those in power?  Especially when we believe those in power only got there by rigging an election and then silencing through censorship anyone who dares question the legitimacy of that election.  We have seen the evidence of election fraud that the left is suppressing and yet there seems to be no remedy to make things right.

As Christians, we prayed that God would keep the man in power who was championing Godly values.  Why didn’t God hear our prayers?  How in the world can a Christian be optimistic during times like these?

First off, we don’t know God’s plan.  However, we do know that God’s ways are not our ways and that God’s wisdom far surpasses our wisdom.  We also know that God knows the future and that we do not.  The only future we know is what God has chosen to reveal to us in the Bible.  That means we know that in the last days there will be a falling away and that the globalist will eventually win and take over the world which will be led by the AntiChrist.  We see in our very own country globalists working hard to diminish Christian America.

Are we losing that fight?  Have the globalist taken over?  Have we already been defeated and has America fallen?

If we are indeed in the end times, and I believe we are, then what role does America play?  As a nation, America is the last bastion of freedom, and if America falls there is no place left for anyone to go who is seeking freedom.  We are the last bastion of freedom because we are the last Christian nation.  America is all that stands in the way of globalism and the rise of the Anit-Christ.

Are we fighting a lost cause?  After all, through prophecy, we know that the globalist win and the Anti-Christ will be revealed.  If that’s the case, why fight against the inevitable?

As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now for the rest of the story.”

America will not fall because the left has defeated us.  And by “us,” I mean Christians.  Let me repeat that.  America will not fall because the left has defeated us.  Christians won’t be here when America falls.  II Thessalonians 2:6-8 says,

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Who needs to be taken out of the way before the AntiChrist can be revealed?  Is it America?  Indirectly, I would say the answer is yes.  However, the correct answer is the Church, made up of those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.  This is not an organized church or denomination, it is made up of individuals who have asked Jesus Christ to forgive them of their sins and who put their complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ, plus nothing, to get them to heaven.

Since the last Christian nation remaining is America, which also happens to be the strongest nation on earth, then that nation, must be reduced so that an anti-christian power can then replace it.

In other words, the left does not defeat Christians in America.  God removes us through the rapture.  Listen to verse 15 in that same book and chapter, 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

As Christians, we are the salt of the earth.  Salt is used for preservation.  We are the preservation for America and America will only fall when God removes that preserving effect.  We will not witness the fall of America, because we will be in heaven at the marriage supper of the Lamb when those that reject Christ are left to pick up the pieces after Christians disappear.

What happens after America falls?  The Great Tribulation happens!

What happens to end the Great Tribulation?  The second coming of Christ happens and we return to the earth with him to set up the Kingdom of God.  Satan has been defeated, along with all his followers on the left and all those who reject Christ.  This world system we are now engaged against will have fallen, replaced by the Kingdom of God of which we are citizens.

Should we be discouraged because Biden is our illegitimate President?  No, because it’s all part of God’s plan.  We are to continue to point people to salvation through Jesus Christ.  We are to love our neighbor.  We are to put God first and keep our eyes on him.

Focus on what God is doing and not on what Biden and the Democrats are doing.  God gave us the formula for what we are to be doing in the last days.  It’s found in I Thessalonians Chapter 5.

15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

16 Rejoice evermore.

17 Pray without ceasing.

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

We are to be an example of Christ to the world.  We are to rejoice knowing that God wins.  We are to be spiritually united with God through prayer.  We are to be thankful because as Jesus said in the Lord’s Prayer, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Keep your eyes on God and be Christlike.  It doesn’t matter what the left does because, in the end, they lose.  Fear not, we are the victors!

The Democrat Attack on Morality

Posted on by

The Democrat Party has declared war on Biblical morality.  They are not subtlely attacking the moral foundation of this country as they did in the past.  No, now they are openly attacking God, Christians, and Biblical Morality with an all-out frontal assault.  The question is, will they win?

Isaiah 5:20 says, Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

How do we know the difference between good and evil?  II Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Either God defines good and evil, or man does.  When God defines good and evil and we follow God’s directions which are given to us because of God’s love for us, then we are able to live a life more abundant and freer from the natural consequence of sin.  A life of peace and harmony.

If man defines good and evil, then each of us has a different set of values, which leads naturally to conflict.  After all, what happens when your idea of evil is the same as my idea of good?  That leads to division, chaos, and anarchy.

For example, let’s look at something as simple as the rules of driving a vehicle.  When it comes to traffic lights, we all know to stop on red, use caution on yellow, and go on green.  What happens when one set of drivers tries to change those rules so that red means go, yellow means, speed up, and green means stop?  What kind of chaos would that lead to?  What kind of confusion would that cause for our children who are going to be driving someday?  What kind of road rage incidents would happen if we followed two different sets of traffic rules?  I’d be mad at people who believed red meant to go and they’d be mad at me for not accepting their change of the rules that green means to stop.

Think of our children who are observing us drive so that they will know how to be a safe driver and avoid accidents once they take to the road.  They will have to decide who to believe.  They might become so confused that they make up their own rules which brings them into conflict with even more drivers.  They might even become confused about other rule changes, such as if they’re male or female.  What would happen to the suicide rate for those who can’t handle all the conflict these new rules are causing?

Here’s where the real problem comes that most people don’t think about.  We are not born with a blank slate that we fill in through education and observation.  We are born with innate knowledge.  We are born with a knowledge of good and evil which is given to us at birth by God.  We are born with a conscience.

If we were born with the innate knowledge that red means stop, yellow caution, and green go, then a political party comes along and tries to change the rules, imagine the division, confusion, and chaos that would create.  The Democrat Party argues that if everyone would just accept their “fact” that red means go, then there would be peace and harmony.

The problem is, to use the traffic light analogy, God has given us an innate knowledge that red means stop.  That means that the left has to constantly be in a state of reeducation of the masses.  Eventually, as happens in socialist societies, people don’t seem to get it, so the socialists turn to force and coercion.

What happens to society when one party tries to change the rules that we have gone by throughout our history?  II Timothy 3:1-5 says,

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For the last two thousand years, since God’s Word has been completed, Christians have often thought that described their generation.  After all, those kinds of people have always existed because people reject God.  What’s different this time?  This time, in America and around the world, there is an organized political effort to change good into evil and evil into good.

The Democrat Party gives God lip service, but not only denies his power but openly works against God.  After all, as shown in my book, “Where’s the Party?,” the Democrat Party rejects all 10 of God’s commandments.  What about “Christians” who continue to support the Democrat Party and its policies?  As God says in II Corinthians 6:14, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Matthew 6:24 says No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Psalm 38:20, They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is.

God has defined good and evil in his word.  As it says in Joshua chapter 24, choose ye this day whom ye will serve.  Are you going to be an adversary of God and continue to support a party and principles which are anti-Christian, or are you going to agree that God sets the rules of good and evil?

One way brings division, chaos, and eventual anarchy, which will enslave our children.  The other way brings peace and harmony.  Which do you choose for your children?  The Democrat Party might be able to sow division and promote their anti-Christian agenda today.  And eventually, their globalist idea will be achieved, but only after Jesus Christ has raptured Christians from this earth.  That time period is known as the Great Tribulation.  Jesus will return and destroy his enemies.  God wins.  God always wins!

 

What Really Happened on the Threshing Floor?

Posted on by

The story of what happened between Ruth and Boaz on the threshing floor has become one of the more controversial chapters of the Bible.  I failed to realize how controversial it was until I looked up the meaning of “uncovered his feet.”  That’s when I discovered that some people claim that Ruth and Boaz had a sexual relationship that night when Naomi instructed Ruth to go and meet Boaz there after a hard day’s work.

Context is very important when studying the Bible, and most people would agree with that statement.  However, by context, I mean more than the words surrounding a particular verse, or the chapters surrounding a particular chapter.  The Bible is how God reveals himself to mankind and we must keep that context in mind at all times when studying God’s Word.

Before the Bible was completed approximately 2,000 years ago, God would use miracles and prophets to reveal himself.  When Christ fulfilled the salvation promise and God wrote the book of Revelation through the Apostle John, that was the end of the Bible and from that point, God has used his Word to reveal himself.  He can still perform miracles if he so chooses, but by far his primary means of revelation is the Bible.  Therefore, by context, I mean understanding Ruth chapter 3 in the context of first who God is.  Second, who was Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi, and what was their character?

As I read what others wrote, they all seemed to miss the unnamed person in this chapter that adds to the need of having a proper context.  We will discuss him in just a bit.

Ruth Chapter 3: 1-4 Paraphrased

  1. The scene begins after the harvest of Barley and Wheat has been completed and the work has turned to winnowing and threshing what has been reaped.  Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law, has a match-making plan that will find Ruth a husband for protection and to keep her from having to work so hard to meet their needs.
  2. The man Naomi has in mind is Boaz who had shown a tenderness toward Ruth which revealed his attraction for her.  He would be tired from a hard day’s work and it would be much easier for Ruth to approach him in a place of work as opposed to his home.
  3. Ruth tells her to clean-up, wear a nice “dress,” and make herself attractive.  Not as a harlot, but as a lady.  She also cautions her to keep out of sight until Boaz ate and drank until he has mellowed.
  4. Naomi instructs her to make a mental note of where Boaz had made his bed so she can find it in the dark after everyone has fallen into a deep sleep as a result of a hard day’s work.  She then instructs Ruth to uncover his feet, and this is where the controversy begins.

What does it mean to “uncover his feet?”

My research suggested that some believe it is a euphemism for another male body part and that it’s akin to the modern euphemisms of sleeping together or hooking up.  Some people think that Ruth seduced Boaz on the threshing floor, but is that what the Bible says?

Keep in mind that the Bible first needs to be interpreted in the context of who God is.  As it says in II Peter 1:20-21

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

In other words, there is one interpretation for God’s Word and that comes from the Holy Spirit as it says in I John 2:27.  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The second context of what we must keep in mind is what is the character of Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi?  We cannot divorce God from this story since the story is ultimately about revealing who God is.  God gives us no reason to doubt the character of Boaz, Ruth, or Naomi.  Actually, the opposite is true.  Naomi’s motive for instructing Ruth on what to do is love. Ruth did not yet know the customs of the Hebrews and she trusts Naomi because she knows her motive is love and she would do nothing to bring reproach upon her.

Naomi would also know the character of Boaz since they were near kinsmen.  The fourth person in this story, which in my research no one else seemed to acknowledge was the kinsman who had first rights to Ruth since it wasn’t Boaz.  Naomi knew Boaz would be the better match.  That was a problem that must be overcome and these instructions from Naomi would motivate Boaz to seek a solution.

Boaz, even if he wanted Ruth to be his wife, could not do wrong by taking that which belonged to another man.  She was obligated first to the nearer kinsman as Boaz told Ruth in verse 12.  As for the unnamed man, human nature causes us to hold on tighter to that which we feel someone else might be trying to steal from us.  If the nearer kinsman felt Boaz was being selfish and trying to steal Ruth from him, he may have held onto her more tightly.

Because of what happened here in Chapter 3, Ruth had let Boaz know that he was her choice, then this would take away the “selfish” factor and let Boaz know that he was asking for Ruth for her sake and not just his own.  Therefore, Ruth had to approach Boaz in his most vulnerable state, yet she had to do so without guile.

Was there a sexual connotation to uncovering his feet?  I do not believe so.  Uncovering his feet served two purposes.  First, it would wake him up without startling him as cold feet can cause us to awake.  Second, it would reveal to Boaz the subtle hint that Ruth chose him for marriage if he would only do something about it.  Handing another man your shoe in the Hebrew culture was very similar to shaking a man’s hand in our culture to seal the deal.  The contract Ruth was alluding to by this act of uncovering his feet would be read by Boaz to mean the marriage contract.

Naomi said in verse 4 that Boaz would instruct Ruth after he woke, and that’s exactly what he does.  If Naomi had been using guile, then she wouldn’t have relied on further instruction from Boaz.

The plan was put into motion and when he awakens to find Ruth at his feet, look at how he reacts in verse 10.  And he said, Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.

How had she been more kind at the last than at the first?

In the beginning, when they had met, she had been doing her work out of her love for Naomi and meeting their needs, but now he recognized she was showing her love for him by keeping herself pure by not seeking another, more available, husband.

In verse 11 he tells her to fear not because he will keep her virtue intact.  She had a good reputation in Bethlehem and he will not ruin it.  This verse settles the controversy as to what happened on the threshing floor of Boaz.  And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.

Why did he tell her to stay with him in verse 13?  Because he cared for her and did not want her to return home in the darkness where possible danger might still be lurking in the form of young men.  Don’t forget, only a few short years before young men of Benjamin had raped and killed a young woman from Bethlehem and this horrible act and its consequences were still fresh in everyone’s mind (Judges 19).

Ruth then returns to Naomi with grain so that if anyone saw her returning from the threshing floor early in the morning, they would think she had just gone to get grain.  They were not covering up sin.  Boaz was protecting her reputation from those who like to gossip without evidence.

That morning after Ruth left, Boaz would go to the man who had first dibs on her, and chapter 4 tells us that the man forfeited his right to Boaz.  From that union, David would be their grandson and the Lord Jesus Christ would be born of a virgin a thousand years later.

God never hesitated to reveal the failures of the patriarchs and prophets.  Yet here in Ruth no failure was revealed by God.  Ruth and Boaz were both virtuous and what happened on the threshing floor was part of God’s pure plan for the coming Messiah.

Are There Lies in the Bible?

Posted on by

Are there lies in the Bible? Our knee-jerk reaction is to vehemently deny the Bible contains any lies, and then to stand fast in our righteous indignation. However, the Bible does contain lies, and one of the biggest is recorded right here in chapter one. Now, before you slam this book shut, in the self-same righteousness indignation, read a bit further.

Years ago, I had some teens in my Bible class say that their teacher at school insisted there were contradictions in the Bible. Having studied the Bible for years and being unable to find even one contradiction, I marveled that their public high school teacher, who was not a Bible reader, could have made such a claim. So I asked them about their teacher’s claim and they pointed out this chapter in II Samuel as the proof their teacher gave them of this apparent error in the Bible. Being a firm believer in the inerrant of the Word of God, and not being familiar with the alleged contradiction at the time, I saw this as an opportunity to teach these teens how to discover truth. Was I worried I might not be able to prove to these teens there was no contradiction? Not at all; I trust God when he says he will preserve his word (Matthew 24:35). So all I had to do was let them discover which was right – the teacher who claimed there was a contradiction in the Bible, or the inerrant Word of God.

Chapter One begins with David having returned to Ziklag after having pursued the Amalekites and rescuing all the families they had stolen during the attack on David’s village, as revealed in I Samuel Chapter 30. They had only been back two days when a man stumbled into Ziklag, the current home of David, which had been given to him by Achish, a Philistine.

The man appeared to be in mourning, with his clothes rent and ashes on his head. When David asked the man where he was from, he said he had managed to escape the camp of Israel.

I’m sure David’s heart must have raced since he would have been eager to hear news of the battle in which the Philistines would not allow him to fight (I Samuel 29:9-11). When David asked how the battle went, the man informed him that Israel had been routed and that Saul was dead.

This was not the news David had hoped for, so David asked him how he knew Saul was dead, and in verse 10 the Amelkite said he had killed him at Saul’s own request.

This was the verse that the ignorant teacher told the teens was a contradiction in the Bible. Was this something the teacher had searched out himself and discovered? No, he had read it elsewhere and instead of searching the matter to see if it was true, he put his faith in the writing of a man instead of the writing of God. His predisposition was to believe the lie because he wanted to believe it. The alternative would have been to face God, which would cause him to face himself. His pride wouldn’t allow him to admit he needed a savior, so he chose to believe the lie, and sadly, spread it to teens.

So, what is the alleged contradiction? According to this unbelieving teacher, in I Samuel 31:4 and I Chronicles 10:4, he claimed that Saul’s armor bearer killed Saul. Of course, if you actually read those two verses, it does not say that at all. The teacher was the one wrong here, in more than one way, when he said the Bible contradicted itself. It wasn’t the armor bearer that killed Saul; in those same verses we find that Saul fell on his own sword.

However, there still appears to be a contradiction. In the two aforementioned verses Saul fell on his sword, but in II Samuel 1:10 the Amalekite claimed he did the deed. So if Saul fell on his own sword, why then did the man here in II Samuel claim he killed Saul at the request of Saul? The man lied; thus, the Bible contains a lie because it records the lie. Incidentally, the first lie the Bible contains is when Satan deceives Eve and tells her if she eats of the fruit, she will not die. So yes, the Bible does contain lies, the lies of others as recorded in the infallible Word of God!

How did David know the man was lying? The man’s story simply didn’t add up. In verse 6 he claims he just happened to be at Gilboa, where Saul died. Why would a man be on a battlefield unless he was participating in the battle? The man knew this, and so he tried to make it sound like he was on Israel’s side in the battle. However, this was another lie because in I Samuel 30:14, David was given intelligence by the Egyptian, who had been left to die by the Amalekites, that those very same Amalekites had invaded Judah and were fighting against Saul, not with him. The man also admitted he was an Amalekite, the very people that David had just finished slaughtering after they had attacked and burned Ziklag.

Also, the man said that Saul was being pursued and called behind him to ask the man to kill him. If Saul was being pursued and called to the man behind him, then that man must have been one of his pursuers. The man even admitted to taking Saul’s crown and the bracelet off his arm. He said he did so because he wanted to find David and give it to him.

David knew better than to believe this man because his own words betrayed him. He was an Amalekite, who was at war with Israel. He was behind Saul as Saul fled, meaning he was pursuing Saul. When he came upon the body, he then stole the crown and bracelet and was on his way back to his people, and to get there, he had to pass through Ziklag, which he apparently thought was going to be empty because he may have thought it had been destroyed.

Note that the Amalekites were a nomadic people that lived in the area of the Negev Desert, including the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ziklag was between Israel and the region where the Amalekites dwelt. So when the man told David he was bringing the crown to him, it was easy to see through the lie. He wasn’t going to Ziklag, he was going home. (See Appendix)

What was David’s reaction upon hearing the news of Saul’s death? Keep in mind that Saul had been pursuing David and his men in an effort to kill him. Many people would have taken the occasion to celebrate, but not David. In verses 11 and 12, we see how they mourned and fasted for Saul. Not just for Saul, though. They were also in mourning for the defeat of Israel, and David, in particular, mourned for his close friend, Jonathan.

After the mourning, David returned his attention to the man who had brought the news and asked him again who he was. The man confirmed he was an Amalekite, and then David asked him a more direct (and I’m sure unnerving) question: “How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” After all, David would not do it when had the chance, nor would Saul’s armor bearer even after Saul asked him to; yet, this Amalekite claimed to have killed Saul. Why would he make the claim when he didn’t actually do it, since Saul fell on his own sword?

How else could he explain how he had come into possession of the crown and bracelet of Saul? David knew the man had been lying about nearly everything he said, so in verse 15, David ordered one of his young men to execute the Amalekite for his actions against not only Saul, but against the nation of Israel. In verse 16, David lets it be known that the man’s own words condemned him.

(The above is an excerpt from the first chapter of my new, soon to be published book, Inside the House of David, a commentary on II Samuel.  The book will be available online in early December.)

The Religious Doctrine of Socialism

Posted on by

At what age does a person know the difference between right and wrong?  In religious circles, this is known as the age of accountability.  Legally, there is no standard definition, but one of the questions asked as to when people can be declared insane, is do they know the difference between right and wrong.

However, what is more important than knowing the difference between right and wrong is knowing who defines right and wrong.

Lawmakers would be the first people who would come to mind when answering that question, but how do lawmakers choose what is right and wrong?  Is it a mere matter of a majority vote?  If the majority votes to legalize murder, does that mean murder is no longer morally wrong?

Which brings us to the even more important question – who defines our morality?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is stealing wrong?  Is it a simple matter of anything that harms another is wrong?  If so, then why is it wrong to cheat on a test?

Traditionally in western cultures right and wrong is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.  In other words, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

However, what happens when someone chooses not to believe the Bible?  More importantly, what happens when millions of people choose not to believe the Bible?  Are they then held to the standards of a book they don’t believe has any authority?

As long as lawmakers make laws based on the moral authority of the Bible, then they have to, or else they would be committing a crime.  So then, how would these millions get themselves out from under a morality they don’t believe in because they choose not to accept the authority of the book that morality is based upon?

The obvious answer is – they create their own standards of right and wrong based on what a majority of those millions say it is.  They do this by electing lawmakers that share their belief that morality is situational and to be determined by the group, and not God or the individual.

Which brings us to another question – how do they determine what the group believes morally when it’s not based on the historical tradition of the Judeo-Christian ethic?

In religion, the standards of belief is known as doctrine.  Merriam-Webster defines doctrine as a principle, or position, or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.  Conservatives hold to the historical tradition of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Liberals are attempting to destroy that historical tradition through their own doctrines known as political correctness.

What then does the liberal, or socialist, hold to as doctrine?  Some would say the Communist Manifesto since it is a form of socialism; however, it is an extreme form that many socialist would say went too far.  Is there a book the liberal and socialist can turn to?

The answer is yes, it’s called the Humanist Manifesto.

That does not mean the Humanist Manifesto is a book of doctrine, anymore than the Bible is a book of doctrine.  The doctrine of churches, or belief system is based on teachings within the Bible.  The doctrine of liberalism, or socialism, is based on the principle of the Humanist Manifesto.

You may better understand the doctrine of the left as political correctness.  Merriam-Webster defines political correctness as conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated.  Whose political sensibilities are being offended?  The sensibilities of the left, or socialist, is the answer to that question.  They are offended by the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Political correctness is couched in the emotional issues of fairness and helping those who cannot help themselves because they are dominated by the majority.  Of course, that’s what the left uses to shame anyone who opposes their doctrine by calling them hate mongers and insensitive to the rights of others.  However, is that what political correctness is all about?  Making right past wrongs?

No, because to support political correctness is to be insensitive to the rights of those who hold to the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It can even be said that the politically correct crowd hates the Judeo-Christian ethic because before it can be replaced, it must be destroyed and replaced with their own doctrine.  The doctrine of political correctness.

Therefore, the question of who defines our morality becomes even more important because there is a concerted effort to destroy our historical tradition based on the Bible.  What does history tell us about attempts to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic?

They tried it in France in 1789 and it became known in history as The Reign of Terror when 50,000 people were executed for opposing those who abolished Christianity and tried to destroy all aspects of it from public life.

They tried it in Russia in 1917 and imprisoned people deemed enemies of the state.  It is estimated that 100 million people died in the attempt to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic.

They tried it in Nazi Germany where six million people were executed in an attempt to advance the socialist state of the German Workers Socialist Party, or Nazi’s.

They tried it in China, and are still trying it, to the tune of an estimated 40 million killed.

Not all socialist countries kill their enemies, but they do deny their rights, marginalize them, or imprison them and attempt to reeducate them.

In my upcoming writings I will compare the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian ethic with the doctrine of political correctness so we can see just how much the left is opposed to traditional morality and why.