Andy Pandy and Teddy - Ahem...

Throughout the mid-to-late 1960's, during my last couple of years of compulsive schooling, my parents were successful in acquiring a Border Collie puppy from a choice of two pups available from the same mother bitch. We chose the male in preference over its sister. It spent the whole of its life with us. A rather spoilt life as such, as none of us trained it to stay away from the dinner table. As a result, it kept on whining as it begged for scraps of morsels as they were finger-fed into its mouth whilst we sat at table. But I always remember the times when the main bone of the Sunday roast lamb was left for the dog, and it would saunter to its basket with it in its mouth. But dare you approach whilst it's chewing on the bone! Its snout would furrow, its upper teeth bared whilst tightly shut over its bone, and emit a low, threatening growl. We all knew better than to tempt fate by teasing it.

Border Collie

With a newly-acquired puppy, it was my idea to name our pet Bruce, after the comic multi-millionaire Bruce Wayne, played by the late Adam West, who also was the costumed crime-fighter of the fictitious American metropolis of Gotham City, as the heroic Batman. This series of family viewing topped the statistics during the late 1960's, especially among us teenagers. Batman's sidekick Robin, was played by a younger and rather good-looking actor Burt Ward. When not in costume, both Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson lived at the Wayne Manor, a mansion a little way outside the city. Meanwhile, the head office of the Gotham City Police Department was occupied by two incredibly gullible heads: Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara. With both of these officers having dined with Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson at their manor more than once, it remains a mystery on how neither had ever sussed out that Bruce Wayne was actually Batman and Dick Grayson was Robin. After all, both "pairs" were of the same physical build, the same age, and most obvious - the same voice tones and accents. 

But that is the mystery of innocence. Coming to think of it, the only room in the manor we were able to look into was the lounge which boasted a sliding panel, secret enough for one of the servants to be totally unaware of - despite her many years of working there. Whilst she was always elsewhere, the panel would slide open to reveal a fireman's pole which took them to the underground basement, or the Bat-Cave, already fully dressed in their costumes, in a matter of a couple of seconds. The innocence of it all. As a teenage fan of Batman and Robin, it has never once crossed my mind on why we never saw the inside of the kitchen and bathroom, nor for that matter, the bedroom. Neither I, nor any other Batman fan at school I was aware of, had ever questioned the sleeping arrangement of Wayne and Grayson when not in their costumes. After all, we may never be able to prove that they didn't share a double bed, but we cannot disprove this either. Could this be the reason why the more recently made Batman Returns sequel of movies which were made in the early 1990's, he was featured as being alone, without Robin as his sidekick. This, along with later re-makes of the movie, Batman remains alone, fighting his own demons as well as crime within his metropolis.

Most likely at present it would be too controversial to feature Batman and Robin living in the same house without any thoughts of personal intimacy occurring behind the closed bedroom door. And so we go back a few more years to my primary school days. As a young boy, Thursday and Friday teatime were my favourite evenings of the week. On Thursday, preceding the 17.50 News, was twenty-five minutes of cartoon animation Popeye the Sailor Man, with is long-suffering girlfriend Olive Oyl. A handy can of spinach always gave him that super-strength in his biceps to ward off his persistent bully Brutus, a bearded giant of a man who had his eye on Oyl, and always attempting to win her over. It was through these cartoons that I developed a fondness of spinach. And Fridays? Oh yes, on the same time-slot it was Huckleberry Hound, along with Mr Jinks the cat with his two mice, Pixie and Dixie. The upright-standing feline always ending up chasing his rodent companions around the house after being outwitted by them. And Yogi Bear and Boo-Boo, both living in a cave at Jellystone Park. Innocence prevented me from pondering what those two got up to inside their cave after the cameras were no longer filming! 

And throughout the fifties, I could I ever forget Watch with Mother, a daily fifteen-minute afternoon slot featuring lovable puppet characters. These were the days when mother stayed at home to raise her young children while the husband and father was at work, fulfilling his role as sole breadwinner and provider. It was on Tuesdays that Andy Pandy, along with Teddy and Looby Loo made their appearances. When the cameras were off, Andy shared a small basket with Teddy, and they can be seen at the start of the show popping up together and then dropping back down out of sight in a game of peekaboo before both of them jumping out of their basket to play in the garden.

Looby Loo was the incredibly shy little girl who only made an appearance after Andy and Teddy were out of sight. After a few minutes of performance, she made a quick disappearance before the other two returned. The show ended with the two jumping back into the basket, where they would, I suppose, remain for a full week. The age of innocence. Boys like myself would watch all these programmes without ever a single thought or hint of any homosexual connotations. Indeed, the creators might have thought that any dalliance Andy Pandy would have made with Looby Loo would have sent Teddy into a jealous rage. We can't have that can we?  So to keep her a secret, even out of Andy's awareness, was the best solution to avoid in-basket fighting!

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let us begin.

As this week has celebrated fifty years since the Government has discriminated homosexuality between two adult partners within the privacy of their home, gay-themed docudramas were shown on the BBC. These stories were based on historical facts, including interviews with the actual individuals who were represented in these dramas by actors. Before the legislation, for two men to even hold hands in public warranted arrest and possible imprisonment. This also included two men hugging, even in privacy of their own home. One victim of such circumstances was journalist Peter Wildeblood, who in 1952 had an affair with Naval officer Edward McNally. Apparently they were both caught whilst on board a ship sailing towards Malta. Wildeblood, during his Court hearing was promised a reduction of his prison term from five years to twelve months if he disclosed the names of any other partners he was involved with. So he betrayed his partner McNally to the Court. Indeed, his sentence was reduced to twelve months, but McNally himself, unable to cope with the prospect of Court, committed suicide before his first hearing.

After his prison sentence was completed, Wildeblood pleaded his case with a Member of Parliament to consider strictly private affairs between two consenting adults to be decriminalised. After, on his way home, a stranger stopped him in the street and began beating him up. One punch followed another with full force until Wildeblood lay on the ground, his bloodied face receiving more punches until he was barely able to speak, until he finally gasped, 

Why are you doing this to me?

Because your'e a f- homosexual! The assailant shouted his answer before rising to walk away, leaving his victim lying unattended on the ground. It would be another ten years or more before the legislation became effective in 1967.

Watching the beating in the street on television has reminded me of a true Mid-West story of a young homosexual male out one evening cruising (out looking for a partner) when a car containing two or three burly men pulled up alongside. They got out, grabbed hold of and bungled the lad into the vehicle and drove off to a remote area, where he was murdered. And with another beating of a gay celeb which took place more recently in London's Clapham Common which attracted publicity, "queer bashing" is something that can still prevail, even up to half a century after legislation. And such are dramatised, like in the fairly recent incident in the soap EastEnders, where two young gay men: Ben Mitchell and Paul Coker, were accosted by a gang of men in the West End whilst on a night out together, resulting with the murder of Paul, followed by the difficulty for Ben in getting these killers to face justice. If soaps are meant to reflect real life, then this must be an indication that "queer bashing" still occur, albeit rarely.

It could be said that hatred towards gays is to honour Britain as a country with strong Christian ethics and morals, as homophobia is often linked to far-right extremism, along with racism and antisemitism. Not that long ago there was a documentary about the far-right hate group against Muslims, Britain First, whose activities were centred mainly in Luton, and who argued for Christianity against Islam in the UK. The very issue of making homosexuality illegal seemed to have stemmed from the Empire days of Christian constitution. Or in short - from Religion. And so men and women with a same-sex preference are held by these moralists as anti-Biblical and a pariah of society. And here is the irony. Despite its religious-based origin for homophobia, much of the Christian faith here in the UK has been discarded into the trash bin, mainly because of the so-called "Creationist myth". It should be noted here that if Adam and Eve had never existed, but instead we are all descended from apes or similar primate species as Darwin himself taught, then without the Fall there would have been no need for the Atonement to be made on the Cross, and no Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This makes the Bible and the Christian faith totally worthless. Atheists, many who are in support for homosexuals, would be right in discarding the Bible as a book of useless fables, together with their perception as the source of the homosexual's misery.

Ben (left) and Paul in EastEnders

This leaves these moralists with an ironic situation. They say that same-sex relationships are wrong because such relationships are unbiblical. But the very same people who says such things are themselves denying the verity and historicity of the Bible. In other words, homophobia is only Biblical when it suits them. Other passages found in the Bible, for example, in rebuking classism and wealth favouritism - ah! That's a different story altogether, even though James classifies this sin as Murder (James chapter 2). If classism is the bulwark for a strong Britain, then let classism flourish because that is perfectly fine, murder notwithstanding!

It is very unfortunate that even regular church-goers can be get caught up in this homophobic scenario. Often I have quoted the late infamous Fred Phelps, one time leader of Westboro Baptist church in the Kansas city of Topeka. His stance against homosexuals, along with calling down God's wrath and his campaign to send them into the hottest realms of Hell, has become a notoriety on an international scale. And there many other church leaders who calls down God's wrath on gay men in particular. Their followers carry their hateful spirit into their homes, their schools, their workplaces, and out into the streets, as well as through the Media. The trouble with all this anti-gay lobbying and cursing by church members, is that this kind of attitude throws fuel onto the flames of atheism - the fuel being petrol or gasoline to be more precise. It also makes the gay person feel less uncomfortable in a secular surrounding, as well as providing a cause to hate God with a vengeance. Indeed, church morality is the homosexual's deadliest enemy.

How Jesus was so different when he was around to minister to the people! He was accused by the Pharisees and other religious people of "mixing with tax collectors and sinners" - the same pariahs to them as church leaders see gay men and women as pariahs at present. He even said that these "tax collectors and sinners" will enter the Kingdom of God before the Pharisees will (Matthew 21:31). The "sinners" depicted here are the prostitutes. Both prostitutes and tax collectors were despised by the Pharisees as gays are despised by moralists today. But Jesus loved them. He loved them so much that he was willing and ready to give his life for them - and in a cruel and torturous method. He was willing to give them eternal life whilst at the same time give the Pharisees the most stern of rebukes, as recorded in Matthew chapter 23.

Jesus would never attempt to pull the bone away from the dog's jaws. He knew full well that such an action would bring out the worst in a dog. Fierce growling, angry barking, along with a few bleeding wounds. No, it's not nice at all. So what would Jesus have done? Or what would any sensible man do? He would show the dog a piece of sumptuous steak. Only then will the dog willingly drop the bone in order to receive the meat.

No church would bring a homosexual into the arms of God's mercy by censoring and rebuking. Trying to take away what he has will never lead to a conversion. Rather, the Christian can only demonstrate that what he has is far better than what the sinner has. If the sinner can perceive that the Christian has something far better to offer, only then will the sinner be more willing to leave behind his former lifestyle if it means becoming a recipient of something more fulfilling - eternal life through Jesus Christ.  

Sitting on a Park Bench...

Retirement certainly has its benefits! No more getting up in the mornings to survey the weather, and then after breakfast and Bible reading, having to hobble off to where my ladders and associate equipment had always awaited my arrival. But then again, retirement is a constant reminder that as each day comes and goes, every morning as I look into the bathroom mirror, I could see that I'm not getting any younger. Instead, I watch as I gradually age and my awareness of the grave approaching remains an inescapable reality.

Therefore, together with having to take five different pills everyday for life, I also accept my GP's recommendations seriously enough to visit the gym twice a week for a thorough two-hour workout. Other days of the week I put on my hiking boots and saunter off to Nowhere - just for the benefit of exercise. Then as if the icing on the cake, each Sunday I crack off five miles on the bicycle for church before repeating the journey home.

What a lovely day it was during the week as towards the end of one of those walks, when I paused at a park bench located within a copse of tall trees, mostly silver birch, but with a variety of other species too. It was while I was sitting to rest, pray and meditate, that a powerful thought crossed my mind:

God is not angry with me anymore. His wrath is completely removed.

His wrath against sin completely removed. Not only from me, not only from all other believers, but for the whole world. At this point a verse of Scripture comes to mind: 2 Corinthians 5:19 - To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (AV).

Although I was fully aware of this verse for many, many years, this time it was almost like a Damascus Road experience, the kind both Paul the Apostle and Reformer Martin Luther had experienced. God is not angry at us anymore! I think this is so difficult to take in. For example, all I had to do was Google Once Saved Always Saved, and 6,960,000 results appear in just half a second. And two of my blogs on the subject appears on the first page. But directly above my link there was one submitted by the Assemblies of God church, thoroughly debunking the concept of Once Saved Always Saved. And above that, another link to the Watchtower Society also led to a rebuke against the doctrine. By scrolling down the listing, I could see that the vast majority of links led to articles debunking Once Saved Always Saved.

And these articles weren't necessarily written by laymen. Rather they were written by church pastors and roving ministers, some of them even holding a doctorate. By reading some of their articles, I have come to the conclusion that they centre their opinions on three main New Testament passages: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, and Hebrews 6:4-6. Other verses are quoted as well, including Philippians 2:12, where we are exhorted to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Ah, the threat of Hell-fire yet again! 

And so it is easy for them to assume that once you are saved, you will always be saved. Therefore eat, drink and be merry, for Heaven is guaranteed. Go out and revel in your sin - wine, women and song for you - as one eternally saved, you have no fear or worry about the consequences. Really. These pastors, teachers, and academics, some having the title Dr. in front of their names - come on! Are they so ignorant? How could I ask this about such a well-educated person? And with such teaching prevailing throughout our churches, what has come out of all this?

The most obvious reason for advocating Once Saved Always Saved, also known as Eternal Security of the Believer, is because God is omniscient. That means that God not only knows absolutely everything which is happening at this moment, but everything that will happen in the future. And that includes the life of every single individual who are yet to be born. And that where ignorance among these academics kicks in. With the abundance of prophecy found in the Bible, many which are already fulfilled with startling accuracy, can they really believe that God does not know what a person, especially a Christian, is going to do next? Especially if the believer is fully acquitted, has the imputed righteousness of Christ credited to him, a new creation, reborn of the Spirit, and adopted into God's family as a gift from the Father to the Son, and becomes a citizen of Heaven.

Then God himself being gullible as he is, a believer falls into sin which remains unconfessed, and he slips into apostasy. Then God has to undo everything he has already done - first he would impute his sin upon him, making his imputed righteousness of Christ null and void. Then somehow become unborn. Then he would remove the Holy Spirit from him, next he is disenfranchised from God's family and left to be claimed by the Devil again. Finally, he loses all his inheritance and has only the consequence of eternal loss. Talking of the Devil, this shows that Satan is stronger than God himself, whom with his lack of foreknowledge, the Almighty does not know what's going to happen next! Really, does the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross have any power at all?

Can you see what wretched blasphemy all this is? Yet doctors of theology constantly preach and write such heresy, knowing that they will be listened to, just because of who they are. And the average Christian bow the knee to their authority, not because of a sound knowledge of the Bible but through admiration of the preacher's academic background. 

But where does it, for example, leave me and many other Christians? Or, for example, someone who is homosexual? That is a case in point, because this is mentioned in Romans 1:18-32. Generally, the LGBT community is hostile to God and the Bible, because on how the churches quote these Scriptures as proof  of their sin without assurance that God has already made peace with them, and he is no longer angry with them. They don't need to be told that what they are doing is wrong. Instead they need the love of God through faith in Christ. So this gay man has faith in Christ, but despite all assurances from the rest in the fellowship, he will be aware that he will be peered at from the corner of the eye by not a few with a Pharisaic attitude. 

The worst thing about being gay is that it is not out of personal choice to have his libido excited by a presence of someone of the same gender. It just happens, even without initial intention. And he was aware of his orientation from childhood without making any conscious choice to be gay or straight. Then an elder, pastor or visiting speaker raises the issue on how wrong and sinful homosexuality is. Of course, the speaker is a married man with children, and when he gets into bed later in the evening, he can enjoy his relationship with his wife without a strand of guilt and with full approval from God. The homosexual is fully aware of this. However if a dashing young man also walks in and he is sexually stimulated, the feeling of guilt within the crowd could well make him feel uneasy. Quite likely he has that longing wish to be "normal" with a wife and family. Instead, he listens to a guest speaker condemning homosexuality as a serious sin, yet still uttering the inept statement "to love the person, hate the sin" - and quoting Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 and Hebrews 6:4-6 as proof-texts that either he was never saved in the first place or he is in danger of losing his salvation.

The homosexual feels trapped, and cannot enjoy a loving relationship with Jesus Christ in the same way as the heterosexual speaker can. Oh, it's all very well for him! His wife will be waiting for him in bed. But for the gay, he feels trapped and cannot find a way out of his natural orientation. Rather, knowing and being fully aware that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself and not imputing their trespasses against them will go a long way towards personal holiness. 

It is human nature to anthropomorphise God. That is to liken God to "a big man" in the sky with human attributes and characteristics. True enough, we are made in his image. We have his threefold characteristic of thought, emotion and free will. Also, like him, each man is a trinity, having spirit, soul, and body, just as God himself is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But we are not omnipresent, neither omniscient, nor omnipotent. And because of our fallen state, by nature we don't have his holiness either, but we do have a sense of morality put in us by God himself and a conscience to bear witness of this morality. If, as an example, my natural father had been overbearing, then it's most likely that I would perceive God in the same way - overbearing.

The idea of a Holy God reconciling a sinful world to himself without imputation of transgressions is rather too hot to handle. Probably that was why churches has struggled with this throughout the centuries, even to this day. The trouble which such struggling is eventually the rise of the Pharisee. And sadly enough, the Pharisee is not confined to some Jews living at the time of Christ. They are with us now, sitting in the same church as the rest of us. They debunk any idea of Once Saved Always Saved, they make great efforts to keep the Law, they are prone to be judgemental towards those who don't fit their model, and they are great believers in nationalism, classism, and culture. And they have a strong dislike for mavericks. 

And that is why not everyone likes me in our fellowship. I'm too much of a free-thinker. Pedantic too. And perhaps quite controversial. I stick up to by beliefs. More important, I will always uphold the historicity and verity of Holy Scripture. If the Bible teach that the Earth is only six thousand years old, then it's only six thousand years old. If the Bible imply eternal security of the believer, then I'm willing and ready to stand up and face down anyone who thinks otherwise, no matter how clever he might be or where he attended university. I would be willing to rebuke a doctor for dishonouring God in such a despicable way by teaching salvation by works, and placing a stumbling block at his hearers and hindering them from walking in holiness, which is the same as walking in love, as God himself is love.

I guess I am who I am. I stand up to what I think and feel. If some people don't like it - tough! I love independent travel, I love my church, I believe in hugging, I love the spirit of internationalism because that is a far better representative of the Kingdom of God than nationalism, especially here in England with its isolationist bulldog spirit which breeds hatred, prejudice and even physical violence. Not exactly godly, is it? And I am convinced that this "bulldog spirit" is actually a demonic entity dwelling invisibly in the air. After all, by deceiving people with pride, self-confidence and optimism, along with a history of imperialism sustained by Darwinism, this entity continues to send up to 95% of Brits into a lost eternity. It is a dreadful thought. Facing such a startling reality gives me no pleasure. Indeed, this is an awful and sorrowful tragedy. But it does not have to be this way. Instead, as I already mentioned in my last blog, anyone can come to Jesus Christ and be saved. Even if this means learning about who he is and what he has achieved by his sacrifice made on the cross for us, his burial, and three days on, his resurrection, conquering death and making eternal life accessible to all believers.

And then to change his mind to believe in his heart that this Jesus of Nazareth is the risen Christ, the Son of God. We call this change of mind Repentance. And here is something I still find very difficult to understand: If God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and not imputing their trespasses against them, then how is it that the vast majority of Brits are heading for a lost eternity?

The best illustration is at a Magistrate's Court. The defendant is proved guilty of a crime serious enough for a death penalty. However, his uncle, totally innocent of any offence, steps in and offers to die in his place. Therefore his uncle is executed and the defendant is free to go. But to be set free he has to accept it. But he doesn't. Instead he insist that his uncle was telling porkies. Eventually the judge had no other option but to execute him. Such a needless tragedy! 

Such as the state of Britain, deceived by the lie of Darwinism.

Attraction or Repulsion?

One monthly gem I enjoy on a regular basis is home Bible study. Held at the home of a good friend I knew for around 35 years, it can be packed to the brim at times, as was the case of the last meeting just a couple of days ago. Remarkably enough, although the meeting is open to anyone who wish to partake, in most cases there have always been a high proportion of male attendees. Very unusual in a church environment, where it tend to be dominated by higher female numbers. Then again, the warmth of a private living room with plenty of varied refreshments on offer present a wide contrast from the stone-cold formality of a grey Gothic chapel, where the sound of voices reverberates within the solid walls of the interior.   

Each of these Bible studies normally centre on a Biblical character rather than doctrine or devotional. In the recent past we looked at Abraham and Isaac, along with Joseph (adopted father of Jesus) together with Jezebel and Deborah, two contrasting Old Testament women whose conduct and relationship with God couldn't be any more opposing. But this time round, from a suggestion offered by one of our regular members, we looked at the Prophet Hosea.

Hosea was the Old Testament seer who was ordered by God to marry an adulterous woman, and for a while remained faithful enough to him for her to bear three children. The first was a son who was given the name Jezreel, a location in Samaria where King Ahab reigned, and a principle spawning ground for ancient Baal worship. The second child was a girl, who was given the name Not Loved. The third, another boy, was given the name Not My People. Some time later, Hosea's wife strayed, and while far from home, she was put up for sale as a prostitute, but her husband arrived at the slave market and bought her, and took her back home. The underlying thread of the study was that God called the house of Israel to himself in order to enjoy a relationship. But instead, the Israelites kept on worshipping foreign idols - images made with hands - and this eventually drained the Almighty of his patience, and the result that the northern ten tribes of Israel - to which Hosea ministered - were led into exile by the Assyrians.

I could see such a parallel between the wife's unfaithfulness, her wandering away and eventual enslavement, and the prophet's redemptive purchase - with the sorrowful history of the house of Israel, her exile into the nations, and the purchase the Lord Jesus made on the cross. For there are prophecies in abundance throughout the Bible foretelling the restoration of the whole of Israel to her homeland, and enjoying a healthy relationship with her King who will one day reign over the nation from the throne of David sometime in the future, just as Hosea enjoyed a happier marriage with his wife after buying her back.

During the session, I came up with a reminder that we are no better than they were. I too can be equally hostile to God and want to run away. And I can point to a time and place where I felt exactly like that. It was the love of God gently and without any condemnation who called me, and sensing his love, I responded positively and my faith was restored, albeit slowly. Quite a similarity to the woman caught in adultery as recorded in John 8:1-11.

There are questions surrounding the story. Caught in adultery? It takes two to tango. Why wasn't he arrested with her? Why just her? Perhaps it was her husband who caught them together. Terrified, her lover legged it as fast as possible. And successfully got away as he constantly turned to look back, he kept on running still, into the sunset. A plausible story, especially if the enraged husband called to the Pharisees who were nearby. Under condemnation by all those around her, she presented a golden opportunity for them to test Jesus, who couldn't have been that far away. Instead he showed her love by forgiving her. And that made her want to follow him instead of returning to her judgemental husband, who was most likely filing for divorce, a legitimate action in Jewish custom for such a transgression.

Then how can we forget the story of the woman at the well in Samaria featured in John 4? All he did was ask for some water. The woman was shocked. She knew that she and her people were hated by the Jews and seen as transgressors of the Mosaic Law. Then the Lord began to offer her something positive, including his awareness of her failed relationships with five previous husbands, along with his awareness of her current house-mate. But there was not a hint of condemnation from Jesus, even if she might have been expecting it. Instead, he showered her with love, and she responded by leaving her jug with him to draw from the well if he needs to, and ran off excitedly to inform her countrymen that the Messiah is here. Another devoted follower, the fruit of Christ's love.

Personally, I can't blame the ancient Israelites for their apostasy and blatant idolatry, rather I can identify with them. Hosea and his marriage, her unfaithfulness, and her husband's purchase and restoration are all models of the entire history of the house of Israel and her relationship with God, her heavenly husband. I believe that after the prophet's wayward wife was brought back, their marriage became stable. Despite her sins, which were many, Hosea showed his love for her, proven by going after her while in a helpless and desperate state. Love wins again. 

   

God has chosen Jacob and his descendants by grace, an act of love. Israel did not deserve God's love, instead his choosing was an act of grace. But God had to show them that they were sinners, falling short of his mark. And the only way sin can be revealed was to give his Law, because through the Law is the knowledge of sin. The whole object of the Law was to bring the sinner to his knees and call for mercy, which was available through the sacrificial ritual God gave them. Looked on in the proper way, the sacrificial system was meant to engender love through recognition of God's mercy, along with an expectation of a more perfect and permanent solution, a once-and-for-all sacrifice. While the intention was to draw them to God, their knowledge of sin compelled them to flee from him in their attempt for an easier route to salvation.

If my own experience has any value, the knowledge of sin in the human heart, stirred by the Law, causes many not wanting to know this God. This sort of reasoning makes it easier for Darwinism to make a home in the human mind, along with, for example, the worship of a certain make of car, or a favourite football team, the adoration of a non-demanding Head of State as depicted in last week's blog, a favourite celebrity, emphasis on nationalism, or anything else which provide an escape from the knowledge of sin in contrast to a holy God. 

Hosea would never had won his wayward wife had he taken the same attitude as the Pharisees, or many in churches up to this day. Look at it this way. If a wife was married to one who was morally perfect, but constantly scrutinising and judging her behaviour, even down to her thoughts and motives, how long would the marriage last? Worse still, if she was unable to leave the house on her own, how much would she love him? History is full of women who had divorced their husbands, there are even cases of murder. The real problem the Samaritan woman at the well was not merely being a difficult person to get on with. Instead, all her husbands most likely kept her under scrutiny and criticised her when she did not measure up to their desires. What she wanted was love.  

The same could be said about the woman caught in adultery. Her husband (if he was there) along with all the religious crowd, wanted to stone her in fulfilment of the Law of Moses, therefore making them look morally pure and feeling righteous. They had no interest in the glory of God. Instead they wanted to prove themselves righteous. But why did the woman commit adultery in the first place? Was she that bad? I don't think so. Instead her husband failed to show her any love throughout her empty marriage. And for that matter, neither her lover really cared for her either. When caught in the act, he legged it instead of standing up to protect and defend her before her accusers. Poor woman! She too wanted the tender love of her husband. Instead her emptiness brought her into the arms of another who, for selfish reasons, temporally showed her some affection and made her feel important. And if it wasn't for Jesus intervening, she would have been stoned to death, her screams echoing across the valley as the fusillade flew towards her from all directions.

Statistics have shown that every week, hundreds of young people abandon the churches their parents attend. Christians come up with such self-righteous, sanctimonious explanations:- "Oh, that proves that they weren't really saved after all." Or, "They were saved once, but having abandoned their faith, they forfeited everything and are lost again!" Maybe a truer explanation is the lack of agape-love in the church itself, not to mention the lack of agape-love between father and mother, as well as towards the teenage son or daughter, no matter how pious they may be in church. In addition, the church or parents could be law-orientated - any love received is conditioned on performance. Therefore they perceive God himself to have a Pharisaic attitude, withholding his love and quick to punish if they don't perform to his standard. Going by my own experience, a religious person who looks to performance in others before bestowing any merit or credibility can be very obnoxious, especially to his victims. Usually he has a very low self-esteem, caused by his own inability to perform to standard, and therefore scrutinising anyone he thinks don't measure up in an effort to lift his own morale.

Then as I would expect, no church is perfect. If such a church exists, I'll be doing everyone there a favour by not turning up - I'll only ruin it! Rather I'm grateful to God that there is a fellowship I can identify with, one I can call my spiritual home. Generally I'm very much liked and respected. Furthermore, Ascot Life Church has provided a good place to talk when doubts and fears overshadow my soul. But as with all other churches, the need to remove religiosity and replace with agape love is essential for vibrant living - especially to teenagers and young people! It needs to be a place where men and women from all walks of life can come in and experience for themselves the truly alternate society where everyone worships from the heart, and not be the ones fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, like those in the house of Israel - that they worshipped him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him.

Which incidentally, was another comment I made at the home Bible study.

What is Hell? Pt 2 - Rich Man and Lazarus

This blog is the continuation of my last one, What is Hell? - The Fall Of Lucifer - and I recommend reading the first article if you have not done so yet, before reading this one.

The inspiration in writing these two articles was gotten from another blogger on this website who posted an article about the lake of fire, and I felt a confirmation of my long held suspicion over the "one size fits all" theory that the fiery lake of burning sulphur will be the final destiny for every soul of those who had lived and died without the rebirth of his spirit through faith in Jesus Christ. The suspicion originated on basically two issues here, both found in the Bible. The first one is that this lake of fire will be the final destiny of Lucifer and his angels. As pointed out in my previous article, Lucifer and his angels - in fact the whole of the realm, were spirits. They never had bodies. So how would a physical fiery lake affect them?

The second cause of concern I felt was that when Jesus Christ spoke of the afterlife, he referred to two different kind of destinies for the lost. One was the fiery lake or furnace of fire. The other was outer darkness, giving an impression of empty space with nothing tangible nor any source of light. In both cases the lost soul would "weep and gnash his teeth," depicting emotional torment and anger over his decision to reject or ignore the calling of God during his lifetime. Whether his eternal state would involve physical pain is a matter of opinion. Experience seem to indicate that pain causes the sufferer to forget everything else and concentrate on the affected area of his body. For example, suppose you were in debt, and as you were preparing dinner, you also were trying to figure out how to settle the debt. Due to a momentary loss of concentration, you upset a saucepan of boiling water, and you are scalded by it down your chest or across your arm. The sudden intense pain will not cause you to keep thinking about the debt. Rather you call for an ambulance, that is, if you don't fret around the room in frightful panic in the first place. If the lost soul is in intense pain, it would be the pain itself tormenting him, not the realisation of loss of eternal life in Heaven.

And I might add a third reason against the "one size fits all" eternity. That is, that the lost, at Judgement, will be judged "according to their works" (KJV) or "what they have done" (NIV). The Bible makes this clear in Revelation 20:12-13 and Matthew 16:27 that the punishment will be according on how one has lived his life while alive. Therefore a little old lady, who lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel, would not get the same level of punishment as, for example, Adolf Hitler who slew six million Jews in the Holocaust, or Joseph Stalin who had many killed for not adhering to his Communist manifesto. On the other hand, it does look grossly unfair for the little old lady, who was faithful to her husband and had never done anything maliciously wrong, to be immersed in fire for all eternity while at the same time, a strapping trucker, who had pub fights and bar brawls in his younger days, enjoys Heaven for having placed faith in Jesus Christ.

And what about the great many throughout history who lived and died without ever hearing the Gospel (and this would include all in Old Testament times.) It looks to me that in these cases, judgement will be by conscience. Romans chapters one and two seems to say a lot about this, stating that at first, creation itself provides testimony of God's greatness and power. Then Paul writes that his law is written in their hearts, with the conscience being the alarm whenever a sin is committed. But the conscience can be seared and the desire to sin grows with time. The person becomes aware of his wrongdoing, but grows to love this, pushing the truth about God aside. On this basis will they stand before God at the Judgement.

Then we need to consider the judgement Jesus himself makes right here on Earth, found in Matthew 25:41-46. This involves the hospitality shown to the 144,000 Jews of the seventh chapter of Revelation, of whom Christ refers to as "my brothers" (v. 40). Those on his left hand were sent to the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, just as the heavenly judgement of the lost of Revelation 20 were sent to the same place. Showing hospitality is something anyone can do, whether he has faith in Christ or not. It is tragic, as I see it, that here in Britain, which calls itself a Christian country, hospitality does not rate high in our culture as it does, so I read, in Hindu India. So I believe that this judgement, the way the Jews were treated, will be the fulfilment of the edict God gave to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 where God will bless those who bless his descendants, and curses those who curses them.

Therefore, in my last blog, I suggested that both the eternal fire and total darkness may be illustrations of the eternal state of the lost. Much of this is to make sense of the Bible rather than swallow everything the Vatican dictates. But I, as a believer, have elderly parents who, by their own admission, are agnostics. Lately, my father, in his mid eighties, have been in and out of hospital, after suffering a series of strokes and heart palpitations. My mother struggles as she tries to take care of him. The thought of eternal fire gives me grief, believe me, it is a burden impossible to bear. But I have approached this issue with caution. I accept that I could be wrong. The lake of fire could well be a literal place. Then again, with this idea there are further problems - and this concerns the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16:19-31.

The rich man lived a sumptuous life, feasting everyday and enjoying life to the full. Outside his home was a beggar Lazarus, placed there so he could enjoy some hospitality from the rich man. Instead, the rich man's heart was like solid steel while the beggar starved. Eventually, both dies. The soul of Lazarus is taken to be comforted by Abraham, while the rich man falls asleep - and wakes up being tormented in Hell.

And here are three inconsistencies if the rich man was tormented in literal fire. One is on how he could hold an audible conversation with Abraham right across a wide gulf or chasm separating them. The other is why a drop of water placed on his tongue should bring such lasting relief if he was immersed in flames. And thirdly, after his death he was buried. This means that the rich man is suffering Hell as a discarnate spirit, without a body. And why was the tongue such an important organ for want of relief, if the whole of his soul was immersed in fire?

The tongue was his organ of taste. With it, he enjoyed such delicacies during life. But more important, his tongue was the organ of speech. With it, he cursed Lazarus as being wicked due to his poverty, and spoke of himself as righteous, his riches being proof of this. But as another blogger had pointed out, all this is a prophetic parable. After doing some research, I think we are able to identify who this rich man was, and prove how divinely the Bible is in being the true Word of God, and furthermore that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah and the risen Lord!

The rich man was Joseph ben Caiaphas, the High Priest at the time of Christ. He married a daughter of Annas ben Seth, also High Priest and one of the members of the Sanhedrin. Annas also had five sons, whom the historian Josephus was able to identify:

Eleazer ben Ananus
Jonathan ben Ananus
Theophilus ben Ananus
Matthias ben Ananus
Ananus ben Ananus

Caiaphus became son-in-law of Annas, and in Jewish custom, were as close as birth father and son, and his brothers-in-law as actual bloodline brothers. Therefore, through marriage, Caiaphas was a member of Annas' house, and his five sons became actual brothers.

Lazarus in Luke 16 was the brother of the two sisters of John 11, Martha and Mary. John tells us that Lazarus died and was buried at a nearby tomb, where he lay for four days. Jesus deliberately withheld himself for this duration to convince all that not only was Lazarus truely dead, but decomposition had set in and the corpse started to smell with decay. Caiaphas the High Priest knew this, and the Pharisees came to comfort his two grieving sisters, including Caiaphas' five brothers. Jesus was to perform a miracle that would change everything and seal his fate. After rebuking the two sisters for their lack of faith, he ordered the stone seal to be rolled open. He then called to Lazarus to come out, which he did. The miracle caused tremendous commotion among those who watched it. The common people were ready to hail Jesus as King and their Messiah, and they greeted him in this manner on his Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, by laying palm leaves on the road in front of his donkey.

But the Pharisees, despite witnessing such a miracle, refused to believe in Jesus as their Messiah and instead, they made plans to have him executed by crucifixion. John also tells us that many of the Pharisees as well as the common people went to see Lazarus as well, who must have told them over and over again what it was like beyond the grave, and how Jesus raised him up, proving that Jesus is the Christ. The five brothers of Caiaphas must have also seen Lazarus but refused to believe. Rather, according to John 12:9, they planned to execute Lazarus along with Jesus.

Christ before Caiaphas

In anwser to the rich man in Hell, by God's grace, Lazarus was sent to the five brothers by Abraham. Abraham, according to the parable, was right in predicting that the five brothers of Caiaphas' household would not believe even if he was raised from the dead.

The miracle of Lazarus was to show the population that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, such testimony about Jesus which the five brothers also refuse to believe. But John assures us that all who believe that Jesus is the Christ has eternal life and is born of God.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus was a prophetic story told by Jesus Christ as he ministered to the Jews, and in the company of the Pharisees, who constantly monitored and questioned his teachings instead of believing in him. Jesus performed many miracles throughout his ministry, all of them to prove that he was their Messiah, yet the Pharisees remained in stubborn unbelief.

The rich man in Hell pleaded for the wellfare of his five brothers, that they may not enter this place of torment. His request was refused. I too plead for my parents. Will my request be refused too?

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28.

Trusting in God's goodness is all I can do.

A Letter to Saul (Paul) of Tarsus

Dear brother Saul.
I recall the day you came all the way from Tarsus to visit us at the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem with your father, a fellow Pharisee and one of us, to be taught by us in preparation for your initiation into membership of the Council here in Jerusalem.

Let me say that I was impressed with your zeal for the traditions of the fathers, and you took a great liking to our brother Zerah, whose fiery devotion to our traditions remains unsurpassed to this day, and brother Saul, I was able to see very clearly that he was your role model and even in your youth you have every desire to be just like him.

But it was also brother Zerah's devotional zeal which, I'm very sad to say, made him the ringleader who successfully persuaded the crowd to have one man in particular, crucified, although according to my opinion, he was innocent of any wrongdoing and therefore not deserving to die at all. I have examined him myself by asking him questions during the night, so that we can discuss matters without any disturbance. Not only was his answers so graceful, but he also raised issues concerning the things of our spiritual standing with God, and not on what we do or the traditions we keep.

Then I also watched him do some amazing things, like bringing sight to a man born blind - on the Sabbath. This is when I became convinced that God was with him, for as the man who had received his sight himself testified, no man can give sight to the blind except God be with him. However, this enraged brother Zerah, who insisted that no one who claims to be God's prophet breaks the Sabbath. And he was right, of course.

But it was when this man brought a dead man back to life at a nearby village of Bethany that made such a miracle the last straw for brother Zerah. He actually believed that the whole of Israel will turn against the Sanhedrin to follow this one man, brother Jesus of Nazareth. It was then that brother Zerah stirred up a riot among the crowds to having him sentenced to death under the Roman procurator Pilate.

As brother Jesus of Nazareth hung on that cross, I heard him cry out, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

As I stood there, I began to mutter where he left off -

"Why are you so far in saving me,
so far from my words of groaning?"

Then I recall that which came to my mind, and I muttered:

"Many bulls surround me,
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
I'm poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men have encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet,
and divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing."

I then also recall muttering under my breath:

"Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
and yet we consider him stricken by God,
smitten by him and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions.
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon him
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."

Then I recall the words he himself spoke while we were alone that night:

"For God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believes in him
should not perish
but have everlasting life..."

From that moment, brother Saul, I began to cry, publicly and without shame. His innocence shone so brightly, even in his sufferings, touched my heart. I just wept as I stood in front of that cross.

Then not long afterwards, we were in this large upper room in Jerusalem, a gathering of about 120 of us. What's more, there were women among us, including the mother of brother Jesus, some of her friends - and this Canaanite woman with her young daughter. A story goes that Jesus did not hesitate to heal her daughter of some...some infirmity. Now as you know, brother Saul, we Israelites, and particularly us Pharisees, have a rule that there must be no mixed-gender assembly in worship. At the Temple and at every synagogue, men assemble at one place, women at another. Furthermore, our wives were looked on as just our property, here to bear our offspring. This was endorsed in the last of the Ten Words, which says that one shall not covet his neighbours possessions, which includes his wife.

Then to be in the presence of a Gentile was an abomination, and contact with such a one would have defiled us. Let alone a Gentile woman like the one who sat next to me, who would have been the lowest of the low, and practically an abomination to any Pharisee. No Gentile would be allowed to enter a house of an Israelite, likewise, no Jew would enter a Gentile's house. We Jews are by nature very nationalistic. And even among us Jews, we as Pharisees looked upon the shepherds of sheep as pariahs, social underlings, along with the publicans, who had betrayed us by complying with the Romans in exhorting taxes to pay these Romans, and their cohorts, the sinners. We Pharisees stayed well away from these people, lest we become defiled by their presence.

But that day in the upper room, things were very different, and things will never be the same again. We all sat there each and everyone of us under a deep, heart-searching conviction. Conviction of our sin, our iniquities, our weaknesses, our shortcomings and failings. And our strong hold on our traditions, our religion, our nationality, our gender divide, our social classes - had all crumbled to dust and blown away like chaff in the wind. We were all in it together - all of us falling short of God's glory and the sudden realisation that we are all in need of his mercy, regardless of who we are.

That was why, brother Saul, I wept when I stood at the cross. The very innocence of this Jesus of Nazareth caused everything I hold dear to become as nothing, as I already explained.

Then as I sat in that room, the daughter of the Canaanite woman turned and cried out, "Mummy!" Her mother then broke down into tears and wept uncontrollably as I put my arm around her to give some comfort. This Jesus of Nazareth, who had shown her so much love as he healed her daughter, had pierced her soul, washing away what must have been a huge pile of sins, guilt and shame. Her home town was Tyre, way up north of Jerusalem, in the Phoenician province north of Galilee. After her daughter was healed, she decided to leave her home to search for this Jesus, but by the time they arrived here in Judea, this Jesus who she was seeking had already died.

She was homeless here in Judea, as no innkeeper would accommodate a Canaanite woman, so I took her in with her daughter until she was ready to return home to her house in Tyre.

Now, brother Saul, I am convinced that this Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah we were waiting for. Contrary to popular opinion, he did not come to defeat our Roman oppressors and liberate Israel. That sort of Messiah -King is he who our brother Zerah is waiting for and expecting. No, rather this Jesus of Nazareth had done something much more important. He came to liberate our hearts from sin and its guilt and has given us the capacity to serve and worship God from within our hearts, and not just from the tablets of stone which God formerly used when Israel was set free by Moses from the Egyptians.

Now, brother Saul. You are still young and you have yet much to learn. But you have this fiery zeal and enthusiasm for our traditions of the fathers. Your ambition is to keep the Law of Moses perfectly. Therefore Caiaphas, the High Priest had set you under the tutelage of brother Zerah, whose own zeal will in no doubt rub off on you. But let me warn you. If you mention this Jesus of Nazareth to brother Zerah, he will get cross with you and he will instruct that he was not the Messiah we were waiting for, as he did not set Israel free from our Roman oppressors. But I would also ask you, dear Saul, to consider everything I wrote here. This Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. And there is much talk of him rising from his grave three days after he died on the cross. If this is true, and I don't think there are any reasons for doubting, then it will be the same Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth who will one day return to reign as the true King of Israel, on the throne of his father David.

With much fatherly love,
your elder and brother in the Sanhedrin,

Nicodemus.