[Book Review] Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand

Warning: Reading this book may cause a sudden increase in your desire to serve God.

As a Christian living in the United States I have grown accustomed to have certain things, namely freedom to say and do what I want in regards to religion. Tortured for Christ tells of a time and place where such a thing was a faint memory.

Originally published in 1967, Wurmbrand tells of his experience being a Christian pastor in both Nazi, and later Soviet-controlled Romania. (The last half of that sentence should be an indication that the word "tortured" was not put in the title simply to pique one's interest.) He wrote mainly of his experience under Communism, referencing the Nazis only briefly, stating that the blessing of the Nazi occupation was that it taught the believers that physical beatings can be endured. Knowledge that would sadly become useful when the Communists came into power. However, the Communists did not come into power as you might think.

Seduction and Standing Up

 

Wurmbrand stated that the Communists did not come the Romanian church with guns blazing, but rather as a man who seduces a female for a one night stand. Sadly, for the most part, it worked. He wrote of a congress that was convened in the Romanian Parliament building where four thousand ministers of all denomination were gathered. They then voted Joseph Stalin, who was at the time president of the World Movement of the Godless and mass murderer of Christians, honorary president of this gathering of religious leaders. One by one these so called men of God stated how that Communism and Christianity were basically the same and then pledged allegiance to the Communist government. He then wrote,

"My wife and I were present at this congress. Sabrina told me, 'Richard, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ! They are spitting in His face.' I said to her, 'If I do so, you lose your husband,' She replied, 'I don't wish to have a coward as a husband.'"

That last sentence pretty much sums up the attitude of the Underground Church that sprung up around that time. Christians fearlessly spread the gospel, and joyfully went to prison and certain torture and death. He told many stories of the believers, but the one that touched me the most was the arrest of a young girl by the secret police. They followed her for some time and waited to arrest her on her wedding day in an attempt to cause the greatest amount of suffering possible. She went peacefully, and left the church kissing her shackles all the while rejoicing that she was the bride of Christ. How many of us would have had the same reaction?

Surprisingly, despite suffering unspeakable tortures at the hands of the Russians they bore no ill will to their captors, rather witnessing to them, winning many to Christ. Wurmbrand put it this way, when a crocodile kills a man, its tragic, but we do not blame the crocodile because it was simply following its nature. He stated that many of these soldiers were so brainwashed that they were little more than animals and should be treated with pity rather than contempt.

The Bottom Line

 

Wurmbrand's main purpose in writing this book was to highlight the suffering, as well as the fervor, of the Underground Church. He wanted to wake up Christians in free countries to the need of helping their persecuted brothers and sisters. I know it accomplished that goal with me, and I hope that it will do the same for you. The book is offered free of charge from the organization "The Voice of the Martyrs" so what are you waiting for? Go to their website and order it today.

Not of This World

If the followers of Christ are to focus on the heavenly kingdom, why do we try so hard to make one here on earth?

The United States, as the story goes, began simply as the result of a boat of Christian pilgrims seeking freedom from the oppression of the state-run church in Europe. They then formed a Christian nation that promoted Christian values. I say "as the story goes" because such a statement only tells part of the story. This misremembering of history comes from a belief in "The United States is a Christian Nation" myth. (For more details on how this myth became official, read a previous post). This myth of a Christian nation has led, and continues to lead, to all sorts of persecution and subjugation of non-Christian and Christian people alike simply because they believed differently than those in power.

Beliefs Then and Now

This persecution and subjugation has taken many forms in American history. From early on, the Puritans persecuted dissenters from their colonies, notably Roger Williams, the future founder of Rhode Island. He wrote,

"God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." (source link here)

Such "inforced uniformity" most likely came from the belief that in order for Jesus Christ to return, God must have a pure people, and it behooves governmental authority to be the key agent of this purification. Often referred to as postmillennialism, an adherent to this view

"[B]elieves that the millennium is an era (not a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from an literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium." (source link here)

To find a notable proponent of a form of postmillennialism called dominionism, one need look no further than former presidential hopeful, and current Texas senator, Ted Cruz. (A more in-depth look at his views can be found here) Dominionism promotes, among other things, a Christian-controlled government in the United States. While few talk so openly about their belief in this concept as he and his family, its pervasiveness can readily be seen. One finds a clear example of this pervasiveness in the reaction of many professed Christians to the United States Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality.

Going the Wrong Direction

 

Such a ruling went directly against the goal of the "gradual Christianization of the world" which caused a lot of consternation in certain Christian circles (because many believe that the nation cannot be Christian if same-sex couples are allowed to be married). However, instead of renewing a zeal to preach the gospel, the ruling renewed a zeal to pass laws at the state and local levels to restrict this newly found freedom. Laws such as these, often passed under the guise of establishing religious liberty, tend to backfire in the long run. Many people now equate the terms "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" with intolerance and bigotry, and actively pursue means to erode the legal foundation for such laws (for more explanation of this issue go here).

To those who may think that I'm painting with too broad of a brush, answer this question for yourself, when you see society's morals eroding away, is your first reaction to find a spiritual solution or a political one? Spiritual solutions bring people together, political solutions drive people apart. I write this post because I have seen too many well-intentioned Christians heading in a direction that draws them away from God.

Jesus' Example and Rejection

As Christians we need to follow Christ, and a careful look at Scripture shows no occasion where He used political power to spread the gospel. After Jesus fed the multitude as recorded in John 6, the people wanted to make Him king, by force if necessary. Jesus recognized their intentions, but instead of accepting this political role, He withdrew from their presence (see verses 14 & 15). Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) 

The common people who rejected Jesus as the Messiah wanted a political leader to deliver them from pagan Roman oppression. The religious leaders had another reason. John 11:47-48 states, 

 "Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, 'What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.'" 

They did not want to lose their favored status with the government. Sound familiar?
 

The Bottom Line

 

Religion and politics should be coworkers, not marriage partners. Whenever religion uses politics to achieve its goals, it not only goes against the example of Jesus, but also alienates the very people God said we need to reach.

[Featured Post] No Compromise: The Story of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

This featured post comes from the blog ReligiousLiberty.tv and goes as follows.

No Compromise: The Story of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

Posted by Michael Peabody on February 23, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Note: Since this was written, we have received news that the Iranian Judiciary has issued orders that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani be executed by hanging.  Today, February 23, 2012, the White House issued the following Statement:

“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith.  This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values.  The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right.  The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens.  The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion.  The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani’s immediate release.”
——————

It is difficult to argue for separation of church and state when you are living in a “theocracy.” Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, learned this fact when he was arrested in October 2009 soon after refusing to allow his children to participate in government-mandated readings of the Quran. Nadarkhani had argued that Iranian law allowed children to be raised in the faith of their parents.

Nadarkhani remained incarcerated and in September 2010, a Gilan Province court ordered him to hang for “convert(ing) to Christianity” and “encourag(ing) other Muslims to convert to Christianity.”

The court did provide an opportunity for Nadarkhani to easily escape the gallows – all he had to do was verbally renounce Christianity. Since then, as of this writing, Nadarkhani has had the choice whether to live or die – just say the words and his freedom will be restored. Yet he refuses and remains behind walls at the Lakan prison.

The court asked him, “Do you believe in the elements of Islam which are the unity of God, resurrection of the dead and the prophethood of great Mohammad?”

Nadarkhani replied, “I believe in the unity of God and the resurrection of the dead but not the prophethood of great Mohammad.”

On June 10, 2010, Nadarkhani’s wife, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested under charges of apostasy and imprisoned at Lakan. The authorities threatened to take away their children and give them to a Muslim family. Nadarkhani continued to refuse to convert and his wife was tried without an attorney and sentenced to life imprisonment. An attorney was then retained and that decision was appealed and the sentence was overturned and she was released.

Nadarkhani’s death sentence was appealed to the Iranian Supreme Court in December 2010 and on June 28, 2011 the verdict was handed down. He was to be “executed by being hung somehow until his soul is taken from him.” The Court ruled that there was some question as to whether Nadarkhani had previously been a practicing Muslim “from the beginning of puberty” onward and therefore whether he had actually committed apostasy. The lower court was ordered to determine whether he had been a practicing Muslim between the ages of 15 and 19. If he had been a Muslim during that time, then the court could execute him after giving him an additional opportunity to recant.

The lower court held its re-trial between September 25 and 28, 2011. Before the trial even began, he was asked to renounce his faith. Under Islamic Sharia law[i], an apostate is given three days to recant. The court then asked Nadarkhani to renounce his Christianity and “return to the faith of your ancestors.”

As the case progressed, the story caught fire on the Internet and soon news agencies around the world were spreading the story of a young pastor facing death for refusing to renounce his faith. In an attempt to sway attention away from the story, the Iranian state-supported media outlet, Fars News Agency, dismissed claims that the court had passed down the death sentence because of apostasy, and that Nadarkhani had actually been charged with “rape, corruption, and security-related crimes including extortion.”[ii]

The Fars story added that Nadarkhani was a “Zionist” who ran a “corruption” house like a brothel or “opium house.” The alleged charges were not clear as to what Nadarkani had allegedly done.
In response, Nadarkhani’s attorney, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah told told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, “If he is under trial in another court on other charges, I am not aware. But we only defended him against the death sentence in the case of his charge of apostasy. The charge the court staff announced that I defended during several different court sessions was apostasy and no other charge.”[iii]

Dadkhah, a Iranian Muslim represents Nadarkhani at great personal risk – he himself appealing a sentence of nine years in prison for “actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime,” which is what the government calls his legal human rights work.

Iran’s secret service officials have reportedly given Nadarkhani a book on Islamic literature, and told him that they will return to discuss it with him. The book, entitled “Beshaarat-eh Ahdein,” claims that Christianity is false. If Nadarkhani later discusses the book with authorities and claims that he disagrees with it, this may be a basis for a later charge of blasphemy. As a result, Nadarkhani’s attorneys have advised him to remain silent on the book as any statements he makes could be used against him.

Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State released a statement on September 30, 2011 expressing concern about the case and persecution against Zoroastrians, Sufis, and Baha’is. Clinton wrote, “The United States stands with the international community and all Iranians against the Iranian government’s hypocritical statements and actions, and we continue to call for a government that respects the human rights and freedom of all those living in Iran.”

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said that the prospects for the execution of Nadarkhani, “unless he disavows his Christian faith are distressing for people of every country and creed.”

Today, there are about 300,000 Christians living in Iran – one-half of one percent of the population. Of those, the majority are ethnic Armenians. There are 73 registered individual Christian churches, and almost all Christian activity is illegal. Those who conduct evangelistic activities including publishing pamphlets in Persian languages are harshly punished.

During the early 1990s, religious persecution increased in Iran. In 1993, Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, an Islamic convert was sentenced to die after ten years of imprisonment. Later that year, church leaders were asked to sign a declaration stating that they would not allow Muslims or Muslim converts into their churches. Only two church leaders refused to sign, including Haik Hovsepian who was the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God churches in Iran.

Instead, Hovsepian called the world’s attention to the plight of Iranian Christians. With an increase in international pressure, Dibadj was released from prison on January 19, 1994, only days before he was scheduled to die.[iv]

That same day, Hovsepian vanished from the streets of Tehran, and his body was later found with 26 stab wounds in the chest. Dibadj and three other pastors disappeared and their bodies were later discovered.

Throughout history, it seems that people of most faiths have had some period of persecution and martyrdom for no crime other than telling others what they have chosen to believe. Those who dared to think differently were dangerous to the status quo and they either had to publicly change their mind or face torture or death.

When it comes to church and state issues, Americans have become used to “epic” battles over Nativity scenes, prayers in public schools, or the occasional crucifix in a government office. But in other nations of the world, making the basic choice to believe a certain way can quickly become a matter of life and death.

There is still hope that the sentence will not be carried out.

To Take Action, visit http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=news&id=1142

---

[i] Abdurrahmani’l-Djaziri’s Kitabul’l-fiqh ‘ala’l-madhahibi’l-’arba’a i.e. Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997

[ii] “Supreme Court Dismisses Reports on Nadarkhani’s Case,” Fars News Agency. October 7, 2011 Retrieved from http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007130274  

[iii] “After Trial on Apostasy Charge, Christian Pastor Nadarkhani Accused of Rape and Extortion”.International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. 2011-10-01. Retrieved 2011-10-28.

[iv] Hovsepian Ministries maintains a website at http://www.hovsepian.com

Featured Post: The Revolutionary Power of Words

This featured post comes from Jeff Goins whose blog, Jeff Goins: Writer is "a blog on writing, ideas, and making a difference in the world."  Jeff is also the author of The Writer's Manifesto: Stop Writing to Be Read & Adored.

The Revolutionary Power of Words

Never, ever, ever underestimate the power your words have.

Take today, instance. In America, we call July 4 “Independence Day”, because it marks the beginning of our freedom.

Photo credit: Flickr (Creative Commons)

And just how did this revolution begin? With a Declaration, of course:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Powerful, right? I like that scene in National Treasure where Nicolas Cage says, “People don’t talk like that anymore.”

I wish they would. It’s time to reclaim the revolutionary power of words.

Whoever said “talk is cheap” is a liar.

Words are powerful, painful, awful, and amazing tools. They can hurt, help, hinder, and heal. But they are not cheap. They are quite expensive.

Words cost something. Like your time and money. Sometimes, they even cost your patience or self-worth. Words have a price tag.

Words can change the world.

They have before. Here are some examples to remember:

• When Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses to the church door.
• When Gutenberg created the printing press and gave the power of thought back to the people.
• When JFK asked us what we could do for our country.
• When MLK wrote letters from Birmingham.
• When Gandhi spoke and staged nonviolent protests.
• When Jesus gave a little speech on a hilltop.
• When Neil Armstrong took his first steps (and spoke his first words) on the moon.

Words matter.

You know this already. You have felt it. Sometimes, it was subtle, but you knew it was there.

The potency of words. It’s immeasurable and unmistakeable.

If you listen to your life you can recall moments when you felt the brutal sting of words:

• When the other kids called you “fat.”
• When that boy dumped you for no reason.
• When your dad called you “stupid.”
• When you received that letter of rejection.
• When your boss told you that you were fired.
• When someone told you that cancer is “God’s will.”
• When your wife asked when you were going to get a real job.

You personally know the impact words can have.

It’s your turn now.

Say something worth saying. Don’t give in to the temptation to just fight back, to return an angry voice by raising your own. Don’t join the crowd of hurt people hurting other people.

Instead, use your words for something else. Something powerful, something subversive.

Better yet, let the words of your mouth reflect the actions of your life. Act first, speak second. But please, speak up. Say something.

Silence has often ushered evil into the world. There is a reason why Hitler gained power so quickly. He could speak. And there is a reason why he didn’t win the war. Someone else spoke up.

Be the person who says something when no one else is. Be brave. Dare to speak and have something worth talking about. Start a revolution with your words.

Talk is not cheap. It doesn’t have to be, anyway. Talk can be valuable. Talk can be rich and worthwhile and a gift to the world.

So do us all a favor and open up your mouth.

Speak.

The Good Old Days?

In these days in which people's rights seem up for grabs there is a tendency to wish we could go back to the good old days when people had more freedom to live as they chose to live.  However, upon further research I have discovered that people's freedoms have been eroding away for quite some time.

Some time ago I picked up a book at a Christian book store entitled The Rights of the People, a book on the subject of religious liberty written in the late nineteenth century and reprinted in 1998.  As I have been making my way through it I have been impressed by the depth of thought of it's author, Alonzo T. Jones.

The most recent chapter I have read is entitled "Religious Right Invaded" in which Jones explains how despite the tireless efforts of the founders of this country to separate religion from government (which he maps out in the previous chapter) that in such areas the nation has gone backwards.  He went so far to state that there has been "a counter-revolution".  He stated that this counter-revolution was accomplished and consummated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision from February 29, 1892 (for full text of the decision go here).

As is often the case (no pun intended), this decision came into being as a result of a challenge to an existing law.  In 1887 Congress passed a law that forbade any alien to come to the U.S. under contract to perform any kind of labor.  The reason for this law was that many corporations were going to Europe and finding people to come here and work.  The company would pay their way, and because of this they required the laborers to work for next to nothing.  This was depreciating the amount Americans could get paid for their labor, so Congress passed a  law stating

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia."

A problem arose when Trinity Church Corporation employed a preacher in England to come to the States and preach for them.  This act was seen as a violation of the aforementioned law and the U.S District Attorney prosecuted the church.  The U.S. Circuit Court decided that the church was guilty.  Naturally, there was an appeal taken to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decision on the grounds that the term "laborer" or "laborer or service" was intended to refer to manual labor, not a professional service.  All the Supreme Court had to do was reverse the decision on those grounds, but they went above and beyond what was necessary, and that is where all the troubles began.

The Supreme Court stated, "But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true."  Having made such a statement they then had to back it up, and by so doing started down a very slippery slope.  For not only were the people of this nation "religious", but they were also "Christian".  Jones stated in a somewhat satirical tone that the people therefore are now all Christians regardless of whether  they were Jews or non-believers because the highest court in the land declared them so.  He then states that the very absurdity of the suggestion only demonstrates that the court should have nothing to do with such manners.  He continues by stating that people are not made religious by law, judicial decision, nor historical precedent, which brings us to the historical "support" the Supreme Court gave to show that the people of the U.S. are indeed a religious people.

Jones stated that the historical reasons given are at best suspect and at worst complete misinterpretations of the original statements.  The first historical reasons given were from European nations (i.e. Spain and England). Jones points out that the Spanish rulers (Ferdinand & Isabella) who commissioned Columbus were in fact the same rulers who established the Spanish Inquisition.  To say that the language of these rulers has the same meaning as the U.S. Constitution takes quite a bit of stretching of the imagination.  The statements regarding the British monarchy would have quite a bit more weight if in fact the U.S. was still under British rule, but it most definitely is not subject to British sovereignty.

There are many other historical reasons given, and Jones takes time to refute them all, but this is beyond the scope of this post.  I will however touch on the reason for which Jones saves his strongest language, the ruling declares that the United States Constitution reaffirms the thought that this nation is a religious nation.  To this Jones states, "To say it is absurd is not enough, it is simply preposterous."  He goes on to write that there is another consideration that magnifies that one, namely the fact that the court leaves out Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington from the place where they rightly belong, and drags "Ferdinand, Isabella and Elizabeth into the place where they do not and cannot by any shadow of right belong[.]"

There is much more but Jones sums the entire ruling in this way.

"The United States . . . was turned from the 'new order of things' to which it was committed by our revolutionary fathers, and to which it stands pledged by the great seal of the government itself, and was thrown into the evil tide of the old order of things.   And thus this enlightened nation, the example and glory of the world, was caused to assume the place and the prerogatives of the governments of the Middle Ages in embodying in law the dogmas and definitions of the theologians, and executing the arbitrary and despotic will of the church."

So while it is nice to wistfully look back at times gone by and wish that things were like they used to be, it is important to realize that even in the good old days the situation was not as rosy as we thought it was.

"The Powers That Be"

A better understanding of Romans 13:1-9 gave me a better understanding how God intended government to be run.

I mentioned in my first post regarding the book "Rights of the People" that there most likely would be more insights that I would like to share from this book.  My prediction proved correct with the next chapter entitled "The Powers That Be."  The following is a summary of the main thoughts found in this chapter.

Many people have used Romans 13:1 to show that civil government has the right to govern in things that pertain to God.  The first nine verses of the chapter show that governmental powers are ordained by God and state that everyone regardless of religious persuasion has "the duty of respectful subjection to civil government."  It's not a stretch of the imagination to see that this passage is built upon Jesus' command to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."  In this command, Jesus shows a plain recognition of "the rightfulness of civil government, and that civil government has claims upon us which we are in duty bound to recognize, and that there are things which duty requires us to render to the civil government."  The passage in Romans 13 is simply saying the same thing in different words.

Jones summarizes this point by stating,

"[T]his instruction is confined absolutely to man's relationship to his fellow-men; it is evident that when Christians have paid their taxes, and have show proper respect to their fellow-men, then their obligation, their duty, and their respect to the powers that be, have been fully discharged, and those powers never can rightly have any further jurisdiction over their conduct.  This is not to say that the State has jurisdiction of the last six commandments as such.  It is only to say that the jurisdiction of the State is confined solely to man's conduct to man, and never can touch his relationship to God, even under the second table of the law."

Even though the powers that be are ordained of God, they are not ordained for the purpose of enforcing anything regarding the first four commandments.  As a basis for this point, Jones uses the example of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.  Jeremiah 27:1-8 states that Nebuchadnezzar's power was ordained of God.  God called him "my servant" and stated that whoever would not submit to the Babylonian monarch would be severely punished.  However, there is one well-known passage that shows the limitation of God's ordination.  This is the story of the giant golden image in Daniel 3.

In this story the three Hebrews did not bow to the image when they were commanded to bow.  They knew that they should submit to Nebuchadnezzar because it had be prophesied by Jeremiah (in the previously mentioned passage) as well as by Isaiah (in Isaiah 39).  However, they knew that in regards to worship, Nebuchadnezzar had no power over them.  In the ensuing miracle of deliverance from the fire, God proved the point that even though He gave the king power, that power was limited to certain areas.  This limitation was also shown to Babylon's successor, Media-Persia, in the situation involving Daniel's worship and the den of lions.

A key question to ask at this point is the one pertaining to how the powers that be are ordained of God.  Some powers were directly and/or miraculously ordained as in the case of David, Moses, Gideon, etc.  Nebuchadnezzar did not come to power this way.  His power came through the providential workings of God, and through the people, namely the soldiers whom his father led to conquer the land of Babylonia.

Romans 13:1-9 does not speak of the rulers themselves, but rather the governmental power they represent.  Jones puts it this way,

"Outside the theocracy of Israel, there never has been a ruler on earth whose authority was not, primarily or ultimately, expressly or permissively, derived from the people.  It is not particular sovereigns whose power is ordained of God nor any particular form of government.  It is the genius of government itself.  The absence of government is anarchy."

It is interesting to note that Jones does not advocate any specific form of government, and later on in that paragraph he stated that it does not matter what form of government it is, "the governmental power and order thus exercised are ordained of God."  After stating that, he is sure to reiterate the previous point that regardless of this God-ordained power, government cannot do anything to infringe upon mankind's relationship with God.

Confidence

Psalm 119:41-48 

w Waw

 ⁴¹ May your unfailing love come to me, O LORD,
       your salvation according to your promise; 
 ⁴² then I will answer the one who taunts me,
       for I trust in your word.
 ⁴³ Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth,
       for I have put my hope in your laws.
 ⁴⁴ I will always obey your law,
       for ever and ever.
 ⁴⁵ I will walk about in freedom,
       for I have sought out your precepts.
 ⁴⁶ I will speak of your statutes before kings
       and will not be put to shame,
 ⁴⁷ for I delight in your commands
       because I love them.
 ⁴⁸ I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love,
       and I meditate on your decrees.

Keeping the law gives us a confidence that we otherwise wouldn't have.

I want to focus on verses 45-47 in this section because it talks about a noticeable benefit of keeping God's, confidence. The psalmist here states that he "will walk about in freedom" because he seeks out God's precepts. He also states that he will speak of God's law before kings "and will not be put to shame." Doing what is right gives us a confidence, a boldness, that we otherwise wouldn't have. We can withstand a lot of criticism from others if we know that what they are saying is false. In my studying of the life of the apostle Paul, it is easy for me to see that he had this confidence, this boldness that stood in such a stark contrast to his accusers. He had that confidence because he knew what he believed and he knew that what he believed was right.

It is important to note what it states in the end of verse 47, "because I love them". If we are keeping God's law for any other reason than love, we will not have that confidence because that confidence does not come from fulfilling an obligation. Someone once told me that God = law = love. To think of it in any other way would be to have a legalistic, works-oriented religion.

Freedom and the Law

Psalm 119:25-32 

 Daleth

 ²⁵ I am laid low in the dust;
       preserve my life according to your word. 
 ²⁶ I recounted my ways and you answered me;
       teach me your decrees.
 ²⁷ Let me understand the teaching of your precepts;
       then I will meditate on your wonders.
 ²⁸ My soul is weary with sorrow;
       strengthen me according to your word.
 ²⁹ Keep me from deceitful ways;
       be gracious to me through your law.
 ³⁰ I have chosen the way of truth;
       I have set my heart on your laws.
 ³¹ I hold fast to your statutes, O LORD;
       do not let me be put to shame.
 ³² I run in the path of your commands,
       for you have set my heart free.

Contrary to popular opinion, freedom and God's law go together.

There is a lot that could be said about this section, but I want to focus on verse 32 because it deals with two concepts that are not often associated with one another: commands & freedom. Here the psalmist states that because he has been set free he will keep God's commands.

Keeping the law becomes easier when we realize that we have been set free by God. That realization means we acknowledge that He desires what is best for us. It's not as though we keep the law out of sense of obligation, but rather out of a sense of gratitude for what He has done for us. To put it another way, we are more likely to take someone's advice if they have consistently helped us out in the past.

So as we continue to ponder God's law, let us remember that this law comes from a heart of infinite love; a heart that wants us to be free.

Time for a Change?

I've been studying the book of Numbers the past few weeks, and although it has given me quite a bit to think about, my study hasn't yielded many "Aha!" moments. That is, until a few days ago when I looked at what I like to call "The Quail Incident".

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, it's found in chapter 11, and what happened was that the Israelites, as was their practice, were complaining about something. The NIV has them "wailing. . . 'If we only had meat to eat (vs. 4)!'" Then God basically said, "You want meat? I'll give you meat! You'll get so much meat that it'll come out of your noses!" God caused a wind to blow and it blew in so much quail from the coast that the minimum gathered per person was about 60 bushels. Now that's a lot of quail! Sadly, they didn't get to enjoy it much, because before it could even be swallowed, God struck dead all the quail eaters. That place then, for obvious reasons, became known as "Graves of Craving" or "Craving Graves".

This passage has often been used by dedicated vegetarians as an illustration of the perils of eating meat, but I think that if one focuses solely on that aspect, they are missing the point. One commentator said that the Israelites had more food variety than one may think. The manna could be prepared in a couple of different ways, plus they could get milk and curds from their flocks, plus there were sacrifices in which the person offering would share a meal with the priests. A meal mainly comprised of meat. Also the majority of the things the Israelites were pining for were non-meat items (see vs. 5). The main problem wasn't so much that they were craving meat. It was that they were craving Egyptian meat; meaning that they would rather be slaves in Egypt than to be free under God's guidance.

The lesson that struck me this time around was the whole "We want something else!" concept. I had found myself recently wanting a change simply for change's sake. Sometimes the routine of life can seem a little tedious, but if the routine is of divine design, then we should think twice before demanding something different.