Of interest, hopefully, to You Reader:) or Any Hebrew–Actual or Spiritual:)
On January 30, 1995, the former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel deliberately pronounced the divine name. He did this while reciting a tikkun, a Cabalist prayer of correction. This prayer is uttered so that God might restore a degree of harmony to the universe, which, according to the worshipers, has been disrupted by evil forces. The newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth of February 6, 1995, stated: “This is a liturgy of such incredible power that its wording appears only in a special booklet that is not sold to the public.” Invoking God’s name in this context is thought to lend special force to the request.
It is noteworthy that the Bible commands God’s servants to use the divine name, Jehovah. (Exodus 3:15– Then God said once more to Moses: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.” ; Proverbs 18:10–“The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous one runs and receives protection.*(Lit., “is raised high,” that is, out of reach, safe); Isaiah 12:4–“And in that day you will say: “Give thanks to Jehovah, call on his name, Make his deeds known among the peoples! Declare that his name is exalted.” ; Zephaniah 3:9–“For then I will change the language of the peoples to a pure language, So that all of them may call on the name of Jehovah, To serve him shoulder to shoulder.’*(Or “worship him in unity.”)
In the original Hebrew text of the Bible, that name appears almost 7,000 times. However, the Bible warns against misusing God’s name. The third of the Ten Commandments states: “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.” (Exodus 20:7) How might God’s name be taken up in a worthless way? A commentary by The Jewish Publication Society notes that the Hebrew term translated “in a worthless way” can include not only “frivolous use” of the divine name but also “the recitation of an unnecessary blessing.”
How, then, should we view the Cabalist tikkun prayer of correction? What is its origin? In the 12th and 13th centuries C.E., a mystical form of Judaism, called Cabala, started gaining popularity. In the 16th century, Isaac Luria, a rabbi, introduced “tikkunim” into Cabalist liturgy. God’s name was used as a mystical charm with special powers, and it became a part of Cabalist ritual. Do you feel that this is a proper use of God’s name?—Deuteronomy 18:10-12–“There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, 11 anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you.”
However you answer that question, you will agree that the open utterance of God’s name in modern-day Israel was a most unusual event. Yet, God himself foretold: “In that day you will certainly say: ‘Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high. Make melody to Jehovah, for he has done surpassingly. This is made known in all the earth.’”—Isaiah 12:4, 5. [excerpted: The Divine Name Uttered in Israel w ’99]
(Afraid to Praise Yahweh by name?)…(not me aka spiritual Hebrew)…
Some of us, Fellow-Beautiful-Breathing-Life aka Fellow-Family -of-Humans continue our “on-going search” for “Truth” and to live it–what we discover; the best we can:)…and sadly, this makes some (very?)mad. 🙁
(and at me(?))
Reader:) please continue Your personal search for Truth…don’t give up.
i like this encouraging song: cause sometimes we find “pearls” of Truth in unexpected places, eh?
You Reader🙂— most likely– are familiar with the idiom/expression: “lightning rod”…one useful on-line description/definition:
A lightning rod (US, AUS) or lightning conductor (UK) is a metal rod mounted on a structure and intended to protect the structure from a lightning strike. … The main attribute common to all lightning rods is that they are all made of conductive materials, such as copper and aluminum.
(Negative) Examples of What Not to do… a necessary…for weighing consequence/survival, eh?
The family name of a dynasty that ruled over the Jews by appointment from Rome. Herod the Great was famous for rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem and for ordering the slaughter of children in an attempt to destroy Jesus. (Mt 2:16; Lu 1:5) Herod Archelaus and Herod Antipas, sons of Herod the Great, were appointed over sections of their father’s domain. (Mt 2:22) Antipas was a tetrarch, popularly referred to as “king,” who ruled during Christ’s three-and-a-half-year ministry and through the period up to Acts chapter 12. (Mr 6:14-17; Lu 3:1, 19, 20; 13:31, 32; 23:6-15; Ac 4:27; 13:1) After that, Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, was executed by God’s angel after ruling for a short time. (Ac 12:1-6, 18-23) His son, Herod Agrippa II, became ruler and reigned up to the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome.—Ac 23:35; 25:13, 22-27; 26:1, 2, 19-32. [New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Revised Version 2013, Glossary: Herod.]
points considered/discussed at mind gym last evening:
Herod…Acts 12: “On a set day, Herod clothed himself with royal raiment and sat down on the judgment seat and began giving them a public address.22 Then the people who were assembled began shouting: “A god’s voice, and not a man’s!” 23 Instantly the angel of Jehovah struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten up with worms and died.”
Herod readily accepted glory that should be given only to God. How that differed from the immediate and emphatic rejection of undue praise and honor by Paul and Barnabas! We should not desire glory for whatever accomplishments we may have in Yahweh’s service. [excerpted reading: w 5/15/08 highlights: “Acts”]
Acts 14: “However, when the apostles Barʹna·bas and Paul heard of it, they ripped their garments and leaped out into the crowd and cried out:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We too are humans having the same infirmities as you have. And we are declaring the good news to you, for you to turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.”
The Bible strongly suggests “humility”
and not self-exaltation as the most appropriate/wisest way to go in life.
Humility leads to “happier” consequences.
Readings about “Wisdom” personified from which to learn:)
Wisdom has much to recommend itself. “Happy is the man that has found wisdom,” for it is better than silver, gold and precious stones. It brings with it length of days, riches, glory and pleasantness. One of the reasons why all this is true of wisdom is found in the attitude it takes toward pride. Thus the personification of wisdom says: “Self-exaltation and pride . . . I have hated.” Why does wisdom hate pride and self-exaltation?—Prov. 3:13; 8:13.
Wisdom is concerned with the fitness of things, with having them right. It knows the value of order and harmony. Wisdom is able to be objective, to view the facts impartially and to reason upon them clearly. It is interested in efficiency and results. Wisdom therefore hates pride because pride flies in the face, as it were, of all this.
What is pride? The word comes from roots meaning “stately,” “handsome,” “valiant.” Among its definitions is “inordinate self-esteem.” A certain amount of self-esteem is necessary, even as the apostle Paul shows: “I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think; but to think so as to have a sound mind.” Pride shows unsoundness of mind. It is an exalting of self, a taking of oneself too seriously, a thinking too highly of oneself. Pride is an emotional state that is not subject to reason and is therefore folly.—Rom. 12:3.
One who is proud is not only fully conscious of his own good points but he imagines he has many that he does not possess. Still worse, one who is proud is as blind to his own weaknesses and shortcomings as he is to the good and strong points of others. The proud person of one nation sees only shortcomings in those of other nations. Pride frequently goes with educational advantages, achievement, fame, power or wealth. Among the most common forms of pride are pride of race, religion and nationality.
Noting the tendency on the part of imperfect humans to brag, (Yahweh) Jehovah God long ago counseled: “Let not the wise man brag about himself because of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man brag about himself because of his mightiness. Let not the rich man brag about himself because of his riches.” Why not? “For who makes you to differ from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, now, you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”—Jer. 9:23; 1 Cor. 4:7.
Wisdom hates pride not only because pride is without logic and sense of fitness of things but, chief of all, because pride is the flouting of the authority of the greatest, wisest, most powerful and most highly exalted Personage in the universe. Pride causes one to oppose the divine will of (Yahweh) Jehovah God. That One “opposes the haughty ones,” and warns that “everyone that exalts himself will be humbled.” Pride makes us the enemies of the One that can do the most for us: give us everlasting life in happiness. No wonder wisdom hates pride!—1 Pet. 5:5; Luke 14:11. [excerpted w 1960, Wisdom Hates Pride]
am Learning & painFULLY 🙁 aware of my (obvious and not-so-obvious) personal physical, mental, emotional limitations/imperfections/weaknesses.
Conversion. Interesting musical (and other) Topic. Check it out:
In the fourth century there occurred one of the outstanding “conversions” of all history, that of Roman Emperor Constantine. It is said that before a battle he saw the sign of the cross in the sky with the words: “By this conquer.”
Did Constantine become a real Christian? Christian conversion is symbolized by baptism, total immersion in water. Constantine postponed this vital step until his deathbed. Constantine was not “a Christian character,” contends historian H. Fisher in his History of Europe, and adds: “He . . . put to death his wife and his son. . . . He believed in Christ, but also in the unconquered sun. [Constantine initiated the observance of Sunday] He . . . retained the office of Pontifex Maximus [high priest].”
Due to Constantine’s support, “Christianity” (of a degenerate kind) became the official religion of the empire. This resulted in a sudden increase in conversions and set the pattern for multitudes of future conversions. Historian E. Gibbon explains: “As the lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, were soon followed by dependent multitudes.”
Tribes. “Pagan” Tribes:
In the fifth century the decadent Roman Empire began to shrink and crumble. Warlike Germanic tribes burst through the frontiers of the empire and flooded southward. The famous Pax Romana collapsed and Europe became a theater of war. In time, Clovis I, a Frankish king, subdued his rivals and became master of a large part of western Europe. The Franks were not Christians, but Clovis I married a Catholic princess named Clotilda.
According to some accounts, Clovis I had an experience similar to that of Constantine. Hard pressed in a battle with the Alamanni tribe, he appealed to Christ for victory. He won. On returning from his campaign he was baptized in 496. Charles Oman’s book The Dark Ages states: “3000 of his warriors followed him to the font [of baptism].”
Did they become real Christians? Answers Oman: “It cannot be said that the king’s conversion made any favourable change in his character or his conduct. . . . The Franks . . . hastened to follow him to the fold of the Church . . . But, as with king so with people, the change was almost entirely superficial.”
Genuine conversion is not an act of superficiality, eh? Real conversion is not cosmetic.
Britain in the sixth century was mainly non-Christian. Under the empire it had been “Christianized” somewhat, but Saxons had invaded and driven the British “Christians” west. The latter had no ties with the papacy in Rome. So in 596 Pope Gregory I sent a monk called Augustine who landed near Ramsgate, Kent. He soon converted the local king, Ethelbert, followed by the men of Kent. Similar mass conversions took place in other parts of England. Fisher writes: “Here, as elsewhere, the conversion of the pagan is to be attributed not to any penitential movement of the heart, but to the pressure of the monarchy upon a submissive population. . . . The creed of the king became the creed of the people.”
But Augustine’s main assignment from the pope was to convert the independent British “Christians” to Rome. Two meetings held by Augustine with the local bishops failed completely. “If,” the “saint” exclaimed, “you will not have peace from your friends you shall have war from your foes.” This belligerent attitude echoed the policy of Pope Gregory I who, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, “sometimes advocated a war of aggression against heathens in order to christianize them.”
Saxony, Other Countries:
War certainly played a major role in the conversion of non-Christian Europe. Concerning Charlemagne, king of the Franks from 768 to 813, H. G. Wells says: “He made his wars of aggression definitely religious wars. . . . Whole nations were converted to Christianity by the sword.” In 782 at Verden he massacred in cold blood 4,500 prisoners who had led a revolt and turned back from “Christianity.” Concerning the conquest of Saxony the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The violent methods by which this missionary task was carried out had been unknown to the earlier Middle Ages.”
Cowed, no doubt, by Charlemagne’s cruel reputation, the Slavs of eastern Europe were easily subdued and converted. In 988 Vladimir, the Russian ruler, maneuvered his marriage to a Byzantine princess, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and agreed, as part of the political contract, to become a “Christian.” He then “commanded the collective baptism of his subjects.”
“The conversion of Europe to Christianity,” wrote historian Fisher, “was, after the first heroic age of poverty and enthusiasm, mainly the result of material calculation or political pressure. The Goths, the Franks, the Saxons, the Scandinavians went over to Christianity, not as individuals directed by an inner light, but as peoples subject to mass suggestion and under the direction of political chiefs.”
Many of the clergy had become wealthy, politically powerful and immoral. This caused the growth of “heretical” sects. By the twelfth century, Languedoc, or Southern France, had become a hotbed of heresy. Let us now consider how the Church attempted–
“Heretics in Southern France”…
There were two groups of heretics in Languedoc—the Cathars, or Albigenses, and the Waldensians. The former were the most numerous and their beliefs had elements of Christianity and Oriental ideas. The Waldensians were more orthodox and very zealous in preaching the Bible among the common people.
Peaceful methods of conversion were tried first. When this failed, Pope Alexander III declared at a Lateran Council: “The Church . . . must . . . invoke the aid of princes, that fear of temporal punishment may force men to seek a spiritual cure for their shortcomings.”
However, Pope Innocent III tried another preaching campaign. Prominent in this was a Spanish priest, Domingo de Guzman. But in spite of his zeal conversions of heretics were few. A Dominican writer credits him with saying: “Where a blessing fails, a good thick stick will succeed.” What was this “good thick stick”?
In July 1209, a powerful army of knights, men-at-arms and mercenaries set off from Lyons to Languedoc. They were soldiers of the Cross. They had mustered at the bidding of Pope Innocent III to conduct a Crusade against the heretics. Their leader was a papal legate. On July 21 this force camped near the city of Béziers in southeastern France. A suggestion that a group of heretics should be given up to the Crusaders was rejected by the citizens.
The next day the Crusaders attacked and soon overwhelmed the small body of defenders. The mercenaries, vicious desperados, and the knights, all eager for plunder, were ruthless. Many people fled to the churches for safety. Historian Oldenbourg, in the book The Massacre at Montségur, describes the outcome: “The doors of the churches were forced open . . . All inside were slaughtered wholesale—women, invalids, babies, and priests. . . . In a few short hours the wealthy city of Béziers was a city of bleeding mutilated corpses, and nothing else.” And this shocking display of brutality was done by men led by the papal legate, who triumphantly wrote to the pope: “Nearly twenty thousand of the citizens were put to the sword, regardless of age and sex.”
Did this “thick stick” get results? Hundreds of Cathars and Waldensians were burned at the stake, but by 1229, after twenty years of war and misery, the heretical groups were still well supported in Languedoc.
In 1233 two Dominicans were given special powers as Inquisitors. Their method was to announce a “period of grace” during which heretics or sympathizers could come and confess. But to prove their “conversion” they had to denounce others. This crafty scheme, backed by the fear of torture or the stake, caused many to collaborate. Denunciations snowballed and set off a reign of terror. In just one place, Moissac, 210 heretics were burned alive in a monstrous holocaust. The Holy Inquisition succeeded in suppressing the Cathars. The Waldensians still survive.
A few centuries later the fair country of France was convulsed with the struggle between the Church and the Reformation. In England, when King Henry VIII proclaimed himself head of the Church of England in 1534, those Catholics who refused to be converted to his new politico-religious system were in great danger. “The creed of the king” still had to be “the creed of the people.”
Protestantism made progress during the reign of his son, Edward VI, but the pendulum swung the other way during the following reign of Catholic Queen Mary. Sir Winston Churchill commented, in his “History of the English Speaking Peoples”: “Here were the . . . living beings who composed the nation, ordered in the name of King Edward VI to march along one path to salvation, and under Queen Mary to march back again in the opposite direction; and all who would not move on the first order or turn about on the second must prove their convictions, if necessary, at the gibbet or the stake.”
Anyone familiar with the Sage of PEACE and Love –Jesus– and His “love Your neighbor as Yourself” and forgiveness teachings would ask:
“Can you imagine Jesus Christ or any true Christian condemning people to the gibbet or the stake for their beliefs?”
[excerpts read and my highlights/italics: Were Christendom’s Methods of Conversion Christian? Awake!—1982]
PLEASE!:) WAKE UP PEOPLE…human “progress” ?! so-called “evolution” through the centuries down to modern-day…HA!..humans, sadly/stupidly, still employ/fall for the same sort of cruel (conversion) strategies/tactics in “varying” degrees…in government, in business, in religion, in media, in social-media, in academia…”creed of King” whomever (he/she) “king” happens to be and whatever “creed” happens to be…the dominators cry: Submit or else! Comply or Fry!:(
NO! I THINK FOR MYSELF.
Any conversion/change of my heart/thinking is voluntary.
And based on “Accurate” education–an essential, eh?
As wisely noted in the Bible: “humans have dominated humans to their injury”…these centuries-old patterns/precedents continue—different kings, different platforms, different places—SAME STUPIDITY…aka fake lies, fake ideas, fake living…ALL (eventually) deadly.
i will continue to remain politically neutral and resist the popular controversy/ideology–flavor of the day…attempting to coerce me/my thoughts/actions into submission.
(The Bible always tells me the truth!)
“Thinking ability itself will keep guard over you, discernment itself willsafeguard you.”—PROVERBS 2:11.
“Don’t be a Nimrod!”…an expression back in the day (among the goofy-geeky, spiritually-disciplined (i.e. me & co)).
Choosing my battles…the better fight IS spiritual! Personally, i’d rather self-discipline…less embarrassing and costly than some outside (harsh? cruel?) source administering. i get my “(k)nickel” back…and i can learn from and/or listen to “a” tune…somebody else’s…doesn’t mean i have to touch the fire to know it hurts. (Not that i enJOY watching others burn.)
Through “accurate” knowledge/example/education…through “Bible” education specifically…it’s a privilege to pull Others out of the fire…sometimes.
Other times…it’s basic spiritual-palliative-care.
(You try to share something positive that will comfort.)
That’s why education is so important (and to me). On-going, life-long…love lessons…proper-appropriate love of self, neighbor, family, community, global-brotherhood-of-humanity.
Daily Bible study/meditation/application…has disciplined me through the years from youth to almost 50.
Yep, obviously, IF YOU:) regularly read my ramblings..still have lots to learn on various topics not just Biblical. And that’s “really” EXCITING!…the learning/changing process..means i am always on the move…and not stagnant and festering aka rotting/corrupting away. (Some day this caterpillar may be a butterfly:))
a daily-healthy (spiritual, mental, emotional, etc.) Re
It’s a NEW day, and i am a NEW person. 🙂
i mean to be AGGRAVATING;) HA!…some reading about Nimrod, Tammuz..(Marduk is a FALSE “god” BTW).
You got the guts to read, right?!
22. With whom does the book The Two Babylons identify Tammuz?
22 However, in his book entitled “The Two Babylons” Dr. Alexander Hislop identifies Tammuz with Nimrod, the founder of the city of Babylon, about 180 years after the flood of Noah’s day.
23. Who, Biblically, was Nimrod, what did his followers do about him after his death, and how do the mythical characters Bacchus and Adonis correspond with him?
23 Nimrod was the great-grandson of Noah. According to Genesis 10:1, 6, 8-12, Nimrod became known as “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” According to religious tradition, Nimrod was executed for his rebelliousness against Jehovah, the God of Noah. Nimrod’s followers considered his violent death a tragedy or calamity, and deified him. Annually they memorialized his death on the first or second day of the lunar month Tammuz, when the idolatrous women wept over his idol. So among the ancient classical writers he was given the name Bacchus, which means “Bewept One,” “Lamented One.” This weeping over him corresponds with that carried on over the legendary Adonis, a beautiful youth who was loved by Venus or Ishtar and who was killed by a wild boar in the mountains of Lebanon. In fact, the Latin Vulgate Bible and the English Douay Version Bible use the name Adonis instead of Tammuz in Ezekiel 8:14: “Behold women sat there mourning for Adonis,” or, “Lord.”
24. What derivations have been given for the name Tammuz, what letter became a symbol of him, and why was it scandalous for women to bewail Tammuz in Jehovah’s temple?
24 The Two Babylons (page 245, footnote) derives the name Tammuz from the words tam (“to make perfect”) and muz (“fire”) so as to mean “Perfecting Fire” or “Fire the Perfecter.” Another derivation gives it the meaning “Hidden” or “Obscure,” and this corresponds with the fact that the worship of the image of Tammuz was carried on in a secret place, as pictured at Ezekiel 8:14. He was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, that was a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. So there was an attempt to introduce the worship of the idolatrous pagan cross into the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem. How scandalous it was for those Israelite women, on the pavement of the inner court of Jehovah’s temple, to be religiously weeping over the executional death of Tammuz, in reality over “Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah”!
25. According to Genesis 10:10-12, Nimrod was a founder of what, and what type of religion stems from the “beginning of his kingdom”?
25 What today in Christendom, since its founding in the fourth century by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, derives itself from all religious things having to do with Nimrodalias Tammuz? Let us bear in mind that “the beginning of his kingdom came to be Babel [or Babylon] and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria and set himself to building Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this is the great city.” (Genesis 10:10-12) Thus Nimrod was the founder of cities and of political systems of rule, contrary to the will of Jehovah God. All false religion stemmed from Babylon after the flood of the days of Noah. Genesis 10:8, 9 says that “he [Nimrod] displayed himself a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.”
26. According to the Babylonian and Assyrian custom of applying the word “hunter,” in what way was Nimrod a shedder of blood?
26 The term “hunting,” according to the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian custom, was applied not only to hunting for wild animals but also to military campaigns against human creatures as the prey. So Nimrod made himself a shedder of human blood in warfare.
27. What has Christendom done as regards setting up religious systems, and how has she not confined herself to religion purely as her realm?
27 How well these details about Nimrod fit also to Christendom! Like Nimrod, she also has established her own religious systems. These are generally thought of as being in harmony with the Holy Bible of Jehovah but in actuality being in harmony with religious teachings of ancient Babylon, including the adoration of the cross, the symbol of Tammuz. Like Nimrod, Christendom has not confined herself to religion purely; she has mixed herself in worldly politics, setting up, wherever possible, a union of Church and State, with the Church trying to tell the State what to do. She has claimed that her political emperors and kings have ruled “By the grace of God.” Even her bishops, archbishops and popes have been honored with material thrones and are still said to “reign” over their bishoprics and papal sees.
28. How have the politicians been favored by Christendom, and how has she gone contrary politically to the words and example of Jesus Christ?
28 The politicians of this world are given prominent positions and considerations in the church systems. What a contrast this to the example of Jesus Christ, who refused to be made a king on earth by men! To the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, he said: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36) To the contrary of this, Christendom insists that it is the duty of her church members to engage in politics. At times and in some places, she endeavors to dictate to them as to the political candidates for whom they shall cast their election ballots. Members of her clergy have even acted as political rulers, as president, or prime minister, and so on.
29. How does Christendom find in Nimrod the “mighty hunter” a small prototype of herself as regards bloodshed?
29 And what about wanton bloodshed as committed by “Nimrod a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah”? Nimrod was merely a small prototype for Christendom! She too has engaged as a “hunter” in military campaigns with carnal weapons. The most sanguinary wars of all human history have been waged by the members of Christendom, between themselves and with the so-called infidels and pagans. All this is not Christlike. It is Babylonish and smacks of Nimrod.
30. How have the wars of Christendom caused further weeping on the part of the womenfolk and the paying of special respects by the churches to high-ranking war figures?
30 The loss of human lives in these wars has caused untold weeping by the womenfolk of Christendom. Memorial days are held annually when the ones bereaved by war go to the graveyards to decorate the burial plots of their slain warriors. The deaths of the mighty war generals and other high-ranking warlords are mourned by the patriotic, nationalistic members of Christendom, these being eulogized in the churches in which the funeral services are held. All this in full agreement with the notorious fact that churches have been used as recruiting stations and propaganda centers in times of war. Such connecting up of all these political and military doings with the “house of God” (the Church) in Christendom well reminds us of those Israelite women sitting and weeping over Tammuz inside the inner court of the temple of the Sovereign Lord God in Ezekiel’s day. [excerpted: Detestable Religious Things over Which to Sigh, Kj chap. 8]
“Kingdom of God”…excerpted: Insight on Scriptures, Vol. 2:
The term “king” (Heb., meʹlekh) evidently came into use in human language after the global Flood. The first earthly kingdom was that of Nimrod “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah.” (Ge 10:8-12) Thereafter, during the period down to Abraham’s time, city-states and nations developed and human kings multiplied. With the exception of the kingdom of Melchizedek, king-priest of Salem (who served as a prophetic type of the Messiah [Ge 14:17-20; Heb 7:1-17]), none of these earthly kingdoms represented God’s rule or were established by him. Men also made kings of the false gods they worshiped, attributing to them the ability to grant power of rulership to humans. Jehovah’s application of the title “King [Meʹlekh]” to himself, as found in the post-Flood writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore meant God’s making use of the title men had developed and employed. God’s use of the term showed that he, and not presumptuous human rulers or man-made gods, should be looked to and obeyed as “King.”—Jer 10:10-12.
Jehovah had, of course, been Sovereign Ruler long before human kingdoms developed, in fact before humans existed. As the true God and as their Creator, he was respected and obeyed by angelic sons numbering into the millions. (Job 38:4-7; 2Ch 18:18; Ps 103:20-22; Da 7:10) By whatever title, then, he was, from the beginning of creation, recognized as the One whose will was rightfully supreme.
God’s Rulership in Early Human History. The first human creatures, Adam and Eve, likewise knew Jehovah as God, the Creator of heaven and earth. They recognized his authority and his right to issue commands, to call upon people to perform certain duties or to refrain from certain acts, to assign land for residence and cultivation, as well as to delegate authority over others of his creatures. (Ge 1:26-30; 2:15-17) Though Adam had the ability to coin words (Ge 2:19, 20), there is no evidence that he developed the title “king [meʹlekh]” to apply it to his God and Creator, although he recognized Jehovah’s supreme authority.
As revealed in the initial chapters of Genesis, God’s exercise of his sovereignty toward man in Eden was benevolent and not unduly restrictive. The relationship between God and man called for obedience such as the obedience a son renders to his father. (Compare Lu 3:38.) Man had no lengthy code of laws to fulfill (compare 1Ti 1:8-11); God’s requirements were simple and purposeful. Nor is there anything to indicate that Adam was made to feel inhibited by constant, critical supervision of his every action; rather, God’s communication with perfect man seems to have been periodic, according to need.—Ge chaps 1-3.
A new expression of God’s rulership purposed. The first human pair’s open violation of God’s command, instigated by one of God’s spirit sons, was actually rebellion against divine authority. (Ge 3:17-19; see TREES [Figurative Use].) The position taken by God’s spirit Adversary (Heb., sa·tanʹ) constituted a challenge calling for a test, the issue being the rightfulness of Jehovah’s universal sovereignty. (See JEHOVAH [The supreme issue a moral one].) The earth, where the issue was raised, is fittingly the place where it will be settled.—Re 12:7-12.
At the time of pronouncing judgment upon the first rebels, Jehovah God spoke a prophecy, couched in symbolic phrase, setting forth his purpose to use an agency, a “seed,” to effect the ultimate crushing of the rebel forces. (Ge 3:15) Thus, Jehovah’s rulership, the expression of his sovereignty, would take on a new aspect or expression in answer to the insurrection that had developed. The progressive revelation of “the sacred secrets of the kingdom” (Mt 13:11) showed that this new aspect would involve the formation of a subsidiary government, a ruling body headed by a deputy ruler. The realization of the promise of the “seed” is in the kingdom of Christ Jesus in union with his chosen associates. (Re 17:14; see JESUS CHRIST [His Vital Place in God’s Purpose].) From the time of the Edenic promise forward, the progressive development of God’s purpose to produce this Kingdom “seed” becomes a basic theme of the Bible and a key to understanding Jehovah’s actions toward his servants and toward mankind in general.
Lots of reading here w/links…to some of my favorite books: Insight on Scriptures, Vol. 1 & 2…excellent!
Happy Saturday & Peace Patient Reader …Thank You for not being a Nimrod!:)