Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump
I) Trump / Pence 2016
I’ve never been as intrigued with an election, nor so resolved to be better educated when it comes to current events than I am this election cycle (2016).
During the last six weeks, I resolved to reach beyond debates and headlines and read some books in order to get up to speed in the context of a more comprehensive perspective. I’ve read the following:
- “Stealing America” by Dinesh D’souza
- “Great Again” by Donald Trump
- “In Trump We Trust” by Ann Coulter
- “Hillary’s America” by Dinesh D’souza
“Great Again” – in order to hear what Trump was bringing to the table in the absence of screaming protestors and antagonistic critics.
“In Trump We Trust” in order to get the perspective of someone who I knew to be like-minded when it comes to current events and to see how well Trump’s proposals address those concerns.
“Stealing America” and “Hillary’s America” to hear the platform of someone who Obama had imprisoned in part because of the film he made entitled “Obama 2016” where he reveals Obama to be an “anti-colonialist” based on his family background and his obvious regard for the legal extortion techniques pioneered by Saul Alinski. Anyone who has paid that kind of price for his convictions is worth a hearing and both books are very thought provoking.
The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump.
Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether.
The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.
The Democrat party represents a legacy of theft dressed up in compassion and equality. Hillary is an enhanced version of that paradigm that can trace it’s lineage back to Andrew Jackson. In addition, the substance of America has been substantially minimized with the administration of Barack Obama. Our national debt, our standing in the eyes of other other nations in terms of our foreign policy, the way in which he encourages racial division – these are all manifestations of a mindset that seeks to subtlety, yet strategically, decrease the influence and capacity of America as a nation. And when anyone who represents a conservative mindset begins to disagree or assert a different approach, the tenor of the culture led by Obama discredits them as enemies of progress.
Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice.
This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.
Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason. As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised.
You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).
While it’s not necessarily unethical, it borders on sinister to see the way in which some of what Trump has said be quoted out of context and twisted into something outrageous by his opponents. It makes sense, however, when you take an inventory of the personalities conducting the violent protests and publishing the damaging smears and calculate what they stand to lose; either in the context of political clout or ill gotten gain should he be elected president.
II) But What About Trump?
But what about Trump?
Bigot?
Typhoon?
Hates Women, Warmonger?
Hates Veterans?
These days, people hear with their eyes and think with their feelings. Headlines can be misleading and articles can be selective about what is said and what is not said thus leading the reader to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate (click here for an exposition on the difference between Facts, Information and Truth). That’s not to say that Trump makes it difficult for reporters to cast him as a problem child. He rarely holds back in what he thinks, which isn’t always healthy or appropriate. But rarely does he not have a point.
And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.
III) Combat Veterans
When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished.
They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.
Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style.
He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying.
If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.
It’s been disappointing to see some prominent personalities come out and mirror the media in their assessment and statements pertaining to Trump. It’s as though there’s a script being circulated and whoever it is that’s willing to parrot the talking points that are documented, they’re broadcasted as much and as loudly as they can – as though they’re trying to drown out the practical and substantial dynamics this man brings to the table.
This brings up a good point.
IV) I Voted for Cruz
I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. I voted for Cruz because I tend to gravitate to those who are the most vocal in terms of their faith. If I had to do it again, however, I don’t think I would’ve voted for Cruz and here’s why:
In the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day.
And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.
Philip Yancey, who’s a great writer, was featured on a video clip recently where he stated that he’s shocked and surprised that any evangelical could support Trump. He cites Trump’s failed marriages, his affairs, and the fact that he’s made a substantial amount of money with his casinos as reasons why you shouldn’t support him.
First of all, it’s not just casinos. His fortune is based on a number of income streams, his most obvious and substantial being commercial real estate. I was somewhat familiar with the Trump name and brand, but it wasn’t until after I read “Great Again” that I became familiar with the number of buildings and properties he’s developed around the globe.
He’s a very talented business man.
What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise.
The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers.
Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.
Think…
V) For the Record
When a liberal is confronted with a platform that is difficult to dispute, the crosshairs of their criticism is aimed at the person proclaiming that platform. In that way, attention is diverted from the issue being addressed and instead the topic is now whatever accusation they’ve just made. In the case of Donald Trump, his adversaries are both his political opponents and the arm of the Democrat party – the liberal media.
He’s Rich
The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default.
President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together.
This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.
Born Into Privilege
Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.1
When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved.
Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.2 Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur.
That wasn’t the case in his early years, though. He personified what some would expect as far as being a “spoiled brat,” and a troublemaker. To cure that, his parents shipped him of to military school. Initially, he didn’t do well at all. But by the time he graduated, however, he was captain of his cadet class – a position that you had to be voted into by your peers.3
John McCain and the Military Vote
While Trump never served in the military, his respect and appreciate for the military is beyond question. Not simply because of his military academy experience, but also because of the way in which he has supported the military in situations such as the Veteran’s Day Parade in New York City in 1987 and in 1995 when donations were embarrassingly low and Trump stepped in with his own resources and gave the parade and the veterans it honored the dignity it deserved.
That by itself may not mean much to someone who’s focused on Trump’s comments about John McCain or his most recent comments about combat veterans suffering from PTSD as “not being able to handle it.” Fact is, even after Trump insulted McCain’s military service, polls showed that the military preferred Trump to McCain.4 And when you look at the comment made by Trump pertaining to PTSD in context, you see a much different picture than what Trump’s opponents attempt to present.
Take a look at the comment Trump made pertaining to McCain in the context of his conversation with Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa:
While Trump was out of line to minimize McCain’s courage and selflessness as a POW, he wasn’t wrong in state that McCain was out of line himself. One week later, polls showed that veterans and those currently serving in the military preferred Trump to McCain 53% to 41%. That’s because what the press wants to insinuate is distinct from what veterans heard and processed. Reason being is that what was actually said was different than what the press wants to promote.
The same thing applies to Trump’s comments about veterans suffering from PTSD. When you look at what was actually said versus what was quoted, you’re confronted with a much different scenario.
Bankruptcy
Trump’s business acumen is undeniable. By that I mean, it’s obvious from his accomplishments that he’s capable of some extraordinary things in terms of leading and envisioning a highly successful business venture. But those who want to distract from the multitude of highly successful income streams zealously highlight those instances when he’s declared bankruptcy.
Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt.
Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded.
But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair.
The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.
Miscellaneous
Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe in 1996. Two years later, she was an accessory to murder and further smeared her reputation by threatening to kill the judge that presided over her case. This coupled with her having gained 50 pounds earned Trump the dubious title of a woman-hater when he referred to Machado as “Miss Piggy.” Certainly not one of his finest moments, but not altogether inappropriate given Machado’s obvious lack of character.
The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public.
Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns?
I didn’t.
Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t process numbers that large doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.
Finally, the recently released recording of Trump saying some positively lewd things pertaining to women – if you’re not familiar with it, click here, but be forewarned, it’s explicit and vulgar.
First off, it’s significant that, at the time, it was 11 years old. Someone had to invest a fair amount of time to find this and the timing of it being made public – I doubt is coincidental. It’s even more suspicious when you consider some of the testimonies coming from several parties that state the tape was purposefully leaked by GOP elites who are uncomfortable with Trump. Should that prove to be credible, Paul Ryan, and those who think like him, may find himself in a very awkward position.
What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with…
- Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office
- Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them
- JFK’s multiple affairs
- Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters
- Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him
- Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick
- Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape.
What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.
Here’s the bottom line:
Moses was a killer, David was an adulterer and Abraham was a liar. Paul was a Pharisee and Peter was a coward. Moral failings are not unique and fairly common, especially among those who fly solo in the face of temptation rather than align themselves with the Power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Even those who are fully equipped to overcome whatever potential compromise stands in their way are not always consistent in their resolve to give the keys to their Heavenly Father and they wind up as moral disasters.
Where does Trump fall in all of this?
Is he wrong?
Yes.
What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact?
Own it.
Apologize.
He has.
Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.
What about the conscience of the person who’s mortified by what Trump said, yet still plans on supporting him in the election? Is it hypocrisy to endorse a man who has this kind of dynamic in his past?
No.
It would be hypocritical to contribute to a Democrat victory by either not voting for him or refusing to vote at all. It’s his platform that I’m supporting, not the actions and attitudes he displayed in 2005.
Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in.
I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I’m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.
VI) Connecting the Dots
Here’s the bottom line:
Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle.
Why?
Is it because of what he says?
To some extent.
But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.
America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control.
And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots. Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would think Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at.
But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen.
The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements.
He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.” While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.
I’m voting for Trump.
VII) Parting Thoughts
- When Obama leaves office, he will have accumulated more debt than every president before him combined.
- Paul Ryan, the current Republican Speaker of the House, came out recently and stated that he would not support Donald Trump as president.
Those two dynamics taken together represent a need to interrupt politics as usual and assert a personality that is not dependent on a government check for their sustenance, nor is he resolved to lessen the substance of America, all the while claiming to do so in the name of equal opportunity and justice.
RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action.
This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.6
Now you’ve got talking heads in the Republican party conveniently broadcast by the liberal media stating that they will not support Trump. At this point, as a whole, they’ve so worn out their welcome in the mind of the attentive voter that their endorsement doesn’t really matter. If anything, it reinforces the notion that they realize there’s a new sheriff in town who will hold them accountable and that makes them squirm.
As far as Barak Obama and the Democrat party is concerned, consider this: Andrew Jackson established himself as a wealthy man through the art of extortion – specifically in the context of real estate. He positioned himself as the “Great Father” to Indians before either manipulating them or forcefully removing them from their land. This was happening while he was simultaneously deploying surveyors to assess the same land at which point he would buy it and then sell it at a tremendous profit.
Steve Inskeep, in his book, “Jacksonland” elaborates by saying:
Jackson managed national security affairs in a way that match his interest in land development…He shaped his real estate investments to compliment his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.7
Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement.
The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.
The events leading up to the Civil War, in terms of the preservation of slavery, were championed by Democrats. Not just in the South, but even Northern Democrats were vehement in their belief that slavery was a good thing and even healthy for blacks. As stated in the Charleston Mercury during the Secession debate, the duty of the South was to, “…rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported…the rights of the South.”8
Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin.
It’s not.
It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party. It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.
But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War.
The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people.
The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”9
The fact of the matter was, the Democrats needed the black vote. As the South became less agrarian, the Republican message of upward mobility resonated more so than Racism. As more and more white people migrated over to the Republican side, the black vote grew more crucial.
It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed.
So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of Racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into Fascism.
Obamacare, free college education, EPA regulations, financial subsidies – these all represent stages of increasing government control. On the surface, it may appear like a logical solution to the challenges facing individuals, but there’s more to it than that. Obamacare represents control over the healthcare industry. Secondary education, the energy sector and the banking industry are all being retooled to make them more accessible, but the catch is that the government now has control, and this is the goal of the Progressive movement that characterizes the Democrat party.
FDR admired Mussolini. JFK had some good things to say about Hitler before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and compelled the USA to enter WWII. Prior to that, however, Fascism appealed to FDR for the way in which economic unrest could justify greater control over the private sector. The “New Deal” centralized power; put a new class of planners in charge of the productive wealth of the society, restricted the operation of the free market and used modern propaganda techniques to rally the masses in the name of collective solidarity.
In the aftermath of WWII, the terminology had to be made more subtle and approachable, but the aim remained the same. A new approach, a different vocabulary, but the same goal.
Saul Alinski represents the next phase of Progressivism in that he was able to enhance the technique represented by the mafioso phrase, “a deal you can’t refuse.” He found that by approaching an industry or an iconic company, simply by threatening to create a disturbance in the name of “injustice,” he could extort all kinds of favors and financial rewards.
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, a promising young man became fascinated with the legacy of Saul Alinski and the way in which he could extract change and resources through extortion. While Alinski had passed away in 1972, his operation still thrived. He would have to move to Chicago, however. Later, this young man would write a book and say, “All the strands of my life came together and I really became a man when I moved to Chicago.”10 He would teach workshops and over time assume greater amounts of responsibility. He would actually be elected to the Senate and today he is leader of the free world.
While he’s often heralded as a champion of the working man and an advocate of civil rights, his actions and his words reveal otherwise. Still, the fact that he was successful in his shakedown operations was appealing, especially to young people in the sixties who saw the establishment as something that needed to be changed.
One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority.
Alinski disagreed.
Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School. Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong.
By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned.
In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.
VIII) Conclusion
The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda.
But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage.
It’s twisted, but it’s real.
And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.
I will vote for Donald Trump.
1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)
2. Ibid, p99
3. Ibid, p129
4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40
5. Ibid, p109
6. Ibid, 171
7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104
8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69
9. Ibid, p139
10. Ibid, p163
11. Ibid, p171
Trump’s Lies
The New York Times is one of several news sources that have been almost entirely negative when it comes to President Donald Trump. Like many liberal leaning media outlets, during the campaign, they spent the better part of a year in a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Trump was not qualified to be President for any one of number of reasons.
In the end, they were overruled by the Electoral College and the American Republic told the Obama administration to clear out its desk. Since then, the media, now painfully aware that its hold on popular opinion is nowhere near what they thought it was, is determined to undermine the Trump administration.
It’s difficult not to sense that there’s a disposition championed by the Left that says if you can’t win an election, then you steal it. And if you can’t steal it, then do your best to ruin the outcome.
In the early part of 2017, the NYT published a front page article that consisted of one massive block of text that supposedly represented every lie Trump has uttered since the beginning of his administration. It’s an imposing looking piece and initially intimidating in that you can’t help but wonder if in the midst of all these indictments, there’s isn’t an element of truth. But upon closer inspection, it becomes evident rather quickly that this article is nothing more than just yet another part of the media’s resolve to deploy a “dirty glacier” approach to current events in order to feel justified in portraying Trump as a fiend.
The fact of the matter is, you can be wrong and not be guilty of lying. It’s only when you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary that you can be rightfully accused of being a liar.
With President Trump, he exaggerates in some instances but to accuse him of lying is inappropriate, especially when you look at some of these indictments and realize that it’s the NYT who’s lying and not Trump.
In the end, at the bare minimum, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that there’s a more comprehensive perspective to consider with each supposed accusation. With minimal “digging” you can uncover facts and truths that the NYT seems determined to either overlook or dismiss as irrelevant.
If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, your justification better be more than just an intentionally casual analysis of the situation. Then again, if you don’t expect anyone to pick up where you made a point of leaving off, perhaps your approach is purposeful which thus qualifies you as truly sinister and not merely irresponsible.
I hope that’s not the case…
Feel free to click here or on the image to the right and view a spreadsheet that details each of the NYT’s accusations and the rebuttal represented by a more thorough review of the facts that are readily accessible.
Also, below are ten questions I was asked to respond to as part of an internet based radio program hosted by Jack Watts. You can get an idea of what prompted this project and the conclusions that were drawn by reading through both the questions and the responses.
Go God, boo devil!
1) What prompted you to put this project together?
Conversation with you (Jack Watts). Initially a little intimidated but then determined to find out just how credible the accusations were.
2) Does Trump lie? Is the NYT and the liberal media justified in calling him a liar?
In order to qualify as a liar, it has to be proven that you’re aware of the truth and you’re intentionally saying something to the contrary. You can be wrong, you can exaggerate and still not be guilty of lying. The NYT doesn’t attempt to make that distinction. If Trump is wrong or if he’s stretching the truth, he’s demonized as a liar even when that kind of accusation is neither appropriate let alone accurate.
3) Why do you think the press is so determined to paint Trump as a villain?
Two reasons: First off, Trump was not supposed to have won. For an entire year, the press engaged in a campaign to destroy a Trump victory and even at one point predicting Hillary to be by 85%. They were terribly wrong and while they proved to be flawed in their predictions, they simultaneously proved that they don’t have the kind of influence over the political process that they thought they did.
The result was embarrassing as well as telling as far as what their true agenda was.
Secondly, Trump is not a politician and therefore does not play games as far as sacrificing results on the altar of polls and mindless processes. That makes him a very effective force in dismantling a lot of what Progressives have in place as well as what their mandate would dictate. Therefore, Trump must be stopped.
4) What is “truthful hyperbole?”
It’s a phrase that Trump uses in his book “The Art of the Deal.” It’s how he describes ethically exaggerating things in order to sell his product or platform.
5) You went through over 100 accusations made by the NYT stating that Trump lied? Were there any that really stood out? Why?
Lockheed F-35, NYT apology, Obamacare The Lockheed F-35 is a military aircraft that was the subject of a deal Trump made with the company that wound up strengthening our military while saving a substantial amount of money. The NYT refers to this scenario repeatedly and insists the Trump contributed nothing and that the cuts were already in place. But Lockeed makes it clear that Trump was a significant part of the process and the Times isn’t accurate in calling him a liar let alone accusing him repeatedly. The NYT ran an ad in the aftermath of the election that said it would “reflect on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on America and the world honestly.”
While the words “We’re sorry” are never articulated, it’s obvious the NYT was confessing that there was room for improvement in the way they reported the news. Obamacare is a hot mess. But the press will intentionally overlook certain aspects of it in order to maintain the idea that it’s a homerun. Consequently, when Trump criticizes it, the NYT insists that he’s lying.
For example, when Trump says that Obamacare covers very few people, the NYT responds by saying that Obamacare increased coverage by a new of about 20 million. What they don’t tell you is that just because you sign up doesn’t mean you’re covered. You have to first pay your first month’s premium. That in and of itself dramatically affects who is truly being covered.
6) After having engaged this project, do you see the press as merely bitter or is there something more sinister behind their efforts to undermine Trump?
Definitely sinister. One does not have to “dig” much at all in order to secure a more comprehensive perspective. I mention at the top of the site that, if nothing else, what I’ve done demonstrates that there is always another side, another set of data that dramatically affects the conclusions the average reader is going to walk away with given the limited account the Times would assert as being the bottom line.
When you see this being done over and over again, it becomes obvious that there is an agenda in place that governs the way in which the news is going to be reported. It will not be fair, it will not be accurate. In short, it will be intentionally crafted to undermine the President and promote a legislative and cultural paradigm that is godless, amoral and devoid of personal responsibility.
7) How should a Trump supporter respond to all of the vitriol?
John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Rarely does a person shape their convictions according to merely what they know. Their mindset represents a combination of facts and feelings – feelings crafted according to a lifetime of experiences that you’re not going to affect in the context of a single paragraph. And what makes it more challenging is that the more emotionally invested you are in a lie, the less impact the Truth is going to make.
The bottom line is that the true essence of this contest is spiritual. Only God can change a person’s heart. Even if you win an argument, all you’re doing is increasing their resolve to be better armed with more compelling talking points in the future. To change their mind – to affect real change – you’ve got to fight with the only weapons that make a difference and that’s the Power and the heart changing Utility of the Holy Spirit.
8) You hear a lot about the possibility of Russian interference with the election collusion on the part of the Trump campaign with Russia. Did the NYT indict Trump at all in this particular article about that?
More than once. It’s part of the Progressive Playbook right now and it will continue to be until it blows up in their face. You might even argue that it already has by virtue of the way the Clinton campaign was revealed as having given Russia a sizeable foothold into American Uranium mining. Trump’s having colluded with Russian elements in order to affect the outcome of the election is nothing more than an attempt to justify Trump having won while simultaneously portray Trump as a fiend.
We’re 11 months into the allegations and there is still no evidence because there is no evidence. The thing that is disconcerting, however, is that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the mind of the Democrat party. If there isn’t evidence to support their claim, no doubt they’ll make an attempt to manufacture some.
9) Between ANTIFA, violent protests at universities where conservative commentators are scheduled to talk, the controversy with the NFL – does America seem fractured to you and, if so, how does it get put back together again?
I think you’ve got to be able to sound intelligent when you present what constitutes a truthful rebuttal. You have to be familiar with the fact that this is a game of chess. It’s not about substance as much as it’s about “feelings.” We’re no longer asking what’s “right,” we’re asking what’s “Constitutional.”
For that reason, again, the real contest is a spiritual contest…
Case in point: The Homosexual Agenda is based on the fact that “everyone has the right to be happy.” That’s true. You see that in our Declaration of Independence. But where does that right come from? According to the Declaration of Independence, we appeal to a Divine Standard for that right. Moreover, one’s right to be happy is subordinate to one’s responsibility to be moral.
But who defines what’s moral?
Either God is your Absolute, or you are your own absolute which is both eternally lethal and practically unsustainable. Regardless of how you approach it, the underlying question is “Who defines what’s right?” And it’s because of that dynamic that our the only real Solution is a national revival (2 Chron 7:14).
10) If you were to make a prediction as to how the Trump administration is going to be perceived by future generations, what would you say?
Provided that Christians are able to rise to the occasion and leverage the opportunity represented by a Republican administration and pray for God’s Intervention, I think God through Trump can dismantle a lot of the damaging legislation that Obama has instituted and the tension he has amplified. If a true revival can occur, I think the Trump Administration will be remembered the same way as a truly great timeframe. Not because of who Trump was but because of what God did through Trump as far as getting our nation back on track. And I think that’s the bottom line now and that’s always been the bottom line.
Psalm 20:7:
“Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (see also 2 Chron 7:14)
That’s always been the Solution. And it’s not so much God showing up and changing things through miraculous burning bush type episodes, as much as it’s godly individuals living out their faith in a way that convinces people that God is Who He truly claims to be and true success is measured in terms of one’s obedience to Him and being a conduit of the Power He makes available.
Dirty Glacier
“Dirty Glacier” is an apt illustration of what happens when you’re considering a particular issue that’s being presented according to a collection of very judiciously selected facts. Or it could be something that’s weighing on you and, either because you’re too tired or you’re too emotional, rather than seeing your scenario in a way that’s founded on the Reality and Power of God, you restrict your perspective to only that which you can see and the end result is depressing.
What makes it challenging is that the accuracy of the data that’s being perceived is intact, it’s just that the data itself isn’t complete. It’s like a dirty glacier in that you’re only seeing the dirty “facts” that are being communicated / considered while the bulk of the information that’s needed to formulate a truly accurate conviction remains intentionally hidden. Jesus said in John 7:24
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. (John 7:24)
Get past the dirty glacier and make an effort to access what’s below the surface. Whether it’s a current event or something going on in your own life, when confronted with a dirty glacier, pop the hood on that thing and “judge correctly.”
Women Leaders in the Bible
I) Multiple Passages
Anytime you have multiple passages in the Bible that talk about the same issue, you have to combine their individual meanings into a comprehensive whole. Only then is your perspective based on a genuinely biblical foundation. Otherwise, you’re formulating your convictions on human traditions and personal preferences more than you are Divine Absolutes. For example, women occupy leadership positions throughout Scripture, yet Paul seemingly says that a woman should never teach or speak up in a worship setting. How does that work?
II) A Bad Situation
First of all, in 2 Timothy 3:6-7, Paul references a situation where false teachers had wormed their way into the minds of some households where the women were loaded down with guilt and regret. Because they were listening to bogus content, rather than embracing what amounted to a biblically based transformation (2 Cor 3:17), these ladies not only subscribed to a facsimile of the real thing, they were the kind of unruly personalities who were not shy when it came to voicing their personal opinions.
It’s reasonable to believe that the situation described in 2 Timothy was what prompted Paul’s instructions to Timothy to tell the women in his church that they needed to stop being disruptive and cease those activities where they were trying to tell others how and what to teach…
11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. (1 Tim 2:11-14 [see also 1 Cor 14:34-35]).
Paul was addressing a situation where certain women were obstructing what would otherwise have been an orderly worship service. And while Paul is referring to the situation as it existed in Ephesus, it seemed to be an issue in Corinth as well (see 1 Cor 14:34-35). But to process his instructions as being utterly against any kind of female leadership or involvement is to ignore the original Greek as well as the numerous examples of the way in which women were used by God to lead and to teach large groups of people and even the nation of Israel itself.
III) Women Leaders in the Bible
Consider the following:
| Women Leaders in the Bible | ||
| name | reference | context |
| Miriam | Exodus 15:20 | Miriam is referred to as a prophetess and understandably so in the way God had spoken through her (Nu 12:1-2). She was a significant and well known figure in Israel’s history (see also Ex 15:1-21; Mic 6:4). |
| Deborah | Judges 4-5 | Deborah did an amazing job as Judge over all Israel. Barak, general of Israel’s army, listened to her and regarded her counsel as that which came directly from God (Jud 4:14). God uses her to pen an entire chapter of the Old Testament (Jud 5). Israel prospered and had peace under her leadership for 40 years (Jud 5:31). |
| Huldah | 2 Kings 22:11-20 | Huldah was the one that Josiah sought out to interpret the portion of the Law that was found in the Temple. He sent an all male delegation to her to find out how God was going to work. She was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Zephaniah. |
| Noadiah | Nehemiah 6:14 | Not much is said of either one of these two women, but they are nevertheless addressed as “prophetess.” |
| Isaiah’s Wife | Isaiah 8:3 | |
| Anna | Luke 2:36-38 | She’s referenced specifically as a prophetess. She was a contemporary of Simeon and, in like fashion, she approached Joseph and Mary and publicly reinforced Jesus’ true Identity and Mission. |
| Daughters of Philip | Luke 2:36-38 | Four daughters of a well-known evangelist described in the books of Acts as women who prophesied. |
| Lydia | Acts 16:40 | Lydia is an early convert and her house becomes an important location in Philippi where believers met to worship in a society where being a Christian was a huge risk. It’s here where Paul and Silas went after being released from prison before leaving the city. She’s not referenced as a leader, but she nevertheless stood out among her male counterparts as a crucial part of the evangelical work in that city (click here for more information). |
| Phoebe | Romans 16:1-2 | Paul describes Phoebe as a “servant” of the church in Cenchreae. That word “servant” is translated “diakonos” which is where we get our word, “deacon.” Paul uses that term to describe himself (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21-22, and even Jesus Himself (Rom. 15:8). For Pheoebe to rate that kind of title, it’s doubtful she was a mere spectator in her congregation. |
| Priscilla & Aquilla | Romans 16:3 | Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquilla as “fellow workers” who risked their lives for him. |
| Eudodia & Syntyche | Philippians 4:2-3 | These women are described as two who had “contended for the gospel.” The word “contended” is “synthaleo” which means to “fight or work alongside someone.” It’s not stuffing envelopes or answering phone calls. The fact that they’re referenced alongside Clement is significant as well because there’s good reason to believe that he would go on to be the leader of the church in Rome. To be listed referenced among those who had “strived” and would go on to lead and not just serve does little to support the idea that women had no leadership role in the early church let alone any real place in today’s efforts to teach and lead others when it comes to the gospel. |
IV) The English Language
The English language doesn’t possess the kind of expressive ability that’s characteristic of the Greek language. While Paul’s words can appear abrupt, the Greek word for “submission” comes from the Greek word “hupotasso” which is a military term that’s more about the voluntary alignment and organization of one’s resources beneath the heading of someone else’s authority. It’s not a forced obedience. The word word for “quietness” is “hesuchios” which refers to an “inner calm.” It’s not a dictatorial muzzle. It’s how you look and act when you’re at peace (click here for a full translation of 2 Timothy 2:11 as it appears in the original Greek).
V) Both Men and Women
So when you combine the multiple examples of women excelling in leadership roles throughout Scripture and the literal meaning of the words Paul used in the context of addressing difficult characters in the local church, it’s difficult to process Paul’s direction to the church in Ephesus and Corinth as universal prohibitions of women leading or teaching in general.
Fact is, when you look at the resume of Deborah and the courage of Priscilla and Aquilla, it’s obvious that God has gifted both men and women with exceptional gifts and character traits that you wouldn’t ever want to dismiss based on a mere portion of God’s Word as opposed to Scripture evaluated as a comprehensive whole.
Ask a Canaanite
The Conquest of the Promised Land was a series of military campaigns led by Joshua (see Josh 12). The mission was to completely destroy the Canaanites and settle the land that God had promised Abraham in Genesis (see Gen 13:14-17; 15:19-21).
That same land, by the way, is the land that the nation of Israel occupies today. Some process the violence initiated by the Israelites against the inhabitants of Canaan as being similar to the way in which other nations throughout history have determined to overwhelm neighboring countries and expand their borders and influence by force.
But the Conquest of the Promised Land wasn’t a self absorbed determination to divide and conquer. For all intents and purposes, Israel was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered from the start. They were hardly a threat, let alone a force, to be taken seriously by any of the fortified cities and established armies that comprised the area of Canaan (Numbers 28-33). The reason Israel triumphed was not because of their military might or because of their superior rating in the eyes of God (Dt 9:1-6), rather, it was because the Canaanites had become so decadent and so heinous in the eyes of God. Israel was merely an instrument of Divine Judgement (Dt 9:4).
But who were the Canaanites and what had they done that made them such an irritant in the eyes of God?
Let’s take a look…
I) Who Were the Canaanites?
When Noah’s voyage came to an end, he left the ark with his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From these three boys came all of the nations that are scattered around the earth to this day (Gen 9:19). Ham was a problem child and his rebellious nature was passed on to his sons, who you see listed in Genesis 10:6: Cush, Mizraim, Put and…Canaan. In verse 15, you see the sons of Canaan listed. Taken together, these families / tribes comprised the people group collectively referred to as the Canaanites. They were a wide spread group and as they lived and prospered, their territory grew. But as their landholdings increased, so did their decadence and perversion.
You see that in Genesis 24:3 where Abraham asks his chief servant to swear that he would not get a wife for his son Isaac among the Canaanites who he could see were degenerating into a life of wickedness. He also knew that however heinous the Canaanites were at the time, their conduct as well as their prospects would only get worse based on the fact that God had already told him that their land would be given to him.
II) God’s CleanUp Operation
By the time Moses and Joshua began what was actually God’s “clean up” operation in Deuteronomy 2-3, the pagan practices of the Canaanites were in full swing.
The religion of these pagan people were basically a fertility cult. At temple scattered throughout their land, Canaanite worshipers actually participated in lewd, immoral acts with “sacred” prostitutes. Theirs was a depraved form of worship that appealed to the base instincts of man’s animal nature.1
But more than just depravity, part of Baal worship included sacrificing children by burning them alive (2 Chron 28:2-3). In light of this kind of lifestyle and behavior, you can see why God’s anger would be peaking. And that’s why, in some cases, God instructed the Israelites to destroy entire cities and leave nothing alive.
Deuteronomy 20:10-15 instructs the Israelites to make an offer of peace to neighboring cities that were not within the explicit borders of the Promised Land. But verses 16-17 says to kill anything that breathes that lives within the walls of those cities that warranted the full wrath of God.
That included women and children.
Why would you kill women and children?
Do they not merit a kinder and more gentle treatment?
III) Women and Children…?
In Genesis 15:16, God is talking to Abraham and states how in the fourth generation of his family, his descendants would come back to the land he was living in presently and claim it as their own. There would be a bit of a delay because, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
A generation, in this instance is 100 years. 400 years later, you see that prophecy coming true in Deuteronomy 2. This is one of the first areas that were conquered by the Israelites as they entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the desert. Every town belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites, is completely destroyed. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, elaborates:
They put all the Amorites to the sword, men, women, and children (v. 33, v. 34); this they did as the executioners of God’s wrath; now the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity was full (Gen. 15:16 ), and the longer it was in the filling the sorer was the reckoning at last. This was one of the devoted nations. They died, not as Israel’s enemies, but as sacrifices to divine justice, in the offering of which sacrifices Israel was employed, as a kingdom of priests. The case being therefore extraordinary, it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for military executions, which make no distinction and give no quarter: those will have judgment without mercy that show no mercy. 3
This was not “business as usual.” As has already been pointed out, not every city / people group was put to the sword. But those who had distinguished themselves by wallowing in the kind of decadence that equated to spitting in the face of God over and over again – as Matthew Henry pointed out – it wasn’t a military action that was directed towards the Amorites, it was the wrath of God being prosecuted in a way that resulted in the total destruction of an entire nation.
Again, this was not a template, nor a precedent, but it’s an example of what can, and often does, occur to a nation that doesn’t just turn their back on God, but runs in the opposite direction over a period of centuries and by so doing sinks deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity that ultimately becomes their grave.
IV) Still, Women and Children?
There are scores of commentary and attempts to reconcile the idea of a loving God with genocide. Some want to suggest that the Biblical text is a form of hyperbole – that what we read as a slaughter of innocent women and children is a figure of speech and nothing more.
But the question isn’t “How could God be so cruel and destroy an entire nation including women and children?” Rather, the question should be, “How could an entire nation collectively say ‘No,’ to a loving God?” And as far as taking the lives of women and children, however difficult that may be from a human standpoint to process, consider this:
Anytime you’re inclined to think of God as cruel, you have to go back to the cross. With that one event, you have the ultimate exclamation point, as far as God’s unconditional love for all people (Rom 5:8). Is God capable of being a tyrant? The answer is “Absolutely, not!”
Just? Yes.
Cruel? No.
As far as human life is concerned, regardless of the age of the person in question, that individual was created by God (Ps 139:13). From that standpoint, we belong to God and our lives are ultimately His to do with as He pleases (Ps 24:1).
Rebuking God for the way in which He handles that which belongs to Him falls short of what’s logical and appropriate. And while some are quick to say, “But He has no right to be cold-hearted.” Again, the cross reveals that assertion as having no basis in fact. In addition, God’s essence is holy and completely devoid of anything evil (Job 34:10; Ps 77:3; 1 Jn 1;5; Jas 1:13). So, should He choose to do something that appears harsh, one can rest assured there’s a holy agenda being served (justice, punishment, discipline) as opposed to something sinister.
When we see an infant, we see the innocence and helplessness that defines that child at that moment. On the other hand, God sees their entire life laid out before Him. It’s not a life that has never been lived, it’s a known existence from start to finish. If God chooses to bring that person home before they’re born, it could very well be an act of mercy if that child is to grow up and do all kinds of evil.
By bringing that child immediately to their eternal dwelling, they’re prevented from condemning themselves as a result of their sin. As a side note, is it not ironic that many of those who are indignant with God, as far as Him commanding the death of infants and children, have no problem with babies being destroyed in the context of abortion?
While in most cases, it’s unfair to pit a man against a woman, in terms of physical strength, it’s neither wise nor healthy to suggest that a woman cannot pose a very real threat. Consider Jezebel. She was the wife of King Ahab. In 1 Kings 18, you see her behind a campaign to kill all of the prophets of God in Israel.
In the next chapter, after a brilliant display of God’s superiority over the Baal and his prophets that was facilitated through Elijah, Elijah now is running for his life in order to escape the indignation and the wrath of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:3). She was hideously evil (1 Kings 9:22; 21:25-26) and ruled over Israel through her sons after the death of her husband for a period of 10 years. In the end, she died a very violent and gruesome death (2 Kings 9:30-37) – a destiny that was prescribed in 1 Kings 21:23 as a punishment for the vile acts she committed against God and her subjects.
Jezebel demonstrates that one’s gender doesn’t limit the atrocities one can commit against God. No doubt, the females within the Canaanite community, given their reverence for Baal, were guilty of similar behaviors and were therefore deserving of the same kind of fate.
V) Conclusion
Anytime you’re confronted with a Divine act or behavior that seems out of Character for God, you’re being wise by establishing the cross as your starting point and from there allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as justice and there is such a thing as discipline.
Our perspective is limited (Is 55:8) and we’re not capable of seeing the big picture. Given those two dynamics, it’s more than appropriate to trust God even though certain aspects of a situation lack the kind of bottom lines we would prefer.
But regardless of harsh God’s Judgment was against the Canaanites, the fact was they were living a life and revering a standard that taunted the Reality of God. While grace is always available, it is possible to incur the wrath of your Heavenly Father?
How?
Ask a Canaanite.
1. “Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1986, p205
2. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
3. “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible”, biblstudytools.com, Deuteronomy 2, accessed July 3, 2016
Slavery in the Bible
While you find the word, “slavery” in the Bible, in no way shape or form do you find an endorsement for the kind of slavery that existed in the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not even close. Easton’s Bible Dictionary sums it up real well by saying that “Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel.” And the slavery that’s referred to in the New Testament is a Roman institution that contradicts the way the gospel defines all of humanity as being equal in the sight of God and therefore eliminates all cultural categories that would otherwise be used to justify the enslavement of a particular people group.” Still, while Scripture doesn’t give slavery a Divine stamp of approval, it is nevertheless present as a form of servitude that can appear harsh at times and in that way generates some questions which deserve some answers. Here’s what we’re going to look at:
- The Old Testament defines kidnapping as a capital offense. That directive alone is enough to destroy any notion of a Biblical endorsement of the slave trade as it existed in modern history.
- The word “slavery” in the Old Testament is used to describe one of three types of servitude, none of which entail the kind of inhumane dynamics that characterized the 18th and 19th century slave trade. It was:
- a temporary arrangement established for the sake of working off a debt that couldn’t otherwise be paid
- a work release program assigned to an apprehended thief which compelled him to work off the dollar amount of whatever had been stolen
- an alternative to war where the enemies of Israel agreed to live among the Hebrews as workers that were to be treated with kindness and respect
- In the New Testament, slavery was a Roman Institution that crumbled beneath the weight of the gospel in that all men are created equal under God. And while that Truth would be used to dismantle the machinations of the slave trade by future generations, it was also deployed as a way to redefine the relationship between master and slave in a manner that was both immediate and transformational
Here we go…
I) Slavery in the Old Testament
First of all, in Exodus 21:16, you read how kidnapping was considered a capital offense:
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
That verse alone is enough to condemn anyone to death who owned a slave in the United States during the time leading up to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. So, again, anyone who wants to even imply that Scripture condones the kind of slavery that existed in our country during the 17th and 18th centuries is absolutely wrong in that it was based on kidnapping. As far as the other kinds of slavery that are represented in the Old Testament, you have three basic categories:
There were no penitentiaries in the ancient world. If you stole something, you were to make restitution by working off the dollar value of whatever it is that you stole. You see this in Exodus 22:3:
A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. (Ex 22:3)
So, that’s not “slavery” per se as much as it’s a work release program.
The second appearance of “slavery” as it’s found in the Old Testament refers to that situation where you found yourself in debt and could not afford to pay it off. Since there was no such thing as a status of “bankruptcy” in the ancient world, you simply made yourself and / or members of your family available as servants (see 2 Kings 4:1-7 for examples of children being put to work to pay off debt).
Bear in mind that this was voluntary, temporary and was to be conducted in manner that honored the worker’s dignity:
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 4243 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:39-43 [see also Ex 21:2])
So, according to this verse, should you choose to hire yourself and / or your family to the person you were indebted to, you / they were in the employ of that person only until:
- the debt was paid off either through your labor or income you were able to earn through other means (Lev 25:49) or…
- a period of six years had passed or…
- the Year of Jubilee which happened every 50 years (see Ex 21:2)
The bottom line is that this kind of servanthood was designed to be temporary, dignified and voluntary and engaged as an alternative to bankruptcy. It was not permanent nor was it founded on the color of one’s skin and built around the idea that a human being was nothing more than a piece of property.
Apart from that situation where a thief is to offer restitution for his crime through an extended period of physical labor that matched the value of what had been stolen (Ex 22:3-4) or working off a debt that you couldn’t pay otherwise, the only other reference to slavery in the Old Testament is in Leviticus 25:44-46:
44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.
While it may see that this is a Divine Endorsement of Slavery, there’s more to this than what meets the eye and it goes back to the book of Genesis.
A) A Man by the Name of Canaan
All of the peoples in the world, both past and present, hail from one of the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Of these three, Ham distinguished himself as being especially heinous in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.
In Genesis 9:20-25, you read:
20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.
24 When Noah awoke from his drinking and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said:
Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.
Not only did Ham seemingly take some pleasure in mocking his father’s indecency and indiscretion, but there’s reason to believe, according to verse 24, that Ham actually did something to Noah. Whatever the case may be, Noah saw something in Ham that was also present in Canaan, Ham’s son – something that would surface in the form of a character trait that would result in idolatry and all the consequences that go along with it. In this instance, one of the consequences would be a lifetime of servitude.
B) Anything that Breathed…
Fast forward to the book of Joshua. The Israelites are getting ready to claim the land that had been promised to Abraham several centuries beforehand. But this wasn’t a mere collection of military campaigns, it was the Judgment of God being poured out against the vile behavior of…
…the descendants of Canaan.
Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination.1
The Canaanites have descended into a mindset that despises God, just as Noah had declared in his response to Ham’s belligerence centuries beforehand. Their idolatry and their immorality are so repugnant in the sight of the One that saved their forefathers from the Flood that they are now literally on death row from God’s standpoint. These aren’t whole people groups, however. Rather, they’re cities and areas that represent concentrated regions of pure evil and it’s these cities that God specifies in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:
16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God (Dt 20:16-18 [see also Dt 7:1-2]).
Again, these are geographical areas and not entire bloodlines. You see that in Joshua 11. There were Hivites among the northern kingdoms that joined forces against the Israelites that lived below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. The Israelites totally destroyed them. In verse 14-15, it says:
The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:14-15).
But, again…
C) …Only in Specific Areas
While there were Hivites among those destroyed in Joshua 11:14-15, there were also Hivites living in Gibeon:
19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:19-20)
So not every Hivite was killed. Only those that lived among the northern kingdoms referenced in Joshua 11:3 (they lived at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpah) were destroyed. But those that were spared were nevertheless condemned to become slaves as was stated centuries beforehand in Genesis 9:25.
Critics of Scripture are quick to point to the total decimation of all those that lived in the cities that God had directed Israel to destroy as evidence that God endorsed genocide. Their perspective is that a God Who would condone or, even worse, command the Israelites to “not spare anyone that breathed” is not worthy of worship.
Their indignation is ill founded, however.
First of all, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t entire people groups that were destroyed – just those that lived in areas that engaged in an aggressive brand of idolatry and decadence. Just like there were Hivites living in Gibeon as well as Mizpah, the Hittites were not exclusive to one particular area in that you have godly Hittites showing up later in Scripture occupying prominent positions within Israel such as Uriah, one of David’s Mighty Men (1 Chron 11:41 [“Uriah” in Hebrew means, “Yahweh is my light”]). So, yes there were entire cities that were put to the sword, but not entire ethnic groups. And the inhabitants of those cities slated for destruction were not mere military targets, they were direct descendants of the sons of Noah who knew and experienced God first hand. Yet, they chose a reprehensible lifestyle and a form of idolatry that was a belligerent dismissal of what they knew to be True which included an awareness of what happens when you choose a lifestyle that labors to advance a satanic agenda.
This is the wrath of God. And when you process it knowing the truly despicable psychology and methodology that characterized the Canaanites, while it still makes you cringe the way you might wince as you view pictures of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is an understandable horror given the evil that was being addressed and justly destroyed.
But not all those who deserved the wrath of God were taken to task for their actions. Some were given an option despite the spiritual blood on their hands.
D) You Have an Option…
Every city that constituted a threat to Israel, with the exception of those that were specified by God as being objects of His Wrath, were to be given the option of either being destroyed in combat or live among the Israelites as servants:
10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. 11 If it accepts your offer of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. (Dt 20:10-11)
If they didn’t accept that offer, however, the men were to be completely destroyed and all the remaining inhabitants:
12 However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. 13 When the Lord your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. 14 But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. (Dt 20:10-18)
So with the Conquest of the Promised Land, you have a large territory populated with a substantial number of people, many of whom have distinguished themselves as truly heinous in the eyes of God. They live in specific cites / areas that the Lord had directed the armies of Israel to wipe out entirely. Every city – even those that are slated for destruction – are given the option of surrendering and living among the Israelites as servants. But only Gibeon is allowed to take advantage of that offer (see Josh 11:20). Every other city chooses to fight Israel and God deals with them accordingly.
E) Surrounding Nations
There are the “other nations” surrounding the area where the Canaanites are being destroyed. It’s these nations that are being referred to in Leviticus 25. If you look at a map of the area surrounding Canaan, those nations would’ve included the Moabites, Hittites, Ammonites, the kingdom of Bashan, the Edomites and the Philistines. Take a look at the chart below and consider the lineage and the disposition that characterizes each of these nations.
| nation | lineage | history |
| Moab | Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was a descendant of Shem (see Gen 19:25) | Balak enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Num 22). The Moabites were hostile to Israel on more than one occasion. |
| Ammonites | Ammon was the son of Lot, the brother of Moab (see Gen 19:38). | They were a part of the party that enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel. They were enemies of Israel throughout their existence. Click here for more information. |
| Amorites | “Amorite” literally means, “dwellers in the summits.” They were not one particular nation, but a collection of Canaanites that dwelled in the high country as opposed to the lowlands. | In Numbers 21 you read of how the Israelites defeated Sihon king of the Amorites after he denied them permission to pass through his territory and attacked them. |
| Bashan | Bashan was an Amorite territory that consisted of 60 cities. | The king of Bashan was a giant of a man named Og. After the defeat of King Sihon, he and his army attacked Israel and were soundly defeated. |
| Edomites | The Edomites were descendants of Esau who was Jacob’s brother. But while they were close relatives, all of Esau’s wives came from the Canaanites. | The Edomites were hostile towards Israel (see Numbers 20:14-21) and are listed among the enemies of Israel that Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 14:47 and again in 2 Samuel 8:13-14 where David defeats them in combat and established garrisons in their cities. |
| Philistines | The Philistines were descendants of Egypt – one of Ham’s four sons (Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan). | While the Philistines are probably recognized most readily by the story of David and Goliath, they were enemies of Israel beginning as early as Genesis 26:14-15 when they were antagonistic towards Isaac. |
Joshua 12 gives a summary of all the nations and kings that were conquered as part of the conquest of the Promised Land. In Joshua 13, God identifies several other territories that need to be subdued but represent campaigns that are distinct from the original marching orders given to Moses and Joshua. Among those that God enumerates are the five cities within the territory of the Philistines. While the Philistines were not initially listed alongside those slated for destruction, the five cities that God specifies could nevertheless be counted as Canaanite cities. Reason being is that while they were governed by Philistine rulers, the inhabitants were entirely Canaanite and thus deserving of God’s wrath.
Each of these “surrounding nations” represent enemies of Israel and to be an enemy of Israel is to be an enemy of God (see 1 Sam 2:9-10; Zec 2:8). To oppose God is to invite His Wrath and that’s exactly what is going on behind the scenes when you’re looking at Israel’s military actions.
It’s not Israel’s tactical might nor their moral superiority that translated to increased land holdings or a greater population of servants (Dt 9:1-6). It’s the fact that all of these nations, to varying degrees, had identified themselves as enemies of God and it’s for that reason that they were either executed, defeated in combat or allowed to live among the Israelites as servants.
Given the obvious tension that existed between Israel and her hostile neighbors, it’s not difficult to imagine the potential for the way in which a slave might be physically abused by a Hebrew or the hostile actions a passionate enemy of Israel might attempt while serving an Israelite. God made it very clear on numerous occasions that a foreigner was to be treated with dignity and respect. Even those Egyptians that had chosen to live among the Israelites were to be treated with kindness and love:
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev 19:34)
That being the case, should a foreign soldier find themselves working for an Israelite and they give full vent to the antagonism they feel towards the Hebrew community by doing something heinous, while their actions may merit some harsh discipline, their punishment was to be just and not used as an excuse to play out hostile intentions based on past social and military experiences.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Ex 21:20-21)
By the way, the word “property” in Exodus 21 is actually translated “money.” It’s not a term to be interpreted as something demeaning as much as it’s referring to the worth of that servant’s labor. The Contemporary English Version translates it as:
However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property. *Ex 21:21 [CEV])
Another thing to consider is the way in which runaway slaves were treated. Rather than them being returned to their master, they’re allowed to remain with whomever they took refuge:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Dt 23:15)
The bottom line is that “slavery” in the Old Testament is completely different from the slave trade that existed in the United States. Whereas slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was a form of servanthood that was either offered as a means by which you could pay off a financial debt, or imposed as a work release program / alternative to judgment, the slave trade as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on kidnapping (a capital offense) and the dehumanization of individuals to the point where they were mere appliances with no rights, no future and no real value.
II) Slavery in the New Testament
In the New Testament, the world is ruled by Rome and their domination was maintained almost entirely by slave labor.
Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.2
Much of the slave population in the Roman Empire was procured in the context of military campaigns where those who were defeated were enslaved. Their numbers were further supplemented by piracy and kidnapping.
Unlike the situation in the Old Testament where Israel’s military victories and their domination over the surrounding nations were a consequence of those countries’ resolve to rebel against God, Rome’s approach to the world was inspired by nothing more other than to simply increase its size and might as is evidenced by the way in which they defined themselves as dedicated disciples of Mars, the god of war (see sidebar to the right). And while those who were consigned to a lifetime of menial labor within the Hebrew community were treated with kindness and respect, those that had to answer to their Roman masters were nothing more than pieces of property who had fewer rights than freed criminals. This was not an institution endorsed or invented by God. Whereas slavery in the Old Testament was either a way of paying off a financial debt – be it a loan or something you stole – or offered to a condemned people as an option to being a casualty of a just war, here it’s just a terrible manifestation of greed and a will to dominate those around you.
In addition to Scripture’s condemnation of kidnapping, which deals a lethal and final blow to the slave trade right out of the chute, there’s also the fact that because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) you can’t rightfully strip a person of their humanity to the degree where they’re nothing more than an appliance. Genesis 9:6 demonstrates that because man is made in the image of God that murder is considered an assault on the Person of God as well as an attack on the individual:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Gen 9:6 [see also Jas 3:9])
In a similar way, to reduce a person to nothing more than an intelligent beast is to ignore the Divine Dignity that characterizes every human being that has ever walked this earth. You see this expressed in Job 31:13-15:
“If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me 14 what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? 15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13-15)
Yet, this is what the Roman brand of slavery was: A demeaning subjugation of another human being that, not only consigned them to a lifetime of hard labor, but also stripped them of the most basic human rights. God’s condemnation of such an institution was expressed in the Old Testament, as has already been mentioned (Lev 19:34). But God’s grace takes it a step further by erasing all of the cultural boundaries that would otherwise elevate one person over another.
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)
It’s that Truth in particular that Paul emphasizes in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus was a runaway slave that had, at one point, belonged to Philemon. Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and then ran away to Rome – a crime punishable by death. But after hearing the preaching of Paul, he became a believer and worked alongside Paul for a season before deciding he needed to make things right with his former master.
While Onesimus would’ve been safe under Old Testament law (Dt 23:15-16) in that, while he would’ve been held responsible for what he stole, he would not have been handed over to his original master, his future was far more bleak under Roman law. But in the context of the gospel, Philemon and Onesimus are in a place where they can view each other as equals in that they’re both sinners saved by grace.
This is what Paul is referring to when he says…
12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. (Philemon 1:12-16)
So, while in the Old Testament where a slave who had taken refuge with another person was not to be handed back over to their original master, Paul points to the New Covenant that is even more liberating by admonishing Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a… …brother!
As has already been mentioned, Roman law forbade the harboring of fugitives and runaways were often punished with great severity. Freedom was a possibility but, for all intents and purposes, was highly unlikely. You were doomed to watch others bask in the light of comfort and liberty while you were forever destined to be at their beck and call to do whatever work needed to be done.
It was a crushing reality in some cases, in others it was just a cultural and legal weight that had to be borne with no complaint and to aspire to the status of a free man was to reach for something that was virtually impossible. Given that kind of culture, imagine the response of a master whose slave is suddenly enthusiastic about doing the work they’re assigned to do. Ponder what must’ve been going in the mind of a Roman whose slave bordered on belligerent just yesterday and is now respectful and even pleasant.
This is what the New Testament encouraged among those who were slaves. While both the Old and New Testament provide a voluminous and substantial body of Divine Concepts for the abolitionist, the New Testament don’t merely condemn slavery as much as it eliminates any social construct that could justify the elevation of one person over another by establishing all people being equal in the sight of God .
You see this in the book of Colossians. To slaves he says:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)
And to their masters, he says:
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Col 4:1)
In order for this change to occur, it would require a Divine change of heart which is precisely what the gospel facilitates:
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here… 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:17; 21 [see also Jn 1:3])
It’s in the context of being a “new creation” and becoming the “righteousness of God” that, not only would the relationship between slave and master be dramatically changed, it would also promote the Power and the Reality of the gospel itself. And as the gospel spread, so did the tools and the Truth that would one day be used to eliminate slavery entirely.
III) Conclusion
Critics of Scripture have a series of talking points that can be hard to refute if you engage them according to the way in which they formulate their convictions. They’re not looking at a full color portrait, they’re looking at a black and white thumbnail that resonates as compelling only if certain elements are accepted as both comprehensive and assumed givens.
If you structure your rebuttal according to a series of questions whose answers reveal those elements as flawed, they’re forced to concede the fact that their argument is lacking. On the other hand, if you target only those things they cite as relevant, you never get beyond the thumbnail and, not only does your platform look anemic, more importantly the full color portrait gets overlooked and the Truth gets ignored once again.
That said…
Does the Bible advocate kidnapping as an acceptable practice?
No. It doesn’t. It was a capital offense which means that the Slave Trade as it existed in the United State during the 18th and 19th centuries is contrary to God’s Word.
What did the nation of Israel provide as an alternative to penitentiaries? How did an Israelite go about filing for bankruptcy?
You didn’t file for bankruptcy, rather you worked off the dollar amount of whatever you owed. And if you were guilty of having stolen something, you were not incarcerated, instead you provided restitution by working off the value of whatever it is that you stole. These were the dynamics that characterized two of the three types of slavery referenced in the Old Testament.
Did the Israelites offer their enemies the opportunity to live among them as respected servants as an alternative to war?
Yes. To raise your hand against the Israelites was to take your idolatry a step further in that now you were not only ignoring Him, you were actively seeking to destroy His Work and His People. This placed you in a category of wrongdoing so heinous that justice in the form of the death penalty was an absolutely certainty. On the other hand, to live among the Israelites as dignified servants allowed you a second chance and in that way receive grace that, apart from God’s intervention, was neither deserved nor desired.
Was the slavery that existed in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ similar to the slavery referenced in the Old Testament?
No. Slavery was a consequence of war in the Roman world. In the Old Testament, it was either an alternative to war or an institution used to make restitution for a crime or make good on a debt. And where slavery in the Roman empire involuntarily reduced you to a subhuman status with no rights and no prospects, in the Old Testament it was an option and one that was chosen in the context of respect and dignity.
How can Scripture be said to promote slavery when it was the Bible that the Abolitionist used as a philosophical foundation upon which to base their argument that slavery was wrong? When Abraham Lincoln took the stage in his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was his articulate condemnation of slavery that earned him the Republican party’s nomination for President. On September 16, 1859, in Columbus, Ohio, he gave a speech. In it, you can see a sample of the rhetoric that earned him a spot in the national spotlight. Stephen Douglas believed slavery to be something that could be engaged on the premise that negroes were subordinate to the white race and were not to be thought of as equals in any way. And he believed that the slavery question should be determined by individual states – an approach referred to as “popular sovereignty.”
Lincoln identifies the fallacy of that argument by referring to a comment made by Thomas Jefferson almost a century beforehand that references the inevitably justice of God and how it will be visited upon the United States because of the way certain elements approved of and even insisted upon the enslavement of the black race.
Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.
Bottom line: Those who insist that the Bible condones slavery rely on a distortion of Scripture and not an expression of it. Remember, it was the Christian creed that inspired the spiritual songs4 of freedom sung by the slaves and it was that same doctrine that the abolitionists based their arguments upon5.
To even suggest that the Bible supports slavery requires a limited intake of Scripture, a biased perspective on history and a resolve to base one’s convictions on an intentionally streamlined collection of facts rather than a comprehensive analysis of the truth.
1. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
2. “Slavery in the Roman World,” Mark Cartwright, “Ancient History Encyclopedia”, https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/, accessed November 1, 2019
3. “Military of Ancient Rome”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome, accessed November 1, 2019
4. African American Spirituals Lyrics, https://africanamericanspirituals.com/African-American-Spirituals-Lyrics.htm, accessed January 21, 2020
5. “Christian Abolitionism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism, accessed January 22, 2020
