VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Welcome To Keys 2 the Kingdom International Covenant Communion's Discussion Forum. The Pardigm shifting(or should I say have shifted)in the Body of Christ, wich is necessary for the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Come on in and Join this apostolic gathering.
http://k2kicc.info
The Armor of God -- Keys 4 the Kingdom, 14:07:00 11/23/05 Wed

And for those who doubt that Satan has power in this world, please read the following Scriptures;

JOB 1

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

4 And his sons went and feasted [in their] houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

5 And it was so, when the days of [their] feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings [according] to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

13 And there was a day when his sons and his daughters [were] eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:

14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:

15 And the Sabeans fell [upon them], and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

17 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

18 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters [were] eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:

19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,

21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.



JOB 2

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he [is] in thine hand; but save his life.

7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.

9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

11 Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place; Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite: for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.

12 And when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept; and they rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven.

13 So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that [his] grief was very great.



(Those who may think that Job was an allegorical or mythical figure should also read Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and James 5:11, in which God Himself and the apostle James affirm that he was a real, living man who indeed suffered what was done to him in the Scriptures above.)



LUKE 4:1-13

1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

11 And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.



REVELATION 13:11-15

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.



Those who might discount the Job references as being Old Testament examples and therefore invalid because Jesus had not yet defeated Satan, Revelation records that the false prophet will also be able to make fire come down from the sky in the sight of men, even as Satan did in the book of Job; he will also have power to cause an idol of the Antichrist to move and speak, which powers are attributed to Satan.



On a side note, another primary reason why we should be familiar with God's written Word, is that in Luke 4:9-11 above, Satan quoted word for word Psalms 91:11-12 to Jesus, but he took it completely out of context. The actual Psalm reads;

PSALMS 91

1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2 I will say of the LORD, [He is] my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, [and] from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler.

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; [nor] for the arrow [that] flieth by day;

6 [Nor] for the pestilence [that] walketh in darkness; [nor] for the destruction [that] wasteth at noonday.

7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; [but] it shall not come nigh thee.

8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9 Because thou hast made the LORD, [which is] my refuge, [even] the most High, thy habitation;

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I [will be] with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.



The promises in this Psalm are from God to us, and does not mean that angels will literally hold us up so that we will not fall if we trip on a rock. It refers to the fact that God will have His angels protect us in our spiritual walk with Him. This also shows that Satan will use Scripture when it suits his purposes, but he will not always use it in context.

Also, this does not mean that God has wings and feathers. It refers to birds hiding and protecting their young from harm. Even so does God hide us from the destruction of the wicked.



Now, back to the meat of this study.

In 1944 the Nazi High Command knew that Germany had lost the war, but it didn't keep them from fighting savagely to the end. The same will be with Satan and his angels. They know they have lost the war, but they will keep fighting to the bitter end and will try to take as many people to the Lake of Fire with them as they can.

They will not stop until Jesus comes, and neither can we. It is a life-and-death struggle with eternal consequences, and we need to understand this! We are at war, and we can't fight if we don't know how to wage war spiritually and arm ourselves for the battle.



For those who may not think we're at war, you might want to read Paul's warning below;

II CORINTHIANS 10:3-5

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;



We have faced physical and spiritual demonic attacks, and only by claiming the armor and using the power and authority of Jesus Christ that He has given us were we able to win. But you must have faith and believe that you have power over Satan and his works or you will be ineffective and will lose the battle.

I seriously recommend that you obtain and read Dr. Rebecca Brown's books "He Came To Set The Captives Free", "Prepare For War", "Becoming A Vessel Of Honor", and "Unbroken Curses". These books are the most powerful I have ever read concerning spiritual warfare, and she is 100% correct Scripturally as far as I have been able to check.

These fascinating books denote the workings of Satan through his servants who worship him, document physical demon assaults against Christians, and tells how the power of Jesus Christ and the armor of God helped to defeat them. They also document how the armor of God has been used in the physical world. And they are all true stories.

Yes, Jesus defeated Satan at the cross and took away his authority in this world, but not his power! He is still a powerful enemy to be reckoned with, and is not ever to be taken lightly! Ever heard the phrase, "Never underestimate your enemy"?



Scripture warns us of the power of Satan when it says;

I PETER 5:8-9

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

One thing to note about lions. When on the prowl, they roar to intimidate their prey, attempting to paralyze them with fear. But when they attack they are silent. Satan is the same way. Why should he use the direct approach when a silent unexpected attack would be just as effective if not more so? And who can successfully fight a lion without weapons and armor?

We sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war" and yet think little about this world being a literal spiritual battleground, which is why so many Christians suffer when they don't need to. We beg God for deliverance from demonic attacks, and yet we don't use the authority and weapons He has given us to fight with! In battle a soldier is expected to fight and use the weapons he is given to the best of his ability, and God expects the same from us.

Jesus said to the disciples, and through them to us;

LUKE 10:19-20

9 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.



We are expected to use the power and authority given to us. I think many Christians fear spiritual warfare is because in any war there is a chance you'll get hurt. This is true, and Satan fights with very real spiritual weapons. But believe me, if you don't fight Satan and take authority over him I guarantee you WILL get hurt!

And when Jesus said that nothing will hurt us, he meant that our spirits will not be harmed. He never promised us that physical harm would not befall us. In fact He warned us constantly about persecutions, and there are many examples of persecutions of Christians both in the New Testament as well as secular history.



Now, let's take a look at the armor as quoted in Scripture, and see exactly what it is and what it does.

EPHESIANS 6:10-17

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:



Ok, let's take it from the top.



Helmet of salvation:

This is designed to protect the mind. The mind is the gateway to the soul, and it is here that the doorway lies that gives Satan access and entrance into a person, especially in cases of possession. Once Satan enters, he binds the human spirit and gains control over the soul which generates our personalities. That's why as a person becomes demon infested their behavior starts to change. The infesting demons begin controlling the soul, or in some cases shove the human soul aside and take direct control.

Such was the cases of demon-infested people that Jesus dealt with. These people no longer had control over themselves, and when Jesus confronted them, note that it was the demons that spoke through the possessed people, not the souls of the people themselves.



MATTHEW 8:28-34

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

34 And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought [him] that he would depart out of their coasts.



MARK 1:21-27

21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.

22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

24 Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.



Notice in the above Scriptures that it was the demons that spoke to Jesus. In the first case, it was two violently insane men, both who knew immediately who Jesus was, even though He had seemingly never been there before. The men didn't know Jesus, but their demon masters did. We can't see into the spiritual world unless given special permission by God, but demons can see into both the physical and the spirit worlds.





The same with the man in the synagogue. The controlling demon knew immediately who Jesus was, and spoke through it's human host.

The reason why God doesn't allow us to see into the spirit world is to protect us from what we would see. For if we could see the demons we were fighting, we could become paralyzed with fear both by their size and appearance. And by the same token, it forces us to rely on God in faith, believing in One that we cannot see, to help fight an enemy we many times cannot see either.



God gave us a logical mind to reason with, to distinguish the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, a result of Adam's eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. For more about this subject, please see the study on the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil in this Web site.

The subconscious mind believes everything it is told. It is well known that in cases of hypnotism, that if a person is given a strong onion and is told that it is an apple, the subconscious believes it to be so, and the person eating it will believe it to be an apple too, because the conscious mind is "asleep" and cannot tell the subconscious differently. (Need I say more about the spiritual dangers of hypnotism to a Christian?)

The subconscious relies on the conscious mind to protect it from evil. Therefore the conscious mind is a barrier that Satan must get past to enter and conquer a person's soul. He must use temptation as a form of bait to get past the conscious mind for if the person accepts the "bait", the doorway opens and Satan the ultimate lawyer, has a legal right to attack the person and will definitely use that as a petition before God to do so. And if a person continually gives in to the temptation, the door will open wide enough that Satan will enter and take control. And believe me, he will!

Remember, your conscious mind provides the "early warning system " of a demonic attack!And if you don't know the Scriptures, how will you be able to use the sword of the Spirit to defend yourself?



The author of Hebrews rebukes the readers of his letter for not exercising their minds in understanding the Scriptures when he says;

Hebrews 5:12-14

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.



The author of Hebrews is saying that the people he was writing to had not grown in the Word, and were still stumbling over the foundations of Christianity, when they should have been knowledgeable enough in the Scriptures to teach others. Thus they were still "babes" in the Word, needing for someone to feed them milk, essentially the fundamentals of Christianity.

Paul reinforces this point when he says;

I CORINTHIANS 14:20

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.



II TIMOTHY 1:7

7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.



Therefore the helmet is designed to help us to resist the subtle influences and direct assaults of Satan against our minds in his attempt to gain control of our souls.





The breastplate of righteousness:

This is designed to protect our heart. Not necessarily the physical heart, but the emotions. When you are hurt emotionally and cry, your body is reacting to the emotions generated by the soul. When you are happy your body reacts to the joy that your soul feels with laughter and the like.

Satan is a master of manipulation, and emotions are a favorite target. If he can access and control the emotions, then he can circumvent the conscious mind and gain control of a person. Have you ever reacted emotionally, then realized later what you had done? Basically reacted without thinking? Me too.

Strong emotions many times seem to have a way of bypassing logical thought, causing us to act impulsively, irrationally, or do something without thinking. Love, hate, fear, lust, rage, jealousy, all strong emotions, all have a way of becoming intense enough to seemingly "short-circuit" the conscious mind and cause us to do things without thinking first, things which we many times regret later.

Scripture records numerous times where leaders brought trouble upon themselves because of this.

A good example of this would be the case with king David and Bathsheba. David reacted with lust for Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and slept with her while Uriah was away at war. Then, when she told him that she was pregnant with his child, he called her husband home from the war that Israel was fighting at the time and tried to get him to sleep with Bathsheba. That way Uriah her husband would think the child to be his own.

However Uriah, being an honorable man, slept with the servants figuring that none of his comrades fighting the war were sleeping with their wives, so why should he sleep with his wife when they couldn't sleep with theirs?

David, growing more and more fearful, ordered Uriah back to the war and ordered Joab the captain of the army to put Uriah in the forefront of the battle, then retreat suddenly so that Uriah would be killed.

Joab did so, and Uriah was killed in battle. David then married Bathsheba to try to cover his sin, but the prophet Nathan revealed before all Israel both his sins of adultery and murder. David had reacted emotionally, rather than with logical thought which would have stopped him in the first place.

Therefore the breastplate is given to us to keep Satan from accessing our emotions and overriding our conscious mind, causing us to sin without conscious thought warning us that what we are about to do is wrong.



The belt of truth:

This piece of the armor is linked with the sword of the Spirit. Just as a belt is used to hold the scabbard of a sword, the belt of truth holds the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and is itself, truth. The power of the sword is the truth, which Satan cannot stand against as there is no truth in him. More on the sword in a bit.



The shoes of the preparation of the Gospel of peace:

These are to protect our feet from the snares and traps that Satan lays in our path, trying to disrupt our walk with the Lord. Ancient gladiators used nets during fights in the arenas, trying to snare the sword arm or the feet of their opponents so as to gain an advantage in the battle. Face it, it's hard to fight effectively when your feet are entangled!



Wait a minute, we're missing a piece. Where's the backplate?

Aha! Here we come to a vital point in this study. God seemingly didn't provide us with a backplate, as we are expected to face Satan in battle. If we turn our backs on him because of apathy, complacency, fear, laziness or the like, he has an open target to attack.

However, if we face him fully armed and armored, and we have Almighty God standing behind us to back us up, there is no greater protection for our backs that I can think of! However this also brings up another important point.

Never, ever engage in a battle that the Lord has not sent you into! Many well-meaning Christians either get into a battle without the Lord's permission, or actively seek battles just to prove the Lord's power.

Consider this, though. If you enter a battle without the Lord's permission, He will not back you up, and you will suffer defeat.

Case in point. When the twelve spies sent by Moses returned from scouting Canaan after the Israelites had left Egypt, ten of the spies brought horrifying stories of giants in the land and massive walled cities that were too fortified to be destroyed. Only two spies, Joshua and Caleb believed that the Lord was capable of bringing Israel victory over the Canaanites. As a result, the Israelites railed against Moses, and wanted to return to Egypt.

The Lord became fed up with their constant whining, and ordered Moses to take Israel back into the desert, promising that the entire generation of Israel from the age of twenty years old and upward would die in the wilderness, and would not enter the Promised land.

Rebellious Israel decided to take things into their own hands. Scripture records;

Numbers 14:1-45

1 And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night.

2 And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!

3 And wherefore hath the LORD brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt?

4 And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.

5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.

6 And Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, [which were] of them that searched the land, rent their clothes:

7 And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, [is] an exceeding good land.

8 If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.

9 Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they [are] bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD [is] with us: fear them not.

10 But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.

11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear [it], (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;)

14 And they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land: [for] they have heard that thou LORD [art] among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and [that] thy cloud standeth over them, and [that] thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.

15 Now [if] thou shalt kill [all] this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying,

16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.

17 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying,

18 The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation].

19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.

20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

21 But [as] truly [as] I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;

23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

25 (Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley.) To morrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.

26 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

27 How long [shall I bear with] this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.

28 Say unto them, [As truly as] I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:

29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,

30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, [concerning] which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.

32 But [as for] you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.

33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.

34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.

36 And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,

37 Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.

38 But Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, [which were] of the men that went to search the land, lived [still].

39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly.

40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we [be here], and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned.

41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper.

42 Go not up, for the LORD [is] not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies.

43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites [are] there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.

44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp.

45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, [even] unto Hormah.



Because of their sin and rebellion the Israelites were not to enter into the promised land. Even so with us, we must keep ourselves free from sin. For when Satan prepares to attack, he first looks closely at us to see what our weaknesses are.

If we have active sin in our lives, this shows up as a weakness in our armor, a weakness he can and will exploit. By the same token, if we are not close in our relationship with the Lord because of sin, complacency, or whatever, he will use this against us also.

As was shown above, Moses knew that the Lord would not go before Israel to war against the Canaanites, so he and the ark of the Covenant stayed in the camp. And the Lord stayed in the camp also.

This is why we need to remain in close fellowship with the Lord, avoid sin, and ask for cleansing and forgiveness from Him if we do sin, just to remain strong spiritually.

By the same token, we are not called to fight all battles we come across. There have been many times where I wanted to fight for another Christian who was embattled, and the Lord forbid me. He chooses our battles for us, and if we go to battle presumptuously, He will not protect us, and we will more than likely suffer defeat.

Some battles are for others to fight, and we should not question the Lord in this matter.

Case in point. Some years ago my wife and I were visiting a lady who is also a Christian. As we were visiting, I suddenly sensed a demon presence in the back part of the house. Within moments we all felt it. So, I went down the hall and tried to cast it out, but couldn't.

I questioned the Holy Spirit, and he told me it wasn't for me to cast out, but He wanted this lady to cast it out. She immediately protested that she couldn't do any such thing. We prayed about the issue, and then instructed her as to how to put on the armor and cast the demon out. She then went down the hall, ordered it to leave in Jesus' name, and I felt it go.

She came back totally astonished that she, through the power of Jesus Christ had been able to cast it out and I had to admire her for her courage and faith. Up to that point she had felt she wasn't strong enough as a Christian to do spiritual warfare, and the Holy Spirit proceeded to teach both of us a lesson. The battle was for her to fight, and she needed to believe that she could have authority over demons in Jesus' name.

Some dispute the idea of there being no backplate mentioned in Scripture, saying that the breastplate was linked to a backplate, and was considered as part of the armor. This may be the case, although I find it interesting that no backplate is specifically mentioned.



Shield of faith:

This is the mightiest piece of defensive armor we have, and is also the most vulnerable. A warrior trusts in his shield as the first line of defense against attack, and if the enemy penetrates that shield, the warrior is in for close hand-to-hand combat.

Our faith in Jesus must be one of the strongest parts in our Christian relationship. If our faith is weak, our shield is weak and we will fall to Satan's attacks far more than we should. And what is so fascinating, the shield has also been used as a physical armor against Satanists to protect Christians from physical attack by Satan's servants! Again I refer you to Dr. Rebecca Brown's books for information on this issue.

Remember, faith is a requirement to pleasing God. As Scripture records;

GALATIANS 3:10-11

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.



HEBREWS 11:6

6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.



Therefore God expects our faith to be strong enough to be our first line of defense against Satan. And our faith is strengthened by reading and understanding the Scriptures.

Also, it is very important that you have a close personal relationship with the Lord if you expect Him to protect you. His arm isn't short that it cannot protect you, but you also need to understand several things.

The seven sons of Sceva in the book of Acts tried spiritual warfare without having a right relationship with the Lord or knowing about the armor, and learned a very powerful lesson concerning these issues. Scripture records;

ACTS 19:13-17

13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14 And there were seven sons of [one] Sceva, a Jew, [and] chief of the priests, which did so.

15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.


[ Edit | View ]

Conspiracy in the Church -- Keys to the Kingdom, 13:55:18 11/23/05 Wed

Do you believe a misuse of our wealth could be a very deadly exercise? Could the misuse of our wealth be deathly serious? That’s what we want to look at today.

Perhaps we think of our own theology of possessions and wealth as something distinct from our Christianity, distinct from our religion. But, as we’ve seen in our series this summer, they are really linked.

We started with Moses and saw what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch about a theology of possessions and wealth. Then, if you remember, we moved to David, to Joseph, and to Solomon, who knew something about wealth. We looked at Jesus’ words, that he talked more about wealth, possessions, and money then he did about heaven itself. Why? Because they are so closely linked.

Today we want to look at the book of Acts—the early church. We’ll finish next week with a look at James and 1 Peter. A look at what the early church began to say and assimilate as far as what we should believe as Christians in regards to a philosophy or theology of our possessions and wealth.

And yet it looks like I’m preaching to the choir. I got back and, $50,000 since March 1? I remember the elders looking at $50,000 from March 1 to September 1—there’s no way!

But we have to have some goal to shoot at, something for our people to pray about, to be challenged about. Pastor Dave gave me a phone call when I was away. “Guess what? We’ve already surpassed it with two weeks still to go!” But, perhaps there are some churches that don’t experience or enjoy that. In fact, if we think through the story here about Ananias and Sapphira we see that they didn’t really believe, they didn’t grasp, they didn’t make the parable of the great pearl their own.

Let’s look at that, Matthew 13: 44-46:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it he hid it again, and then it his joy went away and sold everything he had and bought it. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

Do you believe that is what the kingdom of heaven is like? Is it worth taking everything you have and saying, it’s not mine. It’s not my exclusive possession. I want God to use everything and anything I have for His glory, for His honor, and for the glory and honor of my brother and sister.

The Jews understood the misuse of funds. Jews understood that God gives us our possessions and our wealth in order to minister to other people and in order to promote the kingdom of God. That’s why God blesses us with our wealth. Why? So we can give to other people. They understood the importance of ministering and loving those who are poor among them. Deuteronomy 15:11 approaches that:

There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Are we openhanded as evangelicals, are we openhanded as Christians to be able to take our moneys, to distribute and use them to those who are hurting?

Remember Mary anointing Jesus’ feet. What a strong narrative that was in the gospels. Those that were taking care of the finances among the apostles said, oh that’s a lot of money to be washing somebody’s feet, isn’t it? Remember Jesus rebuking such a comment. The crowd of self-righteous judges judged Mary when the very presence of the poor judges the whole community of believers. Her very presence, giving all that she had and the widow’s mite, giving all that she had, was a judgment in and of itself upon a community of believers that would turn their backs on the poor and seek to use their finances on themselves.

Let’s think about this, Ananias and Sapphira. What happened here? What was going on? We better start in context in Acts 4. Chapter 5 doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Something was going on in the early church. Look at Acts 4: 34-37:

There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

What an example of generosity. What an example of a Biblical theology of wealth and possessions. He wanted to take all that he had and give it to those who were hurting, to those who had needs, to those who needed financial help.

Here comes chapter 5. Ananias is an Old Testament form of Hananiah. “God has granted” is what it means. How ironic, his name in the Hebrew sense would mean God has granted. Everything you have, God has given you, the clothes you wear, the house you live in, the car you drive. Ananias’ name means God has granted and yet he’s going to hold onto something. He is going to hold onto something God has given him. Sapphira is an Aramaic word for beautiful.

Here it is, the early church, many coming, land and home owners were selling properties bringing in the money from the sales and laying them at the feet of the leadership so that they could distribute it. This phrase, from time to time, is interesting. It shows a repeated as-need basis. It wasn’t a normative, one-time shot. It wasn’t, as you became a Christian you sold everything you had and became communal. It was from time to time, to give to those who had need. Please don’t assume that all were at the same economic level. That doesn’t seem to be the case. The text says that some owned property and some were in need. It wasn’t totally communal, totally socialistic. There were different economic levels there. But the principle was that they desired to live out the example of Deuteronomy 15:4. That text says, “There should be no poor among you.”

The pharmaceutical company, Merck, developed a drug that could cure river blindness from those who had it in third world countries. But when they developed this drug that could cure river blindness they noticed that when they turned around to sell it those that needed it could not afford it. So what did they do? They jacked the price up higher? No. They made a political play on it? No, they didn’t do that either. They decided to give the drug away, free to those who needed it. That was the idea and thought of the early church. They gave things away because some needed it.

You know there’s a concert coming up, coming right here to Woodbridge, Labor Day. John Michael Talbot, anyone heard of him? When he started in a band called Mason Prophet, he was shocked by the materialism within the church and within the world he saw when he was performing. He left the band, Mason Prophet, and began a spiritual journey with many turns. He was inspired by the life of Francis of Assisi. He sold everything he owned and joined a secular Franciscan order. He built a hermitage in the woods near Indianapolis. He crafted his monk habit from discarded Army blankets. He later began his music ministry and founded The Little Portion Hermitage in Eureka Springs. Today, this community, Brothers and Sisters of Charity, have about 40 members of the monastery and 500 members in their own homes worldwide. What did John Michael Talbot do? Why did he have to change like that? Because he grasped what it meant to have a Biblical theology of possessions and wealth, and he gave it away. He could have become very wealthy. He could have gotten a lot of money from his gift, skills, and from performing but he decided not to do it.

Here it is, the early church giving away right in the context of Ananias and Sapphira. They didn’t cling to their possessions as if they belonged exclusively to them. Their possessions were fluid. They were there to give away, to use for others. Some have said, in their studying of some of the Qumran materials—the Dead Sea scrolls—they have this motto prior to Christianity starting and forming: What’s mine is yours. What the narrative shows in Acts is that giving is personal but not private. Do you believe that? We’ve always said in the evangelical community, since I’ve been a believer in 1978, that giving is personal and private. Some commentator I read this week said, yes, giving is very, very personal, but it wasn’t private here in Acts 5.

The second thing we see from this narrative is that somehow they could not see their sins. Look with me in verses 1 and 2:

A man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Now you’re probably thinking, now wait a minute, didn’t the church have all things in common according to Acts 2:44–47? Wasn’t everything together? Why were they holding onto some property? Were they recent converts?

It seems like there were two different entities within that early church. Some did decide to share everything, they sold everything they had, perhaps they didn’t have as much. But then there was another group, perhaps, that had property and decided at points, from time to time the text says, to sell that property and then give it to the church. Some landowners could do that. Or perhaps a family had a property surplus, which did not meet the needs of the community. They couldn’t do anything with it until something would happen. Or perhaps they received an inheritance or a business transaction where they could then turn the property over. The text doesn’t tell us. All we know is that Ananias and Sapphira came across this. Maybe a family had some swampland or maybe it was near Vienna, or it was toxic, or it was dedicated to an idol. Who knows? But somehow this land became available and they gave it up.

Verse 2 tells us that it was with his wife’s full knowledge. It wasn’t just Ananias hurting Sapphira. It wasn’t just Sapphira hurting Ananias. They both knew what was going on—they kept back a part of the money. The Greek term, nosphizomai means to swindle, to embezzle. They stole money that was supposedly devoted to God.

This made me think, how do we do that today? How do we take money that we devote to God? Maybe we promise to give them to the church, in a building-type sense. Maybe we say or tell others that we’re giving money to the church and we don’t. It’s supposed to be devoted to God but we don’t give it.

We use the term in our society, workaholic. People are workaholics. Why are people workaholics? What does being a workaholic do for them? If we really hold to true wisdom, that true wisdom is to be rich toward God, then work should have a limited yet important place in our lives. We will work hard enough to provide for the necessities of our family and other brothers and sisters, but then we leave the future in God’s hands.

But I think what happens in our society is that so many of us get wrapped around the axel of materialism. We wouldn’t make work a means of securing our lives against all possible calamities. I’m wondering if that’s one of the reasons that Ananias and Sapphira kept back some of the money. Maybe it was a protective mechanism; the way you and I might use money to protect us from difficulties, from hardships, from hurts in life.

How else is materialism in the world today? I came across another article, a new hot rage. I’m probably going to be stepping on people’s toes. A few days ago reporter, Leonard Pitts, was walking through an electronics superstore, “I passed a refrigerator that required a double-take.” What was in that refrigerator when he opened the door? A 15-inch TV. A TV in the refrigerator! We’ve reached heaven, it’s here. Now you don’t miss any of the talk shows, you don’t miss any of your favorite sitcoms while you prepare meals. He goes on and asks the salesman, “Are you selling a lot of these?” “Yeah, we can’t keep them on the floor.” He said, “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen.” The salesman said, “Doesn’t seem that way.”

I checked the price tag, this fridge, which by the way, also had internet capabilities, goes for a very cool $3,200. Perhaps materialism creeps in and somehow we start thinking to ourselves, when our brother and sister is hurting, when the church doesn’t have enough money to move and begin planting other churches and reaching people for Christ. “I can’t live without a refrigerator with a TV. I can’t get by unless when someone e-mails me while I’m in the middle of preparing that filet mignon, I gotta be able to get to it! It might be important. It might be a message I can’t live without.”

You might be thinking, what’s going on here? Why did Ananias and Sapphira do this? How could they do this? We’re not told. But perhaps, as I thought through the reasons and talked to several brothers and sisters, maybe they wanted to gain a reputation of being more generous than they were. Maybe they wanted to gain a reputation for being more spiritual than they really were. Do you ever hear that going on in FLOCKS groups or Sunday School classes, someone gives a prayer request to help them be more financially generous? Or somehow they tell people how much they give. Maybe to want to be more spiritual or appear more generous. Maybe it was to gain a position. Maybe he felt like Barnabas and some of the others that we’ve seen in the New Testament, if they gave, they could gain a position. We don’t know.

It’s interesting, a parallel story about Achan in Joshua 7. The same term is used here, the fact that he held money back. Achan, in the Septuagint, Joshua 7, the same term is used to hold money back—to embezzle. The Israelites were just starting to get into the Promise Land. They had just annihilated the people around them and they were moving. All of a sudden, they got routed by a very small army. The leadership asked what’s going on? How could God tell us to go on and then they route us? How could that happen? Somebody is holding onto possessions, God told the people. Sure enough, they brought out the clans and then tribes and then families and then individuals. Here they came, until the Holy Spirit of God fingered one person, Achan. Can you imagine? Sure enough, Achan was the one fingered. When confronted Achan said yes, you’re right, I kept 200 shekels of silver. I kept this whole wedge of gold and I kept this beautiful Babylonian garment because it was so beautiful. I hid it. Isn’t it crazy when we’re materialists, when we worship possessions and wealth? What did Achan do with the gold and the silver and the clothes? He dug a hole and buried it. He must have looked good in that robe buried in the ground. What use did he have of the gold and silver?

And can I ask you, what were Ananias and Sapphira going to do with money? They couldn’t go to their brothers and sisters and say hey, let’s go to the nearest restaurant in Jerusalem and we’ll treat. Where were they going to get the money, they all had everything in common.

We have to ask ourselves today, that 401(k), that big retirement savings, that big nest egg we’re relying on, it might as well be buried. How is it being used? How is it helping my brother and sister? How is it helping the kingdom of God? What are Ananias and Sapphira doing? What was Achan doing?

Let me ask a different question. What were Ananias and Sapphira giving up in order to keep back part of the money? What was at stake? Well, their reputation was shot. Their relationship with God certainly was destitute and buried. Their joy of giving and meeting the needs of others was bankrupt. Trust with others, trusting others and them trusting them—shot, gone, bankrupt.

They lost something else. They lost their lives. They murdered truth for passionate gain. Sometimes we murder the truth of God for our own passionate gain, whether it be finances or position or status or relationship or friends or whatever it takes to murder truth for passionate gain. That’s the dilemma we’re in? Ananias and Sapphira had to deal with that dilemma; greed or mission, things that I have or God. What are they going to choose? Unfortunately they chose things over God, themselves and their own comfort over the mission.

Notice in verses 3 and 4, in trying to deceive the community they were really trying to deceive the Holy Spirit whose life giving power had created the community and maintained its being.

What a reminder for us today. The Holy Spirit in the church is God Himself present in and with His people. When we lie to each other, sometime we want to lie to people outside. The Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell in them but we lie to brothers and sisters. When we lie to the church we’re lying to the Holy Spirit of God. Materialism tempts us to do that. Materialism somehow tempts us to believe that money can shield us from pain, can insulate us from hard times, perhaps serve as a buffer against trials and difficulty. If I have more money I won’t have to hurt like those that don’t. I can have more choices in life, more freedom if I have more money. Materialism tempts us to self-protect from those things that can hurt us very deeply. Please understand their sin was not in not giving enough. That’s never a sin, not being able to give enough. But the sin was in lying about the amount given. It was intensified by the fact that they lied to the Holy Spirit of God through the leadership of the church.

Look at verses 3 and 4:

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

The fascinating thing in the first century is that early on someone might come into the church and for a time they could donate land for the governance of the community but they could still liquidate the funds and use it. Then after a year, if they so choose to continue to give liquidation, to sell it to give everything now and give up the governance of that land and the community decided to receive them in, then they would liquidate it. But for now it was still Ananias and Sapphira’s. Why lie about it? They still could have used it for their own security for their own spending. They could have drawn it back. Except, it may not have looked good.

Jewish commentator, Bart Crosby, said, “Messiah can smell out a man, whether he be guilty or innocent.” Also, the Holy Spirit knew exactly what was going on. Doesn’t that strike fear in your hearts? Those that are answering to their parents still—who dwells inside your moms and dads? The Holy Spirit! Guess what, your moms and dads may be praying, I’m sure they are. God said, “if you ask for wisdom, I’ll give it to you.” So your moms and dads—I’m sure—are praying for wisdom as they seek to raise you and to love you. So, if we turn around and lie to our parents because we believe they don’t love us or because they don’t know what’s best for us. Guess what, the Holy Spirit is the one we are lying to. They may be given truth, understanding, or wisdom, from the Holy Spirit. We should think about that before we try to concoct some lie.

Do you ever notice, like Ananias and Sapphira, before we lie to other brothers and sisters, somehow we devalue the wisdom that they have. We swell our own wisdom, thinking we’re a little bit smarter than mom and dad or those in authority. So we feed them some line thinking they’re going to buy it. We’ve been able to come up with some concoction a little bit brighter than they can come up with. That looked like what Ananias and Sapphira were doing.

But what blinded them to the fact they were lying to the whole community, directly to the leadership, the apostles and the Holy Spirit? Another reminder that we’ve seen in Jeremiah is that sin blinds us. It hardens us and blinds us to what we’re doing. What hardened Ananias, to be so proud and daring in his sin? Sin deceives as so he was very deceived by sin. Then he deceived others. He should have been reminded of 1 Corinthians 3:16-17:

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred and you are that temple.

So when he lied to his brothers, when he lied to leadership, he’s lying to the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira are dreadful monuments to greed in the Christian community. They are an example to any who may think about tempting the Holy Spirit or vilifying Him.

The Essenes had a rule in their community. Essenes were the people who tried to live and follow God. They had this book called the Rule of the Community. It was a document, which detailed a complex process for property sharing when entering the Essene community. They would surrender property; it was done on a provisional basis until they met the qualifications of being faithful in that community. Property always stayed in one’s legal name for legal purposes. So they still had a right to it. But then after a year the candidates decision and the community’s permission allowed them to do whatever they wanted to with it, that is the faith community.

So why would Ananias and Sapphira do this? The text doesn’t tell us. But I want to know why, don’t you? Why? What would motivate them to do it? Maybe they needed spending money. Someone has said that perhaps they already had spent the money on immoral or unrighteous purposes. They were embarrassed to say where the other money was. Maybe they didn’t have it to give. Maybe just for reputation, wanting to be seen better. The early church did that to their destruction.

I have a little document that I researched and found. A resident at Corinth in the first century, Claudius, writes about Ajunia. Ajunia is written about and inscription dating about 43 AD. Claudius says Ajunia, she was a women of highest esteem who with full measure and generosity aided many of our citizens from her own means. She welcomed them in her home and in particular never ceased benefiting our citizens regarding any favor asked. The majority of the citizens have met in assembly to give testimony on her behalf. This lady is great. The early church said why, because she was generous and hospitable. For this reason, I won’t bore you with all of it; he goes on to give her laud and adoration. For this reason may good fortune attend to Ajunia. It was decreed to commend her for all that she had done. So that was the culture of the first century. Perhaps Ananias and Sapphira got caught up in that. The text just doesn’t tell us.

Also in the Qumran community in the Dead Sea scrolls, in first QS, chapter 6, it says if one person who gives their goods to the community, if they lie deliberately, they shall be excluded from the pure meal (their communion table) of the congregation for one year and shall do penance with the respect to 1/4 of his food. So, if someone in the Qumran community gave a certain amount and lied about it they wouldn’t be able for one year to be able to take part in the communion and they would have to give up 1/4 of their food.

Here’s the conviction in verse 5:

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

Is it harsh judgment? Perhaps not if we think about 1 Corinthians 5:5, Paul says, “hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Maybe Ananias and Sapphira were going down an even worse path. Peter knew that, knowing what he knew by the Holy Spirit, said maybe his flesh should be destroyed so his soul and spirit will be saved in that last day.

Do you believe that Christians can die prematurely for chronic or severe sin, for lying to the Holy Spirit, for misuse of our finances? Scriptures come up with instances and examples of that, too. Let’s look at three quickly. 1 Corinthians 11:30, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” Around the communion table, many were coming in and gorging themselves, eating and drinking before brothers and sisters got there. Forgetting that it was a religious celebration and just eating for their lusts and their appetites.

Another verse, James 5:20:

Remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will same him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

If you see a brother or sister and they’re moving down a bad path, a heinous or ongoing sin, you may be saving them from death. It’s a loving thing to do.

One more, (1 John 5:16-17):

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

So some seem to, in their chronic nature, in their heinous nature and some do not. We may be thinking, oh, if I misuse my wealth God’s not going to strike me dead. He may not in His love, benevolence and mercy. But, if we misuse our finances we may be dying a very slow death as we seek to live for God and love others. It may be a slow death that we’re experiencing.

What about Mr. Judas? Judas seemed to die a premature death, didn’t he? He was the banker. He was the one that took care of the finances for the apostles. He died a premature death for thirty pieces of silver. Many Israelite kings died premature deaths because of their love of possessions and power.

Does it seem strange to you that we link death with money and money with death? Seems strange for Ananias and Sapphira. There’s a large chain now doing it:

Cosco tries to corner the casket market. Now you can go into Cosco pick your casket out, all colors. From cribs to graves, Cosco wants your business, literally. It now hopes to close the deal on your final purchase, a casket. Stores are thinking about earthly things when we die now. Two Chicago area Cosco stores began test marketing six models, all priced at a low, low, low $799. “Some people take a little offense to it,” he said. “Others are very interested. At the price it’s at, it’s a great bargain.”

Shoppers won’t find the caskets in the store [don’t want to mix death with materialism]. Cosco’s final resting place kiosks allows customers to touch samples from the steel caskets that are for sale. Shoppers can choose lilac, Neapolitan blue, or four other colors, and have the casket delivered in about 48 hours.

Next time you go to a brother or sister’s house ask where’s the casket. Do you want to see my new casket? Only paid $800 for it.

It’s not so strange that Ananias and Sapphira, in Acts 5, were mixing death with materialism. Notice in verse 7,

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.

Three hours, why is that important to the text? It was long enough to bury the body of her husband in a crass fashion. You see, we’re told that she didn’t know what had happened. Ananias would not have been prepared and dressed for proper burial the way he typically should have been. There wasn’t enough time to choose clothes, to choose jewelry, to choose the things he might want to have included in the casket. The burial place in the Levitical city would have been about a mile and a half outside of the city. The mentioning of the time may have suggested that Ananias was buried as far away as possible because of his sin, greed, and his lying.

Notice the question Peter asked in verse 8,

Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?

We don’t know what happened between his question and her answer. I’ve been reminded lately that truth is the quickest answer. Have you ever experienced that with your kids?

“Why is Johnny crying?”

“Well, you see, I had my bike and then the rain started coming, and and then...”

The truth is the quickest answer.

“Why is your brother crying?”

“Well, yea, he said this and then he did that to me and then...”

“Why is he crying?”

You get more frustrated. The truth is the shortest answer

We don’t know what happened. Can you imagine the rest of them listening as Sapphira perhaps hemmed and hawed, made excuses, trying to find someway out of it. Her answer was, “’Yes,’ she said, that is the price’” (verse 8).

Why did Peter do that? Maybe Peter didn’t have a lot of pastoral experience at this point. He was a new apostle, a new prophet, perhaps. If he had, he would have broken the news to Sapphira about her husband’s death in a private and tender manner before he questioned her. Maybe you would have called her to the side and said quietly, “Sapphira, I’ve got bad news. Your husband lied to the Holy Spirit. He stole money. So I have to tell you this.” Peter didn’t do that, he needed more pastoral experience. Maybe the result would have been happier, but I don’t think so. Why? Because of verses 9 and 10:

Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

He was loving, but he wasn’t super merciful. He just told the truth. It’s the shortest answer, isn’t it?

Sapphira falls to her death. Her sin, her lust for wealth, and her emblazoned character to commit the same act of greed and lying as her husband, led to her death.

The last point in your outline, did you notice that conviction leads to growth in the church. Look at verse 11:

Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Great fear, great adoration, great praise, great respect seized the whole church and all those who heard. That’s the second time that is mentioned. The text says it in verse 5, after Ananias leaves this earth. It also mentions it about Sapphira when she leaves. Great fear seized. There’s growth in the church.

Let’s look at 2 Timothy 2:19:

Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

What should we do about taking our possessions and misusing them? Putting possessions above the mission that God has for us, whether giving to our brothers and sisters, giving to the church, using them to meet the needs of the poor and needy. If we’re in love with possessions, with wealth, and whatever they do for us, whether it’s giving us status, freedom of choice, or entertainment, if we’re in love with those more than God we need to depart from wickedness and begin to use them in a more godly fashion.

Perhaps the application can also be found in 1 Timothy 6:17-19:

Command those who are rich I this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope I wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Interesting that Paul in the passage gives so much direction about finances through Titus and Timothy. You remember the arrogance we saw in the Old Testament as we studied through there. Those that were wealthy, those that had power became very arrogant. So, we have to guard against arrogance as we use our money, our possessions to give, serve, and love others in the kingdom.

You know, the world is saying that money is everything. Misuse of our money is a very dangerous, dangerous thing. Have you ever noticed that the wealthy have the most bizarre problems and most severe difficulties? I could take an hour just to give you example after example. Howard Hughes, perhaps the most extreme. They have the most severe family issues, psychological, isolated loneliness. But the way to stay away from that loneliness and that difficulty and destruction is to have a Biblical theology of our possessions and wealth.


[ Edit | View ]

Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God -- Archbishop Kenneth D. Grimble, 09:31:51 11/20/05 Sun

The "Kingdom of heaven" or "Kingdom of God" in New Testament terminology stands for and is indicative of the blessings of God (Mk. 10: 25, 26). Hence, a serious study of this great truth is of the utmost importance.

The Kingdom of heaven. The term "Kingdom" is used 126 times in the gospels. "Kingdom of heaven" or its equivalent is used 80 times. Matthew uses "Kingdom of heaven" alone 32 times (he used "Kingdom of God" four times).

John the Baptist came preaching the Kingdom of God (Matt. 3: 2, "at hand" shows the Kingdom was "new" and not then in existence). It was Jesus’ task to preach the kingdom of God (Lk. 4: 43). In fact, the Kingdom constituted the centrality of Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 4: 17, 23). Jesus appointed his apostles to teach the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 10: 7, Lk. 10: 9). The apostles continued to teach the Kingdom after Jesus’ death (Acts 8: 12, 14: 22, 19: 8, 20: 25, 28: 23, and 31).

The Kingdom of heaven in prophesy and in reality. You often read in the gospels of the Kingdom being futuristically viewed (Matt. 3: 2, Mk. 1: 15, Matt. 10: 7, Lk. 10: 9). As late as the crucifixion and the ascension of Jesus, Joseph waited for the Kingdom and the apostles anticipated the Kingdom (Mk. 15: 43, Acts 1: 6).

In the dream Nebuchadnezzar experienced, the Kingdom was to come "in the days of these kings" (Dan. 2: 36-45, see vs. 44). A careful study of Daniel chapter two reveals four secular world kingdoms: the Babylonian (600 B.C. to 536 B.C.), medo-Persian (fell in 360 B.C.), Macedonia (fell in 323 B.C.), and Rome (world power in 30 B.C.). These kingdoms are found in verses thirty-one through thirty-three of Daniel chapter two (see also verses 31-45). God planned on "setting up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed" in the "days of these kings" (Dan. 2: 44). "These kings" refers to the fourth kingdom, Rome.

The Kingdom was to come in the lifetime of those addressed by Jesus in Mark 9: 1. "Verily I say unto you," Jesus taught, "that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16: 15, 16). The word they preached was (is) the "seed of the Kingdom (Lk. 8: 11, Matt. 13: 19). Shortly before his death, Jesus said, "…Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16: 18). Jesus then interchangeably used "church" and "kingdom" (Matt. 16: 18, 19). Concerned reader, the Kingdom or church came into existence in Jerusalem, 30 A. D. (Col. 1: 13, Heb. 12: 28, Acts 2: 14-47, 5: 11). The Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedonia, and Roman kingdom fell, but the Kingdom of God continues ("shall never be destroyed"). (See "Lord's Supper," return to Great Truths when finished and scroll down.)

The nature of the Kingdom of heaven. God’s kingdom is not secular (Matt. 20: 25-28, see "The Truth About premillennialism" in archives). This is what Jesus meant when he told Pilate, "…my Kingdom is not of this world…" (Jn. 18: 36). God’s Kingdom "is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14: 17). Meat and drink are insignificant in God’s Kingdom because God’s Kingdom is spiritual in nature and work (I Tim. 3: 15, cf. Jn. 6: 26, 27, Acts 2: 42)).

The meaning of Kingdom of heaven. The term Kingdom (Greek, basileia) basically has four nuances or shades of meaning as used in the New Testament. There is God’s reign (Kingdom involves the King, I Tim. 6: 15, Lk. 6: 46). God reigns in the hearts and lives of individuals. Many of the Jews could not understand this truth (Lk. 17: 20, 21). Kingdom is sometimes used of the subjects (Mk. 10: 25, 26). Kingdom denotes the church (ekklesia), the subjects over whom God reigns (Matt. 16: 18, 19). The ekklesia (church) is viewed as the church universal (no "location" or organization, Matt. 16: 18, only "one" ) and local (I Tim. 3: 15, see context regarding appointment of elders and deacons, cf. Acts 14: 22). Kingdom is also used regarding future bliss (Matt. 25: 34).

The expression "kingdom of heaven" is revealing. Heaven is the origin of the kingdom (Dan. 2: 44, Matt. 16: 18), heaven is the ultimate "end" of the Kingdom (I Cor. 15: 24), the King is presently reigning in heaven (Acts 2: 34-36), and the Kingdom’s laws are heavenly (Phili. 3: 20).

Admission into the Kingdom. The word of God is the seed or germ of life of the Kingdom (Matt. 13: 19, see Jas. 1: 18-21). Humility and trust are prerequisites to being in the Kingdom. Jesus said, "…Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18: 3). Jesus told Nicodemus in unequivocal terms: "…Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (Jn. 3: 3, 7). This new birth consists of belief, repentance, confession of Jesus’ deity, and water baptism for the remission of sin (Acts 2: 36, 37, 38, Rom. 10: 9, 10, Acts 2: 38, 22: 16). (See "Salvation," accessed from the home page).

Jesus "likened the Kingdom" to many things in an effort to explain and, sometimes, to conceal the Kingdom (Matt. 13). The Kingdom is compared to mustard seed in that the Kingdom had a small beginning but grew into the greatest "institution" the world has ever known, the Kingdom is likened unto leaven in that it diffuses itself by its very nature and permeated in its influence, and the Kingdom is compared to great treasure which a man found and sold all in had to obtain it in that the Kingdom is of incomparable worth (Matt. 13: 31, 32, 33, 44). Jesus illustrated that some just find the Kingdom, while others find it as a result of seeking it (Matt. 13: 44, 45, 46). Jesus taught that the Kingdom is like unto ten virgins as far as purity and preparedness are involved (Matt. 25: 1-13, in the case of the five wise virgins).

Some startling truths about the Kingdom. The church and the Kingdom are referring to the same people. The only difference is the "church" is considering God’s people in the sense of the called out (meaning of ekklesia) and "Kingdom" (basileia) is identifying God’s people in the sense of those over whom Jesus reigns (see Matt. 16: 18, 19). To those who deny the church and the Kingdom are the same and that the Kingdom is yet future, this is a startling truth.

There are many shocking truths (shocking to some) regarding the Kingdom. For instance, the immoral have no part in God’s Kingdom, the Kingdom is not meat and drink, and the tares (hypocrites) shall be gathered out of the Kingdom and burned (Gal. 5: 17-21; Rom. 14: 17; Matt. 13: 39-42).

Beloved, the Kingdom/church is the most wonderful institution the world has ever known. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "…Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11: 11). (See material in archives regarding the "church," go back to "Great Truths" and click on the Archives’ button.)

Addendum: Jesus emphatically taught the value of the Kingdom: Matthew 13: 44, 45, 46. Here are some succinct kingdom facts:

1. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom - Matthew 4:23 (Luke 9:11); 13:10-11; 18-29.


2. Jesus announced the approach of the coming kingdom - Matthew 4:17; 12:28.


3. Jesus, in his word, identified His kingdom as His church - Matthew 16:16-19.


4. Jesus identified the nature of the kingdom - John 18:36 (Spiritual, Luke 17:20-21; Superior, Daniel 2:44; Eternal, Luke 1:33).


5. Jesus prophesied regarding the establishment of the kingdom - Luke 12:32; Mark 9:1 (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:6-8; 2:1-4 (47).


6. Apostles plainly proclaimed the present existence of the kingdom - Acts 20:25; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9 (1 Thessalonians 2:12).


7. The kingdom is composed of those who have received remission of sins - Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10.


8. Our salvation decided depends on entering the kingdom - Luke 16:16; John 3:3-5.


9. Our daily goal must be to put the kingdom first in our lives - Matthew 6:33; Luke 9:62.


[ Edit | View ]

True Apostolic Ministry -- Apostle Dorian M., 20:50:16 11/19/05 Sat

We have a biblical history and a Godly heritage. We pray that the tenants of our faith are clearly seen and understood just as they are clearly supported and taught in the scriptures.

WHAT IT IS:

Apostolic Commissioning is given by the Lord Jesus Christ alone. No man or woman may ‘elect themselves', or be ‘elected' by any Human Hand. Apostles are created by the Lord Jesus Christ; Woven in the Womb, and Called According to His Own Purpose.

Each Individual Apostle shall receive a Specific, Assigned, Commission from the Lord. The Description, Scope, and Territory of that Commission will be unique to each Apostle, according to the Will of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some Apostles may be specifically assigned to a Church, to numerous Churches, to Ministries, to Networks, to various Groups of People, to specific spheres of Commercial Operation, to specific spheres of Educational Operation, to specific spheres of Public Operation, to specific spheres of Scientific Operation, to specific spheres of Medical Operation, to specific spheres of Military Operation, to specific spheres of Legislative Operation, to specific spheres of Judicial Operation, etc., etc. They may be assigned to a specific City, to numerous Cities, to a specific Geographic Region, to numerous Geographic Regions, to a Nation, or to numerous Nations. Some Apostles will have a relatively fixed location, while others will function in a more mobile sense.

Apostolic Function is both Governmental and Relational. Apostles are responsible to establish the Church on the proper Spiritual Foundation, according to the Biblical Building Plan; whether a new Church, or one already in existence.

1) Reveal/teach the Mystery of Jesus Christ
( the Apostle's primary thrust in preaching )

2) See that the Foundation of the church is properly laid
( Jesus Christ as Chief Cornerstone, Foundation of Apostles and Prophets )

3) See that the Five-Fold Ministry is operational in the Body ( Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers, Pastors )

4) Anoint ( or ‘ordain' ) those who are called by the Lord to the Five-Fold Ministry, through prayer, by the Laying on of Hands.

5) Impart to members of the Body, through prayer, by the Laying on of Hands
( to receive and/or release the Gifts of the Holy Spirit )

6) Oversee/Correct/Teach Doctrine
( purify from the Traditions of Men, and/or Doctrines of Demons being mixed into the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, which perverts and fractures the Word of God. )

7) Oversee/Correct/Teach Purified Worship and Praise
( Worship ‘in Spirit and in Truth'. Include the Dance in Worship, the use of the Song of the Lord, Singing in the Spirit, and other free creative expression through the Arts as the Holy Spirit so directs. )

8) Oversee/Correct/Teach Prayer
( See that Prayer and Intercession in the Body, is undertaken according to the Direction of the Holy Spirit.)

9) Oversee/Correct/Teach Spiritual Warfare
( See that the church is led to be an Overcoming Church )

10) To exercise Apostolic Authority in Intercession and Spiritual Warfare
( to root out, and tear down Satanic Strongholds ( Spiritual Strategy ) )

11) Relationally: to be a ‘father and mother' to those the Lord has entrusted to his or her care
( form close ties to them, pray for them, and see that ‘Christ be formed in them' ( that they mature in Christ ). Being ‘there' for others.

12) Relationally: to seek to establish, and maintain UNITY in the Body
( allowing the Holy Spirit to establish Unity in the Body, not human-effort substitution! )
seeing that close relationships among the Body are formed, disagreements are settled within relationships and the relationship restored, seeing that Relationship to the Lord is intimate, and is not blocked or hindered, seeing that the Holy Spirit is not quenched or grieved.


WHAT IT IS NOT:

Our Motto should be: " Noblesse Oblige" ( Nobility Obligates: in other words, a Commission bears with it a constant, obligatory, Responsibility in Behavior )

1) Apostolic Authority is NOT a Controlling Dictatorship !

2) Apostolic Authority does NOT include the Right to enforce ‘personal authority', or to attempt to exercise control over our Brothers and Sisters in Christ !

3) Apostolic Authority does NOT include the Right to attempt to exercise authority or control over the Ministry of the Holy Spirit !

4) Apostolic Authority does NOT include the Right to attempt to exercise authority or control over other Apostles !
( Unless, by specific Commission, an Apostle's Individual Function is Administrative; which may, at times, include Mentoring, Guidance, Support and Oversight of other Apostles within his or her ‘Territory' or ‘Scope', whom the Lord has assigned and directed for His Own Purposes. In such a situation, The Holy Spirit would bear Witness to both the Administrative Apostle, and to the Apostle being so directed by the Lord. ) There is no ‘competition' among Apostles since each one has his or her own ‘post'; hence, there is no need for ‘ambitious' behavior between us.

5) Apostolic Authority does NOT include the ‘License' to recruit ‘workers', round up a ‘crew', or attempt to collect a gathering of ‘royal subjects', in order to form his or her own personal Domain !

6) Apostolic Authority does NOT automatically extend to everyone, everywhere!
Each Apostle has a limited, assigned, ‘scope' or ‘territory'. Within his or her specific Assignment, an Apostle is credentialed from the Lord's Hand. Any functioning outside of that specific scope and location, should be by direct invitation only ( for example: if an Apostle were assigned to the church in Haiti; he or she has not right to attempt to correct Doctrine in a church in Northern China, unless that church has voluntarily requested it. )

7) Apostolic Authority does NOT, at any time, over-ride any person's God-given Free-Will.


[ Edit | View ]

The Normal Christian Church Life -- Watchman Nee, 20:23:18 11/19/05 Sat

1. The Apostles


God is a God of works. Our Lord said, "My Father works even until now." He is the God "who works all things after the counsel of His will." But God does not do everything directly by Himself. He works through His servants. Among the servants of God the apostles are the most important ones.



The First Apostle



In the fullness of time God sent forth His Son into the world to do His work. He is known as the Christ of God, that is, "the Anointed One." The term "Son" relates to His Person; the name "Christ" relates to His office. He was the Son of God, but He was sent to be the Christ of God. "Christ" is the ministerial name of the Son of God. Our Lord did not come to the earth or to the Cross on His own initiative; He was anointed and set apart for the Work by God. He was not self-appointed, but sent. Frequently throughout the Gospel of John we find Him referring to God as "the One who sent Me." He took the place of a sent one. If that is true in the case of the Son of God, how much more should it apply to His servants? If even the Son was not expected to take any initiative in God's work, is it likely that we are expected to do so? The first principle to note in the work of God is that all His workers are sent ones. If there is no divine commission, there can be no divine work.

Scripture has a special name for a sent one, namely, an apostle. The meaning of the Greek word is "the sent one." The Lord Himself is the first Apostle because He is the first one specially sent of God; hence the Word refers to Him as "the Apostle" (Heb. 3:1).



The Twelve



While on earth, the Lord was all the time aware that His life in the flesh was limited, so that as He went about the work committed to Him by the Father, He prepared a group of men to continue it after His departure. These men were also termed apostles. They were not volunteers; they were sent ones. We cannot overemphasize this fact that all divine work is by commission, not by choice.

These apostles occupy a special place in the purpose of God, because they were with the Son of God while He lived in the flesh. They were not just called apostles, they were called "the Twelve Apostles." They occupied a special place in the Word and plan of God. Our Lord told Peter that one day they should "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Lk. 22:30). When Judas lost his office and God led the remaining eleven to choose one to make up the number, they cast lots and the lot fell upon Matthias, "and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles" (Acts 1:26). In the next chapter we find the Holy Spirit inspiring the writer of the Acts to say, "Peter, standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14), which shows that the Holy Spirit recognized Matthias to be one of the Twelve. The number of these apostles was fixed. God did not want more than twelve, nor would He have less. In the Book of Revelation we find that the ultimate position which they occupy is again a special one - "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). Even in the new heaven and the new earth the Twelve enjoy a place of peculiar privilege, which is relegated to no other workers of God.



The Apostles in Scripture Days



The Lord Jesus has now gone, but the Spirit has come. The Holy Spirit is come to bear all responsibility for the work of God on earth. The Son was working for the Father; the Spirit is working for the Son. The Son came to accomplish the will of the Father; the Spirit has come to accomplish the will of the Son. The Son came to glorify the Father; the Spirit has come to glorify the Son. The Father then appointed Christ to be "the Apostle"; the Son while on earth appointed "the twelve" to be apostles. The Son has returned to the Father, and now the Spirit is on earth appointing other men to be apostles. The apostles appointed by the Holy Spirit cannot join the ranks of those appointed by the Son, but nonetheless they are apostles. The apostles we read of in the fourth chapter of Ephesians are clearly not the original twelve, for those were appointed when the Lord was still on earth, while these date their appointment to apostleship after the ascension of the Lord - they were the gifts of the Lord Jesus to His Church after His glorification. The twelve apostles then were the personal followers of the Lord Jesus, but the apostles now are ministers for the building up of the Body of Christ. We must differentiate clearly between the apostles who were witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:22,26), and the apostles who are ministers for the edifying of the Body of Christ. It is evident, therefore, that God has other apostles beside the original twelve.

Immediately following the outpouring of the Spirit the twelve apostles carried on the work. Until the twelfth chapter of Acts they are seen as the chief workers, but with the opening of the thirteenth chapter we see the Holy Spirit beginning to manifest Himself as the Agent of Christ and the Lord of the Church. In that chapter we are told that in Antioch, when certain prophets and teachers were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate Me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" (Acts 13:2, Darby). Now is the time that the Spirit begins to send men forth. At this point two new workers were commissioned by the Holy Spirit.

After these two were sent out by the Spirit, how were they designated? When Barnahas and Paul were working in Iconium, "the multitude of the city was divided; and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles" (Acts 14:4). The two sent forth in the previous chapter are in this chapter referred to as "apostles," and in the same chapter (Acts 14:14) the designation "the apostles" is used with reference to Paul and Barnabas, which proves conclusively that the two men commissioned by the Holy Spirit were also apostles. They were not among the twelve, but they were apostles.

Who then are apostles? Apostles are God's workmen, sent out by the Holy Spirit to do the work to which He has called them. The responsibility of the work is in their hands. Broadly speaking, all believers are responsible for the work of God, but apostles are a group of people specially set apart and bear a peculiar responsibility for its conduct.

We want to examine now the teaching of the scriptures as touching apostles. God appointed His Son to be "the Apostle"; Christ appointed His disciples to be "the Twelve Apostles"; and the Holy Spirit appointed a group of men (apart from the Twelve) to be the Body-building apostles. There are many belonging to this latter order chosen and sent forth by the Spirit of God. In 1 Cor. 4:9, we read: "God has set forth us the apostles last." To whom do the words "us the apostles" refer? The pronoun "us" implies that there was at least one other apostle besides the writer. If we study the context, we note that Apollos was with Paul when he wrote (1 Cor. 4:6), and Sosthenes was a joint writer with Paul of the epistle. It seems clear that the "us" here refers either to Apollos or to Sosthenes or to both. It follows then that either or both of these two must have been apostles.

Rom. 16:7: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles." The clause "who are of note among the apostles" does not mean that they were regarded as notable by the apostles, but rather that among the apostles they were notable ones. Here you have not only another two apostles, but another two notable apostles.

1 Ths. 2:6: "We might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ." The "we" here refers clearly to the writers of the Thessalonian letter, namely, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Ths. 1:1), which indicates that Paul's two young fellow-workers were also apostles.

1 Cor. 15:5-7: "He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve; after that, He was seen by about five hundred brethren at once; after that, He was seen by James; then by all the apostles." Besides the Twelve Apostles there was a group known as "all the apostles." It is obvious, then that apart from the Twelve there were other apostles.

Paul never claimed that he was the last apostle and that after him there were no others. Please read carefully what he said: "Last of all He was seen of me also...for I am least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle." (1 Cor. 15:8,9). Notice how Paul used the words "last" and "least." He did not say that he was the last apostle, he only said he was the least apostle. If he were the last there could be no more after him, but he was only the least.

In the Book of Revelation it is said of the Ephesian church: "You have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars" (Rev. 2:2). It seems clear from this verse that the early churches expected to have other apostles apart from the original Twelve, because when the Book of Revelation was written John was the only survivor of the Twelve and by that time even Paul had already been martyred. If there were to be only twelve apostles, and John was the only one left, then no one would have been foolish enough to pose as an apostle and no one foolish enough to be deceived, and where would have been the need to try them?



The Meaning of Apostleship



Since the meaning of the word "apostle" is "the sent one," the meaning of apostleship is quite plain, namely, the office of the sent one. Apostles are not primarily men of special gifts, they are men of special commission. Many called of God are not as gifted as Paul, but if they have received a commission of God, they are just as truly apostles as he. The apostles were gifted men, but their apostleship was not based upon their gifts; it was based upon their commission. Of course, God will not send anyone who is unequipped, but equipment does not constitute apostleship. It is futile for anyone to assume the office of an apostle simply because he thinks he has the needed gifts or ability. It takes more than mere gift and ability to constitute men apostles; it takes God Himself, His will and His call. No man can attain to apostleship through natural or other qualifications; God must make him an apostle if he is ever to be one. "A man sent of God" should be the main characteristic of our entering upon His service and of all our subsequent movements.

Our Lord said, "The servant is not greater than his Lord: neither the apostle [Greek] than He that sent him" (Jn. 13:16). Here we have a definition of the term "apostle." It implies being sent out - that is all, and that is everything. However good human intention may be, it can never take the place of divine commission. Today those who have been sent out by the Lord to preach the Gospel and to establish churches call themselves missionaries, not apostles, but the word "missionary" means the very same thing as "apostle," i.e. "the sent one." It is the Latin form of the Greek equivalent, "apostolos." Since the meaning of the two words is exactly the same, I fail to see the reason why the true sent ones of today prefer to call themselves "missionaries" rather than "apostles."



Apostles and the Ministry

"But to each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he says, Having ascended up on high, He has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men. But that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that He might fill all things; and He has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, whh a view to the edifying of the body of Christ; until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ." (Eph. 4:7-13, Darby)
There are many ministries connected with the service of God, but He chose a number of men for a special ministry - the ministry of the Word for the building up of the Body of Christ. Since that ministry is different from others, we refer to it as "the ministry." This ministry is entrusted to a group of people of whom the apostles are chief. It is neither a one-man ministry, nor an "all men" ministry, but a ministry based upon the gifts of the Holy Spirit and an experimental knowledge of the Lord.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are our Lord's gifts to His Church to serve in the ministry. Strictly speaking, pastors and teachers are one gift, not two, because teaching and shepherding are closely related. In enumerating the gifts, apostles, prophets, and evangelists are all mentioned separately, while pastors and teachers are linked together. Further, the first three are each prefixed by the word "some," whereas the word "some" is attached to pastors and teachers unitedly, thus - "some apostles," "some prophets," "some evangelists," and "some pastors and teachers," not "some pastors and some teachers." The fact that the word "some" is used only four times in this list indicates that there are only four classes of persons in question. Pastors and teachers are two in one.

Pastoring and teaching may be regarded as one ministry, because those who teach must also shepherd, and those who shepherd must also teach. The two kinds of work are interrelated. Further, the word "pastor" as applied to any person is found nowhere else in the New Testament, but the word "teacher" is used on four other occasions. Nowhere in God's word do we find anyone referred to by name as a pastor. This confirms the fact that pastors and teachers are one class of men.

Teachers are men who have received the gift of teaching. This is not a miraculous gift but a gift of grace, which accounts for the fact of its being omitted from the list of miraculous gifts in 1 Cor. 12:8-10, and included in the list of the gifts of grace in Rom. 12. It is a gift of grace which enables its possessors to understand the teachings of God's Word and to discern His purposes, and thus equips them to instruct His people in doctrinal matters. In the church in Antioch there were several such persons thus equipped, Paul included. Teachers are individuals who have received the gift of teaching from Christ and have been given by the Lord to His Church for its upbuilding. The work of a teacher is to interpret to others the truths which have been revealed to him and to lead believers to an understanding of God's Word. Their sphere of work is mainly among the children of God, though at times they also teach the unsaved (1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; Acts 4:2-18; 5:21,25,28,42). Their work is more one of interpretation than of revelation, whereas the work of the prophets is one of revelation more than of interpretation.

Evangelists are also our Lord's gift to His Church, but exactly what their personal gifts are we do not know. The Word of God does not speak of any evangelistic gift, but it does refer to Philip as being an evangelist (Acts 21:8), and Paul on one occasion encouraged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist and fill up the measure of his ministry (2 Tim. 4:5). Apart from the three occasions in Scripture, the noun "evangelist" is not found in Scripture, though we frequently meet the verb which is derived from the same root.

In the Word of God the place of prophets is more clearly defined than that of teachers and evangelists. Prophecy is mentioned among the gifts of grace (Rom. 12:6) and also among the miraculous gifts (1 Cor. 12:10). God has set prophets in the Church universal (1 Cor. 12:28), but He has also given prophets for the ministry (Eph. 4:11). There is both the gift of prophecy and the office of a prophet. Prophecy is both a gift of miracle and a gift of grace. The prophet is both a man set by God in His Church to occupy the prophetic office and a man given by the Lord to His Church for the ministry.

Of the classes of gifted men bestowed by the Lord upon His Church for its upbuilding, the apostles were quite different from the other three. They were specially commissioned of God to found churches through the preaching of the Gospel, to bring revelation from God to His people, to give decisions in matters pertaining to doctrine and government, and to edify the saints and distribute the gifts. Both spiritually and geographically their sphere is vast. That their position is superior to that of prophets and teachers is clear from the Word: "God has set some in the Church, first apostles..." (1 Cor. 12:28.)

It is important to note that apostleship is an office, not a gift. An office is that which one receives as the result of a commission; a gift that which one receives on the basis of grace. "I was appointed...an apostle" (1 Tim. 2:7). "I was appointed...an apostle" (2 Tim. 1:11). We see here that an apostle is commissioned. It is in this that he differs from the other three ministers, though he may have received the prophetic gift and thus be a prophet as well as an apostle.

An apostle may be a prophet or a teacher. Should he exercise his gift of prophecy or teaching in the local church, he does so in the capacity of a prophet or a teacher, but when he exercises his gifts in different places he does so in the capacity of an apostle. The implication of apostleship is being sent of God to exercise gifts of ministry in different places. It is immaterial to his office what personal gift an apostle has, but it is essential to his office that he be sent of God.

Nevertheless, apostles have personal gifts for their ministry. "Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, Barnabas, and Symcon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, 'Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work which I have called them to'" (Acts 13:1-2). These five men had the gifts of prophecy and teaching, a miraculous gift and a gift of grace. From that company of five two were sent by the Spirit to other parts, and three were left in Antioch. As we have already seen, the two sent out were thereafter called apostles. They received an apostolic commission. It was their gifts that qualified them to he prophets and teachers, but it was their commission that qualified them to be apostles. The three who remained in Antioch were still prophets and teachers, not apostles, simply because they had not been sent out by the Spirit. The gifts of all five were just the same, but two received a divine commission in addition to their gifts, and that qualified them for apostolic ministry.

Then why does the Word of God say, "He gave some apostles"? It is not a question here of apostleship being a gift given to an apostle, but a gift given to the Church; it is not a spiritual gift given to a man, but a gifted man given to the Church. Ephesians 4:11 does not say that the Lord gave an apostolic gift to any person, but that he gave men as apostles to His Church. The gifts referred to in this passage are not the gifts given to men personally, but the gifts given by the Lord to His Church, and the gifts mentioned here are gifted workers whom the Lord of the Church bestows upon His Church for its edification. The Head gives to the Church which is His Body certain men to serve the Body and build it up. We must distinguish between those gift given by the Spirit to individuals and those given by the Lord to His Church. The former are given to believers personally, the latter are given to believers corporately. The former are things and the latter are persons. "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; to another gifts of healings in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10). This passage provides us with a list of all the gifts which the Holy Spirit gave to men, but it includes no apostolic gift. "And God hath set some in the church, firstly apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diverse kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:28). The first passage enumerates the gifts given to individuals, the second enumerates the gifts given to the Church. In the former there is no mention of any apostolic gift; in the latter we find that "apostles" head the list of God's gifts to the Church. It is not that God has given His Church the gift of apostleship, but that He has given it men who are apostles; and He has not given the gifts of prophecy and teaching to His Church, but He has given it some men as prophets and some as teachers.

The difference between the apostles and the prophets and teachers is that the latter two represent both gifts given by the Spirit to individuals and at the same time gifts given by the Lord to His Church, but they do not represent any special personal gift of the Spirit.

"And God has set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28). What church is this? It comprises all the children of God, therefore it is the Church universal. In this Church God has set "first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers." In 1 Cor. 14:23 we read of "the whole church...assembled together." What church is this? Obviously the local church, for the Church universal cannot gather together in one locality. It is in this local church that the brethren exercised their spiritual gifts. One would have "a psalm," another "a teaching," another "a revelation," another "a tongue," and another "an interpretation" (1 Cor. 14:26), but more important than all these was the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1). In Chapter 12 apostles took precedence over the other ministers, but in Chapter 14 prophets take the precedence. In the Church universal apostles are first, but in the local church prophets are first. How does it come about that prophets take first place in the local church, since in the universal Church they only occupy the second place? Because in the Church universal the question is not of personal gifts of the Spirit, but of God's gift of ministers to the Church, and of these, apostles rank first; but in the local church the question is one of personal gifts of the Spirit and of these, prophecy is chief, because it is most important. Let us remember that apostleship is not a personal gift.



The Sphere of their Work



The sphere of an apostle's work is quite different from that of the other three special ministers. That prophets and teachers exercise their gifts in the local church is seen from the statement, "There were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers." You can find prophets and teachers in the local church, but not apostles, because they have been called to minister in many different places, while the ministry of prophets and teachers is confined to one locality (1 Cor. 14:26,29).

As to evangelists, we do not know their special sphere, as very little is said of them in God's Word, but the story of Philip, the evangelist, throws some light on this class of ministers. Philip left his own locality and preached in Samaria, but although he did good work there, the Spirit did not fall upon any of his converts. It was not till the apostles came from Jerusalem and laid hands upon them that the Spirit was poured out This seems to indicate that the local preaching of the Gospel is the work of an evangelist, but the universal preaching of the Gospel is the work of an apostle. This does not imply that the labors of an evangelist are necessarily confined to one place, but it does mean that that is their usual sphere.



The Evidence of Apostleship



Is there any evidence that one is really commissioned of God to be an apostle? In 1 Cor. 9:1-2, Paul states that apostleship has its credentials. "You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord," he writes, as if to say, "If God had not sent me to Corinth, then you would not be saved today, and there would be no church in your city." If God has called a man to be an apostle, it will be manifest in the fruit of his labors. Wherever you have the commission of God, there you have the authority of God; wherever you have the authority of God, there you have the power of God; and wherever you have the power of God, there you have spiritual fruits. The fruit of our labors proves the validity of our commission. And yet it must be noted that Paul's thought is not that apostleship implies numerous converts but that it represents spiritual values for the Lord, for He could never send anyone forth for a lesser purpose. The Lord is out for spiritual values, and the object of apostleship is to secure them. In this case the Corinthians represent these values. But did not Paul say here, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Is it only those, then, who have seen the Lord Jesus in His resurrection manifestations who are qualified to become apostles? Follow carefully the trend of Paul's argument. In verse 1 he asks four questions: 1) "Am I not free?" 2) "Am I not an apostle?" 3) "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" 4) "Are you not my work in the Lord?"

Of the four questions asked by Paul, three relate to his person and one to his work. These three are on the same plane and are quite independent of one another. Paul was not arguing that because he was free and because he was an apostle, therefore he had seen the Lord; nor was he reasoning that because he was an apostle and because he had seen the Lord, therefore he was free. No more was he seeking to demonstrate that because he was free and had seen the Lord, therefore he was an apostle. The facts are he was free, he was an apostle, and he had seen the Lord. These facts had no essential connection one with the other, and it is absurd to connect them. It would be as reasonable to argue that Paul's apostleship was based upon his being free as that it was based upon his seeing the Lord. If he was not seeking to prove his apostleship from the fact of his freedom, no more was he seeking to prove it from his having seen the Lord. Apostleship is not based on having seen the Lord in His resurrection manifestations.

Then what is the meaning of 1 Cor. 15:5-9? "He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve: After that, He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once; ...after that He was seen by James; then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also." The object of this passage is not to produce evidence of apostleship but evidence of the resurrection of the Lord. Paul is recording the different persons to whom the Lord appeared; he is not teaching what effect was produced upon these persons by His appearing. Cephas and James saw the Lord, but they were Cephas and James after they saw the Lord, just as they were Cephas and James before; they did not become Cephas and James by seeing Him. The same applies to the Twelve Apostles and the five hundred brethren. Seeing the Lord did not constitute them apostles. They were twelve apostles before they saw the Lord, and they were twelve apostles after they saw the Lord. The same argument applies in Paul's case. The facts were, he had seen the Lord, and he was the least of the apostles; but it was not seeing the Lord that constituted him the least of the apostles. The five hundred brethren were not apostles before they saw the Lord, nor were they after. Seeing the Lord in His resurrection manifestations did not constitute them apostles. They were simply "brethren" before, and they were simply "brethren" after. The Word of God nowhere teaches that seeing the Lord is the qualification for apostleship.

But apostleship has its credentials. In 2 Cor. 12:11-12, Paul writes, "In nothing am I behind the most eminent apostles...truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." There was abundant evidence of the genuineness of Paul's apostolic commission and the signs of an apostle will never be lacking where there is truly an apostolic call. From the above passage we infer that the evidence of apostleship lies in a twofold power - spiritual and miraculous. Endurance is the greatest proof of spiritual power, and it is one of the signs of an apostle. It is the ability to endure steadfastly under continuous pressure that tests the reality of an apostolic call. A true apostle needs to be "strengthened with all power, according to the might of His glory, unto all patience and longsuffering with joy" (Col. 1:11). Yes, it takes nothing short of "all power according to the might of His glory" to produce "all patience and longsuffering with joy." But the reality of Paul's apostleship was not only attested by his patient endurance under intense and prolonged pressure, it was evidenced also by the miraculous power he possessed. Miraculous power to change situations in the physical world is a necessary manifestation of our knowledge of God in the spiritual realm, and this applies not to heathen lands only but to every land. To profess to be sent ones of the omnipotent God, and yet stand helpless before situations that challenge His power, is a sad contradiction. Not all who can work wonders are apostles, for the gifts of healing and of miracle-working are given to members of the body (1 Cor. 12:28) who have no special commission, but miraculous as well as spiritual power is part of the equipment of all who have a true apostolic commission.


[ Edit | View ]

How Can There Be Revival Without Repentance? -- Lynn & Sarah Leslie, 20:12:18 11/19/05 Sat



God is going to take over the White House... He is going to take over the Oval Office... because it belongs to Him and He is going to bring all things summed up into the fullness of Christ. He is going to take that Supreme Court. He is going to turn that inside out. He is going to pray that strong man off that thing and He is going to bring the synergistic anointing of intercession and the
prophetic anointing to break, to judge, to decree.... I will march into that place and declare
a decree the word of the Lord boldly... He is joining the kingly and the priestly anointing.
(Dutch Sheets speaking at the School of the Prophets.)

In the early 1980s we were led by the Lord to work in the right to life movement. From the
beginning we knew that we could not become entangled in the popular dominionist ideal of
saving America through politics: But we bad discovered through our research that the public
had not been told the truth about abortion: its history, its methods and procedures; and its
consequences. This was due to a well-documented conspiracy of silence on the part of the
mainstream media and medical community. We naively thought that it would just be a matter of
education - if people knew the truth they would repent.

Doors opened and opportunities presented themselves to us, in ways that we could have never
dreamed. We stood before governors, presidential candidates, senators, representatives,
pastors, doctors and other leaders. The Lord charged us to plainly present the truth. We
quickly learned that speaking the truth made us a lightning rod. Some hated us because of our
message. Some realized their sins and repented. We stood on a spiritual fault line -- one
could not be neutral in the face of life and death truth. A decision had to be made after
hearing the truth.

But what came of our efforts? Why have you heard of no revival where multitudes repented
during the mid-'80s in a midwestern state? There was no revival.

There can be no revival without repentance.

When we told Christians in the churches the truth about abortion we began to hear stories:

• Professing Christian women went to the abortionists, some more than once. One Christian
woman explained that she had to cover up the sin of adultery. She feared harm to her
reputation in her small town community. Another Christian woman asserted that her career, and
the career of the baby's father, would have been damaged if their affair had become known.

• A highly respected evangelical leader, who had been a prayer partner of ours, shared that
she had previously worked in an abortion clinic. Startled by this admission, we inquired about
her repentance. She believed that this was a ministry, she said, because she held the hand of
the lady undergoing the procedure and prayed for the baby that was dying. Another abortion
clinic worker told us that she was helping women who were needy. She felt we were in the wrong
by being so 'judgmental."

• One day a troubled minister confessed that he had taken his girlfriend to an abortion clinic
because he thought it was his duty as a good man to support his woman during this time of
trial. It had never occurred to him that he had directly assisted in the killing of his own
child. He was devastated for many days, but later backslid into the same sins that had led to
his original act of immorality pornography and fornication.

• We heard reports of Christian mothers who coerced their daughters to undergo abortions to
camouflage their promiscuity. In several churches elders relied on abortion to cover secret
sins in the church leadership. There were Christian counselors and pastors who recommended
abortions. Some were simply silent. They didn't speak out to defend the baby's life, following
the humanistic model for non-directive psychology.

• Occasionally we counseled women who had undergone abortions, but who had never been told the truth. Many of these women were devastated and experienced great loss. This included Christian
women who had relied on IUD's, abortifacient birth control pills, or otherwise consented to a
medical procedure which caused their fertilized embryo baby to die before implantation in the
uterine wall. Despite the obvious loss of life, we knew of only one Christian doctor who
didn't routinely prescribe these abortifacients. Other Christian doctors made referrals for
abortions. One doctor privately told me that she feared the pressure of her medical peers.

• Christian teachers in public school classrooms believed it was their duty to teach children
the intimate details about sexuality, including abortion -- how to obtain one and the location
of the nearest clinic.

These examples are noteworthy and astonishing for one reason: these people all claimed to be
"pro-life." They voted for pro-life candidates and supported pro-life legislation. Some
believed themselves to be prophets, having a special anointing from the Lord for spiritual
discernment. We were alarmed, Something was going terribly awry. People who were, supposed to
be against abortion were Participating in the very sins that contributed to the problem. What
had gone wrong?

We searched for answers. Gradually over a period of many years we began to understand that
abortion was merely the tip of a massive iceberg. What was underneath the church's
participation in abortion? Some Christians were engaging in flagrant sins such as adultery and
fornication. Lurking under those sins was often concupiscence, lasciviousness, uncleanness
and inordinate affection. But we also found other, more troubling answers.


The Leaven

• We walked into the home of some friends shortly after the dinner hour. A TV was blaring in
the dining room. Several comic actors were making jokes about physical characteristics that we
are ashamed to mention here. The routine progressed and the woman took off her shirt to reveal
her underwear. Our friends continued on as if nothing was amiss. Because we don't watch
popular TV shows, we reacted to this. Was this the diet that Christians were feeding on
routinely? Couldn't hearing these things with their ears and seeing these things with their
eyes tempt them to sin in their heart? ("Take hear what you hear" Mark 4:24). Didn't Scripture
command us to "mortify our members" (Col. 3:5)? And, "this is the will of God, even your
sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication" (1 Th 4:3)? Even if it was just a TV
show? Our friends replied that they responded to the evil in TV shows by sending money to a
Christian Organization that fought bad TV programming. They wrote letters to their congressman
and lobbied against Hollywood.

• A friend of ours left the gay movement, repented, accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior, got
married and had children. Several years later he began to minister to others, telling them how
they might be saved and helping them out of the lifestyle. He soon learned that there was a
great deal of money to be made if a Christian group fought, anti-gay crusades in Washington,
but little help was provided to ministries like his, that led men to the cross and salvation
by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Christians loved to wage war against those "bad guys," but
neglected their duty to present the gospel to these tragic sinners. Our friend ultimately fled
a large charismatic church which tolerated a gay pastor, covering up his sin, while publicly
supporting anti-homosexual political agendas. We fled, too.

These two examples illustrate the extent to which Christians became influenced by the doctrine
of dominionism. This doctrine is a leaven, permeating everything. Rampant in Christian
organizations and media for the past two decades, especially because it is a lucrative and
patriotic theme, dominionism is best known for teaching that America is a Christian country
and that if we could only "fix" America politically everything would be a rose garden. As a
consequence of this teaching, Christians began to work to restore the Ten Commandments and
prayer in the schools, write letters to stop abortions, send money to stop pornography, and so
forth.

According to author Al Dager, "Dominion theology refers to any number of philosophies of
dominion within the churches which suggest that the world will be won to Christ by a revived
Church before the Lord returns. It states, in essence that Jesus cannot return until the
Church has taken dominion over the: temporal powers of the World system: (The World Christian
Movement, p. 114) Dominionism is taught by various brancbes of the church, including Reformed
and Reconstructionist, with different nuances and emphases. Its tenets can include the ideas
that the church must 1) conduct spiritual warfare in the heavenlies, 2) establish the King and
His Government on Earth, 3) make disciples of all nations (including by coercion or consensus
[bold, my addition, JG]), 4) and the Church must exhibit unity or perfection before the King
will return. Dominionism was never a traditional doctrine of Pentecostalism, but gradually its
leaven infiltrated everywhere. Dutch Sheets explained it: "Ephesians 4 is literal, before the
coming of the Lord Jesus. We will fully express Him in the earth. All things will be summed up
in Him. They will come back under their proper headship. They will come back into order. The
earth, the fullness of the earth, the eons, the times, the seasons, they are all marching
toward an appointed end where they are literally summed up in Christ and I'll tell you what
blows me away - He is doing it in us and through us."

At a recent "School of the Prophets" conference much was said about conducting spiritual
warfare in the heavenlies. C. Peter Wagner boasted that huge quantities of new written
materials are being published to promote the new doctrines for a planned "2nd Reformation." He
claimed that there are many apostle/prophets who have a "high level of contacts in the
spiritual and natural world:" It was asserted that once these people are "aligned" in
"government" then the church would be restored, revived and gifts would be "released."

Revival, please note, would not come through personal repentance. Instead, revival would come
by the church being "restored" to its proper "order." Dutch Sheets clearly stated: "He
(Christ) is not talking about us having to be perfect in the sense of sinless, but we are to
reach full or mature. It is a word used of coming into adulthood." The chief sins mentioned
were disunity and divisiveness referred to as a "Jezebel" spirit. The battle against evil was
portrayed as a corporate battle to fight a big, bad spiritual enemy "out there." Barbara Yoder
explained this new focus: "...one of the things that God is wanting us to do is He is wanting
us to change our center of thinking from self to corporate..."


The Salt

Historical Christian doctrine, employing traditional methods of exegesis, has taught that the
enemy of every believer is personal sin, which is to be resisted. Two kingdoms are in constant
conflict in this world - the "prince of the power of the air" and the kingdom of the Son of
God. Each individual believer is required to take a stand in one kingdom or another. One
kingdom leads to eternal life and the other leads to an eternal damnation in hell. The
spiritual battle is against sin and darkness in the believer's life. This principle is made
crystal clear in Eph. 2:1-5:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; Among whom also we all had our
conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and
of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others: But God, who is rich in
mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together,
and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

A worldwide group of self-anointed, self-appointed apostle and prophets are conducting
"strategic level" spiritual warfare, casting down "powers and principalities" they claim to
have identified. The Scriptures, however, portray a different spiritual battle - one with
eternal consequences for the believer. Christians are to resist sin found in this world: Love
not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love
of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world And the world
passeth away, and the lust thereof but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (I John
2:15-1 7)

Christianity has traditionally emphasized the sanctification of the believer, a doctrine
firmly rooted in the Word of God. Jesus Christ prayed that his followers would be kept from
the evil one (John 17:14-16): I have given them thy word and the world hath hated them,
because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world I pray not that thou
shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world Sanctify them through thy truth: thy
word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I sent them into the world
And for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth.


When Salt Loses Its Savour

Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be
salted' It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out,. and to be trodden underfoot
of men.:(Matt. 5:13) During the years we spoke against abortion many Christians entered
politics. They fervently believed, and often quoted, 2 Chronicles 7:14: If my people, which
are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from
their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal
their land. This verse, under the influence of the leaven of dominionism, took on a political
meaning, Notably, it is often quoted with these important words omitted: "and seek my face,
and turn from their wicked ways.

What happened to the Christians who entered politics? Most soon compromised their highest
ideals. Some even backslid into their old sins. They became salt that lost its savour. They
started with earnest hopes of witnessing of Christ to others, but soon political realities
realigned everyone into an "us versus them" world, where political opponents on issues became
enemies. Would someone who truly stands consistently for Christian principles ever get elected
(or stay in office) in our secular and pluralistic society? The political process demands
coalition building, consensus, compromise, cutting deals, agreeing to take only a half loaf
instead of a full loaf, agreeing to take the lesser of two evils, and supporting issues with
which one disagrees.

Political dominionism puts false hopes in coalition building. It teaches that our depraved
society will be changed simply by changing a few laws, or planting a few leaders in key
positions. It trusts in horses and chariots -- methods of man, not God.


Prophet Who CouIdn't Warn

• A prayer partner began urging us to attend some revival meetings at the home church of a
major signs and wonders leader. She believed that this man was a prophet with an extraordinary
gift of revelation. He was setting up a model city-wide church in his area. We didn't know
about the Latter Rain at the time, but there was a check in our spirits. Several weeks later
the story of a persecution of a Christian family who lived in this man's hometown hit
newspaper headlines across the state. The persecution was of such a nature as to establish a
legal foothold from which to harshly persecute other Christian believers with similar
convictions. Sarah phoned our friend. Surely this prophet had seen the significance of this
man's persecution! Surely he would rush to this family's defense in their hour of trial! Our
friend replied that the prophet only concerned himself with "deep spiritual matters." Sarah
replied sarcastically, "He must have both his head and his feet in the clouds."

Only later did we learn of the new brand of hyper-spiritual gnosticism that kept Christians
fighting imaginary "principalities" (Acts 8:4-6) but ignoring real life sins and dangers.

Had this "prophet" supported the persecuted believer (who was a man of strong biblical
convictions), he would have risked alienating other churches in his newly forming city-wide
group of pastors. Spiritual dominionism, as taught by the apostle/prophets, offers the false
hope of unity on earth. This unity requires that the gospel of salvation be watered down so
that no member of the fragile coalition will be offended. Just like political dominionism,
spiritual dotninionism caters to the lowest common denominator.

2 Peter 2:7-8 contains an intriguing reference to Lot. And delivered just Lot, vexed with the
filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and
hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;). Lot lived among
the in habitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. He was continually bombarded and inundated with the
perversity of that city's heathens. Not unlike our culture today as it comes across
undisciplined TV and computer screens, magazines and videos. Lot, was charged by the angels to
warn, the classic duty of a prophet. And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which
married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this
city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law (Gen 19:14). Lot failed utterly to
communicate his message, resulting in the deaths of his two sons-in-law.

The New Testament reference is very respectful of Lot, calling him righteous. Even so, he was
unable (to use the lingo of the signs and wonders crowd) "to operate fully in his spiritual
gift." He had become ensnared and entangled in his seductive culture, the sins of the world.
Jesus referred to this condition as thorns: He also that received seed among the thorns is he
that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the
word, and he becometh unfruitful (Matt 13::22). Immersing oneself in a culture of carnality
and sensuality does not produce fruit in the believer. It is a stumbling block to declaring
the Gospel and warning of the wrath to come'.'Perhaps there is. a reason so many are rushing
to embrace the new doctrines. Our flesh always finds it easier to fight battles outside
ourselves. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou
see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matt 7:5)

There is a reason why the new super-apostle/prophets have trouble sounding a real warning.
Dutch Sheets explains: "We are on a journey now with that unfolding where... all that has been
messed up through the Fall, all that has happened to try to get things off its path, it is on
an assured, definitely assured, path of restoration -- till we get back to the right
constitution of this -- the way that we were made, and intended to be, from the start. So we
are in a process of all things being restored, reconstituted to this stated declared order and
purpose." This utopian doctrine does not sound the warning to flee the wrath to come. This
message promises the false hope of a "restoration" of the King through a "revival" that
refuses to teach repentance. In spiritual dominionism there is no wrath to come! (Except a
judgment to be executed by the new super-church on those who don't "bow the knee" to whomever
they deem to be "King Jesus.")

The message of the new apostle/prophets and other dominionist teachers tickles the ears. It
creates an enemy "outside" rather than confronting personal sin. It is an inevitable
consequence of a church saturated for years with a psychologized gospel, which turned tables
on sin and began to look for excuses, compromises and rationales. The' new' "sins" include
insufficient faith, disunity, divisiveness, poverty; unhappiness, and disease. We did not
witness a single example of heartfelt repentance of a concrete biblically-based sin while
watching some excerpts of the "School of the Prophets" conference. Yet a vast group of
prophets-in-training were being "activated" to "restore."


"See, This is New" (Eccl. 1:10)

A pivotal doctrine taught at the "School of the ,Prophets" conference holds that the church is
evolving . The claim' was made that there is a progressive revelation of God throughout
church history. The 20th century which began with speaking in tongues, progressively received
new revelation each decade thereafter: latter rain, deliverance evangelism, charismatic
movement, faith (name it and claim it) movement, the prophets, then the apostles, and a coming
"saints" movement for the new millennium. The leaders claim that there is new "knowledge" with
each successive generation that supercedes old knowledge, and a "reconstitution" of all
things. They call this new doctrine "synergy," which is the occult term for precisely the same
concept of attaining to a new order on earth (the New Age).

A related doctrine taught at the "School of the Prophets" conference is also a prominent tenet
of the New Age movement. Popularized by Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, which is widely cited in New Age literature, the philosophy states that not only
is our knowledge of truth evolving, but truth itself is evolving. The apostle/prophets have
adopted this doctrine. They claim to possess new revelation -- that their knowledge of God's
truth is evolving. Their mantra is "'God is doing a new thing." But, significantly, they have
adopted doctrines that are so far removed from orthodox Christianity, that it is apparent that
they also believe God's truth, itself is evolving. They employ a bizarre method of exegesis,
taking, partial Scriptures wildly out of context and making preposterous applications. To back
up their new doctrines, they have resorted to citing' gnostic sources. This is the ultimate
consequence of placing a, higher emphasis on personal revelation than God's Truth -- the
Bible.

Many rock-solid Scriptures refute these false apostle/prophets. The Bible teaches that God and
His Word do not change.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Is 40:8)

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35)

For ever, 0 LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Ps 119:89)

Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. (Ps 119:152)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt 5:18)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, For all flesh, is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. But the, word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (I Peter 1:23-25)


Are These Guys Serious?

The bride of Christ, according to these new doctrines, is wearing combat boots. She is to gear
herself up for military/spiritual warfare. "We are up against the greatest war that we have ever been up against and we ain't seen war yet," proclaimed Barbara Yoder at the School of the Prophets. There is no mention of the bride wearing white. There is no intention of sanctification by cleansing and washing with the water of the Word. Rather, these leaders are building an army. Their rhetoric is filled with military words and analogies. Perhaps this wouldn't seem so alarming if it weren't for the realities we see each day on TV, of a religious/political group who took violent doctrinal rhetoric to the next step. C. Peter Wagner's statements after the terrorist attack on September 11th are downright chilling. He aligns the spiritual warfare activities of his strategic apostolic command with the real warfare activities on earth at NORAD in Colorado Springs and boldly pronounces "apostolic declarations" about war.

Enough is enough. These so-called apostle/prophets are scary. They are also deceiving the
sheep with their leaven. It is time to earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old
ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,
and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3,4)

Are these new apostle/prophets "denying Jesus"? It is becoming increasingly evident that they
are following a Jesus of their own imagination. They are putting obstacles in place of worship
-pillars of self-anointed, self-appointed apostles and prophets who claim, to possess extra-
biblical divine revelation, and to whom every local church must eventually bow. They are
building databases on believers, enabling them to have confessional booth knowledge of private
lives. They are forging alliances with leaders in government, including the United Nations.
They are building ecumenical structures with interlocking boards of directors. They are laying
the foundation for a state church.

Make no mistake about it: this foundation is not the Rock, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone.
These apostle/prophets are setting up a new priesthood which interferes with the priesthood of
all believers. Their 2nd Reformation will reverse the first Reformation and turn the church
back towards bondage. Believers are taught that they need super-charged anointings from select
leaders in order to become mature in the faith. The apostle/prophets claim to have new divine
revelations from the Lord which supercede the Word of God. These leaders are building upon the
sand, not the Rock.

Isn't it time to renounce these leaders? Isn't it time to put a huge divide between them and
us? Isn't it time to tell the world that these people do not represent authentic biblical
Christianity? Do we have to wait for them to actually put on combat boots before we realize
the horror of what could happen if their war rhetoric turns into reality?

It is time to gird up our loins and be prepared to turn the other cheek. Much of their war
rhetoric is directed against those, who oppose them on biblical grounds. These men are on
record, making threats against those who are not in agreement with them. Dutch Sheets
"prophesied" that the "Jehus are coming!" against the Jezebel spirit. That so-called "Jezebel
spirit" is anyone who still

stands on the pure, unadulterated Word of God - especially anyone who dares write or speak
against the self-anointed, self-appointed "elect."


The Case of the Missing Doctrines (or, How To Be A Salty Christian)

30 years ago we were saved in the midst of a genuine revival. It was called the "Jesus
Movement" because it focused on Jesus and the cross. Although there is evidence that the
revival may have been "engineered" in the beginning, it grew rapidly because it taught a
gospel of repentance. This revival was characterized by hippies turning away from a life of
sin (drugs, alcohol and promiscuity) to Christ.

When we were first saved we were taught several doctrines which are no longer widely taught in
evangelical and charismatic churches today. We were taught that we would be tempted to go
'back to our old life of sin unless we began practicing these doctrines. They would protect us
from evil, guard our faith, and keep our walk holy. These doctrines stemmed from a proper
understanding of the believer's place in the world. Here are some examples:

Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it
in the lusts thereof (Rom 6:11-12)

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with
God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy ofGod (James 4:4)

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that,
denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this
present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11 - 13)

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on
the right hand of God Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye
are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God. (Col 3:1-3)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed
to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is
that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God (Rom 12:1-2)

As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance; But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation. (I Peter 1:14-15)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath
Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that beheveth with an infidel? And what agreement
hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said,
I will a well in them and walk in them; and I will be their God.. they formed an organization
that fought bad TV programing. They wrote letters to their congressman and lobbied against
Hollywood, they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father
unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (II Cor 7:14-18)

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom 13:12-14)

These Scriptures have to do with separation and non-conformity. A believer is to be separated
from unbelievers and idolaters, and be consecrate holy unto the Lord. A believer is not to conform to this world, with all of its lusts, but is to conform to the perfect will of God.
These two principals kept many a baby Christian from returning to their former friends, former lusts, spiritual errors and previous manner of sinful life. Please note the last Scriptural reference above. Here is a clear example of spiritual warfare. These verses do not call for a believer to cast down high powers and principalities, or to set up governments and kings, but to cast off the works of darkness (sin) and put on holiness, which is an armour against the lusts of the flesh.

How does one put on holiness? It is time to return to a simple faith and trust in your first Love, Jesus Christ, who died on a cross so that Your sins might be forgiven. Read the Bible every day employing traditional methods of Bible study. Stay away from the wacky exegetical style of "replacement" theology employed by the signs and wonders prophets. Instead take each verse and ask the Lord to show you in your heart where you heed to apply it to your life. What is God plainly saying? Are you convicted? Do you need to ask the Lord for forgiveness? Do you need to make some changes in your life? Even if you look "peculiar" in the eyes of a worldly church? Are you willing to walk the narrow way, even if you are very alone on that path? Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my path. (Ps. 119:105)


[ Edit | View ]

What is the Biblical Idea of Prophecy and Modern apostles -- Olufemi Taiwo, 20:03:11 11/19/05 Sat

Introduction
Five years ago, I published a paper titled “On the Misadventures of National Consciousness: A Retrospect on Frantz Fanon’s Gift of Prophecy”, in which I explored the interface between the biblical idea of prophecy and social science predictions. I said there:

There are three attributes shared by a social scientific model and a jeremiad: description, explanation, and prediction. In ways that mirror social scientific models, there is a description, in a jeremiad, of what is wrong in the community. For example, biblical prophets gave stark descriptions of the many sins and transgression prevalent in their community, the corruption and debaucheries of the rulers, the absence of righteousness and upstandingness among their fellows. Secondly, the explanation of the misfortunes of the community was that the people had strayed from the path of righteousness laid out for them by the divine authority. Finally, in the prophecy, there was a warning that unless the divine word was heeded, dire consequences would follow. But there is at least one clear difference between biblical prophecy and good social science: in social scientific models, the “Thus saith the Lord” of a prophecy is replaced with the authority of analysis, theoretical paradigms, and empirical investigations. Nonetheless, in the same way that failure to heed the word of the Lord will mean perdition, so will failure to heed the warning in social scientific prophecy lead to social dislocation and crisis in the community.1
The template constructed there will be deployed here for reasons that will become clear presently. But before I set out those reasons, one additional commonality shared by prophecy and social science must be identified. They both arise often from dissent, from heterodoxy, and they usually come as part of a moral vision that the situation of which the prophecy speaks ought to be altered.

Why Prophecy? Why Now?
We begin from the present. The entire continent of Africa, not unlike other parts of the world, is at the present time one huge workshop of social experiments in politics, economics, religion, culture and myriad other areas of life. One frame within which scholars in almost all disciplines interpret contemporary Africa is that of a dichotomy between Africa’s much-vaunted attachment, one is tempted to say addiction, to tradition and near congenital aversion to what is generally dubbed ‘modernisation’. Those who are familiar with the social science literature in economics, political science and history would easily recall that in the sixties and seventies, African regimes were adjudged successes or failures by how far they had travelled on the road to modernization. Modernisation was understood in near-grotesque terms of increasing Gross Domestic Product, total mileage of macadamized roads, and the like. And when the bottom fell out in the eighties, we were treated to gory accounts of so-called modernisation that went too fast, African traditional institutions that were recalcitrant to the changes enjoined by modernisation efforts, and so on.

There are two major problems with any attempt to explain phenomena in Africa within the ‘traditional versus modern’ schema. The first problem is conceptual: the means, ‘modernisation’, is mistaken for the end, ‘modernity’. This is not a mere verbal point. The end-product, putatively speaking, of all modernization processes must be the transformation of the social organism concerned from a pre-modern or non-modern state to a modern one. Properly understood, this must mean that the organism concerned has had its most dominant institutions bathed in the ether of modernity, the proper name for the outcome of the process in which modernisation is a tool. If this is the case, it is possible to have modernisation, understood as the superficial painting of the social fabric with various markers of modernity without there being the infusion of the elements that constitute the soul, the identifying characteristics of modernity. Japan and South Korea are the most successful examples of this phenomenon. Taiwan and Hong Kong are not far behind. Hence, I am suggesting that whatever was going on in Africa in the sixties and seventies were at best inchoate attempts at becoming modern. So, their failure cannot be used as evidence of the inability of Africans to be modern.

The second problem is historical: contemporary scholars do not evince any awareness of the rich legacy of past attempts at the installation of modernity in some parts of the continent, most notably English-speaking West Africa. Hence, much of the discourse about Africa and modernity at the present time proceeds as if (1) this is a new problem or (2) there are no antecedent African engagements with modernity. The available historical evidence supports neither standpoint.

In the nineteenth century, specifically before the imposition of formal empire on the African continent by various European powers, some parts of Africa were in the beginnings of a transition to modernity. Originally begun under the inspiration of Christianity—taking this seriously is bound to alter our historiography of Christianity and appraisal of its career in Africa—the African apostles of modernity took the movement beyond the confines of the religious to the larger sphere of the secular. I argue that it is time to honour these prophets and adapt their wisdom to the task that is again before us to move Africa towards modernity. But we cannot celebrate them if we don’t know who they are. So one modest aim of this essay is to introduce these prophets of old Africa.

There is an even deeper reason to take them seriously now. I argue that modernity is back on the agenda in Africa, as it is in other areas of the world. It is more insightful, perhaps more correct, to interpret the current experimentation in forms of rule—liberal representative democracy and the rule of law; forms of social living—the ideology of individualism; forms of economic production—capitalism; in Africa and other parts of the world as late transitions to modernity. I am quite aware that what I say risks being appropriated by social evolutionists who would like to make it appear as if Euro-America sits at the apex of the human social ladder with the rest of the world coming up the rear. Anyone who is familiar with the expostulations of Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington will see the point clearly.2 But we may not refrain from drawing appropriate lessons from history for our own use because some might turn the same results to mischievous ends. It is worth taking the risk involved in this instance because I would like Africa, if its peoples so desire, to engage modernity in a conscious, critical way and embrace or shun it for Africa’s own reasons, not out of ignorance or elemental hostility traceable to the conflicted legacy of its history in the continent.

What Modernity?
We work with a very historicised and, therefore, narrow conception of modernity. Modernity, as it is understood here, refers to that movement of ideas, practices and institutions that originated in Europe the roots of which are generally traced to the Renaissance, moving through the voyages of Discovery, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. It gave us such milestones as the English Civil War and Act of Settlement of 1701, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Scientific Revolution as well as Capitalism. But it is modernity’s philosophical discourse that interests us because, ultimately, its most lasting impact has not been that it enabled us to build nuclear weapons or send humans into space. Rather, in creating and widely disseminating a new and radically different view of human nature unique to it, and creating the kinds of values, practices and institutions to enable this specific mode of being human to effloresce, modernity represents an epoch all its own in the history of human evolution.

The relevant elements of the discourse of modernity are the following: the principle of subjectivity and its social concomitant, individualism, the centrality of Reason, autonomy of action, liberal democracy, the Rule of Law, the open future, and an obsession with novelty. This is not the appropriate place to expound upon the meanings and entailments of the various aspects of modernity just iterated. In this section, we give a brief description of each of the features that will be discussed below. For our purposes here, the Rule of Law, autonomy of action, and the question of novelty shall not be considered.

Individualism:
The most important of the above elements to be discussed here is the idea of individualism. No doubt, the idea of individualism predated the modern age. My contention is that (1) the notion of the individual that is dominant in the modern age is without precedent, at least in the Euro-American tradition from which our African prophets extracted it; (2) it is under the modern regime that individualism is anointed as the principle of social ordering and almost everything else is understood in terms of how well or ill it serves the interests of the individual. Thus, although it is true that there was some recognition of the individual in premodern epochs, it is in the modern epoch that the individual is not merely supreme; whatever detracts from the rights of the individual is, precisely for that reason, to be rejected. This notion of the individual took a long time to emerge but it received one of its most dramatic consecrations in the Protestant Reformation when the subject, that is, the individual, was made the centrepiece of Christian soteriology. The subject must win eternity for himself, helped of course by grace. One’s genealogy, status and similar attributes counted for nothing, or at least theoretically ought to count for nothing in the allocation of goods, services, or even recognition. The key element is that of individual striving, what the individual makes of herself and whatever talent she is endowed with by Nature. Here is the source of the Merit Principle, the meritocracy that promises rewards to individuals according as they show themselves worthy by developing their talents. One consequence of the focus on the individual in the modern state is that no longer are individuals’ futures determined by what station they were born into in life. Humans are adjudged capable of moving across status, class, and other boundaries as long as they are willing to improve themselves enough to fit them for whatever station they aspire to occupy.

Our prophets embraced the preceding idea of individualism and made it the cornerstone of their worldview. Whatever other influences they would later derive from their African origins and general milieu, the idea that if they improved themselves sufficiently, they would be rewarded with careers open to talent was appropriated directly from their engagement with modernity. Needless to say, at the core of the individualist orientation is the idea of the person, the self, created by God, saved by grace. In the interim between its creation in sin and its salvation by grace, the self acquires stature by dint of hard work, education, and a little luck. This is the self that is accorded respect and whose well-being is the metric by which to judge forms of social ordering. I am not saying that the kind of rampant individualism that we usually associate with the modern variety would have appealed to any of them. But I definitely would argue that the self—of individuals—and the collective self—of groups—were objects of their solicitation.

The Centrality of Reason
The second tenet of modernity that is of moment to us is the centrality of Reason. Modern society fancies itself as a society of knowledge, one in which the claims of tradition and authority do not mean much and every truth claim must be authenticated by Reason. Whoever can show that she has superior knowledge commands our assent and respect. This is contrasted with the premodern situation where authority went largely unchallenged, tradition reigned supreme and reason was appointed a handmaiden to Revelation. The African prophets adopted this tenet of modernity with aplomb. In their exertions, we can see them working extremely hard to acquire knowledge of not only the new ways of life that their sojourn in the New World of Slavery and the Slave Trade had socialised them into, but also that of their own societies, cultures, and customs. They provided us with our first models of intellectuals under the new dispensation inaugurated by evangelisation and colonisation.

Governance by Consent
Finally, I refer to the central tenet of political theory in the modern age under which no one ought to acknowledge the authority of, or owe an obligation to obey, any government in the constitution of which he or she has played no part. That is, no government is legitimate to which the governed have not consented. When the American revolutionaries first used this principle as their rallying cry in 1776, it was the first culmination of a new principle of legitimacy the philosophical grounds of which had been foreshadowed in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others. From that point on, whether it was in the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the much less abrupt transfer of power from the monarch and the nobility to the House of Commons in Britain, the authority of every ruler by the grace of God or by reason of birth was vulnerable to the challenge posed by the new thinking concerning the issue of who ought to rule when not all can rule. It was this principle that, as we shall see, our prophets adopted in their argument that they must be rulers in their own house and that representative government was not a gift to be bestowed on them by the British, but a right that they had earned because they were citizens of Empire. Our prophets were so enthusiastic about the doctrine of governance by consent that they sought at different times to remake indigenous modes of governance in accordance with its imperatives. Such was the force of the principle that by the third decade of the twentieth century, “no taxation without representation” was a favourite slogan of leaders of the National Congress of British West Africa.3

The Historical Context
In what follows, I shall be arguing that the African apostles of modernity filled the role of prophets in the manner described in section 1. There were two dimensions to their starting point: the first was their experience of having been recaptured from slavers and slavery. As a result, their appreciation of the liberty promised for all under the modern regime was not merely theoretical. Theirs was an unalloyed disavowal of any and every regime that threatened to undermine liberty. The second was their description of the indigenous Africa to which they had returned. Given the approbation that they bestowed upon their new outlook on life, it is no surprise that they held their native counterparts to be backward, sunk in heathenism and requiring redemption through the light of Christianity and (modern) Civilisation. They attributed Africa’s backwardness to the ravages of the Slave Trade and the prevalence of ignorance and superstition. Their preferred solution provides a pointer to their moral vision. They insisted that the future prosperity of their land depended on their taking the best from modern civilisation and combining it with what was best about their indigenous heritage and fashioning a synthesis that would deliver the promise of Christianity and Civilisation to their compatriots.

Let us rewind to the nineteenth century. The Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery had just been abolished. Many slaves—Recaptives, as they were called—were being taken from their slavers and returned to Sierra Leone and other parts of West Africa whence they’d been taken. Others were being repatriated from the United States and the West Indies or Canada—they were called freedmen. But before their return journeys many of them had undergone some fundamental reorientation, sundry life-changing experiences, the most important of which was their becoming Christians. However, to see their becoming Christians only in terms of its religious trappings will be inadequate, perhaps mistaken.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was a small group of missionaries and politicians as well as other men and women of affairs, especially humanitarians, who believed that the success of their missionizing activities was to be measured by how quickly they were able to render themselves superfluous to the running of the local Church they had helped establish. Many of them had been active in the humanitarian movement that had spearheaded the struggle for the abolition of the Slave Trade and Slavery. No doubt, the period witnessed its share of racist apologists who saw Africans as non-human beings or lesser human beings. Their ranks included missionaries and humanitarians. But many in the humanitarian movement saw Africans differently. They believed that the degenerate state of Africans at that time could not be separated from the centuries of degradation that they had suffered under the twin evils of the Slave Trade and Slavery. They contended that if Africans displayed lesser qualities than other humans, this was not because Africans were any less human than their fellows. Rather, the development of Africans had been stunted by historical factors. Thus, the humanitarians regarded the abolition of the Slave Trade and Slavery as the absolute prerequisite for the rehabilitation of the Africans and for their restoration to their proper place at humanity’s table. As a result, some missionaries and humanitarians believed that their task was to school Africans in preparation for that time when the latter must assume the basic prerogative of every human being: responsibility for themselves and their posterity. For those missionaries and humanitarians, their task was to create those conditions in which Africans could quickly master, once again, the art of self-government and its attendant responsibilities, and they, as teachers, would take pride in having weaned their heathen wards off any dependency.

A similar current was present among politicians, too. It was articulated for instance by Earl Grey, Colonial Secretary in Lord Russell’s administration, 1846-52, in the following terms: “The real interest of this Country is gradually to train the inhabitants of this part of Africa in the arts of civilization and government, until they shall grow into a nation capable of protecting themselves and of managing their own affairs, so that the interference and assistance of the British Authorities may by degrees be less and less required.”4 Another manifestation of it is to be found in the resolution of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in May 1865 which said, inter alia, “that the object of our policy should be to encourage in the natives the exercise of those qualities which may render it possible more and more to transfer to them the administration of all the Governments, with a view to our ultimate withdrawal…”5

The sentiment was most pronounced among missionaries. One might argue that there was a convergence of views among the key sectors of nineteenth century West Africa concerning the aim of imperial activities there: freed slaves who had become socialized into a new lifeworld structured by Christianity; government officials who felt that the most economical way to build Empire was to rely on native agency and who saw their duty as making Africans fit for self-government; and missionaries who saw Africans as blighted children of God, no thanks to slavery, but God’s children nonetheless who were capable of redemption and regeneration needing only temporary help from their missionary benefactors. Whether or not the government officials meant what they professed, and whether or not the missionaries were sincere in theirs, the Africans took the charge seriously and proceeded to make themselves worthy of self-government. The conjuncture we have described so far provided the context for the phenomena that we discuss in the rest of this essay.

The most vocal and the most profound missionary at that time was the Very Reverend Henry Venn who served as the Honorary Secretary of the spearhead organisation for the evangelisation activities of the Church of England, the Church Mission Society, from 1841 to 1872. Here is Ade Ajayi’s summary of Venn’s ideas on native Church organisation.

The Missionary Society he says in effect, is an organization with limited funds, but unlimited fields to cover. Its aim must be to create “self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating” churches. The missionary arrives in the field, sent out and maintained by the Society. His first converts should be organized in little bands under leaders and should start as soon as possible to make contributions to a Native Church Fund separate from the funds of the Missionary Society. Soon the bands should come together and form a congregation under a native catechist whom they should endeavour to maintain. Soon the catechist or other suitable native should be ordained pastor and the missionary can then move on to fresh ground. Thenceforth, the missionary is “to exercise his influence ab extra, prompting and guiding the native pastors to lead their flocks, and making provision for the supply for the native Church of catechist, pastors or evangelists…. “Let a native Church be organized as a national institution…. As the native Church assumes a national character, it will ultimately supersede the denominational distinctions which are now introduced by Foreign Missionary Societies… Every national Church is at liberty to change its ceremonies, and adapt itself to national taste.” But that must be the work of the native pastorate. The temptation for European missionaries to assume the role of the pastor must be resisted, for, “such a scheme, even if the means were provided, would be too apt to create a feeble and dependent native Christian community.6
Notice the emphasis on the three selves—self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating. This alone is significant. Were we to focus on its implication we would see the secular reach of what goes on within the religious sphere. Self-support means (1) that there is a self whose capacity to act and whose autonomy to do so must not merely be recognised but respected, celebrated even and (2) support cannot but include the creation of material means to ensure that neither Church nor pastor is beggared. Again notice the connections. Only a post-Reformation Christianity could articulate the kind of heterodoxy suggested by Venn. Even in our day, the Catholic Church does not allow anything similar. Venn took seriously the history of the Church of England itself and he was willing to extend the capacity for autochthony to the African Church. He insisted that perpetually feeding the native Church through aid from the coffers of the mother Church would create a dependent and feeble native Church. The mother Church must equip the native Church with the capacity for self-support and must insist on the latter acquiring such capacity in the shortest time possible. Hence, Venn, and others who shared his philosophy, wanted a total remaking of the African world, initially under their direction but quickly turned over to Africans themselves, a development that was to be anchored on the other two Cs—Commerce and Civilisation—that they deemed requisite to the achievement of their primary C, Christianity.

Many Africans took the humanitarian professions of faith in native agency seriously. They set about the task of remaking the African world after the fashion of the world that they had been inducted into, the signal values of which they had come to embrace, and the fruits of which they were earnest to make available to their brethren and sistren who, in their estimation, were still in the grip of heathenism. It is from among their ranks that the prophets that I am speaking of emerged, fully persuaded that a great future for Africa lay in a critical appropriation of what force and Providence had bestowed on them during their time in the Babylon of New World Slavery and the Slave Trade. According to Ajayi,

The most important factor in their make-up, however, was that in passing through slavery into freedom they had all been made acutely conscious of the gaps that separated them as a people from the Europeans. And in spite of having been subjected to Europeans or because of it, they wished to be like Europeans. They had all travelled far. A few of them had travelled widely and had seen something of the European world, either in Europe itself, or at secondhand, in Sierra Leone, the West Indies or Latin America. By and large, they all came back desiring to make certain changes come about… They were the first generation of Nigerian nationalists. Their nationalism consisted in their vision of a new social, economic and political order such as would make their country “rank among the civilized nations of the earth”.7
Ajayi’s description requires us to consider these Africans with greater sophistication and sympathy. In assessing the contributions of this group of African thinkers we must resist the urge to see in them glorified ‘Uncle Toms’. All too often in the apologias of colonial administrators, they are represented as persons who suffered from a dependency complex or a near pathological desire to be ‘white’ or, at least, ‘European’. I suspect that part of the reason that their reflections have not been taken seriously by African scholars in the contemporary period is not unconnected to the fact that it is this picture of them that is present to our contemporary minds every time their names come up. Furthermore, ever since the colonial period and the subsequent hostility that it kindled in nationalistic Africans, those Africans who have deigned to think that indigenising the ways of their European oppressors offered a path to serious progress for their own peoples and lands have always attracted the disapprobation of their fellows. Yet, to think of our prophets as, for the most part, desirous of becoming ‘white’ or ‘European’ is to seriously misconstrue what they were about and who they desired to be. Indeed, a close but unprejudiced analysis of their writings and pronouncements will reveal entirely contrary impulses.

The view of the prophets as bad parodies of their European benefactors can sometimes be traced to their unflattering portrayals of indigenous African practices, institutions, and values, especially when they compared the latter to their newly acquired practices, institutions and values of European provenance. They are thus spoken of as if they found nothing good in African ways of being human and thought everything good about European ways of being human. The problem with this view is that, again, on closer analysis, their standpoints had more nuance than their latter day critics are aware of or willing to acknowledge. Our task is to understand where they were coming from, explore their ideas fully rather than strands taken out of context, and see why they might have appeared as pathological self-haters. I hope that the discussion that follows offers a modest beginning on the path to appreciating their genius.

Unlike the reticence, maybe a profound lack of self-confidence, with which we their progeny now approach modernity and other things ‘Western’, the prophets of old exuded tremendous confidence in their belief that they were destined to be the leaders who would create new forms of social living in Africa be stealing the fire of the ‘West’ and combining it with what was best in their indigenous heritage, and doing all this in partnership with Europeans. Thus we need to investigate their ideas of progress, of the state of Africa during their time, and of how best to fit Africa for its proper place in the concert of nations.

THE PROPHETS
Samuel Ajayi Crowther
The first of the apostles that I wish to present for rather belated honour is the Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther (1806-1891). The contributions of Bishop Crowther have usually been processed through religious lenses. He was “the first non-European to be consecrated a Protestant Bishop since the Reformation.”8 The evangelisation of much of present-day Nigeria was prosecuted under his direction. This achievement alone would constitute enough justification for adulating him. But I concur in Ade Ajayi’s judgment:


[ Edit | View ]

Part II -- 0 bey, 20:01:48 11/19/05 Sat

To continue to treat Crowther merely as a success story—a slave boy who became a bishop—without probing further to evaluate the greatness of the man and his achievements, is to trivialize the issues involved and fall into the error of the CMS officials who, after the death of Henry Venn in 1872 chose to underestimate Crowther’s tenacity of purpose and attachment to basic principles. On one point I agree with Jesse Page’s assessment: ‘He was no fanatic on the subject of a native ministry, but he was a patriot to the core.’9
I would like to add that not only was Crowther a patriot to the core, he was one of the earliest scientists, make that polymath, to emerge from the modern era in Africa. This aspect of his achievements has not been celebrated. Let us examine the evidence.

Crowther epitomised the man of knowledge, par excellence.10 He was an explorer, a philologist, a theologian, an administrator, an ethnographer, and multilinguist. In all these activities, he evinced an incredible capacity for observation, a gift for seeing what is valuable in indigenous ways of being human so as to adapt the Christian message accordingly and facilitate the creation of an indigenous Church. This he did in spite of his own conviction that his indigenous African cohort were sunk in heathenism and could only be led forth by the light of the Christian faith and of the civilization of which it was an integral part. But one is unlikely to appreciate fully the man’s accomplishments if one is not aware of what road he travelled.

According to Ajayi, the foremost living scholar of Crowther’s life and work, he was born in Yorubaland in about 1806, was rescued by the Naval Squadron in April 1822 off Lagos, and released in Freetown as a freed slave in July. “It is said that he was so eager to learn that he was able to read the New Testament in English within six months.”11 That must have been remarkable enough and it probably impressed his CMS benefactors. By 1828, he had qualified as a teacher and, in 1837, he published an account of his capture and life as a slave in 1821-22. He was part of the Niger Expedition in 1841-42. His journal of that expedition was published as Journals of Schön and Crowther.12 In a recent evaluation of Crowther’s achievements, Lamine Sanneh remarked as follows:

In spite of the hazards and difficulties, Crowther accomplished a surprising amount of work on the Niger, making the most detailed observations and reports of his progress on the banks of the Niger. He was interested in the religious ideas and practices of Africans, and he inquired diligently, listened closely, and depicted as accurately as he could what he observed and heard for himself. He was eager to corroborate, test, and confirm for himself, leaving issues of dispute open to opinion. He avoided rushing to judgment. Thus, although he noted somber aspects of their customs and traditional practices, Crowther was nevertheless enthusiastic about what he learnt of religion among the Ibo people, including their ideas about God (Chukwu, Chineke), ethics, and moral conduct. He said he had heard references to such things among the Sierra Leoneans of Ibo background but had refrained from stating them as facts “before I had satisfied myself by inquiring of such as had never had any intercourse with Christians…. Truly God has not left Himself without witness!” The idea that premodern Africa had anticipated in several crucial respects Christian teaching was stated by Crowther with such spontaneous conviction that it marked him as a native mouthpiece, not just as a foreign agent.13
Sanneh’s assessment illustrates many of the qualities that typify a scientific orientation: the insistence on facts, the suspension of judgment ere the facts are in, etc. Equally important, he did not prejudge the indigenous culture and, on his being acquainted with the facts, he saw evidence that there were nodes in the native culture onto which Christian ideas could be grafted. Thus, in one and the same movement, he grasped the possibility of nativizing Christianity and christianizing indigenous religious antecedents. This was to form the hallmark of his evangelizing activities for the rest of his life. And he did so with a scientific mindset that did not permit any unwarranted a priori privileging of either Christian or native religion. Again, I cite Sanneh. “Crowther was not a mere romantic, bowing to native custom and practice. His natural habit of stringent scrutiny of the evidence he never abandoned to nativistic pride, and so he plunged into remote hinterland districts, grateful for what he discovered of encouragement there, certainly, but resolved also to confront what he judged harmful.”14

His scientific orientation, his commitment to the study of African life and thought as a basis for determining the shape and direction of the native Church, is part of why I insist that it is way past time to celebrate his genius. And what genius it was! He set about acquiring the necessary tools for the performance of his scientific task.

When on his return from the Niger Expedition in 1842 he was recommended for ordination, the Bishop of London after interviewing him briefly is reported to have said: “He will do, but polish him up.” He was admitted in September 1842 to the CMS Training Institution at Islington. At the MayJune examinations, he evidently impressed his examiners. The Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge said he would like to take his answers on Paley’s “Evidences of Christianity” to read to his friends in Trinity College. “If, after hearing that young African’s answers, they still contend that he does not possess a logical faculty, they will tempt us to question whether they do not lack certain other faculties of at least equal importance, such as common fairness of judgment and Christian candor.” Bishop Bloomfield later remarked: “That man is no mean scholar; his examination papers were capital, and his Latin remarkably good.”15
Even if one were uncharitably to dismiss the effusive praise of his examiners as so much paternalism towards an unusual African, the rest of his life confirmed that the praises were not only well-deserved, but the promise that they all saw in him was fully redeemed.

Having recognized the importance of making native agency the cornerstone of the native Church in Africa, Crowther quickly became a scholar of African indigenous religions and Islam. Most important of all, he became a preeminent philologist of African languages. His achievements in this area cry out for us his successors to celebrate but, at the same time, study his methodology, his results, and so on. Here is the evidence as represented by Ajayi.

In the 13 years (1844-57) that he was a member of the Yoruba mission, apart from his evangelical and pastoral work at Igbein, he went up the Niger again in 1854 and 1857, building up the experience he needed for his later career. But the most important aspect of his work in those years was his career as a translator. We tend to take this for granted, but look at the record. He published a few extracts in 1848; the Epistle to the Romans in 1850; Luke, Acts, James I and II and Peter in 1851; Genesis and Matthew in 1853; Exodus and the Psalms in 1854; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in 1856 and revisions of earlier texts. After 1857, he had to work with others. Thomas King had collaborated with him on Matthew in 1853. In 1857-62, they worked on the Epistles—Philippians, I and II Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, John, Jude and Revelations, thus completing the New Testament in 1865. Schön and Gollmer edited these for linguistic consistency and published a revised new Testament in 1865. In 1867, Genesis to Ruth of the Old Testament was published. Others were brought in, probably because of their proficiency in Hebrew—Hinderer, D. O. Williams, Adolphus Mann, etc. By 1889 the whole Bible was available in Yoruba, though not in a single volume until 1900.16
By itself, the achievement of the translation of the Bible into any nonoriginal language would be phenomenal. When it is realized that the translation into Yoruba was being done at the same time as the language itself was being newly rendered into written form, the work becomes even more astonishing. Indeed, beyond the importance of translating the Bible into Yoruba, the business of rendering Yoruba into written form must attract greater significance for it made the language immediately available for other than religious theoretical tasks. It is a mark of how little we know, much less appreciate, of Crowther’s philological labours that he is never taught as one of the principal figures of the history of philology, even in Nigeria where he did the bulk of this work. Nor is he taught to history students in Nigeria, at both high school and college levels, as a pioneer linguist, grammarian, ethnographer or theologian of no small repute. Nor is he ever acknowledged as an accomplished explorer in the annals of exploration in Africa.

Yet, he authored the earliest grammar and dictionary of the Yoruba language, Grammar and Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language, (London, Seelys, 1852); Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language: Part I—English and Yoruba; Part II—Yoruba and English. To which are prefixed the grammatical elements of the Yoruba Language, (London: CMS, 1843). His labours were not restricted to the Yoruba language or culture. The following works were also attributed to his authorship: Isuama-Ibo Primer, (London: CMS, 1860); Vocabulary of the Ibo Language: Part 2 English-Ibo, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1883); The Gospel according to St. John: translated into Nupe, (London: CMS, 1877); Nupe Primer, (London: CMS, 1860).

His mettle as an explorer is attested by the following reports that he authored andor co-authored: Journals of the Rev. James Frederick Schön and Mr. Samuel Crowther, already cited; The Gospel on the Banks of the Niger: Journals and Notices of the Native Missionaries accompanying the Niger Expedition of 1857-1859 by the Rev. Samuel Crowther and the Rev. John Christopher Taylor, (London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1968); Niger Mission: Bishop Crowther’s Report of the Overland Journey from Lokoja to Bida, on the River Niger; and thence to Lagos, on the sea coast, from November 10th, 1871 to February 8th, 1872, (London: CMS, 1872); Journals and Notices of the Native Missionaries on the River Niger, 1862, (London: CMS, 1863); The River Niger: A Paper Read before the Royal Geographical Society, June 11th, 1877; and a Brief Account of Missionary Operations Carried on Under the Superintendence of Bishop Crowther in the Niger Territory, (London: CMS, 1877); Journal of an Expedition up the Niger and Tshadda Rivers undertaken by Macgregor Laird in connection with the British Government in 1854, (London: CMS, 1855).

I hope that the foregoing discussion gives enough of a foretaste of what is awaiting discovery in the secular exertions of Bishop Crowther. We must not omit to mention that he made all these discoveries in the face of racist opposition from his contemporary and rival, Henry Townsend, and, from 1872 onwards, following upon the death of Henry Venn, the original visionary Secretary of the CMS, a distinctly racist turn both in the CMS and in Europe, generally. The latter development eventually led to his removal from service. But as long as he remained in office, he took seriously the promise of knowledge and sought to strengthen the African self with scientific achievements and scholarly rigour. His travelogues were based on commissions. He collected ethnographies and data on native life generally. He was one of the earliest models of the native intellectual who sought to domesticate what Europe had to offer as a means of advancing the interests and welfare of Africans.

James Africanus Beale Horton
The second of the apostles whose importance I wish to underscore is Dr. James Beale Africanus Horton. Born in Sierra Leone on June 1st, 1835, in Gloucester, near Freetown, Horton’s parents were originally of Ibo extraction. They were repatriates from Trinidad. He went to school in Sierra Leone and for further studies, beginning in 1855, first at King’s College, London, where he trained as a physician, and later at Edinburgh in 1859. “Horton’s career [at King’s College] was brilliant, and he won prizes in Surgery, Physiology and Comparative Anatomy. His knowledge of Anatomy was amply demonstrated in his book West African Countries and Peoples, British and Native … and a Vindication of the African Race in which he challenged physical anthropologists who had asserted that the brain of an African was smaller than that of a European and that he was therefore less intelligent.”17 He went on to Edinburgh for further studies and in 1859 he obtained a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree. He had earlier in 1858 been admitted to membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (M.R.C.S.), which qualified him to be a doctor. “He joined the Army Medical Service as an Assistant Staff Surgeon in the West African Service and rose to the rank of Surgeon-Major in 1875, later ranking as Lieutenant-Colonel after twenty years’ service and finally retiring on half pay in 1880. He was not the first African doctor, but he was one of the most versatile of his century.”18 He served many tours of duty in different parts of English-speaking West Africa from Gambia to Ghana.

His initial training as a scientist already makes it easier for us to identify him with the temperament ordinarily associated with doing science. However, Horton’s career was extraordinary enough given his medical and scientific accomplishments. What made his accomplishments even more extraordinary were his writings in government, political theory, ethnography and sundry other areas. As Nicol remarks, “his knowledge of the classics, history, anthropology, science and medicine was remarkable for a man of any race.”19 Of course, it would be nice if I could explore his prodigious writings in some of these spheres. But such an undertaking is far beyond the scope of the present essay. What I hope to do instead is to present evidence from some of his writings and show how some of his articulations amounted to prophetic insights into times beyond that in which he lived.

As a scientist and man of knowledge, Horton’s writings were prodigious. In language that is anticipatory of some of the contemporary responses to lingering pseudo-scientific racism, Horton used knowledge and scientific research to refute the racism of his time. It is important to comprehend why the appeal to science is as crucial to racists as it is to anti-racists. Modern society, as I have pointed out, requires that whatever is to be accepted as true must either be capable of demonstrative proof of the type to be found in mathematics, especially algebra, or emanate from empirical investigation, possibly experimentation, supported by facts and figures. Additionally, given that appeal to tradition and revelatory authority no longer enjoys any legitimacy, only that claim that withstands or justifies itself to Reason’s scrutiny is deserving of a thinking person’s assent. This was the ground of the modern epoch’s denial of legitimacy to both papal and other types of sacerdotal authority and that of royals by the grace of God. As a credentialed member of that community in which only the authority of Reason and the possession of superior knowledge count, Horton was eager to show that he had the upper hand against the racists of his time. Needless to say, one often is struck by the irony involved in the situation where the self-appointed custodians of Reason and scientific rationality are frequently shown up subverting Reason by the so-called non-possessors of Reason when the former, in the face of facts and other proof, continue irrationally to deny the obvious. Consider the following critique by Horton of the alleged inferiority of the Negro Race:

It is in the development of the most important organ of the body—the brain, and its investing parieties—that much stress has been laid to prove the simian or apelike character of the Negro race…. The skull is, as regards the sutures, intimately connected with the brain; in man, we find that the posterior sutures first close, and the frontal and coronal last, but in the anthropoid ape the contrary is the case. Among the Negro race, at least among the thousands that have come under my notice, the posterior sutures first close, then the frontal and coronal, and the contrary has never been observed by me in even a single instance, not even among Negro idiots; and yet M. Gratiolet and Carl Vogt, without an opportunity of investigating the subject to any extent, have unhesitatingly propagated the most absurd and erroneous doctrine—that the closing of the sutures in the Negro follows the siminious or animal arrangement, differing from that already given as the governing condition in man.20
In the above passage, Horton was not concerned to excoriate his interlocutor for any charge other than that of being a nonscientist or a false one. Nor was he concerned with the morality of his interlocutors or their ideological predilections. Knowledge and its possession or lack thereof was the only at issue as far as he was concerned. Simultaneously, he situated himself on the terrain of superior knowledge and commanded assent as such. The fact that he was doing it as an African was at best an icing on the cake of his epistemic supremacy. In fact, he ridiculed his interlocutor as one to whom, as he, the interlocutor himself confessed, “Race is everything—literature, science, art—in a word civilization depends on it…. With me race or hereditary descent is everything; it stamps the man.”21 It is immediately obvious that Dr. Knox’s standpoint is unscientific, not founded on knowledge and, for that reason, unworthy of assent on the part of those for whom the authority of science alone is legitimate. This was exactly the charge that Horton leveled at the then recently chartered Royal Anthropological Society.

Of late years a society has been formed in England in imitation of the Anthropological Society of Paris, which might be made of great use to science had it not been for the profound prejudice exhibited against the Negro race in their discussions and in their writings. They again revive the old vexed question of race, which the able researches of Blumenbach, Prichard, Pallas, Hunter, Lacépéde, Quatrefages, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and many others had, years ago (as it is thought) settled. They placed the structure of the anthropoid apes before them, and then commenced the discussion of a series of ideal structures of the Negro which only exist in their imagination, and thus endeavour to link the Negro with the brute creation. Some of their statements are so barefacedly false, so utterly the subversion of scientific truth, that they serve to exhibit the writers as perfectly ignorant of the subjects of which they treat. The works of Carl Vogt, ‘Lectures on Man’ of Dr. Hunt, ‘Negro’s Place in Nature’; and of Prunner Bey, ‘Mémoire sur les Nègres,’ 1861, contain, in many respects, tissues of the most deceptive statements, calculated to mislead those who are unacquainted with the African race.22
Given that his challenge was based on the authority of science and the claim of superior knowledge, it is no surprise that he denigrated the ignorance of his interlocutors. As far he was concerned, he knew what he was talking about; they did not. For that reason, they did not deserve attention. It is noteworthy that in spite of the efforts of thinkers like Horton from Africa and others in Europe and North America, we continue even at the present time to be treated to pseudo-scientific proclamations of the genetic inferiority of peoples of African descent. It is a mark of how little even Africans know of previous scientific refutations of racism by African thinkers that one will be hard put to find contemporary contributions to the debate that show any awareness of the works of Horton in this sphere.

In pursuit of science and of using science for the upliftment of Africa and its peoples, Horton wrote other scientific works, including The Medical Topography of the West Coast of Africa: with Sketches of Its Botany. (Thesis for the Doctorate of Medicine, Edinburgh University.) (London, 1859); Physical and Medical Climate and Meteorology of the West Coast of Africa. With Valuable Hints to Europeans for the Preservation of Health in the Tropics, (London, 1867); Guinea Worm, or Dracunculus: Its Symptoms and Progress, Causes, Pathological Anatomy, Results, and Radical Cure, (London: 1868) and The Diseases of Tropical Climates and their Treatment with Hints for the Preservation of Health in the Tropics, (London, 1874).

His credentials as a Surgeon, Medical Scientist and Epidemiologist are impeccable by any standards. He applied the same scientific orientation to his study of indigenous systems of governance in West Africa. African forms of governance were not to be embraced or condemned until scholars had obtained a good, scientific understanding of them both in terms of their identity and their operating principles. He did his best to study them. As a result, his writings on West African peoples and their customs are even more impressive. Simply put, when we shall have devoted to his political philosophical writings the attention that they deserve, we would have to conclude that Horton was also one of the pioneer political philosophers of the modern age in Africa. The dominant theme in his political writings was the fitness of Africans for self-government and their right to be self-governing under the overall suzerainty of the British monarchy. As I indicated earlier, there was in the mid-nineteenth century ferment in Britain under which politicians and humanitarians alike were convinced that the best colonialism was one that suited the colonial wards for self-rule in the shortest possible time. Hence, given the improvability of human beings through education, the idea that Africans would forever be at the bottom rung of the human ladder was not seriously entertained. Add to that the exigency of high morbidity among European expatriates, there was a widespread feeling that the human costs of empire may be unjustifiably high. However, I think that it is a mistake to hold, as many seem to do, that the exigency just referred to was the only or even the principal reason that the possibility of African self-government was seriously entertained in various circles in mid-nineteenth century Britain and West Africa.

What the motivation was of those who believed in native agency and how sincere they were would not matter, though, once we turn our attention to the natives themselves. That is, once we frame the issue in terms of what some segments of the West African population thought of the possibility and desirability of self-government, their capacity for it, and their reaction to the House of Commons Select Committee Resolution of 1865, we shall find that the Africans elected to take their prospects in hand and they began to present arguments to urge, perhaps force the hand of, the British authorities to extend to them the right of self-governance.

Horton was a principal spokesperson for the movement for self-government. He identified some national groups in West Africa as not only deserving of the right to govern themselves but were even farther along the road for having taken grand initiatives to institute civilized, i.e., modern, forms of government in the areas they inhabited. First, he adopted a tactic that presaged contemporary arguments for African genius. He argued that Africa had not always been voiceless in the concert of humanity.

Africa, in ages past, was the nursery of science and literature; from thence they were taught in Greece and Rome, so that it was said that the ancient Greeks represented their favourite goddess of wisdom—Minerva—as an African princess. Pilgrimages were made to Africa in search of knowledge by such eminent men as Solon, Plato, Pythagoras; and several came to listen to the instructions of the African Euclid, who was at the head of the most celebrated mathematical school in the world and who flourished 300 years before the birth of Christ.23
He went on to argue for the Africanness of ancient Egyptian civilisation. It is a mark of the resilience of global white supremacy that later writers like Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal fought the same battles in the last half of the last century with almost the same language and facts against the propagation of lies about the African past. Horton concluded: “And why should not the same race who governed Egypt, attacked the most famous and flourishing city—Rome, who had her churches, her Universities, and her repositories of learning and science, once more stand on their legs and endeavour to raise their characters in the scale of the civilised world?”24 If it is the case that “Nations rise and fall; the once flourishing and civilized degenerates into a semi-barbarous state; and those who have lived in utter barbarism, after a lapse of time become the standing nation”, Africa’s time was bound to come again. And he argued that he had detected the nodes of such renaissance in some areas of West Africa in all spheres of human achievement. Using knowledge of the African past, he argued for the historicity of the African experience and a basis for future prosperity.

I shall now turn to his specific reflections on government. It is significant that at the present time, many who speak of the dismal prospects of liberal bourgeois democracy in Africa attribute those prospects to the recalcitrance of African traditions to the tenets of modernity. Yet, in the nineteenth century, in West Africa, there were serious and far-reaching experiments in modern liberal democratic government. In fact, Horton argued that the incorporation of modern governance could be used in part to obviate the illegitimacy of an otherwise unjustifiable colonialism. His example was the British annexation of Lagos in 1861. He lauded the Fanti Confederation that wrote for itself one of the earliest instances of a modern Constitution anywhere in the world. This they did between 1868 and 1871. It has been suggested that that Constitution was inspired by Horton’s work, West African Countries and Peoples, British and Native. With the Requirements necessary for Establishing that Self-Government recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons 1865; and a Vindication of the African Race, (London, 1868).25 However that may be, what stands out is that Horton took a decidedly modern view of the appropriate mode of governance for Africa. For example, he embraced the core tenet of modernity in respect of political legitimacy: no one ought to obey any government to which heshe has not consented, in the constitution of which shehe has not had any hand. The most direct way of indicating this consent is through the vote. Hence, the electoral principle is the cornerstone of political legitimacy in the modern age. It was the political theoretical foundation of the demand for self-government by many in nineteenth century West Africa.

In his consideration of what sort of government should be adopted by “the political union of the various kings in the kingdom of Fantee under one political head,” Horton recommended the electoral principle. “A man should be chosen either by universal suffrage, or appointed by the Governor, and sanctioned and received by all the kings and chiefs, and crowned as King of Fantee. He should be a man of great sagacity, good common sense, not easily influenced by party spirit, of a kind and generous disposition, a man of good education, and who had done good service to the Coast government…”26 Meanwhile, in his discussion of what mode of governance was appropriate for Accra, he recommended a republican government.

If this place must ultimately be left to govern itself, a republican form of government should be chosen. An educated native gentleman, of high character and good common sense, who has the welfare of his country at heart…-…should be selected by the Government as a candidate for the presidency, and offered for the votes of the populace in the various districts; and, when once elected, he must be regarded as supreme in everything, and the natural referee in all their quarrels and differences. He should be assisted by counsellors chosen by the people as their representatives. The term of office of the president should not be less than eight years, and he should be eligible for re-election.27
Whether he was writing about Sierra Leone, Gambia, or Lagos and Abeokuta, he was unwavering in his insistence that only that government was legitimate which received its sanction from the consent of the people expressed through the vote. His inclusion, at some points, of selection of governors should be treated as mere bows in the direction of the reality of a people who were then momentarily humbled by various historical forces and whose elevation was a matter of time and of the hard work of those—the British—who had come to lend the Africans a hand in finding their feet, once again.

Secondly, there was no room in his theory for ascription. The circumstances of one’s birth did not mean anything to him, inheritance ranked nil and tradition was of no moment. Eligibility for office had to be earned—the Merit principle—and even then the people must offer their electoral stamp of approval. This explains his enthusiastic approval of the experiments in new modes of governance that were under way during his life in Ghana—the Fanti Confederation—and Abeokuta—the Egba United Board of Management (EUBM).28

In an appeal to the British colonial authorities to support the Fanti Confederation, what he said as the justification makes clear his conception of modern government and his conviction that what the Fanti were doing amounted to the incorporation of a new order in governance.

It is on this ground that there is now a loud cry for a codex constitutionuum for the Confederation from the Government of the Coast. It is essential so that every branch of the Government should have its power and limits well-defined, protecting it against aggression, and ‘ascertaining the purposes for which the Government exists,’ and the rights which are guaranteed to it; securing its rights in the various provinces, and restraining it from exercising function which would endanger liberty and justice. The present drooping state of the Confederation can say with great truth, novus rerum nascitur ordo—a new order of things is generated.29
The idea that the Fanti confederates were harbingers of a new order, a new way of being human motivated much of the writings of the nineteenth century apostles. In this, they were quintessentially modern. A good part of their claim to novelty is to be found in the idea of the self that they not only embraced but, one could indeed say, they embodied.

Revd. S. R. B. Attoh Ahuma
Another one of the apostles was very clear as to what the idea of the modern self entailed. I refer to Revd. S. R. B. Attoh Ahuma. I conclude my discussion with a brief look at some of his reflections. Attoh Ahuma’s book, The Gold Coast Nation and National Consciousness is a collection of columns he wrote for the Gold Coast Leader. I was intrigued by the author’s Foreword to the collection part of which goes thus:

The Author indulges the hope that the principles therein set forth, and the sentiments to which he gives so inadequate an expression, may influence for good, not his contemporaries only, but also—and especially—the members of the rising generation, whose birthright, privilege, duty, destiny and honour it is to usher in an era of Backward Movement, which to all cultured West Africans is synonymous with the highest conception of progress and advancement. Intelligent Retrogression is the only Progression that will save our beloved country. This may sound a perfect paradox, but it is nevertheless, the truth; and if all educated West Africans could be forced by moral suasion and personal conviction to realize that “Back to the Land” signifies a step forward, that “Back to the Simple Life” of our progenitors expresses a burning wish to advance, that the desire to rid ourselves of foreign accretions and excrescences is an indispensable condition of National Resurrection and National Prosperity, we should feel ourselves amply rewarded.30
What sense is one to make of this strange foreword and its core phrases: “Backward Movement,” “Intelligent Retrogression” which, on the face of it, suggests the opposite of Progress? It is even stranger that those locutions describe the conditio sine qua non of progress. It is easy to read into the foreword the ruminations, perhaps even fears, of a wistful conservative in the grip of nostalgia for a world since lost. Yet when one reads the essays that make up the collection one finds that the author’s deployment of what he called “a perfect paradox” is not meant to be taken at face value. Much of his conservatism was directed at his bid to prove that the peoples of the Gold Coast, regardless of their ethnic affiliations, did constitute a Nation and deserved to be accorded all the dignity and respect due such entities, especially in the context of nineteenth century debates about nationalism. We may not discount the importance of the changed context in which Attoh Ahuma was writing. He wrote much later after the rejection of educated natives by their white tutors. But he was also concerned to combat the excesses of those who thought that their salvation lay in absolute mimicry of European ways. In his view, however, the options for Africans were not limited to total opposition to or mimicry of the European ways of being human. What he advocated was the creative appropriation of indigenous culture and its use as the pivot of the construction of modern societies that would borrow whatever was useful from its European-inspired legacy. The man who seemed to be looking backwards wrote on Progress and the importance of the individual in language that conceded nothing to any modern conceptions of both terms. Quite the contrary, he called on the youth to make self-improvement their vocation, patriotism their cause, and the advancement of Africa their mission. To do all these things he asked youth to (1) take individualism seriously; (2) pursue knowledge and, (3) build the African Nation.

In an essay titled, significantly, ‘I am: I Can: An Appeal to the Rising Generation.’ Ahuma wrote:

The first essential prerequisite in the voyage of the discovery of ourselves as a people is the consciousness of ourselves. “I AM” is the keynote to all the harmonies and concords of individual advancement and power. Not “I AM” simply as a psychological abstraction, but the realization of the living personality and all that it denotes and connotes. The first person singular of the verb To Be is, after all, the most formidable word in the vocabulary of human thought and progress…31
He then went on to argue that the individual who affirms “I AM” is the bedrock of all progress and development.

“I AM” and to know it, is the head and front of all true and genuine success in life. It is the fount from which bubble those graces and virtues which minister to the growth of a nation’s vitality and productivity. The horse, the elephant, and the greyhound cannot testify to such consciousness; science may, in its ultimate deductions, credit them with the possession of intuitive faculties marvellously akin to the perfection of instincts on the borderland of human psychology, but the creatures can never know that they know. To save the country, to develop its resources, to maintain its rights and privileges, and to advance its interests in all directions without bungling and blundering and against fearful odds, our young men must “see visions” and “multiply visions;” and this is impossible of accomplishment unless they know themselves.32
The charge to “know oneself” as the starting point for making an individual fit for her duty to her community or humanity was a sing song in the nineteenth century. Some of its philosophical antecedents are traceable to the philosophy of self-love and the theory of moral sentiments of the eighteenth century. It had some of its most famous proponents in Adam Smith, J. B. Hutcheson, Joseph Butler, David Hume, and the poet Alexander Pope. It is not an accident, therefore, that the essay contained references to Aristotle, Tennyson, Byron, Galileo, Bunyan, Sir Walter Raleigh, Beethoven and Thomas Edison. He wanted young people to cultivate their individuality, to steel themselves each in his own uniqueness for the task of serving humanity. One plausible way of construing Ahuma’s ‘perfect paradox’, then, is to see it as a charge to Africans not to take comfort in blind imitation but to appropriate the wisdom of others and that of their own ancestors through the arduous task of making such wisdom their own. To do the latter they must acquire knowledge of themselves, their heritage, other people’s wisdom and follies, and so on. In other words, they must make of themselves worthy residents of the society of knowledge. Horton, in a similar charge to youth said:

[The Youth] should make it their ruling principle to concentrate their mental powers, their powers of observation, reasoning, and memory, on the primary objects of their engagement. ‘Never to observe without a thought; never reason to confident conclusions without a sufficiency of certainly verified facts; never to acquire facts without submitting them to the test of reasoning and, when occasion offers, to the test of experience, as it has been conclusively remarked that observation without thought is a hasty observation, and the experience derived from it wasted; and if we reason without a sufficiency or verification of facts we shall reason into error; and if we remember without comparison the result will be that we shall be a vast storehouse of inconsequential knowledge.33
In Lieu of a Conclusion
Crowther, Horton, Ahuma, and several others, were all part of a ferment in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century made up of those who stood for the primacy of native agency, the capacity of Africans for self-government, and the recognition by the rest of humanity of Africa resurgent in the aftermath of the debacle of the Slave Trade and Slavery, all within the boundaries of a deep faith in the promise of modernity especially regarding liberty, equality, and fraternity. If in reading this essay others are challenged to begin to delve into their legacy and situate them properly as precursors for African intellectual discourse at the present time, the modest aim of the current essay will have been more than achieved.


[ Edit | View ]

[ Main index ] [ Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]
Father God, we count this day -a day or restoration, a day where the shackles of religion has been destroyed, a day where the blind can now see, a day that the deaf can now hear, and a day where the lost can be found dwelling in your presence and doing their part in the will of God. May each participant in this forum be enlightened in you. It is so... so shall it be....
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.