Britain must stop ignoring its child rape gang scandal 

How the Church can and should appeal to men (as well as women)

Women’s March anti-Semitism should be a wake-up call.

Two weeks ago I wrote about how American Jews fail to see left-wing anti-Semitism for the true threat that it is, not least because they have not had a problem comparable to the anti-Semitism crisis in the British Labour Party to wake them up to reality.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, for an anti-Semitism crisis of sorts is definitely brewing on the left in America. Remember the Women’s March, the annual national marches in the US (and now elsewhere) ostensibly championing women’s rights, but also hosting all sorts of other left-wing causes? Well, this week, March founder Teresa Shook called upon its current leaders to resign, citing their fostering of anti-Semitism.

Shook’s concern was the close association of these leaders (who include Palestinian American Linda Sarsour) with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, infamous for his vociferous anti-Semitism as well as anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and racism against white people. Last month, Farrakhan dared to declare “I am not anti-Semitic, I am anti-termite”. He has previously described Hitler as a “very great man”.¹

So far there has been an official apology from the Women’s March to Jewish and LGBTQ+ members, but there has not yet been any clear condemnation of Farrakhan or obvious disassociation with him. Celebrities are beginning to withdraw their support from the March, a human rights award has been stripped from it and people are starting to ask: why is it so hard for the March leaders to denounce this abhorrent man?²

General Bemusement

The willingness of left-wing activists to associate with radical Islamists in the first place seems utterly contradictory, but prescient commentators have seen it coming.³ Anti-Semitism (or attitudes that tend that way) is part of the common ground between these apparently disparate factions.

People are starting to ask: why is it so hard for the March leaders to denounce the abhorrent Louis Farrakhan?

Many left-wingers fail to grasp this and are left scratching their heads, trying to understand how on earth their ‘progressive’, ‘tolerant’, ‘liberal’ politics is suddenly found housing anti-Semitic comments and behaviours. Like much of the Labour-supporting left in Britain, they just can’t get their heads around it: ‘how has it come to this?’ they ask. Some write it all off as a terrible mistake, an anomaly, or even a conspiracy (as the Women’s March founders did in their initial response to Ms Shook’s comments, accusing her of trying to ‘fracture’ the movement). Their critics call it hypocrisy, but are no closer to understanding it.⁴

The more astute recognise that though the ‘progressive’ left and Islamists seem worlds apart, they actually have some things in common, which explains their otherwise bizarre tendency to cross-pollinate. This can plunge concerned leftists into an existential crisis, as with many Jewish Labour MPs and supporters in Britain.

In Pursuit of Godless Utopia

As usual, Melanie Phillips is ahead of most in understanding this strange situation. She argues that Islam and the ‘progressive’ left, just like fascism and communism, are utopian in outlook: each in their own way seeking to bring about the perfect world, each believing themselves to be the noblest of causes. This means that each are also totalitarian: “Because their end product is a state of perfection, nothing can be allowed to stand in [the] way”.⁵

Ultimately, they are each, she goes on to argue, about building heaven on earth without reference to the God of the Bible: they are belief systems that hinge on rejecting him. That is where they begin to find common ground with each other.

For Christians, understanding all this from a spiritual perspective is quite simple. Every political, philosophical or religious movement that rejects God and his ways becomes the domain of “the prince of the air”, no matter how well-intentioned their beginnings. Promising freedom, love and unity, they cannot deliver these things, which are only found in God. Instead, they deliver tyranny, aggressive hatred and division.

The more astute recognise that though the ‘progressive’ left and Islamists seem worlds apart, they actually have some things in common, which explains their otherwise bizarre tendency to cross-pollinate.

They also tend towards a rejection of everything on earth that points to God, whether his created order, his word, his land or all those who are bound in covenant to him, who testify to his existence and truth. And so, sown into the heart of each and every movement of this kind is the intrinsic possibility of both anti-Semitism and Christian persecution.

These tendencies work out differently depending on the movement in question, whether far-right fascism, fundamentalist Islam, or ‘progressive’ secular humanism and its identity politics, included in which is the (frighteningly intellectual-sounding) ‘intersectional feminism’ that underlies the Women’s March.⁶

No Surprises Here

The Women's March leaders, who have been called on to step down. See Photo Credits.

As I wrote last year, instead of protesting real gender injustice, the Women’s March seeks only to protest and destroy biblical notions of womanhood, family and sexuality. Pro-life women are hounded and ousted. Anti-establishment anarchy and vulgarity are abiding themes, part-funded as it is by hard-left anarchist billionaire George Soros. While likely containing well-meaning individuals, the movement broadly represents a wholesale rebellion against Judeo-Christian values.

In this context, it should really be no surprise that anti-Semitic people and attitudes are welcomed within its ranks, particularly under the guise of ‘legitimate’ criticism of Israel (click here for a list of the kinds of anti-Semitic groups that have joined hands under the Women’s March umbrella). It may not seem on obvious concern for a gender-focused campaign, but the attraction is a common focus on perceived ‘injustice’ and ‘oppression’, underneath which is shared anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian, revolutionary sentiment.

Ms Shook asserts that the current leaders have “steered the movement away from its true course”. I beg to differ. This is not a case of a perfectly useful political campaign being maliciously hijacked by a few bad eggs. It’s about root ideological issues pervading the entire movement.

The Women’s March joins hands with anti-Semitic people and groups because of a common focus on perceived ‘injustice’ and ‘oppression’, underneath which is shared anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian sentiment.

It should also, therefore, be no surprise when Women’s March figure-heads are found befriending people like Louis Farrakhan. It’s not just Farrakhan: remember also that the 2017 March was co-organised by a convicted Palestinian terrorist (since deported) and a former Communist Party leader who is also a long-time supporter of the violent Black Panther movement. Again, join the dots and you will find a shared ideological revolt against Western civilisation and its founding association with Scripture.⁷

That is why it is so hard for the Women’s March leaders to denounce Farrakhan. At root, they are in agreement with him, or on their way to being so. It’s also why it’s so hard for Jeremy Corbyn to denounce Labour anti-Semitism: at root, he agrees with it. These hard-leftists are not odd-balls that accidentally found their way into the left-wing: they are simply being consistent in their ideological commitment, following it through to its logical conclusion.

That is why the anti-Semitism crisis in the Women’s March is a shot across the bows for American Jews: it says something about the likely future destination of the entire US left. The question is, will they have eyes to see?

References

1 Firscht, N. The Women’s March and the anti-Semitism blindspot. Spiked, 22 November 2018.

2 Singal, J. Why Won’t Women’s March Leaders Denounce Louis Farrakhan’s Anti-Semitism? Intelligencer, 7 March 2018. Left-wing associations with Farrakhan didn’t start with the Women’s March – Obama notoriously fraternised with the Islamist leader back in 2005.

3 I recommend Melanie Phillips’ The World Turned Upside-Down (2010, Encounter Books), particularly chapters 11 and 12.

4 E.g. see note 1.

5 The World Turned Upside-Down, see note 3, pp219-220.

6 Intersectional feminism is a fairly recent move within the feminist movement to take into account other layers of identity that women experience in addition to their gender, including race, sexuality, class, etc. It is an attempt to understand people as multi-faceted, each with a unique experience of power relationships in the world (i.e. each one can claim to be oppressed in their own way/in compound ways). What this translates to practically is the uniting of the feminist movement with other left-wing causes to jointly condemn ‘oppression’.

7 The alliance between the radical left and Islam may be temporarily convenient for both parties, but ultimately Islam has no respect for secular identity politics and its various victim groups. Once dominant, it would undoubtedly crush both feminism and the LGBTQ+ movement.

The war in Syria is moving in a very dangerous direction.

With Al Qaeda and associates on one side and Assad on the other, another screw has suddenly turned in this all-out conflict without any rules of behaviour.

It is reported that the chlorine gas dropped upon women and children this week was made in Germany, sold to Iran and used by Assad’s Syrian Government forces backed by Russia.¹ How strange! The rebels had almost been driven out of Douma; Assad was on the verge of victory, why use chemical weapons? Madness! Or is it all fake news? Who can we trust?

What a mess! The Western nations are saying that a red line has been crossed. But how many red lines have been crossed in the past seven years of war in Syria? Are there no limits to the inhumanity and destructive forces that have been let loose in the Middle East?

World War, No Rules?

Today we have reached what is arguably the most dangerous point in world history since the end of World War II, with nations primed with weapons of mass destruction taking sides in a local civil war that could suddenly explode into global destruction.

Neither side can claim to be righteous; both sides have committed terrible atrocities. Whichever side we in the West back, it seems, we are aligning with demonic forces whose adherents have departed from any elements of common humanity in their intensity of hatred and determination to shed human blood.

Today we have reached what is arguably the most dangerous point in world history since the end of World War II.

There are no longer any rules, there is no longer any compassion, no longer any consideration for helpless babies and little children – all are regarded as legitimate targets for unlimited aggression. What has happened to humanity?

Humanity Corrupted

The Bible declares that human beings are created in the image of God. Have we reached a stage in our descent into corruption whereby there is no longer the least hint of the divine recognisable in our humanity? Have we reached the point of absolute degradation?

The Prophet Isaiah foresaw a time when humanity would descend into such depths of utter corruption that God would bring judgment upon all nations.

“Come near,” he said. “Come near, you nations and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it! The Lord is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter. Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood” (Isa 34:1-2)

It’s a terrible picture but it is one that we are already seeing little glimpses of on our TV screens and iPads as news from Syria comes in. But what of the future? Where will all this lead?

With unpredictable leaders at the helm of the nations, no-one can answer these questions. One false move or miscalculation could rapidly escalate the situation into worldwide destruction – such is the depth to which humanity has descended.

Is There Any Hope?

Is there any hope for humanity? Certainly, there is! This is the whole point of the stark warnings that God gave to the biblical prophets. The warnings are there for anyone to read if we want to know the truth and understand the answer to the present dilemmas facing humanity.

Have we reached a stage in our descent into corruption whereby there is no longer the least hint of the divine recognisable in our humanity?

Those warnings given in Isaiah 34 are immediately followed by some of the most beautiful words and promises in the Bible, in the next chapter, which refers to the wilderness blossoming, the glory of Lebanon and the splendour of Carmel already showing the glory of the Lord and the splendour of our God.

This is linked with good news to those who recognise the plight of humanity and turn to the Lord God for help – “strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come’” (Isa 35:3-4).

Sin and its Undoing

In the New Testament Paul recognises the plight of humanity that we all experience: we are all sinners. We all do things that we regret. We behave badly and say things and do things in the heat of the moment that we should not. Paul goes to the heart of the matter when he says “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do” (Rom 7:15).

This is the strange thing about our human nature: the godly side can rise to sublime heights of self-sacrifice and self-giving. But the other part of our nature sometimes drives us to do things that we hate. This is because we are either led by the Spirit of God or we are driven by the forces of darkness.

Paul faces this dilemma and concludes that only Jesus is the answer to this internal battle inside each one of us, because only he can set us free from the forces of sin and death. He says:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Romans 8:11)

This brings us to the heart of the Gospel, that God in Christ has done something for us that we could not do for ourselves by actually dealing with the corruption of our human nature: as Paul says, “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (1 Cor 5:17).

How Should We Pray?

So, what should Christians do in the present dilemma? Clearly, we must pray for our leaders, but how should we pray? Should we not also pray for the Syrian and Russian people and their leaders? It takes two parties to make a conflict (or in this case, many more than two!) and we should be praying that God will bring godly wisdom into the councils of human beings.

Only Jesus is the answer to this internal battle inside each one of us, because only he can set us free from the forces of sin and death.

Should we also be praying for God to hasten the day of the coming of Jesus? World events certainly look as though we are drawing closer to the times described in Scripture as leading up to the Parousia. But his coming will bring judgment upon all the nations and all people. Jesus said that before that time “the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world” (Matt 24:14) so that everyone has a chance to hear God’s truth.

It is not his desire that anyone should be lost and all of us have some loved ones who are not yet in the kingdom. We should be careful of praying for God’s judgment to come quickly: it is far better to trust our loving Father whose timing is always perfect, who knows all the circumstances and cares for all his children.

References

1 Behold Israel, Special update on Syria, April 11, 2018. Youtube.

Journalist under fire for asking awkward questions about a baby

As the great shaking of British society continues to turn our values upside-down, the Daily Mail has managed to seriously ruffle feathers with some elephant-in-the-room questions few have the guts to ask.

Richard Littlejohn, in last week’s Friday column,¹ has done us all a favour by tackling the ludicrous news that Olympic diver Tom Daley and his ‘husband’ are having a baby, focusing particularly on the fact that no mention is made of a mother (presumably the possessor of the womb featured in the much-publicised ultrasound scan) or who the actual father is.

The New Normal?

His great offence was no doubt in challenging fellow scribes to stop pretending this kind of relationship is the ‘new normal’. At any rate, he has succeeded in raising hackles to such an extent that major companies, including Honda, Morrison’s supermarket and the chemist chain Boots, withdrew their advertising.

Littlejohn also stated his belief “that children benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman”.

I only hope the Mail stands by their writer, though I suspect editors may have their eyes blurred by pound signs, and thus be tempted to rein in one of the finest journalists among the fast-disappearing old school representing a press that was truly free to express its views.

The Truth Provokes Uproar

Most, if not all, of our treasured freedoms in this land are the product of our great Judeo-Christian heritage. So why are we (the Church) leaving it to secular journalists like Littlejohn and Melanie Phillips to do our ‘dirty’ work – i.e. taking the flak for challenging the accepted new norms of society.

Where is the Christian voice today? Where is the courage once displayed by Christian martyrs who willingly died for their faith?

Christians have historically been known for straight talking in addressing controversial social and other issues which was hardly surprising because they were following One who dared to accuse religious leaders of hypocrisy – in fact he compared them to “whitewashed tombs”, looking pristine on the surface but full of dead men’s bones (Matt 23:27).

The Gospel truth has always provoked uproar – often because it affects people’s pockets – as several instances in the Acts of the Apostles (the Bible’s account of the early Church) testify. Many businesses of the time were built on the backs of idolatry (i.e. worship of rival gods).

And in more recent times, William Wilberforce had to overcome decades of fierce opposition to his anti-slavery campaign because so much big money had depended on it.

People-Pleasing Church

Where is the Christian voice today? Where is the courage once displayed by Christian martyrs who willingly died for their faith? After all, these issues strike at the very heart of what the Gospel stands for – marriage, family, relationships (with God and one another).

But, for the most part, we remain silent and walk by on the other side of the road letting the ‘Good Samaritan’ tend to the wounds of society. Jesus, in his famous parable, deliberately chose a Samaritan (of mixed race and despised by Jews of the time) as the one who rescued the man beaten up by robbers.

With too few exceptions, many of us in the Church have become men-pleasers, not God-pleasers. If Jesus had been more concerned with appealing to men than in carrying out his Father’s will, he would not have died on the Cross and we would have been left with neither hope nor salvation.

For the most part, the Church remains silent and walks by on the other side of the road, letting ‘Good Samaritan’ journalists tend to the wounds of society.

Christian leaders who refuse to address these issues are clearly not crucified with Christ, dead to the world and refusing to conform to its standards (see Gal 2:20; Rom 12:2).

Dissent Not Tolerated

The furore sparked by Littlejohn’s piece was entirely predictable; and yet the very same (Daily Mail) issue carried a major feature exposing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s murky political past in meeting up with a Communist spy from behind the Iron Curtain. Was the metropolitan liberal elite much concerned about that? Evidently not.

Just as the frenzied backlash stirred by the Tom Daley article was kicking off (I was initially unaware of it as I was involved in a south London conference dedicated to evangelism), a Nigerian-born pastor was heaping praise on Britain’s great heritage,² mentioning in particular the Christian motivation of past businessmen like those who founded Cadbury’s, Guinness and, yes, Boots the chemist – the very firm that has now protested against critics of a non-Christian lifestyle!

Even some of our great football clubs, founded as part of the Church’s outreach to young people, are now in the hands of Middle Eastern nationals from countries which ban both Bibles and Christians, he lamented.

I notice that legendary Wimbledon champion Margaret Court is also in the dock for her stand on sexual ethics. Lesbian former champions Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova are campaigning to have a Melbourne arena re-named in protest. How pathetic!

It seems that with 50 years having now passed since both abortion and homosexuality were declared legal in the UK, they have now been officially ‘normalised’ and no dissent will be tolerated. Is this the fruit of a free society? Does no-one still cherish free speech?

50 years since both abortion and homosexuality were declared legal in the UK, they have now been officially ‘normalised’ and no dissent will be tolerated.

The Cross is Our Anchor

Well, all is not lost, if Sunday’s touching episode of Call the Midwife is anything to go by. One of the storylines followed a Nigerian sailor thrown off his ship because the crew believed he had smallpox, which was highly contagious.

Lonely and distraught, he prayed desperately as he hid in a drain, calling on Jesus for help, which duly came in the shape of the kind nuns who supply the dock area with midwives. It turned out that he actually had leprosy, which was treatable. And as he exulted in the answer to his prayers, one of the nuns handed him a Bible, saying: “In the cross is our anchor.”

Go and Sin No More

Although the letter of the law would have allowed Jesus to stone the woman caught in adultery, as her accusers pointed out, he refused to condemn her, but added: “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11).

Christians who truly follow their Lord do not hate those who commit adultery (which includes all sex outside marriage), but neither can they affirm the practice. They would be betraying their faith if they did. Get used to it. Enough is enough.

References

1 Read the article here.

2 World Harvest Christian Centre, convened by Rev Wale Babatunde.

Our final study on the non-writing prophets in Scripture.

In 2 Kings 22, and in its parallel in 2 Chronicles 34, we read the account of how the ‘book of the Law’, or the ‘book of the Covenant’, was found in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Josiah the Reformer

The boy king Josiah, son of the reprobate Amon who had been assassinated by his own officials, came to a living faith in God when he was only 16.

By the time he was 20 he set out to reform the religious life of Judah, breaking down the high places where the Lord was worshipped illicitly, and destroying the pagan shrines that had proliferated under his predecessors.

At the age of 26, in the 18th year of his reign, he began to tackle the repair and purification of the Temple in Jerusalem. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this task. The Temple, now nearly 400 years old, was as much a heritage site as St Paul’s Cathedral or York Minster, and its sacrilegious additions were considered memorials to the history of the nation. The kings of Judah had been defenders of faiths, rather than defenders of the Covenant of God, since Solomon’s time.

To reverse all this required considerable courage from the King and his supporters, and no doubt he was regarded as much a bigot as any king would be today, were he to try to purify the Church of England. As 2 Kings tells, the holy city contained numerous shrines, some requiring human sacrifice. Even the Temple entrance contained horses and chariots (statues?) dedicated to the Sun, and there were two pagan altars in the very courts of Yahweh’s Temple. Traditionalists must have been appalled at their destruction.

No doubt Josiah was regarded as much a bigot as any king would be today, were he to try to purify the Church of England.

Re-discovering the Book of the Law

Then came the incident, so beautifully told, when the King sent his secretary to liaise with Hilkiah, the high priest on the rebuilding work. At the end of their business, the priest, a little diffidently, said, “I have found the book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.”

Most scholars agree, probably rightly, that what he found was essentially the Book of Deuteronomy, though the liberal stream built their whole structure of Old Testament criticism on the assumption that Hilkiah or his allies actually wrote the book. However, Deuteronomy is constructed like a typical political treaty, or covenant, document of a much earlier age. Like such secular treaties, a copy was ordered to be kept “as a testimony at the heart of the nation, that is beside the ark of the covenant” (Deut 31:26). Perhaps Hilkiah found it there, or perhaps abandoned in some storeroom of the Temple.

Shaphan, the secretary, was as reticent as the priest. He mentioned the book to Josiah almost as an afterthought to his report, though it is clear he realised its importance. Josiah’s response, however, was anything but laid back. Hearing Shaphan read the curses attached to the covenant, he tore his robes. He realised how angry God must be against the nation that had reneged on their treaty with the Lord, the consuming fire, the jealous God (Deut 4:24).

Huldah the Prophetess

The King sent a delegation, including the high priest and his most important officials, to consult the Lord through Huldah. She too instantly recognised the book of the Law as the word of the Lord. Her response is an oracle prophesying disaster to Judah, according to the warnings in the book, noting Josiah’s own humility and weeping, and promising that he himself would be buried in peace before this destruction. It is a short oracle and we hear no more of the prophetess. But there are important lessons here.

This incident raises important questions about the function of prophecy, and its relationship to Scripture. The book of the Law was the written word of God to Israel, as the Bible is to us. When it was re-discovered, the leaders of the nation, especially the King, recognised it as such. Its message was clear, as we can see by looking at Deuteronomy itself.

Josiah realised how angry God must be against the nation and responded in a spiritual way, by repentance.

God's laws and standards were explicitly set out in writing, as were the curses attached to them for disobedience. Josiah, with a heart set ’to seek the God of his father David' (1 Chron 34:3), understood its implications immediately, and he responded in a spiritual way by repentance. Why then did he feel it necessary to consult a prophet as well?

It was not for greater knowledge, for Huldah’s words added very little to the plain words of Scripture except some personal words of comfort to the King. It was not for practical application either, for she gave none — and Josiah’s further reforms appear to have been his own response to the words of the Law. The answer must surely be that the prophet was the one authorised by God to confirm the truth of God's words to the people of that generation.

The prophet’s anointing seems not so much to bring understanding of God's ways, as certainty about their application, and communication of that certainty to the people. The prophet may tell us what we have already seen in God’s word (and never anything that we haven’t), but in a way that truly confirms to us that it is God who has spoken in that word.

This has much to teach us about not only the prophet of today, but the preacher as well. Indeed, faithful ministry of the word of God is prophetic by its nature. The preacher should not be looking for something new to say, but to make what, in one sense, is clearly stated in Scripture speak with the voice of God to his hearers. This is why it is the word proclaimed, and not simply the word read, that is the central ministry of the Church of Christ.

Huldah’s oracle is a good demonstration that it is the word proclaimed, and not simply powerful proclamation, that makes for a prophetic ministry.

The prophet’s anointing seems not so much to bring understanding of God's ways, as certainty about their application, and communication of that certainty to the people.

Huldah the Woman

No examination of Huldah, especially in our times, can ignore the fact that she was female! It is unwise to speculate on how she received her prophetic gift. She was a woman of social standing - a royal official’s daughter-in-law. But status is not a necessary qualification for prophecy. We know that Old Testament prophets received their call direct from God, but we know precious little about how that call came to be recognised ‘officially’.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that in such an epoch-making matter as the re-discovery of the Bible, the King should seek the counsel of a woman. It is all the more remarkable when one considers that both Zephaniah and the great Jeremiah were prophesying at this time.

My explanation is perhaps over-simple: Huldah was consulted because she was close by and other prophets were not. Clifford Hill says that Huldah was an older woman, much respected for her prophetic ministry, whereas at that time Jeremiah was a very young man, who had not long been in ministry. But she must have been equally respected, for it would not have been impossible to send for one of the others.

No particular comment is made about her gender in the text, and to the inspired writer it was clearly a matter of indifference: what mattered was her mantle of prophecy.

Huldah’s oracle is a good demonstration that it is the word proclaimed, and not simply powerful proclamation, that makes for a prophetic ministry.

From this passage in isolation, then, it would be easy to see support for the contemporary supposition that gender in ministry is not an issue, since “in Christ there is no longer male nor female” (Gal 3:28). The only problem is, this example is before Christ, whereas the ‘difficult’ biblical teaching on male authority is after Christ.

I will not attempt to cast much light on these questions here, not least because the story of Huldah is not actually about these issues. But one or two points may be worth noting for further study:

• It was the King who consulted the prophetess, and not she who sought him out, and she remained subject to him, as indeed to Shallum her husband.
  
• The words she spoke bore only God's authority, and none of her own.
  
• Her ministry to Josiah did not involve teaching him, for as we have seen, he had already understood the implications of God's Law for himself. Hers was a confirmatory word.

The implications of these points for the Church today are for others to consider, but one thing should not be controversial: the role of women in prophetic ministry is in this story given clear scriptural sanction. Only let us never forget, whether we are male or female, that our ministries are far, far less important than the message we bring, and its effects on the hearts of people.

This study was first published in Prophecy Today, Vol 15(6), 1999.

We continue to explore the ministries of the non-writing prophets.

In part three of a series which looks at the relevance of the message and ministry of the non-writing prophets, Jock Stein considers the lessons that can be learned from the life of Deborah.

Deborah is not the only prophetess mentioned in the Bible but, she is the only woman who combined political and religious leadership. As such, her prophetic style is an important model, even though the judges in the Old Testament were transitional leaders between the patriarchs and the kings.

Deborah first appears in Judges chapter 4, during a period of oppression for Israel. The Israelites had sinned against the Lord by intermarrying with the Canaanites (Jud 3:5-6). They had also become increasingly dependent on the Canaanites for their trade and, indeed, their survival. As a consequence, the Lord had allowed them to be ruled by Jabin, a Canaanite king, and his general, Sisera. The Canaanites controlled the roads in the Esdraelon valley and had exercised this control for twenty years, during the twelfth century BC. Sisera and his 900 chariots used military technology to oppress the Israelites, until, that is, the intervention of Deborah.

Wife, Prophetess, Judge

Judges chapter 5, which is a song of triumph, celebrating the way that Israel defeated Sisera and came into freedom, gives us some useful background information. The people had been prevented from travelling and trading freely (5:6). They had been reduced to poverty (5:8), in contrast to the situation later on when the roads were re-opened (5:10). Sisera was hated, especially by women; his mother is pictured dreaming about the Israelite girls he and his men would capture (5:30), while the general statement found in 2:18 uses a word for oppression which implies rape.

Deborah is identified in Judges 4:4 as a wife, a prophetess and a judge; and in 5:7 as a ’mother in Israel’. Here, the Bible cuts right across the neat rules of Protestant conservatism and Catholic tradition. God raised up a woman who was a leader and a wife. She is also a model of team leadership — recognising the military authority of Barak, the Israelite general, but at the same time bringing him a command from God.

Against Barak, who had accepted the status quo of Canaanite oppression, Deborah opts for Godly rebellion. Barak defers to her judgment on condition that she goes with him. This is a clear indication of Barak’s recognition of Deborah's social and spiritual authority.

God raised up a woman who was a leader and a wife.

Two aspects of the prophetic ministry are linked with this story. First, the faithful listening to God and hearing from him; second, the faithful sharing of what he says. In Judges 4:6, Deborah sends for Barak and tells him what God has told her concerning what Barak is to do, along with the encouraging word that God would deliver Sisera into his power (4:7).

There is another link here, between prophecy and interpretation, which in the New Testament is more often left to the whole church; God tells Deborah not only what is going to happen, but who is going to make it happen, i.e. Barak. It is vital for anyone with a prophetic gift, and for church leaders, to distinguish between prophecy and interpretation. Here, however, Deborah is given the interpretation – how to make it happen – as part of the message.

The Providence of God

Not only do we have a woman in a key leadership role, but the key player in the subsequent drama is also a woman.

After Barak has led his ten thousand troops without armour into battle against Sisera’s well-equipped army, we are told that the Lord threw the enemy into a panic. At this point Sisera flees and takes refuge with an ally of King Jabin – Heber the Kenite. However, Heber’s wife Jael has her own ideas: she pretends to befriend the exhausted Sisera, gives him hospitality, and then, while he is asleep, drives a tent-peg into his skull. When she subsequently presents Barak with the dead general, another of Deborah's prophecies is fulfilled; “the honour will not be yours, for the Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman.”

Judges 5:4 and 5:20-21 tell us that a storm and consequent flash-flooding of the Kishon wadi were responsible for the rout – thus proving that the Lord, and not Baal, was God of nature. The whole story demonstrates the providence of a God whose design includes the ‘random’ effects of weather and migration (4:11). Today, scientists use the term ‘chaos theory’ to help them understand how chance and order are not incompatible. In other words, you do not have to choose between a world of fate, where free-will is an illusion, and a world of chance without any meaning.

Two aspects of the prophetic ministry are linked with this story: the faithful listening to God and hearing from him, and the faithful sharing of what he says.

This is a return to the biblical view which is beautifully illustrated in story of Deborah. It is especially important for young people to discover this, as so often at secondary school the curriculum gives them the lie that science is about facts and the real world; while religion is just about ideas and imagination.

Responding to God’s Call

Chapter 5 is, in fact, one of the earliest hymns recorded in the Bible. It is a celebration of what God has done for and among his people, and therefore combines the evangelical with the charismatic. It joins the rock and the reality — a good model for Christian song writing of today!

In context it was, of course, the way that people learnt their history. The Old Testament is divided into three sections — the law, the prophets and the writings - and included in the six  books of the ‘earlier prophets’ is the book of Judges. The reason for this is important.

For the Hebrews, prophecy was concerned with what God was doing - what God did became history, so history was included under the overall heading of ‘prophecy’. Judges 5, then, was given as a ‘prophetic song' which celebrated a God who was alive and did real things in the world. It also challenged the people of God: Zebulun and Naphtali answered his call and risked their lives (5:18). The tribe of Reuben was split (5:15), while Dan and Asher simply kept out of the way (5:17).

This raises a question which each of us should face — when we are faced with a challenge or difficult situation through which God is speaking to us. How do we respond to God's call today?

For the Hebrews, prophecy was concerned with what God was doing - what God did became history, so history was included under the banner of ‘prophecy’.

Deborah had a palm tree named after her (4:5). This might not seem such a great mark of recognition. The modern equivalent, however, to the ‘place of judging’ would be the city hall or Court of Appeal. Clearly she was greatly honoured in the nation. Deborah has made her mark in the inspired record of Scripture, and is an encouragement to both women and men to seek the word of the Lord, and to expect that word to have power in the political as well as the personal world.

Deborah's example reminds us that all those who have committed their lives to God, whether male or female, can have a transforming influence upon the political and social life of their nation.

Originally published in Prophecy Today, Vol 13(6), 1996.

The new wave of feminism is nothing to do with love, life or liberation.

On Wednesday of next week (8 March), it will be International Women’s Day.

Coinciding with this, some 673 protest marches are being planned in cities around the world – 35 countries have expressed interest so far – and a ‘general strike’ is being called, that women everywhere might express their resentment about inequality by walking out of their jobs and onto the street, placards held high. It’s being called ‘A Day Without a Woman’.

This strike and the marches are the latest in an apparent ‘new wave’ of feminist activism since Trump took the US presidency – though actually it started before this and elsewhere, with protests against gender violence in Argentina and a mass revolt in Poland against a proposed abortion ban.

But, as with the many other increasingly militant manifestations of liberal protest, this new wave of feminist demonstration deserves some closer analysis.

Boycotting What?

So, what is Wednesday’s march all about?

Last month, several prominent female academics and activists introduced ‘A Day Without a Woman’ in The Guardian, as “a day of striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work, boycotting, calling out misogynistic politicians and companies, striking in educational institutions.”¹

The article presents a stirring call to women to stand up against wage inequalities, job insecurity and male violence. It seems attractive at first – indeed, for many decades the feminist movement has been inviting, even for Christian women. It is hard to argue against recognising the contribution that women make to national economies, or the need to protest against domestic violence.

A new wave of increasingly militant feminist activism is beginning.

However, there is more to it than this. Further down the manifesto, the group ally themselves with a “new, more expansive feminist movement” that not only protests the usual inequalities, but also radically pushes the LGBT agenda and rails against “xenophobic immigration policies”.²

The National Review criticises the planned demonstrations as representing “a standard, vague list of clichéd left-wing hobbyhorses, not a principled protest engaging current policy problems.”³

So what is really going on – and why are these protests being described as more ‘militant’⁴ than ever before?

Behind the Scenes

Co-organisers of Wednesday’s march (the US variant) include Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who spent 10 years in prison for her part in two bombings of Israeli students, and Angela Davis, former leader of the Communist Party USA and long-time supporter of the violent Black Panther movement. This kind of leadership alone suggests that more is going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.

Despite this, the campaign is being presented in a very positive, accessible light. The website is pleasant to look at (with more than a hint of pink in the colour scheme – surely not!) and encourages women to join a movement happening “In the same spirit of love and liberation that inspired the Women's March” of January.⁵

The problem with this statement is that it’s simply not true; news coverage of the January march made it clear that it was far from loving and liberating – from Madonna’s virulent and vulgar speech to the hate and rejection directed at pro-life women trying to join the proceedings. In fact, it rapidly became clear that only one brand of feminism is welcome in this new ‘movement’: that which accepts ultra-left-wing attitudes towards life and liberty.

There is more going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.

It should come as no surprise, then, that one quarter of the feminist groups that took part in the January march owe some $90 million in funding to ultra-left-wing billionaire George Soros.⁶ Soros, a former Clinton supporter, is well-known for using his fortune to fund groups around the world that promote (among other things) abortion, the destruction of biblical gender roles and relations, and the globalist vision of broken-down national borders, too often by seeding anarchic protests.

Selective Campaigning

Women's march in Washington, January 2017. See Photo Credits.So, despite appearances, these protests are not just popping out of the ground spontaneously, but represent some deeper and more insidious agendas. Meanwhile, back on the surface, the fact that these agendas fail to translate into genuine concern for women is drawing accusations of hypocrisy.

For instance, commentators are lamenting that thousands of women are somehow being mobilised to shout about perceived gender inequalities in the Western world (where women have more freedoms and opportunities than anywhere else on earth) whilst completely ignoring situations of far worse oppression elsewhere (e.g. much of the Middle East, where women are prohibited from walking unaccompanied down a street, for example).

Instead, critics are suggesting, the feminism currently taking to our streets seeks to stir up anger amongst thousands of normal and well-meaning citizens, against vague and easily warped ideas of ‘oppression’, whilst turning a blind eye to genuine issues of real inequality.

In other words, it seems more concerned with fomenting anarchy than with solving real problems.

LGBT Agenda

As such, these marches and protests are not the place to go if you’re looking for a constructive definition of femininity or womanhood. In fact, the entire movement fails to offer a concrete, helpful vision for what being a woman actually means – largely because it isn’t concerned with that.

The Guardian manifesto pitches the movement as “anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-heterosexist and anti-neoliberal”⁷ – but this long list of ‘antis’ revealingly leaves out any ‘fors’. The entire movement is negative and destructive - and as such, risks leaving women feeling confused about what they are actually fighting for.

However, a key part of what the campaign is really for is hidden in the term ‘anti-heterosexist’, above. Rather than being about the welfare of all women, regardless of sexual orientation, this campaign is more about pushing LGBT ‘rights’ and challenging heterosexual norms, in the guise of protest against ‘gender oppression’.

The campaign is less about the welfare of all women and more about pushing LGBT rights.

The manifesto deliberately pitches the purposes of Wednesday’s strike and marches as “to mobilize women, including trans women, and all who support them in an international day of struggle”.⁸

This positions the whole movement as part of the much bigger sexual revolution that has been going on since the 1960s, seeking to ‘liberate’ people from the perceived ‘shackles’ of heteronormativity - that is, the established, biblical norms of heterosexual family life. In other words, it is simply the latest manifestation of revolt against the boundaries set by God, in direct rebellion against our Creator.

Don’t be fooled by the use of Donald Trump as a focus for anger and protest on Wednesday. This is not one bit about Trump – it’s about God.

Ugly Anarchy

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I believe this entire movement is actually satanic in origin, because it involves such clear and orchestrated rebellion against biblical principles. Personally, I am delighted that God made me female – but I am equally passionate about promoting his vision for womanhood (and all that this entails, including femininity, sexuality, marriage, motherhood), not the morally relative vision of postmodern feminism, which is already a long way down a very slippery slope.

Whilst thousands of women are being mobilised by vague talk of ‘inequality’ and ‘injustice’, inspired to march by a confusing mixture of causes, by its fruits shall this new movement be known. Nobody is being ‘liberated’ by the protests, which are increasingly angry, vulgar and violent. They seem to be more of a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy than for genuine democratic protest – the enemy thrashing his tail, as we noted last week.

But the word says “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21).

The latest 'feminist' protests are a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy, not genuine democratic protest.

What Can We Do?

It’s time for Christians everywhere – men and women – to turn to the word and ask God to open our eyes afresh to a positive, scriptural definition of femininity and womanhood (and masculinity and manhood!). It is this biblical vision alone that can offer a living, breathing, soul-quenching alternative to modern feminism.

If you were considering joining the strike on Wednesday (apparently 15 cities and towns in the UK will host a march of some kind), I would urge you to abstain – and perhaps instead to consider hosting some kind of alternative event in the near future, to help others near you explore the Lord’s vision for the two genders.

Let’s also respond to the ‘new wave’ of feminism with a ‘new wave’ of prayer. Today happens to be the Women’s World Day of Prayer, and women (and men) all around the world will be gathering to hold a special service celebrating God’s creation of women and thanking him for his blessings.

Why not use this as a reminder to pray over Wednesday’s marches: that they will fail to foment violence, and actually cause disillusionment amongst women, prompting them to question what they are getting involved with and the kind of vision for gender, sexuality, life and liberty that it promotes. Pray that God will turn the enemy’s plans for good.

References

1 Alcoff, LM, Arruzza, C, Bhattacharya, T et al. Women of America: we're going on strike. Join us so Trump will see our power. The Guardian, 6 February 2017.

2 Ibid.

3 Wilhelm, H. The embarrassing confusion of the 'women's strike'. The National Review, 22 February 2017.

4 See note 1.

5 Women's March website.

6 Soros gave $90m to feminist anti-Trump protest groups. Liberty Headlines, 17 January 2017.

7 See note 1.

8 See note 1.

There are many prophecies currently in circulation to do with Britain and her future in/out of the EU. Will you join with us so we can test these as a community?

The up-coming EU Referendum is drawing Christians all around the nation to think and pray about the direction in which Britain and Europe are headed. There have been a number of recent prophecies circulating churches and prayer groups, many of which call the UK to come out of the EU and give warnings about the direction in which the EU will eventually go.

It could not be more important for Christians to test these prophecies – so we are beginning a new series through which we might, as a community of faith, do this together. It also seems a pertinent time to re-print and test other significant prophecies for our nation that have been given historically.

Expecting Bias

In recent discussions within the Prophecy Today team we have noted that we should expect human bias in all contemporary prophecies, as a matter of course. Each of us is at a certain point in our biblical understanding and is still growing and this can shape the way we hear and speak out what we feel God is saying. We may also have denominational bias or be influenced by our educational background or life experiences.

There have been a number of recent prophecies about the EU circulating churches and prayer groups – it could not be more important for these to be tested.

There are times when the prophetic word is so strong that these biases are bypassed but we need not be embarrassed to put all prophecy to the test, or to question some elements of it. Sometimes we may deliver part of a prophecy accurately and then 'add a bit'. We are not the next Isaiah or Jeremiah, but part of the body of believers – a prophetic people acting together. All prophecy must be thoroughly tested and then we can be sure we really do have the word of God, as he confirms the understanding of his word to his people.

Seeing Prophecies in Context

Prophecy Today began in 1986 after major conferences in Israel where attention was drawn to Haggai's prophecy, repeated in the Book of Hebrews, concerning the shaking of the nations. We believe that this is the era we are in now and this is a prime reason for our re-publishing Prophecy Today online at this time. Though this view is still subject to testing, including by our readers, it continues to shape our work.

The outworking of this prophecy is involving much detail, and the prophecy itself fits into an overall 'end time' perspective. Among the issues for us to understand, therefore, is the UK's continuing membership of the EU – because whichever way we go, consequences will follow.

We believe we that the UK's membership in the EU needs to be understood in context of the wider fulfilment of Haggai's prophecy of a final great shaking of the nations.

Testing Prophecies: Things to Note

Testing of prophecy is best done methodically. We have chosen to begin our series by outlining three broad principles – though for a comprehensive testing, we recommend the list of 12 tests compiled by Dr Clifford Hill.¹

First, we know that sometimes God will do things unconditionally, even overriding human will (e.g. whilst steering us through a time of need), but apart from these times, most predictive prophecies (i.e. promises of blessing or judgment) are conditional. In these cases, 'if' is one of the big words of the Bible, and we would expect 'ifs' to feature within most contemporary prophecy.

Secondly, when we believe that the Lord has spoken, even if we feel strongly that it is from him, it is usually more helpful to ask others to test the prophecy using the words "I believe the Lord may be saying..." rather than as a direct word: "The Lord says...".

Thirdly, in testing prophecy for nations other than Israel, our reference point comes from Jeremiah 18. Jeremiah had been taken to the potter's house. Whilst telling Jeremiah what was to become of Judah, using the potter as a metaphor for how God could reform Judah, the following was revealed as God's promise for any nation: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned" (Jer 18:7) (note the ongoing nature of the prophecy and also the 'if').

In testing prophecy for nations other than Israel, our reference point comes from Jeremiah 18.

This Week: Test the 'Mother Barbara Prophecy'

Over the coming weeks we want to lay out some prominent prophecies spoken through the last century about our nation, and test them together. Take time alone in prayer and in prayer groups to do this.

This week, let us go back to reconsider a prophecy that has encouraged many Christians, especially women's prayer groups such as the Lydia Fellowship, for decades. This is the prophecy of 1911 passed on to Mother Barbara by Bishop Aristocoli shortly before his death:

Tell the women they must belong absolutely to God. They must believe in the great things that are happening that God is doing on the earth. They must prepare their souls, their children and their husbands. And they will have very much work to do for God. Oh, what a great work the women will have to do in the end time, and the men will follow them. Not one country will be without trial – do no be frightened of anything you will hear.

An evil will shortly take Russia and wherever this evil comes rivers of blood will flow. This evil will take the whole of the world and wherever it goes rivers of blood will flow because of it. It is not the Russian soul but an imposition of the Russian soul. It is not an ideology or a philosophy, but a spirit from hell.

In the last days Germany will be divided in two.

France will be just nothing.

Italy will be judged by natural disasters.

Britain will lose her empire and all her colonies and will come to almost total ruin, but will be saved through praying women.

America will feed the world, but will finally collapse.

Russia and China will destroy each other. Finally, Russia will be free and from her believers will go forth and turn many nations to God.

Let us begin to test aspects of this:

• Helpful Style: In what has come to be known as 'The Mother Barbara Prophecy', there is no claim that it is indeed a prophecy – no "thus saith the Lord" – more measured exhortation (though there is a prophetic nature to the foretelling of the future).
• Standing the Test of Time: Much has come to pass in world history which seems to verify the prophecy, especially relating to Russia and Germany, though Germany is now reunited. Now we are in the time when clarity is needed, since implications for contemporary Europe seem to be bound up in the last sections.
• Lack of Clarity: There has been tremendous encouragement for women called to prayer that through answered prayer Britain will be saved, yet what does it mean for a nation to be saved?
• Lack of Conditions: The prophecy states that Britain will be saved, but gives no conditions on such salvation.

What else do you notice about this prophecy? We encourage you to weigh it using the twelve tests of prophecy discussed previously, to assess once more this prophetic word in the light of Britain today and its relationship with the EU.

Do post your responses below for others to see, or email them in for our consideration.

Next week: Smith Wigglesworth's 1947 prophecy

References

1 Hill, C. Prophecy Past and Present: An Exploration of the Prophetic Ministry in the Bible and the Church. Copies available from the Issachar Ministries office – email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Understanding ritual purity baffled the sages of Israel. One of the most influential Jewish scholars, Maimonides, describes the whole subject as "bristling with difficulties, far from human understanding and one which even the Great Sages [of the Mishnah] found hard to comprehend."¹

Maimonides concluded that the purpose of these regulations was to impose limitations and conditions upon Israel's approach to God, to deepen their sense of awe and reverence for the majesty of their divine Father and King, which is why the laws apply only to relations with the sanctuary and the objects connected with it.²

However, Christians tend to perceive ritual purity as relating to sin, but this is not the case. The Lord mentions four categories of state in Leviticus: "distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean" (Lev 10:10). This instruction is given after unauthorised fire is offered by Aaron's sons, "So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord" (Lev 10:2). To distinguish between the holy and common, the clean and unclean was therefore of life or death importance for the Israelites. No one could approach the Lord casually or unprepared because he dwelled physically in the Tabernacle and the Temple:

'Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.' (Lev 16:1-2)

It is important to understand that the distinction between the four categories of holy, common, pure and impure (or clean and unclean) is not between good and evil. Ritual purity is also not about hygiene or disease control – it had beneficial effects in these areas but that is not the central purpose. Rather, it is to do with the separation of the holy from the everyday.³

Holy vs Common, Clean vs Unclean

For example, in many churches when communion is served a special silver goblet is used, but after the service coffee is served in ordinary cups. It shows that in communion we are doing something different from every day eating and drinking. It doesn't mean that the cup itself is special, just that we are making a distinction. The biblical idea of holiness is not simply avoiding illicit things but hallowing the licit.

Ritual purity is not about hygiene or about distinguishing good from evil - it's about separating the holy from the everyday.

Holiness is not the same as purity or cleanness. An object which is not holy is not necessarily clean. An object which is clean is not necessarily holy. Joshua Tilton explains, "Holiness describes an object's use, whereas purity describes that object's readiness for its intended use" [emphasis added]. Suppose you lived in 1^st Century Jerusalem and you had a sack of grain set aside for a tithe. If a mouse crawled into the sack of grain and died, the grain is still holy because it is your tithe, which you have set aside for the Lord, but it is now unclean because it has a dead creature in it. So the difference between holy and common and clean and unclean is not about good versus evil, rather it is about the appropriateness of an object for its intended use.⁴

In the Nature of Creation, Not the Creator

Holiness originates from God and he created his creation to be clean – nothing he made is intrinsically unclean. However, the eternal and immortal and the finite and mortal have to find a way to approach each other. Joseph Frankovic illuminates this point, "...in designing a house, one does not put the bathroom inside the dining room. The activities of the bathroom do not complement those of the dining room. Neither bathroom nor dining room activities are, however, sinful - just incompatible."⁵

God's holy Temple would be profaned or contaminated by distinctly mortal sources of ritual impurity – sex, disease and death (for example, genital discharges, menstruation, childbirth, skin disease, contact with dead bodies). This is not for moral, ethical or simply hygiene reasons, but because God is not subject to disease, decay and death and he does not reproduce. Decay, death and reproduction are characteristics of the creation not the Creator, who is eternally alive, immutable and self-sufficient, radically different from us. We are mortal with the potential for immortality, changeable and dependent. Therefore, we need to set aside aspects of our mortal nature to approach his immortal presence. We must be in a state of holiness in order to move from our sphere into God's sphere.⁶

We might say that holiness requires purity because holiness is divine, of a different order, not because impurity is bad. Impurity from sin is, of course, bad, but that is different from ritual purity. For example, giving birth is not sinful, but it gives rise to ritual impurity.

Holiness requires purity, but it is not the same as purity.

Now the biblical writers (especially Ezekiel) did sometimes employed the terms 'clean' and 'unclean' as metaphors for good and evil, e.g. Ezekiel says God will "...cast clean water on you and you will be clean" (Ezek. 36:25).⁷

For believers in Jesus, this is the sense in which we usually apply these terms because we are not required to regard certain physical states or foods as clean or unclean. However, we are to have a keen sense of what is sinful and morally corrupt, what will pollute and defile our minds, bodies and spirits.

God's Holy Presence

Holiness radiates from the divine presence. Therefore, those things which are closest to God's presence are holier than things which are further off. The sages of Israel⁸ said that there were ten degrees of holiness, starting with the Land of Israel which is holier than any other land, then the cities in it - Jerusalem is the holiest city, the Temple the holiest place in the City, and going through the courts of the Temple from the outer to the inner the holiness increases, until you reach the Sanctuary which is more holy than the outer courts, for none may enter there with unwashed hands and feet. Finally, the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept is more holy, "for none may enter therein save only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement."

Holiness can be transferred to common objects, which unlike unclean objects do not contaminate what is holy, but can instead be made holy by contact with holy objects, as Exodus 29:37 states, "The altar shall be most holy. Everything that touches the altar will become holy." However, the approach must be made from the holy towards the common: if a 'common' person, not a priest who was consecrated holy, intruded unauthorised into the holy places of the Temple they risked being struck down. It is also worth noting that sacred or holy objects were in two categories, sacred and most sacred. For example, some parts of an offering were considered most sacred: "The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord" (Lev 2:3). There were also degrees of uncleanness, the most basic level dissipated by the evening. Contact with a corpse required a period of seven days' separation.

Jacob Milgrom describes both the most sacred and impurity as having airborne properties in rabbinic thought and those closest to the sacred, the priests, had to be more vigilant than ordinary people. Priests could attend the burial of only their close relatives, and the High Priest could not even attend the burial of his parents: "He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother" (Lev 21:11).⁹

Holiness radiates from the divine presence. Those things which are closest to God's presence are holier than things which are further off.

Sin impurity was a potent source of contamination and would drive away the divine presence if it were not atoned for. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there was no purification for deliberate, unrepented sin. Even the Day of Atonement could not purify the Temple from wilful, unrepented rebellion. The shekinah (dwelling) presence of the Lord would no longer inhabit the Temple.¹⁰ The people of Israel's conduct had the capacity to defile not only the Temple but also the land of Israel. The land itself was not intrinsically holy: to call it the 'Holy Land' is a misnomer. It was simply God's land where Israel could live in either holiness or profanity. If it was the latter, the end result would be exile.

Restoration and Cleansing in Messiah Jesus

Only the Messiah could restore Israel to holiness. People became clean through touching him; he did not become unclean. Jesus was like the altar in the Temple: his presence was the place where heaven touched earth. The altar was where sin was atoned for and Jesus forgave sins, so he was an atonement carrier – he had the power to forgive and cleanse – when lepers touched him they became clean, ritually clean.

Jesus was 'most holy', like the altar in the Temple and like the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept. Uniquely, unlike any other person, he could not be contaminated but he decontaminated others.

The woman who touched the 'hem' of Jesus' garment (Matt 9) knew she was touching the most holy part of his physical presence, since it was the edge of his prayer shawl, whose knots and windings represented the very word of God, so she was trembling in fear when discovered, because when common objects were unintentionally brought into contact with the holy, or brought into the divine presence without proper sanction, it could be dangerous. Unauthorised approaches could lead to disaster. At Mount Sinai, Moses was warned not to let the people come near in case the Lord broke out against them. Even on the Day of Atonement the High Priest had a rope tied round his ankle as he entered the Holy of Holies in case he was unclean in some way and was struck down and had to be pulled out.

Jesus was 'most holy', like the altar in the Temple and like the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept. He could not be contaminated - instead he decontaminated others.

All the more miraculous that a way has been opened for us to enjoy unfettered access to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ and his indwelling Spirit. We "have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death." The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am trembling with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:18-24).

Let us not take this privilege for granted. We may be, thankfully, confident of full acceptance by the Lord through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but let us not forget that he is radically, awesomely holy. So "let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our 'God is a consuming fire'" (Heb 12:28-29).

References

1 Maimonides, Introduction to Seder Todoroth. Quoted in Slotki, IW. The Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Book I, Folios 2a-23a. Moore, Soncino, p491.

2 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Book 10, The Book of Cleanness.

3 Tilton, J. A Goy's Guide to Ritual Purity, Jerusalem Perspective. 30 April 2014. I am indebted to Joshua Tilton for a number of insights into ritual purity.

4 Ibid. The example here is extracted from Tilton's expanded example: "a sack of grain could be common, if it was harvested by an Israelite, and clean, if the harvester was in a state of ritual purity. But if a mouse climbed into the sack of grain and died, the grain would be common and unclean. On the other hand, if the harvester happened to set aside this particular sack of grain as tithe, then the grain would be holy and clean. And finally, if a mouse crawled into the sack of grain set aside for tithe and died, the grain would be holy and unclean."

5 Frankovic, J, in Wilson, MR. Jewish Laws of Purity in Jesus' Day. Torah Class.

6 Tilton, ibid (note 3).

7 "Cleanse me from my iniquity and purify me from my sin" (Ps 51:4)

8 Mishnah (m. Kelim 1:6-9).

9 Milgrom, J, 2004. Leviticus, A Book of Ritual and Ethics, A Continental Commentary. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, p143, 154.

10 Tilton, ibid (note 3).