Tag Archive: bible


  Hadassah is the Jewish name of Queen Esther, and she is mentioned by this name in Esther 2:7, “Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.”

Hadassah is a feminine form of the Hebrew word hadas, meaning “myrtle,” a common perennial shrub with evergreen leaves and white, star-shaped flowers. The flowers of the myrtle are used for perfume, and the berries for allspice. Myrtle is referenced symbolically in the Bible as a sign of peace and God’s blessing in passages such as Zechariah 1:11, in which the angel of the Lord stands among the myrtle trees and says, “We have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace.”

Esther’s early name of “Hadassah” was perhaps symbolic as well, not only because of her beauty but because her destiny was to procure peace and blessing for God’s people in Persia. The Jews in Esther’s time were under threat of genocide by Haman, a close confidant of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes). Hadassah entered Ahasuerus’s palace as a prospective concubine, but God had greater plans for the young Jewish woman.

King Ahasuerus was known for his drinking, lavish banquets, harsh temper, and sexual appetite. In 483 BC, after a 180-day display of his riches, splendor, and pomp, he held a massive banquet. In drunken merriment, Ahasuerus requested that his wife, Queen Vashti, appear before the king “in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at” (Esther 1:11). When Vashti refused, she was banished from the kingdom.

Ahasuerus appointed officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the beautiful young virgins to his harem (Esther 2:3–4). Hadassah, that is, Esther, was taken into custody by the eunuch in charge of the women, yet her cousin Mordecai kept close watch on her (Esther 2:11). After ten months, Esther was brought before the king, and he loved her more than anyone else. Hadassah won the king’s favor and took Vashti’s place as queen (Esther 2:17).

Though Hadassah’s initial circumstances appeared to serve the evil purposes of a lustful king, God used her situation, position, and character to protect the people of Israel. Esther, in meekness and humility, trusted in God’s sovereignty with her every action, confident that His will would be done concerning her people—no matter what the consequences to herself. With no concern for her personal safety, Esther acted as an intercessor with the king on behalf of her people, the Israelites (Esther 4:16), ultimately exposing Haman’s evil plot and saving the Jews from destruction.

Advertisements

The name Xerxes does not appear in the Hebrew text of Scripture. However, it does appear throughout the book of Esther in the NIV and NASB. In the Hebrew text, the king’s name is Ahasuerus (preserved in the KJV and ESV). Nothing is known of a king named Ahasuerus from secular sources, and the names of all the Persian kings from this time period are known. Most commentators equate Esther’s king with Xerxes I (485–465 BC), son of Darius I, the fourth emperor of the Achaemenid Empire—thus the translation in some modern versions. (There is some evidence to show that the Hebrew name Ahasuerus can be easily derived from the Persian name.) The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the name Artaxerxes, which further complicates the issue, for there were two Persian rulers by that name: Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC) and Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC).

The details on the life of Xerxes found in the book of Esther are not corroborated by any secular sources. While there are many detractors who simply view Esther as fiction, for those who accept the historicity of the book of Esther, Xerxes I is the most likely candidate to fill the role of Ahasuerus. What we know of the character of Xerxes I fits with what we see in the book of Esther. Xerxes had a summer palace in Susa. He was known for his drinking, lavish banquets, harsh temper, and sexual appetite. Esther mentions a foiled plot against his life, and we know from secular history that, later, in 465, Xerxes was assassinated by the head of his bodyguard.

The most likely scenario is that the episode of Xerxes’ life involving Esther took place after Xerxes’ disastrous invasion of Greece in 480 BC. Xerxes’ forces paid a heavy toll at the pass of Thermopylae at the hands of the fabled 300 Spartans and were defeated at Salamis. Returning home, Xerxes turned to domestic affairs.

King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) plays a prominent role in the book of Esther. In chapter 1 he gives a great banquet for his nobles and, after several days of eating and drinking, orders that the queen Vashti appear at the banquet so the men there might see her great beauty. Vashti refuses to attend, so the king deposes her.

In Esther 2 Xerxes begins to regret his decision to oust the queen, and he decides to find a new queen. The queen of Persia was not simply the wife of the king. The queenship was an honorary/political position. The king was a polygamist with many wives and concubines in his harem, but the queen was a special wife occupying a favored position. A call is sent out throughout the kingdom for all beautiful virgins to be gathered into the harem so that the king could choose a new queen from among them. As a member of the harem, a woman would technically be the property of the king—either a wife or a concubine. Each of the women would spend a night with the king. After their night together, each woman would be moved to the “other side” of the harem and would never see the king again, unless he called for her. When he found the “right one,” Xerxes would name her queen, although she would not be his exclusive wife or sexual partner. A woman whom Xerxes never called again would live her life in the harem as a pampered prisoner with no possibility for a real marriage or family of her own.

A Jewess named Esther, who was raised by her cousin Mordecai, was one of the women rounded up for Xerxes. She was eventually named queen, but she kept her nationality a secret. Mordecai is anxious for Esther and loiters day after day near the harem quarters to monitor how she is doing. In so doing, he overhears a plot to kill the king. He reports it to Esther, who reports it to the king, and the plot is foiled.

In Esther 3 one of Xerxes’ chief advisors, Haman, is angered the Mordecai will not bow down to him, so he hatches a plot to kill not only Mordecai but all of the Jews. Haman convinces King Xerxes to authorize the extermination; however, it appears that the king does not know the identity of the people that Haman plans to wipe out—only that they are enemies of the state. He trusts Haman to handle the details. In chapter 4 Mordecai informs Esther of the danger the Jews are in and convinces her to intercede with the king. The problem Esther faces is that Xerxes has not called for her for some time and, if she approaches him without being summoned, she risks death. At this point, neither the king nor Haman knows Esther’s nationality or her relationship to Mordecai. Mordecai encourages Esther to take the risk, saying that perhaps she has been made queen “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14).

In Esther 5 the queen approaches Xerxes, and he extends his scepter to her, signifying that he welcomes her into his presence. Instead of explaining her predicament, however, Esther invites the king and Haman to a private banquet. At the banquet Esther again puts off addressing the issue; instead, she asks the king and Haman to come to another banquet the next day, which they agree to do. Haman is so overjoyed and emboldened by the special attention he’s receiving from the queen that he decides to have Mordecai hanged in advance of the general slaughter of the Jews.

In Esther 6 the king cannot sleep, so he has the royal annals read to him. When the account of the foiled plot against his life is recounted, Xerxes asks if Mordecai has ever been honored for saving him. When he finds that Mordecai has never been rewarded, Xerxes decides to remedy the oversight. At that moment, Haman enters, and the king asks him, “What should be done to the man whom the king delights to honor?” (Esther 6:5). Haman thinks the king is referring to him, so he proposes a lavish public display: “For the man whom the king delights to honor, let royal robes be brought, which the king has worn, and the horse that the king has ridden, and on whose head a royal crown is set. And let the robes and the horse be handed over to one of the king’s most noble officials. Let them dress the man whom the king delights to honor, and let them lead him on the horse through the square of the city, proclaiming before him: ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honor.’” The king thinks it is a splendid idea to be carried out immediately and tells Haman, “Hurry; take the robes and the horse, as you have said, and do so to Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Leave out nothing that you have mentioned” (verses 7–9). So, in what some would call a strange “twist of fate,” Haman has to publicly honor Mordecai. After his humiliation, Haman hurriedly prepares for the banquet with Esther and the king, as Haman’s family laments that certainly fate is against him now.

In Esther 7, at the second banquet, Xerxes asks Esther, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled” (Esther 7:2). Esther begs for the life of herself and her people. The king is enraged and asks who would dare plot such a thing. Esther answers, “A foe and enemy! This wicked Haman!” (verse 6). The king rushes from the room in a rage, and Haman throws himself upon the couch where Esther is reclining to plead for his life. At that moment, the king returns and misinterprets Haman’s actions: “Will he even assault the queen in my presence, in my own house?” (verse 8). Haman is whisked away and hanged on the very gallows he had prepared for Mordecai.

In Esther 8 the house of Haman is given to Esther, and his position in the court is given to Mordecai. Even though Haman is out of the way, the plot to kill all the Jews is still afoot. It appears that the king’s edict called for citizens of Persia to kill Jews on a certain day and confiscate their property. The edict, which could not be rescinded, is modified to allow the Jews to defend themselves, and in chapter 9 they are able to withstand the attack, and many of their enemies are killed.

God is not mentioned in the book of Esther, but He is conspicuous by His absence. In Esther we do not see any miracles or divine intervention. However, we do see an abundance of providence, which is God’s control and provision through “natural” means. It is clear that the writer of the book intends us to see God’s unseen hand behind every detail and ironic twist of “fate.” Although Xerxes is the king, he is not ultimately in charge. The king of Persia is little more than a bit player in God’s all-encompassing drama. The story of Xerxes is an excellent example of Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”

One of the often thought of “name changes” in the Bible is that of Saul to Paul. The change is commonly linked to Saul’s conversion on the Damascus Road, when the Lord Jesus commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1–19). However, at the time of Saul’s conversion, Jesus still addressed him as “Saul.” Later, Jesus told Ananias to find “Saul” in Damascus and restore his sight. Acts 9 goes on to describe “Saul” as increasing in spiritual strength and understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. So, it was not Jesus who changed his name on the road to Damascus. If it wasn’t Jesus’ doing, how did the change from Saul to Paul happen, and when?

The answer is that Saul’s name was also Paul. The custom of dual names was common in those days. Acts 13:9 describes the apostle as “Saul, who was also called Paul.” From that verse on, Saul is always referred to in Scripture as “Paul.”

Paul was a Jew, born in the Roman city of Tarsus. He was proud of his Jewish heritage, as he describes in Philippians 3:5: “Circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee.” So zealous and devout was he that persecuting Christians was the natural way for him to show his devotion. He chose to use his Hebrew name, Saul, until sometime after he began to believe in and preach Christ. After that time, as “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), he used his Roman name, Paul. It would make sense for Paul to use his Roman name as he travelled farther and farther into the Gentile world.

It is interesting that Paul began using his Roman name on Cyprus when the Roman proconsul on that island was converted (Acts 13:12). This was during Paul’s first missionary journey and involved a high-ranking, idolatrous Gentile coming to faith in Christ. The fact that the proconsul’s name was Sergius Paulus has led some to think that Saul took the name Paulus/Paul as a reminder of this event, but the apostle’s name being the same as the proconsul’s is most likely a coincidence.

Using his Roman name was fitting for the man who proclaimed that he would become “all things to all people,” a Jew to the Jews in order to win the Jews, weak to the weak in order to win the weak, etc., all for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). Adopting his Roman name would allow Paul to approach the Gentiles to whom he was sent and speak to them in their own language, becoming as one of them and setting them at ease. It is also possible that Paul gave up the use of his Hebrew name, Saul, with its regal connotation and chose to use his Roman name, Paul, meaning “little” or “small,” because he desired to became smaller in order to present Christ as greater (cf. John 3:30).

Unlike the changing of Simon’s name to Peter (Matthew 16:18–19), which Jesus did for a specific purpose, there is no reference in the Bible to Jesus’ changing Saul’s name to Paul.

  Mordecai is first introduced in Esther 2:5–7: “Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.”

These verses note the following facts about Mordecai: 1) he was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, 2) he lived in Susa, the capital of Persia, 3) he had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, and 4) he acted as a father to Esther. When Esther was selected as one of the virgins to possibly be the next queen of King Xerxes (or Ahasuerus), Mordecai advised her not to reveal her Jewish background (Esther 2:10). Esther was crowned queen (verse 17).

In Esther 2:21–23, Mordecai, who worked at the palace gate, hears of an assassination plot against the king. Mordecai reports the plot to Esther, and the queen passes the intelligence on to Xerxes. The would-be assassins are stopped, and Mordecai’s name is recorded in the king’s chronicles as the one who took action to preserve the king’s life.

Mordecai was hated by Haman, an Agagite who held a prominent office in the kingdom. Haman’s hatred was due to Mordecai’s refusal to bow in honor to him (Esther 3:5). As a Jew, Mordecai would only bow to the Lord God of Israel. Haman was not content with simply doing away with Mordecai, however: “Having learned who Mordecai’s people were, he scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai. Instead Haman looked for a way to destroy all Mordecai’s people, the Jews, throughout the whole kingdom of Xerxes” (verse 6). Haman spoke to the king and secured the king’s permission to annihilate the Jewish people on select date in the future. When Mordecai heard of the decree, he tore his clothing, put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes (Esther 4:1).

Mordecai had been checking on Esther each day. When she discovered he was mourning, she inquired of the cause. Mordecai informed Esther of Haman’s plot against the Jews, telling her to go before the king and plead for the Jews’ lives (Esther 4:8). At this, Esther balked—she did not have freedom to enter the king’s presence without a summons; to approach the king uninvited was punishable by death (verses 9–10). Mordecai responded with logic: if she did not go before the king, she was dead anyway, for she herself was endangered by the king’s edict (verse 13). Mordecai ends his message to the queen with this famous statement: “Who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (verse 14).

Esther agreed that she must break the Persian law that forbade access to the king, saying, “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). She fasted for three days and then entered the king’s presence uninvited. Xerxes received her graciously, however, and Esther took the opportunity to invite the king and Haman to a banquet (Esther 5:1–4). At the meal, the king asked Esther if she had a request, and Esther asked for their presence at another banquet the next night.

Haman, who was ignorant of the queen’s ethnicity, was pleased to be honored with not one banquet but two. On the way home, he was “happy and in high spirits. But when he saw Mordecai at the king’s gate and observed that he neither rose nor showed fear in his presence, he was filled with rage against Mordecai” (verse 9). Once he arrived home, he issued an order to build a 75-foot-high gallows upon which to hang Mordecai (Esther 5:14).

That night after Esther’s first meal, King Xerxes couldn’t sleep. As a sleep-aid, he had his chronicles read to him. It just so happened that the account of Mordecai’s thwarting the assassination was read. The king then discovered that nothing had been done to repay Mordecai for his good deed. At that moment, Haman entered the palace in order to obtain the king’s permission to hang Mordecai—he never got the chance to ask, though, because the king ordered Haman to immediately take Mordecai through the streets of Susa to pay him homage (Esther 6:10–11). Haman was thus humbled before his enemy, and Mordecai received due honor.

After his humiliating experience of honoring Mordecai, Haman returned to the palace for Esther’s second banquet. During the meal, the king again asked Esther if she had a request. This time, she pleaded for the king to rescue her and her people from destruction (Esther 6:3–4), and she pointed out Haman as the one wanting to kill her (verse 6).

Haman was summarily put to death on the very gallows he had erected for Mordecai, and the Jews were given permission to defend themselves. The Jews successfully overcame Haman’s evil plot, and Mordecai was rewarded with a promotion. The final verse of Esther notes, “Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews” (Esther 10:3).

The story of Mordecai illustrates the truth of Psalm 75:7, “It is God who judges: / He brings one down, he exalts another,” and Psalm 147:6, “The LORD sustains the humble / but casts the wicked to the ground.” Mordecai’s faithfulness and integrity put him in good stead with the king of Persia, and his concern for his Jewish compatriots brought the blessing of God.

The Medo-Persians, led by King Cyrus II, invaded Babylonia from the east in June of 539 B.C. and captured its capital, Babylon, in July of the same year. In biblical chronology, this occurred near the end of the Babylonian exile. Within a short time, Daniel became a trusted advisor to the new Medo-Persian Empire. This kingdom of the Medes and the Persians was later ruled by Artaxerxes II, or Ahasuerus, who married Esther. Today, Persia is essentially synonymous with modern Iran, and this was not so different in ancient times. However, Persia as an ancient kingdom, especially when referenced along with Media, encompassed Egypt in the west to parts of India in the east, and included Asia Minor from the eastern border of Greece to Tajikistan.

The Medo-Persian Empire Foretold
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel all prophesied that the Medes and the Persians would overtake the Babylonian Empire. Isaiah quoted God as saying, “See, I will stir up against them the Medes. . . . Their bows will strike down the young men” (Isaiah 13:17-18). Another prophecy said that the Medes would expand beyond Babylonia and affect all nations (Jeremiah 51:28). Jeremiah also provides the reason for the Medo-Persian ascendancy: “to destroy Babylon” and gain “vengeance for [God’s] temple” (Jeremiah 51:11). Daniel interpreted a dream which also foretold the fall of Babylon.

The Writing on the Wall
Daniel also warned of Babylon’s demise on the eve of its fall, as recorded in Daniel 5. King Belshazzar, called “king” because he was left in charge of political affairs while his father was away at war, was using the gold and silver utensils from the temple as drinking vessels in a night of debauchery. “Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall” (Daniel 5:5). The frightened king summoned Daniel to the banquet hall to interpret the writing. Daniel’s inspired interpretation was dire: God had pronounced judgment on Babylon, and the kingdom would be divided. By morning, “Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom” (Daniel 5:30-31).

End of the Exile
Before the Babylonian exile even began, God told Jeremiah that Judah would “become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 25:11). Ezra and others recorded that “in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia [539 B.C.], in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1), and Cyrus allowed all the Jews to return to Judah. Not only did Cyrus release the Jews, but he also returned the stolen temple articles and paid for the Jews’ rebuilding efforts from the royal treasury (Ezra 6:4-5). This was a monumental time in Israel’s history, as Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt and the Law was reinstituted.

Daniel
Daniel was prominent in the Medo-Persian Empire and a trusted advisor to King Darius. However, after being placed as head of the satraps (governors, of sorts), Daniel was hated by some of them for his quick ascent. They laid a legal trap for Daniel that should have gotten him killed, for he was thrown into the infamous lions’ den. He survived, however, by God’s intervention, and he continued to prophesy, rule, and provide counsel in that foreign land (Daniel 6:28).

Mordecai and Esther
Another key event in the history of Israel also occurred in Persia. The book of Esther describes the origin of the Feast of Purim and how the Jews were spared mass destruction. When Cyrus released the Jews to their homeland, not all of them elected to return to Judah (Esther 3:8). King Artaxerxes (or “Ahasuerus,” as he is called in Esther) reigned from 404-359 B.C. and likely had little background on his government’s history with the Jews. So, when his top advisor, Haman, accused the Jews of being routinely disobedient to the king’s laws, Artaxerxes believed him and agreed to Haman’s plan of genocide against the Jews. Queen Esther, herself a Jewess, had been chosen queen of the empire without disclosing her origin. In a series of remarkable events, plainly evincing God’s providence, Esther was able to expose Haman’s vile motives. Not only were the Jews spared destruction, but Esther’s uncle Mordecai was given Haman’s place of honor.

Conclusion
God uses individuals and empires to accomplish His will. Certainly, the Medo-Persian Empire is a case in point. God used this empire to set His captive people free, fund the rebuilding of the temple, and encourage His children that they are never forsaken.

When God changed a person’s name and gave him a new name, it was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s “high father” name to “Abraham,” “father of a multitude” (Genesis 17:5) and his wife’s name from “Sarai,” “my princess,” to “Sarah,” “mother of nations” (Genesis 17:15). We know from history that the descendants of Abraham and Sarah formed many nations, including the Jews’ and Muslims’.

God changed Jacob’s “supplanter” name to “Israel,” “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s “God has heard” name to “Peter,” “rock” (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to “Peter”? Probably because Simon sometimes acted like his old self instead of the rock God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him “Jacob” to remind him of his past and to remind him to depend on God’s strength.

Why did God choose new names for some people? The Bible doesn’t give us His reasons, but perhaps it was to let them know they were destined for a new mission in life. The new name was a way to let them in on the divine plan and also to assure them that God’s plan would be fulfilled in them.

The answer to the above question is quite simple in one respect, and quite complex in another.

The baseline answer to America’s present condition is  that the Constitution of the United State is “wholly inadequate” for the governance of a people who are not Christian.  In a much larger world, where peoples were divided by time and space and the availability of philosophical, historical,  social and cultural knowledge was primitive compared to today, our Founders did not realize that the term religion could mean a wide array of desperate philosophies which were not compatible.  Nor could they have contemplated and understood the present state of man in terms of “closeness” and congestion.

Christianity and the Bible provided a broadly based common view of the world and life.  There were differences within Christianity, and those differences had helped cause continued war among the Christian nations of Europe.  But America offered sufficient land – space and lack of established special interests at the time of its settlement and colonization and creation of this nation, that those conflicts did not carry over to America in a defining way.   Instead, our founders being sensitive to the differences between the Christian denominations, built in a tolerance within the broader Christianity.  A review of the religious toleration clauses of the colonial and early state Charters and Constitutions clearly indicate it was tolerance for the different Christian denominations which were central in their minds.

In my life time, and probably before, intellectuals have sought to expand or re-write the meanings of the Founders.  The concept of a “living” Constitution embraces the idea of historiography (meaning the change – ability of the meaning of words depending upon fashion) as a less cumbersome way of modifying the practical aspects of the Constitution in daily life.  This is not what the Founders intended.  They were very clear about the limited role of the Courts, and the means to change the Constitution.  But today’s intellectuals, the ruling elite, and those in political governance, prefer to govern through the Courts rather than the ballot box and legislature.  Progressives prefer court-dictated changes because it is easier to make happen, and can be micro managed in terms of intent.

The common foundation of Christianity was not just one of morality in terms of the Ten Commandments, but was also an understanding of the spirit as the essential breath within the law.  Christ’s teachings are filled with this approach.  It is not just the words of the law which are important but their spirit, and without the spirit, the words whither and die.

America is in chaos because the people have moved away from the Christianity, which God used to create the United States of America. The people moved away, in part, because the ruling elite erased the history of America (1492 – 1789). and mostly because, as in the Old Testament of the Bible, we are no better than the people of Israel in our constant desire to do as we please, rather than please God.  The spirit of the Constitution, spoken of above, should be the spirit of God, through the American people and applied to life.  That is precisely what the Founders intended.  (This point will be fought tooth and nail by the intellectuals, and most may believe them because most are completely unaware of the history of this nation, combined with a desire to live and let live.)

Christianity is under attack by Satan through a wide variety of means, and the Pulpit has been less than vigilant or energetic in its defense of the Christian foundation of the Constitution and our nation.  Between the electronic devices which run a 24  – 7 river of sin at the hearts and minds of the people,  the rising challenge of Islam around the world, and the spiritual corruption of both the American people and its ruling elite. only the power of God has prevented collapse before now.  But, it appears, it is coming.

America’s lurch towards Donald Trump appears to be the same as the Jewish people calling for a King.  God attempted to dissuade his chosen people of that choice, but reluctantly allowed the people to choose that course, choice being the optimum operational theme throughout the Bible.  Americans have no idea how to look to God for the answer to our problems and challenges; instead we have become addicted to government as the answer.  Modern liberal thought has become the idol, and America is living that idolatry now.

I have written before and will continue to do so, that what America needs is a national revival, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 .  and for those who agree, I can only commend to you, pray for such an event.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free…. “

I believe that The AMERICAN PATRIOT, is the only political party in America that is still firmly loyal to OUR Founding Fathers and supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the United States of America.

We hear a great deal today from politicians, news organizations and candidates this is the “most important election year” in the history of the United States,  “a crucial election,” and  there is so “much at stake.”  Yet, they never fully tell us why it is the “most important,” the most “crucial” or “what really is at stake?”

If we answer the last question first, “what is at stake,” we have a foundation of which to answer all of these questions. But first we must ask the ultimate question: “Why do Republicans and Democrats alike fear and hate Donald Trump?” I proffer to you this simple answer.  Donald Trump is aware that for 100 years most politicians have knowingly ushered in the ideal of Communism through implementation of laws and propaganda.  Trump understands that the people (politicians) who believe in the socialistic and communistic concepts, [especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas] are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the United States of America… Trump wants to expose it and stop it before the final fatal blow is administered to our Republic; and this scares the hell out of politicians of who will be exposed. Not to mention that everything these politicians have worked for will have been in vain. I strongly believe that this is why Republicans, Democrats and nearly every News Agency has aligned against Donald Trump and his agenda.

Now we can answer the two remaining questions of why this election was “so important” and what makes it “so crucial?” The answer is not in “who” will make the ultimate blow that murders our current Republic form of government; but instead “who” will “guide and control” this new United States Socialist Republic [U. S. S. R.]. This is what is causing the chaos from within the News Media and from within both political parties. This is why we are experiencing riots in the streets and political stonewalling.  America’s freedom is in the balance. This is why everyone is scrambling to oust Trump before he had a chance to be elected.

This is why the 2018 mid-term elections for Senators will be the most  crucial election in the history of mankind and of the United States of America. By whatever name they go by, Liberal, Progressive, Moderate, Socialist or Communists, they need to go.  Plain and simple.  This is why supporting President Trump’s agenda is vital to American freedom and prosperity. This is why the likes of Schumer and Pelosi need to be ousted and replaced with Conservative, God fearing , pro-America Congressional leadership..

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system [Capitalism] and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name [Liberal, Progressive or Socialist] is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…  The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .

These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated [see: Youth Indoctrinated] with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. …

America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

 

 

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words,  is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the United States of America?????

KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

The AMERICAN PATRIOT, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Join me for more from this series. Thank you.

 

A comparison between “forced giving” through Communism and “joyous giving” through Capitalism and Bible principles:
Communism, a branch of socialism, is an experimental social system based on a set of ideals that, at first glance, seem to agree with some biblical principles. On closer examination, however, little evidence can be found that the Bible truly supports or endorses communism. There is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice, and the Bible verses that seem to comply with communist ideals are in fact contradicted by the practices of a communist government.
There is a surprising sentence in a description of the church in Acts 2 that has led many people to wonder whether the Bible supports communism, and has led some people to defend strongly the idea that communism is actually biblical. The passage reads, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This statement seems to imply that communism (which has, at its heart, a desire to eliminate poverty by “spreading the wealth around”) is found here in the earliest of Christian churches. However, there is a crucial difference between the church in Acts 2 and a communist society that must be understood.
In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal—living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give. They don’t have a choice in the matter as to how much they give or to whom they give. This, therefore, does not reflect on who they are; it says nothing about their identity or character. Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount – namely, everything they earn.
The issue is one of cheerful giving (which the Bible supports) versus forced giving. Second Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” After all, the Bible contains a great number of references to helping the poor, being generous with what we have, and looking out for those who are less fortunate. When we obey in this area with cheerful hearts with the proper motivation, our giving is pleasing to God. What is not pleasing to God is giving out of compulsion, because forced giving is not giving out of love and therefore profits nothing in the spiritual sense. Paul tells the Corinthians, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3). Loveless giving is the inevitable result of communism.
Capitalism is actually a better system, when it comes to giving, because it has proven to increase individual wealth, which allows its citizens to give out of their increase. Communism has proven to simply make all its citizens poor, except the very few in power who decide where the wealth goes. But even capitalism won’t work, by itself, as a system for aiding the poor. It depends on its citizens to be diligent (Proverbs 10:4) and generous with the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 6:18) and to give out of love for God and neighbor. Thus, we see that God has designed for the physical and financial needs of the poor to be met by Christian individuals, rather than by any system of government. In one unified voice, as christians and citizens alike, we must express to our leaders our clear choice.