Descendants of Grace Monergistic Assembly

Author: Yskander Arquimides Saucedo

  • Socrates Should He Have Escaped?

    Interestingly, Crito began attempting to persuade Socrates to escape by considering what people may think if his friends did not come to his rescue. Socrates does a good job giving reasons why considering the opinions of the masses irrelevant; however, in true essence, it is relevant because Socrates still favors the opinion of a particular group, and the group is the Athenian law makers.

    As far as intelligence goes, I have a problem with Socrates’ perspective. I fear to assume that Socrates believes that those in power are more intelligent than the people of Athens merely because the rest are not in political power. Maybe it was his rhetorical way of explaining that we should trust the judgment of the professionals of a particular position. Now, I understand that when it comes to many situations it is wise to enquire from the professionals. For example, if I want to lose weight and lower blood pressure, I would speak to a Doctor or Dietician. The problem is, no matter how intelligent one may be in his own craft they still make mistakes. Doctors can prescribe wrong doses and people die as a consequence. I’m sure you can think of many other examples.

    In relation to the Supreme Court, I’m afraid Socrates would think these men to be the highest of all intellectuals, and whatever they say must be the rule of law no matter what. I only say this because of Socrates’ action to the death; although it was logically consistent with his views, it was extremely radical. Imagine if we were to apply the Categorical Imperative and apply Socrates’ decision as a universal law. By this time we would have global tyranny because the universal law would be that the subjects would surrender to whatever the leaders dictate whether wrong or right. For Socrates, it was the right in his own perspective, but if it fails to be applied as a universal law, then it would have also been valid for Socrates and any other in modern times to escape the situation.

  • Socrates, Just or Unjust Utility

    In Euthyphro, what I realized the most from the dialogue is Socrates’ keen sense of logic. I’ll repeat again that I do not believe Socrates was sincere about being a student of Euthyphro, but merely used that as a reason to find mutual ground with Euthyphro; in order to engage in argument for the purpose of finding truth. Let us remember that the whole intention of a philosopher, I think is to seek after truth and be a lover of wisdom, as I believe Socrates was. In Euthyphro, we see a great display of Socrates’ rationality. The fact that he was asking for a standard for the definition of piety is monumental to rational concepts. It reveals to us that Socrates may not have been a relativist, but instead, he believed there is an absolute truth or universal truth, which we must strive to find when arguing; otherwise, what’s the objective of arguing?

    Socrates has much to say about what is just and unjust in the Crito, and there is much to consider. Socrates ultimately decides to remain obedient to the law by accepting his condemnation. I’m sure we all understand the various reasons Socrates gives to justify his complacent, so I won’t elaborate in that respect; however, judging by the dialogues, again I’m led to believe Socrates believes in absolutes; therefore, he would have to be arguing about what decision would ultimately be right or wrong. What I gather to be the closing point for Socrates is, regardless of whether his death sentence was right or wrong, he was unyielding about not repaying something unjust with an unjust action. If Socrates thought that his sentence was unjust, he refused to escape because to escape would be acting in an unjust manner against the Athenian law.

    I personally perceive Socrates as a logical thinker. I think he would be more of a rationalist than an empiricist because his thinking seems more reasonable than emotional. Unfortunately, I believe his logic was too rigid, and when faced with the decision to escape; his logic could have been relaxed. It seems to me that as a consequence of the imperfect world we live in, sometimes we need to bend the rules of logic in order to be practical in this world; otherwise, there would be no such thing as lying, deceit, or dishonesty. What I mean is this; an unjust law is no law at all. To Socrates, he followed his logic to the consequence of death. It may be logical that if we are to live a just life according to the law, then we must never disobey it, even if the law has wrongly persecuted us; however, the consequence of the false accusation was too costly; where was the greater positive utility? If we were to apply the action of Socrates on a universal modern practical basis, then we would have no need for lawyers trying to appeal the case of someone who has been wrongfully accused if we are to just accept what the state declares right or wrong. Being wrongly accused is unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all; therefore, I believe Socrates would not have been unjust for escaping; nurturing his children, and continue to inspire minds with his teachings. That would be a greater utility than his death

  • Socrates the Rational Realist

    In the Euthyphro, there were a couple of things that intrigued me about Socrates’s dialogue. The first is that Socrates noticed the justification of piety Euthyphro was using for prosecuting his father of murder. Euthyphro expressed that if anyone considered him impious for wanting to prosecute his father, then it reveals how little they know about what the god’s think about piety. In my perspective, the justification he uses seems to be for the purpose of relinquishing any guilt he may have. Secondly, it reveals a slight pride of knowledge he has in relation to the gods. Socrates takes notice and puts Euthyphro’s logic to the test.

    Socrates’s approach is very crafty. He persuades Euthyphro he is interested in becoming a student of his with the hopes of learning knowledge from him about piety and the gods. Whether Socrates was sincere about learning as a student or merely attempting to set up a dialogue to reveal a logical fallacy from Euthyphro, I can only speculate. Personally, I believe the second proposition, that Socrates did not sincerely believe Euthyphro to be full of wisdom in relation to piety and the gods. We know that Socrates was not a firm believer of the Greek god’s; therefore, I believe he is merely flattering Euthyphro to comfortably express his logic.

    Socrates asks Euthyphro for a definition of Piety, which is very clever because sometimes many arguments are not effective when the subject is not mutually defined. For example, Orthodox Christians and Mormons can argue on the subject of “grace” and go know where because, the fact is that they both define the word grace in two different ways, which may distort a particular application or context.

    To be concise with this post I will only elaborate on the first definition given by Euthyphro. Euthyphro states that piety is as he is doing by prosecuting his father. Socrates responds by telling him tactfully that, he did not ask him for an example, but instead Socrates asks Euthyphro to give him “the nature of this idea . . . (so that he may have a) standard,”  (Plato). To ask for a standard for the definition instead of an example is reasonably relevant. With an absolute standard, it may be used to measure whether or not an action is truly pious or not. This is great because it eliminates any opportunity for relativism. It is obvious, following Socrates’s reasoning; that he was not a relativist but instead a rational realist. The takeaway that may be gleaned from this is that, with an absolute definition of what piety or any other concept is; that definition must be absolute and apply universally to all intelligent living beings; therefore, it cannot be relative in the sense that anyone can reasonably argue the action to be contrary to the definition.

    Work Cited

    Plato. Euthyphro. The Internet Classic Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

  • The Mind of Empedocles

    Empedocles (490 – 430 BC) had a very interesting mind. He was claimed to be an eclectic thinker, which means that he more than likely formed his worldview on the concepts of other schools of thought, instead of being dogmatic of one worldview such as; the Pythagoreans; nevertheless, like the Pythagoreans, Empedocles believed in the transference of the souls to humans, plants, and animals known as reincarnation. In my perception eclecticism is less known for its dogmatism and more inclined toward relativism. It would seem contradictory to attempt to persuade someone of a factual conclusion without ascribing to an absolute truth, or other words being dogmatic; however, this in no way is an attempt to discredit Empedocles’s brilliance, after all; philosophers such as Aristotle spoke highly of his works.

    The epistemology of Empedocles is slightly complex at first glance. Empedocles thought that, “all things give off effluences and that these enter pores in the sense organs,” (Campbell). It seems that in a real way he believed that all substances or real objects give out a radiance of some sort and our sensual perception, or what he calls “sense organs” absorbs what is being flowed from the object. What becomes more complex is exactly how he explains our sensual perceptions making sense of and identifying what is being perceived. He explicates something to the effect of the size and shape of the objects and their effluence corresponding with the size and shape of our organs in order for us to make sense of what we perceive to be true; therefore, if the sizes and shapes of the two factors do not correspond with each other, then we are likely to be confused or have a wrongful conclusion of what we are perceiving as true.

    Work Cited

    Campbell, Gordon. Empedocles. Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. National University of Ireland, Maynooth Ireland. http://www.iep.utm.edu/empedocl/#SH4c

  • Edgar Allen Poe’s Masque of the Red Death

    This is a remarkable short story full of allegory and symbolism. Researchers claim Poe does not have a style of conveying a moral message, but I disagree; I believe the context of Poe’s story expresses the fullness of logic and moral. Nevertheless, this fantastic fantasy of horror may leave the reader deducing its meaning according to his own relativity.

    The story takes place in a period of time, and region surrounded by death from a fictitious plague. There was never such a fatal and horrible plague to hit the region throughout history, “blood was its avatar and its seal” (319), claims the narrator. The plague was titled The Red Death, because one of the symptoms was abundant bleeding from the pours, claiming the lives of its victims within half an hour. No one was safe, or able to escape the inevitable Red Death. Not even the wealthiest men and woman of the region.

    The Prince of the land, Prince Prospero decided to throw a party “while his dominions were half depopulated” (319). The name Prospero denotes prosperity. A man of super wealth is displayed as an absolute selfish man. Inconsiderate of those suffering from the plague beyond the gates of his castle; instead of spending his money to aid those dying in his dominion, he decides to fund a masquerade ball in his secluded castle, hosting one thousand of the wealthiest men of his dominion. Poe is clearly distinguishing the utter ruin of the super elite’s morality.

    The castle was a glorious structure, heavily guarded walls and gates of iron with welded bolts, (319). It was perceived that nothing could enter the gates, not even the red death, as if the walls were invincible. The castle was adorned and supplied with beauty, dancers, music, actors and wine. Everything needed for entertainment was supplied for the Princes one thousand guest during the climax of the plague.

    In the imperial suite of the castle there were seven rooms. Each room was painted a different color. The first room was the color of blue, to the second was purple, to the third was green, then orange, white, violet, and the final room, the seventh room was the most significant. The room was painted black with window panes the color of “scarlet – a deep blood color” (320). On the western wall of the seventh room was a vast clock with a pendulum swinging to and fro. Every hour the clock rang with a dull, heavy, monotonous clang echoing loudly, beyond even the music, (320).

    The clock and the seven rooms with seven different colors play a significant role in the story. Professor of English and Theatre of Arts at Fuqua School in Farmville, Virginia, Martha Womack suggests that, “the seven rooms represent the seven stages of one’s life from birth to death . . . The seven rooms are laid out from east to west, reminding us of the course of the sun which measures our earthly time” (Womack). This interpretation makes sense because it correlates with the clock in the final room, which has the measurement of a twenty four hour period, representing the amount of time it takes for the sun to rise and fall from east to west.

    Other researchers claim that the seven rooms signify Prince Prospero’s indulgence in the seven deadly sins. Master of Arts in Literature, free-lance writer and English High School teacher at Norwalk, Ohio Trench Lorcher describes each room in relationship to the seven sins,

    1. “Pride/Vanity – Pride is the excessive belief in one’s own abilities, similar to vanity, which is setting one’s heart on things of little value. Prospero’s belief that he is more powerful than death is a vivid demonstration of pride.
    2. Envy – It is unclear who the Prince might envy, but he sure is trying hard to impress someone.
    3. Gluttony – Gluttony is the act of consuming more than one is required. Instead of using his means to protect more people, something he is obligated to do as prince, he lavishes his guests with “ample provisions” and “the appliances of pleasure.”
    4. Lust – Lust is an excessive craving for the pleasures of the body, usually associated with sex. The era in which Poe wrote prohibited the explicit or implicit description of sex, but what do you think was going on at an anything goes party?
    5. Anger – The Prince becomes angry with the uninvited guest and attacks it.
    6. Greed – Although it is apparent Prince Prospero shares his wealth with a thousand guests, he helps those who need it least and withholds his substance from those in need.
    7. Sloth – Sloth is the absence of work. The prince seems like a hard worker; his work, however, is on the physical realm not the spiritual realm,” (Lorcher). Taking into account this interpretation of the seven rooms, I will add, that perhaps each of the colors of the rooms represents each of the seven sins expressed by man, which ultimately leads to death, (the seventh room).

    Considering all point of views, and following the context of Poe; I believe the clock ranging on the hour of every hour until the arrival of the Red Death intrigued my thoughts the most. The following view is mine own interpretation. Every hour the clock rang with a haunting sound in the ears filtering through the minds of the elite. At the sound of the chimes the music ceases, the dancing comes to a halt, the laughing, and conversations stop. Not a sound echoes through the castle except for the loud and dull chimes. It was at this moment of cessation that the elite were able to ponder to themselves, perhaps reflecting on the reality of death plaguing what seemed to them the outside world. Perhaps the sound of the clock reminded them that even them, with all their wealth will soon meet the same fate as the lowest human creature they attempt to forget; death. The chiming soon ends, and the elite chuckles nervously as they begin to dance and laugh once again until the appearance of the Red Death.

    The Red Death finally enters the castle, trespassing the security, high walls and welded bolts. Disturbing the ball, they do not recognize the plague has entered their sanctuary. This is where my interpretation differs from Lorcher’s. Prince Prospero follows death through all the rooms until he reaches the final room signifying death. Not only is it Prospero who indulges in the seven sins as they pass through all seven chambers. But the rest of the guest’s pass through all the chambers as well until they meet death face to face, and fall victim to the plague. Therefore Prince Prospero not only represents himself but all who follow him in his malevolent ways. The final line of the Poe’s literature tells the moral of the story, “and Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all” (323).

    Death is a promise to all . From the wealthiest to the poorest, death does not discriminate. Lay the decaying remains of the rich along the side of the decaying remains of the poor, and there is no difference. Therefore no man ought to think of himself higher than the other. We all breathe the same air, and bleed the same blood. No man can become immortal, and no amount of money or technology can stand the hand of death when it comes.

  • A Synopsis of Transcendentalism and Romanticism

    Transcendentalism was a philosophical/intellectual movement in the 1830’s to the 1840’s and faded from the scene in the 1850’s. Not only may it be perceived as an intellectual society, but it was conceived by religious origins. Transcendentalism was rooted in the state of New England, where the primary sponsors were Unitarian ministers. The Unitarians opposed New England Puritan doctrines such as; original sin, predestination, and the trinity, which teach that God is three different persons in essence, but not three different god’s. Unitarians believe God is one being absolutely. Ralph Waldo Emerson is considered the father of Transcendentalism. His intellectual movement was in direct protest against organized religion, and “rejected the ordered, rational world of the eighteenth century Enlightenment” (320). As a Unitarian, Emerson was far from New England Protestant doctrine. Emerson renounced the Unitarian faith, and ultimately renounced all organized religion.

    The Transcendentalist was inspired by German idealism and philosophers such as Immanuel Kant. They opposed the views of divinity from John Lock, which may have led to their split with Harvard University. The general thought of the Transcendentalist was that, “nature was saturated with the presence of God” (321). Everything needed to know about God and truth may be learned through nature and intuition; making them the standard for what truth is. Emerson and his followers began to study the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures. They thought a loving God would not lead people astray by giving them confusing doctrines, so there must be truth in these religions; and if these truths are in agreement with the individuals and their intuition, then it is truth, (Lewis). Other known proponents of Transcendentalism were; “Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, Theodore Parker, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, A. Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, George Ripley, F. B. Sanborn, Jones Very, T. W. Higginson, O. B. Frothingham, William Ellery Channing, Lydia Maria Child, Moncure Conway and many more” (Lewis).

    Romanticism, also known as sentimentalism was another intellectual movement from the mid eighteenth century. Sentimentalism originated in Europe, but spread through all classes of American Society after the 1800, (233). The movement gained popularity through literacy, art and music. The movement endorsed subjects with strong emotion, pain, love, horror and terror. Romanticism became an anti-enlightenment movement. While the age of enlightenment focused on reason and rationality. Romanticism emphasized; intuition, religion, nature and emotions. In a sense the romantic era was an expression of individual freedom. In Europe people were under the rule of a monarchy. People began to use their creativity to relief themselves from monarch oppression. In America some people were against the enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. People were opposed to machines replacing the labor of man, and the rationality of the aristocrats. The people also fought back through poetry and story-telling with a concentration on nature, passion, and imagination instead of reason and logic.

    The Romantic period expressed more artistic freedom than any period preceding the eighteenth century. Musical instruments were performed with a rise of great talent. Story telling was highly creative with relative connotations. The age of the virtuoso was at hand. Virtuosos such as Beethoven, Mozart, and Richard Wagner rose from the Romantic period. American poets cultivated the literature scene with writers such as; Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, Mark Twain, Emerson and more. The Transcendentalist’s and the Romantics were both revolutions against the age of enlightenment. There is a vast difference between the two groups. On the Transcendentalist side, the movement led to a religious/philosophical way of life. Instead of subjecting themselves to reason and logic, the Transcendentalist chose to explore truth by their own intuition and standards. The Romantics expressed their conflicts with the establishment through creativity in literacy and music. They sought their music and literature as their means to escape their misfortunes, and to convey messages to the masses.

    Works Cited

    Henretta James, Brody David. America A Concise History, Volume 1 to 1877. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins. 2010. (320-321,233) Print Jone Johnson Lewis.

    Transcendentalism, What is Transcendentalism? http://www.transcendentalists.com/what.htm

  • A Failed Puritan Theocracy as a Consequence of Superstition

    The Puritan intention was to build a city to be the light of the world. They attempted to be an example of the Christian way of life. Many conflicts arose for the Puritans in their mission for Christ. From Indians to witches, from theology to superstition, and from the persecuted they became the persecutor. In England they were the tip of the sword against false doctrine and tyranny. In New England they became a theocratic tyrant. Before the word Puritan, the Puritans were called Precisemen, and Precisions as a term to antagonize the Protestants in the 1560’s. Puritans preferred to call themselves “the godly.” Puritan was used as a term of abuse, which referred to their theology, (reformed) instead of a religious sect, (Ritchie). They were English Protestants being persecuted by the Catholics, and taunted with terms such as Puritans.

    Between 1620 and 1640, thousands of Puritans migrated to America in search for land and religious freedom from Catholics and tyrant monarchs. There are two Puritan migrations, which are the most identified. The first was the 1620 migration led by William Bradford aboard the Mayflower. These Puritans are also known as the Pilgrims, or separatists, which landed near Cape Cod in Southern Massachusetts. The second was the 1630 migration led by John Winthrop with, “900 Puritans” (53); these Puritans settled in Massachusetts Bay.

    There were a few differences between the two Puritan groups. William Bradford’s group left England when King James 1 threatened to drive Puritans, “out of the land, or else do worse” (53). The Pilgrims left England first to Dutch Holland; some remained in Holland while Winthrop led some to America. The American Pilgrims arrived with the full intention of completely separating themselves from their original state and Church of England, thus becoming the separatists. As a result of not having a royal charter, the Pilgrims united to write the first American constitution, the Mayflower Compact, which they used to govern themselves as a religious congregation for political structure. John Winthrop’s group left England when King Charles 1, “repudiated certain Protestant doctrines, including the role of grace in salvation” (53). The English Puritans accused the king of Popery and embracing Catholic beliefs. Furthermore King Charles 1 made Archbishop William Laud head of the England Church.

    When Archbishop William Laud dismissed hundreds of Puritan ministers; thousands of Puritan families departed from England to migrate to America. The Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritans where given a royal charter from King Charles the 1 and Massachusetts Bay became “New” England. New; signified a new type of England as a Christian society: John Cotton stated, “authority in magistrates, liberty in people, and purity in the church” (53).

    The New England Puritans governed themselves different than the Plymouth Puritans. The primary difference was a crucial difference, which may have been the initial reason why the Puritans may not have been able to resolve their conflicts. The Plymouth Puritans governed themselves by separating church and state. The New England Puritans did not. New England Puritans established a theocracy, and were serious about sustaining a biblical rule according to their interpretation of the bible. No other faith was allowed to be practiced in the Colony. In 1636, the New England magistrates banished Roger Williams from the Colony for opposing state religion, seizure of Indian lands, and praising the Pilgrims for their separation of church and state, (54). In 1637, Anne Hutchinson was banished, and found guilty of teaching heretical views, namely salvation by grace instead of works, (54). This was a fundamental reformed doctrine not only emphasized by John Calvin, but by Martin Luther, St. Augustine of Hippo, all the way to the Apostles of Christ. Obviously the New England Puritans were forgetting their fundamental doctrine they adhered to in England against the Catholics. Instead of believing their salvation was secure through faith in Christ; they now believed they had to earn the love of God by their works or behavior, and passing tests given to them by God.

    With their perception of Christian doctrine grew another conflict for the Puritans. Believing, that the Devil was conspiring to destroy the Puritan subsistence; some Puritans viewed the heathen Indians as, “imps of Satan, conscripts in the devil’s warfare against the godly . . . implacable enemies and instruments of the devil” (103). Mutual hostility grew between the Indians and Puritans as a consequence of heavy immigration and procurement of Indian lands (72). Violent Indian raids and Puritan retaliation continued until the death of King Philip, (Chief of the Wampanoag’s) in August of 1676 (72).

    The Puritans and Indians had one thing in common with each other. They both believed that, “the physical world was full of supernatural forces” (55). For the New England Puritans, superstition began to replace sound spiritual discernment. Puritan judge, Samuel Sewall believed he could cast evil spirits out from a new home by driving a nail threw the floor (55). Cotton Mather believed that a lightning strike was a sign from God instead of natural phenomenon. James Henretta writes, “Thousands of ordinary Puritan farmers followed the pagan astrological charts printed in almanacs to determine the best times to plant crops, marry, and make other important decisions” (55). This charade of superstition sent their theocracy into a downward spiral ending with the false accusations of innocent woman to be hung as witches.

    Several historians relate the root of the witch trial controversy to an Indian slave girl named Tituba. According to author, Elaine G. Breslaw, “Tituba was kidnapped as a child by an English trader, and transported to Barbados in 1676 as part of a small group of Arawak slaves” (535-556). It is in Barbados where she learned of the art of witchcraft and voodoo. Tituba was later purchased by a Protestant family and transferred to Boston in 1680. In 1688 she moved to Salem with her masters; the Parris household (535-556). Historians agree that in Salem Tituba would gather young girls and tell tales of magic and voodoo. The young girls began to manifest seizures and act in; what a seventeenth century Puritan may consider, an unnatural sadistic manner. The young girls claimed to be enchanted by Tituba the witch, and that her spectra haunted them. Tituba was put on trial and confessed to be a witch. She claimed that there were others like her in Salem, but did not release any names. Whether or not her claims were true is irrelevant in comparison to the impression she left with the Puritan’s superstitious imaginations. Tituba was not the first witch to be indicted in Puritan history. Witch trials and torture were a usual practice in Europe since the fourteenth century. The first witch trial recorded in New England was in 1648. A new practice in America, Margaret Jones was the first to be indicted as a witch. She was found guilty and hanged in Charlestown as her condemnation (105). The Salem witch trials in 1692 became the most significant moment in New England history. 175 people were charged with the crime of witchcraft, and nineteen of those charged were hung (56).

    The enlightenment movement of 1675 took a toll on the Puritan theocracy. Government officials put a cease to witchcraft prosecutions. Superstition and accidents were now explained with reason, rationality, and natural causes instead of fantasy and invisible spectra’s haunting children (57). Consequently to Puritan conflicts between Indians, witchcraft persecution, and Quaker persecution; King Charles revoked the Massachusetts charter in 1684, bringing the Puritan theocracy to an end.

    Works Cited

    American Literature Before The Civil War. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. (2-105) Print. Breslaw G. Elaine.

    Tituba’s confession: The multicultural dimensions of the 1692 Salem witch-hunt. Duke University Press. 44.3. (1997): 535-556. Print Henretta James, Brody David.

    America A Concise History, Volume 1 to 1877. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins. 2010. (53-) Print Ritchie Mark, The English Puritan’s Beginnings

     

  • Private and Public Reason in an Age of Enlightenment

    It’s not the age of the world in which we lived that brought us enlightenment; as if to say that it is the time period which gave us enlightenment, or the ability to be enlightened. On the contrary it was men’s idea’s which were shared with each other without the oppression of some form of overpowering body that gave men the freedom to distribute their thoughts freely. The room for enhanced free thought made way for a higher form of thinking being recognized as enlightenment through reason and rationality. Reason and rationality became methods of thinking apart from government influence which became the precursor to an age, or period of significant enlightenment. This period of enlightenment became the predecessor to the U.S. Constitution and declaration for self-governance. Since we can think for ourselves, then we should be able to govern ourselves.

    What is Enlightenment? I believe Eighteenth century German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant may be a reliable source for a sound definition of enlightenment. Immanuel Kant wrote, “Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another” (2). This answer from Kant is short but profound. All men possess intelligence. According to Kant our intelligence is in a constant state of suppression. The subjection to this suppression is a choice on our behalf. For us to remain under this suppression; means we choose to remain ignorant. By remaining ignorant we are in a state of intellectual immaturity, therefore this immaturity is as Kant states, “self-caused immaturity.” In Kant’s philosophy; men are enlightened when they reach intellectual maturity. To reach maturity men must put their intellect into practice by expressing their reason. Kant categorizes reasoning in two forms, public reason and private reason. The private use of reason is when man’s reason is restricted as a consequence of the role he plays in society. In this case man’s reason must be in agreement with the reason circumscribed to him. For example a Soldier practices private reason because his reason must be subjected to the ends he is appointed to meet without question. Though the Soldier may have conflict with a reason he is compelled to respect; he is obligated to submit to the reason given as a commandment. This type of role in society prohibits free reason from being practiced, therefore hindering enlightenment. When reason is being used by a reasonable human being for the sake of mere reason and not by obligation to obey a particular law, or perform a hypothetical imperative; then the reason becomes public reason. Public reason requires freedom because public reason cannot be prohibited from action or speech, and reason exercised through practice brings enlightenment. To prohibit ones speech is to prohibit ones thought, becoming a form of tyranny over free, or public reason. It may seem now as if private reason forbids public reason from being applied, and in essence it may. However; private and public reason may coincide with each other if public reason is allowed to be expressed with no restraint. All men express their private reason in their life through obedience to duty or laws. It is when man has the liberty to express public reason, which may challenge the private reason set by a body of higher authority that enlightenment is achieved through the open public reasoning of humans, as a result of their courage and volition to express their views. Such is the case with the American enlightenment; it is not that time gave men a higher form or sense of intelligence, but instead intelligence has always been a natural aptitude of man as a result of being made in God’s image. It is that man decided to exercise their desire to express their reason over bodies of authority, such as church and state dictating or influencing the way people think and act. It is this type of determination which Immanuel Kant spoke of, that broke the self-caused immaturity in order to gain intellectual maturity, which brought enlightenment in an age when men decided to break away from their traditions that held them back from the right to pursuit happiness in a liberated land free from totalitarian rule.

    Work Cited

    1. S. Swheber. In the Shadow of a Bomb. Princeton University Press. 2000. (2). Print http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6787.pdf

  • The Holiness of God

    “Any sin is more or less heinous depending upon the honor and majesty of the one whom we had offended. Since God is of infinite honor, infinite majesty, and infinite holiness, the slightest sin is of infinite consequence. The slightest sin is nothing less than cosmic treason when we realize against whom we have sinned.”
    – Jonathan Edwards.

    “Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty.”
    -John Calvin

    Isaiah 6:1-7 In the year that King Uzziah died I then saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphs; each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of Hosts; the whole earth full of His glory. 4 And the doorposts moved at the voice of the one who cried, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 Then I said, Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of Hosts. 6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, having a live coal in his hand, snatched with tongs from the altar. 7 And he laid it on my mouth and said, Lo, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged.

     

    The prophet Isaiah starts by giving us a timeline of when he was given this vision from God; “in the year that King Uzziah died.” King Uzziah was a strong and competent ruler whose name was well known from Israel to Egypt. The king did right in the sight of the Lord until his last year. It is written in 2 Chronicles 26:5, that King Uzziah reigned under the influence of the prophet Zechariah, In that same chapter we learn that King Uzziah had become proud and arrogant because of his power, and sinned against God by taking unto himself the role of the Priest by burning incense on the Alter in the temple of the Lord. As the king entered the temple, where it was said that the holy presence of the Lord was; the priest ran in after the king forbidding him to enter, and in front of the priest, the Lord struck the king with leprosy. The king reigned for 52 years until His last year when God struck him with leprosy. King Uzziah’s method of death was well known throughout Israel that when Isaiah wrote; “when King Uzziah died” all who read knew exactly what timeline was being referenced.

    The significance about the timeline is that, according to Saint Jerome; who was a 4th century theologian, historian, and author of the Latin Vulgate, which was is the first translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the Latin language; claims that in the same year King Uzzia died, Romulus was born, who became one of the founders of Rome. Rome became the fifth kingdom God used as His judgment over Israel, which postdated Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Greece. Everything thing that was glorious about Israel died with King Uzziah; and Rome was used as God’s means to destroy the second temple in AD 70, which marked the final abolishment of ceremonial works, and manifested the prophecy given by Christ in Matthew 24; ushering in the new covenant of salvation by grace instead of old covenantal justification through ceremonial rituals.

    Another similar scenario of man dying by trespassing the holiness of God is found in 1Chronicles 13:7-10, where King David and many were traveling with the Ark playing music and worshiping God, when one of the ox’s stumbled; Uzza placed his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, probably to prevent it from falling, but breaking one of God’s commandments written in:

    Numbers 4:15 which reads, “And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation.”

    The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden and golden chest, which contained the Ten Commandments. There is so much to teach regarding the Ark, but that could require an entire systematic lecture. Two things that are immanent about the Ark; it was the physical manifestation of God’s presence on earth, which typifies our Lord Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is Immanuel, God with us; the physical manifestation of God. Also the Ark represented the real Holy presence of God. Numbers 4:20 says that if anyone touched it, they would die immediately by the hand of God. What must be understood about the Holiness of God is that, His holiness is so holy, powerful, and pure, so sanctified, and separated from evil and sin; that any sin within its presence will automatically be destroyed. The most dangerous proximity to a sinner is the Holy presence of God. The Ark of the Covenant represented God’s law, Jesus Christ and the holiness of God; so when Uzza placed his hands on the Ark of the Covenant; scripture reads that God’s anger was kindled and Jehovah struck Uzza dead on sight. It may have been more acceptable to God for the Ark to fall on the ground, than for unclean impure human hands to touch it; because sin cannot subsist in the presence of God’s holiness.

    Remember in Exodus 3:4,5 God called Moses; Moses responds “here I am.” God said, “Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you stand is holy ground.” The holiness of God transcends any area where God is present. Mathew Henry writes that, it was to show humility and submission; although the true meaning is slightly ambiguous, I think it may be safe to conclude that, removing his sandals in my perspective symbolizes that anyone who draws near to the Lord needs to approach His Holiness with humility, fear, and a repentant heart that recognizes the true wicked nature of man in the presence of Holiness. What is most significant about this passage is God telling Moses not to approach any closer. If Moses would have disobeyed and took another step; the Holiness of God may have consumed him.

    Corruption cannot survive anywhere near the presence of God, because to be holy; the very biblical definition of holy, according to Dr. Barry Horner means, “separation from defilement,” (Horner). The verb to this would be to sanctify. In application to us, who believe in Christ; would mean that we have been sanctified by God according to the purity of His will; we have been set apart from defilement to the glory to God.

    Regarding the attribute of God’s Holiness; 17th century Puritan Thomas Watson writes, “Holiness is the most sparkling jewel of his crown; it is the name by which God is known. Holy and reverend is his name.’ He is ‘the holy One. Seraphims cry, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory. His power makes him mighty, his holiness makes him glorious. God’s holiness consists in his perfect love of righteousness, and abhorrence of evil, and cannot look on iniquity,” (Watson).

    Calvinist Baptist Theologian and bible expositor John Gill wrote, “Holiness is an essential attribute of God; it is his nature and essence; it is himself; he is holiness itself; “he swears by himself, because he can swear by no greater”; and he will not swear by any less, and yet he swears by his holiness,” (Gill).

    Exodus 15:11 Who is like You, O Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

    1Samual 2:2 There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God.

    Isaiah 57:15 For so says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity; whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place.

    Who is like our almighty God Jehovah? By gods; it is meant the mighty ones of heaven such as God’s most powerful angels, and the mightiest men on earth. No benevolence on earth can match the Holiness of God. Though mighty rulers may try to bring security and a false sense of righteousness for the people with their humanistic secular laws; nothing they achieve can provide what the Holiness of God’s attribute brings to His people, and that is our eternal salvation. We fearfully praise our God for the mighty wonders He has done and continue to do until the end of time as we know it. There is none like our God who condemns evil and rewards righteousness. We fearfully praise God for the incarnation of Christ who died and resurrected from the dead and will return to judge all the unrighteous works of men according to His holiness. Until our Lord’s return; the Holiness of God ought to be our moral standard.

    Psalm 19:8-10 The Precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; the Commandments of Jehovah are pure, giving light to the eyes. 9 the fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of Jehovah are true and righteous altogether,10 more to be desired than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

    1Peter 1:15,16 but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct, 16 because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”

    The standard of God’s morality left to us is found in His message, which is the Gospel of Christ, which reveals to us that the light of God is found in none other than our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there is no trace of darkness, no trace of sin; which is what made His sacrifice on the cross valuable, efficient, and worthy of taking all the sins of the world, that whosoever believes in His Holy name may be saved. With our heart we rejoice for those of us who believe in Christ, that our eyes have been illuminated by God to see Jesus Christ and understand His Holiness; by His Holy standard we recognize the degree of our wretchedness. We men are absolutely lost without the Holy moral compass of God. It is the eternal fear of Jehovah that is clean and endures forever since the ceremonial law has been done away with. The word of God is Holy and eternal, which cleanses our sins away with the blood of Christ. The judgments of Jehovah are true and righteous all together. Although the ceremonial law is fulfilled and abolished by Christ; the ordinances of God and Christ still stand and are to be obeyed. These moral laws are righteous and all individuals to include world governments ought to subject themselves to them; for God’s statutes are finer than gold and sweeter than the purest honey. Our God has commanded to all; be Holy for I am Holy. No other attribute of God has He commanded us to obey. God has not said; be omniscient for I am omniscient, be omnipresent for I am omnipresent, be omnipotent for I am omnipotent, No, God has said; be Holy for I am Holy.

    The Holiness of God ought to compel all men to do nothing but give God praise for His Holiness.

    Psalm 99:3 Let them praise Your great and fearful name; it is holy.

    Psalm 103:1 Bless Jehovah, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name.

    Exodus 20:7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.

    May God have mercy on those who take God’s Holy name in vain!

    The primacy of God’s attribute of Holiness is dominant throughout the bible. The words Holy, holiness, and its synonyms such as; sacred, sanctify, and sanctification are found in scripture more than the words love and mercy. The word love is found in 281 versus of the King James Bible. The word Holy is found in 544 versus of the King James Bible. It is unfortunate that our modern evangelical churches have replaced God’s Holiness with love. They speak of God’s love as if it is the superior attribute over all. They consider themselves noble because they choose to only exalt the love of God to make the people feel good. These ministers; if they may even be called such a title are negligent with the word of God and will be judged. They neglect the declaration of God’s Holiness because it will obligate the preacher to reveal in their messages what the Holiness of God’s character exposes; His absolute hatred toward sin and the sinner, which His Holiness is obligated to condemn and punish. It presses the preacher to talk about the most offensive things such as man’s true biblical anthropology, which is of less value than the filthiest rag, and God would be just and Holy to dispose of all of them. The Holiness of God exposes the true contrast between man and His God. It reveals the true nature of mans corruption; deep in within man’s heart he is not good, as most say; instead he hates God and all He stands for.

    2Chronicles 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him. And he said to King Jehoshaphat, Should you help the ungodly and love those who hate Jehovah? And by this bring wrath on you from before Jehovah.

    John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its works are evil.

    John 15:23 He who hates Me hates My Father also.

    James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever desires to be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

    Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    The unregenerate disposition of man’s nature is a grave position to be in. These verses here portray the true temperament of man’s heart toward God. Notice in John 7:7 Christ said that the world hates Him because He testifies of the world’s evil works. What do you think was significant about this? Jesus Christ condemned their evil works, and works that seemed righteous to the Pharisees according to selfish desires not done with a pure heart of true faith to God. Christ was Holy and He used the absolute standard of His Holiness to reveal to men their ungodliness. So it is the same today; that whatever we do in life do for the glory of God. Let us not do anything for any other intention but to only Glorify God, for anything less is wicked; and falls short of His holy standard.

    Glory and praise to God the Father for providing the body of Christ on the cross for the purpose of our reconciliation between man and God. In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the enmity between those who believe in Christ and God has been put to death. Now for those of us who worship the Lord; love, and obey His commandments are no longer enemies of God, and can have peace on earth with our God and eternity in heaven.

    Ephesians 2:16 and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.

    But for those who have not yet repented and have resisted a life with Christ; they are still enemies of God, atonement has not yet been made for them, and if they die in their wicked state they will receive the full measure of God’s wrath, which they earned. May the Lord use us to bring many to the kingdom of God.

    Romans 2:5 But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up wrath for yourself in a day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

    Nahum 1:2 reads; God is jealous, and the LORD revenges; the LORD revenges, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserves wrath for his enemies.

    Habakkuk 1:13 You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon vexation. Why do You look upon those who deal deceitfully? Will you be silent when the wicked swallows one more righteous than he?

    Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You only are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, for Your righteousness were made known.

    In the vision of Isaiah in Chapter 6:1 he said, “I then saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.” Isaiah saw Jesus Christ sitting on His throne. We can safely deduce from scripture that this was Christ and not God the Father who Isaiah saw, because Exodus 33:20 reads as God was speaking to Moses; “You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live.” The eyes of man are to corrupt to stand the sight of God’s Holy Glory, that if the Holiness of God were to just appear to us for just the smallest fraction of a second; we would die. Sin cannot survive wherever perfect holiness abounds, and we are that sin that cannot abound in the presence of God’s Holiness.

    Isaiah saw the train of Christ as He sat on His temple. The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge defines the Lord’s train as the bottom portion of His robe or garment. In addition; John Gill claims that, His train is perhaps symbolizing all of Christ’s gifts and graces upon His temple, which is the church all over the world. God said in Isaiah 66:1 that; “Heaven is My throne, and earth My footstool.” It is my personal belief that the expression from Isaiah may have also been allegoric for the presence of Christ throughout the entire temple, which may also be an extension throughout the entire globe where the presence of God’s Glory may abound, and wherever the Gospel is preached.

    Verse 2: Above it stood the Seraph. Or the Seraphim as the King James puts it. The Hebrew word is Saraph, which means fiery or burning, perhaps denoting that they are full of brilliance and illumination from being in the presence of God’s glory.

    Psalms 104:4 reads; “He makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flaming fire.”

    There is great mystery regarding the nature of these types of angels. RC Sproul said in his six part Holiness series, that when God creates something; He creates creatures that are adaptive to its sounding nature. In the case of these Seraphs; they are in close proximity of Christ’s Holiness while they worship and serve God at His will. They have six wings with two they fly and are always ready to take flight at the command of God. With two they covered their eyes. Many theologians believe that they have their eyes covered because of the superlative Glory and Holiness of God. Others believe they cover their eyes because of their modesty and humility before God; I do not believe they cover their eyes because they may be destroyed, such as us human creatures would be destroyed because wickedness abounds in our very being, but not angels. Christ said in;

    Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven.”

    The interpretation of their humility before God the Father makes great sense, not only are they recognizing themselves as created beings from God’s glorious creativity, and that even as angels they recognize they are not worthy to look upon such Holiness; but it ought to make us sinners realize that if the holy angels are in Heaven in the nearness of God’s glory and cover their faces, then what is your current respect toward God’s Holiness? How do you come before the majesty of God when you pray to Him, and when you worship Him? Are you on your feet before the throne of God?

    Psalm 99:5 reads; “Praise Jehovah our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy.

    Do you think that when one comes to God and worship at His footstool; it ought to be done in proper submission while standing up? No! It is done humbly as we fall prostrate to the floor at His feet. Look at the reaction of Abraham and Moses when they spoke to God.

    In Genesis 17:1 it reads; “And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him, I am the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be perfect.”

    Look at the supreme authority! “I am the Almighty God!” And look at what is demanded; for us to walk before Him and be perfect. Even if we could be perfect, and not have one sin within our anatomy; we would still not be worthy of His Holy presence. But we praise God for the Son He provided for our justification; that we are declared perfect and righteous based on the work of someone else, who is Jesus Christ. Therefore now it resonates within our minds; the writings of the holy epistles, that the just shall live by faith. In verse three of Geneses 17; it follows that Abraham fell on his face.

    Consider now Moses in;

    Exodus 3:6 And He said; I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

    Are you afraid of God? If not then why not; is it because you have always been told that God is love and love is God and all is love? All that is true, but furthermore God is Holy; His love is a quality of His Holiness. Holiness is a superior attribute of God. Love Him yes because He first loved us and saved us, but respect and fear Him because He has the power to cast one’s body and soul to eternal torment, which is something His Holiness demands from Him. No one deserves to look at the presence of God’s Holy Majesty, but thank Him; thank Him for His mercy on us.

    In Exodus 33; there is a beautiful dialogue between God and Moses. Read the entire chapter and I dare you not to sense the Holiness of God in these passages. God tells Moses to take his people to the land He promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; a land flowing with milk and honey. God said He will send an angel with them to substitute the presence of God walking with them. God said they are a stiff necked people and if He walked in the midst of them, He would kill them. Moses pleaded with Jehovah; earnestly asking Him to go with him and His people, so that all nations can see that we are separated from the rest of the nations. He tells God that He has not told Moses who it is He will send with His people in God’s place. He reminds God that God has told Moses He knew Moses by name and found grace in His sight. Moses said if this is true then be with them in their travels, so that he may know God and His ways; and if not then leave them there where they are. And God granted Moses his request, and said he had found grace in His sight and that He knew Moses by name.

    It follows that Moses requested one more thing from God; in verse 18 Moses said, “I beseech You, let me see Your glory.” God said in verses 19-23; “I will make My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before you . . . You cannot see My face. For there no man can see Me and live . . . Behold! There is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon a rock. And it will be, while My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. And I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back parts. But My face shall not be seen.

    God is incredibly gracious to Moses. God was under no obligation to grant Moses his request. Knowing that for Moses to see His face with the naked eye would result in the death of Moses. God in all His Wisdom and Grace calculated a way to grant some of Moses’ request. God said “I will make my goodness pass before you,” John Calvin wrote that; “The passing by signifies a vision of brief duration,” (Calvin). In this vision the goodness of God is all that consists of His glory; from His attributes, His Holiness, His sovereign works, to the glory of God which is Jesus Christ. John Gill writes that the goodness of God is Christ Himself. We can only speculate what God showed Moses as He passed by Him, but it is not farfetched to believe that God showed Him the work of God and Christ, as the redeemer of man passing by Moses; just as God passes over the sins of man as He forgives the iniquity of those who believe in Christ.

    Furthermore; God said to Moses that as He passed by him, God would proclaim His name Jehovah before him. In verse 17 of this same chapter; God said to Moses He knew Him by name, which is a phrase from God showing the highest esteem for an individual. Those who have studied the attribute of God’s foreknowledge may remember and understand that clearly. Moses asked God in verse 13; “Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found grace in Your sight, make me see now Your ways, that I may know You.” For God to tell Moses not only will I show you my glory, but I will declare my name as I pass by you; is expressing to Moses that, not only do I know you by name; but now you also Moses, will know me by name.

    God told Moses to go and stand in the cleft in a rock. A cleft is an indention or opening in the mountain like a small cave. As God passed by Moses; He covered him with His hand so that he would not look upon God’s face as He passed by, otherwise it would have meant instant death for Moses. After passing by Moses and proclaiming His name; He removed His hand so that Moses can receive a glimpse of God’s backside. At this point Moses had now seen more of God than anyone to date. From the miraculous plagues in Egypt, the liberation of God’s people, the splitting of the Red sea, the feeding of God’s people with heavenly manna, and water from the rock which he would strike so that water would flow out for his people to drink. Bible scholars agree that this cleft where God told Moses to stand was an indention in Horeb where Moses would strike for water.

    We know in the Old Testament Psalm 18:2 God is referred to as the Rock. We also know in the New Testament 1Corinthians 10:4 Christ is referred to as the Rock. The Christology in this is that the cleft; the rock who God told Moses to stand on as God passed by was Jesus Christ, who we stand on for our salvation from the wrath of God as He passes by. Even God in His mercy just as He covered Moses with His hand; God covers those whom He chose with His awesome gracious hand, so that we may not be consumed by His fire but instead; just as God removed His hand from Moses, He allowed Moses to see the Holy glorious goodness of His backside, and for us who believe in Christ at one point we were not yet ready to see the revelation of Christ, but God when He so willed; decided to remove His hand from us so that we may see the glory of His backside, which is Jesus Christ the Rock we stand on for our salvation!

  • Psalms Commentary: Chapter 2

    Psalms 2:1-5, why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate on a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us. 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them. 5 Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath.

    King David starts with a rhetorical question to lead His exhortation. Why do the nations rage? In the King James Version it’s written: why do the heathens rage? Heathen nations sums up all in the world who are opposed to God the Father, and since they are opposed to God the Father, then they are also opposed to Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit; and if they are opposed to Christ and the spirit, then they are opposed to the people of God as well. Christ said in:

    John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which no other did, they would not have had sin. But now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father.

    Matthew 10:22 And you will be hated of all men for My name’s sake, but the one who endures to the end shall be kept safe.

    All men sin and will be judged by God, but great calamity waits for the one who hears of God and Christ and continues in his personal hate toward them. All men of all nations naturally rage against the concept of God. Their natural rage may not always manifest radically, or obviously; but nevertheless, it is deep within all men’s heart to refuse God. The heathen are lovers of themselves and whatever is convenient to them. God’s sovereign rule is not convenient to the heathen because it commands from them something they are not willing to follow; and that is following God’s commandments. Neither is it convenient for them because God requires from them something they are not willing to do; and that is to repent of their sins to abide by a holy moral and ethical standard. It is also less convenient to them because God demands something from the heathen which they are absolutely opposed to doing; and that is surrendering their will to the will of a more superior being requiring faith and obedience to a Holy King who they cannot sense with their natural perceptions; such a concept to the heathen is foolishness, but to us who are the simple sheep of Christ; it is our salvation.

    Proverbs 8:36 reads; But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all who hate me love death.

    The sinners life does nothing to hurt the emotions of God, neither does it contribute by any means to the obstruction of God’s sovereign will or plan. But the sinner’s life is one which self defeats its self. To live a life of continual stubbornness only contributes to the destruction of its own soul; it is physical and spiritual suicide.

    The natural remedy of the unbeliever is just as it is written in verse 2; the kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed. We can see the works of the heathen all throughout history up to our current day of how they attempt to rid themselves from God on earth. From Governments to public schools the image of God is suppressed. From Governments to public schools the people of God and American Churches are censored from inspiring true morality from God’s laws. Regardless of how much suppression and censorship; the world will never forget how the heathen Jews set themselves and plotted together to murder their own King Jesus Christ. Yet it was predestined by God to happen and Jesus Christ said that no one takes His life from Him but He gives it up willingly; because at any time Christ may have called an Army of angels to deliver Him. But the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the victory against His enemies. It is prophesied that the enemies of God will make war with Him, but He will overcome them along with us; His people who are called the called, elect, and faithful ones.

    Revelations 17:14 these will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them; for He is Lord of lords and King of kings. And those with Him are the called and elect and faithful ones.

    David writes in verse four and five that, then God will sit in heaven and laugh and mock his enemies and their plots and their actions against the King of kings; and God will reveal His anger toward them as He speaks. This of course is anthropopathy language, which consists of phrases depicting human emotions being used to describe God for the purpose of communication between man’s finite minds understanding the infinite mind of God. But this does testify to God’s displeasure with the wicked, and God’s anger which He reveals to man throughout the course of their lives.

    Deuteronomy 29:24 reads; even all nations shall say, why has Jehovah done this to this land? For what is the heat of this great anger?

    This shows us that God’s anger is revealed to the world through the calamities of life. This is a sharp contrast to what King David wrote in Psalms chapter one compared to chapter two. In chapter one David began to reveal how blessed those are who believe in the LORD; followed by the disposition of those who do not. We gain nothing by resisting the LORD, but we gain everything by submitting to the LORD. King David finishes Psalms chapter two with verses 10-12, which reads:

    Psalms 2:10-12 and now be wise, O kings; be instructed, O judges of the earth. 11 Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled in but a little time. Blessed are all who put their trust in Him.