EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME VI

 

Pervasive Pride

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume VI--Pervasive Pride

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume VI--Pervasive Pride

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part Q--Other Aspects of Pride 

 

      74               Pride in Religious Leaders                                                                               6

 

      75               Hypocrisy and Hate                                                                                         17

 

      76               Arrogance                                                                                                          29

 

      77               Pride in Looks                                                                                                   43

 

      78               Pride in Clothing and Dress                                                                           48

 

      79               Pride in Seats and Chairs                                                                              55

 

      80               Pride in Possessions                                                                                       62

 

      81               Intellectual Pride I                                                                                            72

 

      82               Intellectual Pride II                                                                                           79

 

      83               Pride in Denying Responsibility                                                                    92

 

      84               Other Views on Pride                                                                                      99

 

      85               Ingratitude and Pride                                                                                     106

 

 

Part R--More Background on Pride

 

      86               The Reality of Pride                                                                                      118

 

      87               The Primary Purpose of Pride                                                                      131

 

      88               Pride is Evil                                                                                                    137

 

 

Part S--Historical Changes 

 

      89               Iyov                                                                                                                   146

 

      90               Moshe                                                                                                              159

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume six of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Sukkot 2005 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 74--Pride in Religious Leaders

 

 

Pride Easily Surfaces 

 

The essence of the comments in the former chapters is that the evil and wickedness of pride and vanity can be manifested in anyone in any position or state of life.  And clearly, in the case of would be teachers, pride and vanity can easily be the motivation, source and reason for the teaching and dissemination of false information to others. 

 

There is little benefit in now discussing and belaboring the more apparent examples of false preachers or teachers in the large world of heathen religions--present about wherever one might go on this planet.  The earth has such an abundance of outright pagan religions and their many spokesmen that there is little to be gained here by an extensive focus upon them. 

 

Additionally, it would seem to be of little utility to dwell extensively on the huge assortment of pagan, Christian denominations and their attendant false teachers, preachers and leaders, all busy proclaiming Gee-Zeus, Lord Chrishna and blatant false worship to an ignorant and gullible public.  Obviously, most of this trash is patently false and is not apt to be much of a challenge to the very elect.

 

 

More on False, Sardis Teachers 

 

But it does seem fruitful at this time to direct some remarks to some of the ways false Sardis teachers have surfaced to cause confusion in the ranks of that entity.  And here, of course, the motivation for such teaching is pride and vanity (which will now be assessed).

 

In the context of Sardis "big shots" in Pasadena, California and Bethel, Pennsylvania, mentioned in previous chapters, one sees two glaring examples of pride and vanity.  They are some of the most proud people of all.  But the big shots in these two groups do not have a monopoly on the pride problem.  It is very manifest throughout the religious world (especially in Christendom). 

 

Real students of the Word are acutely aware of the fact that there are otherwise a host of false teachers elsewhere in the various Sardis Sacred Name, Church of God, etc elements scattered across the US, like in Tyler, Odessa, Abilene, Columbia, Holt, Muldrough, Emory, Cisco, Jackson’s Gap, Clarksville, Van Buren, Denver, Meridian, Caldwell, Santa Cruz, Rock City, Henryetta, Edmond, Bethel, Eugene, etc. 

 

Many such groups are now all over the globe.  But beyond these organized groups and their false organizational teachers, there is a constant surge of independent Sardis types out in the world also trying to win converts and proselytes to their particular warped brands of religion. 

 

Most of these independents are former members of one of the Sardis groups and often with the "Sacred Name" and "Identity" ideologies (at least, as popularly taught, but not necessarily with the correct Scriptural viewpoints). 

 

Almost without exception, these independent Sardis teachers, preachers, pastors, and spokesmen generally seem to be SP's (sensation and perceiving) in personality, temperament and character.  With this nature, most of them have just not been very bookish or strong on book learning for truth.  The Scriptures have not always been their source of authority. 

 

But while such people have not been inclined to do much book learning, it is worthwhile to note that a number of them have learned some Scriptural truths from other people who are more capable of original study. 

 

Therefore, many of these independent Sardis types have acquired some good (and bad) teachings on several important topics--like pagan names and words, beards and hair lengths, clothing and dress, identity and race, etc. 

 

 

But Nothing Original 

 

To the extent that any one of us learns truth, it is good.  And clearly, it is well that some of the Sardis types have acquired some verity.  However, this writer now mentions this phenomenon (and it is one) because the Sardis people being referred to, herein, seem to have "learned" original, new material from others and not from their own, personal, Scriptural study, expertise, ability and/or capability. 

 

Consequently, here, it must be significant that these self professed Scriptural teachers, preachers and elders have been unable to come up with any original, new teachings of truth or revelations from the Word on their own; but have had to depend upon the study abilities and capabilities of other individuals (mainly J's in temperament). 

 

Frankly, of the many Sardis SP teachers, preachers, prophets, elders, pastors, evangelists and leaders (independents or organizational) known to me, this writer has never observed a one of them who has ever come up with any important new revelations or truths from his own, individual, personal study of YHWH's Word.

 

Significantly, of whatever important truths they themselves have come to be aware of, such teachings and revelations appear to have come from the study abilities of other persons (evidently of a J type). 

 

Now, admittedly, once learning of new truth from others, these Sardis SP's have sometimes been able to personally go to the Word and verify if the teachings have been true or not.  But this verification of the teachings of others is far different than original study producing new truth.  It's just not the same thing. 

 

 

So--Why? 

 

So the question must remain.  Why is it that so many of the religious big shots, in this category of discussion, never are able to produce new breakthroughs with the Word?  Why is it that whatever they do seem to come up with usually appears to come from other people's research and study and not from their own original work? 

 

Why must such supposedly "great" religious elders, chiefs and leaders know and understand so incredibly little in terms of their own personal abilities and capabilities to break original ground and discover new truths from the Word?  Why is it such persons have to turn to others to learn new truth? 

 

Maybe the verity of all this is that these self appointed religious leaders are, in fact, not in personal contact with The MOST HIGH.  Maybe they are not personally very strong on Scriptural study, knowledge and understanding (except as such benefits have come from others).  Maybe, in fact, these big shots, by and large, have enormous problems with personal cases of intellectual pride and vanity. 

 

Of course, this charge against self appointed religious leaders applies in some degree to perhaps the general population at large, although possibly not in the context of religious knowledge and comprehension.

 

Actually most, if not all persons, have or do possess intellectual pride and vanity to some extent from time to time, as will be assessed in later chapters.  Because our human hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), it is no surprise that human beings do gravitate to intellectual pride and vanity.  This sickness affects the whole population generally. 

 

 

The Idaho Elder 

 

Here, it will be well to mention again a specific SP individual in North Idaho, who was commented upon previously.  In time, he learned the words "Yahweh" and "Yahshua" and immediately decided to become a Sacred Name elder and leader.  So he sent some money to the Assembly of Yahweh in Holt, MI for their “pastor” to come to his home and lay hands on him to become a Holt Assembly of Yahweh elder. 

 

The man involved then started holding himself out to the general public as "Elder" so and so.  He next chose to start signing his name as "Elder" so and so.  In fact, his desire to be the "elder" led him to even put "Elder" so and so on the return addresses on the envelopes of any letters he mailed to others. 

 

This writer once went with this Sacred Name "leader" to a religious meeting in another state.  This Sacred Namer specifically requested that i introduce him to other people as "Elder" so and so.  He felt that with this title, other persons would show him the respect and honor which he believed that he was justly due. 

 

Well, the absolute pride and vanity of this man in wanting to be called and recognized as "elder" was glaringly obvious to me.  Anyone with any brains at all could easily perceive the quest for elevation, status and position by this Sacred Namer. 

 

An observer just couldn't miss it in his personality, not only from his use of the title, but also from his equal obsession with the idea that "he" had "Yahweh's Spirit" and had special insight into Scriptural truth--evidently because he was an “elder.”

 

By the way, on this topic of a title, this writer has never found or read a text, ever in the Word, which suggests, implies or says that the real leaders in YHWH's work are to be called or addressed and/or referred to by any appellative or title at all denoting rank, position or authority.  Nowhere has this writer ever seen properly commissioned elders called and addressed as "elder" so and so in the Book. 

 

The only thing read on this theme is that in terms of the very elect, they are to call each other "brother," as the Word seems to declare (Matt 23:8; Acts 9:17). 

 

In fact, YESHUA expressly condemned the Pharisee big shots who sought out status, position and prestige by being called with titles like teacher, master, leader, “rabbi” and others to apparently include elder, evangelist, pastor, bishop, reverend, etc. (Matt 23:7-10).  The HIGHEST correctly identifies such practices for what they are--pride and vanity. 

 

 

More on the “Elder” 

 

Before leaving this “elder” under discussion, it should be noted that along with the several good truths he learned from others, he also acquired some very bad doctrines and ideas which he likewise felt compelled to teach to others in his role as elder and since he supposedly had "Yahweh's Spirit" and "special" Scriptural insight. 

 

Some of his false teachings are commented upon in other chapters herein and need no explanation now.  But in one important instance, the self appointed elder came to believe that the Passover occurs on Aviv 15 and not Aviv 14, as the Book repeatedly proclaims. 

 

And since this very detrimental teaching has been held by numbers of persons for vast ages, it is likely that the "elder" involved came into this nonsense from the teachings of others.  It absolutely is not original with him or anyone else known by me. 

 

 

More of His Thinking 

 

Another sample of his "special" ability and insight into the Word came about when another third party sold him on the idea that The MESSIAH was not born of a virgin woman.  This thinking, like the above noted nonsense, is held by a number of persons and has been around for ages.  It seems to be Jewish in origin, as is the just mentioned Passover theory. 

 

To support this non-virgin speculation, one has to find a means of doing away with the early chapters of Matthew, for sure, as well as some other texts.  This question of the virgin birth has been elaborated upon in a prior chapter and will receive no further comment here on the issue of pride. 

 

So the "elder" (either through his own initiative or more likely through the influence and teaching of others, since he was an SP) took a close look at YESHUA's genealogy, as recorded in Matthew and compared it to Luke's presentation.  There are, of course, some differences, as any reader can easily tell and as outlined in a former presentation herein.

 

Specifically, the "elder" discovered (possibly for the first time) that from the time of David, the two lists are not the same; that Matthew drops three names between Jehoram and Uzziah (or Ozias), as compared with the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles; and that the genealogies of Luke have several more generations (beyond the dropped three) than Matthew. 

 

These differences (alone and evidently without further research) prompted the "elder" to decide that the early chapters of Matthew were false and the work of a forger.  And here, this writer can never understand why the "elder" chose to discard "just" the early chapters of Matthew and not the whole book or why he condemned Matthew and never allowed that the problem could be with Luke. 

 

On learning of the “elder's findings,” this writer discovered that the "elder" had formed these very, profound conclusions after only a limited perusal of Matthew, Luke, Kings and Chronicles and without any particular deep research (which he probably never would have done anyway, since he was an SP). 

 

For example, this writer pointed out to the "elder" many of the facts, data and information on this question, as outlined in the former chapter herein on the “Genealogy of YESHUA.”  It was pure and simple ignorance and prejudice for the "elder" to be making a big issue over something that could be explained. 

 

 

Problems From the Pastor 

 

Still later, the "elder" came into contact with another religious leader who also felt he had "special" Scriptural knowledge and insight; though he, too, was obviously a man of limited Scriptural ability, research and study. 

 

This other leader, who called himself "pastor" so and so, pointed out to the "elder" that the dating arrangement (through the mentioned kings) in Daniel shows that the prophecies there are not arranged sequentially in time by their dates of occurrence.  In other words, they are out of order.  This dating problem and its solution have been outlined in other remarks herein. 

 

Apparently, the “elder,” in his many, many years of having "Yahweh's Spirit" and "special" Scriptural insight, never knew this fact about Daniel before.  So, armed with this new teaching from the “pastor,” he concluded that something was wrong with the book of Daniel, along with Matthew.  Maybe they both were forgeries, as he saw it. 

 

Over the years, this writer has seen and read a number of Scriptural commentaries and studies on Daniel, as prepared by various and sundry authors and critics who have tried hard to condemn and nullify the book of Daniel--not because of the "elder's" new charge; but rather, because of the book's incredible prophetic accuracy over the ages. 

 

In perhaps 25 studies or so, i have never read of a complaint from a one of the critics over the timing scheme in Daniel.  Surely, if there was any scholarly grounds at all to criticize and condemn Daniel for the dating arrangement, the critics would have done so years ago and long before the "elder" and "pastor" were even born. 

 

And really, from a logical and sensible point of view, no intelligent, educated person with any brains at all would ever try to question a book on prophecy because the prophecies were recorded out of sequence.  Actually, several other Scriptural books and even secular books on prophecy (like Nostradamus and others) have the prophecies recorded out of sequence. 

 

 

Daniel Has Stood the Test of Time 

 

Truly, Daniel has stood the test of 2,500 years of time against real critics, linguists and scholars who have tried to attack it for other reasons (like because it was too accurate in the historical sense of the time of Antiochus Epiphanies to have been a prophetic writing from 400 years earlier; or at least, that’s one of the arguments which critics use to attack Daniel). 

 

Many of these alleged scholars are generally J's and far more qualified and capable of deep, involved, scholarly research and critical study, as compared with the “elder,” an SP, who would only read the texts involved casually, and then make a hasty, unfounded decision. 

 

With this background, this writer asked the "elder" who he was or what was his qualifications to be criticizing the truly great book of Daniel, which has stood the test of time against real scholarly opponents.  The "elder" got mad at me, charged that he was a “somebody,” left in his car, and discontinued all further contact with me. 

 

Actually, these issues, strangely enough, prove the authenticity of both of the books.  If Mattityahu was a forger, would he be so naive, incompetent, sloppy and incapable to have "accidentally" left out three names from a list which anyone could verify from the readily available books of Kings and Chronicles? 

 

It is obviously unthinkable that a forger, this irresponsible and careless, could ever have successfully pawned off a forged book of Matthew to a world with some real critics and scholars ready to do battle whenever and however possible. 

 

In terms of Daniel, can any intelligent, thinking person actually suppose that a forger would forge the book of Daniel and then directly write into it a dating scheme which shows the dates of when the prophecies were received in an out of order sequence. 

 

Surely, a forger as smart and clever as the writer of Daniel would have had to be, would clearly have arranged the prophecies in their proper time sequence--if he was trying to fool someone.  The very fact that Matthew and Daniel have these minor and insignificant problems goes to prove and verify the authenticity of both books. 

 

No forger, above the moron level, would have permitted such issues to creep into his work and open up the possibility of a later question.  Obviously, the writers of both Daniel and Matthew were men of intelligence.  They weren't as limited as the "elder" and "pastor" would have us believe.

 

 

Another Sardis SP Leader 

 

Next, it would be well to mention another Sardis Sacred Name SP individual who thinks that he is similarly commissioned by “Yahweh.” 

 

And actually here, this "elite" man must not be too convinced of the “deity” he is dealing with because he has changed his pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH some five times that i am aware of.  One would wonder how in the world that a person in direct contact with The MOST HIGH could exist long without knowing the name of The MOST HIGH. 

 

But this "spirit filled" big shot also found a way to buy a leadership title when he, some years ago, went to Odessa, Texas and gave the head man there with the House of Yahweh a gift of $500.  In return, the chief "elder" there responded by designating him as the "evangelist" for the House of Yahweh. 

 

With his new title of prestige and position, this individual began to use and disseminate his symbol of recognition to other people.  He quickly proclaimed himself “Evangelist so and so.” 

 

This individual under discussion is also a very proud person over his supposedly advanced religious knowledge and understanding.  But interestingly, here, like with the other SPs, he seems to have learned his essential truths from other people and not from his own Scriptural ability and capability. 

 

Now, while he is a classic SP in temperament, as are the others, it is fair to give him credit for doing a lot of personal Scriptural study, although it is questionable to what extent his study is productive.  As an SP, he is highly unorganized and unproductive in book study.  He seems to largely learn important new teachings from the work of others and not from his own efforts. 

 

Tragically too, this big shot evangelist, like the heretofore mentioned big shot elder, has acquired some screwball religious ideas which are totally foreign in the Book.  And since he believes he is commissioned from “Yahweh” to teach others, he naturally spreads a lot of confusion and chaos around (which appears to bring harm, hurt and injury to his students). 

 

To the extent that his instructions have been wrong, he has clearly taught others to sin.  For example, as noted above, this "evangelist" has changed his pronunciation of the "name" some five times that i am aware of. 

 

Tragically, for his students, he has never went back to inform them of these changes.  Evidently, the names he taught them and baptized them into, being wrong, would surely prove to be detrimental to the persons involved.  Isn't this teaching others to sin? 

 

This “evangelist,” believing that he has "the spirit" and is in close communications with The ELOHIM, has recently come to believe that he is a second “Moses” and has almost went off the deep end.  There is no question about it, this man is very proud and vain.  He is certainly seeking for ways to be elevated and lifted up through these titles and special offices which he thinks he has. 

 

 

One More Sardis Leader 

 

While this discussion so far has centered on "independent" Sardis Sacred Namers and their quest for elevation and status through the use of titles, it would be well here to mention also one more such false teacher who seems to have had somewhat more success in gathering followers than the independents just described. 

 

This person has a House of Yahweh work ongoing in Abilene, Texas.  He believes that he is a special, elite prophet for the age end with extraordinary links with The HIGHEST and unusual insight into the Scriptures because of his calling and commission. 

 

This big shot even goes so far to assert that he and his brother in Odessa, Texas, are (or were, since the brother later died) the two age ending witnesses of Revelation 11. 

 

This writer knows little about this self appointed "leader" --except for a few of his writings in which he claims to be “Yahweh's chosen.”  In one book, he actually goes to some length to take parts of different Hebrew words (like Abel and others) and try to put them together in a new word to sound out the name of “Abilene.” 

 

He then charges that the Scriptures prove that Abilene is the chosen location for “Yahweh's work.”  In reading this ridiculous nonsense about Abilene, i wondered to my self if it was actually conceivable that any rational person could be stupid and gullible enough to believe such garbage. 

 

Well, of course, the answer to that question is an astounding “yes.”  There are people out in the world who are just dumb enough to fall for the likes of this false prophet.  Hopefully, there aren’t many near the moron level to fall for him.  But please remember, the public is capable of believing anything--regardless of how stupid and ridiculous it may be. 

 

Besides these several religious "leaders, just described, this writer has known a host of other people who likewise like titles and believe that they are elders, pastors, and other big shots. 

 

 

Pastor is Popular 

 

In fact, pastor is a profoundly popular title among professional religious people.  Many persons choose to set themselves up as pastor.  However, many of these self appointed pastors have no congregation, group or followers to be pastor of.  So here, one might ask--pastor of what? 

 

So, with all these examples of people setting themselves up with extraordinary titles, offices and positions, there must be some question over the "why" for such actions?  And the “why” is fairly simple if one knows and understands the very basics of human behavior and thought. 

 

 

We Like to be Lifted Up 

 

Clearly, we wretched, pathetic humans are always on the lookout for ways to be elevated, lifted up, have status and gain recognition.  We sorry humans have desperately evil hearts that are filled with pride and vanity. 

 

Many persons allow this excessive pride to drive them to the point of assuming titles, offices and positions which The MOST HIGH has never authorized.  People just want to be big shots in front of others. 

 

Tragically, there is this tendency of people not only wanting to be big shots; but also, to have the best things in life, as well as to be recognized and to have the praise and acclamation of others. 

 

This is classic pride and vanity in action.  False religious elders and leaders strive to be elevated and lifted up.  And as pointed out in previous comments, pride and vanity are the reasons that the world has false, religious teachers, as the Book charges.

 

Some 2,000 years ago, earlier people also liked the ideas of titles and offices of honor and status, just as today.  The MESSIAH made that point very pungently (Matt 23:7-10).  In those days, just as today, people were seeking recognition, elevation and honor by being greeted, addressed and spoken to with titles like master, teacher, “rabbi,” etc. 

 

Of  course, classic, pagan Christianity has followed suit with its constant uses of various titles--like father, reverend, right reverend, pastor, evangelist, elder, etc--as pointed out earlier.  Tragically, some of these appellatives are very questionable because of their meanings, if for no other reason.  But beyond this, all of them have as their purpose, pride and vanity. 

 

 

More on Important Titles 

 

Hence, notwithstanding the cause for concern over this subject in Christendom, more knowledgeable Scriptural types (especially independent Sardis SP's) have turned to distinctive titles, offices, and positions to try to have status. As outlined in the above remarks, the result here then are the popular words--elder, pastor, evangelist, prophet, preacher and teacher. 

 

As pointed out above, the Scriptural basis for calling upon and addressing the elect in a true group (and this includes the really commissioned elders and leaders) is to call them "brother," as the Word seems to proclaim (Matt 23:8; Acts 9:17).  If brethren should be calling each other brother, why is it that the false leaders want other distinctive titles beyond what the brethren have? 

 

There is no logical explanation for this phenomenon--except to charge it to pride and vanity.  Pride is such a nasty sin because in our evil hearts and minds, we humans are always on the lookout for ways to be elevated and to have confidence and satisfaction.  By being addressed and called elder, pastor or something, some mentally feel that they have achieved success.

 

 

Again, Nothing Original From Them 

 

A repeat of an earlier remark is in order before closing this chapter.  As noted before, this writer has never known or been acquainted with a one of these self chosen (SP) elders, pastors, evangelists, apostles, prophets, etc, who has ever come up with any important new, original truth from their own, individual, personal, Scriptural study, capability or ability. 

 

Whatever truth each one has seemed to have, he has evidently gotten it from others.  They may brag and boast about how great they are and what experts they are and how much they have learned from the Word in order to teach others.  But upon a close scrutiny of their words versus reality, they are sadly lacking. 

 

An exception here, would be the few men who have come up with the incredible belief that they each are age ending prophets, Moshe or something else.  And here, while these status seekers have come up with some "new" religious ideas, it must be acknowledged that these "original" ideas are too far-fetched to be ever linked to Scriptural truth. 

 

One might ask--if these elders and leaders, with their fancy titles of importance, are such big shots linked into The HIGHEST and possessing special truths and Scriptural abilities, why is it then that they are never able to come up with important new revelations and teachings from the Word? 

 

Why is it that they must depend upon the Scriptural study abilities of other persons in order to learn any new truth at all?  Why don't they know the true name of YHWH?  Why are they so ignorant of such a vitally important doctrine which is powerfully linked to salvation? 

 

Maybe, the truth is that these self professing leaders are not, in fact, very strong on personal Scriptural study and understanding.  Maybe, they have to depend upon the abilities of other people.  Maybe, they don't have the special links with The MOST HIGH that they claim to have with their big shot titles of elder, evangelist, pastor, prophet, etc. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 75--Hypocrisy and Hate

 

 

Two Primary Christian Problems 

 

The purpose of this chapter is to address pride and vanity from the standpoint of what this evil does to Christian people from at least two perspectives.  The first effect of pride and vanity upon most Christians, with few if any exceptions, is that it makes them absolute and outright hypocrites of the worst kind. 

 

And second, pride and vanity has historically had an enormous impact on Christian thinking, so much so, that Christian Israelites, who believe about the same thing (in doctrines and theology), are filled with bitter hatred, strife and division among themselves. 

 

 

Hypocrisy, Pretense and Pride 

 

This matter of hypocrisy in Christians has been briefly broached in a former chapter, but it needs further expatiation.  It seems to surface in all of us at one time or the other and some of The MESSIAH’s most pungent words of criticism often seemed leveled at hypocrites. 

 

Because of this strong correlation between hypocrisy and Christians, it is probable that hypocrisy has the greatest impact on Christians of all in terms of pride and vanity.  In the presentation to follow, this writer has chosen to link in a review of pretense and pretending since these two concepts are so interrelated with hypocrisy. 

 

Former chapters have noted how President Slick Clinton is a master at deception, pretense and hypocrisy.  There is no need to repeat those remarks.  But one must always think of him in any discussion on this theme.  Truly, he has been and is an expert at pretense and hypocrisy. 

 

For a takeoff on this topic, “Webster’s English Dictionary” says for hypocrisy-- “a pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not; esp. a pretense of virtue, piety, etc.”  In regards to hypocrite, Webster gives “one who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.”  Consequently, a hypocrite, in English thinking, is a pretender, living in a world of make believe, put on and pretense. 

 

In terms of the Scriptural languages, one finds about the same situation.  In the main, and in the Hebrew, the various words of hypocrisy, hypocrite and hypocritical all derive from the prime root “chaneph,” which Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” defines as “to spoil, espec. in a moral sense:--corrupt, defile, pollute, profane.” 

 

William Wilson’s “Old Testament Word Studies” gives the adjective form of this word as “one defiled in mind and conscience, yet concealing it, and pretending to be outwardly what he is not inwardly; to have zeal and affection toward God, when his heart is far from him; or dividing his heart between God and the world.” 

 

Furthermore, in Old Testament usage, this word chaneph and its derivatives seem to be used in the context of hypocrite and hypocrisy some eight times in the book of Job, once each in Psalms and Proverbs and some five times by the prophets Yeshayahu and Yirmeyahu. 

 

 

Specific References 

 

Of course, one would expect that the word would be very relevant to Job, because the essence of the theme of that book is on pride and self righteousness (to be assessed in detail in a later chapter).  Obviously, a proud, self righteous person is a hypocrite in every sense of the word.  It is no wonder then that the man Elihu, in Job, would point out that hypocrisy exists in the hearts and minds of evil people (Job 36:13). 

 

In addition to Elihu’s insight on the presence of hypocrisy in the hearts and minds of man, he also offered another gem of wisdom when he specifically linked chaneph with the Adam kind to question the right of Adamites to reign/rule over others (Job 34:30). 

 

Here, the Hebrew text literally reads the “hypocrite Adam man.”  This interesting remark by Elihu could be a far reaching one which opens the door to the possibility that the Adam kind, collectively, are all proud, vain hypocrites and liars in every sense of the word. 

 

However, it really was the prophet Yeshayahu who got to the heart of the matter with his focus on hypocrisy, as being a primary sin of the people of Yisrael--historically and prophetically. 

 

For example, Yeshayahu wrote that judgment will come on all of Yisrael, including even on the widows and orphans, because every one of them is a hypocrite (Isa 9:17); and that Yisrael, generally, will be judged and punished because she is a “hypocritical” nation (Isa 10:6).  Please note here in these texts that the prophet is describing a future condition of Yisrael and not just her historic situation in the 8th century BCE. 

 

In respect to the NT, one finds that the translators have translated the Greek “hupokrisis” to hypocrisy and “hupokrites” to hypocrite.  Clearly, the English hypocrisy and hypocrite connect to these Greek words both in pronunciation and meaning, as the reader will shortly discover. 

 

Regarding hupokrisis, Strong’s “Greek Dictionary” says it means “acting under a feigned part, i.e. (fig.) deceit (hypocrisy).”  For hupokrites, Strong’s has it as “an act or under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (fig.) a dissembler (hypocrite).” 

 

An “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” by W. E. Vine, defines “hupokrisis” as “primarily denotes a reply, an answer (akin to hupokrinomai; to answer); then play-acting, as the actors spoke in dialogue; hence, pretense, hypocrisy;” and “hupokrites” as “primarily denotes one who answers; then, a stage-actor; it was a custom for Greek and Roman actors to speak in large masks with mechanical devices for augmenting the force of the voice; hence, the word became used metaphorically of a dissembler, a hypocrite.” 

 

In addition to these several usages of hupokrites and hupokrisis, it should also be noted that the Greek word “anupokritos” (meaning “sincerity, undissembler and unfeigned,” per Strong’s) is, on one occasion, translated “(without) hypocrisy” in the KJV at James 3:17. 

 

 

The NT 

 

Respecting NT usages of these words, the so-called “Synoptic Gospels” reflect that some 28 times The MESSIAH YESHUA chose to specifically identify certain religious Jews in His days of 2,000 years ago as either being outright hypocrites or of practicing hypocrisy (in the vein of pretense). 

 

Interestingly, in two of those situations (Matt 23:14 and Mk 12:40), the NT also went on to identify them as hypocrites in the Greek “prophasis” (meaning an “outward showing, i.e. pretext:” and translated as pretense, per Strong’s). 

 

Furthermore, Kefa, Yakov and Shaul additionally used hupokrisis some five times to generally describe and identify various corrupt people whom they were in contact or relationship with.  These writers all put hypocrisy into a category of evil and cast a warning against such conduct on the part of believers. 

 

 

YESHUA’s Insight 

 

But perhaps the most poignant description of what a “true” religious hypocrite is, in heart, actions and deeds, comes forth in the 23d chapter of Matthew which presents a fairly long dissertation by The SON OF ADAM against certain religious big shots of His time. 

 

Without repeating this outline, which each reader can read on his/her own from the Scriptures, it should also be noted that YESHUA specifically elected to charge certain scribes and Pharisees back then with being classic hypocrites and pretenders who went to great length to be like a cup which was sparkling clean and lily-white on the outside; but which, on the inside, was corrupt, profane and dirty (Matt 23:25-26). 

 

In this same outstanding chapter, but in another graphic illustration, SALVATION went on to charge these fake hypocrites with being like white washed and beautiful tombs on the outside, in terms of appearance and show.  However, on the inside of these white washed tombs, they were full of dead men’s bones and utter corruption (Matt 23:27). 

 

And in another classic allegory, The MESSIAH noted that outwardly, these same religious people seemed to be just and upright persons in terms of appearance and show, as viewed externally.  But inwardly, they were full of pretense, lawlessness and iniquity (Ps 5:9; Matt 23:28). 

 

Actually, in the crux of Matthew 23 and perhaps all of the rest of the Scriptural uses of hypocrisy, hypocrites and pretense, the verses are discussing and describing people who are basically corrupt, sorry and profane in heart, mind and spirit; but who, otherwise, appear outwardly to be religious, good, holy, saints, etc. 

 

In respect to such persons, they are, of course, living in a world of make believe, put on and play acting.  In short, it is a life of deceit and lies. 

 

 

Pride in Hypocrites 

 

But beyond all of the sin and iniquity present in such individuals, there is another facet to this whole thing which also acts to cut them off from realizing their true states and their real need for grace.  This other reality is, tragically, the possession of pride and vanity in these same persons. 

 

And in both cases, pride and vanity, as well as in hypocrisy and pretense, we all seem to have the problem and to be largely blind and ignorant of our possession of such evil.  This reality and true situation in man has been amply discussed in previous comments in this work on pride and vanity. 

 

Moreover, The MESSIAH poignantly hurled the charge (in Matthew 23) at the religious ones of His day by bringing up the issues of pride, vanity and self exaltation versus the need for humility and meekness--precisely in the context of hypocrisy and pretense for the subjects under discussion therein (Matt 23:2, 5-12). 

 

The point being from that presentation is that YESHUA precisely linked hypocrisy and pretense in with pride and vanity.  In other words, hypocrites are, in reality, very proud and vain people, seemingly without exception.  The two themes go together since all men seem to be infected with these problems. 

 

Perhaps here, it would be well to pause for a minute and take note of the fact that religious pride, vanity and hypocrisy are not and have not been just phenomena out of history to describe the Jews of 2,000 years ago. 

 

Ignorant, proud, vain hypocrites of today like to read texts like Matthew 23 and suppose that the message was one only for the “evil” Jews of those days.  But friend, that’s not the way it is with the several references shown in this study. 

 

 

For Today As Well 

 

On the contrary, those Scriptures are just as much for so-called humanity today as they were for the Jews of ages ago.  The truth is that these very charges apply to multitudes of people today and particularly to those of the House of Yisrael, both historically and presently, as Yeshayahu so powerfully declared (Isa 9:17; 10:6). 

 

Yes, as hard as it is to grasp by persons alive in our time, the truth is that modern Christians (to include Identity and Sacred Name types) of today’s House of Yisrael presently are just as sorry and guilty of hypocrisy as was the Jews of 20 centuries ago.  Hypocrisy and pride affect persons today, as much as ever.  Truly, all of so-called humanity has the problem. 

 

Incidentally, on this theme, it is worthwhile to observe that a 1991 book on “The Day America Told The Truth,” by James Patterson and Peter Kim, said that some 58% of Americans say things which they don’t really mean; about 42% won’t stand up for what they actually believe in; and finally, around 29% admit to being a clear and certain hypocrite most of the time.  Those numbers are up in 2003. 

 

As one can readily perceive from these findings, vast numbers of people generally acknowledge that they are outright hypocrites.  Besides these honest confessions, one should also recognize that there are huge numbers of individuals who are stupid, uninformed, misinformed, deceived and/or dishonest; so much so that they won’t or can’t admit that they are hypocrites. 

 

The point being from all of this is that hypocrisy is as bad today (if not worse) as it ever was in historic times.  The essence of this is that hypocrites and pretenders are, in fact, proud and vain people who are commonly found all over the world. 

 

It is probably verity that the very motivations and inspirations for hypocrisy and pretense are, in actuality, due to the presence of pride and vanity.  Thus, when pride and vanity are present in us, as they are in all of us, it could well be that we are all likewise fake hypocrites, as Elihu may have observed many ages ago (Job 34:30). 

 

 

Pride--A Barrier to Unity 

 

The next important aspect of pride on numbers of Christian Israelites has been the prevailing disunity among many of them who believe the same basic doctrines and teachings.  In mentioning this disunity, there is no intent to legitimize or justify the specific doctrinal teachings, most of which are false and contrary to truth, as will be demonstrated in succeeding chapters.  

 

One of the primary, descriptive aspects of the historic Sardis organization(s) and people, discussed in this study, has been their absolute propensity for disunity and the impossibility for the collective Sardis types to ever find and promote any degree of unity among themselves except in isolated cases.  In the main, Sardis people seem to thrive on division; and of course, on the resulting confusion and pandemonium. 

 

Now, the subject of Sardis divisions and fragmentations can be an extensive one and one which this writer would not want to broach to any extent in the present work.  But despite the vast scope of this historic Sardis problem (and Baptist problem as well), it is possible to focus somewhat on the issue of "why" for the resulting disunity and lack of togetherness.  This will now be done. 

 

While there might be several different reasons for the constant Sardis separations, it does seem evident that, in the main, the problem can be recognized as one of pride and vanity. 

 

Specifically, the evidence is persuasive that Sardis individuals, by and large, have been plagued with an excessive dose of intellectual pride and vanity (to be later assessed), coupled with a ballooning surge of stubbornness.  In this environment, the combination of intellectual pride and vanity with stubbornness inevitably spells out one thing and one thing only--self will. 

 

Of course, any discussion and approach to these terms--intellectual pride and vanity, stubbornness and self will--fit into the broad classification of carnality, pride and vanity, as observed in preceding remarks.  Additionally, please note here that it might be argued that in many ways, self will is one of the worse forms of pride and vanity, if not the worst form. 

 

Self will is a particularly bad condition of carnality because it seems to affect all of us from time to time without exception. In effect, we all want our way and especially in intellectual matters since we all think so highly of our supposedly great minds and abilities to think, judge and deduce right and wrong (this reality will be described in later chapters). 

 

 

Adam and Eve, Revisited 

 

By and large, most of us are just not prepared to be wrong or to admit that we are wrong--on anything.  Generally, we'll go to any length of lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving, etc in order to avoid having to say "I was wrong" or "I am wrong."  On this, please consider the situation with Adam and Eve, as commented upon previously herein. 

 

This Adam and Eve problem will be broached again in some detail in later remarks.  But for now, it can be said that Adam first blamed Eve.  Then he went on to imply that it was YHWH's fault for giving her to him (Gen 3:12). 

 

Likewise, when questioned, Eve naturally refused to admit she was wrong.  Instead, she tried to shift the blame to Satan (Gen 3:13).  Effectively, we all are like Adam and Eve in terms of carnality.  In short, we are just not people of real character and integrity. 

 

 

Self Will 

 

Also, on this theme of self will, it's worth noting that many children grow up spoiled rotten and never having to hear the word "no."  Naturally, in this environment, the spoiled child (and later adult) is totally devoted to self will.  He (or she) must have his way and there is no other allowable alternative. 

 

Here, this writer has seen and observed these mentioned children--just as you probably have seen and observed such spoiled brats who are willing to lay down on the floor and kick and scream until they have their way in something with a weak and ineffective parent. 

 

And it isn't only that some spoiled brats have temper tantrums in order to have their way; but also, it is quite true that many "supposed" adults are of the same caliber.  Besides the blatant example of the spoiled brat (or adult), one can actually see the phenomenon of self will surfacing in almost everything done or experienced in life.  All of us make decisions, by and large, on the basis of what we want for ourselves. 

 

We do this in terms of diet (we eat what we want to eat and not necessarily what we should eat), entertainment (on TV, we watch what we want to watch and not necessarily what we should watch) and usage of our time (we expend our time, energy and money on things that interest us or things we want to and not necessarily things which truly benefit us or grant us truth),

 

We do this in terms of marriage (we marry the person we want to marry and not necessarily the person we should marry--by the way, this seems to be the reason that the Scriptures teach the value of having parents decide on a marriage mate since parents may be less influenced on the will of the child versus who might be the best mate), jobs (we choose an occupation based on what we want in terms of pride and vanity and not necessarily because it is right), and on and on. 

 

Self will seems to affect all of us in various ways and to various degrees.  Tragically, none of us in the flesh are able to avoid it.  Indeed, it is a rare person who would really expend the time, energy and money to find out YHWH's position for himself in anything he is faced with--like diet, entertainment, usage of time, marriage, job, etc. 

 

In fact, because of the constant stream of lies told to us by Christian teachers and friends, we conduct our lives on the premise that YHWH has no position for us on anything.  By this thinking, all people are free to choose whatever path they want to follow for their lives; or, as our earlier ancestors had done when every man did what was right in his own eyes (Jud 21:25). 

 

 

Self Will Dominates Us All! 

 

Consequently, man allows self will to completely dominate his wishes and thinking.  We all try to experience life on our terms (by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as was addressed in a former chapter), instead of accepting rote learning from YHWH's Word (of eating from the tree of life). 

 

Incidentally, this idea of having to “experience” life brings up an old saying an older man told me about many years ago.  He said-- “Experience is a dear school and fools will learn from no other” (quoted earlier). 

 

In the discussion so far, the comments on self will would seem to conjecture up in our minds the condition of us humans just having to have our way in the secular life here on earth.  And this is verity.  But the matter of self will is far more extensive and profound than just in our secular lives. 

 

In truth, most of us also must have our way and to display self will in our religious lives as well.  It is no wonder then that the Book would assert that we sorry humans like to have our ears tickled with lies and deceptions and to be told smooth things which elevate and propel us up (Isa 30:10; II Tim 4:3). 

 

Yes, self will can and does dominate religious people in their religious lives--just as much as it infects and contaminates all of us in our secular lives.  Obviously, self will is amply present in the religious lives of Sardis (and Baptist) people who all clearly are still carnal and have had no experience with the grant of true repentance and grace. 

 

Many years ago, when this writer first learned of the Sabbath and a "few" other truths, i tried to have some fellowship with some of the Sabbathkeeping groups. 

 

After an initial membership in one of them, i eventually resolved to be just an independent, as i found "all" of the groups sadly lacking in terms of truth.  As an independent, i tried for a while to have some contact with other independents of similar persuasion; which, in the main, were Sardis, Identity and Sacred Namers. 

 

 

Sardis Divisions 

 

These linkages, over the years, gave me some appreciation of the Sardis division problem which probably could never have been received in any other way.  It always was fascinating to me to see how incredibly difficult it was to ever achieve any unity with these Sardis people because of their total devotion and dedication to self will. 

 

And in saying this, this writer does not want to be the pot calling the kettle black.  Maybe some of them would have the same condemnation about me as i have stated about them.  Maybe we all have been obsessed with self will to perpetuate the divisions.  Of course, only YHWH can judge. 

 

Howbeit, by and large, most of the Sardis independents whom i have known were SPs (sensation and perceiving in temperament, discussed in the Prologue) and not really very good in using the Scriptures for extended, critical and thorough study and research. 

 

Being SPs, many of them formed their beliefs from dialogue with others or on reading limited, simple tracts which were usually inadequate in respect to a comprehensive study of the issues involved on a particular theme. 

 

With this incomplete input from others, the typical Sardis SP would get locked into a theory without personally having had to spent vast sums of energy, time and effort to do a thorough and complete study of YHWH's Word on the issue. 

 

On this, Sardis SPs are just like the average John Doe SP on the street.  They are just not prepared to spend the hours and hours needed in deep study to read, research and consider all, 100%, of the relevant Scriptures on a complex point. 

 

The next problem many of these Sardis independents have is that they think, assume and presume that they have "the spirit," which automatically gives them special insight and revelations into truth. 

 

Some of them furthermore have been ordained or have just (self) appointed themselves as religious leaders, elders, pastors, bishops, prophets, etc.  Of course, a layman nobody, like this writer, has found it very hard to converse with any of these religious big shots who believe that they have "the spirit."  Such people look upon themselves as teaching “rabbis” and lay persons as their students. 

 

With this background, it is readily apparent that these Sardis elders and leaders were all dominated by the pride and vanity of self will.  Therefore, it was very hard to talk to them and harder to convince them of anything to promote unity.  Generally, their minds were made up and they just had to have their way in any dialogue just as a spoiled brat must prevail in a temper tantrum. 

 

Clearly, in the situation being described, one can see how utterly impossible it is for Sardis independents to ever attain complete unity.  Of course, the barrier always is and always has been the presence of pride and vanity in some or all of the parties involved.  Intellectual pride and vanity, coupled with stubbornness, bothers Sardis independents--just like it contaminates the rest of so-called humanity. 

 

 

The Sardis “Elder,” Revisited 

 

To demonstrate the extraordinary difficulty which can be faced in trying to achieve some measure of doctrinal unity, this writer will share with the reader now a situation which arose some years ago as i tried to resolve some existing divisional problems with a Sardis, Sacred Name, Identity, "elder" (he claimed to be one) and friend of mine who i had many beliefs in common with (as mentioned earlier). 

 

We were both supposedly feast day observers.  But there was a hang up between us on a couple of points about the calendar (which by the way has been a real divisive problem for many of the Sardis types who have tried to observe the feasts). 

 

Because of these differences and my desire for unity, i "foolishly" wanted to try to convince my "elder" friend of what appeared to be truth to me from YHWH's Word.  Of course, both he and i should be interested in and striving for truth and unity. 

 

After all, there is much Scriptural authority which clearly demands that true believers must be unified in their faith in order to have correct fellowship and experience proper brotherly love (Ps 55:14; 133:1; Isa 45:20; Amos 3:3; Acts 1:14; 2:1; 4:32; Rom 12:36; 15:5; II Cor 13:11; Eph 2:1-3; 4:1-5, 13; Phil 1:27; 2:2; 3:8; 4:2; Col 1:9; II Thes 2:1-2; Heb 10:25).    

 

On this theme, perhaps Shaul wrote out the need best of all when he said that "I urge and entreat you, brethren, by the name of... (YESHUA), that all of you be in perfect harmony, and full agreement in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly united in your common understanding and in your opinions and judgments" (I Cor 1:10, per the “Amplified Translation”). 

 

With such a powerful declaration as this, why is it then that so many alleged believers, especially Sardis types, are so incredibly opposed to unity and agreement?  Thus, i pursued the subject causing the division with the "elder."  Our first point of contention was over the question of which day to start the count to Pentecost. 

 

He argued that the count was from the day following the weekly Sabbath of Unleavened Bread while i stated it was the day following the High Sabbath of Aviv 15 (this question will be addressed in a later chapter).  His position was that since my thinking was the same as the Jewish Pharisees, i was wrong. 

 

Since he was Identity, he would not allow that the Jews could be right on this matter or anything else.  In his eyes, they were evidently children of the Devil and thus wrong.  Quickly, it developed that neither of us would budge from our choices.  So the matter was dropped and no more efforts at unity were pursued in the next several days and meetings. 

 

 

One More Try 

 

In time, i once more had an opportunity to visit with my "elder" friend and again tried the unity issue on another point of disagreement between us.  This issue was over the question of dating the Passover.  Was it Aviv 14 or Aviv 15?  i said the 14th and he argued the 15th (this whole question also will be addressed in a later chapter herein). 

 

His position was that in the year of YESHUA's death, The MESSIAH kept the Passover a day early--effectively saying He kept it on the wrong day.  The "elder" pegged the timing for slaying the lamb about 3 PM on the afternoon of Aviv 14 and the eating of the Passover meal that evening at the start of Aviv 15.  My understanding is that the lamb was slain early on the 14th and the meal was eaten the same night. 

 

Interestingly, my friend's argument was based essentially on the Jewish position which says that the Passover falls on the 15th.  Effectively, he was saying that the Jews were correct on Passover in the year of YESHUA's death and not wrong as i contended. 

 

i found this argument from the "elder" incredible because it completely countered his position on the count to Pentecost which he had argued with me on several days earlier.  In the first instance, he argued against the Jews, implying that they were of the Devil and had to be wrong.  Then, in the second situation, he argued with the Jews saying that they had to be right. 

 

 

He Was A Hypocrite

 

When i finally was able to convince him of what a hypocrite he was on this topic, he simply dropped the argument about the Jews and then proceeded to switch his whole strategy to another issue. 

 

Next, he argued that in Leviticus 23:32, the day of Atonement is described as starting on the ninth day (of the seventh month) at even as it approaches Aviv 10.  Therefore, in his reasoning, a reference to Aviv 14, at even, would mean as it approaches Aviv 15. 

 

Again, he was shot down on this by my pointing out that the Hebrew at Lev 23:32 is entirely different with different wording than the other texts on the Passover (per Young's “Analytical Concordance”).  This issue will be addressed in later chapters. 

 

Many of the references associated with the Passover, like at Exodus 12:6 and elsewhere, describe the slaying of the lambs as "between the evenings," which is just not the presentation at Lev 23:32.  Rather than admit he was wrong on Lev 23:32, he shifted his position again and seized what i had said as his new argument. 

 

His next approach, using my mention of Exodus 12:6, was that between the evenings in that text meant about 3 PM in the afternoon.  Again, he had no authority or basis for this claim except the word and interpretation of the Jews (this argument thus threw him back to the Jews, which i thought we had covered at the start). 

 

This writer then tried to show him that the Scriptures actually go on to provide one key definition on exactly what "between the evenings" means--as at Exodus 30:8, where it clearly is not 3 PM in the afternoon.  Of course, he would never admit he was wrong.  After all, he had "the spirit" he thought and was an “elder.”  Obviously, too, the self will in him was regulating his entire thinking. 

 

From this dialogue, it soon became quite apparent to me that his reasoning was circular in motion and never ending.  As i dealt with one point, he would just shift to another one until we eventually came back to the beginning on the question of the authority of the Jews (thus, a circle).  And this seemed to go on and on with no ending. 

 

 

The Difficulty of Study 

 

Additionally, it was evident to me that the man had never taken the time to write out, study and contemplate all, 100%, of the Scriptures involved. 

 

Obviously, he had been exposed earlier to some limited teachings on the subject, either orally from someone else or perhaps a small tract or writing.  But wherever he got it, he failed to get all of the information he needed in order to approach truth and understanding.  What he got was just wrong. 

 

The above illustration of the "elder" has been mentioned only to bring out the point that the man was filled with self will (based on intellectual vanity and stubbornness).  And here he was, claiming to have the spirit and be an elder over YHWH's people. 

 

Since he was a Sardis SP in mentality, it was manifest to me that there would be no way we ever could sit down and find common ground, agreement and unity on any of the points which separated us.  Of course, this is the basic problem facing all of the Sardis types.  They are just not about to let go of their self will--even in religion. 

 

Before closing this discussion, mention needs to be made on how a person should tackle a complicated Scriptural question like those two mentioned above.  Frankly, this writer is convinced that the student of truth must be willing to spend a great amount of time and energy to find truth.

 

To do this, one probably should be willing to get a good concordance out and write down, compare and study all, 100%, of the relevant Scriptures until he is able to harmonize all of them and make them all say the same thing in truth.  This method has been elaborated upon in preceding chapters herein. 

 

For a summary, YHWH resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.  Question, can a self willed Sardis big shot, leader, preacher and "elder" ever have experienced and/or be operating under grace? 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 76--Arrogance

 

 

The Arrogance Problem 

 

One of the most apparent and recognizable forms and manifestations of pride in action surfaces in people in their display of arrogance.  This aspect or manifestation of pride has been briefly mentioned in the prior chapters.  But it is so incredibly important that it will be discussed again in some detail at this time. 

 

And while many of us can often perceive some presence of this evil in others, by and large, we usually remain in a blinded state in terms of its true dimension and prevalence.  Possibly, part of the problem with arrogance is that it frequently exists in thoughts and very subtle actions and not necessarily in obvious direct words and speech. 

 

An understanding of arrogance also seems complicated because the word is somewhat difficult to readily define and describe.  So often, people think that they know what it is.  However, in trying to use words to tell what it seems to be, a problem inevitably surfaces for many individuals over much of the time. 

 

 

Some Definitions 

 

To examine the arrogance concept, it would be well here to take a look at “Roget's College Thesaurus,” which gives us these synonyms:  “pride, haughtiness, self-importance, insolence, and presumptuousness.” 

 

“Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary” goes on to define arrogance as "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims."  For the related word “haughty,” Webster's says it means to be "blatantly and disdainfully proud." 

 

In turning to the Hebrew, one finds a host of words which carry similar meanings, and which the King James translators have chosen to translate as arrogancy, haughty, haughtiness, excellency, and of course, pride, proud and proudly.  Without attempting to look closely at all of the Hebrew words involved, it would be useful to single out and consider a few of the more important ones. 

 

First, for the Hebrew “gaown,” William Wilson's “Old Testament Word Studies” says:  "elevation, exaltation; excellence, swelling pride; as of waves, and of self-exaltation, arrogance, pride, and haughtiness."  Incidentally, this word gaown is from the Hebrew prime root "ga-ah," which Strong's “Hebrew Dictionary” defines as "to mount up; hence in gen. to rise (fig.) be majestic--gloriously, grow up, increase, be risen, triumph." 

 

Another important Hebrew word in this area is "athaq," which the “Old Testament Word Studies” book defines as "that which is grown old, hard, and durable; it seems to denote an obstinate, unrelenting disposition, showing itself in insolence, pride and violence." 

 

Finally, Strong's “Hebrew Dictionary” addresses the Hebrew word "rum" as "to be high act. to rise or raise (in various applications, lit. or fig.):--bring up, exalt (self), extol, give, go up, haughty; heave (up), (be, lift up on, make on, set up on, too) high (-er, one), hold (up), up, levy, lift (-er) up, (be) lofty, (X a) loud, mount up, offer (up), + presumptuously, (be) promote (-ion), proud, set up, tall (-er), take (away, off, up), breed worms." 

 

With this background and with a realization of the sometimes difficulty or uncertainty in recognizing arrogance, this writer will share some instances of this phenomenon in action, as apparent over the years. 

 

 

William Shakespeare 

 

Elizabethan England produced one of the most famous playwrights of all time in the vein of William Shakespeare (1564-1616).  “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 767) calls him the greatest of all playwrights.  While Shakespeare wrote plays on all kinds of themes, it is evident that he had a certain fascination with history and especially ancient Roman history. 

 

Accordingly, in the year 1599, Shakespeare wrote one of the most famous tragedies of all time in his work on “Julius Caesar” (evidently first produced in 1623, after the date of the death of its author).  In historic America, the works of William Shakespeare gained popular support and many of them were presented on the live stage.  In the case of Julius Caesar, Hollywood produced at least two film versions of the story. 

 

The first of the Hollywood efforts came out from MGM studios in 1953 with Marlon Brando, James Mason, Louis Calhern and others.  This MGM production received five Academy Awards nominations.  Despite its huge success, it somehow may not have really portrayed the idea involved (at least, as far as the evil and plotting of the conspirators).  This film will be shortly assessed below. 

 

Otherwise, in 1970, Republic Pictures entered the Shakespeare arena when it put out the second version of “Julius Caesar,” with a cast of top starts--including Charlton Heston, Jason Robards, Robert Vaughn, Richard Johnson, Richard Chamberlain, John Gielgud and others. 

 

This Republic film version possibly may have better captured the image that Shakespeare had in mind in depicting the enormous hate and arrogance in the plotters and murderers of Caesar, in comparison with the MGM version (at least, as this writer can best determine).  

 

 

The Background on Julius Caesar 

 

Per “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 125), Caius Julius Caesar was born in Rome in about 102 BCE of one of the oldest patrician families.  He spent his life in the democratic or popular party and seems to have had much support among many of the Roman citizens. 

 

After sharing power over Rome with Pompey and Crassus during the First Triumvirate (which he helped organize in 60 BCE), Caesar continued to gain fame with his production of the Julian calendar (to be addressed in later chapters) and with his military leadership in the Roman wars in the West. 

 

In the waning days of the First Triumvirate, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Italy to successfully defeat Pompey in 48 BCE in a raging civil war.  Thereupon, Caesar took over the Roman Empire.  In 44 BCE, the Roman Senate made him dictator for life (which office the US will likely bestow upon its president in a coming year). 

 

Despite his many military and political successes, Caesar was a very controversial figure in Roman history.  Some thought that he was a defender of the rights of the people against the oligarchy, while others looked upon him as an ambitious demagogue who forced his way into power and destroyed the republic. 

 

 

The Conspirators 

 

Thus, some of Caesar’s former friends and allies came to hate him and the turn of events.  This list included Cassius, Cimber, Casca and Marcus Junius Brutus (c85-42 BCE), who entered into a conspiracy to murder Caesar.  Whether these conspirators were honest, dedicated Romans, pursuing a noble cause, or something else, may not be fully understood in the context of history. 

 

It might be said that some of them did believe that their actions were patriotic.  But it also could be established that they, themselves, were greedy, ambitious people who were each trying to take over the Roman Empire and become the head man or one of the head men, as the case may be. 

 

In any case, Brutus came to be the leader and the most important figure in the group.  He had once been a friend of both Pompey and Caesar.  During the Caesar-Pompey conflict, Brutus sided with Pompey.  Therefore, he could have been in serious trouble when Caesar gained power.  But Caesar pardoned him and he was restored to being a big shot in Rome and the Roman military. 

 

Perhaps it was this former Caesar-Brutus friendship and the eventual conflict and the pardon or something else which combined to convey the image that Brutus was the classic double-crosser of all history.  Certainly, the word “brutus” has come to convey the message of a deceiver who secretly plots to destroy or hurt a friend. 

 

Perhaps this was the image shared by Shakespeare.  Because, in his play, he built the role of Brutus, Cassius and the other plotters into being the deceitful evil ones, opposing the more righteous and publicly beloved Caesar.  The Republic Pictures- Hollywood version picked upon this same theme when Caesar and his colleague, Mark Antony, became the heroes in opposition to Brutus and the villains. 

 

In this presentation, Charlton Heston played Mark Antony while Jason Robards played Brutus.   One of the characteristics of both Robards and Heston was that somehow they both always seemed to convey an image of arrogance and insolence in their screen performances.  While Heston often played the hero, somehow this idea inevitably came through on him.  He just seemed to be arrogant. 

 

Jason Robards, now deceased, typically played the bad guy and this profile fit his image to the T.  He easily conveyed the role of the arrogant, bad guy.  Hence, he was right at home in playing the deceitful, evil Brutus.   Since Robards could so easily be the villain, he completely illustrated and communicated what Shakespeare (and history) must have had in mind on Brutus. 

 

The essence here is that in Republic’s production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, the studio chose a perfect actor in the form of Jason Robards to be one of the most vile, evil, deceitful, arrogant, nasty, double-crossing people in history (or at least, as Shakespeare and history have come to believe--whether true or not). 

 

Robards performed masterfully in this role.  He was the perfect actor (making one wonder if he had Amalekite genes, as will be later described herein) to supposedly be a friend of Caesar--while he simultaneously was plotting behind his back to murder him.  On the planned day in 44 BCE, Brutus accompanied his friend Caesar into the Senate and was one of the conspirators who plunged his own dagger into his friend. 

 

 

A Word on the MGM Version 

 

Though the MGM presentation came out first, it somehow never offered the realism or work of Robards in characterizing the incredibly diabolical evil of Brutus and his co-conspirators.  In the MGM issue, James Mason played Brutus while Louis Calhern portrayed Caesar and Brando took the role of Mark Antony. 

 

James Mason was a great actor and one who usually did not have to take a back seat to any of his colleagues.  But Mason was never an inherently arrogant or insolent person.  At least, this image never came through on him in his films.  In his attempt to be Brutus, he just wasn’t a bad guy at all. 

 

Conversely, the very Amalekite appearing Louis Calhern (with his pronounced Hittite nose) was historically like Robards in portraying an image of arrogance and meanness.  Calhern just seemed to be naturally arrogant and this image clearly came through in his attempts to act as Julius Caesar. 

 

As elsewhere noted herein, Brando has some semblance of that same classic Hittite nose as well.  He, too, often appears to be an arrogant and insolent man.  Or at least, this idea came across for him in his film presentations. 

 

So, in the MGM version on Julius Caesar, Caesar and Mark Antony turned out to be arrogant and nasty people while the real supposed villain, Brutus, turned out to be a fairly decent man--at least, in demeanor and how the actors came across in the movie.

 

The point of this is that Robards (in the Republic version) really delivered in terms of what probably was involved with Brutus.  Manifestly, Brutus was a plotter and diabolically evil.  Clearly, he very likely was an arrogant man, as Robards communicated. 

 

Obviously, this problem of arrogance seems to come across in some people automatically (as in the cases of Robards, Calhern, Brando, Heston and other actors in films and on the stage).  Conversely, other people somehow just don’t seem to project that image and even if they try to do so in the context of stage acting. 

 

Again, Shakespeare and history have generally painted the picture of evil for Brutus and his colleagues.  Whether they were this bad or not is not that clear from history.  But what is clear is that Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavian (Caesar’s grandnephew and successor), Brutus, Cassius and the others were all probably very arrogant men and each of them was filled with pride in trying to take over and rule the Roman Empire. 

 

 

The Marianas Example 

 

The next example of arrogance concerns the Chamorro native peoples (a racial mixture of White, Black, Yellow and Red) of the Northern Mariana Islands (in Micronesia) where this writer once lived and worked for a number of years. 

 

It appears that in the historical vein, the native Chamorros of the Mariana Islands in the North Pacific were probably once a fairly humble people and particularly while they were in slavery to the Spanish and Japanese over a period in excess of 400 years. 

 

Of course, in those days of bondage, the ruling powers looked upon them as low-life animals, hardly worthy of any favorable consideration or decent treatment.  Regularly, and often, they were beaten, worked, killed, (women) raped and mistreated routinely.  Then, in 1945, the United States took over the Marianas and things began to change for the Chamorros. 

 

For a start, the American administration granted them US Commonwealth status with a host of welfare and give away programs (including, of course, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and everything else imaginable).  Washington entered into a contract with the locals to grant them tens of millions of dollars annually in aid and assistance (effectively bribes and payoffs for their allegiance and political support). 

 

Also, while it had been Japan that abused and hurt these natives for years, it was good old Uncle Sap who elected to pay the several hundred surviving Chamorros from WWII and their descendants (now numbering around 15,000) war repatriations in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  And to top everything else off, the decade of the 1980s saw a boom develop in the Marianas in Japanese tourism. 

 

To meet the needs of this huge influx of wealthy visitors, a number of large companies and big money interests began leasing up the available land and buildings for hotels and other facilities.  Naturally, the land prices went up and soon many of the Chamorros were quite well off financially (over 100 millionaires in a population of 15,000). 

 

Now, whatever else may be said about the wealth and prosperity that have come to a population in a 50-year period, it is patently obvious that the Chamorros today are perhaps some of the most arrogant and proud people one will ever come across in a lifetime. 

 

And how does a person describe this arrogance and insolence in the collective sense?  Well, it's not an easy proposition, although it is blatantly present when one comes into contact with or have dealings with these local, indigenous people. 

 

Perhaps the best way to broach it is to mention that most Chamorros at large (unless it is the very old ones who lived under the Japanese administration) walk, talk and conduct their affairs and lives as if they were the greatest things on earth. 

 

They just seem to exhibit an arrogant display of superiority toward others (clearly, from the food stamps, money and wealth that have come their way).  They think and act like super big shots. 

 

 

One Chamorro Big Shot 

 

One man this writer recalls, in particular, always seemed to epitomize the concept of arrogancy in action.  This person was the local government’s personnel officer for many years. 

 

This position gave him some power and authority which most of the rest of them never ever had and particularly since the only Chamorros who hold down jobs are government workers (which require little or no work and allow much time off for high salaries). 

 

And although the subject man wasn't a tall or dominate type of individual from a physical point of view, he liked to strut about and hold himself out to others as a very superior big shot gifted with all sorts of wonderful attributes.  He really thought he was the greatest (as Muhammed Ali claimed to be for years). 

 

The individual under discussion tended to be an introvert and thus not really much of a big talker.  But boy, in the presence of others, he acted and carried on as if he was the most important and authoritative person in the world. 

 

It always seemed to be his air, his way, his attitude, his snide remarks and his insolent manner of acting which made one want to stay away from him.  He was an obnoxiously arrogant, belligerent, nasty person to have to deal with.  Categorically, he was extremely proud and vain--evidently much so over his job and the power and authority he possessed over the many other Chamorros. 

 

 

A Black Big Shot 

 

This writer’s work in the Marianas also brings to mind perhaps one of the next most blatant single example of arrogancy in action.  This one surfaced in the life style of a Negro man from Trinidad, who was the chairman of the Business Education Department at a small college on Saipan Island. 

 

As is so often true with Blacks, in general, this one was not particularly bright, competent or able in his job; although he was an extrovert and fairly capable as a big talker (to fool people about his own abilities and qualifications) and a braggart and boaster to elevate himself.  Classically, he was a dud, par excellence.  But nevertheless, he was in a position of power and authority over others. 

 

And be assured, he was proud, vain and arrogant over his authority and position in terms of his relations with the other instructors and contemporaries he dealt with.  He was incredibly rude, bossy, discourteous, inconsiderate and obnoxious to most of the persons he came into contact with and especially those under his supervision. 

 

But most of all, he was arrogant and abusive to subordinates and others who may have crossed him in some way.  It was not good for subordinates to become his enemy.  Soon, he became one of the most disliked persons on the campus. 

 

The subject of this sketch had certain mannerisms which definitely set him apart from other individuals.  For example, when he was walking about the halls and grounds, he seemed to be pompous and to strut about like he was a cocky, little, black, banny rooster (he was only a little over five feet tall). 

 

He liked to convey the image that he was an extremely important person and everybody should back off and admire how great and wonderful he was. 

 

In contacts with people he didn’t like or with his subordinates, if they were not in his grace, he had a habit of seeming to project a very harsh, hateful frown on his face by wrinkling his forehead, closing his mouth, (possibly) gritting his teeth, throwing out his chest and closely approaching his adversary in a provocative, intimidating, obnoxious and offensive manner with contempt and arrogance in his eyes, as if to dare or defy anyone to challenge him and his authority. 

 

In regards to subordinates, he would hatefully order them around and in terms of people he just didn’t like, his stance would arrogantly ask--who are you and what do you want? 

 

Clearly, this person was one of the most arrogant and nasty persons that this writer has had the unhappy experience of being associated with in many, many years.  He truly was a man who one just wouldn’t want to deal with.  Of benefit to numbers of people under him, college officials, in time, began to realize how absolutely bad he was.  So they relieved him of his management duties.     

 

 

Arrogant Americans 

 

Besides the proud Micronesians, described above, in the context of the Saipanese, about the only other modern national population this writer has observed, which are about as arrogant and proud in the collective sense, are the American people. 

 

Like the Chamorros, the Americans over the years seem to have achieved some status and positions of wealth and affluence.  Perhaps in the former colonial days of America, many of the early settlers were humble and modest.  This attitude may have continued for some years in the formative history of this nation. 

 

But as prosperity and affluence came to the United States, attitudes and thinking began to change.  The once humble and meek persons began to be transformed into blatantly proud and arrogant individuals, certainly by the time of WWII or shortly thereafter.  And this situation has persisted and expanded from the time of the food stamp and welfare give-a-way programs until well into 2003. 

 

Possibly, it was this arrogance and insolence which slowly began to make peoples of other nations dislike and even hate Americans and their ways and attitudes of superiority. 

 

For sure, it seemed to materialize whenever and wherever affluent and wealthy US citizens would travel abroad and throw their money and arrogant demands around as if they were "gods" on earth.  In this environment, it wasn't long before the affected foreigners began to develop some animosity and ill feelings toward the big shot American visitors and their proud, arrogant attitudes. 

 

Still today, here in the early 21st century, Americans seem to be almost at the top of the list (maybe just behind or in front of the Chamorros) with their blatant pride, arrogance and haughtiness.  By and large, many are belligerent, prejudiced, proud, arrogant and overbearing in their beliefs, attitudes and motivations in terms of deportment with others. 

 

 

The Bully of the Block 

 

Even the US government comes under the same indictment.  What other nation in modern times has used its wealth and power to try to impose its beliefs and values on other peoples? 

 

What nation in modern times is the bully of the block, as is true with the US in its foreign affairs--using the US State Department, the US Army, the CIA, other government agencies, etc; and of course, stacks of US dollars. 

 

If the US can't buy its way with money (to serve the super rich plutocrats, operating from behind the scenes, to be later assessed), then it turns to the CIA and the military to impose its way by other means. 

 

But as suggested previously, the founders and early settlers of the North American continent were likely persons of a different mentality; at least, in respect to pride and arrogance, in comparison with inhabitants of the early 21st century. 

 

 

George Custer, Revisited 

 

There are numerous reasons to believe that before WWII, some Americans did have some measure of humility and meekness, from time to time, notwithstanding the fact that many did not.  In terms of those who did not, this writer has read about one important character from history who seems to have been on the high side with arrogance and pride--probably in the ball park with many individuals of today. 

 

Here, reference is made to the previously mentioned George Armstrong Custer, born in Ohio in 1839 and graduated early from West Point in 1861 (at the bottom of his class), about the time of the start of the American Civil War.  By 1865, the twenty-six years old Custer was a Brevet Major General in the Union Army and in command of a cavalry division. 

 

Beyond his pride and vanity over his gaudy uniforms (to be discussed in a later chapter), Custer had some more pride problems.  For sure, George Custer was an exceptionally proud individual (as almost all historians will agree). 

 

At Appomattox Court House, Virginia, in April 1865, he decided that the Confederate Army should surrender to him rather than to General U. S. Grant, even as Grant and Lee were on their way to their historic meeting at the McLean house. 

 

With his obvious arrogance, Custer contacted Confederate General James Longstreet and demanded the surrender of the Confederates to him.  Of course, Longstreet declined since he was in no position to override Robert E. Lee.  As Lee and Grant were conducting their meeting in Appomattox, Custer got mad and rode away in anger and hurt pride. 

 

Clearly, this record from history goes a long way to prove that people in those times were as proud and vain as those of us today.  Despite his obvious, arrogant, proud and vain personality, other evidence is available reflecting that Custer was also a very flamboyant, colorful and gung-ho type of individual throughout most of his career.  For sure, he was a fighter. 

 

For example, in 1868, he led his cavalry force to attack a band of Northern Cheyenne Indians under Black Kettle at the Washita River in Western Oklahoma (Indian) territory.  In the fight, Custer's force slaughtered most of them--including men, women and children.  This action, plus his believed personality, has never set very well with American historians.  Therefore, he is often described as a very cruel, brutal, evil man. 

 

This jives with the fact that during the Civil War, Custer routinely hung captured Confederate prisoners.  He stopped only when the Confederates retaliated by hanging his prisoners.  However, for sure, his evident arrogance, pride and vanity seem to be sufficiently recognized, so that no one could seriously doubt their presence. 

 

In 1876, he seems to have combined these traits with some incredible carelessness and utter stupidity as he divided the US 7th Cavalry Regiment at the Little Big Horn River in Montana. 

 

With a portion of his split forces, he proceeded to launch an attack against several thousand hostile and well armed Sioux and Cheyenne Indians.  The result was that the savages annihilated Custer and some 263 troopers, who were cursed to have accompanied him in his foolish maneuver and assault. 

 

 

John Wayne 

 

As a boy and young man, this writer grew up when John Wayne was the par excellence star in Hollywood most admired by young males.  Since Wayne was in the big leagues, in terms of stardom and leading roles in the 1940s to the 1960s, it seems that he would not do a film unless it showed him as being the perfect model of truth, righteousness, honor and he-man stuff.  Thus, American men liked him. 

 

But there were some things about the John Wayne character which most Americans simply never knew about or grasped.  His choice of wives and women was not good.  As it is covered herein in other commentary, it need not be repeated here. 

 

Yet, there remains one more key problem in his character and demeanor which relates to the pride subject at hand. 

 

This writer met a man some years ago who worked as an extra on the “McQ” John Wayne movie in Seattle.  As he was on the set with Wayne on several occasions, he was able to see the star first hand and deal with him in ways that most of the public never sees. 

 

In terms of Hollywood and the production and making of a film, there are, of course, the big stars and directors on the set.  But additionally, there are huge numbers of extras (actors with minor and insignificant parts in the overall plot), and by all means, the presence of stage hands and people involved in preparing the set and doing the filming. 

 

It seems to be a fact of life that in terms of the big stars and their relationships with the extras, photographers, stage hands, general flunkies and go-fors (persons who go and get things as needed by the directors and stars), the leading actors and actresses usually cultivate a good relationship. 

 

Obviously, the stars want and expect these people on the set to reciprocate and treat the stars with extra care and concern.  For example, the camera crews and persons setting up the set and doing the filming can give the stars some extra attention and focus.  The stars know of this need and therefore treat these people very decently. 

 

Possibly too, the big time actors have made it.  Thence, they simply find it desirable to treat the extras and stage hands with some common courtesy, fairness and concern.  So generally, the stars are fairly good on the set with the flunkies present. 

 

However, my acquaintance pointed out something which he was surprised about.  John Wayne, instead of being like the other big time actors, was a very different persona on the sets in contrast to how the other lead actors reacted vis-à-vis the stage hands and extras. 

 

John Wayne was a very rude, nasty, arrogant and mean spirited person toward these stage people on the sets for the shooting of the scenes (possibly John did not have a Christian preacher background; but his actions and demeanor certainly sounds much like some Christian preachers who also can be awful proud, pompous, arrogant, and mean spirited). 

 

Per this observation, of a man who was in a position to see and have contact with Wayne, this reality of his character and personality does not speak well for the man.  There is simply no reason for a star like him to be nasty to the minor and insignificant people around him who were there merely to help him and to serve him in his efforts to be a super, big shot, Hollywood star. 

 

After hearing this first hand account and report on the real John Wayne, as opposed to the fictional Hollywood John Wayne, this writer lost his admiration and respect for Wayne. 

 

 

An Arrogant Neighbor 

 

This writer had a unique neighbor in recent years on this theme on arrogance.  While sometimes, he could be a pretty good neighbor, he could also be awfully proud and arrogant at other times.  While not attempting to illustrate all of his manifestations of arrogance in my presence, one interesting incident will be highlighted. 

 

The man in question became acquainted with me in 1998.  Several times, it appeared that he was a little unnecessarily arrogant in my presence.  But little thought was given by me to the man’s problem. 

 

Over the next couple of years, the man and this writer had one key point of agreement.  We both could mutually agree and accept the fact that President Bill “Slick” Clinton was a man of incredible evil and wretchedness.  Based upon my limited Scriptural understanding, it seemed to me that Slick would not be leaving office on January 20, 2001 (this point was discussed earlier). 

 

This belief was mentioned to this arrogant man back in 1998.  He said little about the point at the time, but obviously didn’t believe it (which was his prerogative and he was clearly entitled to his opinion, the same as me).  Time passed, and around November 1, 2000 (a few days before the November election), the idea was discussed again. 

 

However, being this close to the election and with the man’s personal confidence and certainty that George W. Bush would soon be the next president, the man involved pooh-poohed my remarks--in a very arrogant fashion and almost insultingly in the way they came out from him (he acted as if this writer was stupid, suspicious and backward for daring to mention the idea of Slick staying in power). 

 

Well, Bush was not exactly elected outright, as my friend thought he would be elected (the 2000 election will be covered in later chapters herein).  And even in January 2001, just after Bush was sworn in, there was some question about how long he would be in the White House and whether Slick could return to power in the US/UN or not (and if so, how soon?). 

 

It was no trick for an American citizen to believe and accept that there would be a newly elected president in early November 2000 and January 2001.  For the last 212 years, this nation has routinely selected new presidents who did take power.  The probability was great (almost a certainty) that it would happen again.  It was almost statistically out of the question to allow that Slick could in some way remain in power. 

 

So the man looked upon me as being stupid and backward while he was intelligent and advanced in perception (and in pride and arrogance).  Well, time will tell the tale on the future of the US and Slick Clinton.  He can always return to power over Americans in either the US or the UN (as described earlier in the Prologue). 

 

In other words, when push came to shove and this man’s beliefs about Clinton and the future were seemingly being upheld over my wrong thinking (with the passage of time and just before the November 2000 elections), the reality of having apparently been right in his views went to his head.  He responded with pride and arrogance on how right he supposedly had been. 

 

 

Arrogant Christian Preachers 

 

This discussion of arrogant Americans, past and present, brings up a need at this point to focus on perhaps some of the most arrogant and vain persons in the modern house of Yisrael nations.  Here, reference is being made to some of Christendom's false preachers, teachers, elders and pastors. 

 

Previous chapters in this publication have addressed proud teachers in some detail.  Thus, there is no present need to broach that theme, per se.  However, a few comments are worthy now in respect to arrogance and preachers.  And here, a couple of examples will be shared with the reader to demonstrate the point. 

 

Some years ago (in the 1980s), this writer was visiting with a very fine friend in Wenatchee, Washington.  He invited me and his cousin, the local Church of God Abrahamic Faith pastor (who was mentioned in a preceding chapter herein), out to dinner that evening. 

 

In the course of our discussion, this writer mentioned the NT usage of the Greek "ethnos" (meaning a people, nation, tribe or “ethnic") in connection with the supposed "great commission" of taking the so-called Gospel to the world (as discussed earlier). 

 

The big shot, Christian "pastor" present contradicted what i had said and effectively called me a liar in his disbelief and repudiation of my comments.  Thereupon, he rudely and arrogantly proclaimed that he was an "expert and authority" on Greek and that my suggestions were absolutely wrong (since he knew everything or almost everything there was to know about Greek). 

 

Frankly, this writer is not an expert in Greek, nor do i know of anyone else who is one--despite the claims of this proud "pastor" and many others like him.  Nevertheless, this writer remains completely convinced that this so-called expert was categorically wrong in his arrogant charges.  With arrogant "reverends," like this Christian, it is no wonder that Churchianity is so incredibly locked in ignorance and confusion. 

 

 

Another Christian Example 

 

In another instance of some years ago, this writer planned a visit with a "Christian" Identity preacher in Southwest Missouri with a church and small group (at Schell City, MO).  Before going there, a friend of mine, who knew this “pastor,” pointed out that when you enter his presence, you quickly learn what an arrogant, nasty, big shot he thinks he is. 

 

He lets everybody know right away, through his mannerism, conduct, speech, words and actions, that he definitely is the man in charge and the leader of everything of significance in his neck of the woods.  He is a very proud, arrogant and mean spirited man. 

 

This particular case is rather tragic because the man involved is an evident J (in temperament) and is far more capable and able as a teacher than the typical SP in the Sacred Name and Identity movements. 

 

Notwithstanding his false teachings and doctrines, founded on false pagan Christianity, he has produced several useful articles and tapes on Identity (although it must be recognized that he does plagiarize/steal ideas from other ministries, as is a common problem among the shallow Christian Identity preachers).  It is too bad that he is so classically arrogant, proud and mean-spirited. 

 

Before going on, it must be noted that the better forms of Christianity also have their share of arrogant preachers.  As noted earlier, the Sacred Name motion has one of the most arrogant and mean spirited persons of all in the form of the Directing Elder at Bethel, PA. 

 

The Christian Identity entity also has the “Pastor” at LaPorte, CO (who is near the top in personal arrogance and general meanness).  The point is that arrogance is not limited to secular people. 

 

 

YHWH Zeros In On Arrogance 

 

Perhaps in recognition of how proud and nasty modern Israelites have become, The MOST HIGH inspired certain messages for His prophets to record.  These communications seem to thoroughly describe some of the peoples under discussion in this study. 

 

Yeshayahu seemed to have had the most to say on this theme.  For example, he wrote that the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk about with outstretched necks to show off their pride (Isa 3:16).  He also zeroed in on the population of Ephraim (probably the modern USA) by noting that they talk with arrogance and pride (Isa 9:8-10). 

 

The Volume 8, Number 3 issue of “Bible Light on the News” (p. 5) offered an interpretation of Isaiah 25:5-12 as saying that “all mankind is covered with a veil.  And the veil everyone is covered with is the veil of pride and arrogance.”  This is a profound indictment against all men.  And assuredly, it is truth because all of unconverted so-called humanity is adversely plagued with pride, arrogance and vanity. 

 

The prophet Yirmeyahu focused in on Moab for her extreme pride, loftiness, arrogance, conceit and haughtiness of the heart.  All of these charges were sufficient to place these peoples under judgment for destruction (Jer 48:29, 42).  And if this pride and arrogance doomed Moab, what do you think it will do to modern Chamorros and Americans? 

 

 

Yechezkel, Revisited 

 

The captive Yechezkel also had some pungent remarks for modern Israelites--obviously Christian Israelites of our time.  He recorded that all Yisrael is impudent, insolent, arrogant and hard hearted (Ezek 3:7).  (Does any of this sound familiar in terms of the modern USA?) 

 

No wonder Yechezkel would go on to use the next several chapters of his writings to describe and discuss a (still) future, coming destruction of Yisrael in an apparent nuclear war. 

 

But there is still more to come on this subject because the New Testament writer Yehudah wrote that "arrogant talk is evil" (Jude 1:16).  The wise Shlomo noted that YHWH hates pride, arrogance, the evil way and perverted and twisted speech (Prov 8:13). 

 

The prophet Yeshayahu concluded that The EVERLIVING will punish the world for its evil and that haughtiness and boasting will one day cease and be no more (Isa 13:11).  And that's saying a lot.  In terms of a summary, Shmuel wrote that arrogance is pride (I Sam 2:3).  Additionally, Yechezkel added that haughtiness is pride (Ezek 16:49-50). 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 77--Pride in Looks

 

 

Manifested Pride 

 

As pointed out previously herein, one of the most obvious and apparent manifestations of all of pride and vanity occurs in our deceitful, wicked hearts because of certain physical assets, strengths, abilities, and attributes which we humans have or supposedly have in life.  To demonstrate this point, some examples of this classic case of pride and/or vanity in action will be now shared. 

 

Very early in life, most of us grow up in an environment and household where from our days of being a small infant on up, we develop and mature hearing frequent words of praise and flattery about our superior looks, charms, abilities and strengths. 

 

We hear and absorb such nonsense from our ignorant, proud, vain parents; who, of course, are praising themselves when they brag and boast about "their" wonderful, superior offspring.

 

Many children progress through early life with a constant diet of how great, pretty, handsome and marvelous they are.  Some never hear the word "no" in terms of their wants and aspirations.  Many truly progress into various stages of being spoiled brats because their uninformed parents know little or nothing about the raising of children; although they proudly think, act and carry on like they know everything about it. 

 

When a child grows up in an environment where he (or she) is constantly told how pretty, darling, handsome and wonderful he is, it is no wonder that by the time the child becomes a teenager that he actually believes it. 

 

Naturally, many humans think and suppose that they look good and are attractive to others--generally, even if they are as ugly as homemade soap. 

 

In this situation, there is no doubt but that by the time we are teenagers, we almost all, both boys and girls, literally spend hours in front of a mirror, admiring ourselves and combing our hair and preparing our faces; so that other people can admire, adore and glorify our persons.  And this phenomenon brings up the need of asking an especially relevant question at this juncture. 

 

If such young girls are such natural beauties with so many inherent qualities from their genes, why is it that so many of them find it necessary to have to spend so much money, time and effort in buying and using large quantities of lipstick, powder and paint to mark, mar and mask their otherwise fantastically appealing faces?  Why would anyone find it necessary to try to change or alter his or her "perfect" face? 

 

Of course, this problem of pride and vanity over appearance doesn't end with just being young.  On the contrary, the idea often continues for some people well into their mature, married lives.  In fact, for some, it never ends at all until they are six feet down under in a grave. 

 

 

An Example 

 

Years ago, this writer had a "religious" friend who had four pretty daughters.  My religious friend was one of those independent Sacred Name and Identity types who thought that he was a religious elder or prophet of some sort with the "spirit" and special insight into the Scriptures.

 

In this interesting situation, a young man took up with this Sacred Namer and his family and started visiting with them regularly and often.  Ostensibly, the reason for the frequent visits and social get togethers was for the young man to learn some "truth" from the Identity and Sacred Name “elder.” 

 

Of course, my acquaintance really was flattered and elevated by all of this attention and interest of a young man seeking truth from him.  He thought he had a real, genuine follower that was coming over to his house to study and learn. 

 

The several times this writer visited with the family over the years and observed the dialogue and exchanges of the involved parties, it was very clear to me that the young man participating really had little or no concern about his chosen religious teacher or the teachings. 

 

 

The Real Reason for the Interest 

 

Instead, it was quite evident that the motivation and actual cause for his visits was the fact that his teacher had four daughters and he had ambitions of getting one of them for his own.  No one could miss his obvious focus; unless, of course, one was extremely stupid, naive and/or gullible.  

 

In regards to this situation, it should be noted that the young man apparently had some behemah genes in his makeup from his Southern European ancestry (as will be later described herein).  His problems were furthermore complicated because he had some possible mental problems (he had spent some time in a mental hospital), which may not have helped his situation in trying to latch onto a female for a mate. 

 

Maybe, these factors were part of the motivation which propelled him to come over for "religious" instruction on topics which he appeared to have little interest in at best (of course, the flattery filled the pride and vanity of my friend). 

 

 

More

 

But despite the reality of the environment and his limitations, it is worth noting that the young fellow involved was an incredibly proud and vain person over his looks. 

 

The young man wore extra long, disgusting hair and either shaved his face daily or perhaps just couldn't grow hair with the existing gene problem.  However, regardless of what the truth was, he regularly and frequently went to various mirrors in the house to comb, massage, prepare and take care of his long, effeminate hair. 

 

It was apparent that he thought he was a very handsome, appealing man to the opposite sex.  And while he probably understood little or nothing about what the Book says on men wearing long hair, certainly he was proud and overjoyed with his long, flowing locks.  None of this seemed to bother the “elder,” who knew about the need for men to wear beards on their faces and short hair on their heads. 

 

Consequently, the one thing that this writer remembers most about this individual and the one thing which really stands out glaringly was his absolute obsession and vanity over his hair and looks.  The word vanity does apply; because, in fact, he was not a handsome man.  He seemed to have very little to offer to an eligible young woman, with some of his problems. 

 

But like so many of us, he was proud and vain.  By the way and as a side light, he did eventually get to marry one of the girls.  So perhaps his interest in my acquaintance's religious ideas paid off from that point of view.  He received what he sought.  Too, my elder friend was happy in believing that his student was now part of the family. 

 

 

My Guilt 

 

Now, having made this indictment against this person for his obvious pride and vanity, i must likewise confess and acknowledge some of the same sins in my life.  This writer, too, used to go to the mirror regularly and often to comb my hair and admire my appearance and the many benefits i supposedly had in terms of appeal to young women. 

 

If there is any appreciable difference between his actions in front of the mirror and mine, it is only that i always wore short hair while he wore long, effeminate hair.  But both of us were proud and vain over what we had or thought we had. 

 

And like this young man tried to do, in dishing out flattery and nonsense to a self appointed religious teacher and his often false teachings, i too have dished out flattery and nonsense to another equally proud religious teacher and his (largely false) teachings--all because he had a very pretty daughter who i was interested in. 

 

Therefore, when i first saw this whole situation in process, i realized and knew what was going on at once--since i had also participated in the exact same depravity years before. 

 

As this writer can now look back on the whole thing, i realize that it was foolishness and sin on my part, as well as the long haired fellow i later observed.  Categorically, there is no end to the wretched vanity in our wicked, deceiving hearts and minds. 

 

 

Common

 

In addition to these two situations cited, this writer must also, in all fairness, point out that this phenomenon outlined is not something rare or strange in our culture. 

 

On the contrary, it is extremely common and routine in virtually all of the modern, secular society.  It is a rare individual, especially among teenagers, who does not spend vast amounts of time primping and trying to look good in front of a mirror. 

 

And the motivation and cause for all of this motion is categorically pride and vanity.  There is no denying this except in the minds of idiots or people with definite mental limitations. 

 

Clearly, there is no limit on the extremes that our wicked, deceiving hearts will lead us all in the quest for personal status, elevation, position and recognition.  There is no end to it.

 

 

Some Examples From the Word 

 

On this precise theme of linking pride and vanity to looks and especially hair, it might be useful here to pause and review from the Book the first recorded record of this wretched sin in history.  In this context, it should be noted that the prosecutor Satan apparently became vain and obsessed over his physical appearance and looks in the distant past (Ezek 28:17). 

 

As this study elsewhere notes herein, there is every reason to believe that the exact problem which the Adversary had with pride and vanity involved his long, effeminate hair, like that of a woman, and perhaps even a clean shaven face, again like that of a woman. 

 

There is an ancient Jewish legend which describes some of the pride of the evil Achav (item 135, “The Book of Legends,” p. 132).  

 

Every day, Achav was said to adorn himself.  Then, standing in front of Hiel, who was in charge of Achav’s treasuries, he would ask--“How handsome am I today?”  Hiel would reply-- “Each day, more and more.”  Then Achav would turn over money to the shrines of idolatry. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

The Scriptures elsewhere have several other cogent comments to make about this theme of people exhibiting pride and vanity over looks.  Firstly, David perceptively pointed out that YHWH cannot tolerate a proud and arrogant heart and a haughty look (Ps 101:5). 

 

Secondly, Shlomo went on to more precisely label and designate the haughtiness of eyes and a proud heart for what they are in truth.  In fact, Shlomo called them "sin" (Prov 21:4)!  Like the Book also says--YHWH resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 78--Pride in Clothing and Dress

 

 

Pride in Clothing and Dress 

 

There is no question about it, vast numbers of people, both secular and religious, have found pleasure, satisfaction, status and elevation (in other words--pride and vanity) over the clothes and dress styles which they have worn (in order to fulfill the pride in looks, discussed in the former chapter). 

 

One normally thinks of this phenomenon in terms of women.  But please be assured that huge numbers of men are equally obsessed with their clothing and appearance in front of others.  The problem is not one just for women. 

 

Many individuals of both sexes have profound pride and vanity problems over this very topic.  But beyond these classic cases of pride in action, in the public at large, there is also the interesting situation where the same feelings and motivations can be found in so-called "religious" people. 

 

Historically, pagan priests and religious big shots, in particular, have had a propensity to wear unique and differentiating clothes and dress styles.  And while long, effeminate robes have been the most apparent presentation in this regard, one should not overlook even the resulting elevation and status obtainable by wearing and displaying a particular cap or cleric collar. 

 

Some of the hats, like the popular skullcaps worn by Catholic priests and Jews, may have had their origins in paganism in some way, as was suggested a few years ago in an article appearing in the “Sacred Name Broadcaster” (to be addressed later)  The traditional "cleric" collar worn by Christian preachers and leaders is another item which seems to tie back to heathen sources, as various students of truth have noted. 

 

And even the long, effeminate robes worn by Catholic leaders and Eastern religious professionals likewise have earlier pagan connections.  A later chapter herein will focus on the connection of religious clothes to paganism.  But for now, it must be acknowledged in terms of the real world. 

 

 

Color 

 

Beyond the styles and designs of clothes, generally, which promote pride, one must not ignore the subject of "color" in the generation of pride and vanity.  Over the years, black has been very popular as a religious color, in particular.  

 

In this regard, Catholic priests, Amish and Mennonite peoples and others have cherished black for ages, despite the fact that the color has historically been linked to evil in much of Western society. 

 

Also, in some circles, white is thought to be a "religious" color of importance.  Therefore, the pope and certain other big shots have leaned in the direction of white as their symbol of status. 

 

Some years ago, this writer met a couple in Southern California who liked to wear white.  To them, white was supposed to be an emblem of righteousness (as the saved ones are so dressed in the book of Revelation). 

 

At once, it was easy to see that the man was clean shaven and without tzitzityot and the woman was uncovered (besides the questions of pride and carnality).  Yet, this pair actually seemed to think that by being dressed in white, they were righteous and good.  The acts of fleshly, sinning people to dress in white in order to be righteous is both ridiculous and an affront to YHWH (thus, surely an act of sin).  

 

In another case, an apparent "kook"--who claimed that he was "Elijah" and dressed himself in a long, effeminate robe--became an acquaintance of this writer some years ago.  In still another instance, this writer knew another "kook" who thought that he was somebody special and wore a big hat with a long, bird feather hanging from it and a large leather girdle about his waist.

 

Several others (especially Sardis Sacred Namers) are to be noted for wearing black skullcaps or other distinctive hats with the name of Yahweh or the Tetragrammaton conspicuously present so that any and all people seeing the person would see the "name" and how religious the wearer appeared to be. 

 

 

The Church of God (Jerusalem Acres) 

 

On this theme, this writer remembers another extraordinary case that surfaced some years ago when i was visiting with some friends at the Church of God (Jerusalem Acres), with headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee.  This writer now recalls a tour of their headquarters and seeing some pictures on the wall of their then deceased founder and former chief “apostle.” 

 

It seems that this once "great" church leader was addicted to uniforms and medals.  At least, the church had many pictures and photographs of him dressed in a distinctive, dark uniform covered by medals and ribbons of various sorts.  At first, i thought he looked like a tin horn dictator of some Latin America banana republic South of the border. 

 

Later, this writer learned that the "chief apostle" was wearing his "church uniform" in the pictures and that it wasn't for military or political purposes at all.  What a surprise!  It became obvious to me that this religious big shot liked uniforms with all types of paraphernalia attached to really show himself off as somebody special.

 

Besides this proud leader and all of his gaudy showmanship, it should be noted that this same church furthermore has several different internal church sub-organizations and sub-entities which also go in for distinctive uniforms and other show off dress styles (i.e. a motorcycle patrol, etc, something like the Shriners). 

 

 

The Essence Here 

 

There really seems to be no limit or restriction to the extent people will go in order to be elevated and lifted up in front of others in terms of their clothing and dress styles. 

 

And on this subject, please be assured that whatever The MOST HIGH spells out in His Word, we all should comply with it.  There is no discussion or issue from me over whether one should or should not conform to YHWH's dress code.  Categorically, we all should conform without question.  There is no condemnation to anyone for obeying truth. 

 

Thus, the purpose of these comments is not to denigrate truth and The ELOHIM's way.  Whatever He says for us to do, we should all do it--and this does include certain aspects of clothing and dress, as will be established in subsequent chapters herein. 

 

For sure, the focus in these comments is not on what is clearly right per the Scriptures.  Instead, the concern here is on dress codes specifically not outlined in the Book or those patently wrong--as in the case of a man wearing an "effeminate" robe, dress or skirt and the motives for such wear. 

 

And just like the answer to this concern is fairly obvious in any assessment of man's basic nature in secular society, so also is the reason quite manifest for the unique dress styles found in a religious society as well. 

 

 

The Focus From the Word 

 

This topic and the "why" for it is quite plain when one realizes that The HIGHEST addressed it some two thousand years ago on at least two different occasions.  And the “why” here is unmistakable to anyone who knows much at all about the greatest evil and sin of all in so-called humanity at  large.  And what is this greatest evil of all in man?  Why it is pride and vanity, of course. 

 

In the first sample of this wickedness, of some 2,000 years ago, YESHUA pointed out that certain scribes and religious big shots liked to wear long, robes out in public (Mk 12:38; Lu 20:46).  And why for this public display? 

 

Why to be seen, recognized and greeted by the public at large out in the market places and on the streets and sidewalks, of course.  The whole issue for these distinctive uniforms in those days is the same as of today--pride and vanity and nothing else.

 

In the second instance, The MESSIAH noted that various religious big shots in His day would "make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders (fringes--tzitzityot) of their garments" (Matt 23:5).  And why?  So they could "be seen by men," as the Book so pungently declares. 

 

Incidentally, on this topic, there is absolutely no condemnation or criticism in the Scriptures or from this writer over anyone obeying the law in terms of fringes or phylacteries.  Clearly, the problem is making them "broad" and "enlarged," so that they can be seen by men.  In other words, the issue here is on pride and vanity and not on the obeying of YHWH's Torah. 

 

 

Make Them Big--Still the Practice Today 

 

By the way, it is a distressing fact to have to acknowledge that over the years this writer has known many people who have done exactly the same above mentioned things--for example, Catholic religious leaders and their long, flowing robes (just like the scribes and Pharisees of old) and my acquaintance, mentioned above (who insisted on wearing a long, effeminate robe). 

 

And if the long robe wasn't enough, my acquaintance was told about the evil in making broad the phylacteries and fringes (which were not then present on his long, effeminate robe). 

 

Sure enough, he immediately made for himself his version of the prescribed phylacteries and fringes and put them on his robe.  Naturally, he made them broad and very enlarged, so that they could be readily seen by the public at large (in order for people to understand how religious he was). 

 

This writer has known others who took great pride in wearing and displaying a Jewish prayer shawl in public, as well as other distinctive items that would be seen and observed by the public at large.  Several individuals have also been known by me who have tried to display the name of Yahweh or the Tetragrammaton on their clothes or hats in some way (as well as on their automobiles, houses and you name it). 

 

It seems that such persons want others to see their religion in a public display.  There is no doubt in my mind.  These actions have been and were motivated for precisely one reason and one reason only--religious pride.  People gain satisfaction and feeling well by appearing to be religious in front of other persons. 

 

It is truly amazing of the extent man will go to elevate and lift himself up in front of others.  There is no end to it.  And perhaps the religious man is the worst offender of all.  Since the Book says that YHWH resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, is it logical to believe that such proud, religious people have been granted grace?  No way, Hose. 

 

 

General Grant 

 

At this stage, a remark is needed on General Ulysses S. Grant, Commander of the Union Army in the American Civil War.  Historically, military people have went in for gaudy uniforms, medals and ribbons--as is true today, as was true 150 years ago and as was true with Idi Amin (to be discussed shortly below). 

 

But however bad Grant was personally (he was corrupt and sorry as the later 18th president of the US), he was somewhat humble in the military.  He always wore a simple private’s uniform with only his rank insignia attached and nothing else.  Flashy uniforms were customary for many officers in his day.  But Grant did not choose to follow that path of pride and vanity. 

 

Of course, there were other famous military officers of his day who did choose a totally different course on this subject in their lives.  For example, George Armstrong Custer, discussed previously herein, was one of the 19th century US military people who went in for showmanship and gaudy uniforms. 

 

Today’s United States military services are obsessed with rank and medals.  Private soldiers and seaman have just about vanished from the military--as almost all personnel want some rank and distinction.  In terms of service medals, a military person today gets a number of them whenever, wherever and however he goes (particularly overseas). 

 

A US soldier, sailor or marine can have a short tour of a few weeks or a few months in some overseas post (maybe in peace-keeping operations or whatever) and he will come back home with a chest full of medals and ribbons.  The unsuspecting public can come to believe that such persons had been faced with enormous trials of warfare to have earned that many medals and ribbons--but not so today. 

 

 

Idi Amin, Revisited 

 

One of the most famous and colorful leaders in the world in modern times has been the previously cited, “Field Marshal, Doctor, President Idi Amin Dada,” who was president of Uganda from 1971 until 1979.  Amin was a Major General in the Ugandan army when he overthrew the government of former president Obote. 

 

At some point in time, Amin apparently promoted himself to field marshal and some college somewhere must have given him an honorary doctorate (obviously, he was too limited mentally to have gotten one otherwise). 

 

The Israelis liked Amin in his early days and arranged for him to go to jump school in Palestine.  The result was that Amin was awarded an Israeli paratrooper badge--which he really cherished and was very proud of. 

 

Idi Amin gained some fame during his rule as president for life over Uganda when he joined with Arab terrorists to allow them to bring an Air France airplane load of passengers to Entebbe to hold as hostages.  Over 100 Jews were in the plane.  So the Israelis launched a commando raid to rescue the hostages (as will be addressed in a later chapter). 

 

Possibly, there were several facts and peculiarities about Idi Amin and his rule which would warrant a whole book.  Surely, anyone thinking about him or studying his life would be in for a few good laughs.  In a sense, the field marshal was a joke (though he was, admittedly, a brutal, evil dictator). 

 

During his reign in Uganda, the Western press found him popular to focus upon and colorful as well (as noted above).  The reason was that the evil Dada was obsessed with pride and vanity.  He wore a Ugandan military uniform with enormous medals, rank insignias, his Israeli parachute badge and on and on. 

 

The “doctor” was a Muslim and must have had the allowable four wives.  Accordingly, he also likely had a number of children.  But one of his little boys was his favorite, and Amin often took him along for public appearances.  This little Amin boy also had a gaudy, show-off uniform (complete with medals and ribbons) which he wore while dad wore his uniform and all of its paraphernalia. 

 

During the Israeli hostage crisis, the Western press was, of course, on the scene to note and record every move, motion, word, gesture, etc of the field marshal, as he liked to hog the newspapers, TV cameras and reporters to show off his greatness and glory.  As was Idi’s practice, he regularly appeared with his small son and both of them would be routinely dressed in their uniforms. 

 

Apparently, the boy didn’t say much.  But Amin took full advantage of the press occasions and bragged and boasted to no end about his own glory and greatness.  He was proud of his Israeli parachute badge.  So he liked to brag about getting it and his relationship with one of the Israeli generals. 

 

 

Two More Interesting Nations 

 

Beyond the military history of America and a need for some modesty, it should be noted that there are a couple of other nations which likewise started off with a humble, modest attitude on their military. 

 

In 1927, the Chinese Civil War erupted between the Communists led by Mao Tse-Tung and the Nationalist government (called the Kuomintang by the Chinese) under the Generalissomo Chiang Kai-shek.  Other than a brief interlude to fight the Japanese in WWII, this internal struggle continued until 1949 when the Communist finally took over the mainland and established the People’s Republic of China. 

 

The Generalissomo took his army and fled to Taiwan and established the Nationalist Republic of China there.  A conflict of sorts has continued since 1949 until today in 2003.  However, as things are developing, the Communists seem to be getting impatient and are making preparations to end the Kuomintang’s presence. 

 

While the Nationalists seem to have followed the Western Christian practice of gaudy and flashy uniforms, medals, ribbons, rank insignia, etc, the Communists never went in for the Western show of pride and vanity.  From 1927 and on forward for most of the succeeding years, the Communist army wore a simple, platted or quilted, field uniform--evidently with nothing else. 

 

This practice lasted for many years.  However, recent photos of soldiers and airmen of the Red Chinese military show a definite change.  The modern Chinese military now have and wear fancy uniforms with rank, medals, etc--much like the Christian West.  So things have changed in attitude in China.  

 

The last nation worth mentioning is Israel and her military forces.  In the beginning of the state of Israel in 1948, the defense forces were paramilitary forces.  In time, they were gradually converted into a formal military force.  In any case, one of the things which the Israelis never went in for was flashy, gaudy uniforms and insignias, ribbons, etc, as is common in the Christian West. 

 

Over time, this humble process changed--just as it did with the Red Chinese.  Today’s Israeli military also has leaned more and more in the direction of sharp uniforms, rank insignia, medals and so forth.  It’s hard to find a national military force today which expresses any form of humility and modesty.  Most all of them have adopted the Christian approach. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 79--Pride in Seats and Chairs

 

 

Pride Over Seats of Honor 

 

In 1963, this writer was in the US Army and had been assigned to the headquarters staff at Fort Stewart, GA, then a fairly small base with a minimum of troops and occupying a bunch of old, frame, substandard buildings built in WWII.  The Post Headquarters building was of the same class, except it was substantially larger than the others.  In a way, it looked a lot like an old, out of place, white elephant. 

 

In the first several weeks while there, this writer had numerous opportunities to go into many of the halls and rooms at the old headquarters building--including the offices of the Post Commander and Executive Officer. 

 

During this time frame, the thought never occurred to me that there could be any thing in the old building, or the others for that matter, which would seem to be worth praising from a physical appearance point of view.  Even offices of the top people at Fort Stewart weren’t much to talk about. 

 

 

The Room

 

Then one day, a duty fell on me to present a briefing on a new army program to the Commander and his staff at one of their regular, weekly briefing sessions--which was on a fifth day of the week, as i now recall.  To make some preparations and do a little rehearsing, this writer and one of the office noncoms went to the then empty briefing room a few days in advance of my presentation. 

 

Certainly, i expected the room to be as run down and unimpressive as was the rest of the facilities at Stewart--at least in terms of furnishings and physical well being.  But boy was this writer surprised on entering the briefing room that day. 

 

Although it was fairly large (perhaps 35’ by 50’), most persons entering the room would be utterly as shocked as i was after having viewed the building from the outside before entering.  Clearly, i was in a different world from normal or vintage Fort Stewart. 

 

The lectern was on an impressive, elevated stage (a huge podium area) at the front of the room beside a large, white, movie screen.  Behind the screen and in a position in a room directly to the rear of the briefing room, i found a quantity of sound and visual equipment including projectors for movies, slides, etc. 

 

This back room was completely invisible from the front of the briefing room.  But it was accessible from the side behind the lectern.  From the back room, staff assistants could operate the various equipment and produce needed sounds or movies, slides, transparencies and other objects on the large screen from behind and to the rear. 

 

Thus, persons in the audience out front would not see the people or equipment in operation in the back room.  All they would see is what they were supposed to see in terms of images displayed upon the visible screen. 

 

Quickly, i learned that from the podium, it was possible for the speaker to literally signal and control  everything coming from the back room.  One easy way was for the staff assistants in the back room to take actions and do things based upon prearranged words to be spoken at the lectern in the speech or briefing. 

 

 

Very Sophisticated 

 

But also, there were other methods of communicating instructions to the back room as it was close to the podium area.  And since a seated audience out front could not see what was happening behind the podium and in the back room, any presentation properly prepared became very impressive and professional to witness from the viewpoint out front.

 

The lectern and entire stage area was very sophisticated and technologically advanced from a communicating or teaching perspective.  There was a complete speaker and sound system throughout the facility with microphones and controls at the lectern.  Also, to the front of the screen and off to the sides, a number of large, rolling or sliding panels were emplaced in the wall. 

 

These could be brought out in the open by a simple procedure (even from the lectern, although i don’t remember now exactly how they were rolled out).  However, it was possible to have any particular panel extracted out of the wall to be placed in front of the audience.  The panels included a chalkboard and various maps and other items of relevance. 

 

Another unique feature of this unusual facility was the lighting arrangement.  While it was possible to turn on and off some main lights, on entering the place, all lights in the room were subject to an override control at the lectern. 

 

The room had no windows or external lights shining in.  But inside, there was a huge array of different toned lights, spotlights and colored lights to do just about anything one might want to do in order to project various effects on the stage or in the audience. 

 

Furthermore, the room was specifically built as a sound proof room.  So, when the doors were shut, you would hear nothing or see nothing from the outside.  People present were in a vacuum of sorts where total attention could be devoted to the stage and whatever else the speaker had to present over the installed visual and sound systems. 

 

 

More on the Room

 

Obviously, all of this sophisticated technology was capable of displaying very interesting and professional briefings and presentations.  But there was more to come in terms of layout. 

 

Because even the floors were something to behold.  They were carpeted by a large, thick, colorful carpet which was really plush and soft to walk upon.  The whole room, to include the stage, had this expensive carpeting.  Truly, in my entire army career and several years at a large US university, i had never seen anything like this before.  It was truly extraordinary and a pleasure, of sorts, to behold and to use. 

 

Standing at the plush, fancy lectern, one could look out over the audience from an elevated position and see just about every person present, individually.  And as i viewed it that first time, i recall the several rolls of chairs, all perfectly lined up and balanced between wide, spacious, straight aisles on both sides and down the middle. 

 

With this superb layout, you can imagine that the chairs were like the rest of the facility.  They were nice--since they were large chairs with medium sized backs, large armrests and of course padding and pure leather coverings.  Anyone would be pleased to have some of them at home in a living room.  They were not the typical army folding chairs. 

 

 

The President’s Chair 

 

On this first visit to the room, i recall stepping up to the lectern and looking out over the room for the first time and noticing two of these very fancy chairs setting out in front of all the others and just back from the stage.  The sergeant with me pointed to the chair on the right (to our left as we faced them) and said “that’s the President’s chair.”  i inquisitively asked-- “how’s that?” 

 

Sarge then proceeded to tell me the story of when and how this room came into being.  He remarked that when the 1st Armored Division was at Fort Stewart during the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” John F. Kennedy had notified Fort Stewart that he was coming there one day for a visit, a review of the troops and a briefing on readiness for a possible invasion of Cuba.

 

With this message, the Post Commander had little more than 24 hours to get ready for Kennedy’s arrival.  One of the things the Commander ordered prepared was the old briefing room. 

 

The Post Engineers went to work and spent something around $50,000 in those 24 hours to completely redo the briefing room and get it ready and into an acceptable state for the president.  Of course, they went to work on an all day and night crash basis to do everything they possible could do to the room with no thought on cost or expense. 

 

With this background, it would be well to now focus in on the two chairs, setting out front in the briefing room.  The President did sit one day in the right chair.  And of course, his host, the Post Commander, sat on the chair to his left during the briefing that was presented.

 

With the departure of Kennedy and the return to normalcy at Fort Stewart, the Post Commander or any higher ranking dignitary thereafter got the honor of sitting in the President’s chair at the right front. 

 

 

Seats Are Important to the Proud 

 

In terms of the US military, and perhaps others as well, the most privileged chair is always the right front one and it goes to the highest ranking officer present in any situation.  Lower ranking people sit to his left and/or behind him. 

 

The same is true when military people are walking.  Lower ranking persons walk to the left and/or behind higher ranking people. 

 

In a military vehicle, the highest ranking person enters the vehicle last, debarks first and always sits in the front, right seat opposite the driver.  Military sedans are an exception to this rule in that officers being chauffeured sit in the back seat, but on the right side.  Any lower ranking person would sit to the left in the back seat. 

 

This situation with the chauffeured military sedan seems to be about the same as any chauffeured vehicle in society at large.  The big shot riding in a sedan sits in the right rear seat.  A guest passenger would sit to the left or perhaps in a middle facing seat in terms of a large limousine. 

 

In WWII, the big band leader Glenn Miller was in the service as an officer in charge of an Army Air Corps band.  While his musicians were not much on military protocol, Miller had a reputation of taking some of it very seriously.  His former colleagues say that he was a stickler on the matter of entering, departing and riding in a military sedan in accordance with the issues of rank. 

 

 

The Christian Approach

 

All of this discussion on seats and chairs of prestige brings to mind some thoughts on how the environment of pagan Christianity operates.  Here, as is true elsewhere, big shots have a tendency of wanting to enjoy “seats of honor.”  This point can be proven from a look at some examples from the real world. 

 

A later chapter will discuss the impressive chair used by the pope of Rome.  Suffice to say, each of the popes have historically been addicted to important, big-shot chairs. 

 

The former Christian President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had a special chair built for installation on his plane, Airforce One (“The Texas Connection,” p. 118) in that it had a power device and control button to allow him to elevate the chair above all other seats on the plane. 

 

This meant that when he was seated, Johnson could elevate himself up and be the center of attraction among all of his fellow travelers.  One military aide had the job of taking care of the chair and being sure that it was aboard the plane on all trips. 

 

During WWII, the old comic gang known as the Three Stooges had a skit in which all three of them got into barber chairs (while posing as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo).  On discovering that all the chairs were of the same height, Moe (as Adolf) grabbed his control device and jacked his chair up above the others.  Then Curly Joe and Larry each followed suit to try to be above the others. 

 

Soon, they were in a race to see who could jack his chair up the highest.  Ultimately, they all three crashed through the upper ceiling while jacking their chairs up higher and higher. 

 

 

Buying Pews and Prayer Areas

 

Some years ago, this writer was exposed to one of the common practices in some Christian denominations of church members “buying” the pew or seats which they were accustomed to using during their weekly services.  This practice has historically been true in several groups--like the Church of England and the Episcopalians. 

 

Perhaps this selling of chairs and seats must have been an early gimmick to raise money--the name of the Christian game.  In many Catholic Churches, they go one step further up by selling private, exclusive areas for personal prayer in large Cathedrals to large donors (discussed by Mike Siegal on the Coast to Coast AM program on Jan 6, 2001). 

 

Of course, the pew of privilege, status, recognition and honor would normally be the front one in the building.  As one moves to the rear, from the front, the rows of pews become less and less honorable.  Persons sitting in the front can be seen, recognized and honored easier than those sitting to the rear. 

 

No wonder, some individuals find it desirable to shell out huge sums of money to buy the front pews for themselves and their families.  It is a great show off to not only be out in front of others; but also, to show how much money one has available to spend on important chairs.  Clearly, this context promotes the feelings of elevation, status, recognition and satisfaction. 

 

 

The Worldwide Church of God Example 

 

For another sample of this reality, a few remarks are now in order on the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG)--which are also relevant. 

 

Often, many of the Christian big shots like the important seats of honor at feasts and meetings.  They want to be recognized and seen by others (just like the Jewish big shots of 2,000 years ago).  This has been true with the WWCG and others as well. 

 

In terms of the WWCG, they have an interesting practice they follow (or used to follow) at the annual festivals (which they sometimes kept on the wrong days, because of the unscriptural calendar they used).  They had or have a procedure of giving chairs and seats to the persons present based on their rank and position in the church. 

 

For years, the church had these seats of honor for their church leaders--which were reserved and set aside for them exclusively.  The size and quality of chairs which a leader could use was dependent upon his rank in the hierarchy.  If he was a big shot, he got a big chair and so forth. 

 

For example, the "apostle" historically was privileged to have a big, fat, fancy, plush, red, executive chair with a huge, tall back which naturally set out in front of all the other seats.  The chairs of the evangelists were somewhat smaller, but also were noteworthy and had padding and arm rests.  

 

The other elders used still smaller chairs, but ones with padding for distinction and comfort.  Of course, all of these chairs were physically arranged at the feast sites according to the rank of the various church leaders.  Higher ranking big shots got to sit up front.  Lower ranking people sat behind them.  All of the chairs of the ministers were lined up in one reserved area right adjacent to the center stage. 

 

Now, you probably can guess what the peon, "dumb sheep" (that's what the lower church members were sometimes called by the leadership) had to sit on out in the congregation.  The flock had to sit on hard, medal, folding chairs.  In the Worldwide Church of God, big chairs were reserved and set aside in the privileged area for the big shot leaders. 

 

With this discussion so far, it is quite apparent and unmistakable that the public at large finds certain chairs and seats as being more desirable than others because of the motivations of elevation, status, position, prestige and honor.  Since specific chairs and seats in specific situations seem to be distinctive and important, some individuals will go to almost any length and spend huge sums of money to occupy them. 

 

 

The Old Gent, Revisited 

 

Former chapters herein have discussed an old gentlemen acquaintance of this writer who seems extra ordinarily proud.  One more incident happened with this man which is especially relevant here on this discussion of seats of honor. 

 

The writer of this study has been with the old gent on a few occasions while riding in an automobile being driven by a third party.  The first time the three of us were in the same car, the old gent grabbed the front seat (the seat of honor) opposite the driver without hesitation at each opportunity being presented.   

 

The second time the three of us were together occurred sometime after the old gent had his run in with his Italian neighbor in which he bragged and boasted about his great Scriptural knowledge since age 17 (discussed in a prior chapter).  This incident must have toned the old man down somewhat and made him take a second look at his excessive pride. 

 

In any case, the next time the three of us were together, the old gent refused the front seat of honor to sit by himself in the back seat.  In several trips on that day, he declined to sit in the front though that seat was offered to him each time.  Instead, he routinely jumped into the back to sit by himself.  Though being in the back seat, this position did not infringe on his talking as he talked (and bragged) throughout the trips. 

 

This whole seating exercise would have been good except for one little feature.  When he jumped into the back seat, he once or twice had to pause and brag about himself and his supposed humility in sitting in the back rather than up front.  He even referred to the back seat as the seat of humility and that he was humble to sit back there. 

 

Even in trying to be humble, he allowed his mouth to establish that he was, in fact, proud--proud over trying to be humble on a few occasions.  Yes, as outlined in former comments, various people can even possess pride and vanity when trying to be humble.  Clearly, some persons are proud of their humility. 

 

 

Scriptural Illustrations 

 

It seems that this phenomenon of persons seeking out chairs and seats of privilege and honor is not anything new, unique or unusual for our time.  Actually, as strange as it may appear to some readers, this reality is a very common practice dating back many, long centuries ago.  For sure, it was commonly done at least 2,000 years ago when YESHUA saw fit to comment upon it on more than one occasion. 

 

In particular, The MESSIAH focused in on the proud, vain, hypocrite, religious leaders of His day who loved the “front and best seats" in the synagogues and the “places of distinction" at the feasts and other get-togethers (Matt 23:6; Mk 12:38-39; Lu 11:43; 20:46). 

 

The problem over this evil and wickedness was so serious that SALVATION elected to tell a parable about it.  He noted that when one is invited to a feast, he shouldn’t seek out the seat of honor, lest a more distinguished individual shows up and he would be humiliated when asked to move to a lower level seat. 

 

But when invited, YESHUA said that one should recline at the lower place, so that the host may choose to move him or her up to the higher seat of honor (Lu 14:7-10).  The KING of ALL summed it up for us by observing that whosoever exalts himself will be humbled and whosoever humbles himself will be exalted (Lu 14:11). 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 80--Pride in Possessions

 

 

The Greed and Selfishness Problem in Pride 

 

Over the centuries, some people have formulated the concept that the essence of sin can be traced to human greed and selfishness.  And certainly, there is little or no way to deny the fact that the carnality factors of greed and selfishness represent enormous and great extremes of sin and wickedness. 

 

However, in assessing this subject, it would be best to address it from the standpoint of what really is involved to motivate, encourage and promote the sins of greed and selfishness in man. 

 

As this production has elsewhere suggested--the real causes or reasons for even the evils of greed and selfishness can be traced to pride and vanity.  There is absolutely no other explanation for this reality.  Consequently, the essence of sin clearly has to be pride and vanity, as certain people have discovered over the ages. 

 

 

Pride in Possessions

 

It can correctly be charged that all of us take great pride and confidence in having, owning and enjoying wealth, riches, abundance, possessions, strengths and physical assets (and even mental assets to some degree). 

 

Of course, it isn’t only the aspect of the wealth factor alone, but it is also the reality that wealth gives one much power, influence and authority over many things.  This motivation is powerful in our deceitful, wicked hearts. 

 

And while it is an axiom that all of us are fully capable of being very elevated, proud and vain over specific types of goods, especially luxury items like a new car, washing machine, furniture, new home, etc., the broader perspective of the concept of wealth, possessions and assets needs some comment. 

 

Surely, everyone fully understands that pride and vanity may surface very easily in terms of owning specific items of luxury and envy (like a new car, boat or something else).  Now, money typically represents the worldly acceptable means to obtain, receive and get such desirable things. 

 

Money therefore usually becomes the "apple" of men’s eyes in this pursuit of life and the good things which men suppose that they should have and enjoy in this life.   Of course, it's not that money is intrinsically evil and sin (although some people may dispute this argument); but it’s the "love" of money which seems to give rise to the evil and wickedness. 

 

 

Silver and Gold 

 

Some years ago, investment advisor C. V. Myers wrote a little booklet on "Silver," in which he argued that “since earliest history the two most potent forces motivating man have been gold and women.” 

 

Myers went on to suggest that "gold is part and parcel of the drive supplied by women...that man has aspired to his highest potential because of a desire to please and to earn the affection and respect of women.  The rewards of such efforts have usually resulted in material possessions, or in power through military might which led to material possessions...

 

"And to get the most highly prized type of woman one had to compete with the most able, determined and courageous men.  At first, it was physical force.  Later brain power entered the picture, adding leverage to physical force, so that a combination of brain power and physical force was able to triumph over mere physical power. 

 

“Now, these men, whether they acquired more caves, more hides, or killed more enemies, rose above their fellows in the eyes of the most desirable women.  Eventually their success came to be measured quite incidentally in terms of gold... So gold was the homage of love." 

 

As Myers and numerous other students of human personality have correctly observed, gold (possessions, wealth, riches, money, etc) is the means or method of man being able to obtain his heart's desires in terms of what (sexually normal) man wants most--a beautiful woman or women.  

 

 

The Delights of Men 

 

In this regard, Shlomo correctly noted that the delights of man are women (Eccl 2:8).  A preceding chapter on pride briefly outlined the many proud and vain feelings which enter the hearts of an evil man when he has possession of a beautiful and enticing woman (or women, plural).  But the subject is so profound, it needs further comment. 

 

Clearly, with wealth and possessions, man is able to fulfill his heart's desire in this matter.  Thus, while few people can ever begin to grasp it, it is a fact that one of the primary forces and motivations for the quest that men have had for the acquisition of money, wealth, property and possessions is that it allows them an opportunity to have their pick of the finest and most desirable of women. 

 

It seems that men are elevated and lifted up mentally and psychologically when they can go to bed with a most beautiful and enticing woman.  And believe me, when a man can walk down the street or go inside a public place with a stunning woman on his arm, the resulting personal pride and vanity rapidly accelerates. 

 

In those situations, the man involved just wants people to see what he’s got and what all he gets to enjoy life with--both in and out of bed.  Truly, a lovely woman can do all kinds of things to a man.  It is said that an old man gets a new lease on life when he marries or sleeps with a pretty, young woman. 

 

Furthermore, on this topic, a point from heathen Christianity is worth highlighting.  Here, mention must be made of the historic Mormons.  Although the Mormons are noted for their propensity to use big shot titles and appellatives (as facets of pride), this is not their biggest problem with pride.  The Mormons historically have had still bigger problems. 

 

Their real pride dilemma surfaces in another way.  For, as the reader may know, the Book does spell out very powerfully that "true" elders, leaders and deacons (helpers) in YHWH's assembly can only have one wife (I Tim 3:1-12; Titus 1:6)--obviously disallowing polygyny to leaders. 

 

 

Joseph Smith, Revisited 

 

Well also, as may be known, the early Mormons did exactly the opposite in this matter.  A reader of Mormon history must come to grips with why polygyny was introduced and promoted by the founding Mormon "prophet," Joseph Smith, back in the 19th century.  And the "why" here is quite interesting. 

 

As noted earlier, the "why" was because Joseph Smith was married to perhaps an old hag and as he gained position, status, elevation, prestige and position in the evolving Mormon church, his eyes fell on a pretty, young pullet in the congregation.  Now, there was seemingly just no way that old Joe could have the girl; despite his big shot position, title and rule over the dumb sheep under him. 

 

So he conveniently had a vision that they should be practicing polygyny as “God's way.”  This new thinking allowed Joe to quickly get in bed with the more pleasing young thing as wife number two.  Thus, the early Mormon big shots got to choose the cream of the crop for themselves. 

 

By the way, if the early Mormons were Scripturally informed, instead of being Scripturally illiterate, they would have known immediately that old Joe’s vision had to be a fraud which he was perpetrating upon them. 

 

Again, as outlined in the above comments, Joe’s scheme was totally contrary to the Scriptures.  Hence, he could not possibly have had a valid vision from The MOST HIGH.  If he was in contact with a spirit, it is manifest that he was in contact with a demon spirit. 

 

 

Why 

 

This very situation of religious leaders trying to take all of the pretty, young women for themselves is probably the reason why The HIGHEST had Shaul write that restriction on one wife only for the leaders (I Tim 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).  Without that text, many religious chiefs would find polygyny highly desirable, since the big shots can normally have their way in the flocks that they rule over. 

 

So while gold, wealth and riches represent the primary methods men use to have their pick, enjoyment and pleasure of the most beautiful and enticing women, it is evident from the Mormon example that certain religious big shots can also use their positions of power and authority over their dumb sheep followers to likewise have their pick of the pretty, young things. 

 

A similar situation also surfaces in the world of politics, government and social intercourse, in general.  People in positions of power, who get to enjoy and benefit from even wealth that is theoretically not their own (as in government), can additionally have their choice of most of the available women (like with the two scoundrels, John F. Kennedy and Slick Clinton). 

 

 

An Example from China 

 

An example of this came to this writer’s attention when introduced to a man from Beijing, China, who was possibly a big shot in the Communist government there or at least just someone from China who had been able to accumulate some money.  He was accompanied by an attractive Chinese woman who appeared to be his wife. 

 

In our conversation, i asked him if she was his wife since they seemed to be traveling together.  As her English was better than his, she interrupted and said “no” and that he had a wife, a mistress and possibly a girl friend or two (maybe several) in China.  So even powerful persons in Communist governments get to do a lot of picking and choosing on the women question. 

 

Consequently, men can obtain and possess the delights and pleasures of men (women) through power, wealth, riches and gold.  And the reason for all of this is, of course, for the attainment of status, recognition and most of all, self satisfaction. 

 

And don’t be so naive to suppose that men, generally (except demented fags), don’t find self satisfaction with a lovely woman.  They do.  At this point, it is patently clear that pride and vanity is the name of this game.  After all, self satisfaction is pride and vanity.

 

 

Women Like Money As Well 

 

Additionally, there is another view on this theme.  In terms of women, it seems that the number one reason that many women use to choose and select a mate also involves power, money, wealth, possessions, property and gold if you will. 

 

Women, generally, are more concerned over the financial status of a prospective husband than just about any thing else--even more than race, looks, temperament, personality, etc.  And one can bank on it, a man's morality, integrity and/or religious convictions does not normally carry much weight with the bulk of women. 

 

As an example of this phenomenon, this writer can cite a unique case which surfaced several years ago.  This is a story of a fairly likable young woman who was a Sardis Sacred Name, Identity, Sabbathkeeping believer (supposedly).  In her religious mentality, she thought that she had the "spirit" and was very proud and self righteous over her religious knowledge. 

 

But one of the most interesting facets of her personality was her honesty and candor in stating very plainly and forcibly that her desires in terms of a husband, was that he be making $40,000 a year.  She just was not interested in marrying a Sardis Sacred Name, Identity person, per se.  In her eyes, religion was not a factor.  It strictly was an issue of money. 

 

Such a statement from a "supposedly" religious person is most incredible if one stops and thinks about it.  Surely, a person in the Sardis Sacred Name movement, keeping the Sabbath and believing that she had the "spirit" would want a religious husband of like persuasion.  But not her.

 

Obviously, her statement plainly painted a picture that she really wasn't converted to anything except herself since The MOST HIGH's position on marriage was not high on her agenda.  Well, in time, the young woman met a man who she must have thought was making $40,000 a year and one she thought would give her the financial well being she was seeking. 

 

And while initially, he may (or may not) have been bringing in the money she was searching for, he wasn’t much on any religion, as one would suppose she would seek out and be happy with since she claimed to be “very religious” and possessing the “spirit.” 

 

However, things didn't work out the way she had planned and schemed.  Instead of rolling in money and having the "good" things of life, she and her new husband woke up one day broke, down and out.  He lost his job, business, and/or $40,000 a year income immediately upon or at least soon after marriage and it seems that they started to live out of a parked car as street bums on the handouts of welfare. 

 

The later progress of their marriage was that she separated from him for a time since he could not make enough money to satisfy her.  She was full of despair and unhappiness and her "happy" marriage, founded on money, was in shambles.  The religious factor might have been divisive as well to cause further problems since she was a proud, Sardis Sacred Namer and he didn’t seem to be a man of any faith. 

 

 

A Utah Group 

 

Another situation on how far people will go to get possessions, wealth, property, and physical assets came to this writer’s attention one time on a visit to a communal group in West-central Utah, which was thought to be a Sabbathkeeping group.  At least, they claimed to be Sabbathkeepers and advertised and held themselves out as Sabbathkeepers.  

 

However, they had some major theological problems which would alert most any true believer that something was grossly wrong with the group.  Their doctrinal problems and linkage to pagan sun worship will be assessed in a future chapter.  Suffice to say here, their religion was extremely questionable. 

 

On this visit, this writer learned that the group had some years earlier made contact with a Sacred Name teacher in Indiana, who had visited their commune and had taught and advocated the names of Yahweh, Yahshua, etc, in preference to the names and titles they were accustomed to using. 

 

Well evidently, the group's leadership was not impressed with this name business and they continued to use the Lard and Gee Zeus words in their worship.  However, the story didn't end there. 

 

It seems that while the Sacred Namer from Indiana couldn't convert the Gee-Zeus people, he chose to instead join up and affiliate with them.  When first told of this, i just didn't know what to think.  Is it possible that a Sardis Sacred Namer with "some" advancement in the Word, at least beyond that of typical, pagan Christendom, could join in with a classic pagan group and fellowship with them? 

 

 

The Printing Equipment 

 

But then, later, things began to fall into place and i at last could understand why and how it all came about.  It seems that the Utah people had some printing equipment and had been publishing a quarterly and some other religious literature in Utah on it. 

 

Perhaps as a condition for joining or maybe as a later agreement, the Utah people turned the equipment over to the Indiana man who took it back East to use in his business. 

 

In turn, the Utah people sent their printing requests for their periodicals and literature to their new convert in Indiana.  i don't know how much or to what extent the Utah people paid for this printing being done in Indiana.  But surely, he was getting something out of it, besides just the use of the equipment. 

 

It's truly amazing how far we human beings will go to gain some possessions, property, wealth, riches and assets.  Clearly, there are people out in this world who will gladly compromise their religious beliefs and principles for money or something else in return. 

 

How then could a person or persons somewhat advanced in the Word abandon that belief for stark paganism?  Well, it isn't hard to do when money is involved.  Money is the name of the game in much of organized religion.  There seems to be no doubt about it whatsoever in regards to the theme of this work. 

 

 

Pride Promotes Greed and Selfishness 

 

Pride and vanity promote and encourage human greed, competition, selfishness, get and acquire.  Possessions, assets, riches and wealth build up, inflate and expand all of us.  And there are no exceptions to this assertion.  Yes, all of us are affected by this affliction.  Truly, there is no limit to the extent that pride and vanity can and does enter our deceitful, wicked hearts. 

 

With possessions, riches and wealth, we gain power and become self sufficient, independent, confident and assured of our own being and worth.  We lose sight of our real needs in terms of spiritual things since we focus upon and set our sights on material things. 

 

With riches and property, it is very hard for humility and meekness to break through.  No wonder The MESSIAH taught that it is almost out of the question for a rich man to enter His kingdom (Matt 19:24; Mk 10:25).  Of course, the Book does have an abundance to say on this very common form of pride and corruption. 

 

For example, David noted that some wicked men trust in and rely upon their own riches for refuge and security (Ps 52:7).  Several other texts declare a condemnation or woe upon persons who have pride and trust in their own works, strengths, treasures and possessions (Job 31:23-27; Jer 48:7; 49:4-16; Hos 5:5). 

 

Yirmeyahu even went on to say that we are not to glory in our strengths and wealth; but let him who glories, glory in understanding and knowing YHWH (Jer 9:23-24).  Also, it should be noted here that Yehudah's king Uzziah (Uziyahu in the Hebrew) became very proud and wicked in