Busting the enemies’ @sses and taking care of his own.
Readership: All
Theme: Glory
Author’s Note: This essay was submitted by Catacomb Resident on 2023/3/5. Coauthored with Jack.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes
The Warlord
In one of my comments under a previous post, I noted that the Hebrew word most often translated into English as “glory” is variously transliterated as kavod or kabod. You can look it up in Strong’s Concordance or some other dictionary, but the history of the word itself arises from the most primitive linguistic sources reaching back into the time when the Ancient Near East was dominated by nomad sheikhs. This is how Jehovah most frequently portrays Himself. Almost everything in the Books of Moses in particular reflects this image of God as a tent-dwelling eastern potentate. The Tabernacle is a very fancy version of a standard sheikh’s court. Most of the imagery is the same symbolism translated into a higher level. For example, instead of fan-waving servants, the Mercy Seat has winged angelic creatures.
The ancient tribal societies never actually had a king in terms of a monarch, but simply a warlord. A man became the chief by his ability not only to fight, but to lead others in victorious battles. That’s where the fundamental role of king comes from. Thus, when you chase down the word “glory” in Hebrew culture, it echoes the idea of someone who is marked by military prowess. Thus, to refer to Jehovah as “glorious” first and foremost refers to His excellence in handling opposition.
That Hebrew word kavod is synonymous with a weapon of war, such as a bow or a shield. But even the idea of a weapon might be symbolic for something else. Unlike the western tradition of kings, who were primarily land owners, eastern kings were heads of extended family households — their treasure was their people. Thus, their people were also their glory, whatever glory they were going to have. A nomad sheikh could lose all of his property, but as long as he had his people, he could recover material possessions through them. Thus, having good people was of the ultimate importance. A sheikh might even go so far as to adopt a particularly useful bunch of people into his household. His reputation or glory rested on what he could accomplish with his household.
The Peacepussy
And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod.”
Mark 8:15 (NASB)
The “leaven of the Pharisees” is obviously legalism, and the “leaven of Herod” is what we might now call “compromising for the sake of peace”, AKA “convergence” in Red Pill parlance, or in some cases, ressentimenalism. Watch out for these!
Under WhiteGuy1’s post, Glorifying God in the Flesh (2023/3/6), there was a discussion about God’s purpose in our lives and someone made an argument based on the assumption that we are supposed to make this world a better place, as if that was a major purpose. Well, if this world is all there is, that’s a reasonable assumption. But the Bible says flatly that this world is transitory, that it is slated for destruction. Further, that destruction will wipe away everything mankind has done, so that nothing will be remembered in Eternity.
I mean “the world” in the biblical sense, not creation itself. The worldly zeitgeist presses towards a plethora of goals that are presumably concerned with making this world a better place, e.g. suffrage and feminism, SeeArtTee r@c!sm, Politically Correct hogwash, hype about global warming and saving the ecology, lockdowns and the “v@xx”, eradicating poverty, equal opportunity, eliminating “toxic” masculinity, muh democruhcy, coddling the underprivileged, creating a utopian society, and so on. All these endeavors play masterfully upon people’s desires, fears, and insecurities like a banjo. When an allegiance towards these goals is assigned a pseudo-moral value, it is then weaponized through accusation and shame within Progressive Identity Politics. Jesus flatly stated that all these sorts of goals are a human effort of the flesh that work against the Kingdom of God. Participating in these efforts only has value as much as it glorifies, honors, and promotes faith in the Lord, if at all possible. (For example, see Matthew 26:6-13.) Participating in these activities for the sake of catharsis, sympathy, virtue signaling, or covering one’s own @ss is a net negative for the glory of His Kingdom.
What is Worth Fighting For?
Similarly, there has been an ongoing stew about “Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.” and the value thereof. Jack broke this down into three camps, Civilizationists, Nihilists, and Preservationists, but I think this too misses the point from God’s perspective. If by “civilization” we are talking about the economic / social / political / philosophical traditions based on Rousseau and the Enlightenment, and a capitalistic democracy that is based on that system,* then we are referring to “the world”. The fruits of this system are Individualism, Materialism, and the sinful pride of life, all of which, BTW, is what fuels Identity Politics and The Status Signaling Narrative. In this lens, one is working against the Lord by preserving said civilization while the fire of God’s judgment and wrath rushes it towards its demise.
If however, by “civilization” you mean a large number of families characterized by Headship and living in Covenant fellowship, then we have something to discuss that is in God’s interests. In this case, each man is the head of his household and a Warlord fighting in the interests of his dominion / mission / family / clan / tribe. In this view, one is working for the Lord by preserving said civilization while the fires of this world persecute and harass us.
The latter has the potential to glorify the Lord. The former glorifies humanity and demonizes and rejects those things which bring glory to God. I am deeply uncomfortable with the way most professing Christians fail to see any difference between these two paradigms. This ignorance is what fuels all the endless debate.
* Marxism and communism is just another flavor of “the world” which has been presented to the West as a threat in order to employ a Hegelian Dialectic. But as time goes on, we see socialism churning in the west, and capitalism growing out of previously communist countries. This should come as no surprise to the Christian, because they’re all the same thing referred to as “the world” in the Bible.
Conclusions
The Ancient Near East archetype of the Warlord is now seen as archaic and barbarous through modern sensibilities. But this archetype is not incongruent with the nature of the Lord. It is that our modern sensibilities have become so comatose, indolent, and effeminate that we would view it in this way. Modern men have no idea what truly brings glory to the Lord.
A warlord may stop to smell the flowers on his way home after a battle, or else push up daisies if it ended badly. But he’ll never forfeit a battle because he’s too afraid that soldiers would trample the flowers or that they might become fertilizer.
Only one of these scenarios is glorious. Know the difference.
Jesus said,
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 10:34 (NASB)
Read all of Matthew 10 to get the full context. The Christian is at war against “the world”.
Hopefully the implications are still obvious to us these many centuries later. Our God willingly adopts us into His household as family alongside His Son. For whatever reason, He considers us useful and potentially positive for His glory.
Related
- Σ Frame: The Attitude of Christ in Ministry (2010/6/6)
- Catacomb Resident: Pointing Outside (2023/3/7)
- Catacomb Resident: Walking through Apocalypse (2023/3/9)
