King Cyrus is one of the most important figures in Bible history, and yet he was a Gentile.
We know from Jeremiah that the Medo-Persians with their allies were to take Babylon, of which we see practically in the Book of Daniel. However, one of the most startling prophecies is in Isaiah, where it mentions Cyrus by name long before he was ever born.
“THUS saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; … For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” (Isaiah 45:1, 4).
So we find that God called Cyrus, and we find in 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23, “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.”
The story is well known, the Jews returned from exile, and enjoyed what has been called their palingenesis.
Bible prophecy, as is shown even by this ministry (see bibleprotector.com/prophecy) can have more than one meaning. The prophecy about Cyrus is said by some people to have a meaning applicable to these days, and some even point to presidents of the USA as being modern or prophetic Cyruses. (See, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTFjUY8KC20).
Now the Cyrus prophecy is in Isaiah 44:28, where it states, “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”
While that occurred literally, the spiritual meaning is as follows: there is a spiritual and a natural Israel, and the spiritual Jerusalem means the Church and the spiritual foundation of the temple means the foundation to Christianity. Of course, this prophecy means that the Church is to be built, meaning, proper Church unity, and that Christianity is to have a proper doctrinal basis.
UNITY. Christ said He will build the Church and we know that it must come to the unity of the faith according to Ephesians 4. This means that Christians should come into the gifts and operate in love, and so come into a full unity of the brethren. This means that in the latter days, there must be a true Church in unity.
DOCTRINE. Having sound doctrine is important, and is actually attainable. This means that not only can people know the truth (as Jesus promised that we shall know the truth) but that we should be able to have full right doctrine held by multitudes of people.
This is the Cyrus prophecy, which is daring in its scope, and yet powerful in its promise.
Martyn Iles has been very active in in social media and with prominent causes around issues to do with expression of religion.
Iles used to head the Human Rights Law Alliance before taking on his current role as the front man for the Australian Christian Lobby.
He states that he wants Australia to have a Bill of Rights or legislation which enshrines freedoms as based on the United Nations Covenant of Human Rights.
As a quick history: the first declaration of human rights came in with the violent French Revolution. This and all ensuing declarations are based upon a secular humanist viewpoint.
Human Rights are obviously not based upon the Bible, church teachings or religious laws, but on a view that mankind, in an atheistic sense, is ascribing rights to himself.
Christians should understand that the basis of freedom is upon divine authority, not merely by some legislation. Alarm bells should be ringing at the idea of taking what is fundamentally an anti-Christian declaration of Human Rights to somehow use it to grant “rights” for the free pursuit of all religions and irreligion. In effect, it would be a subjugation of true religion to human controls. The truth is not just like any other religion.
The Australian constitution and historical practice have been for the possibility for the pursuit of freedom of conscience and belief until this time. Just because the Left with their political correctness want to destroy traditional society and morality does not justify Christians embracing their “Human Rights” as ours, or as a shield for us; on the contrary, such an idea should be completely rejected.
If we say that we should be free by new laws, this same “freedom” is then available to be used as a weapon for anti-Christian belief systems to be “free” from any influence of the truth.
The battle is first spiritual, and secondly ideological, a public relations exercise and a numbers game. Iles therefore is misguided as he inadvertently could be using issues for an agenda which is intrinsically against Christianity.
The way forward for us and to fight extreme Left wing attacks on Christianity is to actually have the practical advancement of Christianity. Genuine conversions and meaningful transformation of society by the Gospel is the only way forward for Christian unity and advancing proper authority.
The Gospel itself is the program of the societal reign of Christ in Oceania through the hearts of Christian believers.
Having a proper Christian dominance brings true freedom and requires no meaningless legislative “solution” for some open ended “freedom”.
We should take the opportunity to pursue truth despite any current opposition. We should be promoting truth not putting our trust into “religious freedom”.
“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12).
“Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:” (1 Peter 4:12).
Brandon W. Hawk wrote a The Washington Post article against Alexander Dugin. The problem is, when the Left or those embracing Infidelity (Enlightenment viewpoint) write, they do so from such a false foundation that they are found to be attacking truth.
The article’s foundational premise is that “nationalist imperialism” is bad, which automatically must cast the Christian Roman Empire, or Protestant Britain as “bad”.
LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
It is pretty obvious why Left-wingers would hate Christian Empires. It is because they know they wouldn’t be free to just sin away, but would be under authority.
“His Eurasianist ideology is grounded in a fundamentalist religious nationalism that seeks to create a Christian empire that unites Europe and Asia in a quest to restore a ‘traditionalism’ rooted in conservative Orthodox Christian values and white supremacy.”(Hawk on Dugin.)
What would these Leftists say about Bible believers? “Their Oceanic ideology is grounded in a fundamentalist religious nationalism that seeks to create a Christian Empire that unites nations of the Pacific in a quest to restore a ‘traditionalism’ rooted in conservative Protestant Christian values and Anglo-Saxon cultural supremacy.”
Surely, Mr Hawk is actually attacking Christianity, and not touching on Dugin’s actual esoteric belief system.
Further, Mr Hawk accuses Dugin of using “medieval imagery”, and yet we reproduce pre-Enlightenment imagery because we are promoting a complete rejection of the Enlightenment ideals, while building on good ideas, like those promoted by George Abbott (pictured above) who helped make the King James Bible and believed in England’s gospel mission, that the English Church was the best, and knew of a great southern continent as yet unexplored.
14 They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the LORD, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.
The Left simply cannot be trusted, as their true enemy, the long term and eternal enemy of Infidelity is actually our religion. Thus, instead of attacking Dugin, they are attacking our views.
Lord Acton has famously stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men …”
People take this statement as the highest wisdom in politics, and various Christian writers and thinkers proclaim that this statement is an essential truth.
But is it? After all, Lord Acton was a Roman Catholic of the strongest variety.
Roman Catholicism and much of Protestantism erroneously teaches that the saintly Christian man is still substantially evil, flawed and under the yoke of sinfulness. Even if so to a lesser degree. But the Scripture shows:
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10).
“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” (John 8:34).
What does that say of Lord Acton’s ultramontane views and his contemporary powerful popes? It is not the power that corrupts, but bad men, when they obtain power, do bad on a grander scale.
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2).
Therefore, it is not authority, not wielding power which corrupts. It is sin which corrupts. But if a person is righteous, then, as the Scripture in Proverbs 29:2 quoted above states, the people rejoice.
In other words, it is good for good people to have power, and maximum power must therefore lead to maximum good.
Constantine or Theodosius did much good, as did the Protestant monarchs. Nothing has changed in this principle, therefore it is highly desirable that good people be elevated to good positions.
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Samuel 2:8).
So those supposed Christian political thinkers who raise up the human ideology over the Spirit-led Biblical view are either deceived or, worse, deceivers.
Here’s a quote showing the mistaken consequences of reasoning that power must be in some way corrupt:
“Since power corrupts and government power tends to naturally corrupt, if a society safeguards freedom of speech, its government becomes far more accountable to the people. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out and criticise the government when they think it is going awry. Consequently, freedom of speech ought to be viewed as a fundamental mechanism against the concentration of power.” (Augusto Zimmermann).
The flawed logic is that government power must be corrupt, and that the only way to deal with this is a form of libertarianism. In other words, allowing unBiblical and anarchic licence to say whatever is essentially a justification for anti-authoritarianism.
It is ridiculous to posit that the concentration of power is a bad thing, else one must reject the rule of Christ Jesus Himself! And if this is meant only for earthly government, then when shall Christian influence ever be allowed, for by such flawed reasoning, Christian government should be banned, which is the exact intention of Infidelity (consider, for example, its rigorous anti-Christian practises in the French Revolution, and to its consequences in the Social Revolution which permeated the English-speaking world from the late 1960s).
Mere socialist democracy, separation of powers by dilution, rejection of official religion and secularist removal of all religion in governance is, by its very nature, and in its origins and in its consequences, complete warfare against traditional Protestant Christianity.
The Gospel does not require some arbitrary grant of “freedom” of one sort or another to empower people to either speak out against “oppression” or else, to have the right to preach righteousness and “proselytise”.
Let us therefore turn to the higher and better way, that with the righteous, the truly ascending and attaining Christian, power is to be used well.
Christianity which is surrendered to at least the principles of Infidelity is already on its slow and tedious journey towards what is called the Left. The fact that almost all those on the so-called Christian Right have embraced the fundamental erroneous foundations of erroneous thought is deeply problematic, and requires empowered Christian action to bring Christian ideology to the sound foundation of Scripture and spiritual certainty.