FEW ARE THE TRUE LABOURERS (one)

 

One man of God, the well-known General Overseer (G.O.) of The Redeemed Christian Church of God, Pastor E. A. Adeboye has told the world that God did give him the mandate to plant a local assembly of Christians in every five houses in Nigeria. My initial responsive outburst was, “What! Is that feasible?” An RCCG adherent query was the Lucan report of Gabriel’s assertive, “Can anything be impossible with God?” With God nothing shall be impossible, is a truism. We do not, unfortunately, study the word of God to have a good understanding of it. We merely perform a ritualistic, literal reading of God’s Bible. When Gabriel said, “nothing shall be”, he was quoting God’s exact words of Genesis 18:14, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” The Bible says in Luke 2:19, “But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.”

 

 

 

The word, ‘nothing’ in Luke 1:37 comes from: i. ou (oo) the absolutely negative adverb; no or not (in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer); ii. pas (pas): ‘individually: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything’; and iii. rhēma (hray’-mah): ‘an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by implication a matter or topic’. Put the Greek definitions of ‘nothing’ together and you have ‘not any of the whole word’. As for ‘these things’ of Luke 2:19, we have (A) rhēma (hray’-mah): ‘an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by implication a matter or topic;’ & (B) tauta (tow’-tah) {Nominative or accusative neuter plural of (he, she, it, this, that)}; these things’. In Genesis 18:14, ‘thing’, dabar (daw-baw’) means: ‘a word; by implication a matter (as spoken of) of thing; adverbially a cause’. Prophet Jeremiah’s famous, “Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: [Jeremiah 32:17]; also has ‘nothing’, with three definitions of: I. dabar (daw-baw’): ‘a word; by implication a matter (as spoken of) of thing; adverbially a cause’. II. kol (kole): ‘all, the whole’. III. loh (lo): not (the simple or abstract negation)’. It is not different from that of Luke 1:37 and the thing is about what actually comes from God, verbally, He will do it. Whether it is dabar kol loh, ou pas rhēma or rhēma tauta as far as the revealed theology of scripture is concerned, ‘things’ God can do are the express revelation of scripture. This makes the evil or unscriptural expectations of human projections of God absolutely improbable possibility. A classic example is the Pauline, “…which God, that cannot lie, promised…” found in Titus 1:2. Amen!

 

 

 

Will God say to the G.O., “Build in every five houses”, when there is no rhēma to support it? The Lord Jesus was very emphatic when He said, “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few”; Matthew 9:37. Jesus went on to tell them to pray so that God will, “send forth” which is actually a forceful “thrust forth” as it comes in the Greek. Are all called, will so many be called to pastor Churches? Why would Jesus use agricultural terms to explain Church business? Remember that Jesus used crops in Matthew 13:24-30 to teach about the kingdom of heaven. Part of verse 30 is, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and …… say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares … but gather the wheat into my barn”. The reapers are similar to the ‘labourers’ (of Matthew 9:37) which is ergatēs (er-gat’-ace): ‘a toiler; figuratively a teacher’. The ‘labourers’ are actually teachers of His word! The word ‘harvest’ is therismos (ther-is-mos’) Thayer Definition: ‘harvest, the act of reaping a. fig. of the gathering of men into the kingdom of God b. referring to time of reaping, the final judgment, when the righteous are gathered into the kingdom of God and the wicked are cast into hell for ever’. Strong’s Definition: ‘reaping, that is, the crop’. Can all G.O.s sincerely say, from the deepest heart of their hearts, that every person heading every one of the branch of churches is truly called of God to head those churches? Does the famous G.O. of RCCG know all his pastors? I believe he does not recruit all his pastors personally, neither does he test their credibility and ability to head his churches. Who knows, some of the heads of small churches probably do not speak in tongues, making them, at least some of them, unqualified to pastor his so many (tens of thousands) churches? So, how does a very few available labourers get multiplied to be thrust forth to keep the vineyards that spring up in every fifth house in all the millions of streets in Nigeria?                    (…to be continued…)

to read part two click here

HEAD-COVERING OF 1CORINTHIANS 11:3-16 (2)

 

(…continued from the first part…)

An entrance into a tabernacle covers one up. This is what God, the Head of the Church, does; He tabernacles us, His Christian children. Amen! Remember also that the Jerusalem Temple is adorned with two veils. At the entrance of the temple is the kalumma (2Corinthians 3:13-14), separating the Holy place from the outer court, and at door of the Holy of Holies is the katapetasma (kat-ap-et’-as-mah): ‘something spread thoroughly, that is, (specifically) the door screen (to the Most Holy Place) in the Jewish Temple’. The Church is a woman, therefore, the temple must veil her Head: God.

 

 

 

 

I remember when I first joined Household of God Church and I needed clarification on this scriptural issue. I approached one of the ushers, Brother Mike Igbokwe (now an SAN –Senior Advocate of Nigeria). His wife was in a hurry to go home after church service, but the man said, “I need to show him the scripture”. The SAN relieved me with verse 16, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God”. Who are the ‘we’, are they not the apostles, on whose shoulders lay the teaching of God’s word? In fact, even the Church of the Living God has no custom of head scarf in worship of Jehovah. But verse 10, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels”, continued to give me sleepless nights until the Pastor, Reverend Chris Okotie explained that the angels come to our homes on errands. They, the angels, understand authority and would not be pleased to see wives not showing proper respect to husbands. No wonder Rev. Chris Okotie would always say, “After all you do not see me on Tina’s head”, when explaining this issue. The truth about the reason why I can teach this topic is because I have sat down to study it thoroughly. The word ‘power’ is exousia, ‘a delegated authority, a right’; which is given by the husband, the head of the family. Do we not expect children in a family set up? Why does the word of God not say, “The head of the child(ren) is the gunē “, after all she nursed both their gestation and the eventual parturition? It is because God sees only one head of the Christian family. Why? There is only one Husband (authority), one Christ (Saviour) and one God (The Father) and of course, one Energizing Comforter (the Holy Spirit). Selah.

One of the six garments God Himself designed for priests included the mitre (Exodus 28:4; Exodus 39:28 & Leviticus 8:9), which is a head covering. Aaron and his Levitical children did marry, hence, husbands. Why would God, in His fashion consciousness, design a priestly robe that would be contrary to His Pauline inspired words of, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”? We should not be forgetful of the fact that God does not support half measures. He operates with an uncompromising standard of principles. No excuses are allowed in the things of God. The reason for this is too crystal clear: God speaks eternal words. They never go archaic: always in fashionable season.

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Magdalene did kiss the Lord’s feet and wiped the flowing tears not with her flowing robe but her very hair (methinks the hair of a woman is to be tucked away from seeing eyes? -a la Deeper Life Bible Church of Pastor W.F. Kumuyi). This scenario is a perfect illustration of the Church in a lavish appreciation and worship of her Head. Mary was completely dead to sin, a walking cadaver, before Jesus brought her to life (John 3:16). She kept herself behind – an indication of a humble servant. She bent low in total worship. She kissed her Lord as in, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little” (Psalm 2:12); all because she had rather kissed the Lord Jesus and not Baal (Job 31:27; 1Kings 19:18). Still in the spirit of worship she wiped the wetness with her long free flowing hair (which she had hitherto used to enhance her prostitution business!). She was no longer the morally loose Mary, so, we cannot argue that she was being her normal laxity. Trust the, always firm, Lord Jesus who would not waste any time in telling her to put her hair in the proper tucked away religious principle. She, as a type of Christian, understands Song of Solomon 5:13, “His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh”; see also Song of Solomon 5:5 and Ephesians 5:2, which reads, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour”. This woman, prophetically, anointed the Lord for His eventual burial; and all the while she had her conspicuous long beautiful hair flowing freely! Selah!

 

 

In conclusion, it is apropos to appreciate the fact that God sits majestically in heaven and has perfect headship control of all things. Whatever He tells man to do is what He has already established and superintends spiritually. Nothing, therefore, can obviate the verity of His visionary institutions. The reason why we echo or put His word into physical demonstration is to adumbrate His eventual stand. The only way to serve the spiritual purpose of Divinity is to establish a concrete mundane version of that reality. Agreeing with God is tantamount to walking with Him like we see of Enoch, Abraham, Paul, David, Moses etc. There is no way any one will walk with the Lord and will not be rewarded by God in a beautifully handsome way. The word ‘walk’ in Hebrew is halak which translates ‘lifestyle’. Dogmatic insistence on the physical covering of a female’s head in worship can only be borne out of a ritualistic performance of religiosity. At what point in every woman’s life is she not in God’s presence? Is it when she is in the toilet or the bathroom or sleeping in bed? Should she not be wearing scarf every second, and permanently? The head-covering of 1Corinthians is a spiritual matter. It is a family matter, intimating the wife with her subjection to her head i.e. the husband. It is about headship. The Corinthians, like many Easterners, were customarily head-covering people. Paul saw absolutely nothing wrong with the tradition. “There is a spiritual dimension to this head-covering custom that I’ll love to intimate you with”, was Paul’s reason for this teaching. There was a kalumma and especially a katapetasma to cover God’s presence so that worshippers would not look on the LORD with disrespect. Worshippers are the Christians, espoused to Christ, the same way the wife is married to her head i.e. husband.

 

 

(Concluded)                                                                              

 

Read the first part here.

HEAD-COVERING OF 1CORINTHIANS 11:3-16(1)

 

 

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1Corinthians 11:3]. Here we have four persons mentioned. Two of them are in heaven and the other earthly two typify the celestial order. Three of them have heads (?) The woman is head of no one while God has no head. Right? Logically speaking, has each of them a physical head or not? We see women and men everyday, all around us, having heads on their necks. Jesus had His head crowned with thorns (John 19:2). The Everlasting Father, seated on the throne, in the Book of Revelation chapters 4 & 5, is not headless when juxtaposed with, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” of Genesis 1:26.

If you ask me to give 1Corinthians 11:3-16 a title or a subhead it will not be ‘head-covering’, it is ‘headship’. It is for this reason I see the whole exegesis as: A spiritual phenomenon, couched in abstraction. Spiritual in the sense that headship is subjective; phenomenal: for it objectively characterizes normal occurrence. It is couched in the holy writ, and abstract because anything abstract needs careful study for an apprehension. Headship, as we know, is not visible to ocular experience. Verse three holds the key to the proper understanding of the entire teaching. Most of our Bible teachers insist that this teaching is all about the physical covering of the head of the female Christian in Church, prophesying or at prayer. Let us see what the scripture is actually saying. The word ‘know’ is, eidō (i’-do): ‘to know, i.e. get knowledge of, come to understand, perceive’. It is an experiential knowledge. The thing is, if they already had the culture and the experience of covering their heads (for those who do not were viewed as loose women) why would Paul use the word eidō? It is simply that the interpretation of eidō, entails a process to understanding. ‘Head’ is kephalē (kef-al-ay’): ‘probably from the primary word κάπτω kaptō (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), literally or figuratively; chief, source, origin’. Is it because of this definition that we do not see the one to whom the woman is the head? The headship, as the source, is definitely a spiritual phenomenon.

 

‘Man’ in the Greek New Testament, has thirteen definitions. This one here is anēr (an’-ayr): ‘a man (properly as an individual male) fellow, husband, man, sir’. Anēr is the only ‘man’ of the 13 types defined as ‘husband’. Three Greek words: thēlus, eleutheros & gunē translate ‘woman’. Thēlus (thay’-loos): ‘1. of the female sex 2. a woman, a female’ [Origin: from thēlē — thay-lay — (the nipple); to suckle]. Eleutheros (el-yoo’-ther-os) means: ‘unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability)’. Gunē (goo-nay’) Thayer Definition: ‘1. a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2. a wife, of a betrothed woman’. Strong’s Definition: ‘a woman; specifically a wife’. Gunē, the only translation that means wife, is the ‘woman’ from verses 3-16. Every ‘man’ of those verses of 3-14 is none other than anēr. The two mundane persons out of the four entities of verse three are a couple. The one who should cover the head is not a ‘figure 8’ female, it is not a spinster but a married woman. The one she is expected to cover in a headgear happens to be not just any other man but her very own husband! Once, when I was at the home of my boyhood friend, and as his daughters made for the Church service, he called back the four years old, “You have not covered your head, the Lord expects you to”.

 

 

The said girl, for goodness’ sake is just a thēlus, not even an eleutheros not to mention, for her very tender age, gunē. If the woman is to cover her head, physically, as most churches teach, then she definitely has to take a good measurement of her husband before buying the material for the scarf. If the husband is her head then she has to wrap him up (head to toe)! Her head, Paul teaches by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the anēr, her husband. This is what most misleading exegesis refuse to see. 1Corinthians 11:4 reads, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”. The ‘covered’ of this verse, it should interest you, is not a verb (a word of action) it is a preposition (which is a hooker of a subject to the object, grammatically, hence, implying a state of being). It is kata (kat-ah’): ‘down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined)’. Who is the man’s head? Is it not Christ? How does he dishonour Christ if not by refusing to acknowledge the headship of the head of the Christian family aka the Church and the dereliction of his (the husband) priestly duty? Most certainly it is the misrepresentation of Christ by the anēr that constitutes having his kephalē in the state of kata. This kephalē is not visible.

Verse 5 has ‘uncovered’ akatakaluptos (ak-at-ak-al’-oop-tos) meaning: ‘not covered, unveiled’. Akatakaluptos originates from the Greek, ‘a’ (a negative ‘not’) and katakaluptō (kat-ak-al-oop’-to): ‘to cover wholly, that is, veil’; which is a derivative of a compound of: kata and kaluptō (kal-oop’-to): ‘to cover up (literally or figuratively)’. Is this covering a spiritual act? Yes. Then let us journey into matters of spirituality. The word tabernacle was first used by God in Exodus which He told Moses to construct as he had been shown, in heaven. A ‘tabernacle’ called in Hebrew, mishkan (mish-kawn’) is: ‘a residence (including a shepherd’s hut, the lair of animals, figuratively the grave; also the Temple); specifically the Tabernacle (properly its wooden walls)’.                              (…to be continued…)

read part two here

IS LUCIFER A BASTARD ? (III)

                                                                   Diabolos, the slanderer

 

  Jesus did not waste time in calling the evil one Diabolos when revealing Satan’s credentials in John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it”. Heaven does not, in any way, have any fellowship with Satan. Jesus asserts that, “he speaketh of his own”; and never as a messenger (angel) from God. He does not share paternity with the angels of the ultimate heaven of God. Truth is a Personage: the Lord Jesus, the Creator. The truth, Jesus tells us, is nonexistent in the person of the Diabolos. Diabolos comes from the root word diaballō (dee-ab-al’-lo) Thayer Definition: ‘to traduce, calumniate, slander, accuse, defame’. Diaballō comes from two roots of: dia (dee-ah’): (a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act) and ballō (bal’-lo) Thayer Definition: (to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls). Lucifer, as you can see clearly, is a ruthless fiend. Unfortunately the world adores the evil one, who is determined, absolutely, to wreck every human being.

 

 

                                                  Occult initiation

 

The bastardization of human culture is manifest in all spheres of human endeavours. Monarchs receive their crowns and sceptres from Satan. It is hard to find a monarch who has no spiritual affinity with age long Freemasonry, the mother of all modern day cultism. AMORC (Rosicrucian) purportedly formed by Christian Rosenkreuz, Ekankar (presumed to be the oldest religion practised, even by Adam and Eve) and the Holy Grail (presumably brought to Britain by Joseph of Arimathea) are some of the spiritual gimmicks that have aided their installations and successful reigns. Globally, sportsmen and women are seen making the sign of the cross either as a prayer or an invocation of good luck. Demonic involvement has always been an assistance in their quest for fame and glory. Most of the musicians, politicians, business moguls and those of the movie industry have had to succumb, willingly or coerced, to cultic baptism.

 

                                                              

                                                       Satanic infiltration of global music

 

 

Most of the chiefs and lords of the kingdoms of the earth belong to one occult or the other, leaving the administration of the people in the hands of demons. Sporting activities are fraught with cultic involvements. Satan has taught musicians how and what to sing. Politicians bow to his lordship to win elections. Business moguls spend fortunes in the name of blood sacrifices to build their entrepreneurial empires. The movies get scripted to prophecy satanic intentions of the antichrist. The movies glorify homosexuality and pornography intended at destroying God’s establishment. The truth is that Satan had lost before he began his improbable possibility.

 

 

I beheld Satan as lightning fall

 

In the Book of Luke 10:18, we read of Jesus, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Remember what John 3:13 quotes our Lord saying, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven”. Only Jesus could have seen what transpired billions of years ago. Heaven had got rid of the rubbish, “Therefore rejoice, [ye] heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time” (Rev 12:12). With these scriptures it is indubitable that Satan is Lucifer the loser. If he has but a short time then Satan got himself a catastrophically, most unfortunate loss of all time! We understand that God dwells in eternity which points, inimically, to his short time – indicative of death – so, Satan’s short time has made him unfit for God’s eternal kind of life. Lucifer is looking for those who will fail woefully under his nefarious instructions. You do not have to listen to him. He talks people into assuming an adversarial stance before the LORD God.      (Concluded)

Read the Part II here.

IS LUCIFER A BASTARD ?(II)

 

    “I will be like the Most High”

Job 2:1-3 reads, “1) Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” ‘Sons’, in verse one is ben (bane), in Hebrew, meaning: ‘a child whose job is to build the family or home’. ‘Satan’ in Hebrew is śaṭan (saw-tawn’): {Origin: from śaṭan (saw-tan’) ‘to attack, (figuratively) accuse’} Strong’s Definition: ‘an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good’. His stand before God is that of an adversary. He was no longer running errands for God again. He had become, as his itinerancy (…going to and fro in the earth…) evokes, a vagabond like Cain (Genesis 4:12), his first, true human disciple.

The word ‘considered’, leb (labe): ‘the heart; also used (figuratively) very widely for the feelings, the will and even the intellect’. Obviously, this degenerate Lucifer is so swallowed up in antipathy to be disposed to any capability of considering, in his heart, the pious stance of another creature. Satan is so morally bankrupt that his intelligence is perpetually headed towards paths of cruelty. This fallen angel is so incorrigibly antipathetic that he would not see what His Omniscience saw in Job! Let no religious indoctrination fool you into believing the reasonableness of a certain rapport between God and the Devil such that Satan can be or is still an angel (messenger) of the LORD God. That is an improbable possibility. The Devil did not and will never agree with God; he told God to His Omnipotence face, “…is it not because You have……that Job is…. (Job 1:9-11); and this is why he is called devil which, in Hebrew can be tsar, tsarar or śaṭan. The Greek calls it diabolos. Tsar (tsar) BDB Definition: ‘1. narrow, tight 2. straits, distress 3. adversary, foe, enemy, oppressor 4. hard pebble, flint’. Strong’s Definition: (as an adjective) narrow; (as a noun) a tight place (usually figuratively, that is, trouble); also a pebble (transitively) an opponent (as crowding)’.Tsarar (tsaw-rar’): ‘to cramp, literally or figuratively, transitively or intransitively’; and śaṭan (saw-tawn’): ‘an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch enemy of good’. Diabolos (dee-ab’-ol-os): ‘a traducer; specifically Satan’. The Devil’s preoccupation is to bastardize God’s prime workmanship: man. Be wise and tread not his path; keep your hands clean like that of Job.

 

 

                                                                        

                                                                       Lucifer is a sadist

Unlike Satan, God addressed Job as His servant because these qualities: ‘perfect, upright, feareth God, and escheweth evil’ are Job’s credentials, all of which Lucifer had become absolutely deficient. ‘Perfect’, tam (tawm) means: ‘complete; usually (morally) pious; specifically gentle, dear’. Lucifer’s piety received question marks when he vomited the infamy, “I will…”. ‘Upright’ is yashar (yaw-shawr’): ‘straight (literally or figuratively)’.Yashar comes from a root word: yashar (yaw-shar’): ‘to be straight or even; figuratively to be (causatively to make) right, pleasant, prosperous’. Is Satan fit, in any conceivable way, according to these definitions, to be in the holy God’s employment? ‘Feareth’ comes as yare’ (yaw-ray’): ‘fearing; morally reverent’. ‘Eschew’, Śur (soor): ‘to turn off (literally or figuratively)’. Satan is different, he is an avowed sadist.                    (…to be concluded…)

Read the part (I) here

IS LUCIFER A BASTARD ? (I)

Angelic host

 

In the beginning of time account of Genesis chapter one verse one, billions and maybe hundreds of billions of years ago, a masterpiece of an externality of beauty called Lucifer was brought into being, personally, by the Light: the Creator. This act of creating individuals personally by God is what makes angels ‘sons of God’. They received an original excellency, truth, holiness, purity, as well as dignity (Jude 6). Lucifer was the head of the angelic host as well as the leader of the praise and worship of the Most High. He is also the ‘light bearer’ as his name, Lucifer, means. Lucifer lost his estate when he willed (outside God’s dictum) to ascend into heaven, exalt his throne above the stars of God, and to sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north to receive a deified worship.

 

                                                 Lucifer, the light bearer

 

Many times when a prophet comes under the afflatus, the spirit of prophecy veers him off the obvious to a hidden topic. A classic instance is found in, “12) Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee” Ezekiel 28:12-15. In Phoenicia, East of the Mediterranean, 20 miles South of Sidon is situated Tyre or Tyrus and the lamentation goes beyond that of her ruler. Even if the twelfth verse description fits the king of Tyrus, was he in Eden the garden of God? Did he have the adornment of the precious stones of sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold? Could he boast of the workmanship of tabrets and pipes prepared in him in the day that he was created like Lucifer? Definitely, this king of Tyrus cannot be the ‘anointed cherub that covereth’. Only the doomed Lucifer fits perfectly into this portrayal.

A few other verses of diversion are: Genesis 3:14 “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”: (& Genesis 3:15); Matthew 16:23, “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”. The spirit behind the meandrous ophidism is the same which councelled Peter in an unguarded speech of spiritual naivety. This evil entity has long severed spiritual relationship with Jehovah, the Creator.

“12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16) They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17) That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?” Isaiah 14:12-17. The umbilical cord that depicts his filialness to the Creator became extinct. He became fatherless: a bastard, wanting of good source. A father to his evil self he assumed. He had lost an irrecoverable estate! (…to be continued…)

Read part (II) here.