Thumbnail Sketch of Jones’ “Monsters from the Id”

Finished “Monsters from the Id,” by E. Michael Jones.

Jones works too hard to make connections between various Horror film genres and the Revolutions that inspired them with the result that his connections come across as unnatural and contrived. Jones want’s to link Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” to the French Revolution, Dracula to the Weimar Republic, “The Forbidden Planet” to the rise of the 60’s sexual revolution in America and “Alien” to the rise in America of sex withoutprogeny. Though the exactitude of the connections are a bit forced there remains a good deal of fantastic connections which Jones makes as he explores the horror genre when understood in connection with social and sexual revolution.

For Jones, the Monster of the Horror genre is the return of the repressed. Jones’s theory is that what is repressed is sexual morality as social revolution brings about sexual perversity. What the horror genre does is that it provides a release mechanism whereby what has been repressed can find expression again. The Monster in the Horror genre is a killer of those who have sublimated the inescapable knowledge that sex outside of matrimony is verboten. The Monster thus is the suppressed conscience as God’s executioner against those who have tried unsuccessfully to sear their conscience.

The greater the perversion, the uglier and more vile the returning Monster. Jones argues that the Monster is both known and unknown by those who create them. Known because their creators can’t escape what they have done (Here Jones’ concentrates heavily on Mary Godwin Shelley’ Frankenstein) and yet unknown because their creators can’t admit to themselves the genesis of their Monsters.

Along the way Jones richly quotes from the Marquis de Sade, from Jacques Barruel’s “History of Jacobinism,” from Mary Wollenstonecraft,. from Stroker’s “Dracula,” from Quetel’s “History of Syphilis,” from Magnus Hirschfield and Christopher Isherwood, from Edward Bernay’s “Propaganda,” from Ren’e Wormser’s “Foundations; their Power and Influence,” from Linda Lovelace’s autobiography, and others. Jones weaves all of this into a wonderful tapestry that exposes Modernity and the forces that have sustained it.

There are wonderful sections that set forth the control mechanism of Modernity and how sexual perversion is linked to that. Likewise fantastic insights into mega Foundations and how they have supported the social revolution of sexual perversion. And finally, glimpses into how the Illuminati, via Jacobinism has been a partner in all this work to overthrow Christ.

It is a splendid read. It does start slow but it really picks up steam as it goes.

Horror and the Modern Church

“Modern critics can not understand the genre of Horror because they can’t understand the Enlightenment, and they can’t understand the Enlightenment because they are inside it so to speak, espousing its goals; the critics, virtually to a man, espouse its values so completely they can’t conceive of any alternative to it as the project which orders their lives.”

E. Michael Jones
Monsters from the Id — pg. 296

There is something in this quote that the modern Church needs to hear as a principle. The modern Church, like Jone’s critics, too often are of little use to Christians today because the modern Church has swallowed the Enlightenment core principle of Egalitarianism. The modern Church can not fight where the fight is of most import because the modern Church is inside the Enlightenment and holds as dear to God the Enlightenment’s most core principle. This does not mean that the modern Church can never give profitable counsel. It DOES mean that any counsel the modern Church gives pertaining to the most animating issue of our time (Egalitarianism) — an issue owned by the enemy — is counsel that smells of the sulfur that besots our enemy. In the words of Pogo, In the modern Church “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

In time the modern Church will overwhelmingly fall on the sodomite marriage issue, on the Confederate flag issue, and on the Transgender issue because the modern Church owns as a principle of Christianity the core principles that drive those issues. Borrowing from Jone’s, “Egalitarianism is the project that orders their lives.”

McAtee Contra Intown’s Prentiss

“The humanists want Christians to stay out of politics as Christians. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that there are valid biblical blueprints that apply to this world. The pietists agree. The humanists argue that Old Testament laws, if applied today, would produce tyranny. The pietists agree. The humanists say that the civil government should be run in terms of religiously neutral laws. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the God of the Bible brings predictable sanctions in history against societies that do not obey His law. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the preaching of the gospel will ever fundamentally change the way the world operates. The pietists agree. The humanists say that Christians should sit in the back of cultural bus. The pietists agree. This is why both sides hate the message of Christian Reconstruction.”

Dr. Gary North

God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world”…“Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

 

Below at this link,

http://intownchurch.com/blog/2015/6/26/what-a-consequential-week

we find an example of the pietists that Dr. North wrote about years ago. In this case it is Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) pietism that is at the forefront. One could easily also argue that what we are going to look at below is an example of postmodernism, or of just plain cowardice.

People who have read Iron Ink with any consistency know, that over the years I’ve been relentless against R2K. I point this out because in my estimation what we are looking at below is the fruit of R2K theology ripening. I’ve warned about where R2K is headed by pointing out the errors of R2K thinking,

R2K … “Rubber meets Road”

And now we see that it is true that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.

In this case we have a PCA Church (Intown Presbyterian). The Pastor is one Brian Prentiss. It looks like Brian is the author of the piece. Now, I don’t know Brian Prentiss from Molly Hatchett so none of this is personal. I’m merely going to point out the irrationality in all this. There will be parts of the original article I will delete as irrelevant, so if you want the whole article you need to go to the link provided.

Intown Presbyterian Church (IPC) writes,

“I’m a pastor of a church where members are not uniform in their response to this (SCOTUS sodomite ruling Obergefell vs. Hodges – BLMc) ruling, and I actually find that to be one of the most beautiful things about our church. Some of us are putting rainbow filters on our Facebook avatars while others are disappointed in the SCOTUS decision but are holding our tongues on social media for fear of being labeled in an unfortunate way.

And both of these “sides” will show up tomorrow and worship together!

Bret responds,

Brian Pastors a church where some favor marriage being redefined so as to include sodomites and lesbians while others in the congregation think that marriage should be reserved for one man as unto one women.  And Brian thinks it is wonderful that those people with different worldviews and morals can worship together.   After all, a group of people cannot have elements within it that both support and oppose this ruling without at the same time having different and opposing worldviews, different and opposing Christianities, and different and opposing moralities.

Secondly, this unspoken division in Brian’s congregation is also evidence that there is a lack of understanding that law is warfare. It is warfare against other law structures. All law is reflective of and descends from some understanding of a god, God or god concept. People who are divided on this ruling as law are at the same time divided in their respective understanding of who God is. The fact that some of Brian’s people support this law means they serve one god and its law as it makes war on the God of the Bible and His law. Brian has one congregation that is worshiping different gods when they worship. So, it may be the case that both sides will show up at Intown “Church” tomorrow to worship but while they are in the same building “worshiping” together they are at the same time worshiping different deities. And Brian thinks this a wonderful thing.

Now, obviously, it is possible for a church to be agnostic about some legislation that is passed. No one is going to suggest that a Church is in trouble because of different convictions about zoning laws. But we are not talking about zoning laws here. We are talking about a ruling that in time will be seen as that ruling which began the criminalization of Christianity.

Thirdly, the rainbow avatar people that Brian talks about have been consistently bleating about freedom for the LGBQT people but with this Obergefell decision suddenly the people who oppose it no longer have the freedom to speak their opposition for fear of being smeared.

IPC writes,

As a pastor of a beautifully-diverse church like this, I find myself wanting to offer counsel to both sides of this debate (even while lamenting the unfortunate bifurcation of this issue into two sides aligned against one another.) 

For those of us who find the SCOTUS decision something to be celebrated, we should remember Romans 14, where the Apostle Paul advises those of us with less scruples to be gracious towards our brothers and sisters with more. (The “weaker” brother language is unfortunate here, because it seems to suggest one is right and the other is wrong. But, what Paul is asking the Romans to do is to not quarrel over, or judge your brother over matters of dispute.) For you, this ruling might be self-evident and long-overdue, but there are brothers and sisters who are reading the same Bible who are coming to different conclusions than you, and their voices shouldn’t be excluded. Many Christians are convinced, and they’re not without historical precedent, that while the church should be a welcoming place for all people, it can never be a place that affirms every behavioral choice. In their mind, the Bible speaks with a unanimous voice that marriage is a holy institution and is reserved for a man and a woman. And we should remember that some, if not most of the persons who hold this commitment would indeed advocate for gays and lesbians to possess the same legal rights that are generally accorded to married men and women, but would prefer because of biblical and historical precedent to call it something different.   

Bret responds,

1.) “Beautifully diverse church” — Yes, well, I suppose that diverse is one way of describing a Church full of pro sodomite Christian and anti-sodomite Christians. Heretofore the designation has not been “diverse” but rather “wolf vs. sheep.”

2.) Unfortunate bifurcation — Yes, Scripture abounds with words about these unfortunate bifurcations.

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

17 Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”
18 “I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.”

7 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

3.) Prentiss is actually suggesting that being opposed to State sanctioned sodomy is a issue that is adiaphora? And that the pro-sodomites should be patient with those who are Biblical Christians? How generous of him.

4.) “Reading the Bible and coming to different conclusions.”

Once again this is astounding. Pro and anti sodomite marriage convictions has been reduced to not eating or eating meat offered to idols.

Has Brian forgot his own BCO? Right at the beginning of the Books of (Church) Order of both the larger Presbyterian Church (USA) and its little sister, the Presbyterian Church in America, is this (fourth) Preliminary Principle of Presbyterian polity:

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness; according to our Saviour’s rule, “by their fruits ye shall know them:” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or absurd, than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, they are persuaded, that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth, or to embrace it.

 

What Brian is doing here is that putting truth and falsehood upon a level.  Brian says we cannot affirm every behavioral choice and yet that is precisely what he is doing. When SCOTUS comes out ruling that men can marry their farm animals will Brian find it wonderful that people who support men marrying farm animals and men who do not support marrying farm animals can “worship” in the same facility at the same time. How ludicrous do we have to be before Brian will say … “well, maybe people who hold to supporting this perversion du jour, shouldn’t be seen as being Christ honoring as those who oppose it.” (?)

This is where the postmodern edge comes in. There is no such thing as capital “T” Truth. All we have are little “t” truths and people with different “truths” need to get on with one another.

ICP writes,

For those of us on the other side, who find the SCOTUS ruling to be at best unfortunate, and at worst, a sign of America’s continuing spiral into moral confusion, we should remember a few things. First, the Supreme Court is more or less codifying the will of the American people – the wishes of our friends and neighbors. This ruling is not judicial activism in the sense of forcing a minority decision upon a powerless majority. Secondly, we should remember that it’s possible hold views about what the Bible teaches without necessarily advocating for the government to hold those views. If we lived in a theocracy, when the government strayed outside of what the Bible commends and condemns then there would be a need, if not a moral mandate to remind the government of it’s foundational commitment to God’s word. But, our government operates as a pluralistic democracy. And like God’s people who were exiled to Assyria, Babylon, and Persia in the 8th-6th centuries, to expect our government to reflect our religious principles could be short-sighted. As Christians in Portland, we don’t live in Jerusalem but in Babylon. So maybe, part of loving our neighbors means withholding our concern over the expansion of someone else’s rights, as recognized by the federal government, and choose to wish them well in the lives they’ve chosen for themselves. That sort of posture might actually open up the type of conversation that we’re hoping to have with our gay friends and neighbors rather than confirming their suspicions about engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality.  

Bret responds,

1.) Note how Brian navigates this whole article as writing from the Moral Zombie position. He has no scruples on the matter. He is part of the “us” who is opposed to supporting sodomite and lesbian marriage and he is part of the “us” who supports sodomite and lesbian marriage. How postmodern of him. How wonderful that he can be all things to all people. How deliciously cowardly of him. What is Brian’s conviction on the matter? Well, it all depends  on who is writing the largest checks.

2.) Since when do Christian ministers believe that codifying the will of the American people has anything to do with notions of transcendent law. Law isn’t supposed to be about counting noses. Such a rule of law is mob rule. Does Brian believe in mob rule. Second, on this point, how does Brian know what the American people think on this matter so he can say that SCOTUS is merely codifying the will of the American people? Has he polled every single American in order to find out? To borrow and paraphrase a line from my Mother when she raised me, “If every single one of your friends wanted to jump off a cliff would it be right for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench cliff jumping for all”? This is most certainly judicial activism at its best. This is legislating from the bench. Read the opinions of the dissenting Justices to see this teased out.

3.) As Christians, if we don’t advocate what Scripture advocates then all that is left is advocating for what Scripture is opposed to. Is Brian really telling us that Christians as Christians should advocate what they know God is opposed to? Are we to reason that because we are ruled by pagans we should always be ruled by pagans and the laws of pagan gods?

4.) Brian misses the point that we do indeed live in a theocracy. The name of the god of this theocracy is Demos and anybody who walks contrary to the will of the god Demos is to be diminished. Demos has a law order that is called legal positivism. Brian should spend some time reading Oliver Wendell Holmes or Christopher Columbus Langdell to see how the god Demos works. Brian so desperately wants to avoid a Christ honoring theocracy that he will support a theocracy headed up by Demos, who will inform all the lesser gods just how far they can walk in the public square.

5.) Pluralism is a myth. (see #4)

6.) We were never a “pluralistic democracy.” We were a Constitutional Republic. Maybe Brian should spend some time boning up on the differences.

7.) Short-sighted — God commands all men everywhere to repent. He commands it of Potentates as well as of well intentioned but clueless ministers.

8.) Brian insists that we are living in Babylon and his “theology” will insure that we will never live in anything but Babylon. Brian’s theology is a self fulfilling prophecy where because he believes that the Church will only ever live in exile, it is guaranteed that we will only ever live in exile. Brian’s theology says, “don’t resist,” “don’t stand for God’s standards,” “relax, all of our existence is a Babylonian existence.” It is a theology of defeat, doom, retreat, exile and escapism.   The only thing it will fight for is the principal that Christians must not fight.

9.) Nobody’s rights have been expanded all this unless one considers that the right to vileness, perversion, and death is a human right.

10.) If all we have is Babylon in this life, how can we, as Christians, even begin to talk about the nowness of the Kingdom of God?

Yes, yes, I know … we see the Kingdom of God present in Churches that have no moral fiber. I get it.

11.) Wish them well in the life they have chosen? — And this is the loving Christian response? To wish people well with the life they have chosen when that life they have chosen means death? Would Brian also suggest that I wish a person well with the life they have chosen to th person who has slipped a noose around his neck and is about to hang himself? Is that Brian’s notion of Christian love?  “Love you buddy. Wish you well, Hope you break your neck quickly so you don’t suffer. Have a good day.”

12.)   Engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality — There seems to be some kind of idea floating in the Church today that people can be converted by being nice to them as if the Law must not do its not nice work of convicting.  At some point, no matter how nice you are, you have to confront sinners with the fact that sin is sin. Sinners don’t typically like being told that sin is sin. It’s why they are sinners. This idea that people can be niced into the Kingdom is doing the church a world of hurt.

And this is no argument that people can be “mean(ed)” into the Kingdom. People are brought into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit of God by using the law to kill and the Gospel to make alive.

ICP writes,

This isn’t an easy conversation. Those of us on the “left” side of this conversation feel that advocating for our gay and lesbian friends puts our Christian commitments and orthodoxy into question by fellow Christians, even while we feel we’re being guided by the Golden Rule. And, those of us on the “right” side of this feel that we can’t hold our biblical convictions without being labeled something terrible, like a “bigot”, even while we pursue loving relationship with gay and lesbian friends in our neighborhood and workplaces.

Bret responds,

Invoking the golden rule here teeters on blasphemous.

It is the golden rule that compels people to speak openly and directly to their “gay friends” about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come. It is a lack of love that would treat the wounds of our friends lightly and would speak “peace, peace,” when their soul’s destruction is at hand.

Notice the use of the word “feel” in the first sentence above. That is not insignificant.

2.)  We must understand that people are dealt with differently depending upon where they are at. If a homosexual is repentant one deals with them one way. If a homosexual is rebellious and defiant against God and His Christ then that calls for a different type of demeanor. Regardless though, like adultery, sodomy must be spoken of as sin while those who give aid and support to the sodomite lifestyle as legal must be spoken to as in the sin of hatred towards people created in the image of God.

ICP writes,

The thing I love about Intown is that people on both sides of this debate, as well as those in the middle, can find their views on this and other controversial issues being drawn up into and relativized by our union with Christ. Not only do we bring different convictions to his Table, we also bring our sins and failures, and there, if no other place, we should look across the aisle at our brothers and sisters and see equals – equally in need of grace and equally possessing the dignity of God.  

Is it possible that this posture could enable us to bring compassion toward those who hold different opinions than us? And, could it cause us to inspect our own? 

Bret responds,

Here we go from teetering on blasphemy to going over the edge.

Union with Christ is being used to excuse sin. It’s OK to be in sin because, after all, we have union with Christ.  Is it possible to be in union with Christ while championing positions that are anti-Christ? Can this kind of blatant embrace of sin be relativized by our union with Christ?

The visible Church is ill folks. You have to arm yourself to think through these matters because there are very very few Churches or Pastors that you can trust to help you think through these monumental issues.

 

 

 

Mark 6:14-29 — The Death of John the Baptist

I.) The Characters

Herod Antipas (ca. 21 B.C. — post-A.D. 39): tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, answerable to the Emperor Tiberius.

Herodias was a daughter to one of the sons of Herod the Great (A chap named Aristobulus). This Aristobulus had half brothers who would have been Uncles to the she wolf Herodias. Their names were Uncle Herod Philip and Uncle Herod Antipas. Herodias had been married to her half uncle Herod Philip. Herodias then left him for an adulterous relationship with his brother and another half Uncle, Herod Antipas.

This lends new meaning to “keeping it all in the family.”

We should be reminded by this that the more things change the more they stay the same. I suppose we should be pleased that Herod Antipas took his brother’s wife and not his brother’s husband. It would seem that the household of Herod was less twisted then many households in our own culture.

Herodias’ Daughter — Thought by some to be named “Salome.” She is thought to be the daughter of Herodias by Herod Philip and so not the blood daughter of Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas would have been to her both her step-dad and her great-uncle. Obviously, though the text does not state it she has an interest in shutting John the Baptist up as well.

John the Baptist as Herald for Christ — John was the one who came preparing the way for Christ. He was the one who was a model of OT prophet desert dwellers. He was known as a rough man wearing camel hair for clothing and dining on locust and honey. He was the one who came saying “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” He said of Jesus “Behold the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World,” thus emphasizing from the beginning the redemptive work that would end in a sacrificial death as substitute for our sins.

II The Background

A.) But when Herod’s birthday was kept,…. The birthdays of princes, both of their coming into the world, and accession to the throne of government, were kept by the Gentiles; as by the Egyptians, Genesis 40:20 and by the (n) Persians, and Romans (o), and other nations, but not by the Jews; who reckoned these among the feasts of idolaters.  So, the very fact that this birthday extravaganza was being held is testimony of how afar Herod was from really being concerned with Jewish protocol. Herod was a pretender to the throne.

B.) The Background of the role of Prophet

John the prophet …. long line of prophets

Some thought John the Baptist to be Elijah (6:15a). This might make some sense since Elijah was another prophet who collided with another weak king named Ahab as manipulated by another murderous wife named Jezebel (1 Kings 18–21). So, John’s actions here calling out Herod would have looked familiar to those who knew their History.

Whether John the Baptist or Elijah part of the prophetic function throughout God’s revelation has been to hold up God’s standard before those think themselves above God’s standard. Whether it is Moses with Pharaoh or whether it was Nathan with King David or whether it was Micaiah with Ahab or whether it was Amos as speaking before the rich and powerful women who he styled “Cows of Bashan,” God’s mouthpieces have almost universally courted trouble by speaking God’s standard to those who have forgotten themselves to be but mortals.

So John is a flashback of what once was but He is also promissory of Christ who is to come. Christ Himself would speak God’s standard to those in Power and the same resentment that killed John would be part of the mix in the murder of the Lord Christ.

We should especially note here the work of the Prophet in what has been styled by some as “the common realm.” John the Baptist, in this rebuke of Herod is poking his nose in political business …. a business that many Reformed clergy and Seminary professors argue today is none of our business. Many modern Reformed clergy argue that John the Baptist belonged to a different age then the one ushered in by Christ. John the Baptist, they argue, belongs to the Old Testament but we live in a new age where men of God are not to speak to the common realm. These modern Reformed Seminary professors and clergy argue this way with only the slimmest of evidence and by conjecture built upon conjecture. They insist that men of God today should not speak to the common realm because with the arrival of Jesus we have the hyphenization of reality as between the Church realm and the common realm. With the new and better covenant, as brought in by the Lord Christ, the explicit Lordship of God is split in twain so that God in Christ only rules in the common realm via Natural Law. So part of the new and better covenant is the reality that God’s singular revelatory hegemony over all of life, as found in the old and worse covenant, is eclipsed so that now God’s revelatory word and rule is now only for the Church realm in the new and better covenant. All common realm issues are not to receive a “thus saith the Lord,” from God’s spokesman or God’s Church.

Of course all this is balderdash and a completely unique and innovative way of reading the Scripture. Repeatedly in the New Testament we find Paul disagreeing with the powers that be. From his refusal of the proper authority’s demand to skulk away quietly after wrongly being beaten, to his defense against the powers that be on Mars Hills, to his work in Ephesus that led to common realm riots and book burning St. Paul was repeatedly involved in the common realm.

What we see in the work of God’s spokesman, John the Baptist, is that Christianity applies to all of life. The Christian, as prophet, priest, and king, under sovereign God, brings all of God’s word to bear on all of God’s world. There is no area cordoned off area where a “thus saith the Lord” as given by God’s spokesman from God’s Holy desk, is not potentially applicable.

C.) The Dance

Very possibly a lascivious and sexually suggestive dance.

Salome’s dance was a particularly popular subject during the Renaissance and Baroque periods and her popularity continued well into the 19th century. I don’t know how old Salome was when she danced before Herod, but artists tend to portray her as a sultry, confident (young) woman. To most of art history, Salome is the sole, conniving figure behind John’s death.

III.) The Occasion

The occasion for this is John’s work in upholding God’s law. Torah in Leviticus clearly taught against Herod’s behavior,

Lev. 18:16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.

Lev. 20:21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.

Obviously John’s preaching hit home (6:17). Herodias was exposed as the trollop she was and her memory required the silence of the one who was making known what she preferred to be unknown.

Interesting, that regardless the century, speaking out against improper sleeping arrangements always seems to be a flash point. There is something about upholding God’s standards in terms of sleeping arrangements that will  earn enmity in an accelerated fashion. Pagans want to sleep with who they want to sleep with … God’s standards be damned and pagans will damn whoever stands for God’s standards on sleeping arrangements.

We should note here before we move on that while we can admire John for championing God’s truth before Herod and Herodias we must concede that speaking God’s standard to the rich and powerful often does not end well from a merely temporal perspective. John is another example of one who obeyed God and was persecuted for obeying God. Not all who obey God end up with what we would style as temporal blessings hunting them down. Many who obey God, by holding up God’s standards are, as Hebrews tells,  “tortured, and have chains and imprisonment. Many have been sawn in two and were slain with the sword. If it were true for Apostles

God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

How much more true might it be for we who are far far less than Apostles?

IV.) The Purpose

The purpose is hinted at in the way Mark arranges his material. Mark, known for his pithy and straight to the point story-telling ability gives us his longest narrative of his Gospel. I believe this is so not only because it is giving us John the Baptist as one who stands as the apogee (climax) of OT prophets in his role of holding up God’s standard but I think Mark also spends time here because in John’s story we find the foreshadowing of the story of the Lord Christ.

Scratch the surface of this narrative of John the Baptist and you will find the narrative of the Lord Christ.

Right out of the gate Mark tells us in this account of John the Baptist’s death that there is confusion over just who Jesus is. Indeed, that confusion over who Jesus might be sets the table for telling the account of the death of John the Baptist. Interestingly enough Mark will use this same confusion over who Jesus might be in chapter 8:27-29 as the table setter for Christ’s words about His coming death and resurrection.

In Herod’s work with John, we see foreshadowed the coming work of Pilate with Jesus (1:1-15; 9:9-13; 11:27-33). So, Herod here is to Pilate as John is to Jesus later.

1.) Both Herod and later Pilate are nominally in charge but in the end their authority is eclipsed by events.  Yet, of course, both remain responsible.

2.) Like Herod here with John, Pilate will later be “amazed” (6:20; 15:5) by circumstances surrounding an innocent prisoner (6:17, 20; 15:1, 14a).

3.) Both Herod here and Pilate later are swept up in events that fast spin out of their control (6:21-25; 15:6-13).

4.) Both Herod here and Pilate later are unable to back down after being publicly outmaneuvered (6:26-27; 15:15).

5.) Like Jesus, John is passive in his final hours (6:14-19; 15:1-39).

6.) Both John and Jesus face with integrity their moment of truth (6:21: hemeras eukairou, “an opportunity came”; 12:2: to kairo, “the season came”).

7.) Both Jesus and John are executed by hideous capital punishment (6:27-28; 15:24-27), dying to placate those they offended (6:19, 25; 15:10-14).

8.) Both Jesus and John will die a shameful death. John’s shameful death is found in it coming at the instigation of a woman. In ancient history to be executed or to die by a woman’s design was a mark of shame. Jesus shameful death is being pinned on a Cross.

So, you take all these parallels in the story telling of Mark’s account of John’s death, and you place this death tale as sandwiched (intercalation) between accounts that are placarding the power and victory of the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel and what you have is a theology of the Cross sandwiched between a theology of glory. The Kingdom is rolling forward. Preceding this account we are looking at many demons being cast out. Many are healed (Mark 6:13). Subsequent to this account of John’s death there is there is the feeding of 5000 and Jesus mastering the elements by waling on the sea. The Kingdom has come.

And yet Mark sticks this account in between the outrageous success of the coming Kingdom of God in order to remind us that there is about the Kingdom of God not only exaltation but also humiliation. The Cross awaits the Lord Christ.

Consequently there is an ability to preach the Cross from this passage. John the Baptist’s death adumbrates the death of Christ in many ways. Or course John the Baptist’s death is not redemptive, but it does point us to the death of Christ which is redemptive. John the Baptist’s death points to the death of Christ which is propitiatory, and reconciles. John the Baptist death points to the death of Christ which is substitutionary and works the work of reconciliation of God to man.

Everywhere through the Gospels there is the shadow of the Cross and that is no less true here in this account of John the Baptist’s death.

Christopher Isherwood & Disordered Affection

Christopher Isherwood was specific in his memoir about the need to have sex outside his class (with boys) and found it even more exciting when he was unable to speak the language of the person he had sex with.

Once learning German Isherwood reported that “it was a little saddening, because the collapse of the language barrier had buried the image of the magic German boy.”

E. Michael Jones
“Monsters from the Id.”

This quote reveals that which so often motivates sexual perversion. In God’s design, the radical personality differences between male and female (in general) and between two individuals (in particular) is simply not strange enough to satisfy a pervert. Rushdoony has a statement where he says that physicians were reporting weirder and weirder levels of sexual freaks as the person resorts to new methods of arousal. In Isherwood’s case, he cites not only same sex attraction, and not only the overleaping of economic class, but he also got a thrill out of going across language barriers in his conquests. The same idea is back of all sin: God is not truly God; the sinner instead is truly God and he will leap across boundaries with impunity. The language fetish is also revealing in what he says about being disappointed to learn German. Ordered knowledge is too, well, orderly. The pervert prefers the thrill of disorder and chaos and wants it to pervade his sexual romps as far as possible.

Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath for the analysis