God is not going to give up Ephraim in the end, for "I earnestly remember him still," and his repentance: "Surely after my turning, I repented  ... I was ashamed, yes even humiliated."

The Lord responds further: "Is Ephraim My dear son!..."

Without this restoration, however, the cause of the sorrow of God does not cease for those loved, leaving and lost, for judgment is according to truth when mercy is disdained, disliked or disavowed. Truth may be diverted from judgment through mercy, but it cannot be bypassed. Either in love He bears sin for the sinner who receives the pardon willingly, or the sinner bears it (John 8:24). There is no other option; for God is not only merciful and good, but holy and "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity," as in Habakkuk. He may delay till the ripe time (He waited 400 years in the case of the Canaanites, who did not use the day of grace, as in Genesis 15); but it is never right to ignore evil. It must be purged, or heaven would be hell and God its administrator.

Thus "will you not be made clean ?", the Lord asks poignantly in Jeremiah 13:27: "When once shall it be ?" When God speaks to man, and man is simply, assuredly, blatantly and continually unwilling to listen or heed, then it is not the laws of physics, or the structured ways of chemistry or the certain parades of mathematical propositions which is being spurned, but the very basis of human life, its instructor, its handbook, its Rock, its meaning and its morals, the place of love and the designations of design so exalted, that man being made in the image of God, has access to wonder.

So it is no small thing when the Lord asks this (Jeremiah 8:4-5):

"Will they fall and not rise ? Will one turn away and not return ?
Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem in a perpetual backsliding ?
They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return."

When "truth is fallen in the street," (Isaiah 59:14), the time comes when affliction is the name of the game, folly is the thing exalted, a new generation is mismanaged, their spirits virtually slaughtered in a parade of exalted sin. Judgment always latent, then becomes patent.

Stars may fall, but the truth will stand. Bombast might blight youth from false prophets, but justice will not depart. Playing with fire may be warming, but it burns; and in the end is conflagration. Is it that they cannot learn ? Hardened hearts, resistance movements in the soul may reach that point (Isaiah 57:16-17), but where desire persists, where hope is seized, where mercy is grasped, there is salvation: the Lord has held it out freely for long. It was so for Israel, before Jerusalem fell once, yes twice, but the time of its restoration comes, has already come physically for the land in an instalment of the two stage revival marked out in Ezekiel 37^*1. This proceeds to the Messianic rule on this earth by the Lord (Ezekiel 37:17-27), as indeed over not only that nation, but all nations (Zephaniah 2:11, Psalm 67:4, 72). All will learn that He means what He says (Ezekiel 39:23-29). Realisation is no small partner to redemption, specialising first in sin, salvation, sanctification, but not least in truth.

But for one as for all, there is only one place to find revival of heart, reconstruction of life, regeneration of Spirit (Galatians 1, Titus 3), and that is the Lord who has not moved His Gospel, His grace, or His requirement: repent and believe the Gospel, coming where incoming spiritual migrants ARE received (John 10).

THE PATH OF PILGRIMS

What is the path of the child of God, the one repentant and receiving the assigned mercy of the grace of God according to the Gospel ? What is such a child called ? In Hebrews we find that they "were strangers and pilgrims on the earth," 11:13. These had seen the promises though they were afar off from the finale, back then; and they had embraced them. In their faith, they had come to "declare plainly that they seek a homeland ... they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country." What then ? "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."

I Peter 2:11-12 makes it clear the case, though now fulfilled in redemption, does not alter the heavenly home or the way to it. Indeed, it strengthens the testimony (II Corinthians 5:1-4, I Corinthians 15), in its sovereign majesty and vast provisions.

Sojourners in this land (this present world), pilgrims for the heavenly city, do not imbibe its culture, use its passions, frolic in its follies. Civil laws are to be kept (except of course they violate divine requirements; for what has ground in God for its obedience, does not include what violates His own requirements!). The State has a place; God has a first place. Your purified paths should glorify God amidst the rebellious, their misconceptions disciplined by godly living before their eyes. Freedom has been given back to the people of God in their hearts, but this should not be a cover-up program for vice (I Peter 4:13-17). Neither beauty nor holiness is skin deep!

The vision of truth may be overpowering (as in Matthew 17, the transfiguration), but it is also endowering. The work of the Holy Spirit like a beautician in the field of the human spirit is transformative continually. Blessed are those who wait upon the Lord and find in His constant presence the power of His grace and the intimacy of His mercy. Indeed, as with Paul, it is the pilgrim and sojourner on this earth, the Christian who seeks a better, that is a heavenly country, who finds this: that CHRIST is the SUFFICIENCY! (II Corinthians 3:4-6,10-18).

 Now let us see some of the changes actual or threatened in our own land, that we might recognise and oppose what fails, and use all our influence to seek that righteousness which exalts a nation (Proverbs 13:24).

if one immigrant body, possibly the first, needs  recognition, so in all equity and fairness do all the others from Ireland, and Scotland and England, France, USA, Europe, South America. Celebrating but one is a directly inequitable paralysis of vision and ignoring of the multiple mixtures and contributions.

There should be no presumptive let alone pre-emptive superiority assigned:  ALL have come. It seems likely but not certain that the aboriginal population was the first relatively large-scale migration. The current  is the first total government, the Commonwealth, formally known or compellingly testified, for this entire land. There are various distinctives, and due recognition of each in its place may be desired, as may be ascertained by a just referendum. History has no favourites. That comes from  another source and on most equitable grounds (cf.  Ch. 2,  Department of Bible... with Vol. 4, Ch. 4 above); but  we as a people,  we must be just.

Actually, there is considerable evidence that aborigines had significant aspects of creation in their own religious orientation (cf. TMR, Ch. 8, *1), which of course had various elements. They might well be recognised along with and in balance with all others, in their diversity amidst parallels with others.

Kindness to any group is a matter for discretion in its amplitude, in assisting them to focus, feature, fulfil their labours and contributions to the whole. That can be as need is; but not as inequity insists. It is not a matter of right and wrong, but of love and grace, equity and care,  concern and  watchful aid, not to unman any group, but to manage needs while they achieve what others may desire for them, a capacity to act with strength and to make contributions with integrity.

Again, if ANY must not be 'offended', then NONE should be. But since people are  always being offended rightly or wrongly, such a criterion, let alone a differential one, must be scrapped. Obviously,  selective tyranny even over free speech is simply a capitulation to inequity for certain ideological reasons, from which truth is partly if not largely exempted. THAT changes the whole nature of our society into cases of special  pleading,  differential strata of power, intimidation and irrelevance in place of genuine preservation of free speech for all, not tainted by compulsive elevation of some over others. Governments have begun to err greatly in these things; but if they insist on such transformations of national character, let the people say, and take what is coming to them, whether it be the one or the other. In  the end, it is they who  to rejoice in due course, or to suffer..

To foster such folly as increasingly being found, is like someone insisting on giving himself an injection of smallpox. It is not wise. Modish tyranny over freedom of speech  thus becomes, as now in part, a substitute for undamaged pursuit of truth. The whole character of the land, not born free but largely made so, then changes,  and one of the major reasons for  so many wanted  to  so  much to  come to this land with such haste, is its character! To deny your own character is mere folly, unless you find something better and agree to it, in this case of course, by referendum, for who but the people can speak for the people in such a case!

It should be realised that multiculturalism and its tolerances are not a stray dog substitute for character, to be taken up by any passer-by or group who become negatively vocal about our present situation or past ways. It is a kindly spirit of non-persecution and just interest in others, as PART of one's character, not a substitute for it. Thus if constitutional reference to one race who appear certainly to have come to this land, migrants, and not to the others who have made it what it is for anyone to lay claim to it, then it is a violation of mere justice and equity. Special provisions WITHIN THIS are always judicially possible, but not in  terms of differential justice, which is injustice. Whether in the Pre-amble to our Constitution or not, such statements should have balance, be true, and not inclined to be read in this or that inequitable emphasis of deployment, leading to more injustice.

Mercy and kindness may of course make special provisions WITHIN THIS judicial equality, but not in  terms of differential justice, which is injustice. Whether in the Pre-amble to our Constitution or not, such statements should have balance, be true, and not inclined to be read in this or that inequitable emphasis or deployment, leading to more injustice.

Similarly, in the Schools, an incoherent naturalism has long in practice ousted creation, as the mode, despite the compelling evidence to the contrary (cf. Ch. 4 in Department of Bible, Vol. 4, in the context of Ch. 2,   with The gods of naturalism have no go!); and it may be that some will want the reference to reliance on Almighty God, found in the Preamble to to be ruled out, while some other reference to man or beast or nature or some surrogate, is put in instead. Again, if this is the desire of a suitable majority, let it be found out by referendum. NOTHING is a given here; and what IS currently given in our Constitution has been part of our national character. Change it ? then first KNOW what you are doing, then be TOLD that it is the question, and then VOTE specifically on this point, whether or not you want it.

In  all these things, Australia needs to be honest with itself, clear and not given to shady deals inoffensively blurring issues or confusing  clients (that is, in this case, Australians). It needs to be carefully realised that IF a land has been slowly moving in a given direction (in this case, a mid vast protest, on this site alone, for the last 18 or so years), then so far from that being reason to carry on with the radical changes involved, it is reason for caution. A fixed obsessive compulsion or jaded tiredness is one way to betray the national character. Speaking in a meaningful situation such as a referendum with clear questions on each separate point separately, is one way to make any change responsible.  People who WANT TO CHANGE the Almighty God reference, indicating  relying on Him,  could show that; and people seeing no reason  to  do so, could show the other. It is no question of fairness.

THAT is the national basis as outlined, and shown in many parallel ways. Changing it is an option, not a matter of justice. In fact, in  all equity, the change to the naturalistic hypothesis in exclusivistic, totalitarian education (now largely in force), should never have been brought in on the illusory basis that the case is simply factual, either, since it is a change so vast and intolerant, as on both counts to violate the manner of our initial commitment. It is not the change which here is the main point; it is the MANNER and assumptions of it, robbing realism by constant propaganda, like other corrupt nations and regimes in the past, not excluding Hitler youth, which had elements similar in its indoctrinative dynamic, with results to match.

Whether the topic be  racism or science, constitution or the turning from the laboratory to desire, whether it be a matter of pompous and counter-productive preference for nature myths, and confused philosophic monopolies, as in much current pseudo-science, in the domain of origins and power, or that for any one race in specifiable judicial aspects, it is not treaties or dictation, but truth itself that matters here.  To move towards founding such things on  a particular set of presuppositions in learning, or set of migrants who did not any more than others, own or even govern as one the whole country, or show evidence of occupying all of it, is simple inequity. Let each be what it is, and none envelop; and if change is desired in our national character, let it be with significant thought and thankfulness, and clear-cut choice by all the people.

It is ALL the data, not a prescribed sub-set to the shame of  many in science; it is  ALL the migrants, in the same way, whether this or that one be chosen. Equity and reality are good friends.

But equity is no great competitor amid the nations, against desire, against indifference to duty and evasion of the vision of truth by those whose models HAVE NO TRUTH, while they yet proclaim it, like a chook without  head, still waling round and round.

Giving up God has become more and more routine since World War II, and even Europe in trying to frame its constitution, could find none with which to agree, as if baseless, prodding time and talking of a 'common destiny'! Returning to His reality, one notes for example, that since God alone MADE the lands, they are His to assign as He will (Acts 17:23-27), men being passengers of transit.

Amid all this, the path for pilgrims is to seek to maintain the truth, be gracious but not irresponsibly conformist to the ways of this throbbing, aching world, and to help others not to be forced in one's own land, where their conviction does not rule, into oppressive conformity to what has neither rational basis nor sustainable rationale, an area where biblical Christianity lacks nothing (cf.  The Shadow of a Mighty Rock for example). Where vision  fails, the country is already apt for failure with it: indeed, as Proverbs 29:18 declares, "Where there is no vision, the people perish!"

Peace will not be obtained without the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7, Ezekiel  21:27), and if vitamins are needed for function, how much more is He for victory where truth persists and righteousness continues, where love is not ashamed and wonder is not daunted.

 

 

 

NOTES
 

*1

See such sites as

WHY NOT ... Ch. 10,

Department of Bible, Vol. 2, Ch. 1,  Ch.6, Vol. 1, Ch.10.

The sadness of trying to make 'Israel' = the Christian Church in Zechariah 12, when it is already back in its land, there, and is not yet unconverted, 12:10 being this belated and postponed item, is as fanciful as having these events allied to Pentecost and co., when the means of action  that are impelling the territories in the meantime are martial, military, contest with vast and withering results while Israel does wonders, before its conversion.

The parallel idea of in effect, subverting Isaiah 66, where the action moves from distancing from  animal sacrifice (not hard to understand in view of the classic centrepiece of Isaiah 53-55), and bringing near in flaming thrust, the power of God to overwhelm persecuting enemies amid vast bloodshed and major violence, is no better. Similarly, in Isaiah 66, the effort to turn a nation born at once into the Christian Church, when the entire context is Israel and its sufferings, some at the hands of others who did not believe, and the restoration of these when God strikes in long-delayed judgment is almost tragic in its twistiness.

In fact, in Isaiah 66:7, how can  ZION distorted into being the Church, BE there before the new nation is born; and  how on earth or out of it,  can she give birth, without having  any existence. It is apparent that there is an entity known as Zion, an established and readily recognised one, which has much suffered, and that this is going to give birth to a new nation, in a moment,  a day. Obstetrics without a mother is too far-fetched for clarity. The mother is the long existing and for long de-nationalised Israel, which gives birth to  a nation, from her pre-existing  maternal  capacity to  do  so!

Much more is available on Israel, but here this is more an aside, and will suffice. Mocked Christian Jews will not be mockable any more; and Israel will as in  Zechariah 12, become part of the Christian Church as in Romans 11. Its  restoration as a nation with Jerusalem is clear in  Luke 21:24, and  it is thus that it  comes back to its place,  its noted and well-known, its  emphatically denoted place in Zechariah 12:6, prior to the conversion  of those concerning: "Jerusalem shall be inhabited AGAIN,  IN HER OWN PLACE - JERUSALEM," (BLOCKS ADDED).

"Again" - yes, this is not a first, the Christian Church, but a restoration as so often promised. This is not a unique event in earth-history, in conception, but simply a nation,  exiled, back in a moment as a nation. So far from unexpected, it has been foretold repeatedly (Deuteronomy 32, Micah 7, Ezekiel 38), and its tenor shown in a way both massive and masterful from Hosea to Ezekiel where it is closely associated with the return to rule of the Messiah (Ezekiel 37:24). True, even that is epochal; but it is not isolated. It is in a heady company of preliminaries which it consummates.

Nor is this with Israel (abhorred by God at this point, and entirely disenfranchised SPIRITUALLY, as in Isaiah 65:13-15),  the slayer of Christ, as some kind of pad! Israel did provide many things,  as in Romans 9:1-6, but a receptive host was not one of them, nor an extant and functioning backdrop another. The promises continued, and are being fulfilled in detail now. The position spiritually did not. At the spiritual level, it was  specifically obliterated, with vast distaste and obstructive drama in Isaiah 65, until the time should come (Zechariah 12:10 and Luke 21:24).

Instead of such eminent  contradiction, history has  co-operated, as always in prophecy, and Israel has fulfilled this since 1948 (the nation,  May), the city (1967, the territory) and 1948, 1967, 1973, the wars of great numerical inferiority and masterful victories,  as so prominent in Zechariah 12, before the national or all but national conversion. Similarly the  capital, Jerusalem  was cut in two, in 1948,  as predicted in Zechariah 14:1.

Turning the back on prophecy,  confusing its clarity is no help to this generation, and one blushes for those in churches which so act. To be sure, it is important not to add to the Bible any more than  subtract from it; but let us all just take it as it comes, with the other promises, which neither need enhancement nor truncation.

The simple fact is that all this is happening, prophecy as Peter declared,  a light in a dark place, as we wait for Christ (as in II Peter  3:9 with II Peter 2:19.  As the apostle there indicates, it serves in this way, a light in darkness, UNTIL the day dawns.