Man’s Responsibility as His Wife’s Cover

We live in an age that looks to trash all that God has said and seeks to reverse all He has created. God is synonymous with order. We can always know what He values by knowing what He says.

Look at the whole evolution debate. Looking at nature and especially comparing it with nature documentaries it becomes evident that creation and a Creator are never a consideration anywhere. The all pervading ‘reality’ is evolution as the explanation of nature. Yet do we realize that this is indoctrination to our children against the truth and reality of God? We are slowly sanitizing our children against God, His word and His standards. But this is an aside.

I want us to look at the family in the eyes of God’s word. I want us to examine common trends as they stand opposed to God’s revelation. I want us to look at society as it relates to that revelation.

What is the role of a man in the family? What is the role of the woman? Where does the buck stop as far as the family is concerned?

With all the psych about gender balance it is important to look at what God says before we join the flood of rebellion in the name of relevance. We like to say that one man with God is the majority yet are not willing to be that man. I have said in another post that this is not an accurate statement but I will leave that for another day. I am willing to stand for what God says even if it stands in opposition to the whole world and its systems.

As an example let us look at the homosexuality debate. God calls it an abomination and history is replete with example after example of a civilization after another not only deteriorating but completely dying or being destroyed for entertaining that lifestyle.

Yet look at our generation. Even Bible translators are scared to have that word appear in the Bible. Pastors are falling over themselves to embrace what God can’t tolerate. Gospel singers feel they are unfair if they don’t have one of them in their bands. In other words an abomination has become such a hot potato that we would rather turn our backs on God than appear intolerant of what God Himself can’t tolerate.

Let us also look at fornication. I am amazed at the church that seems to be more concerned at what society dictates even when it is directly opposed to what God, who we say we serve and are answerable to, has revealed. Pastors are scared to confront fornication in their churches. I hear some say that it is offensive since everybody does it anyway. How do they know that unless they are also involved? Does it nullify God’s word? Does it change the consequences of the sin? Does it cancel God’s qualifications? Why are we so keen to give single mothers and their offspring (mark you not widows or victims of rape) leadership positions in church?

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:2)

A bastard is a child without a legal or legitimate father. A mother who is not married to the father of her child makes the child a bastard. Even a concubine raises a bastard as we see in Judges 9 and 11. It is a legal marriage that raises children in a way that God approves.

Yet I think it is in marriage that God’s standard is sorely needed as it is the disregarding of the same that is leading to all the chaos we are presently dealing with.

God expects the man in a marriage to be the accounting partner in the family. Nowhere in the scriptures do we see God asking any wife to account for any decision or action in a family. In fact, in places where it is evident that the cause was the woman, God asks the man.

God challenges and judges Adam yet the whole thing was caused by Eve. We see Eli trying to correct his sons but he is the one who was held responsible. Even Solomon was led astray by his wives yet he and not the wives was judged. The clearest example is Ahab. He had no idea what Jezebel did to acquire Naboth’s plot. Yet we see God speaking to him as if Jezebel did not exist.

What does this mean? Simply that as the Bible says that the husband is the head of his wife, he holds the absolute responsibility as to the state of the home. The wife is clearly shielded in that responsibility. Since questions on the family are directed to man by the Creator, is it logical to share responsibilities for the decisions? If the buck stops with you, will you entertain discussion and democracy when you know none of the other partners are accountable?

Simply put the man is the spiritual head of any home whether he realizes it or not. He is the head whether he has been raised by a single and bitter mother or not. He is whether he is taught so or not. He simply is, period.

One of the greatest travesties of our generation is to refer spiritual direction to the woman leaving the man to behave as the bank, and only that. That is erroneous as she is not the spiritual head of the home. That can be equated to giving your very good house girl responsibility for the lives of your children. Though she might be even better than you the fact that they are your children will make you appear a fool, as you will be. Reason being that she can’t be asked any questions should anything go wrong. She will just move on, or probably even teach one of your sons to marry her instead of going on with school to be able to access part of your inheritance. No one will blame her in the least because YOU are the one ultimately responsible for the state of your family.

That is what I mean when I state what the Bible says, that the husband is the head of the wife. The husband is the one God holds responsible for the family, his wife included. And no wonder in the Bible there are very few names of wives even of very prominent characters. We know the apostles ministered with their wives (1 Corinthians 9: 5) yet we do not know even the name of one of them. The same goes with the prophets and kings.

This does not mean that a woman is the lesser. It simply places responsibility where it is. That is the reality everywhere. Suppose a president invited you for lunch, will you expect him to literally cook or serve you? Yet when giving credit will you will most likely not mention any of the teams.

I don’t want us to delve into theological nitpicking at this point. I just want us to realize that nowhere does the Bible call a wife the spiritual leader, or the leading partner in the marriage. At no time do we see God passing judgment or issuing a command to a married woman that excluded her husband’s authority in fact in the Torah a wife’s commitment to God had the condition of a husband’s approval to be accepted.

If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond … if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her (Numbers 30: 3, 6 – 9)

That is the plain teaching of the Bible concerning the authority figures in the home.

Do we realize that the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 was not only hardworking but also entrepreneurial? Yet we see her husband sitting at the city gates. What does he do? We are not told. But it is safe to assume part of his responsibilities was going to possess those assets. You see most transactions were done at the city gate. Yet we do not see her at any time belittling her husband for idleness.

The fact that she appeared to be more hardworking did not give her spiritual authority. That was vested in her husband and as a woman who feared God she could not attempt to usurp that authority.

May we listen to God before we auction our whole generation to the devil in the name of equal opportunity. Men please take your spiritual responsibility seriously. Ladies, do not accept to marry a man because he has this or that if you are not content that you will comfortably submit to his spiritual authority. Do not accept a man who will leave his church for yours just because he loves you. Let him give direction in spiritual matters that you will admire. A yes man to his wife is a child in a man’s body. Avoid him faster than you would a plague. He is sure to bring you enough issues for the rest of your life.

Men please get to know God more passionately. A real man is so submitted to God that anything else can get lost. A godly man will not be threatened if he forgets some flimsy worldly days in the name of love. Love for God should be the all-consuming passion in his life. Pleasing God is his number one desire.

Falling short of that is the reason many marriages are failing. This happens when a man is more sensitive to worldly standards that God’s revelation.

God bless you

Lordship Understood

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:16)

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. (Revelation 17:14)

What is the meaning of this?  Who is a king? Who is a lord? We need to understand that before we look at Christ taking those two titles together.

A king is normally called the sovereign of a particular dominion. This is a person having supreme authority, otherwise called a supreme ruler. The superlatives describing him appear unreal because we have never had a king over us. Though the colonialists were subjects of a king, they were not able to rub their connection to the same on us. In any case we rebelled, though we are still called the queen’s commonwealth! However, if you interacted with some who had served the kingdom, you will be able to see the vestiges of the attachment to the same.

A king has unquestioned and unquestionable authority over his subjects. His word is law in all aspects. He owns everything in his kingdom, only giving a lease to whomsoever he pleases. That is why all the people in a particular kingdom are called subjects, because they are subject to their sovereign.

A king is not a product of popularity. He is never voted in office. A king is either born into the office or captures his kingdom by force of arms. That is why you find blood so constant in any story involving kings. And that is why a king who is not fair is called a despot! You are either in his good books or you are dead or fleeing.

A lord is the undisputed owner of another person. Again he bought, captured or inherited the same. The person is therefore his property just like a cow or a car. He has unlimited and unfettered access to the slave, since that is the implication of the word to the other person. A slave does not have a name, rights, privileges, even inheritance. His life is at the pleasure of his lord.

Briefly looking at the African Americans we are able to see that. We know they came from several parts of Africa. Why is it that we cannot trace any to his origin? Simply because slavery took their personhood away; they lost their names, their origins, their histories, their choices etc. They were mated like cows. No wonder marriage and family are a great challenge to them centuries later.

That is why God gives a very detailed instruction so that His people would treat their slaves differently, so that they can give a redemptive example to the ungodly and godless societies around them. It did not mean they were not slaves, only that they were more humanely treated.

Back to Jesus. Who is He according to the short description I have given here?

Just so that we do not romanticize those words, I want to bring us back to the origin of those titles. Like we have seen, both titles must be earned. They are not popularly sought. No one convinces another to become their lord. In fact, many times they are resented. They don’t win their titles by winning any arguments. They are, period. You will either submit or face the consequences.

But is Christ not Mr. Nice Guy? Isn’t He a softie?  Have we not been presented with a sovereign who is subject to His subjects? Can He have such authority? Does He have such authority?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28: 18)

That power talks beyond power. It talks about authority. But it says much more. Authority is normally got by force. What He is saying is that He not only has the authority; He earned it.

How has He earned that authority? First is the fact that He created everything in heaven and on earth. He thus owns everything which means that everything is SUBJECT to Him as the creator.

Ever noticed that Christ never pleaded with anything when He walked the earth? He simply commanded and it was so. Even inanimate objects simply obeyed Him. Remember the cursed fig tree?

And He answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. (Luke 19:40)

Whoever told our generation that Christ pleads with us? He is either our Lord and King or we are rebels or worse still are not even members of His Kingdom. In fact in a kingdom there are only subjects. No wonder when He argued with the Jews He appeared extremely harsh when He said,

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. (John 8:44)

Let us reason is one verse we use to lower Christ’s authority. Yet what does the verse say?

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. (Isaiah 1: 18 – 20)

Is that a negotiation? Only a fool would treat it as such. Yes, God is offering forgiveness, but on His terms. He never stoops to convince us. He only offers grace to lift us to where He is.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now COMMANDETH all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30)

There can be no grace for disobedience. Disobedience makes grace impossible. Christ’s Lordship is what opens the doors of His bounty. We simply can never be members of His Kingdom apart from our subjection to His unchallenged authority. We do not reason with Him concerning His commands. We do not negotiate the terms of our subjection. You see His is not a democracy. He is all in all in His kingdom. We are either subjects or not members of that kingdom.

Again see these major guys being sent to hell. By all pretenses they qualify for heaven. They are doing much more for heaven than most. Yet what do we see?

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7: 21 – 23)

These guys were active, even productive for the kingdom but they were disqualified. Why? Disobedience. They were not subject to the will of the king, which is what guides ALL the subjects of the kingdom. You see iniquity is not simply breaking the Ten Commandments, though it includes and even leads to that. Iniquity is simply not being subject to the King. You might be very busy pursuing the interests of the kingdom and might be really committed to the ideals of the same. Yet the only qualification for the kingdom is unwavering subjection to the king.

Let us look at a few scriptural examples. Moses was of course weaned into the Israeli way of life. Then for most of his life was exposed to the idolatrous Egyptian way of life. When he encounters God he is of course confused because, like we say in Kimeru, such a God, though He was in his system, was deep in his bones. And that is the reason we see him negotiating with Him, because he was making the transition from polytheism to dealing with the creator God. And that is the reason we see God’s wrath rising, because we can’t negotiate with God the Lord.

We see David, not negotiating with God but simply seeking clarity. Gideon does the same, seeking a sign to be sure it was God speaking. Jeremiah needs to understand his situation as it does not seem to make any sense, same with Mary the mother of Jesus. But none of them wavered once they had got the assurance that they were dealing with God and knew what He wanted.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. (Ezekiel 4: 12, 14)

Ezekiel is asked to do some very difficult things in the sight of Israel, yet we don’t see him refusing. He is simply explaining his background. Doing what God was ordering was of course dangerous and could have opened him up for stoning but we do not see him pleading from that direction. We do not even see him throwing hands at God. He was willing to obey but he was simply explaining his position. And that was the reason God downscaled the order.

We see Jeremiah placing his life on the line again and again when ordered to without as much as whining because lordship was clear to him. Self preservation is not among the essentials of servanthood to a lord.

When Paul encountered Christ, we first see him wanting to understand who He was. And that was the only thing he sought. After that is clarified his life takes a definite turn. ‘What will You have me do?’ is the only thing that occupies his whole life whether it took him from a stoning mob to the stocks.

Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.( Acts 21:13)

That is understanding lordship. As long as the Lord had spoken, no obstacle could stand in his way. When he was stoned to death and prayed back to life, we do not see him whining or even asking to be taken for medical attention. He simply shrugs himself off and goes to the next assignment to do what had caused him to be stoned.

What does Christ’s Lordship mean to you? How absolute is His command to you? How do you respond when He speaks? Do you even know that He speaks in the first place or you think His voice is the sermons your favorite pastor preaches?

Are you in His kingdom or is that the latest cliché word among the preachers? What are the implications of being in that kingdom? Is the kingdom something you are always reminded on Sunday or does it run your whole life?

I did history in primary school and hated it for all those dates. It is in ministry that I started appreciating history especially as a tool of instruction.

It is said that the UK had a problem with prisoners. Then they discovered Australia. One interesting sidebar to this is the fact that they never even once discovered any uninhabited place. But it agrees when we are dealing with kingdoms. What a king has not seen simply does not exist. Anyway they were given an offer. If they would represent the king’s interest, they would be set free and relocated to the new land. Who would refuse such an offer?

They were so far from the centre of the kingdom and could if they so wanted declare sovereignty. But they have been the loyal subjects of the kingdom to date when they refused to be freed from her dominion. Though they committed atrocities on the people they found on the land, decimating and even clearing populations, they never once misrepresented the kingdom that sent them there.

You see a king does not need to be visible, even present to be obeyed. Everything and everyone in and of the kingdom has no choice but to belong to it. It is not only cultivated. It is ingrained; every atom of the body of a subject of a kingdom will be crying out, ‘I belong, I submit’. Remember Jesus saying that if the children stopped crying out the stones will? That is the doctrine of the kingdom. Remember Balaam’s donkey speaking God’s message? Remember the burning bush not being consumed? Remember the Red Sea and the Jordan River parting? That is the kingdom.

Man is the only creation who does not appreciate and appropriate God’s kingdom. Yet that is the reason Christ came, to redeem us back into the kingdom. Not as free citizens, but as grateful and obedient subjects. We were redeemed from a kingdom we joined when we sinned, despotic from beginning to the end, only offering enticements to get us through the door to it, and then ruling us with even worse rigor than Israel experienced in Egypt during the Exodus.

The devil has no qualms at all exercising his lordship. Just look at those committed to his kingdom. How does a witch or wizard who is visited by the high and mighty and given all manner of gifts live as paupers, some even not having a bed to lie on? How does a parent sacrifice their offspring or spouse? They belong to the kingdom of darkness. They therefore do not have any choice at all. A king’s orders are law. Even his whims are law. And that is the reason we hear the same kingdom killing anybody who defies any order from its command.

Kings are also not averse in using their authority. In fact what we call dictatorship is using a king’s authority to run an elected position. Democracy itself can be worse than tyranny in that people rush to make decisions but start to complain when their decisions start hurting them. We vote for a thief or a wicked person yet complain when they display their conduct. We are very gracious when we are listening to their campaign promises even when we know they visit demonic shrines and belong to secret societies that are of course also satanic. When somebody aligned to the devil speaks, everything they say will be laced with lies because the devil is the father of lies.

A king, though he is not accountable to his subjects is subject to a higher authority, the state of his kingdom. The kingdom displays his personality, his wisdom, his kindness or lack of it. The kingdom is his advertisement of himself. He will therefore be benevolent when need be, harsh when need be, all to display his character to the world. Visitors to his kingdom carry away stories of his kingdom and the desirability or detestation of the same.

Reminds me of the naming system of the Meru, the tribe I come from. A person is supposed to make his/ her name as they live because at one time you will be given a name that you have built. When you are born (someone who is named after you), there is no flattery. The child will be given a name that will say who you are, from your character to occupation. You therefore lived your life carefully because at one time all the evidence of the same will be laid out for all to see. You see people called drunks, naggers, I even heard one called thief. It therefore became imperative for one to live the name he wanted to be given. Though some people have started corrupting the system, you can easily know who a person was simply by knowing the names of the children named after them.

This is why a king will be gracious, or kind, or beneficent. Though his heart may be wicked and evil, he will be what he wants other kingdoms to perceive him. The only thing a king will not be is lenient to people who oppose or belittle his authority. And that is understood.

A godly king was a king who lived in the awareness and reality of God, the King of kings. He was subject to that King’s authority all his life. Any time he strayed from that authority he lost his mandate to rule. A king who was constantly in subjection to Him enjoyed his kingdom because he was not a rebel to God. By the way even other kings will always be subject to a higher king, only that in their case it will be the prince of this world, Satan. This is the reason all kingdoms have gods they worship. Any study of kingdoms in the Bible will bring that to the fore. And this is what gave each kingdom its character.

David is probable the king who demonstrates what we are looking at here. You look at his life and will not fail to see how submitted he was to his King. Even his psalms bring that to the fore. He acknowledged his submission to that king all his life.

Even his sin brings that out very clearly. In his confession (Psalm 32 and 51) we see him confessing that his great sin was against his King. Though he also sinned against people, you see his greatest responsibility is against God. He does not need to do some public relations with his subjects. He knows that he is safe once he sorts himself with his King. That was the reason his kingdom was the greatest, a goal for any kingdom to pursue.

Saul was also a king. He was submitted to the King before he became king. Once the trappings of the kingdom became attached, he started owing allegiance to his subjects. I am sure he thought a favorite king is the one whose kingdom lasts. But then the King simply rejected him, and for thirty years he was a people’s king, unknown at all by the King of kings.

But look at David. He never owed his kingdom to popularity, though he was popular. He never fought for his kingdom. He never schemed for his kingdom. In fact we do not see him dealing with threats to his kingdom. For example why does he let Saul live yet the same was actually seeking to kill him? David was subject to the supreme King and was as safe as his relationship with Him. He was sure that nothing could touch him without first dealing with his King.

Who is your King? Is it Christ or the prince of this earth? Who calls the shots in your life? Who is the final consideration before you make a decision?

And to us ministers- are we really slaves (the meaning of the name) of Christ? Who are we subject to? Is it our churches, ministries or the King? Who are we answerable to as we run ministry? How connected are we to the King? Do we walk with the awareness and reality of being in His Kingdom? How submitted are we to His dominion?

Do we care to consult the Kingdom before we make ministry decisions or are we like Saul who made decisions based on the feeling of the people he led? How do we deal with threats to our position? How do we deal with opposition to our effort? How do we deal with personal affront?

These will very easily reveal which king I am submitted to. Christ’s kingship will leave me as His subject at peace because I know that as the King of kings He is in control of everything that happens to His subjects, of whom I am one. I will comfortably be at peace in my persecution since suffering for a kingdom is greater pleasure to a subject than anything else. I once said I believed that men allowed themselves to be castrated to earn favor and trust in a kingdom, and it was a pleasure.

I was told that the kabaka of the Baganda is called the husband of husbands. This may explain the fact that most kings practiced homosexuality as a means of establishing their authority. Thus he became the ultimate man. I was told that when he goes somewhere men will lie on the ground to give him their backs to walk on. If you are privileged to have him walk on you it would most likely result in getting a piece of land from him. Apart from being very demonic, it gave him unquestioned authority. We know of kingdoms even today where the king must sleep with every beautiful girl before giving his consent for a young man to marry her. Many times he might decide to marry her instead and the subject will willingly submit.

Again in Uganda I was told that the most persecution to the church came from the same kabaka (king). The main reason was that he could not reconcile himself to Christ having the title Kabaka of the kabakas. That was offensive and was dealt with ruthlessly. I was in a service where there was translation into Buganda and I was able to understand his problem. But Christ is really Kabaka of the kabakas, only that His kingdom is not a simply earthly kingdom.

A subject of the kingdom lives for the kingdom. He never lives for himself but only the kingdom. Everything in the kingdom must be called in the sovereign’s name. That is why we have royal this or that, king’s or queen’s this or that.

Fear

If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD is with us: fear them not. (Numbers 14: 8, 9)

It is very interesting that we are very full of faith in our conversation yet very uncertain when we encounter life itself. We have greater faith in our advice than when we are facing similar experiences. Our testimonies have a greater demonstration of faith than we have. We are very quick to ascribe our experiences to faith even though we know that it was more of a chance experience.

How is it that we can change from great faith to little or no faith so abruptly? What guides our faith? What determines our choices?

The verses above come from the time Israel lost the battle of faith in the wilderness and were condemned to wandering in the wilderness for forty years.

 I want us to realize that all the twelve spies saw the same thing. They also had a similar background. It is apparent that Joshua and Caleb had less experience in their faith than the rest as they were younger.

I want us to look at Caleb’s confession. Why does it start with ‘if’? Why is it not a solid confession of faith? What is different between that and the other’s confession?

I am convinced that this is what brings the distinction between success and failure in the journey of faith. They are not brash. They don’t even seem to be sure they have all their facts right. They are trying to connect their history to their present. They are telling Israel to look at God and assess His dealings with them to make a decision. Theirs is not like Moses’ confession as they had not become so deep in the things of God.

If our relationship with God is right…, seems to be their argument. But their recommendation is what tells us why they pleased God. God has demonstrated His power and presence to us. He also promised us this land. It is therefore safe to assume that taking possession of the land is what He expects of us.

I want us to realize that the ten also reasoned along the same lines but came to the wrong conclusion. If the Lord delights in us…, but then thought, suppose He does not? They then looked at the odds stacked against them and became scared.

On what side of faith do we stand? Does faith lead us to reason towards obedience or rebellion? I think that is so important as the line is so fine, almost invisible. Any argument you can make on faith can be used for rebellion. No wonder James said that faith that does not move is dead! This is because it will use the same argument to support inertia.

David faced a similar scenario. For forty days Goliath has been tormenting God’s army and no one from the whole army dared put his faith in action (1 Samuel 17). Why? They reasoned like the ten spies. How sure are we that God will rout this army with a giant at its head? They had seen miracles and were sure that God was able, but the decision required a more convincing argument for anyone to put his life on the line for God.

And that was why they did not kill David for attempting to do so. They knew God could. They were sure He could. But what if He is not pleased with us? That is what paralyzed the army for forty days. That is why they were on standby when David went because they had found someone willing to dare God. Their faith was simply not obedient enough. They needed David for their faith to explode into action (v. 52).

But I will hasten to add that the question is very potent. It is imperative to be sure that we know from what side we are asking the question. Remember Ai (Joshua 7)? They thought that God was pleased with them when He was not. It was a painful experience.

This is therefore not an argument for rushing headlong into what you think God has given. It is a challenge to get all our facts right so that we are not just moving impudently to the battle. It is a call to seek to clearly hear God’s voice so that we are not just walking; we are walking where He is ordering us. It is not just about faith; it has more to do with obedience.

What about us on this side of the cross? It makes the choices easier and harder at the same time. How does it? First the Holy Spirit is in us and so we have a very close relationship with God and can therefore get on the spot guidance. Second is that the Holy Spirit is Holy, totally different from us. He is also God therefore His thoughts and ways are way above ours. He is not subject to us and will never bend His will our direction.

This brings personal responsibility squarely on us. We cannot claim we were misled by leader so and so, prophet so and so or man of God so and so. We cannot blame anyone for not giving us accurate instructions.

Due to the same the bar has been taken way up. Whereas in the past the law was the prefect, here the law becomes lower than the basics, just the introduction.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20)

What is Christ saying here? What was that righteousness?

… As touching the law, a Pharisee; … touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3: 5, 6)

The Holy Spirit takes the sphere of obedience from the visible to the depths of our beings. Killing is not just murder but goes for hate or even spite (Matthew 5: 21 – 24). And it is so even before we speak about hate speech! In fact hate speech in this dispensation is evidence for murder.

Adultery does not speak of that bed or bush or whatever else is used. A ‘look’ is sufficient evidence in this dispensation (Matthew 5: 27, 28).

That is why I am saying it has become both easier and harder. A lot has been invested in us by God and so a lot more is expected. We cannot talk about limited revelation because the Bible is now complete and its Inspirer now lives in us if we allow Him.

We therefore have no excuse for using outward evidence only to make our decisions. We have no excuse when we use our limited experiences to guide our obedience. We have no excuse when we listen to people, even servants of God to give direction to our obedience. Inasmuch as they are valid guides, they can only be used to confirm what God is speaking through His Spirit.

‘If the Lord is pleased with us…’ becomes even more dangerous to us because we have more wells to draw from to make our decisions. And I think that is why Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) died instantly after playing jokes with the Holy Spirit. That is the reason Herod (Acts 12) was eaten by worms as he stood. That is the reason some in Corinth were sick and others had even died from slighting the Lord’s Table (1 Corinthians 11: 29, 30)

What has God said? Does it agree with His complete revelation? Are you certain you are following Him or are you following His servant? Are you sure that the said servant is like Moses, very clear on what God has said?