Nimrod

Question

{The question below was extracted from two emails sent to us by a visitor. The wording is ours, but it is consistent with the questions posed and the issues raised in the email.}

What is the spiritual significance behind Nimrod? Considering what the historian Josephus and what the "book of Jasher" says about Nimrod, can we conclude that the name Nimrod represents evil?

Answer

As can be seen from all the evidence above, the phrase "before the Lord" is not used lightly by the Holy Spirit throughout Scripture. The phrase is used repeatedly throughout Leviticus to speak of holy things set before Him. In Leviticus 10:1, it is used to describe the "strange fire" that Nadab and Abihu placed before the Lord. The next verse indicates that fire went out from the Lord and consumed them, and that they died "before the Lord".

"¹And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. ²And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Leviticus 10:1-2)

This once again illustrates that evil and unrighteous things cannot stand for long before Him. If Nimrod was so evil, why was he not consumed by fire as was the case with Aaron's rebellious sons? If Nimrod was so evil, why would God choose him as the first person in all of Scripture that He applied the phrase "before the Lord" to? As we saw above, the two next persons after Nimrod that God applies this phrase to are Abraham and Moses, which are no small company. The next two individuals with whom the phrase "before the Lord" (paniym YHWH) is used happen to be Joshua and Samuel. In short, the first 5 individuals that God chose for the phrase "before the Lord" are Nimrod (Genesis 10:9), Abraham (Genesis 18:22), Moses (Exodus 6:12), Joshua (Joshua 18:10), and Samuel (1 Samuel 3:1). The 6th is David. Each of this 6 individuals correlate with the 6 seals of the Apocalypse in the following way:

1. Nimrod: Points to the conquering white horse because of his nature as a conqueror.

2. Abraham: Points to the red horse of pestilent contention, since Abraham contended with the people of Palestine as an "isolated" and "insignificant" individual, setting the red foundation required for the eventual establishment of the nation of Israel.

3. Moses: Points to the black horse of famine that gallops through the desert of scarcity, just as Moses did with the Israelites as they were on their way to establishing the nation of Israel.

4. Joshua: Points to the green horse of earthquakes that gallops across the border of Death, just as Joshua did when he crossed the River Jordan (Joshua 6:6-8). Crossing the threshold of death triggers the earthquakes of God that crumble the structures of man, as when the walls of Jericho came down after Joshua and his army marched around it, thus paving the way for the nation of Israel to finally appear on Earth.

5. Samuel: Points to the 5th seal of secluded hibernation, just as was the case of Samuel when he toiled in anonymity inside the temple before the Face of the Lord (1 Samuel 3:1), even as Eli (a figure of the lame-duck leadership that rules over the Church) continued in the natural "limelight". It was through Samuel that a righteous leader for the nation of Israel finally emerged: a man called David.

6. David: Points to the 6th seal of vindicating vengeance, just as David arose from nowhere to exact God's vengeance upon the enemies of the nation of Israel (1 Samuel 17:50-53, 2 Samuel 5:1-10, 2 Samuel 8:1-15). Through the rise of David, the nation of Israel was consolidated for good in the land of Palestine.

    

One of the reasons why the brethren refuse to revise their understanding of the name Nimrod is because they are as of yet unaware of the fearsome nature of standing before the Lord, which makes the phrase "before the Lord" irrelevant in their hearts and minds. Some might argue that all of the above is irrelevant because it all refers to Old Testament verses. There are two problems with that: First, Nimrod is mentioned in the Old Testament, so it is only reasonable to study the use of his name and the phrase "before the Lord" in the context of the Old Testament. Second, standing before the Lord has the same spiritual significance in the New Testament, as is clearly shown in Hebrews 12, for our God has not changed.

"²⁵See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: ²⁶Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. ²⁷And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. ²⁸Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: ²⁹For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:25-29)

Most believers in the Church are more afraid about breaking established traditions and beliefs than about the fearsome presence of God. This misplacement of fear leads them to misinterpret and ignore many of the things that the Lord says. The connection between remaining "before the Lord" and finding grace in His eyes can also be seen in passages such as Matthew 18:10-11, which is a New Testament passage.

"¹⁰Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. ¹¹For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:10-11)
 

Nineveh

As indicated in Genesis 10:11 (and emphasised in Micah 5:6), Nineveh, Assyria's main city, was founded by Nimrod. If the city was built by such an "evil" and "blasphemous" man, why would God care for the biggest city founded by him to such an extent that he would put Jonah through the big-fish experience in order to redeem that city?

"¹Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, ²Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me. ³But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD." (Jonah 1:1-3)

Interestingly enough, verse 3 above says that, when Jonah fled from God's commandment to preach to Nineveh, he "rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord". The phrase "presence of the Lord" was translated from the words paniym and YHWH. In other words, as Jonah fled from the city founded by the first man whose name is directly associated with standing "before the Lord", he was indeed fleeing from "before the Lord".

Jonah 3:3 says that Nineveh was an "exceeding great city of three days' journey".

"¹And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, ²Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. ³So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey." (Jonah 3:1-3)

The phrase "exceeding great" was actually mistranslated from the Hebrew words gadowl (meaning "great") and elohim (meaning God). In other words, the phrase "exceeding great city" can be translated as "great city of God". This not only shows that there was a strong evangelistic-giant anointing on the Nimrod-founded city, but it also shows how much God esteemed it, despite their wickedness. If the name "Nimrod" was supposed to be taken as such an evil name, why would God be interested in restoring a city He knows was founded by such an evil man? When God destroyed Sodom, He sent Abraham to watch its destruction as he stood "before the Lord" (Genesis 19:27). When God dealt with Nineveh, he sent Jonah to watch over its restoration by standing "before the Lord", which Jonah initially avoided by fleeing from Him (Jonah 1:3).

The fact that Nineveh was a great city of God of "3 days' journey" points once again to the 3 "male" ministry anointings. Since Nineveh had been founded by a man who had stood "before the Lord", it had the 3 "male" ministry endowments ingrained within its spiritual DNA (as we saw above, those who stand before the Lord begin to receive a direct impartation of God's 3 "male" ministry endowments, thus receiving an impartation of God's very spirit nature). It is also no "coincidence" that the reference to the "3 days' journey" is made by the Spirit in chapter 3, verse 3, of Jonah.

Cush

When listing the sons of Cush, the Holy Spirit was very specific about setting Nimrod apart from Cush's other sons (Genesis 10:7-8). Whilst the Spirit simply lists the names of the other sons of Cush in Genesis 10:7, He is very deliberate about stating that Cush "begat" Nimrod in Genesis 10:8 (the verb "beget" is not used with the other sons of Cush). If Nimrod is, shall we say, Cush's "special son", and Nimrod was inherently evil, it would be difficult to expect that God would think much of Cush per se. However, just as we have studied in detail before, God has promised that there is a wonderful restoration in store for the people of Cush in these latter days. If God has good plans for the people of Cush, it would not make sense to believe that He eternally abhors Cush's most prominent son. When God rejected Ham for what he did to Noah, he automatically rejected Ham's most prominent son, Canaan (Genesis 9:25), for, in rejecting Canaan, He was rejecting his father Ham. If God were rejecting Nimrod altogether, He would have rejected his father Cush as well, and He would have never spoken a prophetic word of restoration for him.

The anti-Promise traditions

As 1 Samuel 2 clearly shows, God's promises for our lives are goals that we are to walk towards, and they are not necessarily words "fulfilled by default" simply "because God said so".

"¹²Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. ¹³And the priests’ custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; ¹⁴And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. ¹⁵Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. ¹⁶And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force. ¹⁷Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD." (1 Samuel 2:12-17)

[Notice how the two sons of Eli (who represent the 2 "female" ministries that refuse to submit to the Spirit, just as Nadab and Abihu did) did not allow the flesh to "seethe" completely (v13), which is a figure of how the matriarchal "ministers" prevent God's people reaching full spiritual maturity by interfering with their soul paradigms. In this context, the "3-teeth" fleshhook (v13) that Eli's sons used to interrupt the "seething" process refer to the 3-pronged Amorite, Canaanite, and Jebusite nature of the matriarchal "first beast". Instead of allowing God's people to be processed in order to be "eaten" into Him, the matriarchal "ministers" "eat up" God's people for themselves, à la Cronus.

The phrase "before the Lord" in verse 17 was translated from the Hebrew words paniym (meaning "Face") and YHWH (meaning "Yahweh"). In other words, verse 17 says that the sin of these immature men was very great before the Face of the Lord.]

"¹⁸But Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod." (1 Samuel 2:18)

[The phrase "before the Lord" was also translated from the Hebrew words paniym and YHWH. This is to contrast the sons of Eli versus Samuel. Whereas the sin of the matriarchal sons of Eli was great before the Face of the Lord, the service of Samuel stood before the Face of the Lord and was approved.]

"²⁷And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house? ²⁸And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? ²⁹Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? ³⁰Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. ³¹Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. ³²And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever. ³³And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. ³⁴And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. ³⁵And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. ³⁶And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread." (1 Samuel 2:27-36)

[Even though Eli knew of his two sons' unrighteousness, he chose to look the other way, just like an overprotective Canaanite mother who refuses to judge her children, constantly rationalising their behaviour and covering them from God's purifying judgements.]

Interestingly enough, when God told Eli that He was no longer going to fulfil the promise He had made to him (v30), He states that the promise consisted of Eli and his house walking "before the Lord" (which once again was translated from paniym and YHWH). The reason why God did not fulfil His promise was because the sin of Eli's sons was great "before the Lord" (1 Samuel 2:17), which is written using the words paniym and YHWH in the original Hebrew. Since Eli looked the other way when it came to his sons' sin, He lost the opportunity to see God's prophetic promise fulfilled in his life and his house's life. This shows the spiritual connection between standing "before the Lord" and the fulfilment of God's eternal promises, for the ultimate Promise from God is to be One (ehad) with Him for eternity.

1 Samuel 2:30 above shows that, when God pronounces a prophetic promise over us, He is setting that promise as a goal in the horizon that we are to walk towards. Emboldened by the conviction that God has declared the goal as our responsibility and our calling, we are to guide our lives towards its fulfilment, seeing our lives as "unfulfilled" until the Promise --- that white light at the end of the tunnel --- is reached. When God said to Abraham that he would be the "father of nations", Abraham began to gear his entire life towards the fulfilment of that unlikely goal. He was willing to be uprooted from the land where he was born and to wander in loneliness in a "strange" land. Why? Because he kept his focus on the promise that God had set before him. He continued to look towards that light at the end of the tunnel, and was unwilling to "rest in peace" until that promise was fulfilled. Had Abraham backtracked and decided to live a life of "stability" and "comfort", the promise that God had made to him would have never been fulfilled, and, just as He did with Eli, God would have raised another man to take Abraham's place in order to fulfil His purposes through that other man. Just because God has pronounced a promise over your life does not make it a "done deal". Abraham did not sit on his hands and simply expect the promise to be automatically fulfilled just "because God said so". He knew that the promise was a goal that he had to walk towards, and, as he walked towards that light at the end of the tunnel, he would have to live a life in which he constantly stood "before the Face of the Lord" (Genesis 18:22, 19:27). This means that he would have to live a life under God's constant fire until he was "cooked" enough to be "eaten" into the Lord, and it means overcoming all the obstacles that the enemy will throw your way to prevent you reaching God's promise.

Whereas Eli lost his promise, Hannah and Samuel kept the promise and allowed it to be fulfilled. Hannah (Samuel's mother) knew in her inner self that she was to bear a son. That promise remained ingrained in her being, and she would not allow herself to "rest in peace" until it was fulfilled. Despite her husband Elkanah's efforts to convince her that a comfortable life alongside him was enough (1 Samuel 1:8), her soul refused to settle for a life of "soul love" from her husband. Even when she went to the temple to weep bitterly on account of her unfulfilled longing, she was ridiculed by Eli himself, who called her a "drunkard"(1 Samuel 1:13-14), scolding her for being in a drunken state at the temple (it is ironic how Eli, a soul-based minister, was so harsh and unfair towards a woman going through a spiritual process, and so nonchalant and condoning towards his two unrighteous sons, who were committing great sins in the same temple where he found Hannah). Though "well meaning" by human standards, both Elkanah and Eli were acting as "stones of stumbling" in Hannah's life, and, had she heeded their words, God's calling and promise for her life would be unfulfilled. As shown by 1 Samuel 1 and 2, Elkanah was a devout man who faithfully attended the temple and was diligent in his "sacrificial obligations", and Eli was a full-time priest who had done many good things in the eyes of the Lord. Yet, both of these men were unable to discern what the Lord was up to in Hannah's life, and both unwittingly worked to have Hannah abort God's process. This shows how the traditions and paradigms of the natural, religious man are the most treacherous and difficult obstacle in the way of God's people as they walk towards the Promise.

The process to the Promise

God had been waiting for many years, waiting until the process in Hannah was complete. When she vowed to offer her son as a living sacrifice unto God (1 Samuel 1:11), the process was complete and the promise could be fulfilled. By surrendering her future son unto God, she was showing to God that she was willing to detach her soul from the child, thus preventing the type of soul attachments that so often work to hinder the fulfilment of God's purposes in people's lives. By surrendering her future son, she was showing to God that she did not want the child as a trophy for her own personal satisfaction, but as an instrument unto God's glory. That is why, even to this day, thousands of years later, we are still talking about Hannah and about his son Samuel.

After Samuel was born to Hannah, and after she weaned him and gave him up to serve in the temple before the Face of the Lord (1 Samuel 1:22), the Lord visited her and gave her 5 children, 3 sons and 2 daughters. As we have studied before, these 5 sons represent the 5 ministries of Ephesians 4:11, which shows the spiritual connection between standing before the Face of the Lord until the Promise is fulfilled and the manifestation of the full ministry spectrum in God's people.

"And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD" (1 Samuel 2:21)

[Interestingly enough, the phrase "before the Lord" at the end of this verse was not translated from the Hebrew words paniym and YHWH, but rather from the words im and YHWH. The word im literally means "with", and is derived from the word amam meaning "to dim, darken". Therefore, im has the connotation of something that is hidden under someone's shadow.]

When God pronounces prophetic promises over you, His intention is for you to fall in love with the promise, so much in love that you are willing to go through whatever it takes until you reach the promise, for, when you reach the promise, you have reached Him and you have fulfilled His will on Earth! When God took the Israelites out of Egypt, He said to them that He would take them to a land that flowed with milk and honey. Yet, most of the people who received that promise did not fall in love it, and, even though the land had been promised to them, they died in disobedience and were never in it. And even those who were willing to believe the promise were not handed the land on a silver platter when they got to it. They had to fight many battles in order to conquer it. It was only through the desert and through the battles that the land promised by God was eventually taken. Most believers expect God to dump the Promise on their laps, without understanding that His promises are a light that God places before us so that we may walk towards them, difficult as the road may be. Those who endure the process are those who understand that, as the promise is fulfilled, God's will on Earth is fulfilled and He is glorified. Those who are interested in the promise only for the personal benefits the promise may provide will perish in the desert just like the Israelites who perished at Kibroth-Hataava (Numbers 11:31-34).

Josephus?

There is a reason why the Lord had us speak about the fulfilment of His promises in the context of Nimrod. On the one hand, He made the connection between "Nimrod" and His promises very clear in the email where we received the question on Nimrod. Also, as we studied the use of the phrase "before the Lord" in Scripture, it became very evident (as can be seen from all of the above) that there is a clear connection between standing "before the Lord" and His promises being fulfilled; since Nimrod was the first person that the phrase "before the Lord" is ever applied to in Scripture, the connection between "Nimrod" and His promises became all the more evident. Besides this, the fact that the Lord veered what we spoke above towards the need to conquer the Promised Land heightens the connection to "Nimrod", since Nimrod was a mighty conqueror before the Lord.

As we saw above, the religious traditions of man are the most treacherous stumbling blocks to God's promises, which explains why the religious spirit has worked so hard to deride and besmirch the name of "Nimrod" for so many centuries, even when the Scriptures never do. Since the Bible says nothing negative about Nimrod per se, the cursed spirit of religious traditions has had to resort to extra-Biblical sources to "support" their vitriol against the name Nimrod. One of these sources is the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived around the time of Jesus' literal walk on Earth. Josephus wrote many things against Nimrod in his work "Antiquities of the Jews", most of which was based on Jewish Rabbinical tradition. As indicated on wikipedia.org, Josephus was a Pharisee, which explains his strong faith in the stories told by the Jewish religious tradition. As is also indicated on wikipedia.org, Josephus wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" due to pressure from some people around him to write a work that reflected Jewish traditions and culture throughout the various ages, so he proceeded to write this "story of the Jews", starting from the Garden of Eden and following through other events depicted in the Bible. Since he was not a first-hand witness of the events in the Tower of Babel, it should be more than evident, even to the staunch Josephus supporter, that anything he had to say on the Tower of Babel that is not in the Bible had to come from stories passed down (and embellished) from generation to generation in the Jewish religious tradition. According to Josephus, Nimrod was the one who stirred the people of Babel to rebellion, persuading them to build the tower of Babel (as indicated on wikipedia.org). If Nimrod was the main instigator of the Tower-of-Babel rebellion, it is odd that God makes no mention of him whatsoever in Genesis 11.

Since Josephus is one of the sources most commonly pointed to by Christians to condemn Nimrod, and since Josephus provides very little evidence to support his claim against Nimrod (other than the fact that he is simply regurgitating Jewish rabbinical tradition), we must consider the type of man that Josephus was. By considering his life, we can discern the spirit that motivated him to write against Nimrod.

As indicated on wikipedia.org, Josephus, a nationalistic Pharisee, was at first a leader in the Jewish militia that stubbornly fought against the Romans between 66 and 73 AD. He was apparently caught in a Roman siege of the Jewish garrison of Yodfat, and, according to his own version of the story, the Romans told him to surrender, but the 40+ Jews who were under his command did not consider surrender an option. In light of this, he suggested a method of collective suicide in which they cast lots to determine an order amongst themselves, and then proceeded to kill every 3rd person on the list. After every 3rd man on the list had been killed, they would start from the top of the list and kill every 3rd man again. "Miraculously", Josephus was the only one who survived this suicide pact, and, instead of killing himself, he surrendered to the Romans, which is what he had wanted all along. Since all those who had opposed his surrender were now conveniently dead due to the clever suicide pact he had suggested, he was now free to save his life.

After surrendering, he had a "full conversion" to "Romanism". Somehow, after having been a full-fledged enemy of the Roman Empire, he gained the full trust of Roman officials, to the point that he was granted Roman citizenship in 71 AD, and he was even granted accommodations in Judaea, along with an extravagant pension by the Romans! It was as he lived this comfortable life under Roman patronage that he wrote most of his works. As you can see, Josephus' life smells of duplicity, i.e.- of a man who can be radically for one cause and who can suddenly swing to the other extreme when his life is suddenly on the line. No one knows what happened exactly inside that garrison where Josephus was trapped, but one thing is for certain: All of the men under his care were dead and only he was left alive, and, not only did he survive, but he went on to become a big supporter of the Roman Empire and was taken care of for life by them. You must remember that the Roman Empire was tolerant of many things, but one thing they were ruthless against was any insubordination that threatened their domination. Thus, any militia leader such as Josephus could have expected nothing more than torture and certain death. Even so, Josephus managed to quickly garner the support of Roman officials and to get an extravagant pension from them! He somehow managed to get his own men killed and to come out unscathed from the garrison, serve a light 2-year prison sentence, and then become a well-paid Roman historian!

Many who have studied Josephus' life have concluded that Josephus was a conceited man who was constantly concerned about the view others had of him. That is why he was willing to be an anti-Roman militia leader at first, since that made him look like a hero to the Jews around him. When he realised that his chances of military glory were going up in smoke and that his life could soon be over, he simply switched sides and somehow convinced the Romans that he would be an important asset that could help them consolidate the Empire amongst the Jews. Unlike Paul, who had a radical conversion from one extreme to the other that led him down a path of much suffering (Acts 9:16), Josephus went on to have a very comfortable life as a result of his "conversion". Unlike Paul, who was the only one in his company that was struck down to the ground during his conversion (Acts 9:1-3, Acts 22:5-9), Josephus was the only one in his company who was not struck to the ground during his "conversion". Unlike Paul, who converted as he suddenly stood before the Lord, Josephus "converted" as he suddenly stood before the Roman sword.

After gaining the Romans' favour, Josephus went on to become an apologist for Jewish traditions, making a concerted effort to portray Jewish culture in such a way that it seemed compatible with Roman culture and philosophy. This was once again an effort on Josephus' part to play both sides. On the one hand, Josephus wanted to appear as a "defender of Jewish values" to clear his name before the Jews, many of whom saw him as a traitor, especially because of the dubious nature of his survival from Yodfat. On the other hand, he also wanted to appear as a "consolidator of the Roman Empire" by smoothing out the cultural conflicts between Jews and Romans. In doing so, he never stopped being a follower of the Pharisaic tradition, and the version of Jewish history that he wrote is tainted with the traditions and legends he learned as a Pharisee. Since Josephus was not a first-hand witness of the Tower-of-Babel incident, and since he wrote his version of the story thousands of years after the event, he is only as reliable as the sources from which he got his story. To label him as a credible source, therefore, is to label the Pharisaic tradition as a trustworthy source of spiritual truth.

The linkage that Josephus and the Jewish tradition make between Nimrod and the Tower-of-Babel rebellion is often justified by the fact that Nimrod founded the city of Babel. There are two problems with this linkage, however. For one, the Spirit refuses to mention Nimrod at all in the Tower-of-Babel account of Genesis 11:1-9. Second, the name "Babel" is mentioned in Genesis 11 only until after God has dispersed the people building the tower. At the beginning of that chapter, the only name mentioned is "Shinar" (v1), meaning that the Spirit's purpose was to link the name "Shinar" with the evil rebellion and the name "Babel" (v9) with the confusion that God caused to counterattack that rebellion. In other words, "Babel" (which literally means "confusion") refers to God's answer to those men's sin, not to the sin itself. The sin itself is tied to the name "Shinar", which literally means "country of two rivers"; therefore, if taken in a negative sense, "Shinar" points to a duplicitous heart, i.e.- to people who want to please God and the established powers' traditions at the same time. This was the spirit in Josephus, and this is the spirit in those who want to be "radical" for Jesus but who at the same time are all too wary of respecting established traditions. The only thing that links "Nimrod" to evil are traditions, not the evidence of the Spirit in Scripture.

Whereas Paul's conversion represents the death of one person (the old Saul) and the birth of another (the new Paul), Josephus' conversion represents the coexistence of two persons in the same man, for the old, anti-Roman "radical" Josephus did not die at Yodfat. He simply morphed into a pro-Roman who was willing to kill his own men in order to save his own hide. Josephus was a man who always sided with the traditions and values of the power that stood before him. As he grew up in Judaea, he sided with Pharisaic traditions because the Pharisaic institutions were the ruling power that stood before him. As he came under Roman control, he sided with Roman traditions and philosophy because, now, the Roman institutions were the ruling power standing before him. Therefore, the two faces that Josephus showed during his life were mere reflections of a single man who never died to himself and to the spirit of self-preservation.

The Christians who are more interested in believing Josephus than in meditating on what Scripture has to say about Nimrod should ask themselves this question: Why did this man, who lived around the earthly days of Jesus, never convert to Christianity? If this man had a true, life-altering "conversion" at the Yodfat garrison, why did this man never publicly confess Yeshua as Lord?

[Some point to a paragraph supposedly written by Josephus to claim that he believed in Jesus' resurrection. However, as indicated on wikipedia.org, this paragraph is widely considered by those who have studied the text to be a forgery artificially inserted into the original text. Even if you assume that Josephus wrote this paragraph (which is, in and of itself, a gigantic leap of faith), the mere fact that Josephus only used one small paragraph to confess Jesus in the middle of all his writings would be enough to bring into question Josephus' allegiance to Yeshua.]

What book of Jasher?

Besides pointing to Josephus, many believers also point to the "book of Jasher" as evidence documenting the evil ways of Nimrod. It is true that Scripture mentions the "Book of the Righteous" (mistranslated as "Book of Jasher") in two verses, Joshua 10:13 (when describing the fact that the sun stood still) and 2 Samuel 1:18 (when describing that David urged the people of Judah to learn to use the bow). This Scriptural reference to the Book of the Righteous would seem to certify its credibility. However, there is a small problem with believing the Book of "Jasher": It is a lost book!!! Besides the 2 references in the Bible, no one really knows what the Book of "Jasher" contained. As indicated on wikipedia.org, there are a number of works that have been given this name, but most of them are actually Jewish texts that belong to the rabbinical tradition. As is also indicated on wikipedia.org, the book of "Jasher" is considered one of the "Lost books of the Old Testament", and no copies are known to exist. As is also indicated on wikipedia.org, several books have claimed to contain the lost text in the book of "Jasher", but they are widely discounted as "pseudepigrapha", i.e.- books whose real author claimed the book was written by a figure of the past. Whatever believers may currently have in their possession that is titled "Book of Jasher" is not the Book of the Righteous ("hai-Yashar") referred to in Scripture. There is a good reason why the book of Jasher is catalogued as a "lost book of the Old Testament" ... and that reason is: It is lost. Any so-called "book of Jasher", therefore, is nothing more than a Middle-Age transcription of Jewish rabbinical traditions.

Jewish bias

Just to get a taste of how trustworthy the Jewish rabbinical traditions are, let us consider some of the additional things that the Pseudo-Philo and the Talmud have to say regarding Nimrod. According to these rabbinical texts, Nimrod had a mighty confrontation with Abraham! Even though Abraham and Nimrod were born 7 generations apart, the Jewish tradition claims that their beloved "father" Abraham at one point confronted Nimrod for his evil idolatry, which led to Nimrod ordering Abraham to be burned at the stake. Naturally, Abraham was able to miraculously survive the fire unscathed! Interestingly enough, even the Koran includes this mythical battle of "Ibrahim" versus "Namrood". However, if this fantastic confrontation actually took place, would it not have been relevant enough to appear in the Bible? The mere fact that Abraham was born many generations after Nimrod is enough to disprove this mythical "clash of the titans". Such stories might make for entertaining reading, but they do nothing but distort the truth, idealising the unrighteous and demonising the righteous. The rabbinical stories regarding Nimrod are intended to bolster the Jews' pride in their ethnic heritage and traditions; that is the reason why Abraham, the "father of the Jews" (as the Pharisees so dearly deemed him) is given supernatural powers and heroic bravery in this story. Nimrod, on the other hand, represents the hated Assyrians, a nation that the Jewish people learned to hate very intensely. This is why Nimrod's figure is so strongly vilified. It is intolerable to the traditional Jew to consider that Nimrod (whom the Jew views as a representative of the Assyrians) could have been a "mighty hunter before the Face of Yahweh", the God of the Jews. There must have been something wrong with the man!! The man who founded Nineveh could not have been a good man!! So they made every effort possible to turn the man's attributes into fatal flaws.

As you may recall, Jonah was, shall we say, a bit "hesitant" about going to Nineveh. As he himself confesses later on, he did not want to go there because he knew that God would have mercy on Nineveh and turn back from His judgement against her if she repented.

"¹But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. ²And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. ³Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live. ⁴Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?" (Jonah 4:1-3)

In his inner self, Jonah knew that there was a potential for repentance and righteousness in Nineveh if she was given a chance, but the hatred he felt towards the Assyrians (a hatred indoctrinated into him in much the same way that Palestinians are taught from childhood to hate the Israelites) made it impossible for him to go preach to the Ninevites. Thus, any words against Nimrod that come from the Jewish rabbinical tradition must be viewed with strong scepticism, and they must be judged in the light of what Scripture has to say about Nimrod, and not what Pharisaic sources such as Josephus and the so-called "books of Jasher" have to say about him. If Nimrod was such a force of evil on Earth in the ancient world, why did the Holy Spirit refrain from mentioning it at all? The rabbinical tradition's view of Nimrod is not consistent with the view portrayed by Scripture. Extra-Biblical sources should complement what is in Scripture, not supplement it, for the Bible is a self-contained and comprehensive framework of all spiritual truth. Complements embellish or expand on a thing's attributes; supplements compensate a thing's deficiencies. The Bible is not deficient; thus, it can have no supplements that "correct" the image it portrays about any given thing.

It is ironic that both the rabbinical Jewish tradition and the Koran pit Abraham against Nimrod, especially if you consider the fact that Nimrod and Abraham are the first two individuals that have the phrase "before the Lord" (paniym YHWH) applied to them. To the Abraham-worshipping traditional Jew (John 8:39, 8:53-56), it must be utterly frustrating that the "pagan" Nimrod gets applied the phrase "before the Lord" even before their beloved father Abraham does, for the Jew is much more aware than the Gentile about the spiritual significance of standing before the face of God. That is the reason why the spirit of Jewish tradition has worked so hard to destroy Nimrod's image. By demonising the Gentile Nimrod, they could feel better about themselves as Jews.

{Fellow believer, we strongly encourage you to read the section entitled "A secular hero in Israel" in the wikipedia.org article on "Nimrod". God is effecting a reversal of the view on "Nimrod", and He is doing so through the spiritual (and literal) Jews who are willing to break away from the spirit of human traditions and religious paradigms, a spirit cursed and abhorred by the God of Israel.}

The accuser of the brethren

The fact that the Koran also vilifies Nimrod by pitting him against their father Ibrahim is not surprising. Islam is a Jebusite-Hittite religion that needs that its followers have a strong adherence to traditions and fear of institutional leaders in order to survive and thrive. Thus, it is crucial for the Islam religious spirit to demonise an independent Nimrod who dares to freely stand before the Lord without the covering of a human authority figure. It is important for the religious spirit to keep the "fear of rebellion" alive and well, so they have created a "poster child" named Nimrod to represent those who "dare to challenge" recognised human authority figures such as the "beloved" Ibrahim.

Based on the content of the email where we were asked about Nimrod and on what I have experienced in my personal life ever since we began to study the answer to this question, it has become plainly evident that the vilification of the name "Nimrod" is strongly protected by the spirit that accuses the brethren (mentioned in Revelation 12:10). Overcoming this spirit requires a willingness to "love not our lives unto death".

"¹⁰And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. ¹¹And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." (Revelation 12:10-11)

Anyone who is overcome by the spirit of self-preservation will never overcome the accuser of the brethren, and will therefore remain trapped in the religious traditions and paradigms that this spirit upholds. Just as with Josephus, succumbing to the self-preservation spirit may gain you a temporary "raise" as the accuser of the brethren rewards you for betraying God, but you will be reneging on God's calling for your life, which will cause God to "renege" on His promise to you (1 Samuel 2:30). You will be unable to stand "before the Face of the Lord" for eternity, and your forehead will forever be marked with a mark of ignominy from God Himself for submitting to man rather than to Him:

"³³And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD. ³⁴And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house. ³⁵Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his brother, What hath the LORD answered? and, What hath the LORD spoken? ³⁶And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man’s word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. ³⁷Thus shalt thou say to the prophet, What hath the LORD answered thee? and, What hath the LORD spoken? ³⁸But since ye say, The burden of the LORD; therefore thus saith the LORD; Because ye say this word, The burden of the LORD, and I have sent unto you, saying, Ye shall not say, The burden of the LORD; ³⁹Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence: ⁴⁰And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." (Jeremiah 23:33-40)

The Jewish rabbinical tradition that has demonised Nimrod is a modern-day manifestation of the Pharisee spirit. It represents the spirit that prompts the traditional Jew to stubbornly deny that Yeshua is the Messiah, despite all the evidences to the contrary. Interestingly enough, it is because of this "false" Messiah, Jesus, that the Jewish people have gained prominence around the world. Who in Europe, America, Africa, or Asia would care about the story of a Jew called Moses and the 10 plagues that struck Egypt, were it not for this "false" Messiah? Why would so many people from so many nations and races have a printed copy of the Tanakh, the Jewish Old Testament, in their homes were it not for this "false" Messiah called Jesus? Who in Europe would care about the story of a Jewish sheep-herder called "David" or a Jewish captain called "Joshua", were it not for this "false" Messiah called Jesus? Why would the 10 commandments given by God to the Jews at Mount Sinai be known throughout the entire planet were it not for the spread of a faith that claimed that this man called Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews? 2,000 years later, these modern Pharisees continue to wait for the Messiah, and it is this same Pharisaic spirit (in disguised form) that has kept the Church under satan's captivity, preserving it as a "body of Moses". God has sent His remnant spirit, however, to wrest the "body of Moses" from satan's grasp so that it may finally manifest itself as the true "body of Christ" on Earth (Jude 1:9).

As I was writing the first part of the paragraph above, I felt prompted by the Lord to go to the book of Zechariah, and, there, the Lord took me to chapter 3. That is when it became clear once again that this whole row over Nimrod is strongly related to the fight against the spirit that accuses the brethren.

"¹And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and satan standing at his right hand to resist him. ²And the LORD said unto satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? ³Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. ⁴And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. ⁵And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. ⁶And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, ⁷Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. ⁸Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. ⁹For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. ¹⁰In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree." (Zechariah 3:1-10)

[The reference to the one day when iniquity will be removed from the land in verse 10 points to the day when the New Covenant will have a full-blown manifestation on Earth (Jeremiah 31:33-34).]

The "Branch" that the Spirit refers to in verse 8 points to the following:

"¹⁰Thus saith the LORD; Again there shall be heard in this place, which ye say shall be desolate without man and without beast, even in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, that are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant, and without beast, ¹¹The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD. ¹²Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Again in this place, which is desolate without man and without beast, and in all the cities thereof, shall be an habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. ¹³In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD. ¹⁴Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. ¹⁵In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. ¹⁶In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness." (Jeremiah 33:10-16)

Some believers sincerely think that the name "Nimrod" is cursed. In a sense, this is true, because it is a name "accursed" to the institutionalised Church, and those who operate in the "Nimrod" anointing are also "cursed" of her ... and that is a good thing:

"⁴⁵Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? ⁴⁶The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. ⁴⁷Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? ⁴⁸Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? ⁴⁹But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. ⁵⁰Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) ⁵¹Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? ⁵²They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." (John 7:45-52)

To be "good friends" with Churchianity is a bad sign if your goal is to please God and to stand before the Lord forever.

The Moses regression

Based on the content of the second email we received on Nimrod, and on other things that the Lord had already clearly spoken to us prior to receiving that email, we became aware that discarding Nimrod as evil meant "going back to Moses".

As we meditated on the content of the first email, the Lord kept impressing the following thought in my heart:

There are two 'Gods' worshipped in the Church, Me and satan, and a house divided shall not stand

As we have studied before, the Church is currently held captive by satan, who keeps the Church acting as the "body of Moses", and satan has worked to prevent the Church acting as the "body of Christ". Due to the Church's faithlessness, the current ruler and 'God' of the Church is satan, not the Lord Jesus. The Church does "enough" for the true God to deceive herself into thinking that her God is the God of Israel, but, when it comes to doing things that represent a crossing over into total surrender to God the Father of Spirits, satan rears his ugly head and begins to speak through his spiritual broadcasting channels inside the Church. These "channels" are the intermediary ministers who promote and sustain the Old-Covenant structures of the Church, and they are there, broadcasting away inside the Church due to the groundswell of both tacit and active support from believers in the Church. The messages transmitted through these broadcasting posts reverberate in the hearts and souls of those who open their ears to the Old-Covenant frequency out of either unbelief or fear. These messages are "rebroadcast" by subservient believers (John 18:15-18) who are quick to scold and accuse anyone who so much as questions the messages. These messages are not only broadcast at a natural level but at a spiritual level, and they can reach into the hearts of those with a strong prophetic endowment, who may confuse these broadcast waves with the voice of God Himself, for the voice sounds very similar. If your heart is focused on validating what you feel, you will be easily deceived. If your heart is focused instead on basing your life on the "cold", unbiased truth, you will discern the deception and tune out the broadcast. Those who have little reverence for Scripture will be easily fooled. Those who revere every single word in Scripture as words from the living God and who believe Scripture over what any man or their own feelings might say will not be deceived. Those who trust their feelings over Scripture will be deceived by the voice of the other "God" in the Church.

As we said above, if you heed the voice of the other "God" in the Church, you will regress to the "body of Moses". Interestingly enough, Moses is the 3rd individual after Nimrod and Abraham that the phrase "before the Lord" (paniym YHWH) is applied to in Scripture. However, as the Lord had me meditating on the first 10 verses where that phrase appears, He drew my attention to the fact that Moses was the only one in those verses who spoke words of doubt before the Lord. As you can see in Exodus 6:12 and 6:30, Moses had doubts as to how he would be able to convince Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. Earlier, Moses stirred the Lord to wrath because he kept saying that he was not eloquent enough to stand before Pharaoh's court and free the people of Israel (Exodus 4:10-14). This unwillingness to speak before Pharaoh revealed an intrinsic fear that Moses had towards human authority and institutions. This is the same fear that keeps people hearing and fearing the voice of the other "God" (Pharaoh) rather than the voice of the true God.

Because of Moses' unbelief, the Lord was compelled to use Aaron as Moses' "spokesman" or intermediary before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:14-16). As shown in Hebrews 7:11, Aaron went on to become a figure of the Old-Covenant priesthood, and it was Aaron who supported the people in their debauchery at the foot of Mount Sinai as Moses delayed in coming down (Exodus 32:5-6). Even though Aaron went on to practice as a "priest" for many years after that, he was eventually punished by God for his half-heartedness. Not only were his two sons Nadab and Abihu killed before the Lord (Leviticus 10:1-2), but he was eventually stripped of his robes at Mount Hor by Moses and was killed by God there, for God had decreed that Aaron would not enter into the Promised Land (Numbers 20:23-29). Moses himself was also banned from entering the Promised Land because, as we have studied before, he acted as an unrighteous intercessor that condoned unrighteousness and held back the judgements of God, thus delaying God's plans.

When Moses struck the rock twice, rather than speaking to it as the Lord had commanded (Numbers 20:7-8), he and Aaron were showing that they were more concerned about displaying their visible authority before the people, rather than displaying the invisible authority of God; this is why Moses chose to strike the rod rather than speak to it, because striking the rod was a visible act that pointed to him, the striker, whereas speaking invisible words to the rod pointed to the invisible God.

"⁶And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto them. ⁷And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ⁸Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. ⁹And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. ¹⁰And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? ¹¹And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. ¹²And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them." (Numbers 20:6-12)

[Notice how the wording used by Moses and Aaron in verse 10 pointed to them as the ones who would produce water from the rock, not God. Moses and Aaron's anger against the people here was not born out of righteous indignation over the people's refusal to believe in God. Instead, they were angry at the people because they were personally annoyed by all the extra work and grief that these people's demands placed upon them. Moses, the unrighteous intercessor (Exodus 33), and Aaron, the enabler of sin (Exodus 32), were finally fed up with the people they had defended and enabled, not because they were finally willing to see the fullness of God's purifying judgements applied to the people, but because of the annoying inconvenience that the people's sins was inflicting upon their own personal lives.]

Also, Moses had doubts as to whether speaking to the rod would really work. He had done this act of producing water from a rock before (Exodus 17:5-7), but, on that occasion, he had had to strike the rock. He wanted to stick with what had worked before, in much the same way that people stick to traditions from the past and who are afraid to cross over into new dimensions of understanding.

The fact that Moses struck the rock twice has spiritual significance. On one level, it points to both Moses and Aaron. Aaron here represents the committing of outright sin, as when he helped the people to sin at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exodus 32), whilst Moses represents the committing of less-obvious sin that is mingled with intentions that appear to be good on the surface, as when he interceded to prevent God's judgements destroying the unrighteous Israelites, even when God's intention was to produce a new nation of Israelites from Moses (Exodus 33). Aaron's level of sin represents sin that is clearly wrong at all levels. Moses' level of sin represents sin that looks "righteous" and "noble" when judged from the soul perspective but is actually "unrighteous" when judged from the spirit perspective.

The two strikes on the rock also represent the 2 spiritual swords that are commonly used by the soul-based Church (Luke 22:35-38). As we have studied before, these 2 swords are the sword of material resources and the sword of emotional resources. The Lord, however, is calling His people to fight with the 3rd sword, the sword of the Spirit, a sword that requires selling the mantle of visible authority in order to operate at a level that is completely different from the level natural and religious man operates in.

From all of the above, we can conclude that the "Moses regression" implies a refusal to cross over a border that would allow us to operate at the completely unnatural level of the Spirit. Just as Moses never crossed the Jordan and into the Promised Land, those who are too fearful of human authority and traditions and who prefer to fight the battle using the more familiar 2 swords will have God's Promise for them annulled and will not cross into the 3rd level, the level of the Spirit. Instead of being moved by the Spirit, believers who experience the Moses regression will be moved by "pseudo-voices of God" that will be more interested in upholding the reputation of visible authority figures and in removing inconveniences from these figures' natural lives (just as when Moses and Aaron struck the rock to assert their personal authority over the people and to remove an annoying inconvenience from their lives).

The pride card

One of the most common tactics used by the accuser of the brethren whenever a believer is about to break out of the "body of Moses" is the "pride card", which consists of saying the following to the believer:

"Who do you think you are? You think that you are right and everyone else around you is wrong? You know why you are not giving in to the established truth? Because you are proud. You think you are superior to others, that you have access to truth that others do not have access to. That is why you will not submit to the word the authorities speak and why you are making up truth on your own."

This type of subtle psychological attack avoids the spiritual facts and "personalises" the argument. In other words, it is an attack that turns the question away from the issue at hand and turns it into a mere battle of personalities. It is the type of attack commonly used by people under the Pharisaic spirit to keep others in Perizzite lameness. To overcome this type of attack, you must be willing to admit a spiritual fact:

It is not pride if you are right

It is not pride when you are right and you hang on to what you are saying, basing your conviction on the facts, regardless of who or how many may stand against you (Isaiah 31:4). This pride accusation that the Pharisaic spirit puts believers through is an effort from satan to impute shame to those who dare to question the establishment (Matthew 21:23-27).

"¹³They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. ¹⁴And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. ¹⁵Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. ¹⁶Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. ¹⁷They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. ¹⁸But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. ¹⁹And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? ²⁰His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: ²¹But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. ²²These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. ²³Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. ²⁴Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. ²⁵ He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. ²⁶Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? ²⁷He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? ²⁸Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. ²⁹We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. ³⁰The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. ³¹Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. ³²Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. ³³If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. ³⁴They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out." (John 9:13-34)

Notice how the man was not swayed by the barrage of sceptical criticism heaved upon him by the Pharisees. Notice also how he dared to "teach" them on spiritual principles that were evident to him but were hidden to them, which led to them "casting him out", labelling him as a sinful fool who thought more of himself than he should have. It is also interesting to consider that, as they challenged this defiant man, the Pharisees felt compelled to call themselves "disciples of Moses", which points to the "Moses regression" mentioned above.

When God told Moses to go speak to Pharaoh, Moses replied with what many would perceive was a "humble" reply:

"¹⁰And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. ¹¹And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? ¹²Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. ¹³And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. ¹⁴And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. ¹⁵And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. ¹⁶And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. ¹⁷And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs." (Exodus 4:10-17)

Instead of evoking a warm look of love from God, Moses' "humble reply" evoked an angry response from the Lord. Whereas God was calling Moses to take a defiant stance before the greatest human authority on Earth, Moses was trying to back down and assume an attitude of "humble" submission and resignation. Even though backing down from a stance may seem like a sign of humility, it is actually a sign of disobedience in the eyes of God if you are backing down from a stance He called you to take. Jesus was constantly accused of pride by the Pharisaic establishment. They constantly questioned His authority in an effort to portray Him as a "self-proclaimed prophet" who thought He was better than He really was. Once and again, Jesus failed this "humility test" of man, but, in doing so, He was showing Himself submissive to God and not to the traditions of man.

"⁵Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? ⁶He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ⁷Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ⁸For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. ⁹And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:5-9)

When you open your heart to the words from the spirit of condemnation, you set yourself up to hear the voice of the other "God" in the Church. That "God's" voice will be quick to scold you, call you a "prideful fool", and order you to apologise for a wrong you have not commit. It will accuse you of "rebellious" and "anarchical" behaviour, and it will try to portray you as just another example of defiant, "Nimrod-like rebellion".

The burden

One thing you learn as you grow in the Lord is that being a prophet goes beyond simply predicting people's futures. It implies bearing a great sacrificial burden in order to see that "predicted future" fulfilled. As you are attacked, and as you suffer with self-doubt and depression due to the word you have pronounced, you are waging a battle and bearing a "gastric" burden on behalf of your brethren. Instead of backing down and yielding to the spirit that "accuses the brethren" (Revelation 12:10), the Lord will call you to stand strong and to pronounce the word, standing solely on the authority of the Written Word and the Spirit's witness inside of you, regardless of what the believers around you may or may not think. You must be willing to "die" because of your witness. That is the only way to overcome the spirit that accuses the true brethren (Revelation 12:11).

I have felt the spiritual consequences of birthing this word on Nimrod in my personal life. As many of you know, the name "Nimrod" is commonly used in some places as a synonym for "stupid". According to wikipedia.org, this came from Bugs Bunny episodes where Bugs Bunny would call Elmer Fudd "Nimrod"; apparently, the word "Nimrod" was a common synonym for "hunter" in the past, and that is the reason why Bugs Bunny called Elmer "Nimrod". However, since Elmer Fudd used to be so easily fooled by Bugs Bunny, later generations who watched those cartoons began to associate the name "Nimrod" with stupidity. As I was meditating on the Nimrod question on December 24, 2008, I went to the heart of the city to run some errands, and I was drawn into two situations where people mocked me and made me feel stupid, and there was even one man (a man whom I perceived to be of Turkish descent, for some reason) who called me "stupid" behind my back. Even before I had this chance encounter with this man, I saw him from 20 yards away, and I was able to sense the evil that enveloped him. I was filled with an immediate sense of danger and fear, and I felt like avoiding him and the other (Turkish) man that was with him. I chose not to, and satan set me up for an incident; the incident had nothing to do with these (Turkish) blokes, but they were quick to get involved anyway, even though it was absolutely none of their business, and that is when one of them insulted me as I looked away. When I saw this man the first time, I could see hatred in his eyes, and, even from 20 yards away, he gave me a long look of hatred that took me by surprise.

Final words

Those who adhere to "Church tradition" and who are willing to believe that the name "Nimrod" is inherently evil need to be asked the following questions: What is your underlying logic for believing such a thing? What is your reason for believing it? It is obviously not because you learned from the Word of God. Would it then be, "Because Josephus said so"?. Does that sound like a strong enough spiritual argument, even when a close study of Scripture points in the opposite direction? Would your argument be, "Because Nimrod founded Babel"? Does this sound like a strong enough argument, even when Scripture "fails" to mention Nimrod in Genesis 11, and only refers to the name "Babel" (meaning "confusion") until after God has confused the people there and broken up their sin? Did the confusion come from God or from satan? Who established confusion in Babel? Wasn't it God? If God established confusion, why is it held against Nimrod that he established the city of "Babel" (confusion)?

Some might still want to argue, "We believe that Nimrod was evil because the book of Jasher says so". Does that sound like a strong enough argument? Can you truly disregard Scripture and base your belief on a book whose original text was long lost and whose current "version" suddenly "resurfaced" at the end of the Middle Ages, thousands of years later? Can you base your conviction on a book that was stamped with a holy label taken from Scripture so as to render credibility to Jewish stories from the rabbinical tradition?

Would those who accuse Nimrod be willing to weigh the Scriptural evidence presented above? I would dare say that most of them would not. Most of them are too impatient when it comes to analysing spiritual evidence on their own. They prefer a patented, chewed-down answer handed down by oral, religious tradition. Most believers lack the fearsome reverence for Scripture that is required to learn from it, and they give too much credibility to the words spoken by man, even at the expense of Scripture's independent credibility. As they do this, they become "label-oriented", meaning that they are unable to see the good in that which has been labelled as "bad" by the religious system, just as Peter labelled the animals in the sheet as "unclean" (Acts 10). Such people develop knee-jerk reactions to various labels, reactions hardwired into their hearts by tradition and not by the Spirit, and that fact becomes evident as you hear the lack of Spirit-anointing in the reasons they give to justify their reactions.

The question regarding the spiritual meaning behind the name "Nimrod" is more than an "academic" discussion of an obscure historical figure. Believers' spiritual reaction to this question is actually a "shibboleth" that determines who are of the remnant and who are not. It is essentially a referendum on the white horse of the Apocalypse (which has itself been foolishly maligned by religious tradition). It determines whether you are willing to be imbued with the white-horse conquering anointing that breaks away from human traditions and is willing to believe that we have been called to exercise a spiritual priesthood before the Lord and before the world.