Tag Archives: Henry VIII

END OF THE UK?

Fourteen years ago I gave a sermon in England on Bible prophecy as it relates to the United Kingdom.   I speculated that eventually the United Kingdom would be whittled down to England, just England.

My reasoning was simple.   As the “multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19) was a blessing, and the strength of Ephraim was to be that multitude of nations, so, in accordance with Deuteronomy 28, as the people turned away from God, they would lose the multitude of nations, until they were down to what England was during the time of Elizabeth I, just England.

It all tied In with the Protestant Reformation.   The zeal for independence from Rome and the need for trade sent England around the world in search of markets.   These trading posts were the origin of the British Empire, the empire “upon which the sun never set.”

It was not just mercantile considerations.   After the legalization of the Bible in 1537 (it had been banned under the Church of Rome), there was an enthusiasm for God’s Word that encouraged believers to take it around the world.   King Henry VIII was on the throne at the time the Bible became available.   In 1546 he admonished the people on their enthusiasm, thinking it improper for people to read it in the pubs.

Almost five centuries later, the reading of it anywhere would be beneficial.   The  fact is that the more people sin, the more the nation will suffer.   This applies to all nations, but especially to the descendants of ancient Israel.   And few people in England today know what sin is.

CONTRASTING TWO FUNERALS

In “The Abolition of Britain,” Peter Hitchens writes about this.   He shows how much England changed between the funerals of Sir Winston Churchill on 30th January 1965; and the funeral of Princess Diana on 6th September, 1997.

“The final days of imperial Britain are bracketed – appropriately enough – by the funerals of an old man and of a beautiful young woman.   The first, of Sir Winston Churchill, reached into a past of grandeur and certainty, while the second, of Diana, Princess of Wales, foreshadowed a future of doubt and decline.   The two events were different in every possible way, except that both were unmistakably British.   The dead warrior was almost ninety, full of years and ready to die.   He represented the virtues of courage, fortitude and endurance, was picturesque rather than glamorous, and his death was expected.   The lost princess was snatched from life in the midst of youth, beauty and glamour.   Her disputed virtues were founded on suffering (real or imagined) and appealed more to the outcasts and the wounded than to the dutiful plain heart of England.”   (“The Abolition of Britain,” by Peter Hitchens, 1999, pages 1 & 2).

Churchill’s funeral was the last hurrah of Imperial Britain.   The hundreds of thousands who lined the streets were deferential, tipping their hats when the cortege went by.   They were a generation of God-fearing people who believed that the British Empire had been the greatest empire in history, that the Queen was chosen by God, that their system of government was the best in the world.   They respected the royal family.   They even respected their politicians, even though they did not agree with them.   In a world of turmoil, there was civil order, something to be proud of.   They were a confident people, self-assured and independent.

Over the next 32 years, it all changed.

Now, they lead the world in the number of websites devoted to atheism.   They are a nation of emotional basket cases rather like Diana herself.   They are sexually immoral, a people with no moral compass and no backbone, either.   Today, in parliament, there’s hardly a real man amongst them.   They cower before the European Union, afraid to make any decision.   Afraid to leave, afraid to stay – leaderless.   They have forgotten their friends, family, really, the Old Dominions, turning their backs on them in pursuit of a European chimera.

Worst of all, they do not realize any of this.

In that 32-year period the country changed.   Quite literally, in fact, as many of the people who live there now are not even of British descent.

“Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples; Ephraim is a cake unturned.   Aliens have devoured his strength, but he does not know it, yes gray hairs are here and there on him, yet he does not know it, And the pride of Israel testifies to his face, but they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek Him for all this.”   (Hosea 7:8-10)

This describes Britain today.

UK TO BREAK UP?

The challenges continue to mount.   The official name of the country is the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”   But divided Ireland presents a real problem for the UK in its negotiations with the EU.   Nobody wants a “hard” border with customs and passport controls.   But this cannot be avoided when the UK leaves the EU. The EU is not cooperating with Britain over this, giving the UK a real headache.   A hard border could mean a return to all the fighting of previous decades.   A soft border is only possible if Ireland unites, which means Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom.   The majority in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.   It would also mean the fall of the Conservative government as they rely on the votes of the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party).

Northern Ireland dropping out of the UK means the United Kingdom would have to change its name to Great Britain, the name given to the country when Scotland and England merged.

In Scotland, as well, the majority voted to remain in the United Kingdom.   If Northern Ireland leaves the UK, the Scots are more likely to follow.   So then it will just be England.

It’s logical.   Seventy years ago, the British still had the biggest empire in history.   Gradually, they gave it all away.   Would anybody now be shocked if the United Kingdom ceased to exist?   If Ireland and Scotland were given away?

————————————————————

Footnote:   Somebody has written and asked if I think the election of Donald Trump will delay the prophesied end time events?   Quite the contrary.   The election of Donald Trump has turned the world upside down, with alliances broken and trading systems overturned.   The growing separation between Europe and America alone speeds up prophetic events.

Advertisements

HISTORY IS BRUTAL

(Our youngest grandson, Leeson, who turns 2 in December, deleted this morning’s article. Here is an attempt at a re-write.)

Sword

Bernard Cornwell is an American novelist who has written dozens of books on English history. I’ve just finished his first novel on Alfred the Great, “The Last Kingdom,” set in the ninth century when the Danes (Vikings) were raiding England and wanted to take over the country. England at the time was more than one kingdom. The Danes conquered all the other kingdoms until finally only Alfred’s kingdom of Wessex, in the south and west of the island, survived. If the Danes had succeeded in conquering the last kingdom, they would have killed all the English males and there would have been no England.

It’s not surprising that Alfred is the only English monarch described as “the Great.” Without him, the country would not exist today.

The Danes at the time were ruthless. They still worshipped the pagan gods of Thor and Woden. Because they were usually victorious against the “Christian” (Catholic) English, they considered their gods superior to the Christian god. They were particularly fond of raiding churches and killing priests (churches had more money than anybody else).

Their favorite method of killing was beheading, a subject that has been in our news a great deal lately.

Coincidentally, the non-fiction book I was reading at the same time as Cornwell’s was “When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World,” by Hugh Kennedy, a far more challenging read. I remember having a problem reading Russian literature in my teens because I could not keep track of all those Russian names; believe me, Russian names are a lot easier than Arabic.

This book is set in the same time period as Cornwell’s. As in “The Last Kingdom,” there are plenty of beheadings, the preferred punishment for opponents and anybody the caliph did not like.

Having said that, the Muslim world was far more advanced than England at the time.

The Danes were still a problem two centuries later when Saxon King Harold took his troops north and defeated the invading Danes at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, which was fought on the 25th September, 1066. He then had to rush south to fight the invading Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Harold lost the battle and lost his life. England came under Norman rule.

Beheadings continued. During the Peasants Revolt in 1381, the rebels beheaded any law students they could find. In turn, the rebels themselves were later beheaded by the royal authorities.

Henry VIII, in the sixteenth century, was fond of sending people to face the axe-man, including two of his wives.

The most famous victim was Anne Boleyn, his second wife. “Compassionately,” Henry sent for the best swordsman in France to come over and do the final deed, as he did not want his wife to suffer. A good swordsman could kill with just one swipe of the sword – an axe-man might need a few swipes, thereby prolonging the agony. Of course, if he had really been compassionate, he would have sent her into exile. He did not have the option of sending her to a convent as he had closed them all down.

A little over a century later, King Charles I was beheaded in 1649. A republic was proclaimed under Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell, in turn, was beheaded when the monarchy was restored but by that time he had been dead for well over a year!

Decapitation was the punishment for treason. It was reserved for the nobility. The common man had to endure being hung, drawn, and quartered, as was William Wallace, the famous Scot. The last English noble to suffer decapitation was in 1747. In Scotland, the last beheading was in 1889.

The French were still using the guillotine until a few decades ago. The last public execution was in 1939.  Interestingly, witnesses say that people would utter a word or two or blink their eyes after they lost their heads. Just for a couple seconds, that’s all.

As a child I often visited the city of Lincoln and loved walking around its famous castle. One high point in the castle wall is where public hangings took place until the mid-nineteenth century. Charles Dickens witnessed the last one. There was a pub across the street, which offered a perfect view of the hangings. It was called “The Hangman’s Noose” and did a roaring trade whenever anybody faced the actual hangman. Hanging had replaced decapitation as the preferred form of capital punishment over a century earlier.

The law followed the biblical guideline found in Ecclesiastes 8:11 (and elsewhere):  “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Typically, a trial was held within two months of a capital offence. Execution then followed within 90 days, after just one appeal. In stark contrast today, in the US, somebody can be on death row for over twenty years, making the death penalty far less of a deterrent.

Back to the two books: I recommend Cornwell’s book. It’s a good read. Kennedy’s is a more difficult read and is only for those who are seriously interested in the subject.

Because the two books include many beheadings, and because I have been reading them at the same time as beheadings have been on the news, I studied into the subject more deeply. The result is this article. I hope you found it interesting.