Waterloo

The Battle of Waterloo

I solitaired the battle of Waterloo using VP Games’ Napoleon 20 system. On the afternoon of June 16, the French began the battle already in contact with the Prussian I and II Corps at Ligny. I decided to shift the II French Corps east to assist in the attack. To screen the Anglo-Dutch in front of Quatre-Bras, I marched I Corps north along the road from Gosselies and sent III Cavalry on a flanking march that put them on the rough terrain just west of the town.

Meanwhile, I decided to commit the Imperial Guard against the Prussians at Ligny. In fact, I pressed the attack hard, committing all available forces in the hope of ejecting the enemy from Ligny and surrounding the Prussian I Corps. The Prussians committed their reserves in both battles and managed to withdraw in good order, though remaining in contact as I advanced aggressively.

The Allied morale, already lowered by their commitment of reserves, sank lower. The Prussians engaged the advancing French line, pushing the II and III Corps back but choosing not to advance and maintain contact. Meanwhile, the French cavalry in Ligny held the town, forcing the Prussian III Corps to withdraw.

In the west, the Anglo-Dutch, satisfied that the French main effort was to the east, occupied Quatre-Bras, while the Reserve Corps countermarched to maneuver the French cavalry away from the town. The French disengaged.

Thus, as the day waned, French morale remains intact, and the Allied lines are still in good order.

Wow! As evening approached, I decided to press the attack against the Prussians while slowing reinforcing against the Anglo-Dutch. I committed the Imperial Guard again, and the resulting battles were bloodbaths. The Imperial Guard and French II Corps were broken, as were the Prussian I and II Corps. The shocked French survivors advanced, and there is now a huge hole in the Allied line…but at what a cost!

The Anglo-Dutch held Quatre-Bras with the I Corps in the town, and the Reserve Corps holding the high ground to the west. The Prussians attacked the French Cavalry that were engaging them, and the French disengaged. Night falls.

The French VI Corps received conflicting orders, with the result that it did not move. III Cavalry Corps moved into Nivelles. The French III and IV Corps advanced in an attempt to surround the remaining Prussian corps. Meanwhile, the French I Corps remained to the south of Quatre-Bras.

The Imperial Guard rallied at Fleurus.

The Prussians withdrew to the north, but the French IV Corps maintained contact with them. The Prussian II Corps rallied at Mont St. Guibert. The Uxbridge Cavalry Corps entered from the west and engaged the French cavalry in Nivelles. The Prussian IV Corps entered near Hamme.

The French force-marched. I and III Corps attacked the Anglo-Dutch at Quatre-Bras as the I Cavalry swung north to cut off any retreat. Meanwhile, VI Corps conducted a diversionary attack against the Reserve Corps. To the east the French IV Corps, along with the I and II Cavalry surrounded the Prussian III Corps and attacked it. The Imperial Guard force-marched four miles and is following the attack against the Prussians.

The Uxbridge Cavalry tried to countercharge the French III Cavalry at Nivelles but was repulsed and routed all the way back to Hougemont. The Prussian III Corps committed its reserves in a desperate defense against the French and managed to survive yet again, withdrawing in good order. The French attack against Quatre-Bras was handily repulsed, and the French VI Corps was routed and broken by the Anglo-Dutch Reserve Corps.

The Allied cause is looking good. The Prussians pushed back against the French cavalry in the east as the II Corps reached the front lines and joined the III Corps. Still, the French cavalry were able to avoid any losses and maneuvered in such a way as to imperil the Prussian II Corps again. Meanwhile, the Prussian IV Corps is moving to cover Wavre. In the west, the Anglo-Dutch II Corps appeared and attacked the French cavalry in Nivelles, forcing them to withdraw to the south. The Uxbridge Cavalry recovered.

At mid-day on the 17^th of June, Napoleon decided to hammer at the enemy again. He committed the Imperial Guard against the Prussian II Corps, and the resulting battle was another bloodbath—both the Prussians and the French IV Corps were broken. In the west, the French ejected the Anglo-Dutch out of Quatre-Bras but were able to advance into the town with a weak cavalry unit, due to the presence of the enemy Reserve Corps. The French are running out of units.

The Anglo-Dutch counterattacked against Quatre-Bras, and the French cavalry disengaged, leaving the town vacant as the two armies faced off. The British II Corp chased the French cavalry facing them off the wooded ridge west of the town, and the Uxbridge Cavalry raced toward the fight along the main road from Waterloo.

In the east the Prussian III Corps withdrew to Mont St. Gibert, keeping out of range of the French Imperial Guard. The IV Corps marched to try to join them. It doesn’t seem likely, however, that the French will make much more headway toward Wavre.

French morale is very low. In the east, the Imperial Guard trudged north with the two French cavalry corps covering the movement. In the west, the French infantry advanced into Quatre-Bras and engaged the Anglo-Dutch I Corps, pushing them back. But when the two French cavalry corps conducted a diversionary attack on the Reserve Corps, the enemy committed their reserves and broke both cavalry corps, ending the battle.

I flubbed the attack with the French. They have to press the attack, but in this battle, three exchanges sapped French strength. I should have selected a main effort and moved it quickly against either the Prussians or Anglo-Dutch. Instead, I attacked both simultaneously. I do feel that luck went against the French—not only the exchanges, but also the Prussians kept surviving their hazardous retreats. I tended to be pretty liberal with my use of morale points, and in the end it caught up with me.

The Eschatology of Philemon

We don't often associate Paul's letter to Philemon with eschatology, but I've come to see a potent lesson about it in this very short letter. Paul wrote to Philemon--a wealthy Christian probably based in Colossae--in order to urge him to be merciful and kind to his former slave, Onesimus, whom Paul was returning to his master.

Paul appeals to the Christian virtue in Philemon, reminding him that Onesimus is not just his slave anymore, but his brother in Christ. He praises the slave's usefulness to Paul while the apostle was in prison and asks that Philemon charge Paul with any expenses Onesimus might have caused him. It's a beautiful letter, not least because Paul is not only seeking to develop Philemon's character, but also that of Onesimus. Imagine the trepidation the slave would have felt at the prospect of returning to Philemon, whom he presumably deserted (perhaps even stealing from him)! Yet, Paul convinces him to return home and face the music--like a good Christian.

One interesting aspect to the letter is the complete absence of commentary by Paul concerning the institution of slavery. A common condition within the Roman Empire, slavery was certainly not anything shocking, as we would consider it today. Paul does not protest the practice, condemn anyone who engaged in it, or call for political movements to eradicate it. Instead, he solves the inherent problems of slavery by appealing TO CHRISTIANS and sees the virtue of the mature believer as the solution.

This, to me, has eschatological implications. The postmillennial and amillennial positions suffer from a proclivity for Christian social action. Liberation theology and its tangential ideologies (including socialism) plague our world today. Too many who label themselves Christians view our belief as essentially a call for equality, freedom, peace, and universal brotherhood. They see the proper role of the Christian as one that aims at solving social problems--fixing the devil's world. This is decidedly NOT the point of Christianity.

Biblical Christianity is all about Jesus Christ--his Person, his work at the Cross. It is about propagating the message of God's gracious program of salvation to the world. It is about leading people to a saving knowledge of Christ, and then discipling them to become mature, virtuous believers. Does Biblical Christianity care about world problems? Most certainly. But it seeks temporary solutions through the cultivation of character and virtue IN CHRISTIANS, not in the unbelieving world.

Premillennialism correctly interprets prophecy by anticipating the return of Jesus Christ, who will reign on the earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Postmillennialism and amillennialism pervert and dismiss these prophecies by insisting that Christ will fix the devil's world through the agency of the Church. Thus--he will NOT return to rule, and we are already in the Millennium...or there will be no Millennium at all.

All three schools of interpretation claim to be faithful to Paul's writings. But what did Paul really think and preach? Did he insist that Philemon abandon the practice of slavery? By no means. Instead, knowing that such issues cannot be solved sufficiently in our age, he focused on the personal behavior of the individual believer. That is clearly a premillennial position!

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

I love the beautiful integrity, the depth, and richness of the Bible. I had such an enjoyable evening searching and searching into the Scriptures.

After over three decades of teaching the Bible, one of my favorite adventures is to wrestle with a passage that troubles me or confuses me. I've been taking on the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it has led me on such a rewarding journey as I study the words of my majestic King!

The passages in question: Matthew 12:22-32 and the parallel Mark 3:22-30. In response to Jesus casting out a demon, thus enabling a blind and mute man to both see and speak (typological connection to Israel...), the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Greek: GRAMMATEUS) concluded officially that Jesus cast out demons because he himself was possessed by Beelzebuul. In other words, Jesus was possessed by Satan.

Jesus refutes this idiotic claim by first revealing the inherent logical fallacy: "A house divided cannot stand..." But then he goes on to state categorically that although all manner of sin and blasphemies will be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. It is an eternal sin.

What a remarkable and powerful statement! Unfortunately, Christian theologians and Bible teachers (myself included) have obsessed about this statement, mainly because we secretly wish he hadn't said it! It bothers us, because it appears to interfere with our much-vaunted doctrines of expiation, unlimited atonement, and our other clever soteriological calculations! In our attempts to EXPLAIN this statement, we come close to instead DISMISSING it, because it makes us uncomfortable.

So here's what I've learned after 30+ years of Bible study: when a passage troubles you, rejoice! Because you're about to experience the awesome power of God's Word! You'd better get used to it: our God is unfathomably deep, and his message to us is beautiful, terrible, joyous, gracious and frequently ironic. What then is this passage about?

To find out, we should rely on probably the very best and first principle of good hermeneutics: let the Bible explain the Bible. Specifically, we must remember that the Gospels are in essence Old Testament books, in that (1) the Law of Moses was still in effect; and (2) Jesus dealt primarily with Israel during his life. It is to Israel that he speaks. He is constantly challenging their knowledge of and obedience to the Old Testament.

Hence, when Jesus speaks so dramatically about the Holy Spirit--and specifically about Israel's blasphemy against him--we should look in the Old Testament for parallels. In the book of Isaiah, we find exactly that. Read the exciting chapter of Isaiah 63. What a thrilling depiction of Israel's Savior! Drenched in the blood of his enemies, he arrives. What is the theme of his message and of Isaiah's remonstrance? Several key points are made: (1) the Savior had to work alone because no one (i.e., Israel) was there to help him; (2) he was obsessed with helping his beloved people; (3) through this and many other instances God has demonstrated his abiding love for Israel; (4) GOD HIMSELF is their Savior!; (5) GOD HIMSELF feels distress when they are in distress and therefore works to save them.

Now look at their response in verse 10: they rebelled against his Holy Spirit. The emphasis throughout this passage is God's extraordinary efforts to save Israel. In contrast to his faithfulness, they rebel against his Holy Spirit--the agent who energizes the plan of salvation. The parallel to Matthew 12/Mark 3 is inescapable. But let's go deeper.

One of the most remarkable things that Jesus says in this passage is that blasphemy against the Son of Man (i.e., himself) will be forgiven! If the apostles had merely concocted the gospel accounts in order to propagate some "Jesus cult", they would not have written this. But their accounts are true records of what our majestic King actually said: that blasphemy against the God-Man would be forgiven! Why?

For the answer, go to Philippians 2:5-11. This passage--a beautiful and poetic piece that has inspired many songs--is the basis for the doctrine of Kenosis. Kenosis derives from a Greek word meaning "to empty". In verse 7, Paul states that Jesus, literally, "emptied" himself--i.e., he sovereignly chose to forgo the prerogatives associated with his divinity. This is right in line with his remarkable statement that blasphemy against the Son of Man would be forgiven. What a surprising and powerful statement of God's grace!!

Think about this: if Christ had instead insisted that BLASPHEMY against his person would NOT be forgiven, how then will he make his way to the Cross? His purpose in coming to this planet was to die the substitutionary death on the Cross. Inflicting such an unthinkable torture and crime on the body of the God-Man was a far worse crime than speaking against him. Hence, his gracious statement that blasphemy against him will be forgiven points the way to the Cross. Our Lord is AWESOME!

What are we left with? Linking Isaiah 63, Matthew 12/Mark 3, and Philippians 2, we have a thrilling picture of our God who goes to unfathomable lengths to save us. He must work alone, because none of us have been faithful or able to help ourselves. In the end, in order to accomplish our salvation, he goes to the most extraordinary measure of all: he sends the God-Man to earth! And when Jesus accepts this task, he does the unthinkable: he empties himself of his divine prerogatives, so as to make himself accessible to us and to Israel. In this condition, he makes his way to the Cross and wins the great strategic victory over sin and Satan on our behalf. On his tortured path to that horrible nightmare he chose to face, he graciously forgave us even for the blasphemies that we leveled at him.

But in the end he warns us and Israel: If you persist even after all this to deny the divine program that has been offered to you through the agency and energy of the Holy Spirit, you are facing eternal perdition. This passage tells us that Jesus is so gracious that he will forgive even our personal sins against him. But in the end, we are free to choose for or against God's program of salvation. If, like Israel in Isaiah 63, we rebel against his Holy Spirit, then we make God our enemy.

Rather than seeing this passage as some troubling piece that has to be explained away in order to tidy up our carefully prepared theology, we should instead see it in the greater context of God's incredible love for Israel. The part of this passage that should amaze us is not the warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Instead, when you lie in your bed tonight, meditate on this: that man's blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven! That's grace!