From Plainer Words


Posted in: 2003
By Tom L. Ballinger
Mar 10, 2008 - 3:53:23 PM

November 22, 2003


Holy Writ is not silent on the subject of CONSPIRACY. Conspiracy is the act of two or more people planning to commit an unlawful or evil act in order for them to gain or profit from the covert enterprise. Many times conspiracies are made for the conspirators to profit financially from the deeds of darkness. But, many times the motive to conspire is to gain power or favor. In the study of Scripture, we find that the latter motive is more predominate than the former.

The Scripture records a conspiracy in which the brothers of Joseph conspired against him to gain favor with their father. “And they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him” (Gen.37:18).

The brothers, however, did change their minds. Instead of slaying Joseph, they sold him into slavery. Those involved in the conspiracy were not part of a “lunatic fringe” nor were they “crazed madmen.”

King David's own son, Absalom, conspired against him in his quest for the throne of the Kingdom. “And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong: for the people increased continually with Absalom” (2 Sam. 15:12).

The quest for political power knows no shame. Blood-kin knows no bounds in their lust and greed for power. A cursory look at the history of the England's kings and queens reveals that in the quest for power, even among family members, they plotted to kill one another to gain the throne.

Baasha conspired against Nadab, King of Israel. “And Baasha the son of Aijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him: and Baasha smote him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines: for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon. Even in the third year of Asa King of Judah did Baasha slay him, and reigned in his stead”(1 Ki. 15:27-28). Baasha was not a “lone madman” nor was he part of the “lunatic fringe” in Israel. He was close to the seat of power. Baasha conspired to gain power which was held by Nadab.

Zimri conspired against Elah King of Israel, “And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza steward of his house in Tirzah. And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa King of Judah, and reigned in his stead”(1Ki. 16:9-10).

Zimri, a powerful man in his own right, was not satisfied as being in charge of half of the king's army. He wanted the “whole enchilada.”

Shallum conspired against Zachariah King of Israel. “And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead ... And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel”(2 Ki 15:.10, 15).

The Scripture certainly indicates that there exists in circles of political power an atmosphere which breeds a desire to bring about an unlawful change in political power.

Amon's royal court conspired against him. The king's trusted servants implemented their conspiracy and killed him. “And the servants of Amon conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house. And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against King Amon: and the people of the land made Josiah, his son, king in his stead” (2 Ki. 21:23-24).

In this instance, the people rose up against the conspirators and exacted justice. This points out that when the people are aware of an unlawful attempt to change political power they will rise up in indignation and demand a just recompense. In the case of King Amon, the assassins were unable to secure a plausible “cover up.” Consequently, capital punishment was meted out.

Conspirators, such as the royal court of Amon, will go to any lengths to cover up their evil deeds. They did not plan on the citizens turning against them. Future conspirators would learn they had better have a “patsy” they could blame for the crime. History reveals the best way to deflect any charges of conspiracy is to ridicule the accusers and provide for a “fall guy.” They must come up with plausible denial, so that when they deny any involvement it at least sounds plausible.

During the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ the “establishment” Jews conspired to have Him put to death. The ruling elite of Israel (i.e. the Chief Priests, scribes and Pharisees) became enraged that the “son of the carpenter” had the audacity to enter the Temple and disrupt the “banking community” by overturning the seats on the Exchange. “And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers (bankers), and the seats of them that sold doves: And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And He taught, saying Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His doctrine” (Mark 11:15-18). The Jewish establishment conspired to kill Jesus Christ because He had a strong following among the average citizens. If He prevailed the “elite” would lose their place of authority. They eventually were able to have the Son of God put to death and then were able to say that it was the popular will of the people.

John 11:46 48, “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” The “elite” or establishment never wants to lose their control.

Christ went against traditional thought in Jerusalem. He was contrary to Israel's “conventional wisdom.” He was viewed as dangerous. He had to be discredited if that didn't work they would surely have to bring charges of sedition against Him. Today, He would have been referred to as part of the “radical right-wing,” the “religious right,” or a “populist.”

Then “some of them went” to the Pharisees and related their eye-witness account of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees called a council with the Chief Priests to plot their strategy. The establishment did not want to lose their place of authority in the nation. “Then from that day forth they took council (i.e. conspired) together for to put Him to death” (Jn.11:53).

They not only desired to have Christ put to death, but they also believed that Lazarus had to die again. John 12:10 11,”But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” Here again is another conspiracy.

When the Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem and questioned the authority of the High Priest, the establishment leaders rallied around Ananias and vowed an oath of conspiracy to slay Paul. Acts 23:12 14, “And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.”

In this conspiracy there were forty leaders involved. This should point out that a conspiracy can include a large circle, and is not confined to just a very small group. A wide circle can and do conspire to commit an illegal act if they are united in their own self-interest.

Those who conspire to commit unlawful acts realize they must have a plan to “cover-up” their evil involvement. Conspirators must be prepared to shift attention away from themselves and focus upon a “fringe element” or a “crazed madman.” When the man in the street realizes that an illegal and evil deed was committed by a group of highly placed individuals, they demand justice.

The shroud of darkness must cloak a conspiracy in order for the deception to be successful.
Today, many renounce the idea that a conspiracy could have been involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A “lone nut,” John Wilkes Booth, who was on the radical on the fringe of society, was the assassin, or so we have been led to believe. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was committed by a “lone mad man,” Lee Harvey Oswald. The establishment has insisted there was no conspiracy. Evidence certainly indicates more than Oswald participated. The official versions of two other assassinations that of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., were the acts of “lone nuts.”

“There is no way that in the proud country of America could a group of powerfully placed individuals conspire to assassinate the country’s leaders. And then cover it up.” This is the mind set of many Americans. For any Conservative to be recognized at all by the establishment press he must renounce the “Conspiracy Theory.” If anyone believes that conspiracy exists, he is labeled as a conspiracy nut. And no attention should be paid to him. My comment on this is, “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

The Scriptures, historical events and common sense leads one to realize that individuals in high places are capable of secretly planning unlawful acts to benefit or enrich themselves, either financially or politically.

Common sense acknowledges that conspiracies exist and it is not just a theory but a historical fact. Certainly those who have participated in a conspiracy would ridicule anyone who questions the evil activity. The establishment, who conspires, along with their fellow travelers, always labels doubters as “conspiracy nuts.” This scares off many because they are concerned about how they are perceived.

The government must always be presented as a paragon of virtue and anyone who would dare question its integrity must be some “right wing kook.”

To say that Timothy McVey was a “lone mad bomber”of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City is to ignore the evidence. The evidence has been suppressed by both state and federal government. The government attitude remains: let the masses remain in perpetual ignorance. Just give them holidays, parades, sporting events, periodic wars, and a six-pack of beer. This will keep them docile and content.

Tom L. Ballinger


We must add to the list the shooting down of Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island. N.Y. Officially there was an internal explosion. Even though several hundred witnesses saw what appeared to be a missile rise up from the Atlantic Ocean and strike the plane.

Also, there is a lot of credible information suggesting that the Twin Towers collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was not what it is said to be. Could there have been a conspiracy involved?

© Copyright 2009 by Plainer Words