Abraham

Abraham’s Righteousness vs. Caiaphas’s Calculus: Divergent Ethics in Modern Conflicts

Standard

Relating to a coworker about how hard it is for me to transmit certain values absent a cultural context, with how deeply ingrained they are as part of my religious upbringing, in pondering this reality it becomes easy to understand why so many people—myself included, at times—assume their own moral framework is universal, something everyone else must naturally share.

This moment of realization tied to a broader observation about value systems and how wildly different various religious traditions really are despite sharing some of the same foundational texts—they are fundamentally and irrevocably different. And yet because the texts overlap, some people mistakenly treat those systems as essentially similar—or even interchangeable—overlooking the profound divergences in interpretation, emphasis, or lived practice that centuries of distinct cultural evolution in these systems of thought have produced.

I plan to make three stops: one in the frame of contemporary Western thought, the next from the time of Jesus, and lastly with the patriarch Abraham. And with each of these stops explore how shared origin can mask strikingly divergent ethical worlds, and why recognizing those differences matters more than ever in our interconnected age.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty and the Blackstone Ratio

Wrongful convictions happen. We often assume, since someone was charged, that they must be guilty of something. I mean, why else would they be wearing that orange jumpsuit? But this impulse goes contrary to reality where cops plant evidence, people lie, and prejudice plays a role in judgment. 

This was the case with Brian Banks—who had been accused of rape by a classmate who later, after his years in prison, confessed to fabricating the whole account. What a horrible predicament: your whole future blown up, a jury that only sees your guilt.

A jurist, Sir William Blackstone, understanding the imperfection of the justice system and that the ultimate goal of justice is to protect the innocent, proposed:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

This, the Blackstone ratio, is foundational to how things are at least supposed to work in the United States. Founding father Ben Franklin actually took the concept further by stating, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”  John Adams, while he defended the British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre, argued the following:

We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

This commitment to the innocent reflects a strong emphasis on individual rights. It also seems rooted in the story most defining of Western religion, and that is the story of Jesus—falsely accused and put to death for the sake of political expediency. This has become the defining narrative and a reason to reflect on our judgment rather than react. It is why many principled conservatives are always uncomfortable with those trials in the court of public opinion where the state parades a prosecuted person and people assume this is proof of an airtight case.

You look guilty just for being in a courtroom defending from an accusation.

Tyler Robinson currently stands accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Some have decided his guilt to the extent of forgiving him prior to his even standing trial or being given the chance to defend himself—as if there’s just no way that anyone other than him could be involved. That’s not justice; that’s denying him a presumption of innocence and might be enabling others to escape accountability for their involvement. It is better that he go free than chance a wrongful conviction—that is just Christian.

Caiaphas’s Expediency Math: Killing One to Save All

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum from the Christian West is the example of the high priest who claimed the murder of an innocent man was necessary to save Israel from destruction:

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

 (John 11:49-50 NIV)

This may very well be the origin point of trolley problem moral reasoning, where a hypothetical situation is proposed in which an intervention will cost fewer lives. If we just switch the track, this fictional trolley only kills one rather than multiple people. And it seems very reasonable. Isn’t it better when more people survive?

Caiaphas reasoned it was better to kill one Jesus to save Israel.  But it didn’t work out that way. The entire nation—along with their temple and sacrificial system—was forever destroyed in 70 AD. The high priest’s moral reasoning was compromised and wrong. It did not save Israel to kill one man and may well have been part of what eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who did not accept the way of Jesus continued, after his ministry ended, to kill his followers and resist their civil authorities. Had they taken one moment to reflect and reconsider their plan to kill their way to peace, they may have survived intact rather than be spread to the corners of the empire.

The problem with killing one—without a just cause, to secure the future—is that it usually doesn’t end there. Kill one and you’ll kill ten; if you kill ten, you’ll kill 100, until soon it is millions upon millions. We see this in the campaign against Gaza. Tens of thousands of children are slaughtered and this is being justified as a war against terror. The reality is that it may very well create the backlash that will make the Zionist project untenable as people see this notion of blood guilt and collective punishment as repulsive. This is not compatible with the Christian values of the West and will lead to our destruction if the escalation of war is not rejected.

The world is better when we don’t play God and use the expediency math. If you’re okay killing one innocent person, you’re now an enemy of all humanity. And if you are willing to kill one, then the second and third come much easier. Innocent life should always be protected—whether it is the life of Jesus, be it the “enemies'” children, or the  unborn. Pro-life means no excuses for the IDF that don’t equally apply to Hamas. If it is okay for the Zionist regime to kill scores of civilians as “collateral damage” for every militant killed—where even the Israelis admit the victims of their onslaught are 83% civilians—why mourn when it is just a handful in Bondi?

Schlanger, brandishing a rifle, was 100% affiliated with those killing civilians in Gaza.  By the IDF standard, he is equally guilty because of his proximity and sympathies.

The best protection of innocent people, like your own, is to oppose all killing of innocent people no matter the color of their skin or the clothes they wear. If the IDF can kill a journalist claiming they are “Hamas with a camera” or “Hamas-affiliated,” then why is it wrong for Eli Schlanger, who has materially aided a genocide, to be targeted along with his associates? We need to reject this math of expediency no matter who is using it, or we can’t be upset when what goes around finally comes around.

Abraham’s Plea for Mercy: Sparing the Many for the Few Righteous

Now we can go way back, to the book of Genesis, where the world’s most powerful monotheistic religions find their foundation, and this man of faith named Abraham. We join him prior to the destruction of Sodom and have this interesting exchange:

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?  Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.  For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”  Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”  The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 

(Genesis 18:17-23 NIV)

Abraham’s opening question, in the passage above, tells you a whole lot about his moral reasoning. But before that you basically have the old covenant explained in brief: The blessing that was being bestowed on Abraham had to do with “doing what is right and just” or not simply being a blood relative of him, which is something that Jesus and the Apostles explained over and over to those who saw their genetic tie to the patriarch as a sort of entitlement and did not act justly or mercifully as he did.

Continuing in the text, take time to contrast the expediency math of Caiaphas with the following:

What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?  Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”  Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”  When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

(Genesis 18:24-33 NIV)

Abraham, after expressing his concern for the innocent, offers an opening bid at fifty righteous. Will God spare the entire wicked city for just fifty? And the first thing that is obvious is his humility, pleading with “I am nothing but dust and ashes” and showing his attitude before God. Second is that his orientation is toward the sparing of innocent life even if it means the evil people of the city of Sodom escape deserved judgment. This is in line with Blackstone’s ratio and in total opposition to Caiaphas, who argued to sacrifice rather than to protect the righteous one. Eventually Abraham concedes, and it makes more sense just to evacuate those righteous—nevertheless the righteous are not destroyed with the wicked.

So why is this account in Genesis?

Why is God engaged in a negotiation with a mere man?

The answer is that this anecdote is here for a reason, and that is to be instructive. The author of Genesis isn’t just telling us that Abraham was righteous—they’re giving us instruction on how to be righteous. To have the same disposition as Abraham, that’s the way to be a child of Abraham, and the path of righteousness that leads to the blessings through God’s promise. Chosen means you believe and obey the Lord. You can’t claim to be children of God, or of Abraham, if you truly share nothing in common with them in terms of your behavior or spirit. Genesis is telling us what that looks like in practice.

Christian Orientation Towards Mercy and Humanity is Truly Abrahamic.

In traversing these three moments—from courtrooms shaped by Christian reflection on an innocent’s crucifixion, to the high priest’s fateful expediency that failed to save his nation, and back to Abraham’s humble plea for mercy amid judgment—we uncover a profound reality: The orientation of the Christian perspective, underpinning American rights, is directly the opposite of the ideological lineage of Caiaphas.

The commitment, in faith, to protecting that one innocent life in a crowd of evil is to be a son or daughter of Abraham.  Those who do the opposite, who are willing to sacrifice the innocent for sake of expediency, carry none of the character of Abraham and cannot be the heirs of anything promised to him.  They must first repent of their sin—then they can be blessed, with all nations, through the one singular seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16) which is Christ Jesus.

Going back to the start and those ethics ingrained in us through a religiously derived culture and our assumptions, those who have rejected Christ and are completely willing to kill innocent people to accomplish ends are also going to manifest the other evil traits of Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Those of us raised in an Anabaptist church got a strong dose of the Gospel according to Matthew and were taught that speech should be simple and truthful.  Let your yea be yes, and nay be nay is about truly honest conversation and credibility without relying on oaths.  We were told to have a peaceable spirit and merciful approach with all people—to be humble.  

This is an orientation that many of Christian faith may believe is universal.  Except it is not.  Ethno-supremacist pride is okay with those of certain ideologies, deception for sake of gaining an upper hand is looked at like a virtue, they look at their ability to trick you as proof they are superior, and sow the seeds of division covertly not to be caught—like this example:

In a covert operation during 2007–2008, Israeli Mossad agents impersonated CIA officers—using forged U.S. passports, American currency, and CIA credentials—to recruit members of the Pakistan-based Sunni militant group Jundallah for attacks inside Iran, including bombings and assassinations targeting Iranian officials and civilians, as part of a broader effort to destabilize Tehran’s regime amid nuclear tensions. The deception, conducted openly in places like London, aimed to frame the United States as the sponsor, exploiting Jundallah’s sectarian and separatist motives while providing plausible deniability for Israel; U.S. officials uncovered the ruse through internal investigations debunking earlier media reports of CIA involvement, leading to outrage in the Bush White House (with President Bush reportedly “going ballistic”), strained intelligence cooperation under Obama, and the eventual U.S. terrorist designation of Jundallah in 2010, though no public repercussions were imposed on Israel.

 (Overview above by Grok, read: False Flag)

Imagine having a friend who deliberately set you up for a fight against another person by telling them that you said something about them.  My son had a bully do this to him on the bus and this is exactly what so-called ‘greatest ally’ tried to do to the US.  For the Zionist regime, and Mossad, conducting the terror operation via a Pakistani proxy simply was not enough.  They wanted Iran to think the attacks originated with the US in order to provoke a reaction.  And this is how the world becomes a cesspool, all because the Iranians won’t stand idle while Palestinians are deprived of land and human rights.

Deviousness is not exclusive to the children of Caiaphas.  But there’s no stops for those willing to kill innocent people for the sake of expediency.  And a partnership with them is only going to undermine the foundation of our civilization.  The US and ‘Christian’ West have already lost their moral reputation for this unholy alliance.  We need to repent and return to holding evil men accountable and protecting the innocent or all will be lost—we can’t exempt some from a standard of normal decency without also damaging all of Christendom.

The Madness of Nietzsche and Amish Mothers

Standard

A religious fundamentalist might see Nietzsche’s “Madman” parable as an attack on faith. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s mental decline and tragic end could seem like an obvious consequence. His bold claim that “God is dead” would naturally lead to madness, wouldn’t it?

Recently, I came across the story of Ruth Miller, an Amish woman whose religious convictions led to an unthinkable act. In a state of spiritual delusion, she drove her 4-year-old son, Vincen, to a lake and “gave him to God” by throwing him into the water resulting in his drowning. This awful tragedy following immediately after the accidental drowning of her husband Marcus during a failed attempt to swim to a sandbar in an effort to prove his faith.

Both belief in God or disbelief really does not make a difference as far as our mental health. We can attribute beliefs to actions, like the divisive assumption—of black and white thinkers—that Decarlos Brown Jr. was motivated by racial animus. Or realize that our human psyche is capable of dangerous misfires no matter our skin color category or ideological affiliation. Black, Amish or Atheist, all can have psychological breaks from reality originating from family history or environmental factors.

In the case of Nietzsche, who suffered from a breakdown at the age of 44—while seeing a horse being flogged—the theories of why he declined range from neurosyphilis to the possibility of frontotemporal dementia and a brain tumor. It could be a combination of factors, and maybe the very thing that made him brilliant also part of his downfall?

Nietzsche had a busy and relentless mind, his “will to power” philosophy itself perhaps a way to cope with a world that didn’t align with what his cultural heritage told him. He had to take things to their ends, he was not content with the answers he was given and this tendency of his mind being rooted deep in the composition of his brain—progressive disease and circumstances finally pushing him over the edge into insanity?

Likewise, the Amish mother, a pious woman by appearances, didn’t process her religious teachings the same as others in her church and tradition. For better or for worse, most claim to take the Bible literally would never attempt to do the things that they’ve read in the book. In a modern context a parent who is willing to sacrifice a child to God is rightly considered mad. But for Abraham it was a proof of his righteousness:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

(Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV)

That’s one way to explain away an irrational act of Abraham tying up his child, and then putting him pyre to be a sacrifice to God. It is just plain madness otherwise. Is it really any wonder a delusional mind would follow this pattern in the Holy texts? I mean, truly, the crazier part is how we can read through this in Sunday school class without being a bit disturbed. Only when someone starts to act in this kind of ‘faith’ does anyone notice it is completely unacceptable.

Faith or lunacy?

But then we’re all mad. Half of us claim it is okay to dismember a living human being in the womb because their existence is a big inconvenience for an adult woman. While the other half thinks it is okay dismember a living human being in Gaza because of what Hamas did a couple of years ago. All seem willing to sacrifice little children in the ‘right’ circumstances. We’ll praise those who end the life of the innocent when this aligns with an imagined ideal outcome or future. We’ll all say the other is irrational and evil while justifying our own violence.

But, I digress, we should not blame the blackness of Decarlos Brown Jr. for his evil deed any more than the Amishness of Ruth Miller for what she did. The idea that we should not change our standards based on race should come with the general non-judgment based on race. Mental illness is mental illness, unbound by category. To judge actions without prejudice—based on race, faith, or even agnostic philosophy—requires us to comprehend the universal fragility of the human mind and our own susceptibility to delusion.

Zionism: Dismantling the Cross, the Judeo-Christian Deception

Standard

There was an act of vandalism in Wales.  A Christian cross made of stones, which had been on a hill in the countryside for half a century, was torn apart by Jewish tourists who used the stones to create the ‘Star of David’ or hexagram shape.  This act goes beyond total disrespect and destruction of a Christian display, but it is also symbolic of what Zionism is and what it has been doing to Christianity in the West.  

Zionism isn’t Jewish.  Many Jews, even who live in the Holy Lands, are as fully opposed to the ethno-supremacist state called Israel as their Christian and Muslim neighbors.  It is not something allowed by their religion, they insist, and I’ll let Jewish people debate their theology for themselves.  But the vast majority of Zionists aren’t Jews nor do they live in Israel.  Most Zionists were American Protestants who have become ensnared in this political ideology that rearranges parts of the Bible to justify taking property from a population who have lived in the birthplace of Christ since his birth.

Christian Zionism is an oxymoron.  It takes two opposites, the kingdoms of the world offered to Jesus during his temptation that he rejected and acts like Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, who goes back deceptively to get the gifts Naaman tried to give to his master and was then struck down with leprosy by the curse of his master.  There are many in church pews today who have betrayed their master and have rearranged the timeline of Scripture to embrace an evil replacement of the way of Christ.  They dismantle the cross and support Zionism instead.

Schofield’s Coup: Dismantling the Cross

In 1909 a new Bible was published.  It used the same English translation of the popular King James version and yet added notes of commentary written by a man named Cyrus Ingerson Scofield.  Dispensationalism is a relatively new interpretation of Biblical texts that started in the early to mid 19th century, initially invented by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in Britain, but it took Scofield’s in text commentaries distributed widely to finally sell it.

We could get into questions of exactly who Scofield was, his character, that he was a Confederate soldier (deserter?); who was an alcoholic who abandoned his family; a man who had defrauded several prominent Republicans with a railroad scam; who was arrested and jailed in St Louis for forgery and embezzlement, then had a dramatic conversion to Christianity and yet this essay will stick to the work he was known for: His popularization of a novel theological stance dividing Israel and the church in Scripture.

In the Christian Bible there’s a fairly obvious shift in tone between the Old Testament (or Jewish Torah, prophets, etc) and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.  The conventional Christian perspective is that Jesus came as fulfillment of the law and supercedes the covenant that was given to Abram who became Abraham.  But Scofield turns the clock back, he ignores what the Epistles tell us about correct understanding, and he adds an idea that there are essentially two paths to God—one going through Jesus and the cross, the other by the Old Covenant.

Christianity, according to the Apostles, is the faithful remnant.  Israel is now the Church and the Church is the true Israel.

Where this was just an amateur mistake or an intentional deception doesn’t matter.  It has resulted in a battle between those who basically claim that “one way, Jesus” is anti-Semitic statement and smear it as being “Replacement Theology” (ironic, given this was, is, and will remain the only orthodox Christian perspective) for saying that the New Covenant continuation of God’s plan and necessary for salvation.  It ignores the New Testament books where St Paul and others give a correct Christian perspective of the covenant given to Abraham.

Always Through Faith, Never Bloodlines…

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(John 14:6 NIV)

I’m not nearly as dogmatic as some when it comes to passages like John 14:6 (above) and yet do see it as foundational to correct application of Scripture from the Christian perspective.  Jesus was making a definitive statement about who he is and the absolute requirements for salvation.  

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

 (Galatians 3:16 NIV)

1) The passage above makes it very clear that the seed of Abraham is singular: Christ Jesus.  St Paul is saying that Jesus is that promise given to Abraham, that the promise is what bestows grace and continues:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Galatians 3:26-29 NIV)

2) We all become Abraham’s seed though faith in Christ and there is no distinction by religion (keeping the law) or race.  In other words, Jews and Gentiles are both saved in the exact same way and the old distinctions become moot in fulfillment of the promise:

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.  For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.  Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.  As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. 

(Romans 4:13-17 NIV)

3) Faith in Christ, nothing else, saves.

The Church and true Israel are the same, it is a group that is defined by faith both when those the Jews looked forward towards the promise and also in the Gospel fulfillment of the promise in the seed of Abraham that is Jesus.

Scofield, however, to justify Zionism, tries to drive a wedge between Christ and being the full fulfillment of promise or the seed of Abraham.  His footnotes take a passage like Genesis 12:3, addressed specifically to Abraham, about blessing those who bless him and cursing those who curse and then just hallucinate that it is speaking about all who ever have descended (but only through Isaac) from Abraham—no matter if they are faithful or not.  But this is in direct and total contradiction to the passages quoted above and simply meaning inserted into the text by a man fooled himself or just a fraud.

The Judeo-Christian Deception 

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 

(2 Corinthians 6:14-15 NIV)

Judeo-Christian is a term originally coined to describe a Jewish convert to Christianity, a Jewish Christian, but the usage has since evolved to become an oxymoronic coupling of religious traditions that formed up in full opposition to each other.  There is overlap, certainly, both started as religions rooted in the Hebrew Bible.  But one of the sides has rejected Christ, and is anti-Christ, while the other believes that the Torah can truly only be understood through the lens of Christ.  If your values start with something other than Christ then they’re not the same values as a Christian.

Starting with Jesus instructing his followers to let their ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and ‘no’ be ‘no’ (Matt 5:37) or to use simple honest language.  So much dishonesty comes in from of a subtle twist of words.  For example, calling majorly invasive surgeries and hormone treatments “gender-affirming care” is just not the plain reality of what is being done.  Semantics is all about describing reality, but can also be about distorting the perspective and an art of deception.  There is no similar rule about using honest speech in Talmudic or Zionist Judiasm.  Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel, used “By way of deception, thou shall do war.“

Stratagem is part of war theory and tactics.  But it is not part of Christianity.  St Paul tells us:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 

(Ephesians 6:12 NIV)

The Christian doesn’t overcome the ‘enemy’ with deception.  They overcome them with good, with honesty and love, this is to reject the methods and means of those who see those outside their religio-political group as being terrorists to be destroyed or resource to exploited.  We are not required to reason with animals, we herd them, slaughter them, shoot them for sport, and impose our will—and is exactly what the Zionists do to those who get in their way.  There is no command to love enemies or good to those who those who hate you as there is in Christianity:

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. 

(Luke 6:27-31 NIV)

Interestingly enough, Islam has a similar teaching, but we would never call this area of confluence Islamo-Christian values.  So why do we attempt to add the leaven of the Pharisees through this linguistic maneuver that marries us to a religion that has values completely different despite a similar origin point?  The “Synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9, 3:9) has never stopped hating Christ or His followers, they have simply committed to a long-game strategy of subversion or using the naive to do their bidding.  This isn’t even a value judgment, I’m not saying you should not be Jewish if that is what you believe is, but you can’t be a Judeo-Christian because it is a contradiction of terms.

If a suggestion of “Islamo-Christian values” causes you to erupt in riotous laughter, then the combo of the way of Jesus with that of Zionism is doubly as ridiculous.  

Philosophically there is zero compatibility in these perspectives.  It is impossible to love and bomb your enemies.  You cannot claim to follow Jesus, who rejected worldly power, and then support the violence being done in the name of Israeli statehood.  Zionism is a “blood and soil” nationalist movement, and is all about land, all about ethnicity, whereas the kingdom of heaven is about repentance, self-sacrifice and meekness.  The only thing that is sacrificed in ‘Christian’ Zionism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the credibility of our collective witness—so our partners can slather themselves in misguided pride for being the chosen race.

Not good, especially when one is pulling the other backwards…

The real purpose of a term “Judeo-Christian values” is political and propaganda.  It is to throw a yoke on the neck of Christians and force them to work together.  It is simply a way to control one side and normalize the other.  There is no backward compatibility, a believer in Christ does not share values with those who reject him, with those who cling to national pride rather than the cross, and subjugate rather than serve.  Jesus opened his arms to children—Zionists justify killing children by starvation, by denying them care or even by burning them alive and gunning them down.

Origen, who is considered to be a church Father, may have toyed with universalism—an idea that all would be saved in the end.  But there is no parallel path that is given for anyone according to Jesus or the Apostles, most especially not for those who are far removed from Jesus as the Nazis—despite their claims to the contrary.  We cannot let the cross of Christ be rearranged into the symbol of a worldly kingdom.  Having some things in common with those who rejected Christ doesn’t make us the same.

Biblical Reversionism

Standard

I’m dismayed by the number of people who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior yet fall for the most brazen of heresies.  The one which is the topic of this post turns the Bible on its head.  It diverts attention from what is important and undermines the Gospel Jesus preached first to the Jews, for their salvation, before it was spread throughout the world by way of his disciples.  Biblical reversionist heresy elevates the Old Covenant to be equal with the fulfillment of these promises in Christ. It is, in the end, a rejection and mockery of Christ.

The Resurrection of Old Defies the New…

The reversionist believes that, despite Jesus coming to save both Jews and Gentiles, according to Romans 1:16, the Old Covenant continues in parallel for those who have rejected Christ. It is ignorant of the fact that the New Testament talks about both those who are cut off from the vine (which is Christ) and those who are grafted in:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.  You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

(Romans 11:17-21 NIV)

The Old Covenant law does not save:

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

(Romans 8:3-4 NIV)

It was only ever a shadow:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

(Hebrews 10:1-4 NIV)

Which is made obsolete, in Christ:

But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

(Hebrews 8:6‭-‬13 NIV)

The outdated covenant *did* disappear with the destruction of the Temple.

From John the Baptist:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

(John 8:7-10 NIV)

At no point does Jesus say that there will be multiple paths to salvation or that there will be a tree of salvation that stems only from being biologically linked to Abraham. There is one true vine, that is Jesus, some are cut off and destroyed, others are grafted in and saved. There is nowhere where it is said that the Old Covenant will be resurrected to provide another way for those who have rejected and continue to reject Christ. To preach that is heresy, it is reversionism, and replaces the true Israel (that is to say those who believed or the church) with a secular nation borrowing the name.

The New Covenant is not about an ethnostate or the Haaretz of Israel. No, it is about the heavenly kingdom, a kingdom where there is no Jew or Gentile, that is defined by faith rather than biological pedigrees. Our blessing, eternal life, comes through Christ Jesus alone.

Blessings of the Anti-Christ?

The reversionists base their entire interpretation on a misuse of this blessing given to Abram:

“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

(Genesis 12:2,3 NIV)

They ignore everything St Paul said to explain the seed of Abraham as being singular (Christ) in his rebuke of the foolish Galatians trying to revert back to the Old Covenant. Over and over again Scripture tells us of the failure of those who try to do things through means of the flesh and yet here we are again.

But even the passage itself is spoken specifically about Abram (later Abraham) and those who bless or curse him. It doesn’t say anything about those who bless or curse this “great nation” promised nor does it seem to be talking about nations period. It is a promise to Abraham specifically and then ends by saying that “all people on earth will be blessed through you” which is to say him or his seed, which again is Christ—who didn’t require blind allegiance to a worldly nation.

Furthermore, the modern state of Israel, with a powerful military and foreign backing, does fit the criteria of the nation God said must be fully dependent on Him. Israel is a progressive state, ranked 7th in the world for gay happiness, and one of the least religious countries in the world, and God’s Covenant with the nation of Israel was always conditional. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy make this quite clear: If they obey God will bless them and if they do not they will be destroyed. Zionism, the Jewish version, makes the Jews themselves the saviors of the world and totally replaces Christ.

This being our own Christ and denying the true Christ is exactly what is being referred to when New Testament writers use the phrase anti-Christ:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

(1 John 22-23 NIV)

If there is a temple rebuilt, it will be the seat of the anti-Christ:

Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. […] The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,9-12 NIV)

And what a powerful delusion some believe, that puts the Church established by Christ behind the nation that rejected Him, this we’re told:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

(1 John 2:18-19 NIV)

Ultimately, choose whatever Israel you want. But you can’t have both. You can’t have your worldy Israel, that is rejected even by observant Jews who call it fraudlent, and then claim to be a part of the kingdom of Christ Jesus. Reversionism is in no way a Covenant with the God of Abraham. It is only a counterfiet of the original promise and one that draws many away from their only means of salvation. Don’t be one who is decieved by this new version of the same old heresy, don’t be like Judas looking for his worldly fulfilment. There is only one Israel where Christ is king and that’s His Church.

The saddest part about reversionism (or ‘Christian’ Zionism) is that it muddies the waters and sends mixed messages to those who need salvation. So many professing Christ and then supporting the brutal reality of what it takes to create a Jewish state on land that was inhabited is a slanderous and degrading witness of Christ who would have had no problem establishing a worldly kingdom through use of violence over two millenia ago. So many are like Gehazi, servant of Elisha, dishonoring the example of their master and inheriting the disease that was healed: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”





I Don’t Care What You Call It

Standard

I feel the need to preface this once again with a trigger warning for those who won’t read through and will miss my point. No, I’m not saying what Hamas did was justified. Nor am I saying that Israel should not respond. But I am trying to confront a bias, motivated by a misuse of Scripture, that is leading our side to look the other way at what amounts to dumping white phosphorous on innocent children and then pretending this is a just response to the death of Israelis. I am addressing what clouds the moral judgment here and not saying that one side or the other should just take the abuse.

I’m addressing the false dichotomy exposed in this letter from Albert Einstein (Jewish) in his opposition to the terrorism that was taking place. He wrote this right after a massacre carried out by Zionist extremists and warning of what would eventually become the horrendous reality of the Nakba and why Palestinians today are reluctant to leave their homes today. They know the history even if you’re ignorant. Read what Einstein wrote and then study what happened next…

To be clear, Einstein was not against a Jewish homeland. He was simply against the violent means being employed that have led to the current hatred. Had more followed his advice then we wouldn’t be facing yet another bloody war today. When will we learn?

Framing Issues

Had the British managed to put down the bloodthirsty terrorists who fought to “water the tree of liberty” by violently taking over their American colonies, does that mean they never existed? No, they (along with their weird pagan offshoot religion that required regular human sacrifice to keep their tree nourished) did exist and they existed as a distinct entity the moment that they declared themselves to be independent. And to say otherwise would be dumb.

One of the stupidest arguments ever made is “tHeRe Is nO PaLeStINe” as if the millions of people pushed into Gaza and West Bank simply do not exist. By that sort of semantic and legal argument, there was never a state of Israel prior to May 14, 1948. Sure, there were a people called the children of Israel and a kingdom of David, but never a STATE by that name, and certainly not one that was a Western-style democracy, prior to a bunch of Europeans moving to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine (which is what it was called) and most certainly a nation with the world’s strongest standing army is not the same one as found in the Scriptures. No, that doesn’t mean they should be run into the sea or not recognized as a legitimate nation (although many do not) and yet we must deal with the reality that the land was occupied before European settlers arrived to claim it. Historical claims may make a nice romantic script, for those with no skin in the game, but telling people that their grievance of being displaced doesn’t exist because you don’t like the name is asinine. It is reasoning that may get you likes in your echo chamber but suggests you are silly and should not be taken seriously by those with a modicum of intelligence. It’s not like the Palestinians are going to stop their fight against those who took their deeded land because you claim they don’t exist.  

Furthermore, legal recognition does not change what something is. By now we all should know this. The governments of the world can call black white or white black and it doesn’t change the nature of color. Calling a man a woman or your affinity for your pet a marriage doesn’t make it true. We have the absolute right to question legal precedent or to hold to whatever existed in our minds prior to their changes. Maybe your modern definitions are simply ignorant of the original meaning and the other side is right. You might eventually be blotted off from the face of the Earth and forgotten. But it doesn’t mean you or the perspectives you held don’t exist. A person’s perspective still exists even if opposed by the powerful who have better propaganda and denying it exists is plain dumb.

Palestinians exist even if they are erased from the land or never officially recognized by many in the United States. That’s not a statement that will suit many from my fundamentalist religious background. But they’re simply not dealing with reality, it is denial, and ridiculous. Einstein called it Palestine. It was Palestine. The modern-day Israeli state came after.

Who were the Samaritans?

They were people deemed illegitimate by the pure-blooded religious elites.  They made a counterclaim to what the other descendants of Abraham Jesus mingled with saw as their own exclusive property.  The Samaritans had their own priests (apparently descendants of Aaron directly) and, contrary to the belief of their Jewish rivals, also continuously occupied the land like their Semitic cousins.

This is what makes how Jesus recognized these people so significant.  We learn, in his conversation with a Samaritan woman, that true worship wasn’t about location, including Jerusalem, but about Spirit and truth.  If this wasn’t clear enough, the parable of the good Samaritan was a slap in the face of those whom Jesus addressed.  A Samaritan more righteous than their own best?  Jesus was intentionally antagonizing. He intended to offend and insult them.

The point, however, remains that salvation is not a birthright.  It is not about your claim to be or ethnic inheritance.  The Christian truth is about what we do, and how we love, and never a matter of our worship ritual or genetics.  The measure of Christian pedigree is faith, pure and simple, like that of Abraham—which is what makes a person a son or daughter of Abraham.

Jesus didn’t mince words when addressing those who believed they would be saved by their ethnicity or Abrahamic bloodline:

Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

(John 8:39‭-‬44 NIV)

There are not multiple paths, according to Jesus, but only one way, truth, and life for all to come to the Father.  Galatians makes it clear that Abraham’s seed is fulfilled fully in Christ and all who believe in Him:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. […] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Galatians 3:16‭, ‬26‭-‬28 NIV)

Romans affirms what St Paul said above in Galatians:

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. […] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…

(Romans 11:5‭, ‬7 NIV)

The “remnant” is those who believed in Jesus.  While the “hardened” are those who rejected Him and, in their unbelief and ignorance, crucified the one who was called their King.  And, for those who contort and turn the Gospels inside out trying to revert to a Covenant that passed away, Hebrews 8:13, I despise your bastardization of truth.  Those who would replace His Kingdom “not of this world” with a modern secular state are not legitimate scholars or Christians.

I reject your ignorant religion.

I reject your indifferent religion.

I reject your false religion.

The true Christ isn’t an ethno-nationalist or waiting on yet another stone temple to be built.  And I don’t really care what your Scofield reference or some random guy on YouTube says.  Christian Zionism is a contradiction of terms.  I’m perfectly fine with European Jews finding a homeland and defending it.  But it should never be confused with the fulfillment of anything more than that.  We should instead be looking for the new Jerusalem.  So stone me like Stephen for repeating what he said: “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.”

Count me with the Samaritans.

A blessing or a curse?

Since the 1950s, no other nation has shown more perfect loyalty or full allegiance to the state of Israel than the United States.  The Biden administration is no exception and doubling down on what Trump started.  For this have accumulated a mountain of debt, a decay of our institutions, and sharp moral decline as more and more Americans fall away from faith.  Sure, we are materially wealthy, for now, but churches are empty and those that remain are temples to consumerism rather than self-sacrificial love.  If support for this country is a blessing then I guess we’ll need to redefine that word like we have been with everything else lately.  Or maybe consider we’ve gotten things wrong?

The direction of the US doesn’t look good right now and maybe that is because we’re like the Jeruselum condemned by Ezekiel:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

(Ezekiel 16:49-52 NIV)

Maybe it is time to stop focusing on the sins of Samaria and consider our own. Sure, maybe IsRaEl hAs ThE rIgHt To DeFeND iTsElF, but then so do the other Semitic people in that region. Consider that we are Haman, from the book of Esther, unwittingly building our own gallows as we justify our unjust vengeance against undeserving people. We’re not a righteous judge. The children of Gaza did not attack Israel. It is not anti-Semitic to stand with Einstein or recognize the unjust suffering of the Semitic people in Gaza. It is not our allegiance to the state of Israel that will bring us blessings, only allegiance to the king of the true Israel can do that and we must all repent of our delusions otherwise.

But We Don’t Chant Death To Gaza!

Standard

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”

Aldous Huxley

Most on one side of this issue likely will not even get this far into reading this.  For daring to question the narrative they’ve swallowed I’ll probably be quickly dismissed by some as a “terror apologist” or worse.  Nevertheless, for those who know that I don’t take positions lightly or without due diligence, this post will help explain my position on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  But more important than that this blog is aimed at addressing the brazen dishonesty of the fundamentalist cheerleaders.

First of all, for anyone conservative who has come through the past few years and is still lacking skepticism about what the political establishment is saying really deserves to be exploited.  Now that Hamas has attacked we can now trust the same media that saw riots as “mostly peaceful protests” and then calls MAGA supporters “insurrectionists” for their questioning the election results???  Are you really that dumb?!?  Why don’t you at least consider that the same people who distort the truth here, who seize upon the parts of the evidence that support their own agenda on domestic issues, might also do the same thing there?

Second, okay, so you never heard ‘our side’ chanting “death to Gazans” and yet let’s not be cute about this.  Both sides are dedicated to the destruction of the other. Israel slowly but surely takes all of Palestine. Hamas is fully committed to ending Israel.  How genocidal that would end up being is anyone’s guess—but these stories from a couple Israeli Defense Force veterans can give us some idea, they burned people alive and shot school children—watch them talk about it and then moralize to me about how only one side is barbaric or evil.

No, this horrendous history of atrocities on both sides certainly does not justify anything that Hamas did in the past week.  But what should we expect to happen when that boy crying when an air strike killed his entire family grows up?  Is it a surprise when he’s angry and blames the nation that dropped the bomb?  Are we just going to gloss over the fact that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, is in a leaked video saying to make it painful for the Palestinians and that basically anything is a military target?  What does that mean?  Are we going to play ignorant?

This is why I can’t take seriously people who only condemn one side and never the other, this selective moral outrage is not about true care for children.  Those who quickly share unverified accounts of beheaded babies and then never even acknowledge those thousands of innocent Palestinians who have died in the indiscriminate and brutal bombing campaigns are being dishonest.  No, not saying that there must be complete equivalency or proportionality in a war. but let’s not pretend that only one side is a victim of terrorism.  It just looks really disingenuous to only care about the children of one side.

Getting this out of the way…

My point is not to convert you from one side to the other. My point is that the common presentation of this conflict is a false dichotomy and we have the option of choosing none of the above. We can stand with the true victims, those innocent people caught in the crossfire, and oppose all of the militant parties. That is where I stand. Furthermore, I will mostly address the propaganda and war crimes of one side. Why? It is because my typical audience is completely biased toward the West’s narrative and certainly not because I am unaware of what the other side has done. We don’t need to be partisans.

The big lie is that this conflict is not about ethnic cleansing on both sides.  Israel has systematically, since May 14, 1948, pushed the native inhabitants out of their land and then played the role of victim when their militarily weaker opponents employed asymmetrical warfare tactics against the occupation.  Israel has turned Gaza into an open-air prison, but we only care when Hamas strikes back.  American Evangeli-cons believe every claim without skepticism when it is made by Israel (burned babies) as if a party in the conflict has reason to be truthful—why are we such fools?

It Is Okay To Bomb Nazi Children!

Maybe you do not know what Jewish neo-con Ben Shapiro (as well as Isreal’s Prime Minister) meant when he pronounced the people of Gaza to be Amalek?

But I do: 

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

(1 Samuel 15:2‭-‬3 NIV)

We call that genocide. 

Sure, maybe Shapiro is emotional, he has a right, but these chants of “kill the Arab” or about Gaza becoming “a cemetery” with no school children left alive didn’t start last week.  And maybe that’s what US Senator Lindsay Graham wants when he says this is a religious war and he suggests the solution “level the place,” while also braying for a confrontation with Iran?  Apparently, it is okay when Israel ‘defends itself’ by wiping out men, women, children, and infants of any who resist their claim to the land.  I guess it is the privilege of being a chosen people, right?

Like an Israeli official said we shouldn’t care about Palestinian civilian deaths because they’re all Nazis.  Much of this is based on unverified accounts of partisans repeated as fact, even embellished by Joe Biden who claimed, with great sincerity, that he had seen the pictures of beheaded babies himself only to have the claim retracted.  So now we’re collectively punishing people, looking the other way at inhumane things done by the military, using the circular ‘punch a Nazi’s logic of the far-left and misuse of religious texts.  Are we better than them?

So let’s just be honest about it!  Let’s not say that this is about human rights or preventing ethnic cleansing when it is all about clearing the place for a Jewish ethnic state.  Stop being a coward, and say that you’re okay with babies being killed (as long as it is their babies) and with millions of people who are being displaced from their land—all because you have stupidly embraced an errant eschatology that replaces the Church, which was established by Christ, with reemergent nation of those who have fully rejected Him.  

Or you could just join me in agreement with St Paul: 

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. […] The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

(Galatians 3:7‭-‬9‭, ‬16 NIV)

Understand yet?

Support for a modern ethno-nationalist state has no connection to the promises given to Abraham.  Sure, many have been made into useful idiots for this cause, by the twisting of Scripture, but Jesus didn’t promise a patch of land along the Mediterranean coast and the Jews do not share Christian values any more than Muslims do.  Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have chanted for the death of the other. One sees us as being Infidels and the other calls us Goyim.  When has Israel, a country declared ‘our greatest ally’ according to many of our greasy-haired politicians, ever defended our borders?  The blessing is they get a ton of US aid and send propaganda pictures of their most attractive women in uniform in return.

There’s no denying the tragedy of what has been unfolding over the past few days.  We have seen the pictures and videos, very real, of terrified young people.  One moment they were enjoying a music festival, the next they were being mercilessly gunned down.  And yet I did not see the same level of concern from fundamentalists for the victims of the Pulse nightclub attack.  These same people overwhelmed with concern about Israel do not think twice about collective punishment and forcing Gazans into the desert before there is provision for them—this isn’t about protecting innocents or looking out for the most vulnerable, it is about wiping Gazans off the map by wherever means available at this time.

Christian compassion is that none should perish and all will be saved.  It isn’t about a political entity called Israel or any kingdom of this world.  Our battle, if we were indeed servants of Christ as we claim, should not be against flesh and blood.  Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who mistreat us.  That’s coming from a man who was tortured, unjustly nailed to a cross, and killed by an occupying power.  So why again do we support the death of Palestinian children simply for living in the wrong place at the wrong time? 

Shouldn’t we love these little ones as much as their other more fortunate Semitic cousins?

Who Are Our Kin?

Standard

The book of Ruth is a nice little oasis in the midst of dry and tedious reading.  Up to this point the Bible isn’t all that relatable.  It has some highlights, interesting characters, but is stories of ethnic cleansing, description of weird sacrificial rites, polygamous patriarchs and stonings for picking up sticks, violence and laws, it is cumbersome.  

And then you get this:

But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her. So the two women went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”

Ruth 1:16‭-‬19 NIV

What a contrast to the storytelling prior, all of the resistance to racial mixing as well, here a Moabite woman would rather remain with her Israelite mother-in-law than stay with her own people.  It’s personal.  And the romance that follows, while very foreign and featuring many practices which are weird to our own ears, shows a more compassionate side of the legal system instituted by Moses.  Boaz acted both out of love and duty as guardian-redeemer.  Starting with his genuine concern for her safety:

So Boaz said to Ruth, “My daughter, listen to me. Don’t go and glean in another field and don’t go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me. Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.”

Ruth 2:8‭-‬9 NIV

This paternalistic care a sharp contrast to an episode in the book of Judges when a Levite and his host offered their innocent women to please the perverse desires of the men in the local community:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

Judges 19:22‭-‬28 NIV

While the brutal rape and murder of this poor concubine was later avenged, it is quite clear that the two men were more concerned with saving their own skin than protecting those whom were entrusted to them.  Not saying it would be easy to know what to do in those circumstances.  It isn’t like there was 911 to call or semiautomatic weapons to hold back the lascivious mob.  Still, Boaz stood ready to protect Ruth, a foreign woman, from the other men who would very likely have taken advantage.  How easily we can take our own law and order for granted.

Where the men made the woman vulnerable for exploitation in the book of Judges and in other parts of the Bible, like Abraham claiming his wife was his sister or Jacob putting his family in the front, in Ruth it is the women putting themselves in a vulnerable place to capture the attention of the good man:

One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”

Ruth 3:1‭-‬4 NIV

I’m not sure if the description of Ruth acting out on her mother-in-law’s bold plan to lay at the feet of Boaz is euphemistic language.  Seems risky to be that intimate with a man who was drinking and “in good spirits” as the text tells us.  But, that said, whatever transpired that night, we know that he took responsibility for Ruth and also the welfare of Naomi.  And, in this regard, the guardian-redeemer system worked as designed.  But mostly because of Boaz having genuine care in his heart.  Ruth, for her part, was his equal in that she was loyal to her mother-in-law to the point of leaving her own homeland.

This is a story exceptional in a good way and likely part of the Biblical canon so far as has to do with the lineage of King David.  It also brings us to Bethlehem, where Jesus (of the line of David via his mother) was born.  That both Ruth and Boaz stand out as characters for their abiding love is significant.  In a time when woman were treated as if property or merely objects for male pleasure, we have honorable and caring men.  Boaz took Ruth under his wing in the same way his grandson longed to love his people:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

Matthew 23:37 NIV

In this account there is a clear precedent for a family relationship that goes beyond only our biological relatives.  The law of the kinsman or guardian-redeemer, through Naomi, was also applied to Ruth.  And, likewise, through adoption we become sons and daughters of Abraham by our faith (Galatians 3:6-14) and true children unlike those blood relatives of the Patriarch who rejected their Salvation.  Our real kin are those who fulfill the role they have and love in the manner of Boaz or Ruth.

Joachim and Anna and the Curse of Childlessness

Standard

For those raised in the conservative Mennonite culture big families are a given. There were nineteen children in my dad’s family (sixteen biological, three adopted) and, while that is the extreme, it would be very unusual for a married couple not to have any children. In a culture where blessing is practically synonymous with children, a childless home would likely produce some whispers and infertility a very unpleasant matter.

Children have traditionally been a retirement plan and marriage commitment the first step. A person without any offspring would likely have nobody to care for them in their old age. Even in a time when the state has taken over that role of social security there is still need of a new generation of children to keep that kind of system solvent. As many industrialized nations have below-replacement fertility rates, childlessness could soon be the crisis for us that it would have been in the ancient times when this was written:

Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court. (Psalm 127:3‭-‬5 NIV)

Indeed, who will contend for the childless?

If you think that democratic institutions, in the hands of young people raised in a culture that values youth, will continue to provide for the elderly who have no familial connection to them then someday you’ll have a rude awakening. If anything the elderly are seen as a political obstacle in our modern times, a waste of limited resources when we have Google to provide our answers, and many of these youthful ignorant social engineers—rather than contend with a bunch of has-beens they don’t care to know—would delight in giving you a push to an early grave.

The Childless In Scripture

In ancient times, perhaps for the reason that there would be nobody to care for you in old age without children, there was a social stigma attached to being childless. In the case of Saul’s daughter Michal, who was critical of her husband David’s celebration antics, and her childlessness is expressed (2 Samuel 6:20-23) as if being a punishment. We are never told if that was simply a result of her relationship with her husband or not, but either way she did not produce an heir to David’s throne—which would be a serious setback to say the least.

There are patterns in Scripture and one of those patterns being that those most notably childless early on are often the most greatly blessed later. The most notable of those couples with a deferred blessing is Abraham and Sarah. They were elderly and had remained childless. We are told “she was not able to concieve” (Genesis 11:30) yet Abraham was promised to be “the father of my nations” (Genesis 17:4) and this seemed plain ridiculous given the advanced age of the couple. But, they were blessed by God, Sarah did bear Issac and was childless no more.

There is also the account of childless Hannah. In the first book of Samuel we read how she was treated especially well by her husband (who had two wives) because he loved her. And yet her rival would torment her over the fact that she could not bear children and this made her miserable to the point she couldn’t eat. Finally she cried out to God, weeping bitterly, she vowed:

Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head. (1 Samuel 1:11 NIV)

In other words, she promised her son would be a man dedicated to God.

The account goes on to say that Eli, the priest, who was watching her pray yet couldn’t hear her words, thought she was drunk and tells her to put away her wine. But she responds that this isn’t the case, that she is simply deeply in anguish, to which the priest tells her: “Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him.” (1 Samuel 1:17 NIV) This answer seems to have consoled Hannah who we are told began to eat again and would later become pregnant, bear a son Samuel—a name which basically means “heard by God” and he would, as a result of her commitment, become a great prophet.

Finally, before we move on to Joachim and Anna, there is this assurance given to the childless who remain faithful:

And let no eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the Lord says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever. (Isaiah 56:3‭a-‬5 NIV)

There are many who would love to have children and cannot. This is one of those terrible ironies given the numbers of abortions and abused or neglected children in the world. We will never know, at least on this side of eternity, why some who long to be mothers and fathers are denied the blessing of children. However, we do see that those who suffer this despite their righteousness will be rewarded in the end and therefore should always put their hope in God who will make all things good for those who love and obey Him.

Who Are Joachim and Anna?

These two, mentioned at the conclusion of each liturgy, “the holy and righteous ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna,” despite being mostly forgotten in the religious tradition I was born into, have one of those great stories.

Joachim was from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of King David. His wife, Anna, was from the tribe of Levi, the same as the High Priest Aaron and the daughter of the priest Matthan. They had lived fifty years, as a married couple, and were unable to have children despite their devotion to God.

Joachim had faithfully, since his teenage years, given two-thirds of his income, one third to the poor and another third to the Temple, and were financially blessed for this. However, their childlessness finally became a cause of harassment. The High Priest, Issachar, confronted Joachim and told him, “You are not worthy to offer sacrifice with those childless hands.” And, with that pronouncement, he was pushed back by others, who had children.

Rejected and despairing in this disgrace, Joachim studied and found that, indeed, every righteous man in Israel had been blessed with children. He and his wife left with Jerusalem with profound sadness because of this. They began to pray for a miracle, like that which happened for Abraham and Sarah, him going into the mountains with his flocks and Anna returning home. Then the archangel Gabriel visited them both, promising them “a daughter most blessed, by whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and through whom will come the salvation of the world.” The picture is of them meeting again, at the city gates, upon hearing this.

Their daughter, Mary, the mother of Jesus our Lord, was specially dedicated to God and, like Hannah’s son Samuel, was brought up at the Temple at the age of three to be raised with other girls there. Their righteousness was finally rewarded having waited those many years. Their story is one that is a good reminder to those who have been faithful yet have not been blessed like others. They are the grandparents of our Lord and Savior.

Anyhow, by coincidence, the conception of Mary is celebrated today, December 9th, which is something I didn’t know when I began writing this blog.