What About a Christian America?

The Opening Ceremony for the 2024 Olympics

Last Supper by Da Vinci

The Feast of the Gods by Biljert

The events of the last few weeks have prompted a lot of discussions pushing me to comment again on our role as Judeo-Christians in the political arena, and I want to frame this well. By now, I’m sure you’ve seen or at least heard about the abomination of the drag queen opening ceremony to the Olympics in Paris sparking international drama: it was originally thought to be a mockery of the Last Supper, but later said to be a depiction of The Feast of the Gods by Jan H. van Biljert. However, the unofficial title of the ceremony was La Cène Sur un Scène Sur La Seine (meaning The Last Supper on a Stage on The Seine); when asked if this referred to the Last Supper, Barbara Butch, the woman playing the central figure in the display reportedly said on Instagram, “Oh yes, yes! The Gay New Testament!” but then retracted her statements, replacing them with a statement implying her faith is LGBTQ+ ideology, but has criticism toward Christianity; the creator of the ceremony acknowledged that his intent was to have a pagan display honoring the gods of Olympus, but said he meant no disrespect to any other religion; the Olympic Committee ‘apologized’ for any resemblance to the Last Supper; and finally, Biljert’s painting may have been a mockery of the Last Supper by DaVinci in and of itself.

Just before all of this hullabaloo, in America we had the near assassination of former President Trump and the Republican National Convention, which promises a restoration of the Judeo-Christian worldview in the public square; the forcing of Joe Biden to relinquish his position as the Democrat nominee for President, but not the Presidency itself, and the crowning of Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee in his place. We’ve had pro-Hamas demonstrators openly defacing national monuments in our capital, a dramatic increase in antisemitic activity across our nation, and a spike in persecution of Jews and Christians around the world. Generally speaking, Western culture in particular has rapidly become even more hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview than it already was.

Vandalized Christopher Columbus monument in Washington D.C.

While this hostility seems to be exponentially increasing, it is most certainly not new, nor are the questions we’ve been forced to ask ourselves; but it’s important that we answer them accurately, because our answer will define what the future looks like. In doing so, I want to address a disconnect that Western Christianity seems to be having as I’m watching our responses on social media. Does the Bible address the attitude we should have toward those who hate us? As Judeo-Christians, what should our goals be? How should we confront this battle that we’re faced with? Do we even have an accurate assessment of our own society to begin with? Let’s explore some of these questions and frame our answer.

Is America is a Christian Nation that Must be Preserved at All Costs? Is Europe Christian?

Since Barack Obama declared in 2007 that ‘no matter what we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation’, it has become very popular to suggest that America was never a Judeo-Christian nation in the first place, but instead is a nation completely founded by Deists and Freemasons who were intrinsically religiously pluralistic. I am not saying that Deism and Freemasonry had no impact on our founding, but America was overwhelmingly founded with an understanding that America was and should continue to be a Christian nation; this idea that Christianity was not somehow the majority factor in our nation’s formation is laughable.

It was fully intended by our Founding Fathers for the Christian religion to continue to be the dominant worldview in our culture; the misnomer of ‘separation of church and state’ as is currently parroted ad nauseam is not found anywhere in our founding documents. Instead, it was a side note in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, with the intention that the government would not be allowed to create a state-mandated denomination of Christianity―not that Christianity should have no place in government or even in public life.

It is precisely the Judeo-Christian worldview that is the glue holding our civilization together; we cannot expect our nation to endure without it. There is a reason why John Adams made the statement, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” and why Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Before the founding of America, the idea of a self-governing nation was unknown. So as people who are self-governing, we have the unique responsibility to determine for ourselves whether we will act to preserve this Judeo-Christian foundation or not. Since the mid-1800’s, however, anti-Christian forces including Communism have stealthily sought to undermine the influence of Christianity in our culture, and they have been winning. The Church has failed in its mission to preserve its influence in both American and European culture, simply remaining dumbfounded as our families, friends, co-workers, and neighbors become less and less Christian.

We are rightly disgusted by a drag-queen show at the Olympics―only the latest symptom of a society whose morality is bleeding out uncontrollably. We are shocked that there are persons in our country and across ‘civilized’ Europe who want to be able to terminate the life of even a newly born child, let alone an unborn child. We are incredulous that there seem to be so many people who are in favor of blurring even the very definition of male and female, and the false Marxist divisions of ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressor’ classes. Moral relativism has produced a system of unequal standards, where people feel justified saying and doing horrible things to people who disagree with their views, but demand that there be no reciprocation. There is undoubtedly a war against the Judeo-Christian worldview as the Western status quo.

Nick Freitas: Has the U.S. Constitution Failed?

This video on YouTube (pictured at right) was an excellent conversation asking whether the classically liberal philosophical foundation on which America’s Bill of Rights was crafted is sufficient to combat a Leftist movement bent on destroying the Judeo-Christian values, foundation, and freedoms that are hallmarks of American culture. My answer is simply that while the excellent framework built into the American Constitution may act as a cast holding our broken bones together, ultimately this isn’t sufficient for healing without the Judeo-Christian worldview as its foundation. We’re seeing the collapse of Western society because of our wholesale rejection of this worldview.

The Problem

We need to understand that one huge reason the Marxists are currently successful is because Christianity was largely forced on Europe―and America to a lesser degree, beginning with the Constantinian era all the way back in the 300’s A.D. From the day that Theodosius I declared that Christianity would be the Roman state religion in 381 to the dethroning of the European monarchies in the 18th century, Christianity was mandated across Europe through the chokehold of fear—in complete contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. (At least America was founded by people who were concerned with religious freedom!)

Since The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, published in France in 1789, the Judeo-Christian worldview has been steadily, increasingly rejected by a people whose culturally shallow religious convictions were forced by the edge of a sword rather than forged in the depths of the heart. It is a rejection that has, thankfully, taken a long time to arrive; but it was always inevitable. The fact that the Olympic Committee even made a half-hearted attempt at an apology for their overtly pagan skit is remarkable to me, and is a testament to the lasting influence we have had, despite its imperfections.

Meanwhile, the Church in the West has become so comfortable, blind, and out of touch with society that it hasn’t even caught up to the idea of its own irrelevance in the lives of those who hate it. We still think that somehow we live in a Christian society that should think, behave, and legislate like we would. Even after the 1960’s when the moral bottom fell out of America, the Church continued its program as if nothing happened, stunned that there would be those in America who dared to be irreverent toward God. Even now, nearly 60 years later, the Church has failed to counter the loss of three generations, only adapting its strategy to a disastrous ‘seeker-sensitive’ model in an attempt to lure people back to church attendance. But why would a society that doesn’t worship God, has no personal connection to Christianity, and is quite comfortable worshipping themselves care about coming to a church service? For music, coffee, and to listen to someone talk about things they don’t even relate to? Please.

After finally acknowledging this crushing defeat, bewildered as to how we got here, the Western Church is living in one of two paradigms: either cowering in the corner away from our neighbors, lashing out like a threatened animal as God’s values and our rights are systematically challenged and/or erased while gearing up for end-time prophecies to be fulfilled, or by actually dropping God’s standards in our own lives, adapting our values to those of the sinful culture around us―following this ‘seeker-sensitive’ model to its catastrophic end in a vain attempt to win the hearts of these unbelievers who no longer care. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, right? (HINT: wrong. If salt loses its saltiness, it is worthless except to be thrown out and trampled by men―Matthew 5:13-14!)

Greg Laurie on the Olympic opening ceremony

This short video by Greg Laurie encapsulates the first paradigm of what I’m describing. It’s not that I disagree with anything Greg is saying concerning the morality of the Gospel as the only viable framework for our society, nor am I attacking him personally for his approach; it’s just that our society—especially in Europe—already rejected God several generations ago. It’s not like we currently have a Judeo-Christian society that is simply slipping; unfortunately, Barack Obama is correct in that we aren’t a Christian society anymore, and our approach needs to begin with that deficit in mind.

The Spiritual Reality

At the Tower of Babel, the whole world rebelled against God, choosing instead to worship the demonic spirits and to ‘make a name for themselves’. (Genesis 10-11, Jubilees 7-10) So God separated mankind into the nations, confusing their language and setting them against each other until the end of time. Even though God’s chosen people Israel fell into idolatry and rebellion themselves, causing them to be temporarily kicked out of the Land, God promised that He would make a New Covenant with them, and all would be restored, so that all the nations would know that He alone is God. All throughout the Tanakh (the ‘Old Testament’), it was prophesied a time at the end of days when the Messiah would rule over the nations (Psalm 2:9, Revelation 2:27); Israel’s enemies would be defeated and they would return to a place of prominence, God Himself would rule from Zion, the Torah would stream from Zion, and the Gentiles will seek out the Jews for their relationship with God. Regardless of what Jesus said to Pilate in John 18:36-37, the rest of the Bible clearly depicts Jesus as physically ruling over all the nations in this present material world.

Now, here’s the thing: it’s Jesus Himself who returns to do this. Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see that it is Israel who will conquer the world by their own might or power; nowhere does Jesus command His Church to take over the nations in some geopolitical crusade (which is why I am against the so-called ‘Seven Mountain Mandate’―but that’s for another article). When Jesus’ disciples asked Him after His resurrection about all these prophesies in the Tanakh, saying, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He answered, “It is not your place to know the times or seasons which the Father has placed under His own control. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and through all Judah, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8) He didn’t say the restoration wouldn’t happen; He said it would happen on the Father’s timeline, and implied that we shouldn’t worry about it. Before the LORD judges and destroys His enemies, He is extending grace to the entire world to show His mercy.

So, we have a different strategy: the Great Commission. We are completing the job given to Israel all the way back in Exodus 19:5-6: to represent the LORD as His kingdom of priests and His holy nation, to be a light to the Gentiles, and to invade the nations, rescuing people who are in bondage to the gods of this world by making disciples who change their citizenship from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not withstand us: the gods cannot stop the transfer from happening, even though they try desperately to stomp us out.

This means that the normal way of things is that we are facing a world system that is naturally predisposed to hate us and our message. But the LORD is sending us in anyway; the price of being part of His people is that we are constantly swimming upstream, and we should expect persecution. Occasionally, the LORD has moved and we have been successful enough of an influence in society where a whole nation decided to follow the LORD voluntarily. Countries like Armenia, Ethiopia, the Roman Empire (though this was enforced in an anti-Biblical way), England, the United States, etc. all made decisions at at least one point in history that they would follow the LORD. That’s great! Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD! We as believers should take whatever responsibility we are allowed within the freedoms we have to encourage and protect that decision whenever it occurs. But this state of affairs is not normal, and we shouldn’t expect it to be.

In fact, the Bible is clear that as the time approaches for Jesus to return, the nations will become more and more apostate while His Bride will become beautified, without spot or wrinkle. As the world system readies itself for Babel 2.0, God’s people rise to the occasion and shine like never before. Both aspects are expected. We shouldn’t be dismayed or troubled; we should rejoice that events are unfolding just as the Bible predicted they would―and we should be emboldened to rise to the challenge! The gods of this world stand ultimately defeated, but this doesn’t mean they’ll go down without a fight.

The Solution

We are so used to living in a Christian society that we have no idea how to impact an unbelieving one. Instead of saying, “How dare those unbelievers be unbelieving,” we need to learn from our counterparts in China, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and Africa about how to rub shoulders with unbelievers in an oppressive environment. Even in an environment where are still the majority, we need to act as though we’re in the minority. It is not for us to mandate belief in Jesus by force (as if that was even possible). Our job is to be a witness―a person who testifies to the saving grace we have received in Messiah. I appreciated this post on Facebook, which opined that in order to win the world for Christ, we must be willing to ‘sit in the smoking section’, meaning we must be willing to associate with those who don’t share our values. As my friend Mitchell responded, “the world is gonna world. Caesar is gonna be Caesar!” The important thing is for us to represent the LORD as His priests. When they look at us, they have to see Him.

We are on display. We can’t compromise on God’s commands to us. Even though we’ll always be imperfect this side of Revelation, and God’s grace is abundant toward us when we fail, we must say “Yes” to the LORD; we have to have His heart, and put Him first in everything we do. If we’re to be effective witnesses―competent priests in service of His kingdom, we need to demonstrate His values in our own lives so the world can see them in action.

We need to reclaim Scriptures teaching us to love the world the way God loves the world, like Matthew 25:37-40, Isaiah 58, and Luke 6:35. It’s hard to think of someone as your enemy when you choose to love them. So we have to intentionally choose to have compassion even when we’re being mocked and ridiculed. And I get it—that’s not easy. But once we make the choice, the LORD floods us with His grace to love when we are hated.

But it’s love that makes the difference. By the way, I’m not talking about accommodation (the word ten years ago was tolerance). Loving someone doesn’t include tolerating their hurting themselves or others. But we can be firm yet gentle—we can direct people to the One who is their solution. Where we should be zero-tolerant is in the house of God. How can we have any kind of moral authority when we’ve got rampant sexual abuse, financial scandals, greed, turning a blind eye to those who need us, egotism in leadership and having a model that tends toward selecting egotistical and abusive people, tolerating sin among the members of our congregations, and covering over these sins rather than upholding holiness in the presence of God.

Finally, we need to go where unbelievers are rather than demanding they come to us. We need to be bold and yet winsome and relatable—at the gym, at the office, at school, at the grocery store, wherever. And whenever we can, we need to make friends first—to love first. That way, we’re earning the right to speak into people’s lives instead of just blasting them with an unwelcome earful. And don’t ask them to come to church until they have come into covenant with God through Messiah.

Here’s the set of values I believe God shared with me that the Western Church needs to adopt if it wants to keep its lampstand of influence in Western society (I did a summary article and a video series). God is allowing us to participate in the kingdom harvest that He wants to have—it’s up to us to decide how hard we’re going to work, and that has a lot of bearing on its success.

At this point, I’m not sure Europe will ever be brought back to ‘Christendom’ before Jesus returns. I think it’s too far gone. I hope we can still save America. Even if we don’t, though, this doesn’t mean the battle is lost—Jesus will still return, the nations will still be ruled by Him, and we still win. It just means that less of humanity shares in that victory. Either way, we still have to change our perspective. This will be hard, but it’s the only way forward.

An Eschatology of Hope

About fifteen years ago, the national director of the denomination of which I was a member at the time wrote an article saying that the eschatological framework I happen to believe was too depressing. Aside from my firm belief that our doctrines should be determined by revelation of the Holy Spirit aided by proper exegesis of the Biblical texts rather than by how a particular passage makes us feel, I would like to finally respond to this charge.

While there are certainly variations within views on the end of the current age, I am basically what is known as a classic post-tribulation pre-millennialist. (If you don't know what that is, here is an article that shows the garden variety eschatological belief systems in the Christian Church.) Now, I'm not writing this article to convince you to share my view; if you hold to another opinion, God bless you—you can continue to be happy in your error (just kidding, lol). During Hanukkah this year, I was simply reminded of the hope we have, and I wanted to share it with you, regardless of what you believe on the subject.

Classic post-trib premillennialism holds to the idea that the world and its governmental systems stand increasingly opposed to the rule and reign of Christ; when this opposition reaches a tipping point, a figure called the Antichrist will appear who will bring tyranny to the world and will persecute anyone who refuses to worship him for a period of seven years called the Great Tribulation. (If you haven't guessed yet, this is the depressing part.) At the end of the seven years, he will unite the nations and lead a war against YHWH; but Jesus will return and will destroy the army, seize the Antichrist and throw him into the lake of fire along with his false prophet and will rule over the earth physically for 1000 years before the final judgment and the New Jerusalem which lasts for eternity.

What the national director and other people who share his sentiment are focused on is the seven years of intense persecution and the wrath of God upon the oppressive systems of the world. They are missing two big elements that would otherwise help them to see the LORD's goodness, mercy, and restoration in the middle of what the Bible says will happen.

First, of course, is the Millennial Reign of Christ that comes after the Tribulation. Isaiah 11 prophesies about this time that it will be a time of great harmony and peace. This is the period of history when all the prophecies about Israel will finally come to fruition, and the world will be in an Edenic state. I can totally see Jesus saying, "Jim and John, those mountains that fell into the sea—I want you to go over there and raise them back into position. Sherry and Tina, there's this particular coral reef that needs to be replenished; I want you to make that happen." You see, one of the three jobs that the Messiah has is to reverse the corruption of the earth wrought by the kingdom of darkness (the other two are to provide the way to reconcile humanity to Himself, which He did on the cross, and to establish the everlasting Kingdom of God—which has already been started, but will culminate with the New Jerusalem). Since those who live through the Tribulation (or are martyred for their faith during this time) will be able to reign with Him, we get to participate in restoring the earth. Think about that! This is literally going to be the best time in earth's history that has ever existed—we will be undoing all the injustice and all the sickness of the earth; there will be no disasters, atrocities, or war; lifespans will be lengthened, and we will have Jesus physically present with us, reigning from Jerusalem.

Christmas no longer holds any meaning for me; however, I am confident that during the Millennial Kingdom, the beloved hymn by Isaac Watts will ring out in all its glory, because its words will finally be manifested:

Joy to the world! The LORD is come! Let earth receive her King! Let every heart prepare Him room, and heaven and nature sing!
Joy to the earth! The Savior reigns! Let men their songs employ while fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains repeat their sounding joy!
No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground: He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found.
He rules the world with truth and grace and makes the nations prove the glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love!

—Isaac Watts, 1719

I don't know how a person can be depressed about that. What a time! I hope that I live to see it. Revelation 19 declares that those who participate in this are blessed and holy—that we will be His priests.

The second factor that folks are missing is less eschatological system-dependent, but ties in nonetheless: as the world systems continue to fall away, as the love of most grows cold, as wickedness and persecution increases, the light of God's people is going to match it. The Great Commission is not suddenly going away; in fact, God is refining His people to represent Him so well that she is called a 'beautiful bride dressed for her husband'. Gone will be the days of shallow, consumer Christianity, along with evil shepherds who abuse the sheep; there will be no more scandals, no more 'church hurt', no more denominational division. True believers won't be running to seminaries that teach them to abandon the core teachings of Scripture, because they'll be too busy living it, affecting the lives of those around them with the truth and power of the Gospel that only a living Christ can transmit by the power of the Holy Spirit. The people that emerge in this environment will be absolutely unstoppable.

Premillennialism has been accused of causing believers to hide out in fear from the big bad world, waiting for rescue either by Armageddon or, in the case of pre- and mid-tribulation theory, the Rapture. And there are those folks, for sure; but this isn't caused by a theological framework—it's caused by unbelief.

On the sixth night of Hanukkah this year, I went to the hanukkiyah lighting in downtown Waxhaw; the rabbi there gave a message (which was very typical) about the nature of light to dispel the darkness, the nature of fire—that it can be shared without loss; it only grows—and how we start with only one light, but every night, the light increases. He finished by speaking about our holy calling from God to carry His light and share this light to as many as will take it.

It's not that I haven't heard this message before, of course; but the Holy Spirit was stirring something deep in me that helped me to finally connect this holiday with the eschatology of hope. In Matthew 16, when Jesus brought His disciples to a rock in Israel in front of the cave called the gates of Hell, a place of idolatry from where it was said that demons erupted, Jesus said right there that He would build His church upon that rock. He was showing His disciples that the very purpose of this time was for us to invade the kingdom of darkness that holds the nations in bondage and to rescue captives. Furthermore, and this is the best part—the gates of hell will not withstand our assault.

In order to live like this, you and I have to actually catch the light of God in our lives. We have to actually believe that He is God—that He is more powerful than all of the 'gods' in the universe and all the negative forces they wield. We also have to stop worrying about all the things our enemy is doing in a futile attempt to stop the Kingdom of God from advancing. We have to stop thinking about how deep and vast the darkness is, and simply shine the light of who God is into our own lives and into the lives of others. Things will change when we put these things in their proper perspective.

From my own limited, selfish perspective, this Hanukkah has been less than ideal, and not very festive: half of my family was away for the holiday, we were too busy to make much of the wonderful food and play games, and many normal life concerns have weighed me down. And of course, there are the numerous political and economic events happening all around us. The world seems too crazy but my house too quiet at the same time. (And I'm fully aware that so many people are experiencing worse hardships than I ever have.)

But I have a choice, as do we all: will I let the fire of the Spirit ignite me into a light that shines in the darkness, or will I wallow in unbelief, choosing to believe instead that the darkness is winning? I will choose the eschatology of hope.

I leave you with an English translation of the Hanukkah hymn Ma'oz Tzur. The first and last stanzas are English translations from Hebrew, while the middle three are the actual English lyrics composed for the tune at a later date. (I did tweak it slightly…)

My Refuge, My Rock of Salvation! It is pleasant to sing Your praises.
Let our house of prayer be restored; there we will offer You our worship
When You have slaughtered the barking foe.
Then we will celebrate with songs and psalms the altar's dedication.

Rock of Ages, let our song praise Your saving power;
You amid our raging foes were our sheltering tower.
Furious, they assailed us, but Your Arm availed us,
And Your Word broke their sword when our own strength failed us.

Kindling new the holy lamps, priests, approved in suffering,
Purified the nation's shrine, brought to God their offering.
With His courts surrounding, hear, in joy abounding,
Happy throngs, singing songs with a mighty sounding.

Children of the martyr race, whether free or fettered,
Wake the echoes of the songs where you may be scattered.
Yours the message cheering that the time is nearing
That will see all men free—tyrants disappearing.

O bare Your holy Arm and bring complete Salvation.
Wreak vengeance on the blood of the wicked nations on behalf of Your faithful servants.
For deliverance has too long been delayed, and the evil days seem endless.
O reject the enemy in the darkness of idolatry, and bring us under the Good [Sevenfold] Shepherd.

—Ma'oz Tzur, traditional. English lyrics by Marcus Jastrow and Gustav Gottheil

Why Do We Need Revival?

I grew up during the Jesus People/Charismatic Renewal of the 1970's—in fact, I was saved during this time in 1975, and I can assure you that the revival was very real. Furthermore, the experience among the people my family worshipped with—at the beginning—was actually very similar to what was reported at Asbury: great hunger and repentance marked with simple worship, droves of people coming to Jesus and getting saved, services that lasted hours and hours, and while the LORD showed up in demonstrative ways, it wasn’t overly sensational. It was actually only after we began an attempt to manage what we were experiencing in the 80’s through a cultish overcorrection in the discipleship or ‘shepherding’ movement that it began to slip off the rails—at least on my side of the fence.

The ‘Fort Lauderdale Five’ who were leaders of the discipleship/‘shepherding’ movement (clockwise from left): Charles Simpson, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham

The reason for that correction, however, is because fakery and sensationalism had snuck in, and was distorting the authentic work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives; and so the response was equally unbiblical to the issue it was meant to correct.

As an adult, I studied the beginnings of the modern Charismatic movement, and found that these pendulum swings are not new; it began with the Wesleyan Holiness movement in the mid-late 19th century. They wanted the baptism of the Holy Spirit to assist them in living holy lives according to Scripture (WOW—imagine that.) Here’s a video that is part of my teaching series Vision for Survival that talks about the subject and the pendulum swing that followed.

American culture has been marked by waves of Christian revival, with much of the fruit being a mixed bag of real transformation, healing, and advancement of the Gospel that sets new generations on course to carry the faith; but also ugly sensationalism/emotionalism, opportunism, manipulation, false teaching, and psychological damage that turns many people away from God. The question that we’re all thinking is, “Why isn’t this pure?” On a recent Remnant Radio video podcast, Randy Clark admitted that the ‘Toronto Blessing’ revival of 1994 was “…70% God, 20% flesh, and 10% demonic…” Why isn’t it 100% God?

There are two answers I believe I can give:

1. We have an enemy who wants to get in to steal, kill, and destroy any work of the LORD. Any time that the LORD enlightens His people and moves them toward His plans and purposes in history, the enemy is right there, sowing confusion, doubt, counterfeit—anything that can be used to deflect people from reaching the goal that He wants us to reach—derailing us into something that is futile, despairing, and even anti-Christ if that’s possible. We are seeing a lot of that right now through erosion of the Bible’s authority, progressive Christianity, the adoption of false ‘apostolic’ and ‘prophetic’ authority structures and New Age practices infiltrating the Church—especially in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles, legalism infecting the Torah-observant movement, sexual scandals in Evangelical and Catholic denominations, etc.

2. Human beings are bent toward self-worship; we continuously re-center our lives around ourselves every chance we get. And so it’s easy for us to take the bait. This isn’t new: God has often visited His people in extraordinary ways with strong manifestations of His presence that last for a while, and then corruption sets in because of sin, causing the movement to stop or even reverse course. Even ancient Israel was marked by ups and downs, with its political success being married to its renewed worship of YHWH, while its decline was directly tied to idolatry and worship of the self. We are no different.

So why does God send revival, and how can we avoid being part of the problem?

Ephesians 5:25-27 provides a picture of the ‘marriage’ between God’s people and Himself:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church [ekklesia=assembly], without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

And Revelation 21 starting at verse 2 shows the culmination of this image:

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

Finally, Peter shows in 1 Peter 2:4-10 that we, the assembly, the people of God, are living stones being built into the dwelling place of God—a temple for the Spirit:

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

You see, the New Jerusalem is going to be made of the living stones of God’s people, and He’s removing our spots and wrinkles in preparation for that time. These three Scriptures are part of the reason why I am a restorationist:

During the first few centuries after Jesus’ resurrection, I believe God allowed His people—both Jew and Gentile—to move away from His intentions in order to set world events in such a way as to fulfill prophecy, all according to the mystery of His divine plan; though even in our broken, unbiblical state, He has still met us and used us to reach one third of the world’s population to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and Savior of the world. But I also believe He is moving His people from that state of disrepair toward an end-time state where we are ready for the wedding feast—a beautiful Bride without spot or wrinkle against all odds, so we can fulfill our calling—both Jew and Gentile—as His kingdom of priests and holy nation, and so the nations will know that He alone is God. I certainly believe that God is doing this with every believer all the time through the process of sanctification; but one of the biggest purposes of revival is to present us with opportunities to allow major shifts to occur in the transformation back to Biblical Faith.

We need revival because during the experience, the LORD activates our hunger for His presence to speak to us in life-transforming ways; we are endeared to Him, and we get close, listening to what He has to say to us. But it is completely up to us whether we allow His Word, by His Spirit, to cross over our hunger into life-sustaining nourishment that is 100% God, propelling us back toward Biblical Faith—whether we will choose to obey and hasten the day when we will be without spot or wrinkle, or return to a half-hearted state marked by self-worship, concerned only with the mundane, temporal things of life. How far will we let Him take us?

History tells us that we have a limited window of time to apply ourselves before this intense, collective drawing of our souls and spirits ebbs away.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit that is occurring right now which began at Asbury University is encouraging. From the reports that I have heard, the leadership of the university was very wise in its handling of the authentic outpouring of the Holy Spirit while blocking the sensationalist and self-worshipping tendencies to get people off track from what God is doing. As this spreads across the country and around the world—which it seems to already be doing, we will see what it brings.

To sustain the LORD’s presence and favor in this critical time, revival hunger needs to be turned to reformation. In 2014, when I was publishing my first book, Reclaiming Christianity Series, Vol. 1: The Upside-Down Kingdom, the LORD gave me a vision of seven paradigms that I believe He said the Western Church must adopt in order to maintain its lampstand in the culture. If we don’t, we will lose our influence, and become totally absorbed into the culture where we are indistinguishable from the world—either that, or we will be completely marginalized and persecuted for our faith, having lost our position from 1700 years of Christendom. We are on the knife’s edge between great harvest or great apostasy, and the outcome of this revival may be the determining factor.

The kingdom of God will not fail either way, of course; but our participation in it will most certainly be affected. The LORD has told me that I am to spend the rest of my life teaching these seven paradigms as the major portion of my work: I started off with a video series on YouTube called Vision for Survival; the content is also referenced as a page here on my website and in my book The Judeo-Christian. Here’s a quick summary of what we must do:

1. Turn back to Biblical Faith from contradictory church traditions, personal opinions, cultural norms, pseudo-intellectualism, and subjective experiences. This means that the Bible—interpreted according to its proper linguistic, historical, cultural, and circumstantial context—must truly regain its place as the final rule of faith and practice in our lives. For different Christian groups, this means different things: Charismatics will have to do the hard work of Biblical study, while Evangelicals, Catholics, and others will have to let go of some of their assumptions and traditions as they are corrected by the realization of what the Bible is really telling them—especially with regard to the supernatural.
2. Recognize that the cosmic battle is one of God-worship vs. self-worship. This is really the goal of the Gospel: we are to invade the kingdom of darkness and liberate captives, causing them to change citizenship to the kingdom of God by coming into covenant with God through Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). The kingdom of God—the nation of Israel into whom Gentile believers are grafted, is marked by the worship of God alone, expressed in self-sacrificial, other-centered love; the kingdom of darkness—the ethnos, the ‘nations’, are marked by varied forms of self-worship, expressed in self-centered, self-gratifying desire.
3. Return to the original, Biblical Judeo-Christian model as opposed to a Constantinian model. This has many facets:
   • understand the eternal and continued role of Israel as the covenanted, chosen people of God, and all of the ramifications of ‘grafted-in’ theology, which allows Gentiles access to the covenants of the people of Israel and Judah
   • reframing our paradigm of salvation to understand the Jewish nature of covenant, and recognizing the original meaning of ‘tikkun olam’ in the Great Commission as part of the cosmic battle
   • getting rid of all antisemitism and anti-Judaism (replacement theology) in the Christian Church, recognizing Biblical Christianity is itself a form of Judaism
   • having a love for the Jewish people as our estranged family members and showing solidarity for the state of Israel as the eternal inheritance of the Jewish people, from where our Messiah will rule and reign
   • understanding how the New Covenant enables the Sinai Covenant to come to fruition, rather than abolishing it
   • understanding the message of the Levitical Feasts and how they apply to the cosmic battle
   • reclaiming a proper understanding and observance of Shabbat as a testimony to the nations of who God is, rather than a legalistic performance of duty
   • many other things, as part of the reclamation of Biblical Faith, which undo the divorce of Christianity from Judaism, healing the damage that was done
4. Restore the Biblical family/nation structure of the ekklesia, and do away with the business/institutional structure. The ekklesia is a family/nation made up of people who are in covenant with God and each other, not an organization of people with similar beliefs. Discipleship is a legacy passed on from spiritual parents to spiritual children in relationship, not a membership class; leadership is recognized out of persons raised in Biblical values and confirmed by the Holy Spirit through one’s spiritual mentors, not an academic study program. Elders parent the family rather than being a badge of an elected title.
5. Pursue and preach a holiness-centric faith instead of a happiness-centric faith. We must come to understand that true happiness and fulfillment only come when we place ourselves under the governance of God. He loves us so much that He not only accepts us as we are, but He refuses to leave us where we are—instead, He transforms us by the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification to reflect His character. Our love for God must not end with the feelings we get when singing happy worship music; it must place in us such a deep respect for God that we cannot bear to grieve Him by our behavior.
6. Seek a real, day-to-day covenant relationship with God rather than chasing sensationalistic supernatural experiences or self-righteous displays of religious ritual. Either extreme introduces falsehood into our testimony of the Gospel as the power of God for salvation of those who believe. Neither experiencing miracles nor preserving church tradition is the goal of the cosmic battle—it is liberating the captives from the kingdom of darkness and setting them free to be citizens of the kingdom of God.
7. Adopt a missional mindset rather than a preservational mindset. God has asked us to liberate captives out of the nations, not to conquer the nations, whose systems are doomed to destruction. He will judge them and reign over them. He promised that the gates of hell would not withstand our advance to liberate captives out of their midst; rather than reacting from a defensive posture of fear, we must engage the people in our cultures with boldness—not to combat them, but to rescue them from their wounds, bringing them to the only Medic who can save their lives. Offense is the best defense. Our influence over nations comes from the people becoming citizens of the kingdom of God—not from conquering 'spiritual mountains'.

This last Shabbat, I was reading about the story of King Josiah in 2 Kings 22:1-23:30. By this time, the northern tribes of Israel had already been decimated by Assyria for their idolatry, and Judah was not far behind. Josiah’s grandfather, King Manasseh, had so wickedly fallen into idolatry that God had already made up His mind to remove Judah from its land and send them into the Babylonian captivity. But when Josiah looked at the Torah and realized how far Judah had fallen from God’s intentions, he was broken. He gathered all the people of Judah and read the Torah to them, and they were cut to the heart. Revival broke out, and as one people, they rid themselves of everything that was contrary to God’s Word, bringing the greatest reform that Judah had ever experienced. As a result, God delayed the captivity of Judah for another day, and the people of Josiah’s generation lived out their lives in peace.

The problem is that they didn’t transfer their fervor and obedience to their children; and so the very next generation was just as wicked as Manasseh’s. And so the Babylonian captivity happened in the time of Jehoiachin, Josiah’s great-grandson.

At the end of the Babylonian captivity, we saw the plot of Haman against the Jews to completely destroy them from the earth, in which Mordecai and Hadassah (Esther) rallied the people to fast and pray, and God divinely orchestrated the salvation of the Jewish people from destruction. As I am finishing this article, Purim is fast approaching—and I don’t believe it’s just a coincidence. Will we continue to contend for our children and grandchildren as the LORD draws their hearts to Him in revival? Will we allow that revival to turn into reformation as Josiah did with the people of Judah? Will we engage our children and grandchildren to pass on this reformation to them, or will we play spiritual games with the graciousness of His presence while continuing to revel in the idolatry of self-worship, and thereby fall into persecution? We were born for such a time as this—we must not waste it.

Was Joseph an evil totalitarian?

In reading the Torah parshah for today (Dec. 11, 2021: Vayigash—Genesis 44:18-47:27), it occurred to me for the first time that Joseph's solution for Egypt would be considered extremely evil by today's American standards. First, he had all the people save up one-fifth of their produce and give it to the government, who stored it for them (Genesis 41:48-49); then, when the famine hit, he made them BUY their own grain back. When the money was gone, they sold their cattle; and when their cattle was gone, the people sold themselves and their land to Pharaoh and became his slaves. Pharaoh then 'graciously' gave back to them 4/5 of their land to grow their own food again, but retained ownership of the people and the property, and demanded the fifth portion as his (Genesis 47:13-26). If they tried something like that today in our country, there would be absolute civil war over the injustice of such a plan. (Or would there?) In our day, Joseph would have been found guilty of a national socialist conspiracy, and we would have locked him away for life.

Now, to be sure, Joseph's original idea did not mention the slavery part—only the collecting of the grain. (Genesis 41:28-45) Yet, in the administration of the plan, Pharaoh told the people to do whatever Joseph told them, and Joseph was the one who told them to buy the grain with their money, their animals, and finally themselves and their land. So, we don't know whether Joseph completely came up with this on his own, or whether Pharaoh took Joseph's originally benevolent idea and put his own evil twist on it and commanded Joseph to tell them these things, or whether the thought process of the ancient Egyptians was such that since they worshipped Pharaoh as a god anyway, that he was deserving of such power. They did voluntarily sell themselves to Pharaoh to get their grain back, after all.

Regardless of what the motivations were, only the priests of the Egyptian religion and the Israelites were exempt from this system (in Genesis 47:27 it says that the Israelites owned land in Goshen, and Exodus 1:6-8 shows that they were not made slaves in Egypt until later). So we see that God used the situation, even though it was an evil plan, to preserve His people. But doesn’t this still make Joseph a horrible, evil totalitarian? And why did God allow such an awful thing to happen to the entire nation—whether it was Joseph’s idea or not?

First, we have to remember that most of the time, we can’t simply apply a modern framework to the text of the Bible and call it a day. Our sense of national justice is colored by centuries of evolving views of civil rights beginning with the Magna Carta in medieval Europe—and I will certainly not forget to mention that this was greatly influenced by Christianity; before this, monarchy was absolute, and the best that civilians could hope for was a benevolent ruler.

Secondly, evil exists in the world. God created man with free will, because He wanted men to worship Him freely, and not as automatons; but men from the very beginning have chosen to worship themselves. What we are not free from are the consequences to ourselves and others which flow from the choices we make, and so evil flourishes because mankind chooses it. The bad choices of a few sometimes cascade over into many lives of those who are innocent. Romans 8:28 assures us that God works everything for the good of those who believe and are called according to His purpose; it does not say that God will not allow anything bad to happen to us. The slavery of both Egypt and Israel was awful, but in the midst of it, God brought about the Exodus, and established the nation that would bring about the Messiah and Savior of the world.

It may have been that Joseph had no choice in the matter. He did hold out as long as possible before recommending that the people sell themselves into the slavery of Pharaoh, and when he was dying, he didn’t want his body to remain buried with the Pharaohs of Egypt, but with his family in Israel. He knew he didn’t belong to Egypt, but to YHWH—which brings us to the most important thing to remember: even though the whole earth belongs to YHWH, Israel is His people—His kingdom of priests and holy nation, and until the judgment of the world is finished, Israel is His main national concern. This doesn’t mean that YHWH is unconcerned with the affairs of other nations, but there is an element in which the nations, because of their rebellion against the Most High, have subjected themselves to the worship of other 'gods', and they are suffering consequences across the ages since mankind's universal decision to reject Him at the Tower of Babel.

This is why it is so important to recognize that those of us who are ethnically Gentiles, like myself, have been translated into a different kingdom—we have changed citizenship to His people Israel, no matter what our passport might say. If we remain separated from Israel, we are lost and have no hope in the world (Ephesians chapters 2 & 3)—but Romans 11 tells us that we have been grafted by Messiah into Israel like a wild olive branch into a domesticated tree; and because of this, we are no longer part of the nations doomed to suffer the wrath of God. While we remain subject to the governing civil authorities in the nations where we live, whom God allows to be raised to power and whose hearts God can turn as easily as directing the flow of water, we do not have to be subject to the spirits controlling the nations behind the scenes. In fact, he has given us authority in the New Covenant to plunder their kingdoms—not for assets like money, power, or land, but citizens (Matthew 16:17-19, 28:18-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 16:18-19, Acts 1:6-8). YHWH has called us to wage a spiritual war for liberation of prisoners, to bring captives back home to YHWH, so they can live as part of His people once again. YHWH alone is our King.

This is why it was evil for the people of Israel to call for a king to rule over them like the other nations (1 Samuel 8); God knew His people would suffer under the rule of an imperfect human being; but Israel didn’t want to live under God’s direct rule and reign as His people. So God acquiesced to their request, and gave them many kings who did evil things and took advantage of them, just as the other nations’ rulers have done all throughout history. But He also declared that He would bring a King of His choosing—Yeshua, who came to save Israel from her sins, and who will come again to bring Israel into all of the promises of the covenant, triumphing over all the other nations who hate the children of Jacob.

Psalm 33:12 states, “Blessed is the nation whose God is YHWH; the people He has chosen as His inheritance.” Of course, this is talking about Israel specifically; but it applies to any nation who worships Him. The more true worshipers of YHWH that exist in a country, the closer they are aligned with God’s value system and His plan in the world; that nation is poised to walk in God's blessings and the freedom that comes from walking in His ways; and sometimes, even their leadership becomes softened to the Gospel, and their whole society prospers. America is the only nation that was specifically founded to worship God; other nations became Christian after a significant portion of their population converted to Christianity―but they didn't start off that way. Even Israel, though they are eternally God’s chosen people, were chosen by Him; but Americans chose God. And I believe we have reaped the blessings that have resulted from that choice. So it is extremely important that America remains a nation under God.

But we have been walking away from Him, and it is beginning to show. Unlike Israel, God is not obligated by His own promises to prop us up and conduct the United States of America into a happy ending. He can easily let us suffer the consequences of our own choices. If we don’t return to YHWH, eventually, we will cease to be prosperous and will be swallowed in bondage, just like the Egyptians did under Pharaoh so long ago. Instead, let’s seek YHWH with all our hearts, our souls, and our strength—He may yet save us from ourselves!

Response: What is the Place of Rabbinic Tradition in our Faith?

My Facebook friend, Tov Rose, posted an old article by Dr. Michael Brown entitled: The Place of Tradition in Messianic Judaism, and wanted to hear our responses. I tried to share my thoughts, but it actually came out too long even for Facebook to handle. So, hear we go…

All right, I'll bite. As a note beforehand, I'll mention two things for people who don't know me—I'm not sure if they matter or not (or whether they should), but just to give a bit of background:

1. I am not a Messianic Jew from the standpoint that I am not ethnically Jewish. I call myself a Judeo-Christian, meaning I am a Christian person who is attempting to see his faith through the lens of the Bible's originally Jewish context. So rather than traditional Judaism or traditional Christianity, I am shooting toward understanding Biblical faith, which has its origins in the God and people of Israel from whom both Judaism and Christianity sprang.

2. Though we have interacted a few times online, I have never met Dr. Michael Brown personally. While we have similar views on many theological subjects, I have a sort of 'grappling relationship' with Dr. Brown regarding our respective teachings around the subject of Judaism's relationship to Christianity. Some might find our disagreements to be minor—especially from an outsider's perspective, but they are fundamental to the difference in our approach on these issues.

Having said these things, I highly respect Dr. Brown, and I would love to meet him and his wife, as we live on opposite sides of the same city. He has had a personally impactful relationship on my life, and I thank him for the ways God has used him to help me.

I actually believe that authentic, Biblical Christianity is a form of Judaism (Biblical Christianity is not Christianity in its present, traditional form).

I further believe that every true believer in Yeshua the Jewish Messiah is adopted into the people of Israel, whether they acknowledge this or not; whereas every Jew who renounces Messiah is currently estranged from Israel, denying the birthright that is theirs—no matter their ethnicity, level of observance, or the origin of their passport.

My approach to the Torah is very different from that of Talmudic Judaism, the Hebrew Roots Movement, and mainstream Christianity from the standpoint that I believe the Torah is the description of YHWH's character as it comes into contact with the human condition. It displays who YHWH is, and His government for ordering the world is released in it as it applies to us in the context of relationship. YHWH's purpose in commanding His people to obey the Torah is so the nations will know what it looks like to live under the government of the kingdom of God. In doing so, the Torah acts as a mirror, showing us how our nature has been bent toward self-worship, driving us to seek out YHWH for salvation.

Unlike the majority view of mainly Protestant Christians today, the Bible teaches us in Deuteronomy 30 that the commands of the written Torah are fully achievable. What must be changed is our NATURE—our bent toward self-worship. In the New Covenant, the Holy Spirit of YHWH indwells the worshiper, and moves us to obey the Torah by changing our nature back to its original state—a reflection of the wholly other-centered nature of YHWH Himself.

Talmudic Jews and many Messianic Jews do not believe the Torah ever applied to Gentiles anyway, and that only Jews have ever been responsible to 'carry the burden' of the Torah in the first place. However, this is contradicted by many passages, including Isaiah 56. This immediately shows a misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the Torah. It is not meant to be a burden we must carry, but an outpouring of the breath of life we receive from YHWH.

I do believe that the establishment of the New Covenant has adapted the Sinai Covenant to the work of Yeshua the Messiah with regard to sacrifice, penalty, and priesthood (whereas Dr. Brown believes, along with most Christians, that the New Covenant has abolished the Sinai Covenant—he has stated this in many Line of Fire broadcasts). I believe Hebrews 8 & 9 show the abolishment of the Aaronic Priesthood in fulfillment of 1 Samuel 2:27-36, not the Sinai Covenant as a whole (I teach about this more on my website). In the New Covenant, as the Holy Spirit transforms our nature through this relationship, we will obey the Torah by default, as our behavior will line up with the nature we reflect.

Stereotypically speaking in contrast, most groups believe that the Torah consists of 613 laws creating a debt that one must pay in order to be found acceptable to YHWH. Christians generally believe that debt was paid by Yeshua on the cross, while Hebrew Roots adherents and Talmudic Jews obviously do not. Messianic Jews tend to fall within the Christian camp, but keep many of the traditions of Talmudic Judaism primarily for the purpose of ethnic continuity or missionary appeal.

The 613 laws of Talmudic Judaism are actually the traditions it has created AROUND the commandments of the Scripture rather than the actual commandments themselves—which Dr. Brown very indirectly alludes to here; this brings us to our current conversation around the article.

I think that most people tend to look at Judaism as a monolith (some see Christianity this way as well, but to a lesser degree). They think that today's Talmudic Judaism is the Judaism of the Bible, and this is by design. Just as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity each claim that they are the one true, authentic Christian faith that can trace its roots all the way back to the Apostles through lines of succession, Talmudic Judaism would like us to believe that their traditions are authentically connected at the least to Moses, with some going all the way back to Abraham. This is, in a sense, true—in that they are derivatives; but that any of these traditions remain unbroken and unchanged is patently false.

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia states that Talmudic Judaism is a direct descendant of the Pharisees, and that all Talmudic traditions and teachings have their origin in this group. A cursory study of history reveals that the the Pharisees were merely one of several 'Judaisms' of the day (there were at least two major, very different theological opposition groups: the Sadducees and the Essenes); and in turn, when looking at the entire scope of history for the nation of Israel, 'the Jews' only made up two out of the twelve tribes of Israel. Since the kingdom split, and since the northern ten tribes were virtually wiped out by the Assyrians, we have limited knowledge of Israel's practices as a whole before the Babylonian exile of the kingdom of Judah.

When analyzing the behavior patterns of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, we see that Jesus actually took elements of each of the major branches of Judaism in His day: while He was closest in theology to the Pharisees, He stuck with the written Word as the Sadducees taught; yet He adopted much of the simpler lifestyle and teaching from the Essene community. John the Baptist was even closer to Essene theology, and early Christianity drew much from this branch.

However, with the destruction of the Temple, all Jewish groups disappeared except the Pharisees and the new Messianic believers. I have a timeline here on my website outlining the increased emnity and eventual split between the two groups.

The Major Factors of the Split between Judaism and Christianity

After this split, which culminated in 364 A.D. with the Christian Council of Laodicea, what was fast evolving toward Talmudic Judaism became the only authority on 'being Jewish', while Western Christianity disavowed anything Jewish and even set itself as anti-Jewish. And it is here that I begin to split hairs with Dr. Brown. He says, "There is a qualitative spiritual difference between the Messianic faith and the Rabbinic faith." This is granted, and we can see it; but on the flip side, we must ask, "What is 'Messianic Faith' as opposed to an openly-declared anti-Jewish or an even anti-Semitic Christianity?"

I fully agree with Dr. Brown that a focus on rabbinic tradition is unhealthy. But this is equally true of Christian tradition. This is why I use the moniker 'Biblical Faith' on my website, because the Bible—the written Word of YHWH, in its original context and language, interpreted by the life and work of Messiah Yeshua—the Word of YHWH made Flesh, is the only plumbline by which we can measure any of this stuff. But we have to understand the context in order to get the true meaning of the Biblical text—an accurate understanding of the language alone does not do it for us. And while archaeology has provided us with a lot of information, the problem is that Christianity has destroyed the original Jewish context for its teaching so thoroughly that one can only glean tiny bits of it by going through great effort to sift it out of the dust, clean it off, and try to painstakingly fit it back together. It just doesn't work very well at all. So Talmudic Judaism is the only living thread that ties us back to any form of the original Biblical context—even if it's flawed. So I disagree with Dr. Brown when he says rabbinic traditions have "...NO place in our private lives or public services." Little place? Agreed. No place? A bit harsh.

Furthermore, I disagree with his statement that Talmudic Judaism "...is utterly devoid of New Covenantal truth [viz. the Siddur]...[it]...is a religion alien to the New Covenant faith." This may be true in the understanding of what Talmudic Judaism has become; however, as I have already said, it springs from the people of the Sinai Covenant, however it has moved far afield. So there are things there; and whatever is true, I embrace or at least glean from, just as is the case with other forms of Christianity. People are surprised to find that I believe the Roman Catholic canon is the correct protocanon of the Bible, and I believe that additional books of the Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox branches of Christianity have value as deuterocanonical works. Furthermore, I believe the Eastern Orthodox Christian view on the sin nature is more correct than the Protestant/Catholic/Talmudic Jewish view, the latter of which leads people to an incorrect understanding of the Torah and subsequently of the Gospel.

As I have said, the Bible in its original language and context, interpreted by the life and work of Yeshua, is the Word of YHWH, and this Word is the final rule of faith and practice. The Spirit testifies to it and makes it manifest in our hearts. Anything that disagrees with this must be discarded. Talmudic Judaism is often obvious in its contradictions to Biblical Faith, just as Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and various Protestant traditions.

We have to trim off anything we may have learned that negates the Word. And to Dr. Brown's point, I believe we should be honest with everyone about this. I'm not trying to be a Talmudic Jew. I'm not claiming to be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I'm shooting for what the Bible says. I have a real, live relationship with Yeshua the Messiah, and I am attempting to practice Biblical faith out of the context of that relationship. Yet I can glean from any of these traditions that are helpful and have ties into what YHWH is saying to me—and some of them very much are!

Let's take an example of some of the things Dr. Brown mentioned:

Should we wear a tallit (or tzitzit) in our services? Well, we certainly can see that YHWH asked His people to wear techelet-colored fringes on the four corners of our garments for the purpose of remembering the commandments. However, in the New Covenant, it is clear that the Holy Spirit Himself is the One who moves us to obey the commandments; so I would argue that the fringes are no longer needed. Furthermore, as Dr. Brown said, the rabbis have declared that since the original formula for techelet has been lost, we should do white. What? You want to use a completely different color, rather than a possibly, slightly different shade of the same color because somehow that's better? This sounds like a King Saul solution to me. And nothing has been said in the Word about knots, nor is there anything in the Word about the tallit or tzitzit aiding us or assisting us in prayer. However, if one wants to wear these for traditional purposes, there's nothing saying they can't. What we need to do is guard against the tendency to believe that the one who wears these is more spiritual than the one that doesn't.

Should we light the Shabbat candles and pray the traditional prayer? Dr. Brown addresses that this is traditional rather than commanded. But the candles are for remembrance and observation, which YHWH did command us to keep. Did YHWH abrogate the seventh-day Sabbath? I would say all who are reading this with interest would say no (Dr. Brown says yes), and I'm already way too long in my response to argue the point; however, I would ask why is it wrong to perform a tradition in line with an activity so vital to the Father's heart that His condemnation for its abrogation ranks among murder and idolatry? Concerning his comment about honoring the Torah, my response would be that it's not the flame that matters. YHWH didn't say, "Don't kindle a fire on Shabbat" because He dislikes flames. It's about the fire being the economic, self-sustaining engine of the home. My question would be to redirect this question to the Talmudic Jew who refuses to flip a light switch or drive a car, when walking to synagogue is clearly far more work.

Last bit: Dr. Brown said "...find any evidence at all that these first Messianic Jews (generally called Nazaraeans) were ever accused by the Church Fathers of keeping any rabbinic traditions. This point is important! Sooner or later we will have to realize that being Jewish does not mean being rabbinic." I agree with the last point, and disagree with the first. The Didache, of which I produced the first modern English translation in 2017, shows a continuity of Jewish practice in the early Christian Church; and for this reason, I believe, it was ultimately rejected from the canon. My book, The Judeo-Christian, as well as the article on my website entitled Paul Misinterpreted? argues that Jewish practices were continuing in the Church. OF COURSE they were not Talmudic, because Talmudic Judaism didn't arrive until later. But they came from a similar strand, a common thread attached to Biblical faith that has been lost from both Talmudic Judaism and all branches of Christianity; and where we can see Biblical faith, we should grab it rather than let it go—and where we see empty tradition, we should let it fall away.

Where Is God Taking Our Country?

Donald Trump was never a man whom I wanted to be the President of the United States. What I saw of him on television in the 1980’s and early 90’s indicated that he was lewd, filthy, mouthy, and mean. He appeared to be everything that is depicted of powerful, A-type, high-level executives. So I was dismayed when he became the only choice in opposition to Hilary Clinton in that election—I vehemently opposed him in the 2016 primaries, first backing Ben Carson, then Ted Cruz before each dropped out of the race.

I tried to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, but the Constitution Party was not admitted to the ballot in North Carolina in 2016 (they were in 2020); so I knew I had no choice. I knew that to hand the country to Hilary Clinton would spell doom for the nation, so I winced and gulped as I pressed the button for Donald J. Trump.

I thought it wouldn’t matter anyway. I figured that Hilary would win, and that we would be stuck under the thumb of a globalist agenda, with American exceptionalism spiraling to oblivion in a fiery crash. Just like everyone else, I was completely shocked to the core when he actually won.

From the day he took office, President Trump has done nothing but work tirelessly for the American people—FOR FREE. He donated his salary to various causes, keeping the government running while living on his own money. He improved the economy, he fought for our freedoms, he moved our embassy to Jerusalem and STILL achieved relative peace in the Middle East—far more so than any other political figure in our history since the rebirth of Israel in 1948, he fought trade deals which disadvantaged U.S. businesses, and he punched hostile foreign nations in the nose to let them know we would not be easily bullied. And he accomplished all of this despite having to deal with a phony impeachment scandal and a global pandemic.

And every day, he has been hated for it. Since Donald raised his right hand and put his left on that Bible, not one minute has gone by that his enemies have not been plotting his removal. What has shocked me the most, however, are the number of Christians who have stoked up their hatred for him right along with the leftist groups and the media into a bonfire, a fever pitched cacophony accompanied by their spitting of venom and lie after lie—while accusing him of the same behavior. Apparently, it worked—at least with many, because there are so many who hate him.

To stand up in the face of such an onslaught is nothing short of miraculous. And so, he earned my vote in 2020. Though I had been one of the many who disliked him from what I saw on decades-old television programs, his actions told me a different story. I even saw a softening in him toward the things of God as his Presidential term went on. This experience has changed the man.

About mid-way through his term, I began to hear reports of prophets, particularly the late Kim Clement, who said in his meetings, among other things, that Donald would serve two terms. I had previously not paid attention to him before, and as I listened to the meetings, I winced over his style—it still appalls me; but most everything Kim said about the President before Kim died of pneumonia and a brain bleed in 2016 actually came true AFTER his death. So I began to wonder if his word about the two terms would be true as well.

Also around this time, I asked the LORD personally to speak to me more often, and He honored that by exponentially increasing my dream activity as well as speaking to me through my thoughts. I’ve since received numerous, very powerful and vivid dreams, some of which have already come true, some of which have not yet, and some that I still do not completely understand. But often, the LORD would give me a dream, and then explain the context and meaning to me after I woke up.

I kept these dreams tight and close to my chest, only allowing select groups of people to see them. I don’t often throw these things out and say, “Thus saith the LORD”; I wait to see what happens. Many of my dreams seemed to point to the re-election of Donald Trump. It’s one thing to believe someone who is ranting and raving on a YouTube video; it’s another when you have independent experiences that seem to corroborate what many others are saying. This is why I began to be very bold in my proclamations that Donald would be re-elected. Were they just dreams? Was it the power of suggestion? I choose to believe not.

What I do understand, and now recognize, is that I allowed myself to ‘fill in the holes’ of the dreams God had given me with interpretations that I wanted to be true. I wanted to believe that Donald Trump would be re-elected on Nov. 3rd by a landslide without challenge; when that didn’t happen, I wanted to believe that the evidence of fraud would be allowed to come forward by the court system; when that didn’t happen, I wanted to believe that the prayers of the saints would rise up, and God would stop the Deep State from accomplishing their coup against this President (and they have the nerve to accuse him of the same).

As I look back at the dreams I had—all of which I wrote down, I now see that there are other ways these could have been interpreted, but I wasn’t able to see it, because there was too much of myself in the way.

To be absolutely clear, the story is not over. There are all kinds of things that have been flapping about on the media, with whispers of operations and counteroperations everywhere. And the Left is so scared of what may happen that they’re frantically attempting to ban everything and anything that looks, sounds, or smells like support for the President. But regardless of what happens in the coming days, a few things are true:

1. God is in control. He is not wringing his hands, saying, “Oh, no! There’s a globalist plot to take over the world, and we might have just lost the United States. What am I going to do!?”

2. God loves you immensely. You are not a number to Him. If you are in covenant with Him, He is your Father, and He will not let you go. The only way to be lost is to let Him go. No matter what the circumstances, you can trust Him.

3. Our job as the Body of Messiah, the people of God, the kingdom of priests and holy nation of YHWH, is not to conquer the world geopolitically. We are called to build a people who will worship YHWH in the face of a world system that has rebelled against Him.

   Yes—I believe that America has a special place and purpose in the kingdom; we are the only nation on earth outside of Israel that was specifically born by covenant with God. He honored that covenant by allowing us the freedom of self-government for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, and charged us with the responsibility of guarding that self-government. And so I will do what I can, with the tiny bit of power I possess, to fight for those freedoms for myself and my family—and I get angry at those who are saying we should just roll over and let these freedoms be taken away from us.

   However, the goal is the Gospel—not the political freedom and prosperity of America; and the Gospel can be spread no matter what kind of country we have. And as we approach the end, we must remember that we will brave persecution to storm the gates of hell in order to rescue its slaves—as we were once slaves—and the gates of hell will not withstand us.

4. We will only be victorious through intimacy with the Father. The only way we will be able to steer past the land mines of persecution and the pitfalls of deception that are everywhere around us is to learn to listen to Him, and to walk with Him moment by moment, reacting to what He tells us, and by refusing to add our own understanding to the equation, as I unfortunately did with my dreams. Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us, “Trust in YHWH with all your heart; lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will make your path straight.” We have to learn this way of simple dependence.

I don’t know what’s going to happen with our country. God can do whatever He wants to do. You may think it’s crazy, but if God wants Donald Trump to still be in the White House, He can make it happen, even at this late date. Of course we should always work for freedom, for righteousness, for purity, for life, etc. But if God chooses to allow Joe Biden to be in the White House, we will still be ok, as long as we place ourselves in His care. Even if we die for the sake of the Gospel, do we not believe in resurrection? Do we not believe that God is the God of the impossible? He is often the God of 11:59 PM, precisely because He needs us to know that He is the only One who can orchestrate the rescue.

I will leave you with some of the words from Wanda Alger’s recent YouTube video, “Where I Stand”:

God is not done; it is not a matter of proving any ‘prophetic’ word; it’s about our faith in a supernatural God. Because I actually believe that we are finally getting closer to the place where He has wanted us all along—because we have looked to men, we have looked to systems; we have looked to our government; we have looked to our own ideas and our own answers, and asking God to bless them and use them. And He has, step by step, methodically, removed every option that we have placed before Him, hoping that it would be an easy fix. And yet, we are at this point where it seems all hope is lost? We got it wrong? I can’t help but think about the disciples on the Emmaus road. I can only imagine what they were thinking and feeling; they, too, were questioning the prophets’ words. They thought they understood why Jesus came, and what His mission was. Now is the time to be praying for some epiphanies, and for some encounters from Jesus Himself to stir our faith.

God bless you, and keep you; may He make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; may He turn His presence toward you, and give you His perfect shalom peace.

Why Support National Israel? (a.k.a. A Family's Tragic Story)

The following is a family's tragic true story: 

Once there was a family who owned some land which had been theirs for generations. Through the centuries, they had always managed to hold onto their estate despite many attempts by others to take it away. One day, however, the mafia came in and attacked the family, killing some. The gangsters bulldozed the family's house, and the survivors went into hiding.

After many years, the family's descendants found out that the land had been acquired by a real estate developer from the mafia. The family members scraped up what money they had and paid the real estate developer, obtaining clear title to some of the land which originally had been stolen from them. 

Meanwhile, because the land was desolate, homeless squatters had moved in and were living on the property. When the family returned, the squatters claimed squatter's rights to the property and demanded that the family give up all hope of rebuilding the estate they once had. Undeterred, the family began to build. Time and time again, they were attacked. After one very serious skirmish in which many of the family members were killed, the courts decided that the deed of purchase should be honored, and that the family should have the right to build their estate on their ancient homestead. The squatters were furious and began mounting a campaign to get rid of the family once and for all. The immediate neighbors, who also wanted parts of the property, plotted along with the squatters to evict the family. 

But when they executed this campaign, it backfired so badly that the family was not only able to hold onto what they had, they were able to reclaim portions of the property which had fallen into the hands of the neighbors! 

For a quarter century, the family lived in relative peace and security through relentless vigilance. They were able to make peace with a few of the neighbors, and they even offered a few times to let the squatters live on the family's land, as long as they obeyed the family's rules. 

But that wasn't good enough for the squatters, who would accept nothing less than absolute possession of the property through the family's total destruction. They decided to use a different tactic: they began a smear campaign that reached far and wide. The squatters told everyone who would listen that the family's claim to the property was bogus and that the squatters' claim was equally valid. They painted themselves as poor, humble creatures at the mercy of a barbaric and cruel group who pushed them out of their homes. 

The slanderous ruse worked beautifully. Soon, nearly everyone throughout the neighborhood sided with the squatters. Even the children of the judge who ruled in the family's favor are now chiming in with the rest of the neighborhood, pressuring the family to carve up the estate and divide it with the squatters. This family, it seems, stands alone. 

If you haven't realized by now, I'm talking about the modern history of Israel. Here are the cast of characters:

The mafia = the Roman Empire

The real estate developer = an amalgam of absentee landlords, both Middle Eastern and European in the late 1800's.

The skirmish = the Holocaust of WWII

The judge/courts = United Nations Partiton Plan at the close of WWII.

The squatters = currently the PLO/The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Hezbollah

The neighbors = the nations surrounding Israel

The entire neighborhood = the world stage.

The campaign = the events which led up to the Six Day War in 1967.

I'm telling this story because the truth is being obscured in favor of lies which are more politically expedient. I plead with you to read the details of this true story in the book The Case For Israel by Alan Dershowitz. This evidence provides for an airtight, non-partisan, apolitical basis for the support of the Jewish right to the land of Israel apart from the usual religious reasons presented in the Bible and advocated by Zionists. While I agree with the Biblical reasons for supporting Israel politically, I realize they are not enough to satisfy those who do not believe the Bible. This book, however, reveals the historical record which shows a political and humanitarian crisis against the Jewish people at times equal to Darfur, Tibet, Somalia, and Bosnia.

Especially if you are Jewish or Christian, I urge you to support and pray for Israel. If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then this is your story.

Does the Love of God Teach Us?

A Facebook friend recently posted an insightful comment that provokes a discussion: Does God’s love teach us the difference between good and evil? The answer to the question is much deeper than the query itself: it is obvious that at a certain level, the experience of God’s love teaches us simply by virtue of His presence. We see who He is, and we are overwhelmed by His grace toward us as undeserving sinners. It is the orientation point that properly aligns our relationship with God and man; it is the central value from which every other aspect of the Judeo-Christian experience flows.

But we have to ask, “What is the nature of this love—what are the boundaries that shape its character?” And here is where the Torah comes into play. It describes who God is—what He means when He says, “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) Jesus, of course, is the ultimate and perfect interpretation of the Torah; but even when taking the approach of His earthly life into account, we can still be deceived into falsely ascribing certain characteristics to God’s love when we deliberately divorce it from the Torah. This is how we have arrived at a place where a homosexual truly believes that ‘loving’ his gay partner is godly; that abortion up to and even after birth is not only a right, but a moral imperative; that it is shrewd and perhaps even righteous to avoid our social, ethical, financial, parental, educational, professional, and ecological responsibilities, even to the point of oppressing others; and that ‘self-care’ has become our highest value.

A textbook example was displayed on the ABC series The Bachelorette Sunday night (7/15/19; I do NOT normally watch this show, but happened to catch this clip and was intrigued by the discussion of morality—on a show that has none.) Apparently, the suitor was concerned about the bachelorette’s relationships with the other suitors. He stated that while he understood that they had both sinned in this area of their lives previously, he had committed himself to honoring God’s instructions going forward—to not have sexual relations outside of marriage. He said he would leave the show if she was not similarly committed and had sex with any of the other suitors (keep in mind that both of these people claim to be Christians).

Her response? “…you're questioning me, […] you're judging me and feel like you have the right to when you don't at this point.” “You don’t own me. You’re not my husband.” “I have had sex…yeah. And Jesus still loves me.” As is so often the case, she used the story of Jesus forgiving the woman who was caught in adultery to justify her behavior (John 8:1-11); what was even worse is that the gentleman either did not have the knowledge, the moral resources, or his wits about him enough to remind her of the end of the story, where Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-38 describe how the Holy Spirit works inside of us to write the Torah on our hearts in the New Covenant: through our relationship with God, He changes us internally to reflect the morality of the Torah. But many Christian teachers today are saying that the Sinai Covenant (and the Torah which is central to it) was made obsolete by Jesus’ death on the cross; if this is true, there would be no value system to internalize—but this is exactly what they are suggesting in their presentation of the Gospel.

They say that God gave Israel a bunch of rules that nobody could keep except for Jesus, who died so that we wouldn’t have to obey them anymore; now, all one needs to do is believe in Jesus, and God will forgive us and allow us to spend eternity with Him because He loves us and gives us grace no matter what we’ve done or will ever do in the future.

This presents an insanely confusing message to our society, which Generation X, the Millennials, and GenZ are rejecting wholesale as complete hypocrisy. By denouncing the Torah’s continued validity, we have cut ourselves off from understanding God’s love as the transformational power it actually is, selling God’s grace toward us as a ‘golden ticket’—a license to worship our own appetites. Yes, Jesus reconciles us to God through His atoning death, His resurrection, and subsequent eternal high priesthood, which by default eliminates the need for blood sacrifices and the human priesthood called for in the Torah; but this simply allows the Holy Spirit to indwell us in order to complete the transformation of our nature that God has always desired from the very beginning. His ultimate goal is to restore us to His image—to reestablish us as His representatives in the earth. We need to be re-connected to the Torah to allow God’s love to achieve its full transformational effect; but if we decry the Torah as the revelation of God’s holy nature of love, we frustrate and hinder God’s work in us.

This forces us to see the Torah from a different perspective: instead of a body of rules creating a debt that must be paid, the Torah is a picture of God’s righteousness, which is being worked into us by the Holy Spirit. Whereas the Torah shows our lack of righteousness, it also shows what we are becoming because of God’s love being made manifest in us—and that’s a comforting thought!

So, does God’s love teach us? Yes, but only when we understand how His love is defined by the Torah.

To Eat or Not to Eat: That Is the Question

My life has been radically changed the last few months—I mean, truly revolutionized. On January 1st of this year, I started reading Breaking the Stronghold of Food by Dr. Michael and Nancy Brown, which recounts their journey of each losing 90 pounds in eight months, their struggle with food addiction, and practical steps for recovery. I already respected Dr. Brown as a very balanced theologian who 'gets it'; I believe his heart properly reflects God's intention for the way we should live our lives, and that he is truly sincere in his aspiration to Biblical Faith. When he and his wife came out with their testimony, I couldn't believe Dr. Brown was ever fat!

My own story is fairly common among people in my age group: I was an immutably lanky teenager—I was one of those people who could seemingly eat whatever I wanted and never had to worry about it. When I graduated high school, I weighed 145 pounds. I gained some weight through my college years, attributing the increase to the development of my adult body, and I think I was around 175 or so when I got married in 1994. But after my last daughter was born in 2007, my metabolism apparently slowed down, I quickly got fatter and fatter, and my health went down the drain just as rapidly: I always had been susceptible to respiratory diseases, but I truly became terrified to be near anyone with a cold or flu, as the symptoms would sometimes linger for three months or more; I had several attacks of gout (which I relieved with cherry juice and other foods containing anthocyanins); I had frequent migraine-level headaches that would incapacitate me for hours; even though I had intermittent digestive issues from childhood, these got worse when I got fat (probiotics helped, but were not a cure); I had continuous joint pain that made it difficult to move, and I had to push through the constant pain to do anything that I enjoyed or was simply required to do; the tissues in my neck, face, and tonsil area had swollen so much that it was constricting my airway, making it nearly impossible for me to sing, and causing unbearable snoring at night that my wife had to endure.

I thought these symptoms were just problems of getting older, but then I went for a physical in June 2017. Surprisingly, my blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure were only at the high range of normal; but at that time, I weighed in at 235 pounds. I had elevated ALT enzyme levels and after an ultrasound, I was diagnosed with fatty liver. Earlier on in the year, I had decided that the Atkins school of thought made some sense (the idea that eating fats is not the issue, and that excessive intake of carbs was the root cause of why so many people are obese). So, I had increased my consumption of meat while eliminating my ingestion of 'big carbs' (sugar, potatoes, rice, bread, pasta, etc.) After the physical, I increased my intake of dandelion root, which helps the liver metabolize fats, and this helped a little with my increasing stomach trouble. But this haphazard approach of high meat protein, high-fat with 'medicine' to help burn off some of the fat did nothing to help me lose weight—in fact, I gained even more throughout the year (see the collage below for my progression). I also suspected possible 'low-T', and bought some longjack powder (which tastes terrible, by the way, and did nothing). All of this reached a boiling point when I began to truly have shortness of breath after doing simple tasks, and would almost black out bending over to tie my shoes. I was scared, and knew I needed to do something.

Then Dr. Brown began to talk about his book and the journey it described on his Line of Fire radio show, and I was intrigued. I was never one for New Year's resolutions, but over the winter holiday season I decided I would read Mike and Nancy's story, hoping it would be a springboard into some sort of journey to good health. As I immediately devoured it, the LORD convicted me that I had developed an addiction to food. I realized that I was eating all the time: when I was bored, tired, stressed, depressed, angry—anything could trigger my 'need' to grab a bite. I was looking to food for comfort and to gratify my desires rather than finding my satisfaction and provision in the LORD. Beyond all the health problems and obesity, this was the root cause for me, and I had to address my idolatry head on.

I repented before the LORD, and asked the Holy Spirit to cause me to transform my desires. I then partnered with the Holy Spirit by intentionally making the following changes:

• I immediately stopped all snacking between meals, holding myself strictly to eating only three times per day
• I completely eliminated all junk and pre-packaged foods from my diet other than a small dessert serving on a special occasion such as a birthday or holiday: no chips, crackers, pretzels, cookies, ice cream, candy, etc. I no longer eat convenience foods—even those that are marketed as organic or 'healthy'.
• I transformed my plate from a majority-meat dish with a starch and vegetable to a majority-plant based, low-calorie, high-nutirition meal with meat, dairy, and 'big carb' starches GREATLY reduced in quantity (wheat has virtually been eliminated—see below). Meat is now at best an accent food; most of my meals are vegetarian if not vegan.
(These first three changes were the most critical to my success)

• I have eliminated all processed flours with the exception of chickpea or other bean flour, which I use in VERY SMALL quantities. While I am trying to reach my weight loss goals, I have eliminated all bread including any non-bean/chickpea pasta, and I have gone mostly gluten-free.
• While I still eat grains and starches like corn, rice, and potatoes, I have reduced my intake to less than 10% of all my calories consumed. Furthermore, I try to eat whole grain rice and purple- or red- skinned potatoes instead of white potatoes (steamed to retain nutrients rather than fried or even boiled).
• I have erased all added sugar from my diet, eating only natural sugars that are present in fruits. I use only fruit and stevia (a naturally sweet, no-calorie herb) as sweeteners.
• I have GREATLY REDUCED my intake of oil, using only enough to coat the bottom of a pan to keep food from sticking. I vastly prefer to eat whole foods (olives vs. olive oil, fruit vs. fruit juice, nuts vs. nut oils) as the body uses the dietary fiber from these foods to slow or bypass the absorption of calories and sugar contained within them.
• What small quantity of meat I now consume is among the list of clean meats prescribed in the Bible: my diet is now 'kosher-style.'

The LORD gave me the discipline to push through the temptations, and following these steps, I have lost 70 pounds from when I began the diet in January to the time I am completing this writing (6/30/18)—so I am thinner even than the picture at the bottom right in the collage. I have gone from pushing a size 40 waist to nearly a size 32 (my size 34 shorts are loose on me now.)

More importantly, all the conditions I listed previously have disappeared completely (though I have yet to return to the doctor to confirm a lowering of ALT levels): the joint pain went away two weeks into the diet; inflammation is completely gone; headaches are history; I have had no stomach problems after the first week; I have had a HUGE surge in energy; the swelling in my facial and throat tissues has been eliminated—I can sing with no issues, there are no coughing or choking fits, and my wife says I no longer snore; where I could not bend over to tie my shoes, I now have full mobility; I have no shortness of breath; I only got a cold once during this time—the symptoms were very mild and went away in THREE DAYS instead of three MONTHS; and so far, no gout or precursory symptoms have appeared (I do not expect I will be dealing with this again)!

All of this was achieved with very little exercise—the vast majority of my lifestyle change has been diet alone. This is very important for people who are obese and in pain to understand. Most of us are NOT healthy enough to exercise—a person has to lose a certain amount of weight through dietary changes before they can begin an exercise regimen in order to avoid damage to their body due to the strain of all the excess tissue. This is very achievable: HALF of my weight loss occurred in the first 30 days of my new lifestyle without any exercise at all. As I began to feel better, I slowly increased my exercise level to keep the calorie-burning engine chugging down the tracks; but I still only have a 20-minute workout period with a stationary bike and a pull-up bar. Nancy Brown posted on Facebook in our support group that she doesn't exercise to this day, and still lost 90 pounds in eight months on the diet alone. Her testimony was inspirational to me and was the key factor in my decision to try their way of eating. 

Mike and Nancy Brown followed Dr. Joel Fuhrman's Eat to Live as their pattern for a new way of eating. After reading the Brown's book, Dr. Fuhrman's book, watching the documentary Forks over Knives (available on Netflix), and studying what the Bible says about food, I arrived at a hybrid eating style that obviously has been very effective for me: a mix between plant-based and kosher-style to arrive at the majority plant-based diet I described earlier.

Is it difficult? In some ways, very much so. I always loved all kinds of food, and I enjoy trying new things, so switching to a majority plant-based diet was not a struggle for me; but those who 'hate green food' would have a much harder time adapting to this way of eating. I will say that when I changed my plate, my sense of taste improved—EVERYTHING tastes 'more': strawberries are sweeter, the little bit of meat I eat tastes better with less seasoning—and I can even sense the subtle differences between the greens that I eat. Furthermore, I don't really miss the way I used to eat. I'm satisfied with my meals and don't get too many cravings. If I do crave food between my meal times, I drink green tea with stevia for a low-calorie stimulus.

But I will not lie: the first week of this lifestyle was not fun. I had terrible stomach pain with diarrhea (I took some astragalus root tea which helped get this under control), headaches that were so powerful I could not move, some uncontrollable tremors, and overwhelming fatigue; but by the second week, all this went away and my energy went through the roof. My body was getting rid of all the toxins it had accumulated from 'bad fuel'. 

Also, this lifestyle is labor-intensive: with veggies, LOTS of prep work is involved—it just comes with the territory. Fortunately, I have always loved making my own food and worked a stint as a short-order cook; so the ability to experiment with new recipes and knowing how the ingredients will react to each other and to different cooking styles was a huge advantage. Those embarking on this journey who don't know a santoku from a pairing knife will have a new learning experience, however. Practice makes perfect! (A few new kitchen gadgets went a long way as well—but you can do this on a budget).

More than anything, though, my experience has left me with a genuine burden for people who are suffering from obesity and disease. I have come to believe, as Dr. Joel Fuhrman and many others have, that the preponderance of disease in Western society could be cured or prevented through eating at least a majority, if not completely, plant-based diet. Now, to be clear, based on Biblical passages like Romans 14, I do not judge a person as sinful or ignorant based on their dietary habits; but if we examine what the Bible says on the whole about food consumption, we need to ask ourselves some questions with regard to the way most of us eat (especially in America).

So often, we are praying that God will heal us from disease, but if we ate the way God originally designed us to eat, many of these diseases would not manifest in the first place. I'm not trying to take a legalistic approach here—not every disease has been brought on by a poor diet; and certainly I do not condemn a person who is dealing with a debilitating or terminal malady with a cause they do not understand and who may have limited options for remission. We live in a fallen world, and sometimes things just happen as a result of the general sinful state. Instead, I'm trying to be Biblically consistent with God's commandments and His promises. One of the promises God gave to the Israelites was that if they kept the covenant (of which the Torah was central), they would not have the diseases of the Gentiles. Today, much of Christianity dismisses the Torah as a bygone method for achieving salvation; some Christians believe it is even wicked to regard the Torah as applicable or virtuous! (Read my article Paul Misinterpreted? for more information.) These people completely misunderstand the purpose of the Torah: instead of a means of salvation, it was God's instructions to His people, declaring His character and standard of righteousness. God's instructions were for the people's good—they weren't meant as an arbitrary, stifling denial for the sake of purgation.

This is best evidenced in the kashrut, or dietary laws. The reason why God included these from the very beginning was to protect His people from disease, enabling them to live in the freedom of health. I personally believe this is what Jesus was getting at when he spoke to Jewish leaders in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Note that even though Mark 7 says, "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean", Jesus did not say, "So let's go out and eat large quantities of pork to celebrate!" He was not saying that every type of creature is good or safe for us to eat; what He meant was that eating food does not separate you from God—so the kashrut laws are not about sinfulness. Here's what the Bible says about food:

• we were created in the middle of a garden and placed there to work it (Genesis 2:4-17)
• the green plants were given to us initially as food (Genesis 1:29)
• after the Flood, animal products were sanctioned by God, but no blood was to be eaten (Genesis 9:1-7)
• in the Torah:
1. While certain farming practices are regulated (i.e. the land must rest in the seventh year [Ex. 23:11, Lev. 25:4], leave the edges of your field for the poor and the widow [Lev. 23:22, Deut. 24:19], don't reap fruit trees until they have been established for five years [Lev. 19:25], etc.), there are no prohibitions on vegetable or fruit consumption: only meat products have regulations attached.
2. blood and 'straight up' fat consumption was prohibited (the rabbis determined that the normal amount of fat that 'marbles' through meat was still acceptable, but the lining of fat attached to the meat is prohibited from consumption and is trimmed before the meat is cooked) (Lev. 3:17, 17:14, 19:26, Deut. 12:16-25, 15:23, Acts 15:20,29, Acts 21:25)
3. Of land mammals, only meat coming from those that are both ruminants and which have a split hoof may be eaten (Lev. 11:1-8, Deut. 14:6)
4. Of marine animals, only meat coming from creatures with both scales and fins may be eaten (Lev. 11:9-12, Deut. 14:9-10)
5. Of insects, only the grasshopper family may be eaten (*insects with jointed legs for hopping; crickets are a point of debate) (Lev. 11:20-23)
6. no reptiles may be eaten—the rabbis have determined that this includes every kind of reptile (Lev. 11:29-31)
7. all clean birds may be eaten, but no specific list of clean birds is given; only unclean birds are listed in Leviticus 11:13-19 (the bat is included because the Hebrew word means 'flying creatures that are not insects'). Based on this list, which includes most birds of prey, scavenging birds, flightless birds, and stork relatives, the rabbis included all these kinds of birds to be unclean. (Lev. 11:13-19, Deut. 14:11-18)
• gluttony is a sin (Deut. 21:20, Prov. 23:2, 20-21, Prov. 28:7, Rom. 13:14, Gal. 5:22-23 [self-control], Phil. 3:19)
• food in and of itself is not what makes you defiled, however (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23)
• common courtesy should be the rule (Romans 14:1-15:13)

I would encourage everyone to ask themselves the question, “If God asks His people to behave in a certain way in the Bible, why would I want to figure out some way to do something different?” We need to truly understand that God loves us and has our best interest in mind—it’s not about penalties and punishment; it’s about the freedom to walk in the rewards that come from doing the right things. 

The Times, They Are A-Changin’: a Message from the Passing of Billy Graham

I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few days pondering the life and story of the great evangelist Billy Graham. Along with many others around the world, I was glued to the televsion for his funeral—it was an incredibly fitting memorial to the man God chose to bring the message of salvation to so many over the last near-century. I have the fortunate privilege of living in the Charlotte area, about 35 minutes away from the Billy Graham Library; I have visited the library on several occasions, and it, too, is an ongoing, powerful testimony of God’s work through this wonderfully available family.

I believe that Billy Graham represented the best that Evangelicalism has to offer—and he lived it to the utmost end of God’s calling for him. If anyone is an example of authentic Christian character, he and his wife Ruth carried that testimony as moderns among the great ‘cloud of witnesses’ (Hebrews 12:1-2). You can go see it for yourself at 4330 Westmont Dr, Charlotte, NC 28217. 

Billy’s daughter Ann Graham Lotz caught my attention during the funeral when she compared her father to Moses, leading many to salvation and to the border of the Promised Land; she inferred that Jesus’ return would be the ‘Joshua’ that would follow Billy’s death. Now, I’m not sure that I would make that analogy fit completely—because I wouldn’t equate the Promised Land with heaven; I also wouldn’t place Billy on quite that big of a pedestal, nor that broad of a role, and further because I don’t think we’re ready just yet for Yeshua to come back. But I, too, believe that Billy’s death has some significance outside of the simple passage of time in this still-fallen world, and particularly for the American, Western Church that Evangelicalism represents. 

”Moses, My servant, is dead.” These are the words from God that snapped Joshua son of Nun to attention as he quickly realized that the mantle of God’s leadership had fallen upon him. “Be strong and courageous!” If there is a message here, and if Billy Graham is to be compared to Moses, it is Jesus in His Church who is the ‘Joshua’. Our culture has changed; and while the mission has not, and the truth of God’s Word has not, we can no longer operate under the same mode d’emploi. Gone are the days when we look to an ‘expert’ who hears from God to point us in the right direction (this way of thinking was never God’s plan for the Israelites from the very beginning, by the way—which had disastrous results for the first generation of the Exodus); instead, we must hear Him ourselves. We are no longer standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai in fear and trembling saying “you talk to Him for us and tell us what He says” (Exodus 20:18-21); the veil of the Temple has been torn, and the fire of the Holy Spirit has come down to rest on our heads. (Acts 2) It’s time to take up the mantle. Gone are the days when we can simply say of our lost neighbor, “If I can just get him to church”, or “if I can just get him in to see Billy Graham, he’ll get saved!” No, we are the Church; we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world that God flows through. (Matthew 5:13-16) We are members of a body under His direction as the head. (Ephesians 5:23)

Furthermore, we no longer live in a culture that has even a basic understanding and familiarity with Judeo-Christian history, theology and life. The Bible will always be true, and the phrase ‘if it [the Bible] says it, I believe it’ remains a motto we ourselves can live by; but proclaiming what the Bible says simply from an emotional appeal is no longer good enough to be impacting on the full 75% of the American population that claims to reject its words. (http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx) The words sin, salvation, sacrifice, etc. have no application anymore; they have simply been watered down, at best, to a generic shade of meaning. We have to start from the beginning: we have to provide an understanding of WHY the Bible can be trusted as the only source of truth in a world that insists that all ways of thinking are equally true—we have to distinguish ourselves from those who would claim that all good things come from ‘the universe’ or ‘the human spirit’; we have to be all-inclusive, showing the faithfulness of God to and through the Jewish people—not just in the ‘Old’ Testament, but here—now—today—in order to show HOW God’s love and promises are available to anyone in Jesus Christ; and we have to live the truth of the Gospel in love and holiness the way Billy Graham did—which made an impact more than anything he ever said!

Billy preaching in the wake of 9/11

Billy Graham modeled most of these things in his methodology of preaching the Gospel, but it is time for us as the Church to go even further.  Bob Dylan’s The Times, They are A-Changin’ is more apropos today than in 1963 when it was written. 

Billy Graham’s death marks the end of an Evangelicalism that can simply bank on its hearers generally believing the message is true. It must be backed by answers, action and love as Billy Graham modeled for us in his life. But I pray that it marks the beginning of a Church at large that responds directly to the active, living Word of God by the indwelling Holy Spirit, acting as ‘America’s Pastors’ to our families, friends, co-workers, fellow students, and neighbors. Far more than a call to believe the right doctrine, which is just scratching the surface, we must engage God ourselves and release His life to those around us. 

Many are saying that Billy Graham’s passing will spark a new revival, and certainly there is a window in which people will be thinking about the impact of his life; but I would challenge us all to step up. You are part of God’s Plan A, and there is no Plan B. Be strong and courageous!

Responding to Our Youth

This article is a response to “59 Percent of Millennials Raised in a Church Have Dropped Out—And They’re Trying to Tell Us Why” written by Sam Eaton on Faithit.com.

I’m going to respond to the issues raised by this article point by point; some of which have validity, others demonstrate the reasons why Millennials are often condescended to by earlier generations, and a few are simply asking the wrong questions completely. So, here we go...

1. Nobody is listening to us.

Inclusivity, listening, caring about people for their intrinsic, God-given worth, and passing the baton to future generations are all part of God’s intent for His Church—and it is not happening enough. A culture of top-heavy, ‘expert’-run congregations has increasingly left EVERYONE out in the cold—not just Millennials; and believe me, those congregations who do not allow ‘the laity’ to bring to the table what God is doing in them will eventually die. Singles under 25 should not be relegated to chair-folding duty with an option for youth group leadership upon exceptional service. Having said this, marching down the street with signs in one’s hand while yelling loudly, demanding to be heard is not the way to win friends and influence people. A life exhibited by leadership in love, service, an understanding of the truth of God’s Word, and dedication to the advancement of the kingdom of God does. 

On the hard side of this, not everyone will recognize or care about what God is doing in and through you—and so you have to make a choice. Who says you have to be accepted into a congregation that doesn’t want you? Sometimes, we need to take a bold step of faith and go out on the limb whether others hold our hand or not. When I presented clear Scriptural evidence to the National Director of the Association of Vineyard Churches (not the current director) about the need for an outreach to and kinship with the Jewish people (where they already had an Islamic ministry of a similar nature), he essentially asked me to leave the Vineyard and align myself with those who shared my beliefs. So I did.  A warning, here, however:  make sure it isn’t you. Make certain that you are standing on the ground of Biblical faith, and ask others who are truly investing in you to validate what it is you’re seeing and saying. Anybody can go off half-cocked; make sure you’re motivated by the message of God—and you can prove alignment of that message with His Word. Otherwise, you may need to spend some time searching the Scriptures, in prayer, and in fellowship with some seasoned believers in order to allow the LORD to bring you to a Biblical perspective.

2. We’re sick of hearing about values and mission statements.

Now, here’s where I have to put it to you no holds barred: The Jewish and Christian faiths are built on a canon of absolute truths God Himself defined in the Bible as the central foundation for relationship with Him. Those values and mission statements should be a congregation’s way of saying how they interpret those central points, which should give you an idea about what’s important to that congregation. In fact, these statements—which in the early years were called creeds, were the very thing that held the Christian family together through the ages, despite our many differences between groups. So, rather than criticize those who have labored to put into written codification what they believe, you should study these documents as well and perform a self-diagnostic to see how you line up—or how well a particular document lines up with Biblical faith—just be sure you understand Biblical faith enough to even begin an analysis; otherwise, you have no room to question or complain in the first place.

Now, there is a difference between a well-crafted Statement of Faith and an American corporate-style mission statement; and this is where the contemporary Western/American Church has gotten into trouble—when they try to be trendy and ‘relevant’ (and maybe the latter was what the author was disparaging—but it didn’t sound that way to me). They’re often trying to get rid of that ‘religious mumbo-jumbo’ (‘mambo-jambo’...?) that the author talked about in his article, ending up with some weak message that completely lacks definition and is therefore useless. The author is absolutely correct that the central core of both Judaism and Christianity is “Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone (or, is One); love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and strength”, and “love your neighbor as yourself.” But what does that mean? No word in the English language today is more loosely defined than love. Now more than ever in any time of history, we need to further define ourselves Biblically.  

3. Helping the poor isn’t a priority.

Our secularist, Marxist school teachers have conditioned us to believe that every state of malaise is a humanitarian crisis that can only be solved through student activism; and since the 1960’s, the local congregation has been raked over the coals if it does not have a full-on homeless ministry (or at least a food pantry). The facts are that in the United States, Mormons and rich, conservative, white Protestant Evangelical Christians give more to the poor than anyone (in Britain, Muslims have only recently surpassed Christian giving within the last few years). Christians as a worldwide whole far outgive every other religion per capita, followed by Jews. (BTW: the author said our [church?] system is ‘utterly American’. I’m an American; what’s wrong with being an American?) 

Yet the Shabbat service was not designed primarily as a social outreach project;  instead, it is supposed to be the crowning moment of a day of rest designed to remember our Creator—a family get together where we communally experience the active, living presence of God, study the Bible, and put our arms around each other in fellowship.

Of course it is inarguable that charity is a core value of both Judaism and Christianity; this is demonstrated throughout the Bible, and God Himself has given us direct orders take care of the poor, widows, and orphans of our community. No doubt about it. The original Sunday ‘love feast’ was a time where the Church could meet the needs of the poor among them and pray for the sick, with the central feature being a meal that all would share.

I’m glad that you are burdened by this issue; here is an opportunity for leadership by Millennials in the Church. You be the one who creates the next Compassion International or Samaritan’s Purse. You be the one who runs the food pantry ministry, who opens the homeless shelter, and who tirelessly garners the donations necessary to keep these things running. I’m not being snarky here; this is not a criticism—it’s a call. You have just as much potential as anyone else to be used by God. Don’t wait for the Church to sanction your idea, or criticize those who aren’t where you are on this issue—simply forge ahead. My friend Shelley Makohon stepped out and boldly became a mentor at Love Life Charlotte, a pro-life ministry that is dedicated not just to stopping abortion but to invest in the lives of those poor young girls who are faced with that choice. Shelley is making a difference in lives every day. She didn’t wait for everyone to be on board with her decision, and she does not look down on others who don’t do the incredible things she does. Another friend, Case Warnemunde (a Millennial, BTW), created an organization that mixes the arts with charity work, providing publicity for burgeoning musicians and artists while using the money generated for charitable causes. His motto is “Live Love Loud”. Follow his example—be creative.

4. We’re tired of you blaming the culture.

Part of the reason for the American Church’s obsession with eschatology is that we have seen our society steadily reject the Judeo-Christian values our country was founded on, exponentially increasing with the countercultural revolution of the 60’s to a place where we don’t even recognize the America we live in today. We are seeing alignment between the geo-/sociopolitical state of the world and eschatological prophecy in an unprecedented fashion, along with a sharp rise in both antisemitism and hatred toward Christianity. So, it is absolutely natural for believers to explore the possibility that we could be in the final years of premillennial history. Regardless of whether this decline is simply a fulfillment of prophecy, a lot of blame for losing the culture unfortunately lies with Western Christians ourselves because we have failed to be an influence in the lives of our families, friends, co-workers, and neighbors.

Despite our declaration of religious freedom in America, we never dreamt that the culture would actually choose against God to create a post-Christian society. We have followed the Constantinian societal mindset where it was assumed that the vast majority of people were Christian and would attend church as a matter of course. The professional clergy model that we borrowed from the pagans led us to use the church service and the ‘pastor’ to impress the Good News into the souls of the wayward minority rather than shouldering the burden that should be ours in the first place.

Even though the forces of secular humanism have stolen our voice and continue to indoctrinate our children toward atheism and socialism to this very day, we STILL act as though ‘all I have to do is get them to church’. Even the very nature of the article I’m responding to was written from the perspective of how to get Millennials ‘back to church’ rather than how it is that we can ensure that Millennials—and the rest of our society—have a firm understanding of what it means to follow Christ with their lives. As the popular phrase goes, “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”.

Rather than simply blaming the culture, I agree with the author’s statement that we should explicitly teach people how our lives should differ from the rest of the world; I vehemently disagree that the way to do this is to forget about eschatology, apologetics, Biblical authority, and traditional values as the author suggests. The solution here is to increase our understanding of how these topics intersect with our world: we need to put hands and feet to the truths of our faith and show where the rubber meets the road.

5-10. The “You Can’t Sit with Us” effect; Distrust and misallocation of resources; We want to be mentored, not preached at; We want to feel valued; We want you to talk to us about controversial issues (because no one is); The public perception

These six points are all related and can be addressed with one subject: as the Western Church became more and more Gentile-oriented, we adopted the pagan framework for religious structure: instead of a family-nation, organic, grassroots, multi-faceted, holistic, multi-generational, apprenticeship-style model of the New Testament, by the fourth century the Church became a scholastic, philosophical, professional, homogenized, institutional, traditional, distant, and authoritarian entity that separated professional clergy from laity, who were completely outside and disconnected from the real, active, living presence of the Father in Jesus by the Holy Spirit. The clergy became the spiritual ‘producers’, and the laity became ‘consumers’.   

Even after the Protestant Reformation, the vast majority of congregations are designed with a single man in charge who is called a ‘pastor’ or a small group of politically motivated ‘elders’ who have often treated their congregations as personal duchies to be managed rather than as families to be nurtured.  Rather than encouraging congregational participation, our current model promotes spectatorship where the laity (the audience) sits in attendance while the ‘experts’ (the worship team and the ‘pastor’) dispense spiritual experience.

So the lion’s share of the congregation’s activities and ideas are tightly controlled by the leadership, and the laity is expected to fit nicely within that paradigm or be marginalized. Lest we believe this the Biblical way to provide leadership, consider Jesus’ words on the night of His arrest, as His disciples continued to squabble over which of them would be the greatest:

Samaritan's Purse worker attending a survivor of an Ecuadorian earthquake

Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.”

—Luke 22:25-27 (parallels in Matthew 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45)

Jesus was not comparing preaching to service here—it’s about having deference for one another—to look out for others’ interests above our own. 

Solution:  the Church needs a radical reformation to return to Biblical faith.  Though I believe Biblically-defined love is at the heart of the issue, smaller groups like house churches help to curb some of the sinful tendencies we gravitate toward in larger groups:  

• House churches are more familial; they are centered around fellowship and inclusion rather than a defined program.  The central worship gathering is not segregated by ‘age-appropriate’ activity; all ages and genders participate in a common focus.
• Everyone has value—there is an opportunity for every person to share their gifts, to participate in discussion, and to be known by everyone else in the group in a far more intimate way than in watching the back of someone’s head during rock concert worship.
 
• Rather than a prepared, canned sermon, Biblical discussion can take place at a participatory level, where every person can be part of the dialogue.
• If the group gives money to a central fund, it is far more transparent, and the group can collectively decide where to give the money rather than it being swallowed in overhead.
 
• Outreach ministries can be of a para-church form, and members can give to, volunteer for, or start their own ministries at their discretion under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; if several house churches in a locality are networked, relational connections can be made so that the para-church ministry is ‘shared’, and interested members can cooperate with that ministry collectively rather than each congregation re-inventing the wheel.

Part of the answer involves a paradigm shift back to the understanding that we are the Church, not the building. The Constantinian model allowed for big, in-house welfare programs, because the Church was joined at the hip with the state, so much of the tax money was drizzled out to the poor.  We no longer have that luxury; and let’s face it—most large congregations are using their money trying to pay for the mortgage on their building or for future expansion rather than on ministries that change people’s lives and minister to real needs in the community. If you start a para-church ministry, it is the Church who is doing it, because you are the Church.

Again, here is an opportunity for Millennials to show some real leadership—rather than rejecting the Church outrightly, be the agent that works for the new Reformation; go down in history as one of the folks that helped the Western Church return to Biblical faith!  

Conclusion (includes 11-12): Stop talking about us (unless you’re actually going to do something); You’re failing to adapt; It’s your move

There’s not a whole lot that anyone can do to change the current climate of ‘church’, but I can tell you this: Biblical faith, love, true leadership, energy, and success are all contagious—and if you put all those together, it’s like a freight train. When God begins to move through your obedience, people will notice and be attracted to what He’s doing and join in the effort. I would have this advice:

• Learn to see the Gospel as a conflict between God-worship and self-worship: Biblical selfless love vs. self-orientation (self-gratification, self-glorification, self-preference, self-reliance, and the like). The entire Bible is illuminated when you see it from this perspective—and this concept is the key to understanding Biblical faith.
• De-polarize: stop looking at everything from an us vs. them vantage point.  It’s not the Millennials vs. the Church, Democrats vs. Republicans, etc. Even though the Church has been lost for centuries in many ways, there is a lot to learn from traditional Christianity—don’t immediately discount what has been handed to us from our forebears.
• Become prayerful. Do you live every day in God’s presence? Are you hungry to hear His voice and live in His truth? If the answer to these questions is no, you may not be on the road to Biblical faith. My book, The Upside-Down Kingdom, can help you get started on this journey.  If you are on this path, diligently seek to hear God’s direction for you as to where you should serve. Perhaps He’s not asking you to join a traditional church at all, but join in something new.
• Be a leader—forget about criticizing others and don’t worry when others criticize you. Follow God instead and let Him determine what you’re supposed to be. It’s your move!

A Needless Crisis

I have recently been saddened to hear of the controversy between Israel and Poland over the bill introduced in the Polish legislature to ban the phrase, "Polish death camps". As a Judeo-Christian Zionist and also an American son of Polish heritage, I have a vantage point from both sides of the issue. At the heart of the controversy is the language in the bill that would actually "fine or jail people who blamed Poland or Poles for Nazi atrocities committed on its soil during World War II, including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp." (Washington Post, Jan. 28) 

Education and Diaspora Minister Naftali Bennett inflamed the discussion with his remarks: "It is a historic fact that many Poles aided in the murder of Jews, handed them in, abused them, and even killed Jews during and after the Holocaust..." and encouraged the idea that Polish culpability should be taught to the next generation of Israelis. (DW.com, Jan. 28)

As of this writing, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Prime Minister Morawiecki are in discussions to ease the tension that this incident has created.

Naturally, the Israelis are concerned that this bill creates a road leading to a place where Holocaust denial is not only legalized, but mandated in the very nation that still houses the monuments of horror from the Shoah. The death camps remain the only lasting evidence as the last generation of Holocaust survivors passes into history—and certainly, this must not change.

Poland has seen a surge of nationalism in the wake of the Muslim invasion of Europe, and it seeks to preserve its culture, heritage, and reputation, rightfully insisting that it was Nazi agression that built these camps, not the Polish nation. This bill is a direct reaction to Barack Obama's reference to "Polish death camps" even as he gave a medal to a Polish resistance fighter in 2012 (New York Times, May 30, 2012). Poland is increasingly weary of being partially blamed for Nazi crimes—and understandably so.

As a Judeo-Christian Zionist, I am among those who believe that Israel has a right not only to the land specified by the Balfour declaration, but for its borders to be expanded to the Biblical definition: from the Nile to the Euphrates, and from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and the three Transjordan tribal lands. I fully support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state; I love the Jewish people, and most definitely agree that the Shoah should be remembered in perpetuity. I understand the desire for Jews to have the world perceive the Shoah as an event singularly borne of genocidal hatred of Jews by the Nazis to which the world was at least apathetic if not compliant until it was too late to do much about it. This is mostly true; but if anyone else has the ability to lay some claim on the Shoah for their own suffering, it is Poland.

Even if there were thousands of Polish anti-Semites leading up to WWII who actively assisted the Nazis in the murder of their Jewish neighbors (a very liberal exaggeration), this pales in comparison to the number of Poles who were massacred alongside the Jews. Half of the 6 million Jews who died in the Shoah were Polish citizens; 2 million non-Jewish Polish citizens were also butchered in the same facilities. If they are to be called "Polish death camps", it is because 5 million Polish citizens died there—not because they were the engineers of the travesty. We forget that Slavic ethnicity was also on Hitler's extermination list—right under the Jews. Furthermore, another 250,000 Jewish and non-Jewish Polish citizens died together bravely and passionately resisting the German army, hopelessly outnumbered and pathetically outgunned, because they were actively betrayed by the United States, Great Britain, and the former Soviet Union culminating with the Council of Yalta. And whereas the Providential blessing after the war resulted in the prophetic rebirth of the free and democratic Jewish state of Israel, Poland's fate was to suffer under the oppressive boot of the former Soviet Union, languishing in poverty and fear as a Communist puppet—a minor bloc nation propped up for photo-op propaganda until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. So, like it or not, the Shoah is ours, too. This is why Pope John Paul II allowed the cross to remain at Auschwitz-Birkenau placed by well-meaning Carmelite nuns; while to the Jew it is an affront representing the history of Christian anti-Semitism, to Polish Christians it is a reminder of the millions of their people who died there as well.

Though I don't expect this message will be seen, I would encourage the Polish government to temper the language of this bill to be a simple declaration. Forget about this talk of fines and imprisonment—focus on the truth. Admit that a small percentage of Polish citizens indeed did assist the Nazis, and teach your sons and daughters to think differently. Polish nationalism is not a bad thing until it crosses the line to blanket xenophobia; the Muslim invasion currently affecting Europe is an entirely different element than that of the too-often maligned Jewish community that made Poland its center for a thousand years, contributing to the nation's culture, cuisine, language, and ethics. Please be educated—understand and teach the difference. Don't allow the movement for nationalistic pride to descend into hatred.

To Israel I would say that aside from the United States, there is no greater ally with regard for remembrance of the Shoah than Poland. No other Gentile nation has more stake in saying, "Never again". Rather than making a focal point of the hatred that was fomented by some, revisit the stories of those who defied Nazi aggression and smuggled Jews out of harm's way to freedom, often sacrificing themselves to do so. Recognize the truth that all groups contain bad apples, but be a repairer of the breach—do not for the sake of politics throw away a partnership with a nation that understands your grief like no other. Allow them to mourn their dead alongside of yours. While there is much healing work to be done by Christians for their persecution of Jews through the centuries, take the first step and express gratitude to the nation that, for the most part, allowed Jews to live peacefully among them for a millennium—it was a far different experience in neighboring Russia and around the countries of Europe.

This is a needless crisis that can be minimized if both parties can reach beyond their own interests. I pray that God will allow them to do so.

Caught in the Middle

When a person is awakened to a pursuit of Biblical Faith (inevitably resulting in the desire to express that faith in its original Jewish context), there is at once a great sense of clarity and a feeling of loss: clarity in the understanding that one of those elusive missing pieces central to the puzzle of life has finally been revealed to them and lowered in place, allowing one to have an exponentially expanded view of the intended landscape; loss in the realization that many of those around them aren’t seeing the same picture they are, and that they can’t go where their friends and family may be anymore because the experiences they once had no longer have the same meaning—so there’s an automatic feeling of disconnectedness.

At the same time, particularly for Gentile believers, there is a natural hesitancy resulting from hiking in unfamiliar territory. We understand that we can’t go back where we came from, but what do we do? Many of the experiences and practices of Biblical Faith are uniquely Jewish; and it is very common to feel alien when exploring Jewish traditions and practices to glean Biblical meaning. For many of us, this is the first time we have felt like an immigrant.

A great example of this is the celebration of winter holidays. Personally, I always loved Christmas: the sights, the music, the food, and most importanly, the celebration of Jesus’ birth. When I came to understand that Christmas is a holiday of mixed Christian and pagan practices, however, Christmas began to lose its appeal for me. Instead, I looked at celebrating Hanukkah—a historical and Biblical holiday (though not one of the Levitical ‘appointed times’) that Jesus Himself celebrated (see John 10). The awkwardness of this, however, is that in Judaism, Hanukkah is viewed to a degree as Israel’s Independence Day—and while I certainly can rejoice with my Jewish brothers and sisters that the Jewish people were once again saved from their enemies, and I am thankful that the actions of the Maccabees were crucial in paving the way for the Messiah to come at the appointed time, the celebration is still somewhat foreign to me—and even more so to my family members who have studied less than I have. (I mean, Shir Soul makes “I Have a Little Dreidel” as cool as it can be, but still...)

So what can we do to ease the difficulty of adapting to this new reality?  

• Without taking away from the original intent of the observance, try to captialize on what is meaningful to you—particularly Biblical/spiritual themes. All of the Jewish holidays—Levitical or not—contain a number of elements that are relevant to Gentile believers. I highlight these points in the Holidays section of the website. Specifically for Hanukkah, relevant themes include: standing up for what is right in the face of opposition; having faith in God for deliverance from or grace through difficulty; Jesus being the Light of the World in the midst of darkness (John chapters 8-10); Jesus' declaring that WE are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14-16; 2 Cor. 4:6); dedicating ourselves as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16-17).
• Look for fun activities supporting the holiday through which your family can make lasting memories that are age-appropriate for your situation. I have incorporated a slightly modified version of spinning the dreidel that incorporates Bible trivia. This is perfectly appropriate, since the reason for the dreidel tradition was that studying the Torah was outlawed, and so the Jews masqueraded Torah study by spinning the dreidel and so appeared to be gambling. What's great about the version I deisgned is that it is scalable for any age group, so the whole family can play. Other options include a family outing for charity work (being the light of the world), making latkes, or eating sufganiyot (jelly or cream-filled donughts). I make a short theme out of each night that is able to be swapped depending on our schedule that year.
• If there are traditions that have been meaningful to you in the past, incorporate portions of them into your observance. NOTE: we must be careful here not to re-introduce non-Biblical or nonsensical/irrelevant elements that we have purposefully left behind (I personally would not do Easter eggs at Passover or Firstfruits, a 'Hanukkah bush' or a 'mensch on the bench'). Examples of what I do include during Hanukkah:
  1. I am of Polish ancestry on my father’s side of the family; one tradition that was always very meaningful to me was the opłatek, where all family members are given large pieces of unleavened wafers with which to serve the other members of the family. As one goes around to each member, offering them to take a piece of the wafer, one prays a blessing over that family member or speaks an encouragment to them in the name of the LORD (and then vice-versa). This is a powerful ceremony and is perfectly in line with 'tikkun olam'—being a blessing as the light of the world.
  2. Luke 1 gives us clues as to when Jesus was born: because of the priestly course of Zechariah (1 Chronicles 24:1-19, Luke 1:5), we can determine that Jesus was born sometime around the beginning of Sukkot—which means that He was conceived near the previous Hanukkah; the part of the 'Christmas story' that is relevant to Hanukkah are the annunciations to Mary and Joseph. So, I read this portion of Scripture and discuss what this must have been like for them. Certainly, the angelic promise of what was to come was very exciting; but it was terrifying as well, requiring faith on their part that God loved them and would work things out for their good. This concept of trust in the face of adversity resembles the situation of the Maccabees well as Judith, whose story is often celebrated by Jewish families during the Hanukkah observance.
• Study all that you can about the Feasts: the original Biblical prescription, how Judaism celebrates the Feasts today, and the prophetic meaning of each Feast in the calendar of redemption in order to familiarize yourself with the Biblical holidays and to be able to celebrate them in a meaningful and accurate way.

Adjusting to anything new inevitably comes with a period of uncertainty. Be prayerful, patient, and persistent; you will find that living and celebrating Biblically comes with great reward.

Happy Anniversary!

This year is the 500th anniversary of what is commonly believed to have started the Protestant Reformation; namely that on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg castle protesting certain beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church of his time. To understand what Luther faced with every blow of the hammer, we must understand that for the previous 1205 years 19 days, the entire universal Christian Church had been incorporated into the state, having full military backing to persecute any dissenting voice—which it did with great relish; for the latter 463 years 103 days, the Roman Catholic Church claimed authority over all of Western Europe, enjoining a political dance with its varied nations and rulers. In short, one did not simply express opposition to any opinion of the Catholic Church and expect to live very long. In fact, one could expect to be heinously tortured to death, all the while enduring the taunts of their Inquisitors promising eternal condemnation in hell with no chance of redemption regardless of whether they second-guessed or recanted their belief.

Amazingly, Luther was not martyred; it was not long before Luther’s stand became a movement across Europe with a life of its own. As it should be obvious by the name, it was not the Reformers’ original intent to leave the Catholic Church, but to address its unbiblical practices. But like the nation of Israel, the Roman Church refused to listen to its prophets; rather than allow their message to quicken its heart, the Church increasingly hardened itself until its kingdom was taken away.

The burning of Anabaptists at Salzburg, 1528

To be sure, the Reformers did not completely bring the Church back to the glorious design of its first century counterpart as Jesus and His disciples would have envisioned it: they created little duchies of their own, and persecuted any outsiders—including any other Reform sects with which they disagreed, just as the rest of the Church was doing; they thoroughly denounced and afflicted the Jews among them time after time; they played havoc with the canon of Scripture, despite their reliance upon it; their systematic theologies were based on contemporary European philosophical and logical constructs every bit as much as in a knowledge of the Biblical texts rather than a rediscovery of the Jewish context in which Christianity was born; they retained many of the unbiblical practices of the Romanized Church; they all but ignored the role of the Holy Spirit in producing a changed, dynamic, and victorious life; and gave credence (Calvinism in particular) to the subjugation of non-Christian, indigenous peoples around the globe as their imperialistic host nations sought new lands to conquer. Even after the founding of America, which was the most truly noble experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it was not until the conclusion of ‘Manifest Destiny’ that humanity truly began to realize the idea of religious freedom.

“from 1542 to 1546, which was the softer period of his [John Calvin's] government, we count 58 capital executions, 76 banishments and 900 imprisonments.” —Jean Tet, Histoire de la persecutions religieuse à Genève (Paris: Lecoffre, 1879), p. 473

But for all the Reformers’ faults, Protestantism produced five important ideas (the Five Solae) that began to train the arrow back toward the direction of the bulls-eye (I will create another post soon to explain my position on these):

• Sola Scriptura: the Bible alone provides authority for faith and practice. The original language used to formulate this concept implies that nothing else CAN provide any direction from God, which is debatable; therefore, as time went on, the Wesleyans developed the concept of Prima Scriptura, which states that any form of enlightenment is subordinate to Scripture.
• Sola Fide: salvation from sin is by faith alone, through which God gives us grace. Good deeds do not atone for sin.
• Sola Gratia: forgiveness of sins comes by grace alone, which God gives at His pleasure without regard to merit. A person cannot generate merit that God must recognize.
• Solus Christus: Christ alone is our priest, in that He provides the only bridge between God and man. We can only have fellowship with God through faith in Jesus the Messiah. (This is different from the idea of the ‘priesthood of all believers’, in which every baptized believer is able to serve as a representative of God to the world.) Both concepts, however, serve to exclude a recognized class of priests for service of absolution, administration of sacraments, or for spiritual guidance.
• Soli Deo Gloria: God alone is worthy of worship or veneration; neither Jesus’ mother Mary, nor saints, nor angels, nor any other being is meritable for salvation or help, and to seek any other is to commit idolatry.

These were very important steps in restoring the Church as a Bride without spot or wrinkle (Eph. 5:27); however, even five hundred years down the road, much more needs to be done, especially since the decline of Biblical literacy in the West, the advent of post-modernism and a post-Christian society, and the maturation of moral relativism. Even in the last five years, there have been two pronounced shifts that have taken place—one within the Church, and one within society as a whole: the Church is steadily and increasingly rejecting its own beliefs, while seeking acceptance of the world’s value system; and the world is becoming both more opposed to and more violent toward both Christianity and Judaism. For all its efforts to be liked, the data shows the Church’s attempts are having the exact opposite effect.

This should come as no surprise; Jesus stated explicitly that anyone who followed Him would be hated by the world—in fact, people would believe they are doing God a favor by killing us (John 16:2). The apostles warned that in the last days before Jesus’ return, there would be a great falling away. News flash: we aren’t meant to be liked by the world system. So, what then—do we just roll over and let the world bulldoze us out of existence? Do we make enemies of the world's people, attempting to take geopolitical control over society by force? Well, that was what Constantine did, which caused the Church to careen away from its prescribed direction in the first place. But don’t we have a Great Commission that challenges us to make disciples of all nations? Of course we do—despite our living in a a world that hates us.

There is an answer; many are calling today for a new Reformation. Some are saying (and I have said) that we should complete the work that was begun by the Reformers 500 years ago. Call it what you will; what this really means is that we need to return to Biblical faith, and that's what I’m aiming for. Rather than rejecting the Scriptures as God-breathed truth, it’s time that we fully understand and embrace it for the gift of life it is. I produced a special article that appears at the main navigation point for my website entitled "Where Is God Taking Us?" detailing what I believe a return to Biblical faith looks like.

You’ll notice at the center of the article, there’s a diagram showing a comparison/contrast between Biblical values and the values we often see in the Church. At the top encompassing everything, of course, is the contrast between Biblical Faith vs. Traditional Faith (the traditions of men having superseded the Scriptures). It lists many of the wells the Church has drawn from in its pursuit apart from the Bible. Not that any of these are intrinsically bad, mind you—they’re just not suitable paradigms from which to run the Church. None of these represent God’s agenda for His kingdom.

The rest of the values form a circle, and each one is connected to all the others; but at the center is God-worship vs. Self-worship, because this is the central question of the entirety of Scripture: will we worship God or ourselves? It has been often said that you become what you worship; a person who worships God will exude His love in every direction—away from the self toward God and others. A self-worshipping person’s world is aligned in one direction—toward the self. It is a stance of taking: only looking to receive from God rather than to enjoy Him; striving to get as much as one can for one’s own benefit, to the detriment of others if necessary. Everything that is called sin in the Bible stems from the condition of self-worship, and it is God’s priority to transform us from having the nature of self-worship to become God-worshipers. This concept is completely different from how the Church presents the Gospel. In The Upside-Down Kingdom, I related the difference this way:

Constantinian Christianity asks us to mentally assent to a doctrinal formula, which states that we are sinners, that Christ died for us and was raised so we can go to heaven and be with Him someday. Not a bad formula, nor do I immediately disagree with the doctrine in the formula. The doctrine in the formula is just scratching the surface of what God wants of us, however. Look at the difference:
Biblical Judeo-Christianity, in contrast, asks us to commit ourselves to a shared life of God-worship called the Kingdom of God. We connect into the nature of God by Jesus, and we allow God to live through us, whereby His love and life pour through us out to the world. We receive His life in the transfer and are transformed into the people we were created to be. 

The remainder of the values forming the circle are perspectives that naturally flow out of Biblical truth and God’s selfless love.

• Judeo-Christian (vs. Constantinian Christian): Simply put, this is a return to the foundational framework suitable for understanding Christianity as intended. God revealed Himself through the Jewish people; He sent the Messiah through the Jews; Jesus and all of His original followers were Jews, the Scriptures were written primarily by Jews for Jews—the list goes on and on as to why and how Biblical Judaism is connected to and is the foundation of Christianity. We cannot understand Christianity without looking at it through a Jewish lens; and when we do so, we find that Biblical faith looks a lot different than what a Gentile-based Christianity is practicing. This doesn't mean we have to be ethnically or culturally Jewish in everything we do, but we have to understand and apply the truth from the Jewish perspective to where we are.
• Holiness (vs. Happiness): This doesn't mean that we can't be happy; we must merely change our perspective from being predisposed toward whatever benefits the self to whatever God says is right, just, good, and full of outwardly-focused love. It is living a life concerned about what God thinks rather than continuously positioning ourselves to receive maximum sucess and satisfaction. Those who understand this concept know that true happiness comes as a reward for righteousness.
• Real (vs. Sensational): Humanity often tends to favor style over substance. It is very easy for us to look at our feelings, what is exciting, or the supernatural as evidence of God’s work or as a measure of our success. This is the case particularly in the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Word of Faith branch of Protestantism, but can also be found in many Jewish and Christian rituals: somehow thinking that keeping Jewish mitzvot or praying in Hebrew while wearing a kippah makes us more holy, or using Elizabethan English when we pray. Jesus said to be careful not to do good deeds for the purpose of being seen and honored by men (Matthew 6:1-18). Furthermore, when the disciples came back rejoicing that they had power over the demonic, Jesus focused their attention on the greater miracle—that they were written in the Book of Life (Luke 10:19-21). Similarly, Paul said in Galatians 5:22-23 that the fruit of the Spirit's work is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—not speaking in tongues, deliverance, healing, raising the dead, performing other supernatural miracles—even though God still does these today. When God is doing these things, we'll experience them; but it's time that we follow hard after God and His truth rather than after exciting experiences to fulfill us.
• Family-Nation (vs. Institutional-Professional): The Romanized Church destroyed the framework providing a dynamic, organic life in the Kingdom by turning the Church into an institution with professional clergy. This removed ordinary people from participation and study, relegating them to the status of a spiritual consumer. Even though the Protestant version was more relaxed, they kept this format rather than reverting back to the Spirit-led, family structure of the early Church. It is time to return to this model, which will promote contribution from all members of the congregation rather than an ordained minister being the designated dispenser of truth.

Jesus said that the world would know we are His disciples when we love one another (John 13:34) and prayed that the Church would be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:6-26). Paul elaborated by stating that when we contend for the faith as one, the world sees this and is convicted concerning their own destruction (Philippians 1:27-30). Getting back to these simple truths is what is needed to complete the mission.  Join me in the Reformation!

Book Review: The Shack

NOTE: The following review is for the book only: I have not seen the movie, and so I don't know what the producers may have changed from the content of the book.

Production company:Gil Netter Productions/Windblown Media

Distributed by Summit Entertainment

Release date March 3, 2017(United States)

The Internet exploded again a couple of weeks ago with the release of the movie version of The Shack, written by William Paul Young, the son of Canadian parents who were missionaries to New Guinea.  It is the story of Mack, a man hardened by tragedy:  in his youth, he was abused by a hypocritical father who was a deacon on Sundays and an angry drunk the rest of the week; as an adult, he endured the unimaginable heartbreak of his youngest daughter, Missy, being abducted and murdered by a serial killer.  One day, a few years after his daughter's death, Mack receives an unlikely message in the mail, presumably from God, to visit Him at the shack where his daughter was killed.  There he meets 'God', and his healing begins.

The phenomenon, if nothing else, has provided a perfect barometer measuring where every person lays within the Christian Church, which is in a state of civil war—whether we realize it or not.  On one side, there are those who value truth, structure, and holiness; on the other are those who pursue experiences, acceptance, and relationship.  For two weeks, verbal grenades have been lobbed across both sides, as has been increasingly typical over just about any subject these days:  the holiness crowd is claiming that William Paul Young is a universalist heretic while the 'love trumps all' group is declaring that this is the best book ever (some are saying it's better than the Bible), and that anyone who has a problem with it is oppressed by a demon of religion or a critical spirit.

Before I commented on it myself, I wanted to read it thoroughly.  Doing so would move my commentary beyond our normal attention span these days (it's no longer a news story), but it was worth it to get a clear, unfiltered perspective.  One thing is true: as a story, The Shack is an absolutely riveting read—I wish I were half that creative as an author (I'd certainly sell a lot more of my own material)!  I actually found that I liked parts of the book more than I originally thought I might; where the story bogs down is when the author tries to theologically explain everything Mack is experiencing—which is funny, given that so many people were saying he was not being theological—half the entire book is a theological treatise on the nature of God and His interaction with us!  (Could this be a lesson for me in my own writings?)

The true controversy—for me, at least—is that for all his theological musings and metaphysical machinery employed to try and make his views sensible, William delivered only one half of the Gospel.  Yes, what matters is our experiential love relationship with God—and He does love us beyond what we can ever imagine, and this love is brought out masterfully in the book.  But that relationship is predicated on the truth and the holiness of who God is and what He wants from us according to God's own definition found in His Word.  It is God's own story, not ours.  I didn't define Him; He defined Himself in the pages of the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ—and when we get away from that, we misrepresent Him, taking His name in vain.  Now to be clear, I certainly don't believe that Mr. Young is a New Age globalist secretly attempting to deceive us all into taking the mark of the beast.  I genuinely believe his heart is sincerely bent toward reaching people for Jesus Christ; I just believe he is genuinely wrong about who God is compared to how He defines Himself in the Scriptures.  In our culture, people have come to regard art and opinion as the very definition of reality; and so I am concerned that people will take this book and place it above the Bible (some already have).  When someone is looking for God in The Shack, they come across a very different paradigm than what they would find meeting Him face to face.

So what are the specific things I found that led me to this conclusion?

The first real problem that I found with The Shack is that, despite the author's specific statements to the contrary, he represents God in a completely tritheistic way. This god is not the God of the Bible—Mack is interacting with three separate individuals: Elousia¹, Jesus, and Sarayu².  In William Young's defense, the language of the Christian Church with regard to the Trinity lends itself to this kind of thinking; but it's a non-biblical concept nonetheless.  He then tries to cement the concept with a lot of metaphysical gobbledygook about unity.  I will for the moment ignore that William represented two of the Trinity's persons as female, because I would otherwise spend the rest of my article on this subject alone.  While the Bible is clear that man, both male and female, are created in the image of God, and therefore God has both male and female qualities, I will remind the reader that for the 4,100 years of history during which the Bible was written, God only defined Himself as male, and the only bodily manifestation He has ever had was that of a Jewish man named Yeshua from Nazareth.  And don't tell me it's because of some ancient patriarchal bias against women:  every one of the societies surrounding Israel at the time—who treated women far worse by our standards than the Israelites did, I might add—had goddesses as part of their pantheon.  Only Israel's God defined Himself as male.  So suddenly, now, God needs to define Himself as female?  This is William's opinion—Elousia said that God represented Himself as male during that time because the world needed a father more then.  I think we need fathers even more than ever now!  A genderless God may be politically correct—but it is not how God defines Himself.

Another hangup is the idea that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity.  We need to be clear about this:  from the standpoint of equality, authority, substance, etc., this is true. However, the author depicts the unity between the members of the Godhead as a 'circle of relationship' instead of a chain of command. (pp. 122-123) Throughout the Bible, though, it is clear that EVERYTHING God does originates with the Father and is accomplished through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Always.  So while this does not indicate 'rank', there is a hierarchy—a linear order to the roles that they have chosen.  An interesting observation that I made in my own book is that we as humans are created as one being with three basic parts—a soul, a body, and a spirit; and that we are in the image of God.  Everything we do originates in our soul and is accomplished by our body through the energy of life from our spirit.  In my view, this is a composite picture of what the Trinity looks like and how God acts in the world.

The problem is not hierarchy itself; it is what man does with hierarchy.  If hierarchy is completely bad, which Mr. Young asserts, does that not also mean that God's higher position from us is evil as well?  Amazingly, as we'll see in a moment, William believes it means exactly that.  I don't think he thought that one through…

A further related point of contention is an all too common misrepresentation of the nature of Jesus brought on by the adoption of dyophysitism at Chalcedon.  Dyophysitism is a fancy way of saying that Jesus is both human and God, but as completely separate experiences; the outcome of which is that Jesus is painted as having done nothing as deity while in human form—and in The Shack, Jesus has limited Himself to only His experience of humanity in our current state forever.

I agree that in many ways, God has chosen to limit Himself for the sake of agape love (i.e. He chooses to work with us inside our experience of time because He created us to live within that context, and He allows us true choice within His predestination); but the nature of Jesus is such that his deity and his humanity are both fully expressed from the moment of His Incarnation through eternity (the ancient Oriental Orthodox concept of miaphysitism).  Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time in the same way that God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time.  So conversely, God does not choose to be the Father or the Son or the Spirit; neither does Jesus choose to be human or divine.  God is all these, and Jesus is both human and divine simultaneously.

There will forever be a mystery to the complex unity of God that we cannot comprehend with mental gymnastics.  We may never understand how this works; but the definitions that God gives for Himself are fairly clear:

• God is echad.³ This a complex but indivisible unity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Not three individual people, but one God whose three sentient and distinct parts do not exist apart from one another. 
• Everything God does flows from the Father through the Son by the Spirit.
• The Son was incarnated for us men and our salvation using the DNA of the line of King David according to God's decree in the Tanakh, and was placed in the womb of Miriam (Mary), a young Jewish virgin, as the Jewish Messiah—our perfect sacrifice for sin and our Eternal High Priest—and so His deity and His humanity became united forever.

As an aside, just think about this for a moment—I know it's hard to comprehend and may be offensive to some people, but God became a Jew. (Fortunately, Mr. Young cast Jesus correctly as a Hebrew man; but Jesus was a practicing religious Jew as well!) He didn't become an African-American woman, a Chinese lady with a Hindi name, a Celt, or a Slav (even though I am both of the latter, and that would have been really cool)—no, He came through the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Judah.  We don't know all of His religious practices, but He at least wore tzitzit and followed many customs of the Pharisees and/or the Essenes—at least enough to be considered a rabbi. This is how He defined Himself—I didn't choose it for Him in my own imagination.  So why are there so many Christians trying so hard to prove that anything Jewish is anti-Christian with some outrightly hating the Jews?  Anyway—moving on…

Where was I?  Oh, yes—sin, holiness, obedience, and the Law of Moses.  William Young's loathing of hierarchy naturally predisposes him to a negative bent on these topics.  The author's perspective produces a logical trail taking us to a destination far away from God's intent, and this conclusion is exponentially more dangerous than his characterization of the Trinity.  From the moment Mack leaves 'Papa' to meet Sarayu in the garden, things take a downward spiral.

On pp.134-138, Sarayu has a discourse with Mack about good and evil.  She rightly acknowledges the perils of moral relativism and correctly identifies the self as the errant center of our moral sliding scale; furthermore, she agrees that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a real event and the place where mankind was separated from God.  But then, instead of declaring the reason of man's corruption as being his disobedience to God's instruction, she says the real tragedy was that the …spiritual was…torn…from the …physical…?  Yeah, I don't get how that relates, either.  This difficult explanation is very quickly abandoned with a discussion on what must be done about this; Sarayu simply says we have to "know God enough to trust 'God' (not sure if He's a he, a she, or an it at this point) and learn to rest in God's inherent goodness—which, rather than being defined by the Law of Moses and the person of Jesus Christ according to the Bible, was instead represented by the loosey-goosey values of love and light.  Even where these concepts are valid in the Scriptures, they have to be to be further defined—they CANNOT be understood outside of God's definition of righteousness in His Word.  Nowhere in this discussion was mentioned the necessity of sacrifice—and certainly not priesthood, because the author believes that hierarchy and therefore law are evil results of our 'seeking independence'; the logical trap of his error refuses to allow him to mention the word obedience in any positive fashion.  Sarayu says that we define good and evil, not God.  There is only relationship, no rules, no 'performance' we must make.

In fact, we apparently should not bother emulating Jesus.  When Mack next has a conversation with Jesus in Chapter 10, Jesus instructs Mack about the concept of asking, 'What Would Jesus Do?':

Good intentions, bad idea.  Let me know how it works out for you, if that's the way you choose to go…Seriously, my life was not meant to be an example to copy.  Being my follower is not trying to 'be like Jesus', it means for your independence to be killed.  I came to give you life, real life, my life.  We will come and live our life inside of you, so that you begin to see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and touch with our hands, and think like we do.  But we will never force that union on you.  If you want to do your thing, have at it.  Time is on our side."

Now I understand what William is getting at here in terms of abandoning self-worship to allow God to live His life in us—but 'being like Christ' is exactly that—so I am not following the logic here.  Whatever happened to Philippians 2:3-13?

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Or Ephesians 5:1-2:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

Or 1 Corinthians 11:1:

And you should imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.

At best, this discourse is a very poor way to explain what God's desire is for us here; but it is not surprising, since expectations for our obedience are taboo in the author's worldview.

In the next chapter, Mack is confronted by the personification of Wisdom⁴, a beautiful Hispanic woman who essentially puts Mack on trial for the inner judgmental thoughts he has about everyone else, forcing him to admit he is not fit to judge anyone.  This sets up Mack to forgive everyone, and to ask forgiveness for his own sins.  Overall, this is not a bad sequence in the book.  However, the Bible declares that there is only "one Lawgiver and Judge", and that is God Himself, not Wisdom; again, our author would never be able to place God Himself in this role, because he is committed to the idea that God requires no obedience, and therefore does not judge anyone.

Sin and hell are concepts that are dealt with here; William surprisingly has good insight into the concept that sin is declaring independence from God (self-worship); and hell is simply be the consequence of one's own choice to remain in that independence as a self-worshiper.  But the author does us an injustice here; the Bible is clear that God decrees a time where grace and the rescue from self-worship will end.  At the Great White Throne Judgment—the fulfillment of the Jewish Levitical 'appointed time' called Yom Kippur—every person ever created from Adam and Eve to the last human being to be born will be bodily resurrected to stand in judgment for their deeds—whether they are Christian or not.  (Rev. 20:11-13) ALL will be found guilty, for we "all have sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God."  (Rom. 3:23) THEN, another book is opened—the Lamb's Book of Life.  The sentences of those whose names are found within are commuted to Jesus' punishment that He endured on our behalf.  All those who are not found in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire, their self-worship continuously and eternally consuming them as flames that are never quenched and like worms that never die.  (Rev. 20:14-15, Mark 9:47-48)  In The Shack, Wisdom says that "judgment isn't about destruction, but about setting things right."  The Bible says it differently:  the Greek of John 3:16 ends with, "…that they may not be [violently] destroyed, but have life forever."  The destruction of evil is required—it is demanded—in order to set things right.  That's why Jesus had to die in the first place: if any of God's creation was to survive the destruction that God must pour out on all evil, a ransom had to take place!

With this notion, we come to the source of the problem, the controversy over which has been raging since the Apostle Paul preached the Gospel to the Gentiles.  Starting on p. 201 and going to p. 208, Mack is back eating with the three deities, and asks the question, "What do You expect of me now?"  This prompts a shocked silence from the group, as expectations of obedience are the cardinal sin in our author's world.  Sarayu senses another teachable moment here and says,

"…Humans have a tendency to restructure language according to their independence and need to perform. So when I hear language abused in favor of rules over sharing life with us, it is difficult for me to remain silent.  […] why do you think we came up with the Ten Commandments?"  Mack responds, "I suppose, at least I have been taught, but it's a set of rules that you expected humans to obey order to live righteously in your good graces."  Sarayu countered, "if that were true, which it is not, then how many do you think live righteously enough to enter our good graces?"

Of course, the true answer to the obviously rhetorical question is, "no one except Jesus." Sarayu goes on to provide an answer that I myself even teach in my own book—but she's only half right in the telling:

"Actually, we wanted you to give up trying to be righteous on your own. It was a mirror to reveal just how filthy your face gets when you live independently." [Mack says,] "but as I'm sure you know there are many who think they are made righteous by following the rules." [Sarayau's reply] "But can you clean your face with the same mirror that shows how dirty you are? There is no mercy or grace in rules, not even for one mistake. That's why Jesus fulfilled all of that for you—so that it no longer has jurisdiction over you. And the Law that once contained impossible demands —Thou shall not… —actually becomes a promise we fulfill in you."

This is 95% right so far; but the conversation yet to continue is the most dangerous and deceptive idea that has ever been allowed to creep into the Christian credosphere. And it is not new; this idea stems from a misrepresentation of the Apostle Paul's writings and has been going on from the moment he wrote them.  (Those of you who know me know exactly where I'm headed with this…)

"But keep in mind that if you live your life alone and independently, the promise is empty. Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command.  Jesus is both the promise and the fulfillment."  [Mack's reply] "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?" "Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful."  "You can't be serious! You're messing with me again," moaned Mack. "Child," interrupted Papa, "you ain't heard nuthin' yet."

"MacKenzie," Sarayu continued, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control." "Is that why we like the law so much – to give us some control?" asked Mack.

"It is much worse than that," resumed Sarayu.  "It grants you the power to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing this, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse."

"Whoa!" Mac suddenly realized what Sarayu had said.  "Are you telling me that responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under?  Did I hear you right?"  "Yup," Papa interjected again.

There is a whole basket of half-truths, false accusations, and mischaracterizations of motive in here; and the conflict over this paradigm marks the greatest divide of the Christian Church today.  Our author is half right in stating that the Law was originally given as a mirror; but the Law is also God's definition and the eternal standard of His own righteousness—again, none of us defined this for God—He defined these things for Himself in His Word.  Over and over again in the Scriptures—both 'Old' Testament and 'New'—we are told that we are expected to be holy as He is holy. 

Leviticus 20:26  [after a list of specific things revealed as sin] You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

Eccl. 12:13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.

Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O Man, what is good and what the LORD requires of you:  to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

Romans 8:12-13 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it.  For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

1 Peter 1:15-16 …just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do, for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

I'm already on my way to writing a book with this post (which was not my intention), but let me unpack this basket by presenting some Biblical truths that may be news to many people:

• Just because the law serves as a mirror to reveal our sinfulness to ourselves in order to drive us to God does not mean that God never meant for us to obey the law. The Scriptures teach us that the Holy Spirit moves us to obey the Law through the process of sanctification, which is a partnership: God has provided us with His standard of holiness in the Law of Moses and the person of Jesus Christ; when we encounter a situation where there is conflict, we say, “Yes, LORD”, and that self-worship nature—that rebellious spirit against God, which our author is calling ‘independence’, dies just a little bit more. That promise and fulfillment can't happen outside of God's standards and His expectations of us. This is why the Law is still needed.
• God's righteous standards by which He has defined himself have not changed—and will never change—from eternity past to eternity future. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, he was talking about the requirements for sacrifice, penalty, and priesthood.  Hebrews 7 tells us that when the priest is changed the law had to be changed also; this was not an elimination of the whole Law, but of the priesthood, as he himself is the perfect eternal sacrifice and eternal High Priest.
• The words of the Apostle Paul in the New Covenant Scriptures stating that we are no longer under the Law are specifically directed toward a widespread 1st-century error where He was countering teaching that demanded full proselyte conversion of Gentiles to a Pharisaic order in order for them to be saved. Read my article on this issue in order to gain more understanding.
• The automatic assumption of our author's worldview is that a person attempting to obey the Law is looking to obtain salvation by the Law, or that they are using the Law as a bludgeon to make themselves look better than other people. This is not necessarily the case. If a person is a self-worshiper, then yes—they will attempt to use the Law as a method of self-justification; and this is what Jesus reacted so strongly to with the Pharisees who opposed Him. But a God-worshiper will allow the Law to do its job—to drive us to God not only for forgiveness when we blow it, but for the strength to do what He asks us to do. And He always asks us to do what is impossible for us.
• Truth and love are not opposites. Insisting on the truth of God's Word does not mean that one is opposed to God's love. What does 1 Corinthians 13 say about the relationship between the truth and love? "Love rejoices with the truth..." Love doesn't ignore the truth for the sake of acceptance, convenience, or compromise.
• Yes, there can be personal and even subjective elements of our relationship with God; indeed, if a personal dimension is missing from one's relationship with God, this is a sign that something is wrong. However, our relationship with God can only be founded on the bedrock of definition he gave himself—a relationship only based on His terms, which are the same for everyone, universally expressed in the Bible.

The answer to our longing is not to create a god who is a genderless, multicultural buddy who eliminates every moral goalpost when we miss a kick. No god outside of YHVH, the God of the Bible, is suitable for us to have a relationship with, no matter how warm, loving, and accepting that god of our making might be.

Recently, a student asked a question to Ravi Zacharias (a Christian apologist and speaker with perhaps the most genius of any Christian thinker in our day),

Do you think it's a fundamental necessity for one to call oneself a Christian, or to subscribe to any other religion if they do live a life that Jesus proposed—if one lives with love; if one lives personally ego-less and loves God and loves their neighbor, must one have to call themselves a Christian or ascribe to the dogmatic Christian "proper" beliefs in order to live such a good life?"  Ravi replied, "[...] There is a sequence in the Christian faith that is very unique; the sequence is this: redemption, righteousness, and worship. It's not just logical, it's chronological. You cannot alter that sequence.  In other words, righteousness is never talked about until one is first redeemed; and worship is never enjoined until one is redeemed and righteous—for who shall ascend to the hill of the LORD but he who has clean hands and a pure heart? (Psalm 24:3-34) [...] So I say to you, your desire to lead a good life, to love, to be benevolent, and all of that is wonderful; but the source of that is in the person of God Himself who gives you that absolute; and it always starts by forgiveness—and that's what leads to redemption, then to righteousness, and then to worship That's the chronological sequence and the logical sequence of the answers of Christ."

I would change this slightly, based on my understanding of worship, which is that worship is our response (composed of faith and obedience) to the recognition of our position with relationship to God motivated by His love for us.  So when we see God's love for us, we respond in worship by accepting His great sacrifice on our behalf, which produces our redemption; our continued desire for relationship with Him motivates us to enter a partnership with Him that produces righteousness in us.  The point is, there is a sequence—redemption leads to righteousness, and true God-worship is the driving factor for both.

Redemption does not eliminate righteousness—it upholds it and produces it in us.  Rather than removing the moral goalpost, God works with us, strengthening our kick and increasing our aim—and loving us in the process.  I am fond of saying that God does love us no matter who we are, and no matter what we've done; but He also loves you too much to leave you there.

This matters because rightoeusness is who God is; it is the very fabric of His character.  If we are unconcerned with righteousness, we can have no fellowship with God who is righteousness. This is what the Apostle John was getting at in His first general epistle:

We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. —1 John 2:3-6

Jesus paid the penalty for our breaking of God's Law; He did not destroy the Law with His death.  Furthermore, even though the penalty is satisfied in Jesus' death, this does not mean God no longer cares about His Law.  Even Paul says in Romans 6, "should we go on sinning that grace may abound?  By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" And the writer of Hebrews tells us, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." (Hebrews 10:26-27) That's scary—but it describes the attitude of the theology contained in The Shack.  If we believe that somehow God erased His expectations of us defined in His law, this leads to relativism (the belief that morality is relative to circumstance), which then leads to universalism (that all moral paths are equally valid).  While I don't believe William Paul Young is a universalist, his beliefs are taking him—and his readers—down that path.  Far from being hateful toward those that subscribe to this paradigm; it breaks my heart to see someone deceived into believing that God is ok with an unrepentant heart—I don't want to see anyone stand before God thinking that He was unconcerned about their sin.  Our attitude needs to be one of reverence for God's holiness and worship of who He is.

I'm not going to sway anyone from reading this book, watching this movie, or accepting every teaching within its pages as a good representation of the Gospel. It is, after all, a fictional book. And again, my concern has nothing to do with how the author shows that God loves us, and how He meets us right at the source of our need; if I had been creative enough to come up with the plot for this story, but used good theology about God and His holiness instead, the story would have come out not much differently (Jesus would have been the one to meet Mack face-to-face, and there would have been discussion about how holiness, sacrifice, obedience and forgiveness interact). But I have written this commentary to provide you with some answers when someone says, "Oh, hey—have you read The Shack?  It revolutionized my life and the way I think about God!"  I pray that far from lobbing grenades, we'll have the opportunity to discuss the subject matter honestly according to God's Word.

Footnotes:

---

¹Taken from El, the generic Hebrew word for deity, and ousia, the Greek word for 'essence' or 'substance'. So Elousia would be a slapped-together hybrid term for 'God-substance'.

²Sarayu is a Hindi word meaning 'wind' or 'holy river'. It is also another name for the Hindu goddess Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, fortune, and prosperity. She is the wife and energy of Vishnu, a main Hindu deity.

³The cardinal number 1 in Hebrew; though as in English, the word is often used to describe a collective, like one bunch of grapes, the choir sang with one voice, etc. It is in contrast to yachid, which denotes absolute singularity.

⁴Wiliam wisely tiptoed around the controversy surrounding the personification of Wisdom being equivalent to the Holy Spirit; Wisdom is referred to in the feminine, but says she was 'among the first of God's created works'—which, if taken literally, would exclude her from the Godhead, given that God is not created; the Holy Spirit was already present at creation. Unlike her portrayal in The Shack, however, she is not the Judge—only God holds that right.

Are Christians Obligated Today to Observe the Sabbath?

Photo from Wikipedia entry on Dr. Michael Brown

I listened to a portion of Dr. Michael Brown's Line of Fire radio program last Thursday on whether Shabbat (the Sabbath) is still binding on Christians today.  I have great respect for Dr. Brown; he has done far more of 'the hard work' than most people to 'show himself approved' (tongue-in-cheek; see 2 Tim. 2:15 KJV), earning a Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages, serving as an adjunct professor in numerous theological seminaries across the country, and dedicating the majority of his life to the proclamation and demonstration of the kingdom to the Jew first and also to the Gentile—this is a man who has a lot of intelligence and experience under his belt and has used his talents for the glory of God.  However, (we all saw the 'however' coming) while I thoroughly agree with the spirit in which Dr. Brown approaches relationship with God, and though I end up arriving at a lot of the same conclusions as Dr. Brown with regard to interpretation of the Torah (at least where priestly mitzvot are concerned), I have a fundamentally different perspective that differentiates me from both traditional Protestant Christianity and Messianic Judaism on this issue and pushes me toward the Hebrew Roots Movement (though I don't quite go that far).

The main question is really this:  do we believe there are two 'peoples' of God, or one?  Those that would say there are two separate entities of God-worshipers—national Israel and the Church—will have a totally different foundational point of reference from myself with regard to interpretation, application, and perhaps even the purpose, of the Torah.  Because of this, our journeys to the conclusions we reach are entirely disparate.  I would like Dr. Brown—and all of us—to consider the following points surrounding his program yesterday:

1.  In the general exchange of dialogue from both sides, it seemed to be forgotten that we are all one in Messiah.  In these types of conversations, it is very typical to hear the idea that God has a different standard for Jews than He does for Gentiles—that He never required Gentiles to obey the Law anyway, and so only Jews need to obey the Torah.  The standard mantra is that "Acts 15 settled the issue." Some (IMPORTANT: not ALL) Messianic Jews believe that in the Millennial Kingdom, the Jewish believers will occupy a special status and reign over Gentile Christian believers as a result of their being the 'Chosen People' of God.  Dispensational Protestants believe that the Church will have been Raptured and in heaven during the Millennial Kingdom; but that after the Tribulation, Jesus will reign along with the Jewish believers who were saved during that time and will re-institute the sacrificial system of the Torah, thus moving from 'the age of Law' to 'the age of Grace', and then back to a dispensation of Law again during the Millennial Reign.  Both ideas promote a separation between Jewish believers in Messiah and Gentile believers in Messiah.  Let's look at the background and what the Scriptures say.

Unbeknownst to most people, when the Exodus occurred, the crowd that left Egypt for the Promised Land was actually a 'mixed multitude' (Exodus 12:38).  Many Gentiles journeyed with the Israelites, identified themselves with them, and decided to essentially remain as permanent resident aliens, attaching themselves to the nation of Israel culturally and religiously.  While they remained on the outer rim of the Covenant, having no property or inheritance, and having less rights than native-born Israelites, they were afforded the opportunity—and given the responsibility—of participating in the Covenant by keeping most of the same standards in the Law (Lev. 24:22).  These people were called the ger; Ruth the Moabitess embodied their spirit when she said to her mother-in-law Naomi, "where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God."  This is contrast to the nochri, who wanted nothing to do with Israel, and were considered at best antagonistic neighbors, and at worst, enemy invaders.  When we see foreigners sharing in the Covenant, it is the ger who are participating, and when we see them excluded, it is the nochri.

Over time, during the Second Temple period, the Pharisees changed the idea of the ger slightly to mean a person simply living among the Jews who was somewhat favorable toward them. If the person obeyed what were called the 'Noachide Laws',¹ they were separate from the nation, but could interact with Jews and were called a ger toshav. Post-Second Temple Judaism still recognizes Gentiles as such in the designation 'Righteous Among the Nations'.

When the 'Jerusalem Council' was convened in Acts 15, the treatment of the Gentiles who trusted in Jesus as the Messiah came directly from the Pharisaic understanding of the ger toshav. What is fascinating to me is that in their letter to the Gentiles, the Apostles stated that "…it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…" yet, there is no mention of prayer or seeking God on the issue. Interestingly, Paul later contradicts the ruling of the Jerusalem Council in Romans 14 when he says that a Gentile Christian can eat anything in the marketplace, including food that is sacrificed to idols. Furthermore, earlier in Chapters 9-11, Paul throws out a bombshell that revolutionizes the entire framework: essentially, he says to the Gentile: "Guys, you don't realize what God has done for you here. You are no longer just a ger toshav or even the original idea of the ger—you have been made full citizens of the nation of Israel, grafted like wild branches into a native-born olive tree. He cements this understanding for us in his letter to the Ephesians:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.   —Ephesians 2:11-22

So it should be very plain to us that now, in the New Covenant if not before, what is good for the goose is good for the gander—what applies to the Jew applies equally to the Gentile believer. Aside from ethnicity, there is no difference between us. Now the question remains, "Does the Law still apply to any of us?" It seems pretty obvious that Paul is declaring the Law to be set aside in Christ—but not so fast! This brings us to our next point.

2. As an ethnic Jew and great supporter of Israel, Dr. Brown is most certainly not intending to be supersessionist² in his perspective; however, he came across as such when he used the typical Christian argument of "give me a New Testament Scripture that absolutely commands the Gentile to observe the Sabbath." If we believe that ALL Scripture is God-breathed, why do we insist on dismissing any command that does not have a New Testament proof-text? Being the only Scripture that Jesus and the disciples had, does the Tanakh not stand in its own right? Now of course, I believe—according to Hebrews 7 among many other passages—that the perfect sacrifice and eternal priesthood of Jesus fulfills completely the priestly functions of the Torah, thereby RADICALLY changing our application of Torah observance (See my full treatment of this issue here). This is why Christians can be justified in seemingly ignoring those mitzvot which are priestly in nature—that is, anything having to do with rituals and observances keeping us fit to approach God or legal punishments for the lack thereof, including kashrut laws, tefillin, kippahs and tallits/tzitzit, rote prayers, handwashing, circumcision, blood sacrifice, stoning people to death, pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, etc.³ Rather than being an absolute replacement item, The New Covenant is like an adapter that fits over the First Covenant, changing some of its practices, but not its promises or meaning (except perhaps to enhance them). It is only because of the death and resurrection of Jesus that we can claim this; otherwise, we would still be obligated to practice every mitzvah verbatim. Instead, we point to Messiah and show that He is our means of access: not one yodh or stroke of the Law has passed away—the priestly mitzvot are continuously being fulfilled in Him—and by default are "…set aside in His flesh with its commands and regulations" as Paul says in the Ephesians passage above.

Rather, we are now uninhibited in our pursuit to understand the true meaning of the Torah: "Hear, O Israel, YHVH is our God, and YHVH alone. So love YHVH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength." And our Messiah explains that the second greatest commandment is like the first: "...love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." As Micah 6:8 declares, "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the LORD requires of you: but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." It is these moral values of the Torah that are part and parcel of our relationship to God and others; everything else is subtext. The other commands—including the priestly mitzvot now fulfilled in Yeshua's sacrifice and priesthood—may serve to further illustrate the moral values and outworking of the two greatest commandments, but at best, they are an overflow of our practice to love God and love people. This is why so many have capitalized on the Ten Commandments: they are a perfect summary of the Torah's values that God is working into us.

Dr. Brown continuously asked in his radio program for a specific New Testament text—given the evidence we have explored, while the following relates to the Torah as a whole rather than specfically to the Sabbath, I would submit that the following is that passage:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death [priestly mitzvot and punishments thereof]. 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.
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

An obligation, you say?  To live by the Spirit of God.  And what does this provide for us in the New Covenant?  Here we must turn back to Jeremiah 31:31-34, the foundational passage which Jesus refrerred to in the Passover when He declared the New Covenant in His blood:

“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 broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it 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,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” —Jeremiah 31:31-34

The companion passage to this in Ezekiel 36:22-38 says, "I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws". This is the greater Torah, folks. Bouncing back to the New Covenant, what does Paul say the fruit of the Spirit—the result of the Spirit's work in our life—encompasses? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. These are the values of the Torah to which we have an obligation as we press ourselves into the indwelling Spirit of God.

3. So what about the Sabbath specifically?  The next question would be, is this part of the priestly mitzvot that have been fulfilled by the death, resurrection, and priesthood of Christ, or is the Sabbath still a mitzvot that is binding on us?  Dr. Brown conceded that the Sabbath is a gift instead of a duty, and he agreed with his callers that it was instituted before the Law of Moses (though the behaviors and punishments for disobeying these were first listed in the Law), and that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  Now, given these elements, we can come to an understanding of God's heart on this subject.  We understand that the general principles of the Sabbath are to provide rest for the physical human body, to practice corporate worship of God, and receive fellowship with the Body of Messiah in the gathering of the assembly.  These principles easily fall under the mitzvot to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself—to which we are obligated.  What has changed in the New Covenant are the commands and punishments relating to death and duty, and particularly to the rabbinic interpretations of such things.  Our LORD modeled this behavior for us when He was physically here on the earth.  So we should keep Shabbat in the way that it is intended:  if we are dinking around worrying about flipping a light switch, counting our steps to ensure we do not go beyond the prescribed distance, fearing to drive a car because it might be 'kindling a fire', thinking that somehow God will be displeased with us and strike us dead or other such things, we have missed the point of Shabbat entirely and I would even say we have violated the mitzvot to rest!  Love the LORD, enjoy His Shabbat, and fellowship with your brothers and sisters.

God instituted Shabbat on the seventh day of creation and has not moved it or annulled it in any way since that time.  He is very clear throughout the First Covenant Scriptures that Shabbat is important to Him—not as a priestly mitzvot of the Law but in principle (see especially Isaiah 58).  Despite Paul's comments in Colossians 2:16-23 (which most Christians use as a simple excuse to change the subject), there is no record of any New Covenant believer anywhere who did not celebrate Shabbat—including Paul himself.  I would contend that Paul's remarks are not about whether to celebrate the Sabbath, but with regard to how we celebrate the Feasts.  Look at the passage:  everyone stops at the first verse and moves on; but Paul condemns the priestly mitzvot as having no value—nowhwere does he say that we should not rest, gather together, or worship God on this day!  

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

My question would be this: being that we worship YHVH, the Jewish God, the God of creation who is the LORD of Shabbat and who instituted it Himself, why would we be at all interested in doing something different than what He asks of us? Dr. Brown's summary of the conversation is that we should take a Romans 14 attitude with regard to celebration of Shabbat; I would agree that this is true regarding how it is we do so—but I would admonish all believers in Christ to consider God's intent surrounding Shabbat and strive after that. My issue is that when we simply declare that we are "no longer under the Law"—misinterpreting Paul's intent when he said these things, we foster an attitude among Gentiles that anything Jewish has been done away with, and that we are no longer accountable for the way we behave. Don't believe me? Look around at what the Church is saying and what it has become. This is why Peter addresses Paul's writings in his epistle as he speaks of righteousness and abstaining from following our own sinful desires:

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. —2 Peter 3:14-18

If we have been saved from death and have reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if we worship God in all His glory, we are obligated to do what He says. Fortunately for us, His yoke is easy and His burden is light; He came that we might have abundant life, not so that we would be counting mitzvot, continuously living as slaves of fear and death, nor that would indulge the self-worship nature and fall from the grace that we have obtained from Him. Shabbat Shalom!

1  The Noachide Laws were a set of behaviors that were taken from Genesis 9, specifically verses 4-6; the Pharisees interpreted this as being a covenant that was given to the Gentile world as opposed to the covenant of Moses.
2  Supersessionism is the belief that the New Covenant (Christianity) nullifies or supersedes the First Covenant (Judaism).
3  (Yes, I am familiar with Scriptures like Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 38. The question with these has to do with the physical presence of Jesus as the king among us, His ruling over the nations "with an iron scepter" [Psalm 2 and Revelation 2] and the nature of the sacrifices involved.)

I Beg to Differ (Sort of—as Politely as I Can)...

While those of us who celebrate Hanukkah were enjoying the holiday last week, the Vatican came out with a very interesting document that was shocking to some, delightful to a few, abhorrent to many, still insignificant to others: they said that "that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews (Section 6, point #40)." The driving reason for this is because the Jews worship the same God as Christians, and because "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (quoting Romans 11:29); and so the very loose implication is that they are (or eventually will be) included in the New Covenant, and so don't need to be targeted for conversion.  Not helping the banter that would shortly ensue was a somewhat misleading headline which read, "Vatican Says Jews Don't Need Christ to be Saved."  (Following this title is a quote that I did not find anywhere in the original document.)

Instead of launching into a tirade, ripping this apart for what should be some very obvious flaws, I need to stress what a noble thought this was.  This document represents an about face to the Catholic Church's position on Judaism; it states that it is a commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Nostra Aetate, but even though that document was groundbreaking in its reconciliatory attitude toward Jews, this current document is nothing short of miraculous.  Who would have ever thought that the same Church which declared the Jews as 'Christ-killers' and criminals guilty of deicide would suddenly consider them to be partners in the covenant as the people of God to bring light to the world?  The sentiment is incredible—and not coincidental.

Earlier this month, Orthodox Rabbis released a similar statement announcing that "...Christianity is neither an accident nor an error, but the willed divine outcome and gift to the nations."  (You can pick up your jaw from the floor now.)  For the past twenty-some-odd years, I have prayed that the LORD would bring reconciliation between all the different denominations of Christianity and Judaism.  The reformation is now happening.  It may not look like much yet, but God is bringing His people back together.  

Now, to be sure, there is a divide happening as well—but it's not necessarily defined along sectarian lines; the fissure is occurring between those who worship YHVH and those who ultimately worship themselves—between false believers and true ones.  The true Body of Messiah is made up of people from every tribe and tongue; all denominations, both Jew and Gentile, will be represented in the New Jerusalem in the presence of God.  As this reformation unfolds, however, we have to make sure and guide our responses to align with God's Biblical plan.  The enemy is continuously seeking to derail what God is doing; of course, he can never ultimately thwart God's plans in the scheme of history, but for individuals, he can delay or even destroy the work of God in their lives, and we must be careful not to aid him by the things we say and do.

...Which brings me to my response.  If you've spent time reading anything that I have written, you know that I have a lot of things to say concerning the Romanized Constantinian Church, and particularly with regard to Roman Catholicism.  There is a lot of distance that has been traveled between the early first-century faith and what the Catholic Church has become today; most of which was trod from a position of hatred against the Jews—a direct and deliberate rejection of the Jewish Biblical context and subsequent incorporation of pagan holidays, rituals, concepts, language, and doctrines.  The varying Orthodox and Protestant divisions of the Church, while perhaps less overtly pagan, have certainly not returned toward a position resembling Biblical practice, and some groups have continued an anti-Jewish or even anti-Semitic stance. But this is not necessarily what I am dissecting here; no, in fact, other than the Vatican's conclusions, I was actually rather impressed with the language of the Catholic document; if you read my book and many of the articles on this website, you'll find that my position is similar in many respects.  Furthermore, my criticisms of all branches of the Church—and of post-Second Temple Judaism for that matter—do not equate to a hatred for any of these groups; rather, I love them all and want to see us all cross the finish line in celebration of our relationship with God.

To that end, I have to point out some things:

• If, indeed, "One cannot understand Jesus’ teaching or that of his disciples without situating it within the Jewish horizon in the context of the living tradition of Israel; one would understand his teachings even less so if they were seen in opposition to this tradition," and "…there can only be one history of God’s covenant with mankind, and that consequently Israel is God’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked…", then we must understand and insist that not only has the Church not replaced Israel, we have been grafted into it. We are not the new people of God; instead, we have been adopted into God's original family.
• Given this, our charge is to carry on the values of our family. If we cannot understand Jesus' teaching outside of the Jewish context as the Vatican's document proclaims, why would we wish to insert our own? The document—and history—admits that the church departed from the context of Judaism and conformed to Gentile pagan values; if we worship the Jewish Jesus, the revelation of the Jewish God, defined by and lived out through the Jewish people, would it not behoove us to study and retain His Jewish values? Should we not destroy the Asherah poles and put away the Ba'als of our self-worship, instead of continuing to remain where it is comfortable and familiar? I believe I have been tasked to this effect as a voice in the wilderness, calling the Church to return, preparing the way of the LORD. Not just Catholics, but all segments of the Church.
• Because we are one family, Paul declared his anguish over his ethnic brothers: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh." This was not because they are eternally separated, but because the New Covenant belongs first to the Jew and also to the Gentile—indeed, by the end, Paul's prophecy is that all his brothers will accept Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. But how will they hear unless we proclaim Him?
• In spite of the language acknowledging these things, and the goodwill that both provide, both the Catholic document and the Rabbinical statement imply that to be Jewish is to be different than Christian. This is not so! Perhaps in our current expression this is the case, but the evidence shows that we have all departed to a degree from God's direction for His people. Understanding that there are two thousand years of history, tradition, and prejudice to overcome, and that change will or cannot be instant, and knowing that variations in belief will always exist, nevertheless, should we not work toward reuniting the family rather than figuring out how we can simply exist and tolerate one another as separate partners?
• The central piece of the discussion—so carefully and ironically avoided, the pink elephant in the room whom no one wants to see, is Jesus. (Well, He's not really a pink elephant… you know what I mean.) If, however, as the Jewish tractate proclaims, that Christianity is indeed the willed divine outcome of God, what if the Christians are right concerning the Messiahship of Jesus? It is proven against all efforts to the contrary that the acceptance of Jesus as the promised Messiah is a very Jewish thing to do (those of us who do accept Him, of course, would say this is the most Jewish thing one can do). Consider Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 9:6-7: "For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on David’s throne, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from that time on, even forever. The zeal of YHVH of Armies will perform this." Also, (Yirmeyahu) Jeremiah 23:5-6: "Behold, the days come, says YHVH, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: YHVH our righteousness." So regardless of any debate over the Christian doctrines of the virgin birth, Trinity or Christology, the Tanakh is clear that Messiah is both a human king of the line of David and YHVH Himself. Despite the well-meaning attempts to respect each other's positions, it is not anti-Jewish by default to believe in a divine Messiah.
• There is no loss of Jewish identity or practice that comes with acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah—the New Covenant is Jewish in nature! (Jeremiah 31:31-34). There is not one Jewish practice that one must quit in order accept Messiah. To echo the quote of Rabbi Jacob Emden in the Rabbinical document, Jesus brought home a corrected and fuller understanding of the Torah that His contemporaries were lacking, which is this—drawing from the Shema itself: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Everything Jesus did was an illustration of how to apply the Torah to the situations of everyday life—objectified in values like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Could it be that Jesus was right in His understanding of the Law, that the most important aspect of our relationship with God is to worship Him by loving others in contrast to engaging in competition over the fulfillment of mitzvot?

Rabbi Sha'ul (the Apostle Paul) praised what God had done in breaking down the wall of separation between Gentile and Jew; and he looked forward to the day when we would truly be one in Messiah.  He did not advocate for a separation in any way, as the Roman Catholic document implies.  When Paul spoke, there was no such thing as 'Christianity'; he believed that worshipping Jesus was as naturally Jewish as Passover.  I'd like us to return there.

There were a million different reactions from people to these attestations, both positive and negative—ranging from accusations of a New Age globalist plot to precursor of the Messianic Reign.  While I beg to differ with some of the theology and conclusions these documents reach, I choose to believe this is an opportunity—to right some wrongs, to heal some wounds, and to obtain a better perspective.

I would call on my Christian brothers and sisters from all branches of the Church to examine their rituals, traditions, beliefs, and language. Study the history of the Church. Stack these things up against the Bible and see how much of it reflects God's intentions.  I almost guarantee that God will be asking us to make some changes.  I also would ask that, contrary to the inference in the Catholic document separating Judaism from the physical land of Israel, that we consider the covenants and understand the integral nature of Israel and her earthly inheritance.  The two cannot be separated.  

One of my dreams would be to see an ecumenical letter of repentance, asking the Jewish people for forgiveness for all of the atrocities that have been committed against them in the name of Christ.  There have been many acts of extraordinary kindness and love by Christians toward Jews as well; and our friend Mike Evans has done a wonderful job showcasing these at the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem; however, repentance is also needed.

To the Jewish community, I would plead that you accept Christianity as more than a partner in tikkun olam.  I boldly, but humbly ask that you recognize Messianic Jews as belonging to the Jewish community, given that there are those even here in America who do not even worship God and yet are accepted as Jews. I also ask that you treat those Christians who love you, who believe that you truly are God's chosen people, who fight for your national existence, and declare the worship of your God as the ger, the permanent resident aliens who have attached themselves to your nation.  We are as Ruth, who proclaimed, "Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people will be my people, and your God my God." Thirdly, I would invite you to read the B'rit Chadashah (the New Covenant Scriptures).  Compare them with the truth of the Tanakh.  Make your conclusions on the basis of respectful dialogue, research, and conviction by the Holy Spirit of our heavenly Father, who teaches us all things.

Lastly, to my Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jewish friends, I would say:  the LORD Himself has caused the warming of relations between the members of His family.  He has drawn us to Himself and has caused us to explore some areas that we have not seen for 1900 years in some cases.  Change does not usually come overnight.  Let us remember to fix our focus on the central commands of the Torah—to love our God and to love our neighbor as ourselves.  As our Messiah taught us, let us beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (and I would add the Ebionites) who would revel in their self-righteousness and pompous attitudes.  If we err, may we err on the side of courtesy, forgiveness, and love.  It is not our job to break the bruised reed or snuff the smoldering wick, but to welcome our family home.  I would encourage the study of Hebrews 7 to counterbalance the misinterpretation of Paul's writings rather than attempting to make him recant things he clearly said, no matter how difficult they seem.  Instead, we must interpret them in light of his context and the narrative that he was trying to convey.

It is no coincidence that the entire world is revealing their hatred of the Judeo-Christian family; above all, this should give us a clue that there is something special between us—a commonality that we share.  We have an opportunity to fulfill our mandate in response to our God as the Chosen People, the holy priesthood, a royal nation, and light to the rest of the world.  I'm ready—let's do it!

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

As I observe the endless chatter surrounding nearly every subject these days, I am continuously amazed at how polarized we have become; it has been proven true to me on many occasions that we humans are beings of extremes.  When we observe an excess or an error in one area, we tend to swing, like a pendulum, past the balance of truth in the middle clear to the other side of the issue—and when we reach the apex of that conclusion, having decided we can't stand it anymore, we swing right back to where we started.  It's as if we suddenly lose the ability to think past the narrative.  Furthermore, in our hunger to draw battle lines in our tug-of-war of ideas, it seems that the more 'tolerance' we appeal to in our society, the more vitriolic our speech becomes.  There are subjects that are definitely worthy of scorn and ire; but even in our anger, we shouldn't destroy the house to kill a fly.  I found these things to be true even when reading this very long article by Walid Shoebat about the virtues of the Catholic Church and the Septuagint, compared to what he perceives are the errors of the Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jewish movements, Martin Luther and essentially the entire Protestant Reformation.

Mr. Shoebat's opening claim in the article is, "TO BE MESSIANIC IS TO BE CATHOLIC." (The all-caps are his, not mine.)  By this I believe He is stating the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the most authentic and/or original form of Christianity in existence; he does subsequently say that "none in the Hebrew Roots Movement or even the Messianic Evangelicals can connect to the true Hebrew Roots."  This is an incredibly broad-sweeping assessment; while the Catholic Church itself certainly claims it is original and that the Orthodox Churches split from them, Mr. Shoebat is apparently forgetting that the Catholic Church did not officially exist as it is until 1054 A.D. at the Great Schism in which the Roman Pope and the Eastern Orthodox churches excommunicated each other. In the centuries before this, the Church was warring amongst itself in factions over varying issues which shaped orthodoxy, eventually spinning off the Oriental Orthodox churches in the sixth century.  Of no small note is the fact that the Church seems to have been relatively unified until Constantine 'the Great', whom Mr. Shoebat defends in his article, became the first Imperial patron of the faith.  Whether one loves him or hates him, nobody can deny that Constantine is the source of major revolution in the Church.

To be sure, Mr. Shoebat addresses some very valid points:

It is true that many within the Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Roots movements have clung to post-Second Temple Rabbinic Judaism as the standard against which we should measure the Jewishness of our Christian faith.  This is indeed ironic given that the rabbis themselves acknowledge that this form of Judaism is in fact descended directly from the teachings of the Pharisees, the very group that set themselves in opposition to Jesus' teaching—and that the New Covenant text is clear that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the leaders of the early church were not great fans of Pharisaic teaching, either.  This is not, however, because the Pharisees were Jews, nor even because of their theology per se—Jesus and all the aforementioned were themselves Jewish, and many from the party of the Pharisees became followers of Jesus both before and after Jesus' death and resurrection.  Rather, it was the legalism and the self-righteousness of the Pharisees which Jesus and the early church opposed.  It is these values that we should continue to oppose, no matter in which belief system we find them—even our own 'traditional' forms of Christianity.

Contrary to Mr. Shoebat’s position, while modern Rabbinic Judaism no longer completely resembles Biblical Judaism, Christianity does even less so.  It has, in fact, by its own admission, adopted many pagan beliefs, rituals, forms, and concepts of language.  Nowhere in the Scriptures does one find the papacy, the priesthood or even a clergy/laity distinction, doctrines concerning the veneration of Mary beyond simply being 'honored among women', having perpetual virginity, or being assumed into heaven, Purgatory, transubstantiation, the Catholic concept of sainthood, Sunday worship, or the holidays the Church celebrates.  Even the Protestants kept some of these unbiblical practices, not even realizing that they are of pagan origin.

This was done primarily because the Church turned its hatred of legalism and self-righteousness into a hatred of the Jews.  Period.  One only has to read Constantine’s Letter to the Churches surrounding the Council of Nicaea, John Chrysostom’s Adversus Iudaeos, the Council of Laodicea, or Martin Luther’s On Jews and their Lies to get a taste of the venom which has been spewed against the ethnic brothers of our own Lord, the Jewish Messiah.  So, to say that Catholicism is Messianic is utterly ridiculous at best, and an affront to every Jewish person.

What amazes me in my own studies on this issue is how quickly and how far the Church became removed from the understanding that it is no less than God's perfect will that He revealed Himself as a Jew, covenanted Himself to the Jewish people and established His name in the capital of Jewish civilization.  Seemingly overnight somewhere in the third century, the church was transformed from having a Jewish legacy to espousing anti-Semitism.  While post-Second Temple Judaism has moved away from the Biblical center which should be our focus, Romanized Christianity has done far more so in every way except the Gospel story itself; we have a much further distance to walk than does any Jew.  The goal of my own website and book series is to educate the church to traverse this distance in a hopeful return to a Judeo-Christian expression of the faith; and Judaism, even post-Second Temple Rabbinic Judaism, has much to teach us in getting there.

Another related point over which I will not labor is Mr. Shoebat’s defense of the Catholic view of Biblical symbolism.  He argues that the Catholic faith is deeper and richer than Protestantism because it reads into literal events a supernatural or symbolic meaning.  Sometimes we can extract a deeper meaning from the text; in other instances, however, two swords are just two swords (Mr. Shoebat used the story where Peter presented two swords to Jesus on the final night before Jesus’ crucifixion as an example).  What is absolutely certain, however, is that a reading of the text from a Biblically Jewish context is the best way to derive its meaning; the Romanized Church threw away its best tool for understanding the intricacies of Scripture when it rejected the Jewish foundation of Christianity and substituted a pagan context instead—any symbolism in the Bible must be derived from understanding the Jewish idea and applying it to our circumstances—not making semi-educated guesses based on pagan oracles or Greek philosophy.  The Bible was written by the Jewish God for the Jewish people using Jewish hands concerning a Jewish Messiah.  To apply a different context is misguided at best, and heretical at worst.

The greatest point of merit in Mr. Shoebat’s article is his treatise on the Septuagint, a Greek translation from the original Hebrew that was done in-between 300 and 250 years before Jesus’ birth.  It was reportedly created for the Library of Alexandria when Israel was a part of the Ptolemaic Empire after the death of Alexander the Great; most likely it was done because the vernacular of the day was Greek—and more and more Jews were speaking and writing in Greek during this time period.  It stands opposed to the Masoretic Text, a Hebrew version of the Tanakh compiled by post-Second Temple Jewish rabbis around the end of the 1st century A.D. mostly in reaction to the Christian use of the Septuagint and their success in arguing from it.  The Septuagint is obviously older than the Masoretic Text, although it is around 400 years older, and not 1000 years older as Mr. Shoebat claimed in his article.  It is indeed the version (or an excellent translation of the version) of the Scriptures from which Jesus and the Apostles quoted authoritatively.

When the Masoretes (obviously the group of rabbis who created the Masoretic Text) compiled their edition, they knowingly altered some minor points of the text to further the Pharasaic narrative; moreover, they also excluded several books or portions of books from the canon that were previously regarded as sacred Scripture, such as the books of Enoch and Wisdom, both of which were quoted by New Covenant writers.  This is why, unlike many of my Hebrew Roots, Messianic, and Protestant friends, I do accept the Roman Catholic canon list as primary, and I additionally accept certain books from the Eastern and Ethiopian Orthodox canons as deuterocanonical.  However, Mr. Shoebat has omitted from his article three important truths:

•    Mr. Shoebat does explain that Jerome attempted to use the Masoretic Text as his basis for the Latin Vulgate (which he completed in 405 A.D.), but he leaves out the damning evidence that he ignored the advice of his contemporary and friend St. Augustine and actually used the Masoretic Text, only referring back to the Septuagint where segments of Scripture were unclear with regard to the translation; so the Roman Catholic Bible still in use today is largely derived from the same manuscript as many of the Protestant versions which Mr. Shoebat disdains--only the Orthodox Bible remains based on the Septuagint (along with a few others like the World English Bible).

•    Aside from those points the Masoretes deliberately changed—which are indeed significant in their implications, the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text differ very little anyway, with the exception of the natural differences between Hebrew and Greek; a comparison side-by-side of the majority of content in these manuscripts reveals a negligible change in meaning, and nothing of grave theological importance.  So if one leans on the Septuagint as primary, understanding that the Masoretic Text was composed in reaction to the Christian message and was adapted to preserve the Pharasaic Jewish cultural narrative, one loses nothing, and instead gains a Hebrew cultural understanding of the text that may have been lost when the Septuagint was translated—which was the reason Jerome used the Masoretic Text in the first place.

•    When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, they pointed to an even earlier proto-Hebrew source from which both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text sprang, validating points of each rather than discrediting one or the other.  My opinion is that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be used as the textual basis of comparison, followed by a reliance on the Septuagint, and finally looking at the Masoretic Text for any Hebrew meaning that may further illuminate the text.

While it is true that there are modern-day Ebionites among us (Ebionites were an early group who believed Jesus was the Messiah, but believed Torah was the way to salvation; they denied the Trinity and Paul's writings)—and we most definitely should counter any heretical message among us by educating people with Biblical truth, I was shocked by the overall tone of Mr. Shoebat’s scathing article.  Not all persons aspiring to connect to their Hebrew Roots are ‘sacred namers’ or legalists looking to reduce the Christian life to the dutiful observance of petty rabbinic mitzvot; and I am not sure where Mr. Shoebat obtained the statistic that 80% of all Messianic congregations deny the Trinity—I know such congregations are out there, but I don’t personally know any Messianic Jews that believe anything other than that Jesus is God the Word made flesh.  Even Mr. Shoebat’s stance toward Martin Luther and Calvinism is dripping with gall; and he insults the majority of my ancestry by saying that Europeans have essentially corrupted Hebrew by virtue of 'having difficulty' pronouncing the Hebrew letter ayin as a guttural stop.  I don't know—I'm pretty good at picking up language patterns.  Perhaps Mr. Shoebat should demonstrate so that we handicapped Europeans can give it a try...

I understand that things make us angry from time to time, and that occasionally we just lose it—I am just as guilty as Walid.  Generally speaking though, the Bible proclaims that our speech needs to be "full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." (Colossians 4:6) This is not just having the right answer; it is understanding how to approach people with our words.  Proverbs 15:1 declares, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."  I would appeal to all my Jewish and Christian friends, no matter what 'camp' they fall into, to consider the Scriptures and history for themselves, and to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal truth rather than lining up behind a battle line.  I actually agree with many points that Mr. Shoebat was attempting to make in this article; but there's no way he will convince a Hebrew Roots person with this kind of attitude.  Particularly when it comes to those who are part of the Body of Messiah, we should appeal first, rather than to blast and ask questions later.  We each have positions, and the truth is out there; I realize we're just trying to proclaim what we believe God has revealed to us.  But let's all do a little bit better to try and get along, yeah?

Christianity—Falsifiable?

Yet another response to an article I read...

Christianity, the World's Most Falsifiable Religion by C. Michael Patton on his blog, Credo House

"...But the more I research, the more I find it to be the case that Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible." --C. Michael Patton

Every once in a while I come across an article that I should be happy to support, but in reading it I find that there are problems which cause me to declare a caveat to others who might read it.  This article claims that Christianity is the ONLY religion in the world that is falsifiable—that is, that it has events that can be tested empirically.

First, I would say that the author is stretching the use of the term falsifiability in this case, because not all the affirmations of Christianity are falsifiable.  Some of them most certainly are:  Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, He grew up in Nazareth of Galilee, He lived an extraordinary life, and He was crucified by Pontius Pilate on April 7, 30 A.D.  After His death, His followers asserted that He was resurrected from the dead, and gave their lives believing so.  These are facts.  They are falsifiable.  But the evidences of His resurrection, the miracles He performed that were written about in the Gospels, and His ascension into heaven cannot be proven empirically and so they do not fit this category.  The witnesses for these are compelling and reasonable, and the testimony of His followers is so great, so fully disclosed, and so thorough that they would convince a jury—and I believe them all.  But they are not falsifiable until Jesus returns bodily as He promised to do.  I fully believe He will—but these points are not falsifiable until then.

I think the reason why Christianity is not 100% falsifiable as of yet is because it requires us to depend on God—to seek Him out—to cry out in the middle of our storm and await the answer. The reality of our experience comes when He actually meets us there.  While Christianity is empirically sound enough to provide a launching pad for our faith, it is in the miracle and the rub of our relationship with God that makes us different; otherwise, we have no advantage over Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Islam—save perhaps the ethical values our faith proclaims.

Secondly, the author is only talking about the core declarations of the Gospel story in his article upon which  Evangelical Protestants hang their hats; there is a larger secondary body of claims belonging to the Christian religious system that, while historical, is not defensible, let alone falsifiable.  Many of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions surrounding the Virgin Mary, sainthood, the priesthood and papacy, the Eucharist, the Mass, and church holidays—including the date assigned to the birth of Jesus—are either total fabrications or are taken directly from various pagan religions and amalgamated into the faith.

These two issues are not what gives me the greatest pause, however. The author makes a completely silent omission which serves as an example to prove one of the most significant points of my teaching over the past three years.  Judaism is ALSO historical, defensible, and archaeologically so.  It serves as the foundation and context for Christianity; if it were not true, neither would Christianity be.  Apart from polytheistic pagan fertility religions, Judaism is the most ancient, historically rooted, falsifiable religious system in the world still in existence today.

Whether the slight was intentional or not is not the issue:  if it was deliberate, it is because the Christian Church purposely divorced itself from its Jewish roots in the 4th century A.D. and has not looked back. The prevailing attitude toward Judaism since that time is that the Church has replaced the Jewish people as the 'new' Israel—and unfortunately, many Christians are still happy to adopt this position, despite the Biblical admonitions against it (Genesis 12:3 and Romans 11 among many others)—not to mention that Jesus and His disciples never suggested any intention of leaving Judaism to start another religion:  Jesus came to inaugurate the New Covenant within Judaism.

Even if the oversight was completely benign (as I hope it is, and I will give the author the benefit of the doubt), this article is indicative of the masterful job that the 4th-century imperial establishment did in erasing the Jewish foundation from the Christian consciousness.  Christians are taught, for all practical application, that Christianity has swallowed up Judaism: in the mind of the average Jay Q. Christian, Father Abraham had many sons, and they all were good little white boys who went to church on Sunday and sang, "Jesus loves me, this I know..."  I will go out on a limb and say the author omitted Judaism from his comments because most Christians believe the Jewish 'Old Testament heroes' were actually Christian, rather than seeing Christianity as a continuation of the relationship between God and the Jewish people while widening His family to include the rest of the world.  

The disconnect is so great that even non-believers are confused:  this rather ignorant and ridiculous Internet meme is an illustration...

Over the past 100 years, we have dumbed down the Gospel and made it so 'relevant' to our very non-Jewish culture that it no longer makes sense—to us, or to the outside world.  Among such values within the church as the clergy/laity boundary and the Protestants' singular focus on 'saying a sinner's prayer', the Church has failed to translate the actual Biblical story.  Most people in the Western world are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of Christianity, let alone the connection between Judaism and Christianity; but even within the Church, if they are taught about the Judaism of Biblical characters at all, little Christian boys and girls are taught the Jewish identity of Jesus and His followers simply as a footnote—that Jesus fulfilled all 'that Jewish stuff' Christians don't pay attention to in the 'Old Testament' with His life, death and resurrection—and then we all moved on.  Why don't we ever show the origin in its true Jewish context?  Even though it's a simple thing, in response to the doltish meme, here is how we got to names like Jesus, James, John, Peter, and Andrew from the originals:

Transliterated Hebrew/Aramaic names and how they got to their English counterparts
Yeshua	transliterated to Greek	Iesous	→		transliterated to English	Jesus
Yeshua	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Joshua
Shimon	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Simon
Kefa	transliterated to Greek	Petra	→		transliterated to English	Peter
Adam	translated to Greek	Andreas	→		transliterated to English	Andrew
Yochanan	transliterated to Greek	Ioannes	→		transliterated to English	John
Ya'akov	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Jacob
Ya'akov	transliterated to Greek	Iakobos	translated to Gaelic	Seamus	transliterated to English	James
Mattityahu	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Matthew, Matthias (variant)
Natani'el	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Nathaniel, Nathan
Bar-Tal'mai	transliterated to Greek	Bartholomaeus	→		transliterated to English	Bartholomew
Yehuda	translated to Greek	Thaddaeus	→		imported directly into English	Thaddaeus
Yehuda	transliterated to Greek	Ioudas	→		translated to English	Jude
Sha'ul	transliterated to Greek	Saoul/Paulos	→		transliterated to English	Saul/Paul
Bar-Nabas	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Barnabas
Tau'ma	→		→		directly transliterated to English	Thomas
possibly Pinchas*	substituted in Greek	Philippos	→		transliterated to English	Philip

*The name Philip is the only one of the original apostles chosen by Jesus to bear a name of Greek origin in the Scriptures (some of the companions of Paul bore Greek names, however). This could be either because Philip's Hebrew name is untranslatable in Greek, and so people chose a phonetic equivalent (in which case his true name was most likely Pinchas), or translated from Hebrew (this would mean his name was Parash--but this would be uncommon), or that he was a Hellenistic Jew or even a Greek convert to Judaism--though this is not brought out in the New Covenant text.

Sometimes, even a small change in perspective can open up a new world.  The vast majority of Jews who have come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah report that before their acceptance of Him, they didn't even realize Jesus and His followers were Jewish; when they came to see the Jewishness of the 'New Testament' and its relation to the Jewish story chronicled in the Tanakh (the 'Old Testament'), everything clicked—they finally understood God's plan of redemption through Him.  But, as I have said before in many other writings, how can we expect Jews to accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah when we portray Him as having died to replace Judaism, then celebrate His resurrection by a festival named for a foreign fertility goddess (Easter)—on which we consume the most unclean animal we can find (from a Jewish perspective)?  Take the present traditions of Christianity and match them to the Biblical example.  Do we find a falsifiable, unbroken history?  I think not.

Lest you believe I am saying that Judaism is pure as the driven snow with regard to maintaining an unbroken history, even the Jewish Encyclopedia agrees that the Rabbinical Orthodox Judaism of today is directly taken from the teachings of the Pharisees, who became the dominant influence in Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.  Several deviations from Biblical Judaism have resulted from this shift; but Christianity has farther to go in returning to the Biblical center than does Judaism.

So, it can truly be said that Judaism is actually the MOST falsifiable religion in the world, followed by the core Gospel story of Christianity as an extension.  This true portion of Christianity is Jewish in origin, but Judaism is NOT what Christianity has become.  This article is a symptom highlighting the need to bring the story back to its original Biblical Jewish context—only then is it truly defensible to a questioning world.