FAKE NEWS: That Christianity's NOT Jewish

Nowadays it seems that “Fake News” is the only thing that’s in the news.  News outlets, politicians and pundits seem only intent on reporting those stories that agree with their predetermined biases whether they be factual or not.  In fact, more often than not, we’re seeing evidence of people making things up to counter contrary evidence.

People don’t really know what to believe anymore.  Most folks, rather than pursuing truth have chosen to simply disregard the facts. 

But as Koheleth (The Preacher of Ecclesiastes) says, “There’s nothing new under the sun”.   “Fake News” has always been around.

We humans have a terrible inclination to deceive ourselves.  On a fundamental level, we are all confused about how we got here.  Some say we “evolved” out of some primordial goo and there is no God to account for our existence.  If these folks are right (which is not my opinion) I really do find it hard to believe that they’re able to find significant meaning in life.  Even their so called good deeds or achievements seem to have only temporal value.

Others have said that there are many gods.  Others have said that there are many many gods.  Some have said, and history has confirmed, that these gods actually demand human sacrifice.  Unimaginable horrors have resulted from human misunderstanding of our origins.

Some have taken these many gods and gotten rid of all except one and declared that this is the one and only true god.  Some of these folks have killed a lot of people who’ve not agreed with them.

All these speculations concerning our origin are just that… speculation… Fake News.

There is in the human heart an innate knowledge of good and bad. We have an awareness that there are virtues and vices.  We can distinguish between, for instance, humility and arrogance, patience and impatience, compassion vs. dismissiveness, hopefulness vs. despair.  We can distinguish between loyalty and back-stabbing, kindness and cruelty.  I would hold that the virtues are conducive to life and the vices are more conducive to death.

These virtues are behaviors and attitudes that all of we human beings ought to be able to display all the time, but none of us do.  Some of us are better at it than others but none of us is perfect at it by any means.  Culture, religion (or lack thereof) pervert and distort our understanding of the importance of these virtues.  For instance, there actually are people groups who say that it is more virtuous to be deceptive than to be straight-forward and honest.¹   Many in the “west” have come to be brainwashed into thinking that what one regards as “success” is more important than the personal exercise of virtue.

Sadly, our variant perspectives on how we got here impact how we deal with this inadequacy on our part which, for the sake of argument, I’ll call as “guilt”.   Some of us live with remorse.  Some engage in self-sacrifice.  Some of us go to war on behalf of our fake cause.  Some of us think we can mollify our guilt by engaging in, what we think are charitable or righteous endeavors.  And many fake religions have promoted ways of mollifying our guilt whether it be through good deeds or “throwing money into the coffer” or recitations of mantras of some sort.  And the real news is that none of those endeavors work.  They’re like putting a band-aid on a cancerous skin lesion.

One day, the one and only true creator God of the universe manifested Himself to one man by the name of Abraham.  This God was about to destroy two cities named Sodom and Gomorrah because the people of those cities were universally and irredeemably displaying no virtues and only vices.  As Abraham was looking down into that valley with those cities infected by corruption, God said of Abraham

“…I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” 

Genesis 18:19

The Bible gives a record the early history of the Children of Abraham, which today, we call “the Jewish people”.  And the Bible’s stark honesty displays our collective inability to “do the righteousness and justice” that Abraham had commanded of us.  Despite our failure however, two things emerged with unchanging and irrevocable certainty … the absolute standard of virtues as opposed to vices and the Messiah who came into the world through those people whom we call the Jews.  What is objectively good or virtuous is as prevalent as the air we breathe.  It cannot change!  To compliment that, the Messiah is the only person among the billions upon billions of people who’ve lived on this planet throughout its history, who had determined that always, in every instance, in time, choosing and practicing virtue over vice was more important than even survival itself.  He was the way that God would be if He would ever choose to manifest Himself as a man.

His death alone was capable of compensating for our inadequacies.  His death alone would pay for our guilt.  By comparison, all the money we would “throw into the coffers” or any of the sacrifices we would make on behalf of our pseudo perception of God are thoroughly inadequate because we are inadequate.

The news of this man and the wonderful forgiveness available to anyone who would simply trust in Jesus’ death as the appeasement of God’s wrath towards us, was spread by Jews with names like Shimeon, Yaakov, Yehudah, Shaul, Yochenon and others.  The “Church” however, has hidden the Jewishness of this story.  It changed the names of these men to Simon-Peter, James, Jude, Paul, and John respectively.  It drew pictures of Jesus with a halo around His head or with wavy blond hair or it made him look weak and effeminate.  The church certainly made Jesus to not look Jewish!  In fact, it changed His Name to Jesus which really has no meaning.  Jesus is a transliteration of His real Name which is the Hebrew name Y’shua which means “the salvation of God”.  The Church called the afore mentioned disseminators of the Gospel “Christians” whom, by virtue of that epithet along with the “gentilization” of their names, were now no longer perceived as Jews.  The Church made up its own holidays and traditions which further disguised the origin of their faith.  Much of the Church even went so far as to say that the Old Testament is irrelevant which is quite ridiculous by virtue of the fact that literally 33% of the text of the New Testament consists of Older Testament quotes.² 

The Church removed the cultural trappings of the context in which Jesus lived and replaced them with its own culture and even forbad Jews who wanted to “join the church” from practicing elements of their own culture disregarding the reality that much of Jewish culture, by virtue of its link to the Old Testament, which speaks of the nature of, time of manifestation and foreseen accomplishments of the Messiah, compliments the Gospel message.

Admittedly Jewish leadership has also been responsible for historic Jewish rejection of Jesus.  The end result of all of this separation of Christianity from its Jewish roots is that it is now, perceived as something which is fundamentally not Jewish.  Consequently, it is viewed as just another religion like Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam.  It is not!  GENUINE CHRISTIANITY IS A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ONE AND ONLY LIVING AND ETERNAL GOD  who has an infinite, selfless love specifically for you and He manifested that love through the excruciatingly agonizing death of Jesus.  I don’t know how He does it, but I’ve come to realize that because He’s God, you are the very undivided focus of His attention.  He loves you as if you were the only person who exists.  And you may find it difficult to believe, but all things that take place in your life, even the difficult things, take place because He specifically loves you!  As scripture says...

    "God causes all things to work together for good to 

     those who love God and are called according to His      purpose."

                                                                  Romans 8:28

Hey, maybe you might think that what I’m telling you about God and Jesus is fake news.  I certainly hope not.  But whether you agree with that or not, disregarding the trappings that have come with the Church, and going right to the source… the scripture, whether you believe the scripture or not, you will discover that both the Old and New Testaments are thoroughly Jewish books.  This is undeniable.  Check it out for yourself!  And I dare say that to claim that Christianity is NOT Jewish is FAKE NEWS.

I want to thank you for reading this essay.  If you don’t already, I do hope you’ll come to agree concerning what I’ve said about the universality of virtue and your and my inability to practice it.  I hope you’ll come to realize that the only way of forgiveness for this inadequacy is through Jesus’ death and that His subsequent resurrection opens the gates for eternal life for you and for me.  I would argue that despite the failures of the “Church”, it, for the most part, got those universal fundamentals right.

May God bless you.

Benyomin Ellegant

1. https://www.amazon.com/Peace-Child-Unforgettable-Primitive-Treachery/dp/0830737847

2. http://www.biblecharts.org/newtestaament/percentageoftheoldtestamentfoundinthenewtestament.pdf


For more essays, and resources check us out at https://www.OnlyHolyBook.com

An Open Letter to Franklin Graham

I sincerely appreciate the work you do.  You, like I, have a burden for America to come to repentance.  You have a heart for lost souls as do I.  Your work with Samaritan’s Purse is very commendable.  Yet, out of fear of sounding like one of the letters to the seven Churches in Revelation, “I have this against you”.  You are insensitive to the Jew.

As you undoubtedly know...

Peter was a Jew

Mark was a Jew

John was a Jew

James was a Jew

Paul was a Jew

Jude was a Jew

Barnabas was a Jew

The writer of Hebrews was a Jew.

The first martyr was a Jew

Jesus Himself, came as a Jew

and

There are some who argue, and rather convincingly, that Luke was also a Jew.

None of these facts are conveyed and yet I hear from your podium “A crowd of Jews cried “Crucify Him (Jesus). Crucify Him”.

I’ll not deny the truth of your quote.  It’s in scripture and it’s an historical fact.  Yet, the fact that it was Jews who brought the Gospel to the Gentiles is brushed under the rug as irrelevant by most of Christendom.

I would like, if you don’t mind, to consider your audience.  Your target, as I understand it, should be unbelievers who are curious about what you have to say about Jesus. 

And what is an unbeliever who comes to believe in Jesus called?  He is considered as “Born again”.  And what is someone who is born again?  He is a “babe” in Christ.  And what do babes drink?  MILK.  And the Word of God, our Bible, is regarded as nourishment for the believer.  Paul, in 1 Corinthians, implies that the Bible contains milk for the young believer and solid food for the mature believer.  And so you have included in the milk that you are serving the potentially new believer, whittingly or otherwise,  the position that “the Jews killed Christ”.  (As an aside I'm sure you agree that it was in collaboration with the Romans). Only if he delves into the scripture will the "new born" learn that it was also the Jews who brought the Gospel to the Gentile... maybe.

Jews of the pale in Russia used to die at the hands of people who poured out of passion plays incensed with the desire to take revenge on those “Christ Killers”.  And so, I rhetorically ask “Would a white person feel at home attending a Louis Farrakhan rally?”  “Would a black man feel particularly comfortable attending a Ku Klux Klan rally?”  Therefore, Why would a Jew attend a Franklin Graham meeting if he knows that his people are going to be demonized as has been the case by Gentile Christians for the past 1900 years? 

I know, beyond a doubt, that that is not your desire.  I’m not asking for you to deny or reject history, but I am asking that you might ask God on how you might become more sensitive on this issue.

You’re a good man and I sincerely  appreciate your work.

God bless you,

Benyomin Ellegant
(A fellow babe in Christ) :-)

K'hilat Memphis

(Memphis Fellowship)

Liberal Guilt, Moral Relativism and Suicide by Immigration

In 2008, the mantra of the political left was “if you do not vote for Barak Obama for President you are a racist.”   I’d venture that many Americans didn’t like the epithet of “racist,” so they voted for Barak Obama.  Of course, history has it that Mr. Obama was elected.  America had proved, at least in a superficial fashion, that it wasn’t racist.  It had elected a black President.

However, it seems that Americans are still racist”.  The man whom they’d elected is calling them racist.  “In spite of the fact that you’d voted for me, if you don’t receive refugees from Syria you’re still racist” he declares.

Mr. Obama’s appeal to the guilt-ridden “racist” left, as farfetched as this may sound, is, in my humble opinion, a prelude to the greatest holocaust in human history and here’s why I say so.

First of all, allow me to examine the rationale behind the receiving of Syrian refugees:  At face value, it seems like the compassionate thing to do.  “People who are destitute… whose lives are in danger, are being rescued.”  That sounds good, altruistic and loving but it is the very antithesis. 

a.       It seems that the people who are willing to bring the refugees in are willing to risk the associated danger which is fine, but they neglect the reality that they’re willing to risk the danger of fellow citizens in the process.

b.      The pro-refugee folk's apparent justification for this risk seems to be that those not willing to take such a risk acquire the label of “coward,” “Islamophobe,” and “racist,” and therefore, are deserving of the consequences of their “heartless,” fearful” and “hateful” attitudes.  Thus, in reality, it is they who are passing judgment on others.

c.       They risk the lives and safety of their sons and daughters and replace that for the alleged well-being of others.  Such a decision causes one to doubt whether they love their sons and daughters at all. The veracity of this accusation will become more evident as I continue.

Secondly, bringing Syrian refugees onto American or European soil is irrational.  It does not solve the problem as to why there are Syrian refugees in the first place.  Syrian refugees, like any other refugee, are refugees fleeing to the West because, in one way or another, life is better in the West than it is in Syria.   I propose here, an outline of four ways for solving a refugee problem.

a.       The first is not to let anyone in, and build border fences or walls to prevent people from coming in who’ve not been thoroughly vetted particularly through the naturalization process.  Wall building lacks desirability simply because it returns the refugees to the allegedly horrid circumstances from which they’re fleeing.

b.      The second remedy for this problem is the most desirable and gets to the heart of the reason for the refugee problem in the first place.    I confess, however, that there’s a major problem with the remedy that I propose.  It’s not going to happen! 

In essence, this remedy builds itself upon the rather obvious premise that the refugee problem exists because there’s some evil which makes life miserable for those refugees.  We know that in the situation at hand, Syria is dominated by a dictator by the name of Bashar Al Asad.  He’s trying to hold onto his power and has, therefore, resorted to violence to repel anyone or any entity that would seek his overthrow.  The resulting civil war has turned into a bloodbath which is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands already.  As evil as Mr. Asad is, it seems that his opposition is even more evil.  ISIS is already known far and wide for its cruelty.  So it seems that not too many parties within the boundaries of Syria are particularly nice people.

The most desirable remedy to our problem, however, is that Mr. Asad and his enemies shake hands, sing kumbaya, make peace, set up mutually agreeable boundaries and have the refugees return to Syria which would then be called “Happy Land” (in Arabic of course).  I think you see why this will not happen.

c.       The third remedy would be to obliterate those belligerents who won’t make peace with one another by the above remedy, and by so doing, get rid of those who are making life unbearable for the immigrants.   Safe places can be established for the immigrants within their homeland, buttressed by international “Peace Keepers” who blow the belligerents to smithereens.  Once that’s accomplished the refugees can live in peace in the land of their birth (assuming that there aren’t clandestine belligerents already in the midst of the refugees).

d.      The fourth remedy is to bring the refugees in and hold out the welcome mat.  That, it seems, is the plan that many of the politicians of the west, such as Angela Merkel and Barak Obama have taken.  The refugees come in.  They introduce the actualization of multiculturalism to the American and Western way of life and because of the resulting clash of incompatible cultures, a sort of homeostasis takes place in which life in the United States and Europe becomes as intolerable as life in Syria.  Hence, refugees will no longer want to come in.  That will most certainly end the influx of further immigration!   In essence, terrorist instigated violence will erupt, and law enforcement and domestic related military intervention become necessary to diminish the violence which will nevertheless, become greater in frequency because of the inadequacy of law enforcement to cover all eventualities.  The only possible outcomes will either be civil war temporarily delayed by peacekeeping militia” or a police state with loss of liberties accompanied by occasional or perhaps even frequent acts of violence.  It seems likely that the former will morph into the latter. A police state is destined to become the natural universal outcome everywhere on our planet which all of us allegedly call home.  In essence, it will grow to be a less and less comfortable home in which to live with time except for those who reside at the top of the political spectrum.

Thirdly – How do I know that the fourth remedy will be as disastrous as I predict?

A vast plurality of Syrian refugees is men of combat age.  Apparently, they’d left the women and children behind to fight ISIS which, it seems, at least to me, is not exactly the manly thing to do. Besides, women have served as terrorists as well.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to adequately vet these refugees because there’s no way that customs officials are sufficiently trained (let alone psychiatrists) to read people’s minds.

b.      The incidences in Europe, of refugee-instigated terror attacks, including beheadings, mass murders rapes, especially of young, virgin girls as well as their enslavement, and other atrocities have risen exponentially since the influx of these refugees has begun.

c.       Muslims do not have a history of assimilating into western culture.  To a very high degree, Muslims have displayed a disdain for western law and particularly secularization.

d.      And how can I assume that almost every refugee who has shown up on Western shores is a Muslim?  Boatloads of refugees that have arrived on the north side of the Mediterranean had thrown Christians overboard before their arrival onto Western shores.  No such behavior has been documented to have occurred at the hands of Christians.

e.      Since the vast majority (if not all) of this influx of refugees is Muslim, and in light of the reality that a large plurality of these refugees is men, it’s easy to assume that many of them do not have a benevolent attitude towards their well-meaning western hosts.  Islam is a worldview bent on world domination and the establishment of Sharia law all around the globe.   It is naïve to think that Muslims think in the same manner as western folk.  They don’t.  Islam, when implemented as Sharia, offers no rights for women.   Islam allows for polygamy, and the most radical/religious/orthodox among them provide loopholes in their interpretation of Sharia law which allow for homosexuality and bestiality.   Women wear hijabs and burkas, not because it is an indication of piety and modesty, but because the men don’t have the self-control to reign in their lusts and passions.  Hence, the incidences of rape in Europe are skyrocketing because the lifestyle of young Western women and girls does not require the sort of attire demanded by Sharia law.  Furthermore, the one doing the raping blames the victim for wearing her comparatively skimpy attire.

f.        But this is not the only way that Muslims think differently than people in the West.  The word “Islam” means “submission.”  To the Muslim mind, Muslims are expendable.   The only thing that counts is the expansion of Islam.  Out of servitude, therefore, the truly devout Muslim will offer up his life for the cause.  Why else is there this enormous prevalence of suicide bombings?  Like ants that sacrifice themselves to make bridges by which armies of ants can cross a stream, Muslims are sacrificing themselves to cross the Mediterranean to get into Europe.  Already many have died, but that’s OK as far as Islam is concerned.  They’ve died as martyrs.  Their deaths prick the conscience of the compassionate but misguided West.  This tact is also useful in garnering anti-Israel sympathy.  No life means anything to Islam and so Palestinians, whether willingly, or otherwise, are placed in harm’s way so that they’re either maimed or killed by an Israeli ordinate and by so doing serve as nice photo-ops for appearing on CNN or some tabloid, thus garnering sympathy for the cause.

g.       Ultimately Jihad requires either the subjugation of non-Muslims or preferably their deaths.  What ISIS does to the Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria it will surely do to the people of the West.  Armies won’t stop them because they will be among the people of Europe and America.  They will each have a face.

h.      Islam in its fundamental, unbridled form, appeals to the most base of human instincts that being sex, self-indulgence, power, and sadism.  The accompanying behaviors associated with these instincts are hidden in the West only because such behaviors would give Islam a bad name.  In Islamic countries, however, these behaviors run rampant.

A book authored by William Golding in 1954, entitled “Lord of the Flies” depicts the gradual moral and behavioral decay of a group of boys stranded on a desert island who are unbridled by Law.  They begin to indulge in cultic practices until finally, they kill the most likable among them.   This book is nothing more than a depiction of what is common in the gang community where gang members join as a result of deprivation, particularly of paternal love and instruction.  Gangs have their own set of laws.  Islam like a giant gang filled with initiation rites.  Initiation into the gang requires some evidence of loyalty.  As gang members get initiated by killing some other gang member or robbing some old lady on the street, so,  radical Muslims will be required to kill some Muslim of a different (wrong believing) sect or some unbeliever as proof of his or her loyalty.  Why else, do you see evidence in the news of ISIS killing other Muslims for not being “real” Muslims?  Just like in the case of gangs, leaving the gang can mean death, so, in Islam, leaving Islam can be punishable by death.

To him whom we would call the “radical Muslim,” Islam makes perfect sense.  It appeals to the most basic of human instincts!  It assumes that man originally was that way.  Armies cannot stop this way of thinking and, in light of the “end game” resulting from the homeostasis approach to the immigration problem mentioned above, the “bad guys” in Syria will win.  They allegedly get rid of the people that they don’t want and foist those individuals upon the people of the unsuspecting West.   Evil wins because lawlessness infiltrates the West.  Anarchy and an unconfined “gang-like”/self-indulgent and sadistic mentality enter its midst under the guise of “religion.”

So what is the true solution to the immigration problem?  The only genuine solution to the immigration problem is the 2^nd remedy mentioned above.  But that remedy runs counter to human nature.  Rather than giving in to the self-preservation and sadistic instincts found in Asad, ISIS and others, these individuals ideally should replace such instincts with selflessness, compassion, humility and benevolence…traits that run counter to human nature and yet embody nobility and strength of character.   These are traits can only be found in their fullness and perfection in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah.

Our politicians have done a great disservice to those they allegedly serve.  They attribute credibility to a worldview that is thoroughly sadistic and destructive.  Its only rationales for credibility are that it has the moniker of “religion,” it expands its domain, not through reason but violence, and a façade of religiosity covers the reality that it is unloving and lawless.

And what feeds into this “creeping Jihad” that would vote a politician into office who would open the floodgates for the entrance of this cancer into the midst of the West?  Simply put, it’s moral relativism. 

The people of the West have determined that it is better for a woman to be lascivious, and kill a baby because nurturing that baby is too big of a responsibility and denies her of her freedom.

The people of the West have determined that it is better for a man to “be free” rather than assume the responsibility of protecting and nurturing the woman he’s “screwed,” and the child he’d created.

The people of the West have determined that ”freedom” is synonymous with the term, “license.”  Abandoning a spouse contrary to the vows of fidelity which one has taken is OK because it means “freedom.”   Indulging in sexual behaviors contrary the laws of nature (as opposed to the laws of human nature) is not only acceptable but rewarded as “brave.”

The people of the West have determined that cheating is OK because they’ve determined that success, wealth and reputation are more important than honesty, transparency, humility and a clear conscience before a God whom they would prefer did not exist because their lifestyle could not endure His scrutiny.

The moral relativism of the Western mind can no longer discern between good and evil.  It can only see the “color of one’s skin.”  It does not see (As Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently put it) the “content of one’s character.” 

The people of the west have replaced the morally pure, righteous and, dare I say holy, Jesus, with morally relativistic self-indulgent and arrogant politicians. These politicians who along with their cohorts in the media have been in the process of opening the floodgates of the West to people who own a worldview which sounds good at face value but which is nevertheless fundamentally cruel and sadistic. 

The liberal of the West attempts to assuage his guilt of self-indulgence and lawlessness by offering asylum to those whom he assumes to be in need.  But he lets the bad guys win and ultimately offers asylum to those who will execute his demise.

The First Human Shield

During the last conflagration between Hamas and Israel, much was made concerning the accusation on the part of Israel that Hamas was using the Palestinian people, particularly women and children as human shields.  It is not the intent of this essay to declare the guilt or innocence of Hamas in this matter.  I would leave that to the court of international law.  However, international law explicitly condemns such activity. 

The Geneva Convention IV Article 28 declares rather explicitly, 

“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations”.

It is very questionable concerning the strength of the “teeth” the Geneva Convention has had.  Since its introduction into the lexicon of the rules of war, it has been violated countless times and very few guilty parties have actually been indicted for violating it.  

Human history has been plagued by the ravages of war since time immemorial, and in the course of such blights on the human condition, there is, no doubt, myriad times when human shields were used in warfare.  Fundamentally speaking, it’s human nature to protect self over other, hence, to use human shields in one way or another.  Training, love or some other element needs to be introduced into the human psyche for an individual to react otherwise.

Might I suggest that the very first war is a war dating back to the most ancient of times, is still being waged today and the very first human shield was used at the very inception of that war.

The war was between man and God and the very first human shield was the man’s wife.  

The war was over man’s desire to run his own life the way that he wanted to and therefore to reject the sovereignty of God or yield to that sovereignty knowing that by virtue of God having created him, God was worthy of the respect (and love) that demanded abiding by His rules.

At that time God had given the man but one rule.  Having planted the man and his wife in a garden filled with delights He said…

 “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”         Genesis 2:16-17

To make a long story short, the woman had been enticed to eat of the forbidden fruit of that tree. She gave the fruit to the man and he ate also.  As soon as he had eaten, the two of them realized their nakedness, felt ashamed, and made loin cloths for themselves out of fig leaves. (Genesis 3:6-7)

The man and woman tried to hide themselves from God and God, who knows all things, asked the man (more so that the man could appraise his circumstances)…

“Where are you?” 

The man said “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself” (Genesis 3:9)

God replied “Who told you that you were naked?  Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (Genesis 3:11)

Instead of giving a straight “yes” or “no” answer, the man deflected the responsibility, passing the buck. “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

(Genesis 3:12)

And so, the man had created the first human shield… his wife!

Almost too many repercussions to count resulted from this transaction between the man and God.  But for the sake of this discussion, just ponder, if you will, the affect that this had on the relationship between the man and the woman.  Could the woman ever really trust the man again?  How would she know when the next time would be when he would use her as a shield?

In a sense, God cursed their relationship. To the woman, God said:

“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

                                Genesis 3:16

Sexual intercourse resulting in childbirth would yield, in most cases, an excruciatingly painful childbirth.  Furthermore, there would be a struggle for authority over the household.  The woman, not trusting the man, as well as having an ego of her own, would want to usurp the authority of the man.  Yet man’s role is to be the one in authority because it is he who is responsible before God for the welfare and direction in which he takes his family.

Man’s natural tendency is to hide behind his wife… figuratively speaking, using her as a shield, blaming her for his failures or pursuing his wants and desires at the expense of her own.  Yet the presence of the Spirit of God in the life of a man should be manifest by the man shielding his wife from the onslaughts of the world and considering her needs above his own.  This doesn’t come naturally. And so the Shaliach (Apostle = One who is sent) Paul commanded

“Husbands love your wives as Messiah loved the ekklessia (the collection of people who are his) and gave Himself up for her”.          (Ephesians 5:25)

Elsewhere he writes:

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.”

(Colossians 3:19)

In essence, the Bible encourages a man to love his wife, cherish her above all other women remain married to her and to her alone and protect her from harm and blame.  It is he who is responsible for conducting himself in this manner.

This does not come naturally.  His natural tendency is to do what that first man did… hold his wife up as a shield by which he can defend himself.

The wife whose husband cherishes and protects her ought to be able to follow his lead and will be less inclined to attempt to usurp his authority.  Invariably her desire, above all things, is to feel safe.  Her husband’s role is to, in actuality, convey that perception to her.

In essence genuinely Biblical faith is manifested in qualities that run contrary to our natural self-centered tendencies. 

Some world views which have their own so-called “Holy Books” allow for polygamy and even encourage it.  One of these world views denies women rights and even allows men to beat their wives.

Any world view that would encourage the values, attitudes and behavior that came with that root beginning of man’s war against God and his subsequent use of women as shields is fundamentally erroneous. 

And for that reason, there is only one genuine “Holy Book”.

An Inherent Anti-Semitic Interpretation of the New Testament on the Part of Gentiles

One day while reading a book on the history of Christianity I ran across the following quote:

The martyrdom of Stephen marked a turning point in two respects: (1) It began the persecution that drove witnessing Christians from Jerusalem into all Judea and Samaria and (2) It moved Saul the persecutor towards personal conversion to Christ.

The authors of this particular book are reputable scholars yet I was alarmed by this quote on a number of levels.  I choose to address only one issue, here, which is what I regard to be the most important one.

In the Book of Acts in the Bible there is an account of a man named Stephen who, while speaking to a multitude of Jewish people, recounts Jewish history as it was recorded in the Tanakch (Old Testament), and uses it to show our (the Jewish people’s) need for an atonement that could only be satisfied through the then recent death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus.  In essence those Jews listening to Stephen’s message did not like what they heard and stoned him to death.  Another repercussion of this particular event was that massive persecution broke out against those who believed in Jesus throughout Judea.

As I write this essay, I’ve always thought of Stephen, the Apostles, those believers in Jesus who met daily at the Beis HaMikdosh (Temple), and in people’s homes, the 3,000 who’d come to believe in Y’shua on Shavuoth (Pentacost) and those who were “daily added to their number” as Jews.  In fact there is absolutely no specific mention of a Gentile coming to believe in Y’shua until late in chapter 10, three chapters later*. 

And so I was shocked at reading this books description of the recipients of the post-Stephen persecution as “Christians”.  This description carries with it unique connotations both to the Jewish mind as well as the Gentile mind:  The Jewish mind has been trained to think of the term “Christian” as being decidedly not Jewish.  The Gentile mind, likewise, sees those persecuted as one of them… namely Christians and not Jews (or even Jewish Christians).

The Gentile perception is unfortunate.  For one thing, it denies the reality that those first “Christians” were Jews and for another thing it creates in the minds eye, a “them vs. us” scenario in which the Gentile sees his people, the Christians, as being persecuted by THOSE Jews.  This perpetuates the notion that Jews are evil and "not one of us".  The resulting perspective is one of dispassionate indifference at best towards the persecutors.  The Jewish Christian, on the other hand, sees those who were doing the persecuting as “My Father, brother, my cousins… my family.”  His heart throbs with that of the Apostle Paul who said…

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Romans 9:1-3

Hence, the Jewish Christian innately loves the people who are persecuting him.**

The repercussions of this “them vs. us” exegesis on the part of the Gentile are far reaching!  It feeds the virus of white supremacy which fallaciously assumes that the early Christians were white Gentiles.  Hence, the Jews who literally gave them their Bible become the bad guys and objects of derision.  These resulting anti-Semitic behaviors and attitudes cause the “unsaved” Jew to believe the false notion that the New Testament is an anti-Semitic book written by Gentiles.  Furthermore, the Christian who takes on this interpretation of the text only causes angst on the part of the Jewish Christian who is allegedly the Gentile Christians "brother or sister in the Lord".  This is because the Gentile has only served to distance the Jewish-Christians loved ones from the Gospel by throwing another roadblock in the path of the Jews identification with the Good News of Jesus.

This “them vs. us” exegesis on the part of the Gentile has to stop! The Gentile must come to grips with and be willing to proclaim the reality that those early persecuted individuals were Jews and thought of themselves as Jews and he must come to the realization that his exegesis of scripture is false and incomplete without input from what is at least the heart of the Jew who is able to help the Gentile “rightly divide the Word of Truth”.

* The Ethiopian Eunuch of chapter 8 was, in all likelihood, a convert to Judaism.

** Admittedly there seem to be exceptions to this rule but I would hold that that’s all that they are… exceptions. 

You’re Invited to Wedding Celebration. Are You Coming?

God is inviting you to a wedding.  The food that will be there could only be described as “Heavenly”.  This wedding is called the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb”.  Why such an odd name?  Lambs don’t get married!  Ah… but this one does.  The lambs Name is Y’shua (commonly known as Jesus).  He’s described as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  But “how can He be described as a ‘lamb’?” you might ask.  After all He was a human being! 

True, He was a human being in every sense of the word.  But He was the Messiah which makes Him much more than merely human.  And so, among many other things, He was described as a lamb.

The lamb was a picture throughout the Old Testament of what the Messiah was supposed to accomplish…

The lamb was used to stave off plague. In Sh’moth (Exodus) chapter 12 a year-old unblemished lamb was to be brought into the homes of people in Egypt.  It was to be slaughtered and its blood splattered on the lintel and doorposts of people’s houses.  Then it’s flesh was to be roasted and eaten.  Any home that did not have that blood on the door would experience death to any firstborn son that lived in that household.

It’s interesting to note, as an aside, that you didn’t have to be a ‘Hebrew’ (Jewish) to apply this blood to the door.  If you were Jewish and you didn’t apply the blood, the plague would hit your house as well as the home of any Gentile.  It was the blood of the lamb that averted the plague.

The lamb or ram was used to atone for guilt in the sacrificial system that was used in the mishkan (tabernacle) and later on in the Beit HaMikdosh (Temple) e.g. Vayikra (Leviticus) chapter 5.  It was to be killed, consumed by fire, and it’s blood was to be poured out at the base of the Miz’beach (Altar).

It was a ram that served as a substitute in place of Abraham’s son, Isaac (Bereyshit / Genesis 22),  Indicating that, even as Isaac’s death was averted because a ram had died in his place, so our eternal death can be averted by ascribing the Messiah as our substitute.

Of the Messiah, it was written “Like a lamb to the slaughter, so He opened not His mouth” and “He shall make His soul an offering for sin”. (Isaiah 53)

So, you’re invited to this wedding feast where Jesus is the groom and the groom is a lamb and the lamb is also the main course meal.  So who are you?  You’re the guest. But you’re also the bride.  And the object of the Bride is to engorge herself in her love for the groom aware of the infinite love that the groom has for her.  At this point, you might protest “This doesn’t make any sense”.

Yes… this language could be merely metaphorical but I doubt it.  We human beings tend to make assumptions about the nature of God.  But is any of us actually God that we can emphatically assert those assumptions?  Likewise, I assume that many of us take ‘leaps of faith’ when it comes to our perspectives concerning death… something which I believe I’m safe to say you’ve not yet experienced if you’re reading this post.

So then, how much love does this groom, the Messiah, have for His bride?

Let’s compare for a moment, Jesus to Adam, the first man on earth.  Most people know that Adam and his wife, Eve, ate the fruit that they were told not to eat.  But most people forget what happened after that.  God asked Adam, “have you eaten of the fruit of the tree from which I’d told you not to eat?”  (Of course, God knew the answer, but He was testing Adam.) Adam replied… “The woman whom You gave me gave it (the fruit) to me and I ate”.  Adam had, in a very real sense, placed the woman between himself and God, attempting to use her, as it were, as a shield making her the brunt of the wrath of God.  That doesn’t make for a very good relationship.  Ever since then family relationships have been less than ideal.  Almost invariably there’s going to be some level of mistrust between the spouses.

In contrast, Jesus took it upon Himself to shield you from the wrath of the Father by dying, absorbing the wrath that you deserved.  This is truly the way that the ideal husband should or would behave towards his wife.  This is most certainly in keeping with the admonision of Paul, HaShaliach (Sent one/Apostle) when he said "husbands, love your wives as Messiah loved the ekklessia (church) and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Such a husband, any woman would trust and fall in love with.  But why would Jesus do this?  Because He loves you and He wants to marry you and hence, as the perfect groom, showing we men what we should be like but aren't, He invites you as His guest and His bride to His wedding supper.

This imagery could be merely metaphorical but I do believe there's more to it than that.  We men, though we might be part of the "bride" will in some mysterious, magical way, not lose our masculinity but we will be more perfectly the type of individual we were meant to be.  I think that this is a genuine invitation for you and for me and there’s ample evidence that would support that built upon thousands of years of testing and challenging of the veracity of the Bible.  The invitation offered to you is the promise of a glorious eternity in the presence of the one who created you, loves you, wants your love in return and wants to embrace you with perfect love.

If you turn down this invitation you’ve done nothing less than deny yourself a wonderful hereafter and you will have spurned your creator.  

Consider this invitation seriously.  Yep, it's on a blog.  But it's meant specifically for you.

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come."  Matthew 22:2-3