THE MYSTERIOUS MAGI

 

Magi existed in Persia as early as the sixth century BC.  They were a priestly group among the Medes who performed religious ceremonies and interpreted signs and portents. Persia (now Iran) conquered neighboring Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and from the fourth century BC onward, Magi were increasingly associated with astronomy and astrology, the observation and the ‘interpretation’ of the stars being closely related in ancient times and Babylon became the center of ancient astronomy and astrology. 

I've always been fascinated with astronomy, especially the planets doing their heavenly ballet with grace and precision, in fact, I wanted to be an astronomer until I learned that it was a hard and fast requirement to have math skills above a fifth grade level. 

In 586 BC the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and took the Jews into exile. From the time of the exile onward, Babylon contained a strong Jewish presence and the knowledge of the Jewish prophecies of a Savior–King, the Messiah, may have been well-known to the Babylonians and to the Magi.

In the Hellenistic age, some of the Magi left Babylon and traveled to neighboring countries to teach and practice astronomy/astrology, which was a core educational subject in the ancient world. Thus, the first century AD Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria stated that the student of astronomy perceived "timely signs of coming events’ since ‘the stars were made for signs."

It's important to realize that there are many references in ancient literature to Magi visiting kings and emperors in other countries. For example, Tiridates, the King of Armenia, led a procession of Magi to pay homage to Nero in Rome in AD 66.

The Magi who saw the star of Bethlehem were astronomers/astrologers, who may have been familiar with the Jewish prophecies of a Savior–King, and who probably came from Arabia or Mesopotamia, countries to the east of Palestine. Thus a visit by the Magi to pay homage to Jesus, the new King of the Jews, would not have appeared as particularly unusual to readers of Matthew’s gospel. However, the Magi must have had an unmistakably clear astronomical/astrological message to start them on their journey.

 How long did their trip take? Lawrence of Arabia stated that in 24 hours a fully loaded camel can cover 100 miles if hard–pressed and 50 miles comfortably. The furthest the Magi are likely to have traveled is from Babylon to Jerusalem, a distance of about 550 miles going directly across the Arabian desert and about 900 miles traveling via the Fertile Crescent. One or two months for the journey within reason.

When they arrived in Jerusalem, the went to the court of Herod to inquire where they might find "He who has been born King of the Jews?" This question conveyed what Herod considered to be treasonous information, so he asked the Jewish scribes and priests where this King was to be born. 

These religious scholars quoted Micah from their Old Testament scrolls, rightly saying, "Bethlehem." With Herod's instructions (satanically inspired) to return to him and let him know if the new king was indeed there. The Wise Men left to travel the last 6 miles of their trip to worship the King.

Wait! What? the Jewish scholars didn't bother to go with them to worship their own King? No. Only 6 miles to Bethlehem, but they had no interest. So here we have Gentile scholars traveling at least over 500 miles in what had to have been an arduous trip in a camel caravan to find and worship Jesus.  

This reminds us of what that Baby would say some 30 years later about such indifference: "He that is not with Me is against Me."

WHY AMERICA CAN'T FIX HER PROBLEMS

 Classicist, Carl J. Richard, points out that there are four things that unite a country: a common book, a common language, a common religion, and a common sport. Without those, a nation isn't unified; it's broken into clashing factions. Without unity, a country cannot solve its problems. 

The lack of unity: We do not agree on the definition of marriage. We do not agree on the number of genders (some say 2, others say 112). We do not agree on when human life begins. We do not agree on whether or not our Constitution is a living, evolving document (and therefore putty in the hands of the interpreter) or a document whose meaning is found as originally written. We do not agree on the definition of a human being. We do not agree on our history, the founding of our country. We do not agree on truth: absolute or relative? And is there such a thing as objective truth? We don't agree.

In her September 11, 2020 essay, "Gina Baleria, assistant professor of Media and Journalism at Sonoma State University, expanded on the idea to rethink objectivity, and encouraged journalism professors and teachers to emphasize context:

The ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ that have generally been deemed objective are actually centered on a mainstream, white, male, able-bodied, cis-gendered perspective [a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex] – not actually objective or neutral at all. (Jenna Stocker)

We no longer have a common book. As a case in point, let's go back to a 1947 movie, "The Bishop's Wife." In the film, Cary Grant, an angel, is sent to help a bishop and his family. During the movie, the angel has some quality time with the young daughter of the family during which he sits on the floor with the child, and as her parents watch, he begins to tell her the story of David with his slingshot, killing a lion. Then he tells the little girl that David composed a song which Cary Grant relates the song from a Book common to Americans at that time--the song being Psalm 23, recited in it's entirety. 

Another case in point: from 1965-2000, CBS broadcast "A Charlie Brown Christmas whose plot is that  Charlie Brown is struggling to find out what Christmas is all about. His struggle makes him ask the question, "Isn't there anyone who could tell me what Christmas is all about?" His best friend Linus and his trusty protective blanket then take to the stage and ask to dim the lights. He then recites Luke 2:8-14 from our common Book.

Or how about every student in the 5th grade in the public schools looking forward to receiving a copy of the common Book--the New Testament from the Gideons. Going back much farther, "imported English Bibles were perhaps the most widely owned books in the colonies. Bibles and Books of Common Prayer of the Church of England are listed in Virginia estate inventories more than any other book."

Or this: "While the nation was ripped apart by Civil War, the American Bible Society (ABS) endeavored to spread the word of God by passing out pocket Bibles to soldiers in the Union and Confederate armies. In December 1861, the ABS was printing, shipping and distributing 7,000 pocket New Testaments a day to soldiers in the field." ("The Sun Herald")

And this: "During WWII, the New Testament, Protestant Version, was issued by The Army Of The United States with a United States Of America War Office seal on the front cover. A preface dated March 6, 1941, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States." ("CW Collectors Weekly"). 

And this: Today, federal employees are instructed that if they have a Bible, it can't be in plain view on their desks. Today, no Gideon brings a Bible into a 5th grade classroom. Walt Tutka, of Phillipsburg, New Jersey, was suspended for 90 days, then fired for giving his Bible to a student who had asked him for one, a private, voluntary, unforced transaction. He was later reinstated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to his substitute teaching position. Nonetheless, Mr. Tutka was put through an ordeal for giving a Bible to a kid who wanted one. 

Conclusion: America has no common book.

We no longer have a common religion. "A statistical study of mosques in the United States shows that the number of Islamic houses of worship has increased 74 percent since 2000. The study also showed that mosque leaders believe the United States is generally friendly to Islam, that attendance at weekly prayer has increased during that time, and that the faithful attending mosques has increased 30 percent." (From "The New American")

"One percent fewer Americans each year claim a Christian affiliation, that marks decline. When most denominations and congregations report declining membership and attendance, that marks decline. When more and more congregations close their doors forever, that marks decline. And when the youngest generation shows the greatest disaffiliation trend, that marks a decline likely to have lasting impact." (From "Religion News Service")

In April 2019, we were surprised to learn. "For the first time 'No Religion' has topped a survey of Americans' religious identity. The non-religious edged out Catholics and evangelicals in the long-running General Social Survey." 

Conclusion: Christianity is no longer America's common religion.

We no longer have a common language. Look at California: "At least 220 languages are spoken in California, and 44% of residents of the Bear Republic speak a language other than English at home. Seven million Californians say they cannot speak English well." 

In California, voters are able to request a ballot written in Arabic, Armenian, Hmong, Korean, Persian, Spanish, Syriac or Tagalog, among other languages. If voters can't speak or understand English, how can they understand the issues and what candidate stands for? 

In the Syracuse City school district in 2017, students spoke 72 different languages. Writing or speaking using a common language with (mostly) agreed-upon definitions for words is the key to communicating and understanding ideas. Even abstract ideas like emotions and feelings can be communicated using commonly accepted forms of grammar. 

Moving to the Land of Lincoln, 35% of Cook County residents speak a language other than English at home. In October 2019, the Cook County Board of Commissioners in Illinois passed an ordinance to furnish voters with fully translated ballots in eight new languages for the November 3, 2020, elections. (It already provides ballots in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi.)

Rich Lowery, editor of "National Review," writes, "Nice, pleasant Canada has been nearly torn apart in recent decades by the presence of a French-speaking province, Quebec, in an English-speaking country. .  .  Where a common language is present, it creates a cultural glue; where it isn’t, there are usually deep-seated divisions."

We no longer have a common language that unites us. 

We no longer have a common sport. "Psychology Today" pointed out the unifying factors of sport. "Fans wear the team colors and carry its flags, icons, and mascots. Then there is repetitive chanting of team encouragement, hand-clapping, booing the other team, doing the wave. The singing of an anthem at a sporting event has the psychological effect [of uniting people]. 

When sports are politicized, they no longer unite. (To politicize something is to use it as a platform for a political cause.) In American sports today, singing "The Star Spangled Banner" no longer unites; it divides us deeply as our sports heroes kneel or refuse to even listen to others singing it. 

Conclusion: We no longer have a common sport to unit us.

The unity of Israel was important to God and He gave them a common Book (the Old Testament), a common religion (specified in the book of Leviticus), a common language (Hebrew), and common events that united them (The Day of Atonement, The Passover Meal, the Sabbath, and six different festivals). 

This is why America can't fix her problems: there is no common book to which people look for the truth. Christianity is no longer the common "religion." Our language, once infused with the Bible is now censored. To their hardened and closed minds there's no objective truth to which to refer to fix anything. Anything goes.

For America, the train has left the station; the ship has already sailed. We are falling down the slippery slope. The motto, "E pluribis unum" suggested by the committee Congress appointed on July 4, 1776 to design a seal for the United States of America, is dead. The seal no longer seals.

 

 

 

 

THE PROPAGANDA OF SILENCE

 Laura Hollis writes: "As any student of history knows . . . that which is not said is as important as that which is." And this brings us to the 1959 motion picture, "Ben-Hur." Here's what some have written about the blockbuster film:

"Although it is a spectacle film, the story of how a man takes on the tyranny of the Romans, with all sorts of horrible consequences to himself and his family, is powerful and gripping"

"The chariot race sequence in 'Ben-Hur' is still just as heart-pounding and incredible in today's age as it was back at the time of its release."

"Ben-Hur still ranks among Hollywood's finest examples of pure entertainment." 

So they say today about the 1959 movie, "Ben-Hur," which won an Oscar record of 11 of the 12 categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor (Charlton Heston).

A reviewer said, "Filmed on location in Italy, on a budget of some $15 million, Ben-Hur was the most expensive movie ever made up to that point. The film’s famous chariot race scene took three weeks to shoot and used some 15,000 extras. The setting for the race was constructed on 18 acres of back-lot space of a movie studio outside Rome. 

"Aside from a few of the most daredevil stunts, Heston and Stephen Boyd (who played Messala, (Judah Ben-Hur’s boyhood friend turned bitter enemy) did most of their own chariot driving. In the New York Times, Bosley Crowther called the scene a 'stunning complex of mighty setting, thrilling action by horses and men, panoramic observation and overwhelming dramatic use of sound.' All this was before computer generated scenes we see today."

Lew Wallace, rock-ribbed Republican who fought in the War Between the States for the North, wrote Ben-Hur: At Tale of the Christ. He wrote most of the novel during his spare time in the evening, while traveling, and at home in Crawfordsville, Indiana. He often wrote outdoors during the summer, sitting under a favorite beech tree near his home. (The tree has been called the "Ben-Hur Beech.") 

Wallace moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico, after his appointment as governor of the New Mexico Territory, where he served from August 1878 to March 1881. It was during that time that he had dealings with Billy the Kid who petitioned him for a pardon and a meeting. Neither developed.  

Wallace completed Ben-Hur in 1880, a novel which has been called the most influential Christian book of the nineteenth century. In 1900, Ben-Hur became the best-selling American novel of the 19th century, surpassing Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin which was no small feat. 

He had such a reverence for Christ that he insisted in the theatrical portrayals of his book, the Messiah's face never be shown. He was so super-serious about it that it was a contractual arrangement.

CBS has shown the movie on national television, but the vast majority of viewers don't realize that the movie has been cut (censored?) There's something the network did not allow the movie to depict that was part of the original film and you can still see it via subscription services

What was censored? The Incarnation featuring the Star, Mary, Joseph, the Baby, and the shepherds. The Magi are shown kneeling before the Baby. The question is why? Some would suggest because the film is too long, very long by today's standards, coming in at 3 hours, 32 minutes. But if time were a problem, there were scenes that could have been cut that didn't advance the plot, such as the festive dance at a banquet et al. Today's football games take forever to finish with their incessant commercials and the irritating referees' on-field reviews of contested plays. To the execs, no problem with the length of a football game but the inclusion of the Incarnation was a problem.

Whatever the reason was, it's a reminder that what is not stated can be just as important as what is. Out of sight, out of mind, as the saying goes.

 

THAT PICTURE

 It's a picture that's 66 years old; its impact on the viewer brings back memories of the great used to be. There's Jim, Margaret, and the children--Betty, Bud, and Kathy. They were a middle class family in Springfield, a town in the Midwest. Jim was an insurance executive who went to work everyday to support his family. Margaret was the quintessential mother, a biblical "keeper at home," for Jim and those three unforgettable children.

They comprised the family on a popular TV show ("Father Knows Best") that aired from 1954-1960, showing a total of 203 episodes. As one writer said, "Each episode was the equivalent of comfort food, as the characters dealt with the gentle humor and drama of being a family unit," bringing thirty minutes of family [biblical]values into American homes. There was no stereotypical teen-age rebellion like they constantly feed us today; no dumbed-down, clueless father; no wise-cracking, put-her-husband-down-mother; no children who were the smarter-than-their parents-repository-of-wisdom in the family that's common today.

Even the title of the show would offend the just-looking-for-something-folks today who would take umbrage at the male's being head of the house who guided his family with wisdom infused with love.  

And there they were in that picture: they're seated at a modest circular table in the kitchen. A modest meal sits on the little table; those seated around it are close together, reflecting the closeness of a family knit tightly together.

The picture is surprising. Jim is there, What surprises us are four things: they're holding hands around the circle; their eyes are closed; their heads are bowed. We're jolted: they're praying. No one is talking on a cell phone--they don't exist. No one is watching TV--there is no TV set in proximity to distract. We're seeing a family praying on national TV.

The picture was taken during a TV program that was broadcast in 1954, 66 years ago. Parents and children, teens and adults, sat in their homes enjoying all 203 programs together. "Bud," American teen-aged boys said, "is just like us." Betty, the girls said, "is just like we are." Parents and children found themselves reflected in the stable family gathered around that table. 

That's the way it was in 1954, 66 years ago.

WHY OUR CONTSTITUTION ISN'T WORKING

 

2020 has been a year for which millions of people would like to get a "do-over." Turn on the TV or radio news, read newspapers, examine the magazines and there’s civil upheaval. Riots. As of September 2020, estimates show the financial cost of the rioting in this one year is on its way to $2 billion, making it the most expensive in history. There have been riots in 140 U.S. cities in 20 states and Minneapolis could become the costliest civil disorder of all time in the United States. The destruction at the hands of rioting mobs has left business owners destitute, people injured, and some people dead. This is what accompanies anarchy.

A lament goes up to heaven that the destroyers are left unpunished, unjudged, and uncondemned by constituted authorities who seem to give their approval by their silence and inaction. To compound the problem, the academic world gives its sanction and the wealthy contribute to provide funds to get the few who are arrested back out on the streets to let loose their dogs of war once again.

In all of this, where is the United States Constitution, one of the greatest documents to come from the quill of man? Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R. C. Gutzman seek to answer that question in a book they wrote called, "Who Killed the Constitution?"

Many will jump to the conclusion (always a dangerous athletic event) by answering, "Those Democrats!" Wait a minute. The authors say, "No." The answer is, "The Republicans and the Democrats." Both are guilty, and, as they point out, their assault on the document began over a hundred years ago.

But let's view another answer concerning why our Constitution isn't working. This answer is one given by two men far wiser than you or I and they were there at the creation of the American Republic: John Adams and George Washington. Their answer has biblical roots so it goes beyond the answer of "Who Killed the Constitution?"

John Adams, that most prolific writer, stated the answer which has come down from the hallowed halls, fresh out of the Constitutional Convention: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion (read "Christianity"). Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (From: "John Adams to Massachusetts Militia," October 11, 1798).

George Washington agreed with Adams' assessment as pointed out by Susan Hanssen: "Adams, like George Washington, believed that no polity could eradicate the sinfulness of man, so any man who disparaged the place of morality and religion in public life was a traitor.

"In the twilight of his life, James Madison [the "Father of the Constitution] wrote,"Belief in a God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources." Only in a culture that 'bristles with hostility to all things religious' could such a common-sense view fall into controversy--or neglect." (Ibid.) [If anyone should know, it's he.]

"A culture that bristles with hostility to [Christianity]?" How's this for "bristle?" In Portland, Oregon, in August 2020, rioters burned a stack of Bibles.  In a report by Dan Dupee we learn that: "The entire California State University system stopped recognizing Christian fellowships on campus whose only fault is to insist that their leaders actually be Christians." Those are two big "bristles."

The basic reason that our Constitution has ceased to work is a spiritual, not a political, one: Ephesians 2:3: Men are by nature the children of wrath. The American Constitution "has no power capable of contending with human passions [the inherent sin nature] unbridled by morality and religion."

 

INSULTING OF THE PRESIDENT

 Pride, that sin that God hates, prevents us from saying, “I was wrong and I apologize; please, will you forgive me?” We saw this pride firsthand, live, and in living color on national television during the heated presidential race between Gore and Bush.

That was a contested election that wasn’t decided until December because of the infamous hanging chads, and who knows what else went on in those equally infamous smoke-filled rooms.

There was one man a cable news network chose to interview, a choice which turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and it does. But politics in the heat and passion of the moment makes people say pure nonsense. And that’s what this passionate fellow spouted for one and all to hear.

He was in a white-hot heat about his belief that votes in FL were being suppressed and, he said that the votes of a particular minority group were not being recorded by the voting machines in the Sunshine State.

And then it happened, the newsman interviewing him asked, “How does a voting machine know when a member of a minority casting his or her vote?” The speaker quickly realized that what he’d just said was both nonsensical and impossible; he'd been caught.

What did he do? He looked to his right. He looked to his left as if pleading for help for whoever of his party might be standing there off camera. No cavalry was coming to his rescue. All the viewer heard and all the speaker heard was nothing . . .  pure cold marble silence. He had no answer.

What did he do? He looked at the camera and, instead of admitting he was wrong, he said, “I stand by my statement.” The interview was over. He left never to be heard of again. That was a good thing.

Humility involves admission of wrongdoing, confession of sin, letting people know we make mistakes. There was one man who was known as a humble man. He made a serious blunder which haunted him for the rest of his life: he did something that one is never to do with the president in office. He talked about and physically demonstrated what they talked about. That's a no-no. He admitted he was wrong, apologized, but his error haunted him for the rest of his life.* He never got completely over it and the president said, "I never want to see that man again."

He admitted another wrongdoing--he would, at times, fall into the perils of political partisanship, taking sides that alienated millions from his message. He apologized for that late in his life. Then there was the time during which he thought no one would hear his remarks, he said some denigrating things about the Jews that, unbeknownst to him, were recorded and later the world heard them. "I was wrong," he said. Upon retiring, he admitted he’d neglected his family and that he watched too much television.

It’s good to remember his humility in our day of leaders and the well-known who are always right in their own eyes. 

Billy Graham set us a good example of humility.
____________________________________________________________________________
*For what Billy Graham did in regard to President Truman on that day, go to: https://www.presidentialcrossroads.com/harry-s-truman-meets-billy-graham/

THREE THINGS NEEDED TO OVERTHROW AMERICA

 There are three things every revolution needs to succeed. All three are now in place for the overthrow of America. The three things are:

1. An ideology to drive the revolution. An ideology is in place: it is right to judge people as a collective not as individuals; it is right to force people to violate their conscience; it is right to force people to violate their faith; it is right for feelings take priority over facts; it is right to limit diversity of thought; it is right to punish people if they say what they think; it is proper to hate one's country.

2.  Foot soldiers to push the ideology. These include educators, journalists, college graduates, and college students, celebrities, TV news reporters, social media, entertainment which includes motion pictures, sports, and television programs. This would include foot soldiers politicize everything from funerals to entertainment. These are the venues of the foot soldiers. The foot soldiers are ubiquitous.

3. The suppression of any expression verbal or written of ideas contrary to the ideology of the revolution. This suppression would include invasion of one's private life, invasion of or destruction of one's private property, lawsuits, fines, public ridicule, interruption of a person's daily life, intimidation, threats, fear, loss of job, and forced resignations. 

All three were in place in Israel 2,000 years ago: the ideology of the Pharisees (legalism); the foot soldiers to push the ideology such as the mob that chanted before Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar;" those who picked up stones to put Jesus to death; those who loved darkness rather than light. The suppression of a contrary idea as seen in John 9 with the threat of excommunication from the synagogue to anyone who expressed their belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Excommunication meant the loss of one's job and social isolation. In Acts 4 which records the mention of Jesus' name as being forbidden (hate speech) by the religious authorities.

All three are now ingrained in the American culture. The ship has sailed. There is no turning back.

LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT

 There's a song from the days of yesteryear, a song that stayed at the U.S. number one spot for nine consecutive weeks called, "Little Things Mean A Lot" as sung by Kitty Kallen. It's a love song, but we might apply that to the way God sometimes works in history, a long time ago, like history 503 years ago. 

The little things that meant a lot back then were a hammer, a nail, a sheet of paper, and lots of Latin. The man who used those little things had no idea that what he was about to do would change world history forever. When he wrote the Latin, then got a nail and a hammer, he was an obscure, but well-educated Roman Catholic monk among a multitude of other obscure monks. He was also a professor in Wittenberg, a position he had held since 1512. He had a doctorate in theology and in that capacity, he had given lectures over the Psalms, Romans, and Galatians.

On the paper he had written 95 statements (called "theses"). When he nailed that paper to the now- famous Wittenberg Castle church door, he was doing what many a person had done--it was like putting a note on a public bulletin board for the purpose of making some kind of announcement. What Luther was doing was calling for a discussion of his 95 statements, a debate of some things that were bothering him about the Roman Catholic church to which he'd sworn fealty for the rest of his life. He was merely announcing his desire for a discussion when he placed the paper on the door that day of October 31, 1517.

One of the 95 statements, Number 82, particularly bothered Luther: it concerned the sale of indulgences. Indulgences were based on two beliefs: 1) the sacrament of penance did not completely eliminate the guilt of the sin forgiven through absolution alone; one also needed to undergo temporal punishment (“penance”) because one had offended Almighty God and 2) indulgences rested on belief in purgatory, a place in the next life where one could continue to cancel the accumulated debt of one’s sins.

Number 82 said: "They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose."

That hammer, that nail that paper, those little things were like an explosion of an atomic bomb whose fallout would change Western Civilization. When Luther was nailing his Latin to the door, he had no idea of an explosion or of any fallout. To him those statements were an invitation which said, "Let's meet and discuss reforming the system." 

Five hundred and three years ago, on October 31, 1517, those little things didn't mean much. But later, they did, they really did. What you might consider a little thing in acting on your biblical convictions today can turn into something magnificent in the hands of God.

DEADLY DECEPTION

 DEADLY DECEPTION

We find deliberate deception in the New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses).  About their “Bible,” here are some responses:

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded the translation " . . . has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation . . . It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest.” 

British scholar H.H. Rowley: “From the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated. This translation is an insult to the Word of God.”

Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation “a shocking mistranslation.” 

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” 

Dr. William Barclay concluded, "It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

It is interesting that the Jehovah’s Witness organization has always resisted efforts to identify members of the translation committee. The reason was they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the credit and glory for this translation. However, as former Jehovah witness David Reed says, “An unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses should have blushed in shame when the names of the translators of The New World Translation were revealed. The reason for their shame was the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education). The fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, he failed a simple Hebrew test.

In court, Franz was asked if he knew Hebrew and he said, "Yes." He said he had a command of various languages including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, German, and French. When asked if he speaks Hebrew, he said, "No." He was then asked if he could translate the fourth verse of Genesis into Hebrew. His answer was, "No." The fact was that Franz, like the others on the committee, did not have the knowledge to translate Hebrew or Greek. The truth is that Franz dropped out of the University of Cincinnati after his sophomore year and even while there, he had not studied anything related to theological issues.

The New World Translation is not a translation. It is filled with additions to and subtractions from the Word of God. It is a tampering with the Bible to force it to fit the heresies of the cult. The deception of the Jehovah's Witnesses can only be classified as deadly.

FILL IN THE BLANKS

Love. It's the major theme of song writers and poets. We have a special day devoted to it. We send cards and buy gifts on that day. Sermons extol it. 

Paul wrote about it and what he wrote is often the centerpiece of many a wedding. But is it all so many words? 

Here's a convicting exercise: read I Corinthians 13, the text where Paul tells us what love is and what love is not, and as you read it, take out the word "love" and put your name in its place:

⁴ _______ is patient, _____ is kind and _______ is not jealous; _______ does not brag and _______ is not arrogant, ⁵ ________does not act unbecomingly; _______ does not seek its own, _____ is not provoked, ________does not take into account a wrong suffered, ^{6 ________}does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but ________rejoices with the truth, _______bears all things, _______believes all things, ______hopes all things, ________endures al things. 

Enough said. 

THIS IS MY BODY BROKEN FOR YOU

 It's a well-worn statement at thousands of the Lord's Supper services when they pass the bread: "This is My body which is broken for you." That is what Jesus said, isn't it? Or is it? Let's see, taking a look at the institution of the Lord's Supper from the King James Version:

Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body."

Mark 14:22: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."

Luke 22:19-20: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

(John, lest the reader thinks that eating the bread and drinking the cup have salvific merit, de-emphasizes the ordinances and therefore doesn't record the institution of the Lord's Supper.)

The omission of "broken for you" fits with the Old Testament in which we read about the Passover lamb--it was not to have a bone broken. John recorded the fulfillment of the hoary prescription for the Passover Lamb when he wrote about the crucifixion: "For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of his will be broken.'" The Scripture to which John refers is Exodus 12:46 and its instructions for sacrificing the precise lamb. 

Yet, when we come to I Corinthians 11:24 in the same KJV, we read, "And when He had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 

Broken? I thought that John said no bone of Jesus was broken. He did say that. And in all of the accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the three Gospels, in the same KJV, Jesus never said that the bread was symbolic of His body's being broken. (The bread had to be broken to be distributed; the reference is to Jesus' body.) The Old Scofield Reference Bible (KJV) includes a note, replacing "is broken for you," with "is for you." The editors caught the problem.

So, what's going on here? Andrew Kuyvenhoven explains: "1 Corinthians 11:24, reads: '[He took a loaf of bread] and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" The words "which is for you" beg for some addition, such as "which is given for you" or "which is broken for you."

"So from early times, scribes have been adding such words. As a matter of fact, the word "broken" was inserted in the Greek text on which the King James Version was based. But the true text reads: "This is my body which is for you." And that's how we find it in all newer versions. [As Dr. Charles Ryrie said, "Thanks to textual criticism, we have a New Testament which is 99.9% pure." Such additions have been noted.]

Kuyvenhoven continues, "However, because of that added word, a misunderstanding has crept into the tradition that surrounds the celebration of the Lord's Supper. If we love truth more than tradition, we must now make clear that breaking bread has nothing to do with a broken body. 'Breaking bread' is a term for sharing food. In Bible times, bread was not cut, nor did it come sliced and packaged, but broken and then given to guests or members of the family. "Breaking bread together" means eating together."

By far, the modern translations, over 30 of them, omit "broken" from I Corinthians 11:24. Thus by a scribal addition, a tradition was born, one which has been repeated throughout church history without the speaker's being aware that what he's reciting means that Scripture can indeed be broken. His addition of "broken" contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as John's wrap-up statement of the crucifixion that not a bone of the Lord Jesus was broken.  

The moral: tradition in word and deed must be examined to see if it has a biblical root.

THE SAD TALE OF TWO BULLIES

 Scholars of all shapes, sizes, and persuasions give adulation, accolades, and applause to the one they call the greatest theologian and thinker in church history. One author wrote that it's impossible to underestimate the importance of the man, Augustine. 

Not so fast: Augustine believed baptism was necessary for salvation. So was the Lord's Supper. He rejected the literal 6-day creation and a literal Millennial Kingdom. He jumped on Luke 14:23 and one word in the verse, the word, "compel." "Compel" is in the parable Jesus told about a king inviting people to his feast, but was not satisfied with the response, so he ordered his messengers to go all over the place and"compel"people to come. 

Augustine took "compel" to mean torture them, whip them, drown them; kill them if necessary. Not only that, but Augustine unleashed the rancid smell of "TULIP" on the world before there was "TULIP," because John Calvin said his theology came from Augustine. 

It's strange that Augustine recommended torture to force people into the kingdom, yet believed in unconditional election, so one would wonder what the purpose of torture was, since, according to unconditional election, no one has a choice in the matter of salvation anyway, tortured or not, since God decided the fate of everyone in eternity past before we all were born. 

Michael Servetus denied the Trinity. In 1552, the Spanish Inquisition took action against him, but he escaped. Later, the French Inquisition declared Servetus worthy of death but had to burn him in effigy, due to his escape. In August 1553, Servetus went to Calvin's Geneva where he was recognized and at Calvin’s request was imprisoned by the city magistrates. 

His trial lasted through October, at which time the Council of Geneva condemned him to death. Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first. Calvin agreed with the sentence of death by burning, thus staining his name down through the centuries.  

All that because of a misunderstanding of one word in the Bible and Augustine, who knew very little of Greek got it wrong. The word conveys urgency. It's alternate meaning of "urge" fits in the contest of the character of God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." It fits with the Bible's statement "God is not willing that any should perish . . ." 

Because of Augustine and Calvin, it's no wonder that unbelievers who know history fear  Christians who want, without biblical warrant, to go into all the world and take over governments. The church is not a nation and is never called a nation in the New Testament. 

God has not granted the church civil power, legislative power, and rightly so.

THE WORD OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG

Something disturbing happened in a Bloomfield, New Jersey synagogue on the evening of Friday, September 18, 2020. It occurred in the midst of the most important religious cycle in the Jewish calendar, ten days often referred to as the High Holy Days.  The first holy day is Rosh Hashanah, which welcomes the Jewish New Year. During the first night of the service, the Bible reading is always from 1 Samuel 1:1-2:10.  

The text describes how Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel, prayed to God to bless her with a son, whom she later entrusted to Eli, the high priest. The traditional reading ends with Hannah's prayer thanking God and prophesying the coming of the Messiah. The final sentence of Hannah’s prayer is amazing: “The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed”

 When Hannah prayed this, Israel had no king, no monarchy; she lived in the time of the judges, so her prayer is prophetic, looking forward to the time when a king would rule the nation. Also, Hannah’s reference to God’s “anointed” is a clear messianic prophecy.

That prayer is always read in its entirety at the New Year's synagogue service. But not on that night, in that synagogue in New Jersey and that is what was so troubling.

The Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments, are a divine document, a divinely inspired document. Jesus said it was and is, as did the apostles who wrote what God wanted them to write, just as he Old Testament authors did in their day. 

However, on September 18, the rabbi set aside the reading of the Word of God and told the assembled that those who want God's words to usher in the New Year could go and find them elsewhere. Yes, that's what he said. So, what did the rabbi read instead of the Bible?

On that evening, he felt it was more important to read the words of another "prophet," (his word, not mine)--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not the Bible. This is the way rabbi put it to the congregation: "I'll invite you to listen as . . . we read a few key teachings in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words as a way to bring out her memory and to pay homage to her. I hope you'll take these into your heart and use them for inspiration as each of you seek to make this world a better place." 

As Andrea Widberg writes, "And so we [had] this spectacle: to honor Ginsburg's staunch defense of killing babies — the Baal practice that the Bible strongly condemns,  a rabbi, in a grotesque mockery . . . recited, not the Word of God, but the word of Ginsburg." 

What was happening on September 18 was an echo of what had happened earlier in the history of Israel when a king heard the Word of God read to him: "Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. Yet the king and all his servants who heard all these words were not afraid, nor did they rend their garments."

Did the congregation just sit there as the the rabbi tossed the Bible into the fire for a man-made substitute? Did anyone object, was anyone afraid, did anyone metaphorically rend their garments? Was anyone's soul tortured by what they heard and saw? Andrea Widberg raised her voice to object and even dared to criticize the uncritisizable in print. Is there one more?

There is a historical parallel we find in Acts 12:21-22: "On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!”

There is a price to pay when the voice of the government becomes the Word of God. 

BEHEADING GEORGE WASHINGTON

 "More than three weeks after its namesake was beheaded on campus, and following pressure from its own professors, George Washington University finally acknowledged [after three weeks] the criminal act [of beheading the statue of George Washington] with a brief statement." 

In Portland, "Demonstrators pulled down the Thomas Jefferson statue in front of Jefferson High School"

A college news organization polled students at George Washington University, asking if they support the nationwide riots and looting. Overwhelmingly, students said that the riots and looting are "justified." One student said, "If change is gonna come, there’s gonna be some violence."

"In one widely publicized episode . . . assembled students [at Evergreen College] shouted down the university president for gesticulating normally as he addressed them.  Some students found this threatening. Someone yelled, 'Stop pointing, George!' The president, George Bridges, appeared momentarily stunned and then obeyed, meekly announcing, "My hands are down." The crowd burst into applause and laughter. Bridges held his hands up as if to say, 'I surrender.'

"In another incident [at Evergreen College], protesters surrounded the library building and barricaded the exits with furniture. Some of them interrupted a faculty meeting inside and stole a cake about to be served in honor of retiring professors. They carried it out and handed pieces to their fellow demonstrators. Others gathered outside the president's office and refused to let him leave the building. Clearly, many of them relished controlling and humiliating others, especially authority figures."

"Everyone is reading from a tired script . . . settling into a calcified habit of saying things like"We don't feel safe' and "Stop hurting us!' It's too late to stop the normalization of this behavior. It has already become essentially institutionalized at universities and, increasingly, elsewhere." (Spencer Case)

"This fall at Washington and Lee University (removal of Lee pending), students will learn reading writing, arithmetic — and 'How to Overthrow the State.' As riots have continued in Portland for almost 100 nights, students at the Virginia university named after George Washington and Robert E. Lee will study Marxist revolutions in the Global South, complete with role-playing regime change."

"Writing Seminar 100-18, “How to Overthrow the State,” will award each student three credits toward graduation. This course places each student at the head of a popular revolutionary movement aiming to overthrow a sitting government and forge a better society,”

 SOLUTION?

What's going to stop all this violent, academic nonsense? Rational discourse? Assigning book reports like "Washington at Valley Forge"? Maybe a reading of "The Federalist Papers"? How about a classroom showing of the movie, "The Patriot"? 

Let's get real and in getting real, a look at the Old Book can point the way. The Bible states in story and in statement that there are people who can reach a point of no return; there are people who cross the line of rebellion and become people with whom you cannot reason (Romans 1 et al.). 

We find the classic case of such a person in the account of the first king of Israel, Saul. We watch him cross the line in his years of interactions with David. As David begins to ascend to hero status, Saul begins his descent into madness. 

 It may not have been a wise move on the part of the women of Israel to compose a song that hit number 1 on the charts, but that's what they did. We read, "It happened as they were coming, when David returned from killing the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy and with musical instruments.  The women sang as they played, and said,

“Saul has slain his thousands,
And David his ten thousands.”

"Then Saul became very angry, for this saying displeased him; and he said, “They have ascribed to David ten thousands, but to me they have ascribed thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom?” Saul looked at David with suspicion from that day on."

Then we read that Saul attempted to murder David, but his aim was bad; the spear with which an enraged Saul wanted to pin David to the wall missed its mark. Then we read of David on the run from Saul as Saul and the military tried in vain to hunt him down and kill him. For at least 7 years David hid in caves as a frothing at the mouth Saul chased him all over Israel. The might of the government wanted David dead. Sometimes Saul was sorry, "I have played the fool and erred exceedingly," he said. But later, he was right back on the hunt.

There was a point that Saul reached in which there was no reasoning with him, no Bible verse you could give him, no scathing denunciation that would change him. Even the remonstrances of God's anointed prophet Samuel fell on ears of stone; come what may, he would have David's head on a pike or he would die trying. There's no reasoning with evil.

Saul had rid the nation of the mediums, the people were not to consult them. But, Saul, to whom the rules didn't apply and were for the common people, but not him, went to consult one. By divine intervention he's told that in the battle the next day, he's going to die. Knowing that, he still goes into the fight and winds up like Hitler, a suicide so the enemy wouldn't take him alive. Instead of his pinning David to the wall, the Philistines took the slain body of Saul, cut off his head, stripped off his armor, and fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan. 

You can't reason with a Saul because "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." And because "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." (Proverbs 29:9)

Thousands in the younger generation have been raised in a culture and nurtured in an educational environment from kindergarten through college of ideological kerosene in which there is no fear of the  Lord ( a positive response to God and His Word). We're seeing their graduation party. 

As with Saul, there is no reasoning with them. They've crossed the Rubicon of no return. What else should we have expected having removed God's Word from every nook and cranny of our society, having ridiculed those who proclaim it, having shamed, slandered, and ruined those who sought to live it? The ideological kerosene has done its work. The flames in our cities have felt its heat.

In view of this, four texts of encouragement roar to the surface. 

II Timothy 1:7--"For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." 

Matt. 19:26--"And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 

John 16:33: "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." 

Psalm 2: "Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? .  . . And the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!^' He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them."

MAX LUCADO'S SINS

The old saying is, "Confession is good for the soul." Is it? I John 1:9 commands the follower of Christ to confesses his sins for the renewal of fellowship with God (not for salvation). It's a family matter, not a salvation concern. Yes, following the Apostle John's dictum is a good thing and we should do it frequently. Confession of our sins is an acknowledgement that our heavenly Father is right and we were wrong in what we did. 

An school-boy question is, "Whose sins are we confessing?" The proper answer is right there in the verse, "If we confess OUR sins," so those are our sins we're confessing, not someone else's. 

Enter wildly popular author/preacher, Max Lucado who produces best sellers as often as he changes his socks: He has written almost 100 books with 92 million copies in print, with many of them occupying spots on every major national bestseller list.. With that hefty tome count, Lucado's name is no stranger to the New York Times Best Seller List. 

He's also a pastor in San Antonio, Texas, and a nationally recognized leader in the evangelical world. And truth be told, he's reached the rarefied air of a cleric celebrity in the evangelical niche. And, as the story is told, there are instructions in the church bulletin saying something to the effect of "Don't ask the pastor to autograph one of his books." That's a cleric celebrity with a capital "CC." 

Events are surfacing however that should give us pause, no matter his rarified status. In a public event in the Alamo City, Lucado waded neck-deep in the social justice movement raging around the country when he spoke to the assembled telling them that he's guilty of white supremacy and racism. How so? Because of what his ancestors did over 150 years ago and then he begged God to forgive him for that. (A subsidiary question is, "How does he know what his ancestors did," but that's beside the point.)

What does he think his long ago ancestors did? He said that they owned slaves. In his mind that's something he needs to confess in 2020. The he confessed his sin of forcing people to ride in the back of the bus. He was confessing all over the place, but the sins he was confessing were not sins he himself committed. 

Lucado was born on Jan 11, 1955. On December 18, 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery in America. He can no more take credit for the 13th Amendment than he can take the blame for slavery. All that happened at least 90 years before he was even born. 

Let's be clear: we can take responsibility for our sins, but we can't be blamed for someone else's sins. The Bible is clear on the matter: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:2, 20).

Confessing what you had nothing to do with isn't good for the soul, but all these confessions we're hearing today are good for one thing--popularity--and pastors aren't immune from an approbation lust. It is just as easy for a pastor to crave approval, as it was for Pilate. 

The approbation lust is ever with us.

 

 

FAVORITE PREACHERS

 Unfortunately, I Corinthians 1:12ff has been misused to produce an unnecessary guilt on the part of believers. Here's the text: 

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.  For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.  Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

The way this text has been used by some Bible teachers to create guilt is that people come away with the idea that if they have a favorite Bible teacher from whom they learn and grow, that such is sinful.  But that's not what Paul is saying.

We all have a teacher or teachers from whom we learn and grow more than others. Granting that your list of teachers with whom you are familiar contains names of those who are accurate in doctrine, yet, if you have a favorite, the text is used to make you feel guilty. Again, that's not what Paul is saying. 

There might be a name on your list that, although he's on the mark in doctrinal matters, to you, he's boring, repetitious to a fault, or you can't concentrate because of some mannerism he has such as having to read his sermon and never making eye contact or he says "uh," "ah" over and over.  

But then there's one to whom you resonate. Maybe he comes from a background similar to yours, geographically, educationally, or vocationally. Maybe his sense of humor appeals to you. He's on the top of your list. Is that wrong? Sinful? That isn't the reason Paul is being critical of the Corinthians. 

We find what he's warning against in verse 10: "that there be no divisions among you." For the Jewish believers in the Corinthian church, Peter was at the top of their list perhaps because he was the apostle to the Jews--he was the apostle who wrote I Peter specifically for Jewish converts; but the Gentiles would put Paul at the top of their list because he was the apostle to the gentiles. 

The problem is that, as each group had its favorite, each group was making an issue out of it. They were quarreling. It's like we hear today from some believers: "Isn't _____________ your favorite teacher?" Then if you have someone else at the top of your list , they have nothing to do with you. But we all have our preferences and to have a preference isn't a sin, yet it's made out to be and they let it cause divisions.

We're not talking about refusing to listen to someone for legitimate reasons such as his doctrine isn't orthodox or because of his moral failures. The issue is that we aren't to cause divisions in the church by quarreling over sound teachers.

 

ST. WEIRD

 Some one wrote, “It is difficult to think clearly about Francis of Assisi.” 

 
However with Bible in hand, we can think biblically and therefore clearly about him and come to the conclusion that he fundamentally misunderstood the Bible and his misunderstandings led him into bizarre thoughts and deeds. Yet his weirdness brought him misguided admiration that has lasted down through the centuries. 

Francis was born in 1182 in Assisi, Italy. When people think of him, the first thing that comes to mind is that he preached to birds and tamed wolves. (There’s weird and not biblical.) As the record states, “As Francis and some companions were traveling through the Spoleto Valley in Italy, Francis noticed that a huge flock of birds had gathered in some trees beside a field. He saw that the birds were watching him as if they were expecting something. He decided to preach a sermon about God's love for them. Francis walked over to a spot beside the trees and began a sermon, "My sweet little sisters, birds of the sky, you are bound to heaven, to God, your Creator. . . .”

According to “Catholicism Pure and Simple, “Francis wondered aloud to his companions why he had never preached to birds before. And from that day on, Francis made it his habit to solicitously invoke all birds, all animals and reptiles to praise and love their Creator.” [Score another point for weirdness.]

Later in his life, he believed that Christ spoke to him three times from a crucifix: One day as he prayed in a run-down church, he said that he heard Christ repeat from the crucifix: "Francis, go repair My house, which, as you can see, is falling completely to ruin." Francis understood that he was to repair the church he prayed in, so he proceeded to sell family goods to raise money for repairs. [Score two points for weirdness.]

Then there was the time he stripped himself naked in front of a bishop and renounced his father, claiming God was his father. Then he walked out of the cathedral to become a hermit—to "be alone in solitude and silence," a biographer noted, "to hear the secrets which God could reveal to him."[The points are adding up.]

One day he heard a sermon from the book of Matthew, "Take no gold or silver or copper in your wallet, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics or sandals or a staff." He took it literally and began an itinerant life.

Abandoning his own wealth, Francis determined that there must be no man anywhere poorer than he. No matter what rags Francis might be wearing, if he met a beggar dressed even worse, Francis would remove his own clothing and give it to the beggar. [His problem here is a modern one—the Matthew text is a description of what the disciples were to do on that occasion, not a prescription of what we are to do.]

In winter, he often threw himself in a ditch full of ice and stayed there until all sinful temptations departed. To avoid lust, he fixed his gaze on the sky or ground whenever he spoke with a woman.

 
One other oddity: Francis loathed laughing or idle words. He didn’t laugh, and he didn’t want to give others any reason to laugh. [At this point, I've lost count.]

Yet, this is the man whom Protestants and Catholics have admired. Go figure.

SQUEEZING

 The Jewish fellow had a burning question for which he needed to know the answer: "Can I go swimming on the Sabbath?" He was so obsessed with knowing the answer that he wrote to an authoritative Jewish website to learn the answer. The answer was amazing. Read on.

According to the Mishnah, (the authoritative collection of material embodying the oral tradition of Jewish law) the obedient Jew cannot go swimming on the Sabbath and it defines swimming as "lifting both feet from the ground and floating on or treading water." 

The Talmud (the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law) says that the reason for that decree is because swimming could lead to building some sort of flotation device to help someone learn to swim which is forbidden on the Sabbath. 

But wait--the prohibition not only applies to swimming in a body of water similar to a lake or pond, it also includes a man-made pool of water, if, when a person swims in it, he's likely to cause some water to overflow the pool, which will then run into rivulets and pools, resembling a pond or lake. There have been many an argument over what constitutes a "rimmed" pool which would, therefore, keep water from overflowing. An unrimmed pool would not be able to do so.

In addition, there are other considerations: Since swimming implies the wearing of a swim suit, this apparel might lead to violating the prohibition  of squeezing  out water from it. But that's not the only thing to be concerned about--if it's extremely hot, a person would be allowed to immerse himself in a rimless pool (it must contain cool water) without swimming if there's no squeezing of the swim suit afterwards. 

But what if, for medical reasons, the questioner has to swim on the Sabbath? The answer was in three parts: "Consult your rabbi and if he approves, use a private pool and take the necessary precautions so prevent  squeezing." 

During Christ's earthly ministry, He confronted the same thing (Matthew tells us in 15:1-20).
The angry religious leaders said that Jesus and his disciples had violated the “traditions of the elders” as if those traditions were authoritative and could be sinned against. These traditions were still in oral form in Jesus’ day, but were written down a two centuries later in what. became the Mishnah.

 What was going on in Jesus' day and what's still going on today is that the traditions of men had been and continue to be elevated to the status of Scripture, so that a person could be guilty of violating them. Many groups today have their “biblical” views, and to violate them means facing anger, criticism or expulsion from the group. 

What we often don't see is that, Jesus, knowing of these traditions of the elders deliberately broke them and allowed or instructed His students to do so. This infuriated the religious leaders. 

Sound familiar?

It's a very serious matter to replace the true meaning of the Word of God with traditions. Traditions can be helpful, but they can crowd out the basic biblical standards. We don't have to look far to see that the attitude of these teachers appear in our churches. 

So many traditions have grown up over the centuries that many of them are regarded as sacred. They remain untouchable, unquestioned. We can become more concerned that people might violate our man-made rules for the running of the church, the institutions of baptism and communion, or the set of rules that our particular group follows in the name of being spiritual, than we are about righteousness. We can spend far more time getting physically ready for church than we do preparing the heart. If we aren't careful, these traditions quickly achieve biblical status, and we might even forget what the Word of God actually says about some of those things we do. 

Dr. Allen Ross writes a note of caution: "Before we come down too hard on the Pharisees for focusing on externals and outer show, we need only to remind ourselves that week in and week out we spend far more time getting the outer body ready for church than we do the heart."

That Jewish questioner, what about him? He's trying to bear an unbearable yoke (cf. Acts 15), now learning that he must not only be concerned with swimming of the Sabbath, but also with man-made pools, rimmed or unrimmed, sloshing water, not squeezing water out of a swim suit, what his rabbi decides, and potential medical reasons for swimming.

Yet, Christ's invitation echoes through the ages, "Come unto Me and I will give you rest." 

 

A POEM FOR PORTLAND

Portland, Oregon rioters followed the lead of a king (Jehoiakim), the lead of the the French Revolution, and the lead of university students in Nazi Germany.

On April 8, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union proclaimed a nationwide "Action against the Un-German Spirit," which was to climax in a literary purge, or "cleansing" by fire. The burning of works by Jewish authors, and Jewish literature, took precedence over everything else.

In Germany, on May 10, 1933, a book-burning of more than 25,000 volumes was presided over by the most intellectual of the Nazi leaders, Dr. Joseph Goebbels. It was broadcast on the radio for all to hear. But it didn't stop with secular books; in November 1938, Torah scrolls were burned inside 237 burned synagogues in Germany and Austria. Torah scrolls are copies of God's Word and cost a large amount of money for a Jewish synagogue to have and hold.

A German author whose books were burned made a famous prophecy: "Where they burn books, they will also burn people."

AMERICAN REACTION

Back in 1938, Yale University's head librarian, Professor Andrew Keogh, yawned and said, "European book burnings are never so serious as the newspapers make them out to be." The book and Bible burnings were seen by Americans back then in newsreels in the movie theaters, newsreels in which the narrator dismissed  the burnings as "student pranks." But the world would soon learn that the Nazis weren't pranksters out for a little harmless fun.

THE MOTIVATION FOR THE FLAMES

Enter Portland, Oregon. At midnight recently in Portland, they burned a Bible. Listen to Rabbi Abraham Cooper:

"The burning of the Bible is different [than destroying any other book]. Bible burners want to eradicate the truths which have provided believers with pillars of hope and faith, and which have inspired even non-believers to pursue a just and compassionate world.

"This is why the Bible has always been attacked by the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Maos—and yes, the Xis and the Kims of the world.

"Totalitarian regimes have always understood that their control could never be total so long as God's word was in the way."

Israel's King Jehoiakim knew God's word was in the way, so he threw Jeremiah's scroll into the fire; the leaders of the French Revolution  knew it because their revolution, unlike the American one, was, according to Os Guiness, “expressly anti-biblical, anti-Christian, anti-religious, and anti-clerical.” The Bible must go and unaided human reason take its place. The result: the guillotine came down on an estimated 40,000 people during the French Revolution.

We see the motivating idea in places high (CNN) and low (rioters) as reflected by commentator

Chris Cuomo who told his viewers: "God did not do that [bring the numbers of cases of the virus down]. Faith did not do that. Destiny did not do that. A lot of pain and suffering did that...That's how it works. If you believe in one another and if you do the right thing for yourself and your community, things will get better in this country.  You do not need help from above. It's within us."

There we have it, the adaptation of the philosophy of the Greek Protagoras who's famous for his claim that "Of all things the measure is Man," an aphorism in direct opposition to Christianity.

In all of this, the following poem might be dedicated to the rioters in Portland:

"Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith's door

And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;

Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor

Old hammers worn with the beating years of time.

"`How many anvils have you had,' said I,

`To wear and batter all these hammers so?'

`Just one,' said he; then said with twinkling eye,

`The anvil wears the hammers out you know.'

"And so, I thought, the anvil of God's word

For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,

The anvil is unharmed-the hammers gone."

Christ has the last word: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”.

CHRISTIANS DON'T TRUST EACH OTHER

Christians don't trust each other? Believe it or not, it's true; we don't. Not only that, but we even put it in our church constitutions and/or by-laws that we don't trust each other. Anyone who's interested in seeing it can do so by reading almost any church's by-laws or by punishing themselves and attending a church business meeting.

Let's go back to 1863, to a business meeting held in a church, one which gave birth to a guidebook that's plagued multiplied thousands of churches ever since. It all started when Henry Martyn Robert was an engineering officer in the Regular Army. Without warning, he was asked to preside over a meeting and realized that he didn't know how. He tried anyway and his embarrassment was supreme. This event left him determined never to attend another meeting until he had read and mastered parliamentary procedure. He did and published in February1876 what we know as "Robert's Rules of Order." (RRO)

Few have read RRO, but when the meeting starts, whoever oversees the meeting using RRO controls who makes motions from the floor and how a motion is tabled. He decides who has the authority to say when a motion is out of order. He knows when you can cut off a discussion and when you may vote. Whoever controls the RRO controls the meeting. The person who controls RRO is the person who knows exactly what they are and how they work to control a meeting.

Robert was so discouraged after that meeting, he said, "One can scarcely have had much experience in deliberative meetings of Christians without realizing that the best of men, having wills of their own, are liable to attempt to carry out their own views without paying sufficient respect to the rights of their opponents." If Christians loved each other and trusted each other, they wouldn't need Robert to darken and dampen any meeting.

Have you ever read RRO? Most people haven’t, which is a problem because the person who knows the rules may not have the best interest of the church in mind, or worse yet, he may be a carnal believer or an immature one.

Here's the heart-wrenching testimony of one man: "A friend called me a couple of years ago after a church business meeting.  In tears, he told of the ungodly things said among the people of God. He told me about the personal attacks that took place.  He told me of the name-calling, the cursing, and the selfishness that pervaded the entire meeting.

"He asked me what I thought went wrong.

"I asked him to describe how the meeting started.  Taken aback, he said, "The beginning of the meeting was fine. Later it turned ugly. I asked him to describe it in detail.  He finally shared the piece of information that I was looking for.

"After praying, a moderator took the platform, grasped the pulpit with his hands and then told the people of God that they would conduct their meeting according to Robert’s Rules of Order.

"My response to the caller was that the church business meeting didn’t have a chance for success when they relied more on Robert’s Rules of Order than they did on the Word of God.  Many would argue that you need structure and systems in meetings like these, and I would agree, but the Bible has plenty of instructions on that matter.

"God says to regard one another as more important than yourself (Phil. 2:3-4).  God says not to let any unwholesome word come out of your mouth (Eph. 4:29).  God says to respect and to honor spiritual leaders (Heb. 13:17).  God says there is an order about a confrontation in the church (Matt. 18:15).  And so much more!

"What needs to happen in many American churches is that they get rid of Robert and put Jesus back in his rightful place!  Robert didn’t die on the cross for your sins, so I would let the one who did say how the people of God should conduct themselves.

"I don’t know how many church business meetings you have attended.  You may be at a church where that doesn’t happen.  You may be at a church where the business meeting is the thing that has the most attendance.  Whatever your situation may be, don’t allow our culture or the words of man to dictate how you conduct yourselves.

"Let God’s Word be the standard by which we live. Which book guides your church’s business meetings?" The Bible? Captain Robert's 699-pages of rules? The church always shoots itself in the foot when it borrows from the world. It's like trashing fine china and replacing it with paper plates.

What Robert did was to treat the symptoms and not the cause of the disastrous meeting. The rules were an aspirin; the symptoms would return meeting after meeting with the cause never addressed.

In II Peter, we read that believers have all they need to live a godly life. If that's true, why do churches incorporate RRO?

If Christians love each other and in loving each other, they, therefore, trust each other, then RRO are out of order.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE 10TH COMMANDMENT

Thomas Jefferson was emphatic: religious freedom is important. Jefferson believed that such liberty came from God, as he eloquently stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Jefferson held firmly to the belief that the state should not sanction an official, established religion. But in his state, Virginia, the Anglican church was both an established and an official religion to which, by law, Virginians paid taxes. It was against the law for a citizen of Virginia whose motto was and is, "Sic Semper Tyrannis,” meaning “Thus Always to Tyrants,” to disseminate beliefs the Anglican church deemed unorthodox.

You might think that the Declaration of Independence took care of that matter and Virginia's tyrannical religious dictates were gone with Jerrson's pen. But such wasn't the case. The taxes and the laws remained on the books for a while.

The thinking behind the First Amendment to the Constitution was, is, and forever should be, "No one can make you profess or support ideas or teachings you don't believe." That amendment, standing number 1in the Constitution, says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . ."

You can think whatever thoughts you like and say whatever you believe to be true. To put it another way, contrary to old Virginia's laws, you have a right to be wrong, a right to think wrong thoughts and a right to express those thoughts, but you do not have the right to force people to think the way you think and to force people to express beliefs that you express.

In George Orwell's 1984, he foresaw a tyrannical government of Big Brother that made its citizens think only the approved thoughts, called, "Doublethink," (the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them as true.) The citizens could say only the approved thoughts with only the approved words called "Newspeak." To think differently was a thought crime.

John Milton would have agreed with the First Amendment. He wrote, "Truth . . . is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of the natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

To the thoughts of Jefferson and Milton, we would say with Sherlock Holmes in the movies, "Of course. That's elementary, my dear Watson." But we live in a day in which it would be difficult to find a college president, administrator, or professor who has the courage to express what Jefferson, Milton, and almost all the rest of us believe. The reason they don't have such courage is that they will be lynched via technology, harassed, howled down, assaulted, or even fired.

And what does all this have to do with Commandment Ten of the Mosaic Law? That commandment says, "Thou shall not covet." What's coveting? It's desiring what's not for sale or what you cannot legitimately have, such as "your neighbor's wife."You might want a Samsung 65 inch 4KHD TV, but that's not coveting. It becomes coveting when you want your neighbor's and it's not for sale.

When you read the Ten Commandments, you'll notice that they all carry a penalty but one. Break nine commands; pay the price. One command carries no penalty: the last one, "Thou shalt not covet." And why is it the only one that carries no penalty? Because it's a thought crime. Thought crimes aren't punishable. You have a right to be wrong. But you can't be punished for your thoughts.

Except in our day when the howling mob comes. The barbarians are not at the gates; they have crashed through the gates at full howl demanding that you think as they think and say what they say or face the consequences. You will be punished for thought crimes. The day grows darker.

 

SERIOUS BASEBALL

One area of theology has been under attack for a long, long time and no surcease is in sight. Because of a history of past and on-going attacks, even people inside our churches firmly hold to beliefs that have been declared heretical throughout church history.

Those filling up pew after pew aren't the only ones who are the heretics, albeit it silent ones; pastors, missionaries, and popular Christian authors hold to heretical ideas as well and propagate them all over the place. The problem is further complicated by the fact that, because folks are weak in two areas, church history and Christology, they have no idea that they're either falling for and/or promoting heresy.

An example of this occurs when well-meaning folks try to explain the Trinity with this illustration: I am a teacher and I am a father, and I am a husband--three different roles yet one person. This heresy is called modalism and has been around for a long time.

"Modalism rejects the Trinitarian belief that God exists at all times as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the modalist believes that God is one person made known in three modes. In the Old Testament, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Father. With the incarnation, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Son. And following Jesus’s ascension, God made Himself known through the mode of the Holy Spirit.

"Problematically, modalism rejects that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist simultaneously, which means that modalists deny the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity. This problem is compounded when you consider the baptism of Jesus. At His baptism, we see all three persons of the Trinity present. The Father speaks from heaven, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends upon Jesus like a dove."

These heresies spring from a paucity of knowledge of church history and in a knowledge of Christology (the Person and work of Christ). Instead of instruction in Christology which could incorporate a look at the battles fought in church history to cleanse the church of various heretical infections, many are content with "biblical" instruction in "How To Live Your Best Life Now," "How to Conquer Depression," and "Conquering Disease."

We're talking serious here. According to a 2018 survey conducted by LifeWay Research, over 70% of people in our evangelical churches hold to a heretical belief about the Person and work of Christ. Something is wrong, very wrong. Deep Christological books Paul's letter to the Colossians, II Peter, Jude, and a host of texts like Philippians 2 are treated like the red-headed stepchildren of the church.

Let's talk baseball. Serious baseball. The winningest high school coach in America, the winningest ever, took baseball seriously and expected nothing less from every player and every team he coached. They were either serious or they quit or he ran them off.

He was so serious about winning baseball that every new player had to take a written test of over 200 questions, a test so hard that no one could pass it as it dealt with situation after situation that could arise in every game and where the player, no matter his position on the field, should be when that situation occurred. Things like that. The test was designed to show the player, "You don't know as much as you think you do about this game."

Then, every summer, he ran a baseball school. This wasn't a baseball camp for a week or two. It was every morning, the entire morning, five days a week all summer long. He took kids starting at age 7 and they would come back, summer after summer through high school. By the time they got to that level, they were BASEBALL PLAYERS.

When the player got to his high school team, they would practice 6 days a week starting in February and the practice sessions included each player's taking 200-300 pitches in the batting cage from the pitching machine. (The average high school team would have each player take 6 or 7 swings in the batting cage.) The practice sessions would begin after school at 4 PM and continue until it got so dark, they couldn't see the coach. The question is, with that level of seriousness, how did that coach ever lose a game?

Can you imagine what the results would be if we took kids starting at age 7 and every summer through high school used the best teachers to give biblical instruction 5 mornings a week, specializing in Christology? A pipe dream? I know, you're right.

So, all this boils down to a plea to get serious about Colossians, II Peter, Jude, and Christology.

Really serious.