Premature Gesticulation

Today President Obama announced that Israel needs to immediately withdraw to its pre-1967 Auschwitz borders. But I think old Barry has jumped the gun a bit here. Since the Rapture isn't supposed to happen until this Saturday, the Antichrist really should have had the decency to wait until Sunday to reveal himself.

Ain't It Great?

Ain't antisemitism great? I mean, where's the downside?

To me (as it was to dear old Papa Joe Kennedy) antisemitism means ...

• Not ever having to bother with rational thinking;
• No need to ever examine yourself for moral flaws;
• Giving your darkest impulses full vent while smugly claiming superiority over those who are your betters;
• Always having a ready patsy for the consequences of your bad decisions;
• But best of all, antisemitism means ... defaulting on your debt to the God of Israel -- and thus assuming your rightful place as the final arbiter of "right vs wrong".

As John Lennon (or was that Vladamir Lenin?) used to urge us: "Imagine!"

Imagine Passover leaven, bacon cheeseburgers 'n fries;
The only bris in hubris, not e'en reform rabbis.
Imagine no Yom Kippur -- having our own way.

Imagine there's no Israel, no People God did choose;
No one to gas at Auschwitz, none of those pesky Jews.
Imagine nosy Yentas gone from all the world.

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join me -- my world will be mine to run.

Imagine no Hebrew Bible; I wonder if you can.
No Heebs or kafir Yahoodi from here to Pakistan.
Imagine Muslim brothers living life in peace.

You may say that I'm a dreamer, and I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us -- Allah's world will live as one.

Ain't antisemitism great?

Every Knee Will Bow

On this Resurrection Morning, it's time to consider what Paul told the Philippians -- "At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow (of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth), and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Though we be trumpet or drum
(Else His Breath voicing through us
Or bearing the blow that is due us)
We all give sound to His praise.

Every tongue shall confess
(Else singing praise of Who Bled
Or grinding teeth as the dead)
All cry: "Wondrous His ways!"

Though we be trumpet or drum
(Else His Breath voicing through us
Or bearing the blow that is due us)
We all give sound to His praise.

Every knee shall bow down
(Else at a rugged old Cross
Or when accounting our loss)
None of us meeting His gaze.

Though we be trumpet or drum
(Else His Breath voicing through us
Or bearing the blow that is due us)
We all give sound to His praise.

Hallelujah

According to the Torah, today (the Sunday following Passover) is the Feast of Firstfruits.
Leviticus 23:11 "And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it."

... it is indeed the day to celebrate Firstfruits.
1 Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

Watch This!

No, those aren't the words that come right after "Shux, this truck can jump that ditch -- here, hold my beer ..."

It's what we Christian men need to do.

Atheist's Argument in Favor of Evangelism

Imagine an atheist being the one to explain so compellingly the Christian's moral obligation to evangelize. Penn Jillette (who doesn't know whether the Psalms are in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures) preaches this sermon far better than I've ever heard it from the pulpit.

From Crackle: A Gift of a Bible

If we actually believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, how dare we keep silent about it?

The Sermon No One Heard

Joyce has been chiding me about not posting for more than a week. As she was looking over the lesson I'd prepared for Sunday School this morning, she said, "You ought to post this on your blog."

I answered, "Nah, it's way too long for a post."

She countered, "Oh, go ahead."

So (since I'm an obedient husband who always does precisely what his wife tells him to do) here it is. But just to set the record straight, remember: "The woman whom [HaShem] gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat"*

[* In this lesson, all quotations from the Tanakh (i.e., the Christian "Old Testament") are as rendered by the Jewish Publication Society's 1917 version.]

I have a dream. (Those of you who know me know that my admission to daydreaming is less confession than understatement. Yea verily, I hear the heavenly host of my grade-school teachers singing, "Amen!" And if I listen carefully, I hear an even larger infernal congregation of former high-school teachers screeching "Effin' A!") But back to my point, I have this idea in my head that someday some rabbi will say, "Bob, that's such a brilliant argument for Christianity, would you please share it with my congregation?"

Now if you're going to have a fantasy, this one has a lot going for it: a genuine concern for God's Chosen People, a love of God's Word, a desire to see God's Kingdom established on earth, .... The only thing my daydream lacks is any contact with reality. In my rational moments I know that even if there were some professionally suicidal rabbi who wanted to expose his congregation to a comparative study of religions, he'd certainly have no problem finding a better-qualified spokesman for Christianity. In the "Star Search" competition for evangelists, (without any doubt) I'm the last runner up. But still, I have a dream.

But since you've voluntarily entered my mind's foyer and (thus far) have foolishly decided to hang around, I invite you to venture further into my sanctum. Settle into a pew in my make-believe synagogue and listen as I step to the bema, open the ark, unroll the Torah scrolls and deliver a message that no one wants to hear. Permit me to demonstrate one simple truth from the Tanakh: "Yeshua is HaMeshiach." Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah who was prophesied in the Scriptures.

But before we consider the Scriptural proof of that statement, let's note that Yeshua did claim to be HaMeshiach. And he also claimed that the Tanakh foretold his crucifixion. Yeshua said to his disciples:
Luke 24:25-27 ... "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
v26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ [HaMeshiach] to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"
v27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.

So from the start, we have to acknowledge that there's no middle ground. Yeshua is either HaMeshiach as he claimed to be, or else he claimed to be what he wasn't - which would make him either a lunatic or a charlatan. So, as a Jewish congregation, you are rightfully skeptical. Until I show precisely where the Tanakh speaks of HaMeshiach's crucifixion, and how Yeshua has fulfilled those prophecies, you do well to do as the Law instructs by rejecting "the prophet who speaks presumptuously."
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of HaShem, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which HaShem hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.

So, where in the Tanakh do we find Moses' and the prophets' predicting HaMeshiach's crucifixion? Well ... I'd have loved to be there on the road to Emmaus when Yeshua explained the necessity of HaMeshiach's suffering, but I wasn't. And Luke didn't record that explanation, so what I offer will surely fall short of Yeshua's full account. Nonetheless, I think I can piece together some of what he must have said to his disciples.

First, I must concede one obvious point: Yeshua (as he presented himself to the nation of Israel) is not the kind of savior the Tanakh explicitly prophesies. All explicit references to HaMeshiach as the redeemer of Israel emphasize his geopolitical deliverance of the nation of Israel. Just as we can see from the Christian accounts of Yeshua's death and resurrection, all of Yeshua's disciples were expecting him to overthrow the Roman Empire and establish Israel as the dominant world power. None of them were expecting him to die. Clearly they had no clue that his death was prophesied (as evidenced by their despondency after his crucifixion). And then three days after his crucifixion, they all refused to believe the reports of his resurrection (a development which was apparently more shocking to Yeshua's followers than to his enemies, who had the forethought to post a guard on the tomb to prevent removal of the body). If the Tanakh had explicitly stated that HaMeshiach had to die and rise again, then Yeshua's death and resurrection would not have been such a mystery to his followers.

And "mystery" is the right word. The death and resurrection of HaMeshiach wasn't so much a secret that was well kept, as a secret that was well hidden. Just as in a mystery novel, all the clues were there, but they were revealed in such a way that only in retrospect can one see the undeniable truth: HaMeshiach's death and resurrection were God's intention from the very start.

But if that's the case, then the obvious question is: "Why?" Why would God hide (even in plain view) HaMeshiach's death and resurrection? And the obvious answer is: "For the same reason intelligence services use encryption - because the enemy is listening."

The prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel tell us there is a great conflict between the God of heaven and the god of this world. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give us insight into the origin of this celestial warfare. Lucifer, the highest of the angels and the guardian of the throne room of God, has staged a palace coup.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!
v13 And thou saidst in thy heart: "I will ascend into heaven, above the stars of G-d will I exalt my throne, and I will sit upon the mount of meeting, in the uttermost parts of the north;
v14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High."

Ezekiel 28:12-16 Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say unto him: "Thus saith the L-rd GOD: 'Thou seal most accurate, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty,
v13 thou wast in Eden the garden of G-d; every precious stone was thy covering, the carnelian, the topaz, and the emerald, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the smaragd [an emerald-like stone], and gold; the workmanship of thy settings and of thy sockets was in thee, in the day that thou wast created they were prepared.
v14 Thou wast the far-covering cherub; and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of G-d; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of stones of fire.
v15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.
v16 By the multitude of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of G-d; and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.'"

Lucifer has been thwarted in his stated intention to establish his own throne and make himself like the Most High. Nonetheless, Lucifer (now called "Satan", in the Hebrew "Shatan": the accuser) is still actively opposing God.

But where does mankind enter into this?

We read in Genesis chapter one:
Genesis 1:26-28 And G-d said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
v27 And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them.
v28 And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth."

So God created mankind to have dominion over the earth. But then we read in Genesis 3 that Satan enticed the human race to join him in his rebellion against HaShem.

In response to Satan's attack HaShem declares to Satan:
Genesis 3:14-15 ... "Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
v15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed [singular]; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."

In effect HaShem says here: "You, the highest of My creation, will become the lowest of all creation."

But notice that (in verse fifteen) HaShem spoke in veiled terms about this "seed of the woman" crushing Satan's head, and Satan bruising HaMeshiach's heel.

Why?

Obviously, because it was important for Satan not to know the precise means of his defeat. But more than that, HaShem was demonstrating that Satan (who has declared: "I will make myself like the Most High") is not omniscience (as the Most High is).

So now that I've explained why HaMeshiach's crucifixion was veiled, the question remains, "Where precisely does the Tanakh speak (even cryptically) of HaMeshiach's crucifixion?" One obvious place to begin is the 22nd Psalm:
Psalm 22:1-19 (For the Leader; upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar. A Psalm of David.)
v2 My G-d, my G-d, why hast Thou forsaken me, and art far from my help at the words of my cry?
v3 O my G-d, I call by day, but Thou answerest not; and at night, and there is no surcease for me.
v4 Yet Thou art holy, O Thou that art enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
v5 In Thee did our fathers trust; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them.
v6 Unto Thee they cried, and escaped; in Thee did they trust, and were not ashamed.
v7 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
v8 All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head:
v9 "Let him commit himself unto HaShem! Let Him [HaShem] rescue him; let Him deliver him, seeing He delighteth in him."
v10 For Thou art He that took me out of the womb. Thou madest me trust when I was upon my mother's breasts.
v11 Upon Thee I have been cast from my birth; Thou art my G-d from my mother's womb.
v12 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
v13 Many bulls have encompassed me; strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
v14 They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
v15 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is become like wax; it is melted in mine inmost parts.
v16 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and Thou layest me in the dust of death.
v17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. [literally, "they have punctured my hands and my feet"]
v18 I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
v19 They part my garments among them, and for my vesture [outer cloak] do they cast lots.

Isaiah speaks of HaMeshiach's suffering in Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 53:1ff Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of HaShem been revealed?
v2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him.
v3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
v4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.
v5 But he was wounded [literally: "impaled"] because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
v6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and HaShem hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.
v7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth.
v8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
v9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
v10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand:
v11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many [Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. My servant will acquit many], and their iniquities he did bear.
v12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Zechariah takes the prophecy a step further by predicting that Israel will eventually repent of their rejecting the one whom they've impaled:
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Anyone familiar with the Gospel accounts can't help but see these as clear prophecies of Yeshua's crucifixion. But if we view this from the perspective of the original writers we see it very differently. First, in the context of the 22nd Psalm, David was clearly speaking of his own troubles; so for anyone who was reading this before it was literally fulfilled, it was not at all clear that this was even prophetic. David seems to be merely speaking hyperbolically, saying that the torment of his soul (because of the revolt of his son Absalom) was as painful as the physical torment he describes. Driving nails through hands and feet as a means of execution was unheard of in David's day, so even David himself couldn't have seen this as a prophecy of HaMeshiach's crucifixion.

In Isaiah 53 we have a clinical description of what it feels like to be crucified, but again, no one prior to the invention of crucifixion could have possibly seen it as prophetic of HaMeshiach's death. After all, everyone knew that HaMeshiach is a deliverer, not a Passover lamb to be butchered.

In the statement "they have thrust him through" Zechariah uses the Hebrew word דקר (DAQAR), which means "to pierce", "to impale" or "to thrust through". To those who lived before HaMeshiach's crucifixion it would have seemed that Zechariah was merely prophesying his own martyrdom, not HaMeshiach's crucifixion. (Of course, the problem with that interpretation is that Zechariah was stoned to death, not impaled.)
2 Chronicles 24:20-22 And the spirit of G-d clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them: "Thus saith G-d: Why transgress ye the commandments of HaShem, that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken HaShem, He hath also forsaken you."
v21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of HaShem.
v22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said: "The HaShem look upon it, and require it."

Yet these descriptions of crucifixion in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 are too close to the actual events of Yeshua's crucifixion to be a mere coincidence. A thousand years before Yeshua's crucifixion (long before crucifixion was invented), David recorded in precise detail how HaMeshiach would die. Again, 800 years before Yeshua's crucifixion, Isaiah described HaMeshiach's torturous death and explicitly stated that it would be a substitutionary atonement for the sins of many. And then 550 years before Yeshua's crucifixion, Zechariah prophesied that we will all someday repent of our having impaled the One sent by HaShem.

But these graphic descriptions of crucifixion long before crucifixion existed aren't the only places where the death and resurrection of HaMeshiach are foretold. Let's return to that first promise of HaMeshiach's deliverance, recorded in Genesis 3:
Genesis 3:14-15 And HaShem G-d said unto the serpent: "Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
v15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed [singular]; they [correct translation: "he"] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their [correct translation: "his"] heel."

Note: Before HaShem rendered the sentence against Adam and Eve in verses 11-13, He asked them why they had disobeyed, but when He turned to the serpent, He asked no questions. Instead, HaShem immediately prophesied the serpent's final judgment.

Why? Why not give the serpent a chance to explain?

Because the serpent had already had his day in court and been found guilty. Here in Genesis 3:15 the serpent's sentence is merely being repeated. The serpent is that dragon of old, Satan. HaShem's forcing the serpent to crawl on his belly isn't a judgment against snakes; it's a metaphor. Satan (who has tried to exalt himself) will be cast out of heaven and confined to the Earth, and then cast into the abyss (Sheol).

But verse fifteen adds something new. God reveals for the first time that Satan's defeat will come at the hand of a human being, the "seed of the woman". Because the Jewish translators want to make clear that this is a reference to Israel, not to Yeshua, they have rendered this as they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel."

But if this were a reference to the people of Israel, then at what point will this ever happen? When will mere humans seize this super-creature and cast him into the abyss?

There's no way. We humans have no power over a super-being. And even if we did, we've certainly never renounced our allegiance to the god of this world.
Psalm 14:1-3 ... they have dealt corruptly, they have done abominably; there is none that doeth good.
v2 HaShem looked forth from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any man of understanding, that did seek after G-d.
v3 They are all corrupt, they are together become impure; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So who is this "seed of the woman" who will crush the head of the serpent?

This "seed of the woman" is human, but he isn't from among us, "the children of men" (among whom there is not even one righteous).

So who is this sinless human who will defeat Satan? Who could that be?

Wessen Schuld?

I took three years of high-school German, and therefore (of course) I know almost no German, but there is one phrase I haven't forgotten: "Wessen Schuld?"

My German teacher was a retired Army colonel. Colonel Price had been a U.S. Army infantry lieutenant during World War II and his lessons in German diction were often sprinkled with his personal experiences from the post-war German occupation. One time he was explaining the difference between "leider" (pronounced "LIE-duh") and "entschuldigen Sie mir" (ent-SHOOLT-uh-gun zee meer), both of which can be translated as "excuse me". He told us that "leider" is an adverb meaning unfortunately or regrettably. It's a weak apology, the sort of thing one might say as he steps in front of a fellow theater-goer in getting to a seat, but "entschuldigen Sie mir" expresses culpability and actual regret for ones actions. Colonel Price went on to explain that the "Schuld" (pronounced SHOOLT) in "entschuldigen" is the German word for "fault" or "guilt". So "entschuldigen" literally means "to un-fault", "to un-guilt", "to pardon".

To illustrate the word "Schuld", Colonel Price explained how it was used by the Allies after the war to get Germans to acknowledge their complicity in the holocaust. All across Germany the Allies put up posters that showed scenes of Nazi death camps. Atop those photos were two simple words: "Wessen Schuld?" - "Whose fault?"



This propaganda campaign, designed to force the Germans to admit their complicity in the Nazi atrocities, was very effective. So effective that nowadays the word "Nazi" is universally accepted as a synonym for "evil". The word "Nazi" has become the insult of choice whenever your argument is so weak that you have to resort to impugning the character of your opponent. It puts an end to all rational discussion. (For example, calling President Bush "Chimpee McHitler" is not an invitation to discuss the merits of American Middle East foreign policy.) But "Nazi" wasn't always such a pejorative term. It certainly wasn't in 1933 pre-war Germany when the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei came to power.

Economically the situation today is similar to the early days of the Great Depression. Foolish/greedy speculation, aggravated by governmental interference in the market (i.e., the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 versus the Community Reinvestment Act), had created an unbalance in financial markets that the government only exacerbated with its attempts to fix. And in some ways this year's presidential election is similar to that of 1932. But the similarity there is merely superficial. I believe this election much more like the German election of 1932 which resulted in the appointment of Aldolf Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. One must note that, in the month following Hitler's ascension, the Reichstag was burned and that by July Germany had become a one-party state.

This rapid consolidation of power by the Nazis in 1933 was facilitated by the mood in Germany. Historically the Germans had been a deeply religious people. Based on their religious faith they had built a strong Protestant work ethic. On that work ethic they constructed an industrial machine; and on industry they had built a strong central government under the Kaiser.

But with economic and political gains came spiritual loss. In the closing years of the 19th century the Germans lost faith in their God; then they lost the Great War (and with it their Kaiser); then they lost faith in their money, and finally they surrendered all faith in their government. By the early 1930s Germany was desperately cynical. Of course, the Nazis were eager to exploit this deep well of cynicism: inviting the German people to place faith in a more modern god, a god who promised to restore all of Germany's fortunes.

But more than promising mere material blessings, this modern god promised commodities that Germany desperately and undeniably needed even more: "hope" and "change". The Nazis did a masterful job of portraying themselves as the likeliest source of these core needs. In 1933, National Socialism was - rather than "evil" - seen as (to sum it up in one word) "progressive".

In economics, National Socialism was middle Europe's middle road between the failed experiments of American capitalism and Soviet communism, but it was much more than the thinking man's economic choice. Nazi social policy was the distilled wisdom of social Darwinism, which held the philosophical high ground in Europe and was even endorsed by the humanist elite on this side of the Atlantic. Only narrow-minded religious reactionaries could fail to see that human evolution had raised us from the primordial slime, and that technology had given us the power to seize control of our own evolution. No one dared deny the "modern" truth that man, by means of man's own efforts, could (and ought to) make himself "superman".

A little background is called for here as explanation of that last sentence. Long before the Nazis came to power, men of stature throughout Western society openly supported the eugenic policies that the Nazis would later implement. In the years leading up to Hitler's election, eugenicists (including H. G. Wells [renowned author], George Bernard Shaw [respected playwright], John Maynard Keynes [prime architect of the New Deal], Julian Huxley [acclaimed scientist] and Margaret Sanger [founder of Planned Parenthood]) were lauded as the thinkers of their day. And even before the Federal government became the prime sponsor of social engineering, the work of these enlightened ones was well-funded by respected institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

In 1907 future president Woodrow Wilson championed legislation in Indiana that required the involuntary sterilization of genetically unfit persons. By 1930 similar laws had been passed in thirty states. And even for some time after Adolf Hitler's rise to power, such notables as Charles Lindbergh and Joseph P. Kennedy (Ambassador to England and father of future President John F. Kennedy) were among Hitler's staunchest supporters. National Socialism was not an instant phenomenon; it was merely the political manifestation of popular ideas that had been circulating for a half-century.

The humanist message was very simple: human life has no intrinsic value. Given this fundamental tenet, its corollary was thus undeniable: some unwanted persons are expendable. In this regard, 21st century America compares unfavorably with 1930s Germany. In 1933 the Germans were on the verge of exterminating 6,000,000 unwanted Jews whom they hated; we have already killed 40,000,000 unborn children whom we simply find inconvenient. In place of the Nazi's selfless goal of "eugenic progress", our rationale is the mere selfish motive of "personal choice". Instead of isolated, demonized Jews - the target has become our own innocent, womb-cradled babies. And (most damningly) the slaughter has lasted two generations, not just a decade. Today the issues are different than they were in the 1930s, but the apologists for evil are ever the same.

All this brings me to my real subject. National Socialism grew in soil well prepared for that hemlock seed. The soil of Western Civilization, broken with a half century of humanism, was seeking human solutions to humanity's problems. The people of Europe and the elite of America had long ago abandoned the religious tenet that all human life is the gift of God and that each of us is accountable to our Creator for how we use or abuse that gift. The simplistic morality of the Victorians had given way to a more modern wisdom: "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Which is to say: man had arrogated to himself (not just the power to choose right from wrong) but the authority to define right and wrong.

This proud new generation of Übermenschen had dispensed with outmoded notions of God - joining Nietzsche in declaring that man himself is all the god mankind needs. (Or as it's been more recently worded: "We are who we've been waiting for.") But the messianic promise of National Socialism wasn't merely that we are gods; it was that we could make ourselves "like the Most High."

My point, of course, isn't simply that our grandfathers erred, but that we are in the process of repeating their error. What I find most troubling aren't the solutions that are being offered for today's social problems, but the assumptions that are never questioned. Today's universal "truth" can be summed in one statement: "The government ought to do something about [problem du jour]." But if history teaches us anything, it's that governments are much more prone to causing problems than to fixing them.

Understand, I'm not saying that any American politician today is like Adolf Hitler. It's worse than that. I'm saying that America is now so desperate for a political messiah that we'll even accept someone who is so much less charismatic than Hitler was. The problem isn't that we have demigods running for office (for there's certainly nothing new about politicians' presuming to possess divine powers). The problem is: we expect these demigods to perform miracles for us. We have degenerated from dependence on the Bible's God of the universe, past a begrudging acceptance of Kipling's "gods of the copybook headings", to worship of the Chicago machine's skillfully crafted idol. Germany bowed to an inspiring orator who stood on a magnificent stage at Nuremburg. America worships a mumbling snob who stands before a Styrofoam Parthenon that was borrowed from some Hollywood back lot.

You may be thinking: "Gee, that's quite an extrapolation. How can you say that present trends will inevitably lead to a new holocaust?" I answer, "My mentioning 'broad is the way that leads to destruction' is not the same as predicting that society will follow that road to its end. Only God's victory is inevitable; we merely choose whether our fate is in our hands or God's."

And that's precisely what troubles me most. Where is the outrage over the slaughter of 40-million babies since Roe v Wade and why are we so indifferent to the rising tide of anti-Semitism? The Germans (untroubled in the 1930s by the hidden slaughter of the mentally and physically deficient) by the 1940s had not only accepted the wholesale slaughter of society's unwanted, but even gloried in their tattooed lampshades and dental bullion.

Of course, I find it very troubling that the ridicule of those who trust in God (of us who "cling to our guns and religion") is now in vogue, but the Christian faith was born and it has flourished under far worse Caesars. So I don't fret about the persecution of Christians (for the Light shines brightest in the darkness). But I do feel horrible dread for Israel. Christians are called as witnesses to God's faithfulness, but Israel is the living testimony of God's promise. Whenever a Christian speaks up, he exposes the world's idolatry. But so long as a Jew breathes, the world stands condemned. The Christian can be silenced, but the Jew - ah the Jew - that's a problem requiring a "Final Solution".

Our Jewish brethren have just ended their commemoration of Yom Kippur (the day of repentance), but for America our Day of Atonement lies ahead of us. Before we complete the job of turning America into a workers' paradise and Israel into death camp, let's confess our idolatry and consider the words we must never forget: "Wessen Schuld?"

Baruch hab-ba bashem Adonai

I'm sure you've all heard that Politico.com reported on the founder of Jews for Jesus' speech at Sarah Palin's church:
"Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."

NBC's coverage of the Republican National Convention even featured leftist pundit Rachel Maddow citing this as fact:
Maddow: Jews for Jesus founder [was] speaking at her church while she was there two weeks ago making incredibly, incredibly out of line comments about Israel and Jewish people. Saying that's why Israel was subject to terrorist attacks. It was God's judgment for not believing in Christ.
Matthews: What's the source?
Maddow: Politico.com

It's a sad state of affairs when the mainstream media feels no obligation to confirm their facts or to correct their erroneous reports. Of course, NBC News (as CBS News did four years ago when it used fraudulent documents to attack President Bush) is in deep denial about its once again being suckered by the lunatic left. Of course, the media's defense is simply to claim that they're reporting what people think. It matters not what David Brickner actually said during that sermon, it matters only what some leftists think he meant.

I've just finished listening to David Brickner's complete message ("The Jerusalem Dilemma") from that Sunday morning (August 17th, 2008) service at Wasilla Bible Church, and unsurprisingly I've found that he did not say what Politico.com has reported.

It may come as a surprise to Politico.com (and its accomplices/dupes in the media), but a letter from the insurance company reminding a homeowner to renew his policy is not a threat to torch his house -- and David Brickner's message praising Jesus as the only hope for Israel and all mankind did not call for God to smite His Chosen People.

If you'd like to check this out for yourself, here's the complete transcript of David Brickner's message to Wasilla Bible Church.

David Brickner's own commentary on this malicious attack can be found here.

The Rose that Does Not Die

Earth's mighty kings (avowed to crush the bloody rose)
but pierced their hand on you, O crown of thorn.
Why do the nations rage? Know not your foolish foes
'twas through Sea of Red that you were born?

Bitter Herbs

Passover begins at sunset this evening. The following story is fiction built around a Passover commemoration -- a very tragic one that occurred 1938 years ago.

I asked, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" And of course, Papa gave the answer that had been spoken since the days of Moses, but I knew with terrifying certainty that the full answer was actually something far worse than Papa (or, for that matter, even the high priest at the Temple) could imagine. I knew, even as a mere 13-year-old boy from Pergamum on his first Pesach pilgrimage, that something was seriously wrong about this Passover. True, everything had been done according to Law and tradition -- from the selection of our lamb four days prior, to purging leaven from the house -- but still, it was wrong. Jerusalem was brooding; the holiday celebration only highlighted the fear seen on every face.

Just a few months ago the Zealots had been assuring everyone that Vespasian's withdrawal was just the first phase in their drive to rid Israel of pagan Romans. Oddly, the Zealots now seemed pleased with the Roman army's returned, led now by the new Emperor's son Titus. They bragged, this would be the final show-down with Rome - the L-rd would again deliver Israel just as He'd saved us on the shore of the Red Sea.

But now (some 1500 years after Moses had led us from Egypt) Papa's recounting of the exodus was accompanied by the ominous, throbbing drums of the Tenth Roman Legion on the move outside the city. The aroma of the Passover lamb was tainted with the pork-laden stench of Roman campfires to the west. Our solemn prayers were interrupted by the coarse laughter of Roman soldiers -- undoubtedly enjoying their torture of some captive. So all that fanatical talk by the Zealots about Messiah's kingdom bringing Rome to its knees rang very hollow. All who were within Jerusalem's walls this night had but one thought, "Would the angel of death again pass us by as he had in Egypt?"

But as I said, while others had misgivings, I had no delusions about the outcome of this siege. Indeed, I was a mere boy. Yet I was also the same old Lenny Markowitz I've always been -- lumpy, middle-aged, thin-haired, bespectacled accountant who commutes daily from his home in Queens to his office on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center. I'm no historian; but even as a boy in Brooklyn the outcome of this, the bloodiest battle in all of human history, was something I knew. So when I spoke my predestined words, "Why on this night do we eat unleavened bread only?" I knew that eating unleavened bread on this night was different because, following this night we would eat stray dogs, rats, roaches, shoe leather, and (if that shmuck Josephus is to be believed) even babies.

I knew with terrifying certainty that on the Day of Atonement this year, the blood shed on the Temple Altar would be that of the Levitical Priests, not the bulls. This I knew, but this my father also intuitively understood. At the end of the meal Papa (though devout and very strict about tradition) abruptly stood, removed his kippah and announced, "We dare not pass the night within the walls of the city."

Mama protested, "Surely you joke. You've hardly finished telling the story of the death angel and now you want to dash into the streets to meet him?"

But Papa remained firm, "So stay if you must, but I will not wait for the Romans to kick down the door."

I stood, "Papa, I'm with you!" Momma cried. But even if she'd had the courage to join us, I don't think any of her brothers would have let her go. Harsh words passed between Papa and Mama's family and then we were in the streets of Jerusalem.

We'd seen Roman soldiers on the north and west of the city when we arrived, so we knew there would be no escape that direction. We ascended stairs to the top of the eastern wall, just south of the Temple. From that vantage we could see torches to the east, across the Kidron Valley, moving southward. Papa said, "The Romans have closed the trap. We'll wait until after midnight when the full moon has passed zenith -- then the eastern wall will be in shadow."

Papa explained his plan in detail. First he'd lower me down by rope and then climb down after me. We'd dash for the grove below the Mount of Olives. From there we'd keep to the shadows, creeping southward, down the Kidron Valley to where it meets the Valley of Hinnom (also called Gehenna). If by dawn we weren't clear of the city, we'd bury ourselves in the city refuse heap until after dark tomorrow. It was a good plan. But when the clouds moved in, Papa suddenly whispered, "Now's the time!" Securing the rope around my waist, he all but pushed me off the ledge. I was halfway down the wall when the clouds parted and the moon silhouetted me against the limestone blocks. A Roman archer pierced my pounding heart. I heard his gleeful boasting before I lost consciousness. I was dead before Papa had let the rope play out. The death angel, once again, had claimed the first-born on the night of Passover.

And that's how it is every night. No, I'm not always escaping from Jerusalem, but I'm always another Jew dying a horrific death. I've entertained the blood-thirsty crowds at the Roman Coliseum. I've spit in Torquemada's greasy face. I've been trampled by the Czar's horses; I've starved at Auschwitz, frozen at Dachau, been gunned down in Warsaw, been gassed at Treblinka....

I know what you're thinking: These nightmares have something to do with feelings about my repressive Jewish upbringing. Wrong! My family wasn't very "Jewish" -- we celebrated Passover with bacon cheeseburgers. Okay, so Miss Shiksa Psychiatrist doesn't get the joke. Just trust me, I didn't have a Jewish upbringing -- repressive or otherwise. But my childhood is beside the point.

Doc, the death angel's nightly visitations may be nightmarish, but they aren't nightmares. Each night when I fall asleep, I actually become another doomed Jew. When I exhale my last breath, I don't awaken from sleep -- I simply find myself awake in my own bed. And I don't just remember the events that transpired during that night -- I remember everything each doomed person has ever done during his entire life. I've felt their joy, their fear -- I've shed their tears, voiced their laughter. I've been kissed a million times on the head by thousands of mothers (my mother, every single one), and I've kissed a thousand women (each of them my wife) as she pleased. I've accumulated all the collective memories of all the thousands of persons I've known as "me". I remember every moan, every lullaby, every prayer, and every death rattle -- always my death rattle. All this I remember, but those last tormented moments of each of those lives ... I have lived.

But tell me, why me? Why -- night after endless night -- have I (of all people) been chosen to bear every sin ever committed against the Jewish people throughout history? Jesus Christ! How much suffering can one man bear?

Since You Asked ...

In response to Gumpher's recent comment asking why the date of Jesus Christ's crucifixion changes from year to year, I replied with the following comment:

Gumpher--
Indeed, there's more and much older manuscript evidence of Jesus' life than of Julius Caesar's. But like Caesar there's no confusion about the date when Jesus died. Caesar was stabbed on the Ides of March (March 15th); Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for Passover, Nisan 14 of the Hebrew calendar. But because the Jewish calendar is lunisolar (inserting seven leap months during each 19 year period rather than a leap day once every four years), Nisan 14 falls anywhere from late March to late April on the Gregorian calendar.

However, while there's no question about the date of the year, there is some doubt as to which year Jesus was crucified. Given that: (1) Jesus died on Nisan 14, (2) He was in the tomb three days, and (3) He rose from the dead between midnight and dawn on a Sunday, we can conclude that the crucifixion must have occurred either on Wednesday April 3rd of A.D. 30 or on Friday April 1st of A.D. 33. No other years within the possible range of Christ's later life permit a Sunday morning resurrection three days after His death on Nisan 14.

As for the seemingly random conjunction of Easter and Passover, those holidays usually coincide (a few days one way or the other), but because Easter is always celebrated on a Sunday and Passover falls on a different day of the week from year to year, they rarely coincide as they did when Christ went to the cross. And every once in a while (partly due to the Vatican's archane rules for setting the date for Easter) the insertion of a second month of Adar will cause Easter to occur a full month ahead of the Feast of Passover. (I'm pretty sure the Greek Orthodox Church is celebrating Easter next month - right next to Passover.)

If you're interested, I'll tell you which of the two years (A.D. 30 or 33) I believe is the more likely date of the crucifixion and why I think so. (But you have to ask me to torture you with that boring detail.)

So far Gumpher has wisely demurred, but my brother-in-law Jerry (being not so blessed with Gumpher's wisdom) took the bait. Duty demands that I make good my promised of an explanation, but I caution you not to attach any spiritual significance to this. It really doesn't matter when Christ's crucifixion occurred. The important thing is that our Lord's Resurrection is an historical fact. So with my caution that this information is both useless and boring, feel free to quit reading now. You've been warned.

I believe Jesus Christ was probably crucified in A.D. 30. I think the most compelling argument for that date is found in an otherwise innocuous statement in John 2:20. But before I explain how that verse argues for an A.D. 30 crucifixion, let's make sure we understand what the point of this passage is.

Back during Jesus' earthly ministry, the Jewish leaders who controlled the operation of the Temple in Jerusalem were trading in Passover lambs. We read in John's Gospel that when Jesus saw this, He commanded:

"Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." (John 2:15)

Since there's nothing wrong with buying and selling sheep, what was Jesus objecting to?

Matthew's account of Jesus' similar action three years later gives us clues:

And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN." And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. (Matthew 21:12-14)

Two things immediately jump out:
The trade was being conducted inside the Temple (probably meaning within the confines of the outer court); and
Thus, the trade involved the Levitical priests, the very people who were responsible for the selection of Passover lambs.

By the first century A.D. the Levitical priests had assumed the roll of Passover butchers (something the Old Testament Scriptures did not commission them to do). Thus, the priests (as those who certified the fitness of the lambs), by engaging in the lamb trade themselves, stood to gain financially by finding fault with spotless, unblemished lambs, that were brought for slaughter, or conversely by certifying the lame and blind lambs they were selling as spotless and unblemished. We also see that "moneychangers" (non-Levites) were involved in the lamb market. These moneychangers weren't merely exchanging foreign currency, they were sanctifying the transaction by exchanging any coins that had a "graven image" (of Caesar) for currency that the priests could accept in trade for their certified spotless and blameless Passover lambs. The revenue stream from those who handled Caesar's filthy lucre then would have flowed back to the Levites by way of rental space in the Temple or through tithes on the moneychangers' income.

In response to this, Jesus not only disrupted their business, but set about actually doing what the Levites themselves had presumed to do: He sanctified the lame and the blind as fit for God's service. And thus Jesus proved Himself to be the real "Lamb of God" ("suffering servant" spoken of by in Isaiah 53), the one who had the power to sanctify those who were defiled. In response to Jesus' actions, the Jewish officials challenged Him to explain by what authority He'd disrupted their trade.

The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?" (John 2:18)

Were the Jewish leaders really asking for a sign miracle? No, Jesus was already performing the sign miracles that bespoke the Messiah. These Jewish authorities weren't asking Jesus for proof, they were asking for His credentials. Their question is probably rhetorical; they were merely saying, "You have no authority to disrupt our business." Nonetheless, Jesus answers them by citing the supreme proof of His divine commission.

Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19)

The word "destroy" here is in the imperative - it's a command to the Jewish leaders. But rather than understanding this as an order, we should take it as irony.

The same sort of challenge is issue by God in Amos 4:4
"Enter Bethel [house of God] and transgress! In Gilgal multiply transgression! Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days. Offer a thank offering also from that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, make them known. For so you love to do, you sons of Israel," declares the Lord GOD.

Is God actually commanding Israel to sin? No, of course not. He is defying them to test Him. Likewise, Jesus isn't commanding the Jewish authorities to execute Him; He's merely saying, "Go ahead and destroy this Temple [My body] and see what happens." But the Jewish authorities misunderstood Jesus' statement as a reference to Herod's Temple.

The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple [or rather, "This temple has been under construction for 46 years"], and will You raise it up in three days?" (John 2:20)

We know from extra-Biblical sources that the construction of Herod's Temple was begun in 20 or 19 B.C., so these Jewish officials must have uttered this statement no earlier than Passover of A.D. 26 and no later than A.D. 28. This is the first of four Passover commemorations mentioned in John's Gospel. So if these four Passover Feasts were in consecutive years, then that final Passover (when Jesus was crucified) in John 13 and following would have been three years later: A.D. 29, 30 or 31.

In Matthew 12:39,40 Jesus declared:
"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Using the reckoning of our current Gregorian calendar (which of course, wouldn't exist for another 15 centuries), Passover of A.D. 29 fell on Sunday, April 15th. If that were the year upon which Jesus had been crucified on the day of preparation for Passover, then that would mean He died on a Saturday. But there is no way one can interpret the interval from Saturday evening to the next morning as "three days and three nights", so A.D. 29 is not a possibility. In A.D. 31 Passover was on Tuesday March 25th. Likewise, the interval from Monday evening to Sunday morning is more than five days and by no reckoning can that be called "three days and three nights". So by process of elimination we're left with only Wednesday, April 3, A.D. 30.

However, this argument alone isn't sufficient to eliminate A.D. 33, since it's predicated on the assumption that Jesus' earthly ministry lasted less than five years. But we find no definitive Biblical statement that the Passover commemorations mentioned in John's Gospel were consecutive or even that they're listed in chronological order (other than the fact that Jesus was obviously crucified on the last of those Passovers). So even if one accepts the fact that the events of John chapter two occurred sometime between A.D. 26 and 28, that doesn't preclude the possibility that Jesus was crucified five to seven years later (on Friday April 1, A.D. 33).

In support of A.D. 30 are several facts:
(1) Jesus Christ was most likely born in either 6 or 5 B.C. (From Luke 2 we know Herod the Great was still alive when Jesus was born, and from extra-Biblical records we know that Herod died in 4 B.C. But if the Lord were crucified in A.D. 33, then He would have been at least 37 years old when He went to the cross.);
(2) If Christ's crucifixion occurred in A.D. 30, then in that year there was an added day for selection of the Passover Lamb (see the chronology below);
(3) If Christ's crucifixion occurred in A.D. 30, then Israel was granted exactly 40 years of wandering in a spiritual wilderness. (In A.D. 70 the Roman army, using the Jew's Feast of Passover against them, permitted Passover celebrants to enter Jerusalem, but the Romans then sealed off the city on Passover, thus trapping an estimated one-million Jews within the walls of Jerusalem, 70% of whom weren't there a week earlier.);
(4) If Christ's crucifixion occurred in A.D. 30, then Jesus' body lay in the tomb a full three days and three nights (according to both the Hebrew and Roman calendars); and
(5) If Christ's crucifixion occurred in A.D. 30, then Sunday, Resurrection day, lands on Nisan 18, the middle day of the week of the Feast of First Fruits when the unleavened grain offering seasoned with incense was to be presented to God. "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:20)

Here's the sequence of the Passion week for the two possible years:
If the year of Christ's crucifixion was A.D. 33 [during Hebrew calendar year 3793], Nisan 14 (the date of the crucifixion) would have started on a Thursday evening and ended on Friday afternoon.
9th = Saturday-Sunday (Mary's anointing Jesus' feet)
10th = Sunday-Monday (Selection of the Passover Lamb)
11th = Monday-Tuesday
12th = Tuesday-Wednesday
13th = Wednesday-Thursday
14th = Thursday-Friday (Last Supper & Crucifixion)
15th = Friday-Saturday (Passover)
16th = Saturday-Sunday (3 Roman calendar days: Sat, Sun, Mon)
17th = Sunday-Monday (3 Hebrew calendar days: Sabbath plus days 1, 2)
18th = Monday-Tuesday (3 days = after midnight, before sunrise Tuesday)

However, Jesus did not rise from the dead on a Tuesday. It was a Sunday morning.

If the year was A.D. 30 [during the Hebrew calendar year 3790], Nisan 14 would have fallen on Tuesday/Wednesday.
9th = Thursday-Friday (Anointing of Jesus' feet - selection of Passover Lamb)
10th = Friday-Saturday [No preparation for Passover due to Sabbath]
11th = Saturday-Sunday
12th = Sunday-Monday
13th = Monday-Tuesday
14th = Tuesday-Wednesday (Last Supper & Crucifixion)
15th = Wednesday-Thursday (Passover)
16th = Thursday-Friday (3 Roman calendar days: Thu, Fri, Sat)
17th = Friday-Saturday (3 Hebrew calendar days: days 5, 6, 7)
18th = Saturday-Sunday (3 days = after midnight, before sunrise Sunday)

It's only fair that I cite the counter-arguments in favor of A.D. 33.

In support of the A.D. 33 date is an astronomical event, the lunar eclipse of April 3rd, A.D. 33. On that evening the moon rose over Jerusalem in mid-eclipse. Proponents of A.D. 33 cite this as fulfillment of Joel 2:31, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." And they also point out that Peter (in Acts 2:20) quotes Joel 2 as proof that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. This all sounds very convincing until you consider two facts.

First the eclipse of April 3, A.D. 33 was only a partial eclipse, so even at the height of the eclipse the moon would have been only partially obscured. It would not have been the "blood moon" one sees during a full lunar eclipse. This partial eclipse would have been difficult to distinguish from a typical moonrise that's been partially obscured by clouds. Secondly, the Apostle John tells us in Revelation 6:12 that Joel's prophecy will be fulfilled when the sixth seal is broken, so unless your eschatology teaches that Jesus' second coming has already occurred, you have (in addition to the practical problem of an obscure fulfillment of a major Old Testament prophecy) a very big theological problem with calling the partial eclipse of April 3, A.D. 33 the fulfillment of Joel 2:31.

Also, as an argument in support of A.D. 33, are the words of Jesus' disciples on the road to Emmaus:

"But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened." (Luke 24:21)

These words were spoken on Resurrection Sunday. So if the third day is Sunday, then counting backward: Day 2 = Saturday, and Day 1 = Friday. Conclusion: the Lord was crucified on a Friday, which (based on the timing of the Hebrew calendar) establishes the year as A.D. 33. The counter argument is simple: "It is the third day since these things happened" need not be interpreted literally. These disciples could have just as easily meant, "It's been three days since these things happened." Preferring the narrow interpretation of these disciples' ambiguous words over the clear statement of the Lord that He would be "three days and three nights" in the tomb seems foolish to me.

So there you have it. The conclusion seems obvious to me: "Good Friday" occurred on Wednesday, April 5, A.D. 30. I won't argue this point with anyone, because (as I said from the start) it really doesn't matter what day our Lord died.

What matters is: He's alive!

Easter and Esther

Joyce and I are the "young" folks in our senior adult Sunday school class and some of our classmates have been in the church since they were children, so among the members of the class, there are a lot of friendships of longstanding. And they do love to tease each other, especially about getting old.

This morning before class, someone remarked about how early Easter falls this year. Mary, a fiesty white-haired octagenarian, dazzled us with her command of statistics, "You know, the last time Easter fell on March 23rd was 1913."

John (fifteen years Mary's junior) drolly inqired, "Mary, can you also remember what the weather was like that day?"

One of the oddities of Easter's falling so early is its departure from the actual Jewish Feast upon which the Resurrection occurred, Pesach (a.k.a., Passover). Another oddity of Easter coming so early was a courtesy call from the Watchtower's Witnesses (who style themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses). In any case, two sweet clueless little old ladies came to the door yesterday to invite us to attend their "Memorial" service that evening. The "memorial" of which they speak is what orthodox Christians refer to as "The Lord's Supper".

However, the Watchtower's Witnesses have a tradition of "observing" their Memorial just once a year, on the eve of Passover (the evening that begins Nisan 14). When I pointed out that Passover doesn't happen for another month, they insisted that the Watchtower has the date correct and all of Judaism has messed up. I couldn't help but laugh at the notion that this 3500-year-old tradition celebrating the birth of the nation of Israel has been screwed up by the Jews but put right by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I told them, "I don't hold to your Roman Catholic traditions, so I'll be celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Crucifixion next month."

These dear miguided ladies protested my claim they're holding to Roman Catholic tradition, so I replied, "Well, it appears this year you are. Invite me next month."

As I pointed out last year in this post, there's no Biblical mandate to celebrate Easter. We Christians celebrate not because we're commanded to, but because the news of Christ's Resurrection is simply too joyous not to celebrate it. Unlike that neo-gnostic cult, the Watchtower's Witnesses, who commemorate Christ's death but deny His physical resurrection (in direct contradiction of Luke 24:39), Christians celebrate the Messiah's Resurrection, not because we have to, but because we can't help it.

Of course, since the Passover observance is deeply interwoven into the Passion story, my personal preference would be to have Easter occur during the week of Passover every year, but it's of no real consequence whether our celebration actually coincides with Passover. So admittedly I was being more than a little disingenuous with those lost souls who came knocking on our door. But I hasten to add that my sanctified sarcasm served the worthy purpose of pointing out that the Watchtower (which puts great stock in its timing of its "Memorial") flubbed it this year.

Now, it occurs to me that there is an upside to Easter coming a month before Passover. That places it smack up against the celebration of Purim, Israel's indulgence in a bit of legitimate schadenfreude, when they celebrate the foiling of Haman's plot to exterminate the Jews.

In Luke 24:25-27 [KJV] Jesus said to His two disciples on the road to Emmaus:
... O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

What "scriptures" was Jesus expounding on as He walked the Emmaus road? Of course, there are several direct Old Testament allusions to the need for Messiah to suffer, die and be resurrected (Gen 3:15; Deuteronomy 18:15; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 53:4; Daniel 7:13; Daniel 9:24-27; Micah 5:2; Zech 9:9), but as I study the Bible, I find that there's hardly anywhere in the Old Testament that doesn't prophesy of the Lord's sacrifice.

The Book of Esther is a case in point. Consider the plot of the story: The usurper [Haman], enraged that God's Anointed [Mordechai] refuses to bow to him, plots to destroy him and erects wooden gallows on which to hang the Anointed. But rather than defeating God's Anointed, the gallows become the means of the usurper's own downfall. Is there anything about that story that sounds familiar?

Poor Bill Gates

Bill Gates has apparently decided that the key to lifting the world's poor out of poverty is to shame corporate America into throwing its loose change at charities. (And of course, one has to suspect that Bill Gates's own charitable trust is the best one to funnel those dollars into.)

The author of this article, Bill Easterly, makes the practical case against the kind of "charity" Bill Gates wants to impose on the poor, and he makes a great argument in favor of the kind of capitalism Bill Gates himself has benefited from, so there's no need for me to rehash his insights. Rather, I write to ask a more subjective question: "Are we really all that surprised that Bill Gates (having found his self-aggrandizement futile) now finds his messiahship worthwhile?"

Hardly! After all, this is the same Bill Gates who just a few years ago told Time Magazine: "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

Please understand, I truly wish Bill Gates all the best -- by which I mean, I wish he'd take the advice of the One to whom he will ultimately give account: Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. (Rev 3:17-18)

"Alas, poor Bill Gates!" I do plead with you: "Apply the salve of humility to your eyes, and look up -- look up and gaze on the One who 'though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.' (2 Corinthians 8:9) Let Him clothe you in His righteousness. (Revelation 19:8)" And finally I beg you, "Spend your few remaining shekels of time procuring the gold that endures."

Let's Remember ...

I was preparing a Bible lesson for this coming Sunday when I came across a rather striking passage in the "Minor Prophets", one of those passages you probably won't be hearing in your typical Presbyterian Church service:

Zephaniah 1:13-18 "Moreover, their wealth will become plunder, and their houses desolate. Yes, they will build houses but not inhabit them, and plant vineyards but not drink their wine."
v14 Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly. Listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly.
v15 A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
v16 A day of trumpet and battle cry, against the fortified cities and the high corner towers.
v17 And I will bring distress on men, so that they will walk like the blind, because they have sinned against the LORD. And their blood will be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung.
v18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them on the day of the LORD'S wrath. And all the earth will be devoured in the fire of His jealousy, for He will make a complete end, indeed a terrifying one, of all the inhabitants of the earth.

This inspired passage from God's Word brings to mind that inspiring tune from the Bellamy Brothers:

"Jesus is Coming"

True Atonement

In 1966 Gary Lowenmensch* turned 13 and, of course, his family celebrated the event with the traditional rite of passage, his Bar Mitzvah. The Lowenmensches lived just up the block from us and they were members of the reform congregation, Temple Mount Sinai. Gary and I buddied around together, so my family was honored with an invitation to Jerry's big event. Oddly, I don't think the Hochbergs* (who live further up the block past the Lowenmensches) were invited. Jerry and Alan Hochberg told me their parents discouraged them from associating with the Lowenmensches. The Hochbergs were members of the orthodox/conservative congregation, Synagogue B'nai Zion. The synagogue was a dank old structure near downtown El Paso that appeared to be begging for some Russian Orthodox church to make an offer.

In stark contrast, the temple (where the Lowenmensches went) is a stylish work of art perched high on the western foothills of Mount Franklin at (what was in 1966) the end of North Stanton Street. The sunset vistas from that location are truly spectacular, and the auditorium of the temple faces westward. But oddly the temple has no western windows and the widest end of the temple's paraboloid (the end with soaring stained glass windows) faces eastward where the windows catch virtually no light. Mount Franklin blocks the view of sunrise and the west side of the building affords the congregation no view of the gorgeous west Texas sunsets.

As I sat in the pew at the back of the temple's auditorium I wasn't particularly pondering the building's odd orientation. I was struck by all the beautiful woodwork on display before us, especially the beautiful ark containing the Torah scrolls. During the service the rabbi gave a sermon that spoke highly of unity among Jewish congregations, comparing them favorably with Christian churches that have fought endlessly over "minor" issues. All in all, the guy made a valid point or two, but he failed to shift me from my belief that the Protestant Reformation was a very good idea. Following the rabbi's oration, Gary Lowenmensch demonstrated his facility with the daily portion, and we were invited to join Gary in a reception room behind the auditorium and congratulate him on his ascendancy to manhood. My family (as the outsiders at this extended family gathering) lingered long enough to be polite and then left.

Fast forward two years. My colleagues from Coronado High and I are crammed into Ronnie Peres's* GTO, listening to Jim Morrison screaming "C'mon Baby, Light My Fire ..." on Ronnie's eight-track. I conclude, "Well, I guess 'The Doors' are better than Bob Dylan," but Ronnie is absolutely blown away by the music and keeps the volume knob pegged clockwise. So when we finally pile out of Ronnie's car in the parking lot of the Carousel Club in Anapra, New Mexico, I'm relieved that the assault on my eardrums has finally ended. At this point in the story, you probably have all the wrong ideas about what a crowd of under-age boys are doing in Anapra NM at a place called the Carousel Club. We're the Coronado High School cross country team, and we've decided to do something different for our workout that day. We're going to run up a mountain -- a 1000-foot volcanic outcropping named Mount Cristo Rey.

Near the parking lot of the Carousel Club a winding dirt road exits from the Anapra Highway and snakes its way up the mountain. We pile out of Ronnie's GTO and trot off at a brisk pace straight toward the mountain. Jimmy Bates* lopes on ahead (the freak is nothing but legs and lungs). A half-hour later I drag my gasping body onto the mountain top, ahead of three of our six-person team. Bates, completely rested and leaning against a massive monument, chides me for taking so long. As we stand there surveying the west side of El Paso, I see a building I recognize. It's Temple Mount Sinai about two or three miles away. With that roof of concentric arches, it's unmistakable.

Then it dawns on me: I'm looking straight up the nose of the temple. Aha! Now I understand why the synagogue (even though its pews face westward) doesn't have any western windows. If that Jewish congregation could see beyond those Torah scrolls, they'd be looking straight at "Cristo Rey", Christ the King! And atop that mount they'd see this monument and they might remember:

Isaiah 65:1-2
"I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, 'Here am I, here am I,' To a nation which did not call on My name. I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts."






And if this story seems a bit too contrived to be true, just check it out. Here's an image from a webcam that sits on Ranger Peak. I've drawn a line from Temple Mount Sinai to Mount Cristo Rey.








* All names have been changed.

Good News Bad News

This is the season when we Christians celebrate Jesus Christ's resurrection. But the importance of Easter isn't that we celebrate, but rather what we celebrate. Unlike our Jewish brothers, there's no ordinance in the Bible commanding Christians to celebrate at this time of year. We do it, not because we have to, but because we can't help it. We're drawn to the empty tomb in awe, not driven to it by law.

The only people I know who object to Christians joyously celebrating Easter are PC Christians who fear offending their Jewish or Muslim colleagues. For the most part (radical Islamists being the obvious exception), people of other Faiths have no objection to Christians doing what Christians do. The chocolate bunnies and colored eggs aren't offensive. Jewish youngsters look for Elijah; Christian tikes look for a basket-toting bunny. Jewish children hunt for broken matzo; Christian kids hunt for colored eggs. Isn't it quaint that we have different traditions?

But let's be clear, the message of Easter (that Israel's Messiah was crucified on the eve of Passover and rose from the dead three days later) is extremely offensive. If Messiah came in the first century, as Christians claim (and as was foretold by the prophet Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27), then for the past 2000 years Israel has been rejecting its Messiah and defying its God. That's a tough pill to swallow, because if we Christians are right about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, then Judaism has erred very badly. And that's bad news.

But if Christians are right about the identity of Jesus, and if Messiah has already fulfilled Isaiah 53, then we can also expect Him to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 54 and rescue the nation of Israel from an increasingly desperate geopolitical situation. And that's good news. Listen - you'll hear the rattling of bones in Israel (Ezekiel 37).

There's a funny saying that pretty well sums up the difference between Judaism and Christianity: Jesus saves - Moses invests. It's a good joke, but it also conveys an even greater truth. Judaism views works of righteousness as earning credit with God. But if we Christians are right and if deliverance from God’s righteous wrath is “not by works of righteous which we have done, but according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5), then all of Judaism's works for the past two millennia have been squandered on a foolish investment.

So, in this joyous season the good news for us Christians is: The Rock of our salvation lives! But to our Jewish brothers we sadly render bad news: our Rock is "the Stone the builders have rejected" (Psalm 118:22). I strongly urge you, my Jewish brothers (though you find my words offensive): Someday, on Passover, when you open the door for Elijah and he actually walks in, listen carefully to what he has to say about Messiah.