Me and My Labels

I know you're just dying to know all about me, and if you're not, then you ought to be....Just kidding. Mostly.

People seem to have a lot of false impressions about me. In a world full of labels, it's easy to grab one that's handy and use it, and sometimes that's helpful. We generalize and stereotype because it helps us to sort out the world and deal with the plague of Too Much Information. Unfortunately, those labels never really fit anything perfectly, and they fit some things and people--yours truly, for example--less perfectly than others. If you only read one of my articles about the Torah, you might think I'm Jewish. If you only read one of my articles about polygamy, you might think I'm a rogue Mormon. If you read all of my articles, you might just have a whole fistful of labels, not all of them so benign. Let me sort some of them out for you:

Christian - If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, then I like this label. People have different ideas about what he taught, though, so let me clarify. I believe that Jesus, whom I prefer to call by his Hebrew name of Yeshua, is the only man ever conceived as a Son of God, meaning that he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the direct action of God. I also believe that he existed before he was conceived, and, in fact, existed before everything. He was the Voice of God that spoke the Universe into existence. He appeared as a man and an angel to the patriarchs and to Moses and Joshua. He lived a perfect, sinless life, never violating the Torah, and then, of his own free will, he was crucified by both gentiles and Jews, his blood making a perfect atonement for all the world's sin. He was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and has promised to return again in physical form. I believe that he wants us to live as he lived, honoring the Torah by his love for the Father and for men. I take him seriously when he says that, so long as heaven and earth still exist, we should live and teach the Torah and the Prophets. So if my life labels me as a "little Christ" then so be it.

Jewish - As far as I'm aware, I don't have any Jewish ancestors. But then, I've only been able to trace my family back a few hundred years to the Korpers/Kerbers in 17th century Hesse-Darmstadt. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish family by the name of Korper a few hundred miles away in Hungary. I've read speculation that the Korper name came from the scribes or unit historians that accompanied Roman military units which settled in the fringes of the Empire. Some of those scribes may have been Jewish, since Jews tended to be more literate than the general population at the time. Some of them might have adopted the occupational name of Korper, and some of those might have migrated a little further north into Germany. Some big maybes there. I don't see any reason to stretch the point though, so I'm operating under the assumption that I am not of Jewish descent. I'm not sure it would make any practical difference if I am. (Update 2016: It turns out I do have some Jewish DNA, less than 1%, but its origins are so lost in the mists of family history, that it might as well not be there at all. It's irrelevant to salvation or citizenship in the nation of Israel.)

No, the other Jewish - I'm not the other Jewish, either. The religious kind, I mean. I don't recognize any inherent authority in anyone calling himself a rabbi, nor do I adhere to the teachings of the Talmud. I think that Judaism has a lot of good things going for it, but it has a lot of bad, too. The Jews are at least as far off the mark as the Catholics or the Mormons, and not as far off as some others that I might still consider brothers in the faith. I practice some common Christian traditions, such as baptism and communion, and I have also adopted (or adapted) some worthwhile Jewish traditions, such as their Passover seder and singing the Shema.

Flake - There might be a grain of truth in this label. I'll let you be the judge.

Messianic - The term "messianic" refers to the Messiah, and "Messianic Jew" refers to a Jew who has accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. If you leave off the commonly included "Jew", then I'll accept this label. I prefer to call myself a Messianic Believer rather than a Messianic Jew, because I don't want to give people the wrong impression if I can help it. I accept the Messiah and his commands, but I don't accept Judaism. (Update 2022: Torah-keeping Christian? Pronomian Christian? Follower of Yeshua? Labels, schmabels.)

Rabbi - Maybe I teach on occasion, but I can't claim to be a master of anything, let alone Jewish theology, and that's really what most people mean by rabbi. So, no, I'm not a rabbi and have no intention of becoming one.

Legalist - I suppose it depends on how you define a legalist. If you think a legalist is someone who tries to follow the laws, especially the laws of Moses, then I guess I'm a legalist. That's not the definition that I would use, however. I say that a legalist is someone who elevates the law above the law-giver and/or the law-keeper. I do not keep the Torah for my salvation. The only power it holds in regards to eternal salvation is the power to condemn. Yeshua's atonement and resurrection took that authority away from it if we are willing to accept him. I accept his gift with faith, and keep the law only to please him and for the sake of well being, mine and everyone else's.

Polygamist - Having only one wife, and no intention of acquiring another, I can't see how this one applies. I don't support the right of man-made, civil government to meddle in marriage. I also don't support the monogamist doctrine that our western churches have inherited from Greece and Rome. If you want to have two or three or more wives in your family, it's probably a really bad idea, but it's nobody's business but yours. Maybe a better label would be poly-friendly.

I'm sure there are a hundred more labels just waiting out there for me. If you have one that you think applies, let me know. Maybe you're right.

But probably not.

2022 note on eschatology: I generally disapprove of eschatological systems. People like it when everything fits neatly into its designated slot, but I don't think things usually work that way in the real world, including prophecy. Whatever -ist you want to put me into, call me a partial -ist.

Is Polygamy Always a Bad Idea

There are three main schools of bible-based thought regarding whether polygamy is a good or bad idea. The first, which hardly qualifies as a school of thought, says that women were created for the pleasure of men, and that men may use them or not as they please. The second says that men and women were created as equals and polygamy always leads to trouble. The third says that polygamy may not be the way that people will usually live, but that it may be appropriate and healthy under some circumstances.

While it may be true that women were created for the benefit of men (Gen 2:18, 1 Cor 11:9), it is not true that men may do whatever they please with their wives. Paul reminded us that without women, none of us would even exist (1 Cor 11:11-12). He also wrote that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That means that we men should be willing to give up everything, even to our own lives, for the sake of our wives (Eph 5:25). We are to follow the example of Christ's daily life also, and it is clear that he treated women with the same respect with which he treated men.

We shouldn't go to the opposite extreme, either, acting as if men and women are exactly equal in all things. The Hebrew behind the term, help-meet, is ezer kenegdo, which literally means "a suitable helper or support." That term doesn't necessarily presuppose anything of authority or rank between Adam and Eve. Moses refers to God with the same word for helper, ezer (Exo 18:4, Deu 33:7, Deu 33:29). However, there is a fundamental difference between God and Eve. God chooses to be a helper at times to mankind, while Eve was created specifically to support Adam. As Paul pointed out, Eve's subordination to Adam did not begin at the Fall, but was inherent in her creation (1 Cor 11:9, 1 Tim 2:13) and evidenced by her character and mission prior to the Fall (1 Tim 2:14-15). There are other aspects of the Creation that demonstrate Adams original authority over Eve, such as the source of Eve's substance, her presentation to Adam, and her naming by Adam. Men and women are not equal in all ways. Husbands have authority over their wives in the same way that Christ has authority over the Church. While Christ willingly made himself a servant and sacrificed his own life for the Church's, there is absolutely no question that he maintains absolute authority. He doesn't force us into his will, but he makes it clear that we are expected to obey him anyway. "If you love me, keep my commandments," he said. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. Wives, obey your husbands as the Church obeys Christ.

Polygamy is obviously not a sin. There is no commandment against it in Scripture. God's best men were often polygamists and they were never reprimanded for it. In fact, God allegorically calls himself a polygamist (Jer 3:6-10, Jer 31:31-32), and claims to have rewarded David with multiple wives (2 Sam 12:8). If polygamy always caused more harm than good, then it would be a clear violation of the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely God would have said something about it if that were true. He isn't afraid of men that he needs to be polite and tolerant of their sins. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were polygamous (Num 3:39,43,46) and idolatrous (Exo 32:1-26). Yet God chose to kill thousands of them for their idolatry (Exo 32:28), while giving advice on how to conduct their polygamy (Deu 21:15-17). If polygamy is not always a bad thing, then it follows that it must sometimes be a good thing.

In our fallen world, there is sickness, death, war, rebellion, hatred, and foolishness.

Yeshua and Paul said that all women should normally marry, but that there are some men who will not, and some men that should not (Mat 19:12, 1 Cor 7:25-28, 1 Tim 2:15, 1 Tim 5:9-16). The birth rates of men and women are essentially equal, and in a perfect world there would be no war and no terribly dangerous work, with the result that there would be only slightly more marriable women than men. There would be no unbelievers, and therefore no need to worry about being unequally yoked. In a perfect world, a few men would have to be polygamous in order to provide husbands for all women. But in a fallen world, war, crime, and hard labor mean that men die young much more often than do women. Making matters worse, more men than women are unbelievers. That means that in order to marry a godly man, sometimes a woman must settle for someone less desirable, steal a man from another woman, or become a spinster. None of those options is compatible with God's Law. Men don't have to be or do anything special to attract a wife, because women come cheaply. Women have to resort to marketing themselves in order to attract any attention, and we all know that sex sells. Those women who, through no fault of their own, hold no special attraction for men, have no real hope of a happy and fulfilling life, because there is no reason for any man to pay attention to them.

Polygamy can address many of those problems. A woman wouldn't have to expose herself and act like a whore in order to steal a man from another woman, because the man can be shared. The value of women would increase because there would be fewer of them on the market. Men would then be placed in the position of competing for women instead of the other way around. They would be forced to become better men in order to attract a wife. Plain, infertile, and sickly women would still be able to marry because they don't have to try to be everything that a man needs. Polygamy among godly men can benefit both men and women.

I believe that there are at least two Scriptures which require polygamy among God's people and at least one which calls it a sign of repentance. The law of the levirate at times requires a man to accept a second wife, because it makes no exception for a man who is already married (Deu 25:5-10). Paul commanded younger widows to remarry, and commanded their fellow believers to accommodate them (specifically through financial support, but by implication through finding them a believing husband) (1 Tim 5:9-16), yet he also commanded them to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14). The only way to obey both commands is for some men to marry more than one wife. Isaiah prophesied that in the last days, God's people will be overcome by war, foolishness, and feminism. The first sign of repentance will be when women humble themselves by submitting themselves to godly men who are already married. (Isa 4:1)

Polygamy (by which I mean polygyny and not polyandry or polyamory) is sometimes a very good idea, and sometimes it is necessary for obedience to God.

"If you love me, keep my commandments," Yeshua said.

Addendum: How many verifiably monogamous men are there in the Bible? (By monogamous, I mean according to their status, not their doctrine.) In the strictest sense, we can't verify that anyone in the Bible was monogamous, so lowering the bar to "probably monogamous", off the top of my head I can only think of six, although I’m sure there must be others:

• Adam
• Noah
• Shem
• Japheth
• Ham
• Zechariah (in the NT)

The Dangers of First Mention

According to the Biblical Research Studies Group, the Law of First Mention is “principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine.”¹ The idea is that God deliberately arranged Scripture so that the first mention of any concept or word reveals its most fundamental and overarching character. It’s a useful idea to a certain point, but very quickly becomes absurd when treated as a “Law.” Either one’s conclusions become nonsense, or they become justification for theological preconceptions. Let me give you some examples.

When God made Adam and Eve, be brought them together again, and the writer of Genesis says that this is why a man leaves his parents and is united with his wife (Gen 2:24). Yeshua went a step further and said that because God established the first marriage, no man should dare to divorce his wife without sufficient cause (Mat 19:3-9). That’s well and good. It doesn’t contradict anything else that Scripture says, and in fact is supported by God’s laws and his prophets. (See, for example, Malachi 2:16.)

There are other, less sound conclusions that we can draw from the Creation account, using the Law of First Mention:

God said that it is not good for a man to be alone (Gen 2:18), and did not create a second, celibate man. Therefore, celibacy is unwise, and all men must be married if they expect to be happy. (See Matt 19:10-12 for a refutation.)

Eve was Adam’s only wife, and because he listened to her all of mankind suffers sickness, sin, and death (Rom 5:12). Therefore, every man should have at least two wives to counter-balance the potentially unwise advice of one wife, because, as Solomon wrote, a three-fold cord is not easily broken (Ecc 4:12).

The first time someone brought a botanical offering to God, that offering was rejected (Gen 4:2-5). Therefore God does not want such offerings. (See Lev 5:11 and 27:30 for a refutation.)

The first murderer was also a farmer (Gen 4:2), and his descendants were the first to dabble in metallurgy, music, and tent-making (Gen 4:20-22). Therefore, farmers are likely to be more violent than husbandmen, and murder promotes industry and art.

All four of these ideas are contradicted by either common sense or by other Scriptures, but you can see how easy it would be to use the Law of First Mention to find support in Scripture for your own pet doctrines. The Torah, in general, and Genesis, in particular, are foundational to all of the rest of Scripture. To an extent, they inform the vocabulary and ideas found in the rest of Scripture. In fact, much of the prophets, history, poetry, and letters that make up the rest of Scripture is just commentary on the Torah and how it applied to current events of the day. In that sense, as well as in the sense of historical context, First Mention can help us to understand a point that a later writer might be trying to make. Beyond that it is as likely to lead us into a ditch as it is to help us find the path.

¹ “Biblical Research Studies Group- Fourth Rule: The Law of First Mention” accessed on 10/31/2005 at http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page48.html.

Anti-Personal Politics

I had one of those e...pi...pha...ny things last week. I finally realized why I don't understand liberals (the modern American variety, not classical liberals)...It's because they don't really exist!

Wow! Talk about fodder for a conspiracy theory.

I was talking with a friend about taxes and all the wonderful uses (NOT!) to which government puts my money when he had the audacity to disagree with me. He told me of how well his family had done over the last decade financially and asserted that their good fortune was due primarily to the economic policies of our beloved William "Slick Willie" Clinton.

Having difficulty believing that any kind of meddling the president might take upon himself could possibly have a positive effect on the economy, I asked for a specific example of Clinton's wise leadership. "Officially sanctioned racism," he replied fervently. (Although not quite in those words. I think he actually said something like "Offering a helping hand to the under-advantaged by mandating a more equitable percentage of government contracts go to minorities." Or something of that ilk.)

"Uh-huh." I said, a finger scratching the inside of my ear.

He went on to point out to me that all white people in any kind of position of authority try to keep people of color down. The only way that white people will ever give blacks or Hispanics a fair piece of the pie is if they are forced to it. I'm white. He's not.

I asked if he could remember anything I had ever said or done that would indicate a racist attitude. No, he replied. Then how could he say that all white people are racist?

"I'm not talking about you and me," he explained. "I'm talking about society in general."

I'm not white? I'm not a part of society? What is society if not more of you and me?

"Let's not make this personal," he said.

What could possibly be more personal than hiring men with guns to take my money to finance a program to thwart my supposed nazi business tactics?

"But I'm not doing anything, I just voted." Of course you are. You voted for him, didn't you? You've publicly supported his policies, haven't you? You took that money from his hired goons didn't you?

The problem here is not racism or even economic policy. The problem is that people don't seem to understand that the those they see and talk to every day really exist. Politics is for real. The guns that will accompany the men who will force me from my home if I refuse to financially support the racist policies of affirmative action are real. When laws are passed, those laws affect real people. The next time you vote for something or someone who promises to use government force to right some alleged wrong, remember that you are the one behind the trigger and your next door neighbor is at the end of the barrel.

Without you and me there is no society.

I like my friend. He's a pretty good guy. He just hasn't quite grasped cause and effect.

Anarchy and the Christian Government

I dislike the word "anarchy". It's ambiguous. To one person it's a political theory characterized by idealized natural law, cooperation, and brotherhood. To another it's a nightmare of chaos and violence in which the strong enslave the weak and take what they want by force.

The original Greek word anarchos translates to "no ruler". According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "anarchy" refers to "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" or the "absence of order". And indeed, this is what most people have in mind when they use it. They think of slavery and incessant warfare; they think of Beirut or Somalia, not Utopia. Unfortunately, like so many English words, "anarchy" has two, opposing meanings. The same dictionary entry lists this as an alternate meaning: "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government". In other words, the political philosophy commonly called anarchy describes a society in which no one rules over anyone else: each person is free to pursue their own interests without interference. The essence of modern anarchy is voluntary socialism, not unrestrained violence.

In reality, neither could ever exist for long in a world of humans. Both states are contrary to human nature. People are naturally selfish and are almost always looking for a way to get an unfair advantage over everyone else. Yet they are also social creatures; they require interaction with their fellows to exist happily. Eventually they tire of their oppressors and form permanent governments to promote their corporate interests. Anarchy just couldn't happen unless it were forced, and then it would no longer be anarchy. And so, I'm sure you can understand my frustration when people equate libertarianism to anarchy.

Libertarianism is not anarchy (I apologize to those self-described anarchists for my profane use of the word throughout this essay; I use it in its more base sense to more effectively convey my meaning to those most opposed to my own philosophy); minarchy might be a better term. Libertarians are generally rational creatures who understand that with liberty comes responsibility, and that at times people must be forced to accept responsibility. The current state of affairs in America in which citizens are forced to accept responsibility where they have no liberty or are offered liberty but denied responsibility will devolve into chaos long before a libertarian society would do so. The former is slavery while the latter is hedonism, neither of which is compatible with libertarianism.

A slave must work for others and is not allowed to make his own choices in matters of personal morality. In the United States, for one-half of the year you work for others under the threat of violence: if you choose not to work for my benefit, the sheriff will remove you from your home and possibly imprison you. Also in the United States, by claiming some underprivileged or victimized status you are free to kill, steal, and destroy without fear of reprisal. In some cases, if you refuse to live off the stolen lives of others, organizations like Child Protective Services may threaten to take your children.

According to the Apostle Paul the role of government is to be a terror to evil, and so far as government confines itself to that role for which God has ordained it, it does well (Romans 13:1-5). But when it steps beyond those bounds, assuming authority which God has not granted it, government becomes a terror to both the wicked and the righteous. And is that not the anarchy that we fear so much? The rule of whim rather than the rule of law? From this we Christians must ask if the role of government then is to enforce righteousness. (Thanks, Christlib!)

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I would extend that thought to say that all of the Law (by the "Law" I mean the laws given by Moses and codified in first five books of the Bible) was made for man and not man for the Law. Paul wrote that God gave the Law to highlight our failings and make God's righteousness evident (Romans 3:19-31). "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

So the Law is important, but it is not all important. To make enforcement of the Law the central purpose of our lives is to commit the sin of the Pharisees whom Jesus called hypocrites. It is not an object to be worshipped, but a template to be applied to our lives as we are able.

Like the law and everything else that God has given us, government is a tool to be used to our benefit, not a master to enslave us. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I am imperfect. I understand God's Word and His Law imperfectly. Would it be right to give me the power to interpret that Law and enforce my interpretation onto you? No matter how wise a leader may be, he will not live forever and someone else will have to take his place. Will that person be as wise? But they will inherit the same power and more, for government does not willingly give up authority, but jealously guards what it has and constantly accumulates more. To give today's wise ruler the authority to enforce his ideas of righteousness, is to give tomorrow's fool the power to enforce his. Washington knew this and refused the power he could have had. To allow government to master us is to invite the anarchy which looms imminent under the current marriage of slavery and hedonism.

There is only one political philosophy in America today that offers to limit government to its God-ordained role: libertarianism. No, not all people who call themselves libertarians are good people, let alone righteous people. But they at least avoid the hypocrisy of others who seek to use government force to enslave the rest of us to their own hedonism. They are willing to hold themselves responsible for their liberty. More importantly, they are willing to hold you responsible for your liberty.

It is a good thing to live your life according to the Law, but it is not the function of the Church or of the Government or of anyone else to force you to do so. It is a choice you must make on your own, and that you must not allow others to make for you.

Should Christians Criticize Their Government?

Christians often justify their political passivity by claiming that Jesus did not criticize his government nor otherwise involve himself in politics. It is true that He did not seek empire or any worldly power, nor did He farm or herd sheep or fix computers. That was not His purpose. But He frequently and vocally rebuked civil leaders of his time, some of whom were likely members of the Sanhedrin¹. If Rome had been a representative democracy the Sanhedrin would have been similar to a provincial judiciary or advisory body. It was “…the city council…employing a staff of clerks and scribes…The Jerusalem Sanhedrin was responsible for the returns of the Roman taxes…an organized body which appears to have combined the functions of High Court of Justice and administrative council.”²

And Jesus was certainly not the only man of God to criticize his government. Nathan accused King David of despising the word of God (2 Samuel 12). Stephen’s strong words against the Sanhedrin are familiar to most Christians: “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him–you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it” (Acts 6). John, Peter, and Paul, among others, also pointed out their errors.

Paul pointed out that government can be a great tool for good, but it can also be a great tool for evil. When the Israelites wanted a king “such as all the other nations have” Samuel told them what a king would be like. The Bible says these were not Samuel’s thoughts, but the words of God. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.” (1 Samuel 8)And the kings to which America has subjected herself are a hundred times worse than the king Samuel described.

Not only have our kings taken our sons and daughters and made them to fight their wars, they have poisoned them, abandoned them on the battlefield, murdered them to cover over their own filth, and even sold them into slavery to foreign kings. They have not taken our daughters to be perfumers, but have raped them instead. They don’t just take a tenth of our grain, they take more than half of it. In the name of the poor our leaders enact minimum wages and price controls that drive the poorest out of work and the price of shelter out of reach.

Should Christians criticize their government? Should Christians involve themselves in government at all? Absolutely! In America, abstention is involvement. It is impossible for an American citizen to not be involved in the government. If you don’t go to the ballot box, you are still voting. And voting is not the only way a Christian could be legitimately involved. God has, does, and will call men to serve Him through government. By discouraging people from voting or activism or seeking office, you may cause someone to spurn a direct command from God.

Do you think that God would never tell one of His children to associate with unbelievers? You may not think that God would ever tell a man to send a woman and her child, alone and on foot, into the dessert where they would almost certainly die, but that is what He did! But He provided for Hagar and made Ishmael into a great nation. Do what is right and God will provide for your needs.

Do you think that God would never tell one of His children to rule a nation? Didn’t God say to King David, “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”

If you are a Christian it is time for you to take a stand. We in America have prostituted ourselves on the altar of government, trusting in the power of guns to enforce righteousness instead of trusting in God. I am not telling you to defy your government. I do not advocate anarchy. I am telling you to defy evil.

America is not meant to be a nation ruled by kings and an aristocracy, but that is what we have made it into. America is meant to be a nation ruled by law. The men and women who occupy the offices created by the law are just cogs in the machine. If they begin to operate outside the law, they cause the machine to cease functioning, and they are the ones in rebellion against their government. Not libertarian Christians who refuse to use violence to force their political or religious ideals onto others.

Don’t make the mistake that so many others have and hide the spiritual incompetence of 99% of Christians behind the government. Laws will not save this country. Only Jesus can. And He will work through you and me, not the DEA, for even if we were to succeed in banishing drugs from America, the only thing we would have really done would be to have create an illusion based on sinful violence and greed. We will have exchanged one form of sin for another. The war on drugs is a distraction from our true mission. It is a destructive tangent invented by nominal Christians who are too cowardly to make a true stand for Jesus. They think that if they force the world to act righteously then they will really be righteous. Nothing could be further from the truth. They bury the true message of Jesus under rules and regulations that God never intended and then pretend that they are doing His will.

Criticize the government? Certainly! Shine a light on evil wherever it hides. But we must also be careful to keep the role of government in perspective. The best that government can ever do is to provide an environment in which the Gospel can be preached freely–without interference. The majority of our civil leaders are corrupt and immoral, but ultimately our problems are of our own making. The drug war is a tool for corrupt politicians to consolidate power in their own hands, but the drug problem in America is not just the fault of sinful law enforcement, but of a sinful Church. The Church has so far failed in its calling and so seeks to put the blame on someone else. Is it the sinner’s fault that he remains in sin? Yes, but it is also your and my fault for not being an effective witness. Use government to strike fear into the hearts of those who would hurt others. But do not use it to force others to conform to your own ideals. You might turn a sinner into a saint, but you will certainly turn yourself, if saint you ever were, into a sinner.

¹ Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary, http://700club.org/bibleresources/theology/easton/bibledictionary/easton-b1-3180.asp
² The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, by Charles Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1959

Are We Gods?

The Jews gathered around [Jesus], saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods’? If he called them `gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.”

[John 10:24-37]

If you read this story without knowing what the rest of the Bible says, you might think that Jesus was saying that everyone is actually God or at least equal to God. But if you look up the passage that Jesus was quoting (Psalms 82:6), it is evident that this is not what he meant. Psalms 82 makes it clear that, while everyone is divine in the sense that we were all created by God and that we are all children of God, we are nothing in comparison to Him.

Psalms 82:6-8 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The Hebrew word used here for “gods” can mean “rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, or gods.” It is a form of the same word used to refer to the one God. Since the Psalms were written as songs or poetry, the writer probably specifically chose this word to represent the contrast between the creation and the creator. He was addressing the leaders of mankind. Even though they were great lords among men and even though God himself gave them their power, they are still accountable to Him for their treatment of the poor and needy. It is a warning against undue pride and an admonition to humble, godly rule. Don’t set yourself to be like God because He can take you down as easily as He put you up. The desire to become like God is one of the gravest sins the Bible describes. This was the sin which tempted Eve and caused the fall of mankind. This is also the sin which brought about the fall of the civilization of Babel and the division of all mankind. It is also the sin which caused God to exile Satan and his angels from Heaven.

With obvious sarcasm, God said to Job, “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?…Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his? Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty. Unleash the fury of your wrath, look at every proud man and bring him low, look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand. Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you.” But we know from Psalm 82 that Job could not do these things. It is God who grants and who rescinds power, not man. Job repented of his presumption. He said, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] `Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. [You said,] `Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” God rewarded Job for his repentance.

When Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6, he was making fools of his questioners. The Psalter called all leaders of men representatives of god. Jesus said that if he lived up to the standards he set by calling himself “the Son of God”, who were they to dispute it? If they objected to him referring so to himself, they had not been paying attention. By referring to Psalm 82, he justified his own claim and challenged them to live up to God’s standards. In effect he was saying, “You claim to be leaders chosen by God, yet you don’t do the minimum that God says his leaders must. I claim to be the Son of God, and I can back up my claim with my actions.” He did not say that everyone was God or could even become like God.

Far too many false doctrines come about by reading our own desires into the Scriptures rather than letting them say what God intends.