Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #47: Only one ancient source gets bashed, the Christian one

 

One of the challenges that I face when responding to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion is that they utilize sources that most Christians are unfamiliar with.  These range from the vast collections of rabbinic sources contained in the Talmud (Mishnah, Gemara) to more obscure apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings from the centuries before and after the life of Jesus.  In virtually every instance, the source being cited isn't framed with details about it, it is simply utilized and given a measure of implicit authority.

We saw, to our horror, in lesson 46 that FFOZ was willing to name-drop the Gospel of Thomas without any word of caution related to this pseudepigraphal (NOT written by the Apostle Thomas) heretical Gnostic work.  That mention of Thomas was a serious red flag (added to our huge list), but it wasn't long before someone who had been invited to join a Torah Club sent me quotes from a different series to show that this usage of the Gospel of Thomas was only the tip of the iceberg:

Jesus my Rabbi, lesson 18, volume 2, "The Days of Noah", p. 11 (as a parallel to Lk 17:24-27)

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 26, volume 2 "The Four Questions" p. 8-9

Jesus my Rabbi, Lesson 28, Volume 2, The 7 Woes, p. 4 (as a parallel to Mt. 23:13)

To employ such a false gospel so broadly is beyond dangerous, to draw comparisons between it and the true Gospels that it borrows from is ridiculous.  

Which brings us to lesson 47 of the Beginning of Wisdom which will showcase FFOZ's willingness to positively interact with a variety of sources without mentioning their background or theological bent, except the one that is used that is explicitly Christian.  Note: FFOZ almost never quotes any Christian source, with the rare exception of ones that are from Messianic Jewish authors (even these are rare and limited).  This usage is thus highly unusual, a rarity.  It does, however, follow the pattern of FFOZ's long-standing hostility toward the Church.

Lesson 47, page 4

"The Torah presents life as a choice between two ways: the path of blessing and the path of curse...The path of blessing that leads to eternal life is narrow and only a few find it, whereas the path that leads to destruction is broad and well-traveled (Matthew 7:13-14)."

Before looking briefly at this quote, note that above it the lesson quotes "Sifrei" without any reference to where this quote can be found.  The glossary at the end of the lesson calls Sifrei, "The earliest collection of rabbinic discussions on the book of Deuteronomy compiled in the second century CE."  The date given is earlier than it ought to be (more likely 4th century than 2nd), but there's no reason to object to the utilization of a rabbinic source when discussing Torah, so long as we remember that the author was not someone who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, a distinction I've yet to see FFOZ make, as that may have colored the interpretation of the scriptural text in question.

What about this usage?  The problem with using the quote from the Sifrei commentary is that the comparison of God's warnings about blessings and curses in the Mosaic Covenant and Jesus' warning of the wide and narrow paths in the New Covenant are not the same thing.  {Note: FFOZ operates under the belief that the New Covenant hasn't started yet, that we are all living still under the Mosaic}.  When ancient Israel obeyed or disobeyed the Mosaic Law it was not souls that were at stake but national blessings or curses.  Repeated disobedience might bring into question whether a particular individual had faith in God (see Hebrews 11), but Dt. 30:19 is the LORD speaking to the nation as a whole about collective blessings and curses, not to individuals.  Jesus, on the other hand, is talking to individuals about their choice to live by faith or not.  The narrow/wide path that Jesus is talking about doesn't lead to blessings/curses but to salvation/damnation.  

This then becomes another example of FFOZ creating confusion between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, and between national Israel's covenantal relationship with God and that which exists between God and all who come to Jesus in faith.  For an organization that believes that Gentiles can only be grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel as "sojourners in the land" such confusion is not a bug, its a feature. 

Lesson 47, page 7

"The Apostolic-era rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah"

The lesson has no issue with quoting Eleazar Ben Azariah several times with only the small note that he is from the "Apostolic-era" {Note: Eleazar Ben Azariah isn't in the lesson glossary}.  Eleazar was indeed a first-century rabbi, having lived through the destruction of the Second Temple.  There are no preserved writings of Eleazar that mention Jesus Christ.  Once again, this is a rabbinic source that could offer some insight into the ideas/attitudes of 2nd Temple Judaism, as well as the aftermath of the loss of the Temple and Levitical system, but he also continues the pattern of relying for wisdom upon sources that rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Lesson 47, page 9

"When a person ascertains the intention behind a commandment (the so-called "spirit of the law"), he might fee liberated from literally observing the commandment.  The sages warn us not to try to be wiser than the Torah."

The first sentence would feel right-at-home among legalists in any era.  Notice the subtle ways in which the statement is framed: (1) "spirit of the law" is in quotes and preceded by "so-called," it is clear that in Lancaster's mind the attempt to seek and obey God's command on this level of principle is folly.  (2) A "literal" obedience is the only true obedience, this thought is buttressed by the support of the sages (without a quote or authority, take FFOZ's word for it).

Lesson 47, page 11

"(1 Enoch 90:38-39)...This type of apocalyptic symbolism helps explain the meaning of Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet lowered from heaven containing "all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air (Acts 10:12)...The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws." 

Another source is cited, this time it is 1 Enoch, the only information about it given is that it falls under the category of "Jewish apocalyptic writers".  1 Enoch actually has a fascinating history and a connection to Jude 1:14-15, but that background information is lacking in the lesson.  Instead, FFOZ uses 1 Enoch as an interpretive lens to frame Acts 10 in a way that preserves the all time, all peoples, all places view they have of the Law of Moses.  The problem with this particular framing attempt is that it is flat-out contradicted by the context of Peter's vision as emphasized by Luke in Acts.

Acts 10:48  So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 11:1-3  The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

If Peter didn't think his vision had anything to do with dietary laws, if he thought it only concerned Gentiles and had nothing to do with how he should live as a Jewish follower of Jesus, why did he stay at Cornelius' house, eat with his family, and then defend that action when criticized?  If the Law of Moses was still binding on everyone, why did Peter sin?  Context matters, FFOZ's blithe "The vision did not supplant the Bible's dietary laws" ignores the key conclusion to the episode that is right there to be read in Acts.  Peter did what he did because he understood the far-reaching implications of the vision God had given him.

Lesson 47, page 12

"Group Discussion: Let's start an argument.  Divide the Torah Club into two competing teams, with one team arguing that Peter's vision of a sheet in Acts 10 means a change to the dietary laws and the other group arguing that the vision sanctions the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom.  Have fun." 

One last thought before turning to the harsh way that FFOZ treats the only Christian source in the lesson: What is going on here??  They've already proclaimed (wrongly) that Peter's vision does not have anything to do with what they believe to be eternal dietary laws, so what purpose can this serve?  There is no debate in FFOZ's eyes.  The end result of this play acting will be mockery of those who hold the view that followers of Jesus are not bound by the Law, in other words, mockery of Christians, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

Lesson 47, page 15

"A forgotten Apostolic-era midrash embedded in the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas...For the remainder of this discussion about the dietary laws, we'll work inside the Epistle of Barnabas.  You won't find Epistle of Barnabas in your Bible.  It does not belong in your Bible.  The Apostle Barnabas did not write it.  The epistle dates to the early second century (circa 130 CE).  An anonymous Christian composed the epistle to marshal various proofs to support the premises of replacement theology."

Prior to page 15 this lesson has quoted Sifrei, Eleazar ben Azariah, Sifra Kedoshim, 1 Enoch, Josephus' Antiquities, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah, all sources that were pro-Torah keeping, all referenced with a positive usage and no further explanations necessary.  How will the Epistle of Barnabas be treated in comparison?  The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Let me be clear, while this epistle was copied in Codex Sinaiticus (along with Shepherd of Hermas) it is not scripture, and had no genuine prospect of being included in the canon.  It was written by a Second Century follower of Jesus, and like any non-inspired writing from God's people has both positive and negative aspects, both truth and error.  It thus has as much authority as any of the other sources regularly utilized by FFOZ in Torah Clubs, with one hugely important distinction: Its writer believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  The same cannot be said of anyone else quoted in this lesson.  Does that make him automatically smarter or more trustworthy?  Of course not, but if the topic-at-hand has any connection to the Gospel (i.e. faith, grace, works, Law, Messiah, etc.) its author is someone who has accepted what God has revealed as humanity's means of salvation.  That difference matters.

How is Barnabas treated?  (1) It is labeled as "apocryphal" and that idea is followed-up with a factual statement, "The Apostle Barnabas did not write it."  Amazingly, shockingly, appallingly, The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (replete with heresies about Christ) is not given this modifier, to my knowledge, any of the times that FFOZ cites it.  Why would one pseudepigraphal (from Greek, "false writing") work be noted while another example is ignored?  The reason is simple, Barnabas' message is one of Torah abrogation by Christ, Thomas' message is of Gnostic mysticism.  FFOZ vehemently rejects the first truth, but embraces the second lie.

Notice also how FFOZ describes the unknown author of Barnabas: A "Christian" working to "support the premises of replacement theology."  Given that FFOZ has many times equated replacement theology (with a massively broad definition that includes the whole Church throughout our history) with racism in the form of antisemitism, they are letting Torah Club members know that the author of Barnabas is one of the bad guys.

Note: Later on page 15 FFOZ gives credit to everything they like in Barnabas as having originated with "the Jewish community - most likely from the Jewish disciples of Jesus" which ensures that everything negative can be contributed to the unknown Christian author.

Remember, we have noted multiple times when FFOZ utilizes a deeply heretical work (in lesson 46 it was the Clementine Homilies and Gospel of Thomas, many other examples have been given) in its teaching, almost never with any kind of warning or disclaimer, but when an author dares to write that the finished work of Jesus Christ has brought the era of the Mosaic Law to a close, the opposition is full-throated and sustained.

Lesson 47, page 16

"Contrary to this logic, there's no reason to suppose that 'a spiritual meaning' invalidates the literal application of a commandment, but many Bible teachers make the same mistake.  For example, many New Testament teachers declare the abolition of the Levitical worship on the basis that the sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's death.  Likewise, they might argue for the dissolution of the Levitical priesthood because the New Testament teaches that Christ has become a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.  Flawed logic like the type on display in Epistle of Barnabas is still alive and well in the Gentile Church.  Let's ignore the author's anti-Torah agenda and see what we can learn from the early Messianic Jewish midrash he uses.

1. What is the Epistle of Barnabas, and why is it not included in the Bible?

2. What was the purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas, and what theological position did it support?

Group Discussion: Explain why Torah Club uses the Epistle of Barnabas in this discussion if its a spurious epistle that should not be in the Bible.

In the quote, FFOZ draws a comparison between the author of Barnabas and "many Bible teachers" and "many New Testament teachers" who foolishly believe that because of Jesus a "literal" obedience to the Mosaic Law is not longer necessary.  Another reminder for us that to FFOZ the Church is the opposition and proselytizing its members is their growth plan, so it is little wonder to see historic orthodoxy called "flawed logic" that is "still alive and well in the Gentile Church."  A danger to the Church?  How could anyone think that about FFOZ? 

Note that FFOZ's strong opposition to the Epistle of Barnabas is reinforced by two study questions and the group discussion that includes the term "spurious" as its descriptor.

Lesson 47, page 19

"At this point in the manuscript of Epistle of Barnabas (10:6-8), the text departs abruptly from the Jewish source material by clumsily inserting three additional examples of prohibited land animals: the hare, the hyena, and the weasel.  The interruption is artless, comical, and obscene."

The assumed Jewish source material isn't the problem, it is the author's "artless, comical, and obscene" departure from it.  Got it.

Lesson 47, page 19

"After the interpolation concludes, the text of Epistle of Barnabas continues with a ridiculous criticism of the Jewish people for taking the Torah literally:...it's a fallacious argument."

To anyone who doesn't take the Torah literally (yes, this is not the right use of literally, legalists love the term, FFOZ included): Your ideas are ridiculous and fallacious.  

We just have one small problem: Jesus.  Ok, that's actually a huge, insurmountable problem for FFOZ.

Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly elevates the teachings of Torah to matters of the heart, including rough take-downs of those within 2nd Temple Judaism whose focus was on taking the Torah "literally" and not embracing the "so called 'spirit-of-the-law'" by putting God's intention and God's people first.  Jesus purposefully heals publicly on the Sabbath to make this very point, "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'” (Mark 2:27-28)

Beginning of Wisdom (Torah Club) lesson #41: More disparaging of grace and using a folktale to interpret scripture

 I'll admit, I'm a fan of God's grace.  That isn't a hot-take, nor should it raise anyone's eyebrows.  If there are a few folks down through the years who have misunderstood grace, or who have tried to take advantage of God's grace, throwing it overboard in response would be ludicrous in the extreme...

Lesson 41 page 6: "The church's loud and predominant teachings about God's grace also make it difficult for people to believe in God's wrath.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the emphasis on grace has tipped the scale so severely off balance that many Christians anticipate no consequences for sin whatsoever.  That's a good recipe for neutralizing the fear of the LORD, neutering the gospel message, and storing up wrath."

It turns out that First Fruits of Zion has a problem with grace.  Technically, they have a problem with the Protestant Church's emphasis on grace because they think it undermines God's wrath.  Once again in this Torah Club lesson we have the Straw Man brought out to tell us that "many" Protestants think that there are no consequences, at all, to sin.  Why would Protestants think something so foolish?  Apparently because they spend to much time praising God's grace.  

Set aside for the moment that this is patently false.  There is no substantial part of the Protestant Church that teaches that believers are free to sin because grace has "neutered" God's wrath.  Given that there are hundreds of thousands of pastors worldwide, I'm sure FFOZ could trot out a few examples of crackpots in defense of their spurious claim, but to claim that this is so widespread that it needs a correction (that's coming) is ridiculous.  This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad absurdum.  If you claim that your opponent (and FFOZ's opponent is most assuredly the Church) believes something so foolish, those listening to you will be more likely to believe your "cure" for the non-existent disease.

What then is the point?  Why would FFOZ make such an explosive claim, attacking the fundamental viewpoint about the Gospel of 1/3 of the Church?  What are they trying to put in the place of grace?

Lesson 41,page 7: "It's important to remember that the New Testament Greek word translated as grace (charis) is the Greek equivalent to the Biblical Hebrew word we see translated as 'favor.'  It's the same concept and should be translated consistently to avoid confusion." 

First Fruits of Zion wants to redefine grace.  Redefine it how??  In a way that contradicts what the Church, particularly Protestantism, has long celebrated about God's grace.  Why would it matter if FFOZ wants to equate grace in the NT with favor in the Old?  The 2023 edition of HaYesod lays forth the whole plan {HaYesod's 2023 edition (First Fruits of Zion, Torah Club) heretically redefines grace: "grace is earned" and claims humans can atone for sins by suffering}:  Grace = favor = earned.

FFOZ has built its false teaching on the foundation of an eternal, perfect, and unchanging Torah that must be observed by all peoples, in all places, for all time.  When rule keeping is the heart and soul of what you say and do, the natural result is to drift ever further into legalism.  This is human nature, it happens every time.  Conveniently, then, FFOZ now teaches that because Moses earned God's favor, and favor equals grace, we too can earn God's grace.  Not only that, the HaYesod chapter proclaims that human beings can share their extra grace (earned by unjust suffering) with others.

In case you're wondering, grace in the NT and favor in the OT are not one and the same.  Word usage determines word meaning, context is king.  The argument that FFOZ is making doesn't hold water, to simply proclaim that two words in different languages from texts written many generations apart are equal does not make it so.  However, FFOZ must proclaim absolute continuity between the testaments on even things like word definitions because they are viewing all of scripture through the lens of Torah, but that's not how communication, and certainly now how translation, works.

Nobody is earning the grace connected to the Gospel that is proclaimed in the NT.  God chooses to whom he will give it, and God freely gives it.  To say otherwise is an abomination.

Lesson 41 page 9: 'The name of the daughter of Asher was Serah' (Numbers 26:46)...The census mentions a woman named Serah, the daughter of Asher.  She's the granddaughter of the patriarch Jacob, and she also appears in the list of Jacob's seventy children who entered Egypt about three hundred years earlier: 'The sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and their sister Serah' (Genesis 46:17)"

To warn about the disparagement of grace in this Torah Club lesson is the proper focus.  That's one of the most dangerous ideas that FFOZ has ever put forth (tough competition there).  So, why am I also highlighting this odd embrace of Jewish folklore as the means of interpreting Genesis 46:17, Numbers 26:46, and 1 Chronicles 7:30?  The answer is simple enough: poor hermeneutical methods result in foolish teachings, or worse.  Why is FFOZ telling Torah Club members that the Serah in Jacob's day was still alive during King David's reign?  Jewish folklore says so.

Lesson 41, page 10: "At the very least, she must have had longevity comparable to that of the earliest generations recorded in the Bible.  Jewish folklore depicts her...According to one legend, she lived into the days of King David, and it was she who saved the inhabitants of Abel from the king's wrath. You certainly don't need to take that literally or believe it all, but, for the record, there really was..."

I've seen this type of caveat many times in FFOZ materials.  A bold claim is made that is pulled from extra-biblical literature, the lesson says "you don't have to believe it," and then the lesson moves ahead with that bold claim assumed as fact.  The "but, for the record" reveals where the heart of the author of this chapter lies.  In case you are wondering, there are plenty of names in the Bible that occur a few times over spans of generations.  To assume that it is the same human being who is still alive solely on the basis of the name is NOT a normal exegetical conclusion.

If the interpretation is just a folktale, and whether Serah lived the normal spans of years or 600 doesn't have any real theological significance, why should we care?  We should care because FFOZ is using these extra-biblical sources to interpret holy scripture.  The other times they use this method are much more consequential.  It is part of a dangerous pattern of treating God's Word as if it is putty to be molded and shaped as needed.  Do other teachers and ministries also selectively utilize and interpret God's Word to suit their viewpoint?  Absolutely, it is sadly far too common.  "What about..." is no excuse.  All who treat God's Word in this manner should be held accountable.

In the end, Lesson #41 of the Beginning of Wisdom is yet another reminder of why no follower of Jesus Christ ought to entrust his or her discipleship to FFOZ.

Sermon Video: With Jesus on the road to Emmaus - Luke 24:13-35

What did Jesus do on the afternoon of Easter Sunday?  As it turns out, he took a walk with two of his disciples and spent a few hours explaining to them how the Hebrew prophets of old had predicted everything that would happen to the Messiah, including his suffering and death.  As we celebrate Easter, let us remember our need to share this Good News with those who need it most.

Our video feed wasn't ended as usual when the sermon concluded, so this video also includes my prayer for Israel and Gaza and our final hymn.

Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas, and the blasphemy of thinking God is on your side.

 

It was recently revealed that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was deeply involved in trying to prevent the inauguration of President Joe Biden.  The politics of that decision will ripple through 2024 and beyond, but one exchange (of those thus far made public) between Ginni Thomas and then White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, should concern all Christian Americans who do not believe that God is an American or Jesus is a Republican.  In other words, if you are willing to see the distinction between Church and State, between Church and America, and between Church and the Republican Party; it is frightening one of the most influential people in the ear of the formerly most powerful man in the world apparently did not.  Here is the quote:

"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it." 

{First on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows}

There are heretical problems with this quote on several levels for Mark Meadows who has publicly, on numerous occasions, declared himself to be a Christian (and has made his public proclamation of being a Christian a central part of his appeal to voters, thus increasing the scrutiny his faith has earned).

1. American political discourse is not 'good versus evil'.

While it may not be blasphemy to declare one's political enemies to be 'evil' (it is certainly false testimony, another sin), it is blasphemy to declare one's own side to be 'good' in the sense that Meadows uses the word.  This is apocalyptic, binary choice, type language.  Meadows is declaring the Republican party to be Righteous and the Democrat party to be Wicked, in a sheep and the goats, wheat and the tares, type language familiar to those who have read the Gospels.  This type of political rhetoric is common, I've heard all my life from people I've known personally, sadly often in church growing up, that 'they' (typically meaning Democrats, liberals, etc.) were 'evil', with the insinuation made, at times explicitly, that 'they' are in league with Satan.  If 'they' are on Satan's team, then surely 'we' are on God's team, right?  Here's the thing, there are things about the Republican Party, its policies and leaders (now and in the past) that are biblical, moral, and just, AND there are things about the Republican party, its policies and leaders (now and in the past) that are unbiblical, immoral, and unjust.  The exact same thing is true of the Democrat Party, and the exact same thing is true of all the parties in all the countries in the world, always has been, always will be.  Why?  Because they're human creations, led by fallible and fallen human beings, and tempted by the "root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10), that is money.  

It doesn't matter what issue Meadows, or anyone else is talking about, the battle between political parties in America is NOT 'good versus evil', it is blasphemy to say so because anyone who does is associating the things of mankind with the will of God, and tarnishing the reputation of God through guilt by association.  God is not the exclusive property of any one party or philosophy, period. The Church belongs wholly to Christ, when it fulfills its calling by living righteously, by overflowing with the Fruit of the Spirit, it can rightly claim to be fighting a battle of 'good versus evil'.  The Church often fails to live up to this calling, it wasn't given to America, nor was it given to the Republican Party, and neither this nation, nor that political party, are God's representatives on earth, neither are living by faith through the Spirit.  The blurring of the line between Christian faith and politics, between Church and political party, has always led to this sad conclusion: blasphemy.  Mark Meadows is far from the first, he wont' be the last.

Stop for a moment and consider the affect of this rhetoric on a democracy.  Is it any wonder that we're seeing more and more political violence in America when those who are supposed to be responsible leaders are stoking the fires of religious zeal against fellow Americans?  If we are 'good' and they are 'evil' the emotional distance one needs to walk to justify killing 'them' is terrifyingly short.

2. The allusion to Jesus' eventual triumph over all things is misapplied, at best.

It is absolutely true that Evil seems to triumph in this world, and it is absolutely true that Jesus Christ will triumph in every way possible when he returns (Philippians 2:9-11).  When one makes that allusion, in the context of the 2020 election, it is not the eventual triumph of Jesus that comes to the fore, but the grossly misunderstood Christian Republicanism that assumes that the will of God MUST be that 'our team' wins elections, that 'our team' triumphs in this generation.  There is gross arrogance in the assumption that the anyone could understand the will of God for any nation, or in the assumption that God's will and our own hopes/purposes are in alignment, especially when the topic at hand is the power, wealth, and fame of politics.  The King of Kings will triumph, that outcome is assured, but it has ZERO to do with any American election.

3. "Do not grow weary in well doing" is Scripture abused, painfully.

Galatians 6:9  New International Version

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

I would give Mark Meadows credit for knowing this verse of Scripture (he appears to be quoting the KJV) if he wasn't using it in a way that would have made the Apostle Paul throw up.  Once again we have the false equating of 'good' with Republican party priorities, in this case the retention (against the law) of Donald Trump as President.  How can this possibly be 'good' in the sense that Paul intended it?  Here is the actual context of Paul's statement:

Galatians 6:7-10  New International Version

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

God cannot be mocked!!  A few sentences before the quote that Meadows uses for political purposes is a warning against mocking God!  And immediately after the quote is the command to do 'good to all people', especially fellow Christians.  Joe Biden is a Christian, attending Mass regularly.  Disagree with his politics all you want, but this command from the Apostle Paul applies, and is binding between Mark Meadows and Joe Biden, yet Meadows is using this out-of-context portion of God's Word to urge Ginni Thomas to continue working against the 'evil' Joe Biden.  It is a sad commentary on the Church in America that so many self-professing Christians treat each other like foes to be destroyed and not brothers and sisters to be loved, as God commands them to do.  God will not be mocked, those who use scripture to prop up partisan goals will stand in judgment before God and answer for it {And don't think I don't hold myself to that standard, every minister of the Gospel will be held to account for misuses of God's Word for personal goals}.

Conclusion:

The text message from Mark Meadows to Ginni Thomas reveals a deeply flawed theology of equating the Republican Party with the Church, the priorities of the Republican Party with the will of God, and the choices/leaders of the Republican Party with 'good'.  This is a subset of 'Christian' Nationalism, and is as blasphemous for Mark Meadows to utter as it was for the Pharisees to assume they held a monopoly on understanding the Law of Moses, the Pharisees were blinded by self-righteousness and hatred of their enemies, history is repeating itself here.

The irrefutable rejection of Christian Nationalism by the New Testament

One of many crosses brought to the political rally that became an insurrection on 1/6/21

 na·tion·al·ism

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Why irrefutable?  Because Christians are required to respect the authority of the Word of God.  When the Scriptures repeatedly make clear a particular issue of belief or practice it is not optional for those who would claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ, if in fact they are indeed true disciples, to follow that divine guidance.  Can Christians improperly interpret or apply Scriptural dictates?  Certainly, it happens regularly, even from learned Church leadership which ought to know better.  Can Christians reject Scriptural teaching because of pride, self-interest, or a rebellious attitude?  Yes, that also happens, such cases are examples of disobedience, certainly not what we as a Church should tolerate let alone celebrate.  There is no case FOR nationalism in the New Testament, and the case AGAINST nationalism is both multi-faceted and broadly stated in numerous passages.

Why only the New Testament?  The issue of patriotism/nationalism is fairly unique in that the perspective changes when talking about Jews and Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures vs. Christians and Nationalism in the New.  The Christian Bible is divided into two sections separated by about 400 years between the prophet Malachi and the earliest Christian writings.  These two sections were written and received by two different audiences in two different sets of circumstances.  The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written about and to the descendants of Abraham, the Jews.  That they are to be studied and remain authoritative to Christians is made clear by the abundant quotations of them by Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church Fathers.  That being said, the Church is not Israel.  America is not Israel.  The promises made to Abraham remain for his literal descendants, his spiritual descendants have been given new promises (in the New Testament).  The covenant of Abraham that God further developed in the Hebrew Scriptures through Moses and David contain blessings and curses, as well as promises of a Messianic Kingdom, these belong to the Jews.  It is inappropriate, and a facet of antisemitism, to seek to appropriate these promises for the Church or any particular nation, America included.  

The New Testament, by contrast, is written to the newly formed Church, an organization not tied to one ethnicity, not connected to one geographic location.  Instead, the Church is bound together above and beyond these tribal distinctions by the connection of all of its legitimate members to Jesus Christ through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. 

* The definition of Nationalism above is the one in use, not the secondary use of the term, "advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people" which is a different topic, biblically speaking, and practically as well.

So, how does the New Testament convincingly reject Nationalism on the part of the Church?

The case could be made, and has been, in book length form (see: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response), but in brief among the numerous incompatibilities are:

1. The Modern Nation-State is a concept foreign to the New Testament

 The world we live in today is one of Nation-States, both those states that are governed democratically and autocratically have developed beyond the previous era of personal kingdoms or multi-ethnic empires, concepts that died in the revolutions and wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.  From those ashes arose the modern nation-state, and while many have inherited the territory of the kingdoms from which they sprang with minor variations, the legitimacy of modern governments in the eyes of their people, and the responsibilities of modern governments to their citizens, has changed dramatically from the models familiar to the ancient world.

Along those lines, the term translated in the New Testament as 'nation' is the Greek word: ethnos, which we recognize from the continued use of one aspect of the word transliterated into English as ethnic or ethnicity.  The most common usage of the term is actually to refer to the Gentile peoples (in contrast with the Jews), which it does 93 times as compared with nation/nations 67.  Thus any argument based upon a reading of what the New Testament says about our 'nation' or the 'nations' that is using the term to refer to a modern nation-state like America or China is already on thin ice before it begins because the geopolitical conceptions of the New Testament authors most certainly did not include the idea of a nation-state, as their entire frame of reference consisted of tribes, kingdoms, and empires.  In addition, the actual N.T. references that speak of nations (again, in the ancient not modern sense) have ZERO to do with identification with a nation by its people, support for the interests of that nation by its people, or the placing of those interests above that of other nations.  The New Testament is simply not talking about nations in any way connected to modern nationalism.

Examples: Matthew 24:9 "You will be hated by all nations because of me"

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations"

Mark 11:17 "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations"

Romans 4:17 "I have made you a father of many nations" (referring to Abraham)

Galatians 3:8 "All nations will be blessed through you" (again, Abraham is the you)

James 1:1 "To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations"

2. The focus of Jesus is entirely upon building up the Kingdom of God NOT any kingdom of this world.

Matthew 6:33  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Matthew 22:36-40  And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

John 18:36  Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Throughout the Gospels Jesus makes it clear that he rejected the role of a political revolutionary and military commander that his people longed for him to be.  The purpose of Jesus was higher than their limited hopes in this world, the goal of Jesus was far broader and lasting than establishing a new kingdom of Israel.

3.  Christians already have a citizenship to which they owe their primary allegiance: Heaven

Ephesians 2:17-19 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 

Philippians 3:30 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,

See also: Hebrews 11:8-10 and 1 Peter 2:11, ‘foreigners and exiles'

One of enduring facets of nationalism is its increasing demand for allegiance from the people.  What begins as patriotism grows over time and the pressure of rivalries with other nations to become full blown nationalism.  Nationalism eventually arrives at the equivalent of, "America, love it or leave it".  Christians have are already citizens of heaven, they cannot make such a commitment to their country. 

4. The obligations of Christians cannot be minimized or superseded by ethnic rivalries or national boundaries.

Matthew 28:19-20  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

John 17:20-23 (1 John 4:8-9)“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

In America today "America First" is associated with the Republican Party of Donald Trump, but the truth is that both parties have taken turns proclaiming that they will put our nation ahead of others and consider the needs and wants of our people above and beyond those of the rest of the people of this world.  Both parties appeal to the nationalism, pride, and greed of Americans, both parties (to varying extent) proclaim by word and deed that the lives of American citizens are worth more to them than the lives of other people in this world.  The Church, with its doctrine of Imago Dei {Latin for 'image of God'} which proclaims that every human being is created in God's image, cannot agree (although it has many times in its past and present, to its shame) with treating the lives of one nation's people as more valuable than another.

Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus inquires what those who claim to be his followers did for 'the least of these' is incompatible with nationalistic rivalries which dehumanize ('other') people who happen to come from a different geopolitical entity than our own.  'America First' may be great politics in America, but it is a horrendous ethic for followers of Jesus.  {Yes, tens of millions of those claiming to be Christians in America today enthusiastically support either the Red or Blue version of 'America First', this is one example of how unhealthy the modern Church in America has become.}

5. The allegiance of Christians cannot be shared, God demands a total commitment.

Luke 16:13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

The principle that applies to money also applies to fame, power, politics, patriotism, and many others.  Whatever obligations and commitments we make in this world must be subservient to our commitment to Christ, even that to our spouse and children.

6. The methods demanded by nationalistic rivalries and 'realpolitik' are anathema to Christianity.

Acts 10:34 (2 Chronicles 19:7) Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”

Romans 12:17-21  Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Ephesians 5:5-7  For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

The classic example of this from the 20th century is the fire-bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan by the Allies.  It was justified, at the time, as a necessity of war, and was not seriously objected to by the Church in Allied countries, but it perspective has shown this to have been both militarily ineffective, and morally repugnant.  Had it not been 'unpatriotic' to object to the methods of one's own team/tribe, perhaps the generals and politicians would have sought a method of prosecuting the war that didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.  The Church has been guilty of such compromise too many times in its history to count, the Crusades being but one of the better known examples.

7. The goals and purpose of Christians in this world cannot be lowered to those of  nationalistic us vs. them rivalries.

Ephesians 1:4-5  For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

Ephesians 6:12  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

We, as Christians, are here for a purpose.  It isn't to make a lot of money, it isn't to maximize our own pleasure, and it isn't to help our country 'win'.  

8. The triumph of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be limited to one ethnic group, nation, or ideology.

Revelation 7:9  After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

Galatians 3:26-29  So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

With respect to a hilarious moment in the sitcom Cheers between Woody and Kelly, Heaven will not have chain link fences and barking dogs to keep people apart based upon the categories this world places upon people.  There will be one people in Heaven, just as there is one Lord, one faith, one birth.  There will be no Americans in Heaven, no Russians, no Italians, Egyptians, or Indonesians, there will only be those people called out of darkness and redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

9. 'Victory' in this world's rivalries, economically, geopolitically, or otherwise, are ephemeral to the Christian.

Mark 8:36  What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?

2 Peter 3:7  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

Today's economic champion is tomorrow's has-been, and today's superpower is tomorrow's used-to-be.  That is the way of this world's geopolitical rivalries.  At one point in time, Spain was the world's most powerful kingdom (technically the Hapsburg family whose holdings extended far beyond Spain), but that hasn't been true in a few hundred years.  So what was accomplished by those who killed for, and will killed fighting for, the supremacy of that particular nation over its rivals?  Power in this world is temporary, domination is a rickety throne, and yet Nationalism calls upon us to being willing to kill our fellow man (created in God's image) or to sacrifice our own lives, to achieve it.  How much evil has been sanctioned by the Church in the name of nationalistic pride and rivalries?  The Church on all sides supported WWI with pastors thundering against 'them' from the pulpit and Christians cheering on their side.  The carnage that followed is directly responsible for empty churches in Europe to this day.  That millions of 'Christian' Americans (some genuine, many not) have deeply embraced nationalism will inevitably lead to the same result: empty churches.  {Why? Because it testifies to our lack of faith in the Gospel, our lack of true hope in the next world is exposed by our obsession with wealth and power in this one.  Christian hypocrites are not effective witnesses to the Gospel.}

 

10. Submitting to governmental authorities is a far cry from calling upon Christians to champion that authority against other nations.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Nationalism is not patriotism.  Appreciation for, and love of, one's own country (if and when it deserves it) is both fitting and proper.  Nationalism is a different beast, it elevates my country above other countries, it justifies rivalries, it excuses immoral behavior with an ends justify the means mentality, and it treats people made in God's image who happen to live somewhere else (especially if that somewhere is a rival) as an 'other' to be guarded against not a neighbor to be loved.

My further writings on this topic:

Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

White Nationalism and White Supremacy are an abomination to the Church

Why our favoritism (politics) is an affront to God - Romans 2:11, Colossians 3:25

In Flanders field the poppies blow...Nationalism and the lessons of WWI

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

The danger of defining 'real' Americans vs. the necessity of categorizing 'real' Christians

We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

Manifest (TV show), Romans 8:28, and contextual interpretation of Scripture

 

Romans 8:28  New International Version

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Ok, so I'm behind the times a bit.  Manifest aired on NBC in the fall of 2018, but I had never heard of it until it appreared in my Netflix suggestions a couple weeks ago.  Given my affinity for shows with a mysterious premise, like Lost in the early seasons, Stranger Things, or The Man in the High Castle, I started watching.  A few episodes in it became clear that the foundational premise of the show is built upon Romans 8:28, a fact the creators make clear with repeated referances to the number 828 and one episode where a character opens a Bible to Romans and reads the verse in question (but no more).  As the series unfolds, God (presumably) sends a 'calling', that's the term the characters use, to various people who were on flight 828 through voices, visions, and general intuitive insights that enable them to solve crimes, protect the innocent, and battle against a sinister secret plot.  While it makes for good drama, none of these manifestations of the hand of God have much of anything to do with what Romans 8:28 is talking about as both characters in the show, and viewers watching, are left asking, "What exactly is God's purpose in all this?  Why is this happening?"

As a pastor, I've run into non-contextual interpretations of Scripture many times, Philippians 4:13 probably leads the pack on that score, but Romans 8:28 is right there alongside it.  What is the common mis-interpretation of Romans 8:28, and what is the proper contextual interpretation?

Context free interpretation: On its own, without the verses that precede or follow it, one might assume that Romans 8:28 is promising that God is a generic force for good in the world.  That he molds and shapes people and events to make things work out for the better, resulting in a world that is less evil and more beneficial to us than it would be otherwise.  In this interpretation, God isn't much different than Superman.  He has power that he uses to help people, here and there, saving the day unexpectedly, but not fixing the root problems that cause there to be people in need of saving in the first place.  While this view of God is fairly common, and fits fairly well with ideas of an impersonal Force that controls the universe (like in Star Wars), in the end it leaves much to be desired.  Why, if God has power, is he using it in such a limited way?  Why helps some and not others, why prevent a tragedy here and there but let the others happen?  Superman can only be in one place at a time, we know why he's more likely to save Louis than anyone else, but God can do more than this can't he?  Without context, 'the good', and 'his purpose' are left nebulous, can we identify them, help them along, or is this just some mystery?

A contextual interpretation: First, let us broaden the view a bit.

Romans 8:18-39  New International Version

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;

    we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This isn't bumper sticker theology.  You can't fit the deep wisdom of this passage (and Paul's overall themes in Romans) on a poster.  That may be while people prefer pithy but fruitless sayings like, "God helps those who help themselves" to what Scripture actually says, but non-contextual interpretation, and non-biblical aphorisms, are a dangerous game, we're much better off with the full medicine, kep the spoonful of sugar.

So, what is the larger point that Paul is making here that Romans 8:28 is integral to?  God has a master plan, a plan for all of creation and humanity, a plan that involves calling individuals by the Spirit to accept his Son by faith, and then leading those individuals forward toward Christ-likeness in a process that cannot be derailed by any power because it is emeshed in the Love of God, and a process that he helps along by weaving 'all things' toward that very specific purpose.  Something to that effect.  I could make that run-on sentence into a paragraph, page, or chapter while still trying to convey the essence of Paul's words, but the original that he wrote will remain the most profound way to say it.

God isn't in the business of making this world a better place.

Thought I'd leave that sentence by itself to let it sink in.  His redemptive actions in history will certainly have that effect, but that isn't the goal, but its treating the symptoms of the disease, not eradicating it.  The goal is fellowship with humanity under his rule as Lord.  God is working "all things together" in order to redeem out from humanity his chosen people, mold and shape them through discipleship toward Christ-likeness, and eventually present them before his throne holy and righteouss in his sight.  God's purpose is far higher, far nobler, and far more difficult than simply making this world a better place.  Jesus would not have taken upon himself humanity for such a lowly purpose, and certainly would not have needed to die upon the Cross, if making the world a better place was the goal.  If that was all God had in mind he could have used people like the prophets of old to accomplish it.  Moses, Elijah, Esther, even Jonah once he got straightened out, could 'make things better' with God's power.  No, Jesus came to this earth for a much bigger project, a project he alone as the God/Man could accomplish.  When Satan offered him rule over the kingdoms of this world, Jesus refused.  Jesus as King of the World would have resulted in a massive improvement in the lives of everyone on this planet.  Can you imagine a more wise and benevolent ruler?  But Jesus isn't tempted, he isn't here to work through the systems of this world, but to overcome them, and destroy Sin and Death in the process.  Jesus' sights are set much, much higher.

God's business is the making of a holy and righteous people

So, in the end, while Manifest has an interesting premise, and I'll finish watching the series, the God that it is portraying thus far isn't God enough, whatever the end game the series has for its characters, thus far none of them are actually living lives that reflect Romans 8:28, for none of them are being called to repentance, faith, and worship of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father.  Romans 8:28 is part of a powerful and profound promise to those whom God calls that whatever happens in this life, the hand of God will continue to work in us, and through us, to transform us to Christ-likeness.  Manifest, like so many non-contextual interpretations, falls short of this glorious promise.