Category: Current Events

What I Understand About Hamas and Israel

“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” so wrote Paul to the Romans. My views on this war aren’t meant to absolve anyone of wrongdoing at any point in history.

Israel as a state has only existed since 1948. Yet, before then, Jews and Arabs lived in the region. The late prime minister of Israel, Golda Meir, said she had Arab and Israeli passports. There was no Palestine, she said. That notwithstanding, Palestinian supporters have contrived the existence of an Israeli state as colonialism. The British and American governments indeed had a hand in establishing this state, but they eventually became self-governing, no longer vassals of either. Being a Choctaw and knowing that my ancestors were driven from land they occupied for millennia, I sympathize with the Israelites because they occupied that land as far back as 1300 BCE. There was the exile to Babylon, but the Roman siege really dealt a blow to Israel. Still, Jews have lived in the area for a long time, so to have a state is something I can appreciate. My people became a self-governing body just a few years before Israel, so if Mississippians tried to fight us off the land, you might see how that would be regarded.

Hamas is a terrorist group. They’re not liberators, freedom fighters, or a militant group. They are classified as terrorists by the United States, Canada, the EU, and others. They are funded by Iran and Syria. They will not stop until Jews are killed, and Israel no longer exists. Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005, but they have supplied it with water and power until this aggression. Also, the Palestinians voted for this body to govern them. Their headquarters is in the basement of a hospital. They hide caches of weapons in mosques and near schools. They hide behind civilians, even children when facing members of the IDF. They have posted numerous videos of them beheading Israelites, including women, children, and elders. They have posted videos of them desecrating the bodies of dead Israelis. They have posted videos of them raping women, some of them very young, and some may be minors. Many of the people who support them are people Hamas would kill.

Israel is a democracy, the only functioning one in Arabia. Tel Aviv has a large and concentrated group of LGBT people who are not closeted. Do you think Hamas would tolerate that? Israel was on the cusp of making peace with Saudia Arabia, which would have tipped the scales away from the favor of Iran. Concern about classified information leaks from Trump’s presidency has been suggested as an impetus for this attack. Biden had unfrozen 6 billion to Iran, which many have said funded this attack, as well as funded Palestine. Biden’s actions were an undoing of Trump’s policies.

On top of this, Hezbollah has fired rockets as of today, and Israel has responded by bombing the south of Lebanon. Much like the invasion of Israel by the Egyptians and Syrians fifty years ago, Israel is now facing a war on two fronts. Yet, the Israeli Air Force, arguably the most dangerous in the region, has entered the fray. While Israel isn’t targeting civilians, some will perish in this war. Hamas, however, has targeted civilians in various ways. And they’ve been keen to share their exploits on social media. Beware, if you have a weak stomach or nerves, don’t look up these videos. It’s brutal and only shows how barbarous these terrorists are. Meanwhile, Israeli reservists from all over the world are returning to their homeland to defend it.

Shalom Israel. Shalom Gibbor Chayil.

When You See Jerusalem Surrounded By Armies …

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie Golda starring Helen Mirren. This film tells the story of the Egyptians and Syrians’ invasion of Israel in 1973. Just fifty years later, Hamas attacked Israel. Whenever something geo-political occurs with Israel, “end times” messages rise from the ashes like a resurrected Phoenix. These messages usually have three components: end times talk, antichrist talk, and events in Revelation.

First, we have lived in the last days since Pentecost (Acts 2:17; cf. Heb. 1:1–2; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:20). It didn’t suddenly happen because of what’s occurring in Israel. Why not point to the invasion fifty years ago if that were the case? Second, beware of how one interprets Matthew 24, Revelation, Daniel, and other passages. Let’s start with Matthew 24.

Critical to understanding this passage is what Jesus said at the end of Matthew 23:36 and 24:34. Back up to Matthew 24:1–2; “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20). Jerusalem was destroyed, and the temple was leveled in AD 70 by the Roman general Titus. Still, some held out and would not fall until AD 74 at Masada, when they committed suicide rather than suffer capture. Unlike before, the signs of such would be warfare (vv. 6–8). We must pause and look to Acts 5:36–37 and 21:38. The Zealots led the Jewish revolt that destroyed Jerusalem (which began in AD 66). The famines and pestilences are the results of warfare (v. 7) but also the results of earthquakes. Agabus foretold a famine in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30 [AD 54]). Earthquakes during Nero’s reign throughout Asia (Suetonius, Nero, §48). John Gill cites The Life of Apollonius and Orosius as recording earthquakes in Crete and various cities of Asia Minor. We must note that Jesus said that at these things, “the end is not yet” (v. 6). Verse three speaks of the end of the age and not the world. The Greek word aiōn means age or time. They were not asking about the end of the world but the end of the present state of things—the Jewish state (cf. v. 14).

Those persecuted are chronicled throughout the Bible and extra-Biblical sources, but we know that Stephen and James met their deaths while Paul was beaten, imprisoned, and tried. Those false prophets were noted: Simon Magus, those who taught another gospel (Galatians), Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17–18), and John wrote of false spirits going throughout the world (1 John 4:1). Romans 1:8; 10:18; & Colossians 1:23 said the message had been proclaimed worldwide. The abomination (Dan. 9:27; 12:11) is the Roman presence within the temple. Josephus records: “The Romans … brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them” (Wars, 6.6.1; cf. Luke 21:20). If this was referencing the second coming:

  1.  Fleeing to the mountains would do no good (v. 16; cf. 2 Peter 3:10–14).
  2.  There would be no need to fear for the Christian (v. 19–20; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13ff).
  3.  Housetops aren’t utilized today as they were then (v. 17).
  4.  Notice verse 34.

In verses 27-31, Jesus uses the term immediately, but before saying, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things are fulfilled.” Verse 27—when we read about the coming of the Lord, we must understand that “coming” isn’t always talking about His second coming. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus said that some standing before Him wouldn’t taste death until they saw Him coming into His kingdom. Sometimes, the usage dealt with a specific period or particular trial. The language of verse 29 is akin to Isaiah 13:10. In this passage, Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon in figurative terms. Jesus must have intended its meaning to be the same. These elements typically represented authorities and dignitaries in the Jewish mind (cf. Gen. 37:9ff). This could speak of the Jewish authorities (e.g., High Priest, Priests, and members of the Sanhedrin). This imagery proposes that Christ is coming. The Lord’s coming must represent His coming punishment on Jerusalem and not His second coming. For His coming with the clouds, see Daniel 7:13–14, which is about His ascension to the right hand of God.

One term that excites the mind is “antichrist.” You can find it along with interesting terms such as the mark of the beast, armageddon, rapture, and the thousand-year reign. The history of interpreting antichrist outside the Bible goes as far back as a disciple of John named Polycarp, who wrote, “For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist” (Phil. 7), which is essentially what John himself wrote (1 John 2:18). Antichrist was thought to be the Roman Empire throughout history. Popes of the crusade era said the Turks were the antichrist. The reformers believed the pope was the antichrist (Isaac Newton too). Puritans said Cromwell was the antichrist. Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. Yet, in 1 John, there’s the mention of antichrists (plural). He also speaks of them as a present reality in his time, not as something to come in the near or distant future.

Most Evangelical commentators tend to assert that Revelation was written with three periods of time in mind: 1) things John saw in chapter one, 2) those that were in chapters two and three, and 3) those that would take place afterward, beginning with chapters four or six. Charles Ryrie—in his study, Bible notes—advocates the former while John MacArthur—in his Bible handbook—advocates the latter. What some Evangelicals argue for is that chapters six through twenty-two are end-time (eschatological) material that hinges upon a thousand-year reign. However, internal terminology would refute this claim.

  • “The time is near” (1:3; 22:10; cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17)
  • These things “must soon take place” (22:6)
  • Jesus said he was “coming soon” (22:12, 20; cf. 1:1)

The terms in English and Greek speak to a swift course of action and certainly not one that would be delayed over two millennia. Granted: the judgment scene in chapter twenty appears to be the true end-time material that may be exempt from the interpretation. However, at what point does the contextual divide speak to the original audience and all thereafter come somewhere in chapter twenty and onward unless one holds to a more symbolic interpretation of the final three chapters? A case for understanding the time frame in which John’s original audience may have understood this prophecy is found when comparing his work to other prophetic literature.

Daniel was told to seal up his vision because it referred to many days from his time (Dan. 8:26). He was also told that the book was to remain sealed “until the time of the end” (12:4). As time went on knowledge would increase as to the culmination of these prophecies. He was urged to go his way because the words of his prophecy were “sealed till the time of the end” (12:9). Studying history along with Daniel’s prophecy reveals that it was not for another four hundred years that those kingdoms came which he had been told of (cf. Dan. 2). Therefore, Daniel would not live to see the fulfillment of the prophecies; hence his being instructed to seal the book. So, the sealing of a prophecy book looked ahead to a distant period.

When John wrote Revelation, the angel told him not to seal the words of his book (Rev. 22:10). Why? Because “the time [was] at hand.” If Daniel’s prophecy saw fulfillment some four hundred years later, and he was told to seal the book, would not John’s prophecy have been fulfilled long before the same time since he was told not to seal his book?

Rather than trying to discern the times because of what’s happening in Israel, let’s pray for Israel and Palestine. Let’s pray that God judges Hamas and all associated with this terrorism. My prayer is that peace may reign, but if it isn’t, that evildoers meet their end.

Leviticus 19:28 and Tattoos

The picture is of an eighty century Sudanese Christian woman whose mummy shows that she had a tattoo.

For disclosure, I have five tattoos. I didn’t get them before I was a preacher, but only in the last few years. No, I’m not having a mid-life crisis. I always wanted tattoos, but my dad told me to wait until I was older so I wouldn’t get something I would regret. I don’t regret any of them. On my left arm are three: the chi/rho symbol flanked on each side with alpha/omega. This was the symbol used by Emperor Constantine’s soldiers on their shields. Just beneath that one, the second is Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew because that was the first verse I memorized while taking Hebrew classes. Under that is in Roman Numerals the date that I met my wife. I suppose you might say that my left arm is the arm of antiquity. On my right arm are two. The first is the seal of my tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. Under that is a tribal symbol that tells the story of our people.

I know some fellow Christians are opposed to tattoos, and they invoke Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (NRSV). Robert Alter offers this note, “The polyvalent Hebrew noun nefesh often means ‘person,’ but in some contexts it refers to a dead person or corpse, and the implication of mourning here points to that meaning” (The Five Books of Moses, p. 630). My SBL study Bible simply says, “Pagan mourning rites.” Marking oneself as a sign of mourning was meant to convey a heightened expression of sorrow (Jer. 16:6; 41:5).

Dr. David Bernat observes that the noun translated as “tattoo” only appears here in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Its root, moreover, indicates writing of some kind but is unspecified. Abraham ibn Ezra (c. 1089-1167) interpreted with the connection to mourning, as have others I’ve mentioned above. Agreeing with this position was Moshe Isaac Ashkenazy (c. 1821-1898). His theological explanation was:

The reason for tattooing was to remember the beloved dead, and they would carve the person’s name or picture on their hand or arm with a needle…so they would be before them always…and this is a bad practice, since it denies the survival of the soul after dead…since according to our faith, after a short time, we will see the other person again after death, we should not try so hard to have keepsakes, and those who are particular about this, to the point that they cause pain to their own flesh with this harsh act, show that they are not confident that they will see their departed loved ones again, and if so, they are deniers of the immortality of the soul.

Here’s the thing: I could provide more rabbis and scholars who hold this view. Nevertheless, as a Christian, the law is no longer something by which I am bound in Jesus. I am justified by faith in him and not the keeping of the law. Furthermore, Christians who invoke this passage, if they are to remain logically consistent, must observe everything contained in Leviticus. Also, in keeping with the premise, what about plastic surgery or any other modifications one makes to the body?

In early Christianity, tattoos were degrading and reserved for criminals and outlaws by Roman Law. It was a form of public punishment, like wearing the scarlett letter. Some early Christians claimed that their tattoos appeared as a miraculous experience that referred to the wounds of Christ or the early martyrs (e.g., Macrina). The Montanist sect took Revelation 7:3 literally and would tattoo “slaves of God” on their foreheads. Coptic Christians have tattooed themselves as far back as the eighth century. Apparently, they branded crosses on their foreheads, temples, and writsts. After the Muslim conquest of Palestine and Israel, Christians were tattooed by the state with a cross on their inner right wrist. Pilgrims who go to the Holy Land often commemorate their experiences with a tattoo of a cross on their inner wrist. History also attests to medieval Christians receiving tattoos upon making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. In fairness, some of the Church Fathers were of the opinion that they should be prohibited, so there isn’t a uniform view throughout early Christianity and even into late antiquity.

If anything, I would view it as a matter of Christian liberty. If you don’t want them, don’t get them. If you get them, make sure it isn’t something that would be offensive to God. I know some will invoke “the body is a temple” passage, and that’s fine. But tell me you eat healthy and that you never played a sport that affects your joints and wellbeing. If we’re to interpret the passage in that vain, I’m sure I could use it against anyone throwing it at me. Let’s just leave it to personal choice and reserve judgment for things that really matter.

Repealing Roe v. Wade

It will come as no surprise if you’re reading this, that I am pro-life. Not pro-birth, but pro-life. If you want to stop reading at this point, that’s at your discretion.

Many people are disturbed about the leaked SCOTUS opinion, and others believe they’ve won the victory of a lifetime. Both are somewhat correct but also wrong. Abortion is not being outlawed because of this repeal. Repealing Roe only returns the matter to the states rather than the federal government legislating it. True, some states will seek to outlaw it, but others will not. State legislatures will decide the matter, so you actually have a say in who you vote for in your state based on this and other issues. This isn’t a threat to democracy, it’s actually the greatest exercise of democracy. The reason some senators and congressmen are enraged is in part that the power is being taken out of their hands and placed in the state’s hands. They run on these platforms and win elections based on them. Now they have been proven insignificant, so they will try to regain their significance.

Our founders framed the nation as a federalist system, which means that an area is controlled by two levels of government. In our country, that’s the federal and state governments. The constitution enumerates the rights that the states surrender to the federal government, and any matter not addressed in the constitution is to be left to the states as per the tenth amendment. Many jurists on the left and right have believed that Roe wasn’t altogether kosher. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed the decision was an overreach. The thought is that the Supreme Court should have struck down the law as unconstitutional and left it at that. Instead, the court wrote an entire opinion that became enshrined as law. There’s probably a better way to put it, but this will suffice.

Those who say they’re pro-life (myself included) should not think their job is finished. If anything, they should now, if they already haven’t, begin advocating for affordable or free contraception, healthcare, childcare, and various other programs that would deter abortion. The goal is to remove every reason a mother might think that her best option is to abort. That would go a long way towards helping the issue overall. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 75% of abortion patients are poor or low-income. Addressing this and other issues may help. Furthermore, when ACA was signed into law, a 7% decrease in abortions was reported between 2014 and 2017 because many uninsured women obtained healthcare. Pro-lifers often dismiss such things, but if we truly care, we’ll look at the data and advocate.

Those who are pro-choice should realize that for the past two years, bodily autonomy was a silly notion to some of these same people as they wanted to force everyone to wear masks and be vaccinated, even going so far as to use agencies to achieve such ends. Unelected bureaucrats in said agencies, mind you. Then there’s the discussion around the lack of a definition of what a woman is. All of a sudden, now that this issue has risen to the surface, the binary reality of the sexes has become the paradigm once more. Many things that some of these folks advocate for contradicts in some way what they stand for, and the only consistency is that they are constantly inconsistent. Black Lives Matter unless they’re in the womb. Women’s rights matter, but what about those girls in the womb?

As for myself, I was born to two teenagers. I was unplanned. I know there are more reasons for this discussion, but I’ll speak about mine. I’m glad to be alive. My parents could have decided to abort me, but they didn’t. I truly feel for those who believe this is their only option. I think we can also agree that in many circumstances a pregnancy results from irresponsibility. Data shows that less than 1% of abortions are the result of rape or incest. This is why I believe we should advocate for contraception or even abstinence. My personal belief is to exercise one’s right of choice in the bedroom, or just wait until marriage and have a plan. I shouldn’t have had to suffer because of my parents’ irresponsibility. I shouldn’t be dead because of it either.

Those of us who are pro-life (at least speaking for myself) have no interest in making decisions for women, but we want to advocate for the unborn. In cases where a mother’s health is at risk, I totally get the need to make the difficult decision. A friend of mine who lacked healthcare at the time was facing death because of a pregnancy, so an abortion, in her case, saved her life. I’ve also read about non-viable fetuses remaining in the womb to the mother’s detriment. Yes, in those cases, it isn’t abortion per se, but an evacuation of the womb. Perhaps what would help is to redefine such things in these cases. The term “abortion” is stigmatized, and there’s really more to it in some cases than just terminating life.

When a woman finds herself pregnant, child support should begin then. The father is often not factored into this discussion. He should step up and be responsible for caring for her and the unborn child. She shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of all of the responsibility. I was irresponsible as a teenager myself, and when I learned that I was going to become a father, I wanted to do everything I could for my girlfriend (now my wife of over 20 years) and unborn baby. That baby is 20 years old, and one of the most special people in my life. I am fortunate, but not everyone shares my circumstances, which is why those less fortunate need greater help.

Shalom

A Different Kind of King

We all know that Herod was king of Israel when Jesus was crucified, but what may elude us is that all kings of Israel, from the return from exile to that date, were puppets of the ruling power. The last actual king was Zedekiah: “Then they [the Babylonians] killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:7). Jews returned to Jerusalem under the authority of the Persians. Then, they were ruled by the Greeks, and in Jesus’ day, the Romans. All of the prophecies about a king that would come to rule Israel were held tightly by the nation, but they expected a mighty warrior who’d raise the armies of God and conquer the occupiers. That wasn’t what God had in mind. 

When we read the gospels, Jesus never ascribed the title “Messiah” to Himself. In the first centuries BCE and CE, many figures bore that title. They were militaristic and often led insurrections only to be quashed by the ruling power (cf. Acts 5:36-37; 21:38). Israel wanted their Messiah to be the type of king that succeeded in this venture. He would liberate Israel from Gentile rule. The nation would be exalted on the world stage once more and returned to its former glory of the days of David. Jesus, however, preferred the title “Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13). He likely avoided the title Messiah due to the way it had been used. 

The Roman Empire, and preceding republic, often granted triumphs. It was a religious and civil ceremony where a successful military leader, likely a general, was publicly celebrated and sanctified. On the day of his triumph, he wore special attire that identified him as a near-divine or near-kingly figure. Often, his face was painted red as an imitation of Rome’s highest god, Jupiter (Zeus). Then, he rode a four-hour chariot through the streets of Rome with his army, captives, and any spoils of war. He’d then conclude by offering sacrifice to Jupiter. Jesus had a triumph of His own wherein He was acknowledged as King (John 12:13; cf. Mark 11:9-10). 

Jesus’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the week He was crucified worried the religious leaders. Subsequently, they sought His death (cf. John 18:14). However, it’s necessary to note that Pilate did not constantly live in Jerusalem or thereabouts. He would arrive in the city in a procession akin to a stately or royal procession before the high holiday of the Jews. Therefore, King Jesus’ triumph followed Pontius Pilate’s grandiose arrival. While on trial, Jesus and Pilate had a discussion revolving around Jesus being called a King (John 18:33-37). Jesus sets His kingdom apart from earthly kingdoms. Warfare is the modus operandi for earthly kingdoms, but Jesus’ kingdom isn’t from the world. Not only is His kingdom different in origin, but it’s also different in kind. 

Jesus was crowned, not with gold, but with thorns. He was robed, not with regal majesty, but mockery. He wasn’t bowed to but struck by the hands of Roman soldiers (John 19:2-3). What sort of kingship is Jesus’? It’s self-sacrificial love. It’s service and suffering. It isn’t the seeking of power or the use of military might. As Christians, do we belong to this kingdom, or are we so entrenched in politics that we fail to live the lives of citizens of heaven? 

Caring Enough When a Christian Needs Restoration

Christians aren’t immune to worldliness and sin. If anything, we may be more susceptible to it because of our profession of faith. Before, we didn’t give as much conscientious thought to trying to be good. We either were or weren’t. It’s easy to be unattached and just live life, but when we confess Jesus and are baptized, we often paint a target on our backs not only to the adversary but to anyone who wishes to troll our imperfections in light of our faith. 

The majority of Scripture doesn’t paint a picture of unblemished saints but people in covenant with God who often stray from the precepts of that covenant. If you’ll notice, a more significant percentage of the New Testament is devoted to correcting misbehavior than is not. Think about it. Can you name a book of Scripture that doesn’t expose the sins of God’s people? Maybe Esther? Yet, throughout the whole of the Bible, we see God’s love for an often straying people. 

Several passages speak about a Christian who has departed the faith or is overtaken by sin and what the rest of us, who are not, should do. 

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20; cf. 1:15)

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1; cf. 2:11-13)

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. (2 Thess. 3:6; cf. vv. 14-15; 2:15)

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. (1 Cor. 5:11)

Here’s the rub: most of us feel inadequate and unqualified to be the person who points out another person’s sin and draws a line in the sand. The people who feel qualified make us question their motives and character because, after all, only the self-righteous Pharisee is comfortable doing that. Right? Meanwhile, the rest of us struggle with our temptations, and some of us with our private sins. So why should we point out another person’s sins?

There’s a difference between being a struggling sinner and an embracing sinner. We who struggle with our sins may feel remorse. We often also pray for forgiveness and try to do better. Whether or not we succeed is another matter, but it is a struggle. For others, they don’t struggle with sin. They simply embrace it and make it a part of who they are. I believe this is the difference between the Christian who has strayed and the one who has not. We don’t have to draw a line in the sand because God has done that for us. However, one might wonder when to take action if that line is somewhat obscure.

For example, what does it mean to “wander from the truth,” be “overtaken in any trespass,” or to walk “disorderly?” Furthermore, the sins Paul mentioned to the Corinthians are generic. We can define them however we’d like, either broadly or narrowly. I’ve seen brethren use it in ways that I’m not sure the Holy Spirit intended. “Wander from the truth” means different things to different people, but what did James mean? Walking disorderly is the same, so I have many questions about this process. I believe we should care for our brethren, the good and the bad. We should encourage them all, but those who have wandered and been overtaken should be loved back to God. 

This specific query is focused on knowing when to take restorative actions. If it’s something that alienates a person from God, then we should act. On the other hand, if it’s a matter of personal scruples (Rom. 14; 15:1), we should learn to bear with those and not make them points of faith, which many in the churches of Christ tend to do, sadly. Unfortunately, some people make things a matter of faith that are scruples.  

How do we proceed from here? I believe, first, that we should heed the warning that Jesus gives (Matt. 7:1-5). Next, we deal with ourselves as a starting point, and then we determine the sort of judgment we’re using. Is it of God or man? Is it Scripture-based or tradition-based? Is a soul in peril, or do they just have a different point of view from me? Finally, we should carry out this task according to Paul’s instructions: “Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). 

Reading Biases Back Into Scripture: COVID-19 and End-Times Propaganda

Last Thursday, I returned to the office after lunch and was handed a sheet of paper delivered for me. The deliverer wasn’t someone we knew and not a member of Glendale. On the paper was this person’s beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine. They had broken down the word “Corona.” They attributed, falsely, I might add, numerology to each letter that resulted in the number 666. They, then, wrote what was in the vaccine, which, to them, was code for Lucifer and other such demonic associations. This person, then, cited 1 Corinthians 3:16; Revelation 13:16–17; Matthew 4:10 for their justification. If I had the opportunity, I would speak with them. Since I wasn’t here and they were unknown to the office staff, I can’t even contact them to discuss this. I wouldn’t attribute evil motives to the person. I believe that they genuinely believe this. However, as Jesus once said, “They do err not knowing the Scriptures.”

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his first letter, he addressed divisions in the church and answered some questions. He urged unity in 1 Corinthians 3:16 to the church as a whole because they were the temple of God. This passage has nothing to do with what a person puts in their body. People, even in the churches of Christ, have often invoked 1 Corinthians 6:19 for that purpose. Even then, that passage has absolutely nothing to do with what a person puts in their body. Instead, it has to do with what a person does with their body—serve God holiness or engage in sexual immorality. Paul explicitly notes that sin is done “outside” the body and that sexual immorality is a sin “against” the body (1 Corinthians 6:18). He doesn’t, for one second, speak about what a person puts in their body. Jesus addressed that in Matthew 15:10–20.

The passage where John the Revelator wrote about 666 and the Mark of the Beast appears in Revelation 13:16–18. Since mandatory vaccination and passports are a topic of discussion, this person equated their belief in the conclusion of the numerology. If a person doesn’t have a passport, they cannot transact business with the Mark of the Beast from this passage. You may or may not remember that I preached through the entire book of Revelation a couple of years ago. I specifically addressed the Mark of the Beast, and if you click on the blue highlighted part, you’ll be redirected to those notes.

I am not a medical doctor or scientist, so I can’t speak authoritatively on the vaccine. I know many of you have taken it, and many have not. I don’t think we should judge one another either way for having received it or not. Let’s not let the Enemy divide us over this. If you’ve not taken it and are on the fence, I would encourage you to speak with your primary care physician about it. Don’t take a politician’s guilt-tripping, a bureaucratic medical doctor’s urging, or even a health department’s advice to take it. Your primary care physician knows your history and current state of health, and they can give you the absolute best advice. This is what I did months ago, and my decision was based on that advice, and not on those who do not know me or the state of my health.