Featured Post

The Bloomington Statement

You may have heard that some Evangelical Christians recently offered a series of affirmations and denials about human sexuality known as th...

Thursday, November 25, 2021

Does God have a body?

Over the course of the last four weeks, longtime commentator Neo has written three posts on God's transcendent nature for Banned by HWA. His central thesis was summarized in his first post (A Brief Meditation on the Transcendence of God). He wrote: "It is natural for man to seek to understand God by use of analogies.   We compare God to a created being because we are created beings and that is what we understand.  This works well, within limits, because we are in the image of God to some degree.  But it is an error to believe that God is just like us only more powerful.  Here is a vignette of issues.  God is not alive.  Nor is he dead.  Humans can be alive or dead. God cannot be either.  He is existence itself.  He transcends the categories of life and death.  God is not limited by neurology.  He does not hear or see or smell or taste or feel.  Those are properties of the created human body.  He experiences things at a level that transcends our senses.  God does not have a body or internal parts." This view is consistent with the premise of this blog that "God cannot be contained."

In his second offering on the subject (The Transcendence of God and the Ontological Nose), Neo underscored the fact that human body parts serve physiological functions which God would not need to sustain life or experience/interpret his surroundings. To illustrate his point, Neo discusses the absurdity of the existence of a Divine nose prior to the creation of atmospheric gases - before the lungs had been designed to oxygenate blood - before there were any flowers to smell. In other words, what purpose would a Divine nose have served prior to the creation of the material universe and more particularly this earth?

In the third installment in his series (The "Hand" of the Lord: A Reflection on Communication by Analogy in Scripture), Neo discusses some of the anthropomorphic references to God in Scripture. He explained: "God can use metaphorical language to communicate. He used anthropomorphism regarding himself throughout the Old Testament. That is his prerogative. That is how he decided to communicate with human beings for optimal effectiveness. Metaphors create pictures in our minds that we can understand. It’s like if someone said 'As soon as I heard the bell, I flew down here as fast as I could.' Everybody knows the person can’t fly but the image communicates, it depicts." Neo continued: "The Bible is full of literary constructs. 'The Lord is my shepherd' makes you into a sheep. But you are not really a sheep. That is only a metaphor. Otherwise, you might be just another hooved herd animal in God’s eyes."

Of course, this kind of language presents some obvious difficulties for literalists in correctly interpreting/understanding Scripture. However, for those of us who understand the use of anthropomorphisms, metaphors and literary constructs, there is no dilemma to reconcile relative to the Bible. Neo summarized this point nicely when he wrote: "A theophany or a metaphor does not make a statement about what God is in his essence. He is Spirit in his essence in the words of Jesus. The use of a theophany or metaphor does not make God a liar or the Bible a fraud. It rather makes the Bible communicate effectively to its human audience in a way that God chose."

As part of my reaction to Neo's third post, I made the point that the concept of a God who cannot be confined to a locus or corpus is completely alien to Armstrongist theology. In response, Dennis Diehl observed that most Christians think of God in anthropomorphic terms. I replied that the evidence did not support the premise that a majority of Christians shared Herbert Armstrong's notions about God. As evidence, I offered the following quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature -- more especially a magnified man -- and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus, God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox." (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5220)

I also quoted a Protestant theologian along the same lines, who likewise confirmed an earlier observation which I had made about God appearing as a burning bush, a pillar of fire/cloud and as a disembodied voice. Writing for The Gospel Coalition's article on "Theophany," Vern Poythress observed: "To some extent, we can classify theophanies into different kinds. There are thunderstorm theophanies, such as Mount Sinai. There are court theophanies, in which God appears on his throne in the midst of angelic servants (Dan. 7:9–10). There are man theophanies, where God appears in human form (for example, to Manoah and his wife). There are warrior theophanies, where God is described as resembling a human warrior (Exod. 15:3; Isa. 49:17). There are chariot theophanies, where God is described as riding on a chariot (Ps. 18:10); sometimes with mention of wheels, Ezek. 1:15–21). There are glory and cloud theophanies, when God appears in a bright “glory” cloud, or sometimes in a dark cloud. God reflects his glory in the created world, so that we can see analogy between creation and theophany (Ps. 104:1–4).
Jesus Christ, as the climactic 'theophany,' is the fulfillment of all the symbolic communications in theophanic forms."

Mr. Diehl went on to characterize these views as being characteristic of some of the religious elite within those denominations and not representative of the views of most of the laity. In response, I offered the following observation: Your view that an expansive view of the nature of God is confined to a small group of elite religious thinkers is not supported by Baylor's research into attitudes extant among the Great Unwashed of America. Indeed, their study demonstrated a wide range of beliefs out there about God's nature. Of course, we all recognize the limitations of polling and asking folks questions about their beliefs or who/what they support, but the results of this survey seem to suggest that folks aren't as wedded to anthropomorphic notions of God as your comments suggest. I'm including the links below, but notice a few of the very interesting results which apply to this conversation: If my math is correct, about 58% of folks agree/strongly agree with characterizing God as "a cosmic force in the universe." Likewise, it appears that almost as many folks are undecided/disagree/strongly disagree with the characterization of God as a "HE." (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/godnature.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/beliefs-about-the-nature-of-god.htm)

Hence, a large number of Christians appear to recognize the fact that an eternal, omnipotent and omnipresent God cannot be confined to a particular body. While the Bible makes clear that God has the ability to manifest a form to humans, that form obviously does not necessarily reflect the true nature of God.

The book of Genesis states that humans (male and female) were created in God's image (Hebrew "selem" - suggesting a shade, phantom, illusion, resemblance, etc.) and likeness (Hebrew "demut" - suggesting a resemblance, model, similitude, etc.) --see Genesis 1:26-27 and Strong's Concordance. Thus, while humans experience this physical realm through the five senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling), we can see that God doesn't need any of those senses (or the organs and appendages which make them possible) to exist or operate in either the material or spiritual realm. As Scripture makes clear in a number of places, God is spirit and is without beginning or end. Hence, while humans may in many ways represent a pale reflection of the entity known as God, we should all be able to acknowledge that God doesn't need eyes to see, a nose to smell, ears to hear, hands to hold, or a penis to reproduce or identify gender! And, just as God cannot be contained in any human temple, the Divine entity also cannot be confined to a specific form, shape or place.


Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Jesus Christ's Teachings on Interpersonal Relationships

Unfortunately, although they are among some of the most often quoted scriptures within the Christian community, Christ's teachings on the way that people should treat each other are among the most ignored and misunderstood principles attributed to him! In fact, almost everyone who is even vaguely familiar with Christian theology will recognize the three most pertinent scriptures associated with this subject. They are:

"Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye." --Matthew 7:1-5, NLT here and throughout this post

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. Do to others as you would like them to do to you." --Luke 6:27-31

"So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” --John 13:34-35

In reading over these well-known scriptures again, we see that Christ's teachings about interpersonal relationships involved four key concepts: Love, treating others the way you would like to be treated, refraining from offering judgments of others, and focusing on the improvement of one's own behavior/character. And, when we give even a cursory thought as to how we might implement these principles, we recognize that things like empathy, kindness, patience, mercy and forgiveness become essential components of putting these principles into practice in our own lives. Indeed, our musings about how to implement these principles bring other teachings of Christ and Paul to mind and give us some sense of the logical progression of Christ's thinking on the subject of interpersonal relationships.

For instance, we remember Christ's response to Peter's question about how often we should be willing to forgive each other (see Matthew 18:21). Feeling generous, Peter suggested that a willingness to forgive someone seven times might be appropriate. “No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven!" (Matthew 18:22) One can also hear the echo of Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek" in Paul's instruction to Roman Christians to "never pay back evil with more evil (Romans 12:17).

Likewise, in this context, Paul's definition of love, admonition to take care of each other's consciences, and his enumeration of the "fruits of the Spirit" take on new meaning. We remember that he wrote to the saints of Corinth: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." --I Corinthians 13:4-7 And that he wrote to the saints of Rome: "Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval." --Romans 14:1-4 Finally, Paul wrote to the saints of Galatia on this wise: "But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!" --Galatians 5:22-23

In similar fashion, in the first epistle of John we read: "Dear friends, I am not writing a new commandment for you; rather it is an old one you have had from the very beginning. This old commandment—to love one another—is the same message you heard before. Yet it is also new. Jesus lived the truth of this commandment, and you also are living it. For the darkness is disappearing, and the true light is already shining. If anyone claims, “I am living in the light,” but hates a fellow believer, that person is still living in darkness. Anyone who loves a fellow believer is living in the light and does not cause others to stumble. But anyone who hates a fellow believer is still living and walking in darkness. Such a person does not know the way to go, having been blinded by the darkness." --I John 2:7-11

Unfortunately, while we can readily see the philosophical harmony extant in the various writings of the New Testament regarding Christ's teachings on the subject of interpersonal relationships, it is also very apparent that many of those who have professed to follow in his footsteps down through the centuries have often not applied the principles which he espoused. Moreover, when this discrepancy is pointed out, all too often, the reaction of many Christians has been to excuse their behavior and/or reinterpret the plain meaning of the principles which Christ, Paul and John taught about interpersonal relationships! In other words, there is no sorrow/remorse - no repentance - no softening of the heart - and no attempt to correct the way that he/she interacts with others. Nevertheless, one could certainly make the case that these teachings are foundational - that these principles are elemental to the Christian religion! 

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND RACISM

The New World Encyclopedia article on American exceptionalism informs us that the notion “has been historically referred to as the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. The difference is often expressed in American circles as some categorical superiority, to which is usually attached some alleged proof, rationalization or explanation that may vary greatly depending on the historical period and the political context.” In other words, simply stated, American exceptionalism has traditionally been associated with the belief that America is superior to the other nations of the world.

For most Americans, this notion of being the greatest nation on the face of the earth is self-evident and has always been a part of our consciousness. It’s like breathing air – we rarely even think about it. Nevertheless, if we are truly interested in understanding why we believe this about ourselves, and the role which this belief has played in shaping other notions which have arisen among us, we must first understand the historical forces that shaped this notion of superiority and gave rise to the phenomenon known as American exceptionalism.

And, in our quest to understand those forces, it is important that we begin by acknowledging the fact that the notion of superiority to the other peoples of the earth began as a European notion. Indeed, most of us remember learning in school that “In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.” You know, the story about how the king and queen of Spain sent Christopher Columbus out on a voyage to find a new passage to the East, and he ended up “discovering” America. Never mind that the Americas already had a large population of indigenous peoples with very old and well-developed cultures of their own!

Even so, the United States has celebrated Columbus Day for many years, and its children have been taught this false narrative about their origins. What is often left out of the narrative taught to America’s children though is the unfortunate story about how those Native Americans were ruthlessly conquered and converted to Christianity by the Spaniards, and how Spain enriched itself with their gold and became the greatest European power because of it! And, unfortunately, most of those same students are blissfully ignorant about how the envy and jealousy of the English generated a host of government sanctioned buccaneers who were intent on intercepting Spanish gold and challenging Spanish claims in the “New World.”

Most of them are also unaware of how the Spanish king eventually assembled a great Armada of ships to end English interference with his affairs and ensure Spain’s supremacy in Europe. According to the English, however, God intervened in the form of a great storm which scattered the Spanish fleet and caused many of them to flounder at sea. From the English perspective, “God blew, and they were scattered.” In other words, God had intervened to protect them and defeat the Spanish Armada. Moreover, in defeating the greatest nation of Europe, the English felt some justification in believing that they were now the greatest nation.

Indeed, the notion became so ingrained in the English psyche that William Shakespeare would put the following words about his homeland into the mouth of John of Gaunt in one of his most famous plays: “This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” (Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1). In looking back, most of us would characterize that kind of language as being extremely presumptuous, but it does nicely demonstrate the point that our notion of exceptionalism had its roots in our Anglo-Saxon forbearers.

It is also clear that this notion was not only secular in nature, but that it later evolved into the belief that Englishmen were themselves the true people of God. In 1654, after the Puritans had triumphed in England, Oliver Cromwell proclaimed: “That this hath been a nation of blessings in the midst whereof so many wonders have been brought forth by the outstretched arm of the Almighty, even to astonishment, and wonder, who can deny? Ask we the nations of this matter and they will testify, and indeed the dispensations of the Lord have been as if he had said, England thou art my first-born, my delight amongst the nations, under the whole heavens the Lord hath not dealt so with any of the people round about us.” In other words, it was clear that God had favored the English above all of the other nations of the earth! 

Looking back, it is also now apparent to us that these notions of English exceptionalism accompanied English colonists to their “plantations” in the “New World” in the early part of the Seventeenth Century. Indeed, before the pilgrims had fully disembarked from the Mayflower, the men all pledged that “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.” Notice that even in The Mayflower Compact we see that the pilgrims believed that their venture had been “undertaken for the glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian faith.”

And, before he moved to “New England,” the Reverend John Cotton sent God’s people on their way to the new Promised Land, with the message that God Himself had appointed their project. He quoted the tenth verse of the seventh chapter of Second Samuel and summarized what it meant for the colonists. He said: “In this 10th verse is a double blessing promised: 1. The designment of a Place for his People, 2. A Plantation of them in that place, from whence is promised a threefold blessing: 1. They shall dwell there like Free-holders, in a place of their own, 2. He promiseth them firm and durable possession; they shall move no more, 3. They shall have peaceable and quiet resting there; The sons of wickedness shall afflict them no more: which is amplified by their former troubles; as before time. From the appointment of a place for them, which is the first blessing, you may observe this Note; The placing of a people in this or that Country, is from the Appointment of the Lord.”

He also went on to preview some of the arguments that would be used to justify the settlement of God’s people in a place that was already occupied. He said: “Now God makes room for a People three ways: 1. When he casts out the Enemies of a people before them, by lawful War with the Inhabitants which God calls them unto, as in Psalm 44:2. Thou didst drive out the Heathen before them. But this course of Warring against others, and driving them out without provocation, depends upon special Commission from God; or else it is not imitable, 2. When he gives a foreign People favor in the eyes of any native People to come and sit down with them; either by way of purchase, as Abraham did obtain the field of Machpelah: or else when they give it in courtesy, as Pharaoh did the Land of Goshen unto the Sons of Jacob, 3. When he makes a Country, though not altogether void of Inhabitants, yet void in that place where they reside. Where there is a vacant place, there is liberty for the Son of Adam or Noah to come and inhabit, though they neither buy it, nor ask their leaves.” Clearly, Cotton believed that the English colonization of America was God’s work, and that He was performing that work on behalf of His special people.

That this view had the support of many of the Puritans who came to America is further reinforced by a sermon that was reintroduced to the popular consciousness by President Ronald Reagan more than thirty years ago. As he was crossing the Atlantic Ocean aboard the Arbella on his way to the New World, the Reverent John Winthrop told his fellow passengers “that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our god in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” He went on to warn his companions that they must obey God, or “we shall surely perish out of the good Land whether we pass over this vast Sea to possess it.” Like Cotton, Winthrop obviously believed that New England was a Divinely appointed project for the benefit of His people.

With this foundation, it wasn’t a great leap for these folks or the generations which would follow them to justify their appropriation of Native American land, expansion at their expense, and the eventual enslavement of their African brethren. After all, if they really were God’s people, the Old Testament provided them with a template for how God had given the original Promised Land to His people, the Israelites. Hadn’t there been Amalekites, Philistines and Canaanites living in the land before the Israelites took possession of it? And hadn’t God sanctioned the removal and extermination of those heathen people to clear the land for His own people?

In the book of Numbers, they read: “And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by the way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners. And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.” (verses 1-3, KJV) Likewise, in the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, they read: “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.” (verses 16-18, KJV)

Indeed, the language of exterminating the then current inhabitants of the land was pervasive and explicit. After the leadership passed to Joshua following the death of Moses, they read that God had instructed His people that, out of the entire population of Jericho, only Rahab and her household would be permitted to live (Joshua 6:17, KJV). And, when the Israelites proceeded to carry out God’s instructions, they read: “So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:20-21, KJV). In fact, even in the scriptural histories of the kingdom period, they had the example of God’s graphic instructions to King Saul about the Amalekites. They read: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (I Samuel 15:2-3, KJV)

As a consequence, the English colonists felt more than justified in taking possession of America and displacing the natives. After all, hadn’t God already demonstrated His willingness to remove the heathens and give their lands to His people? Moreover, it was apparent that Native Americans didn’t use the land like Englishmen did. They didn’t build cities, cultivate the land, keep livestock, or have title to their lands. Indeed, one can hear the echo of the justifications for what would come later in the sermons, Bible passages, and in the reasoning of their descendants.

The cause of Native Americans was also not helped by the fact that many of them would support the British during the course of the Revolutionary War. Moreover, prior to winning their independence, colonists had resented the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which sought to forbid them from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. Hence, after the war ended, Americans were even more hostile toward Native Americans and eager to expand westward. And, just as their settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth had generated resentment among the native inhabitants of those places, the influx of white settlers into the land beyond the mountains provoked their resentment and animosity. Nevertheless, the white hunger for land proved to be insatiable, and that hunger eventually led to the development of a new notion – that it was the “Manifest Destiny” of the newly minted United States to extend all the way to the Pacific!

In 1845, a newspaperman name John O’Sullivan declared that “Texas is now ours!” He went on to say that it was “our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Indeed, according to him, California would also soon be a part of the United States. He wrote that “The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough and the rifle, and marking its trail with schools and colleges, courts and representative halls, mills and meeting-houses. A population will soon be in actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion.”

 Of course, O’Sullivan’s prophecies were about to be fulfilled by President James Knox Polk. It was, after all, Polk who launched a war with Mexico which resulted in the entire northern portion of their territory being ceded to the United States. Polk declared that: “It is of great importance to our country generally, and especially to our navigating and whaling interests, that the Pacific Coast and, indeed, the whole of our territory west of the Rocky Mountains, should speedily be filled up by a hardy and patriotic population.” Clearly, the U.S. President shared the newspaperman’s vision of America’s destiny.

In the meantime, the “exceptional” nature of America had also been noticed by someone outside of the nation in the person of the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville. Indeed, most modern historians credit that gentleman with giving the phenomenon its moniker (American exceptionalism).

And, just as Scripture and Divine Providence were used to justify taking land away from Native Americans (and exterminating many of them in the process), they were also employed to justify the enslavement of Africans in the United States. After all, didn’t the Bible say that God had cursed Ham and his descendants because of Canaan’s sin? (Southern Christians assumed that Africans were the descendants of Ham). Weren’t there numerous statutes related to the practice of slavery among the Israelites in the Torah? Hadn’t the Apostle Paul enjoined slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5) and refrain from actively seeking to change their circumstances (I Corinthians 7:21)?

Southern Christian ministers also supported the institution of slavery for Africans. Bishop William Meade of Virginia thought that it might be some kind of Divine punishment for known or unknown sins. However, he believed that even if the person in bonds wasn’t guilty of any sin(s) that his/her suffering in this life would be rewarded by God in the next! On the other hand, Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia speculated that slavery may have been part of God’s plan to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to Africans! Moreover, if God really was behind all of these things, no one would dare to accuse Almighty God of being unjust or racist!

Finally, in the treatment of both Native Americans and Africans, the notion of Anglo superiority implies the inferiority of those who were oppressed by them! In fact, even many of the white Americans who were opposed to slavery and the way that Native Americans had been treated by the U.S. government openly expressed their beliefs that these folks were their inferiors. And, for the folks who actively oppressed both groups, that inferiority provided yet another justification for the treatment which they received at the hands of their superiors!

In modern times, the notion of American exceptionalism has been used to support notions of varying degrees of obnoxiousness. For instance, it has been used to justify things like white privilege, white supremacy, and everything in between. Another interesting manifestation of the notion is the development of the belief among some folks that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world are the actual descendants of the people of Israel. And, although this may seem like one of the most extreme manifestations of American exceptionalism, the statements of some of the adherents of this belief demonstrate a kind of logical evolution of the thinking associated with the phenomenon.

In the United States and Great Britain, the Twentieth Century religious leader Herbert Armstrong was probably the foremost proponent of the teaching. His The United States and Britain in Prophecy generated a following of several hundreds of thousands of people at the height of the movement. Although it has been noted that Armstrong’s book plagiarized the work of other authors, many folks were persuaded by the skillful way in which he underscored the wealth and military prowess of both nations. It should also be noted that Mr. Armstrong largely ignored all of the unpleasant realities relative to Native Americans and Africans which underpinned that greatness.

Unlike Armstrong, the much smaller and relatively insignificant British-Israel Church of God has been more willing to confront some of the unpleasantness that he avoided. In fact, in one of their articles, a Charles Weisman states: “the Indians never had a legal claim to much more than 3% of the land at any one time. So, it can be said that the Indians did have a legal claim to America, 3% of it, which was considered their ‘own territory.’” He went on to underscore this point by stating that “97% of America was not legally the ‘property’ of anyone.” Weisman summarized: “History reveals that all the early hostilities and wars between the American Indians and the white settlers, were instigated or started by the Indians without just cause. Even though the white settlers had legal title to the land by way of purchase or claim of unoccupied lands, the Indian was always the one to disrupt peaceful relations with attacks, massacres, and wars. The retaliation by the white settlers were merely acts of self-defense and self-preservation in accordance with the law of nature. Thus, it was the Indian who was the intruder and violator of land rights and of his own law. It was the Indian who, in the beginning, wronged the white man.” In a companion article by Thomas Wood Ph.D., we are informed that “The Puritans were not racists.”

Hence, we can hear the echoes of the past in these more modern versions of these very old concepts/notions. And, in these extreme manifestations of American and British exceptionalism, we can discern more clearly just how wrong-headed these notions really were/are! Moreover, in the opinion of this commentator, if America does have any legitimate claim to being the greatest nation on the face of the earth separate and apart from its wealth and military might, it is to be found in the degree to which it adheres to the principle “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Lonnie Hendrix  

The sources for the material in this post are listed below in the order in which they appear here:

Article: “American exceptionalism,” New World Encyclopedia, https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/American_exceptionalism, Accessed 25 October 2021.

Article: “God blew and they were scattered: Did God really help the English defeat the Spanish Armada?” The National Archives, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/god-blew-they-were-scattered/, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Shakespeare, William, The Life and Death of Richard II, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare by Jeremy Hylton for The Tech (MIT), http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/index.html, Accessed 26 October 2021

Article: “Oliver Cromwell and the People of God,” by Dr. David Smith, The Cromwell Association, http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/?page_id=106, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Bradford, William, Et al, Mayflower Compact, Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library, The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mayflower.asp, Accessed 25 October 2021.

Cotton, Reverend John, God’s Promise to His Plantation (1630), American Literature Anthology Project, https://amlit1.hcommons.org/cottonpromise/, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Winthrop, Reverend John, City Upon a Hill (1630), Digital History, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3918, Accessed 26 October 2021.

King James Version of the Holy Bible at https://www.biblegateway.com, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Article: “The Royal Proclamation of 1763,” UShistory.org, https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/royalproc.html, Accessed 26 October 2021.

O’Sullivan, John, “Annexation,” The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, Volume 17 (New York: 1845), John O’Sullivan Declares America’s Manifest Destiny, 1845, The American Yawp Reader, https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/manifest-destiny/john-osullivan-declares-americas-manifest-destiny-1845/. Accessed 26 October 2021.

Polk, James K., BrainyQuote, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/james_k_polk_802708, Accessed 26 October 2021. 

Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, 1835.

Article: “How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery,” by Noel Rae, Time, 23 February 2018, https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Armstrong, Herbert W, The United States and Britain in Prophecy, New York: Everest House Publishers, 1980, The Herbert W. Armstrong Searchable Library, http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Books%20&%20Booklets/United%20States%20and%20Britain%20in%20Prophecy%20(1980).pdf, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Article: “Did the White Man Steal North America From the Indians?” by Charles Weisman, https://www.british-israel.ca/America.htm#.YXjaPJrMLIV, Accessed 26 October 2021.

Article: “The Puritans were not racists,” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D., From the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, https://www.british-israel.ca/America.htm#.YXjaPJrMLIV, Accessed 26 October 2021.  

The Declaration of Independence (1776), America’s Founding Documents, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript, Accessed 27 October 2021.


Sunday, October 24, 2021

The Armstrong-Trump Straitjacket

 It has been noted on numerous occasions here and elsewhere that both current and former Armstrongites are very likely to be supporters of Donald Trump. And, as you can imagine, a number of factors have been identified as being wholly or in part responsible for this phenomenon. For example, it has been pointed out that the disposition of Armstrong and his followers was largely conservative and nationalistic – making them more susceptible to accepting Trump’s messaging and policies. In a similar vein, others have pointed out the disdain of both men for more traditional and mainstream narratives, and how that anti-elitism proved to be a powerful draw for many within the general populace. In short, if we take the time to think about it, we can all immediately see a number of similarities between the approaches/attitudes of the two men that would appeal to those of a certain mindset.

There is, however, another observation about the supporters of both men that was recently underscored for me by an ongoing discussion within my own family regarding Armstrongism and Trumpism. It was one of those aha moments where the light goes on, and you suddenly realize that a profound truth has been staring you right in the face for a long time. I’m talking about the propensity of the followers of both men to reject any and all criticism of their hero and stick with them through “thick and thin.” Moreover, it is THIS devotion/loyalty of their followers in the face of overwhelming evidence of their error(s) which has most mystified and perturbed those of us who have opposed them and their agendas! We ask, “Why can’t they see this?” We pull out all of the sources which destroy their narratives, and they don’t even blink!

Why? Why are these folks impervious to any criticisms of their heroes or their agendas? For me, the answer to those questions was that aha moment I’ve already mentioned.

The evil genius of Herbert Armstrong and Donald Trump is found in their deliberate and relentless campaigns to thoroughly discredit all other sources, so that their followers view them as the ONLY legitimate source of TRUTH! Herbert Armstrong prefaced almost every one of his teachings with a tirade against mainstream Christianity, scientists, philosophers, theologians, historians, and higher education. He talked at great length about the ignorance of these people of God’s ways, and the “real” knowledge available in the pages of the Bible (as interpreted by him). Likewise, Donald Trump’s continuous assault on liberals, the mainstream media, courts and judges, doctors and public health officials, diplomats, climate scientists, and intellectuals of all stripes was masterfully designed to make him the go to guy for information. In both cases (Armstrong and Trump), it was drummed into the heads of their followers that consulting any other sources was disloyal and/or dangerous. In other words, they made it heretical to even entertain any views which contradicted their own!

For many of Armstrong’s followers, God used him to reveal THE TRUTH to their minds. Hence, they reasoned, that God wouldn’t have used a morally compromised man; and, therefore, the accusations against him must be false. However, even some of the folks who acknowledge Herbert Armstrong’s personal moral failures will still say things like: “Yes, but the doctrines/teachings were correct” OR “Yes, but he taught the truth.” In other words, for many of these folks, Armstrong so completely destroyed the credibility of any other sources that they will still cling to his theology, even if you can finally get them to see how flawed the man himself turned out to be!

In similar fashion, even if you can get a Trump supporter to admit the horrendous personal flaws of the man himself, you cannot shake their devotion to what he “stands for.” For them, he may be brash and cruel, but “he speaks the truth!” Even so, the vast majority of his supporters (whether they be Armstrongites, former Armstrongites, or Evangelical Christians) see absolutely nothing wrong with his character/behavior! Indeed, as with Herbert Armstrong before him, if the fearless leader does something that is antithetical to the teachings of Scripture, they just modify the meaning of the scriptures in question! Moreover, the authoritarian tendencies inherent to the modus operandi of both men provides yet another insight into the mindset of the folks who continue to support them and/or their agendas. In other words, these folks are looking for someone to follow – someone to tell them what’s what.

And, if someone has figured it all out for you, there is no need to look any further. Indeed, you’ll only confuse yourself and darken your understanding if you do! Is this starting to sound like circular reasoning? Yes, Armstrong and Trump were experts at putting their followers into mental straitjackets that required minimum maintenance from them! These evil geniuses realized that, if they did their job well enough on the front end, their followers would forever police the doors to their own minds!


Monday, October 4, 2021

The Watchman

 “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for Israel.” Ezekiel 3:17

Unfortunately, the Worldwide Church of God and most of its descendants have appropriated God’s designation of the prophet Ezekiel as a “watchman for Israel” as a Divine Commission for them to preach news headline prophecy to the English-speaking peoples of the earth. Hence, it is refreshing and notable when we see a leader within one of the splinters who rejects this traditional Armstrongist interpretation of the above passage from the book of Ezekiel.

Even so, we should note up front that there is some trepidation in deciding to offer any praise for anything presented by anyone who is still a part of one of these groups. After all, any praise from the author of this website could become the “kiss of death” within a culture that has been accustomed to looking at things through the eyes of Herbert Armstrong and his minions! So, let’s hope that any attention which this post generates within that culture is positive, and that it generates a greater inclination among those folks to embrace a more honest assessment of the proper Christian role as a watchman.

In a blog post entitled “EZEKIEL’S TIMELESS MESSAGE - WHAT IS THE REAL “WORK OF THE WATCHMAN”?,” Pastor Vance Stinson of the Church of God International wrote: “According to some, the work of the watchman involves ‘watching’ for prophetic fulfillments in the daily newspaper and assuming prophetic significance for every earthquake, drought, flood, or other disaster that makes the headlines. Incredibly, even when a particular ‘watchman’ has a long history of failed predictions, people will continue to follow him, claiming that he has some special ‘anointing,’ which is reflected in his oratory skills and ‘gift’ for analyzing news events ‘in the light of Bible prophecy.’ The ‘watchman’ shouts a loud and reverberating ‘I told you so!’ on the rare occasion of an accurate prediction, but seems to easily forget the many times he was wrong. Beware of those who come along and, with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other, attempt to read prophetic fulfillments into the headlines. Such are the tactics of the false teachers Jesus warned His disciples about.” Can we all say, “AMEN!”

A little later in the same post, Mr. Stinson wrote: “The tactics of today’s sensationalists have changed little. They insist that Jesus’ admonition to ‘watch’ is a command to watch for prophetic fulfillments in the daily headlines. That is not what Jesus meant! To ‘watch’ is to be alert, or prepared. Jesus said, ‘Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming’ (Matthew 24:42). This does not mean that we should watch for prophetic fulfillments in the headlines so that we will know how much time we have left before the Second Coming. It simply means that we should make sure we are prepared at all times because we do not know when Christ will return. The command to ‘watch’ is another way of saying, ‘Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil...[and] that you may be able to withstand [or stand your ground] in the evil day, and having done all, to stand’ (Ephesians 6:11, 13).” Once again, I couldn’t have said it better myself! Let’s hope that other ACOG leaders embrace Mr. Stinson’s understanding of these important concepts!


Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Christ Didn’t Abolish the Law, He Fulfilled It!

In the Gospel According to Matthew, we read that Christ told his disciples: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So, if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.” (5:17-19, New Living Translation here and throughout this post unless otherwise indicated)

Unfortunately, a few folks have suggested that these words of Jesus prove that Christians are still obligated to observe the tenets of the Law of Moses, and that a majority of the writings of the Old Testament prophets are still awaiting fulfillment. In reality, however, Christ was speaking about his mission in coming to the earth. Notice that he said that he “came to accomplish their purpose” OR In the words of the old King James Version, “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

In this connection, it is instructive to note that the Hebrew word translated into “fulfil” meant “to make full, to fill up, i.e., to fill to the full, to render full, i.e., to complete, to consummate, to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize, to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment” see Blue Letter Bible's entry for "pleroo" In other words, Christ came to literally fulfill the requirements of the law and the prophecies contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is also interesting to note that the entire New Testament is written in such a way as to demonstrate that Christ was the fulfillment of all of the Old Testament prophecies related to the Messiah, kingdom, and salvation. For instance, the accounts of Christ’s genealogy (although clearly different) in Matthew and Luke were obviously intended to demonstrate that he was a descendant of David (clearly meant to harken back to God’s promise to David and the prophecy recorded in the eleventh chapter of the book of Isaiah). And, take just a moment to consider just how many times the gospels refer to Christ fulfilling a particular prophecy (see Matthew 2:15, 23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:14, 35, 26:54, 27:9, Mark 4:12, Luke 4:21, 8:10, 22:37, 24:44, John 13:18, 15:25, 19:24). Over the centuries, Christian theologians have also recognized numerous other Old Testament Scriptures that clearly refer to Christ (e.g., Genesis 3:15).

There were also numerous features of the Torah which clearly symbolized and/or foreshadowed Christ and his work. In my recent post on “The Lord’s Appointed Festivals,” I underscored how the Holy Days pointed to Christ and his work. For instance, we know that the Passover Lamb was symbolic of Christ, and we talked about how he was a kind of “firstfruits.” Evangelist Ron Dart wrote about how Christ’s offering of himself was foreshadowed by the Wave Sheaf Offering. Likewise, it has been pointed out that Trumpets foreshadowed the coming/return of the king (Jesus). In times past, this blog has also explored how the symbolism of the Day of Atonement pointed to Christ and his work – the removal of our sins and the reconciliation of man to God. In similar fashion, we have also explored the deep symbolism inherent in Christ’s tabernacling in the flesh, and what that means for our own sojourn in these temporary dwellings which we currently inhabit. Finally, from the perspective of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we know that both the Temple and the High Priest pointed to Jesus Christ.

And there is the matter of the post which immediately preceded this one, “Christ As An Offering and Sacrifice,” which discussed how all of the sacrifices and offerings outlined in the Torah pointed to the death of Jesus Christ as payment of the penalty for our sins. In other words, Christ’s offering represented the ultimate expression of the sacrificial system and satisfaction of the requirement that all things be cleansed and sanctified by the shedding of blood. Indeed, Christ’s sacrifice comprehended ALL of the different kinds of offerings/sacrifices contained in the Law. Moreover, in this connection, it is interesting to note that Christ’s sacrifice rendered those other offerings/sacrifices UNNECCESSARY. It wasn’t that Christ abolished those sacrifices. In fulfilling their purpose, in meeting God’s requirement, they were made superfluous! It’s like meeting the requirements for obtaining a Driver’s License – Once you’ve met them, you receive your license. You have satisfied the state’s requirements - NOT negated or done away with them!

As relates to the other demands of the Law, there is yet another sense in which Christ filled it to the full. Through his teaching, Christ expanded both the application of the Law and underscored the greater spiritual principles which underpinned it. Going forward, it was no longer just enough to refrain from physically murdering someone – Christ demanded that his followers not harbor anger and resentment toward each other (see Matthew 5:21-26). In the same way, he expanded the reach of the Torah’s teachings on adultery, divorce, vows, revenge, and the obligation to love our enemies (see verses 27-48). In fact, Christ even focused on expanding the application of the Ten Commandments (like the Sabbath – see Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 2:23-28, 3:2-4, Luke 6:1-9, 13:10-16, 14:1-5, John 5:1-18 and 7:21-23) and summarizing them as two great principles – Love for God and love for neighbor (see Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34 and Luke 10:25-37). Thus, we can see that Christ’s teachings fulfilled the Law.

Finally, Christ also fulfilled the Law by keeping it perfectly himself! Remember, the prophet Isaiah had predicted that the Messiah would be completely innocent – without sin (see Isaiah 53:1-11). Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth that Christ had “never sinned” (II Corinthians 5:21). Likewise, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote that Christ had been tempted in all the ways that are common to humans “yet he did not sin” (4:15). Also, the First Epistle of Peter refers to Jesus as “the sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (I:19). Hence, by always obeying the precepts of the Law, Jesus Christ once again filled it the full/realized its potential/consummated or completed it. In other words, Jesus Christ did what no other human has been able to do: He observed the Law and fulfilled all of its requirements without ever violating any of its precepts. Indeed, one of the central tenets of the Christian faith is that he did this on our behalf – for us. In this way, as a complete innocent, he could take the penalty for our sins (our lawbreaking) onto himself and make us righteous before God (something our own attempts at obedience could NEVER accomplish).

Thus, we can see that Christ really did fill the Law and Prophets to the full. He didn’t abrogate, destroy, nullify or do away with the Law. Jesus Christ simply fulfilled it – which renders our imperfect attempts to fulfill its requirements superfluous/unnecessary/meaningless/vanity! As with sacrifices and offerings, Christ didn’t do away with them. Instead, he became THE ultimate sacrifice/offering. Likewise, Christ didn’t do away with the Sabbath and festivals, he achieved their realization! And, when we understand these things, it gives new meaning to Christ’s final words on the cross: “It is finished” (John 19:30). In that moment, Christ knew that he had fulfilled everything that God had commanded him to do, and what God had caused others to prophesy about him!

Hence, I ask again: Do any of us (Christians) really believe that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in the year 70 C.E. was a coincidence? In other words, why would God allow that to happen (an event which rendered it impossible to fully obey and implement the requirements of the Torah) if “He” intended for folks to continue to implement those standards?

Some folks like to debate the whole Law vs Grace thing, but wouldn’t it be a much better idea to look at this issue from the perspective of what Jesus Christ actually accomplished during his lifetime on this planet? After all, if Christ really did fulfill the Law and the Prophets, what else do we really have to talk about?

Sunday, September 19, 2021

Christ As An Offering and Sacrifice

A Prophecy About Jesus Christ

Who has believed our message? To whom has the Lord revealed his powerful arm? My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels. --Isaiah 53, NLT (here and throughout unless otherwise noted)

Many Twenty-First Century Christians seem to have forgotten that the only scriptures available to the earliest practitioners of our faith were those which we now refer to as the Hebrew Old Testament. Indeed, for many modern Christians, outside of a few favorite stories and the occasional psalm or proverb, the Old Testament is largely ignored. Sure, there is also a small group of saints who are obsessed with eschatology and are consequently interested in the Old Testament prophets. Still, outside of a few Christian theologians, for the majority of Christians alive today, most of the Old Testament is a complete mystery and mostly considered by them to be irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Jesus Christ did say: "I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." (Matthew 5:17) Now, while this obviously encompassed almost the entirety of the Hebrew Old Testament, Christ's words are probably no where more meaningful than in the realm of the sacrifices and offerings required by the Torah.

Of course, the first such sacrifice that comes to mind is the most obvious one related to the Passover Lamb. We read in the book of Exodus that "The animal you select must be a one-year-old male, either a sheep or a goat, with no defects" (Exodus 12:5). Continuing, they were to "Take special care of this chosen animal until the evening of the fourteenth day of this first month. Then the whole assembly of the community of Israel must slaughter their lamb or young goat at twilight. They are to take some of the blood and smear it on the sides and top of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the animal" (verses 6-7).

This language calls to mind several things related to Jesus Christ. In the gospel of John, we read that "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29, 36) Likewise, in the Revelation, we find Christ portrayed symbolically as the Lamb of God throughout the book. Indeed, the apostle Paul even wrote to the saints of Corinth about Christ being "our Passover" who was sacrificed on their behalf (I Corinthians 5:7). And, finally, in the various accounts of the Last Supper, we have Christ's disciples symbolically eating his flesh (Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22). 

In the first seven chapters of the book of Leviticus, many of those sacrifices and offerings are outlined and summarized. We read there about the burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering and trespass or guilt offering. What do these sacrifices and offerings have to do with Jesus Christ? The short answer is: a great deal!

Of course, one of the most obvious ways in which the burnt offering related to Christ was the designation of what kind of livestock was considered appropriate in this instance. We read there that "it must be a male with no defects" (Leviticus 1:3, 10). Another obvious feature of these sacrifices, and this one applied even to birds, was that the blood of the animal had to be spilled (Leviticus 1:15). It is also interesting to note that the Israelites were instructed to place their hands on the head of the animal prior to killing it. In this way, the Lord would "accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him" (verse 4). The language employed here and in Exodus was obviously on the mind of the author of the first epistle of Peter when he wrote about "the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (I Peter 1:19, NIV).

The grain offering took the form of an unleavened bread which was offered to God and consumed by the priests (Leviticus 2:4-10). This, of course, calls to mind the bread partaken of by Christ's disciples in the Lord's Supper or Communion service. And, in both the case of the burnt offering and the grain offering, we are told that they were "special" gifts with "a pleasing aroma to the Lord" (Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17 and 2:2). In this connection, it is interesting to note what Paul wrote to the saints at Ephesus. Speaking of Christ, he wrote: "He loved us and offered himself as a sacrifice for us, a pleasing aroma to God" (Ephesians 5:2).

The peace offering could be a male or female animal, but it still had to be without defect (Leviticus 3:1, 6). Like the burnt offering, the Israelites were instructed to lay their hands on the head of the animal prior to killing it (verses 2, 8, 13). As the name of the offering implies, it was intended to symbolize being at peace with God. In the New Testament, we read in the book of Acts that part of the good news for Israel was the fact that "there is peace with God through Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:36). Paul also wrote to the saints at Rome: "Therefore, since we have been made right in God's sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us" (Romans 5:1). Likewise, he wrote to the saints of Corinth that God had reconciled them to himself through Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 5:19).

The sin offering was presented to God for the unintentional sins of the priesthood and the people (Leviticus 4), and some scholars have noted that it seems to refer to the first five commandments. The guilt offering, on the other hand, could be intentional or unintentional and may have referred primarily to the commandments related to the treatment of their brothers/sisters/neighbors. At any rate, both offerings were made to elicit God's forgiveness for the offense and involved laying hands on the head of an animal without defect (symbolically transferring the sin and guilt to the offering) before slaying the beast and sprinkling its blood on the altar (Leviticus 5, 6 and 7). And, as we will see when we look at several New Testament scriptures toward the end of this post, the forgiveness of sin was the primary motivation behind the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, in addition to these sacrifices and offerings, we know that there were other special sacrifices and offerings  related to harvests and the Holy Days. We've already mentioned Passover, and we know that there were a number of offerings associated with the beginning of the harvest (Leviticus 23:9-14). There was also a special "wave sheaf" offering where the firstfruits of the grain harvest were symbolically presented to the Lord by the priest waving the sheaf in the air, and these were also combined with various animal sacrifices (Leviticus 23:15-21). In this connection, it is interesting to note that Paul wrote to the saints of Corinth that Christ was a kind of "firstfruits" (I Corinthians 15:20, 23).

In the same vein, we know that there were special sacrifices/offerings associated with the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). And we know that the New Testament book of Hebrews has a great deal to say about how those things related to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8, 9 and 10).

Indeed, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was convinced that all of these sacrifices/offerings pointed to Jesus Christ! We read there: "So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant." (9:11-15)

The author of the epistle went on to underscore just how important this sacrificial system was to the Old Covenant: "That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. For after Moses had read each of God’s commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.' And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." (verses 18-22) He then went on to point out how those sacrifices were offered over and over again, and how that stood in stark contrast to the work of Christ. We read that Christ "has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice" (verse 26).

Moreover, the thought continued into the following chapter. We read there: "The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared. But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, 'You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin. Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God— as is written about me in the Scriptures.’ First, Christ said, 'You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them' (though they are required by the law of Moses). Then he said, 'Look, I have come to do your will.' He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time." (10:1-10)

Hence, we see that the sacrificial system within the Old Covenant pointed to the work and person of Jesus Christ, and that it finds its ultimate fulfillment in him! Under the terms of the New Covenant, only one sacrifice/offering was required - that of Jesus Christ himself. It is a sacrifice which is sufficient to remove all of the sins of humankind and reconcile the entire world to God!