Sheep and Goats

Author: tomsheepandgoats

  • Boarding a Ship that You Know is Going to Sink: Part 2

    (See Part 1)

    The Adam and Eve account is one of humans cutting themselves off from their power source. Thereby, they bring death upon themselves that would not otherwise come. Like the blades of a fan after pulling the plug, lifespans slow. At Genesis chapter 5, they are in the 900-year range. By Genesis chapter 11, it has dropped to about 500 years. By Abraham’s time, it was in the 200-year range. By the psalmist’s time, it had dropped to “70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.” (Psalm 90:10) That’s where it is today, mostly. It has even increased by 10 years or so to what it is today, a product of better sanitation, medical technology, as so forth.

    The idea to take away is that death is not God’s idea. It is a penalty for sin, clearly stated from mankind’s beginning: “But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:17) The illustration that Witnesses love, because it makes so much sense, is that of a cake pan with a dent in it. Every cake coming out of that pan thereafter will have that dent. In this way, Romans 5:12 finds application, that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

    I suggested in A Workman’s Theodicy that epigenetics (unknown when I was a boy) could explain how an “acquired trait” like sin could be passed on to succeeding generation, but now it appears that suggestion was wrong. Epigenetics is a mechanism determining whether given genes are expressed or not. It can indeed result in the inheritance of acquired traits, but supposedly for no more than 2 or 3 generations, after which the natural genome reasserts itself. Maybe that view will modify again. Or maybe it is entirely some other means by which the generations descending from that first pair, even when not willfull sinners themselves, nonetheless inherit the consequences of Adam and Eve’s initial sin.

    Sin, it should be remembered, literally means “missing the mark.” We can do so deliberately, aiming into the clouds or the sea because we think that target better. But even when we strain for all we are worth to hit the given target, we seldom score a bullseye.

    Much of Christian religion backs away from a literal Adam and Eve, petrified at the thought of being out of step with science. The Jehovah’s Witness headship, plebeian to it roots, just like the apostles were, gives not a hoot about kissing up to science (sometimes to their detriment). Their attitude is that if the Word harmonizes with science, that Word is corroborated. If it doesn’t, then science has some catching up to do. In this, I believe they are like the original apostles, described at Acts 4:13 as “unlettered and ordinary.” Those apostles never sought to remedy that deficiency. They ran with what they had, which was not everything, but it was enough to run with.

    One might think it would have been better had “smart” people been running the show back then, but they were not. Jesus all but says that smart people would have dropped the ball. “How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” he says at John 5:44. We all know it. “Smart” people are ever concerned about their standing in the eyes of their peers. If damaged heavily enough, it might even spill over to harm their financial standing, a horror worse yet. You cannot trust them to get an unpopular work done. They will crap out 19 times out of 20. If the job is to be done, it must be assigned to ones already looked down upon, ones with not special social or financial standing to begin wth.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Boarding a Ship that You Know is Going to Sink

    A certain sage likened the journey of life to boarding a ship heading out to sea that you know is going to sink. Somehow, people must come to grips with that. Nobody would ever book a cruise knowing the ship will sink, no matter how enticing the stops on the way. Somehow humans have to come to terms with our limited lifespan.

    A good start is to recognize the source of death. It wasn’t God’s idea. Instead, Romans 5:12 says, “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

    I was dumbfounded when I first came across people who literally believed in Adam and Eve. They didn’t look stupid. Yet, all my life it had been drilled into me, from grade school through college, that only the dumbest of the dumbbells took those two seriously.

    I didn’t acquiesce to the Adam and Eve instantly. I put them on the shelf instead, since everything else made so much sense. In time, I better integrated them with accumulating faith and Bible knowledge. Thing is, I’m not sure how many would accept that workaround today. “Critical thinking” is all the rage today. Such thinking is apt to prohibit putting that first couple aside, even temparily, for fear they may cause “cognitive dissonance.” Critical thinking prejudices one to insist that the discordance must be resolved NOW.

    Is it really so that humans cannot simultaneously entertain non-dovetailing ideas without their heads exploding? Or are the ones who so insist merely proclaiming their own narrowness? One need only watch an American pharmaceutical ad to appreciate that cognitive dissonance is a vastly overrated concept, with narrator insisting you must have the drug peddled, and voiceover saying it may kill you. Somehow Americans survive those.

    At any rate, I have since recommended to people of my background, who may similarly choke on mention of Adam and Eve, that they treat them as metaphor if they must. Anything is better than outright rejection, especially outright disdainful rejection—as in, “We are wise and learned adults—far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve. What’s next, Donald Duck?” They are only harming themselves with that view. One must not toss away the idea of Adam and Eve, for they are key.

    To be continued.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Setting Matters Straight Between Us

    “Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us,” says Jehovah. “Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be made as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson cloth, They will become like wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

    Many times I speak with people. Rarely do I precede my remarks with “Come now, and let us set matters straight between us.” It means that what follows is a big deal. It means that what follows is something not intuitive, something a person might easily not think of on his or her own.

    That something is that, if you repent of and leave off your wrong course, God will completely forgive. These points were the highlight of Sunday’s (September 20, 2026) Watchtower Study.

    David was set as an example. After being called to account over his outrageous sin with Bathsheba, in which he even plotted another man’s death, 2 Samuel 12:13 says: “David then said to Nathan: “I have sinned against Jehovah.” Nathan replied to David:“Jehovah, in turn, forgives your sin. You will not die.” It reads sort of light here, just presented as an excerpt, but the complete context indicates he really was cut to the heart.

    Thereafter, consistent with forgiveness, whenever David’s subsequent doings are mentioned, there is never attached a footnote: “But, you know, that dude did some pretty bad stuff.” Someone spoke up at the meeting that the common pattern today is, should someone do something bad, that course defines him for the rest of his life—popular opinion will accept no reform. But, with God, the reality is:

    “I [Jehovah] am the One who is blotting out your transgressions for my own sake, And I will not remember your sins. (Isa 43:25)

    It is: “For I will not oppose them forever Or always remain indignant; For a man’s spirit would grow feeble because of me, Even the breathing creatures that I have made.” (Isa 57:16)

    Thus is presented the reason behind Isaiah 1:18 and why matters must be “set straight between us.” It is that one’s spirit may not “grow feeble because of me [God], as it surely would otherwise, upon contrasting his stature and ways with the fact one has so blatantly transgressed against them. The fact is, forgiveness is a thing with Him—and this is BEFORE the revealing of Christ, who would pay the price to redeem us from sin.

    It was a fine meeting that went on to explore related points. Participation was heavy. It always is at our Hall. Few paragraphs do not strand a few hands, as the conductor presses on to cover material within the allotted time. Rarely do I get all my remarks in, though in some cases it is due to the conductor [rightly] suspecting I may launch a zinger.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Takeaways from Gibeon

    You know when people are pulling lessons out of Gibeon that you’re dealing with a Bible people. You’re dealing with a people who take seriously that counsel that “all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction.” (Romans 15:4)

    So it was with the Watchtower Study of September 13, 2026, reviewing several developments in that Gibeonite mess that nonetheless turned out well. About the “What does this teach us about Jehovah?” headings (there were 3 of them), my takeaway was that his nation screws up and He nonetheless rolls with it. It’s just the way He works. He grants his people autonomy.

    He doesn’t say, “Duh! There were right next to you! How could you be so stupid?” He didn’t rebuke them. He didn’t disown them. He rolled with it. They incorporated that bad move into their act and it ultimately turned out well. When the ruse is uncovered and the Israelites can’t renege (as anyone else would), there’s some head honcho Gibeonite in the background somewhere saying, “I guess I played that hand well.” I guess he did.

    If it happened then, it’s going to happen now. That’s how it is when people are involved—and they always will be with the worship of God. Not every decision knocks it out of the park. Some look screwy in hindsight. More typically, you don’t know if it was really screwy and will not find out for a long time. Maybe it will turn out to be just the ticket. Every surly character who wants something different portrays it as screwy, whether it is or not.

    But if the example of the Gibeonites is any guide, like Romans 15:4 says it is,it doesn’t matter if it was screwy or not. So long as it was done in good faith, God rolls with it. He may take it out of their hide later. Or he may decide that, in the big picture, it is nothing. Either way, it’s nothing that anyone else need get bent out of shape over.

    ******  The bookstore

  • The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31: Parts 1-3

    (1) The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31

    Just after that slogan of setting teeth on edge and what it means (Jeremiah 31:29-30) comes the promise of the new covenant that sets it in motion:

    “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin. (31:31-34)

    A new covenant replaces an old one. What is the old one, the one whom Jehovah “made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt?”

    “You have seen for yourselves what I did to the Egyptians, in order to carry you on wings of eagles and bring you to myself,“ Jehovah himself says at Exodus 19:4. The proposed covenant follows:

    “Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples . . . You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

    Did they strictly obey his voice and keep his covenant? Not so much. Though there be a few exceptions, (a remnant, it would later be called) both the historical and prophetic books of the OT detail the sorry history of abandoning Jehovah to carry on with the gods of the raucous neighbors—the Baals, and so forth. Nor did the discipline of exile help. To be sure, upon return, Israel never touched idolatry again, but they transgressed in other ways, ultimately rejecting the one God sent as Messiah.

    It is this Messiah who serves to mediate the new covenant.

    Celebrating their final Passover that would become their first Lord’s Supper, we read: “And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28)

    And in Luke: “Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.” (22:20)

    It’s a better covenant than before in that it is based on forgiveness of sin, rather than the continual appeasing it through animal sacrifices. Returning to Jeremiah 31:34: “I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.” It is extended only to that faithful remnant, of which Jesus’ eleven are the first members.

    The reason it works, whereas the animal blood of the old covenant merely bought time, is the superior aspect of Jesus’s shed blood. He is “the last Adam” of 1 Corinthians 15:45, whose death perfectly offsets that of the first Adam. That first Adam’s rebellion sells humankind into slavery to sin. Jesus’ death buy them back. It’s not something that could be done with animal blood. “It is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away,” says Hebrews 10:4. With Jesus’ blood, it is possible. All one must do is put faith in it and follow through.

    At first, those who enter the new covenant are all Jews. (Acts 2) But in time, starting with Cornelius (Acts 10), non-Jews enter the covenant and eventually far outnumber those natural-born Jews. That this would happen is told several times in Scripture:

    (1) “The Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits,” Jesus to the chief priests and elders of his day at Matthew 21:43.

    (2) The OT prophet Hosea said it, too: “I will say to those not my people: “You are my people,” And they will say: “You are my God.”’” (Hosea 2:23)

    (3) The apostle Paul applies Hosea’s words to those “called not only from among Jews but also from among nations,” at Romans 9:24.

    (4) And Peter speaks to this latter group as those who “were once not a people, but now you are God’s people.” (1 Peter 2:9)

    For what purpose is this all done?

    (2) Even the name Israel changes in going from old covenant to new—not the name itself but the people who fall under that name. “Israel” literally means “perseverer (or contender) with God.” Who is it that perseveres with him? It is not the physical nation. That nation ends up rejecting his chosen messiah (Greek: ‘anointed one’). Call that persevering with God? Instead, those who fit the description of persevering with God are the ones taken into that new covenant—at first all Jews but it soon expands to include non-Jews. Thus we read of the “Israel of God” at Galatians 6:16, which is not the same as the physical nation. The new covenant is between Jehovah and “the Israel of God.”

    If the word Israel is given a new application, then so will the word Jew. In the context of the new covenant, it no longer involves physical lineage. The apostle Paul explains it in his letter to the Romans: “For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit.” (Ro 2:28, 29) Natural Jews were given first dibs on this expanded definition, but they couldn’t in themselves fill the bill. Only a “remnant” of them could. The physical nation itself, with few exceptions, was unfaithful.

    Consistently, the word Jerusalem also changes. The capital city of Israel now becomes the capital of another governing arrangement, one that will rule from heaven. It is called “heavenly Jerusalem” at Hebrews 12:22. Those who “approach it” are the ones taken into the new covenant referred to above—at first just natural Jews, but later expanding to Gentiles. As such, they “are to receive a Kingdom that cannot be shaken.” When assembled in full, they comprise the “New Jerusalem” of Revelation 21:2 that is to come “down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, With that coming down from heaven is “a loud voice from the throne [that says]: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.” (21:3-4) It is more than any earthly government has ever done or could do.

    Those taken into the new covenant are to become the “kingdom of priests” once intended for the earthly descendants of Abraham. “Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples . . . You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” God had said through Moses. (Exodus 19:5-6) This new “kingdom of priests” exercise their kingship and priesthood from heaven. This is something absolutely new for humans, who were created for earth. “As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah. But the earth he has given to the sons of men,” says Psalm 115:16. It’s not as though God put humans on earth because he wanted them somewhere else. But now, those taken into the new covenant are to rule and function as priests from somewhere else—from heaven. This is “the sacred secret that was hidden from the past systems of things and from the past generations. But now it has been revealed to his holy ones,” (Colossians 1:16) to those taken into the new covenant. It’s sort of like when you get a promotion at work and have to move to the big city.

    It is no longer a dealbreaker not to be literally a descendant of Abraham, as it would have been if fleshly Israel had been able to fulfill the role of “a kingdom of priests.” To those reveling in their lineage, Jesus said, “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones.” (Matthew 3:8) He has done so with the new covenant, taking non-Jews into the fold when qualifying natural Jews proved too few.

    Not everyone can be a priest. A priest serves to mediate between God and people. Who are these people? Not everyone can be a king. A king must have subjects to rule over. Who are these subjects?

    (3) There are several extensions of “Jerusalem” beyond the physical city, several extensions into a greater spiritual application. If you’re really finicky, for example (as Jehovah’s Witnesses usually are when it comes to biblical things), “heavenly Jerusalem” of the Letter to the Hebrews is not the same as “new Jerusalem” of the Book of Revelation. The first assumes the marriage to the Lamb has taken place and the second is a scene just before that marriage. Then there is the “Jerusalem above” of Galatians, which seemingly includes all spirit beings in heaven, the angels as well as those of humankind who ascend to heaven, where they are to rule as kings and mediate as priests. (Revelation 5:10)

    The one common aspect of these applications into the spiritual realm is that they are all sinless, and hence, free. The “Jerusalem above is free,” Paul says at Galatians 4:26. This harmonizes with those taken into the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:34. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin,” the verse says. In contrast, the earthly Jerusalem is associated with sin perpetually appeased by animal sacrifice, a payment plan that will never be paid off, and thus comprises “slavery.”

    We live in a world in which people obsess over the petty freedoms that can be had by rebelling against human authority and have made their peace (or are oblivious to) the greater slavery to sin afflicting all humankind, that inevitably produces death. Here on this forum such a person tried to stir up discontent a few days ago over the fact that there are standards of dress one must observe onstage at the Kingdom Hall. Me, I take the words of Nathaniel Hawthorne as a motto, who observed: “It is remarkable that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly than do Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have no difficulty whatsoever “conform[ing] with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.”

    Though Hawthorne didn’t say it the reverse is also true. People who rail against the external regulations of society tend to be the most conformist of all. They will strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel every time. The devil is misleading the entire inhabited earth? They’re oblivious to it if only they can be in place where you can ditch ties onstage for men and skirts for women.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Fathers Eat Sour Grapes; The Teeth of the Sons are Set on Edge

    What about this expression: “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge. But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge?” (Jeremiah 31:29-30)

    Does it mean that the days are coming (1) in which no one will be judged for their parent’s deeds, as in ‘Your parents were trash, so you must be too.’

    Does it mean that the days are coming (2) when the parents no longer bring disaster upon themselves and it is the kids who end up trekking through the wilderness or hiking to Babylon?

    Does it mean that the days are coming (3) when people will hold themselves accountable for their own actions and quit blaming their parents for every little thing?

    It means all those things and more, most likely, with the ‘more’ part the most significant. The ‘more’ part comes into the new system, during the 1000 year reign of Christ, and progressively towards the end. During this time, the benefits of Christ’s spilled blood, will be poured out upon redeemed humankind, with children and resurrected ones added to that number. Toward the end of that period, as humans close in on the unblemished state once enjoyed by the first parents, there will be no bad examples to blame one’s on conduct on.

    There certainly is today. If alcoholism runs rampant in the family, or abuse, or hotheadedness, or just general dysfunction, it has a way of being picked up by the next generation. Dysfunction may be bad, but it defines “normal” to a child so molded. That’s why a woman so often marries someone just like her dad. Lout though he may be, he is the only type of man who registers with her as “normal.”

    It takes relentless pressing to break away from dysfunction. Who doesn’t know the feeling, at least once, of spending years breaking away from the pattern of the folks, imagining success, then one day realizing that beneath the facade, one is just like them? The transformation has been surface. Rinse, wash, and repeat is what is needed.

    Not so, however, at the end of the thousand years. If one dies then, it will be entirely due to their own transgression. That this will happen is seen from Revelation 20: 7-9:

    “Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them.”

    Most likely those who have passed through the great tribulation into the new system will not succumb to this. They stood up to Satan once; why not again? Not so, however, for ones resurrected during this time, or for children born. They won’t have parents to blame in those days—something that is completely plausible today—because humankind will have been restored by then. “Each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge,” as the verse says.

    ******  The bookstore

  • That First Night Away from Home

    That First Night Away from Home

    That first night away from home you don’t sleep so well. The second night, and all nights thereafter, you do. It’s a carryover from the caveman “eat or be eaten days,” say people who believe in such things. Half your brain is sound asleep. But it has charged the other half, also asleep, to sleep not so soundly, to keep an eye out, in case predators may lurk in this new unfamiliar environment—sort of an evolutionary ‘fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.’

    There are animals that have the half-brain-vigilance down much better than do humans. Many birds, for example sleep soundly with one half of the brain while the other half is awake. One eye is shut The other eye is open. Scientists intrude with their measurements to find, sure enough, the closed-eye brain side is asleep, the other still able to respond to predators sneaking up, even if not so wide awake to take the bird SATs. Then, when that side of the brain has had its fill of sleep, it swaps with its drowsy other half. The trick also comes in handy for long migration flights. Were both halves to sleep at the same time, the bird would lose locomotive control and fall from the sky. Aquatic mammals such as whales, dolphins, manatees, and so forth, will pull this stunt as well. If they didn’t—if both halves slept at once, they would neglect to surface for air and drown.

    Animals that don’t have to surface for a breath of air, or flap wings to stay aloft, can just lie on their beds, whereever those may be, and snooze. They don’t have to worry about the paralysis that sets in with sleep—a paralysis that must set in lest one act out dreams and actually throw a punch should a dream call for one. But what about predators? How do they deal with that nuisance? That’s where altering circadian rhythms come from, biologists think. Everyone has a circadian rhythm, but they’re not parallel. One fellow is a night owl. His neighbor is up bright and early. That way the tribe of old always had someone to sit at the campfire to thwart intruders.

    It really wasn’t fair, then, to shoot night sentries who fell asleep during their shift, the way militaries used to do. The guy assigned the night shift might be a morning lark. The guy assigned the early morning shift might be a night owl, with circadian rhythms out of whack, preset genetically through evolution and no fault of their own. Of course, outright execution was rare—though it did happen. More typical was imprisonment or hard labor as a punishment, or even just demotion in rank.

    Private William Scott, “the Sleeping Sentinel” from Vermont, was sentenced to the firing squad during the Civil War. He had volunteered to relieve an exhausted comrade, then fallen asleep himself! President Lincoln pardoned him. His wife and son brought it to his attention—‘How would YOU feel “if it was your own little boy,”’ the president’s own little boy Tad said, “who was just tired after fighting and marching all day that he could not keep awake much as he tried to?” The kid had a point, Lincoln conceded. Much as he didn’t want to undermine military discipline—always a huge factor in wartime—he interceded with the application of a tale of “a small head, but it was valuable to him, poor fellow, for it was the only one he had.”

    You can never get the attention of the top guy Someone else, in this case Tad, has to bring it to him. Even so, to impress upon the troops that you ought not sleep during guard duty—circadian rhythms or not—Scott’s pardon was only revealed after the firing squad was assembled and the death penalty was pronounced.

    Jesus, of course, knew all about this insight from science. Probably that’s why he refrained from shooting his disciples who fell asleep prior to his own moment of trial. He just gave them loving reproof, after which they fell asleep again. He would have known even back then that sleep comes in cycles, having been present at humankind’s creation, assuming he really is the wisdom personified at Proverbs 8:23-31):

    “From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.”

    “Let’s give them overlapping circadian rhythms,” he might say. “That way, should anyone sneak up on a clan of them, there will be someone vigilant up late who can take him out like Chuck Norris.”

    ******  The bookstore

  • What is the Purpose of the Daniel 4 Dream?

    What is the Purpose of the Daniel 4 Dream?

    The purpose of the 4th-chapter-Daniel dream is reiterated three times to Nebuchadnezzar. Three times! Isn’t there a thing that repetition so many times means it carries great significance?

    “that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:17)

    “until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants.” (4:25)

    “until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. (4:32)

    And who does God want to give the ”kingdom of mankind to?” For whom does he bend over backwards to ensure that one really comes into his own? Can it really be just the dream’s recipient, Nebuchadnezzar? The man slaughtered Zedekiah’s sons before him, then bored out his eyes, sealing in that last visual memory. (2 Kings 25:7) I mean, he wasn’t that nice of a guy. So God should be obsessed with restoring HIM to power? THAT goal should be the be-all and end-all of the dream? THAT is the lesson he wanted repeated three times? I don’t think so.

    In one of those three repetitions, there is even a pointer of whom God ultimately does want to restore it to. It is a pointer that will be meaningful to one who assumes unity of scripture. It is a clue that will be lost on one who who doesn’t—who assumes disunity. “He sets up over it even the lowliest of men,” says 4:17. The overall student of Scripture will recall Jesus’ description, that he is “mild-tempered and lowly in heart.” (Matthew 11:29) He’s not into boring people’s eyes out. He’s into offering them “refreshment for yourselves.” (also 11:29)

    But spiritually dull people who do not connect scripture think it IS all about Nebuchadnezzar the eye-gouger. These are the same sort of people who think God is bringing his servant Trump to power, and before him Biden, and before him Trump, and before him Obama.

    No. Maybe, just maybe, it IS about something more than the nasty king, who does come around to knuckling under Jehovah’s power (as if he has any choice) but then quickly reneges—just like he did after another tree dream (2nd chapter of Daniel). The lesson learned hadn’t held for too long. Like Assyria depicted at Isaiah 10:15, Nebuchadnezzar is the ax who exalts himself over the chopper. He is just the ax! It isn’t all about him—though modernists think it is! .

    The tree that truly has significance, even after being chopped down with its stump bounded for “seven times,” is the tree representing God’s sovereignty. For centuries it was the nation of Israel as represented by its kings. Nebuchadnezzar is the ax that chops it all to an end. But it’s not a permanent end. It is an end that is restored after “seven times pass over it.” The kingdom heir it is restored to is “the Son of Man,” the same as Jesus self-description at Matthew 20:28: “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    He is the lowliest of men, his lowliness repeated many times—not just the aforementioned role of serving and ultimately dying for others, but by his humble birth and upbringing, by his being “despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” (Isaiah 53:3), by his being “made a little lower than the angels” that he might suffer death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9) THAT is who Jehovah is pointing his dream to; he’s not just dead-ending it with Nebuchadnezzar.

    One does well to take G. K. Chesterton’s view of scripture. He assumed unity. Modern historical criticism—by far the dominant theology today—assumes division. It’s enough of a difference to make certain conclusions all but incomprehensible to each other.

    Chesterton called those “wrong who maintain that the Old Testament is a mere loose library; that it has no consistency or aim. Whether the result was achieved by some supernal spiritual truth, or by a steady national tradition, or merely by an ingenious selection in aftertimes, the books of the Old Testament have a quite perceptible unity. . .” His view is not popular today—higher criticism assumes disunity—but it is the one that works.

    Assuming unity over disunity of scripture is as great a paradigm shift as seeing the glass half-full over half empty, and it has just as much consequence. If you assume unity, you can do something with the scriptures. If you assume disunity, you cannot. If you assume unity, you can put the Bible pieces together as though a jigsaw puzzle. Puzzle assembled, completed picture before like on the box cover photo, you are convinced that your unified assumption was correct. You already suspected it was when you purchased the puzzle at the craft store. But your scholastic neighbor, who found his puzzle pieces willy-nilly in the landfill, does not assume unity and his pieces remain scattered.” He figures God’s sole purpose in spilling Daniel 4 print is to restore the eye-gouger to power.

    ******  The bookstore

  • It is Always the Priests and the Prophets

    “Now the priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests, the prophets, and all the people laid hold of him, crying, “You must die!”

    …The priests and prophets said to the princes and to all the people, “Sentence this man to death! He has prophesied against this city! You heard it with your own ears.”

    It’s set up as though a court trial, everyone convening at the city gate for that reason. (vs 10-11)

    …Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man does not deserve a death sentence; it is in the name of the LORD, our God, that he speaks to us.” (Jeremiah 26)

    It is frequently this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets who oppose religious truth. The very ones who you think would be in harmony with it are on the other side.

    “But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews rose up together against Paul and brought him to the tribunal, saying, ‘This man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the law.’ When Paul was about to reply, Gallio spoke to the Jews, ‘If it were a matter of some crime or malicious fraud, I should with reason hear the complaint of you Jews; but since it is a question of arguments over doctrine and titles and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of such matters.’ And he drove them away from the tribunal. They all seized Sosthenes, the synagogue official, and beat him in full view of the tribunal. But none of this was of concern to Gallio.”

    Gallio saw that what was before him was a religious dispute. Why should he care about it? He ruled an empire. He “drove them away.” Despairing of his waning attention, they beat the daylights out of someone right under his nose. But their fifteen minutes of fame had expired. The Roman official had moved on to other things, perhaps rustling the pages of his newspaper to shoo the agitators away.

    Enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to ban the faith in Russia. It may remind one of General Bell’s World War I threat to Joseph Rutherford regarding a bill specifically designed to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States: “That bill did not pass because [President] Wilson prevented it, but we know how to get you and we are going to do it!” In general, the military will not do such a thing. A patriot will not do it. Certainly, a civil libertarian will not do it. Those who grumble that Jehovah’s Witnesses have woken them up from a sound sleep will not do it. Even Richard Dawkins, the atheist advocate who thinks all religion is a cancer and would snuff it out gladly, will not do it to Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically. It is almost always powerful ones with strong Church connections who will do it.

    Note who does not do it: Wilson. He “prevented it.” Thereafter, as the opponents stirred up major trouble for the Witnesses, was he even aware of it? It is not as though his mind was not occupied with other matters. The one at the top is like Pilate, as are all national leaders—he has a country to run. “Look, this is not my cause,” Pilate thought. “I’ll give the scoundrels what they want. That way, I’ll get them out of my hair.” Certain countries favor a “house” church. Russia was long a country officially atheist. Its leaders discovered that worship of God simply cannot be extinguished, so it is channeled into a single main church as a concession. The main church, they find, is a strong force for national unity. It becomes a symbiotic relationship to be preserved and nurtured, a win-win. “What can we do for you?” the country asks the main church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.

    Even so, the house church of Russia insists it did not orchestrate the attempt to snuff out Witnesses in that land. I’m inclined to believe them. That’s not to say they didn’t squeal like kids on Christmas morning, but the impetus comes from elsewhere. It was for the Daily Caller to reveal that elsewhere. Turns out it is the French anti-cult activists (FECRIS) whose VP is prominent with the Russian Orthodox Church.

    https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses

    Hundreds of homes have been broken into by police in full riot gear and hundreds imprisoned, all at the prompting of anti-cult zealots determined that no one should veer from the mainstream.

    From: I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why

  • “Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood”—What About it?

    That Watchtower Study last week, How to Remain Loyal When We Face Tests of Faith, begins with a consideration of Jesus’ words:

    “So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.” (John 6:63-64)

    He loses disciples right and left over this remark. “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” they grouse. (vs 60)

    “Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.” (vs 66)

    It would have been the perfect occasion for Jesus to say, ‘Oh no, no! I didn’t mean THAT!’ But he explained it no more. He let them go. They were all fair weather disciples, apparently. He is okay with people being tested. After all, his own twelve passed the test:

    “Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: “YOU do not want to go also, do YOU?” Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life.” (vs 67-68) Most often that’s the answer you must give rather than harp on what seem to be missteps.

    Early Christians were accused of cannibalism. It’s hard to believe those words of Jesus wouldn’t have been used to fuel those charges. Cannabalism was among the early slanders of Christianity, usually something that happened at their “love feasts” where they “incestuously” (in the eyes of their detractors) called each other brother and sister. Testifying to how common was the accusation is the fact that a Roman governor, Pliny the Younger, looked into it. He pronounced it a nothingburger. Wrote he to Emperor Trajan: their communal meal consisted only of “ordinary and harmless food.”

    Given this circumstance that later enemies would capitalize on to spread rumors of cannibalism, you’d almost think Jesus wouldn’t say something that could so easily be misconstrued that way. Apparently, it’s not a concern. They would have done it anyway. It was standard fare back then for anyone accused of being a ‘cult.’ And while there are many reports of the cannibalism accusation, there is no record anyone ever appealed to Jesus’ words to support those accusations. It makes sense that they would, but there’s no record that anyone ever did it.

    Food and drink are constant metaphors in the Bible for spiritual things. Jesus was building upon those metaphors himself in John 6, likening himself to the “true bread” that comes from heaven. However, the “fair weather” disciples who left in a huff had no discernment whatsoever of these greater patterns. They were just there for the grub:

    “Jesus answered them: “Most truly I say to you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate from the loaves and were satisfied.” (John 6:26)

    Seen in that light, it was sort of a screening that Jesus did, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    ******  The bookstore