Three Liberals’ Take on Interpreting the Bible (Part I)

Recently, two Democratic Party Senators, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, used Scripture to warn All and Sundry (ANS) about the “evil” Brett Kavenaugh – President Trump’s recent Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Judge Anthony Kennedy. Of course, these illustrious politicians (IP’s) wanted to inform Us Peons (UP’s) of the Lord’s intention to align God’s Kingdom with one side of the Congressional aisle.

The two IP’s joined (or were joined by) the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, a preacher and NAACP leader in North Carolina, who lost no time in helping his fellow Bible scholars explain Jesus further. No doubt, he wanted to add weight to an already meaty argument: Democrats – no stranger to the ever-changing meaning of words – are experts in telling the Republicans how uncharitable and wrongheaded they are about Just About Everything (JAE).

 
The passage of Scripture that these Three Bible Scholars (TBS’s) chose was quite a dramatic one – an explanation of one aspect of the Last Judgement that each and every Christian should ponder and give serious – yeah, monumentally serious – consideration to. It involves Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 25, verses 34 – 40. For UP’s who need refreshing with regard to Jesus’ words, I reproduce this passage below:

^34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸ And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹ And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

Here is how the TBS’s explained this passage:

Point Number One: The “I” in this passage does not really mean Jesus; it means the Democratic Party. How do I know this? Because this is the first interpretation of this passage – and I have heard numerous sermons about it over the last 40 years – that says that I, a Republican, have no chance of entering the Kingdom of God unless I become a Democrat, acting as they do, and thinking as they do. Golly!

Point Number Two: The definition of a “righteous” person includes only those individuals who agree with the TBS’s. For goodness’ sake, don’t you want to be “on the moral side of history”?[1]

Point Number Three: Only IP’s (who have a magical connection to Bible verses and their meanings) can identify which persons deserve the “hungry / thirsty / stranger (alien) / sick / imprisoned” labels. (Dinesh D’Souza or Martha Stewart need not apply to be included under the last label.)

Point Number Four: Brett Kavanaugh, in order to be included under the heading of “righteous,” must prejudge each case that comes before him in favor of the people described in Point Number Three. He has not done this; therefore, he is an evil man, and the TBS’s have the Bible verses to prove this! (Although which came first – the label “evil” or the Bible verse to “prove” it – is not clear.)

Point Number Five: In light of this marvelous revelation from the TBS’s, all who oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court (obviously Democrats) “are on the moral side of history.”[2]

Now, I have no wish to disturb those fine, godly TBS’s (especially the man who preaches God’s words for a living). However, I would like to exercise a bit of Biblical exegesis myself:

Liz’s Response Number One: Do Warren, Booker, and / or Barber defend the murder of innocent unborn children in the womb? If they do, how do they claim “the moral side of history” when God’s Word is clearly set against child sacrifice (see Leviticus 18:21, 20:3 and Deuteronomy 12:30-31, 18:10)? The modern-day slaughter of children in the womb for the “health” of the mother is every bit as reprehensible as the slaughter of infants by burning them in a fire to the god Molech to buy material favor (money, sheep, crops) from him.

Liz’s Response Number Two: Earlier in Matthew’s Gospel, (chapter 5, verse 20 to be exact), Jesus said "For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” I wonder why Jesus thought He could dictate who gets to go to Heaven! Aren’t the Democrats better at deciding membership in the Kingdom?

Liz’s Response Number Three: In what century did the meaning of sacrificial giving change from using one’s own wealth, fortune, or resources to using that which is demanded from others through taxes and fees? (And while we’re at it, corporations who “donate” copious amounts of money to charity are a joke. It’s really the money from their customers which they “give,” not their own. If you want to argue that it’s their profits that they give away, go ahead, but they cannot deny that these companies charge higher prices just so that they can appear “benevolent.”) What are Warren’s, Booker’s, and Barber’s – and let’s not forget Bernie Sanders’ (who was also with the TBS’s) – net worths? Have they volunteered any of their wealth, fortunes, or resources on behalf of their “moral side”?

Liz’s Response Number Four: The Old Testament is replete with example after example of true justice: to live in awe of God, to honor His laws, and to judge fairly when evil or injustice (as defined by the Almighty) has been committed. At no time in the Bible does God state, “Put aside all that and prejudge a case according to your own definitions and agendas.” However, Warren, Booker, and Barber are convinced that the Bible does say that exact thing. Unfortunately, the examples they provide (from St. Matthew’s Gospel, the Book of Isaiah the Prophet, Psalm 23, and the Book of Numbers) utterly fail to prove their points with regard to true justice. (Psalm 23? Really?)

My final word: When trying to steer through to coherency during this and future political rodeos, avoid all IP’s who use ANS Biblical passages to shame UP’s into doing JAE.

Gobbledygook? Exactly.

---

[1] O’Neil, Tyler. “Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker Host Bible Event against Trump Supreme Court Pick” PJ Media, July 25, 2018. https://pjmedia.com/faith/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-cory-booker-host-bible-event-against-trump-supreme-court-pick/

[2] Ibid.

The Hens and the Foxes

The latest political posturing, where liberals are calling for the dissolution of I.C.E., is so laughable as to be idiotic. For those of my readers who have only a passing acquaintance with this necessary agency, let me provide you with a short history. 

Ever since the American Revolution, wise government leaders have “provided for the common defense” (see the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America). This organized effort to support and protect the unique experiment in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (see the Declaration of Independence) has taken many forms: the formation of the War Department, including the various military branches, beginning officially in 1789 (when the Constitution was ratified); the transition to the National Military Establishment in 1947; the present-day Department of Defense. 

The much-maligned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) came about as a direct result of the hideous attack on innocent Americans by Muslim terrorists on September 11, 2001. Wise government leaders realized almost immediately that the war on terrorism would require new strategies. No longer would the protectors of our freedoms be able to identify the enemy through open battles, identifiable uniforms, etc. It would mean “fighting fire with fire.”

In this day of mindless anti-conservative stances, the main stream media has adopted a new “outrage”: abolish I.C.E. As this narrative goes, all of the evils experienced by illegal aliens are a result of I.C.E. activities. “Decent, law-abiding citizens” [sic] have supposedly been seized, “ripped from their families,” and both imprisoned and deported. Huh??? Really??? The anti-conservative pundits start with an illogical stance: First, they automatically assume that all people apprehended by I.C.E. are “decent” (yes, I have actually read that word being used) – except that these rather naïve people include MS-13 gang members, drug dealers, rapists, terrorists, and murderers in this group. By no stretch of the imagination can any of these aliens be labeled “decent.”

Next, let us examine the idea of “law-abiding.” Hmmm… According to the Bible, if one is guilty of breaking even one of God’s commandments, one is a law-breaker. Period. (See James 2:10.) If a resident of the United States has broken a law – and does nothing to rectify that situation – he or she is a law-breaker. Now, a citizen of the United States has certain safeguards afforded him or her in order that justice be served. 

Notice I said “citizen” – and I trust that the legal requirements of citizenship are not lost on whoever reads this essay. A person who crosses a border does not automatically become a citizen of the country that he or she enters; this should be self-evident to people who travel (with proper passports, etc.) outside the confines of our borders. Therefore, it is nonsensical to claim that illegal aliens have “rights” under our Constitution; it just doesn’t follow the rules of logic.

I have read some pretty lame appeals to “Biblical hospitality” – both from the Old and the New Testaments. For instance, one group has maintained that Leviticus 19: 33-34 means that every country should support open borders:

"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

This instruction is also duplicated in Deuteronomy 10:19. And, on the surface, the injunction to “love” this hypothetically friendly alien seems so right. However, the B.C. version of “love” and the 21^st-century version of “love” are miles apart. In Israel before Christ, aliens were self-supporting. No stranger would ever enter a Jewish city or province and “demand” free housing, food, and creature comforts. No stranger would ever be allowed to “demand” land, or jobs, or Jewish status, when that individual obviously was not entitled to any of those privileges.

Rather – get this! – a truly devoted follower of Yahweh would deliberately seek out the sojourner in the marketplace or on the border of the city, and welcome him or her into their home for the night or even a few days. (It was never meant to be a permanent arrangement!) Where have we seen this concept displayed in those calling for open borders, free entry at will for all comers, the dissolution of I.C.E., and other amenities for illegal aliens? In Biblical times, the idea of welcoming the traveler (alien, sojourner, etc.) required a serious commitment and responsibility on the part of the native Jew – what say ye, anti-conservative, anti-enforcement proponents?

Let us progress to the New Testament. Here, we have some clear agreement that law and order required soldiers, guards, and even some harsh enforcement. John the Baptist famously did not urge the soldiers who came to him for baptism to leave their then-current job. He just instructed them to act honorably within the duties of their commissions (Luke 3:14). Instead of lecturing the Roman centurion who came to Jesus to petition for healing about his “nasty occupation,” He praised him for his faith in His Lordship (Luke 7:1-10).

When Jesus was crucified, He publicly prayed to His Father to forgive the Roman soldiers who had put Him on the cross, because they acted in ignorance (Luke 23: 34). What’s more, Luke’s Gospel makes it clear that the two men crucified alongside Jesus were criminals – not innocent “victims” of Roman oppression. Luke even includes the confession of the Good Thief, “We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23: 41). My point in reminding my readers of these instances is to reinforce the idea that at NO time did Jesus or any of His followers ever assert that there was no need for enforcement agents within the Roman Empire, because “God is love” or some other misleading interpretation of Biblical truth.

My final point in summing up this essay is this: If one wants to protect the chickens from the fox, do not remove the chicken coop! If one wants to protect the true citizens of the United States of America from law-breaking aliens, do not abolish I.C.E.!

Trolling Words

To all future trolls on this blog: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." If you want to make a comment, be honest enough to put your full name. Otherwise, I will simply delete your insult. And be reminded of this: a nasty word makes a very poor argument.

Have you ever heard the words, "My beach, my ocean"? If you are going to troll, criticize with name-calling, or just repeat the same tired liberal rhetoric, feel free to write your own blog. I do NOT owe you a free platform!

The Feeding of the Four and the Feeding of the Four Thousand

Once upon a time, there lived a restaurant owner in the small town of Lexington, Virginia, by the name of Stephanie Wilkerson. Feeling morally superior to those people who walked by her establishment, she posted the following quote from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King in her building’s window: “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” An admirable sentiment, to be sure, but one that the owner does not seem to have understood, much less practiced.

You see, there came a weekend when four people came to her restaurant to eat a meal. They made no extraordinary requests. They walked in without fanfare or disruptive gestures. Apparently, they simply wanted to eat a meal. However, one of their company was an Enemy – yes, that’s right, a person (a white female, by the way) whose political views were different from those of the owner.

The waiters were the first to notice the presence of their hated Enemy, and they called the owner, who happened not to have been present when the Enemy entered her establishment. The owner, full of moral outrage that the Enemy would dare present her ugly, hated face in Lexington – much less at her own exalted (and morally superior) establishment – not only saw to it that her Enemy was chastised for her involvement in political engagement that struck a nerve with Ms. Wilkerson, but that her Enemy was summarily expelled. Furthermore, the righteous owner made sure that other residents of Lexington were fully informed of this political outrage; she gathered a rent-a-mob together in the street, and harassed and ridiculed the half of the Enemy’s party who had dared seek a meal in another establishment across the street. Satisfied with her righteousness and moral superiority, the owner blithely returned to her building, proudly walking by the sign with the quote from Martin Luther King.

It was truly unfortunate that she did not understand the meaning of King’s statement. She could have avoided closing down her restaurant only a few days later – putting the very waiters who had objected to the Enemy’s presence out of work (unless, in her righteousness, she had paid them anyway – who knows?).

Let us, dear friends, go back into the distant past, to a mountainside in the ancient land of Israel. Let us imagine – it’s not that hard to do, since the illustrious Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King could do it – that we are witnessing the miracle of the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew 15:32-39 and Mark 8:1-9). One does not have to be a Bible scholar to connect the devotion that Martin Luther King showed with the King of kings, Jesus Christ. One does not have to be a Bible scholar to know that the two Gospels reporting this singular event claim (with every right to do so) that Jesus Himself performed this miracle. Please notice, dear friends, the following points:

Jesus did not attach any political requirements to the consuming of the bread He provided. For all we know, there were Temple leaders, Pharisees, Sadducees – even a Roman soldier or two – in the audience. Nowhere in either Gospel account are we told of any political sifting or litmus test, or any other form of discrimination. If you were near Jesus, you got fed.

In verse 3 of the 8^th chapter of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus Himself pointed out, “If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, and some of them have come a long distance.” I have no idea where the Enemy in our 21st-century story lives, but I’m pretty sure she and her entourage came into the restaurant hungry. And they were turned away. I wonder what Jesus would have done.

Jesus required His disciples to serve the people (verses 6 and 7). Imagine: those high-and-mighty (not!) colleagues of the King of kings were instructed by their Master to hand out bread and fish (no questions asked) to every kind of person who was around Jesus – dirty people, angry people, loud children, bratty teenagers, political enemies, even ordinary, God-fearing people!! Maybe some of the waiters at the Red Hen could take a lesson in servanthood from Jesus’ disciples.

Jesus could have elected to leave the bread scraps that were left over to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. (After all, aren’t they “God’s creatures,” too?) Instead, He ordered His disciples to clean up the picnic area by themselves: “They [the people] ate and were filled. Then they [the disciples] collected seven large baskets of leftover pieces” (verse 8). Gosh, I sure hope Ms. Wilkerson knows all about clean-up procedures; I have a feeling she will be involved in a LOT of it, once the restaurant reopens!

Finally, I just want to ask this question: If Jesus showed up at the Red Hen restaurant, would Ms. Wilkerson even have recognized, much less served Him? I think I know Martin Luther King’s own opinion.