|
And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love. I shall walk at liberty, for I have sought your precepts. |
GregI think it is important to point out that being anti-Zionism (or being against what political Zionism has become) is not to be against the Israeli people, or to be against their right to security as a nation, nor is it the rejection of the idea that God may yet do something significant with ethnic Jews (I really don't know the answer to that). But I think it is erroneous to think that the modern day, atheistic State of Israel is the Israel of the Bible. Christians should oppose the idea that whatever the State of Israel does, Christians should support it. Even many Jewish people are against much of what gets done in the name of the Israeli State. Yet many Christians have been led to believe (wrongly in my opinion), that if they don't support the State of Israel, they are opposing God.
As far as the conflict going on right now between Israel and Palestine (now Iran is in the mix), all involved have blood on their hands. For professing Christians to support activities that are clearly antithetical to the teachings of Christ (by their own government, or the government of others), shows how deceiving propaganda can be. I am not a pacifist, I would protect my family from an aggressor, but I am against murder, by an individual or the State. Some of the same people who wrongly have a "my country right or wrong" mentality, also have a "I support the State of Israel right or wrong" mentality. Chuck Baldwin (the former politician, now a pastor) wrote an article recently and referred to the American politician (who also professes to be a Christian, and a pastor at that) who called for the annihilation of the Palestinian people (many of them are Christians). Baldwin says this type of attitude is what Zionism has come to promote. And he was once in that camp. (The article linked to above is worth your time.) I believe that God has plans for the followers of the Messiah, regardless of their ethnicity, and I look forward to the same city that Abraham looked forward to. I think many Hebrew people will have prominent places in the New Jerusalem. But today, many professing Christians are opposing Christ for a political position that involves an antichrist State. I pray for the people in Israel and in Palestine that are suffering because of the actions of those who are in power over them.
0 Comments
Greg"As far as empirical—historical—evidence is concerned, proponents of the orthodox view face obvious embarrassment. The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In his book Death by Government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security" (The Myth of National Defense, Hoppe, pg. 4).
In his book entitled “The Myth of National Defense”, Hans Hermann Hoppe has assembled essays from various writers to refute the argument that the State is necessary for the purpose of national defense. I would like to draw attention to the quote above, particularly the last line – “governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security.” Many tend to think that people (or countries) outside of the territory they live in are the greatest threat to their security, but this is false. The greatest threat to the safety and liberties of any people is the State that controls them. When the State gets to tell you what you can and cannot use for the means of defense, when it takes portions of your income away from you that could be used for furthering your independence, when business owners (the largest producers) have a third or more of their income stolen from them so the State can fund itself, and when the State can force you into its service or imprison or punish you for not doing its bidding, it is obvious that it isn’t people from other territories that we should be worried about. What does State control and taxation get us anyway? Consider that “the U.S. government commands a “defense” budget of $400 billion per annum1, a sum equal to the combined annual defense budgets of the next 24 biggest government spenders. It employs a worldwide network of spies and informants. However, it was unable to prevent commercial airliners from being hijacked and used as missiles against prominent civilian and military targets" (Hoppe, pg. 2). It has been estimated that State Governments have been responsible for the deaths of 170 million people in the twentieth century (see R.J. Rummel’s Death by Government). One hundred and seventy million people. Dead because of politicians. All in the name of protecting the State, spreading democracy, seeking glory, or maintaining control over the lives of people. The mass killings carried out by Communist rulers get a lot of attention, but the US and Great Britain contributed greatly to the number of deaths, especially of citizens. Both were responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of German cities, and we must not forget that the US is the only State that has ever dropped atomic weapons on civilian cities. There was absolutely nothing necessary about this evil act, and it sickens me to think there are people who try to justify what the US Government did to the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who called for this, and those who carried it out, are guilty of murder. The US Government and its military are responsible for millions of deaths over the last one hundred and fifty years in the Southern States, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japan, Iraq (including at least 500,000 Iraqi children through food sanctions) and in other places, and not for defensive purposes. Much more can be said, but I will lastly mention that the US Government has sold billions of dollars of weaponry to other murderous Governments, all for political positioning and riches. And yet people will stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and pledge allegiance to the flag of the Empire. I listened to Dennis Prager and Tom Woods speaking on an old episode of the Dennis Prager show one day. I have no interest in listening to Prager, but I was interested in hearing what Woods might say in response to questions from Prager. Prager gushed over the economic policies of the Austrian School of Economics, but he admitted he has a problem with the insistence that the interventionism of the US is a bad thing. Prager thinks it is a good thing for the world that the US has the strongest military, and he thinks it is a good thing for the US to try to police the world. Woods, who acknowledged he too once held to this view, said he doesn’t trust the Government’s propaganda machine and believes the regime in Washington (republicans and democrats) is corrupt and that the US Government is not our friend. He further stated he does not see it as an institution of protection but that it is an institution that “expropriates, lies, and brainwashes kids into thinking if the Government doesn’t watch over them”, things won’t be good for them. Woods stated it bluntly: “I don’t trust these people, I think they are liars, I think they are bloodthirsty, and we are better off without these interventions.” I was glad to hear that he didn’t soften the explanation of his views just because Prager’s views differ on this topic (listen to interview here). Christians, of all people, should be leading the way on this. If anyone should be against invading other territories and killing the people there, it should be Christians. But many professing Christians cheer on the mass starvations, economic sanctions, and bombings of innocent people, all for the sake of American “pride.” They serve the Kingdom of America and not the Kingdom of God. We need more people to get their minds right and to start preaching against the kingdoms of men and their statist agendas. Many don’t because they are afraid of the backlash. Their prayer lives, their outreach, even their messages revolve around propping up and promoting “American ideals.” The pulpits they are speaking from are pulpits of statolatry, they certainly aren’t pulpits for Christianity. 1. The Biden Administration submitted a 2023 budget request to Congress for $813 billion for national defense – defense.gov . Greg“And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him” (Mark 12:13-17).
This passage of scripture has been understood by some people to teach that we have separate obligations in our lives – that we have a duty to the State, and a duty to the Kingdom of God. If Caesar tells us to invade and kill, or to steal and destroy, then we should obey, or at least we are free to obey, and we will not be guilty because we obeyed the Government. We will have done this for our “country”, so it is said, therefore these actions are not unrighteous. I believe this is an absurd misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the text. In the movie Sergeant York, Alvin York is a country boy from Tennessee who was a drunk and liked to fight. On his way to exacting revenge against a man that backed out of selling York a piece of land, York and his mule are struck by lightning, and this led to York’s dramatic “conversion” experience. When the United States entered World War I, York initially requested an exemption by claiming he was a conscientious objector, but his request was denied. The movie depicts York as struggling with the idea of going to war because of the Bible’s prohibition against killing. York was given the opportunity to go home and resolve his inner conflict, and in a highly dramatized scene, York “sees the light” when he reads the following from the Bible: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” The rest is history (sort of). York went all in on the war effort and was hailed as a national hero for his feats. As for the details of York’s life, it is hard to say what is fact and what is fiction. Later in his life, York denied that he had ever been a conscientious objector. “I never was a conscientious objector”, York wrote in his diary. He also never mentioned the lightning and the mule in his conversion experience. (Source) In York’s diary, he seemed to be a God-fearing man, but it also appears that he fell prey to war propaganda, and that despite his inclination that killing was wrong, the aforementioned statement from the Bible was taken to mean that his country’s call for him to kill trumped God’s command for him not to kill (the topic of defending oneself from an aggressor is something different altogether; my argument here is against engaging in war for the State). As such, this story has been used to propagandize young Americans to join the military for many years, and since many of them are more influenced by Hollywood dramatizations than the scriptures, it has had its intended effect. What does it mean to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Does this mean that we are to submit to the orders of State officials? What if they say it is for the “good of the country?” Some people argue, and I agree, that the US had no business sending men to die or to kill in the conflict York participated in. The US was not in danger. No military force was capable of crossing the ocean and launching a serious attack on the American people, but the US Government sent many Americans to their death nonetheless. If the Lord Jesus meant that we are obligated to render unto Caesar whatever is good for Caesar, then it was wrong to oppose the Germans who were rendering unto Hitler what he demanded. They were merely “obeying the powers that be.” That in and of itself proves the interpretation to be false. But, someone says, America’s involvement was righteous; it was only the enemy that was doing evil. The US government wasn’t torturing and murdering millions of Jews in this instance, as was Hitler, but that does not mean their motivations and intentions were righteous. I would suggest reading books about the World Wars that reject the Government propaganda that is foisted upon people in the public schooling system. A good start would be Patrick Buchanan’s book "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War." So what was this interaction between the Lord and these people all about? The previous chapter tells us that the scribes and the chief priests were looking for a way to destroy Christ, for they feared him, because he was drawing the people away from their control (11:18). They wanted to take him by force, but they feared what the people would do, so they went away and sent some of the Herodians and Pharisees to try to catch him in his words. They knew that taxation was a touchy subject, so they asked him if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. If he said yes, it would disappoint the people who were being drawn to him. If he said no, then they could refer him to the Roman authorities for punishment. The Lord knew they were up to no good and he told them to bring him a coin. He asked them whose image was on the coin. They answered, it was Caesar’s. The Lord then stated: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” This was not a call to yield to God and Caesar. I believe it was a call to choose one or the other. Will you follow God no matter the earthly consequences? Or will you trust in the securities of the State? Jeffrey Barr tells us the following: “The denarius in question would have been issued by the Emperor Tiberius, whose reign coincided with Jesus' ministry….” “….The denarius was truly the emperor's property: he used it to pay his soldiers, officials, and suppliers; it bore the imperial seal; it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman Senate, and it was also the coin with which subjected peoples, in theory, were required to pay the tribute. Tiberius even made it a capital crime to carry any coin stamped with his image into a bathroom or a brothel. In short, the denarius was a tangible representation of the emperor's power, wealth, deification, and subjugation.” “….The front of the denarius shows a profiled bust of Tiberius crowned with the laurels of victory and divinity. Even a modern viewer would immediately recognize that the person depicted on the coin is a Roman emperor. Circumscribed around Tiberius is an abbreviation, "TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS," which stands for "Tiberius Caesar Divi August Fili Augustus," which, in turn, translates, "Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus." “….The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar's sovereignty upon all who transact with it.” “…Jesus tells His interrogators, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." This response begs the question of what is licitly God's and what is licitly Caesar's.” “….With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.” (Read the entire article here) Taxes were the topic of discussion in the passage, but this incident points to a much bigger issue. To whom to do you pledge your allegiance? What do we owe Caesar? What do we owe the State? We may pay taxes to avoid jail, but this does not make paying taxes holy. If we are to give the State whatever the State demands, where does it stop? Should we give them all of our money and resources if they demand it, making us unable to provide for our families? Should we give them our children so they can be educated, drafted, and regimented for the State’s purposes? Should we kill when they say kill? Should we believe them when they call people from other nations our enemies? Should we surrender to them our ability to protect our families from harm? I believe it is a grievous error to take these words of the Lord as teaching anything other than the fact that we must choose whom we will serve – Caesar or God. We are to render unto God what is God’s. And what do we owe him? Everything. What do we owe the Caesars of the world? Nothing. Though we may obey the laws of the State to a point, such as paying taxes, we do this to avoid unnecessary trouble, not because the State has a right to our resources, and not because it has a right to claim our allegiance. How do we choose God over Caesar? By giving our allegiance to his Son, the Christ, and his Kingdom, rather than to the antichrist kingdoms of men. |
Greg and KariWe are a Christian couple committed to following the one true God, the Father, and the one Lord Messiah, his only begotten Son. Categories
All
|