SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Cal Thomas, someone with whom I share a lot of core beliefs but somehow rarely agree with politically, hits the nail on the head. From November 2003:

The first mention of marriage is in Genesis 2:24: ".a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, which will be used by gay rights groups to lobby for striking down all laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals, is just the latest example of a society that has abandoned any and all authority outside of itself.

History, logic, theology and even the dictionary have defined marriage as: "the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family" (Merriam-Webster); or "a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife" (Cambridge).

These classic examples are being updated to reflect the mood of the times. The online Encarta dictionary defines marriage as a "legal relationship between spouses; a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners." That's a big difference.

What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. Anyone who now appeals to virtue, values, ethics or (heaven forbid!) religious faith is labeled an enemy of progress, an intolerant bigot, a homophobe and a "Neanderthal." There is no debate and no discussion. By definition, anyone who opposes "progress" in casting off the chains of religious restrictions on human behavior - which were once considered necessary for the promotion of the general welfare - is a fundamentalist fool, part of a past that brought us witch trials, slavery and back-alley abortions.

But the problem is deeper than the courts. Some of the people who most loudly proclaim the standards by which they want all of us to live have difficulty themselves living up to those standards. A culture is made up of people, but if large numbers of them no longer "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (to invoke a biblical metaphor), neither will their government.

I once found an old 1940's English dictionary and looked up "abortion"... the definition was along the lines of a miscarriage. However there was another word called "aborticide" that was defined as a man-made, forced abortion. Imagine if the debate today was between "pro-choice" and "anti-aborticide" factions. We've thrown this offensive word aborticide out of our vocabulary. Language matters and definitions matter. Cal again, from March 2004 (emphasis mine):

If same-sex marriage is allowed, it is going to be nearly impossible to prohibit the sanctioning of any other kind of human "relationship" - from close relatives of different sexes who wish to marry (that has been outlawed because of biological and incest considerations) and polygamists to adult-child "marriage."

I recently asked Republican New York Gov. George Pataki if he favored same-sex marriage. He said he doesn't but thinks some accommodation could be made to homosexuals offering similar benefits. What about polygamy? He quickly rejected that, saying "it is against the law." The New Paltz mayor is violating the law, but New York's Attorney General won't stop him. If things that are illegal violate cultural trendiness, our new definition of "truth," they are simply permitted.

I don't know how you reverse such a trend. Political activism isn't working. Appeals to higher standards aren't successful, because same-sex "marriage" is evidence that the standards have already been abandoned. How does a nation that has tolerated about 40 million abortions suddenly acquire a moral sense about same-sex marriage?

Maybe those of us wishing to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, imperfect as we may be at it, ought to ask those pushing for its redefinition what they mean by their "fairness doctrine" and upon what it is based. At least we heterosexuals have a reference that is thousands of years old. What's theirs and how do we know it won't change tomorrow?

Like I said, I've found it hard to be a huge fan of Cal in the past, but that question in the 3rd graph is one of the most penetrating, damning, insightful questions I have heard anyone utter. That is the crux. Why have we suddenly found this vast reservoir of untapped righteous anger about homosexuals wanting legal recognition for their relationships, when 3000 children are vaccuumed out of wombs, ripped and torn apart, and thrown away EVERY DAY? When hundreds of fathers walk away from their wives and children every day? As wrong as homosexuality among the pagans may be, and as bad as the consequences to our country could be, is the sin we overlook in ourselves somehow easier to overlook? Exactly which issue really needs the attention of a constitutional amendment FIRST? We see the speck in our nation's eye, but we assiduously avoid the plank in our church's eye. Help us, Lord.

Even if social conservatives somehow obtained amendments banning all abortions, restricting divorce, and defining marriage biblically, the church is still left with the task of not just bringing legal force to bear against unrighteousness, but pleading Christ's message and being an instrument of changing people's hearts. Wouldn't it be true that a nation who was redirected back to God and transformed by the power of His Word would get its laws straightened out in fairly short order? Is it really our goal to simplay make sure our laws support our own ideal society, while neglecting our neighbors' souls for eternity?

SOLA SCRIPTURA

M Yes, but the answers can only be found in the bible, if you are
M trying to find answers to questions about the gift that God gave to
M all of us thru His son, Jesus, which is what this movie is about.
M Only God's word holds the truth....not any other book or even
M person. They may be written about or based upon the bible, but
M it's the one true source for the answers about God's son.

> This is a commonly held and widespread school of thought - one that
> I myself held for many years - it is known in theological circles as "Sola
> Scriptura" (or "Bible Alone"). To our modern sensibilities, it is spoken of
> as an assumed truth. I severely resisted any suggestion to the
> contrary...even after I converted to the Catholic Church. For me, to do
> so would be disloyal to the Lord (so I’m very understanding of intense
> defense of the idea).

For me there are two very important reasons for basing my beliefs on the books of the New Testament; first, their sources were the Apostles who actually beheld the Lord, heard His words, touched him before and after His death and resurrection. They are eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony takes precedence over anything else taught later by church leaders, and if any supposed leader teaches something in disagreement with the original testimony, it must be rejected. Second, the twelve (13 including Paul) shook the world, and transformed it through their heroic example and their preaching. They died (all except John were executed) for the ideas they were promulgating. If they had made something up out of their own imaginations, for their own gain or whatever, I doubt they would have been willing to give their lives for it.

> So what changed my mind? For me it was a reflection of History. Many
> many Christians were lead to Christ, lived and died in their faith over
> many Centuries without ever laying their eyes on any more that perhaps
> a few lines of scripture.

> 1. Various letters and manuscripts were exchanged between churches
> in the infancy of Christianity but no determination of a single compiled
> version of the 27 books of the New Testament was made until the 4th
> century. Imagine that...over 300 years - longer than the whole of our
> countries history - without any agreement of what the new testament
> even was. People were taught the Traditions of the Church (which are
> in complete agreement with the eventual scriptures).

The idea that there was no agreement on the Canon of the NT until the 4th century isn’t quite true. The early church fathers’ lists of canonical books were largely in agreement before Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, made his pronouncement in 367 AD:

Inasmuch as some have taken in hand to draw up for themselves an arrangement of the so-called apocryphal books and to intersperse them with the divinely inspired scripture...it has seemed good to me...to set forth in order the books which are included in the canon and have been delivered to us with accreditation that they are divine…. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words that they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And he reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.'(Quotation from http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2001/01/daily-01-07-2001.shtml )

“In these alone…” sounds pretty dogmatic.

>2. The printing press was not invented until the 15th century, so the vast
>majority of Christians never owned a Bible and even if they had one, the
>average person probably couldnt read well enough to get anything out
>of it. Again imagine that...15 CENTURIES of Christians living and dying
>without ever having a Bible to carry around. How did they learn? The
>scriptures were read aloud during the "Liturgy of the Word" in Mass every
>day; the art in the Churches (stained glass, frescos, statues, paintings
>depicted truths of the Life of Christ for people to learn visually), and the
>spoken tradition that was taught.

You are correct; the scriptures were read aloud, and that’s how Christians learned throughout most of history. The scriptures, including the Old Testament, remained the source material, however. Any part of a worship service that contradicted the teaching of the four gospels and the letters of Paul were rejected. Yes, the Apostles transmitted their message largely through the spoken word. However whatever oral traditions they passed on, had to agree with their writings! Whenever you read the early Fathers’ (Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius, etc.) writings against heresies, they refer to the Jewish Bible, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul. They were then and are now the basis of the authority for the church’s teachings, even if the vast majority of Christians could not possess their own copy of the written words.

“Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.” (Quotation from http://newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm , the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia)

“The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Quotation from Ireneus, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7304_1939792 )

Those four Gospels are the foundation. There was no official church teaching that contradicted them, and so even in the “pre-literate” age you propose, the written word was used to determine truth and to combat heresies. And neither Irenaeus, nor any other bishop whose writings have been preserved, make mention of an oral-only, extra-Biblical Tradition which must be considered alongside the New Testament writings. The oral Apostolic traditions that preceded the writings, and the Apostles’ written word must agree. An excellent examination of this is at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html .

>3. If the Bible alone were sufficient to determine articles of faith, then
>different people reading the same Scripture would come to the same
>conclusions. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations, not different
>church buildings, 28,000 different denominations each teaching their
>own understanding of the truth that they see all reading the same
>scriptures. Try to get them to agree on anything and you will get an
>unending exercise of verse by verse argument of a jillion different opinions.

If you’re talking about subjects such as how baptisms should be done, how church government should be organized, and the sequence of end-time events, I would agree, there are a zillion interpretations of various scriptures. However, if you’re talking about the absolutely essential doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth of Christ; the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; the sacrifice of Christ as the one-time payment for the justification of all who believe; any church that believes in Sola Scriptura is going to agree on those essentials. True there are churches that claim to be Bible-believing, yet teach doctrines that disagree with the historic Christian faith, but clearly at some point they are placing some other source of doctrine above the Bible, and are not being true to their own claims. However most churches that have veered from the essentials, take pride in the fact that they do not regard the Bible as inerrant.

>Catholics believe the Church is responsible to determine the truth in the
>Scriptures so that we are united in our understandings. "ACK !!!" you
>might say, "you cant depend on the Church over the scriptures to determine
>doctrine! The Bible is the pillar of foundation and truth" Go to your Bible
>and read these Scripture verses:

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Eph 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Throughout church history, the very definition of Scripture has been: the writings upon which the church can base its teaching -- the writings which carry the Apostles’ original message. In my mind the phrase “the Church is responsible to determine the truth in the Scriptures” does not follow from the verses you quote, because clearly the teaching of the church was established by the Apostles. Paul’s use of the word “church” does not mean that any given believer, or even any given church leader, at any later time in history has the OK from the Lord to establish orthodoxy.

Only the Apostles’ witness to the words of Jesus and the events of the first century can be defined as The Truth. The church today must dispense the truth we received from the Apostles, and scripture is our source for that. There is no other source. To claim otherwise is to claim that there was essential Christian doctrine that was NOT revealed to the Apostles, and that their writings are somehow incomplete. And once you’ve opened that door, you have a situation much worse than having 28,000 different denominations. Now you’re saying that your leader has the authority to edit or to add to the words of the Apostles, and so has authority to edit the essentials. Hello, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Rev. Moon, the Watchtower, etc.

>So as much as I resisted, the very Scriptures that you (and at one point I)
>insisted are the singular source of truth of Christ say very plainly that
>they are not.

The verses you quoted do not in my opinion create an authoritative loophole through which the Apostles’ successors or today’s church leaders can modify or add to the message of the Apostles. So here we disagree, and though I doubt further quotes would change either of our views, here are some of the classic verses that support the primacy of Scripture:

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Isaiah 8:20 … should not a people inquire of their God? … To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Mark 7:13 “…thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:16-21 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 1:1-4 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

So we have three sources of truth: the Jewish scriptures, the words of Christ, and the witness of the Apostles. All are found in the written pages of the Bible.

>I know that some folks don’t like challenge to their opinions, but I am
>of the opinion that anything that is really true will withstand scrutiny
>...intense scrutiny if necessary.

I agree. God is big enough and loving enough to receive our questions. In my experience the only source of revelation about God that can withstand intense scrutiny is the Bible. And it is sufficient.

GOD LOVES JEWS!

What does God think of Israel? How should Christians view the Jews today? Are they second-class citizens? Are they cursed by God?

There are so many declarations of God's love for Israel in the prophets, there's no way I can quote them all, but here are two:

Thus says the LORD:
"The people who survived the sword
found grace in the wilderness;
when Israel sought for rest,
the LORD appeared to him from far away.
I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
Again I will build you, and you shall be built,
O virgin Israel!
Again you shall adorn yourself with tambourines
and shall go forth in the dance of the merrymakers. (Jeremiah 31:2-4)

Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth;
break forth, O mountains, into singing!
for the LORD has comforted his people
and will have compassion on his afflicted.
But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me;
my Lord has forgotten me."
"Can a woman forget her nursing child,
that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget,
yet I will not forget you.
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands;
your walls are continually before me. (Isaiah 49:13-16)

God was the one who sent the oppressing heathen nations to destroy Jerusalem and take the Jews into captivity (see Isaiah 48)... but God always promised that Israel's repentance would result in restoration, because of His love for His people. I chastise my son when he does wrong, but throwing him out of my house... totally unimaginable. And if I feel that way, how could you measure the devotion of my wife to our son -- and God's devotion surely goes way beyond that. So is the nation God is addressing here, one especially earmarked for God's wrath?

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus' father Joseph was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and all the Davidic kings of Israel. Matthew and Luke went to great pains to establish that. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, circumcised on the eighth day according to the law of Moses, and lived his entire life in Israel. So right off the bat, God has chosen the Jewish nation above all others to bring the Savior of Mankind into the world. Christians see the entire Jewish Bible as the story of God creating and preserving a people through which he can bring salvation to every nation. Quite an honor; and makes the idea that America has somehow usurped Israel's position as God's Chosen sound a bit silly, on top of having no foundation in scripture.

And he [Jesus] called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. As you enter the house, greet it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. (Matthew10:1-15)

Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. He was sent by God primarily to the people of Israel. He did have several notable interchanges with Gentiles, even breaking customs to do so, but he came to the Jews first. Note that the warning against those who would reject the disciples' message does not include an injuction to torture them until they come around, or to burn down their synagogues, or to do anything in retaliation -- God will deal with them at the appropriate time. We are to simply move on, pray, and make sure as many people as possible get to hear the message.

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:21-28)

Again, the divine mission is to reach the Jews first. Note that the Jews needed a savior in the first place. As described in the Old Testament, although Israel is the chosen nation, God will in no wise cast out foreigners who reach out for Him. The Gentiles' opportunity for full inclusion will come later. Did you catch the metaphor Jesus used to describe those outside the house of Israel? They are the children, we goyim are the dogs. We get the scraps. Jesus said it, not me.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:11-21 ESV)

Now we live in the post-Passion era. It is finished. Now at last the other nations of the earth can have a right relationship with God, and are no longer excluded. Before, we were strangers outside the gates, but now not only are we invited in as guests, we've been made part of the family, with full rights and benefits. Amazing.

I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5 ESV)

Here Paul expresses how today's Christians should think of Jews. Through them God has given us the real deal concerning creation, the Law, the partriarchs, the Prophets -- in other words, everything important -- including the Christ. What do you owe a nation that has played such a role in your relationship with God? However we also discover the mistake many Jews made and continue to make.

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." (Romans 9:30-33 ESV)

Even a cursory examination of the Law and the Prophets reveals that although Israel has been chosen for special privileges, and a special opportunity for relationship with the Creator, one's racial and/or cultural identity is not the be-all, end-all determining factor for salvation. Those who trust in citizenship and/or self-righteousness, have lost the opportunity given to them. Of course Paul does not mean that because of the events depicted in the Gospels, all Jews are under a curse. Every individual, whether Jew or Gentile, has his/her own choice to make, whether to pursue righteousness by faith (which would lead to God's Son), or by birth or by works (which has always lead to failure, since throughout history salvation by works alone has been impossible). Those who trust in their own ability to keep the law have been cut off. Christ's finished work is the only means to justification no matter one's ethnicity.

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day." (Romans 11:1-7)

The apostle comes right out and says it: GOD HAS NOT REJECTED HIS PEOPLE. But many Jews stumbled on the rock of offense: salvation by grace alone, through Christ's sacrifice.

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11:11-24 ESV)

If you think you stand, take heed lest ye fall. Pride goes before a fall. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. We Gentiles must see ourselves as the wild olive branches that God has ingrafted. We owe such an incredible debt to the people of Israel; to think that we have the inside track to divine love and acceptance while Israel has been singled out for a special dose of rejection, can only be a rejection of God's word. That's a perilous place to be. And it means we will miss out on what Paul says is one of the crowning events of human history: a sweeping revival of Christianity among the Jewish people. "Life from the dead." When God's chosen people experience God's Messiah to the full, the result can only be Resurrection.

Incredible: true anti-Semitism

A Vicious, Anti-Semitic Film Produced by Syria, not Mel Gibson.

By Joel C. Rosenberg

Israeli Cabinet Minister Natan Sharansky went to Berlin in January to show German, French and other European officials excerpts of a vicious, anti-Semitic film.

With all the media attacks on Mel Gibson and his new film, you might think Sharansky showed excerpts of The Passion of the Christ. He did not. Sharansky, for whom I briefly worked in 2000, wanted European officials to see a real anti-Semitic film. So he showed them excerpts of Al-Shatat ("The Diaspora"), a $5.1 million, 30-part "mini-series" produced by Syrian television. It was broadcast during Ramadan last year by Al-Mansar, Hezbollah's satellite television network. The film is "a Syrian TV series recording the criminal history of Zionism," according to a November 11, 2003 report in the Syria Times.

Episode Twenty of Al-Shatat — which aired last November — depicts a classic anti-Semitic blood libel. A Rabbi, played by an Arab actor, directs a member of his synagogue to help him:

1) kidnap the son of his Christian neighbor;
2) bring the boy to the synagogue;
3) slit the boy's throat;
4) drain the boy's blood into a basin;
5) use the blood to make Passover matzoh bread;
6) serve the matzoh to the members of the synagogue.

In Episode Six of the Syrian film, a group of rabbis and other Jews in a Romanian ghetto gather to torture and kill a man found guilty of marrying a non-Jewish woman. As the man screams in agony, the head rabbi instructs his fellow Jews: "You hold his nose shut. You, open his mouth with tongs. You pour lead into his mouth. You cut off his ears. You stab his body with a knife before the lead kills him. This is a sacred Talmudic court; if any of you fails in his mission I will try you just like this criminal." The men follow the Rabbi's orders.

Sharansky and I met in Washington on February 5, fresh from his trip to Berlin. He told me the European officials he met with initially hemmed and hawed over whether anti-Semitism is really on the rise, or posing a serious threat of any kind — that is, until he showed them video clips of the Syrian film. Then the debate stopped, and everyone in the room sat in stunned silence.

Sharansky then directed me to the Middle East Media Research Institute. There, I found English-language reports about the film, translated excerpts of key scenes, as well as several graphic video clips. Let me warn you. Some of the images are so brutal, so cruel, so evil you should not watch them anywhere near children. You may not want to watch them at all. But you should.

Anti-Semitism in Europe, for example, is not only on the rise, it's almost as bad as it was in the 1930s during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, says Ambassador Rockwell Schnabel, the U.S. envoy to the European Union. Foreign Policy magazine, published by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, notes that ''not since Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led pogrom against German Jews in 1938, have so many European synagogues and Jewish schools been desecrated.'' A recent report in Le Soir of Brussels described a Belgium-Israel football game on January 28, 2004, at which Muslim fans cried out "Jews to the gas chamber!" "Death to Jews!" and "Strangle the Jews!" France's chief Rabbi warns Jewish men in France not to wear their yarmulkes in public to avoid being targets of anti-Jewish attacks. The evidence is mounting. Most of the verbal and physical attacks on Jews worldwide are being driven by Islamic extremists, not by evangelicals or Catholics.

So what? Attacks against any group based on their ethnic identity and/or religious belief is repugnant to Americans and represents a threat to the foundations of Western Judeo-Christian society. Anti-Semitism is a particularly malignant social disease. Left unchecked — as it was in the 1930s — it metastasizes and triggers attacks on other groups until no one is safe. Americans need to be aware of what Sharanksy calls the "new anti-Semitism," and specifically aware of this Syrian film. Anyone who makes his living as a writer or film-maker understands the power of a narrative to shape hearts and minds; thus it's important to know what a truly anti-Semitic film looks like. Because The Passion of the Christ is not one, and the Syrian-Hezbollah film most certainly is. The Passion is brutal. It's graphic. As a story of hope and redemption, it's also one of the most moving and important films ever to come out of Hollywood, worthy of multiple Oscars. But it's not anti-Jewish, as Maia Morgenstern — the Romanian actress who plays "Mary" in Gibson's film, and whose grandfather died in Auschwitz — attests.

Those Jewish leaders attacking The Passion are thus making a serious strategic error. They're crying wolf, and hurting their own cause by pointing to anti-Semitism where it doesn't exist and thus distracting attention from real and rising evils where they do. Moreover, by attacking a film in which a Jewish person is portrayed as the Savior of all mankind, they're needlessly insulting and alienating millions of Bible-believing Christians, the very people most supportive of the right of all Jews — and the Jewish state of Israel — to exist in peace and security.

— Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times best-selling author of The Last Jihad and The Last Days, and a former senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky.

I haven't looked at any of the videos.