The Great Physician II: Therapeuo / θεραπεύω

In the last few months I’ve slowly resuscitated this blog (God did) after a three-year hiatus. I have continued to study during this time I just haven’t written about it. For me it's all been praxis or what Westminster calls Practical Theology. Rubber meets the road stuff. There was no time. That is changing. My recent studies have centered around how the Mosaic Law and modern medicine relate. A superficial modern-day analysis would say they’re totally unrelated but examine just below the surface, dissecting it and there are much more intricate nuances. So much so that I have found the rabbit hole is ridiculously wide and deep. Under every stone I lifted was yet another stone...it was 'turtles all the way down'.

My original intent was to just do a study of the Greek word θεραπεύω or therapeuo. A word that means healer, to heal or restore health. It can also mean to give or do a service for someone or something. So, as is typical, like everything else that started out simple when it involved God and I, it mushroomed into a mountain instantly...my intent now is to hit on some of the mentions of disease, medicine, healing and of course, sin. Pray that I don't burnout like I did three years ago.

People of Old Testament times faced tremendous health issues. Health was at risk daily at in the midst of blowing dust, dirt, contaminated food, impure water, city and town sewage, refuse, and garbage. Not to mention pestilence like rats, flies, biting insects, parasites and varieties of microorganisms that could cause epidemics, infection, and death to many closely-huddled families, especially to those most vulnerable of all, infants.

Personal hygiene habits, the kinds of clothing worn, the patterns of cooking and preparing food, the table customs employed, and the methods used to clean cooking/eating utensils and implements often invited disease.

Although the time and place millennia ago render a diagnosis nearly impossible, undoubtedly afflictions such as typhoid, dysentery, malaria, leprosy, tuberculosis, smallpox, and bubonic plague made their appearance in biblical times.

The most common during and prior to the 1st century Middle East were probably diseases of the eye and ear like conjunctivitis. Senile blindness, or the result either of cataract, glaucoma or retinal/macular degeneration, is mentioned in the cases of Isaac (Genesis 27:1), Jacob (Genesis 48:10) and Eli (1 Samuel 4:15). There were also the many physical disabilities that were either congenital, the result of war or accident, and not infrequently as the outcome of polio/poliomyelitis.

A review of the healings of Christ exhibit them all. Matthew 9:27–30; Mark 8:22–25; John 9:1–7, Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Mark 7:31-37, Luke 5:17-26, John 5:1-16. It is then Jesus' miraculous healing of a blind man that we see the root of his infirmity (and all others). Jesus instructs him in the spiritual principle of overcoming sin in John 5:13-14. He instructs on sin because sin is the true root of his and everyone else's flawed condition. Jesus used the healing as an object lesson on sin.

The Great Physician I: Origins

I’m actually excited to begin posting original material to my blog again. A new beginning. Reborn if you will. As is often the case when I write, I find digressions that just cannot fit into the topic I’m working on. My ideas and sources essentially find their origins or fountainheads in other reference materials. They in turn find their origin in the fountainhead of true knowledge: Scripture.

This was one of them.

One of my sources this time was an pretty old book: Modern Science and Christian Faith (1950). It was not solely pigeonholed to medicine. Some of its non-medical topics are fascinating and worthy of singular mention. Additionally, I should note that every single author in this book has passed on to be with their Maker which makes their essays ever more powerful.

Alton Everest wrote the Preface to this 1948 book (2nd edition 1950). In it he stated the following:

“This volume has been written to demonstrate two things: 1. Between the observations of science and a simple, direct interpretation of the Bible narrative there exists a harmony such as would be expected of a Book having the same Author as the physical world. 2. There is an appreciable group of reputable men of science who are convinced of the inspired origin of the Bible and who find in it a stimulating, satisfying, and irreplaceable contribution to their scientific picture of the universe. “This [book] represents the concerted effort of several score men of science over a period of more than six years. This group of Christian professional scientists is composed largely of college professors and industrial researchers representing the various branches of scientific specialization... It is hoped that in the diversity of authors and in the symposium form of presentation those pitfalls may be avoided into which scores of books treating the delicate no man’s land between science and religion have fallen."

It has been my experience that one of the pitfalls of modern scientists and science is an all-too-ready acceptance of anything in the name of science and forcing of scriptural interpretation to fit. The proverbial jamming of the square peg into the round hole. On the other side is clinging to dubious biblical exegesis by Christians (incorrect presupposition brought the Bible) which distorts the entirety of the Bible. It is the age old argument of Biblical Inerrancy. If you allow one mistake to exist in the Bible it puts the whole Bible in question.

The diamonds I mined from this book were as follows.

Peter Stoner makes statements in Chapter II that speak to beginnings, cosmology, origins and the Big Bang. [Remember this is after Edwin Hubble, the Big Bang Theory and expanding universe (Hubble’s Constant) which all agree with the Bible.]

“Thirty years ago [1920] there were serious discrepancies between Genesis and Astronomy. Today there is striking agreement which has been brought about by the development of science. Further developments are certain to come. They will, no doubt, show still more emphatically that the Genesis account is in accord with the universe which was and which is. Although Genesis was written thousands of years ago, every reference to astronomy in this first chapter is corroborated by the best of our present scientific information. And yet we note that books of astronomy, written 25 [1925, prior to Big Bang Theory, Hubble's Constant] years ago or more, are full of serious errors… Only the Creator of the universe, the earth, and the life upon it could have told thousands of years ago the nature and process of that creation.”

Edwin Gedney notes the use of the Hebrew word י֔וֹם “yom” spelled exactly the same way in multiple places in the Old Testament but meaning different amounts of chronological time.

“When it is translated by out word ‘day,’ as it usually is, it may have a number of implications. It is used to designate: 1. That twenty-four-hour period from evening to evening. 2. That portion of the above period which is light (Gen 1:14, 16, 18) 3. A prophetic year (Ezekiel 4:6) 4. A day set apart with a distinctive purpose as the Day of Atonement, or the Sabbath Day (Genesis 2:3). 5. A period of time in indefinite duration during which God begins and ends some specific work (Genesis 2:4, Isaiah 2;12, 22:5) All but the third of these usages will be found in the first chapters of Genesis.” (Pg. 51) He also provided a chart correlating “Events Noted In Scripture” with the “Geological Timetable”; e.g., “the sea brings forth” = the Paleozoic Era, “Beasts of the earth” = Cenozoic Era, etc. (Pg. 52-53). In other words the word ‘day’ or ‘yom’

William Smalley and Marie Fetzer suggests the following. By suggesting the following they are essentially saying that the fossil record was and still is extremely scant to draw definitive conclusions on. Its like trying to make Christian dogma from one verse in the Bible. Additionally, it also begs the question. Where is the line between men and apes drawn when we have NO scientific evidence of said specimens?

“Many Christians have … been taught that the morphological features of the fossil men presented only slight deviations from the morphological features of many today… Often it has been said jokingly that Neanderthal man is a frequent patron of the New York subways! However, a careful study of comparative morphology shows that there are large difference between the structure of man today and the structure of many of the fossil men… The evidence seems to indicate that man is much older than most evangelical Christians have suggested… These data do not mean that the Scriptures are in error… Christians should be interested in all the documented evidence anthropology can offer on fossil men. If substantial evidence conflicts with certain traditional interpretations of Scripture, such interpretations may require some modifications. The task, therefore, is to evaluate and make available to the thinking Christian public the pertinent information available from human paleontology.” (Pg. 161-162) Later, they conclude, “There is strong evidence, which is constantly increasing, for the antiquity of fossil man.” (Pg. 183)

Allen MacRae hits on the idea of intellectual presupposition or what I’ve referred to as a persons interpretive grid. We all come to certain topics with past bias that color our view of data and/or reality.

“When a noted Egyptologist thus believes the Biblical statements to be out of touch with reality, what is the correct attitude to take? …. The attitude of one who truly believes in Christ as Savior and Lord must be that of suspended judgment on the particular point involved, while seeking for more evidence… Christians may have been in error in their interpretation of the meaning of the Biblical statement, and second, that further scientific evidence may come to light, either from archaeology, or from some other source…” (Pg. 217-218) Later, he adds, “It is vital that the Christian clearly understand the nature of his attitude toward the Bible. It is not because archaeological facts have been discovered which throw light upon it that he accepts it as true. He accepts it because of his belief in Jesus Christ of whom it speaks and who set the seal of His authority upon it.” (Pg. 222)

Lastly, I mention the chapter, “Psychology and the Christian Faith”. This chapter drove home an extremely powerful point to me. A man who suffered through depression and sadly sees mental illness in a lot of people as I am in contact with multitudes of people in my work and ministry. The author observed:

“But although spiritual regeneration is the primary factor in the total integration of reorientation of the individual, there may be other problems present for which the Christian may need psychological or psychiatric help. There is no promise in the Scriptures of immunity from mental or bodily illness for the believer. Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that bringing the person into a right relationship with God through Christ will necessarily solve all the problems of the psychopath immediately without further effort and cooperation on his part. Problems of maladjustment may be found to exist, even in the lives of Christians. But the fact remains that an active faith in Christ is the most powerful dynamic and central factor in the integration and stabilization of the whole personality.” (Pg. 266-267).

In other words, the author is saying simply this: You’re forgiven of your sin but sin has consequences that can continue or ripple down through time the rest of your life. Being a Christian and accepting the truth of what Christ did on the cross doesn’t make you prefect. It makes you a sinner saved by grace.

This book was largely been forgotten. A diamond reburied in the detritus of a godless society. It took me doing internet research and buying it from Alibris in poor condition to reclaim the knowledge but I found it still well worth reading even nearly 70 years after its publication.

A Streaking Frat Boy In the Bible

"...And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. ~Mark 14:51-52

Although I always viewed this passage with quirky amusement it is not to be taken too lightly. It deals with the seriousness of salvation, human nature. Its Jesus' arrest. This incident would have actually been very funny in just about any other context but because it portended the most horrific miscarriage of justice in history the imagery must be tempered with solemnity. So why does it appear to be almost a comical aside placed directly in the middle of Jesus' arrest?

I pondered this for a couple of days. The placement of this passage itself is impulsive in its usage...just like the incident itself. Regardless, we know from reading the rest of the Bible that nothing is an accident in God's world. God is not impulsive. Impulsivity is a human trait. Everything has its reason and is part of God's plan even man's impetuousness and lack of forethought. God knew this dude was going to sprint au naturel into the cover of twilight.

We are never told who he is. Likely because the personal identity isn’t relevant to the theology or the story. It is his associated identity that is important. He was associated to Jesus Christ and other disciples at the time of His arrest. This naked dude was the same as all the others that had followed Jesus. They either betrayed, denied or deserted Him. Judas, Peter, and…a dude in his birthday suit in a garden in the middle of the night. You’d think this was the end of a frat party being busted by the cops. 

This unidentified man henceforth referred to as Streaking Frat Boy (SFB) is interesting because he had no identity and comically, no clothes. He was representative of all that followed Jesus though. Flawed, sinful, broken and naked to sin in this world. If it wasn't for fancy footwork and physical dexterity, he would've been nabbed by the authorities. If Christ didn't come to die for his sin he would've been nailed by his sin. Picture if you will...a streaker running from security at a baseball game. What was it that made SFB hotfoot it into the night at Gethsemane? 

Fear. Pure unadulterated terror.

The Way, The Truth and The Life had been apprehended and was being arrested by the world. It made no sense to any of them. It defied their understandings of who & what they thought Jesus was and what he was on Earth for. It so bamboozled Peter that he denied Jesus three times. It is clear from SFB's wardrobe malfunction that he was not expecting to be accosted or assailed for said association to Jesus and what any perplexed frightened man would do... he sprinted into the darkness naked as a jaybird.

Sadly, this mindset was in all the followers of Jesus at this point. All of them, in spite of the fact that Jesus had told them explicitly and explained to them thoroughly what was going to happen next. They didn’t listen. They didn’t believe. They relied on their own judgment. Their own understanding. 

Peter's denial was told to Peter. Jesus predicted Judas' betrayal in front of Judas. Jesus foretold his own persecution and death. They didn’t see it coming. They had believed everything else Jesus had said in his ministry but why not this? 

Simple. 

They didn’t want to. They were incapable because of their sin. 

What this reveals is how completely sin can blind us to truth. They didn't/couldn't accept what The Truth said was the truth. They doubted and were incapable of comprehending it. Even after the Crucifixion and Resurrection had taken place they remained confused (Road to Emmaus ring any bells?). Even after all the prophecies had been fulfilled. The very prophecies they had been raised with since childhood as Jews and learned as believer's of the Old Testament. 

Do you really suppose SFB wanted to be immortalized in the Bible as the "naked guy" sprinting through Gethsemane? To be remembered forever in  Christian history as "that guy". I don't think so. Like other examples of believers and followers we see an unflattering image in our minds of human failing to the point of absurdity and stupidity. 

The only thing unique and fantastic about SFB is his inherent failings and inabilities. His and our most startling feature is just how common an archetype of human fallibility we are. The only good thing about us is our association with Jesus. In SFB we see humanity, warts and all. 

We see us.

What else stands out in this context? Jesus does. Specifically, His foreknowledge and foretelling of these events. The other startling attribute is His unflappability. He exudes an unshakable composure as the world disintegrates around Him. He doesn't run. As a matter of fact, by his demeanor He controls the anxiety and disruption leading to His arrest (Peter, Malchus’ ear being healed). By His outward behavior He controls the "tone" of His own arrest. He is distinguished by His remarkable poise. He is the measure of resoluteness and the image of calm during the storm of events. This is in stark contrast to the scatterbrain behavior and disarray all around Him. His presence even holds sway over His captors.

"Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go." This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one." ~John 18:4-9

Alone Jesus is left to face His enemies just like he would bear the weight of the world's sin.

What do we learn from this?

We need to trust in the Lord and what He says is true. What the Lord lays on our hearts is to be taken deeply, reviewed and understood to the best of our ability. If we ignore His commandments we do so at our peril. Left to our own devices to try and extract ourselves from what is often a dilemma of our own making we become a comedy of errors like SFB. Inevitably, the means of escape and path we need to take to extricate ourselves may get quite embarrassing at times. In the case of Peter it dealt a catastrophic blow to his psyche. In the case of Judas it ended in death. Fortunately for SFB he was relegated to being mortified.

Turning our backs on God will lead to chaos and disarray. The light he gives us for our lives illuminates our path. When we walk away from this light we head down an unclear path, tripping and groping….forced to stumble around the darkness like a drunken frat boy bereft of clothes.

Cedars Will Fall In The Whirlwind

I know there are those who are suffering today. This one's for you.

There is that of God to be seen in such a day as cannot be seen in another. His power in holding up some, his wrath in leaving of others; his making of shrubs to stand, and his suffering of cedars to fall; his infatuating of the counsels of men, and his making of the devil to outwit himself; his giving of his presence to his people, and his leaving of his foes in the dark; his discovering/disclosing the uprightness of the hearts of his sanctified ones, and laying open the hypocrisy of others, is a working of spiritual wonders in the day of his wrath, and of the whirlwind and storm. We are apt to overshoot, in the days that are calm, and to think ourselves far higher, and more strong than we find we be, when the trying day is upon us. . . . We could not live without such turnings of the hand of God upon us. We should be overgrown with flesh, if we had not our seasonable winters. It is said that in some countries trees will grow, but will bear no fruit, because there is no winter there.  

~ John Bunyan: Seasonable Counsel; or Advice To Sufferers

We must understand that there is more to learn and more of God to be gained in our times of suffering. John Bunyan understood this. A person needs only read his biography. Believe it or not, God is usually closest to us in these times but because of our pain...we don't or can't see Him there. We must try to see Him during these times and what He has to teach us. It builds a faith that is capable of enduring death and will not fold up under the first sign of pressure and misery. We sorely lack this in feel-good preaching and applications sermons that are more interested in people's feelings. Teachers teaching content to people....where they are at rather than where they need to be.

What's more is, if their faith is the way it should be it will be able to endure hardship and struggling with a wry sense of grace that can only come from God. It is in these struggles...when we are walking through the valley of death struggling to keep not only our faith but our lives also...that we pick up the supplies and resources we need to scale the mountains of faith and reach their pinnacle.

If the world forced Christ to struggle with life...how much more will we struggle and suffer if we willingly choose to follow His footsteps. He was tempted, we will be tempted. He suffered, we will suffer. He died, we will die. Christians that do not suffer are not Christian. Christians that do not die to self will not rise again as a new creation. The two principles are inseparably linked. To live is to die and to die is to live. The Christian must be consoled with the fact that there is always the glorious culmination of the suffering in the eternal reward. One must never lose sight of this fact. That is why we are repeatedly called to persevere in the faith until the bitter end.

It is in the suffering and pressure that the diamond of faith is born. It is in the unrelenting pressure of suffering and struggle that the ugly coal and carbon of sin is best squeezed until no more darkness is in it. What emerges is beauty personified in the glorified believer, the diamond in God's crown who is the image or impression of the glorified Christ. This is why Jesus prayed the prayer for all believers in John 17...

John 17:20-24 “My prayer [disciples] is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me, “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Cedars will fall in the storm. In life there are casualties. Not all fall simultaneously, just some. Some remain standing to help others. Eventually all will fall. If you're reading this you are still standing. If you are still standing be thankful. Then help others. The fallen will give new life to those left behind or those yet to come. They will give reasons to carry on. Don't just live your life, be life. Some no longer have that opportunity.

Women Are Inferior

Nothing quite like an inflammatory blog post title to get someone riled.

It is a common misconception by those that do not read the Bible that it is misogynistic. That it treats women as inferiors. Even a precursory glance of the Bible would overturn this notion.

Lately I have heard many women, in particular feminists, say that the Bible was written by men to subjugate women and minorities. Feminism has come into conflict increasingly with Christianity due to perceptions of the church & due to past history and the perception that Christianity treats women as second-class citizens. A differentiation needs to be made to correctly view a picture that appears to have been knocked askew by organized religion. If there is any religion that treats women as inferior it is most certianly Islam. But I digress. Back to the topic at hand: Christianity's (the Bible) treatment of women.

1. Jesus' commendation of being single or the 'single state' as a legitimate calling for those whom it was given stands in stark contrast to the traditional 1st century Palestinian views of a woman's human duty to marry and procreate. As a result women who chose to follow Jesus took on a role other than mother or wife.

2. Jesus treated women as human subjects rather than possessions. Jesus is seen engaging with women throughout His ministry, affirming them. Often they were women who were outcasts by contemporary Jewish society (i.e. prostitutes, widows, etc.).

3. Jesus refused to scapegoat women in sexual matters. The patriarchal assumption that men are corrupted by fallen women is absent from Jesus' attitude, teaching. John 4 being a celebrated instance of this.

4. The traditional view that a woman was "unclean" during menstruation was dismissed by Jesus, who made it clear that it is only moral impurity that defiles a person (Mark 7:1-23). Women were not to be excluded from worship because of this once traditional reasoning.

5. Women were integral to the group of people that surrounded Jesus before and after His death... often to the religious leaders dismay (Pharisees). Not only did women witness the crucifixion, they were the first to witness the risen Christ. The truth of the Resurrection was first revealed to women to reveal to the rest of the world. A momentous reversal of the Jewish patriarchal order. It's the only Easter event explicitly accounted in detail in all four Gospels. The visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus.

6. The Gospels frequently portray women as being more spiritually perceptive than men. Mark portrays men as having little faith (Mark 4:40;6:52) while commending women (Mark 5:25-34;7:24-30)

7. Christian baptism was for all, men and women. Traditional Judaism of the period only ordained men in this manner. The original initiation rite could only be men, circumcision.. but in Christ no distinction is made.

8. Scripture does not physically objectify women (or men) as objects of physical beauty but is more concerned with the character of a person as stated in 1 Peter 3:3-4.

9. Older women are clearly called to train younger women in Godly ways. Titus 2:3-5

10. "A woman's place is barefoot in the home!" ....said Jesus never.

What Jesus actually said and did was outlined in Luke 10:38-42 in the incident with Mary and Martha - Jesus contradicts and gently rebukes Martha wanting her sister Mary to help in the kitchen instead of sitting, listening to Jesus. Jesus showed that women could be involved like men and choose the studying of His words. Jesus actually encourages women to study Scripture which at the time of Jesus was only done and allowed by men!

Women were always showing Jesus the most extravagant forms of worship. He never turned women away when they needed something. Furthermore, Jesus taught women the things of God along side of the men which was culturally inappropriate. Jesus went against cultural / patriarchal rules of the time to empower women including calling women men’s equals, telling men they should honor their wives, and more. 

I could continue this list but my point has been made. People of the Christian faith may have, at times, treated women as inferior but Jesus and the principles of the Bible clearly do not. It is only when sin intervenes that we see women treated like crap in and outside of the Bible. Misogyny is not the intent of a Holy God but rather the intent of sinful people.

κεφαλή kephalḗ

κεφαλή kephalḗ literally or figuratively means the head. It is the root word of encephalitis or inflammation of the brain. It could mean the head of a human body where the brain resides. The head or top of a building or the head of an organization. The main leader or someone or something in the primary place. As Christ is the head of the Church and of the Kingdom. He that is in the most important or primary position of these two entities. Christ is κεφαλή/kephalḗ or in authority over both. Interestingly. when the New Testament says that the “head of every man is Christ” and “the head of a woman is the man” (1 Cor 11:3), or that “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church” (Eph 5:23), Christians have usually understood the word head to mean “authority over.” Thus, Christ is the authority over the church and a husband is the authority over his wife. The husband is to, “love his wife as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her . . ." (Ephesians 5:25). In other words, be willing to give their life for her. The wife is functionally subordinate to the husband to maintain the perfect order of the family. The question is, the man is in authority how?

Spiritually of course.

The perfect example of equal but functionally subordinate is the Trinity itself. In the Triune Godhead, the relationship among the three persons of the Trinity is characterized by love, one for the other. The Father loves the Son for his willingness to do his Father's will wholeheartedly. The Son demonstrates his love for the Father by making the Father's will the overarching priority of his entire life. The Spirit empowers or energizes the relationship between Father and Son in a sort of behind-the-scenes way, content to let the spotlight, so to speak, be on the Son. He demonstrates his love for the Son and Father by revealing Jesus (who is God incarnate) to God's image bearers. Call the relationships among the Godhead what you will. One thing is clear: there is no superior/inferior distinction in the relationships; rather, there is a distinction of roles, each of which expresses love continuously and naturally. At the crucifixion though Jesus has to go functionally subordinate to the Father to allow Himself to be Crucified in accordance with Scripture. This is what a wife is being asked to emulate to maintain God’s perfect order. Subordinate spiritually but in no way less or inferior. Because we’re talking about Christ in this we should also mention that κεφαλή kephalḗ can metaphorically mean cornerstone. Christ is the cornerstone.

1 Samuel 17:46, Ezekiel 5:1, Mark 6:24, 8:26, 12:10

Hitler Was A Christian?

There is often a misguided belief among rabid anti-Christians (and sometimes even believers) that Hitler was a Christian in adulthood because he was a catholic in his youth. This supposed “fact” that Hitler was Christian is then made into a fallacy of composition to say that Nazi’s and the Nazi movement in general was Christian also. This is then taken to a third level of absurdity to try and prove that Christians are probably madmen and evil due to an extremely tenuous connection to Hitler. This of course is a convenient but false bridge of fallacies (fallacy of association, red herring among others).  If we examine the facts, exact quotes and history...we will arrive at a dramatically different conclusion than that of our misguided friends.

This is a warped understanding of history and frankly, frighteningly wrong. Sadly, the belief that Hitler was Christian during his tenure as Früher or that Christianity was somehow complicit in the Holocaust is further exacerbated by what is perceived as a deafening silence from the Vatican during the 1920’s to 1940’s. The Catholic Church is sometimes rabidly pursued as anti-Semitic for this silence also (probably unfairly at times). It is often mentioned that the Vatican was right in the heart of Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy (one of Hitler's allies) so it is implied that they are somehow guilty due to geographical location. Furthermore it is assumed that because the Roman Church did not fight back against the Axis powers they were somehow guilty by omission or by failure to act.

Never mind the fact that it would’ve been foolhardy to try and fight the Axis gears of war when even places like France capitulated and only a nation like the USA had the proper resources to overcome Germany. It is clear the Vatican was not the only state that was rendered impotent by the Axis Powers in Europe and the Mediterranean area. Let us keep in mind that the fascist states like Germany systematically butchered millions who would dare oppose them. The church leaders whether they be Catholic or Protestant that did resist were mercilessly crushed. History need only visit the life and untimely demise of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

As for Nazi Germany and Hitler being Christians. I really don’t think the Nazi’s connection to occultism is a surprise to anyone. Nor do I think it is a concealed fact of history that Hitler thought of Christianity as a poison to his military and State goals. The only time he supported Christianity is when it helped him rise to power within a Christian populated Germany or when it helped undermine Judaism.

"You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” ~ Adolf Hitler [Albert Speer quoting Hitler in his book Inside the Third Reich (1971)]

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. ~Adolf Hitler [Munich Speech, April 12, 1922, in opposition to Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed anti-Semitism based on personal Christian feelings]

In the time period leading up to Nazi Germany, Germany and the rest of Europe were characterized by growing animosity to Christianity and Judaism. Europe had become smitten with Darwinian and Communist philosophies. The theories of Karl Marx and Charles Darwin after the Enlightenment had captured the hearts and minds of a large swathe of the people. By the time of Nazi Germany, God had become unnecessary. In men’s minds, humans were now self-made. The idea of survival of the fittest was the preferred method of improving the human race provided by the only god that still existed—naturalism and science. Grace and mercy of a Sovereign God were no longer necessary in their minds. As a matter of fact, mercy and grace were viewed as weaknesses incompatible with Nazism. Science and technology would now be the German savior.

Hitler viewed Christianity as too passive and effeminate and felt it would totally undermine his Blitzkrieg rampages in Europe. As Hitler appears to be a loose adherent of Nietzsche so it is not surprising to see correlations between Nietzsche’s “ubermensch” (superman) and Hitler’s Aryan Race of men and women. It is also not surprising that Hitler would view his Aryan race as the obvious successor to the existing human race because of his belief and adherence to Social Darwinism and evolution. This all fed into his megalomania and grand delusion for himself and the German people.

Christianity and its founder Jesus Christ would therefore pose a thorny issue for Hitler to overcome if he would allow for it to persist in Germany. The problem was that Jesus Christ was of Jewish descent. It is ironic that Hitler would deny Jesus' Jewish ancestry yet he would use things like Christ’s stand against the Jewish Pharisees and Sadducee as his justification for calling Jesus a fighter and a warrior to support his militaristic goals. This sadly is sometimes the same type of twisted logic use by socialist Christians (Social Gospel) now for protest and fighting against “the man”. Regardless, Hitler ended up using Jesus as a springboard into the heart of the German people. He painted Jesus out to be fighting the Jewish people for the truth of God. A sad twisting of biblical truth. As we all know, even the Devil can quote and contort Scripture. In reference to the overturning of tables in the Temple Hitler stated:

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” ~ Adolf Hitler [Munich Speech, April 12, 1922, in opposition to Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed anti-Semitism based on personal Christian feelings.]

It was all a demonic plan by a demonic madman. He used just enough truth of Scripture to serve his needs. As we all know, the best counterfeit is one that is so close to the original that it is indistinguishable from it. Hence the reason why even now most people including some Christians are convinced Hitler was “Christian” when in reality he was demonically insane. The truth is that he wasn’t even remotely Christian. The man was nearly remote-controlled by Satan himself.

In the end it was all a pragmatic plan to implement a demonic nightmare. For Hitler to have tried to institute a fascist/socialistic religion at the time would’ve dramatically limited his ability to take over Europe quickly. So he piggybacked a madman’s dream into Christianity and hijacked it. While spewing his vile twisted Christianity he was simultaneously formulating the horrors behind Auschwitz and the gas chambers. All of this based on Social Darwinism, Nietzschean philosophies and atheistic underpinnings.

Hitler certainly believed in a god. The problem was that it was a perverse god of his own warped mind. It was a god of war akin to Odin. The idea of an Aryan god would inevitably merge into Hitler himself. Strangely, not unlike emperor worship of two millennium earlier. In the end, he didn’t worship a god but instead became a demonic despot just like his contemporaries Stalin and Mussolini. This being Hitler’s view made it incompatible with true Christianity even though he had been raised Catholic. Hitler never really had a problem with Christianity or with God. He used God and the religious institution of Christianity as a tool to propagate his vile murderous plans. While the Nazis retained the name Christianity for their religion, it was in reality a state controlled tool, nothing more. The Reichsminister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl was known to have stated:

"There has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christianity really are - that is Adolph Hitler. Adolph Hitler ... is the true Holy Ghost."

Children of Nazis were taught to pray to Hitler instead of to Jesus. A sort of baptismal service was held for children, baptizing them not in the name of Christ, but as "new hereditary links into the ancestral chain and were charged to guard their blood so that descendants for a thousand years after you will be thankful to you...for God is pure blood." Sir William Teeling who had studied the Nazi youth movement extensively in the 1930’s wrote that at the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally in September, 1937, there was a huge photograph of Hitler underneath which was the inscription, "In the beginning was the Word…" He also says that the Mayor of Hamburg assured him, "We need no priest or parsons. We communicate direct with God through Adolph Hitler. He has many Christ-like qualities." It wouldn't be long before these sentiments were introduced officially at a national level.

The Nazi “Christianity” was nothing more than a religion of a martial paganism (occultism), which was slowly instituted in the place of Christianity when the proper time came. Once the martial paradigm was instituted, the “state religion” head went from being a twisted version of the Christian God to an embodiment of evil. It became Hitler…an Antichrist, a version of Lucifer personified.

Anyone that can draw a bridge this wide and say Hitler and the Nazis were Christian...are just as twisted and demented as Hitler was. Perhaps they are as duped as many of the German people in the 1930’s too. Sadly, anyone that could say the Nazi war machine was Christian are actually emulating the foolishness and blindness of the very people that allowed Hitler to come to power. History is indeed repeating itself if people can make the same asinine statements to push their atheistic agendas. Is there anything new under the sun?

I suspect not.

Righteous Indignation & Human Suffering

It is understood that some of the language used in the Old & New Testament is an adaptation for human understanding. The Bible uses wordage that lends itself to explaining to man the attributes and characteristics of God that would otherwise be nearly impossible or difficult to understand. God is often represented by human emotions or experiences humans would have (anthropomorphisms) and this is done for our benefit. We must be careful to acknowledge the fact that although some of these “emotions” attributed to God are not human when given to Him, it doesn’t mean that they are any less real. Anger, jealousy, love are some of the more common that we approach in God’s Word. Abraham Herschel a Jewish scholar called God the God of feeling. He based his statement off of the ubiquitous anthropomorphisms spread throughout the Old Testament. Anthropomorphisms as mentioned above are human characteristics attributed to God to help describe Him. He said they should not be viewed as feeble human attempts to describe an unknowable God but rather to be welcomed as crucial and critical to our understanding of Him. The most amazing thing about God is not necessarily His infinite power or infinite knowledge but it is His infinite concern for humanity even to the point of allowing Himself to be characterized by human traits and to be crucified in a humiliating death (Philippians 2). Why else would He continue to enter His creation to steer man back onto the straight and narrow?

The most conspicuous examples are the passages of the Bible where God “yearns” or has “compassion” or the fact that God’s love for humanity is long, long suffering and His love is “everlasting”. If Jesus Christ is the last and full revelation of God then Jesus’ emotions and feelings are true reflections of God Himself. Anyone who reads the New Testament, the Gospels in particular cannot walk away believing God is some kind of sadistic, stoic business man looking down His nose at you while puffing on a cigar and blowing the smoke in your face. At least this is not the Jesus that I have read in the Bible. One of my favorite examples of God showing his emotion is at Lazarus’s tomb. He weeps at Lazarus’ tomb and He also “snorts” with indignation In John 11:33. This can also can be understood as a grunt of righteous anger.

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her {also} weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled...~John 11:33

The English versions really don’t do this verse justice. Most translate this verse “deeply moved" and "troubled" but the Greek is (Strong’s G1690: embrimaomai) the direct translation is “in-thundered”- "move with anger" or “mutter-ing” but a better understanding of this is to understand that “embrimaomai / ἐμβριμάομαι” is a compound word that comes from the words (Strong’s G1722: em- intensifier, intensify, at, by, with) and [brimaomai] which literally means to “to snort with anger” this Greek word is also used in reference to the snort that horses make. Older commentaries seem to downplay the snort and phrase this passage as "He groaned in the spirit". Regardless, the words "in the spirit" are clearly intending that this was affecting Jesus at the very deepest level. He was outraged and sad. It is the outrage, indignation and sadness for the human wreckage from sin.

Jesus was filled with indignation. It is certainly not because Mary and the others were weeping but because of sin which is the underlying cause of all suffering, and sorrow. His righteous anger is direct at the sin. Still this fails to encompass the intense surge of sorrow and emotion that this verse is trying to convey. His weeping would’ve been in sympathy of Mary and the others but His indignation was a righteous anger plain and simple. This profound type of change in Christ’s inner being would most likely would have also manifested in his expression and demeanor as noted “deeply moved in spirit”. He would’ve probably been visibly agitated, the tone in his voice probably would’ve changed, He also sighed/groaned (v. 38) along with the noted snort. In a word Jesus clearly showed His human emotion audibly and because it could be heard it most likely manifested in a visual change of demeanor since Jesus was indeed fully human (and fully divine).

We then see in John 11:35 that Jesus bursts into tears in the famous, “Jesus wept”. The long mentioned, often repeated, and poorly understood shortest verse in the Bible. (Strong’s G1145: dakruo) this is the only place this form of “weeps” is found in the New Testament. This verb does not mean to wail as in crying out loud for a lost loved one but it means to cry out of love for someone or something, a sympathetic love towards those grieving like Mary and Martha and to do it silently (under one's breath so to speak). There is no clearer example of God’s willingness to feel pain and empathize with humanity outside of the cross. It is a sacrificial sympathetic love. Again. we see His absolutely fully human side. A genuine sympathizing High priest (Hendriksen 156). It is ironic that the book of the Gospel's that is most focused on Christ's deity (Gospel of John) has some of the most profound statements of His human nature.

The bottom-line is that we need to understand God is anything but apathetic or passive to His creation, especially humans. For people to stand and mock or demean the suffering of such a man shows either their complete ignorance of the man Himself or the absolute degraded nature of the person doing the mocking. It shows just how little human empathy and feeling THEY have. The best way to confront the world's view or our view of a God that He is impassive is through Jesus on the cross. If the highest example of true love is to be understood as self-sacrifice or self-giving there is a factor of pain involved here. By loving a person we leave ourselves open to the possibility of being rejected as is the case with God and it is also the case with humans. This means that if Jesus would’ve been incapable of pain, then He would’ve also been incapable of love. This is clearly nonsense. Jesus' life as documented in the New Testament (and Old) is replete with examples of pain, happiness, joy, and nearly every other emotion understood by human beings. Aristotle’s image of an impassive and uncaring Deistic God was crushed at the cross and Jesus’ crucifixion.