Tag Archive | Faith

Fox Byte 5776 #2: Uncomplicated Good, Unrelenting Evil

Rocky, Bullwinkle, Boris, and Natasha. © Jay Ward Productions. Illustration accessed on Dishonest John's T.V. Toons.)

Rocky, Bullwinkle, Boris, and Natasha.  (© Jay Ward Productions. Illustration accessed on Dishonest John’s T.V. Toons.)

Great art retains its appeal through time.  This is true even with works created for children – including cartoons such as The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.  The success of this cartoon classic is due to the things children appreciate:  outrageous characters, simple story lines, a make-believe world that mirrors real life, and just enough irreverence to entice the mischievous streak in every youngster.  And yet those who grew up with Rocky the flying squirrel and his friend Bullwinkle J. Moose continue to appreciate the show because of its sophistication.  As children we could not possibly understand the clever references to the Cold War then raging between the United States and the Soviet Union, nor the endless puns and jabs at politics, literature, and popular culture. 

As children we did not need to know those things.  All we needed to know was that Bullwinkle and Rocky were funny.  Even the villains were funny.  Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale, along with their Fearless Leader, soon acquired fame that rivalled the title characters.  As caricatures of Soviet spies and political figures they were the perfect foils.  Moreover, they established a clear line between good and evil for young viewers.  Every child knew that Boris and Natasha were bad.  Their ceaseless efforts at killing Bullwinkle to advance their evil country’s fortunes originated from nothing else than pure meanness (as explained by Fearless Leader himself in the story “Goof Gas Attack”).  If the plot were exceptionally evil the spies would receive orders not only to deal with Bullwinkle, but to kill moose and squirrel.  Even when they received a note from Fearless Leader saying, “DO NOT kill Moose and Squirrel”, we knew that this apparent kindness occurred only because at that point the evil plans would best be served by keeping Rocky and Bullwinkle alive.

Children may not understand such things completely, but they grasp them instinctively.  Understanding comes later, after they have become adults and acquired years of knowledge and experience, not all of which is good or pleasant.  Children in their innocence discern good and evil, but they take as established fact that there is no gray area between the two.  After a few significant encounters in the real world they begin to learn that people and things can be confusing mixtures of good and evil.  Some appear to be good, but are evil at the core.  Some may do evil things, but for good reasons – or so they maintain.  Some do good for selfish reasons.  The sad reality is that children soon learn there is no absolute good among human beings, which makes navigation of this world exceedingly hazardous.  It is easier to revert to childhood innocence and attempt to stay there as long as possible.

The childlike place is comforting and safe.  There we recognize that good and evil exist, but all we need do is cling to the one while avoiding the other.  We need not seek the origins of evil, nor try to understand why evil and good seem to be intertwined in every heart.  A child will take the word of its parents in faith and act accordingly.  If they say a thing is good or bad, the child will act on that.  It is only later that the child begins to inquire into the nature of good and bad.  In time that path of inquiry leads to a line that should never be crossed:  the point of defining good and evil on his own terms.  Unfortunately, it seems that this very line has marked the boundary between childhood and adulthood since the time of Adam and Eve.  That may be why Messiah Yeshua said this:

And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 18:2-4 NASB) Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte 5776 #1: When Good is Not Enough

The Barking Fox just completed the annual Torah Cycle and is ready to embark on another year of Bible commentary.  Rather than embark on another systematic journey through the Torah and Haftarah, in this Hebrew year 5776 Fox Bytes will focus on selected books and topics, starting with the book of Job.

Marlon Brando as Marc Antony in the 1953 film version of Julius Caesar. (Photo: 451 Years of William Shakespeare, The Telegraph

Marlon Brando as Marc Antony in the 1953 film version of Julius Caesar. (Photo:  “451 Years of William Shakespeare”, The Telegraph)

A sad commentary on human nature is that people who stand for what is right rarely are the people with whom one would prefer to be seen in public.  We may honor such saintly persons as Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, or William Wilberforce, but we do not want to be close friends with them – or at least not let such relationships be known.  Our preference is to hang out with “good old boys”, friends who like the things we like, sympathize with our problems, and make us feel better about ourselves without actually causing us to change.  That, of course, is the problem with those saintly people:  they uphold high standards of right living which make us feel uncomfortable.  It does not matter how blessed they appear to be, or the peace they seem to enjoy in any situation, or that they give the authorities no cause for alarm.  The truth is that they are righteous, and their righteousness interferes with our desire to live comfortably and indulge whatever pleasure seems good.

Shakespeare understood this fact of human nature.  He made use of it in his masterful manipulation of the Roman public through Marc Antony’s speech in Julius Caesar.  Caesar’s assassins justify their murderous act by saying the great man was ambitious and that his ambition would have been the death of Roman freedom.  Antony seems to agree, saying “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, a statement that indicates whatever good Caesar would have done has died with him.  Then he turns the tables, calling the assassins honorable men – good men whom the good citizens of Rome should trust, and with whom they should be glad to associate.  Yet their honorable good pales in comparison to Caesar’s selfless ambition:  an ambition that enriched Rome through his military service, that wept for Rome’s poor, and that refused a kingly crown thrice offered.  In other words, any honor that may have accrued to Caesar’s assassins was as nothing compared to the great man’s righteousness in life and legacy in death.

We learn through Shakespeare’s theatrical Marc Antony a truth written centuries earlier to a real Roman audience by a man who also understood something about human nature:

For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.  (Romans 5:7 NASB)

Please click here to continue reading

Thanksgiving in the Kingdom, Part II

The various offerings for guilt, trespass, or sin were important elements of the Temple service, but they were only a small part of the many types of offerings God specified for His table.  (The Sin Offering, Christian Image Source)

The various offerings for guilt, trespass, or sin were important elements of the Temple service, but they were only a small part of the many types of offerings God specified for His table. (The Sin Offering, Christian Image Source)

More Than Just Sin

At the heart of our misunderstanding of the sacrificial system is the assumption that it is all about sin.  Since the blood of the animals foreshadowed the atonement that would come in Messiah’s sacrifice, and since that atonement came to pass through Messiah’s sinless death on the cross, the assumption is that sacrifices are no longer necessary.  Sadly, such reasoning betrays incomprehension of the reason God instituted sacrifices.  Messiah Yeshua did indeed die as the “Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29-34; see also Isaiah 53 and Revelation 5).  His death most certainly provides the only provision for willful, rebellious sin against our Creator (Genesis 22:6-8; Numbers 15:27-31; Hebrews 10:26-31).  However, the sacrificial system included many more offerings than those which had connection to sin.

If we are to understand the full nature of the Temple sacrifices, we should start with the meaning of the words used for the items offered on the Altar.  “Sacrifice” and “offering” are the usual English translations, and quite often the meanings are not entirely distinct in the minds of English-speaking readers.  The English definition of “sacrifice” refers to something valuable offered, often to a deity, in exchange for something or someone else.  A sacrifice also means something that is “written off”, or lost for good.  In that sense, the olah would be considered a sacrifice because it is a burnt offering intended to be entirely consumed on the Altar.  Yet that is not the intent for everything presented to God, which is why the term “offering” is important.  The Hebrew word in this case is korban (קָרְבָּן; Strongs H7133), a term usually translated as “offering”, but occasionally rendered as “sacrifice”.  Christians should recognize the term from one of Yeshua’s key confrontations with the Pharisees:

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”  (Mark 7:9-13 NASB, emphasis added)

Please click here to continue reading

Thanksgiving in the Kingdom, Part I

Doing Business With God

Messiah Yeshua said something very peculiar when His disciples asked for the sign of His return at the end of the age.  He mentioned one unambiguous event that would signal the beginning of what is generally called the Tribulation:

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.  (Matthew 24:15-16 NASB)

What makes Yeshua’s statement peculiar is not that this Abomination of Desolation first occurred nearly two centuries before He spoke these words, nor that something like it happened again a generation later.  The peculiarity is that this unambiguous sign of Messiah’s return concerns the Temple in Jerusalem and the sacrificial system of worship codified by God through Moses in the Torah.  A consistent theme in Christian doctrine is that the death and resurrection of Yeshua made the sacrificial system obsolete.  Why, then, does Yeshua ratify Daniel’s description of this interruption of the sacrifices as the “Abomination of Desolation”?  Why is it an abomination if the sacrifices no longer matter to God?  Why is it a desolation?  Who or what is made desolate, and why?  These questions direct us to look closer at the sacrificial system of worship so we can understand more clearly how our God does business with humanity.

Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte 5775 #4: VaYera (And He Appeared)

וַיֵּרָא

During Operation Desert Storm, the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) executed the famous "Left Hook" around the Iraqi army positions defending that nation's border with Saudi Arabia.  (Peter G. Varisano, On Guard at Sunset, U.S. Army Center of Military History.)

During Operation Desert Storm, the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) executed the famous “Left Hook” around the Iraqi army positions defending that nation’s border with Saudi Arabia. (Peter G. Varisano, Victory Division Soldier On Guard at Sunset, U.S. Army Center of Military History.)

On a certain winter’s day early in my Army career a distinguished visitor stopped by our office.  This gentleman was Chief of Staff of 24th Infantry Division, the third highest ranking officer of the division and our senior supervisor.  His rank of colonel, his position as Chief of Staff, and his 30 years of service as a warrior of the United States conferred on him a high degree of honor and respect.  The occasion of his appearance in our office was his farewell visit to the staff.  Not only would he be leaving us, he would be retiring from the Army.  As usual with such events, we had received word ahead of time that the Chief would be in the area.  When he arrived we jumped to our feet, stood at attention, and waited patiently as he made his way around the room, shaking hands and speaking to every person.  Whether we had known the man long or not, all of us understood the protocol required to honor a person of his rank and position.

Except for one soldier.  For some reason it never occurred to her to stand up and come out from behind her desk when the colonel approached her.  She sat there and allowed him to reach over the desk to shake her hand, and then returned to her work when he walked away.  In all fairness, she was very young – not more than 19, and accustomed to the easy standards of her rural upbringing that regarded all people as social equals.  The rigid rank structure of the Army, with its pomp and circumstance, was yet foreign to her.  Nevertheless, her carefree demeanor and lack of respect for the colonel horrified me as the officer responsible for her conduct, and my warrant officer, the man who supervised our younger soldiers.  We knew that the fault lay not with this ignorant young soldier, but with us who should have taught her better.

The people of God should also be taught better about our attitudes toward the Creator Who breathed life into us.

Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte 5775 #3: Lech Lecha (Get Yourself)

לֶךְ־לְךָ

The Man in the Iron Mask (l'illustration Européenne 1872, no.15 page 116, via Wikimedia Commons.)

The Man in the Iron Mask (l’illustration Européenne 1872, no.15 page 116, via Wikimedia Commons)

It is quite possible that the greatest literary accomplishment of the year 1844 was the publication of The Three Musketeers.  The swashbuckling adventures of Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D’Artagnan penned by Alexandre Dumas have delighted readers and audiences ever since, inspiring dozens of stage and film adaptations.  Not quite so popular is the trilogy Dumas published as a sequel, which concluded with The Man In The Iron Mask.  The story has been told in film, with such notables as Richard Chamberlain and Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role, but it does not come close in popularity to its predecessor.  Perhaps the subject matter is the cause.  The tale concerns a man sentenced to life in prison behind a mask so that no one may know his identity.  Dumas based his novel on an intriguing footnote of French history, but with much literary license.  The mysterious man in Dumas’ story was Philippe, twin brother of King Louis XIV of France.  As the king’s identical twin his very existence posed a threat to Louis.  Therefore he was doomed by royal decree to live out his life anonymously behind a mask.  This Baroque version of identity theft constitutes a fate worse than death.  Not only is the man denied his rights as a member of the royal house, his very personhood is stripped from him, so that in time even he forgets who he is.  No wonder The Man In The Iron Mask is so disturbing; this prince of the royal house suffers a fate none of us would ever wish to share.

And yet most Christians and Jews labor under precisely such an identity disability.  We have all forgotten who we really are.

Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte 5775 #2: Noach (Rest)

נֹחַ

Darren Aronofsky made a valiant effort to tell the story of Noah in a fashion worthy of Hollywood.  His 2014 film, starring Russell Crowe as Noah, certainly has its flaws.  No one would dispute that the filmmakers took considerable liberties with the biblical account.  Nevertheless, this telling of the story captures something that people often overlook:  Noah, like all the rest of us, walked hesitantly through life trying to understand what he had been created and commissioned to do.  With the hindsight of four millennia we assume that our Creator held a conversation with Noah at the start of the project in which He explained everything that Noah needed to know about the task of saving humanity in a giant boat.  And yet Russell Crowe’s portrayal is something entirely different.  He shows us a very human Noah who, like us, hears from the Lord only imperfectly, and must move forward one step at a time as he receives additional information through various means, including the wise counsel of his elders.  And there is something else:  we learn that Noah and the people with him were active participants in the story, and that the outcome very much depended on their decisions and actions.  The Lord God indeed had a plan, and an ideal way for that plan to be implemented, but then, as now, it is imperfect human beings who shape and carry out that plan.

Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte 5775 #1: Beresheet (In The Beginning)

בְרֵאשִׁת

This is the first Shabbat (Sabbath) of a new Torah cycle.  Each year, Jews and Messianic believers in Yeshua go through the Torah (the Books of Moses) and the Haftorah (selected passages from the other books of the Tanakh (Old Testament)) in weekly portions.  The portion for this week is Beresheet, “In the Beginning”.

After losing the French and Indian War, France chose to trade all of Canada and Louisiana for the small island of Guadeloupe.

After losing the French and Indian War, France chose to trade all of Canada and Louisiana for the small island of Guadeloupe.

The world’s first truly global conflict, known in Europe as the Seven Years’ War and in America as the French and Indian War, was a disaster for France.  By the war’s end in 1763, France had ceded the vast territories of Canada and Louisiana to England and Spain.  And yet it was not a complete disaster; the Treaty of Paris which ended the war left France with its most prized possession:  the Caribbean sugar island of Guadeloupe.  Great Britain had won control over both Guadeloupe and Canada during the war, and in the peace negotiations the British deemed Canada more strategically valuable to their empire.  But Guadeloupe had proven more valuable economically, producing more income for France than all the fur collected by trappers and traders in Canada, and all the sugar produced by Britain’s own island colonies.  King Louis XV, therefore, was quite willing to trade a vast empire for this small island.

A similar transaction appears in Scripture, when the Lord explains what He is ready to do to redeem a people He deems more valuable than all the nations of the earth:

Please click here to continue reading

How to Build on The Right Foundation: What the Bible Says About Good Works

Running with the Marines

Long-distance running has been one of my favorite activities.  I am not too old to try a marathon one day, but so far I must remain content with completing several half marathons.  My favorite race is the Marine Corps Historic Half in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  It truly is a community event.  The race starts at the exposition center high up on the ridge west of Fredericksburg, and for about eight miles runs gently downhill through the historic city and past Mary Washington University until it reaches the Rappahannock River.  All along the way there are bands playing, choirs singing, school and church groups handing out water, a children’s drum chorus from a local school, and of course Marines everywhere.  They mark the course, direct the runners, provide first aid when necessary, and cheer on everyone just by their presence.  There is something very special about a Marine, and even in a long race like a half marathon the sight of that uniform brings encouragement and confidence.  And the runners do need it, particularly as the miles add up.  Once the course reaches Sophia St. next to the river, it runs level for about two and a half miles, and the cheering crowds begin to thin out.  About the time the runners pass the VFW post, the only people there to offer encouragement are a couple of representatives from the Rappahannock Nation, beating drums to remind everyone that long ago all the land was theirs.

Please click here to continue reading

Fox Byte #13:  Living in Enemy Territory

What’s the point of Yeshua giving us this example of how to die?  Why would He teach the world how to be humble by letting Himself get killed?

The point is that getting “saved” is not a one-time deal.  It takes only a moment to decide to believe in Yeshua, but it takes a whole lifetime to learn what that means.  In fact, Yeshua told us to count the cost before deciding to follow Him (Luke 14:26-33).  He knew we would want to stay in our own little comfortable worlds and serve ourselves rather than serve God, so He explained from the beginning that following Him would take everything we have – including our lives.

Please click here to continue reading

%d bloggers like this: