Deuteronomy 15:7, Among you a poor man.
Multiple times, the Scriptures enjoins those who have been blessed materially to help those who are poor. In fact, YHVH even has a special place in his heart for a special class of individuals who have fallen into poverty, namely, the widows and the fatherless (Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:19; 26:12–13; 1 Tim 5:3). Let’s now discover some biblical guidelines about charitable giving.
Yeshua declared that the poor would always be among us (Matt 26:11), so there will never be a lack of opportunity for the so-called haves to help the have-nots. Furthermore, YHVH promises to bless us when we give to the poor (Ps 41:1–3) as well as to those who have dedicated their lives to serving YHVH’s people through the ministry (Deut 14:29; 16:14; 26:12–13).
In Deuteronomy 15:7, we discover that there are levels of priorities in our charitable giving. Our first responsibility is to help a poor person who is a brother, that is, who is a member of our immediate family, or someone who is like a brother to us. Second, we are to help those in need who reside in our gates, or are a member of our immediate community. Finally, and last, our charitability is to go toward those who are in need in our own land or country. The idea here is that our charitable giving is to go first to those who live the closest to us, and then go out from there geographically as we are able to do so financially. Too many churches have it backwards. They support to poor in other countries through evangelistic outreach, while neglecting the mission field or charitable giving on their own backyard.
In the Torah, there is a social welfare system in place to help the needy, but it comes with strict guidelines. For example, YHVH instructed the Israelites to set aside a certain portion of their income to help the poor. (Deut 14:28–29). For the ancient Israelites, this was a sort of social welfare system whereby those who had been blessed materially were commanded to help those who weren’t and were in need.
Moreover, the Torah had other social mechanisms whereby those who had fallen into poverty had the means to work themselves out of that economic state. There was no such thing as sitting idly and expecting a handout from society! For example, a poor person could sell themselves into servitude for a period of time until they worked themselves out of debt (Exod 21:2; Lev 25:39–55). Every seven years, debts were forgiven (Deut 15:1–2). Those who had an abundance financially and were in position to loan money to a poor person were forbidden from charging the lender any interest (Lev 25:35–38). Moreover, a poor person who had land could also sell their land to raise money; however, at the end of the 50 year jubilee cycle, that land would be given back to them (Lev 25:8–17).Continue reading
Some Selah Points to Ponder
Even as Korah rebelled against divinely installed lawful civil and spiritual authority, while at the same time attempting to raise himself up to replace that, similar trends have been occurring in the formerly Christian western nations of the world. Secular humanistic philosophies in their various permutations (evolution, Marxism, socialism,dialectical materialism, leftism, atheism, moral relativism and various other attacks on the Judeo-Christian values that have formed the bedrock of western culture) now dominate all aspects of western society and culture and are in an all out war against biblical values, morals and ethics. When we study the life and tactics of Korah and his band of malcontents, we see similarities between the forces of darkness and rebellion then and now.
- Num 15:30 — Wilful sin defined. Penalty for wilful sin is being cut off from Israel (i.e. a death penalty).
- Num 15:32–35 — Example of wilful sin given; i.e., a man wilfully violating the Sabbath.
- Num 15:37–41 — Wearing tzitzit is an outward visible reminder to help keep one from sinning (violating YHVH’s commands).
- Num 16:1 — The rebellion of Korah and company is an example of what wilful sin looks like on a societal level.
- Num 16:2 — Korah et al rose up in pride like the Lucifer—the spirit of pride (of sin) and rebellion against YHVH’s commandments (Isa 14:12–17).
- Num 16:7 — Pride of those who rise up against YHVH and divinely appointed leadership. In this case, it was pride and rebellion against Moses, who is a prophetic picture of Yeshua, godly leadership, the biblical leadership and the word and commandments of Elohim.
- Num 16:10 — This is the cry of the new agers, political leftists, some atheists, Satanists, God-haters and those who are under the control of the spirit of Antichrist. They ardently and petulantly declare that “we’re all the children of God. We’re all holy. We all have the divine within us. We are all gods and goddesses. Follow the cosmic Christ consciousness in you. Each of us can choose to follow our own will, the god within us, and do our own thing. Do what thou wilt is the whole law. If it feels good, do it.”
- Num 16:10 — This is the cry of those in our time who are rebellious and antagonistic against YHVH, his word and Messiah and don’t want Elohim to rule over them.
- Num 16:19 — Like Korah did, Satan in the end times will gather his rebellious Antichrist forces to oppose forcefully YHVH and Yeshua the Messiah in a final and epic showdown encounter called the battle of Armageddon.
- Num 16:20, 24–25 — This verse is analogous to YHVH’s statement in Revelation 18:4 calling for his saints to come out of Babylon the Great in order to escape his judgment against her.
- Num 16:25 — As Moses called for the Israelites to separate themselves from rebellious Korah, YHVH is calling his people to do the same now. Similarly, Yeshua called his disciples to the same to follow him (Matt 10:16, 26–39).
- Num 16:30 — Those who rejected Moses’ authority including the Torah have really rejected YHVH. Similarly, those who rejected the saints who have, in obedience, placed themselves under Elohim’s authority have not only rejected the saints, but Elohim as well.
- Num 16:31–34 — When YHVH returns to judge the earth, he will first judge Satan by casting him into the bottomless pit.
- Num 16:35 — After Satan is judged at the end of the last days, then those who rebelled against YHVH, His Torah–word and the Messiah will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:11–15). These spiritual rejects are the wilful sinners who refuse to repent and to submit.
- Num 16:41–43 — These Israelites weren’t rebellious per se. They were merely examples of typical, complaining, spiritually lukewarm people. If these lukewarm Laodiceans refuse to repent (Rev 3:14–21), YHVH will consume some of them as he did the Israelites in this story.
- Num 16:46–48 — Prayerful intercession saves people. Aaron is a prophetic symbol of Yeshua, or Great High Priest, who is presently at the right hand of Elohim interceding for the saints against Satan, who is the accuser of the brethren. As Aaron risked his life by placing himself between Elohim’s judgment and the people, Yeshua did the same when his gave his life over to death on the cross as he suspended between heaven and earth between humanity and Elohim our Divine Judge.
- Num 17 — Aaron’s rod is a picture of the cross. As life came from Aaron’s staff—a piece of dead wood, the same came from the cross and the dead body of Yeshua. Moreover, the almond is the first tree to sprout forth in the land of Israel in the early spring, and is therefore a prophetic picture of life from the dead and fruitfulness. Interestingly, the Jewish sages have a tradition that both the tree of life and the menorah were an almond tree. Both are a picture of spiritual life in Messiah Yeshua.
Is the U.S. heading incrementally, gradually, to one degree or another, in the direction of totalitarianism thanks to the political agendas of the socialistic, progressives who are trying to take control of this country? Listen to the testimony of this woman, make the comparisons between the socialists who seized control of Germany under Hitler and what’s happening in America, then decide for yourself. The U.S. may be one economic and political crisis away from this happening in the fuller sense. Selah.
“When a people fear their government, that’s tyranny. But when the government fears the people, that’s liberty. An armed populace is a free populace and one that cannot be tyrannized.”
“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.
She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.
“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Hitler is welcomed to Austria
“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.
Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.
“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’
“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since Continue reading
Generally speaking, social conservatives tend to act on the basis of principles—what is morally right or wrong. On the other hand, leftists, “progressives,” socialists, Marxists or fascists tend to act on the basis of whatever is politically expedient at the moment and justify their actions on the basis of their particular feelings, or what is politically correct at the moment. They act on the basis of “group think” and tend to favor mob rule—as long as their mob is ruling. What is morally right or wrong has little if any bearing on what they think or do. It’s whatever feels right to them at that moment.
Another way to characterize the actions of those who lean toward the left or “progressive” side politically is that for them “the (political) ends justify the means,” which is one step away from the satanic motto of “Do what thou wilt,” which is another way of saying, “If it feels good, do it.” This is nothing more than situational ethics or moral relativism. This is the religion of secular humanism where the rule of YHVH Elohim is rejected in favor of self-rule. In reality, this is nothing more than embracing the lie of the devil serpent at the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, when he questioned the Creator’s rule of law. When the first humans fell for Satan’s lie, this resulted in the introduction of sin and rebellion and destruction and death and man being separated from Elohim.
Broadly speaking, the political conservative tends to act more on the basis of universal and unchanging principles of right and wrong that are ultimately based on the divinely revealed truth of the laws found in the Bible. On the other hand, the political socialist acts on the basis of feelings and what man (not Elohim) thinks is right and wrong. We know what the Bible says about this:
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Prov 14:12)
The conservative, by contrast, believes in self-rule and limited government because they don’t need big government to regulate every aspect of their lives by telling them what is right and wrong: They have God/Elohim and his word, the Bible, to do that and they realize that they are ultimately answerable to the Creator for their actions, and not to government. They walk in the fear of Elohim, not man. This makes them wise and knowledgeable, for the Bible says the fear of Elohim is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. This understanding keeps them on the moral straight and narrow path. Because they base their thoughts and actions on the firm foundation of divinely revealed biblical truth, they find that the constantly shifting moral standards of leftist “progressives” to be illogical, foolish and impossible to understand. To the conservative right is always right and wrong is always wrong, and these definitions don’t change over time. Not so with the leftist “progressive.”
The social progressive leftist wants government (the bigger the better) to legislate their view of morality, which changes from generation to generation, hence the term “situational ethics” or “moral relativism.” They then turn their view of “morality” into an ideology and then into a political agenda, which they then they demand that the government enforce by the rule of law and cram down the throats of those who disagree with them. This is a form of fascism or government mandated authoritarianism. Extreme socialism is fascism. (The Nazis were fascists. Remember that the word Nazis was merely an acronym for Nationalsozialist or National Socialist.)
The ideology of government determining what is right and wrong becomes the socialist’s religion and is based on what the socialist feels (based on politically correct group-think) is best for society (i.e. their politically driven agendas). The state becomes the de facto god of the nation to enact and to enforce the socialist ideology. In the leftist socialists’ mind, this will lead to their version of a utopia or heaven on earth, which is a godless replacement for the paradise regained of the Garden of Eden heaven on earth, which the Bible refers to as the New Jerusalem, which Elohim promises to all those who embrace the biblical gospel message by trusting in and obeying Yeshua the Messiah.
The conservative loves Elohim as their God and is happy to follow his divinely revealed principles of the Bible, while the leftist socialist “progressives” are either ambivalent, apathetic or downright hateful toward Elohim and the Bible, and instead follow their feelings, which is usually based on politically correct group-think, which is the political system called democracy—or social democracy (i.e. socialism plus democracy). This is in opposition to the republican form of government which rules on the basis of principles that define what is right and wrong. These principle are often codified in a document like a constitution upon which all of society’s laws are based and which all members of society must follow. Most socialists disdain if not hate the U.S. Constitution, since it constrains them from fulfilling their unconstitutional agendas. By contrasts, a republican form of government, ideally, is based on a unchanging principles, while a democracy is based on the vicissitudinous feelings of the masses (beliefs that change over time).
In the United States, those who believe in a republican form of government believe in limited government and tend to be more biblically based, while those who believe in a more democratic form of government tend to reject the Bible and Christianity and want the state, without overtly admitting it, to be their god (to tell people what to do). This is ultimately rebellion against and a rejection of God and the Bible.
The Bible has a several terse statements for the secular humanist who prefers government over God/Elohim, and wants man to decide what is morally right and wrong instead of the Creator.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. (Prov 12:15)
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. (Prov 28:26)
Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate. (Prov 24:7)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Prov 14:1)
For those who have ears to hear and a heart and mind to understand, I leave you with this:
If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3)
In their pursuit to erode our culture of its established values, American leftists continue to expose themselves and their insidious brand of moral relativism through their disturbing idol worship of notably evil figures throughout world history.
Call it sympathy for the devil, call it willful ignorance, call it plain evil. Whatever you decide to call it, these people just don’t seem to understand why we justly criticize despots and dictators.
To help out the leftists and their historically-challenged ilk, here’s a nifty guide laying out why these figures are so heinous. Remember kids, reading is fundamental.
The American left has always shown sympathy for Castro, former prime minister of Cuba and known mass murderer.
Leftists love to praise the man as a secular hero, and glorified him for his socialist policies while he was alive and in power. It seems they’ve all conveniently forgotten that Castro oversaw the murder of tens of thousands of Cuban citizens. The man banned free press and religious liberty, and was known to imprison his political opponents, as well as journalists who criticized him and anyone else who challenged his status quo. Castro was also notorious for punishing his critics with long-term prison sentences, arresting human rights defenders, and endorsing termination of employment for citizens who went against him.
But hey, maybe American lefties skipped that chapter of their history books. They can’t really be that delusional to think that Castro was somehow a good guy… can they?
In a statement following Castro’s death, Barack Obama spoke of “the countless ways in which [Castro] altered the course of individual lives, families and of the Cuban nation.” I wonder how the thousands of people who risked their lives fleeing Cuba to escape Castro’s deadly regime feel about that statement — sure, Obama, I guess you could say Castro altered their lives.
Leftists also like to believe Castro bettered the Cuban education system. However, they forget that under his authority, it was stipulated that anyone who received universal education would have to actively promote Castro’s government policies both during after their schooling. Pupils were required to take government-approved courses that forbid any criticism of socialism as a way of life. Castro viewed education as a crucial element of his revolution, and believed that universal education was the best way to create a population that was loyal to the government.
The father of socialism is the same man behind much of the modern-day communist rambling from the American left.
Marx, in his writings, envisioned the creation of a new, superior individual who would go on to create a new society. This vision of a “new man” and “new society” apparently involved creating a communist revolution complete with mass murder, enslavement, torture, and the subjugation, starvation, and suffering of millions around the world. Historians have estimated that in their attempt to create a “better” world, Marxist and communist regimes have killed as many as 200 million people in the twentieth century alone.
These deaths cannot be dismissed as acts of rogue dictators who weren’t following the “true tenets of Marxist philosophy” either, since Marx taught his followers that it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objectives of communism.
Furthermore, Marx had little regard for the rights of the individual; his disdain for personal liberty was evident in his writings. By calling for legislative absolutism of the state and advocating a classless society, Marx supported the suffering of millions, since by its very nature, socialism cannot exist without an oppressive government.
This is why I can’t help but groan when American leftists praise Marx as a great thinker and political theorist, especially when they talk about how they wish to continue his legacy. His “legacy” is one of cruelty, murder, and hypocrisy.
I suppose, however, that these are just the normal elements of a socialist utopia.
I knew a self-identified socialist in college, the kid thought that the poster of Che Guevara on his wall and his dog-eared copy of The Communist Manifesto made him a bona fide revolutionary. Alas, the poor kid was mistaken. Do these young idealists realize that when they go to chain stores and buy mass-produced merchandise with Che Guevara’s face screen-printed on, that they’re contributing to the very same cycle that Guevara himself denounced? (I know — asking self-awareness from leftists is a lofty request, nigh impossible — but hey, I can dream).
Many overlook the fact that Guevara was not an “icon” or a hero, but a murderous ideologue with a tyrannical streak who desired absolute military power and called for death to all of his dissenters. Guevara banned books he felt “encouraged delinquency”, and he banned music that challenged his regime, including jazz and rock and roll. He lined up his enemies before firing squads, punishing them with death simply for speaking out against his tyrannical worldview.
Guevara hated hippies, artists, and free thinkers. He was a known racist and bigot who treated homosexuality as a crime. And he was more than willing to kill anyone he deemed “delinquent”. This is, perhaps, the strangest part of the left’s idol worship of Guevara: those who admire and venerate the man today are the same folks Guevara himself likely would’ve jailed (or even killed) if they had lived under his regime. Guevara’s ultimate goal was to make individualism disappear from the nation.
Why do leftists continue to worship a man who was openly against everything they supposedly stand for?
The left’s hero worship of these three figures is particularly alarming, as it not only displays their lack of historical knowledge, but proves how their sense of “morality” is completely inconsistent. Leftist values are based upon spreading and normalizing their destructive dogma, and thus are always fluctuating. The ethical boundaries of American leftists will always be subject to change, as they are completely dependent on however they can justify their ideological motives.
Larceny, treason, exile, murder, political suppression, rape, starvation, and torture are all condemned by leftists… until one of their idols is guilty of such a crime.
Is anyone else tired of this blatant hypocrisy? Of the left’s two-faced conduct, their performative rhetoric, and their “say one thing and do another”-style politics? I know I certainly am.
Until leftists come to terms with historical reality, it’s time to stop venerating villains.
“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” — Ronald Reagan