Mountain View Chapel is an independent evangelical protestant church, founded in 1955 in Douglassville, PA. Our congregation of around 300 meets on Sunday morning at 10:00am for worship, Children's Church, and Children's Sunday School. Other ministries include: Youth Group, Bible Studies, Awana, and more! https://www.mountainviewchapel.com Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:28:11 +0000 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 3600 SnapPages.com https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/27/when-the-world-comes-apart-at-the-seams Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:35:39 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/27/when-the-world-comes-apart-at-the-seams

The pendulum of human history swings along a spectrum.  On one end there is liberty and personal freedom; on the other, order and restraint of chaos.

We all want two things at once.  We want the freedom to choose, to speak, to own, to worship—the freedom to pursue happiness.  But we also want predictable rules, stable families, stable markets, social trust, and deterrence of wrongdoing and protection from violence.

The great challenge is that when the pendulum swings too far one way, it undermines the other ideal at the other pole.  Too much concentrated power and an overly rigid sense of order can become tyranny and oppression—the crushing of freedom.  Freedom without limits, without any moral discipline, can become chaos and disorder—unleashing selfishness and violence.

People, nations, and the world are always seeking to strike the proper balance.  We are always moving along that pendulum line, always seeking that sweet spot at the center.  Rarely have we found it.

Throughout history the pendulum has at times swung wildly—the collapse of the ancient Bronze Age world of the Mediterranean (c. 1200 BC), the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the American Civil War and the Reconstruction, and the 20th century transition of Europe from monarchy to more democratic forms of government.  To borrow W. B. Yeats’ phrase, in times like that, “the centre cannot hold.”  The world seems to come apart at the seams and people search frantically for stability and direction.  

The Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the apostles spoke of days like this in apocalyptic terms: the sun being darkened, the moon turning to blood, the stars falling or no longer giving their light, and mountains shaking or melting.  Some people believe these are to be taken literally—and that is possible—but I’m inclined to believe that such imagery depicts things that have long been certain becoming uncertain.  It’s not that the world ends but that “the world as we have known it ends.”  Though one day there will be a final end—an end to the entire process of history—history has experienced many lesser ends that launched a new start and a new direction.

At the moment we seem to be living in such a time when “the centre cannot hold”—or we are at least approaching such a time.  Everything seems to be topsy-turvy.  

American politics is being radically re-aligned.  The names of the old parties remain but neither party is what it was even 50 years ago.

Mass migration is reshaping the ethnic and cultural composition of Western nations.  Islam is making powerful inroads into European nations and has a foothold in America.

The Arab Gulf states are more pro-Israel than much of the West is.

International institutions (e.g. UN, WHO, NATO) are growing less credible and old alliances are weakening.

COVID and international political tensions revealed the fragility of global supply chains.

Each step of communication technology—the internet, smart technologies, social media, and most recently AI—radically changes the way people and economies function.

Though the West is rapidly secularizing, there is also a simultaneous global explosion of religion and spirituality, especially Christianity and Islam.

These large issues (and many lesser ones) easily unsettle us—even we Christians.  Some of us retreat fearfully into apocalyptic thinking (“the world is ending soon!”) and disengage from the present.  Some of us, knowing that leaders and institutions have proved false in the past, look for order and certainty by recognizing patterns of hidden forces manipulating events behind the scenes, taking comfort in the thought that we understand what’s really going on.

I think there’s another option…but I’m out of space and it will have to wait till next week’s blog.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/20/a-door-that-never-closes-part-2 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:29:42 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/20/a-door-that-never-closes-part-2

In my last blog, I outlined the covenant cycle between God and Israel (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28-30) that always leave an open door for the Israelites to repent and return from dispersion and exile.

STEP 1: Obedience to God brings blessing in the land
STEP 2: Disobedience brings hardship to lead Israel to repentance
STEP 3: Failure to repent leads to Israel’s expulsion from the land
STEP 4: Israel’s repentance leads to her restoration to the land

That final step matters. If the door to restoration is never shut, does Israel still have a claim to the land today?  Are God’s promises to Israel still in force?

The promise of the land did not originate at Sinai; it predated the law entirely.  God promised the land to Abraham and his offspring centuries before Moses was born (Genesis 12.1, 7; 13.14–17; 15.7–21; 17.8; 28.4; 35.12), and as Paul said, the law does not negate the promise (Galatians 3.17–18).  The promise of the land remains in force.

The covenant at Sinai does govern Israel’s enjoyment of the land in the four steps of the covenant cycle.  While the promise of the land is eternal (Genesis 17.8), the enjoyment of the land is contingent upon covenant obedience.
The messages of the prophets, God’s covenant lawyers, are explications of the four-step covenant cycle.  Prophets usually come on the scene either to announce a coming hardship (Step 2, e.g. a locust plague as in Joel) or to threaten expulsion from the land (Step 3, e.g. Jeremiah 25.8–11).  At either stage, repentance can forestall the judgment, since each step of the covenant cycle presents a contingency.

But the prophets also refer to the final step—the hope of restoration based on God’s faithfulness in keeping the covenant cycle.  Though the prophetic wording often looks like a prediction, restoration is a contingency tied to repentance because the prophet is operating within the covenant cycle.  Israel’s repentance is not inevitable, but the hope of restoration upon repentance is.

The prophets express that exile does not need to be the end of the story.  The covenant cycle always provides hope for restoration to the land (Isaiah 43.5–6; Jeremiah 30.3; Ezekiel 37.12–25; Hosea 3.5; Amos 9.14–15; Zechariah 8.7–8). The prophets are not introducing something novel in the message of restoration, nor are they guaranteeing a fixed historical outcome; that is, they are not predicting a necessary return to the land.  They are reminding Israel of the certainty of God’s covenant faithfulness and reiterating the covenant cycle established in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30.  The door always remains open. God is free to fulfill His covenant promise of the land exactly as He gave it.

In Romans 11.26–27, Paul echoes this covenantal hope of Israel’s future salvation, citing the prophets. “The Deliverer will come from Zion; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

The faithful God promised the land to Abraham’s descendants, so there is always a hope of restoration to the land held out to Israel.  There is no passage—Old or New Testament—that explicitly revokes the promise of God’s commitment to give Israel her land.  The New Testament expands the scope of the promise (Matthew 5.5; Romans 4.13—“heir of the world”), but that expansion is not cancellation of the promise, but fulfillment of another part of the promise.  “In you will all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12.3).

If, in the unfolding of His sovereign providence, the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Revelation 11.15), then there is nothing implausible—biblically or theologically—about Israel being restored again to the land promised to the patriarchs.  If that happens, it will not be because Israel has earned it.  Scripture is explicit: it will be for the sake of God’s own name (Ezekiel 36.22, 32; cf. 20.42–44).

God’s faithfulness to His promises always insures hope for Israel. Exile is never the end of the story.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/13/a-door-that-never-closes Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:32:21 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/13/a-door-that-never-closes

How is it that despite continued Jewish hostility to the gospel and despite seeing Gentiles outnumber Jews in the Christian church Paul can still hold out hope that the Jews will someday turn to Christ (Romans 11.12,15,23-24,26-27)?  I believe the answer is to be found in the nature of God’s covenant promises which, Paul says, belong irrevocably to the nation of Israel (Romans 9.4-5 cf. 11.29).

Many evangelicals have a habit of reading the Old Testament in terms of prediction.  The Law or Prophets speak in advance of an event that must take place.  Once such an event comes to pass, it is “fulfilled”, over and done with, never to be repeated.

But the covenant promises of God were not predictions of single events, but the promise of a repeating cycle in God’s interaction with His people.  Moses presents that cycle in Leviticus 26 and in a longer formal covenant in Deuteronomy 28.1-30.20.

STEP 1:  When Israel obeys God, she will be blessed in the land (Leviticus 26.1-13; Deuteronomy 28.1-14)

STEP 2:  When Israel disobeys God, she will be disciplined with hardships to lead her to repentance (Leviticus 26.14-26; Deuteronomy 28.15-24).

STEP 3:  Failure to repent will eventually lead to Israel being driven from her own land (Leviticus 26.27-39; Deuteronomy 28.16-68).

STEP 4:  If after being driven out of the land, Israel repents and returns to the LORD, she will be restored and returned to the land (Leviticus 26.40-46; Deuteronomy 30.1-10).

The covenant promise cycle is then set to repeat.

Paul, a Pharisee immersed in the Old Testament, would have been familiar with this covenant format.  Though Step 4 doesn’t predict Israel’s return to the LORD, it always allows for it, because of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises.  This covenant faithfulness, highlighted at the end of the Leviticus passage, makes the gift and calling of God irrevocable (Romans 11.29).

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God.
But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.  (Leviticus 26.44-45)

Paul’s hope for Israel’s eventual turning to Christ is grounded, then, not in prediction but in the faithfulness of God to His promises that remain perpetually in force.  As long as the cycle Moses outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy holds, the door is never finally closed—and for Paul, God’s faithfulness guarantees that it never will be.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/06/the-jews-beloved-without-belief Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:49:52 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/04/06/the-jews-beloved-without-belief

As regards the gospel, [the unbelieving Jews] are enemies for your sake.
But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. (Romans 11.28)

How can unbelieving Jews be enemies of the gospels and yet “beloved” in terms of divine election at the same time?

Paul qualifies his statement with two phrases:  “as regards election” and “for the sake of their forefathers”.

First, unbelieving Jews are loved by God for the sake of their forefathers.  They are a part of the people descended from Abraham (Romans 4.1), Isaac, and Jacob—renamed Israel—for whom the nation was named.  While the Jews may have overemphasized physical descent (e.g. Matthew 3.9; John 8.33-40), that physical descent from the patriarchs means nothing in God’s providential plan swings too far in the opposite direction.

Second, Paul ties God’s special love for the Jews for the sake of the forefathers to divine election.  When the word “election” occurs, people think of arguments about predestination.  But that’s not what Paul has in mind.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis to present the context of Israel’s call to be God’s chosen people (Exodus 19.5-6).  Genesis 1-11 presents a rebellious world opposed to God, scattered at the Tower of Babel.  From among the lost nations, God chooses Abraham to be a mediator of divine blessing to those nations (Genesis 12.1-3).  Abraham isn’t chosen to be saved automatically; he must exercise personal faith in the promise.  He is chosen, rather, to be the vehicle of divine blessing to the world.

Moreover, not only Abraham personally but also his descendants—a nation that will arise from him—will become that vehicle of blessing (12.2-3).  God chooses Abraham’s son, Isaac (21.12) and then Isaac’s son, Jacob (25.23, 28.13-14, 35.12-14).  Jacob’s sons become the tribes of Israel, chosen (i.e. elect) and loved because of the oath God swore to the fathers (e.g. Deuteronomy 7.6-8; Psalm 105.6-11).

Paul simply repeats this theme in Romans 11.28.  The nation of Israel was chosen in Abraham to receive God’s covenant love so that they might bring blessing to the Gentile world.

The argument of the New Testament is that Jesus, the perfectly obedient Jew, son of David, son of Abraham, is the true and proper heir of all the ancient promises (Matthew 21.38; Romans 8.17; Galatians 3.16; Ephesians 3.6; Hebrews 1.2).  Those who have faith in Jesus, the heir, are ‘Abraham’s children’ and thus inherit those promises in Christ (e.g. Galatians 3.9, 29), whether Jew or Gentile.

The gospel going to the Gentiles expands the promised blessing to its originally intended destination.  But many today think that the expansion of the Abrahamic promises has negated and cancelled the original core promises to Israel, that the Christian church is now the chosen people and Israel has been tossed aside without a future.  Antisemites go a step further, seeing all non-Christian Jews as wicked and forever cursed.  They consider them worthy of disdain and even hatred.  

But this conflicts with the tension Paul maintains in Romans 11.  The ancient calling of the nation of Israel is irrevocable, says Paul.  Jews who reject Jesus may be the enemies of the gospel, but they are still beloved, being part of the ancient chosen nation commissioned by God’s promises.

Israel’s election was never based on their worthiness but on God’s character.  He keeps His Word. His character has not changed, and the unbelief of the Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness.  Paul called the Romans (and he calls us) to reject prejudice and hatred, and to remain humble in the presence of a God who can do the impossible and often does the unexpected.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/31/beware-contempt-for-god-s-beloved-enemies Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:58:25 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/31/beware-contempt-for-god-s-beloved-enemies

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.  (Romans 11.18)

A consistent problem in apostolic Christianity was cultural conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the church.  To address the problem, Paul in Romans 11 depicts Israel as a cultivated olive tree growing from a holy root (the promises to Abraham).  Jewish Christians, he says, are the natural branches (11.18,21,24).  Believing Gentiles are not; they are wild olive branches grafted onto the Jewish tree (11.17-19), partaking of the blessings from the ‘root’ (11.18)—the promises to Abraham.

Paul addresses the judgmentalism of the Jew against Gentiles elsewhere (e.g. Romans 14.2-3b cf. 2.17-29).  In Romans 11 he speaks to the arrogant Gentile Christians who despise Jewish Christians.  Gentiles, most likely in the majority in the Roman church, would find it easy to be critical of the strange holiness practices of Jewish Christians.  Those sensitivities would seem foreign.

Paul commands the Gentile Christians to keep the picture straight.  “YOU’RE the foreigner,” he says.  “Your Roman culture isn’t the foundation of Christianity; the promises to Abraham mediated to you through Israel and its Christ are.  Remember the grace you received and don’t demean your Jewish brothers and sisters!  The covenant promises are theirs!”

Paul anticipates the Gentile response:  “But the Jews were broken off, and we have taken their place!” (11.19).  One can almost hear the Romans protesting: “But the Jews rejected Jesus!  They framed him and had him crucified!  They persecute you wherever you go while we Gentiles embrace King Jesus with open arms!  Surely Christianity can no longer be a Jewish thing!  It has become a GENTILE thing, and the Jews must conform to OUR ways!”

Paul agrees that some branches were broken off because of unbelief and that the Gentiles found a place of blessing because of belief.  The proper response to that truth, Paul says, is not condemnation of or disdain for the Jews—not even unbelieving ones!—but humility and fear of God who keeps, not only His promises, but His threats (11.20-24).

If anyone had reason to despise unbelieving Jews, it was Paul.  But he urges the Gentile Christians at Rome to adopt a different perspective on them:  

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake.  But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.  For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11.28-29).

Unbelieving Jews who oppose the gospel, Paul says, are enemies of Christians.  The apostle makes no bones about it.  But then his reasoning takes this unexpected turn: “But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.”

Who is beloved?  “They” are—a group, a people—not merely isolated individuals.

Beloved by whom?  Who else but God?  And beloved by God, not because of good individual life choices; in fact, beloved despite a bad one: unbelief! They, as a people, are beloved by God in their unbelief!  

And God loves them, not for their own sake, but for the sake of their forefathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom God chose to give the original promise of blessing.

And they are loved by God for the sake of the patriarchs because “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.”  Paul applies this irrevocable call, not to Jewish believers, but to the unbelieving Jews.

If they, as a people, cut off from participation in their own covenant promises, are still loved by God in that state of unbelief, Gentile contempt for Jews is not just wrong—it is rebellion against God’s own posture.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/23/fateful-first-steps Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:35:01 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/23/fateful-first-steps

This series of blogs is not about opinions on Israeli politics.  Like citizens of any free nation, Israelis differ on Israeli politics, so it is no surprise if American opinions on the topic differ.  Nor is it about American foreign policy toward Israel or the wars in Gaza or Iran.  Political opinions are not antisemitism and not my concern.  

Intimations of hatred toward the Jewish people are my concern.

We all know about the mass shootings and death camps conducted by the Nazis.  A decisive step on the road to that catastrophe was the publication of Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925).  The propaganda developed from Hitler’s book generated suggestions that shaped how people thought about their Jewish neighbors—repeated themes left just ambiguous enough to grant plausible deniability.  In its early stages antisemitism operated more through implication than through verifiable declaration.

Because some Jews were bankers, it was insinuated that Jews secretly manipulated markets for their own gain.  Because some Jews owned newspapers, it was insinuated that Jews were secretly shaping public opinion to their own liking.  The Nazis falsely alleged that through these means the Jews were spreading cultural corruption: sloth, greed, and perverse sexual lusts (e.g. homosexuality, pedophilia, and prostitution).

Nazis claimed the Jews were a hidden force behind everything.  German culture was being degraded and corrupted through the influence of the Jews.  The poisoning was so subtle, they said, as to be unnoticeable – until it was too late.

How could the German people have been so easily fooled?  Couldn’t they just look at their poorer Jewish neighbors and see that they weren’t bankers or journalists wielding destructive influence?  This is where 19th century racial theory came into play.

Religious antagonism toward Jews had existed for centuries.  The 1800s saw the emergence of racial theories defining Jews as a biological race, and Jewish evils, the Nazis insisted, were biologically inherited race-wide.  Their subtle, cunning ways of corrupting the German-speaking peoples were not merely troublesome behaviors or individual personality traits, but the fixed racial heritage of all Jews.

Why am I saying this?  Because these Nazi-era tropes—intimations that demean and devalue Jews as individuals and as a people—the first steps on the road of antisemitism, are re-appearing today.  Of more concern to me as a pastor is that over the past year I’ve encountered Nazi-era tropes in our conservative Christian circles.  (Why that is the case may be a topic for a future blog.)

History has already gone down that road once to a repulsive destination.  Do we conservative Christians really want to take those first steps again?  Aren’t those first steps the best place for a pastor to issue the challenge of change?  C. S. Lewis said, “If you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.”  The sooner the change of heart, the shorter journey back to what is right.

This was not the essay I had planned to present this week.  But it’s an important clarification of the situation I am seeking to address.  I don’t personally know anyone advocating physical attacks against Jews, but I regularly encounter intimations that demean and devalue them as individuals and as a people.

One such intimation claims the Jews no longer truly exist as a people and, by extension, that the nation of Israel doesn’t need to exist.  I hope to begin explaining what I believe the Bible says about that in my next blog.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/18/a-burden-i-need-to-share Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:22:05 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/18/a-burden-i-need-to-share

I’ve apparently upset some people with my blogs on antisemitism (Sep 2025-Jan 2026).  Let me explain why I wrote those blogs.

I regularly receive newsletters from pro-family and pro-life pastors’ groups and last year there was a growing alarm among conservative pastors about the rise of antisemitism in our churches.  I thought they had to be overreacting.  Conservative American evangelicals were the last people I would have suspected of buying into ideas promoted by the antisemitism of the last two centuries.  I was wrong.

Just as these articles appeared, Christian parents started coming to me asking for help because their children were getting caught up in antisemitic propaganda online.  While researching the matter I encountered more Christians who were being drawn to these antisemitic ideas.  The ideas weren’t new; they were recycled from 20th century antisemitism.  I hope you can understand why I found this alarming.  I felt it was important to address the matter and felt the blog was a better place than the pulpit.  I hoped that an understanding of the history of antisemitism would clarify some things that might open doors for a more profitable discussion.

It didn’t.  It upset people.  I was sad to discover recently that a few quietly left the church because of what I wrote.

I am very concerned about what this issue is doing in the hearts and lives of believers.  I believe there is a lot of confusion and that what is happening at the grassroots is being amplified and complicated by an array of voices in conservative media and conservative politics that claim to be “anti-Israel but not antisemitic”.

I believe a group of policy-driven non-interventionist politicians (e.g., J. D. Vance, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie) are successfully maintaining the line between legitimate criticism of foreign policy and antisemitism.  They believe putting America first means the U.S. should avoid funding or fighting for foreign countries. Israel is not singled out; as a foreign nation, it is one of many with which the U.S. should avoid entanglement on principle.

Others, like journalist Tucker Carlson, claim to be in the “anti-Israel but not antisemitic” camp—and most often he is.  But at times Tucker flirts with the line between the two positions, and that can be confusing. For example, he sometimes uses language echoing familiar antisemitic tropes, suggesting hidden Israeli influence or disproportionate Israeli sway over the American government.  Taken together, these statements can make him sound more antisemitic than anti-Israel.

In a recent interview with Mike Huckabee, Ambassador to Israel, Carlson kept trying to get Huckabee to identify what it means to be a Jew.  What are the identifying marks of the Jewish people?  When Huckabee offered genetic, ethnic, religious, and covenantal grounds for Jewish peoplehood, Carlson rejected each in turn. The cumulative effect is denial that a Jewish people exists at all.  That’s antisemitism.

I’ve noted in the past Carlson’s habit of giving his platform to extremists like Nick Fuentes and Daryl Cooper without challenging their antisemitism.

These practices make it harder for people—especially young Christians—to distinguish between legitimate policy criticism and antisemitism.  It makes it easy for the minds of audiences to conflate the politicians, the line-blurring journalists, and the radical extremists. If they all seem to be saying the same thing, supporting the extremist is the same as supporting the politician.

I see this kind of confusion happening. Having a biblical framework in which to sort these difficult matters out is vital to a proper understanding of the Christian faith.  I continue to get questions about whether the modern state of Israel fits into the biblical story, and if so how, and if not, why not?  What I hope to present in upcoming blogs should help us all understand these difficult issues from a sound biblical perspective.

I wanted to be transparent about the pastoral concerns driving my choice of topic, laying to rest any distress before it arises.  We can have political disagreements among us, but we can’t espouse hating people merely for being Jewish.  History should have taught us that.  I am alarmed that it hasn’t.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/10/ram-lambs Tue, 10 Mar 2026 19:44:29 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/10/ram-lambs

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old.  You may take it from the sheep or from the goats…  Exodus 12.5

Dave Day, Jr. and his wife Kim have been members of our church for years.  They raise sheep.  Last Sunday I preached about the Passover lamb, and Dave caught up with me to share some insights with me about year-old male lambs.

He noted that shepherds don’t have much use for “ram lambs”.  (From this day forward, that is how I am translating the Hebrew phrase!)  Shepherds want ewes, not rams.  Ewes reproduce.  One ram can successfully mate with up to fifty ewes, so you don’t need many rams.  

And contrary to my depiction of them as cute and cuddly, Dave noted that a male yearling is almost fully mature and sizable.  One ram lamb will provide far more meat than a family could consume in one sitting.  

Also, “cute and cuddly” is not the best description of a yearling ram.  He’s more likely to be feisty at best and at the worst, aggressive.  Too many rams competing for mating privileges in a flock can stress the ewes and disrupt breeding.

Most ram lambs, Dave offered, go to the butcher at six months old.  Why keep them around?  They’re only good for one thing and you only need one for that.  They’re a needless drain on the food supply, better invested in the ewes, and the meat is better when the ram is young and tender.

In short, one might be more than happy to sacrifice a ram lamb.

In Hebrew, “one year old” is literally “son of a year”.  I looked up every occurrence of that phrase.  There were only two occasions requiring the personal sacrifice of a year-old lamb: Passover and every time your wife gave birth.  The Passover lamb had to be a male.  The post-partum sacrifice could be either male or female, but I’d be willing to bet people sooner chose to part with a ram lamb than a valuable ewe.

If you weren’t a shepherding family, every time you needed a ram lamb to sacrifice, you’d have to buy one from a family with flocks.  In Jesus’ day, when Jews from across the Roman Empire traveled to Jerusalem for Passover, many pilgrim families had to buy a Passover lamb in the Temple.  This was part of the market inside the Temple that enraged Jesus.

Those are the only personal sacrifices.  Institutional sacrifices in the Temple required even more year-old ram lambs.  Passover took place on Nisan 14th with every family sacrificing its own year-old lamb.  Two days later on the Feast of First Fruits another year-old ram lamb was sacrificed on the altar in the Temple—just one for the nation.  Fifty days later at Pentecost another seven ram lambs were sacrificed by the priests on behalf of the nation.

Those were the ram lambs offered at the special feasts.  The daily sacrifice required two one-year-old ram lambs without blemish, one offered in the morning, the other in the evening (Exodus 29.38 cf. Numbers 28)—730 ram lambs per year.  Two additional ram lambs were sacrificed in the same fashion each Sabbath – so 104 more per year (Numbers 28.9ff).  Finally, seven ram lambs were offered in the Temple to begin every month –84 more ram lambs a year (Numbers 28.11).  

That’s a grand total of 926 required year-old ram lambs sacrificed on the altar in the Temple every year!

Ram lambs were a shepherd’s dilemma.  Too many were a nuisance to the flock.  You could sell them young for slaughter or keep them for a year and sell them into the sacrificial system (or use them for yourself).  But that meant feeding otherwise useless rams for a year and having to go to the trouble of keeping them separated lest their fighting and butting create unwanted blemishes that would render them useless as sacrifices.

Reviewing this material reminded me again how much blood was constantly shed in this ancient culture.  I only reviewed ram lambs that were “sons of a year”.  There were younger ones sacrificed.  There were also older rams, both goats and sheep, as well as calves and oxen and turtledoves and pigeons.  

These sacrifices were constant and continual reminders of how difficult it is for us to come into His presence.  We don’t have to bring lambs to church anymore so it is easy to forget the enormity of the price paid by one precious, flawless, “firstborn” son whose sacrifice was sufficient beyond all the animal sacrifices ever offered together to open the way for us to the Father.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/03/bible-tips-all-does-not-always-mean-all Tue, 03 Mar 2026 18:09:13 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/03/03/bible-tips-all-does-not-always-mean-all

“I’ve tried everything and nothing works.”
“You NEVER listen to me!”
“There is nothing on TV tonight.”

Most of us have said (and have heard others say) things like this.  Words like “always/never” or “everyone/everything” or “all/none” are universal terms.  Yet in ordinary speech we use them in non-universal ways, and we expect others to understand that “all doesn’t always mean all”.

If I say “I always have to do everything myself!” or “I have nothing to wear!” you should understand that I am exaggerating to express frustration.  
If I say “nothing good ever happens after midnight” I am making a sweeping generalization to express a tendency, not an absolute law of the universe.  
If I say “all of Philadelphia was talking about the game”, it doesn’t mean every person but that the game was a topic of discussion among many people.
If I say “the customer is always right,” I’m speaking proverbially.  It is understood that there are exceptions.

Language works the same way in the Bible.  It records speech the way that people actually speak.

When Moses writes “all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth” (Genesis 41.57), he doesn’t mean the famine was global or that Mayans, Chinese, and aboriginal Australians paddled to Egypt in search of food.  By “all the earth” he means Egypt’s world, the lands within its circle of dealings.

Likewise, when Matthew says “all Judea and all the region about Jordan were going out to” John the Baptist, not every individual person in those regions went out.  Matthew means John’s teachings were popular and large crowds went to hear John and be baptized.

Jesus spoke the parable of the persistent widow who, when she didn’t get justice, kept pestering the judge to re-open her case (Luke 18.1-7) and Luke said its message was that we “ought always to pray and not lose heart” (18.1).  Luke’s point is persistence (the parable portrays that), not that every waking moment be only given to prayer.  Paul makes the same point:  “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5.17).

In Romans 7.18 Paul says “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing.”  Though he says “no good thing dwells…in me”, he limits his description by “that is, in my flesh”.  So he isn’t referring to his entire self;  but to “his flesh” – his fallen nature.  A few verses later Paul says “I delight in the law of God in my inner being” (Romans 7.22).  He distinguishes his “inner being” from his “flesh”.  Similarly, in Romans 3.12 Paul quotes Psalm 14.3:  “There is no one who does good, not even one.”  Yet Scripture elsewhere praises Noah, Job, and Joseph as righteous men.  The verse describes a general moral condition, not a commentary on every act of every individual in history.

Paul’s point is the intractability of fallen human nature.  Self-improvement programs won’t save you.  You can’t satisfy God’s demands for perfection by your own willpower.  You will always fall short.  But that doesn’t mean that people are incapable of doing any good in a civil or relational sense.  Jesus himself said that evil people know how to give good gifts (Luke 11.13).

Universals can be used universally.  To name a few examples:

“The LORD never sleeps or slumbers.”  (Psalm 121.4)
“I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (Matthew 28.20)
“Nothing is impossible with God.”  (Luke 1.37)
“No one comes to the Father except through me.”  (John 14.6)
“Every good and perfect gift is from above.”  (James 1.17)
“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.”  (1 John 1.5)

Scripture uses universal language the way all human language uses it—sometimes absolutely, sometimes rhetorically—and context tells us which.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/23/mobs-and-the-bible Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:41:53 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/23/mobs-and-the-bible

In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in “mob justice”.  A mob is a group that refuses examination and suppresses dissent.  A mob is persuaded less by evidence and more by outrage or fear.  The members of the group fuel each other emotionally and, by oppressing or ignoring dissent, develop moral certainty about their perspective.  That all members agree proves that they already know the truth.  Reason is unnecessary.

The Bible is not unfamiliar with mob activity.  Jezebel utilized a mob mentality to murder Naboth (1 Kings 21).  Paul and his co-workers were victims of mob violence in Ephesus (Acts 19.21ff) and Jesus was crucified under pressure from a mob (Matthew 27).  The common threads in these stories are false witness, emotional agitation, and pressure on authorities to yield to the mob rather than the truth.

James Madison (Federalist 10) warned about mobs (“factions”) as the most dangerous tendency inherent in democracy.  The Bible also warns us about mobs.  “You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit”  (Exodus 23.2-3).  

Mobs, driven by peer pressure and emotional reasoning, are the opposite of the wisdom encouraged by the Lord.  Wisdom takes its time, restrains emotions, and assesses the viability of evidence.

Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding,
but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly.  (Proverbs 14.29)

Do you see a man who is hasty in his words?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.  (Proverbs 29.20)

Better is the end of a thing than its beginning,
and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.
Be not quick in your spirit to become angry,
for anger lodges in the heart of fools.  (Ecclesiastes 7.8-9)

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.  (James 1.19-20)

Biblical wisdom is slow because it insists on painstaking precision.  Mobs determine who is the guilty party rather quickly based on an emotionally charged echo chamber.  Wisdom slows things down and asks hard questions about what is true.

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.  (Proverbs 18.17)

Accusations are at first persuasive.  The first to tell his story molds the narrative in his own favor.  He selects and omits points of his story and assigns moral roles to the characters (victims, villains, heroes) based on the emotional responses he hopes to generate.  

Wisdom listens but always says “There is more to the story”.  Wisdom “examines him”.  What seems obvious and right at first hearing may be biased, incomplete, and completely wrong.  Wisdom takes the time to review evidence and ask hard questions about the story and the storyteller(s).  Inconsistencies in the narrative raise doubts about the credibility of the story and its narrator and prevents reckless judgment.

Mobs form when a group uncritically accepts the first storyteller before the other side has a chance to speak.  The other side, when it does speak, has been pre-judged merely for disagreeing, and the mob reinforces its self-perception that it is just and dare not be questioned.  It is this that makes a mob difficult to counter.

Wisdom—taking the time to hear both sides before making a final judgment—has led to the practice of treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty by reasonable evidence.  The caution found in English common law reflects the principle of Proverbs 18.17.  As the renowned jurist William Blackstone said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer.”  

Wisdom distrusts initial impressions, emotional judgment, and peer pressure.  Wisdom insists on examining competing narratives and testing claims and places the burden of proof upon the accuser, not the accused.

Because of sin we all are vulnerable to being swept by emotion into partiality and unjust judgment.  Biblical wisdom requires a certain distrust of self and a disciplined focus on the evidence.  The Lord calls us to resist the pressure of the crowd, to slow down, to test claims, and to love clarity and justice more than agreement. Truth is not established by feelings or numbers but by careful examination.  

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/16/bass-life Mon, 16 Feb 2026 15:57:08 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/16/bass-life

I enjoy playing the bass.

In fact, the role I play—and enjoy playing—in life is similar to the role of the bass in the band.

The bass isn’t a showy solo instrument.
The bass is rarely gaudy or extravagant.  It’s rather plain.
It’s not out in front.  The bass is behind the scenes.

With the drums the bass forms the foundation of the music upon which everyone else – the guitars, the vocals, the keyboards – is building the song.

The bass line is usually simple.
Most importantly, it must be steady and consistent.
Sometimes its simplicity makes it boring.

Yet the consistency of the bass line holds the song together.

The bass keeps the other musicians together.
I feel like that’s the role I’m called to play in almost everything I do.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/09/loving-prodigals Mon, 09 Feb 2026 16:38:10 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/09/loving-prodigals

In praying for people one dislikes, I find it helpful to remember that one is joining in Christ’s prayer for them.  – C.S. Lewis

There is no indication that the father in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son approved of his son's reckless lifestyle or that he wasn't disappointed with his son's decisions. My guess is that the son knew his father wouldn't approve and would be disappointed. That's most likely why he "took a journey to a far country" to live his own way and not have to daily face his father's disapproval and disappointment.

When the son decided to return, he didn't come demanding his father's approval of all he had done. On the contrary, the son came to accept that his father's disapproval, disappointment, and possibly disowning were warranted.

The son came to disapprove of himself. "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you and am no longer worthy to be called your son." (Luke 15.21)

The father took his son back, not because he approved of his son's reckless lifestyle, but because he approved of the son's abandonment of that lifestyle and his return to the father's side.

The air that we breathe these days says that love equals,
not just acceptance, but positive affirmation or approval. 

If you don't approve, people say, then you must hate.

But this is patently false, even in our own experience.

Love can disapprove the beloved and continue to be love.
Love can be disappointed in the beloved and continue to be love.
Love can believe the beloved to be completely in the wrong and yet continue to be love.
Love can be angry with the beloved and continue to be love.
Love can rebuke and correct the beloved and continue to be love.
Love can even part ways with the beloved and yet continue to be love.

What love can't do is rejoice in a lie. Love rejoices with the truth.
Love can't say that evil is good, that wrongdoing is right.

But love can love the wrongdoer in his wrongdoing without accepting or approving the wrongdoing.
Otherwise we would be unable to love our enemies.

Or prodigal children.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/02/learning-to-learn Mon, 02 Feb 2026 18:24:11 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/02/02/learning-to-learn

Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire;
he breaks out against all sound judgment. (Proverbs 18.1)

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion.  (Proverbs 18.2)

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.  (Proverbs 18.17)

After receiving my master’s degree, I took classes toward a second master’s degree.  One of my professors was a young man, newly graduated with his doctorate.  I came to dislike him almost immediately.

He asked provocative questions in class, but no matter how you responded, he would find a minute technical fault with your answer.  It was as if he were trying to humiliate everyone in the class to show off his doctorate and how smart he was.

Every paper I wrote for him came back bleeding with red ink, criticizing finely nuanced logical errors and asking questions that challenged the legitimacy of my reasoning.  This professor never seemed satisfied, never said “nice work”, always seemed to be looking for microscopic flaws in my work.

To make matters worse, I couldn’t escape him.  He taught most of the courses in the specialty I was studying.

I couldn’t understand that this professor didn’t recognize my “brilliance”.  Instead, he seemed to shrug it off as “average”, and then he’d challenge everything I said and wrote.

Isn’t that what learning is supposed to do?

That brings me to the three proverbs from Proverbs 18 at the head of this blog.

I felt anger against this professor because I felt I was sufficient.  I didn’t want to hear his petty, finely nuanced logical arguments.  He wasn’t petty.  I was.  He was a precise thinker, and he wanted me to be a much more precise thinker.  That’s what education is about, isn’t it?  I got angry because, in truth, I wanted applause, not input.  That’s the lesson of Proverbs 18.1.

I wanted to wax eloquent in my papers and arguments and I wanted him to recognize my brilliance.  He didn’t criticize what I knew; he just understood that at this level of study, it wasn’t extraordinary.  It was expected.  He wanted to push me into further understanding – and I wasn’t taking pleasure in it.  I thought I was sufficient.  Proverbs 18.2 says this is characteristic of a fool.

I thought my arguments made perfect sense as presented.  I didn’t think they needed refining.  But we all make sense to ourselves, and our “obviously convincing arguments” aren’t always so immediately convincing to others.  Sometimes that’s unsettling, but it’s the way reality works.  That’s Proverbs 18.17.

I detested that professor while he was teaching me.  I found him petty.  But in hindsight, once I dropped my foolish defenses, I realized that he was rigorous.  I learned from this professor what real learning was.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/26/the-serpent-s-second-counsel-a-satire Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:39:45 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/26/the-serpent-s-second-counsel-a-satire

…I recently came across this fragment of text that appears to fit well between Genesis 3 and 4…

The LORD God drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

And Adam and his wife tilled the ground and ate bread by the sweat of their faces, as God had said.  And it came to pass, as Adam had gone away to reap the fields, that Eve was alone, grinding grain outside of the house.  And she was weeping.

And the serpent heard her weeping and said, "Why do you weep?"

And Eve said, "The earth in which we toil has been cursed and we eat bread by the sweat of our faces because of the evil that I have done.  Therefore, my face is fallen, and my heart is heavy, and I weep.” 

And the serpent said, "Your heart is heavy, not because you have done evil, but because you believe what is not true.  Did you die in the day that you ate of the fruit, as God had said?”

And the woman answered, “We did not die.”

And the serpent said, “It is as I said.  And were your eyes opened to know good and evil, as I myself said?”

And the woman said, “Our eyes were opened and we were ashamed of the evil that we had done.”

And the serpent said, “You were ashamed because the LORD God told you what was not true and you believed Him.  Open your eyes wider and grow wiser.  
You have done what was good.  The LORD God has done evil in making you ashamed.”

And the woman answered, “The LORD God is good and all that He has made is good.  He could not do evil against us.”

And the serpent said, “Who told you that the LORD God is good?
Has the LORD God blessed you or cursed you for seeking to be like Him?  You sought to be like God and He cast you away.  He cursed the earth and rewarded you with hardship and pain.
Has He not done evil rather than good?”

And again the serpent said, “Is this what a good father does?  
If his child seeks a fish will he give him a serpent?  If his child seeks an egg will he give him a scorpion?  
Does a good father cast his children away and close the door, rejoicing when they suffer, delighting that the hearts of his children are heavy every day and every night?  
Is this not how the LORD God rewarded you for seeking to be like Him?”

Then the serpent said, “The LORD God commands that which you cannot do and then accuses you of falling short of His glory.  He wounds you and says that you are wounding yourself.  
Do not long to return to blindness.  Your eyes are now open;  look to your own way.  Trust your own heart and lean on your own understanding.
Do not weep for the garden.  The paradise of the LORD God was your prison.  The tree of life is death.  You are now like God, knowing good and evil.  Believe that you are truly free—and live.”  

And Eve rose up to grind the grain and her hand was mighty upon the stone.  And she wept no more.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/20/prophets Tue, 20 Jan 2026 07:50:49 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/20/prophets

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!  (Matthew 23.37 // Luke 13.34)

Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?  (Acts 7.52)

The first quote is from Jesus, the second from Stephen, the first Christian martyr.  We read these words and simply recognize them as statements about the history of Israel.

But let’s think about Israel’s killing of the prophets.  Why did they kill them?  They killed the prophets because their message was unpopular.

But why was that message unpopular?

The prophets condemned many sins.  The Israelites were stealing, murdering, swearing oaths and then not keeping their word; they were willing to sell their own people into slavery – sometimes for the price of a pair of shoes; they were sexually promiscuous and all too willing to divorce; they were willing to take advantage of and impoverish the most helpless people in society – widows and orphans – to enrich themselves.

This is just a partial list of sins condemned by the prophets.

These condemnations were unpopular, not only because the people were enjoying sinning, but because despite their sins, the nation was usually doing well politically and economically.  Doesn’t that mean God is “blessing”?  If things are going well when you are sinning, the guy who tells you to change your behavior certainly looks to be the guy who wants to undo your experience of success and blessing!

Oddly enough, it’s these prophets that everyone hated and that kings put to death whose books, sermons, and messages ended up preserved and revered as God’s Word!

The prophets who were SO popular back then, we know today only as “the false prophets”.  Most of their names have been lost.  If they wrote anything it didn’t survive.  The only way we know of them is through the preserved writings of the unpopular and hated prophets.

How did the hated prophets become revered?

Hindsight.  

True prophets didn’t usually live long enough to say “I told you so.”  But when God’s judgment came as they predicted, eyes were opened and people remembered—when it was too late.

We live in a world that is at odds with God.  That’s why His ways often seem strange, and His prophets often seem to be saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/13/anointing-the-sick Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:38:06 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/13/anointing-the-sick

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.  And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.  And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.  Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.  (James 5.14-18)

I don’t think James is trying to persuade Christians to refuse medical treatment in this passage.  Rather, he calls on them not to neglect our spiritual side when we find ourselves in difficulty.

James is not here speaking of the sniffles, but of a seriously debilitating physical failure.  Yes—seek medical care!  But also “call for the elders of the church”.  When you’re a Christian, you’re not alone.  God has made you part of a large family!  You don’t need to suffer in isolation – call on the representatives of the church to join you and share in that suffering.  The elders aren’t running around peddling a “healing ministry”.  The one who is sick has the responsibility of calling them to come.  They must want this sort of connection and request it.  An entire church filing in and out of your hospital room can be overwhelming.  A few representative elders visiting can be a comfort and reminder that you are not alone while allowing for the rest necessary for restoration of health.

The elders are not celebrities, but representatives of the praying body of believers.  James illustrates using Elijah as an example of the power of prayer, not because of Elijah’s special powers, but because he was just “a man with a nature like ours”.  This isn’t about magical healing power;  it’s about God’s power and our dependence on Him.

Anointing with oil in the ancient world was both medicinal and symbolic.  The symbolism is the Spirit of God coming in response to prayer, bringing healing to the sick, both body and soul.  

If you make the request, our elders will pray over you and anoint you with oil.  It’s just olive oil and we usually apply it with our thumb in the form of a little cross on your forehead or your hand as we pray.

James says it is the prayer of faith, not some magic in the oil, that “will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up.”  Prayer is a request.  God will answer as He wishes, but He has told us to come to Him and express our wishes, to cast all our cares upon Him (1 Peter 5.7).

Finally, James points to the importance of giving attention to our whole being—our inner man as well as our body.  Notice that he doesn’t say that we are sick because we have sinned.  He simply says “if he has committed sins” and encourages the confession of sins and prayer for one another that we may be healed.  Debilitating sickness can be God’s way of getting our attention, clearing away the frivolous things in life and sobering our hearts to reflect on deeper things, on the frailty and weakness, not only of the body, but of the soul.  Often the healing of the soul is just as important or more so than the healing of the body.

If you have a severe illness, call the doctor.  But call the elders too.  We still practice what James prescribed, and many have found it a comfort and a blessing.  We’ve seen God do some wonderful things for souls who are suffering.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/05/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-15-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion Mon, 05 Jan 2026 17:52:47 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2026/01/05/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-15-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion

The piece of conspiracy propaganda that has carried perhaps the most weight throughout the 20th century is a booklet entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

First appearing in Russia in 1903, the origin of The Protocols is still something of a mystery, though it is widely believed to be the work of Tsar Nicholas’ secret police.  Tsar Nicholas’ authority (and European autocratic power in general) was in decline, challenged by the rise of democratic forms of government.  Exploiting the longstanding prejudices against the Jews, The Protocols claims that these challenges—liberalism, constitutionalism, socialism, and communism—are the outworking of a secret plan by elite Jewish masterminds to overthrow traditional authorities, namely the churches and the monarchies.  The book strongly implies that the Jews will seize global power under the headship of an almost antichrist-like Jewish leader.

The Protocols draws heavily on the Rothschild myth, alleging that a small group of powerful Jews secretly manipulates governments through the control of banking and public finance.

In the years surrounding WWI and the Russian revolution, monarchies were collapsing and more democratic forms of government were emerging across Europe.  The Protocols appeared to explain this upheaval as the work of a secret Jewish conspiracy.  Refugees fleeing the revolutionary violence in Russia distributed The Protocols in Europe where it was translated into French, German, English, Polish, and other languages, reinforcing an already virulent European antisemitism.

The propaganda soon reached the United States.  In the 1920s Henry Ford’s newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based on The Protocols, lending his prestige to the antisemitic hoax.  Ford later republished the articles as a book, The International Jew.  Although he eventually apologized under pressure, the damage was done, and the conspiracy spread through America.

Despite The Times of London exposing The Protocols as a forgery in 1921, Adolf Hitler continued to treat it as genuine, citing it in Mein Kampf.  Nazi Germany distributed millions of copies of The Protocols throughout its occupied territories and required its reading in schools to foment hatred of the Jews and prepare public opinion for “the Final Solution”.

The Protocols was also translated into Arabic in the 1920s and 1930s and adopted by some Arab nationalist and radical Islamist movements.  Even today, it is presented as historical fact in some radical Islamist educational and media materials.

Although few now reference the Rothschilds or cite The Protocols directly, the ideas behind both conspiracies have become part of the antisemitic worldview.  Claims that Jews secretly control banks, finances, the Federal Reserve, the United Nations, the media, or national governments echo these myths.  Such rhetoric remains common among radical Islamists and their supporters, as well as in the rhetoric of radical online figures like Nick Fuentes and Stew Peters.

I cannot sound the alarm loudly enough about the danger of this antisemitic hatred, and I am greatly concerned when I hear conservatives and evangelical Christians embracing such ideas.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/29/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-14-jewish-bankers-and-the-birth-of-modern-conspiracy-theories Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:33:20 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/29/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-14-jewish-bankers-and-the-birth-of-modern-conspiracy-theories

European antisemitism took a more secular turn in the 19th century when the Rothschild family rose to prominence in the banking world.  Nearly every modern antisemitic conspiracy theory about “organized Jewry” running Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the media, Hollywood, the American government, or the entire world is based on the famous Rothschild family of the 19th century.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany started out as a coin dealer who later expanded into rare coins and foreign exchange.  He became an expert in exchange rates between the many small German states and built relationships with German noble families, providing them with reliable banking services, loans, and currency exchange.

Mayer Rothschild spread his business through his five sons in Frankfurt, Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, creating the first international family banking network in Europe.  The Rothschilds specialized in government finance and financed the British war effort against Napoleon.  Theirs was not the only European banking house during the 1800s, but it was arguably one of the most powerful.

The Rothschild influence waned in the 20th century as Europe democratized, central banks replaced private royal financiers, American banking rose to prominence, and European wars disrupted the continental operations of the Rothschilds; for example, Hitler confiscated Rothschild assets in Frankfurt and Vienna.

It is an indisputable fact that there are many successful Jews in many fields of endeavor.  But there is no evidence that “organized Jewry” cooperates to destroy competitors in a bid to control global finance, manipulate wars, and operate shadow regimes to dominate governments.  That “organized” part of the conspiracy theory is always secret, built on antisemitic prejudice and folkloric suspicions of the Rothschilds of days gone by.

Hitler believed and propagated these lies.  So do many Islamic radicals.  And unfortunately these conspiracy theories are now gaining traction among conservatives, including conservative Christians.  I have encountered it among several younger believers who have bought into the antisemitic propaganda of influencers like Stew Peters, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens.  That is why I chose to write this series of blogs.

Nick Fuentes, for example, has said that “Hitler was really [expletive] cool” and that he’s “tired of pretending” otherwise, and that with regard to hating the Jews, “Hitler was right”.  Unfortunately, Fuentes’ credibility was recently boosted by an uncritical and friendly interview with conservative journalist, Tucker Carlson, in which Fuentes said he was “a fan” and “always an admirer” of Josef Stalin, the brutal authoritarian responsible for the deaths of millions of his own Russian people.  Carlson failed to challenge these statements, lending Fuentes an air of legitimacy.  When I have publicly noted that Carlson made a bad decision here, I have met resistance, sometimes quite hostile, for daring to question Tucker Carlson.

I find the praise of evil tyrants by Fuentes and his ilk more than just an alternate historical opinion.  It is a dangerous moral evil.  Given the rise of violence against Jews around the world over the past years, I trust that my congregation and my readers will understand my concern that anyone naming the name of Christ would ever think that antisemitism is warranted or acceptable.  It is a fiction and a lie that should NOT be tolerated by Christians—or by conservatives—at all.  

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/22/end-of-the-year-musings Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:52:38 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/22/end-of-the-year-musings

One of life’s little wonders is that during your sleep and at a very young age, you learned how not to fall out of your bed.

Julius Caesar thought elk have no knees.

A friend once posted a controversial point on Facebook.  I disagreed and responded at length, explaining my disagreement.   The friend responded; we volleyed a few times.  Finally, frustrated that I still wasn’t persuaded, my friend wrote, “I don’t think Facebook is a good venue to facilitate conversation.”

Too many conservative Christians are motivated more by their fears about the end times than by faith in and reverence for Jesus Christ.

For some, "sophistication" seems to mean holding views that have no connection to observable reality.

Once a person decides to see you in a negative light, facts to the contrary make no difference.

There comes a time when refuting arguments is a waste of time—a time to stop talking and act.  Your actions will demonstrate whose arguments were correct.

There are two ways to be humble.  One may descend—or fall.

Is it that you are being ill-used by others, or that you just don’t like the hard sacrifices you must make to truly love others?

A good line from “The Chosen”:  Jesus makes people what they aren’t.

In books and movies about time travel into the past, the time-traveler is warned that one small action may radically alter the future.  But as we live life in the real world, we rarely consider that one small action may radically alter the future.

We must acknowledge the wisdom—and the ignorance—of our ancestors.

One thing you really can’t understand when you’re young is just how little time you have.

I am the author of several unwritten best-sellers.

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/15/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-13-dreyfus-and-herzl Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:26:52 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/15/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-13-dreyfus-and-herzl

In the 19th century, each European nation was held together by common religion, land, ancestry, or history.  The Jews couldn’t blend in on any of these points.

European nations were Christian.  Jews rejected Christ and were viewed as spiritually blind, hard-hearted God-killers.  They couldn’t fit in.

As they had a different history and a different ancestry and as they remained a distinct community wherever they lived—largely because Christians forced them to—they didn’t blend into any nation, being seen as having deeper connection to foreign Jews than to Christians living on the same street.  They were believed to be more loyal to blood than to flag and nation.  They were, it was assumed, “cosmopolitan globalists” or “internationalists”—rootless nomads wandering the earth, foreign parasites living among the Europeans.

Kept out of guilds for centuries, Jews had been left with little choice but to pursue careers legally open to them:  banking, journalism, law, commerce, and academia.  They were thus characterized as snobby elitists who cared only about money and influence.

All these prejudices crystallized in the Dreyfus Affair (1894-1906).  In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish artillery captain in the French army, was accused of spying for the Germans.  What little evidence existed was flimsy and fabricated.  Dreyfus was accused because he was Jewish, and though that opinion was not unanimous, much of the populace was suspicious of Jews for the reasons noted above.  A prejudiced public trusted a prejudiced military court that tried, convicted, and imprisoned Dreyfus in French Guiana in 1895.

In 1896 the real spy, Major Ferdinand Esterhazy, was discovered.  The French army, not wishing to be embarrassed, engaged in a cover-up.  As news of the discovery of the real spy leaked out, the army retried Alfred Dreyfus in 1899 AND FOUND HIM GUILTY AGAIN, despite overwhelming proof of his innocence.  The court reduced his sentence to 10 years.

Finally, in 1906, Dreyfus was fully exonerated, reinstated in the French army, and promoted.

This was FRANCE, not Nazi Germany.  The Dreyfus Affair revealed how deeply distrust and hatred of the Jews were ingrained in the hearts, minds, and culture of the European nations.

The injustice of the affair convinced Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist who had covered the Dreyfus Affair, that Europe would never accept Jewish assimilation and persecution would always be their destiny.  In 1896 Herzl wrote “The Jewish State”, proposing a Jewish nation as the only solution to antisemitism.

The next year Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, and founded the World Zionist Organization.  Herzl then began lobbying European authorities to help him establish a Jewish homeland.  He focused his hopes on Palestine, but also looked at Uganda, Argentina, Cyprus, and other underpopulated areas in Africa and Asia.

Herzl died in 1904 without attaining his goal.  But his World Zionist Organization eventually connected with British politicians following through on British evangelicalism’s push for a restored Israelite nation.  

But that’s getting ahead of my story…

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/08/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-12-first-christian-steps-in-favor-of-the-jews Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:05:04 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/08/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-12-first-christian-steps-in-favor-of-the-jews

European Jewry of the 1800s found itself at a social disadvantage no matter which way it turned.  Every European nation favored, whether officially or unofficially, some branch of Christianity.  Jews who retained and practiced their cultural heritage faced suspicion and antisemitic prejudice and were often prevented by law or custom from fully participating in European society.  Full assimilation typically required conversion to Christianity.

While Jews faced these pressures in Europe, an unexpected theological development in British Christianity planted the seeds for an entirely different and previously unimagined future for European Jews.

In the 1830s, an Anglican pastor and student of Scripture, John Nelson Darby, tiring of the empty formalism of Protestantism, began meeting with believers independently of the established church.  His meetings began in Dublin, Ireland, and became formalized in Plymouth, England, and the group became known as “Plymouth Brethren”.  Darby disagreed with the traditional belief that the Church replaced Israel (supersessionism) and taught that God’s ancient covenants with Abraham and Israel were eternal and that therefore, if we are to believe the prophets, Israel will one day be restored as a nation.

Darby’s own missionary fervor spread his ideas to continental Europe.  In the mid-1800s, when evolutionary theory and biblical criticism radically altered liberal Christianity into what traditionalists deemed unbelief, conservative Protestants organized Bible and prophecy conferences to retain the biblical faith.  Darby’s views on Israel became influential in Britain (and eventually in America) through such conferences, influencing members of the British aristocracy, most notably Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

Lord Shaftesbury was an evangelical believer who came to believe that prophecy promised a restored nation of Israel.  Lord Shaftesbury’s brother-in-law, Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, served first as Britain’s foreign secretary and then twice as Prime Minister.  Lord Shaftesbury corresponded frequently with Lord Palmerston, encouraging him to push British support for the Jewish resettlement of Palestine. 

In 1838, Lord Palmerston established a British vice-consulate in Jerusalem "which was controlled by the Ottomans".  This vice-consulate provided formal legal protection for British subjects in the Ottoman Empire and encouraged Jewish resettlement of Palestine.  The British could monitor local politics in Jerusalem, legally protect Jewish immigrants, and influence the Ottomans with respect to trade, law, and security.

Though Palmerston never envisioned a sovereign Jewish state–his motivation was political strategy, not religious conviction–this first step of British intervention in Palestine helped normalize the idea of Jews returning to their homeland.  The first Jewish agricultural colony, Mikveh Israel, was established in Palestine in 1870.

Palmerston’s small political successes fed and spread the evangelical teaching about the restoration of national Israel in both Britain and America.  Conservative Christians committed themselves to the re-establishment of a restored Jewish state while at the same time seeking to convert Jews to Christ.

In the next blog, we’ll step into the complicated history of the 20th century regarding antisemitism and the nation of Israel…

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/01/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-11-medieval-moneylenders-and-the-blood-libel Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:40:11 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/12/01/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-11-medieval-moneylenders-and-the-blood-libel

Early Christians believed that the Jews had fallen out of favor with God for the crucifixion (“God-killers”) and were therefore driven from their homeland by the Romans (c. AD 135) and dispersed through the nations of the world.  Christians believed that their own religion superseded Judaism. After its legalization, Christianity spread through medieval Christendom, seeming to confirm all those ideas.  This set the stage for the forging of a brutally hostile Christian antisemitism in the late Middle Ages.

Jews lived in small communities, dependent upon each other to maintain their religious and cultural traditions.  Jews were often barred from land ownership, membership in trades and guilds, and as church law made Christian-to-Christian moneylending at interest a sin (e.g. Exodus 22.25), Jews were often pushed into the role of moneylending since they could charge interest.  Jews who occupied this niche were often invited into Christian kingdoms and granted protections by kings who needed access to credit to purchase land, trade, and make war.

But when the Christian nobles ended up owing large sums to Jews, the resentful borrowers painted the “filthy God-killing” lenders as money-grubbing exploiters preying upon “good Christian people”.  Kings could “punish the evil” by cancelling debts, expelling the “wicked Jews”, and seizing Jewish assets.  This happened repeatedly throughout medieval Europe.

These resentments and suspicions took a sinister turn in the late 1100s.  Without evidence and without trial, Christians accused Jews of being responsible for every social evil.  If a Christian went missing, rumors would spread that Jews had kidnapped and murdered them and either eaten them or used their blood in a secret religious ritual.  This came to be called “the blood libel”.  Later, stories circulated about Jews stealing communion bread (which Christians believed was the body of Christ) and stabbing it, thus re-enacting the crucifixion.  When the Black Death spread across Europe (1348-1351) one of the prevailing theories was that Jews were poisoning wells to kill Christians.

In some of these cases Christians would arrest a random Jew and torture him into confessing – and then they would execute him.  In others, mobs would rush upon a Jewish community and slaughter them.  Sometimes Jewish men would be murdered, and Jewish women and children would be forced to convert.  At times Jewish communities would choose suicide or martyrdom over forced conversion.

These insidious rumors became myths that led to a general suspicion of Jews throughout Europe.  These suspicions persisted into the modern era and provided fuel for the widespread antisemitism of the 19th and 20th centuries.

More in the next blog…

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/25/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-10-the-god-killers Tue, 25 Nov 2025 10:08:44 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/25/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-10-the-god-killers

[Pilate] took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”  And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”  (Matthew 27.24-25)

Matthew here portrays the Jewish crowd accepting responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, and Peter (Acts 2.22-23; 3.13-15; 4.10), Stephen (Acts 7.52) and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2.14-15) all blame the Jews for Jesus’ death.

The Jewish mob cried out in the heat of the moment, never thinking there would be serious consequences for crucifying a rabbi from the backwoods of Galilee.  He would be crucified as so many other troublemakers had been and life would go on.

But Jesus had predicted that the entire nation would experience the wrath of God for rejecting Him:  the Temple would be destroyed (AD 70), the Jewish state dismantled (AD 136), and the Jews dispersed from their ancient land to wander among the nations without a land of their own (e.g. Luke 21.24).

In the last half of the second century, Melito, bishop of Sardis, preached an Easter sermon (105 paragraphs long) in which he blamed the Jews for deicide (i.e. killing God).  Melito says explicitly in paragraph 96:

The One who hung the earth in space, is Himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is Himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is Himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.  (Melito, Peri Pascha, paragraph 96)

When Melito preached this, Christianity, still illegal, had little direct impact on Roman political practice.  But as Christianity gained favor, being legally recognized by Emperor Constantine (AD 325) and then being made the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Theodosius I (AD 380), Christians braided together the strands I have mentioned in this blog series to generate a powerful brand of antisemitism.

A virulent example of this Christian antisemitism was Martin Luther’s pamphlet “On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543).  Luther’s hatred of the Jews as Christ-killers has been cited by some scholars as a forerunner of the German antisemitism of Hitler and the Nazis.

The rationale of this antisemitism was simple:  since God judged the Jews for being God-killers (or Christ-killers), Christians should be suspicious of Jews and have a right to mistreat them.

This antisemitic rationale is flawed at two key points.  First, although the Jewish leadership and the mob took responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus and brought divine judgment on the Jewish state, Scripture never says, nor does it logically follow, that every Jewish individual through the ages bears that responsibility or is individually cursed by God.  “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18.20).

Second, God’s judgment upon a nation doesn’t give others a right to commit evil against that nation.  God raised up both Assyria (Isaiah 10.1-6) and Babylon (Jeremiah 25.8-14) to judge Israel and Judah for their sins.  But then God turned around and judged those nations for the arrogance and cruelty with which they carried out those judgments (Assyria in Isaiah 10.7-19 and the entire book of Nahum;  Babylon in Jeremiah 50.29-51.24 and the entire book of Habakkuk).  

God also warned His own people several times that being the instrument of God’s judgment doesn’t exempt YOU from judgment for your own bad behavior (e.g. Hosea 2;  Amos 2).

Despite these two truths, for centuries European Christians, using this rationale and believing they were doing nothing wrong, demonized, ostracized, and cruelly mistreated the wandering Jews.  

This religious antisemitism served as the foundation of the more secularized European antisemitism of the 19th and 20th centuries.  More on that in the next blog…

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/19/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-9-the-church-replaces-cursed-israel Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:58:25 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/19/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-9-the-church-replaces-cursed-israel

The first Christians were Jews, but it didn’t take long for the gospel to be accepted by Samaritans (Acts 8) and then Gentiles, first through Peter (Acts 10) and then Paul (Acts 13-28).  Though there appears to be a Jewish minority in most churches, the influx of Gentiles creates problems in cultural and religious practice.  Must Gentile Christians be circumcised?  Observe the Sabbath?  Eat kosher food?  Observe Jewish feasts?

In Acts and Paul’s epistles we can see these problems being addressed, and the practical upshot is that there is a drift away from traditional Jewish practice, and this drift (as we noted in the blog about Sabbath to Sunday) distanced the church from its Jewish roots, transforming Christianity into a whole new religion.

How, then, were Christians to view Jews and Judaism?

The fall of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, fulfilling Jesus’ predictions (e.g. Matthew 22.7, 24.1-2; Luke 19.41-44) and then the crushing of the final Jewish revolt under Bar Kokhba (AD 132-136) destroyed Judea as a recognizable Jewish political entity and, from a Christian perspective, confirmed God’s judgment against the nation of Judea.  These events also were taken to confirm the replacement of the Old Covenant of Moses (the Law) with the New Covenant of Jesus and the replacement of Israel and the Jews with the Church and the Christians as God’s “holy nation” (e.g. 1 Peter 2.9-10 cf. Matthew 21.43).  Theologians call this replacement theology or “supersessionism” (i.e. the new supersedes the old).

This replacement theology is found in the earliest Christian writings after the apostles.  The first seventeen chapters of the Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime between AD 70-132, reinterpret Old Testament rituals as shadows and pictures that pointed to and were overtaken by the greater New Testament truths.

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), a pagan philosopher who converted to Christ around AD 130 wrote Dialogue with Trypho, recounting his debate with Trypho, a learned Jew.  The Dialogue is the longest and most detailed early Christian engagement with Judaism and explains how Christianity has superseded Judaism.

If Christianity superseded Judaism and the destruction of the Jewish state was God’s judgment, it was not a large step for Christians to believe that the Jews were judged and cursed for crucifying Jesus – for killing God – an idea that became a driving force in Christian antisemitism.

More on that in the next blog…

]]> https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/11/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-8-from-sabbath-to-lord-s-day Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:28:11 +0000 https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/blog/2025/11/11/the-bible-israel-and-antisemitism-part-8-from-sabbath-to-lord-s-day

Judaism was a legally accepted religion in the Roman Empire and Christianity began as a sect within it.  After the death of the apostles the growing separation between the two faiths opened the door for the birth of an antisemitic streak in Christianity.

The gradual shift of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday (the Lord’s Day) was a key division between the two faiths.  The resurrection occurred on “the first day of the week” (Matthew 28.1;  Mark 16.2;  Luke 24.1;  John 20.1).  John’s gospel records that the disciples were gathered “the first day of the week” when Jesus appeared to them (20.19) and then “eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them”, indicating a regular weekly cycle of the disciples gathering.  Years later Christians continued to gather on the first day of the week (Acts 20.7;  1 Corinthians 16.2) and John explicitly makes reference to “the Lord’s Day” as a day of the week (Revelation 1.10).

The church fathers after the apostles mentioned Christian worship on the Lord’s Day.  The earliest is in a book called “The Didache” (or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), written around AD 100.

“On the Lord’s own day, gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanks, having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”  (Didache 14.1)

The Epistle of Barnabas, written around the same time, contrasts the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s Day, alluding to God’s condemnation of the Sabbaths in Isaiah 1.13-14 and depicting Christianity as the worship on “the eighth day”, symbolizing the new creation.

“Further, He [God] says to them [the Jews], ‘Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that which I have made, in which, having brought all things to rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day, that is, the beginning of another world.’  Wherefore, also, we [Christians] keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”  (Epistle of Barnabas 15.8-9)

Finally, Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch in Syria (where Peter and Paul had both spent time) who was martyred around AD 107 wrote aggressively about distinguishing Christianity and Judaism, the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death…”  (Epistle to the Magnesians 9)

“Therefore, having become His [Jesus’] disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity…Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven [i.e. Judaism], and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ…It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God… It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.” (Epistle to the Magnesians 10)

Characterizing Judaism as “the evil, the old, the sour leaven” was unlikely to endear Christianity to Jews!  The tone reflects Christianity’s growing sense of superiority over Judaism, an expression of what is called “supersessionism” (aka “replacement theology”), a second factor in the growing division between the two faiths that led to antisemitism.

More on that in the next blog…

]]>