I’ve been hearing the same thing from almost every commentator, even conservative commentators who do not plan to vote for Barak Obama: “What a proud time in our American history. An African-American has been nominated from a major party.”

But this same major party did everything they could to pillage the reputation of Clarence Thomas, the second black Supreme Court justice. His color wasn’t history making. No sir! Instead, he was called an Uncle Tom for being conservative and lies were made up about him, charges that were disproved again and again but it made no difference to the party of human rights. And how much did we hear about historical milestones when George Bush appointed Colin Powell the first African-American Secretary of State? Impossible! Absolutely impossible that a Republican could believe in such equality, especially a dictator like George Bush! Better to just pretend that one never happened.  And then, there is Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman Secretary of State. Nope. None of that counts! Conservative blacks in positions of leadership could never be viewed as advancing the cause because, well, because they're conservative, silly.

The truth is, our country held a civil war to end slavery well over 100 years ago and discrimination has been against the law since the mid sixties. Individual racists still exist and they always will in any society but we Americans have NOT been a racist country for quite some time. One might think we would have celebrated long ago.

I am reminded of the night Halle Berry won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2002. She stopped the music, saying we had waited over one hundred years and therefore, she would take as long with her acceptance speech as she wished. I guess she forgot that Sidney Poitier won the Academy Award for Best Actor for  Lilies of the Field in 1963 and that Denzel Washington won Best Supporting Actor for Glory in 1989, long before he won again, (this time, Best Actor) for Training Day in 2001, the year before Hallie won hers.  Not to mention the numerous times African-Americans were nominated. In fact, Morgan Freeman was nominated for Driving Miss Daisy, the same year Washington won for Glory. Oh wait! Those were only men. OK. Whoopee Goldberg won Best Supporting Actress for Ghost in 1990, not that this was all that new or novel of an idea either. As far back as 1939, when the Oscars hadn’t even been around for that long, Hattie McDaniel won Best Supporting Actress for Gone With the Wind.  I guess "Supporting Actress" doesn't mean a whole lot. That's why it was special when Hallie won "Best Actress" period! Oh sure, two black men had already won "Best Actor" but now it was a woman. So what happens when a black actress wins again? Will it once more be history making, since Halle Berry is half white and therefore, she doesn’t really count all that much? Come to think of it, Obama is half white too. Are we going to be going through all of this again in a few years?

I can think of many African-Americans who would have made good Presidents, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas, to name two.  But to feel good about a nominee simply because he is black, without any concern over what the man stands for?  Oh, this is a history making time for our nation, all right, but history may not distinguish us quite the way we hope.

Some are voting for Obama merely because of race reasons. They make no bones about it. They don’t apologize for it. In fact, they revel in it. Others are voting for the man because he is a great orator. Still others are voting for him because they’ve heard the word, change so many times, they figure it must mean something.

Few know what the man actually stands for and that does not speak very highly for their intelligence. Others do know what the man stands for and that does not speak very highly for their morality. Putting aside his view of Socialism and gay marriage (We already knew he was the most liberal Senator in Washington, so we’ll just give him those) he also believes in Judicial Oligarchy, as he has praised the recent decision of the California Supreme Court that overturned the will of the people. And he’s in favor of partial birth abortion, which cannot even be called abortion in any honest sense of the word.  A full term baby is taken partially out of the womb, only to have its brains drilled out. I know, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in 1973. It ruled that an unborn baby was the property of the mother to keep or dispose of, at her own whim. Well, the Supreme Court also gave us a similar decision in 1857, in which African-Americans were deemed the property of their master, to be spared or killed at the master’s whim. I would think that in the euphoria of celebrating how far we’ve come as a nation, Barak Obama would be concerned about a genocide carried out with the same terms that once enslaved and murdered his own people.

A man nominated because of naivety or stupidity is nothing to brag about. Those who understand his morals have even more to answer for.

I love America. I think it’s the best country in the world and probably the least racist country in the world. But this nomination is nothing to be proud of. Instead, we should do some serious reflection.

I love it! I just love it! If we were living in the Star Trek universe, we might call this a disruption in the space/time continuum or an even more dangerous situation, matter mixing with anti-matter and annihilating the entire universe as a result.

I’m talking about the Politically Correct universe. The multitude of causes (which always contradicted themselves anyway) are starting to meet up and our liberal friends just aren’t sure what to do with themselves.

Under new legislation in certain states, men are now allowed to go into ladies’ locker rooms or restrooms. This is out of respect for gays and trans-genders. Unfortunately, it sets back the feminist cause, with its many and varied definitions of sexual harassment, (some of which they kind of make up as they go) including the charge that men are guilty of harassment if they even look at women on the beach. So how will they go after Kyle the Happy Teen, who now has a constitutional right to feast his eyes in the gym locker right after his girlfriend’s volleyball game?

Not that this is the first time the gay activists have clashed with the feminists. A number or years ago, Time Magazine put out an article about how we may be able to someday determine ahead of time if a baby is going to be born gay or straight. The fear was that parents might abort a potentially homosexual offspring. One of the gay spokesmen responded by saying, “Although we must always support a woman’s right to choose, I am also concerned about the mass genocide of gay people.”

What a priceless comment! So careful to tow the line and allow a woman to have an abortion. Only one question: If she really isn’t taking a life, then what exactly does he mean when he calls it genocide?  Maybe it’s genocide only if she aborts a gay baby. Yes, that must be it. Riddle solved.

And then there’s our current Democratic nomination: Those who want Hillary are being accused of racism by fellow Democrats for not wanting a black president. Those who want Obama are accused of sexism for not wanting a woman president. I guess the approach of actually evaluating these people based upon their ideas, rather than color/gender, is something so old fashioned and backwoods, the Politically Correct no longer remember how to do it.

And liberal Jews who want to support Obama as the man who will end all racism have to listen to the anti-Semetic tirades of his friend and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.  The man certainly sounds racist, but then we cannot call black people racist because only white people have the power. That’s another new definition that the liberals dream up as they go. Wright is not a racist because he does not have power but then, he is independently wealthy and many white people aren’t…Gee.. this is getting confusing.

And the hits just keep on coming: California should be given back to Mexico because it was their land first but the Holy Land should not have been given to the Jews even though it was their land first.

George Bush is accused of stealing the 2000 election by going to the US Supreme Court but Al Gore was perfectly within his rights to start the whole process of litigation by going to the Florida Supreme Court. Never mind: Every vote needs to be counted even though we are not counting every vote for Hillary from Michigan and Florida and even though we are counting none of the votes in California when four judges overturn a law about marriage put into force by sixty percent of the people.

Oh yes. And liberals believe in choice when a woman wants to kill a baby but they do not believe in choice when it comes to school vouchers or when it comes to people deciding for themselves what they want to hear on the radio.

Oh well.  Maybe our country will get so sick to its stomach and full of this nonsense, she’ll throw up and be able to eat from the tree of wisdom once again.

Just a thought.

Even though atheists like to make a loud noise, most people in our country still believe in God. But there’s a different discussion about God that is not held frequently enough. Can God talk to people?  I submit that most people who believe in some kind of God, never expect this God to actually communicate. Whenever prominent ministers claim God spoke to them, they are immediately renounced as loons. Even some of my favorite conservative radio talk show hosts, who defend the existance of God and the morality of the Bible, have been known to say things like, “If somebody claimed they actually heard God speak to them out of the sky, that would be rather odd.”

And yet, the very Bible they defend is full of accounts that portray God doing just exactly that! He spoke out of the sky to everyone who witnessed the baptism of Jesus. He spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. He spoke to Paul in prison. We call the Bible the word of God because God spoke.

Before I continue; I want to be fair and admit that many popular ministers are loons. When they claim they heard from God or got a vision from God, they should consider the possibility that it may have just been bad pizza from the night before.

But we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, the mentally unstable will claim to hear from God, but let me address the mentally stable for a moment:  Please enlighten me. What exactly is inherently illogical about the idea of a God who talks? Humans talk. Are we capable of doing something God cannot do? And if God is capable of talking, why would God remain silent?

The Bible lists a variety of methods through which God communicates.  He can speak audibly (as in the cases listed above) He can also use dreams and visions. He can send prophets or angels.  But His primary method of communication today, (the one Jesus Himself embraced as most ideal), is communication from His Holy Spirit.

I used to say to myself, “Wouldn’t it have been wonderful to be one of Jesus’ original 12 disciples? To be able to follow him around and listen to him teach for three years? Well, believe it, or not, Jesus told his disciples that this was not ideal. After He left the world and after the Holy Spirit came to take His place, they would be experiencing a much better and closer relationship with God. God’s Spirit would indwell them and this same sprit would run His thoughts through their minds (John 16). Admittedly, this  is not as flashy as lightening type special effects. In fact, it is so subtle and personal, we often take it for granted. We get used to the gentle voice of God to the point where it is only a dull murmur in the background to be ignored.

I remember once while praying to God back in college I got very fiesty:  “God, how come you never speak to me? You spoke to Moses! You spoke to Abraham!  Why won’t you speak to me?”

I went on and on, whining like a little kid. Suddenly my thoughts changed and I realized that the Spirit within was speaking. “I’d be happy to talk to you if you would shut up once in a while and allow me to get a word in edgewise.”

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

These last few years, I have made an attempt to correct some of the horrible historical revision about Israel through lectures, radio guests, radio monologues and blogs.  Needless to say, I have received some interesting responses by Internet, over the air, and in person. The responses absolutely depress me because they come from friendly, sincere, but extremely ignorant, misled, brainwashed people. If I were arguing against some evil person who knew the truth but was simply lying through his teeth, I could stomach it more easily.

I hope you will read some of my back blogs; especially my 12 part series entitled The Truth About Israel and Palestine. In the meantime, I have paraphrased some of the most common quotables that have come my way in recent months and I will list them alongside their necessary responses.  Most of these are the kinds of fun statements you would hear around the water cooler at work or at some cocktail party from your many friends who repeat what sounds popular and Politically Correct.  On the other hand, some of the comments have come from teachers and professional debaters, people in a position of influence, who should seriously consider taking a sabbatical and acquainting themselves with the actual facts before talking about a subject they know nothing about, especially when they have such an opportunity to change minds. I do not believe any of them will do this, but for those of you who are open to hearing a different perspective, I offer today’s piece.

I’ll begin with the worst comment of all:  “It was the original purpose of Zionism to do ethnic cleansing.” Definition of Zionist: One who believes the Jews have a right to their own national homeland and that this homeland is the area today designated, Israel.

Supposedly those with such a belief also believe in ethnic cleansing.

That it the most utter nonsense and propaganda, mere bumpkin for the masses but the masses are eating it up with a spoon. Oh sure, you can always find some nutcase Zionist who may have said something to that effect. But if we want to talk about a volatile issue like this, we need to look at what actually happened and we need to view the situation in general, without getting sidetracked by the fact that one can always find an exception to the rule.

When the United Nations agreed to partition Palestine into two states, a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews agreed and the Arabs did not. That is the bottom line and this fact is undisputed.  The Arabs swore publicly that they would murder every single Jewish man, woman and child. (See quotes from such Arab leaders in my 12 part series)  On the other hand, the 160,000 Arabs, who chose to stay in Israel and live in peace, were made Israeli citizens. They and their children remain in Israel to this day where they receive more rights than any Arab in any Arab country. So where exactly is this ethnic cleansing?

Comment Two: “The problem Arabs have with Israel is her illegal occupation of Palestine.”

No, the problem Arab nations have with Israel is that they do not want a Jewish state in Muslim lands. The serve a scripture that commands them to convert or kill any non-Muslim (Surah 9).

If you want to use the United Nations as a barometer of what is legal and what is not, the UN legally gave that land to Israel. This was after the League of Nations had promised much more to Israel and 75 percent of it was sold behind their backs to the Arabs, creating the state of Jordan. Look, I am no lover of the UN and I do not always accept their legal decisions as ethical decisions, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot use the UN when it suits you (such as criticizing the war in Iraq) and ignore it when it does not suit you. According to the UN, Israel exists legally and according to the former League of Nations; the land taken away from the Jews was taken illegally.

The land Israel captured in 1967 was in response to a decision on the part of her neighbors to try to annihilate her once again and most of that land had been promised to her under the Balfaur Declaration (League of Nations mandate) anyway.

Be that as it may, recently, Israel left Gaza and supposedly this was going to put us on a “roadmap to peace.” What are the Palestinians doing as a token of gratitude?  They are routinely firing missiles into Israel! They also teach their children in kindergarten classes and on TV that Jews are devils to be hated. Don’t tell me that isn’t true. I’ve seen it myself. While we’re on the subject, Israel does not show up on Palestinian maps and if you ask Palestinians if the entire conflict would be over should they become a separate state, they will then talk about “the right of return.” Nothing, and I mean NOTHING Israel does will ever be enough and if you think otherwise, you are naïve. You are also easy, because the Arabs decided years ago that since they could not defeat Israel militarily, they would launch a PR campaign instead. It has worked. 

Comment Three: “Israel struck first in the Six Day war.”

Yes, she did, but only after President Nasser of Egypt said his men were all eager to kill every single Jew. What part of the word “kill” do you not understand? Let us not talk about half the situation without viewing the entire pie.

Comment Four: “True, Israel has been the victim of terrorist attacks, but she retaliates with terrorism of her own.”

Some of the people who make such comments admit to being pacifists who do not believe that any kind of violent response is ever warranted. This is often the problem in a conversation like this. Two parties are using the same terminology, terrorism, but operating with two completely different moral compasses. Some believe that any violence at all is of equal culpability with other violence. Others see violence as a tool. I can use a hammer to drive nails or I can use a hammer to hit someone on the head. But the hammer is neutral. Violence is also a tool. It can be used for evil or it can be used to suppress evil. Pacifism always sounds good and I should say that I have met pacifists whom I respect, but it is a philosophy that only works under a guarantee that every human heart sooner or later will turn pacifist itself as a result of being influenced by love.  Some pacifists will admit that this may never happen and will allow for “special exceptions” such as the need for police protection in our societies. But aren’t the police, at times, forced to use violence? And if police can use violence, then why not soldiers? Even the famous pacifist, Mahatma Gandhi’s peaceful revolt against England worked because the English people had a sense of decency about them. Their soldiers could not beat pacifist demonstrators without feeling pangs of conscience. But what Gandhi did with England would not have worked against the Nazis. You see, there is a place for pacifism but it is often misplaced. We cannot adopt a “one size fits all” approach to world affairs. Different ideologies respond to different methods. Any real terrorism expert tells us that we simply cannot make deals with terrorists. They must be resisted at all costs; otherwise we are like the battered wife who enables her husband by refusing to press charges. When the Germans and other citizens of Europe, stood by, passively refusing to lift a finger against Hitler, were they not enabling the murder of literally millions of people?  Violence for selfish gain and violence with the motive to help others is not one and the same thing. Dietrich Bonohoffer discovered this. At first, he opposed Hitler through passive resistance, but in time, he could no longer justify that kind of pacifism and he participated in plots to destroy Hitler.

Comment Five: “Even some of the Israelis feel they have been mistreating the Palestinians.”

There are many such liberal Israelis. Their views carry as much weight with me as the liberals in America who put down this country. Hearing that somebody disagrees with me only means that somebody disagrees with me. It is not a factual reason to change my position. It is a sad part of our heritage that many of my fellow Jews have often been their own worst enemy, so this is nothing new.

Comment Six: “Most of the world dislikes Israel. Doesn’t that tell you something?”

It tells me a lot about human nature but it tells me absolutely nothing at all about Israel. Throughout history, the majority has been in the wrong more often than the right. There was a time when most of the world believed in slavery. Should the abolitionists not have fought their battles because they started out in the minority?

OK. The debate will continue, of course, but this is all for now. Feel free to call my radio program, should you wish to challenge any of these ideas: I will not respond to challenges over the Internet. Such time will instead be put into new blogs.

One of the most interesting and conclusive prophecies about Jesus Christ comes to us from the prophet, Daniel. A prisoner of the Babylonians first, and then the Persians, when they conquered Babylon, Daniel found himself in the service of several kings. During this time, he received a variety of visions from God including one on the future of his people, the Jews.

Daniel 9:24-27

From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler comes, there will be seven "sevens" and sixty two "sevens" (69 sevens) It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench but in times of trouble.  After the sixty-two sevens (or after the 69 weeks of years) the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.  The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end will come like a flood.  War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.  He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of that seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.  And one who causes desolation will place abominations on a wing of the temple until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. 

Predictions;

1) The Jews will be granted permission to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Artaxerxes 444 BC).

2) 483 years after the decree, (69 x 7) the Christ will make Himself known to Israel (33 AD).

3) A Prediction that the Christ will be killed or "cut off." (See Isaiah 53:8 which clearly defines the phrase, “cut off.”)

4) A prediction that the city of Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed   (70 AD Prince Titus and the Roman legion).

5) A prediction of a postponed period of time, the last "seven" in which the Beast, or son of perdition, (Antichrist) will invade a future temple for 3 1/2 years (II Thess. 2:3-4 Rev. 13, Matt 24, Daniel 11:31, 12:11).

Definitions:

1) A week or "seven" in Hebrew thought refers to any period of seven, for instance, seven days, seven months or possibly seven years.  The word Shebua was used earlier by Daniel in 10:2-3 where the phrase reads "three units of seven days."  Daniel evidently added the word days to let his readers know which type of seven he was referring to and we would assume that the word days might have been added in Chapter 9 if that is what Daniel meant.  Most likely, he assumed that periods of seven years were understood by his readers.  If this prophecy is worked out with weeks of days, weeks of months or even weeks of weeks, it is a false, unfulfilled prophecy.  But, with weeks of years, it works out by an amazing coincidence, to the very day Jesus rode into Jerusalem!  This fact, along with the acceptable possibility of the reference to years settles the question.

2) Years:

The years that Daniel referred to were Hebrew years, 12 months of 30 days each.

1)This was the length in Gen. 7:11, 8:3-4

2) John, in the New Testament, speaking of the last half of the last week makes use of  the figure 1,260 days (Rev. 12:6)> This phrase is also found in 11:2-3 along with the term 42 months. So the forty -two months equal 1,260 days which equals the half week in Dan. 9:27 and the "time, times and a half time" in Daniel 12:7 which we already established as being a cross reference of the abomination of desolation.

3) Some of the history of Egypt, India, Assyria, Babylon and Greece use this type of calendar (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 edition, Calendar, (IV III V VI VIII)

3) Decree:  The only decree which works out is one which is acceptable for it certainly gave the Jews permission to return to their land and rebuild their city.  Permission had already been given to rebuild the sanctuary. The decree is spoken of in Nehemiah 2:1-8.  The decree was on Nisan 1 or March 5, 444 BC.

To calculate this calendar, we would have to have to know the day and year of Christ’s death. Facts supporting such a date will be offered later but for now, for the sake of continuity, let me just show you how this calendar works with certain dates assumed:

1) We know that Christ rode into Jerusalem Monday March 30,33AD. Thursday evening, Jesus' Passover is still the beginning of Friday. 5 days before Friday is Monday.  (See John 12:1 "Six days before the Passover" and John 12:12 "the next day, the day of the entry into Jerusalem.)

2) Daniel says that from the decree to the coming of Christ, 69x 7 or 483 Hebrew years would pass.  This means, 12 months of 30 days each or 360 days to a year.  483 times 360 comes to 173,880 days.  So, Daniel is predicting 173,880 days from the decree of Artaxerxes to the coming of Christ.

3) Jewish years may be different, but days are days.  To see if this works out we will count according to the Julian year and see if we come to the same amount of days.

4) From 444 BC to 33 AD is 476 years.

(Going March to March) (444 plus 33 is 477 but 1 BC to 1AD is one year, not two, so we subtract one year from 477.i.e. 444 years have past at 1 AD.  The 33 count starts from 1 AD to 2AD. 1 Ad to 2 AD is one year so we count the first of the 33 years at 2AD for at  2AD the first of the 33 years has past. This count gives us 32 years. So, 444 plus 32 takes us to the end of 32 AD or beginning of 33 AD  At 33 AD March, 33 years has not passed, The 33rd year is beginning.

5) Our year has 28 days in Feb, 30 days in Sept, April, June and Nov and 31 days in the other 7 months.

6)  Remembering Leap Year and calculating according to the Solar Year, we multiply 476 by 365.24219879 days or 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.975 seconds.

7)  This gives us 173,855 days according to the Julian Year.We wanted 173, 880 days according to the Julian Year.So, we are short by 25 days. But, keep in mind that we were starting from the Julian Year, March 5.  Christ died in 33 AD but we are counting days from March 5, 444 BC.  We know that the specific date of Christ's entry was March 30th.  By adding 25 days to March 5th we come to March 30th.

And so, according to the Hebrew Year, 173,880 days take place between the decree and the entry and according to the Julian Year 173,880 days take place between the decree and the entry.

Admittedly, all of this is based on a knowledge of the actual date of Jesus’ death. Evidence for such a date will now be offered: First, we'll examine the day of the week.  After that,  the year.

Day of the week

1) Christian tradition has always celebrated the resurrection on Sunday.

2) Jesus predicted that he would die and be raised on the third day (Matt. 16:21).

3) Jesus was placed in a tomb on eve of day of preparation, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:4).

4) The Sabbath was Saturday, so the day of Preparation would have to be Friday

5) We are told that female followers of Christ returned home and rested on Sabbath (further evidence Luke 23:56).

6) Then, on the first day of the week, these same women went to the tomb which was empty (Matt. 28:1).

7) Also, the men talking to Jesus on the Emaus Road, said,” This is the third day since this occurred" (Luke 24).

There is one problem here that people try to point out: Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for “three days and three nights”(Matt.12:40).  When we read the passion narratives we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning.  It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus’ prophecy as a “blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible.”

The solution comes with an understanding of the way ancient Jews spoke.  To a Jew any part of a day was viewed as a whole day.¹  Describing part of a day as “a day and a night” may seem foreign to us but that is because we live two thousand years later in a completely different culture.  We must realize that if the Bible did not contradict itself to the original audience it was written for, it cannot contradict itself to us.  This is only one example of the many apparent Bible contradictions that melt away in light of authentic historical interpretation. 

So Christ died on Friday. Was Jesus crucified on Passover?  If he was, then the date is settled. We know the Passover came on Nisan 14 that year. (Josephus Antiquities of Jews Chapter 4 Wars of Jews Chapter 8 also, 588 Wars of the Jews)

However, there is also some disagreement as to whether or not Jesus was actually crucified on the Passover. True, Mark 14:12 says the last supper was on "the first day of unleavened bread” when they sacrificed Passover lamb. But John 18:28 says the Jewish temple guard took Jesus to the Praetorium and did not enter it “in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover.” This would suggest that Jesus was tried and crucified before the Jews celebrated their holy day. The paschal lamb idea goes along with this. It makes sense that Jesus would be crucified at the same time as the Passover lamb that He symbolized.

We are left with an apparent contradiction but not a proven contradiction. Actually, there is good evidence that the last supper is Passover and that Jesus was also crucified on Passover. Both can be true at the same time.

Evidence that the last supper was on Passover:

1) The synoptics clearly state this (Matt. 26:2, 17 Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16, Luke 22: 1,7).

2) The meal took place according to the requirements of the law (Deut. 16:7) within the gates of Jerusalem even though the city was quite populated at the time.

3) The upper room was made available without any hassle and that was consistent with the Passover custom.

4) The last supper was eaten at in the evening, not a common time for Jews to dine (Matt. 26:30).

5) Jesus ate only with the 12 rather than the broader group of disciples. That too, fits well with the Passover custom.

6) A reclining position at the table was a tradition only for special occasions (Luke 22:14).

7) Jesus broke the bread during the meal and not the beginning, as He would have done with a routine meal (Mark 14:22).

8) Some of the disciples were under the impression Judas left to buy items for the feast. This would not have been necessary if the last supper was a day before the Passover, for in such a case, he would have had all of the following day to get this done, rather than taking off in the middle of the meeting (John 13:29).

9) Some of the Disciples thought that Judas had gone to give to the poor (John 13:29). This was another Passover custom.

10) The Last Supper concludes with singing of a hymn. This would be the second half of Passover Hallel (Matt 26:30).

11) Why did Jesus spend the night on Mount of Olives instead of returning to Bethany?  Because Jews were not  allowed to leave Jerusalem at Passover. (In those days, the city limits were expanded limits to include Mount of Olives.)

Make no mistake, Jesus’ Last Supper was the Passover. But again, this leaves us with a problem; the statement at the praetoriam which suggests the Priests had not yet celebrated their Passover.

A harmonization is found when we learn that Jews had different ways of counting a day: Sometimes a day was counted sunrise to sunrise and other times it was counted sunset to sunset.

Examples:

Feast of unleavened bread is evening to evening (Ex. 12:8) as was the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:32) The weekly Sabbath Neh 13:29 and single days uncleanness  were counted the same(Lev. 14:46).

But a day could also mean sunrise to sunrise (Gen 1:14, 16, 18, 8:22 31:40, Num 14:14, I kings 8:54, Luke 18:7, Rev. 4:8).

Notice the wording in Matt. 28:1 “After the Sabbath, at dawn, on the first day of the week” He is talking about women going to anoint his body.” Why would they have waited till dawn if the Sabbath over Saturday night?

And so, Jews have counted days both ways. What was the correct calculation in Jesus’ time? Well, Josephus tells us the Paschal lamb must be eaten during the  night with nothing left over for morning so he is obviously assuming a sunrise-to-sunrise day.  Josephus was a Pharisee.

The Mishna also states that the Passover must be eaten by midnight so those rabbis are also going morning to morning, for midnight would be in the middle of an evening to evening day and we could ask what the rush was.

It is the opinion of some scholars that Pharisees and Galileans used a different day than Judeans and Sadducees (Julian Marsennstern, Calendar of the Book of Jubilees). This possible and probable theory could be the harmonization we are looking for. We know that two types of days used and we know which ones the Pharisees used (Josephus, Mishna).

So Jesus, (Galilean) slaughtered His lamb on the afternoon of Thursday and later that evening He celebrated the Passover. Thursday morning had started the Passover and Friday morning would conclude it. But Judean Jews and Sadducees, who counted, sunset to sunset, slaughtered the lamb on Friday afternoon, Nisan 14, the same time that Jesus was crucified.

Would the Sadducees have permitted two consecutive days of slaughters? Well, they were known to submit to the Pharisees’ wishes at times and Passover, with crowds of Jews visiting from all over the world, would certainly be a time for keeping the peace.

We now have a date, (Nisan 14 or April 3^rd) for Jesus’ death. He rode into Jerusalem the previous Monday, March 30 and was crucified on the Judean Passover, or Sadducees’ Passover (sunset to sunset)

NOTE: Psalm Sunday is a tradition. Jesus evidently did not ride into Jerusalem on Sunday.

Date of Decree:

Artaxerxes' rule: His Father, Xerxes died shortly after Dec. 17, 465 BC and Artaxerxes succeeded him immediately.  Since the accession year system was used, the first year of Artaxerxes' reign according to the Persian Nisan to Nisan calendar would be Nisan 464 to Nisan 463 and Tishri 464 to Tishra, 463 according to Jewish calendar.

The date of the decree is given in the Biblical narrative.  Nehemiah 1:1 says that Nehemiah heard of Jerusalem's desolate conditions in the month of Chislev (November-December) in Artaxerxes' twentieth year.  Then later, in Artaxerxes twentieth year in the month of Nisan, (March, April) Nehemiah tells us he was given special permission to restore the city and resurrect the walls (2:1).

This year is 444 BC. When a date isn't mentioned we assume the  first day.  So this is the  231st year on Persian calendar, 20th  on the Jewish calendar  and 444 BC on theJulian calendar. Nisan 1 is March 5 on our calendar.

So much for the date of the decree and the date of Christ’s death. What was the year of Christ’s death? Well, we know Caiaphus was High Priest AD 18 to Ad 37.

As for Pilate? Josephus gives an abundance of information on the Roman Governor. His predecessor Valerius Gratus was governor eleven years, within Tiberius' reign (AD 14-37). 14 plus 11 is 25. If Gratus' rule started later than 14 AD, Pilate would rule after 25 and even if we start at 14 we still get 25 so Pilate could not have reigned before AD 25.

According to Josephus, Pilate ruled for ten years.  Therefore, Pilate's reign would have been the ten-year period from Ad 26-36 And Christ's death must have fallen between these dates

Jesus died on Friday Nisan 14 when the Jews were slaying their Paschal lambs 3:00 to 5:00 or the eleventh hour

In which years did Nisan 14 fall on Friday?

The Jewish month is a lunar month having no less than 29 and no more than 30 days.  Sometimes they would count 29 but they were ideally composed of 30.

The first day of the month commenced with the new moon. The New moon is not visible but one or two days after the new moon, a faintly glowing moon sickle can be seen. When two trustworthy witnesses swore in an oath before the priestly calendar commission that they had seen the new moon, the day would be decreed the first of the new month. When there was a problem of visibility, the establishment of the new month could not be postponed for more than a day.

I’m no astronomer, but thank goodness, others are. Because of new information from a variety of calendars, along with progress in astronomical knowledge, we can tell within minutes, the new moon of the Jewish calendar at the time of Christ. Astronomers can actually know the days of the week on which Nisan 14 fell in Christ's time with great probability:

The candidates are: Ad 17, Ad 30, AD 33 or AD 36 Astronomically AD 17 is considered the least likely

How do these possible years relate to the ministry of Christ?

Luke 3:1-2 says John's ministry started in Tiberius'' fifteenth year, Ad 28-29. Jesus’ ministry followed so it doesn’t take a genius to see that the AD 27 date is not only doubtful astronomically, but impossible Biblically.

What about 36?  This would have given Jesus a ministry of more than three years.

Evidence for a 3-year ministry of Christ

3 Passovers are mentioned in John,  (2:13, 6:4, and 11:55) making it at least a two-year mission, but the synoptics mandate another year between Passovers of 2:13, and 6:4.

What about AD 30?  The New Testament passion narratives paint Pontus Pilate as a man of conscience and weak backbone who wanted to please the Jews, but the ancient historian, Josephus, portrays him as a brutal dictator who massacred Jews and cared nothing for their cause.

Actually, the New Testament does not deny Pilate’s brutality. In fact, Luke actually corroborates Josephus:

“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” (Luke 13:1)

Even the passion narratives show us a man who condemned Jesus to death, despite the fact that he found no guilt in the man. That is hardly a glowing testimonial. Remember also that Pilate had Jesus tortured before he was executed.

Still, how do we account for Pilate’s fear in the gospels?  He seems to be putting Jesus to death to please the Jews. Doesn’t that contradict his previous behavior?

This obvious change of attitude is easily explained when we supply an important missing piece of the puzzle. Before Pilate’s encounter with Jesus, he had another encounter, a not so pleasant encounter, with Emperor Tiberius.  And this ruler of Rome actually brought Pilate’s anti-Jewish policies to a screeching halt!

Among his other unpopular practices, Pilate had erected some Roman shields at his Jerusalem palace and these shields bore pagan inscriptions, offensive to the Jews. Four prominent Jewish princes represented their people by writing a letter to the emperor, after pleading in vain to the stubborn governor of Judea to have them removed. Tiberius responded sharply with a letter of his own and demanded that Pilate remove those shields at once! (Philo, Embassy To Caligula)

Decide now for yourself if Pilate’s political back and forth persona makes more sense. He has been rebuked by the Emperor for his treatment of the Jews. Out of the blue, Jesus is thrown his way and as governor, it is his decision alone to convict or acquit. Out of fear, he now wants to please the Jews. But which Jews?  The leaders and representatives of the Jewish court who want Jesus dead but cannot legally execute him themselves, or the many followers of this very popular Jesus person?  At first, Pilate seemed to be catering to the people at large but that changed when the Sanhedrin heads played their final wild card:

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." John 19:12

Could Pilate, after finding himself on the bad side of Caesar, ignore these words about opposing Caesar?

What caused Emperor Tiberius to be so lenient with the Jews? Quick history crash course:  A wicked man named, Sejanus ruled at time of Pilate. He had gained one of the highest positions available, prefect of the Praetorian Guard. When Tiberius (Emperor) retired to the island of Capri, Sejanus was in control of the government for all intents and purposes. Sejanus was an enthusiastic anti-Semite, with ambitions to wipe out the Jewish race. Pilate seemed to be carrying out this anti-Jewish policies. At the very least, we know that the stuff Pilate did to the Jews wasn't forbidden by Sejanus. While Sejanus was in control, any Jewish petition for leniency sent to Tiberius would be destroyed by Sejanus long before it had a chance to get to the island of Capri

Sejanus had poisoned Tiberius' son Drusus, but had Tiberius eating out of his hand, believing him to be loyal as a son.

Tiberius determined that  Germanicus, a nephew, was next in line as emperor if anything happened to his son Drusas but by an amazing coincidence, at the time Drusas was poisoned, Germanicus was also found dead. One of his sons could now take the throne if only they could live but with Sejanus around, that was no easy task. He eliminated two of the three sons. One son remained, Gaius

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Tiberius finally began to smell a rat. He appointed Marco as Prefect of  thePraetorian Guard, and sent him to Rome with orders to get rid of Sejanus. Marco tricked Sejanus by telling him Tiberius was going to grant him the Tribucanicia Protestas supreme authority over Roman civil affairs. Marco timed it all perfectly. A flattered and excited Sejanus, rushed into the senate floor, a senate that had been made wise as to what was going on.

A letter from Tiberius was read in the Senate just as Sejanus entered. In this letter, Sejanus was renounced and condemned. On October 18, Ad 31 Sejanus was executed (Josephus and others)

After this, Tiberius, (obviously concluding that Sejanus had colored his thinking about the Jews) began to lighten up on the Jews.

All of this is to say that Jesus' trial must have taken place after the death of Sejanus. Otherwise we cannot explain the change in Pilate’s behavior. We can now could throw out the AD 30 date.

Conclusion:

Christ rode into Jerusalem, according to the Julian calendar on March 30, 33AD

King Artexerxes decreed that the Jews could rebuild the city of Jerusalem on March 5, 444BC.

When the days are counted, we see that Daniel was not only an accurate prophet, he predicted TO THE DAY Christ’s arrival in Jerusalem as the promised Messiah.

No you are not dreaming. I’m about to defend Obama.

His latest blunder? He mentioned that his uncle was one of the U.S. soldiers that liberated Auschwitz concentration camp.  I’m sure Obama felt this story would improve his image with Democrat Jews who were reconsidering a candidate who wanted to have talks with the Jew hating Ahamadinnejad and whose pastor gave Louis Farrakhan the man of the year award. Obama’s true feelings about the Jews are another discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, unfortunately for this current story, Auschwitz was liberated by Russians, not Americans. It turns out Obama had a great uncle who helped liberate Butchanwald concentration camp in Germany. That must have been what he was trying to say.

OK. I’m Jewish myself and I will not be voting for Obama, but for different reasons: I just don’t want to see us become a socialist country. As for this concentration camp thing, I believe in being fair, even with people I am not too fond of. It was a mistake, a kind of verbal typo, if you will. Auschwitz is the most notorious and well known of the concentration camps. So, he meant Butchanwald and he said Auschwitz by mistake. Big deal! The essence of his story was true. He did have a relative who liberated a concentration camp. Why don’t we just give the poor guy a break?  Had he completely fabricated the story, as Hillary did when she talked about ducking shellfire, then this would be a different discussion. Hillary did not misspeak. She lied. Obama misspoke.

Now, I will say this. I am being far kinder then the media was when Dan Quayle misspelled the word, potato.  They never let him forget, even though Al Gore, during that same election year, mentioned that you can’t get a Zebra to change its spots and we heard little, if nothing, about that one.

There are too many important reasons to not vote for some of these candidates. Do we really want to go down these tangential rabbit trails? Let us lay aside the trivial. No, I am not trivializing the holocaust. I am trivializing verbal typos.

Former White House Secretary, Scott McClellan is now leveling a litany of charges against the Bush administration, including the charge that Bush used propaganda to lure the U.S. into a war with Iraq.

Look, I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. I do know that if McClellan knew of this stuff, he should have resigned and not served as Press Secretary. I.E. He should not have cooperated with the propaganda himself. On the other hand, if his charges are not true, then McClellan is a liar.

One thing we know for sure: The man sold a book at the expense of a President still in office.  This is not some historical piece that looks back at a presidency for better or worse. This undermines a current administration for money.

One more thing we know: McClellan is a weasel.

This is a big three day movie weekend, so I thought I’d have some fun with films today.

These days, the producers and publicists of Hollywood work off the basic premise that people are stupid. And if these stupid people don’t know the whole story of a movie ahead of time, well, Golly, Gee...How will they know if they want to come see the movie?  For this reason, previews show snippets of scenes in chronological order so that in just one minute, not only is the plot given away, the character development and conclusion are also given away.

I suppose it really doesn’t matter. The truth is, these movies are so predictable, we would know the ending even without seeing the previews.

Basically, Hollywood has four endings for movies today. There’s the action movie ending, the cop or spy thriller ending, the disaster movie ending and the romantic comedy ending.

1) Action Movie Ending:

The villain’s cronies get picked off one at a time by the hero, but the villain himself stays alive until the very end. The hero shoots him. He falls and we think he’s dead. But in just a few minutes... Holy Smoke! Jumping Jiminy! Hold on to your seats! He wasn’t really dead after all!  He gets up and attacks the hero again!  Wow! We never saw that coming. Can you just feel the adrenaline rush? The big climax comes when the hero and villain fist fight from a high place, (Yes it has to be a high place) a cliff or the top of a building or an open elevator shaft. Finally the villain falls and this time, thank Heaven, he’s really dead!

2) Cop/Spy Thriller Ending:

The chief of police or the head of the bureau ends up being the bad guy. Either him or the hero’s best friend. The explanation is always the same, too: “I put my life into this organization. I poured blood, sweat and tears into this organization! I lost my family over this organization! And what do I have to show for it? Minimal retirement funds and a gold watch as a gift from my retirement party.  Well, I decided to show them! I decided to show all of them!”

3) Disaster Movie Ending:

It could be any disaster. Somebody knows a ship is about to sink. Somebody knows a volcano is about to explode. Somebody knows a meteor is about to hit the Earth. Somebody knows a town is about to be flooded. All that matters are two things: The prophet is being ignored. A major authority figure, such as the town mayor or the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation, says, “There’s no need to panic the people!”  Later on in the movie this same person is penitent. He apologizes to the hero with crisp, snappy dialogue like: “You were right. I was wrong.”

Oh, one more thing: The hero is thrown together in the movie, either with his ex-wife or his teenage daughter/ son.  If it’s the child, he complains early on. “You were never there for me as a father. You never came to my basketball games because you were too busy working.”  If it’s the wife, the poor dumb male either hears the same thing, he was too busy working, or Wifey Pie complains about the affair he had.  You see, Hollywood only knows two reasons why a marriage would ever break up: Dad was too busy or Dad had an affair. That’s it.  The finer, quirky, dysfunctional eccentricities of human beings, which create literally hundreds of communication barriers in relationships, are seldom if ever explored.  In any event, since Dad and his Ex or Dad and his troubled teen are now caught in a disaster together, it brings them together like nothing ever did before and heals the family .

4) The Romantic Comedy Ending:

Jeff likes to fool around but Jeff has never had the time or vulnerability for a REAL relationship. This all changes when Jeff meets Stephanie. But at the end of the movie, Jeff just can’t bring himself to tell Stephanie how he truly feels about her so Stephanie decides to leave town. One of Jeff’s friends slaps him across the face to knock some sense into him. “For Pete’s sake, Jeff. Go find that girl and tell her how you feel about her!!!”

Jeff chases her down on her way to the airport. He finds her at a crowded terminal, and confesses his feelings in front of a crowd of people (It must be in front of a crowd of people or the producers will reject the ending).  Then, they kiss while the crowd applauds. Brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

CONCLUSION:  I’m convinced that most screenwriters, caring more about the art than the money, are writing real endings to their scripts. But producers are changing the endings, saying things like, “This ending has been tested. This ending sells.”  That’s why I often enjoy a movie until the ending.  For three quarters of the movie I was seeing the real story by the real writer. I can always tell where the producer took over.

While watching the opening night premier of the latest Indiana Jones movie, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I knew that the Russian accents would incur some complaints.  After all, a Russian accent erases all doubt that these characters are really meant to be Russians. And then, the people with these accents were responsible for evil deeds in the film. It’s common knowledge what nice guys the Russians were during the fifties and portraying them in a bad light is simply inexcusable.

Unfortunately, I was also able to predict all kinds of other things about this stupid and disappointing sequel.  There wasn’t one “plot twist” or “surprise” that we didn’t see coming a mile away.  Don’t worry; I won’t spoil it for you. Go see the movie yourself and impress your friends with your prophetic abilities. I guarantee, it won’t be hard. Yes, the movie is better than Temple of Doom but that wasn’t too difficult of an accomplishment. A documentary on a day in the life of a slug would also be better than Temple of Doom.

If only the Russians complained about the quality of the story, I could show them some sympathy. Instead, they were bothered that Communism was presented as a bad ideology.  Hello, McFly! Any body home? I thought Russia got rid of its communism. Is there something they aren’t telling us?  Or are they just nostalgic for the days of Stalin and Khrushchev?

I’d like to think the movie was trying to portray communism in a bad light. That would be a refreshing change for Hollywood and I would sure hate to see Spielberg apologize over an ideology that killed about as many people as the Nazis did. I suspect Spielberg had no such agenda. Probably, he just needed some villains that matched Indy’s aged persona. It was too late for World War Two and although we did have Muslim fanatics in the fifties, God forbid that Hollywood should portray them in a bad light. This left the Russians or the Martians and Spielberg had already made War of the Worlds (although we wondered at times if that movie had overflowed into this one).

Anyway, I’m babbling. Let me get to my point. If the Russians want people to view their country as one that promotes human rights, maybe they should experiment with some human rights. It’ll probably be a whole new experience for them. They might even like it. In the meantime they should just shut up.

NOTE:  I’m waiting for somebody, unconcerned about the butcheries of Stalin, to be gravely offended that I used the word “shut up.”

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

John McCain decided to renounce the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee. Recently, one of Hagee’s older sermons about the holocaust with speculation about why God allowed the event, was dug up and quoted in an attempt to make him the moral equivalent of the racist, Anti-Semitic, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Now, supposedly, anyone who wants to talk about Obama’s ties to Wright has to explain McCain’s ties to Hagee.

The left loves to find these “moral equivalencies.”   They know they can’t defend Obama’s mentor even though they like Obama, so they ignore the issues by trying to find a racist on the other side. In similar manner, they know they can’t defend terrorism, even though they relate to the terroirst’s anti-American ideologies, so they try to make it look like our own American soldiers are also guilty of terrorism for fighting the war against terror.  See how it works?  Oh, and while they call our GI’s terrorists, they also mutter the obligatory disclaimer, “I’m against the war, but I support the troops.”  I guess that means, “I support the troops even though they are terrorists.” Anyway, now Wright and Hagee are viewed as parallel versions of each other. Well, McCain dodged this ball easily. He renounced Hagee, a course of action that seems appropriate on the surface. Only one problem: The judgment against Hagee is misplaced by ignorant people who neither understand Christianity nor the Bible.

Let’s put aside the fact that McCain has once again shot himself in the foot, renouncing yet another conservative leader attempting the uphill battle of defending our conservative candidate who does not always seem so conservative.  By placating to the leftists who will not be voting for him anyway, McCain may soon accomplish the impossible: He may hand the presidency over to Obama, who, a few weeks ago, was so damaged, McCain would have had the election in the bag.

Let us also put aside the utter hypocrisy of leftists who will attack “right wing fanatics” like Hagee, accusing them of anti-Semitism, all the while defending the Palestinians who teach their children to hate Jews and openly long for the complete annihilation of Israel. Hagee has been one of the most outspoken supporters Israel ever had. This little fact is usually unmentioned by the left.  Much as people continually bring up the holocaust of the past, some of us are concerned about the possibility of a new holocaust in the future and that concern takes zero comfort from the left, because Muslim terrorists are using the left as useful idiots in their cause.

Before I continue, please be aware, I, myself am a Jew. I know real anti-Semitism when I see it and I am quite educated about the holocaust. Believe me, I was taught about the holocaust my entire life. True, I am a Jewish Christian, so I differ from some of my fellow Jews on many theological issues, but believe it or not, there are many Jews (not Jewish-Christians, just Jews) who would actually agree with what Hagee said. What did he say? He articulated a personal belief that God used the holocaust to bring the Jews back to their promised land. Now, do I agree with his comment? No and I can see how such a comment from a lover of Israel would sound confusing, but let’s just use our heads for a moment. If the man is repeatedly, outspokenly, unabashedly pro-Israel, whatever he meant, he did not mean that the holocaust was a good thing. Many Jews, if asked why God allowed the holocaust, will say that God was punishing them for their sin. No, they do not mean that God collaborates with evil Nazis. They merely mean that just as God allowed the Babylonians to conquer a disobedient ancient Israel, He may have had His reasons for allowing the Germans to do what they did. There is a difference between what God wills and what God allows. Again, not all Jews would say this, but even some of the Jews who disagree, still appreciate Hagee. Dennis Prager disagrees with that theology but understands the theology.  He defended Hagee vehemently on his radio program this morning, reminded his listeners what a friend Hagee has been to the Jews and lamented that Hagee’s words are being taken out of context.  I know. I know, People also claim Wright was taken out of context. Well, Wright was given a chance to explain himself. When he explained, we saw that he meant every word of his racist dribble. Should Hagee be given a chance to explain, we will see something quite different.

There are always two questions when the subject of evil comes up: “Why do people commit evil?” And, “Why does God allow people to commit evil?” The first question is the easier of the two. Evil is an age old human problem. Evil people are selfish, narcissists who will not take responsibility for their own actions. Some commit evil out of a love for power and control. Others go along with evil because they are too cowardly to oppose it. In Nazi Germany, we saw both kinds of evil. Some people really hated the Jews, using them as scapegoats to blame for the pain of their own financial conditions, etc. Others did not hate the Jews but they were unwilling to put their own lives on the line. If it came down to a choice between turning in their Jewish neighbor or going to the concentration camp themselves, they chose survival and they chose it at the cost of compromising basic human decency. There is no excuse for the holocaust and there is nothing the Jews did to deserve a holocaust. The holocaust was evil and it was committed by evil people. It is the worst evil the world has ever seen. Period.

The next question is far more difficult. Why did God allow the holocaust?  Here, I believe we need some humility. I think the best answer is that we don’t know. This is where Hagee made his mistake. True, when the Babylonians conquered Israel, some prophets, like Jeremiah, warned Israel ahead of time and related the conquest to Israel’s disobedience, but unless we want to claim that we have a similar prophecy today, we are limited only to our opinions.

At the same time, just because we don’t understand why God allowed the holocaust, that doesn’t mean He didn’t allow it. This is not only a mystery regarding World War Two, it is a mystery with evil altogether: Why does a loving God allow evil?  Philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with that question for years. The question is not limited to the holocaust and the question is not limited to Judaism/Christianity.

My dad disowned me for becoming a Christian. Not long after my conversion, Dad’s brother, my Uncle Norman, took me out to lunch and broke down in tears. He could not understand why I had turned my back on my heritage. He then proceeded to confront Christianity.

“Where was Jesus,” my uncle asked, “when six million Jews were destroyed by the Nazis?”

“Uncle Norman, do you believe in God?”

“Of course I believe in God.”

“Then I’ll ask you the same question. Where was God when six million Jews were destroyed by the Nazis? Never mind Jesus. Where was the God YOU believe in? Where was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?”

After a moment’s pause, he said. “Maybe I don’t believe in God.”

“Well, maybe you don’t,” I replied. “But let’s be clear. The mystery of evil is not an exclusive problem with Christianity. Judaism must wrestle with the same question.”

Whatever concept of God you accept, be it religious or be it philosophical, you must believe your God has reasons for allowing evil.  Why do I say that?  Because evil exists. This is rather obvious!

The Bible teaches three different levels of interaction where human beings and human evil are concerned. On the surface, there is the all-human level. Humans do awful things but humans have free will and are one hundred percent responsible for their actions. On the next level, we have the spiritual theater. You may not believe in the existence of good angels and evil spirits. Other articles of mine defend their existence. For now, let’s stipulate that whatever your opinion of the Bible, this is just exactly what the Bible teaches. Demonic beings seek to keep people from the love of God and these beings especially hate the Jews. They hate the Jews, because through the Jews, the Messiah came into the world. They hate the Jews because through the Jews we received the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  So on one level, we can blame people for the holocaust. On another level, the holocaust was inspired by Satan. Humanity’s own evil spark was already there, but Satan fanned the flame.

On the third level, we have God Himself. His will is made clear but He sometimes allows humans to go against His will. He sometimes permits wicked things without interfering and He sometimes allows Satan to raise havoc without stopping him.  This does not mean God will never interfere. There will be a day of judgment where all souls resurrect from the dead and stand before His throne. At that time, everyone will be punished or rewarded accordingly.

In the meantime, there are books like Job that discuss this three-level conflict. A series of mishaps happened to Job, including attacks against his family from evil people. We learn in this ancient document that Satan was involved in the evil, but we also learn that Satan could not do anything God did not allow.

We know that people are responsible for the holocaust. We also know that Satan was responsible for the holocaust. Finally, we know God had some reason for allowing Satan to do what he did. That does not mean God approved. It means there is a mystery. In Job, the mystery is revealed to us, the readers, but interestingly enough, it was never revealed to Job. We learn that Job’s faith in God was being tested. God wanted to see if Job would follow him, even when blessings were withheld. But God did not explain Himself to Job. All he said to Job was, “I am God and you are man. I owe you no answer.”

This did not keep Job’s friends from coming to his bedside and trying to explain exactly why he suffered. Job needed the comforting explanations of his friends the way a bleeding ulcer needs a martini.  And perhaps this is the greatest lesson for Christians today. We are a little too quick to explain why God is doing this or God is doing that. If your friends are going through a trial, life is already bad enough.  Why make things worse by trying to figure out why God allowed it.? All this does is add an extra burden.

Again, it is true that God warned the ancient Jews of calamities that would come their way should they turn from Him. In the case of the Babylonians, we know this to be the reason because the scripture specifically says so. But after the Babylonians conquered Israel, God sent a prophet to them saying, “How dare you conquer my people Israel?”  This was all the Babylonians needed to understand. Whatever reason God may have had for allowing the conquest, the conquest was evil and the Babylonians would pay as they did years later when the Persians conquered them.

I am addressing this topic today only because the sore subject has come up in the news. In general conversation, when people ask me why the holocaust happened, I do not attempt to explain the three levels of human/spiritual interaction. I give the simplest answer, an answer they can relate to and an answer that is absolutely true: The holocaust happened because people are sinful and some of these sinful people became evil. If we want to interpret the holocaust from the Bible’s point of view, let’s just read what the Bible says about human nature. That is the best answer and that is all Hagee needed to say. But if he went beyond, and speculated about how God in His sovereignty may have been forcing the Jews to be less assimilated into the German culture and more willing to return to the roots of Israel, well, all I can say is, I at least understand where the man is coming from and he should not be compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.