Only Two Nations

 June 1 – Only Two Nations

Psalm 33:12a – "Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh..."

       The above phrase is a frequent statement seen on church marquis across the United States, from many years prior to this current year of 2021. I just saw it on a marquis of a local Baptist church in my home county. It signifies several things: 1) that America was, and/or still is, a "Christian" nation, one whose founding was based upon Christian principles; 2) that America is/was divinely inspired to be a different/special nation in the grand scheme of the nations of the earth, post-middle ages; and 3) that, perhaps, America as a whole, has left its divine calling as a light and moral example to the rest of the heathen world. There has already been so much written about the creation of this great democracy in the 18^th century AD, regarding the spiritual foundational thinking (or lack thereof) of a new society, rebelling against the oppressive British overlords. This is not the crux of this article.

       My argument here is much broader in nature. Throughout the whole of scripture, there is a theme that re-appears: God's chosen people are pitted against the other people groups in the region, whether they are large (e.g. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon) or whether they are small (e.g. Moab, Ammon, Amalek, Jebus, Canaan). To God, there were only two sets of people: his specifically called people (descendants of Abraham thru Isaac) and all the rest of the world. God even calls his nation his son: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1). God also says "Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation...." (Exodus 19:6a) "I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter...I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites out of your way...little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land" (Exodus 23:27a, 28, 30). The whole theme of Psalm 83, as another example, is planned revenge of the nations surrounding Israel.

       As the new covenant is played out, we find that the Gentiles (nations) are slowly brought into the body of Christ (Acts 10). Verses 34, 35 state "Peter began to speak: I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." Paul tells us in Colossians 3:11, "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and in all." Romans, chapters 9-11 presents a back-and-forth argument for the acceptance of the Gentiles into the family of faith. There is even a mention that not even all of Israel belonged to Israel. Then verse 9:30 gives us the crux of the matter: "What then shall we say? That the Gentiles who did pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith, but as if it were by works." So we see here that God's people even in the Old Covenant were only truly those who lived by faith. The same is true for us now – the Christians are the ones who live by faith in Christ's righteousness, which means that they are God's people, his holy nation (1 Peter 2:9).

       The odd thing about the theme verse above (what was on the church marquis), is that it is missing the 2^nd part of that verse, "the people he chose as his inheritance. A political nation does not choose to be a "godly" nation, even if that is their intention, or even if they impose a religion in order to make God (Allah) the head (e.g. Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, with their Sharia law). One cannot even call a nation Christian, even if a majority of its people belong to God. There are only two nations in God's eyes now, as it always has been: those who are his by trusting in his love, and those who are not by refusing his love.

 

Hero                                                                                                                      11 July 2021

       The word "hero" is thrown around in English-speaking communities quite freely and loosely these days. Therefore, I had to research the definition of the word "hero", to certify that I knew what it meant. It turns out that Webster's Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero) defines the word "hero" less tamely than I thought it would. There are several definitions listed, all closely linked in meaning. However, definition 1C and 1D are the way that the word is mostly commonly used today. A hero is: 1C) a person admired for achievements or admirable qualities, or 1D) one who shows great courage. Both of those definitions are quite general and broad. I was personally thinking that a hero was something quite narrower – a person who saves someone else from physical or mental harm, either in a long-term fashion, or with an extraordinary feat in a time of crisis or danger. Of course, my definitions do fit the definition of a hero, but they go quite beyond it.

       A hero can simply be an idol, and many people actually use the word in that fashion, e.g. a sports figure or popular musician. A hero can also be a person who inspires someone else to great achievements. This can simply be a parent, friend, mentor, or teacher who has a positive influence in someone's life. Both of these examples fit definition 1C. However, I don't think the word should be used as a synonym for the word "idol". An idol connotes the idea of devotion and adoration, the latter word also carrying a connotation leaning toward worship. Why can't we convey our thoughts in a more comprehensible fashion? Let's just use the words idol and inspiration instead of a nebulous word like hero.

       So many times in America, the word "hero" is used synonymously with military personnel, especially those who have been sent by superiors to foreign lands to engage in various kinds of activities (e.g., aggression; policing; logistics support), sometimes in places of potential mental and physical harm/danger. The latter kind of people fit definition 1D, simply because they have to be vigilant and courageous within the environment of danger, in order to survive. However, those people who chose to be contracted with Uncle Sam to serve in the military, are not necessarily admirable or high achievers, just because they served in the military and got paid for it. I also served Uncle Sam in the administrative service of the IRS for 25 years, without serving at all in the military. My yearly evaluations were consistently outstanding, as I performed my paid job functions. I was a hero according to definition 1C, as my work ethic and performance were exemplary and admirable. If I came to work in a snow storm, then I would have been a hero according to definition 1D, as it took courage to drive the winding, hilly roads for 30 miles in blinding snow.

       I have two friends who have performed acts of rescue from harm. One friend used to drive by my house at 4:30 AM every day to catch the commuter train to Washington, DC. One morning, about one mile east of my house, he noticed smoke emanating from a house that was situated very close to the highway. It was quite evident that the smoke was not produced by a chimney of any sort. There was clearly a slow-building fire within the house. My friend turned his car around, stopped near the house, and started banging on the front door. When no one answered his knocking, he went to the house next door, awoke that resident, and inquired of the knowledge of anyone living next door. The awake neighbor affirmed, and helped in arousing the sleeping neighbors, in order to escape, at the very least, smoke inhalation. My friend then continued to the train station and went to work, as if it was another ordinary day. He had initiated a rescue of a family from possible death.

       Another friend works for a blasting company on a drilling rig. He regularly has to connect loose heavy steel pipes to dangling pipes attached to the rig. One day he was simply acting as a driller's helper while another person ran the rig. He knew that the driller had a history of bad health and was susceptible to strokes. At some point this day, he noticed that the driller appeared lethargic and dazed while pulling his drill above his head. Somehow the last metal pipe got disconnected from the rest and was about to fall on the driller. My friend reacted quickly by running to the drill and knocking the man to the ground, just before the metal pipe fell. Neither were injured permanently by this maneuver. My friend had clearly saved his co-worker from serious harm.

       Two rescues – two heroic acts. Both of those are examples of what a clear definition of "hero" should be. We should not denigrate "admirable", "inspirational" or "courageous"; but we should certainly elevate "hero" with its own specific and greater meaning.