Book Sale

Thursday, 31 July 2025

Student Debt Relief Is Bad?

 


A lot of older Australians online complain that young people are having their HECS* debt cancelled. But many of these same older people have profited greatly off the young with massively artificially inflated house prices.

No amount of HECS debt being cancelled will come even close to the society wide tax that inflated house prices have put on the shoulders of the young, and inflation is a tax in effect and many of you have gleefully collected it.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has cut 20% of HECS debt. But even if all of it were cut, and university was free (to the user) again like it was when many of these older people were growing up, still this would not even come close to the burden on young people that paying for the retirement of the elderly is, through both housing prices and taxes to pay for generous welfare.

The housing market will likely crash before these young people are ready to retire**. But before that happens most older Australians will have cashed in their homes, to live large in the final stages of life. Young people will have in turn purchased them at inflated prices and likely won't see the continued house price growth we have seen over the last 30 to 40 years, because no bubble lasts forever. New Zealand's similar housing bubble has burst, Australia's bubble will have its day too.

So, if you have profited off the immoral heights housing prices have reached, don't begrudge the young getting some of their own back. And also remember that you will be eligible for a pension that no younger Australians will get, and far more is spent on the pension each year than on HECS debts. Indebting and greatly taxing the young to profit the retiring generation is bankrupting this country. Student debt doesn't even begin to come close to that.

 * For foreigners readings HECS debt is the Australian version of student debt. 

** I say likely, because we cannot know for sure, and it really should have crashed by now. It seems way more resilient to over-pricing that anyone ever expected. Still, no bubble lasts forever. 

Tuesday, 29 July 2025

Men Want To Lead Again!

 

Men Want To Lead Again!



Baby Boomer values are being increasingly rejected by younger generations, who see them for the handicaps they are for both society and for themselves as individuals. Many Baby Boomers did very well in the best possible cultural, social, economic and political climates in their youth. But many of their values are now increasingly out of touch with what younger men see as important traits to succeed in life. As Newsweek notes,

“Gen Z Males 3 Times More Likely Than Boomers to Prioritize 'Dominance'

Gen Z males were three times more likely to prioritize "dominance" than baby boomers in a new study by consumer insights platform GWI.

Males from the Gen Z population—ages 13 to 28—ranked as more traditional in several of their ratings. While 71 percent of male baby boomers said "caring" is a quality men should possess, just 43 percent of Gen Zers said the same. That was the lowest rating of any generation…

…The rise of "manosphere" content creators like Andrew Tate has also preached the importance of being an "alpha male," while encouraging disrespect and even sometimes violence toward women in the process.

The shifting views on masculinity and dating could have long-standing ramifications, especially as many women are simultaneously frustrated over dating in the modern age…

…In the new GWI report, Gen Z males consistently showed a preference for what's largely seen as "traditional" gender roles, more so than their baby boomer elders.

While Gen Z males were nearly three times more likely than boomers to prioritize "dominance" as a key trait, at 23 percent versus 8 percent, they also valued strength more than older generations.

The priority of "strength" as a trait declined with age across the generations, as 52 percent of Gen Z males said it was the most valued trait…

…"While many women are embracing confidence and independence, young men are being drawn toward traditional ideas of masculinity, placing a greater importance on strength and dominance compared to older generations.”[1]

While the article notes that to some degree boomer men might prioritize strength less than younger men because of their stage of life, it also notes there are sociological and cultural reasons for this difference. My advice to young people is that they should question many of the values of the Boomer generation. How often do you hear about how some 65 year old woman who is leaving her husband so she can live life to the fullest? Too often. Or how often do you hear about the older man who has traded in the wife of his kids for his secretary or some other younger woman? Boomer men basically made this lifestyle change famous. Boomers are also still divorcing like they have been across their whole lives. It is remarkable to watch.

I’ll never understand why someone blows up a marriage they have been in for 40 or 50 years. What could you possibly gain at that stage of your life by starting again? Could this be one of the primary causes of increasing homelessness amongst older women? It must be at least part of the answer right? 

Ignore the Andrew Tate stuff. In fact, just go ahead and ignore Andrew Tate and those like him. I do. But those feminists, female teachers, and other women who are blaming men like Andrew Tate for the change in attitudes of young men need to look more in the mirror for the real reasons. Andrew Tate is not causing this wave of awakening in young men, he is riding the wave of it. As are many other male influencers. These guys are all over the place. And they are succeeding because, whether or not they are good men, they are pointing young men to something they inwardly crave: how to be strong and how to be respected.

Many young men have seen how this world jumps on and continually crushes men who have shown even a hint of weakness. Men should never be violent to a woman, unless he is defending his life of course. But remember the ancient Greeks thought it was dishonourable for a man to not be able to subdue a female warrior without hurting her. There is wisdom there. Men are far stronger than a woman and Western civilisation has a long tradition of disliking men who use their strength to harm women. But men are recognising that if they do not cultivate strength they will be trampled on often by stronger men, but probably more often by women as well, who will overlook them or cast them away like so much trash if they can’t properly establish themselves. Such is the way of this world.

The values of the baby boomers, who consider themselves more conservative but are probably the most progressive generation ever recorded in history - if rejecting every value of your parents can be considered progressive - have proven to be very unhelpful for young men.

As a Millennial I saw clearly how men were taught to be sensitive, shun strength, not worry about sport, and to defer more and more to women. This was all through our education system. I also saw how some of those guys struggled to establish themselves as men a little later in life. Whereas the men who were strong, athletic and confident did not have the same issues. I also have seen how Boomers have mercilessly mocked Millennials as the overly offended and sensitive generation. Gen Z have taken note. They are adjusting. 

The truth is the Bible commands men to be strong in various ways on multiple occasions. There are many good examples, but here is one of the best, “1 When David's time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, 2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man,…” (1 Kings 2:1-2). A man’s strength is an asset. It is a God-given attribute that we are to steward, nourish and use for the good of the women in our lives, our mother, sisters, wife and daughters especially, and it is not an accident that no matter what women say in studies they prefer strong men. God designed this. 

The church would be much wiser to be teaching young men how to focus and harness their strength in a godly way, rather than teaching young boys and girls that they are capable of the same things. Boomers invented the worldview that says this, and since they have been teaching it to young boys and girls, boys have been falling further behind in multiple areas. It is good that young men are starting to wake up to this. The church should take note and seek to guide their young men for the good of themselves and society in general.

Men want to lead again. Let’s teach them that God created them to do so, at least in their homes. And let’s teach them how to do so in a godly way.

List of References

Monday, 28 July 2025

Episode 16: Revelation 10 – Our Glorious Future

 




You can watch the video of this study on my channel from 8pm to 9pm AEST on Monday nights.

Tonight we are going to look at one of the shorter chapters of the book of Revelation 10. This is another really good example that trying to tie the book of revelation to temporal events is not very easy. This chapter is also another clear intermission, which this time takes us outside of the events of judgement and looks at the recommissioning of this man of God to prophesy warning and judgement.

However, this does not mean we cannot be blessed by what this passage is teaching, and even see how this could possibly have either a future, past, or even future and past application.

Again, we should note the Old Testament imagery behind this passage:

Key OT Symbolic Themes in Revelation 10

  1. The Divine Warrior-Angel
    • The angel’s cloud attire (Exodus 19:9; Psalm 97:2) and fiery feet (Exodus 13:21; Daniel 10:6) evoke theophanic appearances where God manifests in storm imagery to enact judgment.
    • His lion-like roar recalls God’s voice shaking creation (Amos 1:2; Joel 3:16) and His role as Israel’s defender (Hosea 11:10).
  2. The Sealed Thunder Mystery
    • The seven thunders’ secrecy (Rev 10:4) mirrors Daniel 12:4, 9 ("seal the words"), signifying God’s sovereign control over revelation. The command not to write contrasts with Daniel’s sealed visions now opened in Christ (Revelation 5:1–5).
  3. The Oath of No More Delay
    • The angel’s oath "by Him who lives forever" (Rev 10:6, NKJV) directly quotes Daniel 12:7 (LXX), where an angel swears judgment’s culmination. The lifting of hands to heaven mirrors Deuteronomy 32:40 and Daniel 12:7 – divine oaths of covenant fulfillment.
  4. The Bittersweet Scroll
    • John’s ingestion of the scroll reenacts Ezekiel 2:8–3:3, where eating a scroll symbolizes internalizing God’s message of judgment. The sweetness reflects God’s Word as delight (Psalm 119:103), while bitterness embodies the wrath it proclaims (Jeremiah 15:17; Lamentations 3:15).
  5. "Prophesy Again" Commission
    • Like Ezekiel 37:10 (prophesying to dry bones) and Jonah 3:1–2 (Nineveh’s second chance), John’s recommissioning signals hope amid judgment. The scroll’s dual sweetness/bitterness reflects prophetic calling: joy in salvation, grief over wrath.

If we stick to our principle of focusing on the what, rather than the when and the how, we will get more out of this passage and be less likely to lose ourselves in speculation.

Chapter 10 study questions:

 

  1. Who is the angel in this passage, mentioned in verses 1-3 (if you look up Psalm 29, and Revelation 1, it might help with the answer)?

 

  1. Why does this angel look so much like Jesus and what does this angel, therefore, tell us about our own destiny in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18).

 

  1. V.4, What did the seven thunders say?

 

  1. What connection does verse 6 have with chapter 6?

 

  1. What is the mystery of God in verse 7? (cf. Ephesians 3:3-6, Col 2:2, Romans 16:25).

 

  1. What is this scroll, and why did it make John’s mouth taste as sweet as honey, but make his stomach bitter? (not Ezekiel 3:1-3, 14, might be helpful here).

 

Saturday, 26 July 2025

Good Advice For Pretty Women

 




This article has some good solid advice for pretty women, which can be summed up this way: make yourself a hard target.

Too many women for too long have chosen not to do this, and it has been a disaster for them. To be clear bad men are responsible for their evil actions, 100%, but that does not mean that women should just ignore that there is a wise way to live and a foolish way. As the writer notes,

“I’ve gone on record with my anger at the boomers for the way they have lied to three generations of girls. “Women are just as good, nay, BETTER than men at everything! We can do everything they can if only those mean ol’ scrotes would let us have a seat at the table.”

But we’re not just as good, are we? We’re certainly not as strong. We have a lot of limitations when it comes to roughing it for long periods of time. Our bodies aren’t as resilient.

And in most of the world, we are prey.

If I had to guess, Lauren probably looked up to Lara Logan, a hard-hitting reporter who frequently went into war-torn areas. Maybe she looks familiar to you.

Lara was covering the Arab Spring celebrations in Tahrir Square for CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 11, 2011, following President Mubarak's decision to step down. She and her team were surrounded by what CBS described as a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy. In the crush of the mob, Logan was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and sexually assaulted for 30 minutes by around 200 men in Tahrir Square before being rescued by a group of Egyptian women and soldiers.2

Lara was 39, a wife and mother. She was an experienced war correspondent with male crew AND male security. She was still targeted and still viciously attacked.

Because she was pretty.

And they knew there would be no punishment.

A blonde haired, blue eyed Pretty Girl is like blood in the water, and not just in the third world…

Women are not only physically weaker than men, we’re also more easily injured, and we heal more slowly.

We’re also more tempting targets.

All women have to be on their guard in unpredictable environments. All women have to understand their limitations in this world, and make decisions accordingly.”[1]

What McTiernan says here is spot on. It is simple wisdom that instead of being repeated to girls has been propagandised out of them. 

This article brings to my mind the account of Dinah in the Bible. All Dinah did was go out on the town with the girls,

“1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her. 3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife” (Gen. 34:1-4).

But while she was out on the town with the girls, a bad man and his crew were on the hunt for a vulnerable young woman. Too many women have encountered exactly this sort of tragedy. Many of these young women were listening to the foolish advice of their elders that said women should be free to do what they want. And you know what they should…in a perfect world. But we don’t live in the Garden of Eden, and even in the Garden of Eden the serpent was waiting to strike.

Bad men are responsible for their actions. 100%. But they prey on the vulnerable for a reason. 

Women read the whole article. After that consider how to make yourself a hard target.

List of References



[1] Kristin McTiernan, 2025, Pretty. Stupid. Girls. https://substack.com/home/post/p-169181712

Friday, 25 July 2025

Superman A Review - A Bold Swing

 




Here is the short review of this movie. I asked one of my sons and he said it is great. And the movie was a fun popcorn movie, for sure.

**There will be spoilers after this point***

It has been a while since I have touched on popular culture on my blog but I am going to do so today with a review of the new Superman movie. Superman has been my favourite superhero character since I was a small boy. I was born in 1984 so I just grew up with Christopher Reeve being Superman, and he still is the definitive on-screen Superman. That answers the first question anyone might have about this movie, it does not surpass Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of the character. Before we go forward let me also note that there were a couple of curse words in this movie which I did not think were necessary and kind of took you out of movie, especially the one at the end. I had never seen such a thing in a Superman movie and was kind of taken aback by that, especially as at least once the cursing comes from the mouth of the Man of Steel himself. Other than that I could not think of anything obviously offensive.

Some people are saying this movie is not political at all. I am going to correct the record on that point towards the end. So if you just want to read about the political bent of this movie skip to that section.  

The Superman Ranking

So, firstly, where does David Corenswet rank among the onscreen portrayals of Superman? Here is my ranking in order: 1) Christopher Reeve, 2) Henry Cavill, 3) David Corenswet, 4) Tom Wellington, 5) Brandon Routh (who did a pretty good Christopher Reeve impersonation), 6) Dean Cain and after that I can’t speak to any others. I did not watch the recent portrayal by Tyler Hoechlin in the CW show and don’t plan to anytime really. I have put a star next to Tom Wellington because he does not actually portray the full Superman character in the show Smallville, but he is still Clark Kent with Superman’s power, and he ranks high in my estimation as one of the best representations of the character ever put to screen. I don’t understand why we never got a Tom Wellington Superman movie. But that is how the chips fell.

Obviously, Christopher Reeve was so outstanding in his portrayal as Superman that it is hard for anyone to rank alongside of him, let alone surpass him. But I think Henry Cavil could have done so if he had been given the right movie. Zack Snyder’s DC movies were great action flicks, but Superman never really got all that much of a chance to shine as the hero of the little guy. Which is a core part of Superman’s identity. Snyder focused too much of the mythic demi-godlike aspect of his superheroes, which is probably why his movies did not land with a lot of people and were polarizing. Gunn’s Superman goes a long way towards fixing that oversight, but then creates a whole other issue of its own.

Corenswet’s farm boy charm and all-round good guy persona are on full display in the new Superman movie. He goes out of his way to save people in ways that Henry Cavill’s superman never got the chance to really do in his solo movie. Superman’s care for the ordinary population is on full display. He does not just throw his enemies into office buildings and singly focus on his enemy target like Cavill’s Man of Steel did. He even stops in the middle of one battle to ask a whole room of people if they are all ok. Which is good. He feels very much like the everyman Superman, in this sense, like Reeve’s version did.  

But this Superman is not a leader. He is what some would call a delta. He is a faithful, hard working and caring guy who wants to do the right thing, but no one seems interested in following his lead. Corenswet’s Superman is spoken down to by everyone at some point, including his girlfriend, his co-workers (the justice gang), and even his cousin, Supergirl, in a random scene which did not need to be in the movie and probably by itself drops the ranking of this movie a bit. One can’t imagine Reeves Superman ever being treated like this. But this is a product of Gunn’s comedy and writing style and less about disrespecting Superman, in my view. Corenswet’s Superman movie is plagued by the classic James Gunn self-deprecating and other-deprecating humour. Everyone speaks to each other in very flippant ways, and Gunn is clearly anti-hierarchy of any kind, which worked in a group comedy like Guardians of the Galaxy. Gunn writes this kind of dialogue better than others, but it is still getting old, and I don’t think suited this movie at times, but other times it worked. Guy Gardner’s haircut deserved that quip from Lois. Both Snyder and Richard Donner clearly respected the character, as does Gun to some degree, but Gunn can’t help but make a James Gunn Guardians of the Galaxy style movie. But if you like that you will probably rate this movie highly.

Comic Book Faithfulness

I never read Superman comics very much. I might have read one or two as a kid. By the time I was old enough to read well and was interested in reading I went straight to kid’s paperbacks like the Famous Five and Hardy Boys and worked my way up from there. But that being said, I did read some variety of comics and this movie felt like a comic book come to life. It looked like a comic book come to life. It had the plastic feel of a comic book world, everything being not quite real, or not quite right, and a little exaggerated or underdone. You’ll understand what I mean when you see Lois Lane fly a spaceship for the first time after having been in it once, and there being no mention she can fly anything. Mr Terrific just tells her the controls are intuitive and then off she goes and flies his spaceship. This is very comic booky.

Which is fine.

Most superhero movies do not need to be dour and serious affairs. A little bit of light-hearted adventure is good every now and then. However, the tone of this movie does kind of shift at times. There are scenes which are ridiculous like Lex Luther being beaten up by Crypto the Superdog, and then there are scenes where Luther shoots an innocent man in the head right in front of an imprisoned Superman. This jarring change of tone is all through the movie. Even that Luther scene is played for laughs, which is disconcerting when you think about it. But comic books do this sort of thing. Don’t they?

The Cast

The cast is good. The acting is good. The bad guy was serviceable. But this movie suffers from the Marvel issue of wanting to tone down the evil of their villains by mocking them and making them look ridiculous at times. Nicholas Hoult could do better with a better script. He was definitely evil in this, but not menacing. Which fits with a family movie vibe, I guess. But when are we going to get a decent villain in one of these movies? I think the last decent menacing comic book villain was Tom Hardy’s Bane, and you could not understand a word that guy said. Maybe you can think of a more recent example.

The rest of the cast is ok. Rachel Brosnahan was a decent Lois. Nathan Fillion was good as the Guy Gardner Green Lantern. Edi Gathegi was probably the most interesting character as Mr Terrific. Isabela Merced’s Hawkgirl was decent, and not an annoying girl boss trope, which is good. I won’t go through the whole cast, but they all did a serviceable job, and there is a sublot with Jimmy Olsen which is random and funny and integral to the plot. Some of the characterization felt like it was harkening back to Donner’s semi-comedic tone, and so some of these characters were little more than carboard cut out comic book tropes, which worked in this movie.

As it was a Guardians of the Galaxy style ensemble movie no one really got a full story arc, except maybe Superman. And most of the focus was on action and quips, so you will find it entertaining while eating your popcorn and no one does such a bad job that they take you out of the movie. But you will likely forget most characters not long after the movie is over.

The Story

The story was pretty basic. What are you going to do now that no one has seen right? It is a comic book movie. It is now more about execution than riveting story. The story is simple enough: Lex wants to destroy Superman. He is willing to hurt everyone on earth if necessary. It is a basic plot.

The Superman change of lore wasn’t really a change of lore if you had watched Smallville. But Smallville did it better. 

The plot is also moved along with some artificial feeling contrivances. Like almost everyone immediately believing that Superman is a bad guy because the media says he is. People don’t just believe the media…like that…do they….? Some people think the plot was a mess maybe because they don’t believe people are that quick to believe the news. But we know they are. Often. 

I thought the plot was pretty basic. The movie established very quickly that Lex has some devious plan to destroy Superman, and everything he does seems to revolve around that. Superman simply reacts to what Lex does. I thought the idea of Superman handing himself in to rescue his dog was a nice touch that did not fully land. This was Gunn seeking to use a cute animal to help drive the plot, and garner affection from the audience. But I did not think it had the emotional weight that it could have. John Wick established the dog/man fellowship much better. In this movie it seems more of just a thing Superman does. In fact, the story lacked depth over all, though it was solid, 

The dog was cool, though. Don’t listen to the haters on that point. 😊

Politics

Many of you are wondering if they push the “current narrative” in this movie. The answer is yes and no. What do I mean?

There is none of the girl boss nonsense you may have seen in recent Marvel movies. I say you may have seen, because I stopped watching Marvel movies after End Game, except for one Spiderman movie. Superman does not find himself second fiddle to Lois. Even the way she speaks down to him at the start of the movie is more neutral and tied to a fight they are having over his intervening in world affairs more than anything else, and…here is the kicker…she apologises for this later in the movie. A man and his girl will fight, right, from time to time, and this movie presents the conflict in this light. Lois is just a good reporter and the conversation comes in the context of doing what she does best. So, you don’t have to worry about your sons being berated for being men while they watch this movie, there is none of that. In fact, the relationship fight they had actually was the most realistic thing in the movie.

There are no rainbow flags, that I saw. Though I will put a link to a reviewer I watched who saw one.[1] But it must have been brief, because I did not even catch it. Though his review is worth watching anyway. 

The men in this movie were all capable of something, they were competent. And while Superman was not presented as a leader or anything like that, he was still a capable man, with a heart of gold, who just wanted to help people. All the other male characters contribute something useful too, as do the women. So there is no Chris Hemsworth from lady Ghostbusters nonsense in this movie.

But the movie was hardcore political. In fact, it was definitionally political. Whoever is saying the movie is not political is either lying or does not know what that word means. The whole plot centres around Superman getting in trouble for having interfered in a war between definitely not Israel and definitely not Gaza. I mean it is so clear others have seen this too[2] and it is causing a reaction in some quarters. The names of the countries are fictional, and they are exaggerated. But Superman stops a highly advanced country that gets its weapons from US manufacturers, including Luther, and is a long term ally of America, from crushing in a battle a group of men, women and children armed with farming equipment. It is exaggerated, for sure, but that is the way of comic book stories.

Very early in the movie a government military cabinet of some kind is talking about how they are going to handle Superman, and Luther is on this cabinet seeking to influence them. One of them even calls out Luther for trying to protect his weapons business contracts. The movies shows an awareness of what is happening in Gaza, the connection to weapons contractors, the influence they have on the US government, and the unfairness of the whole situation. And Superman flies in and stops the whole thing. Which we never see, but are told that he did by Clark Kent himself. This is by definition political. 

And the movie takes the sure bet too, it sides with the right side. Superman and the Justice Gang take the side of the little guy, which is what almost every audience member themselves will do. But even though this is the case, these events are so exaggerated and so well woven within the story they don’t beat you over the head like some movies would. And if you are not really aware of these events going on in the world, you will probably not even realize what the movie is addressing. Which is what I would call clever political messaging. However, I suspect in some circles this storyline will be polarizing and cause some people to boycott this movie.

There is also the subtle and very common pro-immigration messaging in the movie. But it is really dialled down, unless you are really looking for it. And what modern population in a modern city does not look like the population in this movie? Therefore, it really wasn’t over the top.

So, the movie is most definitely political, but not in an obnoxious way. And for those who think that Superman should not be political, I think you should study up on your Superman history. He has always been political. You can read the Dark Herald’s Superman series at the Arkhaven blog on Substack.[3] Or you can watch the terribly corny Superman IV: The Quest for Peace where Superman seeks to achieve world peace by getting rid of every nuclear weapon on the planet. Having an anti-war message in a Superman film is very much in Superman’s legacy, and it works in this movie.

Conclusion

I liked the movie. It was not perfect. Superman could have been shown to be more of a powerhouse than he was. But it was better than Routh’s 2006 Superman Returns, and Corenswet has the potential to outshine Henry Cavill given the right script. Parts of the movie are forgettable, but that is probably because we have too many comic book movies right now and have since about 2001. I give it a 3.5 out of 5 stars. It was better than I expected, and Corenswet was good enough as Superman I hope he gets his chance for his own movie where he can be the hero in his own right.

Jesus and the German Soldier

 



One of my favourite passages in the gospels, and has been since I was a kid, is the encounter with the centurion soldier. As a kid I listened to the Christian musician the Donut Man, whose song about the centurion soldier stuck with me so much a few years ago I tracked down the song and album to listen to it again.

It always amazed me that the man of greatest faith in all Israel was the Roman Soldier: "8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith" (Matt. 8:8-10). It also amazed me that this amazed Jesus.

But it was not until I got a bit older and went to Bible College that I realised how offensive to the Jewish people Jesus' statement here was. The Jews, in general, considered themselves superior to all Gentiles because of bad theology. But this guy was worse than that. He was a Centurion, tasked with oppressing the people of Israel. That was his role. Enforcing the power of the conquerors.

Hence Jesus did not just affirm a Gentile before his Jewish audience as being spiritually more faithful than them. He affirmed one of their oppressors. No Israelite, and Jesus knows the hearts of all, had the faith of this man, and therefore the understanding of God he had. The man the Jewish people would have looked down upon the most, while also fearing, was affirmed by God.

This was highly offensive to the Jewish people. To understand how offensive it was, imagine if Jesus had said this to a German soldier in the 20th century? Now you understand. Now you know why Jesus was hated by so many of his kin. He judges according to the heart, not the flesh.

It was not the man's ethnicity, or his Roman loyalties that factored most here, it is that he understood Jesus. The Jewish nation had been largely led astray by an ethnocentric theology of religion and faith which had warped their moral compass. Paul calls this the Judaizer error. This error has always had this effect, because it places ethnicity in the wrong place: as a recipient of the promises of God by virtue of genetics. This stands in opposition to everything the Bible ever says about the issue.

I have seen many people over the last two years argue that those who criticize Israel's actions stand in line next to bad company. So what? A man is not supposed to look to his left or right to know what is right and true, but up. We aren't basing our opinion on company but on a right understanding of who God's people are and what justice is.

Rather you should be concerned that people you consider inferior have superior moral clarity on this issue. This is an easy win for the Church, call for peace and no more weapons shipments to the region. But just like in every era there are Christians so enamoured with old wine skins, that the Roman Centurions of the world can see past them. Rather you should ask why do the heathens you disagree with see this and you do no?

 

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Ezra and the Judaizer Error

 




Christians have an interesting relationship with their heroes. There are many great men of history that many Christians look up to, but which they are also not slow to criticize when discussing them honestly. A good example of this is John Wesley who is seen as an incredible church leader, but with a disastrous home life. John Calvin is often criticized for his overly strict application of Old Testament law to life in Geneva. Menno Simons is lauded for his stalwart effort to refine the Anabaptist churches of Holland and Germany, but he is also critiqued by going way too far with banning and shunning. Whatever the Church history great you bring up, there will be some Christian with a genuine and not slanderous critique, who makes a valid point. We serve the perfect Lord Jesus Christ and know that no other man is the perfect Lord Jesus Christ.

This critiquing of our heroes is a thoroughly biblical act. David the man after God’s own heart, who made Israel greater than it had ever been was not beyond criticism. Nathan, or whichever prophet which it was that wrote down David's history, went into great detail about his faults. Moses discusses his own faults in the Books of Moses. Judges is brutally honest about Israel’s best men of the time. As are many other books. And the New Testament does not shy away from critiquing the Apostles, or many other church leaders in the gospels, Acts and in the letters. There is a strong Christian tradition to do so.

But some people really struggle when you have a take that they do not like on a particular Bible character or hero. I recently wrote a series of articles on whether or not Esther was a heroine in which I examined whether or not the traditional view is the correct one. Something I found in my research is that wrestling with Esther in this way is almost as ancient as the book itself. Please read the whole series before you make up your mind. But by the time we get to Jesus’ day we see that the Jewish nation has gone seriously off track because of the Judaizing error, and this causes all sorts of issues for Jesus, his Apostles and early Christianity. This trajectory began somewhere and I believe a legitimate case can be made for the seeds of this Judaizing error tracing back to the post-exilic period.

A good example of this is what happened in the days of Ezra. Now, I am not going to make the case in this article that Ezra had gone as far off track as some other bible characters, not at all. I simply see in him as another example of the flawed but well intentioned leaders of Israel. But we do see indications of this Judaizing error taking root in his time. What I mean by Judaizing error is an incorrect understanding of the relationship between Jewish ethnicity and being part of the people of God. In Paul’s day this took on one form, we see there that false teachers were trying to pressure Christian converts to become full fledged Jews and submit to the law as well as Christ. But it existed prior to this in the form of a highly exclusive and antagonistic attitude among Jews towards people of other nations.

Look what happens in Ezra 4 as the Jewish returned exiles are seeking to build the temple of God,

“1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord, the God of Israel, 2 they approached Zerubbabel and the heads of fathers' houses and said to them, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria who brought us here.” 3 But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses in Israel said to them, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us.”

4 Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build 5 and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

6 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:1-6).

Here were the people of Judah seeking to re-establish themselves when the God-fearing inhabitants of the land came up to them and offered to help. These inhabitants were the descendants of foreign peoples who were resettled in the land of Israel by Osnapper,

“8 Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows: 9 Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their associates, the judges, the governors, the officials, the Persians, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites, 10 and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar deported and settled in the cities of Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:8-10).

The fact that these people were settled in the land of Samaria and other areas in this region, indicates that these are the ancestors of the Samaritans, who are a mixed people still in existence in Jesus day, and famously so. Here we see the beginning of the fracture between this mixed people,  the Samaritans, and the people of Judah, who saw themselves as having a unique claim to the land and covenant because of their genealogy. 

Even though this passage begins by referring to these people as the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” this is best read as a retrospective perspective. These people came to the people of Judah in good faith and were flat out rejected and later became enemies. We see here the beginnings of an overly ethnocentric approach to the religion of Moses that is not biblical. We don’t want to overstate our case though, this probably came about through good intentions. The men of Judah were seeking to recorrect the errors that led them into exile, but they over-corrected. We know they over-corrected because they were actually commanded to allow the inclusion of Gentiles into their fledging nation.

We read in Ezekiel 47 that God says this to the exiles,

“21 So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord God” (Ez. 47:21-23).

Ezekiel was a contemporary of Jeremiah, though he came in to his ministry towards the end of Jeremiah’s time. We know this because both Jeremiah and Ezekiel lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem. Both prophesied and saw it happen, but Ezekiel’s ministry seems to go much further into the time of exile than Jeremiah’s. Ezekiel can be seen as a book that is dedicated to helping the people of Israel understand what is happening to them with their losing wars, it should be seen as a vindication of Jeremiah’s message, and many other prophets as well, and it is designed to help them understand both how to live in exile, but also what to do when they return from exile. And when they return from exile they were supposed to include the God-fearing foreigners in their midst among the accounting of the people.

This was not a new policy for Israel either. We read in Exodus 12 that this is exactly what happened when the people came out of Egypt, they included many Gentiles in their people, “37 And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38 A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds” (Ex. 12:37-38). From its very inception Israel included people from the nations. Abram was from Ur of the Chaldees, Babylon. Joseph had an Egyptian wife and her children are blessed greatly in Israel. There is Rahab, Ruth, Obed Edom and many more. It was always God’s policy that Israel was meant to be a vehicle of blessing for the nations, not simply a state for one ethnic group.

Hence, I think it is legitimate to say that Ezra over-corrected and excluded the Gentiles from inclusion when he should not have. And I am not the only one who asserts this, one commentator notes,

“THE fourth chapter of the Book of Ezra introduces the vexed question of the limits of comprehension in religion by affording a concrete illustration of it in a very acute form. Communities, like individual organisms, can only live by means of a certain adjustment to their environment, in the settlement of which there necessarily arises a serious struggle to determine what shall be absorbed and what rejected, how far it is desirable to admit alien bodies and to what extent it is necessary to exclude them. The difficulty thus occasioned appeared in the company of returned exiles soon after they had begun to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. It was the seed of many troubles. The anxieties and disappointments which overshadowed the subsequent history of nearly all of them sprang from this one source. Here we are brought to a very distinguishing characteristic of the Persian period. The idea of Jewish exclusiveness which has been so singular a feature in the whole course of Judaism right down to our own day was now in its birth-throes. Like a young Hercules, it had to fight for its life in its very cradle. It first appeared in the anxious compilation of genealogical registers and the careful sifting of the qualifications of the pilgrims before they left Babylon. In the events which followed the settlement at Jerusalem it came forward with determined insistence on its rights, in opposition to a very tempting offer which would have been fatal to its very existence…

In view of these considerations we cannot but read the account of the absolute rejection of the offer by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the twelve leaders with a sense of painful disappointment. The less pleasing side of religious intensity here presents itself. Zeal seems to be passing into fanaticism. A selfish element mars the picture of whole-hearted devotion which was so delightfully portrayed in the history of the returned exiles up to this time. The leaders are cautious enough to couch their answer in terms that seem to hint at their inability to comply with the friendly request of their neighbours, however much they may wish to do so, because of the limitation imposed upon them in the edict of Cyrus which confined the command to build the temple at Jerusalem to the Jews. But it is evident that the secret of the refusal is in the mind and will of the Jews themselves. They absolutely decline any co-operation with the colonists. There is a sting in the carefully chosen language with which they define their work; they call it building a house "unto our God." Thus they not only accept the polite phrase "Your God" employed by the colonists in addressing them; but by markedly accentuating its limitation they disallow any right of the colonists to claim the same divinity.”[1]

Did you see that? The Expositors Bible Commentary says that this became a source of many of the troubles of the new fledging Israel. These people, who became the Samaritans, did become an issue for the Jewish people in the post-exile period. But the conflict began with this rejection. What Ezra should have done was seek to determine the faith of these people, make sure they were following the law, and then he should have followed what Ezekiel said they were to do. But instead the Judean leadership took an ethnocentric approach to their faith which exacerbated conflict over time.

I don’t want to sound too critical of Ezra though, because good leaders make mistakes. And he was in a high pressure situation, so the stakes were high. He obviously cared about his people and their protection and also their purity before God. But this trajectory grew throughout the centuries and became one of the core sources of many of Israel’s woes right up until the destruction of the temple, and perhaps beyond.

This is what the Judaizer error does. It makes an incorrect application of who God’s people are, based more on ethnicity than on faith, and it bears destructive fruit.

It is also clear that Jesus critiqued the Jews attitudes towards the Samaritans as well. In fact he has the definitive critique. He uses the example of a hypothetical “Good Samaritan” to challenge the Jews of his day about the proper way of loving our neighbour (Luke 10:25-37). And he deliberately places himself in a situation to both minister to and through a Samaritan woman in John 4. What I mean by ministering through her is that she goes and tells many Samaritans about this amazing man she encountered and then brings them back to him to receive salvation. And of course he tells the Apostles in the Lukan Great Commision in Acts that the gospel is to be proclaimed in Samaria as a priority, after extending their ministry outside of Judah, “8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Jesus was not anti-Samaritan like his people were. 

I think it is entirely valid to see this New Testament commentary on the place of the Samaritans as a critique not just on how Jews viewed Samaritans in Jesus’ day, but on how this conflict between these two people claiming descent from Abraham and faith in the same God began. Jesus was critiquing the Judaizing error before Paul even understood the gospel. But the Old Testament was critiquing it even earlier, because it is the living word of God which Jesus fulfills and shows us how to understand and apply properly.

An incorrect ethnocentric application of the gospel or faith in God is destructive. It led to a centuries long conflict between the Jewish people and the Samaritans, and it is today leading to a now century or so long conflict between the Jewish people and Palestinians. In fact, some of the similarities are actually remarkable between these two situations.

As Christians we need to resist any genetically based claims to the promises of God. This Judaizer error is persistent and comes about in many forms. But consistently the Bible rejects it and shows the damage that it causes. That Jesus made a point of affirming the Samaritans, a people the Jewish nation almost universally looked down upon, should give us a powerful insight into how God sees this error and why we should reject it. 

List of References

[1] Expositors Bible Commentary.

Monday, 21 July 2025

Episode 15 Revelation Study - Judgement Escalates, Chapters 8 and 9.

 



You can watch the video of this Bible Study live on my YouTube channel every Monday night from 8pm to 9pm.

Tonight, we are going to look at two chapters of Revelation which really serve as one unit. One of the interesting things about the guy who made up the chapter breaks in the Bible is that he did not always follow a consistent rhyme or reason in deciding his breaks. Though we are thankful for his service, as it makes it much easier to quote and reference the Bible than it once was.

These chapters deal with the last of the 7 seal judgements that were unleashed by Jesus beginning in chapter 6:1, and then 6 of the 7 trumpet judgements. There is no natural break in these chapters, in fact the chapter break is put after the first woe has passed with two still remaining. Showing that the considerations for where to put the chapter breaks were more likely length than a natural break in topic.

This is a chapter of terrifying judgements that some people will see as only possibly happening at the end of days. But I think we need to be not so dogmatic about that. Of course, that is possible, very possible, but can a legitimate argument be made that this imagery is used to refer to historical judgements against people? Yes it can.  

Consider this example from Joel 2, which talks about God’s judgement on Israel through the Assyrians/Babylonians. Let’s just read the first 11 verses:

“1 Blow the trumpet in Zion,
And sound an alarm in My holy mountain!
Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble;
For the day of the Lord is coming,
For it is at hand:
A day of darkness and gloominess,
A day of clouds and thick darkness,
Like the morning clouds spread over the mountains.
A people come, great and strong,
The like of whom has never been;
Nor will there ever be any such after them,
Even for many successive generations.

A fire devours before them,
And behind them a flame burns;
The land is like the Garden of Eden before them,
And behind them a desolate wilderness;
Surely nothing shall escape them.
Their appearance is like the appearance of horses;
And like swift steeds, so they run.
With a noise like chariots
Over mountaintops they leap,
Like the noise of a flaming fire that devours the stubble,
Like a strong people set in battle array.

Before them the people writhe in pain;
All faces are drained of color.
They run like mighty men,
They climb the wall like men of war;
Every one marches in formation,
And they do not break ranks.
They do not push one another;
Every one marches in his own column.
Though they lunge between the weapons,
They are not cut down.
They run to and fro in the city,
They run on the wall;
They climb into the houses,
They enter at the windows like a thief.

10 The earth quakes before them,
The heavens tremble;
The sun and moon grow dark,
And the stars diminish their brightness.

11 The Lord gives voice before His army,
For His camp is very great;
For strong is the One who executes His word.
For the day of the Lord is great and very terrible;
Who can endure it? (Joel 2:1-11, NKJV, cf. Revelation 6:17 and compare it to his question here, who can endure it?).

Although the book of Joel predates Apocalyptic literature, this kind of scary heavenly language is a hall mark of apocalyptic visions of judgement and finds its biblical roots in Old Testament theology.

One other thing you will notice as we go through chapters 8 to 9 is how similar what is happening sounds to the judgement of God on the Egypt at the call of Moses. This sounds very much like the plagues of Egypt. This is made even more interesting by the fact that when Jerusalem was destroyed they were in the festival of the Passover. This is from the notes in Josephus’ wars:

“Here we see the true occasion of those vast numbers of Jews that were in Jerusalem during this siege by Titus, and perished therein; that the siege began at the feast of the passover, when such prodigious multitudes of Jews and proselytes of the gate were come from all parts of Judea, and from other countries, in order to celebrate that great festival. See the note B. VI. ch. 9. sect. 3.”[1]

Look as these parallels:

1. Exodus 9:22-24 (7th Plague: Hail and Fire)

  • Revelation Parallel: The first trumpet judgment (Rev 8:7) describes "hail and fire, mixed with blood" burning vegetation.
  • Exodus Imagery: God rains "hail and fire" (Exod 9:23-24) to destroy Egyptian crops, livestock, and trees—a direct physical manifestation of divine wrath against oppressors 68.
  • Thematic Link: Both depict cosmic fire as judicial retribution. Revelation intensifies this by adding "blood" (symbolizing martyrdom; Rev 6:9-11) and scaling the disaster to one-third of the earth 711.

2. Exodus 7:20 (1st Plague: Waters Turned to Blood)

  • Revelation Parallel: The second trumpet (Rev 8:8) and third bowl (Rev 16:3-4) involve seas/rivers turning to blood, killing marine life.
  • Exodus Imagery: Moses strikes the Nile, turning water to blood (Exod 7:20), causing fish to die and water to become undrinkable—a strike against Egypt’s lifeline and false gods 86.
  • Thematic Link: Both signify contamination of life-sustaining resources as punishment. Revelation expands this: the second trumpet affects seas (Rev 8:8), while the third bowl targets freshwaters (Rev 16:4), emphasizing comprehensive ecological judgment 611.

3. Exodus 10:12-15 (8th Plague: Locust Invasion)

  • Revelation Parallel: The fifth trumpet (Rev 9:1-11) unleashes demonic "locusts" with scorpion-like stingers to torment the unsealed.
  • Exodus Imagery: Literal locusts "cover the land" (Exod 10:15), consuming all remaining vegetation after the hail—an invasion representing God’s controlled army (Prov 30:27) 311.
  • Thematic Link: Both use locusts as agents of inescapable torment. Revelation transforms them into apocalyptic hybrids (e.g., human faces, lions' teeth) led by "Abaddon" (Rev 9:7-11), merging Exodus’ imagery with Daniel’s visions of cosmic war (Dan 7-10) 37.

There is also the similar imagery that is used in Isaiah 13:6-13, and Jeremiah 1:13-15. Look at the Isaiah example:

Isaiah 13:6–13 (Judgment on Babylon)

  • Revelation Parallel: Cosmic collapse in the sixth seal (Rev 6:12–17) and trumpet judgments (Rev 8:12; 9:2).
  • Isaiah Imagery:
    • "The stars of heaven... will not give their light; the sun will be darkened... and the moon will not shine" (Isa 13:10).
    • "I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken" (Isa 13:13).
  • Thematic Link: Both depict cosmic dissolution as divine judgment on wicked nations. Revelation expands this:
    • The fourth trumpet specifically darkens sun/moon/stars by one-third (Rev 8:12).
    • The fifth trumpet unleashes smoke that "darkens the sun and air" (Rev 9:2), evoking Isaiah’s language of creation recoiling before God’s wrath.

There is also very much, and I think this is very significant, a connection between much of what we read in Revelation and Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. We will focus on this especially later on in Revelation.

This is a much more extended introduction than usual. But I think it is necessary, because it ties us down more deeply to the kind of imagery that the Bible uses when talking about judgement. This helps us to ground our interpretation in scripture and not get carried away with trying to apply it to modern armies, technology, or other things like this. Let’s see how far we can get with the Bible interpreting itself, and then we may discuss if there is a current or future application.

The Judgement of God Continues

1.     Why do you think there was silence in heaven for half an hour when the seventh seal was opened?

 

2.     How can 30 minutes pass in heaven, a place which is outside of time?

The Trumpet Judgements Begin:

3.     How terrifying would it be to experience the events of vv. 7-9? Now is this talking about all the earth, or just the nation of Israel?

 

4.     What could possibly cause such a terrifying result?

 

5.     Why would God poison the water like this? Also do you know what the Greek word for star is? Why is it important to ask?

 

6.     Is there a possible connection between Trumpet 3 and Trumpet 4?

 

7.     8:13-9:6 – There are those who take this literally and believe that in the future, in the Tribulation, for a time, God will release demons on the earth to torment people. There are those who believe this whole book is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, there is a line in this chapter that fits with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the part where it says death flees them:

 

“So all hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews, together with their liberty of going out of the city. Then did the famine widen its progress, and devoured the people by whole houses and families; the upper rooms were full of women and children that were dying by famine, and the lanes of the city were full of the dead bodies of the aged; the children also and the young men wandered about the market-places like shadows, all swelled with the famine, and fell down dead, wheresoever their misery seized them. As for burying them, those that were sick themselves were not able to do it; and those that were hearty and well were deterred from doing it by the great multitude of those dead bodies, and by the uncertainty there was how soon they should die themselves; for many died as they were burying others, and many went to their coffins before that fatal hour was come.

 

Nor was there any lamentations made under these calamities, nor were heard any mournful complaints; but the famine confounded all natural passions; for those who were just going to die looked upon those that were gone to rest before them with dry eyes and open mouths. A deep silence also, and a kind of deadly night, had seized upon the city; while yet the robbers were still more terrible than these miseries were themselves; for they brake open those houses which were no other than graves of dead bodies, and plundered them of what they had; and carrying off the coverings of their bodies, went out laughing, and tried the points of their swords in their dead bodies; and, in order to prove what metal they were made of they thrust some of those through that still lay alive upon the ground; but for those that entreated them to lend them their right hand and their sword to despatch them, they were too proud to grant their requests, and left them to be consumed by the famine. Now every one of these died with their eyes fixed upon the temple, and left the seditious alive behind them. Now the seditious at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of the public treasury, as not enduring the stench of their dead bodies. But afterwards, when they could not do that, they had them cast down from the walls into the valleys beneath.”[2]

 

Is this passage possibly about the destruction of Jerusalem? Why or why not?

 

8.     Vv. 7-11 John describes these terrifying beings, what do you think they are? Are they demons, or is John struggling to explain some future fearsome technology?

 

9.     What’s happening in verse 13-19? (cf. 2 Kings 6:17).

 

10.  Vv. 20-21 – Why do you think people refused to repent, even in the midst of such destruction as described in these two chapters?

 

11.  What is clear, and what is not clear about this judgement?

List of References

[1] Josephus, Flavius. The Wars of the Jews; or the history of the destruction of Jerusalem (p. 428). Kindle Edition.

[2] Josephus, Flavius. The Wars of the Jews; or the history of the destruction of Jerusalem (p. 420). Kindle Edition.