Sermons by Turin

In these days of wolves in sheep’s clothing, such as Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer and any number of TBN preachers, I feel the need to put forth the true Word of God, for myself.

Welcome to my pulpit.

---

There are so many perverted teachings, out there, that many victims who attempt to rebel against them by anchoring themselves strictly in the Bible, in order to get to the truth, are often still suffering from past indoctrination that continues to color whatever they read and misleads their conclusions. It probably takes many years of personal study to uncover all of it. This problem also applies to many past “greats” of Christianity, such as Calvin and Spurgeon. To look back to these false teachers for bedrock is to repeat the same mistakes of today.

Let us make use of a classic example:

---

The supposed story of Lucifer.

Most people probably think that they know this one. In fact, here is a preview of some proposed movie trilogy, from back in the early 2000’s, that my guess is was never made:

This one seemed to cover the usual bases:

“Lucifer was the wisest and most beautifully endowed of all of God’s angels. But, pride was his downfall. He decided to try to overthrow God. He managed to recruit one third of the angels in his war but was defeated. Afterward, he became Satan.”

There are so many ideas and details that have been generated, filled in from, and based upon just this brief synopsis – of which, the aforementioned movie was just one – that even many Christians would think that it is established Biblical fact. Yet, the bulk of this creative imagination is based upon just two short passages from the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel – neither of which can honestly be described as assuredly literal. They seem metaphorical.

The passage from Isaiah suddenly begins in the middle of a prophecy against Babylon (which then resumes, as such), suggesting that the appellation of “Lucifer” may have been a metaphor for the Babylonian king.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Isaiah 14:12-17

The passage from Ezekiel is similar. The chapter begins as a prophecy against the prince of Tyrus. It suddenly becomes directed at the “king” of Tyrus, who either morphs into a cherub or – of course – was really the cherub all along. (One explanation for this that I have read was that the prince was the human ruler, while the king (the true ruler) was actually the spiritual being, Satan, who ruled from behind him).

12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Ezekiel 28:12-19

Now, to read the above quoted paragraphs, with today’s popular myths about Lucifer/Satan already in mind, might make their meanings to seem to be pretty plainly in agreement with all of the movies and other modern cultural myths.

But here is some of the context that is often ignored:

1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning...

Isaiah 14:1-12

Still think that Isaiah passage is only talking about the fallen angel that we have all heard about…? You can look up and read the rest of the chapter that follows the passage about Lucifer, if you want more.

Nowhere else in the Bible is “Lucifer” ever even mentioned. It makes one wonder about the context. Also notice how the preceding verses begin taking on a metaphorical sound before launching into the passage about “Lucifer, son of the morning”.

Now, it could be that the ancient Israelites from that period already had extra-canonical stories and myths about this angel (by name) that match what we talk about, today. But, if so, then, Where are they? Were they passed down to us in a written format that we can trust as authentic and authoritative? That is the problem. The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, for example, is occasionally referred to and even quoted. In fact, while re-telling much of our Bible in his own works to the Romans, he also declared that Jesus had been the Christ. (Josephus lived sometime within a few decades after Jesus came and left. For him, this was recent history). But, even he is not considered inspired or authoritative.

Hollywood loves to dig up strange scraps of pseudo-scriptura, written by any weird Jew or Catholic between the destruction of Jerusalem and the 1900’s, it seems, in order to make movies that people, who do not know any better, eat up thinking that it is authorized by God and the equivalent of reading the Bible. But, they are usually about as fake as HP Lovecraft’s fictional Necronomicon. Yes, they often borrow existing names, places and events from the authoritative canon. However, that does not mean that they did not make up the rest of it. That is, generally, what is called blasphemy, by the way.

Here is the preceding context for the Ezekiel passage:

1 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:
4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:
5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:
6 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;
7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.
11 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty...

Notice the phrase “yet thou art a man” in verse two. While that can still fit some interpretations, it also helps to establish that this chapter was, at least, in part about an earthly prince or king. The rest of it could be mere metaphor. Could. I am not ruling out the Luciferian interpretation.

Now, in my well read opinion, the vast majority of everything that you have heard and seen about Lucifer/Satan is based upon these two passages from the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Hopefully, one can see how skimpy their evidence would be upon this subject. They simply do not cut it as a basis for all of the vast theater that we have been treated to about Satan and who he was. There are many other possible interpretations. It is a subject that the Bible tells us very little about.

In fact, the devil in the first or second person, let alone who he was in the third person, really is not mentioned all that much throughout the Bible. In the New Testament, he is suddenly mentioned a lot. But, usually in the third person with practically nothing about his past. As with many other subjects spouted by lying mammon-worshiping “pastors”, the popular story of Satan is well over 90% theological conjecture based heavily upon inference from scanty references.

For example, this may shock many people, but, nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that the devil tempted Eve to eat the fruit or that the serpent that did tempt her was in any way associated with Satan, let alone Satan himself. The closest argument that one might make is in the book of Revelation where the dragon is referred to as “that old serpent” two times. Here is one:

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him".

Now, I will grant you that this is almost a case to say that it was the devil who tempted Eve, back in the garden of Eden. I myself am tempted to concede the point. However, not only is there more than one serpent in existence, but, the children of this serpent were mentioned as a future problem to come:

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 3:14-15

Reading this passage, it should be apparent that we are not talking about any angelic/demonic being but about an actual animal that was on par with – then, below – the beasts of the field, for example. The fact that it could talk might be raised as an objection, but things were different in the beginning. For example, people could live to be 900-1,000 years old. During the pre-flood age (and possibly afterward for a time, as with the nephilim) there might possibly have been intelligent, communicative animals. We are talking about an existing paradise with a literal tree of eternal life. Therefore, it would seem to be consistent with the text. The phrase “all the days of thy life” would also suggest a mortal being with a limited lifespan.

I am aware that this particular passage is considered to be the first messianic prophecy of the coming of Jesus. (Jesus was “her seed”). The question here is, How much do you want to read into this text? It made consistent common sense to refer to Eve’s coming children as “her seed”. (We would probably say “her descendants”. Same thing). There are no deep theological deductions required to do this.

However, when one starts saying that the serpent’s seed (referred to by God) is symbolic for human beings who would later follow Satan (the serpent) rather than God, you are now engaging in theological/metaphysical jugglery with no true rules or restrictions for your conclusions. Make up whatever you like. You cannot be contradicted by definitions. Make faces at it. It is all stupid.

(If God was, in fact, using spiritual symbolism here, then, I say that He was using the situation to parallel Satan’s future kingdom vs. Christ’s future kingdom. But, based on the text, I cannot truly conclude that particular serpent had anything to do with Satan and I do think that God was also literally talking about human beings stomping on the heads of literal snakes who bit their feet/legs. “Satan was the serpent” is a spiritual allegory that has been driven into our heads by preachers with secular agendas who wish to make it all fit together a certain way. Probably, by dispensationalists. It has a certain amount of merit. But, I remain unconvinced).

Though the Bible is pretty clear, in Genesis 4:1, that Cain was conceived between Adam and Eve and that Eve at least claimed to believe that he came from the Lord, there are those who use this method of spiritual double meanings for this portion of the text, as well. They interpret this passage as meaning that Eve had sex with the serpent (Satan) as well as Adam. Possibly, on a continuous basis. Interesting conclusion, No? This is where unwarranted figurative interpretations can get you.

Yes: Cain is alleged to have been a product of that adultery, while Abel (and later, Seth) was a legitimate son of Adam, which would be one reason why Cain killed Abel. This kind of thinking can and does go rather far, leading to all sorts of theological speculation – some of which ends up sounding rather obviously like political propaganda for today.

One could, of course, counter with the argument that God told Cain that it was what he did that kept him from being accepted and He even gave him advice on how to avoid sinning. Not, who his father was. Therefore, even if Satan had actually been Cain’s father, it did not matter to God. God was clearly telling Cain that it was his sin that He had a problem with and that he could do just as well as Abel, in God’s eyes, if he did what he was supposed to do. But, that is just too logical when one can simply read between the words to spiritualize away the text and change the meaning.

Such people constantly treat anything within the Bible that they do not like as a metaphor with a hidden meaning. Metaphors are most definitely in the Bible – usually as parables and prophecies – but, they can be identified as such by using sense and wisdom.

We are not talking about esoteric wisdom, here. We are talking about the difference between the mind of an adult and a child. Materialists often have trouble with this, even as adults. Their ability to abstract tends to be limited to mathematics with practical applications. That, or the sex drive.

Applying some adult wisdom to the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, I believe that the references to “Lucifer” and the “cherub” are definitely metaphorical to the human figures being spoken of. However, they could also be literally about Satan. They can be both. Even if they are, it does not mean that the Hollywood Satan is accurate.

The point is that most of the popular “Lucifer/Satan” story is flat out made up. I will agree that it could match whatever the true story is. But, we simply do not really know what the true story is. The Bible does not come even close to giving us that kind of detail. Filling in the rest for ourselves is spiritually dangerous and most likely plays into Satan’s hands.

---

Cain and Abel

While we are on the subject, another popular bit of speculative theology has to do with the Cain/Abel story, where they made their offerings to God. It is that God did not like Cain’s offering because He was supposedly expecting a blood sacrifice as an atonement for sin.

Sure, that is one possibility, but, we do not really know that. You are just making that up by drawing on other parts of the Bible as it strikes your fancy. Possibly, in order to stress the need for Christ’s atonement for us. That is understandable, but, not justifiable.

Aside from the fact that we do not even know that this was an atonement offering, that interpretation is based upon the future Mosaic law – which was not given until thousands of years, later. Even under the Mosaic law, not every offering would be an atonement offering. Sometimes, they were, in fact, produce offerings. There could have been some other problem with Cain’s offering. The produce could have been rotten, for example. There were quality stipulations under the Mosaic law. For example: no sickly/deformed animals. One case of this is cited in Malachi 1:8.

Same thing with Adam and Eve, before that. Modern day Old Law observers (denounced by Paul) claim that the skins that God gave them for their first real set of clothes came from blood animal sacrifices that were the results of their sins at the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

That could very well be, as well. But, it does not say any of that in the Bible. You simply imagined those details because they made your other doctrines fit together all the nicer. You are like false prophets.

This is how doctrines of men get started. They sound nice. They have a certain logic to them. But, they are wrong as well as wrong-headed. They bring people into bondage and cause other big problems. Just tell the truth of what you know without the embellishments. Matthew 15:9.

---

Scrubbing the Bible

Sometimes, there are parts of the Bible that do not square with modern ideals. These ideals are rooted in humanism – if not, in Western political liberalism. Some have to do with violence. Some, with sexuality. Some, with egalitarianism. Others, with human rights. As a result, there is often a tendency to try to whitewash them to make them fit modern expectations.

Jephthah

A classic example is the story of Jephthah. Jephthah offered his grown daughter to God as a burnt sacrifice for helping him to defeat an army. The Bible says so in clear language. Human sacrifice. It was accepted by the Lord.

He had to. He had made a foolish vow that led to it. He certainly did not want to. The Lord was normally against this. But, God did not allow one to get out of vows. Therefore, the sacrifice was carried out. Today’s revisionists exploit certain ambiguities in the text to have us believe that something else happened and that his daughter was spared.

I say “classic”, but chances are that Jephthath’s story is not that well known, these days. The reason is understandable. It is an ugly little nugget of reality that exposes the true nature of life in Biblical times and for believers, in general. As such, it shows up the expectations of the worldly Christians who endlessly try to justify the cozy positions in society that they obtain by compromising with the secular world. Their rationale is essentially that if you are “walking with the Lord” then such things just should not happen to a Christian.

They do seem to suffer from a certain amount of cognitive dissonance on such questions, since they often acknowledge bad things that happen to believers in other countries. But, the bottom line is that if such people were to meet Jesus or Jephthah, today, then, they would never know them and they would denounce them. Everyone knows it. Hence, the endless need of these comfortable livers to sanitize portions of the Bible to make it line up with their culture (traditions of men), rather than God’s expectations.

Here is the relevant part of the story:

"30 And Jephthah vowed a vow to the LORD, and said, If you shall without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh to his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said to him, My father, if you have opened your mouth to the LORD, do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth; for as much as the LORD has taken vengeance for you of your enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains, and mourn my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year." (Judges 11:30-40)

Now, the revisionists latch onto the idea of “her virginity” as well as the lack of gruesome details in verse 39 to conclude that she simply was never allowed to get married. I will admit that it does seem to be a backward set of priorities for someone who is about to die – as well as to have an unpleasant follow up for her corpse. Not necessarily, though. However, the text is pretty clear:

“I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

“did with her according to his vow which he had vowed”

Also, if she was merely doomed to a life of celibacy, then, Why was everyone that upset about it? Why all of the rending of clothes, mourning and four day lamentations for her sake every year, thereafter, by all of the maidens of Israel? Sterility issues were common problems. Does it not seem to be somewhat of an overreaction to adopt a new national holiday simply over one girl never having experienced sex?

Of course, she became a burnt offering.

That was the tragedy that made her worth remembering.

David and the Ammonites

In another example that involves warfare with the Ammonites, King David got a bit barbaric with his enemies.

The Ammonites had given the Israelites more than one reason for this kind of response and this time they got it. It is not nice to read.

There are two accounts of the story in the Bible:

"1 And it came to pass, that after the year was expired, at the time that kings go out to battle, Joab led forth the power of the army, and wasted the country of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried at Jerusalem. And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it.
2 And David took the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious stones in it; and it was set on David's head: and he brought also exceeding much spoil out of the city.
3 And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." (1 Chronicles 20:1-3)

"29 And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.
30 And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance.
31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." (2 Samuel 12:29-31)

As we can see, the two versions are pretty much the same. The passage from 2 Samuel expands on the subject, slightly. Though mentioning only one is necessary, I post both for reasons which will become clear.

The first and foremost thing to take from this is the butchery that David engaged in. This kind of detail is not typical recorded behavior for the Israel of the Bible. In fact, I cannot think of any similar examples. Perhaps, it was the norm but was never mentioned elsewhere.

When one reads about the treatment of the Israelites by the Ammonites, in other instances, it does not seem hard to find a justification. That is not the issue. In fact, aside from being unusual, it seems rather open and shut.

The issue is that some modernists have read this story and have concluded that it is just too harsh to mean what it says. They have offered an alternate explanation that David simply put the Ammonites under hard labor. Even more laughably, to justify this kinder/softer revisionism they have claimed that the two accounts require harmonization.

Harmonization is a technique that is applied when you have multiple accounts with regard to some event in the Bible which superficially seem to contradict each other. It is legitimate, so long as it is not used to sneak in intuitive, cultural deductions which are not apparent in the text, or for applying value judgements which are likewise not apparent. The basic idea is to look further into the context, or, simply, into one’s understanding of the facts in order to reconcile them (into “harmony”). This always seems possible with the Bible – though, not always in a way that I would consider to be very satisfactory. Often, the problem breaks down into one of different authors giving different perspectives on the same thing.

(It can also be abused as a technique for inserting support for agendas and false doctrines by pretending to see things which are not there. As a rule of thumb: Whenever you see preachers/teachers going back to “the original languages” in order to seek a better interpretation, that is most likely what is actually going on. That game is definitely not confined to harmonization).

This is not one of those events. These two versions about the Ammonites are almost as convenient as it gets. Where is the apparent contradiction? Simply adding the term “brick-kiln” is supplementary – not contradictory. Claiming that they require harmonization is just an excuse to begin trying to change the meaning. In this case, they would like to deny David’s butchery. Well, too bad. That is what it says and it is what he did.

Let us not forget, either, that this is the same Old Testament where the Israelites were occasionally ordered by God to wipe out every man, woman and child. Therefore, this particular story is already consistently “harmonized” with the Bible, itself.

CRITICISMS

In this section, I would like to begin an area of thought where I put forth some honest problems that I have with God, the Bible, etc.

It is not my intent to subvert or to blaspheme. However, these are honest conclusions that I have reached and I also believe that faith can be taken too far. Meaning, that without questioning and being willing to say that, as far as things stand, something does not sound right, then, one can occasionally be blinded from discerning false doctrine that has already crept in to subvert a belief system.

Also – yes – one must leave open the possibility of concluding that an entire system is based upon falsehood. However, when one honestly questions, with the intent of discovering truth, then one can occasionally discover sneaky lies (say, some sort of culturally-based propaganda) that were never noticed and which were causing other problems. He is then left with a better product than what he had before.

Sometimes, people lose faith because of problems that they are dimly perceiving and are not being addressed. The simple fact that they know that they do not have a perfect understanding of the material or the ability to articulate it is not going to stop them from concluding that something is not right or to abandon it. They should not be criticized for doing this. On the contrary. It is the people who never question and who pretend to blindly accept who are usually involved in something for the wrong reasons. There is no test of character in this sort of compliance.

A problem with faith, in general, is that it presupposes that what one has already received has been kept pure. Even the Lord never promised to do this for us. So, we must always be vigilant. Questioning is not the problem. Motives are the problem.

In this section, I will most likely make some rather blasphemous sounding statements. However, I will give reasons for doing so. I do attempt to resolve these things for myself, but, I cannot pretend to succeed for all or any of these issues. I am simply pointing them out as the apparent stumbling stones that they are. Anyone who does not care about the existence of a stumbling stone probably does not honestly care about the overall idea behind it, either. That person is scum, is in it for the wrong reasons and will spend eternity with the other hypocrites.

Abraham

As a rich man

As far as the beliefs of Christians and the ancient Israelites go, Abraham is, more or less, our original patriarch. He was an important figure. God is attested to have begun implementing His grand plan for our salvation with Abraham.

However, I have some scruples about what I read of Abraham. For one thing, he was basically just some rich guy in the Bible who seems to have been handed a pretty sweet deal (Genesis 24:1) for little to nothing in terms of personal suffering (not to mention, having escaped the condemnation of Jesus for his riches).

As an example, there is the parable (though, there are those who would contend that this was not a parable) of the rich man and Lazarus:

"19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:19-31)

Now, I have never heard this pointed out, but, it seems at least a mite bit ironic to me that a guy from Abraham’s easy, worldly background gets to preach it to another rich guy to “remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things…”. 🤣

If the other rich guy would not have already been suffering in flames while talking to the ancestor that he was hoping would give him some help (Abraham), then, he might have replied, “Excuse me, but, then, why are you not over here with me? You had your good things in your lifetime, as well.”

Of course, one assumes that the reason is that Abraham probably treated people like Lazarus better than he did. Otherwise, Lazarus might not have experienced so many evil things and they would have shared a better place in eternity, together, as a mutual reward. It is an assumption, however. One that is made more evident by the logic of the parable. In comparison, let us look at what happened to Isaac…

As a father

Abraham treated his true firstborn, Ishmael, pretty badly at the whims of his hot wife, Sarah, who did not originally see anything wrong with claiming Hagar’s son for herself. True, God supported it by telling Abraham to assent to the queen bitch’s latest venting of her spleen.

Apparently, the excuses were that the mother was a slave and that both she and Ishmael forgot their places at times and became uppity. In the case of Ishmael’s behavior, one can speculate that, perhaps, Sarah’s shitty “I’m the wife. You’re the slave.” attitude towards Hagar extended toward him. Especially, after her own biological son (Isaac) was born. They were probably always second class family members in her eyes; though, Abraham appeared to regard Ishmael as his son. He was very unhappy with Sarah’s demand, to disown them.

Still, it was what he did that counts, and he appears to have been able to pass the buck for that to God. How convenient. Isaac, on the other hand, was decent enough to return to help bury his father at Abraham’s death (Genesis 25:9).

And, while we are on the question of legitimacy, then, it is worth pointing out that, while the Mosaic law was still centuries from being given and certain degrees of incest were probably still common, Sarah was also, in fact, Abraham’s half-sister (Genesis 20:12). So, perhaps, had Ishmael become the heir, there might have been less inbreeding in the “legitimate” line. Perhaps, Sarah’s own lack of true marital legitimacy was part of why she felt threatened by Hagar. Perhaps, she should not have been Abraham’s wife, at all.

---