You can't share what you don't have, teach what you don't understand.

Today I finally canceled all of my sponsorships of children through Compassion International.

I say finally because I had come to the decision to do so many months earlier, but being a coward and lazy, I allowed other life circumstances to crowd out taking the rather small amount of time required to do this. I don't know what made today different. Perhaps it is just that I am tired of inaction in my own life, tired of the cowardice fueling inaction, and I wanted to take a small step towards changing that downward spiral.

Regardless of the reason why I finally did it, I did.

The short version of "why" is that I don't care what is done "in Jesus' name."

If you read Matthew 7, you'll find that doing something "in Jesus' name" doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. This is because applying a label, or slapping "in Jesus' name" onto something, doesn't take a lot of effort.

"We're eating this food, in Jesus' name!"
"We're building a new church, in Jesus' name!"
"We're reinstating temple prostitutes, in Jesus' name!"
"We're toppling governments and creating world unity, in Jesus' name!"

It doesn't matter what you do "in Jesus' name" unless Jesus wants you to do it in the first place.

Similar to how there is no scriptural support for "The Crusades", people still try to pretend that because they were done "in Jesus' name", that they had anything to do with Christianity, instead of the political reality that Christian nations were fighting back against the Muslims that had been busy conquering large portions of Europe until that point in time.

So, when did Jesus ever command Christians to be material saviors of the world?

When did Jesus say that it was the responsibility of Christians to run around the world and alleviate the consequences of sin?

At this point in human history, knowledge on agriculture is not exactly hard to find. We know that if you put plants in good soil, provide a source of water and sunshine, then the plants will grow. Some plants, in growing, produce things we can eat. If we focus on growing those things, we can have sources of food.

This isn't complicated, and yet "world hunger" is still an issue? How is that even possible?

Because for the same reason that people would deny God's gift of salvation through the death of Jesus Christ, people will reject truths that would lift them out of the depths of squalor and poverty. It is arrogance, pure and simple.

People don't want to admit that they are wrong, that they could do things differently in a way which would be better, and so they'll keep doing the wrong thing and boast loudly about how much better their way is.

It is not "bad luck" that condemns one to poverty, but arrogance and pride.

And this arrogance and pride I am no longer interested in subsidizing.

The Compassion International charity claims to provide for material needs of children, to "lift them out of poverty", and then throws in that because they work through churches, the children also get a chance to hear about Jesus.

That is not the correct priority. Offering material salvation first and then eternal salvation afterwards does not make acceptance of the Gospel more probable, and this is seen most clearly in the type of "Christianity" that exists in some of these places, where there is little more than a "Christianese" coat of paint over animism, shamanism, occultism, and every other demonic practice under the sun.

The reason that this is what happens is because these charities cannot offer a salvation they themselves do not possess. One cannot spread the Gospel if one has not heard and accepted it themselves, as those who genuinely do find the material struggles of this life to be insignificant in comparison, let alone necessary as part of the sanctification process.

When we make bad choices in life, bad consequences follow. When someone comes along and offers to absorb the cost of bad consequences, we'll take it rather than correct our own behavior. This unfortunate reality about human nature was captured in the prayers by Jesus Christ in the garden before his death, and indeed was what necessitated his sacrifice on our behalf:

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.” And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”

He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour? Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.

So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.”

The people who had seen the miracles, had the parables explained to them, who witnessed the ministry of Jesus Christ firsthand, couldn't even obey a simple command from Jesus Christ, that he made three times in a row right to their faces.

If they couldn't do that, realize that what Jesus Christ was asking is if there was any other way to reconcile man to God. Is there any other way, other than doing all the work, is there any middle ground whereupon humanity would realize its own folly and repent?

God's answer? NOPE.

This isn't about intelligence, or the lack thereof. This isn't about education, or the lack thereof. This isn't about opportunity, equality, fairness, or the lack thereof.

Humans are arrogant and prideful creatures who will not "get it" unless their own horrible nature and the consequences it naturally brings about are shoved in their faces, and even so some would rather die in that arrogance and pride than admit that anybody, let alone God, has any place to tell them to do anything differently.

Just like how Israel, despite their favor and intimate connection with God, frequently turned away and rebelled, humanity lacks the ability to be obedient to God on our own. We can't do anything on our own strength, it took God doing all the work and leaving us with just a choice.

God doesn't make that choice for us, and "steps back" when we make the wrong choices and lets us experience the consequences. Unfortunately for humanity, this dynamic isn't just temporal, but eternal as well. God will not "override" the choices of those who have rejected Jesus Christ, who have died unrepentant, who till their last breath cursed God for being God instead of them being God.

So how does filling someone else's stomach accurately reflect this dynamic?

How does free education accurately reflect this dynamic?

How does using the wealth and technology developed or accrued by those who were obedient to God to alleviate the consequences of sin "spreading the Gospel"?

How does "saving" someone from the consequences of their own decisions, without them choosing anything, going to "prime" them for understanding that the choice to follow Jesus may cost them everything in this life?

God's love is unconditional, but God's wrath is not, and in preaching only about God's love, we have diluted the reason why God's love matters in the first place. In acting only in love, we have reduced God to a cosmic vending machine of blessings, happy to reward others who do not hoard what God has granted them.

In preaching salvation, and yet acting as material saviors, we have ignored what we need to be saved from in the first place.

And a people who don't need saving can't be saved. So instead of preaching eternal salvation and sharing the Gospel, "Christians" provide for the material needs of others and invite them to join a social club, as if the acceptance or rejection of the invitation was only of incidental consequence, because the "Christians" will still be providing salvation regardless of what the individuals choose in the end.

Many are guilty of believing that they can be even more patient than God. That they will find a way to save people that Jesus Christ did not already afford, did not already make available. That somehow it's people's understanding or awareness which is the hindrance to their choosing God instead of themselves.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why people ultimately reject God. People do not reject God out of a lack of understanding, but because they understand all to well that the Gospel brings news of is that they are not God, and they simply cannot bear to live with the ramifications of that.

Spread the Gospel, not comfort. Spread the Gospel, not health and wealth.

And that is why I will no longer support charities whose primary purpose and behavior does not center around spreading the Gospel. The rest is, quite literally, just a distraction from the most important role we can play in this material life.

I am not God, and neither are you, but God wants to have a relationship with us, and the price of reconciliation was already paid by Jesus Christ on the cross.

What will you choose?

Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 10:4-5

He who has a slack hand becomes poor,
But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
He who gathers in summer is a wise son;
He who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame.

Proverbs 10:4-5 (NKJV).

We make our own way on this side of life. We eat from what we have worked to obtain, and for those who don't work hard, they must rely on the goodwill and charity of those who did work hard to overlook the personal indiscretion of laziness to keep their stomachs full.

Sometimes people we know run into "hard times" where, even despite their efforts, things just don't go well. People get sick, accidents happen, and nobody lives in a vacuum where they get to control everything, so there are times when the unexpected happens and now you're caught short.

The problem is in figuring out whether folks who need help actually need help, or if they're just lazy and expecting that other people will take care of them. Oh, sometimes it may look like they're "busy", but spinning tires in the mud is not trying to make progress, it's just the appearance of trying.

This dynamic is then compounded in that, due to modern communications and their power, we can be made aware of those that have needs, but we can't really ever understand why. We're supposed to "trust" that everyone who is needy is so for reasons outside their control, and any attempt to validate this is met with hostility.

Pride is the main reason for this, in that people want to have the dignity and respect that is due to someone who has made good choices, but without making the good choices.

The old phrase "beggars can't be choosers" spoke to this, where folks who do not have, for whatever reason, are not entitled to anything that anyone else has, even if it would be a "good" thing to "share".

Life just isn't that simple though, and the further away from someone you are, the easier that it can be to lie about something, and the more one has to gain in doing just that. We can tell ourselves that we're doing "something good", but how many folks are able to validate that with their own two eyes?

We live in an r-selected society due to the prevalence of resources, real or imagined, and so "morality" all gets filtered through this, whether secular or spiritual in nature. If resources are abundant, than anyone "holding out" on someone else is simply being greedy.

There's enough for everyone, quit being so selfish! There's no reason for you to steward resources well either, just give money to whoever provides you the most emotional satisfaction and trust that somehow "God will put it to good use"!

What we're supposed to believe is that, despite humans having a habit of behaving according to human nature, which is sinful, selfish, and to continue beating the dead horse, solipsistic, people on the other side of the world that desperately need help would otherwise be hard working, despite their nation sucking on the teat of foreign aid for decades, and that they're not using the free resources as an excuse to avoid actually developing their own countries through diligence, but that they've just continued to have bad luck year after year despite everything they've tried?

At some point you have to realize that people exist in circumstances which are the result of their own choices, and not some cosmic unfairness in a zero sum system that just happened to hurt only them and now it's time for you to put your cape on and be their savior. People who can make money of cheating and lying are going to do it instead of working hard, whether they live next door to you or on the other side of the globe.

Nations of sheep judged as if they are responsible for the nations of goats, and how nations of goats treat themselves and their own people.

Do not be foolish with the resources you have been granted responsibility for. The only gift we can give freely is the Gospel, the good news from God to all mankind regarding the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of all, that if your faith is placed in Jesus you would be saved.

Preach Jesus, and see how quickly people want to be associated with you when the only genuinely unconditional love you have to offer comes from God.

Word Study: "Ezer" is a helper, nothing more, nothing less.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Genesis 2:18-22 (NKJV).

My wife recently came across a social media posting which attempted to claim that when God first referenced woman in Genesis, the word used was "ezer", and that this word was so often used in the Bible with respect to God saving mankind, that the role and responsibility of women would change dramatically once this "new understanding" came out, that it would "change everything."

Support for this was drawn from claims by a supposed expert in translation who stated that this particular word was very difficult to translate into English, but that properly understanding its meaning would change how women would be viewed from the perspective of scripture.

Never mind how women are actually viewed by scripture, or that the view of scripture they are trying to draw a contrast with is the boringly stereotypical misogynistic paper tiger that still fuels the waning flames of Feminism today, this new understanding is important for women to understand to reclaim some of their lost honor or glory that men had stolen away through poor translation of these ancient texts.

Now, as a good rule when it comes to biblical interpretation, immediately doubt in the claims of anyone who has a "new understanding" that changes some dramatic portion of scriptural understanding. You still need to back this doubt up by going to scripture, but you do yourself no favors by genuinely entertaining the idea that someone really did figure something out that had been missed for thousands of years.

You should naturally wonder why God waited till now for the "real truth" to be known, but I digress.

This is especially so because while the New Testament is relatively newer, you have to remember that the Old Testament has portions of it which are used by other major world religions as well, and so you're not just claiming that Christians have it wrong, but all religions who point to Genesis as being a divinely authored text and yet does not come to the same conclusions.

That said, let's get into the details. "Ezer" first shows up in Genesis 2:18. In this passage, God notes that Adam is alone, and says he will make a helper, and various translations define the helper as comparable, suitable, and so forth. Before you get ahead of yourself though, note that God immediately starts creating new creatures for Adam to find a helper among, resulting in verse 20 where a suitable helper was not found among them.

Because of that, we have some pertinent context that we should discuss. First off, Adam has not sinned yet, and is not in need of any sort of moral salvation. This may seem like a silly point to make, but given the connotation that is drawn from "ezer" later, it's an important distinction to keep in mind. Secondly, when God saw that Adam was alone, the first step God took was to create more creatures, not woman, to possibly fulfill the role of "ezer".

Now, moving to verses 21 and 22, the first time God references woman specifically, and the word used is "ishshah". So while "ezer" still applies, in that God is providing a helper to Adam in response to Adam having been alone and not having found a comparable helper among the other creatures God brought forth and Adam named, the label for "woman" wasn't "ezer", but "ishshah".

"Ezer" is the role, but "ishshah" is the identifier for woman specifically, and it means "woman, wife, female."

That said, let's look at how "ezer" is used. In the Hebrew/Aramaic language, there is a smaller dictionary, so the same root word will get used in multiple places, with its specific meaning drawing from context and how the root word is modified, not necessarily from the root word itself. In this manner, a word can have multiple literal and figurative meanings that are not identified by just having the same root word.

"Ezer" is one of those words, and this makes sense when you look at the definition for it, and the many different ways this root word was used in the Old Testament. In short it means "a help, helper", and is itself derived from "azar", which means "to help, succor". There are also various versions of "ezer" used in scripture, and these different versions are part of the context which completes the identification of what that root word means within that passage.

"Ezer" specifically is only explicitly used four times in the Old Testament. The first two are in Genesis, as seen above, and here are the other two:

Then You spoke in a vision to Your holy one,
And said: “I have given help to one who is mighty;
I have exalted one chosen from the people.

Psalm 89:19 (NKJV).  For parallel translations see this: Psalm 89:19.

Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue.

Daniel 11:34 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Daniel 11:34.

Notice how one of these is explicitly referring to God having given help, but the other is not.

When people talk about all the other times "ezer" is used, they are referencing the other "versions" of "ezer" which have the same "root", but carry a noticeably different connotation. "Ezri" is one variation, and here are the verses where that formation of the root word "ezer" was used:

But I am poor and needy;
Make haste to me, O God!
You are my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not delay.

Psalm 70:5 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Psalm 70:5.

I will lift up my eyes to the hills—
From whence comes my help?

Psalm 121:1 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Psalm 121:1.

My help comes from the Lord,
Who made heaven and earth.

Psalm 121:2 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this:Psalm 121:2.

Can you see how there is a common theme of "help" being provided, yet the details of who is providing help, and why, is different, reflected in how the root word is rendered in the actual passage?

There is no difficulty in understanding that the word refers to "help". The challenge is that what help is provided, and who is providing it, is defined by the remainder of the passage, as well as the manifestation of the root word in that passage.

So what of the claims about what woman was helping with? What role was she fulfilling? Well, scripture already told us what God's motivation was for creating an "ezer" for Adam:

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

Genesis 2:18 (NKJV).

The "problem" is that Adam is alone, that's the struggle that God needs to help Adam with, loneliness. It's not that Adam needs saving in a moral, spiritual, or even material sense, but that God did not want Adam to be alone.

There is no missing honor, no stolen pride, in that woman was created to be the companion of man, to be a helper, and if you've been following my posts on Proverbs, you know the role the wife plays in her husband's life is very important.

The "problem" we face today is with the denigration of the wife, the mother, the comparable companion that God created for Adam, through denial of what what God created her for in the first place. This lack of understanding as to the genuine importance of the role of the woman in a healthy family, and only having the widely publicized misogynistic stereotypes to draw a contrast with, has both women, and men who are trying to appeal to those women, trying to reconstruct importance and significance in the life of women, but by ignoring what God really states throughout scripture and instead putting together a Frankenstein monster based on modern proclivities.

There is no hidden value in "ezer" that men have, whether intentionally or not, tried to hide away from women, to take away from their "real value". Women do have value, but our modern deceits have us dismissing what God values for what we do based on a postmodern materialism.

Instead, we all should pursue an understanding of what God values, of the "what" and the "why", and you will discover that, despite the reason for a woman's creation being rather simplistic, God did not create her without care or intent, without distinction, without refinement, without complexity, without purpose.

God loves women, has given them serious responsibilities, and it's been in the rejection of their role, of taking on those God-given responsibilities, that misery and dissatisfaction found fertile soil to grow in and produce fruits that have led both man and woman astray yet again.