Brian Welch of Korn Accepted Jesus

How are we supposed to understand testimonies, like Brian Welch's, formerly a member of the alternative metal band Korn very popular in the 90's? Welch is open about his previous addiction to methamphetamines, apparently using it for 700 days straight before accepting Jesus.

As frum Jews, what are we to make of such a testimony? One thing is for sure, you won't ever find me knocking somebody's decision to improve his life, especially when it comes to quitting drugs and straightening out. I am a serious proponent of peoples' dignity and self-respect and find it very encouraging when people break bad habits and become better people.

What is strange to me is that while Jesus may be the reason Welch found himself free of the desire to take drugs, it may also be that when a person commits to a position of self improvement, deliberately detaching himself from harmful influences, what often follows is a lack of a desire for the things that previously ensnared him. And all of this happens without Jesus.

For example, when I started becoming observant 21 years ago, I too found myself in a renewed positive frame of mind where I desired good things and was repulsed by bad ones. While it's true that I was not addicted to hard drugs, my decision to turn my life in the more positive direction of observance changed me from the inside-out. I can assure you that accepting Jesus had nothing to do with that very pivotal set of transformations.

Committing to a track of self improvement while eschewing harmful influences turns out to be very relevant. According to the Rambam, teshuva is encapsulated by the following four steps:

1. Regret
2. Cessation
3. Confession
4. Future resolution

When the Beis HaMikdash stood, the fifth step required bringing a sacrifice.

Notice that the "rock bottom" effect that many former addicts experience lines up with regret and cessation (stages 1 and 2), and that committing to a track of self improvement lines up with future resolution (stage 4). This means that a person can experience a sense of renewal and liberation from his sin without Jesus stepping in to help him. The above process was designed to break a person away from his sin, and if he engages in it, he shouldn't be surprised that it works.

Having said that, and I've seen this happen with people who've come Christians for this reason, accepting Jesus is an important step in helping them to knock a very bad habit. It helps get them out of the proverbial mud or destruction into which they've fallen. However, while it does wonders in the short run, in the long run it requires them to accept that their nature as human beings is wretched and underserving of redemption. They sign on the dotted line to become free from whatever mental or spiritual ailment they're suffering from, while committing to a theological position that describes them as being fundamentally corrupt and disgusting in the eyes of God. The medicine seems just as bad as the disease.

And so it doesn't actually pave the path to genuine rectification - it simply enforces the destructive self image that subconsciously drove them to sin in the first place. It doesn't actually teach them that they are good people who are capable of actual change, but that they are helpless against their evil human nature, and hence need Jesus. It is for this reason that I reject the testimonial repentance narrative.

In Genesis 4:7 God says to Cain very clearly, "Sin rests at the door, it's desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it." You actually possess the ability to change, not in the way that Christianity proposes, i.e., in your acceptance that you cannot change and therefore need Jesus, but rather that you inherently possess the ability for positive change. And if you possess this ability, as God seems to be imploring Cain, you are expected to express that ability.

Salvation Is Free, Or Is It?

March 15, 2021 - Nisan 2, 5781

Three Scenarios of Forgiveness

Let us imagine a situation in which a person is brought to court before a judge for committing some sort of infraction. The judge looks the person up and down and then in the eye, and decides to waive his fee. The person gleefully leaves the courtroom with his spirit renewed with a great sense of appreciation for the judge and his mercy.

Let us now slightly adjust the situation by introducing another variable. Let us imagine a situation in which a person is brought to court before a judge for running a red light. As in the first case, the judge considers the situation and waives the offender's fee.

Let us now add another variable into the equation to see what happens. Let's take the example of the man who ran the red light, but in this case let's say that he struck another car and killed a family of four. As before he is brought into the courtroom to stand before the judge, and the judge waives his fee.

What is our intuitive reaction to each scenario?

In the first scenario we may be apt to feel appreciation and warmth toward the judge for what seems like undeserved mercy. This is an appropriate reaction when the person's infraction affects only him. However, when we consider the second scenario, in which the person's action was potentially dangerous to somebody other than himself, we may be more cautious when applying mercy. In the third situation, in which the person killed four other people due to negligence, we may consider applying mercy to be a gross perversion of justice. The application of mercy must be determined by the outcome of the event(s).

Is It Really Merciful to Forgive?

The very definition of mercy is to show favor to someone undeserving. Merriam Webster's defines mercy as "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power" and "lenient or compassionate treatment." Note that we are not speaking about the judge's right to waive the fee, but whether or not it would bring about the best possible good.

Waiving a fee can only be considered in relation to the offense committed. In the second case above, waiving the fee may be favorable to the offender, but depending on his attitude it will have one of two different effects. If the offender is appreciative of the judge's mercy, it may prompt him to be more careful and to avoid running red lights in the future. If the offender is crass and not appreciative, he may have learned nothing from the experience and may continue to drive dangerously.

Mercy as well has a ripple effect on those observing the case. When people see that the judge unequivocally waives penalties associated with running red lights, they may think to themselves that if they ever get caught running a red light that this judge will be lenient with them as well. In turn this leads people to be less careful while running red lights, endangering themselves and others, culminating in an increased disregard for law and order.

Now let us consider another variable. Let's reason that this judge has earned a reputation for mercy in the public eye. In general the public is said to have a great love and admiration for this judge and therefore actively seek out to avoid committing offenses, such as running red lights. However, the entire set of possibilities available to most people will inevitably lead to committing other offenses, either big or small. In the complexity and dynamics of personal, social, and business interactions, people will find it impossible to avoid committing a range of offenses, even though they may admire this judge. It therefore becomes necessary to impose particular penalties to prevent the greatest amount of people possible from committing offenses. In fact, such penalties would not be punitive in nature, but would set in place to establish order and to prevent injury and death. The core motivation for these penalties is the judge's love for the citizens.

But we cannot overlook those individuals who are motivated to avoid offenses borne of admiration for the judge. Inevitably when such individuals commit offenses and are brought before the judge, he will consider their record and will exercise leniency with them in accordance with their past and with their attitude while in the courtroom. He acts in this way because of a conviction that they will be more cautious in the future, and so he trusts letting them go with either a light sentence or no sentence at all.

However, those crass individuals who have demonstrated apathy and recklessness must receive harsher sentencing in order to prevent them from persisting in their offenses, which harm them and the people around them. This is certainly true of people who show no remorse at all for their offenses, so calloused through repetition or a non-functioning conscience that they experience no regret or shame for their actions. The judge is both merciful and just, and exercising mercy to recalcitrant offenders is to exercise cruelty toward undeserving victims. The purpose of the judge's sentencing is to bring about the greatest sense of good for all involved; both the offender and all related parties, which in certain cases requires the suspension of mercy.

A Real Life Example

A good real life example of this is the case of Gary Ridgeway, known as the Green River Killer, who murdered 49 girls and women between the 1980s and 1990s.

In a video titled The Power of Forgiveness - Gary Ridgway, the father of one of the victims is seen responding to Ridgway in an unexpected manner:

A person capable of regret would have cried during the drawn-out and painful process of reading off a list of 48 names in succession of people that you killed. The well-placed Schindler's List music coupled with the image of a grown crying man does a good job in evincing an emotional response. However, over the ten-year course that this man murdered, raped, and dumped girls and women into the lake, did he stop to cry once? Did he consider for a moment the future that he was creating for himself, and the future that he was taking from these girls and women and their families? Did he think about repenting once or getting help, or was he happy enough concealing his illness and continuing in his revelry?

It was awfully nice of the father of the victim to apologize, but it is the prerogative of the wronged party to forgive, not of people in the periphery, even if they are closely related. It was unsettling to see this father become an accomplice with Rigdway in the murder of his daughter; Ridgway may have killed her body, but her father killed her memory, which is must worse. 

While this footage is heart-wrenching, we can not let emotions cloud our judgment; offering mercy to an individual guilty of repeated, heinous crimes demonstrating no intent or ability to stop a) permits evil to continue, which creates more victims, and b) perverts justice towards for the victims who have already been wronged, extending to their families and friends. Throughout his case, according to Seattlepi.com, Ridgway referred to "the young women he strangled and dumped along the now-notorious river or in wooded ravines..." "as garbage." The fate of the guilty party cannot take precedence over the fact of the innocent, and to do so would not be mercy.

Further, we should distinguish between the example above and the thing that we are trying to compare. In the case above, Ridgway was sentenced even though being forgiven by the parent of one of the victims. In the case of mercy through Jesus, the transgressor is released from sentencing entirely. Therefore the demonstration above is not really comparable, for the judge saw it appropriate to sentence Ridgway regardless of his being forgiven by a relative of one of the victims.

Some of the comments on this video express the type of attractive, yet incorrect, intuition. I wouldn't want the following people ever to be put in a position of presiding as a judge:

1. Christ and God puts a major emphasis on forgiveness and instructed their followers that true forgiveness is vital to a healthy spiritual life. True Christians are supposed to apply this notion in everyday life, other religions may say the same, others say otherwise.


2. That´s the hardest part of being Christian. This guy nailed it. It takes massive courage to do that.


3. Forgiveness is stronger than hate. Forgiveness heals, it liberates, its compassionate but most of all its a sign of Love. Love conquers all.

The following is the type of approach more correct for forgiveness:

I think most people reach a point, where forgiveness, empathy and compassion turn to anger, even if for a while. Especially when the compassion and empathy are not returned. I know a friend whose other friend of 15 years slept with his wife behind his back, in their home the first friend was paying mortgage for, for over a year. And it led to divorce and some serious blues for the first friend. And the cheating friend never apologized, he never showed remorse. How do you just forgive that? Ultimately, the forgiveness in my opinion comes after a long time of anger, internal struggle, etc. and it's done because the forgiving party realizes it will only benefit their mental health.

Conclusion

What we should strive to realize is that forgiveness and mercy are not the same thing. Forgiveness is important as an attitude of the victim and his family, and is central to mental health, but is a perversion of justice and a corrupting force if exercised towards serious and repeat offenders. It may help the recipient of mercy, and it may help you in getting over loss, but it doesn't help anybody else, and everybody else matters, too.

Mishlei says:

"He who vindicates the wicked and condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord." (17:15)

"It is not good to be partial to the wicked, to subvert the righteous in judgment." (18:5)

Let us remember King Solomon's words inspired by the ruach hakodesh:

---

Everything has an appointed season, and there is a time for every matter under the heaven.

A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot that which is planted.

A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to break and a time to build.

A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time of wailing and a time of dancing.

A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.

A time to rend and a time to sew; a time to be silent and a time to speak.

A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.

Koheles 3:1-8

---

What time is right to hate if not for those who have committed unspeakable evil on innocent people? Shall we render the above null and void?

What Did The Pharaoh Do Wrong?

February 12, 2021 - 28 Shevat 5781

The Ramban explains that God prevents evil people from repenting under extenuating circumstances. This is the case with the Pharaoh, whom God wanted to punish for enslaving the Jews with severe labor (Midrash Rabbah 5:6). According to this, this is the meaning of the verse in Exodus 7:3 as the introduction to the plagues, "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will increase My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt."

The Ramban recognizes that this approach seems unjust. He therefore says, "And here is the answer to the question that everyone asks: If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, what then was his transgression [since he had no choice]?"

To this end he provides the following two answers, both of which are true:

Firstly, because Pharaoh unjustifiably treated the Jews with terrible labor, He removed the path of repentance from him.

The following is a direct quote from the Ramban regarding the second answer:

Secondly, only the second half of the [ten] plagues were brought upon Egypt due to Pharaoh’s transgressions, as the Torah states, And Pharaoh’s heart was strengthened, (Shemot 7:13, 22; 8:15), and Pharaoh hardened his heart (ibid. 8:28, 9:7).

1. Plague of Blood - And the necromancers of Egypt did likewise with their secret rites, and Pharaoh's heart was steadfast, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had spoken. (Exodus 7:22).


2. Plague of Frogs - When Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had spoken. (Exodus 8:11)


3. Plague of Lice - So the necromancers said to Pharaoh, "It is the finger of God," but Pharaoh's heart remained steadfast, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord had spoken. (Exodus 8:15)


4. Plague of Beasts - But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go. (Exodus 8:28)


5. Plague of Livestock - And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not even one of the livestock of Israel died, but Pharaoh's heart became hardened, and he did not let the people out. (Exodus 9:7)


6. Plague of Boils - But the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not hearken to them, as the Lord spoke to Moses. (Exodus 9:12)


7. Plague of Hail - Because this time, I am sending all My plagues into your heart and into your servants and into your people, in order that you know that there is none like Me in the entire earth. (Exodus 9:14)


8. Plague of Locusts - But the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out. (Exodus 10:20)


9. Plague of Darkness - The Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he was unwilling to let them out. (Exodus 10:27)


10. Plague of Death of the First Born Child - Moses and Aaron had performed all these miracles before Pharaoh, but the Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel out of his land. (Exodus 11:10)

Can a Righteous Person Die for My Sins?

January 21 2021 - 8 Shevat 5781

The Death of the Righteous Atones

The Talmud says, "Misasan shel tzadikim mechaperes," (Moed Katan 28a) which means "the death of the righteous brings atonement."

Rabbi Amei asked, "Why is the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the red heifer?" Just as the red heifer brought atonement, so does the death of the righteous bring atonement. Rabbi Eliezer asked, "Why is the death of Aharon juxtaposed to the priestly vestments?" Just as the priestly vestments bring atonement, so too does the death of the righteous bring atonement.

 אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה מִיתַת מִרְיָם לְפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה לוֹמַר לָךְ מָה פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת אַף מִיתָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה מִיתַת אַהֲרֹן לְבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה מָה בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה מְכַפְּרִין אַף מִיתָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת

This passage from the Talmud is especially valuable to Christian missionaries because it seems to confirm the most central message of Christianity, which is that Jesus died for the sins of humanity.

Why Does This Exclude Jesus?

There are, however, a few fundamental issues with using this Talmud passage to prove the vicarious death of Jesus.

Is Death the Only Way to Atone?

What is immediately obvious from the passage above is that while the death of the righteous atones, so do a number of other things, such as the service of the red heifer, done with the Cohen wearing the priestly vestments. Further, if the death of righteous people that are not completely without sin atones, then you don't need someone that is completely sinless to die for sins.

Was Jesus Righteous According to the Rabbi's?

If Rabbinic literature acknowledges the validity of vicarious atonement of a righteous person, it doesn't seem far-fetched for them to have accepted the death of Jesus. If so, why did the rabbi's of Jesus' time, and virtually all rabbi's since that time, reject the idea that Jesus died for our sins? The main issue with this is the presupposition that Jesus was righteous, which was not the main consensus of the rabbi's living at his time. For instance, the Christian Scriptures indicate that Jesus violated the Sabbath.

Only Normal Human Beings Can Die For Others

As long as this person has his own sins, any suffering he receives is "used up" to atone for those sins. He can only begin to suffer on behalf of others if he succeeds in overcoming the temptation to sin entirely. The idea that Jesus was God, and therefore not tempted to sin as a normal person, renders this idea useless. The OrlandoDiocese website says that Jesus "shared our earthly lot, our sufferings, and our death, and became one like us in all things but sin."

Atonement Affects Groups, Not Individuals

The third point is that the death of such an individual atones for either a community or the nation of Israel as a whole. The righteous person does not accept death for any particular individual that accepts his death, but rather for the community or for the entire nation. 

Awareness Is Not Required For It To Work

The fourth issue relates to the fact that the people being atoned for by the suffering of said righteous individual do not need to be aware that it is happening. This is different from the Christian view, which requires a person to accept the vicarious atonement of Jesus for it to save him.

It Does Not Replace Repentance

The fifth issue is that the suffering of a righteous person can only be effective under limited circumstances. For example, God may accept it at a particular time or case, but does not fundamentally replace it for His desired method of atonement on a permanent basis. In other words, it us used as an emergency measure in specifically dire circumstances, but not as the modus operandi of atonement.

The main reason for this is seemingly that the standard method of repentance helps the sinner rectify the character flaws responsible for causing him to sin. In turn, this helps him avoid sin in the future. Reliance on the death of a righteous person as a source of atonement may prevent repentance, which is why it is only used in emergency situations, such as when the utter destruction of a population would be imminent without it.

For More Information

For a more thorough presentation on this topic, see ATONEMENT FOR SIN & How Missionaries Cherry-Pick Talmud on THE DEATH OF THE RIGHTEOUS – Rabbi Skobac.

Can I Be Punished for Original Sin?

January 18 2021 - 5 Shevat 5781

In an article that I recently read at the Steve Schramm website titled, Does the Punishment for Original Sin Fit the Crime, the author noted the following, "There was nothing poisonous about the fruit, and there was nothing inherently wrong at all with the fruit. The problem was not that they ate fruit; the problem was that they disobeyed the command of a Holy, Righteous, and Perfect God."

However, there was something "poisonous" about the fruit, which we can discern by how God refers to it; He refers to it as the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil," as we all know, and its title indicates something about it. Knowing the difference between good and evil is considered an improvement to somebody that knows nothing, but it is a deterioration in contrast to someone who previously had a superior perspective. It is called by this name because before eating it, Adam and Eve saw everything from the perspective of true and false. When they ate from the tree, "true" and "false" were replaced with "good" and "evil." The reason that this is a step down is because true and false are objective realities (which is why they had no desire to sin before eating it), while good and evil are subjective realities; what is good for me may be bad for you, and so on and so on... Eating the fruit plunged them into a world of subjectivity where everything is judged in contrast to other things and not according to its actual, objective value.

Woe to those who say of the evil that it is good and of the good that it is evil; who present darkness as light and light as darkness, who present bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

Interestingly, all three elements named above were present in the beginning of Genesis: good versus evil (our discussion), darkness versus light (Day One of Creation), and sweet versus bitter (the taste of the fruit).

But this also illustrates that the change took place within their very nature and that it was not simply a punishment for disobedience. This means that there was indeed something "poisonous" about this fruit, in addition to the fact that eating it was an act of disobedience. In another part of the article Schramm said, "Adam and Eve sinned, and therefore, that sinful nature is passed on from generation to generation." It is true that it was passed on, but a mere penalty cannot be passed on; it being passed on indicates pretty clearly that it was, as he said, a "sinful nature." A person can only inherit a state, but cannot inherit a penalty, as it says in Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." The above verse is saying that one person cannot inherit the penalty of another.

Further, the verse above also proves that the vicarious atonement of Jesus cannot be true, as it says, "...the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." This means that the wicked alone, i.e., the person responsible for the sin, and nobody else, must deal with his own sin.

Even if God does punish the children for the sins of their father(s), it at most can only be temporary, as it says in Deuteronomy 5:9, "...for I, the Lord your God, am a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me...." From here it seems that inter-generational penalty cannot exceed a certain number of generations, in this case, three or four. In perspective, Kenan lived in the third generation after Adam, and Mahalalel in the fourth. Further, penalty is only extended to later generations "of those who hate Me," which may exclude many later generations. If true, human beings as a whole today cannot be penalized for Adam's sin.

Further, a punishment is not designed to incapacitate somebody, it is designed to help him do teshuva. Punishing Adam and Eve by changing their perspective from true and false to good and evil would in no way facilitate their repentance; in fact, by making clarity of truth more inaccessible to them it would make repentance more difficult for them. "Do I desire the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Is it not rather in his repenting of his ways that he may live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)

It's therefore more sensible to hold that the result of eating the fruit was not a punishment, but a devastating shift in their nature.

The reasons above are why the doctrine of Original Sin as currently understood by Christians seems to be out of accord with the Word of God in the Jewish Scriptures, which we posit is unchanging and perfect.