Qahal vs. Eda and the Problem of Christian Nationalism




Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:6 offers a crucial rabbinic distinction: the Qahal (sounds like Ekklesia right .. right) is the formal assembly, necessary for public action, while the Eda is the witnessing body—the ones whose testimony binds heaven and earth. The former can be mustered by political power; the latter must be constituted by covenantal fidelity and moral integrity. This difference is not merely semantic—it cuts to the heart of how a community relates to God, law, and history.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, writing in the shadow of Zionism, warned that national identity without halakhic submission to divine command becomes idolatry. Applied to Webbon’s project, we see a similar dynamic: the language of dominion, law, and Christendom is deployed not to testify to God’s righteousness, but to reassert cultural dominance and political control. This is a return to the old Gentile model of kingdom-building—one that Torat Edom decisively rejects.

Where Christian nationalists seek to weaponize biblical categories for temporal power, Torat Edom reasserts the function of the Eda: to bear witness, often in suffering, sometimes in exile, always under covenant. 

The calling of the church is not to establish a geopolitical kingdom, but to walk in the way of the Sar HaPanim, the Prince of the Presence, whose throne is not of this world, yet whose judgment reorders it.

Stephan Wolfe and the Illusion of Christian Ethnos
Stephan Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism (2022), attempts a more philosophically grounded argument for a Protestant ethnonational order. Drawing heavily from classical Reformed political thought and early modern Protestant nation-building (especially in Europe), Wolfe constructs a vision of the “Christian nation” that is theologically coherent on its own terms—but deeply problematic when placed alongside the covenantal frameworks of Scripture.

Like Joel Webbon, Wolfe operates entirely within a Qahal framework—assuming that God’s people must be externally gathered, nationally identified, and morally unified through coercive structures. But unlike Webbon, Wolfe is more candid about the need for ethnic cohesion and cultural hegemony, even arguing that each people group should develop its own national Christianity, rooted in shared cultural and linguistic heritage.

The problem here is twofold:
1. Covenantal Amnesia: Wolfe’s model forgets that the covenant was not given to ethnos as such, but to Avraham and his seed—a seed defined by obedience, not race. The whole trajectory of Scripture moves toward grafting in, conversion, and the expansion of witness (Eda) to the nations. Wolfe’s ethnos-based theology echoes Rome’s imperial syncretism more than the God of Sinai or the apostles of Jerusalem.

2. Rejection of the Oracles of God: Paul says in Romans 3:2 that the chief advantage of the Jews is that “they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Wolfe’s system bypasses this entirely. In doing so, it constructs a Christianity abstracted from its Jewish root—what Torat Edom identifies as a core distortion of post-Constantinian theology. By excluding Jewish theological categories (like halakhah, yikus, and Eda), Wolfe inadvertently resurrects a form of Edomite Christianity—violent, national, and estranged from the oracular voice.

Torat Edom as a Critique of Christian Ethnonationalism
Wolfe and Webbon both misread the Bible as a program for building Christian Rome, rather than a covenantal library testifying to divine justice and inclusion through suffering. Torat Edom critiques this misreading not with abstract liberalism, but with the weight of halakhic history:

• Israel was chosen not to dominate, but to serve and suffer as a priestly people.

• The Eda, not the Qahal, bears the covenantal torch.

• The Messiah comes not with a sword of state, but with the fire of testimony and the wounds of obedience.

In this way, Christian Nationalism becomes a mirror image of the Sadducean and the wrong Shammite Pharisees (there we’re right ones! Matt. 23:1&2 ). What was the ERROR? — confusing power with holiness, and missing the very sar haPanim (Prince of the Presence) who stood among them.

What Stephan Wolfe and Joel Webbon miss, A.B. Simpson seemed to intuit more than a century ago.

Simpson never spoke in the language of “Eda” or “Torat Edom,” but his life and mission echo its rhythm. In founding the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Simpson rejected both Protestant respectability and American empire.

 He cast his lot not with the Qahal of civic religion, but with the marginalized, the poor, the immigrant, and the unreached. His theology of the “Fourfold Gospel”—Jesus as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King—was never meant to underpin a Christian state, but to fuel a Spirit-filled, suffering witness to the ends of the earth.

Simpson’s vision was neither Christendom nor cultural supremacy, but a prophetic alliance—an Eda—across boundaries, languages, and nations.

The rise of figures like Joel Webbon, who advocate for a muscular, Christ-centered reordering of American public life, exemplifies a return to Qahal over Eda—a vision of the church not as a witnessing community but as a theocratic nation-in-waiting.

This neo-Christian nationalism seeks to recover political power under the guise of biblical fidelity, but it mirrors the very temptation Israel faced in its own history: mistaking covenantal witness for national supremacy.

In this light, the C&MA faces a choice today.

Will it drift toward the political vision of Wolfe and Webbon—trading testimony for territory, suffering for strategy, the Sar HaPanim for Caesar’s sword?

Or will it return to Simpson’s heart cry: a missionary people, bound not by ethnos but by the fire of the Spirit, proclaiming the risen King not as ruler of a geopolitical domain but as Lord over all creation?

Torat Edom calls us back to the deeper covenant.

It reminds the church—especially the Alliance—that our identity is not as a religious nation, but as a faithful witness.

As Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:6 teaches:

The time has come to choose again.

Not Rome.

Not Edom.

Not a Christianized republic.

Not getting caught up in ‘a chosen people for the sake of race.’

Not female (wives) submission without male (husbands) love—true love, rooted in first love—by imitating Jesus of Nazareth. But both lived out together, with an egalitarian spirit and plenty of compliments!

But a return to the Eda—the covenantal people who bear the wounds of Messiah and the hope of the world.


The Bremen Town Musicians.


 I Think I Finally Figured It Out

Biblical Echoes, and the True House of Robbers


As a little American boy growing up under the quiet insistence of my parents, I spent every Saturday in German school. I actually liked the German language—its poetry, its dialects, the texture of it all, and especially its harsh fables.

What I didn’t like was the work of learning grammar. I was bad at it then, and I’m still bad at it now.

But the stories? They stayed with me.

One in particular—the tale of the Bremen Town Musicians—always captivated me more than any grammar lesson ever could. A donkey, a dog, a cat, and a rooster—each rejected, aging, or worn down by the world—banding together and heading off toward a dream that never quite materializes. Instead of reaching Bremen, they discover a house full of robbers, scare them off through sheer surprise, and make it their home.

It’s a tale of misfits turned musicians, losers turned legends.

For years, I carried that story around with me without quite knowing why.

But now, looking back through the lens of covenant and Scripture, I think I finally figured it out. Of course, it was only after a conversation with Jo, not long after October 7th, 2023, when I shared with him my strange theory about donkeys from what I also learned in my studies with him, plus my love for them, and that my dad would call me a ‘dummer esel’ (a dumb ass) and perhaps how it all tied into this fable or Pinocchio (I’ll eventually get to that story). 

BUT! Something clicked. I began to see it—not just as a childhood tale, but as a prophetic parable.

So I turned to the great AI tools that are developing so quickly these days—tools I’ve come to lean on as I work through my own scattered mind. And I asked AI:

Have you ever heard such an interpretation?”

She said: No. 

Not so fast… she doesn’t have access to the testimony of the Trail of Blood


Well, this is not just a fairy tale. It’s a hidden parable. A layered witness. 

And the animals?

They aren’t random. They’re prophetic.


The Donkey: The Peter Chamor
In the Torah, the donkey is the only non-kosher animal that must be redeemed (Exodus 13:13). The peter chamor (פֶּ֤טֶר חֲמֽוֹר), the firstborn donkey, must be bought back with a lamb. If not, its neck is broken. No other animal receives this strange requirement.

The donkey becomes a symbol of the outsider who bears burdens—one who can’t be sacrificed but must be redeemed. Think of the donkey carrying Yeshua into Jerusalem. Humble. Silent. Essential. Perhaps even unaware of the sacred weight he bears.

In the story of the Bremen Musicians, the donkey leads. It bears the others. It forms the base of the stack. It is the silent support on which the others stand.

But this image runs far deeper than we might think.

The peter chamor evokes Peter—Kepha—one of the “lost sheep of the House of Israel ” whom the Messiah came to gather (Matthew 15:24). Simon St. Peter , the bold but broken disciple, represents a redeemed remnant—called back from dispersion, marked by denial, but restored by grace.

And this restoration is not merely personal. It is covenantal. The donkey, like Peter, is redeemed by the Lamb—not sacrificed, but purchased for a purpose. The act of redemption dignifies what the world sees as unclean or disposable. It restores function to the forgotten.

This image even taps back into Ishmael, the son of Hagar—also a bearer of burden, also sent away, and yet blessed. He, too, is a child of Abraham. Though often cast to the margins of theological discourse, Ishmael represents a line of inheritance that God does not forget.

In this sense, the donkey is more than just an animal in a story—it is a theological cipher for all the children of Abraham who have been misunderstood, miscategorized, or misrepresented. It is the image of the covenant breaking back into history through unlikely figures, burdened bodies, and forgotten tribes.

The donkey doesn’t speak in the Bremen tale. But its place is foundational. And that, too, is part of the mystery: the redemption of the silent, the lifting of the lowly, the beginning of the music from the bottom up.


This photo was taken by Gloria’s Cousin Cecila with her puppy
who being from Peru like Gloria is a teacher but of German and Spanish.
 Of course Ceci speaks grammatical German much better than I
 and my beloved wife Gloria is more ‘German’ than I 



The Dog: Caleb Grafted In
In Hebrew, the word kelev (כֶּלֶב), meaning “dog,” is etymologically close to Caleb (כָּלֵב)—the faithful scout sent into the Promised Land. But they are more than homonyms—they are theological opposites made visible.

Caleb, son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, was not born an Israelite. He came from outside the camp. A Gentile by blood—but through faith and loyalty, he was grafted into the covenant. Scripture tells us he “had a different spirit” and “followed the Lord fully” (Numbers 14:24). For this, he received an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. He was not merely tolerated—he was loved.

This is the hidden force behind the encounter in Matthew 15:21–28. A Canaanite woman cries out to Yeshua, and he responds, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Her answer? “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” And his reply is breathtaking: “O woman, great is your faith!

This wasn’t an insult—it was a test. And her response revealed a truth long buried in the soil of covenant history: there are dogs who destroy, but there are also dogs who cling, who believe, who love.

In the rabbinic imagination, wild dogs—kelevei kiruv—were sometimes symbols of those who turn faith into manipulation, who devour truth, who masquerade as messengers but tear the flock apart. They are wolves in dogs’ clothing—dangerous, seductive, false.

But Caleb is different. Caleb is beloved. He is the image of the faithful outsider, one who watches, who waits, who doesn’t turn away even when tested. He is Israel’s inheritance made visible in Gentile flesh.

In the Bremen Town Musicians, the dog is cast aside because of age and weakness, yet he finds his place in the new fellowship. He is not leading, but neither is he abandoned. He is grafted into a new household, joined with others who, like him, were rejected—but not forgotten.

The Cat: The Cat of Egypt
The Bible says little about cats, but ancient Egypt reverenced them. Cats were sacred to Bastet—goddess of protection, fertility, and the home. They were keepers of the house, destroyers of snakes, and guardians in the shadows. In this tale, the cat is elusive, clever, and poised—never dominant, but never absent.

The cat, to me, has become the image of a remnant from empire—a witness who survived its magic, mystery, and idolatry, yet was not swallowed by it. She escaped, but not without marks. She remembers. She walks softly, but her instincts are sharp.

Egypt’s redemption story begins in Exodus, where a mixed multitude left the house of bondage—led by a lamb, preserved by blood. The plagues were not just judgments on Pharaoh, but a dismantling of Egyptian gods—a divine confrontation with the powers of empire. And yet, Isaiah sees more. He sees a future in which Egypt is not merely judged, but blessed.

“Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands,
 and Israel My inheritance.” (Isaiah 19:25)

This stunning prophecy envisions a highway of reconciliation—stretching from Egypt to Assyria to Israel. These are not just geographic regions. They are theological landscapes. Empire, exile, covenant—all braided together.

And here’s the hidden thread: both Egypt and Assyria became early homes of the faith. The mia/monophysite churches—Coptic in Egypt, Assyrian in the East—preserved a fierce, Kosher, mystical Christology long after the West fragmented.

While Rome became an empire again in religious robes, these churches—often persecuted, misunderstood, and eventually isolated—held fast to the mystery of God incarnate.

And they survived.

They endured the rise of Militant Islam.

They survived being labeled heretics by imperial councils.

They remain today, scattered and shaken, but still there.

The cat, then, is more than an animal. She is the survivor of empires. She is the whisper of theological memory. She is the church of Egypt and Assyria and Armenia—watchful, wounded, and wise.

In the Bremen tale, she neither leads nor commands, but she takes her place. She is not loud. She is not proud. But she is part of the redeemed assembly.

She knows how to slip through cracks.

How to hide from the destroyer.

How to survive when no one else remembers your name.

This is the cat of Egypt.

And she still stands and her Pyramids which are perhaps revealing more secrets.


The Rooster: The One Who Crows at Betrayal
— Perhaps the Star of the Show?
This one is clearer. In the Gospels, the rooster crows—and Peter remembers.

“Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” (Luke 22:61)

It is the sound that shatters self-confidence. The moment where the illusion breaks. The cry that pierces betrayal—not to destroy, but to awaken.

In this way, the rooster becomes the voice of repentance. His crow is not condemnation—it is conviction. A call to return.

But the rooster does not only confront.

He also heralds the dawn.

He sings before the light comes.

He declares the morning while it is still dark.

This is what makes the rooster the true prophetic voice:

He sees what others don’t.

He hears what others won’t.

He cries out when others sleep.


The Rooster and the Reformation - In Protestant Germany, most churches don’t bear a cross on their steeples—they bear a rooster.

Why? Because the Reformation saw itself as a wake-up call—a crowing in the darkness of ecclesial corruption. The rooster became a symbol of conscience. A cry against spiritual betrayal. It stood in opposition to the Catholic basilicas and the heavy silence of empire.

And the Reformers were right to cry out. The Reformation was a genuine awakening—a breaking of silence.

But it wasn’t the last word.

Because while the rooster may have crowed, many Protestants still haven’t repented fully.

We have not turned all the way back.

We have not listened long enough to the Hebrew Scriptures.

We have not acknowledged that our own systems still carry supersessionism, theological imperialism, and an ignorance of Israel’s enduring role.

The Reformation rightly challenged the abuses of Rome.

But it often built its theology on the same replacement framework—abandoning the Jewish people and stripping the gospel from its native soil.

So the rooster still stands, crowing.

Not only over Peter’s denial,
But over our failure to return to the root.

It is not enough to reform.

We must be restored.

We must return not only to Scripture but to covenant, to the root that supports us (Romans 11).


The Rooster in the Bremen Stack - In the Bremen tale, the rooster takes the highest place in the stack—not to rule, but to see.
  • He is the voice above, not because he is better, but because he cries out first.
  • He warns of danger.
  • He calls out betrayal.
  • He announces dawn.
And today, perhaps, he is crying again—not just over empire or corruption, but over a Church that still refuses to return to Zion, to Torah, to the Jewish Messiah and His covenant people.
  • He does not destroy. He awakens.
  • He does not curse. He calls.
  • And if we listen—truly listen—we might still hear his crow at the edge of dawn.

The Stack: A Prophetic Assembly - Now picture them together:

The donkey—redeemed by the lamb, carrying a sacred burden, misunderstood but foundational.

The dog—once an outsider, now beloved, grafted in by faith like Caleb, clinging to the promise.

The cat—marked by empire, scarred by exile, yet surviving with quiet endurance, a whisper of ancient churches still holding mystery.

The rooster—perched above, not as a ruler but as a watchman, the prophetic voice that calls out betrayal and heralds the morning.
  • These are not just animals in a fairy tale.
  • They are the exiled, the faithful, the hidden, and the prophetic.
  • They are the unexpected witnesses of redemption.
They form a stacked assembly, not hierarchical but interdependent. Lifted, balanced, bearing each other’s weight—each one taking their place in a strange harmony that confounds the powers and terrifies the robbers.

And that leads us to ask:


Who Are the Real Robbers?
In the Grimm tale, the robbers are common thieves, feasting in someone else’s house. But when we read this as a parable, something deeper emerges.

The real robbers are those who have taken what was not theirs:
  • Those who occupy sacred space without covenant loyalty.
  • Those who steal the inheritance meant for the humble, the exiled, the faithful remnant.
  • Those who build empires, dress them up in theology, and silence the cries of the rooster.
They may look like scholars, priests or tele-evangelists. They may sound like reformers or kings. But their systems exclude the very ones God has chosen.

In contrast, the Bremen animals—like the faithful remnants of Scripture—reclaim the house not through violence but through presence. Through song. Through unity in exile.

They don’t burn down the house.

They restore it with testimony.


The Song of the Redeemed
What if the Bremen Town Musicians is a mashal—a parable of the restored assembly?

What if the real song of redemption doesn’t come from cathedrals or councils, but from the margins?

It’s not the kings who sing the true song.

Not the theologians with palaces.

Not the empires or the architects of exclusion.
It’s:
  • The donkey who is redeemed—burdened but blessed.
  • The dog who is grafted in—once rejected, now beloved.
  • The cat who slipped past empire—still watching in the shadows.
  • The rooster who cries at dawn—still calling us back to covenant, to Zion, to the roots we’ve forgotten.
Together, they become an ‘eda’—a band of testimony. A strange fellowship.
A new house—no longer a den of robbers, but a place of praise.

Maybe the Goal Wasn’t Bremen After All
Maybe we don’t need to reach Bremen.

Maybe the dream isn’t a destination—it’s what forms along the way.

Maybe the song isn’t just a melody—it’s a testimony that shakes the false house to its foundation.

Maybe this story was always meant to show us that:
  • The real musicians are the outcasts who find each other.
  • The real reformation is not just a protest but a return—to covenant, to Israel, to mercy.
  • And the real redemption happens when those the world rejected are lifted, healed, and joined together.

So maybe—just maybe—we are the musicians.

And the house will stand again.

But only if we remember the song.

What is the most frequent command in scripture? 

Sing! 

Even if it is a joyful noise! 







Is Jesus in the Talmud? Part Two



The Oracle Keepers and the Veil of Memory

In my first post, I opened the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth appears in the Talmud—not as a proof-text for polemics, but as a matter of deep historical and theological integrity. This is not about scandal. It’s about memory, concealment, and divine timing.

Let’s go further.

Is Yeshu Jesus?

NO! Not exactly. But not exactly not.




The references to Yeshu ha-Notzriben Pandera, and Miriam scattered across rabbinic literature are not historical biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. They are distortions, refracted through centuries of rupture, revolt, and resistance. They may reflect confused conflations, polemical misdirections, or attempts to veil something too sacred—or too dangerous—to name outright. But they are not inventions.

As noted in this WikiNoah entryYeshu was more than a name—it was a cipher, a theological counterpunch, possibly an acronym for “Yemach Shemo veZikhro” (“May his name and memory be erased”). That itself tells us something: this figure could not be ignored.

In the account of the Hanging of Yeshu, we find a legal narrative strangely aligned with the Gospel timeline: a figure hanged on the eve of Passover, announcements for witnesses, courtroom procedures. But the story is turned inside out—as if to rewrite the verdict. The discomfort is palpable. This isn’t just about heresy. It’s about guilt—and the quiet fear that the one they judged might be the one who judges.

Then there is Miriam. Not Mary the Virgin, but Miriam the hairdresser, or worse, a woman recast in shame. But why rewrite her at all? Why conflate her with Mary Magdalene and Jesus or Nazareth as the gnostic texts stated as married or vilify her unless her original memory stood in tension with the dominant Rabbinic narrative?
 
Something had to be re-coded. The memory had to be deflected, because it could not be erased.

But Here Is the Key Distinction
The Yeshu ben Pandera found in Talmudic traditions is not Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary. He may well be a nephew—a different figure, entangled in the Nazarene movement, and remembered in early warnings within the Baraitas and New Testament epistles under names like Belial (2 Cor 6:15) — The anti-christ!  — That is why I started with an explicit NO! 

Nevertheless, he may reflect the rise of Notzrim—sectarian groups misunderstood or misrepresented by who claimed to be David’s heirs.

And here’s the real challenge: if there was a concealment, that’s one thing. If there was a conflation, that’s another.

 Either way, it must be treated with care.

It’s a long and twisted tale. But one thing is clear: the historical record—fragmented, refracted, contested—is there. The question is how to interpret it.

Enter: the Oracle Keepers
This is not about triumphalism. The Jews are the oracle keepers (Romans 3:2). That doesn’t mean everything they transmitted was interpreted rightly—but it does mean they carried the burden of preserving revelation, even in veiled form. Concealment is not rejection. It is stewardship under pressure.

As Harvey Falk suggested, and Jacob Emden hinted, and the Chasidei Ashkenaz whispered in their reverence for the Sar HaPanim, Jesus may have been veiled, not denied. Preserved, not erased. Hidden in memory, not forgotten.

So let us ask:
What if the rabbinic Yeshu traditions are not rejections, but forms of protective custody?

What if the distortions are the residue of something once glimpsed—but hidden until the appointed time?

What if even the name “Yeshu” is not the final word, but the echo of a people who remembered more than they could say?

A Different Kind of Recognition
We are not looking for “Jesus in the Talmud” to win arguments. We are listening for recognition—the kind that requires humility, not conquest.

The Nazarene needs no validation. He is Yeshua Min Zarat, the true Sar HaPanim, the Branch (Netzer) whom Isaiah saw—rejected by men but chosen by God.

The echoes in rabbinic tradition do not silence him. They prove that he was heard.

So the question is no longer: Is Jesus in the Talmud?

The question is: Why could he not be forgotten?

And perhaps the answer is this:

Because the oracle keepers never truly let go. They veiled the truth—not to destroy it,
 but to guard it. And maybe… just maybe… the time of unveiling has come.









Already Six Months After Lausanne Seoul?!


Yes, and we still find ourselves in awe of what the Lord allowed us to be part of.

We were invited to go—honestly, Marty wasn’t too eager at first, due to our work in Italy. The initial ask was to serve as translators, which isn’t exactly our strength. But it was an opportunity, and there was a chance we might be able to join the Italian delegation. So we said yes!

And so they welcomed us to come —and that’s all we really wanted to do as we longed for was simply to serve and be with like minded believers. And that’s what we did.

They placed Marty on the Movement Desk to share the Lausanne Vision and the 25 Gaps Groups. Gloria, of course, found her place at the Help Desk—where she was able to use her many languages and give attention and care for a myriad of questions.

It felt like stepping back onto the OM ships in our youth, once again part of a small international team serving a massive crowd—this time over 5,000 people from every corner of the globe.

But it was more than just volunteering. For us, it was also a homecoming. Seoul was the first city we were sent to as a family in 1991, serving in the early days of a fledgling Korean ship ministry, MV Hannah. During the conference, we reconnected with the director of that work, with South Korean brothers and sisters from OM ships, and with many others we’d known along the way. It was reunion upon reunion and with the Korean food Marty loves and Gloria ‘likes.’

During the plenaries sessions, we were mostly outside— stationed at our respective desks, talking with people, enjoying our teams, meeting old and new friends, and standing in awe of what God is doing.

Global Christianity has truly risen, and we pray it continues to advance through the obedience of faith, just as Scripture teaches for the Lord’s peope to reach and declare and display Christ. That’s what this is all about. That’s the movement. To ‘bring back the King.’

Looking back, we’re grateful for what earlier Lausanne gatherings gave us—especially a vision for unreached people groups and finishing the task. But what’s emerging now through the 25 Gaps Groups brings even more intricate and nuanced layers to what it means to reach the world for Christ.

One of those groups, focused on the aged, is where Gloria is now involved. Her years in chaplaincy have prepared her beautifully for this role. And both of us are deeply committed to the Young Leaders Generation—we see them as vital to the future of this movement.

So here we are, six months later, still humbled by the privilege. For us, it was a wonderful and timely moment—one that recharged us as we step further into these latter years of ministry.

 We hope to keep serving, keep listening, and keep walking with the Lausanne Movement for as long as the Lord allows. Still giving thanks.






How to Read the Bible as a Story – Part 2



From Solomon to Exile:

The Tragedy of Israel & Judea’s Kings and the Prophetic Cry



The Bible does not flatter its heroes. If you’re reading it as a book of moral examples, you’re going to be shocked. If you’re reading it to find the pure and noble lineage of a holy people, you’re going to be disturbed. Because once David dies and Solomon takes the throne, the tragedy begins to unfold—and it doesn’t let up.




Solomon builds the Temple, yes—but at what cost? He also builds altars to foreign gods. He marries empire. He taxes the people. He expands Jerusalem, not as Zion, but as a royal estate. He becomes Pharaoh in reverse. And God splits the kingdom after him.


This is how the story of the kings begins: not with majesty, but with division. Jeroboam takes the north and builds his own religious system to keep power. Rehoboam in the south rules Judah with arrogance. And the prophetic silence after Solomon is broken not by priests or scribes—but by Elijah, a man who lives in exile even within the land. Elijah’s fire from heaven is not just a miracle—it is a warning: Israel is drifting.


From this point forward, the Bible reads like a descent. King after king fails. Occasionally a light shines—Hezekiah, Josiah—but the pattern is clear: Israel cannot govern itself. Not spiritually, not politically. The kings fail, and the people follow.


And this is where the prophets step in.


The prophets are not fortune tellers. They are covenant prosecutors. They do not preach private religion—they bring lawsuits in the heavenly court. Hosea marries a prostitute to embody Israel’s infidelity. Amos cries out from the fields for justice. Micah strips the high places bare and dares to say the Temple is not safe. Isaiah walks naked to declare Judah’s shame. Jeremiah is thrown into a pit. Ezekiel eats exile as bread and sees visions of alien glory.


These are not gentle devotional voices. These are voices of judgment. They are calling out not just sins, but distortions—distortions of Torah, distortions of inheritance, distortions of justice. They speak against kings and priests alike. They warn that exile is not an accident. It is judgment. And not just geopolitical judgment, but divine judgment.


Jerusalem is not holy because it’s Jerusalem. The Temple is not safe because it’s the Temple. The prophets remind us that covenant is not magic. It is not nationalism. It is not DNA. It is obedience. It is justice. It is Torah.


And the exile comes.



Did you notice a few minutes in the name Muhammedim 😬




Assyria wipes out the north. Babylon crushes the south. Jerusalem burns. The Temple falls. Zion is a ruin. The glory departs. And still, the prophets speak.


Habakkuk stands watch and asks: why? How can God use the wicked to judge the righteous? And God answers: you haven’t seen wicked yet. But even then, the righteous will live by faith.


Zephaniah declares the Day of the Lord—already burning, already begun.


Ezekiel watches the heavens open in Babylon, because exile doesn’t silence God. In fact, exile clarifies who is really listening.


And Daniel—Daniel sees that this is just the beginning. Empire will rise and fall again and again. The beasts will not stop. Babylon will become Persia, then Greece, then Rome, then what comes after. And the Son of Man will come not merely to take back Jerusalem, but to sit at the right hand of power.


What the prophets make clear is this: the Bible is not Israel’s success story. It is Israel’s judgment story. It is God’s indictment against every attempt to create holiness without Him.


The exile is not a plot twist. It is the center of the story. And if we don’t read it that way, we will never understand Jesus. We will mistake Him for a teacher, a healer, or a martyr. We will miss that He is the Judge of Israel, the Prophet greater than Moses, the Exile come home, the Temple not made with hands.


We will miss that the prophets saw Him. Not clearly, perhaps, but in fire, in whisper, in dreams, in mourning.


And if you want to read the Bible rightly, you must listen to the prophets. Read them not as sideshows, but as the main act. They are the soul of the Tanakh. They interpret the kings. They interpret the exile. They prepare the world for the return of the Presence.


Don’t rush through them. Don’t read them like riddles to solve. Read them like lawsuits, like psalms, like tears written in stone.


The prophets didn’t fail. The kings did.


The prophets weren’t marginal. They were central.


And in the middle of their judgment, they always left a window open. A remnant. A voice crying out. A new covenant.


Not yet, but coming.