The Pope and AI


Reading Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas





Pope Leo XIV has released Magnifica Humanitas, his first encyclical, on safeguarding the human person in the age of artificial intelligence. It is a serious document — book-length, theologically dense, and far more careful than its critics on either side have generally allowed. It opens with a stark choice: humanity stands between building "a new Tower of Babel" and building "the city in which God and humanity dwell together" (§1). It warns that technology is never neutral, that it can divide, exclude, and generate new forms of injustice (§9), and it titles its central chapter "Technology and Dominance."

I want to be fair to it before I am critical of it, because the criticism only matters if the praise is honest.

What the encyclical gets right is considerable. It refuses to treat AI as merely one more issue to manage, naming it instead as a force that challenges our categories from within (§17). It locates the real concentration of power not in the state but in private, transnational technological actors whose reach now exceeds that of governments (§5, §71). It makes subsidiarity a cornerstone — the conviction that what families, local communities, and intermediary bodies can do should not be swallowed by higher authorities (§68–72). It explicitly disclaims any intent to assume the functions of the state (§21). It even disowns the very posture I am about to accuse it of, insisting the Church "does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth" (§25) and reaching for the image of a polyhedron in which one truth is reflected from many angles. On the practical questions — transparency, accountability, algorithmic oversight, equitable access to data — it adds a worthy voice to a chorus that already includes secular bodies and other Christian communions.

So this is not a polemic against the Pope's pastoral concerns. Many of them are real, and some of them are good. It is a polemic against a deeper structural assumption — bone-deep in Western Christendom for nearly two millennia — that the cure for a beast system is a sanctified version of the same beast. It is not. It never was. And the place where the encyclical reveals that assumption is not in any claim to coercive power, which it carefully renounces, but in a single quiet sentence about who gets to order the plurality it praises.

Pentecost Already Answered Babel
The Babel narrative is not principally about language. It is about coerced unity around a tower, a name, a center — "let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered." God scatters them not as punishment but as protection. Concentrated, unaccountable, hubristic power is the danger, then and now. The encyclical sees this clearly; it reads Babel as the idolatry of self-sufficiency that sacrifices the person for efficiency (§7, §10), and it reads Nehemiah, rightly, as a man who "did not impose solutions from above" but assigned each family its own section of the wall (§8).

That is a genuinely decentralized picture. The trouble comes in §10, where the document grants the plurality of voices and then assigns Christians "their unique role of guiding actions toward God so that... pluralism does not dissipate into disorder." There it is. The polyhedron is permitted on condition that a single interpretive center keeps it from scattering. That is Babel grammar wearing Pentecost's clothes.

Because Pentecost does not work that way. The Spirit does not give one tongue back, nor appoint a curator to keep the tongues from drifting into disorder. It gives every tongue the capacity to hear God's mighty works in its own language. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia and Cappadocia — they all hear, each in their own dialect, with no mediating center deciding which renderings are orderly. The scattering itself is sanctified. The cure for Babel was never a better-managed tower. It was distributed witness in plural tongues, ungoverned by any earthly see.

The entire architecture of the late-modern world — global AI governance, international ethical frameworks, transnational regulatory regimes, and yes, papal encyclicals that reserve to the Church the task of keeping plurality "from disorder" — is structurally tempted to rebuild the center even when its intentions are Pentecostal. The tower keeps getting rebuilt. Sometimes by Silicon Valley. Sometimes by Brussels. Sometimes, gently and sincerely, from a balcony in Rome.

Acts 15 and the Path for the Nations
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is one of the most under-read documents in Christian thought. The question was not "how do we make the nations into Israel?" It was: how do gentiles walk rightly before the God of Israel without being absorbed into Israel's particular national-covenantal life?

The answer was strikingly minimal. Abstain from idolatry, from sexual immorality, from blood, from things strangled — a recognizably Noahide shape: worship the one God, do justice, show mercy, live peaceably. This was not a watered-down Torah. It was the ancient covenant with all humanity through Noah, reaffirmed for the nations as the framework within which they could remain the nations and still walk with God.

Israel is not principally a nation-state. Israel is a relationship — those who struggle with God, as the name itself declares. Paul's olive tree in Romans 11 is exactly this: a cultivated tree onto which wild branches are grafted, sharing the root without becoming a different tree. The nations are not erased. They are also not autonomous. 
They are grafted into a relationship.

The New Testament belongs inside that frame. It is not an escape manual. It is the witness of Israel's Messiah opening, for the nations, the path Acts 15 describes — a way of being human under God that does not require the abolition of difference, the centralization of authority, or submission to any earthly office that claims to mediate it. The encyclical's own instinct toward plurality (§25, §26) is closer to this than it knows; what it cannot quite do is let the plurality stand without a mediating center to order it.

And notice what it was not: not a new ethical code to be administered, not a rulebook whose fine print — which meat, whose blood — would become the whole conversation. That quarrel over food, which has so often overtaken the reading of Acts 15, is exactly the truncation the council meant to prevent. What the apostles handed the nations was not ethics but the obedience of faith — a whole life turned toward God, of which the few prohibitions were only the floor with no religious mediation except our union with Christ.

The Beast, the Religious Beast, and Their Long Marriage
The book of Revelation is not a coded prediction of helicopter gunships. It is a theological X-ray of how power works in fallen history. There are two beasts. The first is political-economic — the imperial machinery that devours, centralizes, and demands worship. The second is religious — the beast that looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon, performing signs that authenticate the first beast and herding the nations toward its image.

The lesson Christendom has spent two thousand years not learning is that the religious beast is not the cure for the political beast. Historically, at the decisive moments, they have been partners. Rome the empire and Rome the church absorbed one another in the fourth century, and the pattern of a religious authority lending moral legitimacy to a centralizing order has recurred ever since — in Catholic and Protestant and frankly secular forms alike. I want to be precise here, because the encyclical does not reach for Caesar's sword; it disavows it (§21). The danger in a document like this is subtler. It is the assumption that what a technological age most needs is a single moral interpreter standing above the plurality to keep it ordered. Whatever its sincerity, that is an old play in a very old game.

The "synagogue of Satan" that Revelation names is not the Jewish people — it is the counterfeit assembly, those who claim covenantal authority they do not possess. That charge has, at moments, fit Rome; it has also fit Geneva, Canterbury, Constantinople, and any number of Protestant and political imitators who learned to speak like a lamb while gathering the nations under one tower. The deep error of evangelicals who keep pining for a god-king — Trump-shaped, Constantine-shaped, Cyrus-shaped — is the same error in a different costume. They have not internalized that the Lamb refuses Caesar's sword. Every time the church has reached for that sword, it has become the thing it claimed to oppose.

What the Lamb Actually Does
The Lamb conquers by testimony. This is not pious decoration; it is the literal mechanic of Revelation 12: they overcame him "by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death." The beast conquers by coercion — by force, by surveillance, by demanding you bow to its image. The Lamb conquers by witness: by people who refuse to bow, who speak truth, who do justice, love mercy, walk humbly, and suffer well when suffering comes.

This is why "AI is dangerous, therefore a central moral authority must order how the nations use it" is a tower-shaped solution to a tower-shaped problem. The danger of AI is real, and the encyclical names it well — concentration of power, manipulation, the eclipse of human judgment, autonomous weapons. But the answer is not a single interpretive center licensing which plurality counts as orderly. The answer is distributed sovereignty: many witnesses, in many tongues, building things that embody justice and mercy, refusing to bow to whichever tower happens to be tallest this decade.

Sovereignty through the slow accumulation of small acts of right ordering, in code, in community, in commerce, in worship — is precisely the Pentecost-shaped answer. It is plural. It is local. It is non-coercive. It grows like leaven and like a mustard seed, not like an empire and not like a synod of the great and the good.

The Heavenly Jerusalem Comes Down
Notice the direction. The New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 comes down. It is not built up by human towers. The encyclical itself sees this — it cites the city descending from God as a gift for all humanity (§10) — and then, having seen it, turns immediately to "work together" language that quietly re-centers the building project on a guided, ordered plurality. But the city is not constructed by encyclicals or AI labs or governance regimes. It descends because God has formed, over long centuries of patience, a faithful people who bear witness, practice justice, suffer well, and embody mercy until heaven and earth finally meet.

This is the actual telos of the gospel. It is not a ticket out of the world. It is God's gracious method of teaching humanity how to become human again — to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly, and live peaceably under Messiah's reign, which begins inside each person who consents to it and ripples outward. The full messianic age is not legislated into existence, and it is not curated by a magisterium. It is grown.

By any honest reading of the signs, we are in the long, sharpening contest the Scriptures picture as Gog and Magog — not because a particular war is about to break out, but because the contest between the beast's coercion and the Lamb's testimony is reaching its most exposed point. The technologies of the age are simply the latest theatre. AI is neither salvation nor damnation. It is a mirror and a multiplier. It will magnify whatever character the people building and using it actually have.

The Pastoral Conclusion
No earthly god-king is coming to save you. Not the Pope, however well-intentioned his encyclical — and Magnifica Humanitas is, in its pastoral concern, often well-intentioned. Not the president, however much his supporters baptize him. Not the AI lab, however carefully aligned. Not the United Nations, not the Vatican, not Davos, not any global synod of the good and the great.

What is coming — what is already here, growing quietly — is a people. Plural in tongue. Distributed in geography. Grafted into the cultivated olive tree through the revelation of Jesus Christ and His cross. Walking the Acts 15 path. Refusing to bow. Building, with whatever tools the age provides, the kind of life that makes the descent of the heavenly city legible to the world.

The evangelical project is wrecked in our time because so many of its people still crave god-kings and cults of personality — and those who give up the strongmen too often trade the obedience of faith for therapeutic and ethical systems, religion as management rather than transformation.

The Lamb is still in the middle of the throne. The testimony is still the weapon. The witnesses are still the strategy. The kingdom still comes down, not up.

Keep your tongue. Tell the truth. Build well. Suffer when you must. Do not bow.

Quotations and section references are to the official English text of Magnifica Humanitas (15 May 2026); paragraph numbers in parentheses.


My New Book: The Last Days According to Jesus’ Family: The Story We Left Behind



Resource Publications, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
9798385274291 / paperback / $24/ 







What if we have misunderstood the “last days” by not listening closely enough to the people who lived them first? The Last Days According to Jesus’ Family retells the New Testament through the witness of Mary and Jesus’ brothers James and Jude—voices that bring fresh clarity to Acts 15, sharpen Jude’s warnings about distortion, and reframe prophecy as covenant faithfulness rather than fear or political triumph. Rooted in the Abrahamic promise of blessing for all peoples, this book calls the Western church back to an older storyline: Israel’s continuing role, the nations’ grafted-in hope, and a renewed attention to the whole family of Abraham—including the often-forgotten threads of Ishmael and Esau. For readers weary of end-times hype, this is an invitation to recover a sturdier hope: the one Jesus’ own family carried.


Praise for 
The Last Days According to Jesus' Family: The Story We Left Behind


“M. L. Banzhaf ’s study invites readers to examine the traditions surrounding early Christianity with careful attention to their historical and theological context. As a student of Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, whose Israel and Humanity envisioned a constructive relationship between Judaism and Christianity, I welcome works that pursue serious and respectful engagement and help renew our shared scriptural heritage.”

—Ben Abrahamson, Director, Al-Sadiqin Institute


“Marty opens our eyes to see past centuries of Western church, back to ekklesia rooted in family, around tables, in community. Rich insight into Jesus’ own family and Jewish community, and capable detangling ofyears of empire, church, and forced eschatology, lead us to see—and be—the faithful people of God in fellowship and on mission in these last days.”

—Tim Crouch, Vice President for Alliance Missions, The Christian and Missionary Alliance


“In The Last Days According to Jesus’ Family, M. L. Banzhaf invites readers to reconsider the end not as a timeline to decode, but as a covenantal story to inhabit. With careful attention to Scripture, history, and lived experience, he offers a vision shaped less by fear and more by humility, healing, and hope. This is a thoughtful and needed contribution for those seeking a deeper, more faithful reading of the biblical
narrative of the last days.

—Hunter Barnes, Host, Daily Radio Bible Podcast


“Banzhaf weaves his own spiritual journey throughout this book with both theological rigor and pastoral sensitivity, addressing divisive issues such as Christian nationalism, dispensationalism, and replacement theology, not to inflame controversy, but to heal theological fractures. The result is not so much mind-blowing as mind-stretching—a work that invites pastors and scholars alike to think beyond our traditional and popular frameworks and calls the church back to A. B. Simpson’s ‘center of gravity: a Christ-shaped theology ordered toward mission.’ The appendices and Franklin Pyle’s foreword are essential reading as capstones for the book.

—Paul L. King, Ordained Pastor, The Christian and Missionary Alliance


“Banzhaf courageously challenges readers to reconsider the stories that have shaped our imagination. Mary and her family, and the early Jewish followers of Jesus, are not tribal weapons meant to justify hostility. They are invitations to rediscover God’s covenantal purposes—purposes rooted in mercy, faithfulness, andthe restoration of relationship. . . . For those of us who live in the land where these biblical stories took place, the questions raised in this book are not abstract theological debates. They shape how Christians understand their neighbors, how they pray for peace, and how they embody the gospel in a fractured world. The church does not serve the kingdom of God by amplifying division. Rather, we serve Christ when we become witnesses to his reconciling love. If this book helps the church rediscover that calling—even in small ways—it will have served the gospel well. May these pages encourage readers to seek truth, pursue mercy, and remember that the story of God has always been, and will always be, a story of family gathered by grace.”

—Jack Sara, President, Bethlehem Bible College


“It was not only a great pleasure but also a deep learning experience to host Martin Banzhaf on The Meaning Code YouTube channel back in 2022. Major kudos that he has written a book that puts these ideas together in a compelling format, and so beautifully written as to be almost poetic.”

—Karen Wong, Host, The Meaning Code


“In this warm and heartfelt book, Marty has woven personal memoir, historical research, and theological reflection into a narrative that asks the reader to put aside dogmatics and enter instead into the story of God for the world. Using the Torat Edom—a concept that many in the Evangelical world will do well to comprehend—Marty has provided a framework for understanding the last days that focuses on lived experience rather than the abstract countdown of eschatological events. Indeed, we are reminded that the last days are better read not as the triumph of Christians over other religions, particularly those of Judaism and Islam, but the story of the covenant God who is fulfilling his covenant promises. In following the example of Jesus’ own family—through expressing mercy (Mary), faithfulness (James), and perseverance
(Jude), we better reflect the heart of God for all of humanity. With personal prose and accounts of his own upbringing as a refugee and later missionary work providing a real-world grounding, Marty exhorts us to live as citizens of the coming kingdom in the present—even as we await its ultimate unveiling.”

—Peter Laughlin, Chair, International Commission of Theological Education, Alliance World Fellowship



Interview with M.L. Banzhaf




What is your book about?
The Last Days According to Jesus’ Family explores the “last days” through the world of Jesus, His family, and the first Jewish followers who carried His message forward. Rather than treating prophecy as a chart of future events, the book asks what Jesus and His family believed was unfolding in their own generation. It is a book about Scripture, history, memory, and the story the Church often left behind.

Why did you write this book?
I wrote this book because many Christians have inherited an end-times framework that is often disconnected from Jesus’ Jewish world. After years of ministry, study, and conversation with Jewish, Christian, and discerning ancient Middle Eastern texts, I became convinced that we need to recover the family context of Jesus and the covenant story that shaped the New Testament and helps us read it better in order to live its authority.

What makes this book different from other books on the end times?
Most books on the last days focus on modern events, prediction, or systems of interpretation. This book begins instead with Jesus’ own family, the Jewish world of the first century, and the biblical story of Israel as an expansion to the nations not just as a geopolitical nation or spiritualized concept. It does not deny the future hope of Jesus Christ’s return, but it challenges readers to first understand what “the last days”
meant in the apostolic world.

Who is the intended audience for this book
This book is written for thoughtful Christians, pastors, Bible teachers, missionaries, and serious readers who sense that popular end-times teaching has often missed something important. It is accessible for non-specialists but grounded in Scripture, history, and theological reflection. Readers do not need to agree with every conclusion to benefit from the larger invitation: to read the New Testament closer to its original Jewish setting over the standard narrative of Christianity.

Why focus on Jesus’ family?
Jesus’ family was not a side issue in the early movement; they were part of the living memory of His ministry, death, resurrection, and message. Figures like Mary, James, and Jude help us see that the Gospel was not born as an abstract religion but within a Jewish family, a covenant people, through the Nazarene movement as a concrete historical moment to guide ours. Recovering their witness helps us better understand the continuity between Jesus, Israel, and the mission to the nations.

Does this book reject traditional Christian eschatology?
No, it does not reject the Christian hope of Christ’s return, resurrection, judgment, and renewal. But it does question approaches that turn eschatology into dogmatism, fear, speculation, or detachment from the mission of the God of Abraham and his family and lost family members like the Woman at Jacob’s Well in John 4, for the time is always now. The book argues that biblical hope should make us more faithful, more humble, and more deeply committed to witness in the present age.

What do you hope readers take away from the book?

I hope readers come away with a renewed love for Scripture and a deeper appreciation for the Jewish world of Jesus and the apostles. Above all, I want readers to encounter Jesus not as a figure detached from Israel, but as the faithful Son who brings the biblical narratives of Israel and Edom to the nations.

Why is this book important now?
Many Christians today are confused, anxious, or polarized by end-times teaching. At the same time, there is a growing need to recover the Hebrew voice and a proper Jewish context of the New Testament and to confront forms of theology that have forgotten Israel’s continuing role as the story of Abraham’s God from a reading that has also kept us divided as his family was, yet eventually reconciled. Beyond geopolitics, this book expresses a longing to be faithful in our witness over our divided opinions and readings of scripture.


Excerpt from Chapter 6: Jesus the Face of the Father


Jesus brings us back to the biblical center: not an abstract deity behind the text, but the Father made known in the Son—God acting, promising, judging, forgiving, healing, and gathering. And that “gathering” has an early name in Acts: the Way. Before “Christian” became common speech, Luke remembers the movement as a path—an embodied manner of life, a walk. That label isn’t a break from Israel; it is Israel-language translated into the street Greek of the empire. A people who “ walk” in God’s ways now confess that the Way has a face and a voice. Jesus does not merely point toward the road; He says, “I am the way” (John 14:6). This is also why Jesus’ invitation to take His yoke matters. “My yoke is easy, ” He says—not because it is thin, but because it is true (Matt. 11:30). He is not offering an anti-Torah religion; He is offering Messiah’s yoke: covenant carried as mercy, obedience carried by the Spirit, discipleship unhooked from fear and spiritual performance. And that helps us read Acts 15 with sobriety.

When Peter protests the “yoke” that some wanted to place on Gentiles, he is not calling Judaism a burden. He is rejecting the demand that Gentiles must undergo full proselyte conversion—circumcision and the entire package—as the price of belonging. The Council refuses that yoke and instead gives a narrow set of baseline boundaries that make shared life and shared table possible, while Moses is still read every Sabbath. In other words, the nations enter Israel’s story through a merciful gate, not by replacing Israel and not by being crushed under an imposed identity they were never commanded to bear. When Jesus entered Jerusalem, He did not marshal an army. He came as Zechariah foretold: humble, riding on a donkey. He wept over the city that refused mercy. He did not curse Israel; He carried Israel’s grief. He did not abandon His people; He bore their destiny.

And when the crisis finally came, Jesus’ greatest claim did not need pagan borrowing or philosophical cover. Alan Segal’s work on the rabbinic “two powers” controversy (too often treated as a master key in popular reconstructions) helps us see why: the categories in question were already being contested within Jewish Scriptural interpretation—especially around enthronement and agency texts like Daniel 7.

The pressure points were Jewish before they were philosophical. Jesus of Nazareth spoke in Israel’s own Scripture-grammar—the Son of Man from Daniel’s vision. Under oath and under pressure, He spoke the sentence that explains the ferocity of His accusers: the Son of Man would come with the clouds and would be seated at the right hand of Power.

That is why the reaction was so severe. They did not hear a mere teacher predicting vindication. They heard a Galilean Jew placing Himself inside the throne room of Israel’s God—claiming the authority of the heavenly court, the right to sit down where no creature sits, and the destiny of the nations described in Daniel’s dominion vision. The outrage was not confusion. It was recognition. His claim was not, “I have an idea.” It was, “I have a seat” —not a seat stolen from God, but a seat that discloses how God turns His face toward the world.“



Rev. M. L. Banzhaf is an evangelical missionary with more than four decades of cross-cultural ministry, currently serving with the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Italy. He has served on mission ships and in relief and development work and holds multiple graduate degrees. His writing focuses on reading the Bible as a covenantal family story and calling the church back to humble, outward-facing witness among the nations.

The Sword From His Mouth: Violence, Revelation, and the Messianic Age




We live in a world drowning in violence—political violence, religious violence, ideological violence. Everyone selects their “side” and then baptizes it with Scripture. 

Yet the Bible does not hide violence; it exposes it. In Heidegger’s language, truth is unconcealment—bringing what is hidden into the open. And Scripture’s final unveiling is precisely that: the apocalypse is an exposure, not an escalation.

This is why Revelation 19 is so misunderstood.

The Messiah does not come with a sword in His hand.
He comes with a sword from His mouth—a word that unmasks and disarms the violent powers.

And out of His mouth came a sharp sword…” (Rev. 19:15)

This is not the return of Joshua. This is the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth—the Word who exposes the false securities of empire, nationalism, religious arrogance, and fear. He the Christ/Messiah conquers not by shedding the blood of others but by exposing the systems that survive on deception.

In Torat Edom, violence is the pathology of Esau gone unhealed—power without repentance, strength without compassion, inheritance without covenant. The whole Western world, as Jewish tradition often notes, bears the marks of Edom: the drive to conquer, to secure by force, to preserve blessing through domination. But the Messiah does not affirm Edom’s sword—He heals it and as Jacob after wrestling Yeshiah Sar Haphanim the brothers embrace each other in forgiveness.

This is the prophetic path:
swords into plowshares
nations no longer learning war
the earth filled with knowledge of the Lord (Isaiah 11:9)

In other words, the Messianic Age arrives not through violent victory but through revelation—through the knowledge of God flooding the earth.

A Parable From Papua New Guinea
The late missionary Don Richardson’s Peace Child offers a living illustration of this while serving a
mong the Sawi people, where treachery was virtue, and violence was woven into honor. No law or army could change that. But hidden within their culture was a symbol—the giving of a “peace child” to end conflict. When Richardson recognized this, he announced Jesus Christ as the ultimate Peace Child, the gift that ends the cycle of betrayal.

Violence collapsed not because someone imposed force from the outside, but because a deeper truth was unveiled from within. That is Revelation 19 in real time: the sword of truth dismantling the sword of blood.

Torat Edom and the Healing of the Nations
Torat Edom insists that eschatology cannot be built on Christian nationalism or secular Zionism—or any ideology (political) nor idealogy (philosophical or religious) that sanctifies violence. All of these are expressions of unredeemed Edom, the sword before it is transformed. We need its mirror to shine Jesus’ light!

The Rider on the white horse exposes every system—Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Western, Eastern—that clings to power through fear. The Messiah speaks, reveals, uncovers, and in doing so, breaks the world’s addiction to force.

This is why His robe is dipped in His own blood, not the blood of His enemies.

This is why His kingdom is not of this world.

This is why He conquers through the Word, not the sword.

And this is why the Messianic Age is described as an age of knowledge, not warfare.

The Path Forward
The Messianic Age is not about whose nation triumphs.
It is not about borders, armies, or competing narratives of chosenness.

It is about all nations being drawn into the knowledge of God,
as the waters cover the sea.

This is the healing of Edom—
the repentance of the West,
the humbling of power,
the restoration of brotherhood,
and the unveiling of the Peace Child
whose Word disarms the violent impulse in every tribe and nation.

The sword from His mouth (Hebrews 4:12) is the final exposure of violence and the first breath of a restored creation.


Hillel’s Missionary: Paul Beyond Judaism and Christian Misunderstanding



Paul’s Letter to the Romans 12:17-21 
paraphrased in The Message 

Don’t hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you’ve got it in you, get along with everybody. Don’t insist on getting even; that’s not for you to do. “I’ll do the judging,” says God. “I’ll take care of it.” 

Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he’s thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don’t let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good.





Reframing the Apostle through 
the lens of Torah, mission, and Torat Edom


Perhaps the Apostle Paul was the most agile and prolific Pharisee of the Hillelite School. His real opposition was not to Torah itself but first to the political messianism that had fused nationalist fervor with apocalyptic expectation but then to opportunity to diversify the growing Jesus Movement among the nations.

He operated within Pikuach Nefesh (to save a life especially on the Sabbath). His “conversion,” then, was not a betrayal of Judaism but the kind of spiritual awakening found throughout the faithful — a turning from zeal for control to zeal for grace. Included in this is the understanding of what Paul meant by the works of the law.

James Tabor is right to stress how crucial Paul is for making sense of Jesus of Nazareth and the earliest Jesus-movement. Where I’d nuance his approach is that he often frames both figures through older German-critical paradigmsBauer, Schweitzer, and the early “historical Jesus” school—which remain bound to Roman revisionism and its false dichotomy between law and grace. They overlook that Jesus Himself stood firmly within the Hillelite tradition: a preacher of mercy, not revolution; of repentance, not revolt.

Paul simply carried that same Hillelite impulse beyond Judea, embodying what Torat Edom calls the reconciliation of justice and mercy across nations. Yet before his encounter on the Damascus road—preceded by his resistance to false messianic movements—Paul may well have regarded Jesus of Nazareth and His talmudim as representing the same political distortions he opposed. This helps explain his presence at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, when zeal for purity eclipsed mercy.

Therefore, I believe Tabor may miss a crucial foundation: Paul’s transformation was not from Judaism to Christianity, but from defensive zeal to faithful discernment—the awakening of a Hillelite heart under Gamaliel’s tutelage, in a time when Shammaite Pharisees clearly held sway.


In Paul and Jesus (2012) and The Jesus Dynasty (2006), Tabor portrays Paul as a radical innovator who diverged sharply from the original Jerusalem leadership (James and Peter). He argues that Paul’s theology introduced a new, mystical Christ-religion that broke continuity with Torah observance and Jewish identity. Tabor sees Paul as influenced more by apocalyptic revelation and Greco-Roman mystery traditions than by any rabbinic or Pharisaic school. These streams certainly existed even as Notzrim.


Within Torat Edom, Paul becomes the hinge between Israel and Edom, between the prophetic conscience of Torah and the philosophical restlessness of the Gentile world. He translates the faith of Abraham into covenantal language that Edom could hear without severing Israel’s root. His mission was not to invent a new religion but to graft estranged branches back into the cultivated tree — to bring the spirit of Hillel into the world of Caesar, where mercy would have to take the form of mission.


Paul’s intensity about the “Second Coming” must be read through that same lens. His expectation of the Lord’s return was not obsession but prophetic urgency — the Hillelite conviction that redemption begins whenever heaven touches earth through acts of mercy. His cry of Maranatha! expresses the nearness of the world-to-come pressing into history, not escapism from it. For him, the “coming” was both a promise and a present reality: the Kingdom already breaking in through transformed lives.


Seen this way, Paul is not the founder of Christianity but the redeemer of misunderstanding — the bridge where the light of Torah begins to heal the nations and where Jacob and Esau start, at last, to recognize one another again.


As someone who has served in Christian mission for more than forty years, I understand this deeply. Paul’s urgency, his crossing of cultural boundaries, and his unrelenting hope for the Lord’s appearing are not abstractions — they are the missionary heartbeat itself. Wherever the gospel enters new soil, it meets the same tension between zeal and mercy, nationalism and grace, that Paul faced. His letters read less like theological essays and more like field reports from the frontier of redemption.


And perhaps that is what Paul knew most clearly: life is short.


Not short in despair, but short in opportunity — short enough that mercy must never wait, that reconciliation must never be postponed.  His haste was not fear of time running out, but love refusing to waste a moment.


👉 For a Deeper Dive 

Recovering the Jewish Light Behind Nicaea



The 1,700-year anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, celebrated during October 2025  in Istanbul and Egypt, calls us to more than doctrinal memory. For most, Nicaea signals the triumph of creed—“Light from Light, true God from true God.” Yet that luminous formula was first born in the language of Presence—and its neglect has also challenged our unity.



Long before theologians debated substance or essence, Israel already knew the Sar HaPanim—the Prince of the Presence—who went before them (Exod. 23:20–21; Isa. 63:9). Centuries later, the Church confessed Him in Greek terms; but Israel had already met Him as the Face of God that blesses and redeems.

This post sketches the connection between Nicaea’s creed and the memory preserved in Jewish Machzorim—the High Holy Day prayerbooks that still echo the Face of God. And though many have not yet recognized Him, Jesus of Nazareth—the Messiah—still shines through their prayers and praises.


1) Light that speaks, not just shines
“Light from Light” was never meant to freeze mystery into metaphysics. In Scripture it echoes the first radiance from God’s Face: “In your light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). By framing the confession in philosophical language (homoousios), the relational Face sometimes became an abstract essence instead of the dynamic Presence.

In Israel’s tradition, Sar HaPanim is not a principle but a Mediator—the Name of YHWH dwelling among His people. When the Church echoes “Light from Light,” it is confessing this ancient conviction: God is present—personal, redemptive, covenantal. This is kosher Christology.


2) The Prayer Book’s hidden witness
As the Church drifted toward sacramental systems and abstraction (even the Reformation did not fully correct the Constantinian trajectory), Judaism as Paul’s Cultivated Olive Tree understood preserved the Presence in their prayer books as such are the oracle keepers after all. (Rom. 3:2)

The Machzor is not an outline of doctrine; it is a memory-house of covenantal longing. Through piyyutim, worshipers invoke the Sar HaPanim, the Memra (Word), and the shining Face that grants forgiveness. In Yom Kippur’s Avodah, the High Priest emerges from the Holy of Holies radiant—a living enactment of the revealed Face.
 
Scholars like Xus Casal have shown how Machzor liturgy holds an echo of the same Presence Nicaea sought to express. It reminds us: forgiveness comes from a Face presence, not a metaphysical formula. The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev13:8). Yom Kippur is exactly on the opposite pole from passover.


3) A Kosher Reading of Nicaea — Beyond the Constantinian Drift
To read Nicaea kosherly is to read it covenantally, not imperially. The Creed defended the faith for unity, but Constantine’s empire soon refashioned it into a tool of control. “Light from Light” became less about divine Presence and more about power over Christology.


The original confession spoke of the Face that shines—God dwelling among His people. Under Constantine, that living light was absorbed into hierarchy and metaphysics. The Machzor’s memory of the Sar HaPanim preserves what the empire forgot: forgiveness and glory come from a Face, not a formula.

Root — Yeshua, the Root of David, fulfills Israel’s promise.
Branch — Believers are grafted into that same covenant life (Rom 11:16–24).
Presence — The Word made flesh is Sar HaPanim, blessing the nations.


To recover Nicaea’s light is to let covenant outshine empire or theological control—faith before system, Presence before power, humility before hierarchy.

👉 For the full, deeper theological treatment, read Semper Reformanda.


Reading Literally - ‘Gullible’ Enough to Believe?



“Thus says the Lord:
Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
And where is the place of my rest?
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit,
and who trembles at my word.
— Isaiah 66:1–2



Scripture may give us two ways to read this ending of Isaiah’s prophecy.


One way is rhetorical. God is in control. He can’t be contained in temples or human efforts. So we shrug our shoulders: What can I do? That’s the path of the frozen chosen—content to nod at God’s sovereignty while staying on the sidelines.

But take it literally and the whole thing changes. God is saying: I am looking for someone. He’s scanning the earth not for perfect theology or flawless systems, but for humble people who actually tremble at His word. That’s not passivity—that’s a summons.

But with all the talk about rapture, we must recognize that salvation is not just a private mystical vision nor escape, but a shared covenantal vindication of God’s people in union with Messiah as His body.

This is what makes a disciple—and a missionary: “gullible” enough to take God at His word. “Gullible” enough, after seeing His glory like Isaiah in chapter 6, to answer when the Holy One asks, “Whom shall I send?” “Gullible” enough to believe—with the childlike faith Jesus commends in Matthew 18:3—that the world matters, that people matter, and that the God who needs nothing—HaShem, the Eternal One—has chosen to work through us and with each other in spite of our differences.


Isaiah isn’t just another prophet—he is the most important eschatological prophet. His vision stretches from raging nations (Isaiah 2) the throne of God (Isaiah 6) through the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53), the anointed herald of good news (Isaiah 61), and the avenger who comes from Edom with garments stained in judgment (Isaiah 63). By the time we reach Isaiah 66, we are standing on the doorstep of Jesus of Nazareth’s own era, when Herod the Edomite rebuilt the Temple as a monument to his own rule and Jesus told us about the real one! 

In that moment, Isaiah’s words cut through the grandeur of stone and politics: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What is the house you will build for me?” God isn’t impressed with Herod’s temple or any human empire. He is looking for people—humble, contrite, trembling at His word.

And this is where it all turns. Isaiah 66 shows that it’s up to us. Not that we save ourselves, but that God’s sovereignty is expressed through His people’s faith and obedience. Isaiah’s prophecies converge in the Messiah, and through Him the expansion of God’s people to all nations begins.

That’s why a missionary is ‘gullible’ enough to take Isaiah literally. ‘Gullible’ enough to believe Isaiah 53’s wounded Servant actually heals. ‘Gullible’ enough to believe Isaiah 61’s good news is for the poor and the oppressed. ‘Gullible’ enough to believe Isaiah 63’s victory is real, even over Edom. And ‘gullible’ enough to believe Isaiah 66 is calling us to act now.

Read it rhetorically, and you’ll stand frozen while temples rise and fall. Read it literally, and you’ll be sent with the Servant’s own mission.


The Samaritan Woman’s Messiah and A.B. Simpson’s Savior & Coming King



 The woman said to him
‘I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). 
When he comes, he will tell us all things.’ 
John 4:25



The overlooked distinction between 
Moshiach & Mashiach in Hebrew 
from which we translate ‘Messiah’ and ‘Christ’. 

For this
 may help us 
understand eschatology better!



Anointed King,
 Saving Redeemer,
 and the True Judgment 


Mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ) – Hebrew for “Anointed One,” referring to the rightful king from the line of David, chosen by God to rule in justice and peace.

Moshiach (מוֹשִׁיעַ) – Hebrew for “Savior” or “Deliverer,” emphasizing the one who brings redemption, restores truth, and leads people back to God.


The Samaritan woman’s reference to Moshiach in John 4:25 presents a crucial exegetical insight—not only into first-century messianic expectations but also into later theological developments.

The Samaritans, who adhered solely to the Torah and rejected the Davidic dynasty, nevertheless anticipated a prophetic savior figure akin to the Taheb (Restorer). This was Moshiach in the sense of a deliverer, one who would bring divine truth, not a Davidic king. So messianic hopes rooted in Nathan’s promise to David (2 Sam 7) or the prophetic visions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. weren’t part of their canon.


Remarkably, this expectation bears a striking resemblance to how Islam later conceives of ʿĪsā al-Masīḥ (Jesus the Messiah)—not primarily as a Davidic monarch, but as a truth-bearing prophet who restores corrupted religion and reveals divine guidance.

Yet, both titles obscure the deeper truth upheld within Judaism itself and mentioned in their prayer books: Jesus of Nazareth is Yeshua Sar HaPanim—the Prince of the Presence—not merely a heavenly mediator, but the very radiance of the divine, the manifest Panim El Elyon, the Face of the Most High. In Jewish tradition, the Sar HaPanim dwells in the inner sanctum, bearing the ineffable Name and executing divine judgment.

Jesus does not merely carry this authority—he is this Presence. He does not point to God from a distance; he is God drawing near. Thus, when he identifies himself to the Samaritan woman as Moshiach, he fulfills both Samaritan and deeper Jewish expectations—not in deferral, but in revelation. His kingship is not a future claim but a present unveiling of the Divine enthroned among us. The Sar HaPanim is not a function; it is divinity. And Jesus, in revealing himself, reveals God.


Moreover, unlike the Jews of Judea and Galilee, the Samaritans were not awaiting Mashiach ben David—the anointed (Mashiach) King from the House of David—but rather a figure who would restore proper worship and knowledge of God. Yet, Jesus’ response to her in John 4:26, where he directly identifies himself as Moshiach signals that his messianic role was not confined to any single expectation. This challenges the assumption that his Davidic kingship remains unfulfilled until his second coming — He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords!

Within Christian theology, the standard paradigm has framed Jesus’ first coming as Messiah ben Yosef, the suffering servant, and his second coming as Messiah ben David, the warrior king. However, this paradigm and successive narrative is under question from such exegesis. Jesus did not defer his Davidic kingship to a future eschatological moment; rather, he already fulfilled it in his first coming riding into Jerusalem. 


His identification as Netzer (Branch) in Matthew 2:23 connects him directly to Isaiah’s messianic prophecies, emphasizing his Davidic legitimacy. The Netzarim movement—his Jewish followers—did not see his Davidic role as something incomplete but rather as fully realized, albeit in a manner that confounded the political expectations of His time.

The expectation of an eschatological Mashiach ben David riding out to execute military judgment and reign from an earthly throne is a tragic distortion—a bloodstained mirror held up to human longing. The nations have drunk too deeply from the chalice of conquest, imagining that the sword of peace must be forged in the fires of war.

But if war were the womb of peace, the world would already be healed. Instead, the earth is soaked in blood not of redemption, but of repetition.


Isaiah 63 speaks of garments stained red—not from the blood of enemies, but from the winepress of divine wrath, which God alone treads. No army rides beside Him. No mortal hand shares His burden. It is not the blood of the nations spilled in battle—it is the blood of pride, of vengeance, of history’s illusions crushed underfoot.

Revelation 19 shows the Rider on the white horse—yes, with a sword—but not one drawn from a scabbard. It is a sword that proceeds from His mouth.

It is Word, not weapon.

Truth, not steel.

His robe is dipped in blood before the battle begins—because He bears the wound, not inflicts it.

The true Son of David does not come to shed the blood of Rome, but to expose the sword already lodged in Israel’s own heart—and ours. The sword divides soul from spirit, judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). It is not a geopolitical weapon—it is a covenantal reckoning.

Peace will not come by the sword of men.

It will come by the wound of God. And that wound still speaks. We are his body and this is what Revelation encourages us to be!

If the Mashiach ben David expectation is reduced to a future geopolitical conqueror, then there will always be another enemy, another battle, another justification for violence. Yet, this is precisely what Jesus rejected. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), and his kingship is not one that perpetuates the cycle of conquest but instead subverts it.

Nevertheless, there is a judgment—a true and righteous one. The separation of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46) is a real dividing line, not of ethnic or national identity, but of allegiance to divine justice and truth. The war that rages is not one of flesh and blood but of principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12).

The coming of Messiah as Moshiach is not about annihilation but about the revealing of what already is: that man, in his rebellion, brings destruction upon himself, and that God, in his mercy, offers a way out. We see this already unfolding in history, as the violent machinations of the nations lead to inevitable self-destruction—Gog rising not because God ordains endless war, but because man chooses it.

This is why the Samaritan woman’s recognition of Messiah as Moshiach not Mashiach is so important. She was not looking for a Davidic conqueror but for a savior. Jesus did not dismiss her expectation as wrong; rather, he fulfilled it in a way that also encompassed the Davidic promise. He is both Mashiach, the Anointed King, and Moshiach, the Saving Redeemer. The mistake is in thinking these must be two separate roles or that one is deferred to a later time. His return is not about becoming king, but about bringing to fullness what is already inaugurated.

This is not a passive kingship awaiting validation; it is an active reign, already present, already victorious. The challenge is not in awaiting his Davidic fulfillment, but in recognizing it.

A.B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, articulated a clear distinction in his Fourfold Gospel between Christ as Savior and as Coming King. Yet, this distinction was not meant to sever his redemptive work from his royal office, but to highlight the unfolding nature of his reign. Simpson saw Jesus as the present, personal Savior who delivers us now, and as the Coming King who will return to consummate the kingdom he already inaugurated.

This framework fits within the deeper Jewish reality that Moshiach is both Redeemer and Mashiach as reigning King—not in two different persons or two fundamentally different phases, but as a unified fulfillment. The mistake lies not in distinguishing the roles, but in temporally deferring the kingship as though Jesus were not already enthroned. 

Simpson’s vision was never of a Messiah waiting in the wings but of a King already enthroned, whose return will expose what has always been true. Jesus is not coming back to become King—he is returning as the unveiled Sar HaPanim, the radiance of divine presence, the Judge already seated.

His kingship is not postponed; it is resisted. And Simpson, in his deepest eschatological impulse, understood this: the world’s greatest need is not a future conqueror, but the recognition that THE KING ALREADY REIGNS—and is calling his people to bow, now.


John MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (1964) — describes the Samaritan Taheb expectation.

Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (2016) — good overview of their messianic belief.

James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (2003), p. 747–750, notes how Samaritan expectation differs from Judean messianism