The Eschatology of Jesus and the Cursed Fig Tree

A Rebuke of Political Zionism and a Call to Prophetic Faithfulness

Jesus approached the fig tree looking for fruit.

It had leaves—signs of life, of promise—but no fruit.

So He cursed it (Mark 11:13–14).

This wasn’t just about a tree.

It was a living parable—an eschatological sign against a religious-political system that had leaves without covenant obedience, temple without mercy, national pride without prophetic truth.

The fig tree was Israel—not as a people beloved by God, but as a system posturing righteousness while rejecting the One who came to gather her children.

And He wept.

Today, the modern state of Israel, for all its technological and economic achievements, bears a haunting resemblance to that fig tree. National leaves. Military power. Religious symbolism.

But where is the fruit?

Where is the justice, the humility, the mercy (Micah 6:8)?

Where is the welcoming of the stranger, the honoring of the least, the recognition of Messiah?

This is not a denial of Israel’s irrevocable calling (Romans 11:29)—but a warning:

The return of the land without the return of covenant is not fulfillment.

It is a delay.

It may even be a sign of judgment.

⸻

The Cursed Fig Tree: Leaves Without Fruit
As Jesus approached the fig tree, He expected fruit. The tree had leaves—promising signs—but no reality beneath. He cursed it.

This was not arbitrary.

The fig tree symbolized the covenant people (cf. Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 8:13). But more specifically, it represented a religious order that was externally alive but internally barren.

Jerusalem’s leadership—its priesthood, its national pride—had maintained the rituals, but rejected the heart. They had the Temple, but not teshuvah. They had the Law, but not love.

“Because you did not recognize the time of your visitation…” (Luke 19:44)

Today, that same indictment could be spoken over a modern political Zionism that has elevated power over prophecy, walls over welcome, and vengeance over vision.
⸻

When Will Cain Put Down His Jealousy?
“Christ is the end (telos) of the law, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
—Romans 10:4

If Jesus is the goal of the Law, then clinging to its outer garments while rejecting its fulfillment is not faithfulness—it is blindness (2 Corinthians 3:14–16).

Modern Zionism claims a covenantal inheritance—but it often does so while refusing the Covenant-Keeper Himself. It seeks identity in land, but not in Lamb.

It is Cain with a flag:
Armed. Entitled. Jealous.
Jealous of Ishmael.
Jealous of the Gentiles.

Jealous of the mercy poured out on the least, the outsider, the one who didn’t “deserve” it.

“They made Me jealous by what is no god… so I will make them jealous by those who are not a people.” —Deuteronomy 32:21 (cf. Romans 10:19)
⸻

The Zion the Psalmist Saw
“Glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God.”
—Psalm 87:3

Psalm 87 redefines what it means to belong to Zion. It lists Babylon, Philistia, Cush, Tyre, Egypt—traditional enemies of Israel—and declares of them: “This one was born there” (v. 4–6).

This is no mere poetic flourish. This is the heart of the gospel.

Zion is not a militarized ethnos. It is a sanctuary for the nations. A people. A presence. A praise.

Citizenship is granted not by blood—but by grace.
⸻

The True Zionism: A Mission, Not a Border

“You will be My witnesses…”

—Acts 1:8

Not empire-builders.

Not enforcers of national boundaries.
Not purveyors of eschatological propaganda.
Witnesses.

Of the resurrection.
Of reconciliation.
Of a Messiah who breaks down dividing walls (Ephesians 2:14).

The tragedy of political Zionism is not just in its violence—it is in its betrayal of mission. It puts land above life. Tribe above truth. Power above prophecy.
⸻

The Apocalypse of the Lamb
The Book of Revelation unveils not the triumph of one nation, but the Lamb who was slain (Revelation 5:6).

Its climax is not a war—but a wedding.

The New Jerusalem descends from heaven (Revelation 21:2). It is not built by tanks, treaties, or technocrats.

“The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” —Revelation 22:2

This is the final eschatology of Jesus: not war, but healing.

Not vengeance, but reconciliation.
⸻

The House Isaiah Saw
“In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established…”
—Isaiah 2:2–4

Isaiah saw a house, not a state.

A place of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56:7).

A sanctuary of shalom, not a center of surveillance.

When Jesus quotes this in Mark 11:17—“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations”— He is rebuking a Temple system turned into a nationalist marketplace.

If that was judged, what of a state that bears its name but not its purpose?
⸻

The Mission Hasn’t Changed
The gospel is not a tribal document. It is a missional announcement:

“Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.”
—Genesis 12:3 (cf. Galatians 3:8)

Acts 15 confirms this: Gentiles were not required to become Jews or relocate to Jerusalem.

They were called to moral clarity, spiritual purity, and humility before the God of Israel.

They were grafted into a covenant of mercy, not a geopolitical campaign.
⸻

A Call to Wakefulness

Political Zionism is not the gospel.

It is a distortion of Israel’s calling.

Christianity should NOT act as Edom enthroned.

It is the testimony of resurrection, the witness of a crucified Messiah who reconciles Jew and Gentile in one new humanity (Ephesians 2:15).

“For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent…”
—Isaiah 62:1

But that Zion is not armed with drones.

It does not deport the stranger or bomb the poor.

It is the city of God, whose architect is the Lord, whose King wore a crown of thorns.
⸻

Final Word

Let us be clear:

The return of land without the return of covenant is not fulfillment.

A nation bearing leaves without fruit is still under warning.

The true Zion is not fenced—it is flung open by the resurrection of the King.

Let Cain repent.
Let Abel rise.

Let Jacob and Esau’s reconcilation prevail.
Let Gog fall.
Let the house be built.

And let the nations come—and be healed.

(cf. Revelation 22:2)

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
—Matthew 5:9

Pre-Millennialism or Pre-Messianic Age?

Reclaiming A.B. Simpson’s Urgency and the Prophetic Hope

Why Simpson’s vision of the Kingdom still matters

Introduction
At the recent Council of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) in Columbus, Ohio 2025, delegates reaffirmed a pre-millennial understanding of Christ’s return. 

Though unsurprising, this decision reaffirms a core tenet of our movement: the conviction that a coming Messianic Age remains central to the hope of both Scripture and the early Church.

Yet what was not clarified is equally important. There was no distinction made between historic premillennialism—the position held by our founder, Dr. A.B. Simpson—and the more rigid dispensational frameworks that emerged later. These later systems, heavily shaped by ‘flat’ or easy readings of the Apocalypse of John, continue to dominate much of the popular evangelical imagination. But Simpson’s voice was different. And it is precisely that voice we need to recover today.
⸻

First Immanency and Simpson’s Mission
As Franklin Pyles rightly emphasizes, Simpson’s eschatology was never theoretical. It was deeply practical and rooted in mission. He believed in what we might call a First Immanency—not just the belief that Christ would return soon, but that His return was near in a way that demanded urgent obedience. For Simpson, imminency was not a speculative timeline. It was a call to faithful action.

“This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” — Matthew 24:14

This verse wasn’t background noise to Simpson’s theology—it was its beating heart. “The Coming King” was not just a doctrinal tag; it was the driving force behind the Alliance’s global mission. In The Fourfold Gospel, Simpson named Jesus as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King. But that final title was never about apocalyptic escape—it was a summons to urgent, worldwide engagement and Kingdom preparation.

Some feared this focus on Christ’s return would distract from mission. In truth, it fueled it. This is what Simpson helped correct: the idea that eschatology weakens mission. In fact, it strengthens it—when rightly framed. What we must reject is easy eschatology—one that avoids the symbolic depth of Scripture for fear it complicates our agenda. As the Lord says, “My ways are not your ways” (Isa. 55:8).

Revelation invites us not to predict, but to perceive—to read symbol with faith, and live with holy imagination. Simpson’s vision calls us to think deeply, act boldly, and proclaim creatively. The Kingdom is not only coming. It is already breaking in.

⸻

Why Does History Go On and On?
Today, the global news stream is relentless—conflict, catastrophe, collapse. We scroll through endless tragedy and wonder: Will anything ever truly change? History drags on, seemingly with no resolution in sight.

But this is not a new question. The Apostle Peter spoke of it long ago:
“Where is the promise of his coming?” — 2 Peter 3:4

We don’t ask this mockingly, but out of lament. We cry out as those waiting for history’s fulfillment.

Simpson would answer this cry the same way he answered it over a century ago:

History continues because one prophecy remains unfulfilled—one promise still burns in God’s heart and must burn in ours.

“This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” — Matthew 24:14

This is not just a timeline—it’s a mandate. Not speculation about empires. Not identifying the Antichrist. The return of Christ hinges on global proclamation. Simpson saw history as God’s field for gospel sowing, and the Church as the laborers—not through conquest or mere humanitarianism, but through proclamation of the reign of Christ in power, word, and Spirit.
⸻

Beyond Charts: A Sabbath Cosmology
This contrasts sharply with much of today’s premillennial discourse, which has become entangled in speculative literalism and doctrinal gridlock. In truth, the term premillennialism deserves rethinking. Simpson stood closer to the early Church chiliasts, who anticipated a real, embodied reign of Messiah—not as domination, but as covenantal restoration.

Our modern eschatological categories—“millennium,” “rapture,” “tribulation”—are often shaped more by post-Enlightenment frameworks than the biblical prophets. 

Augustine’s amillennialism was symbolic but framed within a questionable ecclesiology. Later dispensationalism dissected history into epochs. Simpson bypassed both and I believe for his love of the Jewish people would be more aligned to the Hebraic rhythm of sacred time.

In Jewish cosmology, time unfolds in six “days” of labor followed by a seventh—the Sabbath of the Lord. The Messianic Age is not merely a thousand-year marker, but the redemptive culmination of covenant history.

Reframing “premillennialism” as pre-Messianic ageism captures this vision more faithfully. The “thousand years” in Revelation may signify not a precise duration, but the very character of the age—an age marked by witness, suffering, and perseverance. It is the age out of which the martyrs emerge, whose testimony defines much of John’s vision across Revelation’s chapters—yet always with the Lamb on the throne.

⸻

Simpson’s Remnant and John’s Revelation
In The Coming One, Simpson wrote:

“Both find their historical fulfillment in the faithful few who have ever existed in even the darkest ages of medieval corruption… There has ever been a little flock, of which He says: ‘They shall be mine in the day when I make up My jewels.’”

This remnant vision includes the sealed 144,000 in Revelation—not merely as a theological metaphor, but as a covenantal remnant of Israel. It stands as a witness to Jewish faithfulness through suffering, exile, and pacifism—from the early centuries of Islamic conquest, through the endurance of the Middle Ages into the complex struggles of modern Zionism.

This remnant recalls the parables of the Treasure and the Pearl, where what is hidden and costly is preserved through trials. Eschatology must not be reduced to a flat timeline or simplistic scheme—it demands depth, memory, and covenantal imagination.

👉 The Messiah at Rome’s Gates: Exile, Healing, and the Threshold of Redemption

Perhaps the Millennium mentioned in Revelation is not a word in sequence, perhaps we are in the final battle of Gog and Magog?

⸻

With Whom Will He Reign?
This reframing raises a crucial question—not just when Jesus will return, but how, and with whom. For Simpson, unity with the Jewish people was not a sidebar to prophecy. It was central to the eschatological mystery.

👉 A.B. Simpson: Spiritual Zionist, Open to Mystery

But what kind of unity are we talking about? Simply grafting Messianic Jews into Protestant categories? Or something more profound—a reconciliation with the Jewish narrative itself, and a partnership that fulfills God’s promises to Israel and the nations?

Isaiah’s last chapter puts it plainly:

“Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool… Where is the house you will build for Me?” — Isaiah 66:1

The final vision is not a temple of stone or a kingdom of coercion, but the descent of divine presence—a reign of justice, humility, and healing. It is a vision rooted in the Hebrew prophets, where so much remains unrealized and yet to be fulfilled.

Texts like Isaiah 2, 19, and 63 & 66 plus Micah 4, offer a more expansive and redemptive horizon than even the apocalyptic frameworks often drawn from Daniel’s historical imagery.

⸻

The Kingdom Must Be Preached
This is why Simpson resisted the idea that the Kingdom would come merely through education, medical aid, or cultural uplift. In Larger Outlooks on Missionary Lands, he warned against the belief that societal improvement could substitute for gospel proclamation.

“We do not believe that this is the Scriptural standpoint of missions… If we are to do effective work, we surely must understand and work in harmony with the plan of our great Leader.” — A.B. Simpson

Yes, the Kingdom must be modeled. But it must also be proclaimed. Not either/or—but both. The Church must never forget that proclamation is the engine of fulfillment.
⸻

A Prophecy That Answers History’s Ache
Simpson’s missionary vision—and Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:14—reveal not only the why of history’s long arc, but the what now of the Church’s mission.

We are not called to wait for the world to burn.

We are called to bring the King back!

This is the prophecy that answers the ache of creation. It declares that even the delay is mercy—and that every act of gospel faithfulness brings the Kingdom closer.

From this mountaintop, we glimpse the end: not extinction, not collapse—but Kingdom.

Until that day, the mandate is clear:
Preach. Proclaim. Display. Declare without end!  

Prepare the world for the Coming One.

Let us not merely say He is coming soon.

Let us live—like Simpson—so the world knows:

He may come today. Maranatha! 

Sources
Franklin Pyles, The Missionary Eschatology of A.B. Simpson, Read here

A.B. Simpson, The Fourfold Gospel. PDF Download

A.B. Simpson, The Coming One,  pp. 32–33.

A.B. Simpson, Larger Outlooks on Missionary Lands (1895).

Revisiting Jude’s Confrontation and the Crisis of the Name

 

The Epistle of Jude does not merely warn against abstract heresy—it stands as a direct response to a historical and spiritual rupture that dishonored the Name of the LORD. The urgency and severity of Jude’s language (“contend earnestly,” “clouds without water,” “twice dead”) reveals a moment of deep instability, one tied to a false and dangerous corruption: the rise of a pseudo-messiah rooted in the conflated figure of Ben Stada—the son of Jose Pandera. 

This Ben Stada figure, known in rabbinic sources, may have emerged from a fusion of messianic expectation, political chaos, and spiritual counterfeit. Over time, legends surrounding him mutated and merged with narratives about Jesus of Nazareth, particularly through heretical streams that redefined Jesus via figures like Mary Magdalene—most famously in the so-called “gnostic gospels.” These texts weaponized the confusion, blending Jewish messianic categories with Hellenistic esotericism, all while tearing the Son of Man from His Jewish context. 

Notably, the terms Notzrim (נוצרים) and gnostic (γνωστικοί) sound strikingly similar. This phonetic nearness may not be coincidental. As the true Nazarene tradition—rooted in Torah fidelity and the family of Jesus—was being expelled from the synagogue (cf. Birkat HaMinim), a rival version took shape. Gnostic distortions masqueraded as hidden knowledge but in fact erased Israel, undermined covenant, and offered a disembodied redeemer stripped of prophetic continuity. 

The crisis at Yavneh, therefore, was not merely halakhic—it was cosmic. It was a battle for the Name, for the lineage of covenantal memory, and for the Gospel’s integrity. Jude’s epistle is the last trumpet before this breach fully opened. His letter deserves to be read not as a marginal book of warning, but as the frontline document of resistance against what would become the most enduring theological counterfeit in history.

El Pacto es una Herida

Mirando más allá de los sistemas teológicos

y volviendo a la revelación y la misión

“Todo esto lo he hecho por ti; ¿qué has hecho tú por Mí?”

“Y sucedió que, puesto el sol y ya oscurecido, apareció un horno humeante y una antorcha de fuego que pasaban entre los animales divididos.”

— Génesis 15:17

Ecce Homo

English Version

Dios no inventó el pacto para administrar a la humanidad.

Él se ató a Sí mismo.
Él pasó por la sangre, no Abraham.
Él se hizo responsable del futuro de la promesa, incluso hasta la muerte.

“Ten por cierto… que tu descendencia será extranjera… pero Yo juzgaré… y saldrán con grandes riquezas.”
(Gén. 15:13–14)

“En aquel día el SEÑOR cortó un pacto con Abram.”
(Gén. 15:18, literal)

El hebreo no dice “hizo” sino cortó—karat brit.

El pacto comienza en sangre y oscuridad, en el propio acto de auto-obligación de Dios.

Esto no es un contrato legal.

Es jesed ve-emet—amor firme y verdad (Éxodo 34:6)—una herida tomada voluntariamente.

Cuando los profetas hablan, claman desde dentro de esta herida:

“Pero Sion dijo: ‘El SEÑOR me ha abandonado…’ ¿Acaso olvida una madre a su hijo de pecho?… He aquí que en las palmas de mis manos te tengo esculpida.”

— Isaías 49:14–16

El pacto de Dios no olvida, incluso cuando su pueblo sí lo hace.

Él se marca con ellos. Lleva su nombre en su cuerpo.

Y así, cuando aparece el Siervo: “Mas Él fue herido por nuestras rebeliones… el castigo de nuestra paz fue sobre Él, y por Sus llagas fuimos nosotros sanados.”
— Isaías 53:5

El pacto alcanza su punto más profundo no en el Sinaí, ni en David, sino en un madero de ejecución romano, donde el Verbo hecho carne “confirmó las promesas hechas a los padres” (Rom. 15:8).

Allí, la herida queda expuesta.
El Dios que Recuerda en el Sufrimiento
“Se acordó para siempre de su pacto, de la palabra que ordenó para mil generaciones.”
— Salmo 105:8

Los Salmos no celebran la ley como un sistema abstracto.
Cantan la memoria de la misericordia.

El pacto se recuerda no en los tribunales, sino en el exilio, en el anhelo, en la tensión entre el abandono y el amor:

“¿Desechará el Señor para siempre, y no volverá más a ser propicio? ¿Ha cesado para siempre su misericordia? ¿Se ha acabado perpetuamente su promesa?”
— Salmo 77:7–8

La herida del pacto no es el fracaso de Dios—es Su fidelidad frente a la nuestra.

Cuando Isaías toma la voz del lamento, es la esperanza marcada de Israel la que clama:

“Di mi espalda a los que me herían, y mis mejillas a los que me arrancaban la barba; no escondí mi rostro de injurias y escupidas.”
— Isaías 50:6

Esto no es simplemente sufrimiento profético.

Es encarnación pactal.

Israel lleva la herida de la elección.

El Siervo lleva la herida de Israel.

Y sin embargo, la promesa permanece:

 “Te he puesto por pacto del pueblo… para sacar de la cárcel a los presos.”
— Isaías 42:6–7

Aquí, el Siervo no es sólo portador del pacto—Él es el pacto.

Él se convierte en la herida.

Se convierte en la atadura.

Se convierte en el fiel en lugar de los infieles.

Y así la herida se hace visible:

“Mirarán a Mí, a quien traspasaron, y harán duelo por Él como se llora por el hijo unigénito.” — Zacarías 12:10

El duelo no es sólo por la pérdida.

Es el duelo del reconocimiento.

Aquel a quien traspasaron es Dios recordando Su pacto de la forma más costosa posible.

Este es el escándalo del pacto:

Hiere a Dios.
Lo ata a un pueblo en rebelión.

Lo expone a la muerte, al rechazo, y aún así habla paz.

Y siglos más tarde, en otro tiempo y lugar, un joven noble se encontraba en una galería de museo en Düsseldorf. Su nombre era el Conde Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, un hombre de privilegio y promesa. Criado en la tradición luterana, ya estaba empapado de las Escrituras. Pero no fue un sermón ni un sistema lo que traspasó su corazón—fue una pintura.

Frente a él colgaba una obra de Domenico Feti (a menudo confundida con Holbein), titulada Ecce Homo—“He aquí el Hombre.”

En ella, Jesús aparece azotado y coronado de espinas, mirando desde el lienzo no con acusación, sino con sufrimiento silencioso.

Debajo de la imagen, una inscripción decía:

“Todo esto lo he hecho por ti; ¿qué has hecho tú por Mí?”
No era una exigencia. No era una carga de culpa.
Era la voz del pacto herido.

Zinzendorf recordaría después:
“Le he amado desde hace tiempo, pero nunca he hecho nada por Él. Ahora haré todo lo que Él me pida.”
Y lo hizo.

Fundó el movimiento Moravo, un pueblo marcado no por el orgullo doctrinal, sino por un profundo amor pactal, comunidad, y misión global.

Para Zinzendorf, ese momento no fue una conversión en el sentido moderno. Fue reconocimiento.

La herida se volvió visible.

Y así terminamos donde comenzamos:
“Mirarán al que traspasaron… y llorarán.”
El duelo se convierte en misión.
La herida se convierte en fuente de misericordia.

Y el Siervo—el traspasado—permanece por siempre unido a Su pueblo, incluso en el exilio, incluso en la traición, incluso en el silencio.

Él te ha grabado en las palmas de Sus manos.

Give Me This Mountain!

Grafted-In Leaders: Joshua and Caleb as Symbols of Covenantal Inclusion

The story of the twelve spies sent into Canaan (Numbers 13) is often remembered for its dramatic report and the faithlessness of ten. But two figures stand apart—Joshua and Caleb—not only for their courage, but for what they represent theologically. Though both are listed as leaders from Israelite tribes, their deeper backgrounds suggest a more profound truth: faith, not bloodline, defines true Israel.

Caleb is explicitly called “the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite” (Numbers 32:12), linking him to the Kenizzites, a group associated with the descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:11). Though counted among the tribe of Judah, Caleb was likely a grafted-in outsider—a ger tzedek—who fully embraced the God of Israel and was, in turn, embraced by Israel’s covenantal community. His inheritance in Hebron and his unflinching faith point to a Torah principle: righteous outsiders can become tribal inheritors.

In Joshua 14:12 (KJV), Caleb reminds Joshua of the promise made to him by Moses:

“Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the Lord spake in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakim were there, and that the cities were great and fenced: if so be the Lord will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the Lord said.”

Caleb, at age 85, is boldly asking for the hill country of Hebron, which was still inhabited by giants (the Anakim). His request shows not only courage but covenantal faithfulness, trusting God to fulfill His promises despite the odds. 

Joshua honors the request, and Hebron becomes Caleb’s inheritance

Joshua, while from the tribe of Ephraim, also stands within a lineage marked by inclusion. Ephraim was the son of Joseph and Asenath, an Egyptian woman. Thus, Joshua carries a trace of Egyptian blood, yet is chosen by God to lead the entire nation. His story, like Caleb’s, affirms that God’s election transcends ethnicity.

Together, Joshua and Caleb model what Paul would later call the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5), and what the prophets foresaw: a people drawn from many nations, united not by genealogy but by covenantal trust. In their loyalty, these two men became not just survivors, but builders of the new generation, inheritors of the promise. They remind us that the heart of Israel’s story is not exclusion, but invitation—to be grafted in, to believe, and to belong and not a pretext for occupying earthly wordly land beholden Zionism.

Voces judías olvidadas sobre el cristianismo

Jewish Voices on Christianity

👉 Expanded English Version

Más allá de la separación: de la enemistad al propósito divino.

Durante siglos, la relación entre el judaísmo y el cristianismo ha sido vista como una historia de ruptura, conflicto y distorsión. Sin embargo, existen voces dentro del pensamiento judío que se atrevieron a mirar más allá del antagonismo, reconociendo en el cristianismo un papel inesperado dentro del plan divino. Estas voces, olvidadas por muchos, ofrecen una clave para una comprensión más profunda y reconciliadora.

El rabino Jacob Emden (1697–1776), una de las figuras más audaces de la tradición rabínica, escribió que Jesús de Nazaret trajo una “doble bondad” al mundo: reafirmó la Torá para los judíos y condujo a los gentiles hacia las leyes de Noé, alejándolos de la idolatría. Para Emden, Jesús no vino a abolir la alianza del Sinaí, sino a dirigir a las naciones hacia una ética monoteísta que, sin sustituir a Israel, cumplía un propósito providencial.

Siguiendo este enfoque, el rabino Harvey Falk (siglo XX) propuso que Jesús pertenecía a la escuela de Hillel y que su misión se oponía a la exclusividad farisea de Shamai. Según Falk, el cristianismo nació como un proyecto judío para los gentiles: una manera de extender los valores de la Torá sin exigir conversión completa, apoyándose en la estructura noájida.

Aún más profundo, el rabino cabalista Elías Benamozegh (1823–1900) desarrolló una teología en la que el cristianismo no era una aberración, sino un “atrio exterior” en el templo de la humanidad: un espacio legítimo donde las naciones podían acercarse a Dios, aunque sin la misma revelación que Israel. Para Benamozegh, las intuiciones cristianas sobre la divinidad reflejaban verdades mal comprendidas, pero no por ello ajenas al plan de Dios.

Estas voces no minimizaron las diferencias. No pidieron sincretismo ni diluyeron la identidad judía. Pero ofrecieron algo igual de valiente: la posibilidad de ver al cristianismo como una herramienta providencial para llevar el conocimiento de Dios a los confines de la tierra. En sus palabras y escritos resuena la esperanza de que Jacob y Esaú, después de siglos de lucha, puedan finalmente reconocerse como hermanos bajo un mismo Padre.

Hoy, en medio de un mundo fragmentado por religión y poder, recuperar estas voces olvidadas podría abrir el camino hacia una reparación auténtica. No se trata de volver al pasado, sino de recordar que incluso en la dispersión, Dios sigue escribiendo historia con los remanentes. Y quizás, en estos días finales, las chispas de Edom estén listas para volver a la luz.

El Mesías sufriente y la redención de Edom
Una pieza clave en la reconciliación entre Israel y Edom (el cristianismo) es la figura del Mesías. Mientras que el judaísmo espera a Mashíaj ben David como rey venidero, también reconoce a un Mesías sufriente, ben Yosef, que prepara el camino. Desde esta perspectiva, la misión de Jesús como Mesías no fue un error, sino una etapa oculta: sembró la fe entre las naciones, mientras la plenitud de su reinado aún está por revelarse.

La tradición kabalística sugiere que esta luz mesiánica ya está activa desde la destrucción del Segundo Templo. Así, el aparente triunfo de Roma sobre Jerusalén ocultaba un acto divino: el Mesías entró en Edom no para ser vencido, sino para redimirlo desde dentro.

Leído desde la Torat Edom, la crucifixión no es fracaso sino estrategia divina. Como José en Egipto, Jesús descendió a Edom para salvar. Su sangre santificó el campo de Roma, manteniendo viva la memoria del Dios de Israel incluso en el exilio. Esta visión no justifica las persecuciones cristianas, pero afirma que Dios puede escribir recto con líneas torcidas. Incluso en las tragedias, hay chispas de redención.

La profecía de Amós habla del “remanente de Edom” incluido en la restauración de Israel. En este sentido, tanto el judaísmo como el cristianismo apuntan hacia una convergencia futura. La rivalidad de Jacob y Esaú no es eterna. Estamos entrando en una era donde ambas casas reconocerán su vocación compartida: ser luz para las naciones y caminar juntos hacia el Monte del Señor.

The Blessing on the Heretics - Part 5 of 5

There are moments in history when liturgy becomes legislation—when prayer becomes a sword, not of truth, but of exclusion. The Birkat HaMinim, the so-called “Blessing on the Heretics,” was such a moment. Introduced under Rabban Gamliel II after the destruction of the Temple, it drew a hard line between those who belonged to the synagogue and those who would be cursed by it.

This is the moment when the family of Jesus—the Desposyni—were formally exiled. And among them stood Jude, brother of the Lord, author of a short but thunderous epistle. He was not a Gentile convert. He was not an outsider. He was born in Israel, of the household of David. And yet, his family would be anathematized—not by Rome, but by those who once prayed beside them.

This is the story of the last watchman—Jude, standing in the gap as the gates of the Qahal closed behind him.
⸻

From Edah to Qahal: The Restructuring of Judaism
Paul wrote in Romans 3:2:

“To them were entrusted the oracles of God.”

This trust—the preservation of Torah, the memory of Sinai—was not revoked. After 70 CE, the rabbis at Yavneh shouldered this responsibility and rebuilt Jewish identity around the synagogue, prayer, and halakhah. In doing so, they preserved:

• The textual tradition (Masorah, midrash, canonization),
• The oral traditions (debates, esoteric frameworks),
• And the linguistic keys to the covenant (Hebrew and Aramaic).

But the center of gravity shifted.

Whereas Edah (עדה) represented a witnessing community—familial, tribal, covenantal—Yavneh formalized a new Qahal (קהל), a halakhic and liturgical assembly defined by uniformity, not prophetic inheritance. The price of survival, it seemed, was consolidation.

The Birkat HaMinim sealed that shift. To remain in the Qahal, one had to curse the minim—sectarians. And among them, most clearly, were the Nazarenes who still confessed Jesus as Messiah. To refuse the benediction was to expose yourself. In effect, the Qahal became a gatekeeping structure, and Jude and his family were cast out of the synagogue through its liturgy.
⸻

Jude the Guardian of the Edah
Jude’s letter is no abstraction. It is a grief-stricken call to arms. He warns of:

• Intruders who twist grace into license,
• Cosmic rebellion, echoing fallen angels,
• Those who reject authority and defile the sacred.

But Jude’s deeper concern is covenantal preservation. His tone is halakhic and apocalyptic, and his citations—Enoch, Balaam, Korah—belong not to the Church Fathers but to the Second Temple Jewish imagination. Jude is not writing to Greeks. 

He is speaking to Israel in crisis, watching the gates of covenantal continuity be shut—not against outsiders, but against those who kept both Torah and the testimony of Jesus.

This is Edah in exile.
⸻

The Klippah and the Counterfeit Assembly
In Jewish Kabbalah, the klippah is the husk—the shell that conceals or corrupts holiness. Jude foresaw a time when the grace of God would be hollowed out, disconnected from its root, turned into license without Torah, and power without fidelity.

That time came quickly. Jude’s family—the Desposyni—were marginalized first by the synagogue and then by the Church. According to Hegesippus, their descendants were interrogated by Rome, found to be poor farmers with calloused hands, and released. But they were never restored. The line was erased, neither pope nor patriarch, faithful and forgotten.

Their theological exile began the moment they refused to curse themselves.
⸻

The Split: Two Lines, One Root
The rabbis preserved the oracles of Sinai. The Desposyni preserved the oracle of Zion crucified and risen. These are not rival truths. They are covenantal threads woven through the same tapestry. Yet the Qahal could not include the Edah, because the messianic claim had become politically volatile—Jesus was now seen as allied with Edom. And so, the witnesses were expelled.

Without the rabbis, the Torah would have been lost to the nations.

Without the Desposyni, the Messiah would have been abstracted from Israel.
⸻

Jude Against the 19th Benediction
The Birkat HaMinim silenced a generation. It made the synagogue a place of separation, not sanctification. But Jude’s letter was not silenced.
It stands as a firebrand in the night:

• Against the distortion of grace,
• Against the abandonment of Torah,
• Against the exile of the faithful remnant.

He was not a pope. He was not a rabbi.

He was a brother, a watchman, and a defender of the Name.

And that may be the holiest title of all.

The Final Pope?

Petrus Romanus and the Usurpation of the Redeemed Firstborn

1. Introduction: The Myth and the Misreading
The so-called Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to “St. Malachy” in the 12th century, predicts a final pope named Petrus Romanus—Peter the Roman—who will reign during the destruction of Rome and the Last Judgment. Although widely dismissed by scholars as a medieval forgery, this prophecy continues to captivate apocalyptic imaginations.

But what if there’s something deeper beneath the sensationalism? What if Petrus Romanus is not a prediction of the end, but a symbol—an echo of an older conflict that began not in the Vatican, but in Jerusalem? The usurped name of “Peter” holds covenantal significance. It was never Roman to begin with.

This article offers a critique of the Petrus Romanus myth—not by parsing the papal prophecy, but by recovering the first-century story behind the name. Peter (Shimon Kepha) was not the prototype of a pope, but a redeemed firstborn within Israel. His name, role, and calling must be reclaimed—not as an ecclesiastical title, but as a covenantal symbol. For Peter is the Petter Chamor—the redeemed donkey of Exodus 13:13—and Petrus Romanus is a counterfeit throne draped in borrowed holiness.

⸻

2. The Redeemed Donkey and the Firstborn Son
The Torah commands:

“Every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck…” (Exodus 13:13).

To modern ears, this sounds obscure. But within Jewish tradition, the donkey symbolizes the nations—or more precisely, Israel’s exile among the nations. The donkey is unclean, yet essential. The Petter Chamor teaches that even what seems outside the covenant can be redeemed—if brought under the mercy of the lamb.

This is where the name Peter becomes revelatory. Jesus calls Shimon “Kepha” (Aramaic for “rock”) in Matthew 16:18. But this is not just a pun on strength—it is a covenantal transfer. Peter becomes the first among equals: the first to confess, the first to fall, and the first to be restored. He is the redeemed donkey—the firstborn who must be saved by grace.

This symbolism deepens in light of Zechariah 9:9, where the Messiah enters Jerusalem lowly, riding on a donkey. Rabbinic texts associate this with Messiah ben Joseph, the suffering redeemer. Peter embodies this typology. He is not a throne-builder, but a burden-bearer. His role is not imperial, but redemptive. He carries the nations not in power, but in repentance.

The Hebrew פטר (petter) means “firstborn,” or more precisely “one who opens the womb” (from Peter Rechem).

Kepha (כיפא, “rock”) is his Aramaic name; but Petros (Greek Πέτρος) sounds like a Hellenized play on Petter.

So the term “Petter Chamor” could linguistically resonate as “Peter the Donkey-Redeemer”—or “Firstborn Donkey.”

This might seem humorous—but in rabbinic and midrashic logic, donkeys are not merely animals. They represent:

    1. The stubborn, material side of humanity.

    2. The non-kosher nations that nevertheless played a role in Israel’s salvation     

   (Midrash: donkeys carried Egypt’s wealth during the Exodus).

⸻

3. The Triple Simon Tradition: Kepha, Clopas, and Klippa
Three figures named Shimon (Simon) appear in early Jewish-Christian tradition:

Shimon Kepha (Simon Peter) – the apostle, fisherman, and witness to the resurrection. Restored after denying Jesus, he becomes a pillar in the early Jewish ekklesia or Kahal / Qahal

Shimon Clopas (Cleophas) – a relative of Jesus, possibly the second bishop of Jerusalem. He preserves the Davidic and Levitical household faith, rooted in covenant and kinship.

Shimon Klippa – a symbolic distortion, drawn from rabbinic polemic. The term klippah (קְלִפָּה) in Jewish theology means “shell” or “husk”—a false layer that conceals or corrupts holiness. Klippa Simon represents the imperial distortion of the original Peter.

These three Simons form a theological typology:
Kepha: the redeemed rock - petra or nabateans
Clopas: the household priest.
Klippa: the counterfeit, a parody of the truth.

Enter the Roman Triad: Linus, Anacletus, Clement

According to Roman Catholic tradition, the first three bishops of Rome were:

Linus – traditionally the immediate successor to Peter, though historical evidence is scant.

Anacletus (Cletus) – a shadowy figure, often conflated with Linus in early records.

Clement – the most prominent, author of 1 Clement (c. 96 AD), advocating for order and hierarchy—a subtle shift toward Roman centralization.

Clement is sometimes remembered in Jewish traditions as having Jewish origins. Some associate him with a figure named Aviad, perhaps echoing Avi-Ad (“Everlasting Father”) from Isaiah 9:6. Though speculative, it suggests the memory of a Roman leader still bearing Jewish covenantal sensibility.

Yet by Clement’s time, a transformation was underway. The bishop of Rome began asserting authority beyond his city—co-opting the Petrine mantle while the family of Jesus and leaders like Shimon Clopas continued guiding the Jewish body of Messiah in Jerusalem.

From Clopas to Klippa: The Transfer of Power

The name “Peter” was not passed by covenant—it was co-opted by empire. The Roman Church clothed itself in the legacy of Peter while detaching itself from the seed of Israel. What emerged was a klippah—a shell of apostolic faith wrapped in imperial power.

The true Petter Chamor—the humble donkey bearing the nations—was replaced by a throne of red, gold, and law without mercy. Petrus Romanus, in this light, is not a future figure—it is the consummation of a distortion long in motion.

⸻

4. The Alexamenos Graffito and the Donkey King
The earliest known image of Jesus in Roman history is mockery. Etched into a wall near the Palatine Hill (2nd century), the Alexamenos graffito shows a man worshipping a crucified figure with a donkey’s head. 

Beneath it reads: ALEXAMENOS SEBETON THEON—“Alexamenos worships his god.”

To Romans, the crucified Messiah was absurd — part and parcel of how the empire weaponized Torah (see Paul and the Works of the Law).

To Jewish followers, however, the donkey was sacred. It was the beast of Messiah ben Joseph, the one redeemed by a lamb (Exod 13:13), the sign of God’s gentle reign (Zech 9:9).

The graffito is unintentional prophecy: the donkey and the cross belong together. But Rome mocked what it did not understand. Rather than embracing the redemptive burden, it enthroned Peter and bound the donkey in chains—renaming it Petrus Romanus.

⸻

5. From Peter to Petrus Romanus: The Edomite Usurpation
The shift from Shimon Kepha to Petrus Romanus is not just a change in name—it is a spiritual displacement. It marks the moment when Edom (Rome) claimed to be Israel, and when the priestly-redemptive office of the Jewish firstborn was absorbed into an imperial cult.

Isaiah 22:22 speaks of the “key of David” given to the faithful steward. Revelation 3:7 applies this to Jesus—not to any successor. Yet Rome claimed these keys while forgetting the cross. The Pope became Peter, but not the Peter of mercy—rather, a Peter of monarchy.

This is the klippa—a counterfeit covering. Petrus Romanus is not a pope to come, but a warning: the throne of Peter has been hollowed out by empire.

⸻

6. The Real Grafting In: Paul and the Olive Tree
Romans 11 reveals Paul’s vision of the Gentile inclusion—not as a replacement, but a grafting in. The olive tree remains Jewish. The wild branches are welcome, but only if they honor the root.

“Do not be arrogant toward the branches… you do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Romans 11:18)

The true Peter supports the root. The false Petrus Romanus seeks to become the root. To reclaim Peter is to reclaim covenantal mercy, not ecclesiastical dominance. 

The Petter Chamor—the redeemed donkey—is not a relic. He is a signpost, leading the nations not to Rome, but to Zion.

⸻

7. Conclusion: Beyond the Final Pope
The Petrus Romanus prophecy is not about the end of the world. It is about the exposure of a counterfeit. The final Pope is not an apocalyptic villain, but a symbol of a long-standing usurpation—an institution wrapped in apostolic garb but severed from covenantal reality. 

Could this institution be the robbers who inhabited the house in the Bremen Town Musicians?

The future is not about Rome’s fall. It is about Zion’s restoration—and the lifting of the nations toward heaven’s mountain. As Micah declares:

“Though all peoples walk each in the name of his god, we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.” (Micah 4:5)

The Roman and also the Eastern Orthodox Church must reckon with its borrowed titles, its usurped keys, and its forgotten root. The figure of Peter must be redeemed—not through ecclesial succession, but through covenantal return. For he is not a throne—but a donkey, redeemed by the Lamb, carrying the nations toward the heavenly mountain of God.