Issued: 8/14/23

PLEASE NOTE:  Because Bible versions sometimes differ from each other in crucial ways, the version quoted here will be the one that best clarifies the point being made.  For a quick comparison between versions, please go to: http://www.biblehub.com.

   All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.

   The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”  The symbol “↔” is used to connect verses corroborating each other and so establishing doctrinal truths (Matthew 18:16↔2Corinthians 13:1).

   In differentiating between Yahweh of hosts [later Jesus] and Yahweh the Most High God, lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the One and Most High God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from God the Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christians will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

The concept of family is very important to God; and we glean this from a variety of Scriptural perspectives.

   When it came to explaining His relationship with Jesus, God expressed Himself in familiar terms.  He “engendered” or “begot” Jesus not the way men do, but by willing Yahweh of hosts/Jesus into existence (Genesis 1:3; John 1:4-9, 8:10; Romans 4:17; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14). ¹ He called Jesus “Son” and Himself “Father” (Psalms 2:7; Matthew 3:17); but though Father of all living souls (Hebrews 12:9), He never called “Son” any other angel or human being (Hebrews 1:4-5), which tells us that Son and Father enjoy a unique relationship above and beyond that with His other creatures.  We find evidence of this “uniqueness” in Isaiah 64:4↔John 5:19, 12:49 [see and hear the Father↔John 1:18, 5:37] and in Jeremiah 30:21↔Revelation 5:1-7 [approaching the Most High—see Ezekiel 44:3 in connection with Jesus’ heavenly priesthood]; the most obvious being Jesus’ privileged seat at the right hand of God (Mark 6:19 [statement]; Acts 7:55 [visual confirmation]).  Also after the fashion of human parents, Father made Son His heir (Psalms 2:8).

   It is also interesting to see that throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh the Most High and Yahweh of hosts are depicted in terms of ranking irrespective of parentage (Isaiah 22:22-23, 44:6↔John 14:28; Revelation 1:18, 3:7); while in the New their parental/filial relationship becomes the norm.  Although Psalms 2:7 appears in the Old Testament—one of the countless ways the Old Testament established Jesus’ divine origin, such a disclosure was not mean to be understood by Holy Spirit un-anointed Jews (Matthew 13:17; Ephesians 3:9-10; 1Peter 1:1-12) but by Judeo-Christian converts (John 16:13; 1John 2:27).

   Always imitating his Father’s ways, Jesus followed suit.  God gave him children (Hebrews 2:13), chosen rather than conceived (John 17:12; Romans 8:22-23), though Jesus was instrumental in perfecting them for the afterlife (Luke 6:40).  Jesus also cast himself as brother (Hebrews 2:12), as groom (Mark 2:19), and as household provider (John 14:2).  In these he was repeating declarations made during his pre-existence as Yahweh of hosts, the interactive God of the Old Testament (Psalms 22:22; Isaiah 8:18); though in terms of marriage, he had been husband to adulterous Samaria [symbolic of ethnic Jews] and Judean Jerusalem [symbolic of Christians, Jesus’ tribe (Hebrews 7:14)] (Jeremiah 3:6-11; Ezekiel 23).  Along with this role, he had declared himself begetter of Israel (Isaiah 54:5), for the Most High Yahweh had given him power to create all things on heaven and earth (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2).

  In his struggles with Jews, he had used language evocative of family ties.  “Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb (Isaiah 46:3)…Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb?  Even should she should forget, I will never forget you” (Isaiah 49:15).  We always find Yahweh of hosts arguing with his creatures either as husband or nurturing mother, but never ever from the perspective of father, the role exclusively applicable to the ultimate Progenitor of all:  The Most High God.  Thus, “All of you are sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82:6); “My people are foolish, they do not know Me;² they are ignorant sons, they have no understanding (Jeremiah 4:22); “do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9); “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from Whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (Ephesians 3:14-15); and the best known of all, the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13).

   Now, Yahweh of hosts’ heavenly “marriage” had not followed the pattern of Genesis 2:24, for it was Jesus as the human “last Adam”, not  as the Angel God Yahweh of hosts, who would expiate the sinfulness “first Adam” had brought upon mankind (Romans 5:18-19; 1Corinthians 15:45-49).  And for this he needed to incarnate, thus leaving Heavenly Father in order to become one flesh figuratively with his bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:23,30-32), and literally after the resurrection of the righteous (Psalms 17:15; 1Corinthians 51:53; Colossians 1:18; 1John 3:2)—at which point Genesis 1:24 would be wholly fulfilled.

   What Yahweh of hosts’ heavenly “marriage” and “divorce” accomplished was setting the precedent for Jesus to renew his marriage vows and to preach about the indissoluble nature of marriage:  “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mark 10:9); “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).  And more pointedly, laying the adultery of others marrying the rejected spouse squarely on the shoulders of the man divorcing his unfaithful wife (Matthew 5:32) rather than forgiving her; which is clearly the intent behind Matthew 19:7-8:  Prior to Moses, divorce was never an option, but because of men’s hardness of heart, it was allowed as a last resort.  Paul, however, understood perfectly well the value of preserving marital ties in keeping with God’s designs (1Corinthians 7:10-16).

   When Yahweh of hosts gave Israel a writ of divorce for their infidelities, faithless Judah surpassed them and then some (Jeremiah 3:6-14)—which tells us that we Christians were foreknown to do worse than Jews.  But during Jesus’ earthly ministry, his focus was on unfaithful Israel (Mark 7:27), thus honoring Yahweh’s stance that divorce was abhorrent to Him, and that keeping one’s oath of fealty to contractual partner was the only option no matter what (Malachi 2:14-16).  If Jacob/Israel (Genesis 32:28), saddled with two wives yet by definition “one flesh,” was emblematic of Jesus, so did Jews and Christians became subsumed into Jesus’ mystical body, the Church, so that Jesus too owed fealty to symbolic “wives” Israel and Judah despite past and future infidelities.

God’s Concept of Family

   It is on the issue of family that Isaiah 55:8-9 becomes evident:  What God thinks and expects from men is diametrically opposed to how they conduct their affairs.  As we cite the pertinent Scriptures, please note that what is called for in matters of family dynamics is not necessarily how men behave.

   Genesis 1 tells us about the creation of animal life, but not how many of each species was created.  In terms of man and woman, only one pair was made; at best we might assume the same held true for animals.  This opinion is “sort of” borne out by Genesis 2:19:  “Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.  Whatever the man called every living creature became its name.”  Although sea life is not included, we get the impression that there was a finite number of terrestrial species Adam named; and as it was with him and Eve, so one breeding pair of each species must have populated Eden.

   But post-eviction from Eden, as was the case with the human race, animal populations increased until the times of the Flood; hence the seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals—a classification that did not exist in Eden where everything was “good.”  These pairings—again, minus aquatic creatures who must have remained alive during the catastrophe (Genesis 7:2-3,8-9,14-15,22-23)—left the Ark to sexually propagate their respective species to the populations existing today.

   Thus on the issue of propagation, sex was the first consideration.  However, animals do not need to marry to propagate, humans do; or so God requires in the New Testament, wherein sex is more about controlling the lusts of the flesh than raising families—which was the gist of Jesus’ (Matthew 19:8-12) and Paul’s arguments (1Corinthians 7:1-6).  Even if “anything goes” sex is supremely enjoyable [why deny it?], God expects certain norms of conduct.  Jesus did not go into private details on any carnal issue; but if we believe Peter’s argument that God’s preachers spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them (2Peter 1:20-21), then He through Paul (1Thessalonians 4:4-5) and Peter (1Peter 3:1-2,7) laid basic rules for marital intercourse; which as can be seen from Paul’s comments have nothing to do with the kinkiness normally practiced in bed.

   An adjunct to marriage was the impossibility of divorce (Malachi 2:14-16); which posed a costly, spiritual challenge:  If unable to stay married, a sexless life for both partners until one or the other kicked the bucket—in short, a lifetime of “burning with passion”; though separation due to irreconcilable differences was allowed (1Corinthians 7:15).  Consequently, choosing the most suitable partner was essential; not in terms of physical beauty or pheromonal irresistibility, but of moral qualities.

   Enter Ruth:  Guided by Naomi, she zeroed in on Boaz rather than on poorer or richer younger men.  Boaz was won over by Ruth’s virtuous character; and subsequently finagled a deal to marry her.  It was a win-win situation all around:  Accolades and a safe old age for widowed Naomi; a lasting marriage for Boaz and Ruth; and Obed as their first-born, who was David’s grandfather (Ruth 1:4, 3:1-11, 4:5-10,14-22).  Note too that Ruth’s virtuous behavior was not the only factor in Boaz’s choice, but of doing God’s will by raising progeny to Ruth’s departed husband so that his name would not disappear from Israel (Ruth 4:5,10).

  Next came the spiritual education of children.  We all know that the beginning of wisdom is fear of God (Proverbs 9:10), which means that what He says is non-negotiable or else!  Nevertheless, though parents drill into sons and daughters the fear of Santa Claus lest they miss on Christmas goodies, Judeo-Christians parents by and large teach their children rote prayers to their heavenly Daddy while fudging the consequences of displeasing Him.  Hence God’s overall parental advice:  “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).  And another pearl of wisdom modern parents are loathe to follow:  “One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him” (Proverbs 13:24).

   In what way, hates?  In the same way Jesus meant when preaching to “hate” relatives who could not hold a candle up to him (Luke 14:26); for his parenting skills were loaded with benefits, unlike the permissive human way, however well-meant, that undermined them.  Unconditional obedience to God was the narrow path to salvation, both as a prerequisite to be heard by Him (Isaiah 66:2; John 9:31) and to be cleansed of human contaminants in order to achieve holiness—the gist of Paul’s argument in Hebrews 12:9-10.  And how does God accomplish this?  Not by emitting unconditional love-vibes for all creation, but by scourging every son and daughter He receives from amongst the dross of humanity; hence those references to soul-purification by the fire of His disciplinary ordeals (Ezekiel 22:21-22; Zechariah 13:9; Malachi 3:3-4; Matthew 3:11; 1Peter 1:6-7).  

   Thus on the one hand we have human parents who do or do not do their best on offspring’s behalf as far as they are capable of or wish to, and on the other a God Who will not countenance offspring shenanigans.  The soullessness of today’s youngsters is the direct result of parents defaulting on divine regulations, so that Proverbs 13:24 has become the norm, with parents negotiating rather than disciplining children in how they should behave even if those children lack the perspectives of adulthood to understand the issues involved.  For parents the success of children in this world is the priority and parental training is geared towards that objective.  Heaven can wait until they fall ill or die, in which cases parents turn to God for answers or consoling, pastoral bromides.

   While on the issue of children, however important they may be as fellow pilgrims in the struggle for salvation, they do not occupy a privileged position with the God for Whom all human beings regardless of age or social standing are equally important.  Throughout Scripture we find evidence of 20 years or more being the age denoting usefulness or rejection in doing God’s work (Genesis 41:46; Numbers 1:3, 14:29-30; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1Chronicles 23:27-32); nowhere do we find children liaising with Heaven—the ploy Satan perpetrates through Marian apparitions.  In point of fact even the Scripture-savvy 12-year-old Jesus had to wait until age 30 to begin his ministry, which should make us consider why the wait when he could have accomplished so much more had he started preaching earlier (Luke 2:43-47, 3:23).  The answer should be obvious:  He had to follow the pattern established by two of his earlier forerunners:  Joseph (Genesis 41:46) and David (2Samuel 5:4).

   Jesus’ celebrated quote, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matthew 19:14), has nothing to do with those qualities adults are fond of ascribing to them, but with their ability to believe unquestioningly whatever they hear (Matthew 18:2-4↔John 20:29)—which is the definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1).  However, this child-like ability is both good and bad:  Good in terms of God, but bad in terms of Santa Claus and Marian apparitions, for children are unable to discriminate rationally between truth and falsehood.  So Jesus was being very specific in his teaching addressed to his adult listeners—not the children he was embracing—who had lost the capacity to believe in divine promises sight unseen.

   Today’s spiritually-blighted youngsters mimic the worst deeds of adults; on the one hand due to faulty parental upbringing; and on the other because adults at large have tainted them with addictive worldly pursuits ranging from immoral behaviors to intellectual abdication via electronic gadgetry.  Pokemon offers more fun than Jesus; and making mincemeat of images on computerized games more exciting than all that talk of loving one’s neighbor.  On TV ads children are sexually objectified; and on newscasts shown to mow down school mates, bully peers on social media, or be “influencers” advocating “cool” but destructive behaviors to self and others.

   Finally, family is about staking a claim in this world, from buying material goods to enjoying as much of it as possible.  These objectives do not sit well with a God Who has in store everything no human being can obtain in life:  An end to wars, sickness, poverty, hunger, diseases, death and the promise of immortality in a Kingdom untouched  by environmental pollution and natural catastrophes—and unimaginable wonders to keep us entertained (1Corinthians 2:9).

   So in a very real sense human fondness for life in this world is like an addiction to brief, constant fixes rather than seeking rehabilitation; for which reason “let us party today” attitudes are reviled and never to be forgiven (Isaiah 22:12-14), repentance and “mourning” being the means to recapture one’s moral compass.  We have been hooked by pastoral bromides about God wanting us to enjoy life, when what truly defines the righteous is their contempt for worldly trappings that keeps them alienated from Him (Luke 14:26; Philippians 3:8; Revelation 12:11).

   Jesus was not the first to reject their entire gamut, from prioritizing blood relatives (Matthew 12:46-50), to holding assets (Matthew 8:20), to wanting fame (John 5:41), to involvement in world affairs (John 6:15).  Elisha did too (2Kings 5:26); and if we believe the Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul, so did the Patriarchs who despite possessions never put down roots in this order of things, preferring living in tents with all manner of inconveniences because they were awaiting “the City which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:8-10).  And what made them righteous was not their exemplary moral character, but that they lived and died in expectation of promises never to materialize in their lifetimes—an unwavering display of faith which benefitted themselves and their descendants.

   This was not the mindset of generations before the Flood and prior to the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah.  As Jesus attested, the objectives in both cases was having fun, marrying, buying property, building homes (Luke 17:26-29)—in short what to this very day the human race does despite warnings of impending doom.  Noah’s Flood was a dress rehearsal for the end of air-breathing creatures; still his world, though devastated, was repopulated.  But Sodom and Gomorrah are the precedents that best mirror the end of things to befall us, as suggested by Peter (2Peter 2:6↔Jeremiah 49:18; Jude 1:7) and borne out by Revelation 9:20-21, 20:9.

   Peter tells us that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness” (2Peter 2:5); and if by this he meant that during the time it took Noah to build the Ark Noah was warning people about the end of the world, we cannot say;³ anymore than Scripture tell us whether preaching and signs of doom took place in Sodom and Gomorrah prior to annihilation.  And though Peter calls Lot “righteous” (2Peter 2:7), there is no written evidence of it we can see on Lot’s part, other than appealing to the depraved on behalf of God’s angels (Genesis 19:5-8)—though with all due respect, his willingness to offer his daughters for rape does not speak very highly of him.  It may be, as we have argued earlier, that Abraham’s righteousness “rubbed off” on nephew Lot (Genesis 14:12), so that Lot was given a break in a community where not even ten righteous could be found (Genesis 18:32), and where all males from the oldest to the youngest were rotten to the core (Genesis 19:4).  So Lot was saved by grace, not by faith:  He had to be literally dragged out of the city (Genesis 19:15-17); and on the evidence of what his wife and daughters did during and after the catastrophe, these three exemplars of disobedience (Genesis 19:17,26) and immorality (Genesis 19:31-35) are proof of Lot’s failure as head of household.

Divine vs. Human Family Values

   In terms of how men practice them, Jesus was anti-family values; and if his doctrine was not his but the Father’s (John 7:16, 12:49; 2John 1:9), then so is God.  But that makes sense, does it not?  A God Who prides Himself in being impartial and embraces from every nation righteous people who fear Him (Acts 10:34-35) could not possibly prioritize family members who do not.  Here again the word “fear,” meaning unquestioning obedience to His dictates lest He casts us off (Proverbs 28:9; John 9:31).

   We submit that human family values are another form of satanic ploy, just as for every divine concept Satan has insinuated an opposing alternate.  If Jerusalem was the site of God’s dwelling place, so Rome became the site of Satan’s headquarters (1Peter 5:13; Revelation 2:13, 17:5-6,9, 18:2).  If the seventh day of the Commandment was God’s chosen day of worship (Exodus 20:8-11; Leviticus 23:32↔Luke 23:50-56), so first day Sunday (Luke 24:1; John 20:1) became Satan’s.  If Jesus is the only mediator between God and men (1Timothy 2:5), “Mary” became Satan’s liaison between men and the Jesus who is incorrectly believed to be God Himself.  If the Angel God Yahweh of hosts revealed Mosaic Law to Moses (Exodus 3:2,4,6), and Jesus, his incarnated form, revealed the Gospel of Faith to men, Satan engineered “angelic” envoys to reveal the Koran and the Book of Mormon to targeted audiences (2Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 1:8-9).

   Similarly, Satan’s counter ploy to God’s objective of universal brotherhood (Ephesians 1:10, 4:1-6) feeds on divisive human tendencies prioritizing blood relations, so that rather than one global family of faith, we have the world we now inhabit:  Clannish pockets circumscribed by mindsets unable and unwilling to merge with others.  In so doing, cycle after cycle of mating and breeding make us no different than irrational animals.  When it comes to these matters, Ecclesiastes 3:18 is particularly spot on, given that God has so devised nature to hold a mirror to our failings:  Every species exhibits good and bad behaviors comparable to our own.

   Yet the word “irrational” does not mean lacking intelligence, but “instinctive” rather than having the ability to reason, understand, and make moral choices.  Solomon seems to be saying that instead of being guided by morality, people do things out of instinctive evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11, 9:3) as animals do by natural instinct.  But in humans this is a choice (Ecclesiastes 7:29), whereas no animal can act contrary to what its nature compels it to do.  It is true that in rare cases dissimilar species learn to co-exist and to bond with each other; but even in these exceptions, we may glean the divine message that even for the worst of us, there is the possibility of change and transcendence if we but seize it.

   The operant word here is “transcendence,” acting against the grain when hearing the calling of the Shepherd of souls (John 10:14-16).  For Jesus nothing should hold men back from that endeavor; so if “hating” family amounted to severing blood ties in pursuit of faith, this was unavoidable and non-negotiable—to the point that if one wanted to walk back, the game was up for him or her (Ecclesiastes 5:4-6; Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:38).  And though Jesus’ statement of being “unworthy” of him (Matthew 10:37) may rub some people the wrong way, guess what?  He was right; not only because he is able to give things no mortal is capable of, but by voluntarily choosing to become human (Philippians 2:5-8) and overcoming every human ordeal (John 16:33), he became empowered to assist us in our pilgrimage towards the Promised Land (Hebrews 2:18).  It seems to us what when all our advantages are on Jesus’ side, the least we can do is prove worthy of him.

   Now, Jesus was not unmindful of the “instinctive” stranglehold family ties exert on men; so offering a more “rational” approach, Jesus upped the ante by calling attention to the fact that more family members in faith was a better deal than clannish pockets divided along doctrinal lines.  His teaching unavoidably set family members at loggerheads with each other (Matthew 10:35-36), but there were benefits to be had:  “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for my sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30).⁴

   These extended families and real estate holdings were more allegorical than real, given than in Christianity divesting oneself of assets to benefit others is the ideal (Luke 12:33, 18:22).  Thus what the first Christian church on record exemplified was sharing all things in common, so that properties were sold in order that no one lacked anything and everyone’s need was met (Acts 2:43-47).  This was so 1) because they had voluntarily forfeited their worldly goods to validate their faith (James 2:14-17); and 2) because they lived up to Jesus’ standard of going beyond family boundaries to clothe and feed his needy children (Matthew 25:35-36; 1John 3:17-18).

   Apparently between Acts 2:43-47 and 4:32-35, the church had grown in number; but we are not specifically told if every member was Jewish or if they also ministered to needy, foreign converts.  Be that as it may, and following Peter’s epiphany in Acts 10, Gentiles were added to the mix; so that with Paul, their preeminent preacher, it became a point of doctrine to ask for contributions earmarked for the poor—though perhaps not as radically as Jesus and the earliest Christian church had done (1Corinthians 16:2; 2Corinthians 8:10-15; Galatians 6:9-10).

   This duty towards others did not originate with Jesus but can be found in Job 31:32, Deuteronomy 24:19-21, 26:12-13; and most particularly in Isaiah 1:17,23, where it was contrasted with the self-serving observance of religious rites (Isaiah 1:11-15) that left out human concerns; exactly what Jesus criticized in the religious leaders of his time (Matthew 23:14,23) and—pardon if offended—how we “worship” today.  Isaiah had not been the only critic; so had Jeremiah (5:28, 7:6); Ezekiel (22:7,25,29); Zechariah (7:20); and Malachi (3:5).  In all of these the exploitation and neglect came from the powers that be, rulers and religious leaders; so that while they shortchanged the disenfranchised and dispossessed in their charge, they grew richer and the latter poorer and more desperate (Ezekiel 34:2-4; Zephaniah 3:3-4)—foreshadowing the modern human condition worldwide.

   But Amos 4:1 is particularly telling:  “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, ‘Bring something to drink!.’”  These “cows” are symbolic of “wives,” are they not, just as “bulls” of Bashan are symbolic of their “husbands”?  And are not these “fattened herds” representative of unrighteous institutions of whatever shape or form which prioritize their self-interests to the detriment of others (Psalms 22:12; Ezekiel 39:18↔Revelation 19:17-18)?  Even if following the template of Jesus’ head-body relationship with the Church (Colossians 1:18), we choose to equate “cows” with congregants of synagogues/churches and “bulls” with their male, leading heads, the message is the same:  Focusing on “fattening their herds” men contribute to others’ adversity.  

   Consequently God aligned Himself with the disenfranchised (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 68:5, 146:9; Proverbs 15:25; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 49:11; James 1:27), so that redressing their wrongs became a focal point in the doctrine He instructed Jesus to preach.  And once again we find the same message:  By virtue of Adam and Eve, all of humanity is a single family, where each member should feel compelled to look after the needs of others; yet what truly binds everyone together is not blood or genes, but the divine spark implanted by the Giver of souls.

   Think of God as “loaning” parts of Himself that animate the flesh of men (Ecclesiastes 12:7; John 6:63); so that in a figurative sense He has become “fragmented” to engender His family of faith through the seed of Abraham’s promise:  His firstborn, Jesus (Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:13).  And just as we speak of loved ones as our “other halves,” God seeks to reintegrate us into His Being (Ephesians 4:6), for to One Who is the quintessence of wholeness, any type of separation from “innumerable fragments” has got to be intolerable.

   This may be one reason why He identified Himself as a “jealous” God (Exodus 20:5), an emotion we can relate to often associated with love—which is fundamentally what the Bible is:  A tale of unrequited love, where men do not love God as He loves them.  And though this time around He extended men the boon of free will in order to show the consequences of living separated from Him, His plan for the Kingdom to come is the opposite:  “I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them.  And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them.  Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God…[and] they will no longer stray from Me” (Ezekiel 11:19-20, 14:11).

   In short, a global family bound by faith, love, and everlasting worship (Isaiah 56:7) that will remain united for eternity.

Closing Words

   In the final analysis, no amount of Scriptural arguments will convince anyone to give up what he/she has a hold of for the promise of a better, afterlife deal—what has been disparagingly called “the pie in the sky.”  What is required is the intellectual appreciation of God’s offer, or if you will, the spiritual discernment Paul spoke of (1Corinthians 2:13-15); not exclusively on grounds of what we stand to gain from it, but for the scope and grandeur of God’s conception by which we get to know Him as He wishes to be (Jeremiah 9:24).

   To God our blood relatives are not more important than people across the world; and we hardly need argue the superior moral stance of seeing to the needs of the destitute rather than pile up non-essentials on our loved ones.  The looking after widows and orphans that God champions (Psalms 68:4-5, 146:9; Isaiah 1:17; James 1:27) is an exhortation not to focus exclusively on our similarly constrained relatives; but that by taking care of both—what Solomon was driving at in Ecclesiastes 11:6, we as dutiful children get in some small measure to imitate, honor, and be a credit to a Father  Who looks after the needs of good and bad alike. (Matthew 5:45).

   And by succoring the deprived rather than gifting our relatives, we live up to the standards by which Jesus will reward us on Judgment Day (Matthew 25:36).  For to him,  as for His Father, focusing on those who love us at the exclusion of everybody else makes us no different than the faithless (Luke 6:32-33).

¹ Not that it really matters, but on the issue of genetics, Jesus’ maleness could not have been conferred by Mary; so the embryo implanted in her womb was purposefully male to connect Jesus with male God the Father; by which Jesus once more shared the image of His Maker (Genesis 1:26; Colossians 1:15) and was the embodiment of his specific descriptor:  Son of Man (Matthew 9:6; Mark 8:31, 14:62; Acts 7:56).

² Coupled with Jeremiah 9:23-26, this is evidently the Most High speaking. Jews cannot see that the God they worship is not the Author of the Ten Commandments but the mediating Angel God (Exodus 3:2-6) who communicated them to Moses; and by so doing Jews have failed to worship the Most High God.

   Similarly, because of Trinitarian dogma, the Christian worship of mediator Jesus (1Timothy 2:5) as the Father he never claimed to be (John 14:28) also deprives the Most High of His worship; so when He says His people do not know Him, He is talking about both Jews and Christians.

   Please refer to Hosea 7:13 and 11:7 for Son’s and Father’s respective complaints.

³ Not unthinkable given Enoch’s precedent, who at the ripe old age of 375 was transported alive into Heaven after having preached about Jesus’ second coming and the Last Judgment (Genesis 5:21-24; Jude 1:14-15).

⁴ Notice how Jesus factors in “persecutions” between realized and unrealized benefits, as if saying all good things have a flip side.  Those persecutions, needless to say, are sown by Satan in the hearts of un-Christian men—many of them probably family die-hards.   Any challenge to entrenched status-quos is usually met with violence, egged on by Satan and his minions who prevail by fostering divisiveness—the standard MO in world politics he controls (Luke 4:6).