Palin's Place of Safety

In the 1960's and 1970's, one aspect of the Armstrongite "end-times" scenario was a place of safety, where God would keep the saints safe from Satan and the oppressive Antichrist dictatorship (see Revelation 12:14). The place was expected to be Petra, which is located in Jordan. I read somewhere that Herbert Armstrong tried to make arrangements with Jordan's King Hussein to get some of that land for the Worldwide Church of God.

I didn't interact much with the place of safety idea, since I grew up in Garner Ted Armstrong's Church of God, International, which didn't believe in Petra as a place of safety. If I'm not mistaken, some ministers remarked that the land wouldn't even keep the saints safe, since it's rather exposed. But some have proposed that other areas could function as such a place. David J. Smith of the Church of God Evangelistic Association, for example, said that it would be Texas, once it seceded from the union to form an independent republic.

Apparently, Sarah Palin believes in something like a place of safety, or at least she may have when she attended the Wasilla Assemblies of God (see here and here). In the second video, her pastor refers to Alaska as a place of refuge in the last day, as Sarah Palin nods her head in agreement, the same way she nodded last night when McCain talked about not aiding America's enemies.

The media may make something of this. NPR recently had a story about Palin's faith, in which it discussed her speech at the Wasilla church (see here). But it didn't mention the pastor praying over her and calling Alaska a place of refuge in the last days. Palin's critics will undoubtedly use this to portray her as an unstable kook--as someone who wants to bring in the last days, kind of like that psychotic preacher on The Blob (the 1980's version).

Here are three points:

1. Believing in end-times prophecy doesn't make one a dangerous leader. Reagan believed in Armageddon, and he ended the Cold War.

2. Palin's pastor actually wants to help people. If a world dictator comes on the scene and threatens God's people, where are the refugees supposed to go? One option is Alaska. There's lots of room there! It is America's largest state, after all. Is it wrong for the pastor to encourage Christians to welcome and be hospitable to future refugees? Is it psychotic to prepare Alaska to become a place that can provide such hospitality--by making it self-sufficient in terms of energy?

3. Sarah Palin may believe that God has a time-table, but, even if that's the case, she most likely views her role as positive, not as destructive. One of the people praying for her said God had brought her to the governorship for such a time as this, an allusion to Esther 4:14. Esther was a queen who saved her people from a genocidal maniac. Sarah Palin doesn't want to cause destruction, but, if evil increases in the future, wouldn't it be nice if a godly person had power and influence? That would be someone God could use, someone with what Palin calls a "servant's heart," someone who can help people through a period of oppression and difficulty.

It's something to think about!

Challenges for Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's speech last night was a smashing success. It was viewed by 37 million people, which is slightly less than the 40 million who watched Obama's speech, but is greater than the number who saw the Olympics and the final episode of American Idol. According to NBC Nightly News, the McCain campaign raised $8 million after Governor Palin's address.

On the Today Show, Joe Biden raised expectations by saying that she'll be tough to beat in a debate, but that he'll try his best to get a word in edgewise and challenge her on the issues. This guy's not that good at pretending. He thinks he's going to cream her, but he's trying to raise expectations. Plus, when has Joe Biden had problems getting a word in edgewise?

Governor Palin is going to have some challenges ahead of her. Joe Biden knows various nuances of public policy, and Sarah Palin will have to be ready with specific ways to answer his charges. I noticed last night that she retained her line of "I said thanks but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere." This is after numerous news reports stated that she initially favored it, but changed her mind after the federal government didn't fork a lot of the bill. She will have to explain this, as well as recite her record as someone who's trying to wean Alaska off of earmarks.

Taxes will be another issue. Last night, Sarah Palin stated the following:

"Taxes are too high…he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes…raise payroll taxes…raise investment income taxes…raise the death tax…raise business taxes…and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio…or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia…or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota. How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election."

Many of us know how the Democrats will respond: Barack Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class (those making under $250,000 a year). Joe Biden said this morning that Palin's sister Heather will not be hurt under the Democratic plan, which only goes after the very rich. Sarah Palin will have to demonstrate that the Democratic plan negatively affects Americans from the middle class, not only the wealthy. And she should also argue that soaking the rich doesn't help the rest of the country.

She'll need to become more like Dick Cheney. I remember the Vice-Presidential debate in 2000. George Bush came across as a dunce in his debate with Gore the night before--as someone with not much of a grasp on detail. But, at the Vice-Presidential debate, Cheney really shined! Joe Lieberman argued that Gore wanted to cut taxes, and here is some of what Cheney said in response:

"We have the highest level of taxation now we've had since World War II. The average American family is paying about 40% in federal, state and local taxes...We want to make certain that the American people have the ability to keep more of what they earn and then they can get to decide how to spend it. The proposal we have from Al Gore, basically, doesn't do that. It in effect lays out some 29 separate tax credits. If you live your life the way they want you to live your life, if you behave in a certain way, you qualify for a tax credit and at that point you get some relief. Bottom line, though, is 50 million American taxpayers out there get no advantages at all out of the Gore tax proposal, whereas under the Bush plan everybody who pays taxes will get tax relief" (see here).

Here, Cheney points out two things: (1.) that high taxes hurt the average American family, not just the very rich, and (2.) where the Democratic "tax credits" fail to cut the mustard. The McCain campaign can use a strategy of repeating "the Democrats want to raise taxes" over and over. Or they can demonstrate why the Republican policy on taxes is better than that of the Democrats.

I'm not sure how Sarah Palin will do under fire. She is a tough Governor, and that's a plus in her favor. But, as far as her interaction with the media goes, my impression is that she's not yet been grilled with tough questions. I hope that she either has a grasp of detail, or that she will get it in the coming days, before she battles Joe Biden and the hostile liberal media.

Governor Palin Has Spoken

Governor Sarah Palin has just introduced herself to the American people. Immediately after her speech, I switched from C-Span to CNN so I could see what a liberal network had to say. The announcer there affirmed that she hit a home run. Then, I switched to MSNBC, and Chris Matthews remarked that Palin was nothing like Hillary Clinton, despite attempts to posit that McCain selected her to appeal to Hillary voters. Matthews continued to state that she launched a cultural defense of small town America and was a torpedo against the Obama-Biden campaign.

Anti-elitism played a big role at the convention this evening. I think that Rudy Giuliani was the right choice to give the keynote address. I got hysterical when he said, "I'm sorry that Barack Obama doesn't think Sarah Palin's town is 'cosmopolitan' enough...Maybe it's the type of town that clings to religion and guns!" My quote doesn't do justice to how he said it!

Although I lavished praise on Sarah Palin when John McCain selected her, part of me thought that she came across as a shallow cheerleader type with an annoying, high-pitched voice. But she didn't project that image at all in her speech. She had poise. She spoke with knowledge and conviction. She came across as just a regular person--as a mom, or an aunt, or a concerned citizen. And I just loved her sarcasm against Obama and Biden.

This will be an interesting race!

The RNC: An Awesome First Night!

I watched the first night of the Republican National Convention yesterday. It had some pretty cool stuff! It started with a patriotic video that was narrated by Robert Duvall. I forgot he's a Republican! Later, there was a young speaker who talked about how her group buys houses, fixes them up, and sells them to poor people at a low price, without taxpayer money. And there were other speakers who emphasized the value of private charity as opposed to big government. It's a good thing Republicans are reconnecting to their values this election year!

President Bush's speech was all right. He didn't give the audience sufficient time to explode with their applause, probably because he didn't actually see the audience. That put somewhat of a damper on it. But I liked it when Bush said McCain was ready to take on the "angry Left."

Lieberman's speech was also all right. I read this afternoon that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed his "displeasure" with Lieberman, and that there may be party discipline against him if the Democrats get a bigger majority. Oh, grow up, Harry! Lieberman supports John McCain. Don't you know that by now?

Lieberman did well to speak directly to Democrats and Independent voters, and also to emphasize John McCain's role as a reformer who works with the other party to get things done. And, believe it or not, I also liked it when he highlighted some of Bill Clinton's accomplishments: going against his own party to support welfare reform and free trade, as well as balancing the federal budget.

The best speech was that of Fred Thompson. You could hear a pin drop as he described John McCain's experiences in a POW camp. I can't imagine what it would be like, being secluded in a filthy room for two long years, experiencing continual torture for not betraying one's country. As Thompson noted, McCain had to hold on to a lot of hope to get through that ordeal. And remember that John McCain volunteered to stay in that camp, when he had an opportunity to leave ahead of others.

Thompson also made me laugh when he said that Obama's candidacy is indeed historic: he's the most liberal and the least qualified candidate in history. Maybe. Actually, I think Lincoln held fewer elected offices than Obama. Of course, Lincoln ran for more (I think), but he just kept losing.

Tonight will be even more of a blast. I can feel it! Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin will be speaking.

Republican National Convention

The 2008 Republican National Convention starts tonight. As with the Democratic one, the first Republican National Convention that I watched was in 1988. I watched it on NBC, and I enjoyed the way that the network played dramatic music while showing the past Republican nominees for President. To be honest, I was a little lukewarm during much of it, until I watched Pat Robertson's speech. Pat Robertson had just gone head-to-head with Vice-President George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination, and he had demonstrated the power of Christian conservatives as a constituency. When Robertson started talking about limited government, I enthusiastically cheered, to the point of hitting my hand on a lamp.

Here are my top ten favorite moments from the Republican National Convention. One of them is actually from a movie.

1. In 1964, there was conflict between the Republican conservatives and the Republican "moderates" (if Nelson Rockefeller could be called that). The conservatives favored Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, while the moderates liked Rockefeller, Scranton, maybe others. The keynote address was delivered by Senator Mark Hatfield, and his speech criticized "the bigots in this nation who spew forth the venom of hate...including the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birch Society." The reaction in the audience was applause, which was then drowned out by loud boos. In an interview years later, Hatfield said that about a third of the delegates were members of the John Birch Society!

2. In Oliver Stone's movie, Nixon, there is a scene in which Nixon gives his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention (see here). I'm not sure if Stone is presenting Nixon as positive or negative in that scene, but it's a rousing speech. Nixon challenges the violence in America and the no-win war in Vietnam, as we watch a scene of LBJ's Defense Secretary Robert McNamara chuckling. While Nixon talks about speaking the truth and living the truth, we see Martin Luther King giving his "I have a dream speech." Nixon then speaks glowingly about the "great silent majority," with scenes of anti-war protesters, Black Panthers, George Wallace, and white cops with bayonets confronting us on the screen. Finally, he says that we can help the natural environment and make health care affordable to all Americans.

Here, Oliver Stone's portrayal is probably positive, for he does present Nixon as somewhat of a reformer. There are scenes in which Nixon ends the war in Vietnam as well as upsets J.R. Ewing with his environmental and civil rights policies. In the convention scene, Nixon speaks to troubling times, and he seeks to accomplish something good for his country.

3. In 1992, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Not surprisingly, he didn't do too well in the primaries, but he still got to give a speech at the convention (see here). In my opinion, it is probably the best speech ever given in convention history. Pat hit the Clintons hard on abortion, school choice, gay marriage, and environmental extremism. You really don't see that kind of red-meat conservatism at conventions anymore! And you couldn't beat his solemn acknowledgement of a cultural war: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side..."

But you could really hear a pin drop when he talked about the need for the Republican Party to reach out to blue-collar workers, particularly those who were losing their jobs. He said: "My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care."

Pat Buchanan hasn't spoken at a convention since. But you hear some of this populist rhetoric from Barack Obama, who talks often about American traditionalism and the faith, family, and hard-work of everyday Americans.

4. Buchanan's speech was awesome, but 1992 also had some "just okay" moments. Reagan gave an upbeat speech in which he said, "You ain't seen nothing yet." Dan Quayle told Bill Clinton he was no Woodrow Wilson, in reference to Lloyd Bentsen's put-down of Quayle in the 1988 Vice-Presidential debate. Quayle also joked about his spelling. It's good he was able to laugh at himself. But his whiny book kind of dispelled his image as someone who doesn't take himself all that seriously.

5. 1996 was all right. It was ideologically tame, compared to the one in 1992. I watched much of it on the Family Channel, where it was hosted by (now Mississippi Governor) Haley Barbour and (now President) George W. Bush. Susan Molinari was cute, as was Elizabeth Dole. And I kind of liked it when Bob Dole characterized Clinton's Administration as "a core of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned" (see here). The video that commemorated Reagan supposedly brought tears to people's eyes, but I thought it was rather corny. At this moment, my impression is that the Democrats make better videos. Of course, that may be because they have the entertainment industry on their side! And Dole was further alienating that sector in his rants against Hollywood, in his attempt to appeal to my people (the Christian conservative crowd).

6. I didn't watch much of the 2000 Republican National Convention, but I do remember Cheney's speech. Cheney is a plain-speaking man, but what he says can pack a punch. He said "It's time for them to go" to people who were tired of the Clintons--with their attacks, their spin, their talk without action, their posturing, their immorality. If I'm not mistaken, he got that line from Al Gore's convention speech in 1992.

7. I didn't have a TV during the RNC in 2004, so I listened to it on NPR. At first, I tried to get it on 550 AM, my local right-wing station, but I quickly grew tired of Michael Savage's bitter commentary. Consequently, I switched to a liberal station, which was actually playing the speeches. One that really moved me to tears was that of Elaine Chao, Bush's Secretary of Labor, who is also the wife of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (see here). It was touching to hear her talk about her experience as an immigrant from Asia, as her family struggled to adapt to American culture and make a good life for themselves through hard work. She also said that Bush appointed numerous Asian-Pacific Americans to his Administration and extended Pell Grants to thousands of American students. This was pretty refreshing, after hearing Bush presented as the devil incarnate at the Democratic National Convention! At another point, another immigrant, the Governator, spoke to the convention. These speeches really drove home the G.O.P.'s historical role as a party of opportunity.

8. Zell Miller gave the keynote address (see here), and he was a Democratic Senator! He was also the very same guy who gave the keynote speech at Bill Clinton's 1992 convention. And his 2004 speech was awesome. He said, "My family is more important than my party," as he expressed his concern for America's national security and the ways that the Democrats (except for FDR and Truman) had compromised it. He boldly declared that America was a liberator, not an occupier, in its relationship with the world. And, in an honest but politically incorrect statement, he asserted: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." I loved this speech! Too bad he had to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.

9. Michael Moore made a movie called Fahrenheit 911, which was a humorous-yet-serious critique of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. In the same way that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham were at the Democratic Convention in 2004, Michael Moore was at the Republican one. And John McCain took the opportunity to jab Michael Moore (see here), saying: "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls."

The quote doesn't do justice to what actually happened. After McCain said "disingenuous film-maker," the crowd roared. Michael Moore raised his hands, waved, and applauded. The crowd chanted "four more years" as they looked up at Moore sitting in the bleachers. Then, McCain used the line again. Moore later said that he didn't think McCain knew he was there, since he used the line twice. But McCain seemed to look in his direction, so he might have been aware of his presence.

10. I really don't remember anything Bush said in his 2004 speech. I recall that protesters managed to break in on at least two occasions. That wasn't a surprise to me, since I knew people who were planning to protest at the RNC. I lived in New York not long before. I do remember some of Cheney's speech, since he added a touch of dry humor (see here). Here are my favorite lines:

"And I may say a word or two about his opponent. I am also mindful that I have an opponent of my own. People tell me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, and his great hair. I say to them -- how do you think I got the job?"

"Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act--and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement--and against it. He is for the Patriot Act--and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual--America sees two John Kerrys."

Well, we're at another convention! Time sure flies, doesn't it?

Were the Maccabees Aaronides?

The Catholic Study Bible says the following about the Hasmoneans, the priesthood that took over in Jerusalem after the Jews' defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes (second century B.C.E.):

"The purpose of 1 Maccabees is clear: it defends the legitimacy of the Hasmonean dynasty...[T]he Hasmoneans functioned as high priests even though they were not descendants of Aaron as required by tradition. The principal opponents of the Hasmoneans were the Hasidim (the Pious Ones) who were the spiritual ancestors of the Essenes and the Pharisees. The Hasidim saw themselves as careful observers of the law but held the Hasmoneans to be illegitimate interlopers as religious and political leaders. 1 Maccabees tries to show that the Hasmonean dynasty owed its origins to a revolutionary movement that had zeal for the Torah at its heart. The Hasidim, on the other hand, were not always very prudent in their self-styled devotion to the Torah. In their concern to have a high priest from the family of Aaron, they acquired a collaborator who betrayed them (7, 8-18)" (RG 225).

I may be misreading this, but the Catholic Study Bible seems to be denying that the Hasmoneans were from the house of Aaron. It says that the Hasidism wanted a priest who was from Aaron's family, and that they disliked the Hasmoneans. That must mean the Hasmoneans weren't from Aaron's family, right?

But I Maccabees claims that they were. I Maccabees 2:1 says that Mattathias (father of Judah the Maccabee) was a "priest of the family of Joarib." And I Chronicles lists Jehoiarib as a descendant of Aaron (9:10; 24:7).

The Catholic Study Bible may be basing its argument on I Maccabees 7:8-18, in which the Hasidim embrace Alcimus because he's a priest of the house of Aaron. "A priest of the line of Aaron has come with the army, and he will not harm us," they exult, right before Alcimus proceeds to kill them. Was I Maccabees arguing against Aaronide descent being a criterion for priesthood?

Not necessarily. The Hasidim may have been excited to get an Aaronide high priest, for the simple reason that Alcimus' predecessor, Menelaus, was not one. Menelaus was the brother of Simon, who was of the house of Benjamin (II Maccabees 3:4; 4:23).

But not everyone agrees with that notion. In the HarperCollins Study Bible, Daniel Harrington states regarding II Maccabees 3:4: "Simon was more likely from the priestly clan of Bilgah (Neh 12:5, 18; 1 Chr 24.14), not of the tribe of Benjamin." Harrington doesn't support this statement, but he may be assuming that the Jews wouldn't tolerate a non-Aaronide high priest, so Menelaus had to be from a priestly family to get off the ground.

Personally, I think that the Hasidim in I Maccabees 7 were just gullible about the house of Aaron. I don't think I Maccabees in that scene is ruling out the criterion of Aaronide descent for the high priesthood.

Still, there was concern about lineage. The Maccabees were indeed descendants of the family of Aaron, but not through Zadok. The Zadokites were the high priests before the Hasmoneans took over, and they most likely resented the Maccabees taking their position. The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the Zadokites on numerous occasions (e.g., Zadokite Fragments, Community Rule 5, etc.), indicating that the Qumran community had some pretty upset Zadokites. And they could appeal to the Bible to support their claim to the priesthood, for Ezekiel 44:15 states: "But the levitical priests, the descendants of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me; and they shall attend me to offer me the fat and the blood, says the Lord GOD" (NRSV).

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXIII

T. Michael Halcomb has the Biblical Studies Carnival over at Pisteuomen: see Biblioblogs Carnival XXXIII. I like it because it talks about more than the same five-or-so blogs that usually make the carnival. Many of these are blogs that I didn't know of before! And they have good stuff. I'm looking forward to reading Jeff Rudy's C. S. Lewis & The Atonement. I put the link here so I can readily access it.

Well, I have a long chapter of Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel to read today. It's the one on laws. I'll probably write a post tonight. There's another topic on Maccabees that I want to cover, and it relates to the ark of the covenant and the fire on the altar.