Thursday, June 18, 2026

Two Old Testament greats who had to give way to Jesus Christ

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus”.

 Matthew 17:8

  

Immediately following this, his manifestation in glory, Jesus, coming down from the Mountain of Transfiguration, will refer to his Resurrection, and to John the Baptist having come in the spirit of Elijah (vv. 9-13):

 

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead’.

The disciples asked him, ‘Why then do the teachers of the Law say that Elijah must come first?’

 

Jesus replied, ‘To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands’. Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

 

Here I intend to consider John the Baptist and also Moses, who, with said Elijah, was present at the Transfiguration. The Baptist and Moses had to, in a sense, diminish, so that Jesus Christ could wax the greater (John 3:30): ‘He must increase, and I must decrease’.

 

What follows is not original, but has been picked up from various talks and videos.

 

Saint John the Baptist

 

John the Baptist was, in fact, the head of the Old Testament.

 

Apart from his being prefigured by the prophet Elijah, as Jesus had recalled, John was marvellously foreshadowed by another worthy person, Jonathan, the son of King Saul and the bosom friend of David, the Lord’s anointed. Though Jonathan was the natural heir to Saul’s throne, being the king’s eldest son, he was prepared to yield to his friend, David, knowing that this was what the Lord had intended. For David, not he, Jonathan, was the Lord’s anointed.

 

What a man! What humility!

 

Jonathan could easily have had David removed out of the way by assisting his jealous father in the latter’s desire to have David killed.

Instead, he will risk his own life for the sake of his friend, David.

 

The remarkable sacrifice of the dedicated Jonathan is well captured in the following article: “I Will Be Second”: Insights From an Ancient Friendship - Hope 103.2

 

“I Will Be Second”: Insights From an Ancient Friendship

Home › Christian Living

 

What was the Biblical Jonathan doing when he promised the throne to David and suggested he would be his 2IC?

 

By Hope 103.2 Network

26 January, 2025

 

It’s an often-overlooked statement that is strangely counter-cultural: “You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you.”

 

Key Points

 

  • In a world that is built upon the notion ‘me first’; humility and genuine servant-heartedness is becoming more difficult to find.
  • Johnathan in the Bible exemplified what servant-heartedness looks like – as well as what a good friend looks like.
  • Seeking to serve others instead of yourself is one of the true signs of a good leader.

 

You find it in 1 Samuel 23:17 and it is the words of Jonathan to his great friend David.

 

Now it wouldn’t be too startling a sentiment if it wasn’t that everyone expected Jonathan to be king. After all, he was the oldest son of King Saul, and that’s how these things work in royal circles. The oldest son is heir to the throne – easy, straightforward, not controversial at all. So what is Jonathan doing promising the throne to David and suggesting he would be his 2IC (second-in-charge)? And why would anyone willingly say, “I will be second”.

 

The desire to be first fuels so many conflicts – and it certainly fueled a fair few in the Bible. Take Jacob’s desperate desire to have the rights of the first born which were given to Esau who had beaten him by a whisker as these twins exited their mother’s womb. The deceit and conflict that follows is truly tragic, and all because Jacob could never accept that he came out second. While Esau paid scant attention to his rights as a firstborn he never thought that he should simply say to his brother Jacob, “I will be second.” Or what about the conflict between Joseph and his older brothers. Told in a dream that one day these brothers would bow down to him, Joseph is foolish enough to share the vision. Rather than say “No worry, we will be second” they plan to kill him – but then settle for selling him into slavery. And oh the family heartache that follows.

 

Coming second seems counterintuitive

 

There is something deeply counterintuitive in being content to be second, yet Jesus pushes the idea even further.

 

He suggests that the first will be last and the last first – so why select second when you can select last?

 

Noble though Jonathan’s sentiment towards David was, it didn’t turn out that way. David did indeed become king, but Jonathan was killed in battle far, far too young. David is devastated. We will never know if it would have worked with David as king and Jonathan his second. But there is an example set, and it should not be forgotten.

Jonathan was probably right that David would be a better king than him. Both were exceptionally capable – but David a bit more so. It’s hard to be confident in your status as an achiever yet to recognize that someone is a better fit than you are. It takes remarkable humility. Few have it. Jonathan wasn’t interested in what served his agenda, but what would serve the national interest best. When it came to being king, Jonathan couldn’t think of anyone who was a better fit for the role than David – even though Jonathan would have done a good job – and no doubt been better at it than his very erratic father, Saul. ….

 

So perfect was the Baptist’s awareness of his own vocation ‘to make straight the way of the Lord’ – he, likewise, risking his life in the face of fierce opponents and a mad king, Herod Antipas - that Jesus can say of him (Matthew 11:11): ‘Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!’ 

 

John the Baptist was, in fact, the head of the Old Testament.

His beheading, bitter as it was, was, in a symbolic sense, necessary. For the head of the Old Testament needed to be removed in order to make way for the divine Lord of the New Testament.

 

It is a far superior, spiritual order of being.

 

That is why Jesus could finish his statement in praise of John the Baptist with the seemingly belittling words, ‘… yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’.

 

Moses the Lawgiver

 

The Law alone is insufficient to get us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

What was the sin of Moses?

 

At the waters of Massah and Meribah, Moses, it appears, failed to uphold the holiness of God: What defines the holiness of God?

God’s holiness is His absolute moral purity, transcendence, and set-apart nature, distinguishing Him from all creation and sin.

Definition and Nature. God’s holiness fundamentally describes His unique, set-apart quality that separates Him from all creation and from sin or impurity (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16)”. 

 

Was the Lord too harsh on Moses?

 

To accuse Moses of “pride” here does not appear to sit very well with that statement about him in Numbers – somewhat mindful of Jesus’s praise of John the Baptist: (Numbers 12:3): “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth”.

 

It is a difficult narrative, with which commentators can struggle.

The following article (2025) at least makes a good attempt to explain it:

What sin did Moses commit against God?

 

What sin did Moses commit against God?

 

By striking the rock instead of speaking to it, Moses failed to uphold God’s holiness before the people. Scholars and theologians have debated the deeper meaning of this act. Some suggest that Moses’ actions reflected anger, impatience, or pride.

 

Moses is one of the most revered figures in the Bible, known for leading the Israelites out of Egypt and receiving the Ten Commandments from God. His faithfulness, humility, and leadership are celebrated throughout Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Yet, even Moses was not without fault. One of the most frequently discussed questions about his life is: What sin did Moses commit against God? This post explores the key incident that the Bible describes as Moses’ transgression, its context, and its consequences for his legacy.

 

Moses’ Leadership and Relationship with God

 

From the burning bush to the parting of the Red Sea, Moses’ life was marked by extraordinary encounters with God. Chosen to deliver the Israelites from slavery, he became the mediator between God and His people.

 

Moses regularly communicated with God, receiving laws, instructions, and guidance for the nation of Israel during their wilderness journey. Despite his closeness to God, Moses was still human and subject to error.

 

The Waters of Meribah: The Incident Explained

 

The most significant sin associated with Moses is found in the Book of Numbers, chapter 20. The Israelites, wandering in the wilderness, arrived at Kadesh and found themselves without water. As they often did, the people complained bitterly to Moses and Aaron, longing for the comforts of Egypt and fearing for their survival. Moses and Aaron sought God’s guidance, and God gave Moses specific instructions: “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink” (Numbers 20:8, NIV).

 

Instead of speaking to the rock as God commanded, Moses, perhaps frustrated by the people’s attitudes, struck the rock twice with his staff. Water did flow from the rock, quenching the people’s thirst, but Moses had not followed God’s command exactly. God then said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them” (Numbers 20:12, NIV).

 

The Nature of Moses’ Sin

 

The sin of Moses, as described in this story, was disobedience and a lack of trust in God’s instructions. By striking the rock instead of speaking to it, Moses failed to uphold God’s holiness before the people. Scholars and theologians have debated the deeper meaning of this act. Some suggest that Moses’ actions reflected anger, impatience, or pride. Others believe that his failure was in not making it clear that the miracle was solely due to God’s power, not his own.

 

This incident is particularly striking because of Moses’ long record of faithfulness. Unlike other leaders who openly rebelled against God, Moses’ disobedience here was subtle but significant. God expected the highest standard from Moses, especially given his role as the leader and representative of God’s will to the people.

 

The Consequences for Moses

 

The immediate consequence of Moses’ sin was that he was barred from entering the Promised Land. After leading the Israelites through decades of hardship and hope, Moses was only allowed to see the land from a distance before his death. This outcome, while seemingly harsh, emphasized the seriousness of his disobedience and the weight of leadership in God’s eyes.

 

Despite this penalty, Moses remained a figure of immense respect. He continued to guide the Israelites, appointed Joshua as his successor, and delivered his final blessings before dying on Mount Nebo. The biblical narrative portrays Moses’ exclusion from the Promised Land not as a total rejection, but as a sobering reminder that even the greatest leaders are accountable to God. ….

 

The Law’s limitations

 

Whatever may be the precise explanation of the incident, it seems as if, just as John’s head had to be removed, so must Moses himself be disallowed from entering the Promised Land, because Moses, as the embodiment of the old Law, was not the one to lead his people into the Promised Land, symbolising heaven.

 

The Law alone is insufficient to get us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Only Jesus, belonging to that superior, spiritual order of things, can lead us into Heaven.

 

Paul allegorically contrasted the Old and the New in Galatians:

Topical Bible: The Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

 

“Paul's allegory emphasizes the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. It underscores the futility of relying on the Law for justification and the necessity of faith in Christ for true freedom. The allegory serves as a powerful reminder to the Galatians—and to all believers—of their identity as children of the promise, called to live in the freedom of the Spirit rather than the bondage of the Law”.

 

And that is why, symbolically, Moses had to yield to one with the name of Jesus, namely Joshua, who did lead the Israelites into the Promised land.

 

 

Saturday, June 6, 2026

‘Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood’

 



 

 

‘Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;

and I will raise him up at the last day’.

 

John 6:54

 

 

Pope: 'Keep beautiful witness of Corpus Christi processions alive'

 

Pope: 'Keep beautiful witness of Corpus Christi processions alive'

 

During his Wednesday General Audience, Pope Leo XIV recalled that Thursday marks the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, encouraging the faithful to keep alive the public witness of faith made visible in Corpus Christi processions around the world.

 

He also offered heartfelt words of prayer and accompaniment to priests and religious in the Middle East.

 

Jun 03, 2026

Related News

 

 

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

"An expression of popular Eucharistic devotion is found in the processions with the Blessed Sacrament that take place in the streets of many towns and countries; in this regard, I encourage you to keep alive this beautiful manifestation of public witness to the faith."

 

Pope Leo XIV expressed this sentiment during his Wednesday General Audience, recalling that this week the Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.

 

The Pope encouraged the faithful to participate in this tradition, recalling that "In the Eucharist we contemplate Jesus, bread broken and given for each one of us."

 

In his greetings to the faithful, the Pope also offered special words of closeness to priests and religious serving in the Middle East.

"I accompany with my prayer and my blessing your ministry and the hopes of your respective countries."

 

The Holy Father also greeted the Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the members of the Montfortian Family, and the Sisters of Our Lady of the Cenacle, encouraging them "to be a sign of hope for all those who thirst for God, for His truth, and for His peace."--Vatican News

 

Today (7th June, 2026) is the feast of  Corpus Christi

 

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Neanderthals were not a different species

 


 

“… some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare

them with Neanderthals”.

 Günter Bechly

 

  

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

 

Neanderthals need to be re-written

 

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

 

Messing with the Neanderthals

 

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

 

Neanderthals could speak

 

(5) Neanderthals could speak

 

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book (Buried Alive).

 

We read at:

New Evidence for Human Nature of Neanderthals | Science and Culture Today

 

Fossil Friday: New Evidence for the Human Nature of Neanderthals

Günter Bechly

February 2, 2024

 

The reconstruction of Neanderthal appearance and behavior has quite a checkered history. After an initial controversy over whether the fossils really represent ancient humans or just malformed modern humans, Neanderthals were described in 1864 as distinct hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis. For a long time they were considered as brutish cavemen with a club and almost gorilla-like appearance.

 

Then the scientific opinion shifted and Neanderthals were more and more recognized as human-like and even as geniuses of the ice age (Husemann 2005Finlayson 2019), based on an avalanche of new evidence for complex human behavior (Nowell 2023Vernimmen 2023). We now know that Neanderthals used fire (Angelucci et al. 2023), buried their dead (Balzeau et al. 2020Dockdrill 2020), created stone circles (Jaubert et al. 2016Callaway 2016) and bone tools (Soressi et al. 2013), made jewellery from eagle talons (Radovčić et al. 2015Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019) and used feathers as body decoration (Peresani et al. 2011Finlayson et al. 2012), made cave art with paintings and engravings (Rodríguez-Vidal et al. 2014Hoffmann et al. 2018aMarquet et al. 2023), played music with bone flutes (Turk et al. 2018), used ochre as pigment (Roebroeks et al. 2012Hoffmann et al. 2018b) and sophisticated fibre technology (Hardy et al. 2020), produced flour from processed plants (Mariotti Lippi et al. 2023), dived for seafood (Villa et al. 2020), cooked food and self-medicated with herbal painkillers and antibiotics (Hardy et al. 2012Weyrich et al. 2017), and even produced glue from birch bark with a complex chemical procedure (Blessing & Schmidt 2021Schmidt et al. 2023).

 

New Anatomic Data

 

But it is not just new evidence for Neanderthal behavior that overturned our previous crude image of Neanderthals as dumb brutes, but also new anatomic data. Contrary to earlier beliefs, more recent studies have demonstrated a fully upright posture with typical human spinal curvature called lordosis (Haeusler et al. 2019). The latter authors concluded that “after more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neandertal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans.” 

 

There even exists compelling new evidence for hearing and speech capacities (Conde-Valverde et al. 2021), which “demonstrates that the Neanderthals possessed a communication system that was as complex and efficient as modern human speech” (Starr 2021).

 

Correlated with this fundamental rethinking of Neanderthals (Nowell 2023) in terms of their anatomy, culture, and mental capabilities, their classification has also changed over time. At first they were considered as a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, then they were just considered as a subspecies of modern humans, Homo sapiens, and since the late 1990s again as “an unambiguously demarcated morphospecies” (Tattersall & Schwartz 2006; also see Harvati et al. 2004Márquez et al. 2014, and Wynn et al. 2016). The new field of paleogenomics brought insight into their DNA (Green et al. 2010), which was considered as sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate species status again (Clarke 2016), even though there was also evidence for hybridization and genetic admixture with modern humans (Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023). Paleogeneticist and Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo (2014) called the controversy of the species status of Neanderthals as unresolvable, because of the arbitrariness and fuzziness of species concepts (also see Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023Nowell 2023, and Stringer 2023). The controversy still continues as is evident from a recent article titled “Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species?” (Heidt 2023), which discusses the fact that “scientists have been vollying the question back and forth for more than a century”. Nowell (2023) wrote: “From their initial discovery until today, Neandertals have shifted between “being recognized as human or being pushed to the constitutive outside of humanness,” what Drell (2000, p. 15) describes as “the oscillating dichotomy of Same and Other.”

 

Of course, the undeniable evidence for significant and common genetic admixture (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016Villanea & Schraiber 2019Callaway 2021), which makes up 1-4 percent of the modern human genome (Reilly et al. 2022), would suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common gene pool and belonged to the same biospecies. Even the skeptic and ID opponent Michael Shermer (2010) agreed in an article for Scientific American that the genomic evidence suggests that our Neanderthal brethren were not a separate species. Strong reproductive isolation barriers that limited the amount of introgression were proposed by Overmann & Coolidge (2013), but many experts remain unconvinced. Paleoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto said (quoted in Vernimmen 2023): “Homo sapiens clearly recognized Neanderthals as mating partners, which suggests they thought of them as humans — maybe ‘the weird guys living behind the mountains,’ but still, fellow humans.”

 

But what do we make of the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans? Don’t they support a separate species status? Actually, this would not follow even if the differences lay outside the range of variability of modern humans, because that is also the case in many other subspecies of living animals. However, some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare them with Neanderthals.

 

Of course this also had some typical Darwinist racist connotations. Just like Neanderthals, native Australians were considered primitive and inferior. Nevertheless, the similarities are real and have been confirmed by modern anatomical studies (e.g., Wolpoff & Caspari 1996), which concluded that “the interpretation of Neanderthals as a different species is very unlikely.” ….

 

 

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Neanderthals could speak

 



 

“As well as archaeological artefacts, researchers also point to similarities

in their vocal anatomy with modern humans and their known cognitive abilities. Neanderthals had larger brains, on average, than modern humans and while

this doesn’t mean they were necessarily smarter, it does suggest they were

a highly intelligent species - just like us”.

Will Newton

 

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

 

Neanderthals need to be re-written

 

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

 

Messing with the Neanderthals

 

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

 

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book:

 

And, again:

 

New Shocking Discovery About Neanderthals Changes EVERYTHING!

 

Recent discoveries have revealed that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in the mid-Middle Paleolithic Levant not only coexisted but actively interacted, sharing technology, lifestyles, and burial customs. These interactions fostered cultural exchange, social complexity, and behavioral innovations, such as formal burial practices and the symbolic use of ochre for decoration. The findings suggest that human connections, rather than isolation, were key drivers of technological and cultural advancements, highlighting the Levant as a crucial crossroads in early human history.

 

We read at:

They interbred – but could humans and neanderthals actually talk to each other? | Discover Wildlife

 

They interbred – but could humans and neanderthals actually talk to each other?

 

Our ancestors lived alongside Neanderthals for nearly 200,000 years [sic], often interbreeding with them. But could they understand one another?

….

Will Newton

 

Published: May 25, 2026 at 2:46 am


 

We might be the only species of human alive today, but just a few hundred thousand years ago [sic] there were a handful of different species living across the world.

 

The Neanderthals were one of these species, and … they’re our closest cousins.

 

….

 

How closely related are we to Neanderthals?

 

It was long thought that we (Homo sapiens) evolved from Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and that these stocky ‘almost-humans’ were a transitional phase between chimpanzees and modern humans. This ‘March of Progress’-style image is often how our evolutionary history is depicted, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

 

Instead, modern humans and Neanderthals are sister species that evolved from the same common ancestor [sic], diverging from one another roughly half-a-million years ago. As a species, Neanderthals emerged earlier than modern humans, roughly 400,000 years ago compared to 300,000 years ago, but it wasn’t until 130,000 years ago that ‘classic Neanderthals’ really appeared.

….

Regardless of who this common ancestor was, genetic studies show that Neanderthals are our closest relatives and share up to 99.7% of our DNA. These similarities run so deep that some suggest Neanderthals may actually represent a subspecies of Homo sapiens and should be renamed Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

 

Could Neanderthals speak?

 

The linguistic ability of Neanderthals has long been debated. From their discovery in the mid 19th century until quite recently, they were often portrayed as dim-witted ‘cavemen’, their communicative abilities thought to be limited to grunts and simple gestures.

….

 

It’s clear from the wealth of archaeological artefacts left by Neanderthals alone that this was simply not the case. The discovery of clothes, jewellery, weapons, and sophisticated homes crafted by Neanderthals paint a picture of people who could not only communicate, but collaborate and even create art.

 

As well as archaeological artefacts, researchers also point to similarities in their vocal anatomy with modern humans and their known cognitive abilities. Neanderthals had larger brains, on average, than modern humans and while this doesn’t mean they were necessarily smarter, it does suggest they were a highly intelligent species - just like us.

 

In order to find out just how well Neanderthals could speak, a team of researchers from the University of Iowa examined their genetic code for genomic regions known as ‘human ancestor quickly evolving regions’, or HAQERS. These aren’t genes, rather sequences that affect how and when certain genes are expressed, and they’ve been shown to have a large effect on human language development.

 

What these researchers found as part of a study published in April, 2026, surprised them. Neanderthals not only had HAQERS, but they were even more prominent than those found in humans today ….

 

If that was the case, and Neanderthals were capable of language, surely they could have found ways to communicate with the humans they bumped into - right?

 

Could humans and Neanderthals communicate?

 

It’s clear, based on the genetic evidence, that humans and Neanderthals regularly ‘bumped’ into one another - in more ways than one…

 

In 2010, researchers successfully sequenced the Neanderthal genome and discovered that modern humans of non-African descent carry roughly 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. Some populations carry even more: the proportion in East Asian populations can be as high as 4%!

 

This genetic evidence proves that humans and Neanderthals interbred quite regularly, and suggests some may have even lived together in mixed groups. The individuals living in these mixed groups, nurturing and raising hybrid offspring, must have been able to communicate to some degree. ….