|
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Bible text from the New King James Version is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000.
Exposing the Liberal Lie
I write this manuscript not to add anything to the word of God. The word of God stands on its own, and no man can add to, nor subtract from its eternal truths. It is my purpose solely to make known what the word of God says regarding several key issues of the day. These issues, it seems, rather than hinging upon the timeless and inerrant word of God, are being fully defined by a secular world view entirely hostile and opposed to anything even remotely associated with the God of the Bible. I am also not writing this manuscript in the hope that it may persuade the nonbeliever who denies the authority of Scripture. While I believe it is our duty and privilege as Christians to make known the true and complete word of God to all the world, I've written this book explicitly for those who claim to rest in that living truth. As such, I write this manuscript for those who do believe in the divine inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and complete, unchanging authority of the word of God. Many claim such beliefs, yet are ignorant of what the Scriptures actually say; they are familiar with only select portions, or are uncertain regarding God's views on specific issues as the Bible does not address these issues topically. It is therefore my desire to expose those who claim to speak for God, yet do so in blatant, often blasphemous contradiction of His holy word. With so many conflicting messages directed our way, it is essential that we, as believers, are able to discern the truth, learning to lean on the perfect Creator rather than the imperfect and sinful creation. As the writer of Proverbs said: Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5) We are to look into God's word for ourselves and not rely on what any man or any church tells us God says. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the believers in Galatia: I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9) Thirdly, I am writing this manuscript as neither an endorsement nor a disapprobation of the law God gave to Israel through Moses. It is clearly not my place to do so. I quote from this law in several instances throughout this manuscript as God has seen fit to include it in His holy word. That it was initially intended for His people, Israel, under the government that He established for them is clear. How it may apply to us today, is not. At very least, the law God gave to Israel through Moses clearly demonstrates the LORD God's attitude regarding certain offenses and the perpetrators, thereof. As the LORD God does not change His mind (chiefly I Samuel 15:29), it would be wise to infer that His attitude in these matters, also has not changed. That we are no longer slaves of unrighteousness through the law, but saved by grace through faith, apart from the works of the law, is also clear from Scripture, and I find no contradiction between the two. Now, it may seem to some that I tend to stress God's holiness, wrath and justice while, in comparison, somewhat neglect to mention His love, mercy and forgiveness. This is not to paint a lopsided portrait of God, as both sides are equally important and true. However, as the purpose of this manuscript is to expose the liberal lies -- chief of which is this image of the "old grandfather" or "Santa Claus" god -- I underscore the side of God's character which liberals deny. In closing, I ask readers not to rely on what is written herein, but to search for themselves, the living and true word of God as spoken through His prophets, the apostles, and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. For it is only through such in-depth, personal study of His word that we can come to know Him and His direction for our lives. Preface:
MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED FROM A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Today we find ourselves ensnared in an ongoing battle of ideologies which threatens to rend this country as it's never been rent before. A disjunction not so much of material class as that of a sense of what is right and what is wrong, the breach seems irreparable. Positions, masked by fancy slogans and rhetoric, have completely obscured the foundations of said beliefs, instead hiding them within a maze of obliquity. Removing the masks, to some, may seem harsh and provocative; however, provocation, when effectuating truth, should not be disdained, but rather applauded for its delivery of perspicuity.
In admonishing the Ephesians believers to arm themselves, the Apostle Paul charged they brandish the word of God as the primary offensive weapon in their struggle against the world.
The author of Hebrews also attributes the characteristics of a sword to the word of God.
A key point which should not be overlooked in the believer's struggle with the world is the emphasis God's word places on truth.
In Psalm thirty-one the psalmist David refers to the LORD as "LORD God of truth", a title also used of God twice in Isaiah sixty-five, verse sixteen. In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ is equated with both the truth and the word of God, particularly in the gospel of John.
In all, the Lord Jesus uses the word true or truth over one hundred times in the four gospels (where both aletheia and amen are translated as truth), more than fifty times in the gospel of John alone. Clarity of truth is not an ingredient likely to be found throughout a majority of the media today. Indeed, were the bulk of today's media winnowed through the sieve of truth, it would be reduced to near extinction. One doesn't like the truth, so one redefines it to suit one's agenda -- it's called a lie, a convincing lie perhaps, but a lie nonetheless. Those who hazard to speak the truth in an environment which openly and unashamedly opposes truth, generally find themselves labeled as "intolerant" and "foolish". Nonetheless, we as Christians bear a certain obligation to proclaim the truth, whatever the cost; indeed, we have a mandate from our God to do no less. This mandate is keenly reflected in two passages from Ezekiel, and although these passages were directed specifically at the prophet Ezekiel, I believe the principles are eternal and inclusive to all believers.
Now, the LORD God doesn't speak to us directly anymore as in the days of Moses or the prophets, nor is Jesus still walking the earth as a man that we might inquire of Him and receive His direction for our lives. Nevertheless, as believers today, we do share an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and have at our disposal, a complete, authoritative and final canon of Scripture -- the Word of God -- something neither Moses nor any of the prophets who followed him were ever blessed to have. I Wrote for Them the Many Things of My Law,
Apparently Moses understood human nature all too well. As the people of Israel were about to enter the Promised Land, Moses was compelled to remind them again to follow the commands of the LORD. In Deuteronomy eight he warns them of what will happen should they, in their blessing, turn from and forget the commands of the LORD their God.
Now, many today look at these passages, and indeed much of the Old Testament, and say: "But that doesn't apply to us. The laws as given by God, through Moses, were exclusive to Israel under the Old Covenant. When Jesus came, He did away with the Old Covenant." Indeed, as the author of Hebrews stressed, the Lord Jesus did bring a "new" covenant.
It is therefore safe to agree that we are under a "New Covenant", and that we are saved, not through obedience to the law of the "Old Covenant", but by grace, through faith in the atoning and completed work of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Apostle Paul stated this emphatically in his epistle to the Ephesians where he wrote: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) This theme of salvation by grace is underscored again by Paul in the third chapter of Romans.
Faith apart from the deeds of the law -- the clarity of that simple statement should, in itself, be enough to convince most Bible-believing people that the law plays no part in the salvation of a believer. Still, are those who say the law is now voided by grace right? It's curious the Apostle Paul chose to tackle this very question only three verses later.
And, in case there were a few people who missed it the first time around, he delivered the same argument a little further on, then again only a few verses later.
Apparently Paul understood he'd be dealing with certain individuals who'd rather twist the Scriptures to fit their own agenda than accept the truth, so he clearly illustrated the objective of a law we are not under, yet charged to obey, in chapter seven: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. (Romans 7:7) Alright. So now we see that the purpose of the law was to reveal sin. He'd already stated as much in 3:20 (and does so again, later in 7:13), but obviously felt it worth repeating. Therefore the law, having made us aware of our sin, does nothing to save us, for salvation is by grace, through faith, apart from the works of the law.
For those who, even in the face of such evidence, still insist there is no place for the law in the lives of believers, the words of the Lord Jesus, as recorded in Luke sixteen and Matthew five, should silence such folly.
Yet another function of the law is its application as pattern for the believer, instructing him how to live a life pleasing to God.
And clearly, as demonstrated by Deuteronomy four (particularly the passage used to open this preface), the law of God is also to act as a blueprint for societal direction. Apart from it, we are destined for destruction.
The phrase do not turn to the right or to the left warrants special attention, particularly in light of the subject of this book. What is clear from these passages is that it's God's way that's center, not man's. God does not run a popularity contest to determine right and wrong. There is no such thing as a democratic theocracy. God is not a pollster, nor is He swayed by the winds of public opinion, as fleeting or as entrenched as they may be. There is no "political correctness" with God. His way is the only way. God didn't ask our opinion when He created all that is, nor is He likely to at any time -- ever. God's way is center, not "politically correct" centrist (as they like to think of themselves: "moderates all"), but righteous and holy center. Those who add to it, taking it to the right, and those who subtract from it, taking it to the left, are both wrong. This book only deals with the side which subtracts from God's word -- the left, manifest today in the visage of political correctness (or whatever they may be calling it at the time you happen to be reading this). That is, by no means, to be misconstrued as license for those who would take God's word to the right, adding to it what does not belong there. Both deviations are equally evil, and one should, in no manner, side with one over the other. I write this attack on political correctness as it's my belief that the danger from the left is currently the greater threat of the two. It is not my intention to even appear to be condoning those who add to God's word. Those who practice such are just as wrong and should be equally condemned. That, however, is a subject for another book.
Chapter One:
I Proclaim What Is Certain
More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward. In the opening passages of this book I asked readers not to take my word for anything written herein, indeed, not to take the word of any man or any church body for what the word of God proclaims as truth. All knowledge of God's truth should come from a personal study of His word, and that alone. Anyone who attempts to add to or subtract from the word of God should be dismissed with all haste. In the opening passages I also quoted from the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Galatians where he instructed believers to condemn any who preach a gospel other than the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-9). As such, I ask readers to look for themselves into everything I (or any others) proclaim as true. To further that end, a chapter on the basic essentials of Bible study is mandatory. The Bible is a book intended for all people, regardless of education, culture, language, financial status, position, age or gender. It is not a book which is to be set aside and interpreted by only a few. It is a book that the common man, with all his flaws, should be able to understand, not in perfect clarity (for there isn't one among us who can rightfully claim such understanding), but in discernible truths as revealed through the Holy Spirit. The only things required for its study are the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a proper translation, an open heart and a few basic principles in hermeneutics. Hermeneutics, or the science of Biblical interpretation, has established a few basic principles which I believe are essential for an in-depth study of God's word. It enables readers to better understand passages from God's word within the context they were written. Now, this chapter is by no means a complete or last word on Bible study. To be certain, there are scores of highly-detailed, full-length volumes on the subject, and this brief chapter is meant only as a basic, bare-bones guide. It is strongly recommended that all Christians engage in as detailed a study of hermeneutics as their circumstances allow. Where the Bible Comes From To begin with, how did the Bible come to include those books which are today accepted by most as the sacred canon of Scripture? The Hebrew Old Testament, all of which predates Christ's earthly ministry, has survived essentially intact from that period on. The first five books of the Old Testament, often referred to as the Pentateuch, comprise the Law, or the Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. These were the earliest books to be considered Scripture, and contain both narrative, historical sections, as well as the Law of God as given through the prophet Moses. After the Law come the Prophets, both former (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and latter (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). While some of these books contain historical narrative as well, they mostly consist of prophecy, much of which had been soon thereafter fulfilled, but also some yet-to-be-fulfilled end times prophecy. The third division of the Hebrew Old Testament, called the Writings (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) consists largely of poetry with minimal historical narrative -- the majority of which lies within the books of Ruth, Esther, Daniel and Chronicles. Whereas the order in which these books appear may differ somewhat from the original Hebrew Bible, today's Christian Old Testament has survived essentially unchanged, and differs only very slightly with its Hebrew predecessor. Also, most Christian Bible scholars divide the Old Testament according to the Greek canon as Law, History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther), Writings (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon), Major and Minor Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel; Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). Whichever method of division one prefers, only classification and order of books are different; the text remains essentially unaltered. Originally written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek beginning in the Third Century B.C. Called the Septuagint (Latin for seventy; it was translated by seventy Jewish elders in Alexandria for Greek-speaking Jews), this translation was widely used in the early Christian era, and is quoted extensively throughout the New Testament. The Christian New Testament contains twenty-seven books, all of which were written either by an apostle, or someone very closely associated with an apostle (such as Luke or Mark). This standard was strictly adhered to, to assure authenticity. The entire New Testament was written during the First Century, with the vast bulk, if not all of it, written in the last half of that century. The Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible None of the Bible's original autographs are known to have survived to the present day. Even so, there are so few portions of the Bible in dispute -- when compared with the oldest known, surviving texts -- that most Bible scholars would agree our "reliable", current translations are reasonably preserved. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 1947 on, further corroborates the accuracy of modern Old Testament translations, as many of the texts which have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are virtually identical to the current translations. Also underscoring the authenticity of the Old Testament as the true and inspired word of God, all but only a handful of the books of the Old Testament are quoted directly in the New Testament. Only seven books of the Hebrew Old Testament are not quoted or referred to in the New Testament: Ruth, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah. Eleven are quoted by Christ, himself: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi. And, as the Old Testament in use today is virtually identical to the Old Testament in Christ's day, and the Lord accepted the Scriptures of that day as the true and inspired word of God, we also should have confidence in the divine inspiration and authenticity of the Old Testament. In John 10:34, the Lord quotes from Psalm eighty-two, then refers to it as Scripture: "...and the Scripture cannot be broken...." (John 10:35). Earlier, in both the fifth and seventh chapters of John, Jesus refers to the Law of Moses -- in the one instance, actually endorsing it, as He applied it to Himself.
In Matthew and Luke we also find Jesus testifying of the truth and reliability of the Old Testament.
In Acts, chapter three, the Apostle Peter, while addressing the people at the temple gate, first quotes from the book of Deuteronomy, then endorses much of the remainder of the Old Testament, as well.
Throughout the Old Testament itself, there are many evidences of an acceptance of Scripture as the word of God. In Exodus twenty-four the people acknowledge the Book of the Covenant as the word of God.
II Kings twenty-two and twenty-three relate the finding of the Book of the Law during the reign of King Josiah. Verse three of chapter twenty-three ascribes the Law to God, and both king and people pledge themselves to keep it.
The eighth chapter of Nehemiah relates a similar account in the time of Ezra where the Book of the Law is read before an assembly of the people of Israel. Again, the people acknowledge the Law as God's and honor it. A full six centuries before the coming of Christ, the prophet Jeremiah wrote of the coming of a new covenant with God.
Similarly, the New Testament was also accepted as Scripture by even the earliest of first century believers. A classic example of this is found in I Timothy 5:18, where the Apostle Paul quotes both Deuteronomy (from the Old Testament) and Luke (from the New Testament), and calls both "Scripture".
In II Peter 3:15, Peter makes reference to the writings of the Apostle Paul as written "with the wisdom that God gave him" (NIV), and in verse sixteen, equates these writings of Paul's with Scripture. The third chapter of Hebrews attributes its quote of Psalm ninety-five to the Holy Spirit.
Later, in chapter four, this very same quotation from Psalm ninety-five is again ascribed to God.
The whole of Hebrews chapter one attributes seven Old Testament passages as God's word.
Indeed, the whole of Scripture testifies of its infallibility and perfection.
In the New Testament the origin of Scripture is ascribed to the Triune God. The fourteenth chapter of John, in recording Jesus' words to His disciples, clearly indicates that they (Jesus' disciples) would be taught and made able to recall the words of Christ through the Holy Spirit.
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, attributes the revelation of the gospel to Jesus Christ: But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12) II Timothy, Hebrews and II Peter all emphasize the inspiration of God in the origins of all Scripture.
How To Approach a Study of the Bible
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the importance of a serious, in-depth study of God's word can never be overstated, particularly in relation to its role in the process of Christian growth. The passage above wonderfully illustrates the attitude with which a study should be inaugurated. The Bereans received the word of God with great eagerness and they examined the Scriptures daily to see if what they'd heard was true. It is my personal belief that most errors in interpretation are derived not from an improper knowledge of basic hermeneutics, but rather an improper attitude in approaching a serious study of God's word. Again, the Bereans were of more noble character why? "Because they built better houses of worship than those trouble-making Thessalonians?" I don't think so. "Because they better provided for their poor, widowed and orphans?" Not quite. Read it again: The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. One's attitude in approaching God's word is vital. A haphazard, hodgepodge stumbling through the word of God simply will not produce required Christian growth. Seed sown along the path is eaten up by birds. Good soil is necessary for growth, and the best soil in which to germinate the truth and knowledge of God's word is an eager and open heart. Which brings us to the first important principle mandatory for any penetrating perquisition of the Scriptures: One must have a mind completely open to the will and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any attempt to delve into the eternal truths of God while clinging onto biased presuppositions and traditions will launch the reader down the dangerous and all-too-frequently traveled road of misinterpretation. All too many Christians fall into the trap of dragging the excess baggage of presupposition and tradition into their study of God's word. Living, as we do, in a culture which promotes an entirely different view of God, good, evil, and the world (often in blatant contradiction to God's word), it is easy to presuppose the Bible is saying one thing, when actually it's saying another. Disciplining ourselves to approach God's word with a mind open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is essential if we are to grasp the actual meaning of what God has said. Approaching God's word with preconceived ideas in an attempt to make any given passage conform to what we already believe is an extremely dangerous practice, averse to any study of truth. One example I can give of entering a Bible study biased by presupposition is in the method of baptism. "To sprinkle or to immerse?" Well, if one enters his Bible with an unshakable belief in sprinkling, then I'd virtually guarantee that's what one's going to find his Bible's teaching him, regardless of the facts. To the solidly entrenched immersionist, I say the same. Don't look into the Bible for a confirmation of preconceived prejudices -- because you'll always find it. We're natural deceivers, and our primary victims are generally ourselves. It's too easy to delude ourselves into accepting untrue confirmations of a notion we've already accepted as truth, dissentient of the facts. Enter your personal study of God's word with an open mind (not an empty mind) and the Spirit of God to guide you. Of course, in order to be able to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one must -- to use the words of Christ in John 8:47 -- "belong to God." Any attempt to gain spiritual discernment apart from God is nothing less than an exercise in futility; Jesus made this perfectly clear in the eighth chapter of John.
"Therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." It is obvious from this passage, and the passage below, that understanding and insight into the word of God is only possible through the Holy Spirit to one who is a regenerated child of God. The Apostle Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, left no room for argument.
A nonbeliever or professing Christian who's not been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb will never attain spiritual discernment, and any effort on his part to attempt such is sheer foolishness. One must first come before the mercy seat of God, and in repentance of sin, accept by grace through faith, the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin. It is only through the blood of Christ we can be saved, and in being saved, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and enabled to understand the truths of God's word.
It is through prayerful reflection that the Holy Spirit will guide those who seek God's will.
I will not neglect Your word. How does one seek the LORD? Again, the Bereans, like the psalmist above, seem to have had the right idea, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. I will not neglect Your word. We seek God through His word. We understand His word through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit when we are regenerated by the Son.
Breaking the Commands of God for the Sake of Tradition
He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" -- then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
"'Their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" (NIV) >From the passage quoted above in Matthew fifteen, as well as its parallel in the seventh chapter of Mark (and the words of the LORD in Isaiah 29:13), it's obvious the religious leaders of Christ's day were not all that different from their counterparts of today. Breaking the commands of God for the sake of tradition is an all-too-common legacy found throughout many factions of professing Christendom today.
Jesus found Himself frequently at odds with the religious leaders of His day over the issue of tradition. The entire first portion of Matthew twenty-three is another fine example of the Lord's calling the teachers of the law and Pharisees to account for their aggrandizement of tradition over Scripture. Often the Lord would contrast the two by beginning His quotations of Scripture with an "It is written..." as opposed to "You have heard that it was said..." when referring to an instance where rabbinic tradition had distorted the true and intended meaning of Scripture. In the Old Testament there is never a doubt as to which words are God's and which are men's. It can be generally assumed that any passage prefaced with a "This is what the LORD says..." (or in the all-too-recognizable, archaic syntax of the KJV, a "Thus saith the LORD...") is a genuine directive from the LORD God Almighty, and no mere tradition of men. Be that as it may, it is difficult in our world today not to rely on tradition. After all, tradition, by its very nature, carries weight simply because it is tradition, and inherited from generation to generation, it tends to gather more weight with the passage of time. And whereas certain sects of Christianity are certainly more guilty of relying on tradition than others, I've yet to encounter any within the Christian church (genuine or merely professed) where tradition does not play a role. This is unfortunate, particularly as tradition is often used to usurp or equate itself with the word of God. And, as much as I, and many other believers in the true word of God, might like to just omit all reference to the traditions of men from our worship and instruction, I can't see it realistically happening anytime prior to Christ's return. The problem with reliance on tradition over, or equal to Scripture is a major one, and one which I cannot overemphasize. Indeed, it is serious enough to warrant a volume of its own; however, I don't wish to dwell on it further at this time, other than to briefly reiterate the warning of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:9: As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (NIV) The warnings of Christ in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew (mentioned previously) are also very much applicable to this topic, and I will be discussing them at greater length in the section on false teachers in chapter three of this volume. The important thing to remember concerning traditions in a study of the Scriptures is that Scripture always, and without exception, has authority over any and all tradition of men -- and this includes the "organized church". Literal Interpretation Before entering into any comprehensive Bible study, several basic principles should first be understood, particularly regarding a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The literal, "according to the letter" meaning of any text must be weighed within the context of the historical and cultural background of the passage, as well as the context of each individual paragraph, chapter and book, and also the Bible as a whole. Scripture will never contradict Scripture. If it seems to, you're not interpreting it properly. To begin with, it should be understood that the Bible, like other works of literature, employs many literary devices. One such literary device utilized quite frequently throughout the Scriptures is the metaphor. In Psalm sixty-two, David writes that God alone is his rock and his fortress. Now, although it is never safe to assume anything as true which is not unquestionably spelled out as such directly in the Scriptures, I would venture in this particular instance that the LORD our God is not actually a rock or a fortress, but that David is employing metaphors. Another literary device frequently used in the Bible is hyperbole. Generally, intentional exaggeration is easy to detect; however, when dealing with the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God of the universe, it can present a problem. In most cases though, unless otherwise indicated within the passage itself (or elsewhere in Scripture), the safest interpretation would be the literal one. Our God is a God of miracles, and far too often I've seen the miraculous acts of God dismissed outright and rendered inane by liberals who feel much more secure promulgating the image of a helpless, doting God, than the all-powerful, righteous and holy King of all creation. Thirdly, there is anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human characteristics to that which is not human, particularly common in the Bible relative to describing God in human terms. Again, as our knowledge and perspective of God is far from complete, I would recommend literal over anthropomorphic interpretation whenever in doubt. A fourth, commonly-employed literary feature found in Scripture is the parable. Used for illustrative purposes, parables utilize stories to relate moral principles. They should not be interpreted in the same light as when interpreting historical narratives. Crucial to any fuller understanding of Scripture is an awareness of the historical and cultural setting of the Bible. This requires determining the original, actual application of the passage as it pertained to the original readers for whom the passage or book was intended. Then, it must be determined whether and how the passage is applicable today. This principle of interpretation must be maintained in a reading of all Scripture, as not all passages of Scripture are applicable all the time. It is here we must be able to discern passages which were applicable only under the circumstances and conditions of the original cultural and historical setting, from passages illustrative of external principles, applicable to all people in every time, regardless of culture. Conditioned as we all are by our own culture, it is also likely we miss meanings we might've otherwise discerned had we been more familiar with the background under which these circumstances occurred. Still, it is all too easy to fall into the opposite trap of applying every situation in terms of the historical and cultural setting of the Bible, while neglecting its more likely application today. One example which finely illustrates the setting of a principle within the cultural and historical background of the time is found in Matthew, chapter five.
Now, should it be inferred from this passage that we are to reconcile with our brothers only because we are offering gifts at the altar? Whereas the reconciliation to our brothers may be applicable today, the reference to offering gifts at the altar is entirely inapplicable, and should not be used to distort this passage into implying something it does not -- namely, the citing of a specific condition requisite for the application of the directive. One needs to exercise extreme caution in applying the principle of interpretation through cultural and historical setting in an effort to avoid allowing the local, cultural and historical setting of a passage to contradict what the text actually says. Whenever there is a doubt as to whether any particular passage of Scripture is to be interpreted as applicable only in light of its precise, historical and cultural setting, or an eternal principle, applicable to all time and circumstances, it is safer to interpret the passage as an eternal principle. Another danger prevalent in Bible study is eisegesis, or reading into a passage what one already believes. Scripture should always be read exegetically, or interpreting passages in light of what they actually say, and not what we want them to say, or believe they say. As stated previously in this chapter, it is also very dangerous to interpret Scripture through assumption. Never assume! Even in instances of obscure or unclear passages (and the Bible is full of them), it is best to accept our limitations as such, and trust God for what we do not know, as well as for what we do know. I realize the temptation to assume is all-too-attractive, particularly in light of our very limited knowledge in spiritual matters, and controlling this urge is something we can only successfully accomplish in the power of the Holy Spirit. One classic example of assumption is found in the tenth chapter of Romans -- and, whereas I have no intention of debating election and free will at this time, I will attempt to illustrate this point, nevertheless. The passage in reference is Romans 10:13, which, like Acts 2:21, is a quotation of Joel 2:32: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Now, I've heard those who emphatically proclaim this passage as clear evidence of the doctrine of free will in the procurement of salvation; however, and I loathe to cite this, this passage indicates no such thing. An exegetical reading of this passage shows that it is simply stating that those who "do call" will be saved. It does not say that all "may call", and this is where the assumption incorrectly falls. However, as it is not my intention to debate election and free will, I only cite this passage as an example of the pitfalls of reading the Bible eisegetically rather than exegetically. The Whole Word As stated previously, it is not advantageous in a study of God's word to read into a passage something that is not explicitly there. A passage must be read within the context of the whole word of God, and never contradictorily to the rest of Scripture. The word of God should be used to interpret itself, and a comparison of passages throughout the Bible will, in most cases, eliminate seeming contradictions. Note I say seeming contradictions, as the Bible can never contradict itself. A Scripture which contradicted itself would either not be from God, or the product of an all-too-fallible, not-very-godly God. If the interpretation of any given passage seemingly contradicts other, clearer passages of Scripture, the interpretation is in error, and the passage must be interpreted in light of the context of the clearer passage or passages. One example of a seeming contradiction in the Scripture can be found among passages in Exodus and Proverbs, regarding the acceptance of bribes.
Compare this passage with Proverbs 17:23, which is seemingly in agreement.
In Exodus twenty-three, the LORD God forbids the acceptance of a bribe, and in Proverbs seventeen, one who accepts a bribe is called wicked. No contradiction so far. But, now compare the above-mentioned passages with both Proverbs 17:8 and 21:14.
At first glance, and even at second and third glance, there seems to be a contradiction here. On one hand the acceptance of a bribe is condemned, and on the other, it not only seems to be a pleasant course of action, but the recommended one. But, is this really what the passages are saying? Look more closely, and do not assume anything not explicitly stated: A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds. Is this actually condoning bribery or merely a reflection on the sinful state of affairs of this world in which we live? Read Proverbs 21:14 again, as well.
So, which is it? An endorsement of sin or a doleful commentary on the natural condition of mankind? If there is still any doubt as to the actual meaning of these passages, it would do well to note that the passage in Exodus is a direct and didactic quote from the LORD God Almighty. Didactic passages (passages which teach or instruct), particularly those uttered by God, are always to be given weight over passages of poetry or historical narrative where interpretation may be in doubt or passages seem contradictory. "Does this mean the words of Solomon carry less significance than the words of God? I Kings 4:29-34 indicates Solomon's wisdom was greater than any man's."
Okay, stupid question. The point is this: The Bible never contradicts itself. Never! Those who attempt to pit one book, one passage, one author against another will never fully understand or grasp the verity and significance of the perfect, holy and infallible word of God. Sure, a directive from God carries more weight than an observation of Solomon's on the condition of mankind, but both are still in complete agreement, and didactic passages always interpret non-didactic passages, not the reverse. Let's try another example. Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-2, 27:19-24, Exodus 1:15-20 and Joshua 2:1-7 all portray godly men and women deceiving others. Do these passages encourage deceptions? Read the words of He who sat on the throne in heaven, in Revelation 21:8.
From this passage there should be little doubt as to the status of lies and liars in God's sight. Do these passages contradict one another? Not at all. Neither are didactic, although the latter, as a prophecy from the Lord certainly ranks liars with a rather iniquitous, depraved and wicked lot. Both are historical narratives -- the latter in a sense that the prophecy was both viewed and recorded as actual, historical (albeit future) events. The historical narratives regarding the accounts of Abraham, Jacob, the Hebrew midwives and Rahab are just that: historical accounts of events which actually took place. Neither endorsing nor condemning their actions, they merely relate them as they happened. Finally, I must emphasize that the Bible, as the inspired and inerrant word of God, must be accepted as a whole. Selecting only those portions which suit us is not only foolish, but dangerous. As Christians professing a belief in the Bible as God's word, we need to accept all parts of it, even those unpleasant or difficult portions we may not understand or agree with. I realize I've only touched upon, and in many instances just barely, some of the basic, albeit crucial principles requisite for a comprehensive and thorough study of God's word. I recommend serious Bible students make an effort to delve further into other, more detailed and precise studies of hermeneutics. Those who claim to rest in the authority of God's word, yet find themselves ignorant of it, will never truly grow or encourage growth in others. A daily, in-depth study of the Scriptures is essential for Christian maturation, and should be neglected only to our shame.
Chapter Two And None Of Them Calls On Me Jeremiah 6:10 -- To whom shall I speak and give warning, That they may hear? Indeed their ear is uncircumcised, And they cannot give heed. Behold, the word of the LORD is a reproach to them; They have no delight in it.
One of the chief foundations of liberalism, the cornerstone upon which rest all the other malefic lies of this age, is the dictum: "Mankind is essentially good; evil is an aberration." That reminds one of that often-quoted Bible verse so joyously welcomed every Sunday from the pulpits and the pews of worshipful assemblies across this great land: "Man is, by nature, decent, loving, caring, generous, selfless, pure, truthful, hard-working, honest...." Oops -- ! Wrong passage -- or should I say wrong Bible, wrong faith, wrong man, wrong world, wrong god. The Bible of the holy LORD God Almighty, the one which begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation, voices a somewhat different tune.
I will have to admit the former passage is a bit easier to swallow than the latter -- nicer intonation, pleasanter adjectives, more positive dogma altogether -- certainly no reminiscent aftertaste of guilt, as with the latter passage. Unfortunately, the first passage is lacking one crucial ingredient requisite for my acceptance of it: truth. "Okay," asks the liberal. "What is truth?" Truth is everything. Without truth there can be no absolutes, no set standards by which anything may be measured. If I say that one inch is approximately 2.5 centimeters, and you say it's the distance from New York to London, who's to say who's right? Without truth, everything's relative; nothing is correct or incorrect; everyone may believe, speak and act as they choose, inconsequent of accountability. The entire crux of relativism is its belief in the essential goodness of man. We'll tackle relativism in the next chapter, but for now, in this chapter, let us concentrate on its indispensable foundation: The lie that mankind is essentially "good". It is incredible that anyone can actually read Psalm fifty-three and claim the Bible doesn't teach the total depravity of mankind, yet one might be surprised at just how objectionable this doctrine is throughout much of professing Christendom today. The fallacy of mankind's goodness is wholeheartedly embraced while the verity of God's word is discarded as something odious and repugnant. It's so much easier to delude ourselves into believing the lie. After all, the lie furthers an auspicious optimism about ourselves, the sort so creatively and wondrously cultivated weekly on our television sets through the several incarnations of Star Trek. Unfortunately, while it may make for uplifting entertainment, it is far from the truth as so poignantly envisaged in the holy word of God. We cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and solve any of the problems we face today, much less all of them as some Pollyannish screen-writers contend. I realize it goes against the grain of everything most of us have been taught since early childhood, that we are for the most part good, decent, moral beings, fully capable of resolving all the difficulties, removing every obstacle, making the world we live in a gosh-awfully decent, jolly good, spanking, ripping, first-rate, admirably splendid, wholesome, orderly, super- excellent place. But it just isn't so. One thing stands in our way, ever frustrating all efforts of achieving the consummate utopian dream: sin. I know, it's a dirty word. We don't like it. We'd just as well ignore it and pretend it isn't there, than face and have to deal with it. None of us like to admit it's a part of our very essence, a core component, an unshakably tenacious constituent more interwoven to our being than any physical organ or feature of the flesh. We can no more displace it or expel its influence than expunge water of its hydrogen atoms. Love it or loathe it, sin will be with us the whole of our lives. Only Christ's atonement can remove its stain, and even then its control is merely lessened, always there to rear its ugly head when we least desire it. It's such a part of our lives that the Holy Spirit saw fit to record the words of Psalm fifty-three twice; it is repeated verbatim in Psalm fourteen (or Psalm fourteen repeated verbatim in Psalm fifty-three). It is also a keynote quotation of the Apostle Paul in Romans three.
This passage and the many like it which permeate the whole of Scripture leave no room whatsoever for such sugar-coated, yet entirely false notions as the essential "goodness of mankind". Thus, after reading it, one can only be left with the impression that those who persist in denying its verity are either illiterate or just plain stupid. The word of God further emphasizes this unpleasant truth via widespread repetition, beginning as early as the sixth chapter of Genesis.
And for those who maintain this evil inclination was merely a pre-flood condition, I'd like to direct their attention to Genesis, chapter eight.
It would seem from these passages and others like them, that the view popularly espoused today is a far cry from the truth as related in the word of God. Man is not this noble, industrious, selfless individual we hear so much about, capable of effacing all the world's sorrows if only he'd look within and draw from his own potential "goodness". To the contrary, let us read what man would really see, were he able to honestly and truthfully scrutinize his soul.
At first glance it's possible to miss a startling admission in what Paul had written in Ephesians two, verse three. In looking at the verse a second time, however, one should take particular notice of the word nature. What does Paul say about human nature? That we are fine, decent, upstanding people? Not at all. How does fulfilling the desires of the flesh sound? How about dead in trespasses and sins? While we're at it, let's try sons of disobedience on for size. It's pretty sobering and not at all in accordance with what we're being told virtually everywhere else in our world today. Let's go back into the Old Testament for a moment, to the book of Jeremiah, chapter four. What about the people of Judah? After all, these are God's beloved, His chosen people. Surely, such words would never apply to them?
Wait a minute! Fools? Silly children?! Wise to do evil?? Perhaps we'd better return to the New Testament. Surely, the Lord Jesus will tell us how "good" we are. What does He say in Luke eighteen?
How could the Lord say something like that? What does He mean, none of us are "good"? He says only "God" is "good". Why can't we be "good", as well? Let's look at the eleventh chapter of Luke. Verse thirteen records the Lord calling those who were listening to Him "evil". Not exactly a way to endear oneself to the general populace and win over new friends, is it? What did He mean, "evil"?
Now, as in Luke 11:13, Jesus was speaking directly to the Jews of His day; however, this must be applied to us, as well (and indeed, to all people throughout all time), as other portions of Scripture bear this tenet emphatically. "So, none of us keep the law. So what? Nobody's perfect. We've already established that. We all mess up here and there. As long as we even out in the end, as long as our good deeds outweigh our bad deeds we'll be okay, right?"
Hmm. Maybe that passage doesn't mean what it says?
No. It seems like the Apostle Paul, in quoting that passage from Deuteronomy twenty-seven, is under the same impression that I am -- that no one can be justified before God through an observance of the law. "Why not? Isn't the whole purpose of the law to allow us a means to satisfy the requirements of a holy God for righteous living?"
"Well, now this is something altogether new to me. You mean I can't mess up even once? Come on. Everyone messes up all the time."
There you have it -- exactly what we've been saying all along. "So, we all mess up; so what? God isn't going to hold everybody responsible?"
"Death?! That's a pretty strong penalty for not being perfect all the time. Surely, that's not what Paul really meant?"
This is surely not an advantageous position to find oneself in. "But, if everyone sins, and sin, even one sin, is enough to exclude one from eternal fellowship and blessing with the Lord, then what can we do?"
But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rages; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, Who stirs himself up to take hold of You...
And, in following through on the previously quoted passage from Romans three, the Apostle Paul writes the following:
So, contrary to popular sentiment, man's salvation comes not from looking within to himself, but outwardly to God. It cannot be achieved, but received. It seems so simple: justified freely by His grace...through faith in His blood. (NIV) "Then why don't we all, each and every one of us, fall on our knees in repentance this very moment and receive this gift of grace and eternal life? Certainly, we should be most eager to receive God's forgiveness. After all, we're bad, but we're not that bad. I mean, we wouldn't refuse such a wondrous offer if we realized Who was offering it, would we?"
"Okay, so maybe we are that bad, but to ignore the call of God?!?"
Perhaps this was merely an isolated instance. Let's go back to the seventeenth chapter of II Kings to see how the people responded to the LORD there.
It certainly isn't a very flattering portrayal of man, is it? Let's look at two other passages from the Old Testament. The first is in Genesis, chapter nineteen. Here, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are about to be destroyed by the LORD. Lot has been warned by two angels that the destruction is imminent. He and his family are instructed they must flee to the mountains if they are to be saved. Lot is about to pass this information on to his sons-in-law. How will they react to such news from the LORD?
They thought he was joking. And, to keep this in perspective, remember the angels had only just struck their would-be, homosexual rapists with blindness. It isn't as if two lunatics were pronouncing this coming destruction. Their authority from God had been validated through their actions. Things haven't changed much in nearly four millennia, have they? I suspect the citizenry of New York, San Francisco or Miami might react in a similar fashion were they told the destruction of their cities was imminent because of their sin. Were they told a catastrophic earthquake was likely, due to an influx of seismic disturbances, a few might actually be found absconding to a nearby haven. Those found directly in the path of a fierce hurricane might certainly flee on the word of their meteorologist alone, vast inaccuracies not withstanding. But, to actually budge an inch solely on the word of the Creator of all things, our sovereign LORD God Almighty? Ludicrous!! This is the twenty-first century. Come on! Wake up!!! I'm sure the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, like Lot's dear, departed sons-in-law, said much the same. "Come on, Lot, old man, we're enlightened, sophisticated beings. No big, fearsome God in the sky is going to come, raining fire and brimstone down on us! You've been keeping your head in those Scriptures too long. Chill out. Take a sedative. Relax." We haven't learned much in forty-one centuries. Early in the book of Exodus we find a similar mocking disbelief of God in the person of Pharaoh. How many times did Moses and Aaron prove through miraculous signs that the LORD their God was indeed behind all they had said and done? Read the seventh through fourteenth chapters of Exodus for an extraordinary account of Pharaoh's doubting and inexorable defiance of God. How one could still turn away in obstinate disbelief, having witnessed all these plagues from God, is mind-numbing to consider. Verses five through seven of chapter nine sum up this entire defiance-toward-God attitude most comprehensively.
Yet his heart was unyielding. It reminds me of the many passages throughout the latter chapters of Revelation where, despite all the disasters brought upon mankind for its sin and rebellion against God, still they do not repent.
I John 5:19 asserts that the whole world is under the control of the evil one (NIV). The total depravity and absolute, complete moral blindness of mankind can be the only explanation for such unrepentant and defiant resistance to the mercy and forgiveness of God. In II Corinthians 4:3-4, the Apostle Paul refers to unbelievers as blinded by the god of this age.
The words of the Lord Jesus in the eighth chapter of John echo these statements.
Again, the Apostle Paul writes of the inability of man in his fallen state to understand the things of God: But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (I Corinthians 2:14) In the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of John, the Lord reiterates the division which exists between those of the world and those who are His.
The Apostle John demonstrates the inherent division between God and the world through the account of Cain and Abel.
So, what, if anything, should be concluded from the many passages quoted throughout this chapter? That mankind is the goodly, decent, honest and caring (albeit imperfect and prone to occasional slippage) personage as portrayed in the media today -- or that mankind, as portrayed in the word of God, is not only imperfect, but prone to perpetual slippage (sin), defiant toward God, and in no way desirous of anything even remotely connected to, or associated with His holy nature? If there are still any doubts, perhaps the seventh chapter of Micah might help to dispel them. There, the prophet Micah paints a stark, quite arrant portrait of the search for an upright man. Again, the word of God promulgates no myth. Its description is harsh, but true; glum, but not without hope.
To Titus, the Apostle Paul wrote: For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (chiefly Titus 3:3-8) Let this then be our hope: That though we are depraved and evil sinners, we have a Savior who saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. Total depravity need not become eternal depravity. There is a way today for those who will receive it. Chapter Three: You Have Eaten The Fruit Of Deception Jeremiah 8:5-8 -- (the LORD speaking) "Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return. I listened and heard, But they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turned to his own course, As a horse rushes into the battle." "Even the stork in the heavens Knows her appointed times; And the turtledove, the swift, and the swallow Observe the time of their coming. But My people do not know the judgment of the LORD." "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."
"'My people do not know the requirements of the LORD.'" (NIV) "'Each pursues his own course like a horse charging into battle.'" (NIV) We are presently living in a time where the seemingly-outdated doctrine of an absolute right and wrong are being discarded in favor of an increasingly more acceptable moral relativism. "Whatever feels right for you, is right for you; whatever feels right for me, is right for me. No one has the right to impose their own standards of right and wrong on another." Like the essential goodness of man (see previous chapter), the concept of moral relativism may sound fine at the outset, but under even prolusory examination is exposed as the evil deception and lie that it is. Without absolute and moral guidelines, society cannot stand. The instability of a morally relativistic culture is incontrovertibly guaranteed. Utilizing public opinion as a barometer for cultural and societal standards is an invitation to disaster. Who can say what tomorrow will bring? People's attitudes shift like the wind. In less than a single generation we've witnessed changes in attitude and morality that would've been unthinkable only a few decades ago. What seems like sanity today, could be considered insanity tomorrow. We've already seen it happen just in our lifetimes. The only fruit of the ideology of moral relativism is perpetual instability and chaos. Without solid, moral absolutes, morality will continually fluctuate into relativism. Any society which relies on the current whims of its populace to determine right and wrong is teetering on the precipice. It has become particularly fashionable in recent times to entirely disregard the word of God when determining "modern values". What was commonly recognized as wrongful behavior less than a generation ago is today embraced as acceptable, even encouraged behavior. No longer do acts of sin warrant reproach, rebuke or disapproval. Those who display such narrow-minded sententiousness often find themselves the ones reproached and rebuked.
Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. Whereas once in America those who intentionally engaged in sinful behavior, for the most part, did so behind closed doors (and much to their shame and ostracism when such behavior was exposed), today such behavior is paraded openly with a "feel good about yourself" attitude that flies in the face of God. The brazen posture of Western, particularly politically-correct American culture, stands in complete defiance to God. It not only denies the truths and absolutes God has established as eternal precepts, but has usurped them with the shamelessly immoral lie of relativism.
"'Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush.'" (NIV) Today, it is the virgins who blush at the shame of their status, while those who openly flaunt sexual promiscuity are adored and worshiped as the role models of a sick and twisted culture. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity. (NIV) Remind you of anyone in particular? "It's one's right to engage in sexual activity entirely unhindered and unrestricted by a moralistic society." "It's one's right to practice and unabashedly proclaim one's homosexuality without fear of moral condemnation." "It's one's right to terminate an undesired pregnancy." "It's one's right to laugh in the face of God and live one's life without even a shard of responsibility or accountability to anyone other than oneself." It's the view of our rights-oriented society that no one should be allowed to restrict the behavior of another, unless of course, that behavior is Christian or politically incorrect, in which case it then, by all means, must be excoriated at inception -- lest it be allowed to germinate into any sort of realistic threat to their godlessly immoral domination of our culture. Sin is no longer sin. Guilt is something no "enlightened" twenty-first century being would ever admit to be harboring. After all, there is nothing to feel guilty about. "To each his own." "I live in a world governed by my standards, and you live in a world governed by yours, (At least that's what they proclaim outwardly. The truth of the matter is they'd like us all to live in a world governed by their -- the politically correct, libertarian -- standard.) and heaven help the one who dares point out to me that something I've done is wrong." Not only are we entitled to do as we (i.e. they) please without the slightest qualm of conscience, but we arrogantly demand it as our right. There is no burden of concern for responsible behavior. The new sin of the day is political incorrectness. We need answer to no one, unless of course, we try to do what's right, but that's another matter altogether. [The hypocrisy of liberal relativism never ceases to amaze me -- Liberal forbid (they don't acknowledge God, so one must invoke the name of the highest being they do believe in -- which is themselves) anyone ever attempts to call their behavior unacceptable, but watch how quickly they scurry to enact laws to prohibit Christian behavior -- the anti-abortion blockade bill is one fine example of their hypocrisy. Can one imagine how they would react to a bill designed to limit their parades of paganical protest?] Without absolutes our measure is ourselves, and whatever the majority of people at any given time determine. What does the word of God say about such thinking? In II Corinthians 10:12, the Apostle Paul writes of the false teachers in Corinth who measured themselves by themselves: For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. What then are we to measure ourselves by, if not ourselves and our own transitory notions of right and wrong? I imagine how a person answers that will largely depend on whom that person is living to please -- themselves, others or God? In the first chapter of Galatians, the Apostle Paul lets it be known in no uncertain terms that a servant of Christ does not live to please man.
Nearly nine hundred years earlier, the prophet Elijah confronted the people of Israel with the same choice at Mount Carmel.
The choice seems a simple one. Whom are we trying to please? There is no middle ground. The Lord Jesus made this perfectly clear in Matthew twelve, verse thirty (as well as in its parallel account of Luke 11:23), when He said: "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." So which is it? Should we live to please man or God? To even have to ask the question seems an attempt in deliberate fatuity, yet how many can claim a sincere effort to live their lives in a manner pleasing to God rather than to others or themselves. The seventeenth chapter of Judges begins a series of five chapters, the sordid squalidness of which, can hardly be equaled throughout the whole of Scripture. The first account in this concluding group of chapters to the book of Judges relates the story of Micah's idols. Not six verses into the chapter these words are recorded: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6) Now, this may not seem like an earth-shattering statement at first glance, but read it in context of what happens next. Mysteriously, the same passage is repeated as an introduction to chapter eighteen: In those days there was no king in Israel. (Judges 18:1) Coincidence? Copyist's error? Let's read on. As if Micah's brazen idolatry from chapter seventeen wasn't bad enough (something some in professing Christendom still haven't learned a lesson from), in chapter eighteen the idolatry is complimented by theft, murder and arson. And we know chapter nineteen's going to be another strange one as it opens with a reappearance of the recurring, seemingly extraneous verse: And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel.... (Judges 19:1) Nineteen wastes little time, and gets right off with a case of adultery and spousal abandonment, followed by a lot of eating, drinking and traveling, which lead up to a rather loathsome attempt at yet another homosexual rape (has anyone ever noticed that the only time homosexuals are portrayed in the word of God, they're attempting to rape somebody? -- see chapter ten of this volume), which proceeds to a notoriously shameful gang rape, made all the more repugnant in that the victim is quite actually thrown out to this assemblage of vile vermin by her own husband to her spare his manservant a similar, albeit arguably worse fate. And just when one thinks one's had enough, this rather magnanimous, thoughtful fellow, who only the night before had thrown his concubine out to that odious group of well-wishers, tells the poor woman: "Get up and let us be going." But there was no answer. So the man lifted her onto the donkey; and the man got up and went to his place. (Judges 19:28) And lest one think this chapter ends on a note of merriment, I recommend a reading of the remainder of this account.
For anyone out there who still believes in the essential goodness of mankind, the story isn't over. Chapter twenty has the incensed men of Israel demanding the fiendish monsters who'd done this to this poor woman be punished. But, not unlike our world today, the incorrigible malefactors are sheltered by their own tribesmen (probably blaming it all on the oppression of white, Anglo-Saxon, male society; their parents; or the "religious right", no doubt); so the incensed lot mentioned just before gathers arms and goes to "administer justice", only to find themselves cut to pieces by this horrid bunch of Benjamites. But the Israelites persist, and the next day the Benjamites cut down another eighteen thousand of them. (That's 40,000 total for those who like to keep these things in numerical perspective.) This doesn't go down well with the Israelites (those who are left), who persist no longer, but rather go and weep before the LORD. (Judges 20:26) The LORD sends them back, and this time the LORD defeated Benjamin before Israel, and on that day the Israelites struck down 25,100 Benjamites, all armed with swords. (Judges 20:35) The bloodletting by no means finished, the Israelites then go back into the territory of Benjamin and put all the towns to the sword, including the animals and everything else they found. All the towns they came across they set on fire. (Judges 20:48) To add insult to injury, the Israelites then take an oath against the Benjamites (chapter twenty-one) and proceed to wipe out the men, women and children of Jabesh Gilead (the people of Jabesh Gilead had not shown up to participate in the assembly before the LORD), sparing only the virgins, whom they pack off to the surviving Benjamites in order that the tribe of Benjamin might be provided with heirs. And not to be outdone by any of the preceding chapters, chapter twenty-one concludes the account with a wholesale kidnapping of more virgins, to provide the Benjamites with more breeding stock, as the previous allotment had not been enough for all of them. (Judges 21:14) And, surely enough, this entire, sordid, five-chapter account closes as it opened: In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges 21:25) In case anyone's missed the point of this entire exercise in debauchery (and fine example of the total depravity of man to compliment the previous chapter of this volume), this not- coincidentally-recurring-passage holds the key: Everyone did as he saw fit. No authority, no absolute rights and wrongs, no morality -- everyone did as they thought right, rather than what God says is right. Contrast this morally relativistic breeding ground with the Israel of Joshua, chapter twenty-four. Where do the priorities of the Israelites portrayed in Joshua twenty-four lie?
Chapter 3-B "'They Cling to Deceit; They Refuse to Return.'" (Jeremiah 8:5)
The word of God clearly demonstrates that the natural inclination of those living in this world is to reject the grace and instruction of the LORD. As already shown in the previous chapter, the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), but it is the tongue of the false prophet that steers and holds him on that path which leads to destruction. The Lord Jesus often warned of their dangerous influence. The entire twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains one of the Lord's harshest indictments of the false prophets and teachers of His day; those who, as He said, "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men." (Matthew 23:13) In Matthew seven the Lord enunciates that we can identify these wolves in sheep's clothing by their fruit. This theme is carried over in Matthew 12:33.
Today, not only is the fruit bad, but the tree is corrupted through to the core. "The lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely." (Jeremiah 8:8)(NIV) The words of the LORD, as spoken to the prophet Jeremiah in the eighth chapter of his book could as easily be a portrayal of present-day America, as the Judah of twenty-seven centuries past.
How true this is of our own morally-relativistic society. One need only select a newspaper at random from any city across our nation to ascertain that what was once called "good" is now called "evil", and what was once called "evil" is now called "good".
Casting doubt on the holy and inspired word of God is as old as man itself. Indeed, the book of Genesis records that it was in the garden Satan first attempted to confuse God's word and lead mankind into sin: He said to the woman, "Did God really say...." (Genesis 3:1)(NIV) It is the first recorded twisting of God's word. And, to this very day, that which was started in the garden those millennia ago has been sustained with indefatigable vigor. Mankind no more accepts the truth today than he did in the garden. The lies of the evil one are embraced and championed as truth, while the unerring and perfect word of God is cast off as worthless folly, and those who accept it, ridiculed. So readily do we accept the doctrine of convenience and crave the lies which soothe our consciences -- are any speakers more popular today than the prevaricators of pettifoggery who falsely proclaim the "goodness of man" from their pulpits of pretense?
To say what their itching ears want to hear: (NIV) "There are no moral absolutes. One must do as one sees fit in one's own heart." "There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults choosing to enjoy each other's sexuality outside of marriage." "Sexual relations with someone of the same gender is a healthy and entirely acceptable lifestyle choice." "What a woman does with her own body is her own right." These are the accepted, comforting words of the world whose sermon of convenience openly disregards the entire will and commands of its Creator. Those who declare its fraudulent manifesto are hailed as progressive, insightful, discerning and wise, while those who oppose them are summarily dismissed as intolerant, crackpot extremists. Those who dare to stand by the word of God as authoritative and absolute are scorned as naive and unenlightened.
These mockers of God bring the way of truth into disrepute (NIV), for their concerns are not with truth or verity, but with the advocation of their own twisted and godlessly immoral agenda. The closing verses of John, chapter seven, offer perceptive insight into their mainline defense of rebuking the truth while ridiculing its adherents.
Whether they realize it or not, those who advocate such views of the truth aggrandize their own knowledge, wisdom and intelligence at the expense of God's. One cannot disparage God's words without also disparaging God.
They mock God's word and deny His very existence. Others worship an impotent, feeble, liberal god fashioned in their own image, who closes his eyes to their rebellion and smiles on their waywardness. They prefer the lie that endorses their sin over the truth that exposes it.
Numerous accounts throughout the word of God warn of those who distort truth and advocate deception.
In II Corinthians, chapter eleven, the Apostle Paul warns of false teachers masquerading as servants of righteousness: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. (II Corinthians 11:13-15) It's frightening to contemplate the evil one masquerading as an angel of light/apostle of Christ/servant of righteousness, nevertheless, this is how he is portrayed by the Apostle Paul, who I'm sure had plenty of firsthand experience in dealing with him. Like then, many of the evil one's servants are today also masquerading as servants of righteousness, spreading their own twisted brand of "good news", where it is they who determine what is good and acceptable, generally in complete and blatant opposition to the holy word of God. Likewise, the Apostle John, in his second epistle, warns of those who pervert the gospel, and admonishes believers not even to take such deceivers into their homes. Perhaps one of the strongest denunciations of false prophets in all Scripture is found in the twenty-third chapter of Jeremiah. Those who falsely promulgate truth and ignore the real truth as found only in the word of God, should take special note of these words. It is not enviable to find oneself counted among those whom the LORD God has declared Himself against. For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:30-31)
Chapter 3-C A Chasing After the Wind If there's one book most liberals would like to see excluded from the Bible -- if they bothered to read it at all -- it's Ecclesiastes. It contains perhaps the best argument against moral relativism found anywhere in the word of God. In it, Solomon, King of Israel, frequently puts himself in the shoes of a godless liberal (whether intentionally or not, I refuse to presume either way; the word of God doesn't specify Solomon's motivation), wondrously illustrating the folly of their views. In proclaiming their beliefs forthrightly, he demonstrates all-too-clearly that, despite man's best efforts, apart from God there is no satisfaction in life; that all things under the sun are meaningless: a chasing after the wind.
From these rather pathetic verses it's easy to conclude that for all of man's supposed strength, wisdom and knowledge he is still absolutely powerless in effectuating any significant emendation to the eternal order of things, and apart from God, is altogether worthless. Everything a man can conceive as profitable -- the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, laughter, pleasure, work, wealth, youth and vigor -- in and of itself is useless. Life and all its pleasures, if purposed apart from God, are meaningless and a chasing after the wind. And, who but a fool endeavors to chase the wind, or that which cannot be retained? As Solomon recounts throughout, what does it profit a man to toil his entire life for substance, only to see it pass to another at his death?
"Okay, so that's material possessions, but what of wisdom and knowledge? Surely, the pursuit of such as these is worthwhile and productive?"
As if this portrait of "life under the sun" isn't tenebrous enough, the author of this rather dismal, relativistic look at a life without God adds that we are no better off than the animals.
Now, whereas this may please some animal activists whose sun rises and sets on our dear, soulless cohabitants of this planet, it is not an altogether delightful potentiality for the rest of us. Add to that the disconsolate denotation of verse 9:11 and it really makes one wonder how people who live their lives apart from God even manage to get up in the morning.
There is nothing under our control, nothing man can superintend autonomously of God. Now, to the Christian who's trusting and resting in the divine sovereignty and grace of Almighty God, this is welcomed information. But, to the lost, worldly, godless Joe down the street, this tends to be somewhat dispiriting -- this realization that we cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, that circumstances entirely beyond our control will always dictate the end results, and that apart from God -- or under the sun -- everything is utterly meaningless. So, wherein lies our hope? That God is in charge and not man; that despite the efforts of this sinful, godless world in which we live, right will prevail and evil be destroyed for all time to come.
Chapter 3-D The Truth Will Set You Free
Herein lies true wisdom, not as the world teaches wisdom, but the wisdom of God: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Contrary to what is being taught in many professing Christian circles today, the function of the Christian assembly is not to ease the conscience of the guilty, but rather bring the sinner to God in repentance and faith. The Apostle Paul wrote in his second epistle to the church in Corinth that he did not regret his causing them sorrow, as Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. (II Corinthians 7:10) Such practice would hardly be acceptable today, where many seem to be under the impression the role of the church is to make us "feel good about ourselves". Blanketing congregations with guilt is antiquated and frowned upon in this enlightened and tolerant age in which we live. Apparently many so-called Christians today have never read Ephesians five or the numerous, similar passages throughout Scripture.
Do not be partners with them...Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. It's hardly the "don't rock the boat, each to his own, everyone feel good" attitude prevalent in much of Christendom today. It is shameful even to speak those things which are done by them in secret. Not any more. Today one fights for a place in line to parade as such. Wake up! This is the age of the Church of Convenience and Toleration.
Whoever wrote those certainly wouldn't have made it in today's progressive society.
"What an incredibly intolerant thing to say! Whoever wrote that couldn't have been a 'real' Christian. Where was his compassion, his concern? These are certainly the writings of an insensitive, judgmental oaf. How dare he criticize anyone like that? Surely, Christ would never have spoken in such a manner." Let's look at some passages where the Lord confronts sinners. What language does He employ?
Well, that was to the lost. How did Jesus speak to one of His own when they faltered? Surely, He expressed sensitivity to their sin?
Okay, so the Lord Jesus did not mince words with the body of believers either. Further examples of the Lord's less than accommodating verbiage toward sin and disobedience can be found in Matthew 17:17 and 22:18; the entire twenty-third chapter of Matthew is an excellent example of the Lord's scathing denunciations of open and rebellious sin. But what of His reaction to the woman caught in adultery as recorded in John eight? On the outset this doesn't appear to be the same Jesus, nor does the Lord Jesus found in Luke, chapter seven, verses thirty-six through fifty. What could mark the stark contrast between the seemingly harsh censures of the former passages with the seemingly compassionate leniency of the latter? Perhaps the answer can be found in the Lord's reaction to an altogether unrelated incident as recorded in Matthew nine (as well as in the parallel versions of Mark two and Luke five).
When Jesus saw their faith.... Therein lies the difference. And, in case there are still any cynics out there, let's also note the account as recorded in the two parallel passages from Mark and Luke.
There can be no mistaking it. All three of the gospels which relate the account all make it perfectly clear: The Lord saw their faith; thus the seeming contradictory responses between one classification of sinner with the other. One word makes the difference: faith. Luke seventeen, verses three and four confirm this.
"If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." Therein lies yet another distinction between the response of rebuke and one of forgiveness: repentance. Luke 13:3 underscores this where the Lord instructs those who had come to hear Him, "But unless you repent, you too will all perish." (Luke 13:3) And in case anyone missed it the first time, He repeated it in verse five: "But unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5) The psalmist reiterates a similar purport in Psalm sixty-six, verses eighteen and nineteen: If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened; but God has surely listened and heard my voice in prayer. (Psalm 66:18-19)(NIV) If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. But what is true repentance? Will a simple "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" suffice, or is there more to it than that? Again, let us see what the Bible says about true repentance. One of the finest examples of unfeigned, genuine repentance can be found in Psalm fifty-one. Here, a contrite David anguishes over the sin of his adultery with Bathsheeba. It is the prayer of a truly penitent and broken heart. Few like it can match the sincerity of regret here expressed by David as he languishes before his God and Redeemer.
In Luke 24:47 the Lord declares that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name..." The message is a clear one, and one which permeates the whole of Scripture: Repent and be saved; resist and perish.
As we've already seen in the Apostle Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation. (II Corinthians 7:10)(NIV) The Lord Himself declared in Luke, chapter twelve, verse fifty-one, that He had not come to bring peace on earth, but division, a division between those who hear and repent, with those who hear but persist in their rebellion and sin toward God. The dividing line is one's reaction to the gospel, the truth of God. For those who deny and reject its message there will be no compassion. The God of the Bible is not the god of liberal relativism. Those who reject Him will themselves be rejected for all eternity. The Lord delivered a solemn warning against those who reject His plan of salvation. In Luke, chapter ten, He leaves no doubt as to their final expectation.
Herein lies the clear dividing line: the Church of Convenience teaches tolerance and denegation of guilt; the Church of the one, true and only God, the LORD God of the Bible, teaches repentance and cleansing of sin by grace, through faith in the atoning work of the Messiah, the passover Lamb of God, our Savior and King of all creation, Jesus Christ.
They think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. It's the age old conflict between believers and the world, a division most notably emphasized in the persecution of the Church.
The word of God clearly illustrates that all who belong to God will be hated by the world. The same old story, it's the obedient and favored son despised by the disobedient and rebellious son. It's the Cain and Abel syndrome, only on a immeasurably grander scale.
Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. If you belong to Christ the world will (not may) hate you; of this there is no doubt. The passages above, and others like them, mark it as a certainty. "But he who stands firm to the end will be saved." The call to perseverance is echoed throughout the word of God. As sure as there will be persecution, for he who endures there will also be reward. A crown of life is promised to those who hold fast and remain in their faith.
The second and third chapters of the book of Revelation contain seven promises from the Lord for those who overcome (chiefly Revelation 2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:26-28, 3:5, 3:12, 3:21), and culminate with chapter twenty-one's climactic, crowning, supreme promise of sonship with God.
The parable of the weeds, as recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew, tells of an enemy sowing weeds among the good seed at night while everyone was asleep. The word of God is clear: The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy is the devil. As in this parable, weeds have been sown into our society while most of us (and those of previous generations) were sleeping -- weeds, so few at a time, that we hardly noticed them until they'd overgrown the field and choked off most of that which was good. Godless liberalism and moral relativism, sown like weeds which overtook us while we slept, have become the accepted way and lifestyle that now defines our culture -- a culture that, like a body that rejects the cure, but embraces the disease, is doomed to rapid deterioration. With laws which are written on the wind and changed with every passing whim, we wander aimlessly, devoid of purpose, with blind guides leading blind people, both destined for destruction. It is a society which, as it couldn't accept the truth, chose rather to ignore it -- its revisionist history and relabeling of conduct the core staples of its doctrine of damnation. So socially cognizant of their deviant, aberrant behavior, they change what they are called, as if changing something's title in any way modifies its characteristics or public acceptability. They rewrite history to suit their agenda. No longer do antiquated concepts like facts or the truth matter. It's a progressive, people-helping-people society, which, in actuality, is only helping the people who follow it into hell. The word of God is the one standard we dare not ignore. We deny it only to our own hastened damnation. All who reject it are destined for an eternity of regret, those who subvert it, as objects of wrath. With God there is no court of appeals, no insanity plea, no extenuating circumstances, leniency or parole -- no rehabilitation, no dismissal on technicalities, no reduced or suspended sentencing -- no devious attorneys to garner sympathy, or liberal press to mold opinion -- no radical judiciary to redefine the law, or ultraistic, libertarian organizations to reapportion blame. All sentences are life, and all life is eternal. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. God's way is the only way, and the time is now. Tomorrow may be forever.
Chapter Four: They Consult A Wooden Idol And Are Answered By A Stick
"Come on, aren't all religions the same? I mean -- as long as we believe in god, what difference does it make which manifestation of his or her being we worship?" It sounds so inoffensively tolerant that any who would dare repudiate such thinking would surely be construed as narrow-minded fanatics. The current trend toward multiculturism is a chief outgrowth of such thinking, that there is no distinction or priority between the worship of one god over another, that all are equal in standing, and the way to approach god is as multitudinous as the variations of his or her manifestation. It's a popular and politically correct notion today that the beliefs and cultures of every person are equally as important, and that to favor one over another is a conspicuous revelation of one's own perfervid intolerance. "How can anyone be so insular in their thinking as to believe their God is the only God, and their way to Him the only way?!?" At face value, though, I would have to admit it does seem pretty arrogant to declare there is but one God and one way to Him, and all other ways counterfeit and nonproductive. But, that's at face value and omissive of the facts as revealed in the word of God. If the Bible is clear about one thing, it's that there is but one God and one way to Him.
These passages leave no room for argument or denial. The LORD is God; besides Him there is no other. "Apart from Me there is no God." "Apart from Me there is no savior." "You shall have no other gods before Me." "All the gods of the nations are idols." The Hebrew word translated here as "idol" ('eliyl), means good for nothing or worthless. It isn't exactly the type of word one might find conducive to any theory of multiple gods. Continuing along these lines, the word of God is also very unambiguous relative to those who may turn from the one, true God, and seek another.
"Do not invoke the names of other gods." "Do not make idols or set up an image...." "Do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it." Whereas this type of idolatry -- although somewhat more prevalent in some circles of professing Christianity than others -- may not be as common as it was when these passages were written, the underlying point is an eternal one: There is one God, and He alone is to be worshiped. The forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah (specifically verses nine through twenty) contains a particularly humorous pronouncement of the folly of those who worship the works of their hands. It is a fine, if not somewhat sobering characterization of the fool without God -- as, so needful is man for an object of worship, that when failing to recognize the true God, he must fabricate one of his own. The word of God also contains many warnings against the consultation of spiritists and mediums -- a devilry all too common today, even among professing Christians.
"Well," one might interject at this point, "these are all so obviously false gods, but what of the other, major religions? Aren't their gods and their ways just as substantive and affecting?" Again, what does the word of God say? Can one come to God through Confucius or Buddha or Muhammad or Zoroaster or some other?
These all seem graphically trenchant confirmations of the one God, one way dogma of the Judeo-Christian faith. What does the Lord Jesus say about the way to God?
"Okay. So why all this talk about gates? What gate? Where is it? How does one find it?"
"Perhaps here Jesus isn't really saying what He appears to be saying. Isn't there somewhere else we can turn where He's more definite?"
That's pretty definite. I don't hear Him saying, "Many are the ways, the truths and the lives. Anyone may come to the fathers -- or mothers (as some maintain) -- through them."
"How arrogant can one be?!?! How can he claim that?! How can he even think that?!" The answer is obvious. Either Jesus is who He claims to be, or he's insane and a liar. Let's look at both possibilities, the latter first, and assume Jesus was quite mad and not really who He said He was. Okay, simple enough. Then all of Christianity is a lie, and more are we who profess a faith in it to be pitied than any wretched creature on this planet -- for we've denied ourselves all the pleasures and excesses of this world for naught. There is no God -- at least not the God of the Bible -- no Savior, no resurrection, nothing. As the writer of Ecclesiastes reasoned through the eyes of the world, all that we have is what's under the sun, and all that is under the sun is an utter waste of time and meaningless -- a chasing after the wind. We live rather pathetic existences here, then we die and that's all. Why get up in the morning except to indulge our own insatiable lusts and desires, entirely incongruous to anyone else? Why the pretense of charity, kindness, patience, goodness, meekness, self-control or love? We should only be concerned with how we can please ourselves at this moment, for if tomorrow we die and are no more, nothing but this very moment matters, and my wants for this moment are foremost and all-important. But, what if the former assumption is correct -- that Jesus is who He claims to be? Then there is but one way, for He said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." "I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved." Whoever attempts to enter any other way is "a thief and a robber". "All who ever came before Me were thieves and robbers." " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies."
In essence, what it comes down to is just this: Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? If He is, then we need to believe Him when He claimed to be the only way to the only God. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." The options are simple. This statement is either true or false. No other options exist. Jesus Christ did not come to hang on a cross and shed His blood so that people could come to God through Buddha, Muhammad or Moses. The option you choose to believe will determine your outcome for the rest of eternity. Jesus is the only Savior or Jesus isn't any savior. The word of God emphatically confirms the one, the world the other. Which do you choose to accept? Chapter Five: I Will Plant Her For Myself In The Land
They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and stir up trouble against it. It's difficult to leaf through a newspaper or view a television news broadcast today without hearing something about Israel. For the most part, the news, as filtered through a secular, godless media, tends to lean against the Jews, while siding with those who deliberately oppress them. "What are those feeble Jews doing? Will they restore their wall? Will they offer sacrifices? Will they finish in a day? Can they bring the stones back to life from those heaps of rubble -- burned as they are?" Although these words were voiced two and a half millennia ago, they could have very well been uttered today. While anti-Semitism is hardly a modern plight, today the foes of God's chosen are manifold, massively armed, and sponsored via their governments and the radical, false religions of this world -- many wishing to exterminate the Jews as a people, and drive them from their land into the sea. Their land -- Israel. It has been one of the most hotly-debated topics this century. To whom does the land belong? Should they have less? Should they have more? Should they have any at all? Coherence or division? Conflict or accord? Destruction or survival? To whom does the land belong? What does the Bible say?
"Alright, so according to the Bible, God did give Abraham some land. But which land? And just who are these Kenites, Perizzites, Girgashites and company, anyhow? How are we supposed to know where they used to live? Are we dependent solely on the word of some book-toting, scholarly types as to exactly where these people resided all those millennia ago? After all, we're talking about people who haven't existed as nations for nearly four thousand years. Where exactly is this land the Bible speaks of God giving to Abraham? Can't we be somewhat more specific?"
"That's a bit better, but still somewhat vague. Can't the Bible do any better than this? I mean, how about some real, unquestionably-precise, exacting detail?"
One has to admit that's some impressive detail for a book written over thirty-five hundred years ago (more or less). But, in case there are those out there who are still not satisfied, the book of Joshua contains five chapters of detail so exacting and precise, the most oppugnant skeptic will be unable to deny the verity of the claim that the borders of the land God gave to Israel exceed even its present configuration, so-called "occupied territories" included (chiefly Joshua 15:1 through 19:48). "All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever." Lest there be any detractors who claim the land given to Abraham in Genesis thirteen was somehow intended as a mere temporary apportionment, verse fifteen should end all such debate. "To you and your offspring forever." The Hebrew word here translated as ever is the word 'olam, meaning always, eternal, everlasting, perpetual. Certainly no implications of impermanence can be found here. The land grant was intended as an eternal inheritance, and in no way can be misconstrued as temporary from a reading of God's holy word. "All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever." Some contend that this passage indicates the Arab people, who are descended from Abraham through his first son, Ishmael (and who would thereby be included in term offspring), are the intended inheritors and not the Jews, who are descended from the second son, Isaac. Is there any passage in God's word that might clarify the intended offspring mentioned in Genesis thirteen?
"But My covenant I will establish with Isaac...." It seems more than apparent which offspring was to be the recipient of God's covenant with Abraham -- Isaac, not Ishmael, was the son through whom God would bless the earth.
"In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" is a reference to the coming Messiah, who, two thousand years later, was born through the seed of Isaac. Genesis twenty-one (which is quoted directly in Hebrews 11:18) and twenty-five also confirm the covenant blessing and inheritance through Isaac, not Ishmael.
The thirty-fifth chapter of Genesis further underscores this in that here God tells Isaac's son, Jacob, that the land He'd given to Abraham and Isaac would also be his and his descendants after him: And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you." (Genesis 35:11-12)(NIV) From these passages only an imbecile could still claim the land promised to Abraham's offspring was intended for Ishmael's rather than Isaac's seed. Nor from these passages can anyone rightly argue the grant was temporary, rather than permanent. It can also be determined from holy Scripture that Israel was not to establish treaties with their neighbors, but rather resist any and all such attempts to turn them away from a worship of the one, true God.
"Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you." These are the words of God, not man. They are not politically, militarily, socially, or economically motivated, but holy and true.
Clearly, the LORD God did not approve of His people's reliance on any but Him. Whether these words were specified merely for a time and people long past, or eternally as a timeless, interminable precept, (and, as the word of God is not clear to me in this respect, I will argue neither way) there is no record of the LORD God ever encouraging His people to enter into a treaty with others. The first six verses of the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy similarly instruct the Israelites to drive out and make no treaty with those who would turn their sons away from following God and to serve other gods, for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be His people, His treasured possession. (Deuteronomy 7:6)(NIV) And to those who maliciously maligned His people, the LORD promised punishment.
Similarly in Genesis 12:3, the LORD God promises Abram: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse." (NIV)
"All who rage against you will surely be ashamed and disgraced; those who oppose you will be as nothing and perish." Even in view of such a magnificent proclamation of love and salvation from the LORD God Almighty, there are some who still say that Israel has fallen from favor and forfeited God's covenant promises to Abraham, Moses and David. I direct such as these to the thirty-first and thirty-third chapters of Jeremiah, where all such nonsense should be forever silenced.
God has not forsaken His chosen Israel. The word of God makes this plain. All who oppose them, will themselves be opposed by their God, the LORD God Almighty, the one true God and Father of our Savior -- Himself born as a Jew, a son of David -- the Messiah and Redeemer of Israel and all who believe, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Chapter Six:
Ephraim Is Joined To Idols; Leave Him Alone!
The book of Revelation opens with this rather peculiar letter from the Lord Jesus to the believers in Ephesus. It is peculiar in that, in this letter, the Lord Jesus commends the Ephesian Christians for being intolerant of the Nicolaitans. Now, the word intolerant doesn't appear in this letter in the actual Greek, although it is strictly implied via the text. The word the NKJV translates as "bear" in verse two (the NASB renders it "endure"; the NIV as "tolerate") is the Greek word bastazo, meaning to bear or endure. Verse six emphatically states that the Ephesian believers hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, and surprisingly (not surprising to Christians familiar with God's word, but possibly to those of the world who've never had the predisposition to actually read it), they are commended by the Lord Jesus for this; "But you have this in your favor" (NIV) (or "Yet this you do have" -- NASB), certainly sounds like commendation to me. The Lord even goes on to add that He hates them ("the deeds of the Nicolaitans"), putting the Ephesian believers in fine company. The letter to the church in Thyatira, which closes chapter two, also warrants further investigation relating to a similar peculiarity. Here, the Lord Jesus reprehends the believers in Thyatira for "tolerating" a sinful woman.
The word here translated in the NKJV as allow is the Greek word eao, meaning to let be, permit, or leave alone (The NIV translates it as "tolerate"). Again, substituting these variations of translation into the actual passage, it can be ascertained that the Thyatirans were indeed tolerating this sinful woman's behavior. Here, the Lord Jesus censures the Thyatirans for this act of tolerance. In the first instance we see the Lord commending those who are intolerant of wickedness, while in the second, admonishing those who tolerate it. This surely flies in the face of the politically correct notion of "tolerance for all" espoused by compassionate and caring liberals from across the land. One of the few sins worthy of reproach in the eyes of the liberal is the "sin" of intolerance: "Thou darest not be intolerant of thy liberal brother's or sister's depravities." But is intolerance a sin according to God? From the previous passages in Revelation chapter two, it would appear not. To the contrary, these passages seem to indicate that being tolerant of sin is itself a sin, and intolerance toward sin is something commendable among those who acknowledge the Savior. In Numbers, chapter twenty-five, the word of God likewise commends Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, for the zeal he demonstrated in dealing with those who had committed idolatry in the camp.
"He was zealous for his God...." Hardly an act of tolerance, nonetheless highly commended by the LORD God. "'And it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.'" But, just what is intolerance? From these passages in the word of God, it is obviously not the heinous malfeasance liberals pretypify it to be. One with an intolerance to heat is one who cannot endure higher temperatures. One with an intolerance toward beliefs, behaviors or attitudes is one who cannot endure, or very likely accept such beliefs, behaviors and attitudes -- as in the case of the Ephesian believers who were "intolerant" of the acts of the Nicolaitans (and commended for it by our Lord). Christians are frequently condemned as being intolerant of persons who exercise a blatant, often blasphemous disrespect for their Savior and God, generally as evidenced through wanton disregard for His statues and decrees. How about liberals, though? Are they ever construed as intolerant? "Absolutely not! Liberals tolerate all kinds of behavior, no matter how degenerate or debauched it is. They're the most tolerant, receptive, open-minded creatures on the face of the planet." Oh? Are they?! Let us look more closely at the reverse side of the coin. How many liberals do you know who are tolerant of evangelical Christianity and the code of morality it advocates -- the virtue of chastity before marriage -- a woman's submission to her husband -- homosexuality regarded as sin -- the utilization of natural resources, organic and inorganic, for the welfare and betterment of mankind, not the other way around -- capital punishment -- parent's rights to corporally discipline their children -- active, pro-Christian involvement in politics -- prayer or the reading of God's word in public schools -- the supposition that one who doesn't work should not eat? Oh, so it's okay for them to be intolerant of the beliefs, behaviors and attitudes they find offensive, only no one better dare to feel or voice disagreement with any of the godlessly liberal pet agendas they support. That kind of intolerance isn't allowed. Specifically, as far as liberals are concerned, the greatest intolerance is the kind Christians exhibit when they declare their God the only God, and His way the only way. Few things irritate the "open-minded" liberal more than a declaration of the absolute sovereignty of a one, true God (as previously illustrated in chapter four of this volume). What does the word of God say about intolerance? As already shown in Revelation and Numbers, the Bible's view is seemingly irreconcilable to political correctness: Intolerance of sin is commended, while tolerance of sin is reproached.
Again, one who hates evil is hardly tolerant of it.
Avoidance of evil is similarly lacking a toleration of it.
Have nothing to do with him. Such a man is warped and sinful. (NIV) If any uttered these words about any of the purveyors of perversion prevalent today, they'd most certainly be labeled as "intolerant", and also, more likely than not, become the targets of splenetic attack.
Do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. Again, shades of Leviticus 19:17 are evident in this passage, which had, most likely, been written a full two thousand years after it.
Here we see the wrath of the LORD proclaimed upon King Jehoshaphat for helping the wicked and loving (or making alliances with) those who hate the LORD (see II Chronicles 20:35-37). It is yet another example of sharing in the guilt of one whose sins one condones. Indeed, there is much that can be said about this, and it will be covered at greater length in chapter seventeen of this volume. But, what is the LORD God's attitude, personally, toward sinful behavior? Is God tolerant of sin or sinner? What does His word reveal to us in this regard?
So much for free speech, at least where blasphemy is concerned. Either the LORD God isn't familiar with the first amendment to the United States Constitution or He just isn't very punctilious about it. "Stone the blasphemer"?! This certainly isn't the way one exhibits a toleration of free speech. Surely, this person (the blasphemer) wasn't to be granted federal money for his unholy utterances?!?! "He must be put to death" is similarly quite unambiguous; there isn't a great deal of room here for debate. But what of God's personal feelings toward sin and sinner? (Again -- as I did in chapter three of this volume -- I must distinguish between repentant and unrepentant sinners; those referred to here are unrepentant.) Aside from blasphemy, does God tolerate sin? (I know it's a stupid question, but I ask it for the sake of those liberals out there who aren't quite sure, having absorbed the world's lies for so long they are unable to distinguish the real God of the Bible from their own, imagined, all-tolerant one.)
Normally, the above passage would suffice alone, as it is perfectly apparent from it that the LORD God hates and abhors all who do wrong (again, I must stress: All who do wrong unrepentantly), and that such can never dwell with, or stand in His presence. However, as there may be one or two out there who still refuse to acknowledge this, I am compelled to repetitively underscore this divine posture so that it may be clear for all.
Apparently God understands we're a rather thick lot and generally don't get the picture the first, or even the fifteenth time around, so He made sure there'd be no misunderstanding about this: God hates all who do wrong. And what about Jesus? What is the Lord's attitude toward sin and sinner? In Matthew 23:33, the Lord calls the Pharisees and teachers of the law "snakes" and "vipers". Are these the words of a tame and passive Lord, tolerant of all? In Mark, chapter six, the Lord Jesus instructs His apostles: "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." (Mark 6:11)(NIV) This charge is repeated twice in the parallel passages of Matthew 10:14 and Luke 9:5, as well as a fourth time in Luke 10:10-12.
These do not strike me as words of toleration: "Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you." Where is the meek and mild, Milquetoast Christ of liberal supposition? Surely He is not to be found in the holy Scriptures. And, lest anyone erroneously believes these instructions from the Lord Jesus were nothing more than mere exercise in rhetoric, turn to the thirteenth chapter of the book of Acts for evidence of their actual, literal application.
How about the Lord's confrontation with the moneychangers in the temple, as recorded in all four of the gospels (chiefly Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-47, John 2:13-16)? This hardly impresses me as the tolerant and gentle Jesus of liberal lore. In Luke, chapter three, verse seven, John the Baptist calls the people who'd been coming out to be baptized by him a "brood of vipers". Like the Lord Jesus, John wasn't interested in making people "feel good about themselves", but rather draw attention to and expose their sin, in order that they might "bear fruits worthy of repentance". (Luke 3:8) Again, as previously stated in chapter three of this volume, the key word here is repentance. Whereas many professing Christians today preach tolerance and "feeling good about oneself", it is the exposure and realization of sin that leads to repentance; one who is unaware of his depravity is hardly in a position to repent. What then are we, as Christians, to do? Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:43-48 both unequivocally teach a love of one's enemies. Which is it to be? Love or hate? Is this a contradiction? Clearly not, as the word of God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself. What then can this mean? Perhaps a study of the actual Greek words used here will shed more light on this matter. The Greek word translated as love in the passages referred to from both Luke six and Matthew five is the word agapao, which means to love in a social or moral sense. It is the same word used in Matthew 22:37, as well as in its parallel passage of Mark 12:30, where Jesus answered an expert in the law, saying: "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'" (Matthew 22:37) This is not to imply that one's love for God should be equated with one's love for one's enemies. Indeed, the passage quoted above attaches several qualifiers, in that one's love for God must be with all one's heart, soul and mind. These qualifiers were not affixed to Christ's charge that believers "love their enemies". This passage does indicate, however, that one's love for God should be a moral love, as opposed to an affectionate or brotherly love. The word used indicative of one's love for one's enemies is not the Greek word etheleo, meaning to prefer or to be inclined towards. (This is the Greek word used in Mark 12:38, where the Lord Jesus warns: "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the market places....". (NIV) Nor is it the Greek word phileo, meaning to be a friend or to have affection for. (This is the Greek word used in Titus 3:15, where the Apostle Paul writes: Greet those who love us in the faith. It is also the same word used in the eleventh and twentieth chapters of the gospel of John, where it is used to describe Jesus' love for Lazarus on the occasion of Lazarus' death, where the Jews observe of Jesus' affection for Lazarus: "See how He loved him!" -- John 11:36, and later of Jesus' love for the Apostle John: Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved.... -- John 20:2. It is also the word used by the Lord in Revelation 3:19, where He declares: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.".) Nor is it the Greek word philadelphia, meaning fraternal affection or brotherly love. (This is the Greek word used by the Apostle Peter in his first epistle where he writes: Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren...; the second word translated as love in this passage [see below] is agapao, where Peter continues from above: ...love one another fervently with a pure heart. (I Peter 1:22) ) Nor is it the Greek word philanthropia, meaning love for mankind or benevolence. (This is the Greek word used in Titus 3:4, where Paul writes: But when the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared....) Therein lies the answer: Christ's command that His followers love their enemies is not an adjuration for a brotherly, affectionate or benevolent love, nor is it a directive that one have a preference for or an inclination toward one's enemies -- any which would certainly be in contradiction to the numerous passages throughout the whole of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments), which clearly demonstrate God's hatred of any and all displays of unrepentant sin -- it is a call to love morally or socially. In this there is no contradiction. We, as Christians, are called to love our enemies as we would love any being, in a general, moral sense, not in an affectionate or brotherly manner, as such would be in clear defiance toward God's expressed loathing of such behavior and cause us to share in their wicked work (chiefly II John 9-11 and Leviticus 19:17). How then are we, as Christians, to specifically respond to an arrogant, unrepentant continuance of sin? Are we to follow Christ's lead and that of God the Father, as previously illustrated throughout this chapter, or are we to follow the example of the world and tolerate all? The psalmist David wrote of this when he inquired of the LORD: LORD, who may dwell in Your sanctuary? Who may live on Your holy hill? (Psalm 15:1)(NIV) He answered his own question in the following verses, reciting several qualifiers, one of which is he who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD. (Psalm 15:4)(NIV) Was David intolerant, as well?
Was David tolerant of those who hated his LORD? It seems not. Today, he'd no doubt be labeled as one of the "intolerant, religious right", but I somehow fail to believe this would have, in any way, disturbed him or caused him to lose any sleep. Psalm ninety-seven declares: You who love the LORD, hate evil! (Psalm 97:10)
That last passage certainly seems to be advocating dissociation. Do other passages from God's word corroborate this instruction? As already illustrated in chapter five, the Old Testament contains an abundance of passages where the Israelites were commanded by God not to make treaties or covenants with their pagan neighbors (chiefly Exodus 23:31-33, 34:10-16, Deuteronomy 20:16-18). The Old Testament also contains several eye-opening examples of how disobedience of these commands was answered by God (chiefly I Samuel 15:1-35, I Kings 11:1-13, Ezra 9 and 10, Nehemiah 10:30, 13:23-28). But, what of the New Testament? Liberals like to imagine that God somehow changed His mind (and character) in the New Testament, and has suddenly now become all-too- tolerant of behavior He'd previously condemned. What does the New Testament teach of fellowship with the unrepentant?
These don't seem to be advocating tolerance to me. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (NIV) Today, while it has become fashionable in many circles, particularly throughout the liberal media, to label those who oppose them as "intolerant", those who know the word of God should not vacillate from a condemnation of conduct they know to be iniquitous, and realize that as Christians they should wear this "intolerance of unrepentant sin" label as a badge of honor. Indeed, intolerance of wickedness is a sign of true regeneration and a Spirit-filled life. II Chronicles, chapter thirty-four, relates the account of King Josiah's reformation in the land of Judah. Verses three through seven record how this young king of Judah destroyed the idols and purged his land of wickedness. Whereas, had he done this today, Josiah would no doubt find himself the defendant in an unremitting litigation, and a principle target of the profligate Left, the word of God cites Josiah in that He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and walked in the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left. (II Chronicles 34:2)(NIV) Would that the same could be said of us today. For, were we truly sons of our Father in heaven, we, as He, would not take pleasure in those who do wrong, but rebuke them, lest we too become partakers in their guilt. Chapter Seven: And Breasts That Are Dry
Doubtless there are those out there -- assuredly the majority of which are male -- who would wonder whether one must be suicidal or a fool to even attempt to write a chapter on this topic. Nonetheless, and not entirely without trepidation, I venture into this chapter not as I welcome opportunity for debate, but as this subject has, perhaps more than any other, been so fully embraced by the proponents of political correctness, that it needs to be addressed -- not as to how I believe it should be, but as the word of God Almighty prescribes it must be if we are to live lives according to His good and perfect will.
Just to set the record straight, the Bible clearly shows that man was created first, and woman for him, as it was "not good that the man should be alone". Given the ferocity of the women's movement today, most in my position might undoubtedly have chosen to omit this bit of information; however, I am unable to, as relating to the natural order of things -- as ordained by God, not pollster -- this was included in the holy word of God for a purpose. What the purpose might be, I am not inclined to guess; however, the Apostle Paul, as guided by the Holy Spirit, felt it appropriate enough to emphasize this natural, God-ordained order in his first letter to the believers in Corinth, where he wrote: For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (I Corinthians 11:8-9) Okay. So we've established who was created when, and for whom, but this still tells us very little about how, if at all, the different genders were to function distinct from one another. Some argue there is no distinction between sexes -- apart from the obvious, physical one, that is (although many today even try to deny that, too). Does God's word teach a distinction between man and woman other than the previously mentioned order and purpose of creation?
Superficially, this appears to be nothing other than a restriction against transvestism. But, doesn't it really say more? Aside from the all-important restriction against cross-dressing -- one which, I dare say, has become something of a joke in today's culture (and I don't believe anything important enough for God to include in His holy word should be so casually disregarded as this command has been today) -- this passage also clearly illustrates a divinely-imposed distinction of sexes. One is not even to look like the other, much less act alike. And, almost as if Moses knew this command wasn't likely to be taken very seriously, he made sure to add: for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. Okay, so this isn't merely some eccentricity of Moses', but something abominable to God. If God so detests men who dress like women, and women who dress like men, what must He feel toward those who strive to erase the attributional distinction between the sexes which He established? Today, there are not only women who dress masculine, talk masculine and act masculine, but if they were somehow able to attach masculine genitals to themselves, they would no doubt do that, as well (not that some women, entirely dissatisfied with being women, haven't tried -- if not physiologically, certainly succedaneously via the emasculation of their partners). It has become an unpardonable crime among even many mainstream feminist groups for a woman to actually look or act like a woman. Liberal forbid each gender actually conducts itself in the manner as prescribed by God! What could we have been thinking all those centuries past when women prided themselves in being women and not pseudo-men?! How unenlightened they must've been to find contentment in their femininity! Perhaps that's why men tried for so long tried to keep them out of "institutions of higher learning" (and I use that phrase loosely) -- to prevent, or at least delay, their enlightenment and realization that being a woman was something less than desirable, and that God hadn't a clue when He designed two separate, distinct and multifariously unique sexes. What's so tragic about being a woman? Male authority? Female submission? Even if these antiquated concepts still existed, is there anguish in obeisance to God? Is God's way so difficult to bear? Are the alternatives more pleasant? Do we know better than our Creator how the order of things best serve His purposes? We submit to God -- at least, we should. We also submit to rulers, leaders, directors, commanders, bosses, chiefs and superiors of every sort. Children submit to parents -- perhaps not as in generations past -- why not one gender to another, specifically as God has decreed it to be so? Is submission by gender that much more difficult to accept than submission to these others? What does the word of God teach about man's authority over woman? Does the Bible really teach that at all?
Before anyone insists this isn't saying what it appears to be saying, let's look at the word here which, without a doubt, is cause for manifold vexation throughout most of the woman's rights movement: "rule". It is the Hebrew word mashal, meaning to rule or to have dominion over, to govern or have power. It is the same Hebrew word which appears in the forty-fifth chapter of Genesis where Joseph, in speaking to his brothers, says: "So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt." (Genesis 45:8)(NIV) There can be little doubt as to the nature of Joseph's authority over Egypt. Nonetheless, for the sake of doubtless verification, let's also turn to the eighth chapter of Judges where this same word appears four times in the space of only two verses.
The meaning seems apparent enough, but let's check another.
The passage here is in reference to the coming Messiah. It does seem to mean "rule", doesn't it, and not "co-chair"? And this is the LORD God speaking in Genesis 3:16, saying a woman's husband will "rule over" her -- not exactly a factor on the side of those who say, "It's a man's world -- what do you expect from a man? Certainly, man is going to elevate himself to a position of authority over womankind every opportunity he gets. This is merely another example of inherent, oppressive, male chauvinism." Even if it were only the words of a man -- Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Paul -- the fact that it appears in Scripture (a Scripture accepted by Christ, the very Son of God) is reason enough to accept it as truth. That it comes from the very mouth of the LORD God Himself, makes it nothing less than an absolutely incontestable certainty. "And he will rule over you." Like it or not, there it is. But, let us turn to yet another passage of Scripture which employs this same Hebrew word, mashal, or rule, in another sense which is, coincidentally, applicable to this very subject.
Now, to place this passage in context, one must read all of chapter three, as well as the majority of chapters two and four. In the context of the whole, it is quite obvious that this judgment Isaiah's calling down upon the people of Judah -- as directed by the LORD -- is a curse, not a blessing. If one reads this again in that light, it's very clear that what's being said here is that when a society allows women and children to rule over them, it's pretty much down for the final count. It's not very flattering to women, I must admit, but it's the word of God, as spoken through the prophet Isaiah. And going back to what I'd written in chapter one of this volume, if one believes this is the word of God, one has to accept it all, not just the portions one finds pleasing. God only knows there are passages (far more than I'd like to admit) in His word that are difficult for me, as well, but God's word is God's word, and there's no getting around it. After all, this is His creation, and we accept His way or we don't. Either way, in the end, what we want, and the way we want it, doesn't really matter, as it's God's way that prevails, and should prevail. So now that I've fully alienated every living woman whose intention it was to read this volume, what else, if anything, does God's word teach about feminism and the woman's right to assert herself in male-dominated society? Does the Bible touch upon this, or is there to be no societal distinction between male and female?
Again, this would appear to be fairly unpalatable for those of the female persuasion; however, on further study of this passage, it can be ascertained that women are not the only ones being called to submit to authority here: The head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, the head of Christ is God. "Well, that's easy," some might argue. "It's easier submitting to a perfect Lord than it is to a quite-far-from-perfect man!" On this point I'd have to concur. Given the choice of being lorded over by God or man, my choice would be obvious. There is no contest. It's a foregone conclusion: Perfect God over imperfect man any day. But, we as men aren't let off the hook that easily -- unless, of course, we care to forget passages like Romans 13:1-6, Titus 3:1, Hebrews 13:17 and I Peter 2:13-15. There's a lot of authority there to be submissive to -- all of us, both male and female alike. Although, as in any case, one should not submit to sin, or do anything contrary to the will of God; that must be made perfectly clear. Man's and woman's obligation to their earthly masters is always secondary to their obligation to God. The fourth chapter of Judges relates the account of the prophetess, Deborah, who was leading or judging Israel in the days following the passing of Joshua. Many claim that as the Bible recounts the leadership of woman, it is, in some way, endorsing it. However, as already demonstrated in chapter one, just because the Bible records an historical event as fact, in no way implies this event was the proper or righteous thing to do. (The Bible records David's adultery and murder. This is, in no way, an endorsement of adultery and murder -- even though the Bible refers to David as a "man after God's own heart".) If one reads the entire fourth chapter of Judges, it becomes apparent that no such endorsement is forthcoming. As a matter-of-fact, Barak, the son of Abinoam, is ridiculed by Deborah for fearing to go into battle without her.
And, lest anyone believes this is anything but an insult, turn to the third chapter of the book of Nahum, verse thirteen.
Before anyone tries to argue that this is a compliment, they'd better read the rest of the book of Nahum -- which is (even to the most unreceptive, shallow-minded liberal), in its entirety, a curse -- a call for judgment on Nineveh. It is not a message of acclamation to Nineveh, applauding Assyrian accomplishment and liberal progressiveness for its incorporation of women into its military. The passage, Surely, your people in your midst are women! is a metaphoric taunt at the Assyrian Empire, depictive of the weakened state of its ranks. This is an insult leveled by a prophet of God who is foretelling of their (Nineveh's) imminent collapse as punishment for their wickedness. Also, concerning a woman's status in society, the entire thirtieth chapter of Numbers illustrates that a woman' vow-taking rights are clearly restricted by the authority of the male she is living with. If an unmarried woman still living in her father's house utters a vow which her father disapproves, he may nullify it. In the same manner, a married woman's husband may nullify any vow his wife makes which he disapproves of. And lest anyone think I'm making this all up, the thirtieth chapter of Numbers ends by recording that These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father's house. (Numbers 30:16) (The word of God says nothing about an unmarried woman living on her own, but in those days that just didn't happen with any great frequency. Whether such is approved by God or not, I cannot venture to say, as God's word does not touch upon this subject at all. The LORD God gave these regulations, not the author of this book.) Another societal restriction placed on women by the word of God was the proof of virginity at marriage, as related in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, but I will be dealing with this later in chapter eight. Preceding this, the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy allows men at war to take captive women as wives. Again, this isn't my decree, but God's, and I make no apologies for it. Clearly, the word of God is not altogether sympathetic with the woman's movement of our day, and having to choose between God and the women's movement, most professing Christians today have chosen the latter. What about women's dress? Today a lot is made of a woman's right to dress, or -- more appropriately to our times -- "undress" as she sees fit, often with a blatant irresponsibility toward the effect it might have on others -- particularly the male of the species (who is already preoccupied with sex, and certainly needs no additional stimuli). Does God's word, in any way, tackle this?
So much for those who defend a woman's right to be lewd and flirtatious. It seems to me that God is altogether disagreeable to this idea; knowing man as He does, He has good reason to demand this sort of exhibitionism curbed. (I am thoroughly convinced that had women ever placed themselves inside a man's mind and body for even an hour, they'd behave a lot differently in the presence of men, and more likely than not, weld themselves into suits of armor and never leave their homes.)
These seem to be clear and require no further comment on my part. However, while we're in I Timothy two, we can drop down to the very next verse and get started on another touchy topic.
Some contend these passages apply only to propriety in worship, and that a woman's submission to man (and prohibition from authority over men) is not an eternal premise, but applicable only to situations within Christian worship. Looking at the passage from I Timothy, there is no mention of worship, congregation or assembly whatsoever. Contrarily, the passage does invoke the creation order, where it emphatically states: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. In reiterating the eternal, immutable order of creation, the application of this passage must itself be clearly construed as eternal and immutable -- in contrast to the passage above from I Corinthians fourteen, which does mention congregations and churches. The head-covering controversy of I Corinthians eleven is yet another example of false implication derived from an improper reading of the actual text. As with the passage from I Timothy, some maintain the head-covering principle from I Corinthians is applicable exclusively to situations of worship. Again, I contend that no such implication can be supposed from what the text is actually saying. As in the passages from I Timothy, nowhere are the words worship, congregation or assembly even suggested at. Indeed, no mention, or even hint of formal assemblies is made until verse seventeen, where the subject matter changes entirely -- this occasioned by the interjacence of In the following directives I have no praise for you. (I Corinthians 11:17) One need not have a doctorate in languages to recognize this. Some insist, however, that as praysand prophesies are mentioned in verse four, this does indeed refer to an order of worship. Again, I disagree, as formal assembly was never requisite for prayer or prophecy anywhere else throughout the whole of Scripture. Indeed, Christ told the woman at the well -- in response to her inquiry about place of worship (see verse twenty) -- that God is to be worshiped "in spirit and truth" (see John 4:18-24). Paul nowhere indicates he is establishing a principle for worship in the first sixteen verses of I Corinthians, chapter eleven. Indeed in verses fourteen and fifteen he invokes the natural creation order again, where he writes: Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. (I Corinthians 11:14-15) Contradistinctive to this, the passage from I Corinthians fourteen is clearly an order for worship: For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (I Corinthians 14:33-35) This restriction is clearly applicable specifically to the circumstances mentioned: in the churches. The restrictions indicated in the previous passages quoted herein, contain no such qualifiers, and are decidedly the natural, created order, applicable to all times, places and circumstances. Also, the restrictions for worship indicated in I Corinthians fourteen are not merely restrictive only to the circumstances of the first century Corinthian church. Nowhere does Paul indicate this, as he clearly does in other passages where applied restrictions were conditionally temporal due to specific, local circumstances (chiefly I Corinthians 7:26). I personally know of Christian women who claim they must take positions of authority and speak out in Christian assembly as the men refuse to do their part and nothing would get done otherwise. Granted, the men of many, perhaps most, Christian congregations may be neglectful of their God- given duty in this, as well as many other areas, but I am aware of nowhere in sacred Scripture that God ever allowed one person to disregard His commandment because someone else had broken one. The regulation applies, and as with all of God's precepts, there are no exceptions. It is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God, borne up throughout the whole of His word. Having now touched upon the Bible's views of a woman's roles within society and the Christian assembly, what does God's word teach about a woman's role in marriage?
The third chapter of I Peter, verses one through six, closely parallels this passage from Ephesians, then refers to wives in verse seven as the weaker vessel (in both NASB and NKJV). The word here translated as weaker is the Greek word asthenes, or weak. Whether this characteristic of a wife is in reference to physical, spiritual or some other stamina, I cannot say, as it does not appear from the context of the passage that such might be ascertained.
Again, that obedient to their husbands has found its way into God's word, this time with an explanation tagged to it: that the word of God may not be blasphemed. There's also a very provocative homemakers attached here. Similarly, Proverbs 14:1 declares that The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish pulls it down with her hands. Many in the woman's movement today would more than willingly identify themselves with the latter of the two women described above. However, perhaps the most detailed portrayal in Scripture of an ideal wife appears at the conclusion of the book of Proverbs, chapter thirty-one, verses ten through thirty-one. Here, the author describes a godly wife of noble character, worth far more than rubies.
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Hardly descriptive of the majority of today's liberated women, the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs illustrates the ideal woman from God's perspective. The key elements here are: the LORD, husband, children, household, wisdom and faithful instruction -- not herself, position, wealth, authority and recreation.
But, lest we seem to dwell only on wives' duties and obligations to their husbands, we'd best not forget the rest of Ephesians, chapter five: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:25-31) Here, it would seem that husbands aren't exactly being let off the hook regarding marital duty and obligations. From this passage it's evident that a man must be willing to give up his life for the sake of his wife, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.... Nowhere in Scripture are wives ever called upon to do the same. The early chapters of Isaiah paint a dismal and frightening portrait of the last days, where the proud and lofty will be humbled, and the arrogance of man brought low. It is when, for the haughty and flirtatious women of Isaiah three (previously mentioned in this chapter), Instead of sweet smell there will be a stench; Instead of a sash, a rope; Instead of well-set hair, baldness; Instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; And branding instead of beauty. Your men shall fall by the sword, And your mighty in the war. Her gates shall lament and mourn, And she being desolate shall sit on the ground. (Isaiah 3:24-26) Here, in the opening verses of the fourth chapter, the prophet Isaiah writes of the women in those days: And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, "We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." (Isaiah 4:1) It's difficult to imagine a day like this may soon be coming, drawing ever closer with each passing moment -- "Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." In that day, it would seem, there will be no more lust for ascendancy, no more room for contention, no more aversion to male prepotency; for the women's movement, on that day, it will be the last stop. The feminist movement and its agenda will die -- not because of efforts of men, but because it is against the natural, created order ordained by the sovereign God of the universe. God set an order in creation. Those who follow it, more easily arrive at their intended destinations. Those who reject it, struggle against the grain and will find no peace. For man is not from women, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (I Corinthians 11:8-9) They're not my words; they're God's. It is the eternal order of creation. Those who struggle against it, do so in vain. Chapter Eight: A Spirit Of Prostitution Leads Them Astray
Our present age is one for which the motto goes: "Two responsible adults may engage in any and all types of sexual expression they choose." A lie on many fronts, first of all, it isn't limited to two, nor need they be responsible (it could be argued the word irresponsible more fittingly applies to most of the "sexual expression" being referred to here), nor even adults -- as teens are permitted to participate ("They're going to do it anyway."), nor is any mention made of gender (but that's the topic for another chapter). Secondly, one crucial, all-important qualifier is conspicuously missing from this motto which changes the whole concept of sexual relations into a merely recreational activity, with partners as interchangeable as jackets. What is that qualifier, and who has dared to attempt to restrict our free will in any way by applying it? The answers respectively are: marriage and God. Don't say that too loudly on the streets today, though, or you're likely to be laughed off all the way to a padded room. "Come on! Be serious! We're living in an enlightened age. What two or more people do in their own homes (or anywhere else of their choice, for that matter) is their own business. They're not hurting anyone. Get with the times!" At the risk of sounding hopelessly outdated, according to God's word, all "sexual expression" outside of marriage is sin -- that includes both adultery and fornication. There are no exceptions. Marriage, as ordained by God, is the only agency through which sexual expression is permissible; it is insoluble while both husband and wife still live; its aggregation is solemnized by oath to God. It is not to be entered into lightly or capriciously. It is so highly regarded by the God who established it that He granted newly married men complete exemption from military service for the first full year of conjugality (chiefly Deuteronomy 24:5). The vow to God, taken at the time of union, is binding for life. Its participants, at its inception, forfeit all future rights regarding the usage of their bodies to their spouse, and their flesh is no longer their own. Its precepts are God-given, its intimacy exclusive. All who violate its integrity are allotted a portion with the wicked, those who ignore its statutes, subject to death. For the LORD God said: "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) "'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.'" (Leviticus 20:10)
How is the bed undefiled? What does the word of God say about the purity of marriage?
Here, the Scripture records that finding a wife is a good thing and a favor from the LORD. As previously mentioned in the preceding chapter, Ephesians 5:22-31 teaches a wife's submission to her husband and a husband's complete and sacrificial love for his wife: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. (Ephesains 5:31)
With all the contention today about people's rights to their own bodies, this latter passage, no doubt, meets with anguished renitence, particularly from the feminist quarter where "a woman has a right to do with her own body as she pleases," as "a woman belongs to no one!" Well, not according to the Scriptures, or perhaps they aren't teaching I Corinthians seven at your place of worship? The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (NIV) The Bible dissuades any sexual depravation between husband and wife, except for brief periods of spiritual revival through prayer, lest they be tempted because of their lack of self- control. Another common misconception about marriage today is that it's a "union of convenience" -- that when it is found to have become inconvenient, either or both parties may opt out at their own discretion, free to select a more suitable vintage, make or model. How do I know that such an enlightened view of marriage is not to be found within the word of God?
"Okay, so God hates divorce. But people make "mistakes". Aren't people who marry someone in good faith, and only later find out that person isn't the person they thought they married, permitted a second chance?
According to these four recorded prohibitions of divorce found in the gospels, divorce is permitted only under the condition that a wife's been "sexually immoral" (chiefly Matthew 5:32 and 19:9). The phrase here translated as "sexually immoral" is the Greek word porneia, meaning harlotry, adultery or fornication. Even though God hates divorce, He allows it under this circumstance, and this circumstance only (see also: I Corinthians 7:10-16). And, contrary to what even many Bible-believing churches and organizations are teaching today, remarriage is never permitted after divorce. Never! I know many well-meaning, Bible-reading Christians will disagree with me on this, but it's what the word of God says -- again, these are not my words, but the Lord's. And, as in all aspects of Bible study, we must accept what the word of God says, not what we'd like it to say. Nowhere in God's word am I aware of God saying, "This is My word. Feel free to pick out the parts you like and discard the rest." I think this is a hard matter to accept, myself; nonetheless, it is God's way that counts, not mine or yours. Also, let's not forget that the marriage vow is a vow before God like any other, and should anyone have any doubts as to how seriously God feels about vows made to Him, and as to whether or not they may be broken -- even under the most burdensome and vicissitudinous circumstances -- perhaps a consultation of the following passages might be in order.
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)(NIV) Today, with the institution of marriage meaning less and less, with interchangeable mates and a liberated society, it's difficult to really take words like "adultery" or "fornication" seriously -- particularly as both are endlessly glorified and exalted throughout popular culture via the media. People are shocked today when they go to a movie or purchase reading material that doesn't contain at least one portrayal of sexual activity -- generally graphic, and almost always supererogatory and nonmarital. But what does God's word say about adultery and fornication? As we've most recently deliberated marriage, perhaps a look at adultery would more appropriately antecede any scrutiny of fornication.
Not only does God forbid adultery and call it "evil", but as shown in the passage above, He decreed it to be a capital offense. "'Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.'" (Leviticus 18:25)(NIV) >From this passage, no one can claim the laws regarding sexual impurity were applicable only to Israel as the covenant community. The people who inhabited the land before them defiled the land with these sins, and were declared guilty even before the law had been issued -- "'for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.'" (Leviticus 18:27-28)(NIV) These days, when even murderers are seldom executed, and more criminal offenders set free than properly punished, it is virtually impossible to imagine a society in which adulterers are deemed capital offenders and summarily executed for this sin. Just the same, the word of God declares that such is the prescribed punishment for both the adulterer and the adulteress; in this matter there is no distinction between the sexes -- both are to be put to death. So serious is the infraction of adultery that in the twentieth chapter of Genesis (where Abimelech, king of Gerar, "takes" Sarah, Abraham's wife, misconstruing her to be Abraham's sister), God comes to Abimelech in a dream and says to him: "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." (Genesis 20:3) Now, in case anyone missed it the first time around, Abimelech didn't know Sarah was a married woman; God's law prohibiting adultery had not yet been established; Abimelech was not part of the covenant community accountable to the law -- nonetheless, God claimed the penalty for adultery was to be the death of the offender. Of course, having been informed of this, Abimelech duly pleads ignorance, to which God responds that He already knew that, and that's the only reason Abimelech is still around, and that Abimelech had better get his act together really soon, or he and all that were his would soon be spoken of in the past tense. And how did the king of Gerar react to all this? (see Genesis 20:8-18.) It would seem that even this pagan, godless ruler -- who broke God's commandment before God even disclosed there was such a commandment (The issuance of the Law did not come until more than six hundred years after the events recorded here in Genesis twenty) -- knew better than most of the enlightened people of our day, who, had they found themselves in a similar situation, probably would've ignored any castigation from God altogether. What does this tell us about how low we've sunk, how far we've fallen as a society, that even pagans predating the issuance of the law of God, living a full four thousand years before the advent of something as integral to human development, refinement and culture as television, knew that it was wrong to take another man's wife? Perhaps that's what Abimelech had going in his favor: He had no television or major media satiation to voluminously gorge his mind with repeated and damnable lies. When he was confronted with his wrongdoing, he did not claim it was his right to express himself sexually in the manner of his choice -- he was ready to do back-flips and handstands, if necessary, to rectify the situation. How unlike today's society this is, where those censured for wrongdoing, more likely than not, would persist that it's their accuser who has the problem for daring to infer that their "perfectly normal behavior" is in any way improper.
Curiously, Isaac hadn't learned from Abraham's error, and pulled the same stunt himself with Rebekah a few decades later on a similarly-named king of the Philistines (see Genesis 26:1-11). The word of God contains several key warnings against the folly of adultery, most remarkable of which are those found in the book of Proverbs. Among them is a wise father's advice to his son in chapter six, warning him of the snare of the adulteress.
The verses which immediately follow, concluding the sixth chapter of Proverbs, relate how the jealous husband's fury will show no mercy when he takes revenge. (Proverbs 6:34)(NIV)
Adultery is a crime that robs a spouse of that which, by right, is exclusively theirs. Fornication is a crime that robs both oneself and one's future spouse of the exclusivity, sacrificing tomorrow's perennial treasures for the voluptuous dissipation of today. The Greek word the NKJV frequently translates as sexual immorality is porneia, meaning harlotry, fornication or adultery. It is the same word used in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:19 (as previously indicated in this chapter) as the only qualifier for which a man could divorce his wife. Translated into the English as fornication, it denotes any and all sexual activity outside marriage. In the seventh chapter of Mark, it is one of the thirteen "evils" Christ mentions that make a man "unclean" or "defiled". (The other twelve "evils", which include moicheia or adultery, are: dialogismoi oi kakoi, klopai, phonoi, pleonexial, poneriai, dolos, aselgeia, ophthalmos poneros, blasphemia, huperephania and aphrosune.)
God's word does not pass off fornication as some "mere weakness" to be curbed. It not only regards it as sin, but it's the sin that heads the list of acts of the flesh in both Galatians five and Colossians three. Paul writes that those who partake in these acts of the sinful nature will not inherit the kingdom of God and because of these, the wrath of God is coming. In I Corinthians six he writes: Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (I Corinthians 6:13)
So we've established that the word of God clearly characterizes fornication as sin. As all sex outside of marriage is fornication, all sex outside of marriage is sin. It's difficult today, in a world that has trouble frowning upon sex with another person's spouse, imagining anyone ever actually envisaging something as "frivolous" as fornication as serious, reprehensible sin. "There's absolutely nothing wrong with two consenting adults choosing to express their feelings for one another through sexual relations." "As long as people conduct themselves responsibly, they should be free to express their sexuality any way they choose." In other words: "If you lust after it and it lusts after you, go for it." They'd like to call it "love", but nothing is further from true, unselfish, unconditional love than what these people do in the name of "expressing their sexuality". Two dogs procreating in the street are less repulsive than "sexual expression" between unmarried persons. At least with the dogs, they're not behaving in arrogant defiance toward God. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. So important is the idea of chastity before marriage that Deuteronomy 22:20-21 calls for a man's bride who is found not be a virgin to be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:21) (NIV) Note the words disgraceful, promiscuous, evil and particularly stone her to death. This isn't viewed as some "frivolous weakness" or means of "responsible, sexual expression". It is sin, punishable by death. And, in case anyone thinks this is being unfair to women, note it was the woman who had been the fornicator in Deuteronomy twenty-two, not her husband. If anyone thinks any man who sleeps around before marriage is let off the hook by God's word, turn to the twenty-second chapter of Exodus, where the LORD God says: "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay the money according to the bride-price of virgins." (Exodus 22:16-17) "Whoah! Wait a minute! What's this 'pay the bride-price of virgins' and 'be his wife' stuff?!? What ever happened to 'purge the evil from among you'? The woman in Deuteronomy twenty-two gets stoned to death, and this guy from Exodus twenty-two gets off without so much as a pebble being tossed his way!!" Obviously, had the woman in Deuteronomy twenty-two had any integrity (i.e. not been guilty of sin), she'd have gone to her father and made the lecher who'd seduced her pay the bride price for virgins and marry her. As she didn't, it can be inferred that she was either already pledged to be married -- in which case the penalty of death still applied (see below) -- or the man she had sex with was married -- in which case we're talking about adultery, and the death penalty was also still applicable (to the woman and the man)(see above). Also, had the man mentioned in Exodus twenty-two been already married, he'd have committed adultery, as well, and been properly stoned, too -- thus unable to pay any bride price for virgins, and subsequently marry the girl.
Another key element of this passage from Deuteronomy twenty-two which behooves further disquisition is that this virgin (as well as the virgin from the twenty-second chapter of Exodus) was not pledged to be married/not betrothed. What significance does this have on the whole scheme of things?
Here, two key elements differ from the passages of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17. In this passage, the virgin is betroth to a husband (or pledged to be married in the NIV), and both of them are to be stoned to death. Why? Because the man had humbled his neighbor's wife (or violated another man's wife in the NIV). According to God's word, a woman who is betroth or pledged to be married is already considered that man's wife -- at least as far as sexual activity with anyone else is concerned. There is also another interesting distinction between the passage quoted above in Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and the passage which immediately follows it.
In the former passage both of them are to be stoned. In the latter passage, only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death.... What differentiates one from the other? In the former passage the sexual activity was in a public place where, had the girl cried out for help, she might've been rescued. The sexual activity from the latter passage takes place in a remote, isolated location where, even had the girl cried out for help, it was unlikely anyone would've heard and rescued her. The first instance implies consent and the second does not. Consent denotes sin. It is also interesting to note the phrase sin deserving of death, for those who, today, somehow think that -- as Christians are no longer under the law as given by Moses to Israel in the covenant community -- God somehow thinks differently about fornication and adultery in the present day and age, as it is no longer as serious as He once thought it to be, and that to even think about death and fornication in the same sentence is legalistic and not-at-all-Christian. I disagree. "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man, that He should change His mind." (I Samuel 15:29)(NIV) If God thought fornication was a sin deserving of death three thousand years ago, you can be sure He still feels that way today. So what, if anything, should we derive from all of this? If, as human beings, we're so desirous of sex that we simply must engage in it or burn with an unfulfillable prurience, what are we to do? The Apostle Paul had the answer, and he gave it to us through his first epistle to the believers in Corinth.
Here, I must reluctantly point out that the NIV translators have inappropriately translated the word marry in verse one, from the Greek words haptomai (meaning touch) and gune (meaning woman). It is obvious from the context, however, that had Paul meant marry, verse two would've been a complete contradiction of verse one: i.e. It is good for a man not to marry, but...each man should have his own wife. (The NIV did footnote this verse for alternate translation as It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.) An ingression of the more appropriately translated touch a woman (as above in the NKJV and the NASB, as well) allows for consistent translation, and clearly makes sense when the entire passage is read: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. (The NASB translates this passage: ...it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.) Here, the Apostle Paul is expounding that if any are unable to restrain from fornication (the Greek porneia), they should marry and each have their own spouses. Under these conditions, and these conditions only, is sexual activity permitted in God's word. All other avenues of sexual expression are considered sinful, and strictly prohibited. Additionally, Leviticus, chapter eighteen, lists sixteen restrictions against specific sexual contact with close relations, women during their menstruation, animals or persons of the same sex. The required penalties for violations of such are indicated in Leviticus, chapter twenty. It is clear, not only from the passages quoted throughout this brief chapter, but from throughout the whole word of God, that any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is regarded as evil, and was generally punishable by death. In an age when even deviant homosexuality, adultery, open promiscuity and rampant teenage procreation are viewed as "completely normal and acceptable lifestyle choices", is isn't easy to resist giving in to the ever-present, sinful cravings of the flesh. Nevertheless, God's word stands firm: All sex, except for that between a husband and his wife, is sin. It is not "acceptable behavior" and those who persist in such blatant disregard for God and the established precepts for sex and marriage He constituted will not inherit the kingdom of God. To those, as yet, unmarried, the way is clear: Obey the LORD! What is done now can never, never, never be undone. The exclusivity of that gift God intended for you to share with one, and one alone, can never be retaken once it is spent. No amount of regret nor sorrow nor agonizing tears will ever return the special, intimate oneness you may be throwing away today. For those who are married I offer the advice of the fifth and sixth chapters of the book of Proverbs, whose words -- written nearly three millennia ago -- are as applicable today as they were then, and will be tomorrow.
Chapter Nine: Their Children To The Slayer The third chapter of I Kings relates the account of two women who came before King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother of a disputed infant. Unable to ascertain which woman is the true mother, Solomon puts the women to a test by ordering that a sword be brought to him. His judgment is that since the women cannot come to an agreement over the child, he will (quite literally) divide the child between the two of them. The woman who was not the infant’s true mother easily agreed to this; however, the infant’s true mother cried, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” (I Kings 3:26). Solomon wisely determined that the true mother, rather than seeing her child slain before her eyes, would give him to another woman. Sadly, Solomon’s great wisdom would not work today, where millions of mothers willingly bring their children to be slain by a wicked, desensitized culture that embraces such a horrid and evil act. Had this volume been subtitled What I Think About Political-Correctness rather than What the Bible Thinks About Political Correctness, this chapter might've been somewhat lengthier. As it is, however, it numbers among the shortest chapters of this work -- the reason being: All chapter lengths are reflective of the amount of coverage the Bible actually gives to each topic covered (with the exception of the last chapter, which assuredly could've been lengthier than the whole rest of this volume). Had the word of God said more about this topic, this chapter's length would have increased accordingly. However, as the word of God actually says very little on this matter, I feel it would have been presumptuous of me -- particularly in a work subtitled What the Bible Says About... to attempt to add anything to that. As we shall see, the word of God's infrequent pronouncement of this offense by no means detracts from its seriousness in God's eyes. It merely implies that, unlike sexual immorality (chapter eight) or capital punishment (chapter fourteen), there are far fewer variables with this topic necessitating coverage. Indeed, with abortion, there is but one issue requiring deliberation -- the murder of the unborn child. It has been my observation that when people want to hide their wrong-doing or convince others of its rightness, they often rename or sugar-coat it to make it easier to swallow -- like the "reproductive freedom" and "freedom of choice" labels. What has abortion to do with reproduction? One involves the bringing of a new life into this world, and the other the taking it out. I have to admit, though, it has such a nice ring to it. It sounds like something that should've been included there in the Declaration of Independence right beside the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one didn't know better, one could hear that term and never actually suspect the horrid reality of what it signifies. "Freedom of choice" is another. It sounds so wholesome and American; never mind that it has nothing whatsoever to do with choice -- as long as it sounds pleasant and projects a positive image it's entirely acceptable to mask the true nature of this utterly depraved and reprehensible crime. "Freedom of choice" -- as if women didn't have the right to choose an abortion prior to its legalization -- but, there is no connection between illegality and one's freedom to choose. Choice is an inherent freedom, regardless of legality. How does the law ever prohibit choice? Aren't we all free to choose whatever we please, regardless of the law, others or even God? Mankind has always been free to choose to obey or disobey. Murder is illegal -- at least it was in most states as of the writing of this chapter -- yet when or how has that illegality ever deprived anyone of their right to choose to murder someone? It hasn't and it never will. What the "freedom of choice", abortion proponents are actually advocating is a freedom from responsibility for choice. They seek the right to choose behavior, entirely free from responsibility for that behavior. No one is ever prohibited from exercising choice by any law, whether it's the law of man or the law of God. The right to choose is always ours. But, with every choice also comes a responsibility for that choice. The law never makes one's choice, nor does it, in any way, limit it. The only limitation where personal choice is concerned is the strength of one's convictions. If one's convictions are solid, one will choose what one believes to be right, regardless of any law. In the case of abortion, that choice is to whether or not one believes it is right to murder an unborn child. But, is abortion murder? Those on the right say that it is, while those on the left say that it isn't. Many insist that it is nothing more than optional surgery -- like a facelift or a rhinoplasty. Others are willing to defy the law of the land in defense of these lives they claim are being so cruelly extinguished within. Is abortion murder? To answer this question, one must first establish two primary principles: Is the unborn child considered a life, and if so, is a deliberate termination of that life murder? To begin with, does the word of God address the issue of life in the womb?
The Greek word translated above as "womb" is koilia, meaning cavity, i.e. the abdomen, belly or womb. There can be no doubt, the above passage is referring to an unborn, fetal John the Baptist. What, if anything, does this signify? Perhaps we need to ask the question: Would the Holy Spirit be sent to indwell a lifeless thing? I cannot answer that; only God can. Yet, I wonder -- why not wait until the birth? Why enter a fetal John the Baptist in the womb, particularly if he was still only a lifeless, soulless growth of tissue? Another interesting aspect of this issue is found in the forty-fourth verse of the same chapter from Luke.
How can this be? A lifeless, soulless growth of tissue leaping, much less expressing an emotion like joy?!?! Let's again look at the Greek to make sure we aren't missing anything here. "Perhaps the word womb has been improperly translated?" No, it's the same word koilia used in verse fifteen. "How about leaped? It could be the actual word implies nothing of the sort, and is merely the result of an over-zealous translator trying to forward his own agenda?" No, again. The Greek word translated here as leaped is skirtao, meaning just what it says: leap or jump. It's the same word used by Jesus a bit later in Luke 6:23, where He says: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!"(Luke 6:23) It definitely means leaped -- no doubt about it. "What about joy? Certainly fetuses can't express emotion?" Wrong, yet again. The word used here is the Greek word agalliasis, meaning exultation, welcome, gladness or joy. They certainly all seem like emotions to me. "Aha! Baby! That's it! The translation of baby is all wrong?!!" Alas, a fourth and final incorrect assertion. It's brephos, meaning infant, baby or young child -- and in accordance with the usage of the word womb, we're most definitely dealing with an unborn child. One can't fault the translation here. The passage means exactly what it says. The unborn John the Baptist -- still in his mother's womb -- leaped for joy at the greeting of the mother of his Savior. And, whereas it could be argued that many liberals might possibly be construed as masses of lifeless, soulless tissue -- indeed, throughout the entirety of their lives -- this fetal forerunner of the Messiah was not, but rather a living, emotional, soul-filled-with- the-Holy-Spirit being.
Here, the prophet Jeremiah complains to the LORD that, so great are his troubles, he wishes he'd never been born (chiefly verses 14-18). The word translated here as kill is the Hebrew word muwth, meaning kill, put to death, slay or destroy. Indicative of rather stressful times, it appears over eight hundred times in the Old Testament. Clearly, one cannot kill that which is not alive. And, clearly, Jeremiah here refers to being killed in his mother's womb. Nevertheless, as some will undoubtedly remain unconvinced from these passages, let's turn to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus.
Before anyone protests, let's check the Hebrew here to determine what's actually being said by the LORD God Almighty. What's the first word or phrase that might draw some debate from this passage? How about "woman with child"? After all, let's make sure we're dealing with the same issue here. The Hebrew word here translated as "with child" is the word harah, meaning pregnant, conceive or with child. It appears twelve times in the Old Testament, and is the same word found in Genesis 16:11, 38:24-25, I Samuel 4:19, II Samuel 11:5, II Kings 8:12, 15:16, Isaiah 26:17, Jeremiah 31:8, Hosea 13:16 and Amos 1:13. In not one of these passages does it mean anything but what the actual Hebrew word indicates: pregnant woman. On to the next phrase of possible contention, we look at that which the NKJV has translated as "gives birth prematurely". The Hebrew here comes from two words: yeled, meaning something born, offspring, fruit or young man; and yatsa, which may be translated many ways, including to go out, pull out or spring out. The former word appears ninety times in the Old Testament, nearly always indicative of a child or baby. (In Isaiah 2:6 the NIV translates it as pagans; both the KJV and the NKJV translate it as children.) The latter word appears over one thousand times in the Old Testament, and is diversely translated throughout. Here, the NIV implies birth, where the KJV translates it depart, as in "fruit depart from her"; the NKJV reads as "gives birth prematurely". Surely, these words indicate that this "pregnant woman" has miscarried, but not resulting in the child's death -- as "no harm follows". The Hebrew here translated as "harm" is the word 'acown, meaning hurt or mischief. It is only used five times in the entire word of God (elsewhere in Genesis 42:4,38; 44:29; and twice in the passage above). As there is no "harm" to the unborn child, the men are to be fined, and that is that. (It's curious to note here, too, that "he shall be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him". So much for "a woman's right to her own body".) However, in continuing down to verse twenty-three, should the woman miscarry and the child is dead, then the death of the man who caused it is also required, as "then you shall give life for life". The Hebrew word translated here as "life" is nephesh, meaning a breathing creature (contrast with the Hebrew word chay). It is clear from this passage, not only that the miscarried child is considered a "life", but that its death -- whether intentional or not -- is a capital offense. How much more are those who deliberately destroy such "life" today guilty and deserving of death, according to God's word? To answer our first question: Is the unborn child in the womb considered a "life"? According to God's word -- yes. To answer the second: Is the deliberate termination of that life "murder"?
Again, according to the word of God -- yes. What does all this say about those who today destroy the lives of their own children? That our age has come to this is a clearer indicator than most may wish to admit that our depravity knows no end, and that only by the grace of God can we even hope to see tomorrow. The unborn child is alive in God's eyes, and its deliberate termination is murder. Of this, there can be no doubt. The word of God stands clear and unchangeable. Those who choose to ignore it, do so at their own risk.
Those who choose to deny life to others should, themselves, be wary, lest they also be denied that right by God. Chapter Ten: A City Of Wicked Men
It is curious that in the entire word of God, persons exhibitive of homosexual behavior only appear in two narratives -- those in Genesis and Judges, chapters nineteen -- and in both instances they're amassed with the intention of raping other men. Certainly not complementary in its portrayal, these persons, as depicted in these two accounts, bear such labels are wicked, vile, and disgraceful. In the one instance they and the entire plain they inhabit are consumed by the fiery wrath of the LORD God. In the other (as previously covered at some length in chapter three of this volume), their heinous actions rouse the indignation of the entire nation, which summarily exterminates the offenders in classic, Biblical-retributive style. Surely, such an unsympathetic portrait would never make it into the mainstream media today. Our "enlightened" society now views such persons and the behavior they exhibit as completely "normal". After all, aren't such persons merely expressing their free and liberal-given right to an entirely acceptable, alternate lifestyle choice? Let's briefly look at the account in Genesis, chapter nineteen. (There's no need to rehash the vile narrative of Judges nineteen again in this chapter. Those wishing to reread the passage here referred to should turn to Judges 19:22-25.)
One of the striking, yet often overlooked portions of this passage is the response given by the men of Sodom in verse nine. Here, after Lot has implored the men to leave his guests alone -- (even to the point of offering his own virgin daughters to them in substitution), the wicked men of the city respond with threats of treating Lot "worse" than they'd planned on treating his guests. The use of the word "worse" -- a comparative of bad or ill -- is a virtual admittance of guilt. The Hebrew word used here, ra'a', actually implies wickedness or harm, and is the same word the NIV translates as wicked in verse seven: "Don't do this wicked thing." Admission of guilt notwithstanding, they were clearly guilty in God's eyes, and that was enough to secure their place in history as the first (and as far as we know, only to date) city ever directly and so thoroughly wiped off the face of the earth by God Himself.
Now whereas the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (which were so wicked that "the outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that He has sent us to destroy it") are not directly mentioned in this account, the conduct of the wicked men who attempted to rape the angels of the LORD just prior to the city's destruction is certainly an indication of at least one of those sins. Again, in Jude seven, the word of God alludes to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: ...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.. (Jude 7) As wrong and equally condemnable as fornication and adultery are, they cannot, in anyone's wildest imagination, be construed as going after strange flesh. Indeed, Romans 1:26-27 confirms this, in that there homosexuals are described as leaving the natural use of the woman (and lesbians as having exchanged the natural use for what is against nature). The Greek words are phusikos, meaning physical, instinctive or natural, and para phusis, meaning against or contrary to, and growth, natural production, disposition, usage, kind or nature. For anyone to claim that homosexuality or lesbianism is "natural" and "normal" behavior is entirely contradictory to everything found in the word of God.
The "helper" God made for man was not another man, but a woman. Now, I've also heard some insist that the words homosexual or sodomite do not appear in either the actual Hebrew or Greek texts of the Bible. To those who utter such claims -- in obvious ignorance of the Scripture -- I advise them to look again at a Greek translation of I Corinthians six.
Before any wish to attempt such claims again, I suggest they first either learn the languages, or consult a reliable Greek/English parallel translation, lexicon or dictionary. The word which the NKJV has translated as sodomites, is the Greek word arsenokoites, meaning sodomite (the NASB renders it as homosexuals; the NIV as homosexual offenders; the KJV as abusers of themselves with mankind). The sin which immediately precedes it in this list of wicked behavior is the Greek word malakos, meaning a catamite, effeminate or soft (the NASB translates it as effeminate; the NKJV as homosexuals, with a footnote -- catamites, those submitting to homosexuals). Both are indicated here as persons who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Concerning the Hebrew Old Testament, whereas the words homosexual or sodomite may not appear, absolutely certain, clear and unambiguous descriptions of their activity certainly do. There can be little doubt as the intentions of the men in the accounts from the nineteenth chapters of both Genesis and Judges. There can be no doubt at all as to the LORD God's words to Moses in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, where He lays down the law: "'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) That word the NKJV translates as "abomination" is the Hebrew word tow'ebah, meaning disgusting, an abhorrence or abomination. Listening to liberals today, one might actually think their Bibles read: "One may lie with a man as one lies with a woman; such is a completely normal and acceptable, alternate lifestyle choice." Undoubtedly, knowing that liberals, in their imposing ineptitude, might somehow misinterpret His meaning, the LORD God repeated Himself just two chapters later (and threw in the penalty, too).
Does this sound at all like the tolerance liberals preach today? "'They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.'" Those are the LORD God Almighty's words and I make no apology for them. Jude seven reveals that Sodom and Gomorrah, having given themselves up to gross immorality and going after strange flesh, would serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. This is not toleration, nor is it acceptance. As covered previously at length, there is no forgiveness without repentance. Homosexuals can be saved -- but only if they repent, giving up the sinful, disobedient lifestyle that is a detestable abomination to the LORD, their God. Those who shamelessly parade their sin, like many in the homosexual movement today, are hardly indicative of the broken and contrite spirit that's essential for true repentance and forgiveness of sin. Ironically, the prophet Isaiah likened those who unashamedly and arrogantly parade their sin to the city of Sodom: The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves. (Isaiah 3:9)(NIV)
The word of God does not call homosexuality a "completely normal, acceptable, alternate lifestyle choice". It calls it sin. If any doubt the word of God condemns homosexuality, they've simply never read it. Its message is clear, concise and consistent. Those who persist in this behavior will receive in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [catamites] nor homosexual offenders [sodomites]...will inherit the kingdom of God. Chapter Eleven: And The Fish Of The Sea Are Dying
There used to be an adage that stated: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Today, however, it is more likely that a bird in the hand would prompt an angry letter from the ASPCA, while two in the bush would be incentive enough to restrict most human activity for miles around. We live in an askew, upside down culture that champions the rights of owls, eagles, condors and crocs while systematically murdering its own, defenseless unborn. People lose jobs because some worrisome individuals (who, themselves, are obviously unable to secure proper employment, or else they would surely have better things to do with their time than elevate plants and animals over people) declare an entire forest off limits to industry for the sake of a few birds.
Apparently not anymore -- at least not as far as many animal rights activists are concerned.
The word of God clearly shows we are more valuable than birds...
...and sheep, too?!?! So why do many today become incensed when someone wears fur or leather? One might think from the behavior these people exhibit, that these animals were our equals, possessive of a full complement of rights, guaranteeing them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where in the word of God are such rights for animals (or for people, for that matter) ever proclaimed?
No, I don't see any mention of "animal rights" here.
That seems pretty inclusive to me: "green herbs", "every moving thing that lives", "all things".
Oh oh! Don't let the animal rights people hear about this!! And, for that matter, better not let them know about all the animal sacrifices demanded by God from Genesis through Malachi; I'm sure they'd protest most vociferously. Also, you may wish to try keeping it under your hat about Jesus driving the demons out of a man and into some pigs (chiefly Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-7, Luke 8:26-37), and His causing a fig tree to wither (chiefly Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). Such blatant disregard for these poor, helpless, defenseless pigs and fig tree would not go over well in many liberal circles today, where the only poor, helpless and defenseless creatures it's acceptable to ignore and harm are their own unborn children. In Exodus 21:28, the LORD God instructs Moses that a bull that gores a man or woman to death, must itself be stoned to death. The same passage also expounds human accountability for the conduct of animals they possess (chiefly Exodus 21:29). In Genesis 9:5, the LORD relates to Noah and his sons that anything that takes the blood of a man will be held accountable -- whether man or animal. Nowhere does the word of God even imply that men are to be held accountable for the blood of animals with their own blood. Quite the contrary, God's word clearly evidences that men are of far greater worth than animals.
The taking of human life requires the life of the one who took it. The taking of an animal life requires only physical restitution to the one who owned the lost animal -- a replacement of the animal which had been lost. And, in case anyone missed it, or hadn't been paying attention, the LORD God repeated it a few verses later: "'Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.'" (Leviticus 24:21)(NIV) Clearly, the word of God teaches proper stewardship of the earth and that which dwells upon it, but today the responsibility has been taken to the extreme in that, in many cases, the man-given rights of plants and animals have supplanted the God-given order of creation. The twenty- second chapter of Deuteronomy, verses six and seven, contains possibly the best illustration of man's responsibility to the other life around him. In this passage, neither extreme animal protection, nor extreme animal depletion is advocated, but rather a proper balance of both. One may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go. It is the degree of responsibility by which man's stewardship of this earth will be measured: Proper use without abuse. Indeed, the life on this planet, both plant and animal, was given to man for his use -- whether as food, clothing or any other beneficial utilization. It is a gift and a responsibility from the LORD our God, and one over which He is ultimately sovereign.
I've occasionally wondered how environmentalists react to passages like those quoted above from the Apostle John's endtime prophecy of the beginnings of the earth's destruction. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up...a third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died...a third of the waters turned bitter.... It clearly isn't an environmentalist's dream -- nor anyone else's, I would imagine -- but it's God's plan, and it's coming -- perhaps soon. No amount of preservation will prevent or delay it. God doesn't respect the endangered species list or clean water act. He made everything, and He's going to ultimately destroy them, despite man's best efforts to maintain them. Why do I mention this? Does this eventual and ultimate destruction of this planet, in any way, relieve us of our obligation to properly care for it? Not at all. I mention this only to place the subject in perspective, as too many today act as if what he have must remain intact at any cost, and that no human sacrifice is too great a cost to pay for an insurance of that integrity. This world and all that's in it will soon pass away, and that perspective, above all others, must counterbalance any and all decisions made regarding its use. Eventually, perhaps tomorrow, assuredly soon, it will all pass away. The earth is transitory. Mankind is not. While it is our responsibility to properly care for the creation which God has entrusted us with, we must never lose sight that these things were created for us, and not we for them. As consistently shown throughout the word of God, mankind is of far greater value than any plant or animal. Those who would lead us to believe otherwise speak neither truth nor reason.
Chapter Twelve:
The Stalk Has No Head; It Will Provide No Flour
There are many in our culture today who have come to view government as provider from womb to tomb. The word of God, however, does not endorse that view, but rather one of responsibility for one's own welfare. Government's sole function, as established by God, is to maintain order (and we shouldn't hold our breaths, expecting that, either), not encourage a nation of lethargic sluggards who've come to expect something for nothing -- whose only contributions to society are a higher crime rate and epidemic class envy. In I Timothy 5:8, the Apostle Paul calls those who do not provide for their own families worse than an unbeliever. And, while our society today caters to and rewards the indolent, while punishing the diligent, laziness is consistently and universally condemned throughout the word of God.
Likewise, in the New Testament, the sympathy of the believer is not to lie with the indolent.
Today, rather than disassociating ourselves from the slothful and indolent in order that [they] may feel ashamed, we send them checks in the mail, encouraging their shiftless behavior. If a man will not work, he shall not eat, but not today -- food stamps have taken care of that! The second chapter of Genesis records that The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Genesis 2:15)(NIV) Even in paradise man had to work. There was no welfare state in the Garden. "But, it just isn't fair! Some people have so much, while others have nothing at all!" That's right, and promoting class envy doesn't help matters at all. Jesus said: "For you have the poor with you always..." (Matthew 26:11 -- see also: Mark 14:7, John 12:8) And, that doesn't sanction a soaking of the rich, by any means. The word of God is very clear in that both rich and poor are to be treated alike -- without partiality, and that envy is sin.
"But, what should we do -- let people starve?" Not at all. In as much as we are able, we are to assist the truly needy. The word of God is full of compassionate adjurations for believers to help those who are needy not through indolence, but through legitimate hardship.
Personal responsibility to those to whom it is due -- not "every shiftless bum" -- is required only as much as it is in the power of your hand to do so. Also, note that the poor will never cease from the land. Neither man's nor government's best efforts will ever erase all poverty. Pouring more and more money into problems will never solve anything.
As evidenced here and elsewhere, the word of God certainly encourages -- indeed, commands -- generosity to the poor, but never to the lazy and slothful. Also, it is not the responsibility of government to provide for the needy, but of individuals possessive of the means. The word of God is just as censurable of the greedy rich who hoard their wealth while their brothers go naked and starve.
Now, whereas the word of God does not require governments to feed and clothe their poor (its wealthier citizens bear that responsibility), it does require them to provide the poor with one thing they're lacking: justice.
Justice, not welfare, is government's obligation to its poor -- maintenance of order, safety, and the protection of its citizenry, not rewards for the idler and handouts to the slothful.
Those who put their trust in princes, who expect government to provide anything more than order and justice (and expecting that, these days, is expecting a lot) are looking to the wrong place for salvation. Salvation for the truly needy comes from the LORD God, but as for the shiftless and indolent, do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.
Chapter Thirteen: A Child Without Wisdom
If one had to select one factor which, more than all others, has contributed to our culture's fall in the second half of the Twentieth Century, it has to be this. The surging influx of violent crime, teenage and illegitimate births, adultery, divorce, dishonesty, irreverence, slothfulness, abortion -- all stem from just one sin, namely, the failure of parents to raise and instruct their children properly in the ways of the LORD their God. Another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what He had done for Israel. Granted, parents are up against the best -- or rather, the worst -- of false teachers: the media, in glorious, truer-than-life Technicolor, vomiting forth its own, seemingly irresistible brand of godless, morally relativistic hedonism, has hypnotized the vast majority of our youth -- and indeed, a considerable portion of adults, as well -- into believing the rubbish it so splendorously represents as truth. With the libertine gods of License and Entitlement at their side, they fearlessly champion all that is contrary to God while shamelessly ridiculing all who dare oppose their meretriciously pagan self-indulgences. Two words are all that matter: Me and now; all else is inconsequential. Our society, with its legislature and judiciary brazenly manipulated by the media, actually prides itself that it has managed to raise at least one -- possibly two or more -- generations entirely devoid of any type of morally-imposed, ethical restraint. Indeed, in its own eyes, such achievement is meritorious of praise and acclamation. So well has it achieved its goals that no amount of its own, self-proclaimed, quick and easy "fix-it-all-with-more-federal-funding, new and better schools, programs for this, and programs for that" now matters in the least. As long as we allow our children to be taught that society (particularly the government) owes them a life, license and multitudinous good times, and that morality, chastity, hard word, self-denial, compassion kindness, meekness, patience and obedience to God are things to be ridiculed, we don't stand a chance of stemming the already, seemingly-irreversible tide of godless immorality that's sweeping our nation and culture into the sewer. If left on its present course, I've no doubt that by the time the children of today reach their middle age (the unfortunate few actually cursed to live that long in the society that awaits them), they will have experienced a declension into the depths of depravity, the likes of which cannot be imagined -- even today. Little less than the animals liberals imagine we've descended from, they will eat, sleep and procreate at will in a world entirely void of morality, responsibility and restraint. Concepts like marriage, earnings and private property will have likely dissolved into distant memories no more relevant to that day than nickel matinees and two cent postage. If anyone doubts this, they need only look at life just four decades ago, and compare it with today. One needn't have accumulated a dozen PhDs to recognize the trend and the geometric intensification by which it's grown. Offenses which, only four decades ago, would've incurred the indignation of the population and the ostracism of the offender, are today not even recognized as offenses. Today, school children are better armed than their adult, pioneer ancestors of centuries past. Their schools, where it is illegal to read from God's word, distribute condoms and illustrate methods of deviate intercourse to teens. We've already seen what happened to the generation that grew up apart from the knowledge of God in Judges, chapter two. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways. (Judges 2:19)(NIV) Clearly, their parents were at fault for not having properly instructed them in the ways of the LORD, and unlike today, they had no godlessly immoral media culture to compete with.
Parents are to command their children to obey carefully all the words of [God's] law, not "present them with options, from which they can make informed decisions". Note that the words suggest and recommend do not appear in the passage above, nor indeed, anywhere else in all of Scripture, relative to God's laws, precepts and decrees.
Two passages from epistles of Paul further commend parents -- specifically fathers -- to neither embitter nor exasperate their children, but rather to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (chiefly Ephesians 6:4 and Colossians 3:21). This, by no means, denigrates parental discipline as clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture, but merely seems to infer that fathers exercise fair and consistent judgments in dealing with their children, so as not to discourage them from their training and instruction in the Lord. Several passages from the book of Proverbs plainly teach that biblically-sanctioned, parental discipline not only permits, but strongly encourages the use of a rod (Hebrew: shebet, meaning stick, rod, scepter or staff). Specifically how and where this rod is to be applied cannot be construed from these passages, but that it should be applied is never in doubt.
Today, the notion that parents should, in any way, actually strike their children is abhorrent to many. Of a liberal persuasion, these tend to be the same persons most adamantly opposed to any form of punishment to anyone for anything. Indeed, when someone mutilates, murders, rapes or robs they will generally blame parents, spouses, society, or virtually anybody and everybody but the perpetrator of these ghastly acts for the perpetration thereof. But, the word of God relates a different view of accountability and justice -- both to adults and children (the Bible's views of accountability and justice will be dealt with at greater lengths in chapters seventeen and fourteen of this volume, respectively).
* chiefly I Samuel 2:27-34 Here, Eli, the priest, is also held accountable for the sin of his sons**, as his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them. (** Neither Hophni nor Phinehas escaped punishment for their sin; see I Samuel 4:11.) This is clearly demonstrative of a parent's higher degree of accountability where it concerns the discipline of their children. Because Eli had failed to restrainhis sons in their sin against the LORD, he too was held responsible and made to bear a portion of the punishment (chiefly I Samuel 2:31-33). This concept of a parent's added responsibility toward the discipline of their children can also be found in the law of Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-one.
I can only imagine how the liberal, children's rights advocates of Moses' day reacted to this required lapidation of their stubborn and rebellious children. No doubt, they reacted much as their counterparts of our day do at the mention of corporal punishment for children. Granted, a smack with a rod is far less permanent that a stoning to the death; nevertheless, both are incorporated into God's word as methods for dealing with rebellious children -- one an admonishment, the other a command. And, as with every other passage of Scripture, the word of God minces no words: You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. Indeed, I become fearful myself at the thought of my parents having had, not the option, but the command from God to stone me to death had I been profligate or a drunkard (the Hebrew words used here are zalal and cobe'). I guarantee, it would've only had to happen once and a whole community would be kept in line for a generation. Today, it seems we've gone to the opposite extreme, as parents who discipline their children can easily find themselves dragged into court, facing charges of abuse. I know God's word forbids children from striking their parents, but I'm aware of no divine regulation prohibiting the reverse. Contrarily, as already illustrated throughout this chapter, the word of God encourages the rod of correction, and even occasionally -- in extreme instances (according to the law God gave Israel through Moses) -- demands the lapidation of the profligate and drunkard.
The Hebrew word here translated as "strikes" is the word nakah, meaning to strike or beat. But, striking or beating one's parents isn't the only infraction for which children were to be put to death according to God's law to Israel.
The word translated here as "curses" is the Hebrew word qalal, meaning abate, make bright, bring into contempt, curse or despise. Clearly it is not in one's best interest to curse one's parents. "'His blood shall be upon him.'" And, in passing, it's interesting to note that the Lord Jesus quoted this law Himself in Matthew fifteen, verse four, where He's at odds with the Pharisees for invalidating the word of God with their tradition. Apparently, Jesus did not think this law "too harsh", or some "oversight" on God's part from the past (see Matthew 15:1-9). Many today (Christians included) would, no doubt, like to rewrite these and many other difficult passages from God's word which are contrary to their presuppositions of a lenient God. They would rather choose to ignore them altogether, claiming that "God didn't know what He was talking about. After all, we're much more enlightened today. We don't go around stoning our children anymore." We burn, sever, cleave, hack, mangle and mince them in the womb -- and even expect the government to pay for it. We allow all manner of vile, abusive, murderous vermin to walk the streets entirely uninhibited, without even the slightest hint of guilt or remorse. We have more fornication, adultery, blatantly unashamed homosexuality, illegitimate births and sexually transmitted disease than ever before in our history. There is rampant increase in the number of child perpetrators of violent crime, animals living safer lives than many humans, and epidemic sloth -- as evidence by the current breed of welfare parasite who neither toils nor spins, living at the expense of those who must stressfully labor for every cent they get. Welcome to contemporary America. This is enlightenment! No, we don't strike our children anymore!! (Can't you tell???)
"How unenlightened can one get? Children today know far more than their parents ever did (evidenced clearly by the lower scores in every area of academia). Come on. Get with the times!"
"These passages are so embarrassingly outmoded. Doesn't the Bible contain anything more neoteric to our present age of enlightenment?"
"At last! A sign of contemporary enlightenment!" If I didn't know better I'd say this was a prophecy being fulfilled in the halls of Washington as this very moment (at the time of this writing). Nonetheless, if one were to look at this passage in light of the actual context, it's easily ascertainable that such is not a sign of enlightenment, but rather divine wrath and judgment upon an arrogantly rebellious and disobedient people. (I've already covered this somewhat in chapter seven with my comment on Isaiah 3:12. The same is applicable here, as well.) But, having now touched upon the instruction and advice God's word gives to parents, does the Bible have anything to say to children?
Perhaps some of the best advice ever given from parent to child anywhere can be found in David's words to Solomon in I Chronicles 28:9 -- "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve Him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever." (NIV) Apparently, Solomon had been paying attention somewhat, as his own paternal advice -- as found throughout the book of Proverbs -- is right on the mark (see chiefly Proverbs 4:1-27 and 23:19-35). That some of David's children (Solomon included) -- and for that matter, some of Solomon's children, as well -- didn't turn out all that well, indicates that perhaps the rod of correction may have been employed all too sparingly in the royal households of David and Solomon. Whatever the case, the advice is worthwhile for those who will heed it.
The passage above from the twelfth chapter of Hebrews is a quotation from Proverbs 3:11-12 in reference to God's discipline of those who are His children.
Apparently, things were different in the First Century, where everyone underwent discipline, and fathers who disciplined their children were respected (not locked away in jail) for it. How sadly we've fallen from an "unenlightened, outdated" concept as this. Instead, we are governed by children, living in a society that's relinquished control of the nest to the nestlings. As in Isaiah 3:4, such can only be viewed as a presage of doom. Our society, on the precipice, willingly abandons its only lifeline to safety, to embrace the lies of a godless tomorrow. We pride ourselves in the multiplicity of our achievement, yet perilously ignore the lessons so arduously learned by those who've come before us. Like them, we too will be swept into the abyss from which there is no escape. If we continue to pursue this course we've chosen, we damn not only ourselves, but successive generations, as well. The way to salvation is true; its lifeline secure. We neglect it to our own peril, and that of the children who follow.
Chapter Fourteen: They Break All Bounds, And Bloodshed Follows Bloodshed
Several years ago I read an article about a local woman who was demanding the dismissal of a school bus driver who had physically removed her son from his bus after becoming aware of objects being thrown. Having been identified by another student, the perpetrator was promptly discharged from the vehicle, which then proceeded without further disruption. Whether such action was an effort to maintain safety and order or not (only the bus driver knows what his motivation had been), the mother of this undisciplined brat demanded the complete and immediate dismissal of said driver. Now, whereas I'm not fully acquainted with the specifics of this case, I can't help but feel the greatest wrong committed here was by neither the bus driver nor even the irksome menace he discharged from his vehicle, but the mother of said menace. This reminds me of an incident from my own childhood involving a certain classmate of mine who I'll call "Paul". An incorrigible rascal from a fairly well-off family, Paul enjoyed terrorizing others, destroying private property and engaging in acts of general nuisance with an unabashed relish. Whenever anyone would threaten Paul with disciplinary action at the hands of the school principal (that was allowed in those days), he would arrogantly boast of how, when he'd been called into the principal's office on a previous occasion, it was the principal who got the reprimand, not him. Apparently, Paul's parents didn't believe in discipline and let the school's principal know it in no uncertain terms. "He wouldn't dare lay a finger on me," I remember Paul insolently smirking to me. "My parents would be in here so fast and tell him off, he wouldn't know what hit him!" I don't know about anyone else, but in the late 1960's, coming from a nine year old, this was still a bit unusual in my neighborhood. Merits of corporal punishment notwithstanding (see previous chapter of this volume), this kid needed a good pasting. (I'm not sure what became of him, although I suspect he probably became an attorney with the ACLU or some similarly obnoxious, liberal organization.) If I only knew; Paul was a precursor of things to come, the likes of which I never could've dreamed possible in those days. Paul's behavior, symptomatic of a person who does wrong, knowing he can get away with it, is all too prevalent today. When people realize they can break the law at will, and generally get off entirely -- or at worse with a slap on the wrists -- society loses all order and control. There is nothing to hold the malcontent in check, no reason to exercise restraint, no means to protect the upright. Anarchy and chaos are the only children leniency and unaccountability produce. The strong prey upon the weak. There is no guilt, no responsibility, no punishment, no justice. There is only cursing, lying, and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. (Hosea 4:2)(NIV) As a youth I recall intentionally striking one of my classmates in the abdomen and the surprise I felt when that person doubled over in pain. That an expression of pain should logically follow a physical blow to one's midsection never occurred to me -- perhaps evidence that I grew up in a time far less saturated with television and motion picture violence than today. And, although thirty or more years have passed since that day, I will never forget how I felt as the realization that the pain this person was experiencing was because of me. At that moment, I'd rather have been the one bent over in agony than the one responsible for it. It was a feeling of responsibility, and it hit me a lot harder than I did this person who had momentarily provoked my ire; then came the overwhelming sensation of guilt and dread of punishment, that I'd soon be in far worse trouble than I could imagine. After all, I'd never done anything like this before. I knew it was wrong, and that wrong behavior resulted in punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. As far as I knew, this was about as serious as an offense could get. All I had to do was look at this person writhing in front of me and I was convinced this person was far better off than I was going to be when justice was meted out. Responsibility and fear of punishment: Either, alone, was sufficient deterrent; the combination of both assured that such would never happen again. I had never been "let off the hook" before, and had no reason to believe I would be this time. It was the certainty of punishment that functioned as the greatest deterrent. The key word here is not punishment, but certainty -- and what made punishment a certainty was its consistency. Consistent punishment is the strongest deterrent against wrongful behavior a society can impose upon itself. Unfortunately, in the United States today, punishment is far from consistent, it is virtually nonexistent. Our society has pampered the guilty for so long that today it's the upright who live in fear, while the malefactor fears no one.
I can't help but feel that had both "Paul" and the "bus brat" ever faced a justice that consistently punished wrongdoing, neither would've conducted themselves the way they did. In both cases, however, the fault lies primarily with the neglectful parents, who, by failing to administer any punishment -- much less consistent punishment -- actually encouraged such behavior.
The persons referred to in this passage from Romans one remind me a lot of today's liberal judiciary, spewing forth its godless ideology of leniency and rehabilitation -- for who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Our jurisprudence, having been designed to protect the innocent from false arrest, conviction and punishment, through years of liberal, gross misinterpretation, is now instead being used to protect the guilty. No longer are the guilty to be punished for their crimes against individuals and society, but rather excused under extenuating circumstances or rehabilitated for reintroduction into society. Surely, such concepts are deeply rooted in biblical truth? Of course, I recall the passages well!
I'm sorry; I seem to have disarranged my notes. Surely, these are not to be found in the word of God. Let's see what the Bible does say about leniency and rehabilitation.
"Yes, I can see the marked similarities between God's word and the liberal concepts of leniency and rehabilitation. There's so much evidence of probation, parole, extenuating circumstances, insanity pleas, concurrent sentencing, work release and the like in God's word that I don't understand how I could've missed it all before!!" How anyone could seriously derive such utter nonsense, and then say the word of God endorses it, is well beyond the scope of practical reason. God's word endorses no such concepts. The word prison never even appears in the word of God, designative as a punishment for sin. The idea that God's word might actually promote probation, parole, extenuating circumstances, insanity pleas, work release, or any other of these idiotic, liberal casuistries is ludicrous. You must purge the evil from among you. Show no pity -- and this was the case for simple perjury (chiefly Deuteronomy 19:16-21). (Apparently the LORD takes perjury more seriously than the U.S. Senate and House does -- at least where the President is concerned!) In the thirteenth chapter of the book of Ezekiel, the LORD God declares Himself against the false prophets of Israel who had "killed those who should not have died and spared those who should not live." (Ezekiel 13:19) It is clear from this passage that the LORD God did not appreciate a liberal, kid's gloves approach to meting out justice where violations of His law were concerned.
In this instance the LORD God declared that King Ahab's lenient treatment of Ben-Hadad was an act of disobedience. The punishment which had been intended for Ben-Hadad wad therefore transferred not only to Ahab, but to all Israel, as well. "'Therefore it is your life for his life, your people for his people.'" Justice, as defined by God, embodies mandatory atonement. Without it, justice is not served and amenability transferred to the people condonative of the offense. Even in cases of unsolved murder (chiefly Deuteronomy 21:1-9), the shedding of innocent blood must be atoned for. Where there is no atonement the people bear the guilt.
Whereas capital punishment may not be the most popular requital for crime today, in God's word, pertaining to the law as given to Israel, it is obligatory for a number of offenses -- the most obvious of which is murder (see previous passages, as well as Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17 and following...).
This last passage is particularly interesting in that it also establishes a requisite for at least two witnesses in all capital cases. Deuteronomy nineteen, verse fifteen, also bears out this tenet.
The word of God also creates a distinction between intentional and unintentional murder -- or manslaughter. The distinction is evident from passages like Numbers 35:16-25 and Exodus 21:12-14.
From these passages it's difficult today to understand how certain people can claim to be Christians -- even pastors and priests -- and say that capital punishment is wrong, that society hasn't the right, that executions themselves are "violent" and not the answer to society's ills. What Bible are they reading and teaching from? Or do they, like so many others, only choose to believe passages about love and charity, totally ignoring the vast majority of God's word? But, aside from murder, does the law God gave Israel require the death of the offender under other circumstances? Some may be surprised at just how many and which offenses the word of God mandates death for. Aside from intentional murder (see above), they are, as follows:
Deuteronomy 19:16-21 is also clear evidence that one who bears false witness in a trial is deserving of the punishment intended for the accused. Thus, in a capital trial, the one bearing false witness would himself merit the death penalty. It is curious to note that God's word contains no instructions for lenient treatment of the insane, the feebleminded or even children (see what happened to the children [Hebrew: qaton and na'ar] who jeered the prophet Elisha in II Kings 2:23-25 -- who were certainly held accountable and punished for their behavior). Unlike our society today which blames conservative, Christian, white, heterosexual males for the entire accumulated wrongs of all history, in God's word, responsibility and accountability lie with the offender (what a novel concept -- actually blaming the wrongdoer for the wrong). There are no permissible extenuating circumstances with God, no blaming society or another for one's own actions. Even in cases which do not require the death of the offender (such as theft -- where double restitution is required; see Exodus 22:1-9), there is no mention of leniency, imprisonment or rehabilitation. Restitution is made and justice is served -- period. In capital offenses, as listed above, the death of the offender ends all matters. There are no wasted taxpayer dollars on prisons, no legal loopholes, reduced or suspended sentencing, and no recidivism! Justice is served and order is maintained (which is the primary function of government -- see chapters twelve and fifteen). Contrast that with the enlightened justice of today, where recidivistic crime accounts for a large bulk of all crime; where children who rape, murder and steal are slapped on the wrists by a society that holds them largely unaccountable; where vicious and brutal murderers and rapists are institutionalized because they weren't "responsible" for their actions at the time. It has become acceptable in our society today to shelter and protect those who commit crimes (ACLU forbid their "rights" are ever violated, or they be made to bear any undue burden; why should criminals be made to feel in any way inconvenienced?), while harassing and imprisoning those who condemn the crime and defend its victims. Those who dare utter accusations against the criminals or the crimes are the ones being silenced and imprisoned. The hands of legitimate law enforcement officers are tied behind their backs by the liberal courts while the perpetrators of those horrid crimes arrogantly boast and profit from their wrongdoing.
When there is a lack of consistent punishment for wrongdoing, society not only loses its most effective deterrent, but actually encourages and condones the crime. The word of God is clear on this -- the LORD our God is a God of justice, and wrongdoers will not go unpunished. There is no leniency with God. No excuses are permitted before His holy throne. All justice is absolute and permanent. Offense brings absolute, consistent punishment, while atonement brings absolute, consistent pardon. Middle ground is nonexistent. All crimes must be paid for before God's throne -- either by the perpetrator (in everlasting torment -- see chapter 18) or a worthy substitute. Only those whose transgressions have been atoned by the blood of the Messiah will escape God's eternal wrath -- for mercy is not extended without atonement.
"'It is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.'" And without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. God is just (not as liberals perceive justice -- which is not justice at all, but rather license for irresponsibility), and justice -- true justice -- does not convict the guiltless, nor set the guilty free.
Chapter Fifteen: Their Rulers Dearly Love Shameful Ways
There is currently a strange misconception in the United States of America that in order for the government to function properly, as intended, it need impress the imposition of a separation of church and state on its people. Where such a vacuous, imbecilic, entirely false notion originated I cannot say for certain. Many have lead others to believe such can be found in the Constitution of the United States. An outright lie, the phrase appears nowhere in the United States Constitution, nor is it even implied. What the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does guarantee (a guarantee that is readily discernible to anyone who can read) is that the government of this nation -- specifically "Congress" -- shall not legislate any law respecting (respecting: in view of, with regard to or concerning) the establishment (establishment: settled arrangement) of religion (religion: the worship of God, religious principles, beliefs, commitment, attitude, devotion and practice), nor prohibit such. Such a statute was invoked not to prevent the church (a word grossly misapplied by virtually everyone today) -- actual or pretended -- from involving itself in government, but the government (chiefly "Congress") from involving itself in the church. Unfortunately, over the years -- particularly in recent decades -- this amendment has been egregiously misinterpreted by liberal "do-gooders" who feared the influence of Christianity might actually cause some moral responsibility to permeate our society. (Liberal forbid people actually started calling God "God" and sin "sin"; it could so drastically change this country, that it might actually become a decent place to live again.) The word of God recounts several occasions throughout ancient history where even pagan monarchs and nations acknowledged, honored and/or repented of their sin to God. What is possibly one of the most recognizable accounts of such is found in the book of Daniel, chapter three.
Hardly an advocation for the separation of church and state, this mighty, pagan king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire actually imposed a restriction of speech, prohibiting "any people, nation, or language" from saying "anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego". And, as if this wasn't enough to provoke the ire of the liberal agitators of his day, Nebuchadnezzar then promoted these "openly-religious fanatics" to higher government posts. Such would be unheard of today in our much more enlightened, sophisticated civilization. Two similar examples are found in Ezra, chapters six and seven. Chapter six contains the official decree of Darius, king of Persia, authorizing the use of federal funds for the rebuilding of the "temple of God" in Jerusalem. The costs are to be paid by the royal treasury. (Ezra 6:4)(NIV) The expenses of these men [the elders of the Jews] are to be fully paid out of the royal treasury, from revenues of Trans-Euphrates, so that the work will not stop. Whatever is needed -- young bulls, rams, male lambs for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, and wheat, salt, wine and oil, as requested by the priests in Jerusalem -- must be given them daily without fail, so that they may offer sacrifices pleasing to the God of heaven and pray for the well-being of the king and his sons. (Ezra 6:8-10) (NIV) Apparently unsatisfied with all this, Darius felt compelled to go a step further and decree that if anyone changes this edict, a beam is to be pulled from his house and he is to be lifted up and impaled on it. And for this crime his house is to be made a pile of rubble. (Ezra 6:11)(NIV) Similarly, chapter seven contains the decree of King Artaxerxes, who also allocates federal funds to the Jews and their God (chiefly Ezra 7:13-23). He also lets it be known in no uncertain terms that no taxes, tribute or duty is to be imposed on any of the priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at the house of God. (Ezra 7:24)(NIV) And, as if Artaxerxes hasn't been generous enough with taxpayer money, he declares that Ezra, the priest, with the wisdom of your God, is to appoint magistrates and judges to administer to all the people of Trans-Euphrates -- all who know the laws of your God. And you are to teach any who do not know them. Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment. (Ezra 7:25-26)(NIV) "A government decree commending a priest to administer political justice according to the laws of his God? Required instruction of and mandatory compliance to those laws, with violations punishable by death, banishment, confiscation of property or imprisonment?" This certainly doesn't sound like separation of church and state to me. And this from a pagan government. Our nation should be shamed today by the example of these, our godless predecessors -- we who live in a nation that prohibits prayer in school and forces individuals through their tax dollars to fund blasphemous expressions of contempt toward God. Yet another example of pagan government and people turning from their sin and to the LORD can be found in Jonah, chapter three. In the first four verses of this chapter we see the prophet Jonah delivering God's message of approaching wrath on the city of Nineveh. The next five verses, however, recount a surprising turnaround, as the people of Nineveh believed God. (Jonah 3:5) Perhaps even more surprisingly, the king issued a decree requiring the entire population of Nineveh to cry mightily to God and turn from their evil way and the violence that is in his hands. (Jonah 3:8) This official state response to God's judgment on Nineveh then closed with a hopeful query: Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? (Jonah 3:9) And that's exactly what God did, as recorded in verse ten: Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jonah 3:10) I can't seriously imagine the President of the United States today issuing an executive order that we, the people of the United States, each and every one of us, must "urgently call on God and give up our evil ways and violence". That such seems so quixotically farfetched only evidences how far we've fallen as a nation from the depravity of even pagan Nineveh. But, how were governments intended to function relative to their association with God and the laws He's established? Is this concept of a separation of church and state founded in Biblical truth, or merely the imaginations of a depraved mankind?
Here, the prophet Samuel, as judge over all Israel, prays for and teaches the way that is good and right to the nation Israel. He urges the people to fear the LORD and serve Him faithfully with all their hearts, considering the great things He had done for them. He also warns them that if they persisted in doing evil, both they and their king would be swept away.
In the passage above, Joshua, as leader over the people of Israel after the passing of Moses, read all the words of the law before the whole assembly of Israel. Clearly, there is no distinction between the law of God and the laws of the state here. Both are one and the same. In II Chronicles 19:6, King Jehoshaphat exhorted the judges he had appointed over the cities of Judah to "consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for man but for the LORD, who is with you whenever you give a verdict." (II Chronicles 19:6)(NIV) This statement clearly confirms that government agents, when acting within their official capacity, did so as representatives of the LORD God. Likewise, only a few verses later, Jehoshaphat similarly addressed the administrators of the law in Jerusalem.
In all matters pertaining to the law, both civil and criminal, these administrators were admonished to warn their fellow countrymen "not to sin against the LORD." It's hardly the message we're used to hearing from our leaders in government today, where sin is encouraged and righteousness dissuaded. Nonetheless, is this interaction between government and God actually mandated by Scripture? After all, these are merely historical narratives portraying events as they happened. They're hardly precepts from God etched in stone. Aside from the fact that all governments are made up of people, and all people subject to obey God's law, therefore all governments subject to obey God's law, does the Bible specifically require governments, in and of themselves, to adhere to and govern respective to the law of God, transcendent to the laws of men? The law of God, as given to Moses in the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy states that any king over the people of Israel must read the law of God all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes.... (Deuteronomy 17:19) He must also not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left....(Deuteronomy 17:20) A far cry from "separation of church and state", these passages bind the king of Israel, first and foremost, to the word of God. He is to turn from it neither to the right, nor to the left, but be careful to observe all the words of it all the days of his life. Likewise, earlier in this same chapter of Deuteronomy, the law of God contains instructions for the equanimity of the judiciary. As with the king, the judges and priests are obligated to judge, act and teach in full accordance to the law of God. The people must obey -- again, turning neither to the right nor to the left, but doing exactly as instructed by the law (chiefly Deuteronomy 17:8-11). Any who stand in contempt of this shall die.(Deuteronomy 17:12) Notice here that the law is to be taught and enforced by both judges and priests. In government as established by God there is no distinction between church and state. Both are to act in complete agreement with one another, in full compliance to the law of God. When a government submits in obedience to God it is greatly blessed. The word of God contains numerous examples of God's favor resting on those governments who served Him in obedience.
However, when the government turned in disobedience from the LORD and followed after its own ways, its fall was sure and complete. Chapter fourteen of I Kings contains the LORD'S revelation of destruction against the house of Jeroboam and punishment for Israel because their king had sinned and lead his people to sin against the LORD (chiefly I Kings 14:7-18).
All the prophecies against the house of Jeroboam were fulfilled exactly as the LORD had said (chiefly I Kings 14:17-18, 15:27-30), and Israel's government was to become one racked with continual instability, culminating with its eventual collapse and exile as recorded in II Kings 17:7-23.
Similarly, the sixteenth chapter of I Kings relates the LORD'S condemnation of Basha, king of Israel, for his sins against the LORD (chiefly I Kings 16:1-4). The swift fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in I Kings 16:11-13. In the third chapter of Micah, those leaders of the people who hate good and love evil (Micah 3:2) are harshly censured by the LORD God through the prophet Micah: Then they will cry to the LORD, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds. (Micah 3:4) Because of these leaders of Israel who abhor justice and pervert all equity (Micah 3:9) the prophet Micah declared: Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple Like the bare hills of the forest. (Micah 3:12)
Like King Rehoboam (chiefly I Kings 12:6-17 and II Chronicles 10:6-15), many today prefer the advice of young fools to the wisdom of the elders. They freely lend their ears to persons with no more knowledge and wisdom than a mule, mistaking foolish ramblings as fresh innovations.
Like Pilate, who wanted to gratify the crowd (chiefly Mark 15:15), our politicians today prefer the acclaim of men over the favor of God, and they bow to the crowd while forsaking their LORD. However, the word of God is quite clear. Those who forsake the LORD and disregard His laws will be destroyed. Those who follow the LORD and carefully keep all that He has commanded will enjoy the favor of His blessing and peace.
Is it any wonder today that with so little understanding and knowledge we have no order. And, although justice and order were covered in the previous chapter of this volume, it bears mentioning here that the best way to maintain order in any age is by adhering to and closely following the statutes of our holy and perfect God. As Moses reminded the Israelites about to enter the promised land: Therefore you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him. (Deuteronomy 8:6)
This advice, as far too often ignored by the Israel of the Bible, is all but forgotten by our nations today who prefer rather to separate God from government and rely on their own ways. Notwithstanding the evidence of those nations who faithfully followed the LORD in times past and the blessings they received through obedience to His laws, today many are hesitant even to acknowledge the LORD as God and His ways as true. Modern, more enlightened and progressive methods have supplanted the ageless wisdom of the omniscient and mighty Creator King. Instead of drawing closer to God, we "liberate" ourselves from His antiquated, patriarchal, monotheistic ways and broaden our horizons toward moral relativism. In the parallel accounts of II Kings 22-23 and II Chronicles 34-35, Josiah, king of Judah, after nearly six decades of evil, godless rule (during the reigns of his father, Amon, and grandfather, Manasseh), finds the Book of the Law of God and hears its words for the first time. His reaction, both personal and official, is a model any truly-concerned leader of his people would do best to follow.
The response from the LORD was that, because Judah had forsaken Him, disaster would be brought on all the land and all its people: "'My anger will be poured out on this place and will not be quenched.'" (II Chronicles 34:25)(NIV) But, to Josiah, king of Judah, the LORD replied: "'Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before God when you heard what He spoke against this place and its people, and because you humbled yourself before Me and tore your robes and wept in My presence, I have heard you,' declares the LORD. Now I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place and on those who live here.'" (II Chronicles 34:27-28)(NIV) Josiah's response to the sin of his people against the LORD was one of humble repentance. For this he was to be spared and the destruction of his people delayed until after his death. However, what's even more amazing than this act of a nation's leader humbly repenting before the LORD God for the sin of his people, is what he did when he received these words from the LORD.
Before all the people of Judah, Josiah read the words of the law of God, and renewed the covenant -- to follow the LORD and keep His commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, and to obey the words of the covenant written in this book. Then he had everyone in Jerusalem and Benjamin pledge themselves to it. It's hardly an endorsement of this "separation of church and state" nonsense we hear heralded from every pinnacle of prevarication throughout our nation today. It's clear from these passages that leaders and governments are to serve the LORD and take refuge in Him. Those who persistently rebel against His statutes and decrees will be swept away, and their nations destroyed. Today, a politician or political candidate who declared himself to be first and foremost for the LORD God -- His laws and His ways -- might find himself without a job, and very likely the object of continual harassment and ridicule. Unfortunately, it's those today who mock God and His laws who seem to accrue the most popularity and acclaim. They boast of their "free rides" and "entitlements" (neither of which are the government's responsibility or obligation to provide), while depriving their constituents of that which they need the most -- safety and order. They lie through lips that smile, and deceive the very people they've been elected to serve, dragging each successive generation deeper into the mire of their godlessly immoral hell. They usurp the throne of God for commodes of convenience, never willing to disoblige the exponents of license and depravity from whom they secure their affluence.
Today, as in centuries past, God's word still warns that His wrath will fall on those who continue to live in disobedience. Like Nineveh, we can turn and be delivered, or like those who are disobedient, we can persist to our own destruction. The words of Moses, as recorded in the thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy, are as applicable today to every people, as they were in that day nearly four millennia ago to the people of Israel as they prepared to enter the promised land. Before them were two paths, each vastly contradistinctive in its repercussions. They could find life and prosperity or death and destruction. Which they would find depended solely on how they responded to the LORD their God -- whether they would walk in His ways and keep His commands, decrees and laws, or turn away and disobey. For us today the same paths, with the same results, await us. Whether we choose life and prosperity or death and destruction, our nation's response to the law of the LORD our God will be the sole determinant.
Chapter Sixteen: Because You Have Depended On Your Own Strength
It's difficult to turn anywhere today without seeing yet another of man's monuments of praise to himself and the glory of his achievement. "We've come so far. We've so much to be proud of. We've accomplished more in this past century than all of man combined throughout the entire history of this planet. There is nothing we can't accomplish, given our concerted effort, skill and resources. Man is the preponderant influence in all the universe. Who can thwart his mighty designs?"
The book of Obadiah addresses the LORD'S prophecy against Edom, a people of similar pride and aspiration. Like the man of today, Edom's sinful arrogance was a boast against the LORD God.
It is from pride that all other sin is derived. For it is from the belief that we know what's best, not God, that we choose to follow our way instead of His. We disobey because we believe knowledge, wisdom and authority should be ours, and we the best qualified to direct the paths of our lives. Eve sinned because she disobeyed God. She disobeyed God because, in believing Satan's lie, she determined her own best interests would be served by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- even though God had forbidden it. She believed she knew what was best for her, not God. "I commit adultery, fornication, murder, cheat, lie or steal because these options seem best to me at the time. It matters not that the LORD God, Creator of all things, has determined that such actions are wrong. If they seem appropriate to me at the time, I must do what I think best." When we disobey someone it is because we believe we know better than the one we've chosen to disobey. In essence, what any act of disobedience to God is saying is that "God doesn't know what's best for me in this instance. His choice for my life is inferior to mine. Therefore, I shall go the way I choose, entirely irrespective of God's will, His laws, precepts and statutes." It is boastful, arrogant insolence of the worst sort, the root of all sin, the trip before the fall; that which precipitated the evil one's downfall (chiefly Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19), it is the surest path to destruction a man can choose.
To Edom, the LORD God declared: "Though you ascend as high as the eagle, And though you set your nest among the stars, From there I will bring you down." (Obadiah 4) In the twenty- eighth chapter of Ezekiel, the LORD similarly speaks out against the pride and arrogance of Tyre.
The LORD God poured His wrath out on the city of Tyre because they proudly thought themselves to be as wise as a god. The Apostle Paul touched upon the wisdom of this world in his first epistle to the believers in Corinth, where he wrote: Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (I Corinthians 1:20)
The Apostle Paul adjures us to let no one boast in men -- for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Likewise, the prophet Isaiah wrote: Sever yourselves from such a man, Whose breath is in his nostrils; For of what account is he? (Isaiah 2:22)
In an age when all we hear and see is how great we are, and how much we've accomplished and can yet accomplish if only we cooperate with each other, it's discomforting to realize that all such boasting is in arrogant defiance toward God. We idolize men and women for achievement in sports, entertainment, politics and the arts as if they were our gods and all that we have is derived from them. But, the word of God contends with the popular notion of this age that "all we've accomplished is due to our own great wisdom, knowledge and strength."
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose
The LORD God here incites the one who believes he can save himself to humble the proud and crush the wicked -- for man, in all his combined strength and wisdom, is incapable even of this.
In the fourth chapter of the book which bears his name, the prophet Micah mocks those who have relied on the strength of their own hands when disaster suddenly falls upon them: Now why do you cry aloud? Is there no king in your midst? Has your counselor perished? For pangs have seized you like a woman in labor. (Micah 4:9)
The word of God declares that we are not to place our trust in princes, nor in mortal man, but in the LORD our God. It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in princes. (Psalm 118:8-9)
As the prophet Isaiah declared: Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, And are counted as the small dust on the scales; Look, He [the LORD] lifts up the isles as a very little thing. (Isaiah 40:15)
Clearly, it is not the LORD who needs us, but we Him. In our arrogance and pride we fashion ourselves as masters of our destiny, yet as God's word demonstrates: "All flesh is grass, And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass." (Isaiah 40:6-7) Our only hope and salvation is in the LORD. Those who rely on the strength of men, like the grass, will only wither and fall. But, those who depend upon the LORD will never be shaken. Chapter Seventeen: Until They Admit Their Guilt
The word of God clearly proclaims that all mankind is accountable and without excuse before the LORD. No one will be able to say "I didn't know", or "I didn't understand". Responsibility and personal accountability to God and His laws permeates the whole of Scripture.
For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. From man in the garden to man before the judgment seat of Christ, it is a concept undeniably present throughout all of God's word. To the Pharisees who denied Him, the Lord Jesus warned of an impending judgment where an account would be made for "every careless word spoken" (chiefly Matthew 12:36). The words of the LORD God, as given through the prophet Obadiah, declare: "For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near; As you have done, it shall be done to you; Your reprisal shall return upon your own head." (Obadiah 15) Similarly, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans fourteen that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. (Romans 14:10-12) It is a message we do not like to hear -- particularly today in this age of license and irresponsibility. "We've the right to do this, the right to do that, and no one -- neither God nor man -- has the right to impose their way on anyone else (except for the politically correct, of course, who've the right and government support to impose their way on the entire populace). Any may choose to do as they please, entirely irrespective of any responsibility for that choice." We've come to bow the knee to the great liberal gods of License and Irresponsibility so often that many living today (particularly those born during or after the 1960's) have never known it any other way. Anyone daring to voice even the slightest disagreement with them is instantly labeled a crackpot, and summarily packed off for "sensitivity re-enlightenment" (i.e. politically correct indoctrination/liberal brainwashing). Our backwards, upside down society has decreed that no god shall "inconvenience" or infringe upon the rights of the people with a whole lot of dusty, anachronistic statutes and precepts, entirely incongruous to our progressive, enlightened age. We've evolved well beyond that sort of thing. Everything is relative to the dogma of the hour. "Sin", as a word, is swiftly approaching obsolescence. Everyone is to blame for our behavior but ourselves; "We are not responsible! We are not accountable!! Others made us do it! My people have been oppressed! My parents mistreated me! Society has neglected my needs! My husband was abusive!"
Fleeing from responsibility is nothing new. When confronted with his sin, Adam blamed the only two other persons whose existence he was aware of: God and his wife. "The woman whom You gave to be with me...." Adam's wife was to blame, but God had put her there in the first place, so it was God's fault Adam had sinned. Does this rationalization of sin sound familiar?
"It's God's fault!" Even the people who don't believe in God prefer laying the blame at His feet than shouldering it themselves.
Our second favorite choice for blame delegation is the powerful entity at the other end of the good and evil spectrum. "The serpent deceived me." "The devil made me do it." No matter how it's phrased, its meaning |