1 Tim 2:4

"...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

A little late night rant. Presidential race just got wrapped up, Obama wins. This is the first passage that comes to mind.

Generally, you only hear this verse coming from some kind of altar call from an Arminian preacher teaching that God's desire is for every single person on the planet and throughout history to be saved. Not so. Let's look at the rest of the context.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 We can see from the context that the desire on God's behalf is not that every person will be saved, but instead that all kinds of men be saved- here's the part that's important- even the kings and rulers who oppress you.

Right now we're facing a moral crisis in America. What Paul defines as a "giving over" to sin in the area of homosexuality is happening as we speak. And what's more, what Paul said later about others "giving hearty approval" is also the norm. The moral compass is so far off in this country. I actually just had to take a break from typing to argue with someone over the definition of life. When a country can't define what marriage is based on the natural function of the body, or the definition of life based on just the dumbest common sense, then its time we start getting off our behinds and becoming the Christians that the Apostles desired us to be.

Hard times are coming. Times are coming where we will simply no longer be tolerated. And yet despite that, Paul urges Timothy to pray for our rulers, as He has the power to save even those that are our enemies. What we are going through right now is of no comparison to the trials experienced by the early Church. We have yet to face death for our belief in this country. We have yet to worry about exile. We do not have secret meetings in homes. We live a good life, worshiping freely.

Enjoy that freedom, but do not become complacent. Give thanks to God for the graces he has bestowed upon us, and that when the tide comes, he will be merciful and not allow us to be swept up with it.



Grace and peace in the next 4 years,

Mike

The Social Media Personal Soap Opera

Hey y'all.

This is something that's been on my mind for a little while, something that struck me while reading an article about Christians using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

There has always been something that has struck me as "wrong" (not in the moral sense, but in the "something is a little off") sense about the way Christians post on Facebook. The amount of complaining and self-absorbtion that goes on is ridiculous. The reason I titled this post what I did is because this is how I see it- people creating a little soap opera that focuses on themselves. Taking a picture of how sick I am, posting where I am, posting about how awesome my triple latte mocha frappacino dulce extra spice soy thingamadoodle is right now... I sometimes question motives.

Now of course there is a fine line here. As an artist, I like to see people expressing themselves, and I think there are ways that non-artists can express themselves in non-artistic ways, and I think that social media is one of them. Posting thoughts, things about your life, what you're going through, so on and so forth, I think its great. Especially in the sense of Facebook being an electronic, up to date yearbook. Its a way for us all to stay connected and involved in each other's lives. But what is the motive behind it all? Is it to share your life, or is it to bring attention to yourself? When you post a picture of how sick you are, are you sharing your life with other people in a positive way or are you just trying to get sympathy? Are you trying to see how many people will respond "Oh I'm praying for you," or "You look terrible! Hope you feel better [little picture of a heart]!" If its the latter, then don't you think that its a little selfish? A little self centered? Its one thing when people seek us out to see how we're doing, its another thing to seek out others for our own benefit.

Its kinda like one thing I always hated... when people would bring something to a social gathering, like a coffee or something similar, just so other people would say, "Oh you went to Starbucks? Lucky!" Its just showing off, plain and simple. Its one thing when someone's just thirsty and wants a drink, but you could always tell the ones that were doing it for attention.

So my little two cents: think about why you're posting. If its simply because you want to share your life, great! If you're trying to get attention, stop. Please, stop. Bring glory to Christ, not to yourself. Our lives are fleeting, and attention is worth nothing. I think there's a little application in here in Philippians 2:6:

although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped

 Christ didn't live to bring glory to himself, to make his own name great. He did all things according to the will of his Father. His life was lived to always point to another. So should be the same with ours.


In Him,

Mike

Alcohol- What does the Bible say?

I’m tired of hearing about this issue. It’s a dead horse that’s been so long dead and yet people decide they still want to kick it. Most Christians think its outright wrong, many think Christians should simply abstain, and a few think there’s nothing wrong at all. Most non-Christians get the idea that since the majority is against it, that it must be wrong and their jaws drag on the floor when I take a hearty draught from a pint of my favorite ale- and do it with gusto. So, let’s settle this. What does the Bible say about drinking alcohol? Is it right or wrong? Let’s go.

Translational issues

The first thing to draw attention to is the use of the word “wine.” One major law of translation and interpretation is that when a word has multiple meanings, always use the primary meaning unless it makes no sense, in which case move to a secondary or tertiary meaning. For example, if I say, “I’m going to a rock concert,” you would take the primary meaning of the word “rock”, which is “stone,” and reject it based on context, then move to a secondary meaning which is “a music genre.” The word “wine” can also mean “grape juice.” One way that many Christians interpret “wine” is to take any instance where “wine” is used negatively and treat it as meaning alcohol, and any instance where it is used positively and treat it as “grape juice.” Hence, we have problems like in the wedding at Cana, where people will try to make the suggestion that Jesus turned the water to grape juice, because you can translate the word “oinos” that way. This is poor translational practice. The primary meaning of the word “oinos” is “wine,” and unless demanded by the context, should be translated that way.

The Bible does draw a line between the alcoholic content of drinks, and the English usually translates them as such. They are usually divided by strong drink (OT only: rDkEv shekar), wine (OT: NˆyÅy yayin NT: oinoß oinos), sweet wine (OT: syIsDo asis NT: gleuvkoß gleukos), and new wine(OT: vwøryI;t tirosh, NT: oinoß neoß oinos neos). Though there are apparent lines drawn, the lines are also a tad blurry. “Wine” can also mean grape juice, and “new wine” does not equal “unfermented wine.” Norman Geisler says, “Some have held that old wine is fermented but that “new wine” (vwøryIf) was always unfermented. But two passages clearly oppose this theory. Hosea 4:11 says both “old wine” (NˆyÅy) and “new wine” (vwøryIf) “take away the understanding.” So even “new wine” can cause drunkenness.” (“A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking,” Bibliotheca Sacra vol 139. A note on Geisler- he’s a hit and miss. Most anti-alcohol sites on the net will source this article, as it is condescending of wine drinking, but his handling of Scripture is poor, he jumps to conclusions that are unsubstantiated, and uses early church sources as if they were infallible. Take the good, spit out the bad- in a few instances he’s right, as he is here.) The only true line that can be drawn is between “wine” and “strong drink,” and the latter is only used in the Old Testament. “Strong drink” is equivalent to our use of “liquor,” meaning alcohol of a higher content. “Wine” is more of a generic word that can refer to grape based wines to barley wines like beer, and other more moderate drinks.

My point here is to stay away from interpretations that try to favor one translation over another based on point of view. Words can be taken multiple ways, but it is up to the skilled translator and interpreter to decide how the passage should be read. The author’s opinion is that in every case, “wine” should be taken as meaning an alcoholic beverage. There is no Biblical instance where the word “wine” has a more preferable interpretation of being “grape juice” based on immediate context.

How is Alcohol Used in (not 'by') the Bible?

Outright, we can say that in every instance, drunkenness is wrong. It is declared a sin over and over again. There simply is no question about this. There are two types of drunkenness, and a third that we will refer to as “glad of heart,” which is taken as drunken by many Christians. Alcohol was also used as a medicine, we will only discuss that in short.

The first type of drunkenness is the everyday drunk. Isaiah says, “Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink” (Isa 5:11). This is the person that can be truly called an alcoholic. Not many fit into this mold, but we’ll address it simply to say that is a sin. Addiction to anything is frowned upon by Biblical authors, and alcohol is given special treatment.

The second type is the “one-off” drunk. Either the person who has a little too much on accident or likes to party occasionally. The teaching here once again is, “Do not be drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph 5:28) Christians are not supposed to get drunk, whether intentionally or by accident. Personally, its happened to me a few times, and I have regretted it each time, and count it as sin. Rightfully so.

The major one to look at is “glad of heart.” Anyone who has drank alcohol knows this feeling. The best way to explain this is to use the description that often goes with alcohol, “Alcohol is a drink best shared.” Now, the non-drinker will immediately write of a feeling of any of the effects of alcohol as “drunkenness,” but this is not so. The Bible praises alcohol for its effects, and wine is praised as being good for mankind. The Psalmist praises the Lord for his provision in Ps 104:14-15: “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, wine which makes man’s heart glad, that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man’s heart.” Here God is thanked for giving us wine, and for the effect of wine, which is to make “man’s heart glad.” Solomon says in Ecc 9:7 to “drink your wine with a cheerful heart,” and again in 10:19 that “wine makes life merry.” The one thing that I think of when I read these passages is when I’m at a Christians house and a beer commercial comes on and someone says something to the effect of, “Look at them, they think they’re having fun.” Or when a preacher condemns alcohol commercials for always having a social, good-time feel to them, and then saying that they don’t know what true fun is. The fact is, the Bible itself says that alcohol is great for making merry, it makes man happy, and its okay to drink it for that reason. There is no Biblical statement or principal that can take away the blessing that alcohol is for humanity. As Ben Franklin said, “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.”

We are told several times that alcohol was used for medicine; in 2 Sam 16:2, Luke 10:34, and 1 Tim 5:23. Not too many people use alcohol as a medicine nowadays, so there’s not too much use in discussing it. I will address one more passage though, Proverbs 31:6. Our friend who we quoted previously, Norman Geisler, throws this passage under the “medicine” heading, by saying this: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter” (Prov 31:6). This indicates that strong drink was used as a sedative or pain-killer for the dying, and that wine was also used to calm the nerves of those who were deeply bereaved or in deep distress.” I think this is a misappropriation. I think that he is understating what is being said here. For the dying person, alcohol was given so they didn’t feel the effects of death, be it pain or whatever. It was to dull their senses. Calling it a “medicine” may not necessarily be wrong, but its not altogether correct either. I could huff the nitrous out of a bottle of whip cream and it would be the exact same thing as what the dentist gives me, but I wouldn’t call it medicine. In the second case, “calming the nerves” isn’t using alcohol as a medicine. Its inviting a sorrowful friend out for a beer. By giving it to them, you’re indicating that you’re in their presence. You don’t just tell them to go drink their sorrows away or to take a teaspoon of alcohol at night, you go have a drink with them, to “make their heart glad.” It gets lumped in with the above paragraph on the benefits of alcohol. It can be used to cheer someone up.

Specific Passages

Ok, now lets look at some debated passages.

Deut 14:22, 24-26:

“You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.”“If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

This passage is discussing how Israel should tithe, and more specifically, what to do when you cannot make the journey to tithe. In that case, a person is to take his tithe, buy whatever he wants, and eat before the Lord.

Norman Geisler has this to say on this passage, “The passage in Deuteronomy 14:26 which appears to commend buying “strong drink” (r;DkEv) cannot be used as a divine approval for drinking it for three reasons. First, the Old Testament clearly condemns drinking “strong drink,” as the above passage indicates. Therefore this isolated and unclear passage must be understood in harmony with the clear Old Testament teaching against “strong drink.” Second, the passage does not say they should drink it but only that they should buy it. Third, “strong drink” was used for medicinal purposes, so the commendation is probably to buy medicine (see Prov 31:6).”

First, the OT does not condemn drinking “strong drink” alone. In every passage Geisler quotes in his paper, the Bible also condemns wine alongside it, and yet as stated above, wine is given as a blessing. It is only condemned when it is overused. We also talked about Prov 31:6 and using it as a “medicinal” passage. One must wonder, were people dying in such numbers, or were that many people depressed that a person could potentially buy “strong drink” every year? C’mon. The context says, “whatever your heart desires.” An ox could be viewed as a new car or a tractor, a pretty hot commodity. Sheep had a number of uses. And wine and strong drink? Are we really supposed to buy the idea that a desire of the heart would be for medicine? "Man, I really want some medicine, that would make me sooo happy right now." No, it was used to drink, to rejoice with one’s household. And to use Dr. Geisler’s logic, the passage doesn’t say that it couldn’t be used to drink, so, yeah. In all, the Lord states himself that it was ok to buy wine and strong drink, and within the same context commands that people rejoice. It is my opinion that this is as clear as it gets to saying that the Lord is ok with drinking, of course taking in hand the condemnation of drunkenness.

John 2:7-10

Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

I love this passage in reference to this topic. I love it because I simply, laughingly, cannot believe that people honestly believe that Jesus turned water to grape juice. That may seem harsh, and I apologize for it, but it’s the honest truth. About as honest as I love John 1:1 because I, in the same way, cannot believe people can take it to say that Jesus wasn’t God. Gimme a break!

Point 1: Jesus was a Jew. He was at a Jewish wedding fest. He was with other Jews. Jews drank wine. Fact. If Jesus served grape juice at the wedding fest 1) there would be a riot, and 2) it would make no sense of the headwaiter’s words. The headwaiter says, “…you have kept the good wine until now.” Firstly, saying “you have kept the good wine” insinuates that whatever Jesus served was of the same essence as what was previously served. So, if Jesus turned water to grape juice, we would assume from the headwaiter’s words that they had been serving grape juice previously. A completely unjustified interpretation. Secondly, if Jesus “kept the good wine until now,” he’s saying that whatever Jesus made was better than whatever was served previously. Grape juice better than wine? Seriously? I want some of this grape juice. I’ve had some really, really good wine in my day, and I have yet to drink a grape juice that even somewhat compares. Please find me some of this stuff! All joking aside, it doesn’t make any sense. Grape juice does not compare to wine, nor would a headwaiter- someone who deals in wine- compare the two.

Point 2: The headwaiter specifically states that people were getting drunk on the stuff he was serving. He says in full, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” First things first- Greek. The words “drunk freely” is the singular word mequo (methuo) in the original Greek. In context, the specific word is mequsqwsin (methusthosin), which is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense, in simple terms, means “past completed.” It is something that has taken place in the past that is complete. Translated, it would say, “…and when the people have already become drunk…” What the headwaiter is saying is that people have already become drunk, especially by his last line, “…until now.” Balancing the verse may sound something like this, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have already become drunk, he serves the poorer wine, but you have saved the good wine for when people have already become drunk.” It is essentially a picture of the Law vs Grace. Jesus is the better wine, and he was served last. Nonetheless, the interpretation of this passage insofar as deciding the alcohol content of the wine is solely dependant on the words of the headwaiter. His language, from the Greek words used to the way he phrases himself, makes no room whatsoever for anything other than an alcoholic beverage. There is simply no wiggle room here. Jesus turned water into wine.

The Last Supper

We’re going to look at two different passages, as they’re referring to the same event anyway. The first is Luke 22:20:

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

Before I get to the second passage, I want to address something I’ve heard before in relation to this passage specifically. I’ve had it stated to me that “this cup” refers to any beverage in general, and is a freedom from God to not be bound to drinking alcohol during communion. In essence, “this cup” should be taken generically, instead of “this wine.” This is profoundly incorrect. “This cup” should indeed be taken as a specific cup within the Passover meal. We have to remember not to “Christianize” Jesus. Jesus was not doing a Communion service. He was taking part in Passover. There’s a bit to be learned about Passover to show what exactly was going on here. We’ll only focus on a part of it. In the Matthew’s account, the order goes:

1)    Judas dips with Jesus and is shown to be the traitor

2)    Jesus breaks the bread

3)    Jesus drinks the cup

4)    Jesus states he will not drink from the “fruit of the vine” until his second coming

This order is important, because the order of the Passover seder is

1)    Bitter herbs are served with unleavened bread

2)    The meal is eaten

3)    The second matzah, which was broken and hidden, is retrieved and served.

4)    The third cup, the cup of Redemption, is served.

So we see a parallel here. Judas was shown to be the betrayer during the serving of the bitter herbs. The meal is not stated. “My body which is broken for you” is shown to be the second piece of unleavened bread. Finally, “This is my blood of the covenant,” is shown to be the third cup, the cup of Redemption. So, why in Luke does Jesus say, “this cup”? Because he’s pointing at a specific cup during the Passover meal. There is a reason for using the word “this,” and it isn’t to make the cup a generic “whatever you feel like” beverage. Instead, it is to identify Himself as the Redeemer. On to the next passage.

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:29)

Ok, so what was it that Jesus drank? Was it grape juice? Some will answer yes. Nope. It has already been identified that Jesus was taking part in the Passover. First off, Passover was served with wine, not with grape juice. Done. No arguments. Second, following what was said above about the order of the Passover, he’s saying this for a specific reason, which is that he will not drink the fourth cup of the Passover until after his return. The fourth cup is the cup of Completion. He can’t take it yet, because things have not been completed. So what will we drink with Christ in Heaven? We will very specifically drink the Fourth cup of the Passover, which is wine. I highly doubt anyone will have any complaints when that day comes. I know I will certainly be raising a glass that day!

Romans 14

This whole chapter deals with matters of the conscience, so I’m not going to quote the whole thing, nor am I going to do a verse by verse presentation of the passage. I’m just going to make a few points about specific parts. There is also a parallel passage in 1 Cor 8:7-13. Read that one too.

The context: We have Jews living in Rome who are living according to their own customs, namely, abstaining from eating meat and drinking wine that had been served to idols. They wouldn’t do it. On the other hand, the Romans were Gentiles who hadn’t been raised under the Law, and didn’t have the same reservations. To them, it was just food and drink, no big deal. The problem was that essentially the Jews were viewing the Romans as sinners, and the Romans were throwing their liberty in the Jews’ faces. Wrong on both sides.

First off, the passage is directed at the Romans. “Accept the one who is weak in faith.” Right off the bat, the Jews are being called weak. Why? Because they lack the faith to realize that the meat is simply that, just meat. “One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.” So Paul is identifying one party as strong and the other as weak. This chapter is essentially Ben Parker telling Peter Parker that, “With great strength comes great responsibility.” Paul is telling the Romans to take care with their weaker brothers, and not to be a stumbling block to them.

Speaking of which, jump down to verses 13 and 20. Usually, the drinkers and non-drinkers are on the same page up to this point. At vs 13 and 20 though, the non-drinkers usually point here and say that Christians are to abstain from anything that could offend another Christian. Let’s go to Greek again. First off, the word “offense” in v20 is the same word used for “obstacle” in v13. Second, look at 1 Pet 2:8- Jesus is called by Peter “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Same two words are used in Peter as are used in Romans. The point of the two words is to convey an action that causes a person to fall away from Christ for good. The Greek words themselves both have the connotation of tiger traps, or of falling into a pit and dying. This is not simply seeing someone lighting a cigarette and you turning your nose up at it. Paul is referring to the kind of action that tempts a person into a sin that ensnares them so much that they don’t come away from it again. Like going out with an abstaining church family that has teenagers and ordering a beer in front of them. Not something too commendable. All of the “stumbling” language used throughout the chapter should be read in this light. In teaching on this passage I usually reference a story I once heard about D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon. Supposedly, Spurgeon and Moody were together in America and Spurgeon, an avid smoker, lit up a cigar in front of Moody. Moody marched over to him and said, “That, sir, offends me.” Spurgeon pointed at Moody’s stomach and said, “That offends me.” Moody was a very large man. You get the idea. What may be offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, which leads us to my last point on this passage.

Verse 22 says,

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

The idea of the whole passage is that whatever you do, don’t be convicted by it, and don’t disapprove of the one who doesn’t match your own convictions. Everyone is lead by the Spirit in different ways, and each is lead according to how much faith he has. One person may only be able to handle so much of one thing, while another person is able to handle a different amount. The importance is for the one who has little faith not to condemn the one who is stronger (the one who takes part), and for the one who takes part not to be irresponsible with his weaker brother. So, for the alcohol topic- if you think drinking is wrong, don’t call those who disagree sinners. Don’t frown when they talk about it. Don’t tell them that they can’t do it, or bar them from ministry if they do. On the flip side, if you do drink, watch out who you’re drinking with. Don’t flaunt it. Don’t be telling the teenagers in your youth group how awesome beer is. Be responsible with your actions. At the same time, don’t hide it- as Paul says, “Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil.”

Christian Lifestyle & Ethics issues

The Different Positions

Typically there are three ways to view the use of alcohol in the Christian life. They are usually defined as:

1)    Abstinence- Christians are not to drink at all.

2)    Reservation- There is nothing wrong with alcohol, but there is no need to drink it, so Christians certainly shouldn’t drink.

3)    Moderation- There is nothing wrong with alcohol and the Biblical guideline is not to get drunk off it, nor be a slave to it. Its fine as long as it is enjoyed responsibly.

The first one can be written off. There is no single piece of Scripture that states that it is wrong to drink alcohol. There is no single piece of Scripture that states that specific members of the Church are to abstain either, specifically, those holding office.

The second one is where we really find the argument lies. Most people will fall here, though their reasons for being there are due more to ignorance than anything. The majority of people that I talk to don’t want to say that the Bible says its wrong, because it doesn’t, but at the same time they’ve been raised to believe that drinking is essentially wrong, so they find a happy medium by saying that there’s nothing wrong with it, but that Christians shouldn’t do it. It is almost equivalent to people being Theistic Evolutionists, they’re trying to find a happy medium that ends up contradicting itself anyway. I go to Romans 14 for this one. If you don’t think its okay for yourself, that’s fine! But don’t hold it as a universal ethic for all Christians. That is quite simply legalism. What is fine for you may not be fine for someone else, and you cannot hold someone to your own personal convictions. I once dated a girl that on our first date told me that she thought there was nothing wrong with alcohol, but was raised in a non-alcoholic household, and when she married, would not allow alcohol into her house. That was enough for me, and I was just about to order a glass of wine! Ha ha, with dating we can just part ways and call it “incompatible,” but with the Church it’s a little different. Legalism can be defined as “applying one’s own convictions to another person, and holding that person accountable to them.” Let’s make sure we are not doing this, and as I’ve already defended the use of alcohol through Scripture, this applies to alcohol as well. We cannot bar each other from actions related merely to conscience.

Alcohol content

The strongest argument usually levied by those against alcohol was (to my knowledge) first put forth in an article called “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times,” by Robert H. Stein. In it, he puts forth the argument that the wine drank by people in NT times, as well as by the Church fathers had water added to it, usually mixed in a 3:1 water/wine ratio, and therefore our wine that we get out of the bottle is not the same, and would be considered “strong drink.” Norman Geisler, who’s article is quoted all over on anti-alcohol websites, leans heavily on Stein’s article.

I have a number of issues with this position. First off has to do with what was already mentioned about John 2:10 and the words of the headwaiter. Stein asserts that “one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses…to consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis,” and that, “...one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” How does that mesh with what the headwaiter said at Jesus’ wedding? Are we to assume that the people attending had already drank at minimum 15 glasses before Jesus turned the water to wine? I don’t know about you, but I can’t drink that much. Anyone who’s done stupid college stuff knows the old gallon of water in an hour challenge. You simply can’t do it. You throw up or give up before the hour is up. It simply makes more sense to assume that the people were drinking regular wine, in the range of 10-13% abv.

Second, I have a question which has not been answered yet, but I suppose it could get answered if I went on maybe a home brewing forum or something like that. The article in question assumes that “watering down” wine is the same as taking a bottle of our store-bought wine and adding water to it. Gross. My question is- is it possible that what was being watered down was some form of a concentrated mix, and that our wine today already is watered down? It makes sense to me that possibly people bought concentrated wine because it may have been easier to store, and since it was drank in such quantity, it would be much easier to mix at home than to buy it pre-mixed and needing to continually run to the market for more. I don’t know. My point I guess is that there is an assumption being made in the article that isn’t thought through, something related to the actual brewing process. I know that with beer, water is added at different stages. Could it be the same with wine? Maybe a certain stage of the fermenting process is pushed off until the purchaser decides to do it at home? Until I get this question answered, I’m throwing the whole thing out the window, because you cannot condemn what comes out of the bottle until you know what you’re comparing it to.

Third, and regardless of the previous two, comes the question of where to draw the line. How much alcohol is allowed before it is “dissipation?” 5%? 2%? 9%? Who knows? Who can say? There really is no way to say. Concluding that we should therefore just stay away from alcohol altogether goes against the praises of it that I mentioned above. My personal feeling on this is that no matter what the abv or proof is on the bottle, just don’t get drunk on it. Otherwise, alcohol is alcohol, whether its wine, gin, beer, or whatever.

Barring Ministers from Drinking

This is one that really bothers me the most. Not just ministers, but anyone in ministry really. No saint has the authority to place a law not given in Scripture on another saint. I’ve already pointed that out as being straight up legalism. There is a logic to it though, and of course, I’ve got a refutation of it!

The thought process goes like this: If a person in the congregation (let’s say a teenager, they’re nice and impressionable) finds out a person on staff drinks. Now they may use that as an excuse to go drinking themselves. If such were the case, then the staff member could be found at fault for causing, or at least being a reason, for someone else’s sin. A teenager is underage. Alcohol is attractive to them. If they found out their youth pastor drinks, they might say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”

My refutation is found in a simple parallel. If it works for alcohol, it needs to work for other scenarios as well. Teenagers (high schoolers) aren’t married. Sex is attractive to them. If their youth pastor is married, we can safely assume he’s having sex with his wife. A teen could go ahead and start having sex and say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”

Would we blame the youth pastor in such an instance? Nope. Why? Because its silly. The kid knew it was wrong and needs to take responsibility for his own behavior. GUESS WHAT? Is the same with alcohol. Legal age is 21. If a teen drinks, its on him or her. Not the youth pastor’s fault.

In both cases, you have an adult partaking in something along Biblical guidelines, and that something is forbidden to a certain class of people. In both cases, their partaking has been made a temptation to the person of the other class. I appeal to you that there is no difference between the two of them. If a person can be barred from drinking alcohol while on staff, a person should be barred from marital sexuality while on staff as well. And heck, it could be anything. A pastor’s wife should never braid her hair, or wear a skirt above the knee. An elder should never wear jeans to Church. Whatever. The idea is that people can be tempted by a plethora of things, and who’s in charge to put limits on people? Go to Romans 14. To put a law on someone according to your own conscience is for the weaker brother to rule over the stronger, and it is sin. There, I said it. It is sin to bar a Christian from something that the Spirit is not convicting him or her of. Trying to gloss over it by quoting 1 Cor 8:13 is missing the picture. In that passage, Paul is discussing something that has been given up by him according to his own conscience. It was not set in front of him as a written contract, nor was it stated by someone that he must conform to it to speak or serve in a given Church. Marriage was given up by Paul of his own will according to his own convictions. So should it be with alcohol.

Also, to bar someone from something that is not considered wrong by the one doing it could be a cause of sin to them, in which case, a contract or spoken agreement could be a stumbling block. Think of it this way- if I say “don’t think of an alligator,” what did you just do? You thought of an alligator. Is there anything wrong with it? Nope. So if I said not to do it, why did you? That’s our nature. If there is nothing wrong with something, and you’re fully convinced there’s nothing wrong with it, it is very likely you’ll brush the law to the side and do it anyway. So for a Church board to bar a member of the Church from a certain activity, in this case alcohol, could very well be a cause of sin. Once that contract or agreement is made, it is sin to the person to breach the contract. Would it be necessary to breach it by drinking? Nope, one could very easily do it in one’s heart. If said person was with friends or family and they were all drinking, it would be very easy to fall into lust, or more realistically, to succumb to peer pressure, because in all actuality there isn’t anything wrong with what they are doing, instead, the law imposed on them made it wrong. This flows with Paul’s logic stated in Rom 7:7,

On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

I’m not trying to apply this verse to the topic, I’m just saying that it follows the same logic. By placing a law before another person, you make what was once not sin to be sin. Therefore, it is my opinion that no Church organizing body should prohibit its membership, lay or pastoral, from partaking in any activity that would be considered “decisions/acts of the conscience.”

Conclusion

I hope I’ve clearly made my case. I do not believe that there is any Biblical reason in any of the glorious 66 books that can be used to make a case against drinking alcohol responsibly. Drunkenness aside, alcohol is a gift of God to make life better. I love it. Beer is one of my favorite things and I relish it. I can’t think of better times in my life than sitting around a table with friends or family and enjoying alcohol together and laughing. The Bible in no way condemns this behavior, and neither should any Christian. It is something to be used responsibly however, and as with any other matter of the conscience, our liberty should not be a cause of sin to another. On the flip side, no Christian should ever condemn another Christian nor bar them from the partaking of alcohol. Not only do they not have the right, but it is sin to the one that does it. I hope this has helped you all a bit in your understanding. Hopefully I’ll get back to writing again and stop taking so many breaks between blogs ha ha.

In Him,

Mike

The Antichrist a Muslim?

Been away for a little while, and I'm gonna blow off some more time too :)    Here's something great to read that I think has been on people's minds in the last decade or so. Here's an article that goes over the various prophecies and proves that its rather impossible for the antichrist to be Muslim when all the evidence is weighed.

I'm 32 years old. I've lived through at least two "moral scares" where Christians went into a frenzy over the possibility of a certain worldview taking over everything. When I was a kid, it was the New Age Movement. Everything was New Age, from Pepsi cans to Spider-man to all-things-Disney. When I was in late high school and college, it was Post-Modernism. It was the end all that was going to kill everything. Humanity was going to turn to apathy and decline. We've been through these things, and rather than seen them take over, we've seen them be assimilated, and I see no difference with Islam, which is why I'm not afraid of or freaked out over it. The Western mindset will swallow Muslims much like it has other philosophies, and in ten or twenty years, there will be another fear to replace it. Right now, we may already be seeing it replaced by the fear of homosexuality.


So be strengthened. Nothing is worth being frightened over. We have a Bible that can never be consumed by any mindset, worldview, or religion. The Word of God will always remain and will never be destroyed.

Be vigilant,

Mike

Why do Christians “Ignore” Some of the Law, but not all?

I’ve been seeing lots of images like this popping up:

It really just shows the ignorance involved on the opposite side of the issue. And when I see Christians get puzzled by things of this nature, it shows how ignorant Christians are of basic theology. The Law of Moses is often a misunderstood subject in its relation to Christianity. There are some people who say that its been fulfilled and we can properly ignore it. There are some who say we ignore only the parts that are not repeated in the New Testament. There are some, mostly Jewish Christians, who believe we are still bound to carrying out the ceremonial parts of the Law, but we are under Grace and not bound to carrying out the rest. There are all different views. My viewpoint, which I believe is the most balanced, is that the whole Law is beneficial, yet, because it was fulfilled we are not to treat it by what the definition of law requires. We do not throw it out, ignore it, or write it off as belonging to a different dispensation. It is very real to us and as holy as it was to Moses. We just are no longer under obligation to following it. It is no longer Law for us. Lets get into this.

The Yoke of the Law

First off, we need to think about what Law is. A law is a legally binding command that must be followed per the demands of society. When the Jews were given the Law via Moses, they were required to follow it. It was not simply a set of moral codes, or guiding principles for living. It was Law, they were obliged to following it as members of the nation of Israel.

Now a person was still saved by grace in OT times, nothing has changed in that regard. Jesus as the final atonement had not come yet, so they were however obliged to make weekly and yearly atonement for sins. This was also a part of the Law. When a man was justified by faith, whatever the object of his faith was, his justification was not bound to the keeping of the Law. I think this is one point that people kinda stumble on. We understand that the Jews were saved by faith through grace, but then when you combine it with the keeping of the Law, many end up with a view that Jews were able to lose their justification. Not so. The Law and especially the sacrificial system were designed to keep a person tied to the benefits of the Promises made to Israel. To those that were justified by faith, the keeping of the Law bound you to the people of Israel. It’s a difficult concept, I’m not going to go in depth. Just understand that a person did not lose their justification and were required to keep the Law in order to be in fellowship with the nation of Israel.

On the other hand, in order to be saved apart from any grace, one would have to be completely perfect. They would have to follow that law perfectly. Of course, no one can do that. So, the law becomes a "pointer outer" of our sin. It just shows us that we're guilty, but does nothing to save us from that sin that we're guilty of. Here's a good explanation of it that was posted on my friend Kevin Fiske's website,  www.kevinfiske.com.

When we get to the New Testament, we understand that through Christ the Law was fulfilled. Paul says that the yoke of the law has been put off (Rom 7:4; Gal 5:1). Does this mean that the Law has become worthless? Nope. What this means is that we are no longer legally obliged to carrying it out. With Christ as our eternal sacrifice and final atonement for sin, we can live our lives freely by grace. I no longer am obliged to making sacrifices for sins committed. I no longer need to worship at a temple. I no longer need a priest to make amends for me. All these things were summed up in Christ. He is our High Priest, he is our Temple, he is our Atonement. So then we can ignore the Law? No. Read on.

The Nature of Christianity: We Can’t Keep All Laws

This is pretty self-explanatory. People who accuse us of ignoring parts of the Bible haven’t really thought it through- to keep the whole of the Law of Moses requires a Temple. Christian theology aside, even if we were to try to keep the Law, it would be an impossibility. The upholding of the Mosaic Covenant requires a temple, or at the very least, the Tabernacle. We have neither. Either way, the veil was torn at Christ’s death, signifying his fulfillment of the sacrificial system. We have no need for a temple or sacrifices.

The Nature of Christianity: Law is Not a Requirement

We believe people are saved by grace through faith. That said, we have no requirement on us to do anything in order to be saved, or to continue on in salvation. So, even when we come to commands given in the Epistles in the New Testament, they are not in any way binding on us in the sense that we will fall out of favor with God. Once we are saved, it is a done deal, we cannot lose that. That is what it means to have the “righteous requirement” of the Law fulfilled. We no longer have an obligation to doing anything in order to either earn or keep our standing with God. “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and not of yourself.”

Why the Law is Still Relevant: Gnomic Truth vs. Absolute Truth

So, what use does the Law have for us? It is applicational to us as abiding moral principles. We don’t often hear the term ‘gnomic truth’ but this is what the Law is for us. It is no longer a code of demands upon us, but is a code of principles that may be applied to our lives in various ways. A gnomic truth is a principle, as opposed to an absolute truth. A good example of gnomic truth is the “contradiction” in Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Why is this not a contradiction? Because they are not absolute truths. There are times to answer the fool, and times to hold your tongue. This is the essence of gnomic truth. Another example is when Jesus said,

So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

And yet Christians sin. Once again, a gnomic truth. It is a principle, not absolute. This is how we are to look at the Law. What is the principle the individual commands are trying to convey? If my ox gores my neighbor I’m responsible for it. Well, I don’t own an ox so how does that relate to me? I have two nasty little Italian Greyhounds. Nuff said.

We could make application out of anything, and we’re not really limited in how we apply it either.

The Different Designations Within the Singular Law

Now to the big one, the reason we’re all reading this.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

Kinda hard not to take that one literally isn’t it? So what’s the excuse? Sometimes the abiding principle is actually the literal command. That’s all there is to it. But, as the accusation goes, are we singling this command out like it’s a special command that we can’t ignore, but we ignore all the rest? What about the shellfish or the pork? Why “ignore” those, but not this? Well, are we really ignoring everything except this? Let’s do a survey of Leviticus 18 and 19, known as the Holiness Code:

“None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness” (Lev 18:6-18)

“You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.” (Lev 18:20) 

“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech” (Lev 18:21a… ie, no child sacrifices) 

“…nor shall you profane the name of your God…” (Lev 18:21b)

“Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” (Lev 18:23)

“You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” (Lev 19:2)

“Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father…” (Lev 19:3a)

“Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods…” (Lev 19:4)

“You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” (Lev 19:11)

“You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God.” (Lev 19:12)

I digress. I would have to list nearly the entirety of chapter 19 if I continued, so go read it for yourself. We are not ignoring things. Many of the laws given to Moses have direct application for us.

But that still doesn’t respond to the ones we do ignore. Certainly, as I said, there are some that have some kind of abiding principle that we can glean from. But what about the whole pork and shellfish thing? Or tattoos, or shaving the corners of your beard?

The Law is divided into three kinds of Laws; Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral. Ceremonial Laws have to do with the requirements of the Temple. We already dealt with that. Civil Laws have to do with the purity of the nation of Israel. There are many laws, like abstaining from pork, shellfish, or the dreaded rock badger, which have to do with distinguishing Israel from the other nations surrounding them. Tattoos, trimming the corners of your beard, mixing crops and fabrics, are all part of this. Think about the mixing crops or fabrics thing. If a Gentile approached a Jew and asked why they do such silly things, they have a ready-made answer; their clothing is pure because God is pure. God is not many, he is One. Quite a nice picture, isn’t it? Why didn’t they get tattoos? Because tattoos had to do with respect for the dead, in a religious sense. To the Jews, all honor and glory belongs to God; there is no ceremonial or superstitious honoring of the dead. They are dead. This belief stands in contradistinction to those in the countries around them. Why didn’t they eat pork? Well, who knows. All we know is that it was a Civil command given to them to set them apart. Maybe due to Trichinosis. Maybe not. Either way, I hope I’ve made my point. So, these kinds of Laws have specifically to do with the nation of Israel as they existed alongside other nations and religions. They are not directly applicational to us, but still may be used for secondary application within our daily lives.

Then there's the case of penal judgments for breaking commandments in the Law. Well, simply put, Israel is a country. They had people and leaders. The Law of Moses was the law, no different than our law. We have punishments for certain crimes, they had the same. That's how Law works. This fits into the Civil aspect of the Law and once again, does not apply to us, thankfully, or I would have been killed several times over for disrespecting my parents...

Now, this discussion doesn’t end here. We will pick up Leviticus 18:22 later when we get into Paul when we jump over to the New Testament passages. This passage, in the Greek Septuagint, is very important for understanding Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. If the passage in Leviticus isn’t relevant today, then Paul’s use of it is. We’ll get to that later.

To tie this up, I want you to think about Law, and the basis for Law. Why do we have so many problems in our Country these days? It is because our laws are arbitrary. In the beginning of our Country, the Laws were based on something higher- the Bible. The founding fathers understood that without a basis, without absolute truth, Law cannot be upheld. When culture becomes the basis for morality, you end up with the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers understood this fact, and based their Constitution and Bill of Rights on the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself to us, and he alone is the foundation of all morality. This sets Law as immovable. Nowadays, Law is based on social opinion. It has no basis except the ever-swaying, ever-changing views of society. All countries who have tried that have fallen. Mark my words: if we fully remove the basis for our morality, we will follow them in that fall.

Stay strong,

Mike

Supporting Chick-fil-A

Every Saturday morning for the last 5 or 6 years I've sat in a Starbucks studying the Bible with my friends. It has been a place of quiet meditation for myself and many Christians out there, who want to have a nice study time while enjoying a good cup of coffee. Starbucks is also and active supporter of homosexual marriage. Why do I not boycott them? As a Christian, I disagree with them. As an American, I support their right to express their opinion. What we are seeing today is a hard-nosed effort to deny American Christians their right to express their beliefs publicly, based on the beliefs of the non-believing majority. We are called haters, bigots, ignorant, gay-bashers, and a slew of other names that I simply won't repeat. In Islamic countries, homosexuals are killed. In America, they are tolerated. Yet when it comes to returning that tolerance they've experienced from us, we are instead attacked. Barred from putting our businesses in major cities, barred from stating our beliefs in the public school system, and if they have it their way, we will be barred from stating our beliefs in our own churches.


Yet, we will not be silenced. And in the end, those who say they are Christians will have to decide to stand with us or stand against us and divide the body of Christ.

When persecution comes, who's side will you stand on? This is a weighty question that each person must ask themselves.


I urge you to support Chick-fil-A this Wednesday to show America that we are not the weak minority, and that we will not back down on our values.


Fight the good fight,

Mike

Balancing our Views on the World and Sinning Christians

I always find it interesting when reality hits and something that I’ve been teaching for years is brought close to home.

For the last 7 years I’ve stood firmly planted against the Emergent Church movement, and while I’ve talked to people who hold views that may in some way converge with the practices of the EC, I hadn’t really met anyone who in practice really subscribed to the whole of what was being taught in the movement. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Emergent Church (which is really an old subject now), they are basically teaching a form of Ecumenicalism. That is, a movement away from doctrine and a move towards an all-encompassing, all-inviting, “it doesn’t matter what you believe” sorta thing. Two of the biggest voices in the movement have been Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren.

Within the last year, I’ve been getting into some not-so-welcome squabbles on Facebook with people that are almost by-the-book Emergent, whether they regard themselves as that or not. The arguments have been stemming from my rigid (ahem…Biblical) adherence to what the Bible teaches on certain subjects. Even that statement would come off as an “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” stance to them. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I want nothing more than to promote a balanced view of the Christian life, stemming from a balanced view on Scripture. It seems though, that mainstream Christianity has a disjointed view on what “balanced” means.

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that all parts are true. I believe that the original authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the words they did. I also believe that certain practices must be adhered to when interpreting Scripture. One of those rules is that no two parts of Scripture should be in direct contradiction with one another. The one thing that I see popping up time and time again from people of all different theological backgrounds, and especially from the Emergent camp, is that the view of “love” is held at a disproportionately high level compared to other attributes of God and Christian fundamentals.

Two areas seem to be affected more than others: our view of the unsaved world, and our treatment of Christians living in unrepentant sin. There are other areas that are affected, but those topics are left for another time.

The first issue, our view of the unsaved world, is a sticky one. As I said before, we have to strike a balance. We must uphold all Scripture, and make its validity real to ourselves each and every day. Balance is certainly a key issue. Jesus tells us that he came into the world “to seek and to save that which is lost.” Three times in the book of John he tells us to “love one another, as I have loved you.” And yet when confronted by the Pharisees he called them such names as “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” Upon visiting the Temple, he was outraged by the money changers and turned over the tables of the merchants for doing evil his Father’s house. On the one hand, we have love being preached, but on the other, we have righteousness being displayed. Jesus’ balance was that we not to make light of sin, and we are not to treat sinners as if they are not enemies with God, and yet at the same time, we are to love them and care for them in the reality that if they are not saved, they will spend eternity in Gehenna.

Paul echoes Jesus’ teachings. He says in Rom 13:8, “… he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” And again in 1 Cor 16:14, “Let all that you do be done in love.” But he also says in 2 Cor 6:14-15, “Do not be bound together (unequally yoked) with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” Once again, we see that a balance must be struck. We cannot allow one of Paul’s teachings to either override another nor negate another. That said, we are to show love to unbelievers, to treat them as we would want to be treated, but we are not to be brothers and sisters to them as we are with each other. We have Christ as our head, they have Satan. We belong to the Light, they to the darkness.

I could go on to continue quoting verses from James, Peter, and John, but we’ve done enough. When I look at disagreements, I like to go to take arguments to their logical end. In this case, I’ll take it all the way to the end. What is the end for unbelievers? It is to stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment where he will, in perfect holiness and righteousness, condemn all who did not believe in his Son to eternal condemnation. One thing I don’t think many people think about is the question, “What will our reaction be upon seeing the guilty punished?” I think a good key to this is the cry of the martyrs in Revelation 6:9-10, “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintain and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” James White has little theory that he believes that most people believe in some kind of a positional sanctification in the afterlife, as if sin halts once people die. The fact is, the Spirit is working as a restrainer on the earth right now- what will happen when the body dies, and that restraining Spirit is no longer at work? When it is only the sinner and God, what will their reaction to God be? The only reasonable answer is that with sin un-harnessed, sinners will defy God in ways they’ve never done before. With the Holy Spirit pulled aside from them, it will only be themselves and their sin standing before God. I think people think that upon seeing sinners, the saints will cry for God’s mercy, as the “love doctrine” seems to imply in people’s lives today. But, Christian, what do you think your reaction would be to seeing God, in all His majesty and splendor, being defied by a person whose whole being is set against Him? Will it be mercy and love? No, our only response will be to praise and glorify God as his perfect righteousness condemns those that oppose him.

Its not really a great thing to think about, seeing those we love and care for condemned for all eternity. On the other hand, to see God’s perfect holiness poured out will be an awesome thing, and he is as worthy of being praised for his upholding of justice as he is for the love that was shown by Christ on the Cross. God is as righteous as he is holy. God is not more of one than the other. This is balance. We have to uphold the one attribute as much as we do the other. We are to love the unsaved, treat them with respect, but they are ultimately at enmity with God. They stand opposed to us as his children. To be friends in the sense of having the same kind of harmony with them as we have with others of the elect is to be bound with darkness. Anyone who has ever told someone that they will go to hell if they do not put their faith in Christ knows this well- the response of those who reject Christ is animosity.

We can say a similar thing for Christians living in sin. One thing that is so often glossed over is the idea of punishment within the Church. We are to love our sinning brothers and sisters, but fellowshipping with them is a different story. Once again, we must hold Scripture in balance. One truth cannot override another. So, where Scripture states one thing, we have to hold it in as high of regard as other things stated. Paul says in 1 Cor 5:9-11, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” Such an idea is often looked down on in Churches today. Most people’s mindset is that we should allow such people to carry on in our Churches in order to show them the love of Christ so that they will eventually turn from their sin. But look what Paul says in the follow-up letter in 2 Cor 2:6-8 where he talks about the outcome of the above situation, “Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.” After the person was punished, Paul commended them for punishing him, and he repented, turned, and was welcomed back into fellowship in love. There is a purpose in punishment- so that they may be welcomed back with open arms. Look at what Paul said, “…otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” Punishment is not there just for the sake of punishment, not meant to push them away or to simply prove to them that they were wrong. Instead, to keep them from “excessive sorrow,” we are to be working with them, pushing them to holiness, and then welcoming them back with open arms.

While this post may seem like a separate thought from the recent topic of homosexuality, it really isn’t. Look at the above passage in 1 Cor. “Immoral person” is the Greek word pornos, and refers to any person who is involved in open sexual immorality- of any kind that is not between a husband (man) and a wife (woman). As I said in the first post I made on homosexuality, the big deal about it is that people, even Christians, are defining their life and their very person by a particular sin. Paul’s command is that we are not to associate with these people. This is not to be unloving, or to bash them with Scripture, or to make ourselves look more pure than they. It is simply to follow the command of Scripture, and the same would go for us if it were true of any of us.

In closing, I want to urge you to uphold each other in love. We need to be calling sin for what it is- sinful. The unsaved person cannot be saved if they do not know they are sinful, and in turn, the saved person cannot repent without being convicted. We cannot do that without knowing and upholding doctrine, and having a balanced view on it. God certainly is God of love, but he is many other things as well. Jesus, having the “fullness of deity” was the display of God’s attributes lived out through human life, and we are commanded to walk as he walked. This means balance and harmony in our doctrine.

You cannot show God's love without showing his righteousness and holiness as well. Part of God means no God at all.

Grace and peace,

Mike

Jesus Does Not Believe in Homosexual Marriage...Really!

Genesis 2:18-24- "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said,

 “This is now bone of my bones,

 And flesh of my flesh;

 She shall be called Woman,

 Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Today we'll actually be discussing the validity of the phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The phrase, when used, usually gets a roll of the eyes or possibly violent reaction. Most people just write it off completely and act like it has no logical validity. How wrong they are.

One of the things that is important to a few different issues is the order of creation. Topics involving the creator/creature relationship, husband/wife relationship, man/animal relationship, and idolatry, all are founded on the actual order of how things were created. Paul makes specific reference to it in 1 Corinthians 11 in God's authority over man, and man's authority over women. Paul infers it in Romans 1:18-32 in talking about sin and man's fallen nature, a text which we'll get to eventually. In the case of Genesis 2:20-24, Jesus actually is its interpreter in regards to the definition of marraige. We'll get to that in a second, let's look at the passage itself first.

First off, this passage is almost never referred to in conversations about homosexuality by homosexuals. Most discussions go only to passages that directly refer to it, and pass over what is probably the most important passage on it in the Bible, and more so because Jesus interprets it in Matthew 19. The importance of this passage is to the topic is that there is a reason for why homosexuality is defined as a perversion, because God did not create man or woman to operate that way. So, homosexual marriage advocates won't reference it due to the fact that it is the pivotal argument about even the plain old existence of homosexual marriage.

So, let's get started.

“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

What does it mean to be "a suitable helper" for man? We need to look at Man in creation first. When God created Man, He created him as he was supposed to be. The fact that God looks down on creation as "good" means that the order of the cosmos is exactly as God intended it. Man, before the fall, was exactly as he was intended to be, in the perfection of creation. The homosexual agenda will start off any conversation on this subject with the assertion that Eve was a suitable helper because Adam was heterosexual. Well, of course. On the other hand, they will state that if Adam was created homosexual, a man would have been a suitable helper, not a woman. Right here is where we need to put on our thinking caps. While it is good to sometimes look at what may have been from a hypothetical viewpoint, when it comes to things that have already occurred, you cannot ignore the plain facts. The fact of the matter is, God created Adam heterosexual and declared it as "good." The word "good" in Hebrew is the word "tob" and has the idea of "pleasure." When something is pleasing in the eyes of God, it means that the pleasing thing correlates to God's very nature. What that means is that heterosexuality in itself is holy, and is the proper order for nature.

Back to "suitable." Why was Eve "suitable?" Look at the animals. God doesn't create a male first, then a female out of the male. He creates each "after its own kind" and all at the same time. This is the context. When the animals are brought before Adam for a name, what is the inference? It is that there are two kinds of each kind, a male and a female. They are able to reproduce. Look at the birds and fish, for instance. In 1:22, God tells them "to be fruitful and multiply." Obviously, they can't reproduce without male and female, and they're created before man. So, in 2:19 when man sees them, the sexes were distinguished. So, if 2:18 is the beginning of the paragraph, then 2:19 is the context. Why weren't the animals suitable helpers to man? Because he couldn't mate with them. Why was Eve suitable? Because only with her could he "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Even if Adam was created homosexual, he would not have been able to mate, and therefore a male still would have been unsuitable.

Let's stop and think about contradicting arguments. It has been levied against homosexual apologists that they like to pile arguments on top of each other without thinking through the fact that the multiple arguments are all in contradiction to each other. The argument they usually use in reference to Romans 1:24-26 is that the people there were naturally heterosexual, but were taking part in homosexual activity, and therefore were "against nature." But let's think that through in this case. If Adam was created homosexual (hypothetically), and he could only multiply with a female, then wouldn't Adam be sinning if he were to be fruitful and multiply as a homosexual? Its an odd scenario, but I think it proves my point. Let's jump down a bit.

“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Why will the two become one flesh? Remember hermeneutics- context. What does the context say? "For this reason." What reason? "This is now bone of my bones... she was taken out of Man." So, the all-important question when it comes to homosexual "marriage"- Can a man and a man become "one flesh" with each other? The answer is an abounding no. The reason that homosexual marriage is a complete farce is because man did not come from the very flesh of man. Only woman holds that claim. Woman is meant for man because she is his compliment; she works with him because she is from him. When a man and a woman are united in sexual intercourse as the result of a marriage, they become one flesh because the rib is reunited with its body. This all sounds good, but is it accurate? Let's look at what Jesus Himself has to say.

Matthew 19:3-9- Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, look at how Jesus interprets this passage. A slightly different take than mine, but to the same point. He directly uses the creation order as the reason for male-female marriage. In the original passage, the reason that "they shall become one flesh..." is that "She was taken out of man." Jesus instead ties it to the larger context, that God "made them male and female." So, coming full circle, we ask the question: "Why is homosexual 'marriage' unbiblical and a sin?" Because God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its kinda amusing to look at it that way. Such a trite statement, and yet so theologically accurate. Jesus cites the creation order as the reason marriage is defined as "a union between one man and one woman for life."

So, Christian, what is your stance on homosexual marriage politically? Do you wish to see homosexuals happy? Do you wish to bring homosexuals together in loving relationships? Then you are directly going against what Christ taught about marriage. You are defining it differently than how Christ did, and are standing in direct opposition to the teachings of our Lord and Savior on the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is God-instituted, and therefore only He is qualified to define it.

I want to add, on a personal note, that I'm not coming up with these interpretations. They've been around for a long time, much longer than I have. There are men much smarter and more competent than I am that use these same arguments ably. That said, the homosexual position is nothing new. There is nothing said that hasn't already been said. The position has always been the same- stand against homosexuality or throw away your Bible. The homosexual position has been proven time and time again to be unbiblical, and therefore, those who support it stand against their own Scripture.

Simply put- there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. If it doesn't exist, then you can't support it. So don't.

Keep up the fight,

Mike