Think There’s Any Hope in National Politics? Think Again.
Are you still hoping that maybe, just maybe, it’s possible to “save America” by voting for good politicians? I hate to burst your bubble, but there are no signs of political hope at the national level. How did I come to this conclusion? By looking at what politicians do, as opposed to what they say.
There is a handy website that ranks the votes of every U.S. Senator and Representative according to the Constitution (thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/). If all of a politician’s votes are in line with the Constitution, then they get a score of 100 (%). If half of their votes are Constitutional, then their score will be 50, and so on. After looking at the scores of every Senator and Representative, I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed. I actually came to that conclusion before I did this little survey that I’m going to tell you about, but this confirms it.
I looked at every state’s legislators and calculated the average score for that state. As would be expected, some of the lowest scores came from places like New Hampshire and Connecticut. These two states actually had the lowest scores; they both scored a 10. This means that their average legislator violated the Constitution with 90% of their votes!
Surely, the rest of the country was much higher, right? Nope. When I looked at the scores from the legislators of all fifty states, the average state scored a 32.75! That’s right, the score of the average legislator at the national level is 32.75. That means over 2/3 of the votes cast in the U.S. Congress are unconstitutional, which means they are illegal. Congress can only vote according to the power given to them by the Constitution. If they go beyond that, they’re acting illegally.
Were there any good states? Nope, not one. Some were better than others, of course, but none of them were good. The more conservative states like Texas and Oklahoma only scored a 39.5 and 45.8 respectively. In fact, there was only one state which had legislators that averaged over 50%. That state was Louisiana, which scored a 53.3. Think about that! Only one state out of fifty obeyed the Constitution more than half the time! And they scored just barely over 50%. The best state’s legislators violated the Constitution with almost half of their votes.
But the Republicans will save us!
Do you really think that? Well, let’s take a look. As I looked at the voting records of Republicans, I noticed an interesting phenomenon: Republicans in liberal states often had higher scores than the ones in more conservative states. For example, Colorado had an overall score of 35. But the Republicans in CO (all two of them) had an average score of 75. Virginia had a total score of 27.5, but their Republicans (all three of them) averaged a 70.
While those numbers look good, the rest of the Republicans didn’t do nearly as well. Remember, Republicans are generally considered “conservative” and conservatives claim to follow the Constitution (though that is debatable). So, you’d think that the average for America’s Republican legislators would be fairly high, say above 66% (2/3). You’d be mistaken however; the average for Republicans in all states was 46.8. Less than half! Again, these are the guys (and gals) that claim to love the Constitution. Their score was higher than the Democrats, of course, but still nothing to write home about. Sorry, but the Republicans aren’t giving us much hope either as far “saving America” is concerned.
The conservatives will save us!
I’ve written in the past about some of the failings of the conservative movement, so I won’t rehash them here. But when you look at the politicians that conservatives end up supporting, I’m not sure they have the wisdom to be of much help, at least as far as helping Americans know which politicians will obey the Constitution.
Of course, some of the legislators that are favorably spoken of by conservatives are not too horrible. Guys like Louie Gohmert (70), Mike Lee (75), and Rand Paul (80) are much better than the average, and most conservatives speak favorably of them. As a side note, the only one with a perfect score (100) is Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
But many of the legislators that conservatives champion are downright liberal! In my state (Florida), our two Senators are Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. They scored a 20 and a 40 respectively, and yet I’ve heard some conservatives speak favorably of these guys! It’s the same with Lindsey Graham, who also scored a 20. To be fair, not every conservative likes Rubio, Scott, and Graham. But there are other legislators that most conservatives support, which are almost as bad. For example, many have labeled Marsha Blackburn (TN) as “the most conservative” Senator, yet her score is a 40. Apparently, violating the Constitution 60% of the time makes you a great conservative! I could cite many more examples, but you get the picture.
So, do we just give up?
Yes, and no. I’m not saying that we Christians should stop working for a more biblical government (which the Constitution represents to some extent). But I do believe most efforts at the national level will be fruitless for the most part. It would be much better to focus on the state and local level. We need to vote for local officials who understand good government and have the courage to stand up to the national government. Local leaders have the right, in fact the duty, to defy any unconstitutional acts of the national government.
Of course, God can do anything, but as it looks right now, there isn’t much hope for the nation as a whole. It would be better to work to preserve (and regain) our liberties at the local level, rather than waste time and energy with what looks to be a hopeless national cause.
Money “Printing” and the Bible
The phrase “money printing” is sometimes used as a nickname for the process of creating money out of a worthless material (or thin air). Even when money creation is done by typing digits into a computer, it’s still sometimes called money “printing.” This issue is especially important because, in the U. S. and around the world, a whole bunch of money printing is going on.
You won’t find the phrase “money printing” in the Bible, and you certainly won’t find talk of creating money with a computer, but the concept is right there in Scripture. This concept can be a bit complicated, but hang with me because this is super important.
God actually hates money printing! He hates it so bad, He calls it an abomination! Again, this issue can be a little hard to explain, but I’ll try to do it in three points.
Point #1: Dishonest scales. Deuteronomy 25:13-16 says that anyone who uses a dishonest (unjust) weight or measure –that person is an abomination.
What does that have to do with money printing? Well, in those days, money was measured by weight. It was made out of gold, silver, or copper, and each coin had a weight to it. Today, we use ounces (oz.), so that’s the term I’m going to use. So, if I wanted to buy some wheat, I would go to the store and ask for a pound of wheat. The cashier tells me that it will cost me one oz. of silver.
I agree that’s a fair price, so she measures out a pound of wheat and puts it on a scale (picture a balance scale). She would then put a one-pound weight on one side of the scale and the wheat on the other, in order to make sure it was really a pound of wheat.
Now, what if she wanted to cheat me? One of the ways she could do that was to make a weight that weighed 1/2 a pound and stamp the words “one pound” on it. So, when she measured out a 1/2 pound of wheat, it would look like it weighed a whole pound, because it weighed the same (on the scale) as the “one pound” weight (that really weighed 1/2 pound). And so, she could make me think I was buying onepound, when in reality, I was only buying a 1/2 pound.
Now, let’s say I wanted to cheat her. She has the wheat and the scale, so I can’t tamper with those, but I can cheat her by tampering with the money. After she weighs out the wheat, she’s going to weigh my coin to make sure I’m giving her a full oz. of silver. (remember, the price of a pound of wheat is one oz. of silver).
But, let’s say I took my one oz. silver coin, and melted it down. Then I added one oz. of a worthlessmetal to the melting pot. Now I can make two coins that weigh one oz. each. But each coin is only half silver and half worthless metal. So, each one oz. coin only has a 1/2 oz. of silver in it.
When I go to the store and give my coin to the cashier, she thinks it’s an oz. of silver. But it’s not. It’s only 1/2 an oz. So, I get a whole pound of wheat for 1/2 an oz. of silver, when I was supposed to give her a whole oz. of silver. By making money out of a worthless metal, I can cheat people.
Point #2: Making money worth less. When you make money out of a worthless metal, you are stealing from others. First, you are stealing by giving people the false impression that your one-oz. coins have one oz. of silver in them, when they only have 1/2 oz.
But you’re not just stealing from the wheat store. You’re stealing from everyone in your town, even if they don’t do business with you!
Here’s why: the more of something there is, the less that thing is worth. Why is paper so cheap? Because there’s a whole bunch of it. Why are big diamonds so expensive? Because they’re rare! If big diamonds grew on trees, no one would pay millions of dollars for a big diamond.
It’s the same with dollars. The more of them there are, the less those dollars are worth. So, if I’m printing lots of money (or making it out of worthless metal), the value of everyone else’s money goes down because there’s now more dollars in my town (or nation). So, money printing makes everyone’s money lose value.
But if I’m printing money, do I care if my money loses value? No! I’ll just print more money! But, of course, this will make other people’s money lose even more value.
Now it may seem like this isn’t a big deal. After all, if more money is being added to a community, won’t everyone be getting richer? The answer is, no.
Let’s say I print a bunch of money in the year 2021, when the price of a car is $30k. I basically get the car for free, because I’m the one making money out of a worthless material (paper). That $30k goes to the car dealer. He saves some of that money in his bank for 5 years because he wants to buy a boat. After he buys the boat, the boat dealer saves some of that money for 5 years because he wants to go on a month-long road trip. On that trip, he spends some of that money at a fancy hotel. The hotel uses some of that money to pay their workers. One of the hotel workers saves some of that money for about 5 years to buy a car.
Only now, the year is 2036, and a car doesn’t cost $30k. That same car now costs $40k. So, even though the money I printed eventually gets to the hotel worker, by the time it does, her money is worth less than when I first printed it in 2021 (because I keep printing money every year). So, she ends up having to use more dollars to buy a car. By printing money, I made her costs go up. But I don’t care about rising costs, because I can just print more money!
I’m getting rich, while everyone else gets poorer (because their money is worth less). This is why God hates money printing. The ones who print money are stealing from everyone else, and it happens in a way that the people being stolen from don’t know it’s happening.
Point #3: Destruction. When people do what God hates, He will always put a stop to it eventually. Isaiah 1:22-25 tells us what God will do to money printers. Some people in Israel were making coins with worthless metals (“dross”; v. 22). In that day, the government (the “princes”) had a deal with the “thieves” (the ones making money with worthless metal; v. 23). The government was protecting the thieves. But God wasn’t going to let this go on; He would soon take vengeance on those money printers (v. 24).
In the United States today, the ones who print money are at the Federal Reserve. They are not really “federal” in that they aren’t part of the government. It’s a private “bank,” and it’s stealing from us all. The government does help the thieves, however; they make sure the Federal Reserve can continue to print money with no accountability. This is very similar to the situation in Isaiah’s day! When will God take vengeance on the “princes and thieves” of America like He did to the ones in Israel? I don’t know. But every nation in history that has had this “abomination” money system has suffered economic calamity.
What you can do about it:
1. Stop voting for “princes” who help out the money printing thieves.
2. Get some money that isn’t “dross.” As more money gets printed, your fake money (dollars) will lose value. Real money (gold & silver) will hold their value better than printed money. It would be good to have some.
3. Prepare for hard times as God brings down this thieving economic system. And work with others in planning for hard times.
4. Learn more about how this evil money system works. And then, teach others in your family and church.
What Does the Bible Say About Bible Versions?
The Bible has something to say about every area of life. The subject of which English Bible version we should be using is an important issue. Since it is an important issue, you would think the Bible would have something to say about it. Guess what? It does.
Of course, you’re not going to find the names of common Bible versions in the text of Scripture. You won’t see “Thou shalt use such and such a version…” But you will find principles in Scripture that give us guidance in the area of choosing a Bible version. The two main questions to consider when choosing a Bible version are: 1) how is it translated? And, 2) which ancient manuscripts was that version translated from?
The first issue we are faced with when choosing a Bible version is how that version was translated. There are two main ways this is done. There is the “word for word” method, and the “thought for thought” method.
A translator who uses the word for word method will read the text of Scripture in the original language. They take the first word they read, and then translate that word into English. Then, they come to the next word, and translate that word into English, and so on. Because word for word translations are more accurate, they are often somewhat harder to read.
A thought for thought translator translates the Bible by reading portion of Scripture and then asking himself “What is the idea (or thought) contained in this verse?” He then writes down, in English, the thought or idea that he thinks is expressed in that verse. Thought for thought translations are easier to read, but aren’t as accurate.
In reality, there isn’t a purely word for word or thought for thought translation. But every translator will lean toward one method or the other.
So, which translation method does the Bible suggest to be the best? I would argue the word for word method. True, the Bible contains the “thoughts” of God, but those thoughts come to us in words. When God had something to say to His people, He inspired men to write down that message. God didn’t merely give those writers ideas, He gave them the words that He wanted them to say (Jer. 1:9; Rev. 22:18-19, etc.). So, the word for word method of translating would be more in line with what the Bible says about itself, because that method recognizes that every word which God inspired is important.
The second issue we must look at when choosing a Bible version is which ancient manuscripts that version was translated from. We have many old manuscripts of the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew & Greek). But there are some differences in some of these manuscripts. This can be a complicated issue, so I’ll be oversimplifying a bit.
Most of the debate over which manuscripts to use for the basis of our English versions is centered around certain groups of New Testament Greek manuscripts. Most of the more recent English Bible versions are translated from an older group of manuscripts that weren’t used by most Christians until more recent times. These manuscripts make up what’s known as the Modern Critical Text.
The other group of manuscripts that some of our Bibles are translated from is known as the Received Text. These manuscripts are younger, but have been in use by the church for a longer period of time. There also is another group of manuscripts known as the Majority Text. The Majority Text and the Received Text are fairly similar to one another, so I’ll mostly be comparing the Received Text and the Modern Critical Text.
Again, you won’t find the Bible telling us explicitly which ones are the better manuscripts, but it does give us guidance. So, if we were to use the Bible to build our view as to which group of manuscripts to translate from, which would it be?
The argument for the Modern Critical Text goes like this: because it is older and closer to the source, it is more accurate (again, I’m oversimplifying). With any other book, the more times it is copied, the more chance there is for mistakes to happen. It’s kind of like the game “Telephone”; the message gets changed as it is whispered from person to person. So, the argument goes, the older manuscripts will be closer to the source, and therefore, more accurate. While that sounds like a good argument, it’s not an argument based on the Bible.
God’s word is clear: the Bible is not just another book! God wants His people to have and know His word (Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:15; etc.). Furthermore, God will keep His word pure throughout the generations (Ps. 12:6-7). The manuscripts that have been in use by the church throughout the centuries would seem to be the ones that are approved by God. The manuscripts that were not in use throughout most of church history (The Modern Critical Text), would not be the ones that God providentially preserved for His people to use. Please note that I’m not saying that the church gets to determine which manuscripts are best; I’m only saying that the manuscripts which have been in use by the church are the ones that God has preserved for His people to use. The Received Text is the group of manuscripts that best fits the biblical principle that God will make sure His people will have His inerrant word throughout the generations.
So, which Bible versions would be the most in line with what the Bible teaches about itself? As far as modern versions go, the only one that would qualify is the New King James Version. The old King James (aka the Authorized Version) would fit these criteria as well. While I’m not a “KJV Onlyist,” it is probably the most accurate English version. The Geneva Bible (1599) is the one that the Pilgrims brought with them on the Mayflower, and that one would fit these criteria too.
God has taught me a lot through Bible versions that I now know are inferior translations. And if a person has trouble reading English, a lesser version might suffice for a time, though they should be encouraged to use a better translation if they can. Of course, if you want the most accurate version, learn Greek and Hebrew. Then you can read the Scriptures in the language that God inspired them to be written in.
Running from the Police, Breaking Out of Jail, Lying to the Government, and Other Godly Activities.
So many Christians today see disobeying the government as a sin. To be sure, in many cases it is a sin. But, if the Bible teaches submission to the government in all or almost all situations, why do tyrant governments ban Bibles studies? You’d think that evil rulers would require Bible reading, if that’s what the Bible taught.
The reason bad governments don’t like the Bible is that it doesn’t teach unlimited submission to the government. In fact, it teaches us to defy tyranny. Here are some examples:
1. Running from the police.
The job of the police is to enforce the law. If the laws are good, that’s not a problem. But, if the laws are bad that can become a big problem. Sometimes, the police are used by tyrants to enforce, not the law, but the will of that tyrant. Either way, it is the job of the police to arrest those who defy the will of the government.
One day Paul got into some trouble. He made the government mad, and they sent the police to arrest him. Did Paul submit? Did he let them arrest him? Nope. He ran.
In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul is reluctantly “boasting” about some of his qualifications for being an apostle. After mentioning some of the things he suffered (vv. 23-28), he then goes on to “boast” about the time he escaped from the authorities that were sent to arrest him (vv. 32-33). He even enlisted the help of other disciples to escape the police (Acts 9:24-25).
2. Breaking out of jail.
Peter also made the government angry, and they sent the police after him. Peter, however, was unable to escape the police like Paul did. Peter was arrested and put in jail (Acts 12:4). While he was in jail, God sent an angel to break him out. (vv. 6-10). At first, Peter thought he was seeing a vision, but after realizing that he really had escaped the jail, he praised God for his deliverance (v. 11).
While it is rather unusual for an angel to break people out of jail, the point is that God doesn’t consider escaping from jail to be immoral (assuming one is jailed for unjust reasons, of course).
3. “Lying” to the government.
Generally speaking, God is opposed to taking another person’s life. However, there are exceptions (Exo. 22:2; Deut. 20:12-13; etc.). Generally speaking, God is opposed to saying things that aren’t true. But again, there are exceptions. There are many times in Scripture where God approves of people being deceitful, and in every such case (that I know of), that person is lying to the government.
In Exodus 1, the Hebrew midwives were told by the government to kill babies (vv. 15-16). The midwives defied the government. When asked why they weren’t obeying orders, the midwives lied, and said that the Hebrew mothers were giving birth before the midwives could get there (v. 19). However, this wasn’t true, it was merely an excuse. The real reason the midwives disobeyed was that they feared God, not because they couldn’t get there in time (v. 17). God approved of their disobeying and deceiving the government, and He blessed them for it (vv. 20-21).
In Joshua 2, Rahab hides the Israelite spies that the government is trying to arrest (vv. 1-4). When the government asks her to turn the spies over to them, she lies to the police and says that the spies escaped through the city gate (v. 5). This wasn’t true, and Rahab knew it. The spies were hiding on her roof and she was the one who put them there (v. 6)! Did God approve of Rahab’s deceit? You bet He did! In fact, Rahab’s lying is what God considers as proof of her faith (Heb. 11:31; Jam. 2:25)!
Some may say that God approved of hiding the spies, but not of the lying. However, the deception was part and parcel to the hiding of the spies. The government wanted her to give the spies over to them. If she had told the truth (or even just said nothing), the police would have known the spies were there, and would have searched Rahab’s house instead of leaving. Rahab sent the spies out “another way” (Jam. 2:25). She did that in order to deceive the authorities. In fact, the very act of hiding something is a form of deception.
There are many more examples of God blessing His people when they disobey, deceive, and run from ungodly governments. That being said, I need to remind you that these examples which I have cited are all dealing with life and death situations. In each case, someone’s life was in danger. I’m not saying that is the only time to disobey (see Acts 5:27-29), but we should do our best to live at peace with all men, including the government (Rom. 12:18). However, when governments are a threat to life, gospel proclamation, or a godly living, we don’t have to bow down to them. God is not only okay with disobeying the government in those cases, He actually blesses that disobedience.
I’ll leave you with a quote that represents what Christians from the past have thought about defying the government (“princes”) when they are behaving in an ungodly way:
“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” – John Calvin (1509-1564)
24 Biblical Principles Applied to the Corona Crisis
The Bible applies to every situation you will ever face. There are several Bible verses and biblical concepts that need to be considered in light of the Covid-19 virus and the response to it. This would include the lockdowns, the effect on the economy, etc. There is actually quite a bit more that could be said, but here are some things for you to consider:
1. God causes bad things.
It is very common in modern churches to hear that God allows bad thing to happen. This isn’t true. The Bible is clear that God causes bad things to happen (Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6). All viruses, economic hardships, etc., are ultimately from the hand of God.
2. Confusion and fear are God’s judgment.
Some have suggested that this virus is God’s judgment on America and other countries. This may be true (Deut. 28:21), but I think it’s more accurate to say that the response to the virus is God’s judgment. This virus isn’t all that severe. Of course, for some it is. In fact, for some, it can be deadly. But, all in all, this is by no means even close to the most deadly thing out there.
The Bible does say that confusion and fear are also part of God’s judgment (Deut. 28:20, 28; Lev. 26:36). This, I believe, is more of a judgment than the virus.
3. Fear God, not people or things.
Did you know that fear can be a sin? It indeed can be (Rev. 21:8). Fear leads us to obey the thing that we are afraid of. If we fear men more than we fear God, we will obey men rather than God. Jesus was clear: don’t fear those who can kill us, but rather, fear God (Matt. 10:28). This doesn’t mean that we should do foolish things, or tempt God (Matt. 4:5-7), but neither can our lives be marked by fear.
4. Science apart from the word of God is bad.
Science is the process of trying to learn things by observation. Science is a wonderful tool that God has given us to learn about our world. However, true science must be connected to the word of God. If science runs contrary to the Bible, then the science must be assumed to be wrong, not God’s word.
This current virus, and all viruses, were caused by placing science (observation) over the word of God. All sicknesses are the result of Adam & Eve’s sin. Their sin was rooted in the fact that they trusted their eyes (observation), and a self-proclaimed expert (Satan), over what God had said (Gen. 3:2-6).
We are getting so many different “scientific” opinions on the nature of this virus and what our response should be. How do you know which of these medical opinions to trust? The ones that are the most in line with the Bible are going to be the most accurate.
5. The real death rate for those with Covid-19.
There has been much talk about what the actual death rate of this virus is. Some say the numbers of deaths are being inflated. Though I expect this to be the case, I can’t prove it. However, even if we use the official numbers, the death rate is still far below other causes of death (heart disease comes to mind, or even higher still: abortion). We’ve never taken such drastic measures against heart disease, so why are we so terrified of this? Proverbs 28:1 comes to mind.
But in another sense, I do know exactly what the death rate is for those who contract Covid-19. It’s 100%! Everyone who gets this virus will die at some point. Everyone who doesn’t get this virus will also die at some point. Death is a part of life. You shouldn’t seek it, but neither should we act like we can avoid it. God can take you out at any time, whether or not you have Covid-19. You will die, and you will face your Maker (Heb. 9:27). Are you sure you’re going to heaven? You can be (John 3:16; Rom 6:23).
6. Quarantine laws.
The Bible actually does have something to say about quarantining the sick. These laws are in Leviticus, so many Christians don’t know about them, but they are there (Lev. 13-14). In the Bible, the sick are the ones to be quarantined, not the healthy. Some may say that because the current virus is contagious even when an infected person isn’t having any symptoms, everyone should be locked down. I would just note that we really don’t know for sure what the “leprosy” in Leviticus 13-14 was. It could be that this ancient disease was contagious before symptoms appeared. And yet, God would still only have us quarantine the sick. I would also note that the flu is contagious before a person has symptoms, and we don’t quarantine the whole population during flu season, even though many die from it as well.
7. You were made to live on planet earth.
God made you to live on this planet (Gen. 1). True, this earth is under the curse of sin, but we are designed to handle the viruses, bacteria, etc., that also inhabit this world. Most of the time (though not always) our bodies can fight diseases, if we give them what they need to do that.
8. Health comes from God (through your lifestyle).
All good gifts come from God (James 1:17). Ultimately, He is the source of health (3 John 2). The healthiness of a society is somewhat dependent on their obedience to God (Exo. 15:26; Deut. 28:21-22). One of the means through which God gives the gift of health is by us living a lifestyle that God prescribes (Prov. 3:7-8; 4:20-22).
9. We are told to work.
God made man, then He put him to work (Gen. 2:7, 15). We are commanded to work (Exo. 20:9). Any response to this virus should do all that it can to allow people to work. I realize that in some cases that may not be possible, but in most cases where people were forbidden to work, they could have continued working without endangering others. Our government officials could have done much better by being less restrictive.
10. We are told to provide for our families.
God has some harsh things to say to those who choose not to provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8). Again, the lockdowns that were perpetrated by our government officials were way too severe, and needlessly (and I would add, callously) prohibited people from providing for their families. God forbids taking away a person’s livelihood (Deut. 24:6).
11. God commanded us to proclaim the gospel and disciple the nations.
This is our mission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15). The lockdowns have been an impediment to this mission. Kudos to those who have found ways to obey the Great Commission in creative ways at this unusual time, but for the most part, the actions of our governments have been more of a hindrance than a help to the church’s mission.
12. We are commanded to assemble.
We are not to forsake the assembling of God’s people (Heb. 10:25). We are to “come together” (1 Cor. 11:33; 14:23). There may be some instances where assembling as a church may temporarily not be a good idea. But, closing church buildings for months over a sickness that for about 99% of people isn’t fatal, is not a good reason to forsake assembling. If someone is sick, or has a compromised immune system, they should stay away from the gathering of the saints for a time, not everyone else.
13. Facebook isn’t assembling.
I’m not opposed to technology because the Bible isn’t opposed to it. Facebook, Zoom, etc., can be useful tools. But, these tools should never be considered a replacement for actually meeting together. “Meeting” online is not the best way to “meet.” We can utilize communication technologies, but face to face meetings are best (2 John 12; 3 John 13-14).
14. Holy kiss.
There was a cultural practice in the early church to greet one another with a kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20). While this practice may not have to be done today exactly the way it was in those days, the principle of being (appropriately) affectionate in our relationships with one another is, I believe, still something that God would have us do. And, it could actually be healthy for you. “We need closer interactions with other humans, because that exchange of microbes is important for your immune system,” says Kiran Krishnan, a microbiologist and chief scientific officer for Microbiome Labs.
Of course, this doesn’t mean you should go around licking people who are sick. But to think, as the health experts and news media are suggesting, that even standing within 6ft. of a healthy person is going to lead to death is going a bit overboard.
15. Elderly dying from despair.
There is an interesting story out of Mexico. At a state run hospital, the patients in the Covid ward were not allowed visits from their family, and the nurses there weren’t supposed to have much contact with those patients either. One nurse said that most of the patients in that ward seem to “die of sadness.” This nurse began defying the rules and began actually caring for those patients, even letting these elderly patients communicate with their families over video. Conditions in that ward subsequently improved.
God made us in such a way that we need other people. We are built for relationships. At least in that hospital in Mexico, the “care” that the medical experts prescribed was actually doing more harm.
16. Can’t preach the gospel to the dying.
Everyone is going to die and face the judgment (Heb. 9:27). While everyone needs to hear the gospel, those who are nearest death have a more urgent need to hear the good news. There has been a longstanding tradition in Christendom to go to those who are dying and give them the gospel. How many people in history have been born spiritually even as they were dying physically? Yet, the way things are being handled with this virus, those with the good news are not allowed to be with those who need it the most.
17. The civil government is God’s minister.
The job of the government is to serve God. Romans 13 calls it God’s “minister” (v. 4). The civil government, like other ministers, must obey God. If the pastor of a church was demanding that his congregation rob banks to fund that church, or engage in communal fornication, would that minister be a good one? Should he be obeyed? Wouldn’t that church (hopefully) get a new pastor?
So it is with the government. If government officials command what God has forbidden, or forbid what God has commanded, they are no longer functioning as God’s minister, and therefore are not be obeyed and are to be replaced with government officials that will act as God’s minister.
18. Interposition.
The doctrine of interposition (and the “doctrine of the lesser magistrate”) teaches that tyrants can, and even should, be resisted. A lower magistrate (like a mayor, sheriff, etc.) can interpose himself between a higher magistrate (such as a king or governor) and the people the higher magistrate is trying to tyrannize. Also, an individual can interpose between a tyrant and the object of their tyranny. The church, likewise, can resist the civil government if they are trying to do things that are the church’s responsibility.
Examples in the Bible are numerous, including: Exo. 1:15-21; 1 Sam. 14:44-45; 2 Chron. 26:16-20; etc. It is interesting that some in California, of all places, have declared that they will not go along with the unlawful orders of their governor. Some sheriffs have said they won’t enforce those orders, and many pastors have stated they will disobey those orders if their churches aren’t allowed to open by a certain date. Who would have thought that some Californians would be more liberty minded than some of the more “conservative” states?
19. Snitching.
Many bad governments want their citizens to “snitch” on others who follow their (unlawful) orders. In the Bible, if someone is violating God’s law and committing a sin that is also a crime, then the people have the duty to report that person. However, when the government is acting unjustly, those who report others to the government are condemned. One such example is David and Doeg. David was being unjustly pursued by Saul. Doeg ratted him out to the government (1 Sam. 22:6-9). How does God view this “snitch”? Not very highly. In Psalm 52, this is what God says about Doeg’s snitching: “You love evil more than good…God shall destroy you forever…”
20. WHO and the UN.
Jesus was given authority over all the nations (Ps. 2; Matt. 28:18-20; Rev. 2:26-27). Any person, or group of people, who pretend to have authority over the nations are attempting to dethrone Christ. That is an obvious no-no. The United Nations is one such organization. It is the duty of every Christian to oppose the UN and any group connected with them, like the World Health Organization.
21. Fiat money.
In order to save our crashing economy, the Federal Reserve is creating more money out of thin air. God condemns those who increase the money supply by creating money out of worthless materials. “Nothing” isn’t worth very much. In Isaiah 1:22-23, people were making money out of “dross” (worthless metals). God calls this theft, and this is one of the reasons He destroyed His own people. America won’t fare any better, unless we repent.
22. You don’t define loving your neighbor.
In the Bible, loving God is defined, not as by having certain feelings for Him, but by obeying Him (John 14:15; 1 John 5:3). Likewise, loving our neighbor is defined as obeying God’s commands (2 John 5-6). In other words, if you are “loving” your neighbor in ways that are contrary to God’s commands, then you aren’t really loving them, no matter how you feel about them. “Love” that isn’t rooted in God’s word isn’t love.
23. You’re not receiving prophecies that Jesus is coming soon.
This crisis has sparked a new emphasis on Christ’s return, and many are claiming to receive dreams and prophecies that reveal the second coming is going to happen soon. These supposed revelations are in clear contradiction to Scripture.
Jesus is now seated at the right hand of the Father, ruling and reigning (Eph. 1:20-21). He is going to be on that heavenly throne until His enemies are made His footstool (1 Cor. 15:24-26; Heb. 10:12-13). In other words, He’s not leaving heaven to return to earth until His enemies are subdued. Those enemies include rebellious nations (Ps. 2). We have been given responsibilities in this nation-subduing mission as well (Matt. 28:18-20). Look around you. Are Christ’s enemies subdued? They’re not, so we’ve probably got a long way to go before His return.
24. God is building His kingdom through this.
Hebrews 12:27-28 gives us a principle: God shakes things up from time to time in order to bring down things that are opposed to His kingdom (Heb. 12:27). This “shaking” clears the ground for His unshakable kingdom to grow (Heb. 12:27-28). Clearly, this virus, or rather the response to it, has shaken things up. This shaking can be rough to live through, but with faith, we can rejoice that God is building His kingdom even as He’s bringing down the kingdoms of man.
How are you going to respond to this shaking (and the ones to come)? Will you be sad when the wicked institutions that the ungodly have built come crumbling down? Will you hunker down and wait for God to rescue you? Or, will you get busy doing what God has called you to do? Now’s the time for building and fighting, not retreating (Nehemiah 4:14, 17).
Three Criteria for Church Music
The “battle” over what type of songs and music we should have in our worship services is a contentious debate. While the Bible may not explicitly say “Thou shall not play Rock music, etc., to thy God,” it does give us much guidance on the issue of church music.
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are some of the more clear statements on church music in the New Testament. Of course, these aren’t the only verses, and the NT isn’t the only place we find instruction on this topic, but they are a good summary. There are at least three criteria for church music either stated or implied in these verses.
#1. Sound doctrine in the lyrics. This point may not be very controversial, but it isn’t always diligently applied. While I would assume that, if pressed, most Christians would say that the lyrics we sing to God ought to be true, many act as though how a song makes them feel is more important than the doctrine the song is teaching.
In Col. 3:16, Paul says to:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you [the church in Colosse] richly…teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs…”
If our songs don’t contain true doctrine, they won’t be causing the word of God to dwell in our churches. The lyrics in our songs must be biblically accurate. They must be true.
But should we only be concerned that the lyrics are merely true? I would argue, no. This verse also says that the word of Christ should dwell richly in us, and that our songs have a teaching element in them as well. If I were to sing “God is great, God is great, God is great,” I would be singing truth. But those lyrics wouldn’t be expressing deep, rich truths. Furthermore, saying “God is great” over and over again doesn’t teach me very much about why God is great, or in what ways He is great.
Not all modern songs are bad, but many of them don’t teach you very much. Even some of the church music from the late 1800’s can be rather shallow. There is a place for simple, straightforward expressions of praise, but let us remember that shallow songs generally lead to shallow churches.
#2. A style of music that is fitting for worship. Because the words “Southern Gospel” or “Rock & Roll” aren’t in our Bibles, many people have a tendency to think that any style of music is acceptable for use in a worship service. While the Bible may not give specific instructions in this area, it does give us guidance.
Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 say that we are singing “to the Lord.” God is a holy God, the King of all creation. He is majestic beyond anyone’s imagination. The music we sing to Him ought to reflect these truths. Even music that isn’t “bad” may not be fitting for worship. T. David Gordon, in his book Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns, uses the example of playing a kazoo at a wedding (or maybe it was a funeral?). There’s nothing immoral about playing a kazoo, but it doesn’t fit an important occasion like a wedding or a funeral.
Again, the Bible doesn’t give specifics, but certain genres of music just don’t communicate that we are singing to a holy, majestic God.
#3. Congregational singing. This last criteria is less clear in Scripture, so I’m not as dogmatic about it. But in these two verses, it appears that the singing in our churches should be congregational. By “congregational” I mean that when a song is sung, it should be the whole congregation doing the singing.
While I don’t have space to make a thorough case for this view in this short article, notice that these verses say that we should be “speaking, teaching, and admonishing one another in song.” There are many “one another” commands in Scripture given to local churches. These commands are given to tell each member of a church their duties to every other member of their church. So, the command to admonish one another in song, implies that the singing is to be done by every member, not the praise band, soloists, etc.
When you begin to apply these criteria to church music, you’ll see that a lot of modern church music ignores these criteria. You’ll also see that much of the older music follows these criteria more closely (By the way, when I say “older music,” I mean church music that is 150 years old or older). This is not to say that all modern music is bad, or that all older music is good. But the Christians who produced the church’s music in prior centuries were much more diligent in applying the Bible to how we worship God.
I know this short article won’t end the worship wars, but hopefully it will give you some things to think about.
God is Too Much of a Gentleman to Impose His Will on You (Yeah Right!)
Many times I’ve heard people say, “God is too much of a gentleman to impose His will on you.” Or another way I’ve heard it expressed: “It’s a spiritual law: God can’t violate your free will.”
Both of these statements may sound good to our human ears. After all, what person wants their will to be violated? The problem with these statements is that they are wildly unbiblical. When I hear people make these statements, it makes me wonder if the person saying them has ever read the Bible. We don’t even have to get into the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate (though it is related). All we really have to do is read Scripture. Anyone who believes the Bible has to admit that God can and does violate our wills (our ability to choose what we want).
Example #1: Adam & Eve.
In Genesis 1:27, it says that God made Adam & Eve. He made them male and female. Did they choose to be the gender God assigned to them? No, they had no choice in the matter. “But,” you might say, “they weren’t unwilling to be what God created them to be.” That’s true. After all, sin had not yet come into the world. But everyone who was born after Adam & Eve was also born male or female, and not all of them are willing to be the gender God made them. But, it doesn’t matter. God imposes a gender on us whether we are willing or not, and no amount of surgery can change that.
Example #2: God’s judgments.
God does allow us to make choices. That’s why we are responsible to Him for the choices we make. Some of those choices will bring down God’s judgment upon us. In Genesis 19, we see the inhabitants of Sodom making sinful choices (vv. 4-5). God destroyed them because of it (v. 24). We can say that the people of Sodom were willing to sin, but no one would argue that they wanted God’s fire to rain down upon them! Their will was to sin and not be punished for it. They were not willing to have judgment fall on them, and yet, God did it anyway. He imposed His will on them.
Example #3: Job.
God clearly imposed His will on Job. “But,” you might say, “that was Satan who did those things to him.” Well, it’s true that Satan was the one who afflicted Job directly, but who was the one to initiate all the bad things that happened to Job? God did (Job 1:8; 2:3). Job said that God was the one who took away his children, etc. (1:21), and the Bible says that it wasn’t sinful for him to say that (1:22). Also, what Christian wouldn’t acknowledge that even Satan must get permission from God in order to act? And if God gave permission to Satan to do those things, don’t we have to say that God willed for Job to suffer? After all, no one forced God to let Satan afflict Job. God is the only all-powerful being; no one forces Him to do anything.
When you get heaven, ask Job if God imposes His will on people.
Example #4: Balaam.
A king named Balak hired Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel (Num. 22:2-6). But every time Balaam tried to curse Israel, he ended up blessing them instead (Num. 23:11-12, 25-26; 24:10-13). Balaam said, “I couldn’t go beyond the word of the Lord, to do good or bad of my own will.” (24:13). Balak willed that Israel be cursed. Balaam tried to help him do that. God wanted Israel blessed. Whose will won the day? God’s did.
Example #5: Saul.
While David had been anointed as the new king of Israel, Saul still held the throne. Saul, being jealous of David, tried to hunt him down and kill him (1 Sam. 19:11). As David is on the run, Saul sent messengers to capture him (1 Sam. 19:20). These messengers ended up prophesying instead (vv. 20-21). When Saul comes to try and capture David, he too, prophesies, only God made him do it without clothing (vv. 23-24)! Saul and his messengers willed to capture David. God made them prophesy against their will. Again, God imposed His will.
There are many more examples I could cite, but you get the picture. The Bible is clear: God can and does impose His will on us. Yes, we have some freedom to make choices. But God also has freedom to make choices, and His freedom is greater than ours. When my will comes in conflict with God’s will, my puny will is the one that gets bulldozed, not God’s. The idea that God never imposes His will on us may be comforting to some, but it is not biblical. Do we really think that God says to us “thy will be done..”?
God’s will is perfect, my will is not. While many Christians seem to exalt human will, my will has gotten me into plenty of trouble. If anyone’s will should be exalted, it is God’s will, not mine. My hope is that you will learn to pray, “Oh Lord, please impose Your gracious will on me!”
Challenges for Premillennialism
Premillennialism is the belief that Christ will return before (pre) the millennium. The millennium is the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20. The Premillennial view has a long history, and many great men have believed it (e.g. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). With that being said, I find that the evidence in Scripture for many Premillennial beliefs is weak at best. I’m writing this article to show some of the problems with certain aspects of Premillennialism, but I’m not doing it with the intent of bashing anyone’s views. If Premillennialism is correct, I want to know! But if the challenges I’m about to put forth are valid, then maybe it’s time to abandon this view.
One quick note: there are two main types of Premillennialism: Dispensational and Historic. Some of these challenges would apply to both types, and others would only apply to the Dispensational variety. Now for the challenges.
1. The millennium. Does the Bible even teach that there will be a millennium? Rev. 20 does mention “a thousand years” (vv. 2,3,4,5, etc.). But is this enough to prove the idea of a literal 1,000 year millennium? I would argue, no. First, it is very dangerous to base a view on one lone passage. Many cults have been started this way. If you want to make a case from the Bible, it’s best to have several passages from which to make your case. There is no other passage in all of Scripture that mentions a millennium. Second, this passage is in Rev. 20, one of the most confusing, highly debated chapters in the Bible. Third, the book of Revelation is one of, if not the most, symbolic books in all of Scripture. In fact, the very first verse in Revelation hints to the fact that the book is not literally describing certain events, but rather, it is symbolizing or “signifying” (sign-ifying) events that would take place (Rev. 1:1). Fourth, the Bible often uses the number 1,000 (or 10,000) in a figurative sense (Ps. 50:10; 91:7; 105:8; Song. 4:4; Isa. 7:23; 1 Cor. 4:15; 14:19; etc.). So, “1,000” often just means a large number. I believe the 1,000 years in Rev. 20 is simply a long period of time, specifically, the church age.
2. The premillennial return. If the 1,000 yrs. in Rev. 20 is describing the church age, then Premillennialism is destroyed. But, let’s say for a moment that the millennium is a literal 1,000 yrs. Then would the Bible teach a premillennial return of Christ? Again, I would argue, no. The idea that Christ returns before the millennium comes from the idea that chapter 19 of Revelation is describing Christ’s return. Does it? Not explicitly. Chapter 19 does say that Jesus is in heaven (v. 11). And, it does say that His saints “followed Him” (v. 14). They are following Him into battle (v. 15). This battle takes place on the earth (vv. 17-21). Does this then prove that Jesus returns to earth (chap. 19) before the millennium (chap. 20)? No.
First, remember, this is only one passage. If you only have one symbolic passage to back up your view, your view is probably wrong. Second, it doesn’t actually say that Christ comes to earth in chap. 19. It says that Jesus is in heaven and that His people follow Him, but it doesn’t say that either of them are going toward the earth. Jesus can fight those on earth while He is in heaven. In Rev. 2:16, Jesus says that He will fight against those in the church of Pergamos (in the 1stcentury). He wasn’t talking about coming back to earth, He was talking about coming in judgment. Jesus is God; He can fight His enemies on earth while He’s in heaven. While I don’t have room here to get into my view of Rev. 19, my point is that the only passage that may speak about a premillennial return, doesn’t explicitly say that. Which means that there is no passage in all of Scripture that explicitly teaches a premillennial return. Sounds like a weak view to me.
3. Jesus reigning on the earth for a thousand years. Is there any verse that says that Jesus will rule on earth for 1,000 years? Nope. Many think that Rev. 20:4 says that Jesus will reign on earth for the millennium. Read that verse carefully. It says no such thing. Only if you assume that Rev. 20 is talking about a literal 1,000 yrs., and you assume that Rev. 19 is talking about the return of Christ, can you assume that Rev. 20:4 takes place on the earth. That’s a lot of assuming, and not one verse in the whole Bible explicitly says that.
4.The rapture. Here’s another widely held belief that is never explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible does say that Jesus is coming back. But it never says that He is coming back to snatch us away to heaven. Here are the so called “rapture” passages:
Matt. 24:36-42. This passage does say that some people will be “taken.” However, they’re not taken to heaven, they’re taken in judgment, just like the flood in Noah’s day “took” people away (vv. 37-39).
John 14:2-3. This is the best evidence for the rapture, and yet, it never says that Jesus is coming back to take us to heaven (read it carefully!). It says that (after His death) He was going to go to heaven, and it says that He will “come again” to earth. But it never says that He will take us back to heaven.
1 Cor. 15:51-54. The event described here must be at the Last Day, because at this event, death will be no more (v. 54). So, this cannot be the rapture, because according to that view (at least for most) a lot of death is going to take place after the rapture. And, again, this passage never says that Jesus is going to take us to heaven.
1 Thess. 4:14-17. This passage does say that we who are alive at Jesus’ coming will be caught up to meet Him. This passage does say that He is returning. But it never says that He’s coming to take us to heaven (again, read it carefully!). In this passage, Jesus is headed to earth. But, there is no mention of Him reversing course to go back to heaven. You might ask why we would meet Him in the air, just to come back to earth. In Paul’s day, Roman officials would often be met by the people as they returned from war (if they won). The people would go out to meet their leader, form a victory parade, and march back to the city. This was the practice in ancient Israel as well (see Jdg. 11:32, 34; 1 Sam. 18:6-7). We will go up to meet our Leader as He returns to earth.
Rev. 4:1. Some have tried to say that this is a “rapture” passage. However, the only person in this passage who is called “up” is the apostle John. This isn’t describing a rapture either. There is no passage in all of Scripture which explicitly says that Jesus is going to come back and take us to heaven. Jesus is coming back, but it will be to a restored earth, where we will live with Him forever (see Rom. 8:19-22; Rev. 22:1-5).
5. Sacrifices being offered in a rebuilt temple as a memorial to Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people believe this view. But, many still do believe that during the millennium, while Jesus is ruling from a rebuilt Jerusalem, the OT sacrifices will resume in a rebuilt temple. Of course, the idea of the OT sacrifices resuming is complete blasphemy. Jesus’ sacrifice put an end to the OT sacrifices (Heb. 9:11-14; 10:1-4, 11-12; etc.). No one wants to be accused of blasphemy, so those who hold to this view had to come up with a reason for the sacrifices to resume. The reason they made up was that God wants the sacrifices to resume as a memorial to His Son’s sacrifice. I say they “made up” this view because there is not one verse in all of Scripture which says that God wants us sacrificing animals as a memorial of His Son’s death. If you can show me from Scripture, I’ll believe you. No one has been able to show me yet.
In conclusion, Premillennialism has had many supporters over the centuries. Some of them were godly & knowledgeable men. But since many of their central beliefs have little (or no) biblical support, I think it’s time to reevaluate Premillennialism. There are other views of the end times which do have verses that explicitly teach the things that they believe. For a brief intro to my view, please see my article entitled: Is Jesus Coming Soon? Not Likely. If you have answers to these challenges that I have laid out, I would love to hear them. While I do have strong opinions on these things, I’m not above correction. You can get in touch with me through the “contact us” page of my website.
Are Shrimp an Abomination?
One of the criticisms that is leveled against Christians is their tendency to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to obey. Skeptics think that we are being hypocritical for condemning some sins while blatantly committing other sins. One example that is often used is that most Christians eat shellfish, when the Bible says (according to the skeptic) “Shellfish is an abomination.”
I, too, am frustrated with how some Christians throw out any commands they don’t like. But when it comes to this issue, modern Christians and those of years past are correct in saying that we can now eat shrimp, crab, lobster, etc.
While many Christians are too quick to throw out Old Testament laws, we must acknowledge that the New Testament does repeal some of those laws. Traditionally, Christians have noted that there are some OT laws that reflect God’s never-changing views on morality. But by looking at the whole Bible (OT & NT), we see that some laws were only for the nation of Israel in OT times. These temporary laws are often described as “ceremonial” laws. Some examples of these laws would include the animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc. Some of the ceremonial laws fall into the category of “separation laws.” These laws were designed to keep the Israelites culturally separate from the godless peoples around them. These laws were to be done away with when the new covenant came and the gospel would be sent forth to all nations.
So, what does this have to do with eating shrimp? Are shrimp no longer an “abomination?”
Actually, the Bible never says that shellfish are an abomination. It does say that the Israelites were not to eat animals that lived in the water and that “do not have fins and scales” (Leviticus 11:10). This would include shrimp, clams, etc. But notice that Lev. 11:10 says that these creatures were to be “an abomination to you [the Israelites].” These were not an abomination in a moral sense. They weren’t an abomination to God like certain sinful activities are. God made these water creatures after all, so there’s nothing immoral about them.
These finless, scaleless water animals were to be despised by Israel (as far as for food). But why? Again, this was a separation law. This law would have made a separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. One way to build community is to share meals together. The food laws were designed in part to hinder this cross-cultural fellowship between Jew & Gentile.
How do I know that? Because the book of Leviticus says so. In Lev. 20:24-26, we read that Israel was given the list of clean animals (those they could eat) and unclean animals (those they couldn’t), because God had “separated them from the [other] peoples.”
If that’s not a convincing enough argument, let’s turn to the NT and see God showing Peter that both the food laws and the Jew/Gentile separation idea is no longer binding on us in the new covenant.
In Acts 10:9-16, God gives Peter a vision. In that vision, Peter (a Jew) is told by God to eat “unclean” animals. Peter, being a good Jew, protests and says that he won’t eat those unclean things. God tells him that He has made those unclean animals “clean” (v. 15). So, God was saying that the food laws are no longer binding on us. But why? Because from this time forward, there would not be this Jew/Gentile separation (see Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-16, etc.). So, even though the vision that Peter received did have something to do with the OT food laws, Peter was about to learn the other reason for this vision.
While Peter was still pondering this vision, some Gentiles came to him and invited him to come to the house of a Roman (Gentile) officer named Cornelius (Acts 10:17-22). Peter, being a good Jew, normally would not have had close fellowship with, or even gone into the house of, a Gentile (Acts 10:28; see also 11:2-3). But, since he knew that the OT food laws were for the purpose of separation – and now knew that those laws had been repealed – he knew God was telling him that it was now all right to fellowship with Gentiles. Now, he should not call any food or “any man” unclean (Acts 10:28).
In conclusion, we can only say that an OT law is no longer in effect if the NT tells or shows us that that law is no longer binding. The food laws are one of those categories of law that has been repealed. Those “abominations” in the OT that are evil because they violate God’s unchanging standard of morality are still abominations in NT times. But, those foods that were to be an abomination to only the Israelites – those foods are now “clean.”
While Christians do act hypocritically in other areas, this is one area where not obeying the OT is okay. The rest of the Bible shows us that the food laws have been repealed.
Obtaining a Wife by Rape? What the Bible Really Says
I have recently heard both Muslims and atheists claim that the Bible promotes rape. They say that, according to the Bible, you could actually obtain a wife by raping an unmarried woman. If you catch her and rape her, then you get to marry her. The Bible verses that supposedly teach this are found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin…and he seizes her and lies with [has sex with] her…she shall be his wife…” (NKJV)
Unfortunately, most modern Christians ignore the OT, and therefore, they may not even know this passage exists, much less know what it is actually teaching. Neither this passage, nor any other passage in the Bible, promotes rape. There are several clues in the rest of the Bible, and even in this passage itself, which show that it is not talking about rape.
Clue #1. The word “seized.” The verses before our passage (Deut. 22:25-27) are talking about rape, and in this case the man “forces” the woman and lies with her. The word “forces” is the Hebrew word “chazaq.” In this case, the man who “forces” a betrothed woman and lies with her – that man gets the death penalty (v. 25).
But what about the man who “seizes” a woman in v. 28? Why doesn’t he get the death penalty? Because, in this verse, the man isn’t committing rape. The word “seize” is the Hebrew word “taphas.” This word can be used for playing a musical instrument (Gen. 4:21), handling the law of God (Jer. 2:8), handling farm tools (Jer. 50:16), etc. The word means to handle or manipulate. Sometimes it implies using force, but often it does not.
Clue #2. Parallel passages. The name Deuteronomy literally means “second law” (i.e., the second reading of the law). So, in order to gain more insight into what this law in Deuteronomy means, we have to look at the first time this law was given. This law was first given in Exodus 22:16-17.
“If a man entices a virgin…and lies with her…[she can] be his wife…” (NKJV)
Here, in Exodus, the man enticed (seduced) the woman. This is what Deut. 22:28 is talking about: the “seizing” (or taking hold of) is seducing, not rape.
Clue #3. The passage itself shows it is not speaking of rape. If anyone reading Deut. 22:28-29 would back up and read the verses prior to it (vv. 23-27), they would see that the man who is seducing this woman is not raping her. This fornication is consensual.
Verses 23–24 are about a consensual affair. It is deemed consensual because the woman “did not cry out” (i.e., she didn’t object).
Verses 25-27 are talking about a rape. In these verses the woman “cried out.” She objected, but was forced against her will.
When we get to verses 28-29 (our supposed rape-to-get-a-wife passage), there is no mention of the young lady “crying out.” This implies she was a willing participant in this fornication. Verse 28 also says that “they” were found out. This again implies that both were consenting to this sin of fornication. In this case, when both the man and the woman commit this sin of fornication, the man must marry the woman, if the woman’s father agrees. And this brings us to our next clue.
Clue #4. The father’s veto. In the passage that is the parallel to our passage (Ex. 22:16-17), the man who seduces a woman must then pay a fine (see also Deut. 22:29), and then he must marry that woman. There is no “love them and leave them” in God’s law. If you are going to have sex, you also have to take responsibility for your actions.
However, the father of the woman could refuse to give his daughter to the man (Ex. 22:17; the man would still have to pay the fine). This also shows that this passage, and Deut. 22:28-29 is not talking about rape. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, I may give her to a young man with whom she committed fornication. Of course, my hope would be that she wouldn’t do that, but if it happened, and the man was an otherwise upstanding man, and a Christian, and generally responsible, I would consider letting him marry my daughter. If my daughter doesn’t want to marry this guy, I’m going to tell this man “no.” After all, I have more love for my daughter than I have for him.
But if he rapes my daughter, not only would I never allow him to marry her, but he’d better hope the police catch him before I do! Because if I do, there won’t be anything left of him for my daughter to marry!
Those Muslims and atheists who criticize the Bible have it wrong. The Bible doesn’t promote rape. The Bible sometimes records rape happening, but that doesn’t mean that God condones it; it is simply saying that the rape happened. There is nothing in Scripture that says that a rapist gets to marry his victim. Anyone who says so has probably never really studied the Bible.
God’s law is perfect (Ps. 19:7) and I love it (Ps. 119:97). Do you?