Theology

How to Disobey the Whole Bible and Still Claim to be a Bible-Believing Christian

Having had many opportunities to interact with other Christians over the years, I’ve found that some who claim to love the Bible have very clever ways of denying its teachings. I’m not just referring to the more liberal types of Christians either. Many who would call themselves “Bible-believing, conservative Christians” have come up with various reasons why certain parts of God’s word can be ignored. If I were to compile all of those reasons together, one could literally disobey everything God has told us to do.

The following excuses are real, meaning I have heard them expressed by those who profess to love and obey God’s word.

1. That’s the Old Testament!

This one is the most common. If there is anything in the first ¾ of the Bible (the OT) that you don’t like, all you have to do to get out of obeying God is say, “That’s the OT. That was only for ancient Israel. I don’t have to obey that!”

Voila, problem solved!

2. Jesus was speaking to Jews, so I don’t have to obey what Jesus said!

Yes, I’ve heard this one too. In fact, I’ve even heard professors from Reformed seminaries use this excuse. They say that anything Jesus said while on earth can be ignored because when He spoke the words recorded in the Gospels, He was speaking to Jews who were under the old covenant. Therefore, since we aren’t under the old covenant, we don’t have to obey most of what Jesus said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

3. Paul was speaking to Greeks, and we’re not Greeks!

If a “New-Testament Christian” isn’t obligated to obey the OT or Jesus (since He was speaking to people under the old covenant), then surely we have to obey the writings of Paul and the other apostles, right? I mean, they were writing letters to Gentile believers so we should obey them, shouldn’t we?

Some would say, “Not so fast!” Paul, the theory goes, was writing to first-century churches that were largely influenced by Greek thought and culture. So, Paul was giving instruction to an ancient culture that we are not a part of. Therefore, his instructions really don’t apply to us in the modern world. We don’t have to obey the NT letters either!

If we add all of these excuses together – it looks like we don’t have to obey anything the Bible tells us to do! All that instruction was for other people in past millennia, not us.

But are these excuses valid? I hope anyone can see that added together, these ideas destroy the idea that God’s word must be obeyed. But clearly, He wants us to obey (Deut. 28:1-2, 15; 1 John 5:3; Rev. 22:14; etc).

And while many can see that adding these excuses together will lead to problems, some may still think that one or two of these by themselves are still valid.

That, however, is not the case. Let’s examine these three excuses.

1. That’s the Old Testament!

While it is true that the NT does show us that some OT laws are not to be practiced any more, the NT writers clearly taught that the OT was still to be a guide for Christians. While the NT writers did at times quote Jesus directly (see 1 Cor. 11:23-25; 1 Tim 5:18; etc), they more often quoted the OT when giving instruction to NT believers (Rom. 12:1-20; Jam. 2:8; and many more).

We need to keep in mind that Jesus is God. Therefore, the OT was written by Jesus!

If the NT tells us an OT command is no longer to be practiced, then, yes, of course, we don’t have to obey it. But don’t think that the whole OT has been set aside; Jesus and His apostles certainly didn’t have that view. We should assume OT commands still apply, unless the NT shows us otherwise.

2. Jesus was speaking to Jews, so I don’t have to obey what Jesus said!

Just because Jesus was speaking to Jews under the old covenant doesn’t mean His instructions have no authority over us.

Jesus did sometimes hint to His Jewish audience that the new covenant would change some things (for example, worship; see John 4:21). But Jesus often affirmed the OT, and again, so did His apostles. The apostles never taught that Jesus’ words to the Jews didn’t apply to Gentile believers.

To be a Christian means you follow Jesus’ teachings. How can anyone say that Christians don’t have to obey what Jesus said? And yet, that is what some say.

3. Paul was speaking to Greeks, and we’re not Greeks!

Both the OT and the NT were written to a particular group of people, who lived in particular cultural circumstances. While many use that fact as an excuse to disobey, that’s a mistaken conclusion.

While Paul was writing to deal with specific problems in specific NT churches, the underlying principles of the instructions he gave apply in all cultures.

One example is Paul’s instructions on braided hair (1 Tim. 2:9). The hairstyles he was referring to were very elaborate, showy, and often cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars.

It’s unlikely that the women in your church are wearing these ancient hairstyles Paul was addressing. But the principles of modesty and not drawing attention to one’s self apply in all times, and in all cultures. So yes, Paul’s instruction to the first-century Gentiles applies to us as well.

Many have invented clever ways to ignore the parts of Scripture they don’t like. True believers will not have this attitude. We may not know how each and every command applies in our day, but we should assume they do, unless other places in the Bible tell us otherwise.

2024-02-15T18:43:06+00:00February 15th, 2024|Categories: Theology|Tags: , |

Missionaries Focus Too Much on Planting Churches

Christians in America, and missionaries overseas, need to stop focusing so much on planting churches. Please notice I didn’t say, “stop planting churches.” Church planting is necessary, but sometimes people overemphasize this aspect of our mission. It’s good to plant churches, but if that is seen as the primary goal of missions, our understanding of the Great Commission is lacking.

I’ve had the privilege of knowing and speaking with many missionaries over the years. I admire their courage and diligence to minister in areas where many people wouldn’t want to live. But in my observation, there’s a short-sightedness in most mission endeavors. The goal of missions is often seen as getting enough people saved to plant a church. Let me be clear, starting churches and seeing people saved are great things. But this is not an adequate view of the Great Commission.

In Matthew’s version of the Great Commission, Jesus says to disciple whole nations. He also says to teach those nations “to observe everything [He] has commanded” (Matt. 28:18-20). Since Jesus is God, and God has given us commands that pertain to family, business, education, economics, worship, law, charity, government, etc., the Great Commission involves teaching the nations how to obey God in all of those areas (and more!). When all of these things are taught, it leads, not just to people being transformed, it leads to whole societies being transformed! In other words, it’s not just churches that will spring up, but a Christian civilization. If that’s not the goal of missions, the goal is too small.

Also notice, the Commission doesn’t just say to teach God’s commands, but to teach the nations to “observe [obey] God’s commands.” The best way to teach others how to apply the Bible to all of life is for you to apply the Bible to all of life. It’s one thing to tell someone what to do, it’s another to show them.

God’s method of teaching incorporates this principle. In Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Israelite parents were to teach their children the word of God, not only by talking about God’s commands, but also by having their children accompany them as they sat in their homes and when they were out and about. Their children would learn by listening to what the parents said, but also by watching what they did (see also Prov. 23:26; John 5:19-20). This method of teaching was how Jesus taught His disciples: they lived with Him for about three years and in that time they not only heard Him teach, but they also observed His life.

So, how then can a single missionary show unbelievers how to raise a godly family, or show how a community should function, or form a civil government, etc.? How can a lone missionary show unbelievers what Christian civilization looks like? He can’t. At least, not by himself. An individual can’t teach those things very well, at least not by example.

This is why Christians used to send groups of believers into a land as missionaries, not just a couple of them. In times past, ten or twelve Christian men, and their families, would go to a foreign land and settle there. They would build a Christian community, a small Christian civilization. They would form a “city on a hill,” so to speak, and be a light to those who observed them (Matt. 5:14-15).

This was actually God’s plan for His OT people as well. He put Israel at the intersection of three continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa) and in the path of several trade routes. People from many nations would be traveling through Israel. When they did, they would see what a godly society looks like and would praise Israel’s God (Deut. 4:5-8).

While many unbelievers will hate the “light” (John 3:20), our example is often used by God to bring the lost to Himself (1 Pet. 2:12).

Those in church history who used the “city on a hill” method of missions often had great success (as God blessed their efforts). Societies that haven’t been affected by the gospel are not pleasant places to live in. And, when unbelievers saw what a community built on the Bible was like, they often wanted to learn more. A society built on God’s instruction will always be superior in every respect to any other society.

One of the best examples of a “city on a hill” missionary endeavor is the nation you’re living in now. While the modern U.S.A. isn’t quite the godly example it once was, it was built by those who wanted to be a city on a hill, a light to the rest of the world. In 1630, the Puritan John Winthrop preached a sermon to a group of Christians headed from England to America. He said that the community they would establish would be seen as “a city on a hill.” Also, in speaking of the Pilgrim colony, their governor William Bradford said, “as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone unto many, yea, in some sort to our whole nation.”

Planting churches is a part of the Great Commission, but it isn’t the whole mission. A vision of missions that sees the goal as only saving people and starting churches denies that God has given instruction for all of society, and that our job is teach the nations all that God has instructed. It’s time for a bigger vision for missions.

2023-03-19T18:27:08+00:00March 19th, 2023|Categories: Church, Theology|

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.

2021-04-01T19:30:03+00:00December 22nd, 2020|Categories: Theology|Tags: , , , , , |

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!”

2021-04-01T19:33:06+00:00January 30th, 2020|Categories: Theology|Tags: , , |

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.

2019-11-30T01:54:03+00:00November 12th, 2019|Categories: Theology|Tags: , |

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?

2019-05-31T22:17:37+00:00May 31st, 2019|Categories: Family, Theology|Tags: , , |

Jesus Never Claimed to be God?

One of the primary purposes of 5th Kingdom Ministries is to equip Christians to go beyond the basics of the faith, and apply the Bible to every area of life. Every once and a while, however, I do feel the need to go back to the basics. Unfortunately, many professing Christians have trouble making a case for some of our foundational beliefs.

One of those beliefs is the deity of Jesus (i.e., Jesus is God). You simply cannot call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe that Jesus is God. Many skeptics think they disprove Christianity by simply stating that “Jesus never claimed to be God.” This argument can even stump some Christians. The argument goes like this: “The red letters in the Bible (assuming you have a “red letter” Bible), are the words of Jesus, and since you will not find the words ‘I am God’ written in red, that means that Jesus never claimed to be God.” What may sound like a good argument quickly falls apart under closer examination. Keep in mind that what follows is only some of the evidence in Scripture that Jesus is God.

Reason #1. Jesus clearly claimed to be the Son of God (Luke 22:70), and the Christ (i.e. the Messiah; Matt. 16:16-17; John 4:25-26). But is claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God, the same as claiming to be God? Yep. In the OT, God’s Son is the inheritor of the nations (Ps. 2:7-8). The inheritor of the nations is God (Ps. 82:8). The OT clearly says that the Messiah (i.e. the Child, the Son) is none other than the “Mighty God, Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6).

Reason #2. Jesus claimed to be the Judge of the whole earth. Ps. 82:8 says not only that God will inherit the nations, but that He is also the Judge of earth (see also Gen. 18:25; 1 Sam. 2:10; etc.). Another way to say it, is that God is the judge of the nations (or “peoples” or world; Ps 96:10-13). Jesus said that the Son of Man (Jesus’ favorite name for Himself) would judge all the nations (Matt. 25:31-32).

Reason #3. Jesus used God’s names as His own. In John 8:58 Jesus describes Himself as “I AM.” The Greek words used here are “Ego Eimi.” When God tells Moses what He should be called, God says that He is the “I AM” (Ex. 3:14). In the Greek version of the OT, God calls Himself “Ego Eimi.” The Jews of Jesus’ day knew that when Jesus called Himself Ego Eimi, He was calling Himself God, and that’s why they wanted to stone Him (John 8:59).

In Rev. 1:11 & 17 Jesus calls Himself the “First and the Last.” By the way, these words are in red (in a red letter Bible). The words “First and Last” are how God describes Himself (Isa. 44:6, 48:12).

Reason #4. Jesus accepted worship. The Bible is clear: we may only worship God (Deut. 8:19; Jer 25:6; Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9; etc.). Jesus knew this (Matt. 4:9-10), and yet He freely accepted worship from others (Matt. 14:33, 28:17; John 9:38). Was Jesus accepting worship contrary to the will of God the Father? Hardly. God the Father never rebuked Jesus for accepting worship. In fact, He said that He was “well pleased” with Him (Matt. 17:5).

Reason # 5. Jesus declared who He is through His apostles. Some skeptics say that if Jesus had said the words “I am God” in one of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John), they would believe that He is God.

First of all, I doubt their sincerity when they say that. Jesus’ human hand didn’t pen any of the Gospels. They were inspired by God of course, but Matthew was the one who penned Matthew, Mark penned Mark, etc. So, if someone won’t believe Peter, Paul, and others who wrote the rest of the NT, why would they supposedly believe the writers of the Gospels?

Secondly, anything that was written in the NT by an apostle (or someone under the oversight of an apostle) are the words of Jesus. The Greek word for apostle (apostolos) means a messenger, particularly a messenger that spoke on behalf of an important person. In ancient Greece, whenever an apostle spoke, it was as though the person that the apostle represented was doing the speaking. The words of the apostle were, for all intents and purposes, the words of the person who sent him. It is no different with the apostles of Jesus. Their words are His words. Therefore, whoever believes their words, believes His words (John 15:20).

Does the rest of the NT teach that Jesus is God? You betcha. In Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16 (depending on the version you are using); Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-9; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20, the apostles clearly say that Jesus is God.

So, did Jesus ever claim to be God? If you were to do a thorough study of the Bible (and most skeptics don’t), the answer is obvious. Just because you won’t find the words “I am God” in red, doesn’t prove anything. The Bible (which God wrote), clearly says that Jesus is God.

2018-12-14T20:40:25+00:00November 23rd, 2018|Categories: Theology|

Thou Shall Not Kill, Unless…

One mistake that some Christians tend to make is not realizing that the Ten Commandments are a summary of all the other commands in Scripture. So in order to understand what any of the Ten Commandments mean, you have to look at every other passage that pertains to that command.

Many unbelievers, and even some professing Christians, believe that it is always wrong to take a human life. Is it always wrong? Not necessarily. The sixth commandment (Thou shall not kill) can be better translated as “You shall not murder.” To take an innocent life is always wrong. However, not all “lives” are “innocent.”

When then, is it okay to kill? We have no right to decide for ourselves when to take another life; we must let God’s word determine whether it is a time to kill or a time to heal.

So, according to the Bible, when is killing justifiable?

1. When defending yourself and your family. Exodus 22:2-3 tells us that if someone breaks into your home at night, you can assume that he means to do harm to either you or your family. If you kill the intruder, you are not guilty of murder. However, if it is daytime (meaning that you can see that the intruder is only after your stuff and not your life), you will be guilty if you kill him. Unless, of course, he attacks you.

Jesus told His disciples to carry swords (Luke 22:36-38). The number of swords they had (two) wouldn’t be enough to start a war, but could come in handy for defending themselves.

2. The civil government can impose the death penalty. God is the one who punishes sin, but He has delegated some of that responsibility to the family, the church, and the state (civil government). While God has not given the family or church the authority to impose the death penalty, He has given that authority to the state in certain cases, the most obvious being in the case of murder (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12,14; etc.). Romans 13:4 says that “rulers” are equipped with “the sword.” This sword is not used to spank someone, but to put them to death in certain cases.

3. In a just war. When John the Baptist was approached by some soldiers about what they should do in response to his sermon, he didn’t tell them to quit their job. Rather, he simply told them to not oppress people (Luke 3:14). If a war is just (biblically speaking), soldiers who kill enemy combatants are not guilty of murder (Deut. 20:12-13; Neh. 4:14; etc.).

Other considerations:

4. Accidental killing. If someone is killed by accident, the person causing that accident would not be guilty (Deut. 19:4-6), unless the one causing the accident was being grossly negligent (like not restraining a dangerous animal, Ex. 21:29).

5. Martyrdom. One question that often gets asked in relation to self-defense, is: should we let someone martyr us or should we fight back? The answer to this may depend on the situation. For instance: if one individual is threatening to kill you for your faith, and you can’t run, do you have to let him kill you? I would answer “no” based on the fact that the Bible does allow self-defense. But I would also say, that in a situation where you are surrounded by a large number of persecutors, then your attitude shouldn’t be to “take as many out as I can before I die.” In that case, you can pray for deliverance, but if God doesn’t grant it, you’ll have the privilege of dying for your Lord (Acts 7:59-60; Heb. 11:35-38; Rev. 2:10,13; etc.).

6. Suicide. It is also often asked if suicide is a sin, or if those who commit suicide will go to heaven. First of all, a person’s eternal destiny is not based on how a person dies. Whether or not you were born again will determine whether or not you go to heaven. That being said, someone taking their own life may be evidence that that person wasn’t truly born again, though Christians can certainly be subject to seasons of despair too. As for whether or not suicide is a sin, I would argue that since God’s word regulates when it is acceptable to take a life, and the Bible doesn’t give a person the right to end their own life, suicide would be a sin. Of course, giving one’s life to save another would be acceptable (John 15:13), and ceasing to artificially prolong life wouldn’t necessarily be considered wrong in every case either.

While there are times when taking another life is acceptable, it is never something that should be done lightly. All human beings are made in the image of God; we have no right to destroy another human, unless their Maker has given us permission to do so. In most cases, our focus should be on protecting, preserving, and promoting life, not death.

2019-04-11T23:39:20+00:00September 25th, 2018|Categories: Government, Theology|

What Are the Last Days? (3 Views)

The majority of Christians in our day believe that we are living in the last days. Is this the case? In order to answer that question, we must let the Bible define the term “last days.” So, according to the Bible, when are/were the last days?

There are mainly three views amongst Christians on what the last days are. I certainly can’t cover every verse and every detail in this short article. But hopefully, this will spur you on to study this issue more thoroughly for yourself.

1.  The most common view in our day is that the last days is the period of time just prior to Christ’s 2nd coming. Some have dated the start of the last days at 1948 A.D., because that is the year that Israel was reborn as a nation. Others would not use that particular date, but would affirm that we are living in the last days, but that those alive in, say, the 1800’s were not.

Does this view line up with the Bible’s definition of the phrase “last days”? If we allow the Bible to tell us when the last days began, then the answer would have to be “no.” While I can see how one might come to the conclusion that the last days started within the last 100 years or less, the Bible clearly states that the last days started almost 2,000 years ago. The last days began in the 1st century. Don’t take my word for it, God’s word says it.

“[God] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son..” Heb. 1:2 (all quotes are from the NKJV)

Notice that the author of Hebrews says “these last days.” The days in which the writer of Hebrews lived (the 1st century), were the last days. Furthermore, he says that God spoke through His Son in the last days. Whether he is speaking of Jesus’ teaching while He was on earth, or Jesus speaking through His apostles as they wrote the New Testament, either way, both took place in the 1st century.

When we look at other phrases that are similar to the phrase “last days,” we see the same thing.

“[Jesus] … was manifest in these last times for you…” 1 Pet. 1:20

Notice again that Peter refers to these last times. The times in which Peter lived (1st century) were the last times. He also says that Jesus was manifest (made visible, or made known) in the last times. Jesus was manifested in the 1st century; therefore, the last times had to begin in the 1st century.

“…but now, once at the end of the ages, [Jesus] has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Heb. 9:26

When did Jesus “appear” (same Greek word as “manifest”) to sacrifice Himself? He did so in the 1st century, which the writer of Hebrews says was the “end of the ages.”

As you can see, the last days, last times, or end of the ages, did not start in 1948, they began about 2,000 yrs. ago.

2.   The second view on the phrase “last days” is that it is a reference to the entire church age, or to put it another way, the whole new covenant era. The idea is that there have been different eras in God’s redemptive plan and that He worked out that plan through different covenants. Since the new covenant is the last covenant, the new covenant era is the last times, days, etc.

This view is much more consistent with Scripture in that it doesn’t contradict those verses that clearly show that the last days started in the 1st century. Also, there are many great theologians in history who have held this view, so it is not as though this view is a recent invention.

3.   The third view is that the term “last days,” etc., is probably a reference to the last days of the old covenant and many of its various aspects (the temple, sacrifices, etc.). There are a few clues in Scripture that suggest this. First, as already noted, the last days can be proven to have begun in the 1st century. It can’t be proven Scripturally that they go beyond the 1st century (though some argue that they do).

There are other clues as well. It is helpful to know that the old covenant wasn’t fully done away with at the time of Jesus’ death. It was on its way out, but it wouldn’t be fully gone until the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. When the book of Hebrews was being written (after Jesus’ resurrection and before 70 A.D.), the author says that the old covenant had not yet passed away, but it would soon.

“[The old covenant] is becoming obsolete and growing old [and] is ready to vanish away.” Heb. 8:13

Peter also mentions that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7). “All things” can’t mean the end of the world, because Peter would have been in error about the end being “at hand.” And if the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write down error, then the Bible can’t be trusted. The “all things” is more likely a reference to the end of the temple, its sacrifices, etc.

We also have a similar phrase in 1 John 2:18,

“…it is the last hour…we know that it is the last hour.”

John referred to the time in which he lived as the “last hour.” John lived in the 1st century, therefore, the last hour was in the 1st century. While the word “hour” can refer to a time period of longer than 60 min. (“our finest hour”), it seems unlikely that John would have used the word “hour” to describe the church age that has lasted 2,000 years and is still going. Again, the term “last hour” would seem to best describe the end of the old covenant. If “last hour” and “end of all things” are references to the end of the old covenant, then it’s possible that last days, last times, etc. are as well.

As I said earlier, this article doesn’t deal with every instance of the phrase “last days,” but hopefully, it has given you some things to think about as you study this issue further.

2017-10-17T14:49:19+00:00October 13th, 2017|Categories: Eschatology, Theology|

The Realm of Death

God’s word gives life. Jesus is described as the Word (John 1:1, 14), and in the Word there is life (John 1:4). The instruction in God’s word brings life. The Hebrew word that is translated “law,” is Torah, which means instruction. God’s instruction, when obeyed, brings life. God says to obey His instruction “that you may live” (Deut. 4:1; 5:33; 8:1; etc.). We live, not by bread alone, but by the words that come from God (Deut. 8:3). The word of God is no meaningless thing, “it is your life” (Deut. 32:46-47).

To be living within the bounds of Scripture is to truly live. To be outside of God’s word is to be in the realm of death. The life lived in violation of God’s instruction is really not life at all, but rather, a living death. The day that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they died spiritually and began dying physically as well. When they obeyed the instruction that God had given them, they lived. When they disobeyed, they entered the realm of death. Lest you think this principle only applied to Adam and Eve, we see this same idea in the New Testament. The unbelieving (carnal) mind is not obedient to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). Therefore, “to be carnally minded is death” (Rom. 8:6).

Satan told Adam and Eve that disobeying God’s instruction would lead to freedom. Many today believe the same thing. But disobedience didn’t bring freedom, it brought death.

Theologian R. J. Rushdoony writes in his book Law & Liberty:

God’s law is the condition of life. The condition of a fish’s life, its environment, is water; take a fish out of water, and it dies. The condition of a tree’s life, its health and its environment, is the soil; uproot a tree, and you kill it. It is no act of liberation to take a fish out of water, or a tree out of the ground. Similarly, the condition of a man’s life, the ground of man’s moral, spiritual, and physical health, is the law of God. To take men and societies out of the world of God’s law is to sentence them to decline, fall, and death. Instead of liberation, it is execution. (p. 13)

Are you living in the realm of death? Does your life not seem so “alive”? There is a reason for that. Because of your sin (disobedience), you are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13). The only one who can fix your “dead” condition is Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can give you new life and eternal life.

People are not the only things that can exist in the realm of death. Families either walk in obedience to God’s word, or they will be in the process of dying. The death of the family has happened slowly over several generations. Many sociologists have given their opinion as to what happened to the family, but really it isn’t that difficult to figure out. If the family strays outside of God’s instruction, it will inevitably die, because it has now wandered into the realm of death.

Many churches exist in this realm as well. For well over a hundred years, the majority of “conservative” churches have abandoned God’s instruction for new, “creative” methods for evangelism, discipleship, and worship. These methods have brought about the slow and steady death of the American church. “But,” some may argue, “I know of many churches that have seen tremendous growth using these creative, man-made methods.” The fact that many churches trade the Bible’s methods for man’s innovations and yet still see a lot of growth should not surprise us; dead things do have a tendency to bloat.

The unfortunate thing about those who live in the realm of death, is that they often like living there. In Proverbs 8:36, wisdom (i.e. biblical instruction) says “All those who hate me love death.” The picture that the Bible gives of sinful human nature isn’t a pretty one. Unless and until we are born again, we love our sin more than we love God. When given a choice between death and loving God through obedience, the unbelieving world would rather embrace death. This is also true for societies and governments.

Governments either love God or love death. The Nazi and Communist governments of the 1900’s killed over 169 million people combined (some believe this is a low estimate). Most of these were their own citizens. Governments in the ancient world engaged in and promoted human sacrifice. Modern governments do the same, only we have more “civilized” ways of doing it.

Modern societies also reject God’s law, and therefore, love death. In a society that loves God, people won’t think of skulls as decoration for their trucks, motorcycles, and T-shirts. A society that loves death will. I remember, as a teenager, being surprised to learn that one of the more popular series that could be rented from the video store (remember those?), was a collection of videos that contained hours and hours of live footage of people being tortured and murdered. Watching people die was considered entertainment to the Christ-hating Romans. Our society is not much different.

Christianity is a religion of life and our Lord gives life in abundance (John 10:10). Mankind has always tried to create an abundant life for himself and his world. The problem is that he tries to live his life and build his utopias apart from God’s word. In doing so, he always finds himself in the realm of death. Life is only found in Christ and His word.

2017-05-03T13:43:16+00:00May 3rd, 2017|Categories: Theology|

Copyright © 2015 -
5th Kingdom Ministries.
All Rights Reserved.

EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Sign up for our email newsletter to receive notices of new products and events!

Home
Blog
Shop
Events
Audio Samples
About Us
Contact
Go to Top