Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus to two preachers. For a long time many scholars have referred to these letters as the “pastoral epistles,” which is weird, since Timothy and Titus were evangelists—not pastors. And though they contain the qualifications for pastors (elders or bishops), they are not addressed to those men. They are full of advice to men who preach the gospel. It would be more appropriate to refer to the letters as the Epistles to Evangelists.
This article, however, will discuss one of the qualifications given for a man to be an overseer / pastor / elder. He must be able to “hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). This is actually an obligation that all Christians have—to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
These admonitions to all members and especially for the shepherds of the flock must be taken to heart. Paul warned the elders / overseers / shepherds that after his departure “savage wolves” would come in among them—not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29). If the wolves howled in the first century while apostles like Paul were still around, how is it that so many elderships today are clearly blasé about their being any dangers?
Two Recent Examples
Recently a missionary that this congregation supported for a number of years announced that he was going to be “partnering” with a particular “school.” I thought he would be interested in knowing that this particular institution had some problems. I wrote, providing proof of four areas in which they were far afield from the Scriptures. He did not write back, thanking me for the information. He did not ask any questions for clarification concerning the matter. He did not express any concern about the issues that were raised. He ignored everything and merely thanked us for our previous support. It was as if Acts 20:29, 2 John 9-11, and Jude 3 did not exist.
His overseeing congregation continued to write, saying that they hoped they could count on our support for 2016; so I sent them the same information, and they answered in precisely the same way. They sent a note on official letterhead thanking us for our past support while ignoring the problems of the school in question. How is that possible? The information sent to them was brief; so they did not need to wade through pages of material. None of it was speculation or hearsay; it was documented. Nevertheless, they chose to disregard it. Is it any wonder the wolves are being invited to hold gospel meetings, appear on various lectureships, and have their books and various materials promoted? Where is the vigilance that once existed?
A Possible Explanation
Some in the first century needed to be taught sound doctrine because they were insubordinate, idle talkers, and deceivers—especially those of the circumcision (Titus 1:10). Paul declares that their mouths needed to be stopped. Would anyone get excited about this problem today? They should because these men were subverting whole households, teaching things which ought not to have been taught, and they were doing it for the sake of dishonest gain (Titus 1:11). This is what happens to congregations—sometimes in the absence of elders—but today even in their presence (if they remain silent). God gave shepherds for a reason—to keep the wolves away.
One of the prophets belonging to the wolf faction declared, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). Anyone reading this verse for the first time may be thinking that Paul is going to say that generalizations such as this one should not be made, but no. Surprisingly, he comments: “This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).
So what is the explanation for our current flirtation with those of the lupus persuasion (lupus is the Latin word for “wolf”)? Apparently, some who were once sound in the faith have taken on the personality of the Cretans—at least part of it. Many have proven themselves to be lazy. Someone may protest that such a description seems rather harsh. Okay, is there a better word to describe brethren when they refuse to check on certain men? Sometimes, congregations who are challenged for whom they invite to speak respond by saying, “You’re the only one who has registered a complaint.”
That is a form of the logical fallacy known as ad populum, which means that if someone or something is popular, that settles the issue. In this approach, the merits of the case are not considered because everyone agrees or disagrees. Most everyone agreed that Jesus should be crucified. Did that justify what was done? Of course not. The fact that only one individual may question a speaker is irrelevant. The major concern should be, “Does the objection have validity?”
Furthermore, the majority is not always right, as per the above example, as well as other important considerations. Most people reject God’s grace, as well as the salvation that accompanies it (Titus 2:11) and will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14; John 1:10-11). The majority is not a safe guide; the question ought always to be, “What are the facts? What is the truth?” The majority accepts what is popular and current—often without even a cursory examination. Those who are saved have investigated and discovered the truth. So why are not brethren applying this principle to fellowship?
“How Lazy Was He?”
When Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show, he would make a statement, such as, “It was so hot in Los Angeles today,” whereupon Ed McMahon (and sometimes the audience would join in) asked, “How hot was it?” Then would come the punchline, “It was so hot that the birds were using potholders to take worms from the ground.” Although the answers are spread out throughout the book of Proverbs, it is almost as if Solomon made the statement, “I saw a man so lazy today.” “How lazy was he?” people want to know. And according to this format, Solomon answers, “I’ll tell you how lazy he was.” He was so lazy that:
1. He did not want to get up out of bed. His favorite saying is, “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep” (Pr. 6:9-11).
2. He refused to go outside—for safety’s sake. “The slothful man says, ‘There is a lion in the road! A fierce lion is in the streets!’” (Pr. 26:13).
3. He would not work or plow. “The sluggard will not plow because of winter; therefore he will beg during the harvest and have nothing” (Pr. 20:4).
4. He did not take care of his property (Pr. 24:30-34).
5. He would not work. “The desire of the slothful kills him, for his hands refuse to labor” (Pr. 21: 25).
6. He could not do any assigned job well. “As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to those who send him” (Pr. 10:26).
7. He would not even go out and hunt for food because of the possibility of being slain (Pr. 22: 13).
8. He refused to prepare food to eat. “The slothful man does not roast what he took in hunting, but diligence is man’s precious possession” (Pr. 12:27).
9. Once the food was prepared, he could not even complete the action of eating! “A slothful man buries his hand in the bowl, and will not so much as bring it to his mouth again” (Pr. 19:24).
10. He could only dream of possessing what honest toil would provide. As close to success as this idle soul ever gets is to imagine what it would be like. “The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be made rich” (Pr. 13:4).
No one would want to be in the position of relying upon the lazy man. And while the extent of his slothfulness may provoke laughter at times, his way of life is not funny at all. In fact, he is a dangerous man, when consideration is given to the sins that are associated with him. Consider the following list that the Scriptures provide in order to reveal his true character. Think of these in connection with lazy elders.
Sins Associated With Laziness
1. Laziness is associated with being an excuse maker. If the streets are free from lions, some other problem will arise (Matt. 25:24-25). One can almost hear some elders saying, “We don’t have time to listen to everyone who has an objection to another brother or a particular program that we support.” Really? Why do some take the time to alert other brethren concerning such matters—because they don’t have anything else to do? Why did Jesus warn of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:12)? Why did Paul warn of savage wolves and point out some false teachers by name (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18)? Why did Peter give a lengthy description of certain false teachers in 2 Peter 2—because he didn’t have anything else to write about?
2. Laziness brings shame upon others. As a son, he is an embarrassment. “He who gathers in the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame” (Pr. 10:5). Does it glorify God or bring shame to Jesus to ignore warnings against false teachers?
3. Laziness is associated more with talking, not doing: “In all labor there is profit, but idle chatter leads only to poverty” (Pr. 14:23). Believe it or not, some preachers and elderships talk conservative and mouth sentiments about “standing for the truth,” but they are too lazy to practice it.
4. Laziness exercises a bad influence on others. “The way of a slothful man is like a hedge of thorns, but the way of the upright is a highway” (Pr. 15:19). Because some elderships do not consider carefully whom they invite, they allow some to exercise a bad influence on the congregation.
5. Laziness is associated with being a destroyer. “He who is slothful in his work is a brother to him who is a great destroyer” (Pr. 18:9). Yes, without checking after being warned, slothful elders risk the destruction of the flock, which means that some brethren will lose their souls.
There once was an eldership that was so lazy? “How lazy were they?” They were so lazy that:
1. They did not read or study the Scriptures sufficiently to be equipped to deal with those unsound in the faith, which is a fundamental qualification (Titus 1:9).
2. They did not apply the Scriptures they do know to follow Paul’s warning (Acts 20:29).
3. They refused to investigate alleged false teachers or ask other elders to find out the truth of the matter.
4. They neglected to hold men accountable for what they taught and whom they fellowshipped.
5. They are brothers of the destroyer (Ezek. 34:1-10).
A few centuries ago, some began to notice the dis-unity of denominationalism and the confusion that it caused; they realized that this situation was not the way God desired it to be. Some suggested restoration—that Christians ought to forsake the division that had taken centuries to develop and simply try to abide by what the Scriptures taught. If what was written in the New Testament could be respected again the way it was in the first century, surely God would be pleased. Truth in religion needed to be restored.
Accompanying this idea were two concepts necessary to bring it about—truth and unity. First, what did the Scriptures actually teach? Human traditions that had developed over the centuries would have to fall by the wayside in order for the truth to shine forth. Also, separate, conflicting religious groups would need to become a thing of the past as everyone sought to be united in Christ. Jesus Himself had warned that division would be a discouragement to those who might otherwise have believed in Him (John 17:20-21).
And so the process began with the best of motives, and it still continues, but it has enjoyed only limited success. In fact, more division exists today than when many first decided it was time for Christians to unite together. What went wrong? The concise answer is that Satan is still deceiving people. As optimistic as we all might desire to be, unity based on truth will never happen again in this world. Does this seem like a bold claim? Not even a little fear of successful contradiction exists. The longer explanation for disharmony among believers is that probably most were under the impression that, once the truth was known, everyone would be interested in abiding by it.
And doesn’t that seem reasonable? If you, as an individual, are concerned about truth, wouldn’t you assume that everyone else is, also? Did not Solomon command, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Pr. 23: 23)? Didn’t Jesus say that we could know the truth and that the truth would make us free (John 8:31-32)? In fact, won’t all who fail to have “a love of the truth” be destroyed (2 Thess. 2:10)? Yes! So, naturally one would assume that all are vitally interested in pursuing the truth.
The truth is, however, that such an assumption is faulty. It might be true if all people were sincere and genuinely wanted to seek God. Ironically, the fact that men love darkness more than the light is also true of some professing to be Christians—although it sounds contradictory (John 3:19-21). People have various reasons for becoming Christians—not all of them are noble. Why did Judas accept the call to be an apostle? Was he just curious? Or was he hoping all along to profit materially? We don’t know if he was sincere at first but later lost his enthusiasm—or what. We only know the tragic results.
Likewise, did Ananias and Sapphira always have a problem with wanting to be exalted? Or did they become envious and succumb to temptation later? How about Simon the sorcerer, who suffered from the same problem? Only God knows the answer to the motivations of each of these, but it certainly could be the case that they never had honorable motives.
Not Interested in Truth
It is obvious that some not being interested in truth goes all the way back to the first family. Although Eve carelessly disregarded truth in the first temptation, it was Cain who rejected it as a way of life. He did not care about offering God what He had asked for—a blood offering. Instead, he gave God what was significant to himself, which was rejected. Then he got angry with his brother for doing what God said. This remains a pattern of persecution today. People still become angry with those who are abiding by what God revealed in the Scriptures. Just point out that some aspect of worship is not authorized by the Bible and see how fast some can become irate.
Balaam proved to be more interested in money than the Word of the Lord, which he faithfully spoke. He knew better than to alter God’s prophecies by cursing Israel, but he found a way to get Israel cursed. Upon his advice, the Moabite women enticed the Israelite men, and God destroyed more than 20,000 of them. Balaam earned his reward, all right, although he did not live long enough to enjoy it.
Would anyone argue that Jezebel was interested in the truth—ever? How about the people of Jeremiah’s day who rejected message after message that was inspired of God? Well, surely, these are extreme examples. Not everyone is like them. No, but many do not care what the Bible says; they will ignore it whenever they choose to do so. On Pentecost, Peter preached a compelling sermon, and three thousand obeyed the gospel and were baptized, but how many of those present did not? When Paul reasoned with the philosophers on Mars Hill, how many responded positively? When Paul preached to the zealous Jews in Jerusalem, how many did not try to kill him?
It is abundantly clear that the majority of people neither know nor care about truth (Matt. 7:13-14). We are wrong to assume that they do. But even among those who become Christians, Jude found it necessary to exhort them to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Some would not stand for it, and some would depart from it. We are wrong to assume that all Christians are interested in the truth, also. In an ideal world (where sin did not dominate), our assumptions about others would be correct. But the reality is that on earth not everyone is nearly as excited about truth as we are.
Examples of the Precarious Balance
Only two types of unity are possible: 1) unity based on truth; 2) unity that ignores truth. Jesus earnestly prayed for His disciples to be one, but prior to that He prayed for God to sanctify them through His truth, adding that His Word is truth (John 17:17). A mathematical illustration can make the point. If all the students of an elementary class know that 2 + 2 = 4, the whole class has unity which is based on the truth. In fact, if one student, on a quiz, were to write down that 2 + 2 = 3, it would be marked wrong, and the whole class would agree (including the careless tot whose answer was incorrect) because they all know the truth. The other kind of unity is that when a child writes down that 2 + 2 = 5, the teacher says that, if that was a meaningful answer to him, it should be accepted because everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. This kind of unity just ignores the facts.
Is it possible for people to have spiritual unity, for example, when some of them believe that human beings have free will, but others believe that God predestines everyone’s “choices”? No, because these two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other. One of them is true, and the other is false. The only way to achieve unity between adherents of both positions would be to ignore truth. And what kind of unity is that? It is based on a blasé, indifferent attitude.
Consider baptism. Some say that baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation—that we are saved by “faith only.” Others argue that baptism is part of God’s plan of salvation. Both cannot be true. Two conflicting statements in which identical meanings are being used for the main concepts cannot both be right at the same time. The number 3, for example, refers to precisely three items. It cannot refer to four such items without contradicting the definition of 3. Baptism cannot both be required for salvation and not be required for salvation at one and the same time. Those who believe baptism is irrelevant with respect to salvation cannot fellowship those who teach it is a requirement, and vice versa. To attempt fellowship in this instance would be to try to achieve it—not on the basis of truth—but by ignoring truth. Surely one of the two philosophies is true, since they are diametrically opposed, but the two perspectives cannot both be correct.
So at this juncture, the two concepts of truth and unity come into conflict. As those who are interested in fellowshipping all who profess to be Christians, we would like to embrace those of the “faith only” camp, but truth forbids us from doing so. The Bible does not teach “faith only.” Repentance (Luke 13:3) and baptism are also required (Acts 2:38). As for baptism having nothing to do with salvation, is it possible that some have never read 1 Peter 3:21? “There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism (the antitype) now saves us. How dare anyone say baptism cannot save?
Some vainly attempt to argue that this is Holy Spirit baptism. First, baptism in the Holy Spirit was a promise—not a command. Second, that water was involved in it is obvious by the fact that Peter felt compelled to explain that sin (spiritual transgression) was not removed by a physical washing. No one would need to issue this explanation because there would never be any confusion unless water was involved. The church is sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). Since baptism in water saves us, how can Christian fellowship be extended to those who deny this very fundamental point?
Do we want unity among all those who claim to follow Christ? Yes! Can we have unity with those who contradict the Scriptures? No. Although truth and unity are both desirable, holding to the former will cause us to prohibit the latter. This division cannot be considered a weakness on our part. God desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus, however, said clearly that the majority of people are going to be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Why? God wants all people on earth to fellowship Him, but many will not follow the path of truth that leads to Him. They behave like Cain or Jezebel, or Simon the sorcerer. They choose to walk in darkness instead of light. The fact that many of these think that God will save them anyway does not alter the truth that they shall be cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 21:8). God desires all to be saved, but He will not fellowship or have unity with those who prefer darkness.
Another example concerns those who have been taught that sprinkling and pouring constitute baptism. Is there some evidence that, when the New Testament uses the word baptism, it refers to sprinkling water or pouring water on someone? No. The very word itself means “to dip” or “to plunge.” John immersed people for the remission of their sins. He didn’t sprinkle or pour water upon them. Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). Baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-5).
Suppose someone, therefore, who has been sprinkled comes to us and claims to be a Christian; can we have unity? How can he be accepted as a Christian when he has never been baptized (immersed) for the forgiveness of his sins? He thinks he is saved, and we would like to have unity with him, but we cannot because sins are not cleansed by sprinkling or pouring water on someone. Baptizing in the way described in the Scriptures is the only way a person can have his sins removed. God never authorized any other way for it to be done. If people were saved through sprinkling, they would be saved by error and a disregard of the truth, which can never happen.
The Scriptures teach that truth and unity (which we all want) are connected. Unity can only exist if we all regard truth—or we all ignore it. The first option is Biblical; the second is Satanic. The devil is happy when people disregard truth. Jesus came to set people free from sin, which is achieved only through obedience to the truth. No substitute for truth can avail.
The term Ayatollah is a loathsome word to most Americans. Older citizens probably think immediately of the Ayatollah Khomeini who became notorious for being Iran’s supreme leader after overthrowing the Shah. He supported those who took Americans hostage in Iran and issued a fatwa for the death of Salman Rushdie for his publication of The Satanic Verses, thus showing zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with or criticizes the Muslim religion. Even former pop star turned Muslim, Cat Stevens, who had once encouraged everyone to jump on the “Peace Train,” would not be critical of Khomeini’s intention that Rushdie be killed. Khomeini also referred to the United States as “the Great Satan.”
Therefore, to accuse someone of being an Ayatollah is not a kindly remark when it was given to Judge Roy Moore by a “civil rights” group. According to the Orlando Sentinel of January 17, 2016, Moore has received a great deal of unfavorable publicity, even though he is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (A16). He has been excoriated by the daughter of former Alabama governor George Wallace as being “more combative” than her father. She claimed he was worse than her father who opposed efforts to desegregate because a judge must be held to a higher code of ethics.
“He believes he is a law unto himself,” opined Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. What could the judge have done to have so much abuse heaped upon him? He is opposed to homosexual marriage. And he argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision only applied to the four states involved in the case; Alabama was not one of those. He claims that he is not defying the Supreme Court, but that a legal precedent in Alabama was not overturned by the Supreme Court. Previously, in 2000, Moore installed a 2 ½ ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments. He did defy at the time a federal order to remove it. (Was there a federal order to remove the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building?) He was then removed from office but then won election as Chief Justice in 2012.
He has been criticized for saying that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Perhaps those who disagree with this definition could tell us what standards they are using; the judge is using God’s (Gen. 18:20; Lev. 20:13; Jude 6). He also said that same sex marriage would prove to be “the ultimate destruction of our country because it destroys the very foundation upon which this nation is based.” Time will tell.
Peter, an apostle of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not only preached the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost; he also wrote letters to brethren, one of which contains the words, Love the brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17), which is the equivalent of loving the church, the body of Christ. Of course, Jesus taught about love—both for God and one another (Matt. 22:37-40). He even talked about loving one’s enemies, which was something we seldom hear much of even now (Matt. 5:43-48). But Peter spelled out the relationship Christians ought to have with one another—Love the brotherhood.
But what does that mean? First of all, Christians ought to love the church as a whole because Jesus did. He “loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). He also nourishes and cherishes His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:29). Is the church as dear to us as it is to Him? “Of course,” we answer, but it is easy to love the church in the abstract. Do we love her as much when we realize that individual Christians make up that redeemed body? Was there some sort of animosity between brethren when John wrote his first epistle? Consider these words:
He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes (1 John 2:9-11).
Why did John feel the need to express that idea? Was it just a reminder, or did churches have problems with each other? Shortly after these words were written, John called attention to the three main types of sin—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (15-17). Could pride have had something to do with having an unfavorable outlook on one’s brother? John furnishes a good example of a bad outlook in the next chapter.
For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. (3:11-12).
To be sure, jealousy has at times existed within the church. Within a congregation, friction has arisen on the part of one or two elders against the others as they vie for “control.” Or perhaps the “contest” occurred between the elders and the preacher—or the deacons and the elders. Certainly, occasions will arise when an honest disagreement exists between earnest brethren. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking of brethren as enemies. Of course, if there is a Diotrephes, as John later addresses (3 John), such a man must be dealt with by the elders—even if (and especially if) he is himself one of the elders.
But sometimes rivalry may exist between preachers or elders in different congregations. Arguments over personalities and methods (provided that they are Scriptural) should fall by the wayside. Of course, if a man’s teaching were seriously flawed doctrinally, he would need to be challenged by all. Some have refused to take a stand in clear-cut instances—to the harm and detriment of the church. Loving the brotherhood not only means that we should be patient and tolerant toward one another, but genuine error must be stopped (Titus 1:9-11). We do not love the church if error is allowed to have free reign, thus subverting the truth. Those who have publicly taught error must humble themselves and repent of it. But John has more to say on the subject of brotherly relationships.
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:14-16).
Not only must Christians refrain from hating their brethren, they must be willing to lay down their lives for them. Whoa! That’s asking a lot. Yes, but our brothers are to be held in high esteem. “Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another” (Rom. 12:10). Do we view our brothers and sisters the way Jesus viewed us—in that He was willing to lay down His life for us? Or do we instead view ourselves as worthy but other Christians as less so? In 1 John 3:23, the apostle encourages us to continue to believe in Jesus—and love one another. But he is not done with the subject yet.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).
The ability to love our brethren is tied to the new birth. Have we truly been born spiritually, or have we retained worldly attitudes and prejudices? John himself had transformed from being a son of Thunder.
Saying something one time is usually sufficient to make a point—especially in a letter, which people can reread as often as they like. So why does John keep returning to this subject? It is not that he desires to be “soft” on those who teach error. He wrote in 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” We can only conclude that deep-seated problems of some nature were affecting the church. Once more he addresses the issue:
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also (4:20-21).
For whatever reason, John has emphasized this subject greatly. Perhaps Christians need to be reminded of the command to love one another—as Christ has loved us (John 13:34-35; 15:12-13). But again, why?
Differences
The reason that conflicts may occur is that all Christians are at different stages of development. As soon as one is baptized, he does not come forth as a mature spiritual person, although he has that as his goal. He comes forth as a babe in Christ, having just been born again (John 3:5; Rom. 6:3-5). So in any congregation one will find brethren at different levels of Christian maturity. Some may be more easily offended, and some may not have yet learned to have a high regard for others. Some may not have moved very far from worldly practices. Some, like the Corinthians, may yet be guilty of thinking carnally.
Sin cannot be ignored, but in correcting some brethren, gentleness, patience, and kindness is needed. Jesus trained twelve men to be apostles. One of them eventually betrayed him. Whatever Judas’ motives were, everyone can agree that he was not thinking properly. Why had he not advanced beyond just thinking about this world’s goods? He used to take money out of the treasury (John 12:6). Had he not heard Jesus teach that no man can serve two masters—that he cannot serve God and Mammon (riches)? Had he not heard about the rich man and Lazarus? Or how about the rich farmer who wanted to build bigger barns? Did he not hear the Lord say that that night his soul would be required of him, and then whose would such material possessions be? Had Judas missed those, or was he simply not convinced? In either case, Jesus knew his struggles with covetousness, but he bore with him.
In fact, Jesus was patient with all of His disciples. Surely, there must have been times when they drove Him to the point of exasperation. The very night He was betrayed by Judas and taken to be crucified the next day, His disciples were showing a tremendous lack of spirituality. They argued about which one would be greatest in the kingdom (Luke 22:24-26). How many of us would conclude, “I see I’ve been wasting my time”? Even after Jesus returned to heaven, Peter’s actions in withdrawing from the Gentiles caused Paul to rebuke him because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2).
Patience
We too must exercise patience and not be guilty of making false assumptions. If someone misspeaks concerning a Scripture, he ought to be corrected, of course, but we should not assume he is on the road to apostasy. Love for brethren includes rebuking others when the occasion calls for it, but we should not assign the worst possible motives. Brethren should be considered having honest and sincere motives unless a sufficient reason exists to prove otherwise.
Some brethren need several opportunities to get their behavior to conform to their beliefs as a Christian. Anger, pride, and jealousy may be harder for some to conquer than others. As long as brethren are willing to keep trying to go on to perfection, more mature brethren ought to continue to encourage them.
One source of problems is that we do not all think the same way. A few may have developed habits of productivity and are focused on outcome. Others may be more concerned about an individual brother’s future potential than a specific task at hand. In other words, some are goal-oriented (get the job done), and some are more people-oriented (the job will eventually get done; the brother is more important). What happened between Paul and Barnabas could be an illustration of this point.
John Mark left the work on the first missionary journey. When they were ready to start out again, Mark desired to accompany them. Paul may have thought having him along would jeopardize the mission. He had left once, already, and Paul may have thought that he needed someone he could count on. Barnabas, on the other hand, always seems to be concerned about people. He had stood up for Paul when the church did not want to have anything to do with him. Now he was standing up for John Mark, that he might have a second opportunity. The different way each Christian was thinking about this matter determined their actions. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they split up the team—both going in different directions.
Who was right and who was wrong? Perhaps neither was. Paul completed the mission he had in mind. John Mark proved that he was the man Barnabas thought he was. Later Paul acknowledged his value. Yes, we must all stand for sound doctrine, but within the parameters of “the faith,” there is room for all who may not think precisely the same way about the way to handle certain people and situations. And that can be a good thing because if all thought the same way on all expedients, some things would never be accomplished that benefit the kingdom. Jesus saw the best in each of us and has treated us patiently though we all have faults and sins to overcome. We too must love the brotherhood.
One of the fears that many people have had since 9-11-2001 is another terrorist attack by Muslims here in the United States. To be sure, not all Muslims believe in violence; the problem is that those who pose a threat do not wear placards, saying, “I am a Muslim terrorist.” By the time we find out, the damage has already been inflicted. Many wonder, “Why do they hate us?” One reason is that they are anti-Christian. One need only look at the intolerance of predominantly Muslim countries toward Christianity for evidence of that claim.
What don’t they like about Christianity? If they knew the religion the way Jesus designed it, things might be different, but first of all, they see Catholicism masquerading as Christianity; second, they see division in the form of a multitude of religious denominations all claiming to represent Jesus. Third, in nations where Christianity prevails, they see moral degeneracy. They see a United States president pushing for homosexual marriage and lighting up the White House in rainbow colors as a victory celebration. And they see what was displayed on three pages of the Orlando Sentinel as despicable.
Last week we gave Carol Burnett’s answer to, “What Do You Think of Comedy Today?” This week we might ask the same question concerning “Naked Boys Singing.” Three large, mostly nude photographs of the “stars” appeared in the Calendar section of Friday’s (2-5-16) of the Orlando Sentinel. The accompanying article makes it clear that onstage they are totally bare, thus not having nearly the moral conscience of Adam and Eve when they learned what nakedness meant. They were actually ashamed, but these men, many of whom are from Orlando, are not. How is it that such things are permissible? What happened to community standards? The influence of Christianity is practically nil.
If these men left the theater dressed as they are on stage, they would be arrested. So why will citizens go to a theater and pay money to watch these perverts? There was a time when Christians would have protested such an event, but society has been overtaken by secular humanists, who have tried to trivialize sin as this “entertainment” article does. God neither winks at nor accepts such sin. How seared must a person’s conscience be to even write an article promoting this event? If Muslim hostility increases towards “Western values,” will we really need to wonder why? Our country is embracing what is ungodly and profane.
According to a Washington Post story available online by Rick Noack, the number of young people in Iceland who believe that God created the world is zero (which is also a temperature the country is familiar with). In light of the availability of Christian evidences and the failure of evolution to offer any substantial proof in favor of it, this report is astounding. According to this survey, 0% of those in Iceland (young or old) believe the very first verse of the Bible. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
One Icelander responded by saying such a figure presents the wrong picture. He argued that plenty of people still believe in God in Iceland. Really? How many people who read the first line of a book and believe it to be false would keep reading? If a history book began, “The earth is flat,” who would continue to consider anything else that appeared afterward? Why would it have any credibility elsewhere within its pages when it was so fundamentally incorrect to begin with?
One Generation
Now here is a frightening thought: Only twenty years ago (about one generation) 90% of all Icelanders were religious believers; today that number has dwindled to 50%. Not much is offered in the way of a lengthy analysis; the following paragraph is the best that the article offers.
“Secularization [in Iceland] has occurred very quickly, especially among younger people,” said Bjarni Jonsson, the managing director of the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, an athiest non-governmental organization. “With increased education and broad-mindedness, change can occur quickly.”
The first statement above implies that young people are being taught differently than they once were. Has God been thrown out of their schools? In what form has this “increased secularization” taken place? And to what does increased education refer? Are the students going to school an extra day a week or two more hours per day? Or are they being constantly bombarded with propaganda?
One can only speculate on what is meant by broad-mindedness in this context. Isn’t it supposed to be associated with being tolerant? If belief in God creating the world has fallen to 0% in the space of twenty years, one thing can be relied upon-it had nothing to do with being broad-minded. Few evolutionists can be characterized by tolerance. They are known for ridiculing creationists and labeling anyone who deigns to disagree with them as “unscientific.” Was it this kind of broad-minded approach that reduced the number of those who believe in Genesis 1:1 to zero? How much classroom time was granted to an opposing view?
“Scientific Progress”
According to the article, just 20 years ago, nearly 90% of all Icelanders were believers in God; today that amount has sunk to less than 50%. The explanation offered makes little sense.
Solveig Anna Boasdottir, a professor at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Iceland, agreed that scientific progress had changed religious attitudes in the country.
Scientific progress in the last twenty years? What scientific progress would that be-the advent of Facebook and the various social media? All of us who have been on earth the past 20 years might well ask the question, “What scientific progress?” More particularly, what “scientific progress” came about as the result of not believing that God created the heavens and the earth? Precisely how has man been benefited by evolutionary theory in the past twenty years?
Only two pseudo-scientific things comes to mind-Lucy, which was not all she was cracked up to be and “global warming,” which has yet to have an adequate scientific basis for it. But even if both were true, how has either one helped modern man? Even if something were actually discovered that lent the theory of evolution credibility, what scientific progress would it generate? Would it cause automobiles to run more efficiently-or draw us any closer to “beaming” from one locale to another? Evolutionists have been frantically searching for proof for more than 150 years, and they have come up empty. But even if they had iron-clad evidence, who would mankind be improved?
“Global Warming” may motivate some to be hysterical, but how much taxpayer money was lost on Solindra? If the theory motivates some to develop better forms of energy, fine; motivation to do better and be better is helpful, but taxpayers should not be forced to fund fly-by-night schemes as though the planet would fade into oblivion in the next five years. However, whether creation or evolution is true will not change “global warming.” So, again, what scientific progress in the last 20 years has convinced those in Iceland that religion has no value?
The theory of evolution lacks any clear support; evolutionists cannot explain left-handed amino acids, no do they have a convincing explanation for polystrate fossils. Their dating techniques have proved to be invalid beyond a certain range, and they are constantly changing the age of the universe (from 2 to 10 billion years, to about 20, and now back to 15). Mathematics students would love to have that much leeway on problems they solve. “Your test answer is only off by 5,000,000,000. Close enough.”
The Upcoming Disaster
The same professor previously cited commented further on the current beliefs of Icelanders. She opined
that about 40 percent of the country’s younger generation still consider themselves Christian-but none of them believe that God created the Earth. “Theories of science are broadly accepted among both the young and old. That does not necessarily affect people’s faith in God.”
How can anyone refuse to believe what one part of the Bible teaches while repudiating a different part of it? It is either true, as it claims to be, or false. If God did not create the heavens and the earth, then how do we know that He is all-powerful? And what’s the next thing to be case aside? How about the miracles? We don’t see those in operation today; so why should we believe they ever occurred? Perhaps they were just fanciful explanations for events that we cannot explain. We cannot duplicate them scientifically; so if we are going to be people of science, then the miracles cannot be taken seriously. If not, why not?
Well, say, how do we know anything in the Bible is accurate? If we have already rejected the creation of Genesis 1, then how do we know that Adam and Eve is not some sort of allegory? Maybe man invented marriage instead of God doing so, and it doesn’t really have to be between one man and one woman for life. If man actually came up with that arrangement, then the other arrangements he designed are equally valid, such as polygamy and homosexual unions. If man is the originator of the marriage concept, then no one has the right to challenge what any consenting adults want to do.
Unfortunately, no basis exists for denying any practice, period, whether the participants are adult or consenting. When Boco Haram kidnaps teenage girls to sell for sex slaves, why is that wrong? Who says we need marriage at all? Man thought it up, but man has also desired to live in fornication; so why should anyone regard marriage as superior? In fact, why is anything man decides to do right or wrong? What’s wrong with forcing women to comply? Aren’t we talking about the wonderful evolutionary idea of “the survival of the fittest”?
Now that we have destroyed Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, surely we must see how antiquated the concept of sin is in Genesis 3. The idea of sin was just created to make people feel guilty for acting out their desires. All that sin amounts to is simply a disease or an inborn propensity to do certain things. No one can seriously call homosexuality a sin, since people are born that way. Asexuals must be, also, as well as fornicators and adulterers. Thieves probably can’t help themselves, either. If God didn’t create the world, then man cannot be created in His image. Evolution cannot account for a soul or a spirit; mankind just evolved. No room for spirituality exists; it’s just sentimentality.
“If the Foundations Be Destroyed…”
In Psalm 11:3, David asked the question: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” It’s an excellent question. One of the foundations of the Bible is Genesis 1:1. Remove that and the rest of the Bible collapses-whether Icelanders realize that or not. To say that a person can still be a Christian without believing the first verse in the Bible is not only wrong-it is dangerous! It is the equivalent of saying, “I have no basis for believing in Christianity, but ‘I’m a believer anyway.’ ” A believer in what-fables?
If the Creation foundation is removed and marriage, the foundation of a stable society, is removed, we are already well down the road to an absence of any standards whatsoever. The next point of attack is to do what the Jesus Seminar did in trying to determine what Jesus actually said because, once the validity of miracles is removed, what Jesus taught becomes the next target. If the miracles cannot be considered valid because they are unscientific, then all of the evidence for Jesus being the Son of God (and thus our Savior) is gone. John included them as evidence for the reader (John 20:30-31).
John cannot be regarded as honest if he wrote of unscientific occurrences; neither can Matthew, Mark, or Luke. So if the Bible is to have any value at all, a subjective determination will have to be made as what in it might be valuable and what is irrelevant. Reaching agreement on these teachings is largely unlikely. How many are willing to accept Jesus’ condemnation of adultery and fornication (which includes homosexuality) (Matt. 15:18-20)? How many are willing to accept that these are deeds of darkness (John 3:19-21; Eph. 5:3-13)? How many are willing to acknowledge that such things are shameful? Right! Didn’t think so.
Eventually the entire Bible will be reduced to, “Love one another,” and “Don’t judge me”-although these will be entirely removed from their Biblical context. The number of believers in Iceland has fallen from 90% to 50% in just twenty years. Wait until those remaining figure out that they have no basis for their beliefs-that foundations have been destroyed. Some may continue to believe anyway, but the next generation will not be so blind. They will observe that “faith” is not based on facts and will wonder, “Why fool with it at all?” Eventually, they will notice that no foundation for mortality exists anywhere. Moral and ethics were invented by mankind and are subject to change upon the merest whim of society. That’s the reason abortion can be right in one culture and wrong in another-or why it can be legal in one century and illegal the next.
Without God as Creator, no objective standards exist. Their foundation has been destroyed. It may take another twenty years before Icelanders reap the results of what has occurred during the last two decades. But it will come to pass if people actually live their atheistic philosophy. Moral restraints fall by the wayside. Iceland’s bitterly cold rejection of the Bible will result in an extremely hot future (not a reference to global warming).
The Sunday supplement to the newspaper, Parade, published an interview with Carol Burnett on January 24, 2016. She is worthy of the honor given to her by the Screen Actors Guild. Airing on January 30th, she received their 52nd Life Achievement Award (9). As with most interviews, several questions were asked, including one that seems fairly typical: “What do you think of comedy today?” Bill Daily, who played Major Healey on I Dream of Jeannie, was asked a similar question awhile back, and he said he did not watch most of the newer comedies. Carol commented:
A lot of it I’m not thrilled with. Some of the comedy I’ve watched on television seems to have been written by teenage boys in the locker room. And now I’m sounding like an old fogey, but look at some of the sitcoms that were brilliant—All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart. Those hold up today, and there’s not one cheap laugh in them (8).
She described it with precision. The commercials for some of the popular sitcoms are so bad that one wonders why anyone would actually watch the program. For decades comedians proved that audiences would laugh at clean humor, but few today seem to think that wholesome and funny go together. Lines can still be written, according to Carol Burnett, that are clever “without being scatological or getting dirty” (9).
A Christian should be choosy when selecting entertainment. The biggest movie ever, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, has just become a worldwide hit without nudity and foul language. It didn’t need to appeal to the lowest element in mankind for cheap thrills. Evil characters do not need to utter a string of curse words—as if such would constitute entertainment. Every week, however, when one consults the movie guide, invariably the report is, “some nudity, some strong language.” Why? Quality entertainment can be accomplished without it; so one can only conclude that moviemakers include those scenes because they desire to do so—in which case Christians should refuse to trust them or pay money to finance them. Would Jesus take His apostles to a movie with cursing and nudity? Would He recommend or use toilet bowl “humor”? To answer, just reflect on all of the filthy language God chose to include in His Book and how many sexual jokes appear. Hmm.
In a recent Sunday newspaper (1-17-16), a Mr. Clark of Longwood said he was outraged about what a recent Republican Representative from Virginia said concerning owning “the entire [biblical] tradition.” He goes on to ask, “The Republicans now think they own the Bible?” Well, if that is what the representative thought, that would of course be absurd. The Bible is universal. Women don’t own it; neither do men. It does not belong to the rich exclusively-nor to the poor. No political party owns it, although both have quoted from it. No country can stake a claim to it, either. It belongs to the entire world.
If Mr. Clark had left it there, probably everyone would have agreed with his wisdom, but he went on to say that the representative chastised “the President for quoting the Bible in such a manner as to justify false Democratic ideals of acceptance, compassion, and love.” Apparently, the representative thinks these are false ideals-not Mr. Clark. He does not think anyone should challenge another person quoting of the Bible.
Anyone can quote the Scriptures if they desire. Adolph Hitler could have; so could any mass murderer. No one is saying they did-only that they could have. However, who would listen to them-knowing that they violated the morality of the book they quoted? Yes, Mr. Clark, we all have the right to challenge some who quote the Bible-when they strongly advocate what is diametrically opposed to it. No one is perfect, but some have lost all moral authority.
Our President is not qualified to quote the Bible for at least two reasons. First, he is in favor of abortion, which terminates the innocent lives of children who will never make it to birth. The child in the womb is still a child (Luke 1:41, 44). Worse than that, he protects Planned Parenthood whose representatives have admitted to the gruesome practice of selling baby parts. Anyone who refuses to see the sanctity of human life is not fit to quote anything about love and compassion. Second, the President used his influence to not only uphold the sin of homosexuality (is that what Clark meant by acceptance?) but to also endorse homosexual “marriage,” which blasphemes the institution designed and defined by God. Anyone who could so misunderstand such clear Bible teachings and encourage the violation of these principles cannot be trust in any application of God’s Holy Word.
A senior rabbi from the Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando, Steven W. Engel, takes issue with those who are saying that Christianity is “under attack” in the United States (Orlando Sentinel). He apparently thinks that two pieces of upcoming legislation aimed at protecting “pastors” are superfluous. One is the “Pastor Protection Act,” and the other is the “Right of Refusal Act” (Jan. 17, 2016). Why are they, in fact, necessary? The answer lies in last year’s Supreme Court cultural decision to legalize homosexual “marriage,” which was not based on anything reasonable such as the definition of marriage or the example of it provided by God, the author of the institution (Gen. 2:18-24).
Many, such as the rabbi (A21), think that bills such as these are totally unnecessary because the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The fact that we have the 14th Amendment has not prevented dozens of additional laws concerning discrimination from being passed. Were those unnecessary, also? Consider the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Despite the first amendment, laws have been passed concerning “hate speech.” Few oppose such legislation if it is precisely defined, but how much wiggle-room is there in those laws to establish political correctness rather than legitimate “hate speech”? On the very night of the Supreme Court’s decision, several people were interviewed; some of them said that now it was time to go after those who refused to perform the ceremonies. What? Yes, Christianity is under attack.
“Oh, no,” someone protests. “The Supreme Court made it clear that religious freedom would remain intact, and no one would have to perform ceremonies against their conscience.” Yes, they said that, and those assurances are good until another case comes to the Supreme Court with even more liberals on it in 5 or 10 years, and what was said in the last court case will soon be forgotten as the new decision is heralded as a great day for civil liberties. Never mind that men will be put in jail for practicing New Testament Christianity and that few will care.
Saying that Christianity is not under attack is a myopic view that ignores the past half century as secular humanism has won round after round. Engel v. Vitale restricted using prayers in public schools (1962); Murray v. Curlett resulted in Bible study being taken out of public schools (1963). Roe v. Wade (1973), without any legal precedent, made abortion legal, and those who would have been born were denied all freedoms.
The Rabbi’s Rationale
The rabbi seems to indicate that only certain types of attacks are valid. He says that his people know what it means to be “under attack.” Jews were wrongfully blamed for the world’s problems, dehumanized, tattooed with numbers, burned, gassed, and otherwise put to death. Therefore, he takes umbrage that Christians would say they are under attack. But not all assaults are frontal and immediate. When Israel marched around Jericho for six days, not an arrow was fired. Was the city under siege? Yes. God had made that marching a condition of the city’s destruction. Not one resident of the city was harmed until the 7th day, but then all was lost.
A house destroyed by termites does not fall on day one, but over a period of time it is weakened, and then it collapses. It was under attack the whole time; the homeowner was not wise enough to perceive it. The enemies of Christianity have been nibbling away for a long time. How much more time will pass by until more overt persecution comes to the forefront?
A certain segment of our society has already lost all of their rights—those living in the wombs of their “mothers.” Were 6 million Jews annihilated by Hitler? Ten times that many infants have been killed since the Roe v. Wade decision! Has Mr. Engel shed any tears for them? Does he consider them to be under attack? That decision obliterated the laws of 46 states. So how did it happen? It did not come about overnight. The enemies of Christianity paved the way by exalting humanistic philosophy and denigrating Christian principles. After the decision was rendered, the attack on Christianity was stepped up.
And where does Steven W. Engel stand on that subject? Has he not read about the conflict that occurred in the womb of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife? Since there were two nations in her womb, God could not have approved of abortion for her. Surely it is not necessary to instruct a rabbi on the teaching in the Book of Genesis, is it (25:22-26)? But, according to a Reform Judaism website, they have “demonstrated a liberal approach to abortion.”
And where does the rabbi stand on homosexuality? One Reform Judaism website says: “Reform Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large.” No. Really? Has the rabbi not read Genesis 18:20-21, where God says: “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see…”? Is he not aware that God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim because of their homosexuality (Gen. 19: 4-5, 13)? Apparently, we Christians believe more of the Old Testament than some Jews do.
“How can they be Jews but deny what their book teaches?” one wonders. According to Wikipedia, the explanation is that Reformed Judaism regards “Jewish Law as of basically non-binding nature.” So does that mean the Ten Commandments really are, for them, the Ten Suggestions? They exhibit “great openness to external influences and progressive values.” A good translation of those words would be that they cave in to culture, much like the Sadducees of Jesus’ time. Those “modernists,” however, at least upheld the Pentateuch (although they did not regard other Old Testament books as authoritative). This rabbi and his compadres do not even respect the first five books. They apparently deny even Genesis.
Engel says that most of his Christian friends don’t believe the Bible is under attack. Could it be that his Christian friends are as liberal as he is? Are they dominated as well by the culture? Do they support abortion? Are they fine with homosexuality? If they are, it explains why they are all in agreement.
Religious Leaders of the Past
Rabbi Engel’s rationale for “going with the flow” of current culture is stated thus:
I suppose the religious leaders who used religion to oppose a woman’s right to vote, or opposed abolition, or who spoke out against integration also incorrectly thought they were under attack. Just because your ideas don’t jibe with some of the changes in society does not mean you are under attack.
First of all, the rabbi tries to equate homosexuality with a civil rights issue, which he surely knows is a false analogy, but using logical fallacies characterize those who oppose the Scriptures. Second, how many misused religion to prevent women’s and minorities’ rights? Some did, to be sure, but were they in the majority? The arguments advanced in favor of segregation, when based on Scripture, were pathetic and resoundingly refuted. If Jews and Gentiles were to be one in Christ, then so are all others. Jesus came to make all one in Him, and to argue otherwise is to miss one of the key reasons for the church to exist.
Women are also one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29), but the right to vote is a Constitutional issue pertaining to the government of this nation; it is not a Biblical issue per se, although one might correctly cite the principle of equality. Since the rabbi believes in these principles, does he see the value of Jesus and the New Testament? One wonders on what Scriptural grounds he favors the position he holds. While he merely assumes that women voting and integration are proper, we demonstrate that such is the case by New Testament teaching. In fact, what basis does he have for anything he believes? Does he just check with his Christian friends? Is abortion acceptable if the majority approves of it? Does it become wrong if society disapproves? Are “changes in society” infallible?
It almost sounds as though the assumption is that any standards or practices from the past are wrong and that anything that changes is right. Obviously, only old fogies, traditionalists, and conservatives would fight change. Anything that wears the label progressive must be good for culture, right?
So let’s take a situation. Israel, under the faithful leadership of Joshua and the support of the nation, conquers the land that God gave to them. The people remained faithful during his days and those of his generation, but as they began to die off, the new generation “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals” (Judges 2:11). Is this news to the rabbi? Israel actually
forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; and they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them, and they provoked the Lord to anger (2:12).
Is all progress good? The people were not averse to treating God’s law “as of basically a non-binding nature.” Maybe they consulted with their Philistine “friends” and determined that their new morality and worship was all right. Just because older Jewish ideas didn’t jibe with newer cultural norms didn’t prove the old ways were under attack. The truth is that because they turned away from God, He quit protecting them, and they came under physical attack.
Later, after the kingdom split, Jeroboam introduced some innovations in the northern kingdom. He set up two golden calves as a symbol of the God who delivered them from Egypt. He also grew tired of only the Levites being priests; so he allowed those of any tribe to be priests. Would the rabbi have approved of this enlightened way of thinking or stood with those who didn’t think such changes jibed with what he had been taught? Even though God did not authorize men from any of the other tribes to be priests, He didn’t say they couldn’t be. Truly, having Jeroboam as king was a liberating experience; now all men could be equal (sorry, ladies, that he excluded you). He also changed the place and time of worship. While many may have thought Jeroboam a progressive, God did not. As the northern kingdom is taken into captivity two centuries later, God lays the blame thusly: “Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21b). No one can assume that, when society changes, it is for the better—particularly when the will of God has been violated. The southern kingdom was also taken captive for their refusal to repent and live godly.
America has been departing from God, taking Him out of the public forum. Prayer and Bible study in schools must be prohibited. Abortion and homosexuality must be allowed, along with easy divorce, excessive emphasis on alcohol, and now legalization of other harmful drugs. “Oh,” says the rabbi, “but Christianity is not under assault.” If he missed it when it happened in the Old Testament, he is not likely to see it now, either.
Many lodge complaints against the Bible due to the existence of manuscript variations and problems that occur in translating the Scriptures from one language to another. These are legitimate concerns, to be sure. As noted previously, all languages have idiomatic expressions that do not smoothly make the transition. For example, “spill the beans” might be translated, “Tell us what you know,” which is accurate but not literal. In this instance conveying the thought is justified since a literal translation would leave the reader scratching his head about the charge to be clumsy with one’s food.
The problem with the NIV and most paraphrases, however, is that they are not literal when they should and could be. For example, Deuteronomy 6:7 is a famous passage—one which Jews still have their children memorize. In it the Israelites are commanded to teach diligently the words God spoke to them that day to their children. Teach diligently was used by the KJV, the NKJ, the ASV, the NAS, the RSV, and the newer ESV. Rather than remain with the literal, the NIV translators decided to change the idea slightly; their translation advises parents to take God’s words and, “Impress them on” their children. To impress something upon someone is certainly a related thought but not nearly as forceful as teach diligently. No idiom was involved in this change.
The Message Has Not Been Changed
So we find variations in translation and in the ancient texts of the Bible that we have. God has (in His providence) preserved many entire manuscripts, as well as fragments, so that we have plenty of material to study and verify that we actually do have the truth. So, let us notice some areas that variations in the text and the problems of translating from one language to another have not altered.
1. The promise of Genesis 3:15 that the seed of woman who would defeat Satan has remained intact, and the reader sees Jesus fulfilling it about 4,000 years later by being raised from the dead.
2. The three promises that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-7 have not been thrown out of any major translation. Israel became a great nation and received the land that God promised her. Jesus proved to be the seed of Abraham, through whom all the nations of the earth are blessed (Gen. 22:18). He was “born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4).
3. Although one translation tried to minimize the importance of the prophecy by changing virgin to young woman, it is rendered correctly in all other major translations. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy, also (Matt. 1:21-23). He is the only One who was ever born of a virgin.
4. Despite various modernist “scholars” suggesting erroneously that Isaiah had two or three different authors, the prophecy of Jesus’ life and death still remains a marvelous prophetic passage (Isa. 52:13-53:12).
5. No variations in texts or translations have cast any doubt on the fact that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
6. Neither can there be any doubt that Jesus’ resurrection was foretold (Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-31).
7. No controversy surrounds the prophecy of the new covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which the book of Hebrews confidently states has been established (Heb. 8:6-12).
8. Although some did not understand that the nature of the kingdom to come was spiritual (instead of physical), it was so revealed in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament. Isaiah 2:1-4 and Daniel 2:44-45 talk about a kingdom coming forth from the mountain of the Lord, which would never be destroyed. The fact that it would last forever suggests that it is spiritual rather than physical. It has never been left “to other people” because this kingdom has only ever had one King to reign over it—Jesus the Christ. This is the kingdom first announced by John the Baptizer (Matt. 3:2) and then later by Jesus and His disciples (Matt. 4:17; 10:7).
There is only one way to enter this kingdom—by being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It is a spiritual kingdom, and it requires a spiritual birth to enter in. Those who have obeyed the gospel have been delivered from the power of darkness and been translated into the kingdom of Jesus (Col. 1: 13), where “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (1:14). This kingdom is also referred to as His body, the church (1:18). Textual problems do not begin to encroach on this vital doctrine (which some still do not understand).
9. No variations in texts or translations affect at all the doctrine of Jesus being the Savior of all mankind who obey Him. All readers can see that faith is essential to understanding salvation. Repentance is equally necessary (Luke 13:3), as is confessing that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Tim. 6:12). Yes, some texts omit the treasurer’s confession in Acts 8:37, but the doctrine remains in Matthew 18:16-19 and the other texts cited. Even Jesus confessed His Deity. The necessity of baptism is emphasized several times over (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21; et al.). Yes, Mark 16:16 is challenged (without sufficient evidence), but other verses confirm the truth of it.
10. Moral teachings are consistent throughout the New Testament. No one finds that lying and stealing are right in some situations but wrong in others; they are universally condemned. Paul does not allow adultery and fornication while Peter takes a dim view of such activities. Furthermore, not one writer of the New Testament was influenced by the culture of the day. John said that it was unlawful for Herod to have his brother Philip’s wife. No one later wrote that John was a bit hasty in confronting him with that fact.
If mere men had written the Bible (as Ehrman concluded), why does it have such a high moral and ethical standard? People divorced and remarried at will in those times (consider not only Herod but the woman at the well in John 4). People committed fornication and adultery (the woman of John 8 and the Samaritan woman again). Some practiced homosexuality (Nero was noted for it). So why call people to a religion that forbids all of those actions? Is that the way to be popular? Consider how many religious denominations today not only allow homosexuality but endorse homosexual “marriages” (a misuse of the word).
If there were no other proof that the Bible is from God, this observation would suffice. Not only do those in the world oppose the morality taught in the Scriptures, even Christians have a hard time with it. In the days of the apostles, some were teaching that freedom in Christ meant that one was free to sin (Rom. 6:1-4). Some said that what the body did had no effect on the soul and were leading astray those who had escaped from “the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 2). The Bible is not written by men because they would not have vaunted holiness and purity (2 Cor. 7:1).
Scientific Evidence
If the Bible were written merely by men, how do we account for the scientific truths revealed in it before mankind even discovered them? At the time Moses wrote Genesis, one of the leading theories was that man had evolved from the white worms in the Nile or that the world was hatched from a giant flying egg. Consider the creation in connection with Marduk who slew Tiamat, a goddess. According to Wikipedia, he
took his club and split Tiamat’s water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat’s salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat’s body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu’s fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigris and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.
Marduk set the vanquished gods who had supported Tiamat to a variety of tasks, including work in the fields and canals. Soon they complained of their work, however, and they rebelled by burning their spades and baskets. Marduk saw a solution to their labors, though, and proposed it to Ea. He had Kingu, Tiamat’s general, brought forward from the ranks of the defeated gods, and Kingu was slain. With Kingu’s blood, with clay from the earth, and with spittle from the other gods, Ea and the birth-goddess Nintu created humans. On them Ea imposed the labor previously assigned to the gods. Thus the humans were set to maintain the canals and boundary ditches, to hoe and to carry, to irrigate the land and to raise crops, to raise animals and fill the granaries, and to worship the gods at their regular festivals.
With all of these fanciful explanations, why did Moses choose to write, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1)? How did Moses know that the number of the stars was uncountable (Gen. 22: 17) when the telescope was not invented for 3,000 more years? How did the author of Job know that the earth was a sphere (Job 40:22)? How did David know about the paths of the sea (Ps. 8:8)? How did Isaiah know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Isa. 51:6; Heb. 1:10-12)? They obviously depended on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than the wisdom of those who were their contemporaries. There are no textual variations that would cause a different reading on any of these verses.
Is It Even Possible?
If mere men wrote the Bible, they are totally deserving of two awards. The first goes to them for setting forth a plausible explanation of the universe. The origin and nature of the universe are described along with the nature and purpose of man. How mankind came into existence, along with his future after death—the Bible provides answers to all of the important questions of life. Most of all, it deals with sin, its consequences, and the redemption that is available to man through Jesus.
The second award, if men wrote these things under the power of their own wisdom, is for being Kings of Deception. First, they had to make up answers to the questions people have and then make them all harmonize throughout the Scriptures. Since the Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, the latter writers had to figure out how to be consistent with those who lived 500 to 1,000 years earlier. And they all had to be in on the deception! This is the best conspiracy of all time! Imagine trying to provide hope for human beings when nothing occurs after death! What cruelty! And why do it when they would not be present to laugh at the duped? Who can believe it? The Bible is the Word of God, and was given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No inconsequential variations can persuade us otherwise.
