“God does not love this world,” says Louis Farrakhan. Apparently, that’s his version of John 3:16—but more on this later. Perhaps the reader has heard Farrakhan’s name before. Wikipedia explains:
The Million Man March was a large gathering of African-American men in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Called by Louis Farrakhan, it was held on and around the National Mall. The National African American Leadership Summit, a leading group of civil rights activists and the Nation of Islam working with scores of civil rights organizations, including many local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (but not the national NAACP) formed the Million Man March Organizing Committee.
Probably Farrakhan has been most famous for that event—until now. On March 22, 2019, he made a speech at the (ironically) United Center Arena in Chicago. He began by quoting John 3:16, although he exchanged the world for his people. However, when he began to deny the verse, he omitted people and reverted to world. He boldly stated:
God does not love this world. God never sent Jesus to die for this world. Jesus died because he was 2,000 years too soon to bring about the end of the civilization of the Jews. He never was on no cross. There was no Calvary for that Jesus.
Farrakhan thus rejects Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as historians; they all mention the crucifixion—not to mention reporting some of the words that He spoke while on the cross. Paul also mentions Jesus’ death on the cross (Phil. 2:5-8) and even related how that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Peter refers to the fact that we are redeemed “with the
precious blood of Jesus, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). He also mentions that Jesus “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree…” (1 Peter 2:24). Jude endorsed the apostles of the Lord (v. 17)—three of whom wrote about the crucifixion (Matthew, John, and Peter). James does not specifically mention the crucifixion, but he does
acknowledge Jesus as Lord (1:1; 2:1) and does not disagree with anything that Jesus or His apostles taught; he rather upholds them.
Thus, Farrakhan rejects the entire New Testament. One must either choose to believe the writers of the New Testament, who confirmed the Word with miracles, signs, and wonders—or to believe Louis Farrakhan, who has no evidence of any kind to substantiate anything that he teaches. Imagine the arrogance of anyone who would deny the most well-known verse in the Bible—John 3:16!
Isaiah 53
“God never sent Jesus to die for this world,” Farrakhan asserts. It’s too bad that he was not sitting in the Ethiopian eunuch’s chariot, along with Philip. The evangelist might have been able to teach him truth from the Old Testament. The queen’s treasurer was reading these words from Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:32-33). He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His justice was taken away, and who will declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.
Clearly, this was a description of Jesus being offered for our sins. Other verses from Isaiah 53 mention that “He was wounded for our transgressions,” “by His stripes we are healed,” “the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” and “He poured out His soul unto death” (Isa. 53:5-6, 12). Farrakhan could not be further from the truth.
Too Soon to Do What?
The charge concerning Jesus being 2,000 years too soon proves to be another direct contradiction to the New Testament. Paul wrote: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Jesus was born at precisely the time that God wanted Him to come to this earth. How a person could be any more wrong than Farrakhan is would be difficult to achieve.
But notice what the Muslim leader thinks that Jesus came to accomplish. He was supposed to end “the civilization of the Jews.” In a sense, Jesus did so. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which Jesus prophesied, the Jews have not had any genealogical records, no priesthood, and no temple. But these conditions are not what Farrakhan refers to; he wants the end of the Jews, period. He wants them all dead. He even makes a joke out of it by saying, “I’m not anti-Semite; I’m anti-termite.” He wants all Jews exterminated.
Jesus never came to destroy the Jews; He came to convert them, and on the Day of Pentecost, with the preaching of the gospel, He made a great start. Eventually, thousands in Jerusalem became Christians. Jews are still welcome in the body of Christ if they are willing to obey the gospel. Jesus said that He did not come to destroy lives—but to save them (Luke 9:56).
These statements of Farrakhan do not reflect rumors about him; one may type in his name and the content of the speech; not only will a text appear, but each individual can hear the words for himself. It is amazing that they remain available to be heard.
When Did These Events Occur?
According to one report, Loquacious Louis “claimed that he made the deaf hear and the dumb speak.” Really? Where are they? He said, “When I made the call in 1995 to Black people, with the Million Man March, that was like Jesus calling Lazarus and Lazarus came forth.” Uh, what is this—a mixed metaphor? Lazarus had died! Did Louis call forth a million Black men out of their graves? Hah! The Washington crowd would still be talking about that. People in D.C. might ask him to coach football to see if he could revive the Redskins.
A better (though not perfect) analogy would have been God calling His people out of Egypt. At least they were alive. But something is wrong about his appealing to Lazarus. How do we know that the man’s death and being brought back to life is accurate? After all, John wrote of Jesus’ death on the cross and His resurrection, all of which Farrakhan denies. If John is wrong about the cross, then how can he be trusted to be telling the truth about Lazarus? Hmm.
More Confusion
Despite alleging that Jesus did not die on the cross, Farrakhan calls Him “our Savior.” If He did not die for all mankind on the cross, then how is He “our Savior”? What did He save us from, and how did He save us?” Consider this on-line quote:
“Early one Saturday morning our Savior taught us, when he found out he was 2,000 years too soon to end the civilization of the Jews, He decided he would give his life for the truth that he taught, that his name would live, until the one that he prefigured came into existence. And that’s why the Koran says Jesus and his mother Mary were a sign. Jesus didn’t die on Calvary; he died in front of an old Jews’ store that was boarded up, and the Roman soldiers came to get him.”
Has anyone heard anything more absurd? How does any of this scenario even begin to make sense? God sent forth His Son (Gal. 4:4)—and then had to tell Him He sent Him 2,000 years too early? Hello! Does such a description sound as though God is even remotely omniscient?
Jesus did give His life for the truth He taught, but that truth included that He was God in the flesh (John 8:24, 58). Furthermore, He was not just keeping His name alive until another arrived. Paul said that God had “highly exalted Him, and given Him the name that is above every name.” All shall someday confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:9, 11). Jesus is “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev. 19:16). He is not giving way to anyone. He does not prefigure anyone. And the Koran is wrong if it says Jesus is only a sign. He is the One to bruise Satan (Gen. 3:15), the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15), and the King to come (2 Sam. 7:12-13).
Jesus died in front of an old Jew’s store that was boarded up? This information does not come from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, or Jude. Someone either has an active imagination or deceitful visions. Such a notion possesses no credibility whatsoever. The Roman soldiers did not care about Jesus; they had no motive to kill Him. The Jews demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. He was no threat to the Roman government; He had not offended them. For that reason, the Jews had to insist the Romans crucify Him because only they had the authority to implement crucifixion.
Baptism imitates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-5). We crucify ourselves by dying to sin. We are buried in water. And we are raised up to walk in newness of life. This is the way each individual obeys the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; cf. Rom. 6:17-18). How does a person’s repentance and baptism relate to Jesus dying in front of a boarded-up store?
Blasphemy
Farrakhan was not finished with his speech. The following words are incredible.
The real story is what I tried to tell you from the beginning. It didn’t happen back there. It’s happening right while you’re alive looking at it. I represent the Messiah. I represent the Jesus and I am that Jesus. If I am not, take my life.
Not all of the false Christs that Jesus warned about came before A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:23-24); Farrakhan is a modern-day impostor. Farrakhan is not in any way, shape, or form like the true Messiah. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). It ought to be evident that Farrakhan came to kill, rather than to, save men. Jesus commanded all His followers to love one another, as He had loved them (John 13:34-35). Farrakhan has come to stir up hatred and encourage violence. Jesus came to end prejudice (Luke 9:49-56); Farrakhan is here to promote it. Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14-18). Farrakhan wants to reconstruct it.
Farrakhan says that he represents Jesus and is that Jesus. This statement is blasphemous. First, how could he even represent the Lord when his goals are contrary to those of Jesus. But, second, he is not Jesus in any sense that someone would care to explain. Furthermore, he is long on claims and short on proof. Jesus offered abundant evidence to establish what He taught concerning Himself (John 20:30-31). Everywhere He went, He healed people (Mark 6:54-56).
Farrakhan challenges all to take his life if he is not who he says he is. We don’t take the lives of people who disagree with the Scriptures. We expose their errors. God will deal with Farrakhan at the time He chooses and in the way He desires. Vengeance (for blasphemy) belongs to God—not Christians (Rom. 12:19). One thing is certain: if anyone erroneously does put him to death, he will not be raised up, as Jesus was.
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26-28). In Christ there is unity. People from all backgrounds, cultures, and nationalities can have their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5) and thus be added to His church (Acts 2:41, 47). There is a reason for Christ only having one body (Eph. 1:22-23)—that all His followers might be united (Eph. 4:1-6).
Unity cannot exist where prejudice and hatred abound. Christians have not always behaved as they should in this regard, but none can deny the principles taught in the Scriptures. At times, Christians have fallen short of the attitudes which they ought to possess, but at least we know what the truth is on the subject. Anyone who is a Christian and allows a prejudicial disposition to flourish within ought to be ashamed and repent. There is a religion that fosters and encourages prejudice against others. For this reason, all should be forewarned. Muhammad, in the Qur’an (Koran), commanded his followers not to “take infidels for their friends rather than believers” (Sura 3:27 and 4:143). In answer to the question, “Who does he consider to be infidels?” the answer is found in Sura 5:56: “O believers! Take not Jews or Christians as friends.”
Many Muslims express prejudice against Jews; two have been elected to Congress: Rashida Harbi Talib (from Michigan) and Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (from Minnesota). Both states should be ashamed for electing these women who are openly anti-Semitic. Anyone can search the Internet to view some of their hostile comments. But they and Louis Farrakhan are not the only problem. According to an article in AMAC Magazine (Vol. 13, Issue 4), there is a global rise of anti-Semitism (43-44). Most will remember the assault on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27, 2018. Eleven people died in the attack.
Many are the incidents of vandalism and harassment. “In non-Jewish K-12 schools, there were 344 incidents in 2018” (44). But the problem is not confined to younger students; 201 incidents were reported on college campuses. How is this possible? Didn’t we fight a world war to defend and liberate unwarranted attacks upon the Jews and others? In France, anti-Semitic attacks were up 74% last year, as well as 60% in Germany. Could it have anything to do with the increased Muslim population in those countries? Ultimately, everyone decides what religion they want to be part of. To whom shall we give allegiance—the god of terrorism or the Prince of Peace?
In reviewing a reply concerning a sermon preached, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?”, I have already refuted the main thesis, which was that the Bible does not condemn consensual same-sex relationships. This article will just deal with related matters that were presented by DS (as we refer to him to protect his anonymity).
He alleges that the Bible had to protest the practices of the Romans where a married man would keep a young boy on the side but that the writer of Scripture did not have in mind condemning a consensual relationship. He writes: “Even the context of Leviticus on the subject is really addressing married men who might have considered a homosexual act as a loophole to
not committing adultery.” The context of Leviticus 20, however, does not confirm this assertion.
Leviticus 20 begins with a warning to “the children of Israel” (or any stranger in the land) not to give their children to Molech (as a sacrifice); the penalty was death (Lev. 20:2-5). Verse 6 likewise forbids any “person” to be involved with mediums or those with familiar spirits. Verses 7-8 encourage the people to be holy and to keep God’s commandments. Verse 9 mentions
the death penalty for one who curses his father or mother. Only when the reader arrives at verse 10 does he find Moses mentioning sexual sins.
There Moses does discuss a man who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife. She is married; he may be. Both parties should surely be put to death. Nothing is mentioned about the man in verse 11 being married; he might or might not be, but his sin involves lying with his father’s wife. Both were to be put to death. The same fate comes to the man who lies with his daughter-in-law (v. 12). Both of the men in these two verses might be married, but nothing forces us to believe that they are. Many men lost their wives in these days. The men who sinned in these instances could be single. But whether they were single or married is irrelevant; their actions were wicked.
And thus it is in Leviticus 20:13, also, which reads: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Once again, the reader does not know if one of the men or both of them are married to women, nor is it relevant. The homosexual act itself is what Moses describes as an abomination.
Verse 14 prescribes the death penalty for a man who marries a woman and her mother. Verses 15-16 condemn a man or a woman who approaches an animal. It would not matter if either of them were married; such an act is itself an abomination. The next two verses also begin with, “If a man….” The point is that DS’s theory does not hold. Leviticus 20 does not fit the context he concocted. Nothing in Leviticus indicates that the man was married, nor does anything the least bit indicate that he was committing homosexuality to avoid adultery. In fact, homosexual acts are defined as adultery by Greek lexicons (see the previous article).
Marriage and Divorce
In his third paragraph, DS states: “I disagree that an answer to a question on divorce is also Jesus’ definitive definition of a marriage.” His denial will not change the fact that Jesus uses the definition of marriage to answer the question on divorce. He was asked in Matthew 19:3 if a man could “divorce his wife for just any reason.” Notice the first words He uttered in response
to the question: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female…” (v. 4).
How does this answer the question? Jesus is citing the precedent established in the creation itself. God could have created an entire community—say, twenty men and twenty women, but He did not. He might have created two men or two women, but He didn’t do that, either. He might have created one man with four women, but no—one man and one woman established
the pattern for the home. Verses 5 and 6 bear this plan out. God joined those two, the man and the woman, together. But how do these facts relate to divorce?
Verse 6 closes by saying, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Not only was one man and one woman created as the ideal home, the ideal marriage must remain intact. If it disintegrates, the reason is that either the man, the woman, or both caused it to collapse. God designed and desires marriages to succeed.
DS writes a somewhat confusing sentence: “He was hardly calling Moses and David adulterers who died in sin due to their multiple wives.” When Moses married a second time, do we know that Zipporah, his first wife, was still alive? Moses did not have multiple wives in the sense that David did. When David took various women as wives, he was not committing adultery (as he did later with Bathsheba). God had not prohibited polygamy under the Law of Moses. An Israelite could not marry a woman and her mother; he could not marry a woman and her sister. But no death penalty was prescribed for a man with more than one wife.
However, it was not God’s plan. He allowed it under the Law, but it is not part of the Christian covenant. This admission gives no comfort to the homosexual, for their sin has been condemned under every covenant. Moses permitted divorce, and he permitted polygamy, but neither was authorized by God in His original design. The answer to the specific question on divorce
does include the definition of marriage.
Never Forbidden
Another of DS’s statements is: “Homosexual marriage was not practiced in the bible [sic] by followers, but it was never forbidden by God.” It is inappropriate to ask: “Where did God condemn something?”; the question must be, “Where did God authorize it?” For example, where did Jesus say not to make fish part of the Lord’s Supper?” He never said that, but He authorized unleavened bread and the juice of the grape.
But, further, if the practice of homosexuality itself is condemned, which it is under both the Law of Moses (Lev. 20:13) and the Law of Christ (Rom. 1:26-27), then why would anyone even imagine that homosexual “marriage” was acceptable? If stealing is wrong, how could anyone envision a Kleptomaniac Club? If adultery is wrong, why would we expect a specific denunciation of a Swingers’ Society? Such is an unrealistic expectation.
What the Church Should Do
People who do not follow the teachings of the Scriptures always seem to be willing to help out the church by advising them what to do and what not to do. DS is no exception in this regard. He thinks the church should leave homosexuals alone and let them “marry.” Well, we can scarcely stop them—unless they are willing to listen to the Word of God. He thinks we ought to
concentrate on keeping people married. Of course, we do that. Perhaps he has never heard of marriage seminars and workshops that are available, along with books and CDs designed to enrich couple’s marriages. He further states:
There are plenty of divorced adulterers in the church for hobbyist moral police to have a field day. There should be no need outside of bigotry to make homosexuals a special case.
This assessment is humorously stated, if not accurately. DS could be mistaking “hobbyist moral police” with the obligation that Paul placed upon Christians:
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an idolater, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person (1 Cor. 5:11).
The church in Corinth needed to withdraw fellowship from a man living with his father’s wife. If Christians find any of those described above, it is our duty to let them know of the danger they are in—and one way of doing that is by withholding fellowship from them (if they refuse to repent) so they will see the seriousness of their moral error.
Of course, the best way to solve some of these problems is to be certain that they do not enter the church in the first place. John insisted on fruits worthy of repentance before baptizing some (Matt. 3:7-8). He further spoke plainly to Herod: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). What John did, the church attempts to do, also. The New Testament
does not call us moral police, but we are individually to be holy, as well as collectively (1 Peter 1:15-16).
We do not always know everything about someone’s past when they decide to obey the gospel. Theoretically, a young woman might previously have been a prostitute. She may have been married five times and not mentioned that fact. A man might have embezzled money in New Jersey and moved to another locale under an assumed name. We don’t always have all the information we might need to accept someone as part of the congregation. But when two homosexuals appear and make it clear who they are, we cannot ignore the information and merrily welcome them.
DS further expects that someone ought to issue “a rebuke and an apology for the Church’s unlawful and unchristian abuse of homosexuals in and out of the church.” Unfortunately, he does not define either the word church or what he means by unlawful and unchristian abuse. Christians cannot be held accountable for the actions of just any group that calls itself Christian. There may be some hate groups that violate Christian principles; certainly, we could not stand with them. However, if by abuse is meant the refusal to allow homosexuals to be members, we will have to maintain that stance. Our goal is to encourage people to repent of sins—not tell them they are fine living in them and practicing them.
Straying Sheep
“We all like sheep have gone astray,” DS says. Apparently, the point is that we all commit sin, which is true (1 John 1:8, 10). But we do not all practice sin. Peter stated those same words about straying sheep but added that Christians “have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Again, we accept the Bible’s definition of sin, and we repent of them before becoming Christians (and also afterwards).
Love and Truth
In the last paragraph, DS says, “Indeed you may be showing love in truth or you may just be showing truth.” He added that he could not discern one way or the other. Our response is that Truth is valuable whether or not it is offered in love, which is ideal (Eph. 4:15). For example, Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh to preach. He ran away. After God gained his attention, he decided to obey. Did Jonah preach God’s message in love? Possibly not—since he was upset that the people repented. He even declared that for that reason he fled in the first place (Jonah 4:2). Regardless of Jonah’s attitude, however, the people of Nineveh believed the message, and they repented, “from the greatest to the least of them” (3:5). So, we apologize if someone thinks our attitude is deficient and we do not appear to be speaking in love. But communicating Truth is love because it gives everyone an opportunity to do what is right.
Brethren often emphasize the importance of the way we ought to present the Word of God—that we should
speak the truth in love, which is a valid concern. But let’s invert that principle for the moment and speak about the way
we should all receive Truth. First of all, when Solomon wrote, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it…” (Pr. 23:23), he did not
say, “Buy it only if it is pleasing to you,” or, “Buy it only if you like the way the message was delivered.” Along these
lines, Solomon also advised: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Pr. 27:6).
What someone says may cause hurt, but we should not let that stand in the way of considering the truth of the comments.
In the 2014 book from the Schertz lectures, Studies in the Minor Prophets, Mel Hutzler addressed this issue,
saying that “we should not blame the messenger for his negative message.” He points out that many will tend to think
his words are not true. We should not take offense or consider ourselves “slain by the preacher’s words. The moral of
the story is threefold:”
1) if we are slain by the preacher’s words, the best reaction is to examine ourselves and those words.
2) we must determine whether or not the preacher has correctly interpreted and presented God’s
Word; and
3) we must determine whether or not we are guilty of the sin that is being addressed.
If the preacher’s lesson applies to us, that is, if the preacher’s assessment of our condition is on target,
we need to do something about our sins! That is the way the Israelites should have reacted to Hosea’s
and the other prophets’ messages (92).
The writer is correct in this assessment. How did Peter feel when Jesus told him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For
you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Mark 8:33)? Jesus issued a stern rebuke, but Peter
continued to follow Him—possibly because he had learned over time that Jesus was always correct and that he had, in
fact, said something wrong. Likewise, we also, when rebuked, should evaluate our behavior—and repent when it is
necessary. Commended are those who receive with meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save our souls
(James 1:21).
A few weeks back, I preached a sermon, titled, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?” The answer is, “Yes,” and we will examine that point later. A response appeared on Youtube, which I was only made aware of recently (since I’m unfamiliar with those matters). He (presumably a male) did not give a name, which is fine, but in this response he shall be designated as DS.
One further bit of information before beginning the response involves me personally. I have never had a same-sex attraction and therefore do not understand it. Therefore, I cannot personally sympathize with this tendency any more than being addicted to alcohol or drugs. Many others probably fit into this same camp; however, we all struggle with sin, and we all know the problem of overcoming sin in our lives, whatever it might be. Therefore, we can be sympathetic to someone else’s illicit attraction—even if we do not share that particular one. Furthermore, God created us and knows us thoroughly, and if He classifies something as wrong, then that settles the matter. He declares Truth, and we must conform our actions to it.
DS was not at all belligerent, but he disagreed on some matters, which we will now look at. He says he agrees that fornication (involving the same sex or the opposite sex) is wrong. But he surely knows that male homosexuals have numerous partners. Is he willing to condemn all of them? Just wondering. He said there was “no question” about such fornication being wrong.
But his main thesis is:
I disagree that the discussion [of, GWS] homosexuality as a consensual act is at all settled by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as that was a hostile gang rape.
This is not a new argument. Basically, the premise is that the Bible does not condemn a consensual homosexual relationship—only something as aggressive as the behavior of the men of Sodom. However, what they attempted to do on the occasion of the arrival of the two angels (who had the appearance of men), was not the reason Sodom was destroyed. In my sermon I quoted Genesis 18:20, which states that “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great,” and that “their sin is very grave.” (Major translations use either “grave” or “grievous.”)
Is God’s description only pertaining to forcing others to be involved, or was it that the men constantly engaged in such behavior consensually—or both? DS cannot answer that. The best he could do is allege that the men of Sodom sinned in practicing fornication or adultery (against their wives). However, in my sermon, I never said this incident settled the issue. It is
only one passage of many that deal with the topic. We will get to more shortly.
At this point, DS includes a number of questions that have no relevance. No one thinks that Lot was right in offering his daughters to the mob. DS asks questions that no one can answer or needs to answer before resuming his theme that this case is too extreme to draw conclusions against the practice of homosexuality. Admittedly, it is an extreme example, but how did the men of Sodom get to be the way they are when we meet them in the Scriptures? Both old and young men desired to participate in the proposed sin (Gen. 19:4-5). Obviously, there were women in the city, not to mention families. We don’t have a specific answer to that question, but experience tells us that the full perversion of the city probably was a gradual process. The problem does not just surface with a rude greeting to strangers; it began with consensual relationships with familiar friends.
Fornication
In the sermon DS is responding to, below is what I presented about fornication.
Jesus’ Teaching Against Homosexuality
Matt 15:18-20. Things that man devise in the heart defile him. Among those things is “fornications,” from the Greek word porneia, from which we get pornography. Fornication is not a word generally in our vocabulary any more, but it is so serious a sin that it is the only reason for a divorce (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). If a mate is not put away for fornication, and that person remarries, both that person and the new spouse live in adultery.
But what is fornication? Thayer: “properly used of illicit sexual intercourse in general.”
Kittel (Vol. VI:587) under Later Judaism, which includes the NT era: “Porneia can also be ‘unnatural vice,’ … e.g., sodomy.”
VI:590 (“The New Testament”): “The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse.”
Some might respond by saying: “But aren’t there some specific words that Jesus could have used?” Yes, but is there something wrong with using a broad, general term? That way, one does not need to list six or seven sexual sins for
a divorce— just one that covers everything.
DS did not deal with any of the definitions except to say that homosexual fornication is wrong. He missed the point. The definition of fornication includes homosexuality, period. Perhaps he missed “unnatural intercourse,” but it is clearly part of the definition.
Jude 7
In the sermon, I imagined another response to the definition of fornication including “homosexuality.” Some brethren might say: “But I can’t carry a bunch of Greek lexicons around with me. How can I prove that fornication includes homosexuality?” The answer to that is Jude 7. Consider these comments:
Notice that it refers to Sodom and Gomorrah who were destroyed because of what? Homosexuality. And what does it call their sin? Porneia. The verb form is ekporneuo, meaning “having given themselves over to fornication.” They went after strange flesh—it was strange for men. God punished Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, which he rained down from heaven upon them. And this is the example—to indicate that God will punish those who commit this sin with eternal fire. These words were written by Jude, the brother of Jesus.
The main consideration is that homosexuality is included in the definition of the word used in Jude 7. The Lord’s brother is not discussing the degree of the sin (whether it is rape or nor) but the nature of the sin—that it is men with men instead of women. However, DS draws a faulty conclusion. He says that the reference in Jude to “strange flesh” was not to “human men but angels in male form.” He does not inform us as to the way he deduced that allegation.
How did the men of Sodom know they were angels in human form? Was it something about their hair, the clothes they wore, the way they walked (two feet off the ground, perhaps)? They asked, “Where are the men?”—not, “Where are the angels?” (Gen. 19:5). Even Lot referred to them as men (v. 8). Absolutely nothing in the text indicates that the men of Sodom thought they would have sex with angels. Wouldn’t they have better sense than to think that, angels being of a higher order than men (and thus more powerful)?
At any rate, Romans 1 harmonizes with both Genesis 19 and Jude 7. This was referenced in the sermon and part of it was quoted later, but DS did not deal with these verses. Paul speaks of people (male and female) dishonoring their bodies in Romans 1:24 because God gave them up to “uncleanness.” He further explains that they exchanged the Truth of God for the
lie. Now watch carefully:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men
with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves, the penalty of their error which was due (Rom. 1:26-27).
Notice that this text discusses the nature of the sin and mentions nothing of excessive force. These words apply to no excessive situation (such as Sodom) but refer only to the concept itself. It is vile and against nature—something that everyone can comprehend. When women are with women and men are with men, it is against nature (even if consensual). Human beings did not come up with these descriptions; God the Creator did. Jude 7 agrees with the definition of “against nature” by saying homosexuality is going after strange flesh. It is indeed strange for a man to seek another man or a woman another woman.
The Purpose of Jude
DS makes some bizarre statements about the Book of Jude. He says Jude was not warning about false converts. He was warning about false ministers. Then he quotes Jude 4. DS is exactly right in saying that Jude is warning against false teachers, but the purpose for warning against them is so that brethren will not be persuaded to be immoral.
For that reason Jude selected three examples where followers of God fell away when they should not have been influenced by Satan. The first refers to those who left Egypt (v. 5). Though they were saved from Egypt, many were afterward destroyed because they did not have faith (even though they had seen God in action) and they disobeyed Him. The second example (v. 6) shows that even angels in Heaven sinned when they followed Satan. The third example (v. 7) is Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham had rescued them from being captured, but they continued in the sin of homosexuality any way. Satan and his band of false teachers led people away from the truth. Quoting Jude 4 is appropriate and accurate, but it does not help DS with his thesis. He adds:
A much more accurate use of Jude would be as a warning to those who are ignoring and even condoning the fornication of the church as fully covered by grace while hating gays outside of it rather than as an exclamation point that homosexuality is sin.
It is not a matter of either/or; it is a matter of both. Assuming that the fornication of the church refers to those in the church committing fornication, we could not agree more. To conclude that fornication and adultery are all right while homosexuality is sinful plainly contradicts the Scriptures. Jude does condemn “sensual” and “ungodly” persons (15, 18-19). If churches are condoning one sin while condemning another, they do not have the Spirit of Christ; they are clearly in error.
The same grace of God that covers adultery covers homosexuality—when a guilty person repents of the sin. If an exclamation point follows Jude 7, however, the reason is that God put it there. As for hatred, Christians are to love all men and bring them to the gospel. We do not hate anyone. We may hate what sin does to people or how it affects society, but we do not hate individuals who sin, or we would hate all mankind, including ourselves. God is very gracious to those who give up sin.
Roland Mohsen, who labors in Paris, France, recently mentioned an interesting fact. He writes: “What came out on the news is the fact that the population of France is 67+ million people, but there are 84 million who have a social security card. That means that 17 million should not have any coverage, but they do. This extra cost comes to 40 billion Euros in France every year. It is a big scandal. Vive la France.”
So, does this mean that 17,000,000 are receiving double coverage? Or are some receiving triple or more than they are entitled to have? One wonders how this fraud might affect elections in France. If the social security cards can be faked, what about driver’s licenses or any other form of ID? Are some people voting twice or dozens of times? In Chicago, people are so patriotic that they keep voting even after they’re dead. Such has been the case for more than half a century, and no one has stopped it yet. Possibly something like it will occur in France. They already have a problem. How do they hope to resolve it? How long would it take to investigate 67,000,000 people in order to find out where the extra 17,000,000 came from?
Political intrigue, fraud, ridiculous accusations, smear tactics—aren’t you glad that the Kingdom of Heaven is not operated like any kingdom on earth? We don’t have elections because we never have a change of government. Jesus has been reigning since the first century and will continue to do so until the end of earthly time. We don’t need to listen to the same campaign promises we’ve heard for the last 17 elections—and what all we’ll get for free (with our money), and we don’t have to watch different political parties vie for power. There is no government corruption in the church of Jesus Christ, and maybe best of all—no lobbyists.
Our constitution is the New Testament. Have you noticed that there are no amendments? We don’t have a legislative branch; all the laws that were necessary were given at the outset of the establishment of the kingdom over a period of a few decades. It has been codified and made available since the first century. All people of every nation are governed by the same laws—no matter what the current culture is. That same Book serves as our court system, too. The only question that needs to be asked is, “What saith the Lord?” The executive branch consists of the Head of the church, Jesus. He has no cabinet and needs no advisors. He is Sovereign, and He rules justly. He will also serve as our judge, deciding where we will be eternally (John 5:28-30). He also knows each one of us and always has a correct count for those who are citizens of His kingdom. Truly, He is worthy of all praise and honor.
According to BBC News: “A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip.” No, your eyes are not deceiving you; a French Court made this decision. No information is available to know if the judges were actually sober at the time of the ruling. What were these justices thinking—that this could happen to them and they would want the court to compensate their families?
Okay, so what are the facts? The man who died was an engineer for “TSO, a railway services company based near Paris.” He was on a trip to Loiret. After work, he met a woman (maybe at a bar in the hotel where he was staying). He ended up in her hotel room. While he was thus engaged in cheating on his wife, he suffered cardiac arrest and died. This occurred in 2013. Six years later, a “Paris court ruled that his death was an industrial accident and that the family was entitled to compensation.” An “industrial accident”? Uh, he wasn’t in that industry. Nor can it be called “a workplace accident” by any stretch of the imagination.
“But under French law an employer is responsible for any accident occurring during a business trip,” judges said. Seriously? One might make a case for helping out his family if he were in a plane crash, a train wreck, or an automobile accident while traveling to or from his destination—but for something totally unrelated to his work or to transportation? If he contracted food poisoning at a restaurant and died, would that merit money for the man’s family? If he went into a small shop to buy a souvenir for his wife, and someone shot him during a hold-up, would the company have to pay for such an “industrial accident”?
The court said: “An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection ‘over the whole time of his mission’ and regardless of the circumstances.” This is insane. It would not make much more sense if his death occurred while he was with his own wife, but in this instance, he chose an immoral action. What if he had been killed while robbing a souvenir shop? “But that’s an illegal act,” someone might protest. Oh, so engaging in immorality should be rewarded—but not illegal acts. Okay, then, what if he was struck and killed by a taxi while jaywalking? Walking is transportation, but crossing at the wrong spot is illegal. Probably rendering a decision on a matter this complex would strain the court. The point is, every sane individual knows the man did not die while engaging in work for his employer; the company is not responsible for his actions. Sometimes it appears that the only time a person will be held responsible for his behavior is on the Day of Judgment when sanity finally prevails (2 Cor. 5:10).
You may not see this fact anywhere else, but it was 243 years ago (1776) this very day that a noble patriot died. In order to help the colonists, Nathan Hale, a graduate of Yale, had volunteered to spy on the British, but he was caught. There was no trial; he was not allowed to see a spiritual advisor or even read a Bible. However, before they hung him, he was allowed to express one of the noblest patriotic sentiments ever recorded: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
The young man, just 21, thus passed from this earth at a time when things looked bleak for the United States and without receiving any hint of this country’s glorious future. But regardless of the outcome of the war, Nathan Hale knew what he believed in. He knew that tyranny was wrong and that governments needed to derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence. He paid the ultimate price for these beliefs. His few words are still remembered and honored, alongside those of Patrick Henry, whose moving speech ended with words that will forever ring throughout the corridors of time: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
From where do such sentiments, which combine passion and truth, arise? Both Henry and Hale were reared at a time when the Bible was an honored book and a significant part of most people’s lives. Perhaps the commitment which they saw in the lives of Jesus and His apostles inspired them in secular matters as well. Jesus serves as the model for bearing witness to the truth—even when it was not convenient. The Sanhedrin convicted Him by His own words—His admission that He is the Son of God (Mark 14:61-62). Before Pilate, He also plainly spoke—even when it made the ruler angry at Him. Of course, Jesus did not need to give more than one life. One was sufficient: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12).
The Apostle Paul constantly put his life on the line. He once declared to some lackluster brethren, “I die daily” (1 Cor. 15:31). He said that he and all the apostles were treated as “the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13). And what about Christians in the first century (and afterward) who gave their lives for their Savior? They were not even guilty of spying; they had harmed no one. Yet they were put to death. They may have wished they could die more than once for Jesus. Is it the absence of the influence of the Bible that leads to a lack of conviction on the part of so many today for truth? Regardless, let all of us give the only life we have for Him Who died for us (2 Cor. 5:15; Gal. 2:20).
Sometime prior to April of this year (2019) a Jehovah’s Witness leaflet was distributed in this area (maybe nationwide). It’s about half the size of a legal sheet of paper with friendly folks shaking hands on page one. Underneath the picture, it proclaims: “You Are Welcome to Attend!” Page two has little printed on it. It begins with “On the night before he died, Jesus told his followers to commemorate his death. He said: ‘Keep doing this in remembrance of me.’ – Luke 22:19.” This formatting is theirs. They do not capitalize pronouns when referring to Jesus or place parentheses around Scripture references.
They try to be different in just about every way from anyone else. Toward that end they have their own Bible translation, which was put together by men who did not know Hebrew at all and very little Greek. The New World Translation is not to be trusted. Sometimes their errors are serious and will lead those who read it to eternal destruction. At other times, they are simply inept. They mishandled the verb in Luke 22:19. Jesus did not say, “Keep doing this”; He said, “Do this.” According to Bagster, the Greek word, poiete, is a second person, plural, present indicative, and imperative active. An imperative is a command and is correctly translated the way every major translation renders it—do this! “Keep doing this,” is incorrect.
But that’s not the main point. They go on (page 3) to invite all to join them “for the annual commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ.” Does anyone see anything incongruous about this? They mistranslated Jesus’ words to “keep doing this,” and they expect that people will understand that He was only referring to an annual event? Who does that? If someone says, “Keep up the good work,” are they referring to an annual burst of efficiency on the part of an employee? The church remembers Jesus the first day of each week (Acts 20:7). If Jehovah’s Witnesses want to have an annual event commemorating the Lord’s death, why don’t they provide a Scripture that it should be done that way?
They cannot call this event an Easter celebration because they know that was a pagan observance. Hmm. What to do? They have the “annual” non-Easter event on Good Friday (which is another unauthorized tradition of men), although they don’t call it that. As the song says: “Don’t you love farce?” So, in this tract, Jehovah’s Witnesses mistranslate Luke 22:19 to make it sound like Jesus wants His death remembered frequently (which He does)—and then they have an annual event instead on Good Friday, a day they do not observe. Hah! How much easier would it be to respond to Jesus Biblically by observing His death each week and ignoring entirely the traditions of men.
Driving to the office on August 28th, I heard a conversation on the radio from a local talk show. The host was saying that legalizing marijuana was probably going to be inevitable; so, we should save our resources for some other battle. Opposing legalization of marijuana was simply not a hill worth dying on. Hopefully, Christians will disagree mightily and do whatever we can to prevent such a disastrous day from coming to pass. It has been only about a decade ago that Floridians turned down Medical Marijuana. But thanks to the media and Morgan & Morgan, whose slogan is something like “For the Stoned People,” the medical version is now legal. Now a bill has been offered to make recreational marijuana available. Wow! Who could have seen that one coming?
Republicans have control of Florida’s state government. The radio personality urged them to pass the bill in order to get “credit” for bringing weed to Florida. They won’t get any credit from this voter if they do so—or support for office, either. The host rambled on, “They should legalize it and use the tax revenues for education or the environment.” Oh, there’s an original thought. Every state in the nation has used that same appeal for allowing casinos and gambling to invade their cities. So many taxes on sins have been raised for education that our children should be the smartest kids in the universe. Anyone want to bet on that?
“You’ve got to pick your battles,” goes the old saw. What battle are we waiting for? It’s nearly ninety years too late to keep alcohol illegal. Has anyone ever totaled all of the lives lost due to drunk drivers? We’re a little late on the battle to keep marriage from being redefined. Oh, and speaking of marriage we’re a little late to prevent divorce for any cause, aren’t we? More than 60,000,000 babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade. Of course, the Supreme Court never gave us a chance to fight that battle, having legalized the practice in one fell swoop, bypassing the legislative process. Perhaps the talk show host would like to tell us exactly what battle we are saving ourselves for. Those who are searching for a hill to die on will ultimately discover that the phantom hill is nothing more than a slippery slope to oblivion.
Recreational marijuana has been legal in certain states for a few years. Instead of theorizing on what the possible benefits might be to Florida if the bill is passed, how about giving us the data that shows how the states of Colorado and California have benefitted? What have the additional revenues purchased? How has work productivity soared? Please gives us an honest evaluation about the quality of life improving in those places. We’re waiting….
