The Sunday Afternoon Carnival

Another example of where The Christian Chronicle’s heart is can be seen in their featuring of the carnival hosted by one of “our” churches at their grand opening (sounds like a car dealership, doesn’t it?). Their approval of the event is seen in the very title of the article, which is, “Moving In, The Right Way….” The opening sentence on page 19 of October, 2019’s issue states: “Spider Man, bouncy castles and games of cornhole and pickleball (a combination of badminton and table tennis) highlighted the Sunday afternoon carnival hosted by the Great Falls Church of Christ” (the largest one of “our” congregations in Montana, although three others have about the same number in attendance).

In a picture just above this article, Spider Man lurks on a railing high above the auditorium. The caption reads, “After Sunday worship services, a friendly neighborhood Spider Man invited the children to an outdoor carnival and games as the Great Falls Church of Christ celebrates its grand opening.” Really? Is Spider Man a member? Oh, wait; he’s a fictional character. Why not have Superman and Batman, too, assuming they could put aside their differences? Why not get Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson? Or at least Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark? Apparently, it was the wrong time of year for the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. So, what does Spiderman have to do with the Lord’s church?

Can anyone imagine such shenanigans occurring 70 years ago? Would Marshall Keeble or Foy Wallace have lent their names to such goings-on? Probably, in those days, we would not have called moving into a new church building a Grand Opening, either, which sounds more like a commercial venture than a spiritual event. In those days, brethren might have invited a well-known gospel preacher to speak on such a day—or even conduct a gospel meeting in connection with the readiness of the facility. It’s safe to say that there would not have been a carnival.

Likely there would have been some pertinent messages, such as, “What is the Church?”; “How Many Churches Are There?”; “The Church in Prophecy”; or “How Do I Become a Member of the Church?” Those who attended would have been edified as to pertinent spiritual truths—not entertained by a common sideshow. Some might argue that the end justifies the means because the building was filled beyond its capacity. Okay. But what about a month later? Six months later? Eventually, one will run out of superheroes to invite. If you get people’s attention by means of the circus, it will require retaining them the same way. God’s plan for drawing people to the gospel involves godly living and good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

How Many People Will Be Fooled by This?

My friend, Preaching Brother from Another State (he has a name, actually; I started describing him this way to protect his anonymity) recently sent me one of those glossy color advertisements (5½ by 8½), announcing a “World Events in Bible Prophecy” event that began on September 13th in DeKalb, Texas. It was touted as a “Revelation Seminar” and conducted by 7th-Day Adventists. On the black-and-white side of the postcard, the sponsors asked: “Are you concerned about—

• The Catastrophic events happening in the world?
• The Rise of Crime?
• Moral Decay?
• Political Unrest and More?

These questions are followed by the bold statement: “This seminar will give you answers.” Pardon the skepticism, but the answers provided will probably be fanciful rather than Scriptural. If one looks at the questions closely, he will notice their vague nature. At what time could these questions not be asked? In how many decades has there been a rise in crime? Few notice when the crime rate diminishes. Our morals have been decaying for more than half a century. When is there not political unrest? What about World War II for supplying catastrophic events? Or September 11, 2001? The point is that the Bible says nothing more about this year than any other year. But many will hear a lecture and conclude, “Wow! The Bible speaks about what is happening right now”? No, it doesn’t.

The front of the postcard is interesting. In the upper right-hand corner is a picture of our current president; on the left-hand side is one of Kim Jong Un. Next to him is a masked terrorist holding a rifle of some sort (AK 47?). Next to President Trump is the Capital Building. Between them is a penny, but it has the pyramid from the dollar bill on it and the word coeptis. Interesting. Below the North Korean leader is a military helicopter, which is adjacent to Vladimir Putin. Some military planes are on his right, just above an Ayatollah, who is next to a pope. On his left is the image Nebuchadnezzar saw, with himself as the head of gold. That image has absolutely nothing to do with today’s events. Rome was the fourth world kingdom, and the church has replaced it (and every other earthly kingdom). The two guys presenting this workshop apparently do not know that Daniel’s own prophecies, as well as his interpretations of dreams, have long since been fulfilled. Neither Daniel nor Revelation describes anything happening in the world today. If only people would understand the Scriptures in their context and quit listening to uninspired men!

Why Immersion?

To immerse or not to immerse? That is indeed an important question. No matter what position a person takes concerning this aspect of salvation, he is definitely going to upset someone. There is so much debate concerning baptism that it would take an entire book to explain all the different ideas that have been debated on this topic. Since it is such a lengthy topic, this article will only concern the mode of baptism, its definition, its history, the way it was practiced in the first century, and finally how it was practiced after the first century.

What Does βαπτιζω Mean?

The word baptize is not a word that was translated from the Greek New Testament; it was transliterated. For example, the Greek word ‘υιος is our word for son; so that is how we translate it; other words, such as βαπτιζω, were not translated into English, they were transliterated; that is, they took the letters of the English alphabet and substituted them for the corresponding Greek letters, giving us the word baptize. But if they had simply translated it into an English word, which word would they have picked? Well, it depends on the context and the variation of the word itself.

This word can be used in reference to clothes being dyed a certain color (Kittel 1:529), a ship sinking, or a person drowning. It can also be used figuratively to describe bringing a city to the border of destruction, to “go under” or “to sink” into sleep, intoxication, or impotence; or to be “overwhelmed” by faults, desires, sicknesses, or magical arts (Kittel 1:530). If it is used in a literal sense, involving an individual or item, it refers to the subject being overwhelmed by a particular liquid, usually water. If it is used in a figurative sense it refers to a person being overwhelmed by a particular foe, vice, or sickness.

Now the important question is, how was it used in reference to people coming to God? Consider its history.

Proselyte Baptism

Religious washings are not unique to Christianity. Washings of many kinds have been in practice before and after the establishment of Christianity. But to understand how this Christian washing is implemented, one must start by understanding the baptism of Judaism that was in practice 2000 years ago.

If a Gentile desired to dedicate themselves to God, by submitting their life to the teachings of Moses, they were to first be immersed. This seems to be a practice developed after the close of the Old Testament and before the preaching of John the Immerser. If a man wished to become a Jew, he would be circumcised; after he healed from the procedure, he would strip off his clothes to be baptized. This act would require the presence of a Rabbi, and he would recite heavy and light commands of the Law. The candidate, at the hearing of these laws, plunged himself entirely in the water and then would come up from the water. After he came out of the water, he would then be seen as a newborn child, an Israelite in all things! However, the procedure for women would be slightly different. They clearly would be not circumcised, and they would be attended by those of their same sex, with the Rabbi waiting outside (ISBE 1:386).

This was more than an act of washing; it was an act of dedication to God (Flemington 348). The individual was now seen as an infant who was obligated to keep the Torah (Kittel 1:536). This idea of immersion seems to have been so common that there are comments recorded from both Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel in the Mishnah.

One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave (Mishnah Eduyot 5:2).

It is plain to see that immersion was the accepted form of proselyte baptism.

The Baptism of John and Jesus

When John the Immerser came on the scene, he baptized for the coming of the kingdom (i.e., the church) (Matt. 3:2). For one to be admitted to this baptism, he had to confess and repent of his sins. He then received forgiveness of his sins (Luke 3:3). How was this baptism administered? Some suggested that since it was not specified, John perhaps brought them out to the water and simply poured water on their head, as is depicted in many paintings and statues today. But first, the customary baptism of that day was immersion; second, the word here is βαπτιζω, which in the Jewish context, refers to a person, item, or body part being immersed or dipped. Since John was baptizing people, it is clear they were being immersed.

Third, if John was doing something other than immersing his followers, there would have to be a different Greek word used to describe the act of pouring and sprinkling, but only βαπτιζω is used. Fourth, historically speaking, immersion is the norm, and only years later would a new model be introduced.

Another thing to consider is John’s need for “much” water. John the Apostle writes, “John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized” (John 3:23, NAS). If sprinkling or pouring were fair alternatives, John’s need for much water would have been superfluous.

In reference to the baptism authorized by Jesus, beginning on the Day of Pentecost, the only thing that made itself distinct (in reference to its mode) was the authority by which it was done (Matt. 28:19; Acts 19:5). There is no authoritative command given which authorizes anything besides immersion.

Changes Introduced

Historical records indicate that immersion was the common practice in the early church. The earliest document that suggests a person could be saved without immersion comes from the Didache (an early 2nd century document), which suggests that under extreme circumstances, in which immersion was impossible, a person could have water poured on their head three
times (Didache 7). However, there is no record that this was practiced until the 3rd century when a certain man named Novetus (Novatian), though extremely ill, sought to be baptized; thus, they poured water upon him (Shackleford 43).

Affusion (pouring) was confined to extreme cases until the late 9th century. This was sometimes referred
to as clinical baptism. Eventually it was declared by
the council of Ravenna in 1311 that sprinkling and
pouring were acceptable forms (Shackleford 44).

Christianity Today

Are we still required to practice immersion? Is this what was commanded by Jesus? Yes (Mark 16:16). Is this what was practiced by the disciples of Jesus? Yes (Acts 2:41; cf. Acts 8:35-39). Do we have any authority to sprinkle or pour? No. The reason people are drawn to the church of Christ is that it teaches Apostolic Christianity—the theology and practice of the church established by Jesus Christ. The church teaches the basic principles of speaking where the Word speaks and being silent where it is silent (Deut. 4:2). As Paul commanded all Christians, we should not go beyond that which was written (1 Cor. 4:6).

If Jesus had commanded us to take a bath, will He only be satisfied if we choose to wash our hands? No, I can’t say He will. If one wishes to be obedient to the teachings of Christ one must submit to immersion. Of course, there are still many objections made to immersion, often due to the unwillingness to criticize the current practices of their own church.

Common Arguments Against Immersion

1. The Didache approved pouring; therefore, immersion is not necessary. Just because a noninspired source says something, it does not make it true. People only cite the Didache when it is convenient, without desiring to practice its other teachings. Most who support its teachings on “pouring” will not support its teachings on church hierarchy or church discipline (Didache 15). Some of the most unorthodox writings appeared soon after the New Testament was completed. Just because it’s from the early church, does that make it reliable? No, of course not. Unless any teaching can be found in the Scriptures, it cannot be substantiated.
2. The church never had any defined formula of baptism. This doesn’t really make sense, since it is like pulling teeth to get away from immersion. Everett Ferguson points out that non-immersive “baptism” was only confined to emergencies for the first 900 years of the church’s existence (Shackleford 44).
3. Certain scenarios in Scripture would have made it impossible to immerse, such as the case of the 3,000 saved on the day of Pentecost and the Philippian jailer. This is preposterous. There were multiple pools in Jerusalem such as the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2) and the pool of Siloam (John 9:7), not to mention all the ceremonial pools in private residences that would have been present. And in reference to the jailer, why wouldn’t there be enough water for baptism? It seems that some assume he was baptized in the jail. But why would that be necessary? We know that he left the prison. Thus, he and his whole family were baptized (Acts 16:33-34). Any pond or river could have been available. The jailer was not confined to the jail. Besides, he trusted Paul and Silas; they could have already escaped if that was their intention.
4. Baptizo does not always mean “immersion”; therefore, a person does not have to be immersed. It is true that baptizo does not always mean “immerse.” But it depends on the subject and the context. For example, when used in a figurative sense, its meaning may vary. But it still carries with it the idea of something being overwhelmed by something positive or negative. But the baptism of an individual is not something figurative; it’s a literal action, which was administered through immersion. Words always change the meaning, depending on whether or not they are used figuratively or literally.

These arguments are not substantial in any way, nor do they respect the Scriptures, as they ought. The best approach is always to ask, “What saith the Scriptures?”

Works Cited

Flemington, W. F. “Baptism.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962. 348–53.

Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.

Shackelford, Don. A Survey of Church History. Montgomery, AL: Amridge University Press, 2010.

ISBE. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Louis Farrakhan and the Real Jesus

“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.

Anti-Semitism

“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?

Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 2

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.

How to Receive the Word

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).

Homosexual Relationships (A Response) – Part 1

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.

French Intrigue

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.

“The Progress of Human Life”