The Holy Ghost and Fire

A sound . . . came from heaven . . . they saw . . . The gift had to be visible, so that the disciples might be roused through their physical senses. We are so slow to think about the gifts of God that unless he wakes up all our senses, his power passes away without our noticing. These physical signs prepared the disciples to understand more clearly that the Spirit Christ had promised had now come.

John Calvin commenting on Acts 2:2–3

During my years as a Pentecostal, praying for the “Holy Ghost and fire” to come was common. Typically the prayer would be for the uninitiated to receive the “gift of tongues,” or for the already blessed to have the spigot of “Holy Ghost” power turned to full. One of the main proof-texts for such requests was Acts 2:2–3:

And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.

And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them

In these passages we read of three signs accompanying the Spirit’s arrival: 1) the sound of a violent rushing wind; 2) visible “tongues” of fire; 3) and each person hearing the “mighty deeds of God” declared in his own language (vrs. 11).

For the purposes of this post we’ll focus on the second sign and see if it really refers to an ecstatic gift or buster-shot of power.

Tongue

First, the sign is visible: It appeared to them. Or, as the New King James puts it, “and one sat upon each of them.” This differentiates it from the other two signs which were audible.

Luke uses the word “tongue” (i.e., that muscular piece of tissue in your mouth) to describe what the sign looked like: a flame, like that dancing atop a candle, resting upon each person. (This is similar to describing the decent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus as being “like a dove.”) Luke is simply being a good narrator by using a common element to paint a word picture.

Fire

Throughout the Scriptures fire is used to show both God’s glorious presence among His people (Gen. 15:17; Ex. 19:18, 40:34–38) and His all-consuming fire of judgment (Due. 4:24; Mal 3:2–5, 4:1; Heb. 12:29). Consider Luke 3:15–17:

Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ,

John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

"His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Here John the Baptist reveals that Christ will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Vrs. 17 makes it clear that the “fire” is the fire of judgment. This is significant because we see the church at Pentecost not being consumed by the fire. Reason being, Christ, as God’s sacrificial lamb (John. 1:29), bore God’s judgment in our place (Isa. 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21).

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!

But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!”

Luke 12:49–50

Jesus bears the baptism of God’s fiery wrath so that when He casts the fire of judgment upon the earth, His people won’t be consumed. That’s what’s taking place in Acts 2—the tongues-like-fire representing both God’s judgment (and our delivery from it) and His glorious presence among His people.

Conclusion

Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear

Acts 2:33

Peter reveals that on that Pentecost God fulfilled His promise and sent His Spirit. This makes the events of Acts 2 a unique part of Redemptive History. Pentecostals misapply these texts by reducing Pentecost to some personal, post-conversion experience. But it’s not about me and my experience—it’s about Christ and His glorious work of redemption.

--The Catechizer

Jacob’s Ladder

In Genesis 28 we find God speaking to Jacob in a dream. The Lord tells Jacob that his descendants will multiply, be blessed of God, and will inherit the land upon which he was laying (vrs. 13 and 14). The Lord also promised to be with Jacob wherever he goes and to bring him back to this land (vrs. 15). Prior to the Lord’s address, however, a strange vision was given to Jacob.

He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.

Genesis 28:12

No explanation of the vision is provided in the text. So what does it mean?

Ziggurats

During Jacob’s journeys through ancient Mesopotamia, it is certain that he saw many ziggurats. These temple towers, which appear not only in the Middle East but also in Central America, were a place of sacrifice to various gods. The most famous ziggurat being the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11.

Ziggurats featured a stepped construction comprising a large base that ascended, step-by-step, to a much smaller summit. Upon the summit was the alter. The purpose behind the ziggurats was for men to ascend to heaven.

So What’s Jacob’s Ladder About?

For the interpretation of Jacob’s dream we must turn to the New Testament, to the words of the Savior.

And He said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

John 1:51

Christ is the ladder Jacob saw in the vision. Unlike the ziggurats where men are ascending to God, God descended to man in the person of Christ. This is the difference between Christianity and the religions of men: all non-Christian religions are works-based—man trying to ascend to God via his own righteousness. This is like a drowning man trying to climb out of a pool using a ladder of water; it can’t be done. Christianity is completely opposite: man’s works play no part in bringing the sinner to God.

Here’s the gospel in a word: imputation. It’s Christ’s righteousness (His perfect keeping of the Law) being imputed (transferred) to His people, and their sins being imputed to Him (which He bore on the cross). Men can only stand before God when clothed in Christ’s righteousness—and this was accomplished by God descending to man, not man ascending to God.

It may be demaunded, what is that thing in Christ, by and for which, we are justified. I answer, the Obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19. And it stands in two things, his Passion in life and death, and his Fulfilling of the law joined therewith. . . . The obedience of his passion stands before God as a satisfaction for the breach of the law. . . . By the second Obedience in fulfilling the lawe, the sonne of God performed for us, all things contained therein, that we might have right to life everlasting, and that according to the tenour of the lawe, Levit. 18.5.

William Perkins (1558-1602)

For further reading: Heidelberg Catechism, questions and answers 12–18.

Merry Christmas!

--The Catechizer

Slavery in Ancient Israel – Part Three (Conclusion)

In Part 2 we learned that slavery was for the benefit of the poor and was voluntary. We also learned that it was the last resort for the impoverished, and that before the poor had to sell themselves into servitude, God had made many provisions for their care.

In this post we’ll look at the issue of daughters being sold as slaves by their fathers ( Ex. 21:7–11).

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. (vs. 7)

We must remember that the Middle East of 4,000 years ago was a tough place to live. Difficult decisions had to be made in order to ensure the survival of a household. One such decision would be to “sell” a daughter either to payback a debt and/or to ensure her survival by joining her to a wealthy family. Although “sold,” they were not slaves, which is why they were not released after seven years like the men were.

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. (vs. 8)

These girls were purchased to be secondary wives (concubines), which was a common practice at the time (Gen. 16:3, 22:24; 30:9, 36:12; Judges 8:31). If, however, she displeased her husband, he had to allow her to be “redeemed” (Lev. 25:47-54) either by herself or by a family member. He cannot sell her to foreigners, for they would not recognize her rights under Israelite law.

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (vs. 9)

If the master is purchasing her to be a bride to his son, he must treat her like a daughter and accord her with the associated respect and honor.

If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. (vs. 10)

If the husband takes another bride, he must still provide for her as he previously had, including conjugal rights.

If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (vs. 11)

Finally, if the husband fails to meet his responsibilities in caring for her, he must release her without gaining any compensation in return.

Conclusion

We see in the above passages laws put into place to help a family survive and to help a poor girl better her lot in life by marrying into a wealthy family. Moreover, we see that the laws are actually for the protection of the girl and disallow any type of exploitation.

--The Catechizer

Slavery in Ancient Israel – Part Two

In Part 1 we learned how foreigners became slaves and how they were treated. In this post we'll take a look at Hebrew slaves. A few things to note regarding Hebrew slavery:

• The slaves were treated differently (better) than foreign slaves. Reason being, the Hebrews were God's people. Like a king who favors his children over his subjects, so God favors His children over pagans.
  


• It was a voluntary institution.
  


• It was for the benefit of the slaves.

The Care of the Poor

Slavery was the last resort for the poor. Before the poor had to sell themselves into servitude, God made provisions for their care:

• The people were to lend money to the poor (Deu. 15:7-8, 11).
  
  It's interesting to note that the reason for this law was not just to help the poor; it was also to help cultivate a generous heart in the giver and to help stave-off the love of money (Deu. 15:9).
  


• Lenders were not to charge interest or sell the poor food for a profit (Lev. 25:36-37).
  


• Borrowers were released from their debt every seven years (Deu. 15:1-2).
  


• Farmers were to only reap their harvest for six years; the seventh they were to let the poor pick their food from it (Ex. 23:10).
  


• Farmers were also not to cultivate the edges of their crop or pick-up fallen fruit so that the poor gather them and be feed (Lev. 19:9-10, 23:22; Deu. 24:19).
  


• Every third year the tithe of the people was given to the poor (Deu. 14:28-29).

Hebrew Slavery Benefited the Slaves

When, despite the provisions discussed above, an Israelite found himself in dire straights, he still had recourse: voluntary slavery. This option allowed the poor to maintain not only their physical wellbeing, but also their dignity (i.e., they worked for what they received, instead of becoming a beggar). Listed below are a few other benefits to the slave:

• The servitude was initiated by the slave and he was the one who received proceeds of the sale; he was also to be treated well and not like a slave, but as a hired worker or a temporary resident (Lev. 25:35-43).
  
  It should be noted that forced slavery was punishable by death (Ex. 21:16; Deu. 24:7).
  


• They were released after six years of service (Deu. 15:12).
  
  The slave had the option of remaining in his masters house; however, this was completely voluntary. To ensure that the slave was not being coerced, he and his master would have to go before the judge prior to the slave becoming a lifetime servant (Ex. 21:5; Deu. 15:16).
  


• When released, the slave was provided with goods so that he wouldn't be poor (Deu. 15:13-14).

In Part 3 we'll conclude with what is generally considered most troubling aspect of ancient Israel’s slavery: daughters being sold as slaves by their fathers.

--The Catechizer

Slavery in Ancient Israel – Part One

Slavery in Old Testament (OT) times was very complex and differed greatly from the chattel slavery practiced in the United States and elsewhere. A pitfall we modern observers must avoid is that of anachronistic thinking (i.e., reading today’s sensibilities into ancient cultures). Instead, we must take time to study the Scriptures to find out the “hows and whys” of the practice.

As I’ve indicated, this is a very complex issue. For example, the term “slave” (sometimes translated “servant”) is applied to a broad range of people in the Scriptures. Here are a few examples:

• The patriarchs, prophets, and kings of Israel are often referred to as slaves of God (Ex. 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11)


• The people comprising Judah and Israel are called slaves of their kings (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5; Gen 27:37; 32:4)
  


• The Hebrews refer to themselves as slaves when addressing Moses and the prophets (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19)
  


• Christians are referred to as slaves of Christ (Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22)

For a more detailed study of the issue of slavery in the Bible, I recommend the following resources from A Christian Thinktank:

• OT Slavery
  
• NT Slavery

In OT times, there were two broad groups of slaves: Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves. I think it’ll be helpful to take a high-level look at each group.

Foreign Slaves

“Foreign” in this context refers to someone who is not Hebrew. There were two ways foreigners became slaves of the Hebrews:

• Their nation was conquered—When the Hebrews were going to lay siege to a people, they would first give them the opportunity to surrender. If they did, the people would become vassals of the Hebrews (Deut. 20:10–11); although the men were sometimes used as conscripts (2 Sam 20:24, I Kings 9.15), they were not slaves in the normal sense of the term. Instead, it was more like Jews being ruled over by the Romans (i.e., the Jews were vassals of Rome).
  
  As an aside, Israel was not allowed to attack countries in lands that the Lord had not given them (i.e., outside of the Promised Land), unless they were first attacked (Duet. 2).
  


• They were sold—The Hebrews were allowed to buy (not take) slaves from pagan nations (Lev. 25:44–45).

Foreign slaves were well treated by the Hebrews, although without some of the rights enjoyed by Hebrew slaves (more about that later). Here are a few:

• They did not have to work on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:9).
  


• They were not to be injured severely or killed (Ex. 21:21-27).
  
  Two notes regarding Ex. 21: In verse 21 the term “his property” is used; this indicates that a foreign slave is in view because the term would be inappropriate if applied to a Hebrew.
  
  Notice that the slave’s rights are on par with those of the freemen; also consider Due. 25:1–3, 2 Sam. 7:14, and Prov. 13:24 where freemen are likewise punished with beatings. This indicates a level of humane treatment that was unheard of in other slave states.
  


• Runaway slaves were granted right-of-refuge and not allowed to be extradited back to their foreign owners; in addition, they were allowed to live in whatever town they wanted and were not to be oppressed, even though they were foreigners (Deut. 23:15-16).
  


• If the slave belonged to a priest, he could eat “the holy gift,” something that most Hebrews were not allowed to do (Lev. 22:11).
  


• The women could be taken as wives with the corresponding rights and privileges, including the right to freedom should she be divorced (Deut. 21:10–14).
  


• Reminding the Hebrews that they were once slaves, God commanded them to love their foreign slaves and to treat them fairly (Lev. 19:34–35; Deut. 10:19).

In the next post for this series well take a look at Hebrew slavery, so stay tuned for part two!

--The Catechizer

Topical Bibles and Red-Letter Editions

For the first time ever, all of the statements Jesus made in the New Testament have been brought together and organized under more than 200 topics. When you want to know his will in a specific area of life, or you're seeking the answer to a perplexing question, or you are desperate for his encouragement, comfort, or wisdom-you can easily find the help you need.

The Greatest Words Ever Spoken: Everything Jesus Said About You, Your Life, and Everything Else

One of the church’s problems is biblical illiteracy. I think part of it is due to topical sermons. Before I became Reformed, I was treated to a steady diet of, “How Jesus Calms the Storms of Your Life, “How to Slay Your Personal Goliath,” “10 Spiritual Benefits to Regular Car Maintenance,” etc. In topical sermons, the topic drives the message, while the passages are brought in for support. This is in contradistinction to expository preaching, where you have the text driving the sermon. Reason being, in expository preaching you preach verse-by-verse through a book of the bible. By this method the people learn what the verses mean in context. In other words, the preacher reads the passage and then explains it in context.

Like topical preaching, reading verses in isolation can cause the reader to misunderstand the passages; it can also contribute to the bad habit of proof-texting: using decontextualised verses to support a position. These are a few of my concerns with topical bibles. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has a great rule of thumb: Never read a bible verse. What he means is, to properly understand a text you must read it in context.

When I'm on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I'm asked, even when I'm totally unfamiliar with the verse. It's an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.

I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what's going on.

The Words of Jesus

Another concern I have with The Greatest Words Ever Spoken is the same concern I have with red-letter editions of the bible. People sometimes think that the red words are more important than the black words. That is certainly what I take away from the book title: If Jesus’ words are the greatest ever spoken, then they’re greater than Paul’s, Peter’s, John’s, etc. But this isn’t true.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is God’s word. There is no “greatest” or “not as great,” which is what the book title implies. It’s the same implication drawn by some when they use red-letter bibles.

Conclusion

Topical bibles can be a good resource when studying, but they should never be used in isolation. When we study, or when we preach, we must take great care to protect the integrity of God’s word. And that means we must read passages in context, and that we don’t impose a hierarchy of value based on who uttered or wrote them.

--The Catechizer

Eye for an Eye

From Time magazine . . .

HERE IS ONE OF PROTHERO'S FAVORITE stories of Bible ignorance. In 1995 a federal appeals court upheld the overturn of a death sentence in a Colorado kidnap-rape-murder case because jurors had inappropriately brought in extraneous material--Bibles--for an unsanctioned discussion of the Exodus verse "an eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... whoever ... kills a man shall be put to death." The Christian group Focus on the Family complained, "It is a sad day when the Bible is banned from the jury room." Who's most at fault here? The jurors, who perhaps hadn't noticed that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus rejects the eye-for-an-eye rule, word for word, in favor of turning the other cheek? The Focus spokesman, who may well have known of Jesus' repudiation of the old law but chose to ignore it? Or any liberal who didn't know enough to bring it up?

Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service.

38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:38-39

But is it the case that, in this passage, Jesus was rejecting capital punishment?

What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”

In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. Consequently, if a man takes another man’s life without due cause, he forfeits his own life.

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Genesis 9:6

Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?

For Jesus to “reject eye-for-an-eye” means that He rejects the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question that those, such as the person quoted above, need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral, and not worthy of our attention.

Did Jesus Reject the Death Penalty?

God established the death penalty.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.

The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that either the major premise (first sentence) or the minor (second) premise is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.

With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life, it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.

So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”

As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.

What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?

First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.

It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:

50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.

51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Matthew 26:50-52

Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.

There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well? (Illustration from Dennis Prager.)

What Do Jesus’ Words Mean

I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).

“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.

--The Catechizer

The Nazi at the Door – Considering Moral Dilemmas

We, as God’s people, are required to think His thoughts after Him. This is no small task. This means that we have to face tough moral and theological questions carefully and thoughtfully, all the while not surrendering the sure foundation of God’s Word. It's against this backdrop that I broach the topic of today’s post: moral dilemmas.

A note of warning: this topic carries with it a certain amount of controversy. For that reason I remind you to "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Moral Dilemmas

You are on the horns of a moral dilemma if you are caught between competing moral requirements. Here is the most common modern example:

It is wartime Germany and you are hiding Jews in your basement. There’s a knock at the door—Gestapo performing a house-by-house search! They ask if you are hiding Jews in your basement. You pause as you consider your answer.

• “If I say ‘yes,’ they will kill them"


• “If I say ‘no,’ then I’m lying"

Dilemma: The only way to protect the innocent is to lie.

No Win Situation?

Some characterize this as “choosing between two evils.” But this characterization is false. God will never put us in a situation where we can’t please Him, where we must sin.

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

1 Corinthians 10:13

15) For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

16) Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need

Hebrews 4:15-16

Although Christ was not specifically tempted with Nazis at the door, He did face every kind of temptation. Each temptation met its defeat. Based on Christ’s triumph, and the Corinthian passage, we can conclude that any particular instants of sin can be overcome by the believer. Since sin can always be resisted, we’ll never face a “no win situation” morally.

This is true, but this savors of a carnal heart to think that you must choose one sin rather than another. You must not choose any of them! Both of them are evil, though one may be less evil than another.

Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–1646)

Scriptural Considerations

The Ninth Commandment forbids lying (Ex. 20:16). But are we to take from this passage that all lying is forbidden? To answer that question we must first remember that the Ten Commandments are but a summary of God’s Law. To be faithful, we must take into account all of what God's Word says.

1) Now the LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons."

2) But Samuel said, "How can I go? When Saul hears of it, he will kill me." And the LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.'

1 Samual 16:1–2

Here we see the Lord instructing Samuel to deceive Saul. If Samuel would have told Saul the truth, Saul would have killed both him and David. Through the lie, both men where spared and God’s plan of redemption continued.

Also consider 1 Kings 22. Prior to going to war against Syria, king Ahab consults his 400 brown-nosing prophets who basically say “you da’ man, boss!” (that’s my own translation). Unsatisfied, the king summons Micaiah. Micaiah (eventually) tells the king of his pending doom, and a bit more:

19) Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.

20) "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.

21) "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

22) "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'

1 Kings 22:19–22

Thus God mislead Ahab into battle.

And how about Rahab? We read in Joshua 2 that she lied to protect the spies. Do the Scriptures condemn her? No. Actually, because of her deception, she was included in the “Faith Hall of Fame” (Hebrews 11:31).

Conclusion: “There are No Jews Here”

The “Nazi at the door” is not a true moral dilemma—we are not actually caught between competing moral choices. As a matter of fact, God will never put us in a situation where we truly have to choose between two of His commands.

God does expect us, however, to make moral choices that are consistent with His revealed will. This means that we cannot simply stop at the summary of God’s law, but, instead, we must press on to consider the totality of what God has to say.

In our short study, we found that truth-telling is the general rule. But in certain situations (such as when protecting innocent people, or during a time of war) God allows for deception. That being said, there is something very important we must remember: Because God’s character is the standard of morality, He is the only One able to determine when deception is allowed—not us. Therefore, study the Scriptures carefully, for God takes His commands seriously.

--The Catechizer

Don’t be Bamboozled by “Christian” Movies

Over at Gospelspam.com, Marcus Pittman has written a review of the film, "Heaven Is For Real." In the review, he decries the pandering of Hollywood to its evangelical consumer base. The saddest part, he goes on to elaborate, is that evangelicals eat it up. Some seem to think as long as Hollywood is making movies with so-called Christian themes it's a good thing in and of itself. What is overlooked, however, is that it is the content of the message, not the intention of the producers of the content, which matters most.

Paul expounded on this truth in his letter to the church in Philippians. In verses 15-18 of Chapter 1 he says the message of the Gospel is effective, irrespective to the motives of the proclaimers of that message. Notice how differently this reads when current reasoning is applied: "Some, to be sure, are preaching a different Christ than the one revealed in Scripture (in fact the message they preach is absolute heresy!), but some preach Christ accurately. Both know that I am appointed for the Gospel and both mean well. The latter proclaim carefully exegeted truth with good intentions, while the former proclaim their heresies with similar good intentions in mind. What then? Only that in every way, whether falsehood or truth, as long as some sort of Christ is proclaimed, and that from good intentions, in this I will rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice."

The whole of the law is to "...love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your MIGHT" (Deuteronomy 6:5, ESV - emphasis added, Heidelberg Catechism question and answer #4). If the heart and soul were all that were mentioned, one could entertain the thought that consideration of intentions alone would be sufficient; but , when all of one's MIGHT is added, actions have to be taken into account. So, the ends no longer can be a justification for the means. It is of utmost importance that WHAT is done and WHY it's done are harmonious with GOD's commands. The second chapter of the book of James is dedicated to the idea of one who proclaims to believe but whose actions do not conform to that proclamation. The Prophet Joshua, in his last recorded address to the Israelites, exhorted the people to serve God in "sincerity and truth" and also to conform their practices in accord with GOD's commands (Joshua 24:14).

Be mindful of the content of the media you consume and avoid being bamboozled by the Christian window dressing. The entire movie review can be read here.

Grace & Peace - The Deacon

Docetism and 1 John

For many years as a young Christian, the first few versus of 1 John 4 confused me. I thought, “What’s this business about denying Christ came in the flesh?” I knew that there were plenty out there who denied His diety, but I was unaware of any who denied His humanity. I was reminded of this the other evening during our family devotional when I had to explain these passages to my children.

1) Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because any false prophets have gone out into the world.

2) By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

3) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

4) You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.

5) They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.

6) We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

(1 John 4:1–6)

Docetism

A precursor to Gnosticism, Docetism taught that matter was evil. Consequently, those embracing this teaching could not accept that God could take on human flesh. Thus they rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation, and, in its place, taught that Christ’s body and his crucifixion were both illusory. It’s this teaching that John is warning us about in verse 3.

Text Considered

The concern here, though, is much broader than just the teachings of Docetism. Indeed, John's concern extends to all false teachers—for they are all of the spirit of antichrist. Because of these false teachers we are told to “test the spirits,” meaning that we are to test the teachings of men.

But like a father revealing a happy ending to a frightening tale, John does not leave us in fear. In verse 4 he tells us that we have already overcome them (the false teachers) because of the indwelling Spirit—God will not allow His little children to be ravished by wolves. In verse 6 we discover the means of this protection: His Word.

John tells us that “he who knows God listens to us.” “Us” here refers to John and the other men used by God to bring forth the Bible. Those of the spirit of antichrist will not heed the Scriptures—but God’s little children will. “By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

Conclusion

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:11)

Those in Berea were daily in God’s Word studying to see if what Paul and Silas were telling them was true. Likewise, the only way we can recognize false teachers is to be grounded in God’s Word—to know the truth. It is there in the Scriptures that, by faith, we’ll meet with the Living God, hear His voice, and learn the truth.

The Bible is something more than a body of revealed truths, a collection of books verbally inspired of God. It is also the living voice of God. The living God speaks through its pages. Therefore, it is not to be valued as a sacred object to be placed on a shelf and neglected, but as holy ground, where people’s hearts and minds may come into vital contact with the living, gracious and disturbing God.

James Montgomery Boice

--The Catechizer

He Descended Into Hell ...

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles’ Creed is one of the earliest statements of Christian orthodoxy, believed to be written sometime in the second century. Later, sometime before 700 AD, the words “descended into Hell” were added. Although it is not known who made the addition or why, there are a few theories as to the meaning.

Against Gnosticism

“He descended into Hell” is preceded by “was crucified, dead, and buried.” The addition could be to further the distinction between Gnosticism and orthodoxy: Christ was a physical being Who actually died in the manner of men. He did not swoon, evaporate, or lie in a coma, but physically ceased living with His spirit returning to the Father.

Bearing the Pains of Hell

John Calvin believed that this statement refers to Christ suffering the pains of Hell upon the cross. Here’s how he put it in the Institutes. . .

The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

(You can read Calvin’s entire comments on this portion of the creed here.)

Although I believe that Calvin was correct (and when I confess this creed, this is what I have in mind), that Christ suffered the pains of Hell on the cross, I’m still troubled by the use of the term “descended.” If that’s what the author of the text had in mind, why use that term? It doesn’t seem to fit.

Prison Break

Some have tied “He descended into Hell” to I Pet. 3:19:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison

I’ve heard two interpretations of this:

• Christ went not to Hell, but to Abraham’s Bosom, which was supposedly a temporary holding place.


• Christ went to Hell and offered salvation to those there.

I think there are many problems with both interpretations (especially the second), but I’m going to pass on that in this post. Instead, I just want to focus on the passage at hand: Does it teach that he actually “descended” somewhere? I don’t think so.

In the versus leading up to this passage (particularly 18-20), Peter is encouraging us to stand strong in faith while enduring persecution for righteousness sake. Noah is an example of such courage under fire. Christ, via Noah’s preaching, is proclaiming the gospel to those living in Noah’s time—those who are now in Hell (i.e., “prison”). This is why Peter says “ . . . He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison”; the sequence is 1) Christ preached [they didn’t listen] 2) now they’re in prison.

It seems to me, therefore, that the context disallows the other two interpretations.

Conclusion

Whatever the reason “He descended into Hell” was added, what I have in mind when confessing The Creed is that Christ suffered the pains of Hell for me. Not only is this theologically supported, it also reminds me that my salvation came at a great price. May our dear savior’s name be praised forever. Amen.

--The Catechizer

Come, Eat and Drink Judgment Upon Yourself!

Over at Christianity Today’s Web site (subscription required), popular pastor Jack Hayford of The Church on the Way fame offers a few ideas on how to make unbelievers feel more comfortable in church . . .

We invite all the people to gather around the Lord's Table and partake in small groups. We believe it is the Lord's Table we are invited to, the Lord is doing the inviting, and no one is excluded. To us that means unbelievers are invited, as well . . . we want people to know that they are welcome. For example, I might say, "If you are visiting with us today, you are not only welcome to participate, you are urged to. If you were at my house and it came dinnertime, I wouldn't leave you sitting in the other room while I went to the dining room . . .

It sounds as if pastor Hayford desires to be a good host. I’m sure that if I were invited to his dinner table he wouldn’t want to make me feel uncomfortable by telling me that there’s arsenic in the food and that I might get sick and/or die if I partake. No, that would be rude.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as thoughtful as pastor Hayford. Here’s two noted examples of inhospitality:

John Calvin

A man in Calvin’s congregation refused to repent of his sins and was consequently denied the Table of the Lord. Not feeling “welcomed,” the man complained to the Genevean Council. Ruling in the man’s favor, the council ordered Calvin to grant him the supper.

As the man, and his sword-bearing friends, began to approach the table on the following Lord’s Day, Calvin threw his arms over the table and proclaimed, “These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned, and dishonor the table of my God.”

How rude!

Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul was definitely not very welcoming when it came to granting access to the Lord’s Table to those in sin. In the later portion of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul explains the significance of the occasion (vs. 23-26). He also explains the consequence of partaking in an unworthy manner, or not exercising proper discernment—the possibility of sickness and death ( vs. 27, 29, 30). For this reason, Paul tells us to examine ourselves (vs. 28). “But if we judge ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (vs. 31).

Furthermore, Paul tells us that if we exercise proper discernment that we (believers) will not be “condemned along with the world” (unbelievers, vs. 32). Paul also points out that this simply isn’t another meal: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment . . .” Paul is certainly excluding unbelievers here. Ms. Manners would be scandalized!

Good Host/Bad Host?

So there you have it. You can follow Calvin’s and Paul’s example and guard the Table of the Lord, or you can follow pastor Hayford’s example and open the gates wide. A word of caution, though: If you decide to follow pastor Hayford’s example, I’d recommend that your church purchase extra insurance.

To gain a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper, including who should and should not partake, I recommend reading questions and answers 75 through 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

--The Catechizer

Was Jesus Against Capital Punishment?

The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment and urges its abolition. In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death. Jesus explicitly repudiated retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.

United Methodist Church, In Opposition
to Capital Punishment

Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service. When coupled with the “turn the other check” passage, capital punishment abolitionists believe that they’re holding a biblical wining hand.

But is it the case that Jesus was either rejecting capital punishment or setting the record straight (i.e., that eye-for-an-eye doesn’t apply to the death penalty)? Likewise, is “turn the other check” a condemnation of capital punishment and a call to passivism?

What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”

38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:38-39

In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. This would, of course, include financial matters, as the United Methodist Church (UMC) suggests. But to say that God is only interested in justice when it comes to commerce makes God the moral equivalent of It's a Wonderful Life's Mr. Potter.

Contrary to the claim of the UMC, God’s perfect moral character requires justice in all matters, including the most heinous crime committed against man.

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Genesis 9:6

Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?

For Jesus to reject an “eye-for-an-eye” means that He would reject the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question abolitionists need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral.

Did Jesus Reject the Capital Punishment?

God established the death penalty.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.

The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that one of the two premises is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.

With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life—it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.

So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”

As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.

What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?

First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.

It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:

50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.

51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Matthew 26:50-52

Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.

There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well?

What Do Jesus’ Words Mean

I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).

“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.

The UMC would do well to reconsider their opposition.

--The Catechizer

The Mark of the Beast

[The mark of the beast] What is it?
Many Christians believe the 666 mark will be a biochip implant to create the cashless society of Revelation 13.

Why is it so bad?
All who take the mark will be damned by God to be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Why will those who take the mark be damned?
I think it's because God made Silver and Gold as honest weights and measures to be used as money!

Money is NOT paper (which is a promise), not electronic credits, not chips, not a mark, nor a number!

The Use of Paper Money Violates All of the Ten Commandments

When I was a young, starry-eyed Dispensationalist I was told that pet-tracking implants, scanners used in grocery stores, and Disneyland’s admission hand-stamp were all preparing us for the mark of the beast.

William Hendriksen (1900 – 1982), former professor of New Testament literature at Calvin Theological Seminary, provides a much more biblical explanation of the mark in his book More Than Conquerors. Committed Christian provides a fine summary of Dr. Hendriksen’s explanation over at the Against the Current blog. Here’s how she kicks things off :

William Hendriksen discusses in his book, More Than Conquerors, the mark of the beast. As an amillennialist, Hendriksen has a different understanding of it than many evangelical Christians. But his interpretation is definitely worth considering because it is based on the understanding that Jesus has conquered sin, death, and the devil for His people. The mark 666 symbolizes the failure, upon failure, upon failure of Satan, his demons, and all who persecute the Church in one form or another, to accomplish their mission to defeat the Church.

Hendriksen arrives at this understanding by first explaining what the first and second beast of Revelation 13 represent. Both beasts are the "agents, instruments, or tools which the dragon [Satan] uses in his attack upon the Church" (pg 144). The first beast represents "the persecuting power of Satan operating in and through the nations of this world and their governments" and the second "the false religions and philosophies of this world" (pg 144). Chapter 14 of Revelation also speaks about Babylon which is representative of "antichristian seduction" (pg 144). Revelation 13 reveals that many have the mark of the beast since they belong to Satan. By nature all people are children of the devil. Paul reminds the Ephesian church who they were before Jesus saved them. . . .

You can read the entire post here.

--The Catechizer

Who Are the 144,000?

My wife was raised Jehovah’s Witnesses. In their view, the 144,000 mentioned in Rev. 7:4 are an “anointed” group selected by god since Pentecost. Those who died before 1918 were resurrected as spirit beings that year, while those who died after 1918 but before 1935 were likewise resurrected and taken to heaven. They will rule as special kings and priests to god while the rest live in an earthly paradise. Nobody gets the golden ticket to heaven but them.

After she escaped the Watchtower, one of the things she wondered about was who were the 144,000? Our first church was Word of Faith Pentecostal, which holds to a Dispensational view of end times. Their answer to the question was that these were Jews who were saved during the seven year tribulation. Since we escaped the Name-it-claim-it-tower, Eschatology has occupied the lower rung on the “things I need to study” ladder. Consequently, I haven’t given much thought to the 144,000.

So it is with great appreciation that I found an excellent answer to the 144,000 question over at Pastor Kevin DeYoung’s blog, where he offers five reasons why both the JWs and the Dispensationalists got it wrong. Here’s how he begins:

Many sincere Bible-believing Christians would understand the 144,000 like this: The church is raptured prior to the great tribulation. During the time when the church is gone, a remnant of 144,000 ethnic Jews is converted (12,000 from each tribe). These Jewish converts, in turn, evangelize the Gentiles who make up the great multitude in white robes in v. 9. That’s one understanding of Revelation 7. A lot of godly people hold that understanding. Let me explain why I understand the 144,000 differently.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed. Let me give you several reasons for making this claim. . . .

You can read the five brief, but succinct, reasons here.

--The Catechizer

Come, Eat and Drink Judgment Upon Yourself!

Over at Christianity Today’s Web site (subscription required), popular pastor Jack Hayford of The Church on the Way fame offers a few ideas on how to make unbelievers feel more comfortable in church . . .

We invite all the people to gather around the Lord's Table and partake in small groups. We believe it is the Lord's Table we are invited to, the Lord is doing the inviting, and no one is excluded. To us that means unbelievers are invited, as well . . . we want people to know that they are welcome. For example, I might say, "If you are visiting with us today, you are not only welcome to participate, you are urged to. If you were at my house and it came dinnertime, I wouldn't leave you sitting in the other room while I went to the dining room . . .

It sounds as if pastor Hayford desires to be a good host. I’m sure that if I were invited to his dinner table he wouldn’t want to make me feel uncomfortable by telling me that there’s arsenic in the food and that I might get sick and/or die if I partake. No, that would be rude.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as thoughtful as pastor Hayford. Here’s two noted examples of inhospitality:

John Calvin

A man in Calvin’s congregation refused to repent of his sins and was consequently denied the Table of the Lord. Not feeling “welcomed,” the man complained to the Genevean Council. Ruling in the man’s favor, the council ordered Calvin to grant him the supper.

As the man, and his sword-bearing friends, began to approach the table on the following Lord’s Day, Calvin threw his arms over the table and proclaimed, “These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned, and dishonor the table of my God.”

How rude!

Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul was definitely not very welcoming when it came to granting access to the Lord’s Table to those in sin. In the later portion of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul explains the significance of the occasion (vs. 23-26). He also explains the consequence of partaking in an unworthy manner, or not exercising proper discernment—the possibility of sickness and death ( vs. 27, 29, 30). For this reason, Paul tells us to examine ourselves (vs. 28). “But if we judge ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (vs. 31).

Furthermore, Paul tells us that if we exercise proper discernment that we (believers) will not be “condemned along with the world” (unbelievers, vs. 32). Paul also points out that this simply isn’t another meal: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment . . .” Paul is certainly excluding unbelievers here. Ms. Manners would be scandalized!

Good Host/Bad Host?

So there you have it. You can follow Calvin’s and Paul’s example and guard the Table of the Lord, or you can follow pastor Hayford’s example and open the gates wide. A word of caution, though: If you decide to follow pastor Hayford’s example, I’d recommend that your church purchase extra insurance.

To gain a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper, including who should and should not partake, I recommend reading questions and answers 75 through 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Was Jesus Against Capital Punishment?

The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment and urges its abolition. In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death. Jesus explicitly repudiated retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.

United Methodist Church, In Opposition
to Capital Punishment

Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service. When coupled with the “turn the other check” passage, capital punishment abolitionists believe that they’re holding a biblical wining hand.

But is it the case that Jesus was either rejecting capital punishment or setting the record straight (i.e., that eye-for-an-eye doesn’t apply to the death penalty)? Likewise, is “turn the other check” a condemnation of capital punishment and a call to passivism?

What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”

38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:38-39

In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. This would, of course, include financial matters, as the United Methodist Church (UMC) suggests. But to say that God is only interested in justice when it comes to commerce makes God the moral equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Contrary to the claim of the UMC, God’s perfect moral character requires justice in all matters, including the most heinous crime committed against man.

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Genesis 9:6

Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?

For Jesus to reject an “eye-for-an-eye” means that He would reject the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question abolitionists need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral, and not worthy of our attention.

Did Jesus Reject the Capital Punishment?

God established the death penalty.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.

The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that either the major premise (first sentence) or the minor premise (the second) is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.

With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life—it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.

So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”

As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.

What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?

First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.

It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:

50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.

51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Matthew 26:50-52

Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.

There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well?

What Do Jesus’ Words Mean

I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).

“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.

The UMC would do well to reconsider their opposition.

Letter to a Christian Nation – Part 7 – The Ten Commandments

Continued from Part 6 . . .

Mr. Harris’ next complaint is concerning the Ten Commandments. On page 20 he summarizes the commandments and then informs us that, “This first four of these injunctions have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.”

I don’t recall who said this, but I think it fits here: The job of the apologist is to explain Christianity (or it might have been “. . . to rescue Christianity from misunderstanding”). For that reason I thought it prudent to explain the first four commandments for the benefit of those, like Mr. Harris, who might be confused as to their meaning.

Two Tables

The Ten Commandments are divided into two tables, as described in the Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 93: the first of which teaches us, in four commandments, what duties we owe to God; the second, in six, what duties we owe to our neighbor.

First Commandment

The first commandment forbids me from worshiping any other god, whether personal or impersonal. It also requires that I “trust in Him alone, with all humility and patience expect all good from Him only, and love, fear, and honor Him with my whole heart . . .” God, as our creator and king, is worthy of our total devotion. All other “gods,” whether they be things, people, or we ourselves, are completely and utterly unworthy when it comes to being an object of worship. Only the One, True God is worthy.

Second Commandment

Although some confuse the second commandment with the first, this one forbids us from worshiping God “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.” Because He is holy, we must worship Him in a way that He has deemed acceptable.

Third Commandment

The third commandment has to do with honoring God’s name. Here’s how the answer to question 99 puts forth the requirement . . .

That we must not by cursing, or by false swearing, nor yet by unnecessary oaths, profane or abuse the name of God; nor even by our silence and connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others; and in sum, that we use the holy name of God no otherwise than with fear and reverence, so that He may be rightly confessed and worshiped by us, and be glorified in all our words and works.

Forth Commandment

Finally, the fourth commandment requires that “I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.”

(All quotes are taken from the Heidelberg Catechism. For a complete exposition of the commandments from the catechism, refer to Q & As 92 through 115.)

Conclusion

The Ten Commandments are a summary of God’s moral will. As our creator and king, He requires that we conform to them, including the first table. Not to do so is immoral, since God’s character is the standard of morality—Mr. Harris’ contrary claim not withstanding.

In part 8, we’ll take a look at what Mr. Harris has to say about the second table. We’ll also consider some amazing (and, indeed, fanciful) claims he puts forth regarding the biological foundation for morality.

Letter to a Christian Nation – Part 6 – Slavery Continued

In Part 5 we learned that slavery was for the benefit of the poor and was voluntary. We also learned that it was the last resort for the impoverished, and that before the poor had to sell themselves into servitude, God had made many provisions for their care.

In this post we’ll consider Mr. Harris’ claim that . . .

The Bible also makes it clear that every man is free to sell his daughter into sexual slavery . . . (pg. 15, in reference to Ex. 21:7–11)

A Closer Look

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. (vs. 7)

We must remember that the Middle East of 4,000 years ago was a tough place to live. Difficult decisions had to be made in order to ensure the survival of a household. One such decision would be to “sell” a daughter either to payback a debt and/or to ensure her survival by joining her to a wealthy family. Although “sold,” they were not slaves, which is why they were not released after seven years like the men were.

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. (vs. 8)

These girls were purchased to be secondary wives (concubines), which was a common practice at the time (Gen. 16:3, 22:24; 30:9, 36:12; Judges 8:31). If, however, she displeased her husband, he had to allow her to be “redeemed” (Lev. 25:47-54) either by herself or by a family member. He cannot sell her to foreigners, for they would not recognize her rights under Israelite law.

If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (vs. 9)

If the master is purchasing her to be a bride to his son, he must treat her like a daughter and accord her with the associated respect and honor.

If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. (vs. 10)

If the husband takes another bride, he must still provide for her as he previously had, including conjugal rights.

If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (vs. 11)

Finally, if the husband fails to meet his responsibilities in caring for her, he must release her without gaining any compensation in return.

Conclusion

As we’ve just seen, the most cursory of look at the passages do not even hint at “sexual slavery.” Quite the contrary is true. We see here laws put into place to help a family survive and to help a poor girl better her lot in life by marrying into a wealthy family. Moreover, we see that the laws are actually for the protection of the girl and disallow any type of exploitation, the opposite of Mr. Harris’ claim.

Stay tuned for Part 7 where we’ll see what Mr. Harris has to say about the Ten Commandments.

He Descended Into Hell

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostles’ Creed is one of the earliest statements of Christian orthodoxy, believed to be written sometime in the second century. Later, sometime before 700 AD, the words “descended into Hell” were added. Although it is not known who made the addition or why, there are a few theories as to the meaning.

Against Gnosticism

“He descended into Hell” is preceded by “was crucified, dead, and buried.” The addition could be to further the distinction between Gnosticism and orthodoxy: Christ was a physical being Who actually died in the manner of men. He did not swoon, evaporate, or lie in a coma, but physically ceased living with His spirit returning to the Father.

The Reformers

The Reformers believed that this statement refers to Christ suffering the pains of Hell upon the cross. Here’s how John Calvin put it in the Institutes. . .

The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

(You can read Calvin’s entire comments on this portion of the creed here.)

Although I believe that the Reformers are correct (and when I confess this creed, this is what I have in mind), Christ certainly did suffer the pains of Hell on the cross, I’m still troubled by the use of the term “descended.” If that’s what the author of the text had in mind, why use that term? It doesn’t seem to fit.

Prison Break

Some have tied “He descended into Hell” to I Pet. 3:19:

in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison

I’ve heard two interpretations of this:

• Christ went not to Hell, but to Abraham’s Bosom, which was supposedly a temporary holding place.


• Christ went to Hell and offered salvation to those there.

I think there are many with both interpretations (especially the second), but I’m going to pass on that in this post. Instead, I just want to focus on the passage at hand: Does it teach that he actually “descended” somewhere? I don’t think so.

In the versus leading up to this passage (particularly 18-20), Peter is encouraging us to stand strong in faith while enduring persecution for righteousness sake. Noah is an example of such courage under fire. Christ, via Noah’s preaching, is proclaiming the gospel to those living in Noah’s time—those who are now in Hell (i.e., “prison”). This is why Peter says “ . . . He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison”; the sequence is 1) Christ preached (they didn’t listen) 2) now they’re in prison.

It seems to me, therefore, that the context disallows the other two interpretations.

Conclusion

Whatever the reason “He descended into Hell” was added, what I have in mind when confessing The Creed is that Christ suffered the pains of Hell for me. Not only is this theologically supported, it also reminds me that my salvation came at a great price. May our dear savior’s name be praised forever. Amen.