What Does it Mean to Love Your Enemy? | Part IIII

/in /by

This is a post that happened on quora.com. The original question was, “Why would evangelicals support a person like Trump?”

To my surprise, a former Southern Baptist preacher spoke up and regurgitated the same kind of rhetoric you would expect to hear from a Liberal, as far as voicing the perspective of an outraged victim being forced to tolerate the ignorance and cruelty of an administration that refuses to buckle beneath the weight of hypocrisy posing as compassion.

What made it even more surprising is that he refused to answer my questions and instead chose to say I wasn’t worth talking to. Hardly the response you would expect from someone who claims to have the Substance of Scripture to back up his convictions.

When you question someone’s relationship with Christ, you want to be able to point to something that represents an inconsistency with the whole of God’s Word, and not something that’s contrary to a verse that’s been taken out of context.

That’s what this Pastor does. If your starting point is a flawed premise, than it becomes easy to dismiss the truth as the result of ignorance and a lack of character.

Most of his content is based on a resolve to believe that “loving your neighbor” means to make it easier for them to break the law. He constantly refers to the biblical mandate to love the “foreigner” and the “stranger,” while simultaneously overlooking the way in which God holds foreigners and strangers accountable to the laws of the land.

This man is not unique, however. There are a lot of people in our society today who welcome the opportunity to be perceived as sophisticated and compassionate without it costing them anything. They don’t talk to the surviving family members of those who’ve been killed or raped by illegal immigrants, and they keep their doors locked while insisting that our country keeps its doors wide open. Their hypocrisy is exceeded only by their indifference.

While asking the right questions is still an effective way of separating fact from fiction, it’s also important to recognize when Scripture is either being quoted out of context, or cited at the expense of other Scriptures that speak to the same issue. You see that same dynamic when Christ was tempted in the wilderness by Satan who was prolific in citing certain verses, but only according to the bits and pieces that suited his purpose.

Here’s the dialogue in its entirety. Watch how he avoids answering certain questions and they way he refrains from applying the whole of God’s Word and instead asserts a singular verse as a bottom line and intentionally omits other verses that need to be applied in order to process all of God’s Directions correctly.

Question: Why do evangelicals support a person like Trump?

Pastor: I’m a lifelong Southern Baptist and former pastor, seminary trained, and the son of a CCC treasurer and Baptist church deacon growing up in north Mississippi. I think I’m pretty qualified to answer this. Evangelical culture has developed over the years into this angry, cynical group, at least when it comes to politics and the media. Perfectly nice people become very rigid and angry whenever it comes to the “culture war.” There is a feeling of victimhood- evangelicals used to rule everything and be the group every politician and entertainer pandered to. A fast shift happened in the 70’s when we became the minority (though not oppressed by any means). That generation is Trump’s base, the ones who watched the shift happen and were so disgusted by it.

Race- The importance can’t be understated. Older white Evangelicals often feel victimized by affirmative action, black focused charities, talk of equity and equality, and love to quote crime stats in the black community. The perception is that tax dollars that they pay is used to make those black lives better only to have the recipients disrespect and destroy what’s given to them. The well publicized riots, filthy rap music, and crime stats in black neighborhoods in practically every US city feeds the prejudice. Trump didn’t say it explicitly, but when he rails against entitlement spending and threatens to send the National Guard in with guns to stop riots, we all know what he means.

Sexual ethics- Not that Republicans particularly do a lot here, but it is certainly Democrats who push for gay rights, abortion access, and before that loosening of decency standards in the entertainment world. Trump played into that disgust with promises to outlaw abortion and comments against the rest.

Capitalism- Americans who grew up during the Cold War associate communism/ socialism with atheist USSR and capitalism with Christian USA. The logic is faulty, but it has persisted. Trump’s acts of deregulation satisfied that bias, as did his promise to abolish the ACA. The latter was a double whammy- it was the signature achievement of his black predecessor and benefited black and poor people more than the white working class (at least as the voters saw it).

Identity politics-For many Evangelicals in the south, Republican = Christian. So even if the candidate doesn’t exhibit Christian morals or even effective leadership, he’s still “our guy.”

Distrust of the educational system- Mostly because evolution was taught, shady preachers were able to bias evangelicals against higher education and those trained by it. This quickly trickled down to the public school system as well, leading to many evangelical families choosing to private school or homeschool their kids so they’d learn from a curriculum friendly to literal interpretation of the Bible. Many evangelicals now won’t believe anything that comes out of academia unless it’s carefully curated to affirm their biases (PraegerU, Fox News, etc). So issues like climate change, CRT, progressive economics, psychology, vaccines, and others are all looked at as a power grab by dirty Democrat politicians. Trump rallied against them all and gained the love of the ignorant.

So to summarize, Trump knew white Evangelical culture very well and said everything they wanted to hear in exactly the way they themselves said it. He truly was their guy, the representation of how they actually think. I’m still an evangelical in matters of Scripture and the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, but I’m strongly opposed to the caustic and ignorant nature that has set in when it comes to society and politics.
Update: Thanks for all the love and the upvotes. It’s nearly at 1000 after 8 months, by far my most popular Quora post. I’ve loved the reactions and conversations in the comments as well.

So, I read his response and my first thought is, “If you’re going to say that you’re a Pastor, why are you not citing Scripture to back up your comments?”

Right behind that would be the way that he’s trying to categorize anyone who supports Trump as being ignorant, hostile, racist, and legalistic. It sounds like a reasonable argument, maybe, until you contemplate the way a person who doesn’t have a valid point will often position themselves as victims of an ignorant and angry mob. That way they don’t have to explain why their ideas don’t work, and why don’t need to take responsibility for their actions.

In other words, he’s making his argument according to a tactic, rather than a topic.

So, here’s what I said…

Bruce (the Pastor’s initial comments are in italics, my response is in plain text):

I’m a lifelong Southern Baptist and former pastor, seminary trained, and the son of a CCC treasurer and Baptist church deacon growing up in north Mississippi. I think I’m pretty qualified to answer this.

Sounds like it. But I’ve reached a place where the moment someone references himself as a pastor, I’m expecting him to reinforce his comments with Scripture, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. So, while you may have a point, if you’re not going to cite the Bible as the foundation upon which you base your comments, I feel like I’m listening to an opinion more so than a bottom line.

That generation is Trump’s base, the ones who watched the shift happen and were so disgusted by it.

I’m an ordained pastor, born again, and a nine year veteran of the USMC. I voted for Trump, not because I was “disgusted,” but because his policies line up with Scripture more so than any other candidate, certainly more so that Kamala Harris (Gen 1:27 [Transgender]; 2 Thess 3:10 [Socialism]; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:27 [Homosexuality]; Is 45:4, 13 [You don’t have to be a believer to justify my vote]).

Race- The importance can’t be understated. Older white Evangelicals often feel victimized by affirmative action, black focused charities, talk of equity and equality, and love to quote crime stats in the black community.

Your ethnicity is not a factor. Your work ethic, your character, your resume, and your willingness to take responsibility for your actions, on the other hand, is paramount (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14; Matt 25:14–30; 2 Thess 3:10).

Sexual ethics- Not that Republicans particularly do a lot here, but it is certainly Democrats who push for gay rights, abortion access, and before that loosening of decency standards in the entertainment world. Trump played into that disgust with promises to outlaw abortion and comments against the rest.

You don’t justify driving on the wrong side of the road by saying you have the “right” to be happy. In that context, that’s not a “right,” that’s a “demand.” What you’re demanding is that you be allowed to redefine marriage and decide who lives and dies. Homosexuality isn’t healthy, and abortion is murder. No to both! That’s not “disgust,” that’s reason.

Many evangelicals now won’t believe anything that comes out of academia unless it’s carefully curated to affirm their biases (PraegerU, Fox News, etc). So issues like climate change, CRT, progressive economics, psychology, vaccines, and others are all looked at as a power grab by dirty Democrat politicians. Trump rallied against them all and gained the love of the ignorant.

Critical Race Theory, Progressive Economics (Socialism), Psychology (Transgender, Safe Space, etc), Vaccines…are often “taught” as bottom lines. I’m not “biased” by being aware that there’s a very compelling school of thought that challenges the substance of every one of those issues, as far as the way they’re presented in academia. That’s not being judgmental or ignorant, that’s being reasonable. If you’ve got a point, let’s hear it, but don’t try to assert the idea that because you’re uncomfortable, you’re automatically a priority. You have to be able to present proof and not just the voices of the professors who are telling you what you want to hear while simultaneously ignoring common sense, and the general reality of the human experience.

So to summarize, Trump knew white Evangelical culture very well and said everything they wanted to hear in exactly the way they themselves said it. He truly was their guy, the representation of how they actually think. I’m still an evangelical in matters of Scripture and the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, but I’m strongly opposed to the caustic and ignorant nature that has set in when it comes to society and politics.

I voted for President Trump because I wanted our borders to be secure. You’re not a “foreigner” or a “stranger” when you come here illegally. You’re not being “merciful” or “Christlike,” when you refuse to obey the law, let alone enforce it (Rom 13:1–5).

I voted for President Trump because I disagree with a Federal endorsement of abortion, I don’t agree with men competing in women’s sports, I fully support the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capability, their ability to sponsor international terror, and the way in which they can hold the entire world hostage in the context of energy, and then using those profits to further expand their terrorist activity. As far as I’m concerned, the only people who would consider my rationale as “caustic” and “ignorant” are those that don’t like their tables turned over (Matt 21:12).

So, I’m referencing Scripture, I’m providing a logical rebuttal, and explaining what I believe and why.

Here’s what he said…

Pastor: I’m going to suggest getting out of your Fox News echo chamber and learn a little bit about the actual rationale and reasoning behind much of what you’re against lest you lead your congregation into further spiritual darkness and destructive anger.

If you want to hear me quote Scripture, here goes:

  1. Love your neighbor as yourself. – It is the greatest commandment (along with love God). The story of the Good Samaritan teaches 2 things: 1 – my neighbor is whoever has needs and I can help.
  2. righteousness isn’t about which group you are in, but rather what you do and why you do it. Every group that Trump spews hate at is my neighbor and yours too.
  3. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. – I don’t see anything about green cards or citizenship papers here. This list is repeated numerous times in Scripture, including in the Prophets as they explained why God destroyed Israel and let them be taken captive. Kindness to others is the single biggest mark of a Godly heart. The current GOP is categorically against all of this, and it’s followers delight in news articles of ICE agents arresting and even shooting immigrants, separating families to put them in cages, cutting SNAP benefits that poor families depend on (many would meet the Biblical definition of widows/orphan), and raising costs so that families can’t afford necessities.
  4. You seem to have defined certain people as your enemy- Iran, illegal immigrants, probably most black and brown people too- so here’s the last one- But I tell you love your enemies, do good to those who hurt you. – This is easily the most radical of Jesus’ teachings and the most difficult to obey. When you support a politician who denigrates all Mexicans as rapists and murders, calls Haiti a shithole country, and publicly threatens to obliterate Iran, a nation of over 100 million people, you are failing at loving your enemy.

I could say a lot more, and would be willing to have a conversation with you if you’d care to PM your contact info. Your response has a lot of the marks of the warped thinking that is so common in evangelical circles as we have isolated ourselves from the world and bought into a caricature of the Democrat party along with being selective about our moral commitments. Any pastor who continues to support Trump has some major spiritual blindness. I hope you can start working through some of the cultural baggage that has you thinking this way and “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

So, rather than attempt to engage me according to the logic that I reinforce with Scripture, he asserts the idea that I’m just watching Fox News.

He doesn’t acknowledge the difference between a neighbor and an intruder. Jesus uses the illustration of how anyone who doesn’t enter the sheep pen using the gate, but instead enters by some other way is a thief and a robber (Jn 10:1). He’s talking about Himself as the door by which a person is able to enter into the Kingdom of God. He’s communicating a spiritual truth using a common sense reality that everyone can understand: People who want help, knock. People who want trouble, break in.

It’s the same problem that was referenced in Part II. Loving your neighbor, at the very least, means that you are working to promote their welfare. You’re not doing that by enabling them to ignore the law, or by categorizing those who disobey those in authority as mere “strangers” (Lev 24:17-32; Rom 13:3-4).

I emphasize the fact that it’s not your ethnicity, it’s your character that matters. I state my support for Trump is based on his policies which line up with biblical Absolutes and common sense perspectives, and he says I need stop leading my congregation into “further darkness and destructive anger.”

Mind you, I’m ordained, but I’m not preaching to a congregation every Sunday. My ordination happened when I was a Youth Pastor. I currently lead a Bible Study for adults, but his indictment is toxic, given the fact that he’s accusing me of being a false prophet.

He goes as far as to say that I’m a racist because I maintain that border security is important and the rule of law is both fair, healthy, and biblical (Rom 13:1-5).

So, I respond…

Bruce (the Pastor’s initial comments are in italics, my response is in plain text):

Love your neighbor as yourself. – It is the greatest commandment (along with love God). The story of the Good Samaritan teaches 2 things: 1 – my neighbor is whoever has needs and I can help. 2 – righteousness isn’t about which group you are in, but rather what you do and why you do it. Every group that Trump spews hate at is my neighbor and yours too.

Imagine you’re the Good Samaritan. But instead of coming on the scene AFTER the thieves have beaten and robbed their victim, you come on the scene AS the thieves are beating and robbing their victim.

Who’s your neighbor in that scenario?

How are you going to stop those thieves and not be accused of “hating” them? And how do you plan on doing it? Given your disdain for ICE, what’s your plan? (Rom 13:1–5)

He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.

We’re not talking about “foreigners,” though, are we? We’re talking about people who not only broke the law by coming here illegally, but did so with a criminal record. According to Immigration Law, due process is immediate deportation.

Who’s the sinner? The person who broke the law by coming here illegally, or the person who’s enforcing immigration law?

Kindness to others is the single biggest mark of a Godly heart.

No, obedience is the single biggest mark of a Godly heart (Jn 13:34–35).

But I tell you love your enemies, do good to those who hurt you.

Pastor, I would encourage you to read Ecc 7:16–18.

When Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, was He “loving” them at that point?

Did David love Goliath?

Did Samuel “love” King Agag?

There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them. Failing to stop them, however that needs to occur, is to be complicit in their wrongdoing. In that moment, what you want to position as piety is actually rebellion.

The same God that commanded us to love our enemy is the same God that commanded Israel to defeat the Canaanites in the Conquest of the Promised Land. He also made a point of leaving some nations in tact in order to ensure those among the Hebrews who had yet to experience combat would have a chance to learn (Jud 3:1–2).

God is not being inconsistent (Num 23:19). When He commanded us to love our enemy, He wasn’t commanding us to be an accomplice. And that’s exactly what you’re doing when you fail to stop them, or discipline them, or arrest them. You mention widows. How about the widows who lost their husbands at the hand of an illegal immigrant who wasn’t supposed to be here to begin with (Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) | Homeland Security)?

The “foreigner,” as he’s referenced in Scripture, is a person who has chosen to live among the Israelites and abide by their rules. Their race, their gender – all of that is superfluous. It’s their conduct that is to be evaluated. I’ve referenced Rom 13:1–5 more than once and you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that. As a result, you remain content believing that the rule of law is no rule at all. That’s not consistent with common sense, let alone the whole of God’s Word.

By using the illustration of the Good Samaritan, I’m demonstrating that you can’t rightfully categorize everyone as your “neighbor,” given the reality of sin, which often manifests itself in criminal behavior. That’s not being hateful, that’s being discerning (Jn 7:24).

I point out that by failing to make the distinction between someone who is breaking the law and someone who merely needs help is to be complicit in whatever wrongdoing is being accomplished (Lev 19:17; Rom 1:32; Jas 4:17). In other words, you’re watching someone break into your neighbor’s house, yet you insist that the thief is merely a guest.

This Pastor insists that the authority that wields the sword is the enemy, despite what it says in Romans 13:4, that you are to obey those authorities that God has instituted.

I point out that “love” is often manifested in the context of discipline and even lethal force in that, you’re not only promoting the welfare of your enemy by holding them accountable to a standard that prevents them from harming themselves and others, but also in the way you protect those you love by destroying those who constitute lethal threats (Ex 22:2; Rom 13:4; Acts 23:23-24).

And this is what he said…

Pastor: That’s some pretty twisted up thinking there. Not so much the Scriptures but in the assumptions about certain people and in the convenient / abusive way you’ve defined certain terms like “foreigner.”I also see some straight racism in the comment about all illegals immigrants having criminal records which simply isn’t true, yet another of Trump’s lies to justify the abuse of non-white immigrants.

Agreed, the rule of love does not require total pacifism. I never said it did. It does, however, require seeking the good of the one you love. Immigration policy is complicated and well beyond this topic, but our system is broken. No Democrat, not Biden or Harris or any other, wants open borders. Neither do I. But out of love for my neighbor, I don’t support squads of untrained thugs dragging every resident out of an apartment building at night because there are a few illegal immigrants living among the citizens. There is a nuanced position on this that preserves kindness and patience while also protecting society from the abuse of criminals.

So again, I’m going to challenge you to step outside of your Trump loving echo chamber and weigh the words and actions of our leadership against Scripture without stacking the deck for them just because they promise to keep all the people you are scared of away. Godly people do not live in fear.

Now, I’m getting frustrated…

I’m a “racist” because I agree that you shouldn’t attempt to enter this country illegally.

He refuses to make the distinction between immigrants and illegal immigrants.

He refers to ICE Agents as “untrained thugs.” I don’t even bother with that, simply because no one was complaining about a lack of training or abusive tactics when this was happening during the Obama Administration, despite the fact that Tom Holman was in charge back then as he is now. Tactics and techniques haven’t changed. What has changed is the resolve to demonize those who enforce immigration law as means to undermine the President.

And again, you’re not loving “loving your neighbor” by enabling them to break the law, or by pretending that the rule of law is nonexistent. That’s not love, that’s neglect.

So, I fire back…

Bruce: At one point the President had pictures of illegals who had criminal records that had been apprehended displayed on the White House lawn. That’s not all illegals, is it? Racism is neither biblical nor anything other than heinous. I’m not being racist, I’m being fair. And as far as untrained thugs…a nuanced position…Why is it that Tom Holman gets the Presidential Rank Award under Barack Obama and then gets demonized once he’s serving under Trump?

As far as ICE Agents storming an apartment “just because there are a few illegal immigrants living among the citizens.” They’re not “a few illegal immigrants,” are they? They’re illegal immigrants with criminal records that were knowingly released by the prior administration that now have to deported (Over 600 Illegal Immigrants with Prior Criminal Convictions Released into the U.S. – Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs). What is your “nuanced” approach? And how do you think your “nuanced” approach would resonate in the minds of the surviving family members who have been murdered and / or raped by an illegal immigrant?

You want to dismiss me as being Racist. You’ve implied that I have a flawed approach to Scripture, and that the only reason I maintain my perspective is because I’m secretly afraid of people who look different than me.

I asked you a question about the Good Samaritan scenario, and you didn’t answer.

I asked you who was sinning: The person who comes here illegally, or the person enforcing border security? You didn’t answer.

Have you ever travelled outside the country? Do you have any clue as to the kind of justice that you would exacted upon you if you tried to cross the border illegally? Do you not listen to the comments made by Barack Obama who insisted that anyone with a criminal record who comes here illegally needs to be deported? And in the same speech said anyone who crosses the border illegally, with or without a criminal record, will be caught and deported. He deported more illegals than any other President in history. Where was your indignation at that point?

“But out of love for my neighbor, I…”

But they’re not your neighbor, are they? Compassion is easy when it costs you nothing, and being hypocritical is even easier when you’re not responsible.

I’ll leave you with this, Pastor: You’re not making things better. You take verses out of context and use them to support the idea that “loving your enemy” effectively replaces confrontation, criticism, and conviction. You place yourself on the bench, and then criticize those who are still on the field, protecting you and your disregard for Rom 13:1–5.

You may not like President Trump, but he’s delivering on everything he promised to do. As far as a I can tell, you see justice as abuse. You favor the villain over the victim, and you justify your nonsensical perspective on a resolve to believe that loving your enemy equates to enabling them.

The good news is that I’m using your thoughts in a Bible Study tonite and I’ll shoot you the outline…

Did you catch that question I asked that he didn’t answer? “Who was sinning: The person who comes here illegally, or the person enforcing border security?”

We’re building to a succinct collection of bottom lines that we’ll look at in just a minute.

Here’s his last comment…

Wow, the confidence of complete isolation from facts is stunning.If you can’t separate kindness and cruelty from abstract policy, you aren’t worth talking to.

If you can call anything Trump had done this year “success,” you are too misinformed to participate in an adult conversation.

As for not responding to certain things you said, I’ll simply say that some thoughts are worth putting mental energy into, and some simply aren’t.

Recap

Jesus Criticized Both Jews & Gentiles

Some want to try and qualify the extent of Christ’s rebukes only to the Israelites and use that idea to suggest that any criticism of anyone other than those in the church is to fall short of Christ’s example.

But that’s not the case.

Indeed, it is true that Christ’s first priority was the “lost sheep of Israel.” (Matt 15:21-28) But Jesus referred to the sinful flaws of the Gentiles on more than one occasion.

• Don’t enter into a covenant with them – from the very beginning, God was explicit in telling the Hebrews not to interact with the sinful influence of the Gentiles (Exodus 34:12; Deuteronomy 7:1–8; Joshua 23:11–13; Ezra 10:1–5).
• Treat them like a Gentile – after following the steps Jesus outlined when it came to warning and rebuking a person who sins, but doesn’t want to take responsibility for their actions,  He says to treat them like a Gentile (Matt 18:17).
• Do not even the Gentiles do that? Here Jesus is pointing out that you don’t simply reciprocate how others treat you. Rather, you are to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. Otherwise, you’re no different than the Gentiles (Matt 5:47). Again, you’re not loving your enemy by encouraging them to break the law or making it easier for them to sin.
• Bad Leadership – To truly lead, you need to adopt the perspective of a servant leader (Mk 10:45). Otherwise, you risk lording it over your subordinates like the Gentiles do (Matt 20:25-29)
• Gentiles are a problem – Jerusalem will be destroyed by the Gentiles (Lk 21:20-24)

and yet…

• Elisha heals a Gentile – God used Elisha to heal Namaan of his leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-19)
• Hope for the Gentiles – There are several OT passages that reference how people from all nations will seek the Lord (Isaiah 2:1–5, 42:1–4; Zechariah 8:20–23)
• Great is your faith – Jesus heals the Centurion’s servant and publicly praises him for his faith. Jesus also praised the faith of a Canaanite woman for her faith (Matt 8:9-12; 15:28; Lk 7:5-9).
• Begin in Jerusalem and then to all nations – The Great Commission was to start in Jerusalem and then to spread to the Gentile in every nation (Is 49:6; Matt 5:15-16; 28:19-20; Lk 24:46-49; Acts 1:8).

Talking to this Pastor, and anyone who thinks like him, can be exasperating. You enumerate facts, you cite the laws that apply, you refer to specific Scriptures and, in their mind, they can dismiss every bit of it simply by saying, “…you aren’t worth talking to.”

What they really mean is that they don’t want to talk to you because of your capacity to reveal their logic as being fundamentally flawed.

Here’s a recap…

  • It’s not “hate” to rightfully identify illegal / sinful behavior (Lk 17:3; Rom 13:4-5).
  • You’re not being Christlike by ignoring fraud (Prov 6:12-19; 11:1).
  • Foreigners and strangers are biblically commanded to obey the law (Lev 24:17-22)
  • You are not “loving your neighbor” by encouraging them to ignore those laws that apply to them (Rom 13:3-4).

Conclusion: What Did Jesus Do?

While the latter part of the discussion focused primarily on illegal immigrants, this Pastor was addressing everything from Race to Capitalism to Education, insisting that every criticism coming from a Conservative mindset was uninformed, racist, and inconsistent with the Bible in general.

“What would Jesus do?” is often cited by Liberals and like minded Christians who want to insist that any kind of evaluation is rooted in prejudice and is therefore both irrelevant and immoral.

But the real question is “What did Jesus do?”

Like what was referenced in Part I, He judged, He criticized, He got angry, He called out hypocrisy and sin. That side of Jesus is largely ignored by people who want to pretend that there are no Standards, only situations, and there are no Principles, only preferences.

You love your enemy by promoting their welfare, which is ultimately manifested in the way you direct them to Christ. You don’t do that by enabling their wrongdoing or dismissing their sinful behavior. Grace means nothing without first acknowledging yourself as someone who needs to be forgiven. If there is no standard, then there is no sin. If there is no sin, there’s no need for grace.

What did Jesus do?

He made grace attractive by first making it necessary.

Your enemy is not always approachable. In war, you simply have to stop them. “Love” in that context is gauged more in the context of the life you are protecting rather than the life you are taking. A thief has to be subdued before he can be enlightened.

But an enemy that can be influenced will not see grace as attractive until he first sees it as something necessary. His perception of his iniquity is hindered when you say it doesn’t exist, just like his hope to be forgiven can be discouraged when you insist it isn’t deserved.

Loving your enemy, then, is to acknowledge the reality of his sin in a way that points them to Christ. You don’t enable their sin, you don’t ignore their crime. You address it in a way where God can reveal their sin, and then offer them the grace they now know they need.

Three Kinds of Musicians

/in /by

There are three kinds of musicians:

Let me hear it – the first category is the player that doesn’t read music and will approach a song in a way that is utterly dependent on the way it was recorded. In some cases, they’re entry level players  who will often reduce those things that are technically demanding to something more manageable, just so they can “sound” competent. Some of those who play by ear are excellent musicians, but nevertheless are uncomfortable when you put any kind of sheet music in front of them because of their unfamiliarity with musical notation.

Let me at it – the second category can “shred.” They’ve got all kinds of chops and are looking for any opportunity to insert their new lick, regardless of whether or not it serves the song. They are are technically proficient, and have an enthusiastic attitude, but are musically immature and will often play in a way that draws more attention to themselves rather than the substance of the song they’re playing.

Let me play it – the third category takes what’s on the page and performs it in a way that communicates in a way that goes beyond what’s heard. All of the technical expertise of the musician is used to ensure the lyric / melody is allowed to speak directly into the heart of the individual that’s listening.

All three of these “musicians” require a different approach when you’re tasked with directing their energies in a positive direction. You want to affirm their strengths and respect both their enthusiasm and their effort as you show them what you want to hear.

If you don’t make that effort to tailor your direction in a way that conforms to the category they belong to, your content gets overwhelmed by your delivery and you’re not leading people anymore, now you’re just irritating and insulting them.

Proverbs 25:11 says:

Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken at the right time. (Prov 25:11 [AMP])

It’s not just tact, it’s respect. And with that respect, comes a positive result. Otherwise, whatever results you get are going to be less than what you want.

We’re commanded in Scripture to be respectful.

As parents, we’re told not to exasperate our kids:

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4 [NIV]).

You can see the point that is being made more vividly by looking at the same Scripture in the Amplified version:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger [do not exasperate them to the point of resentment with demands that are trivial or unreasonable or humiliating or abusive; nor by showing favoritism or indifference to any of them], but bring them up [tenderly, with lovingkindness] in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4 [AMP])

When we’re trying to communicate the Substance of the gospel, we’re told to do it with gentleness and respect:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)

As leaders, you want to set the example by not using your authority to force your will, but to look out for their best interests:

2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Pet 5:2-4 [ see also Ez 34:1-4; Matt 20:25-28])

Anytime you’re tasked with leading another person or a group of individuals, you have two responsibilities. Your first responsibility is to lead them in a positive direction. Your second responsibility is to lead in a positive way. Simply telling someone that they “should” do something, isn’t the same as leading a person in a way where they “want” to do something.

That doesn’t mean you’ll never encounter difficult people who don’t want to be led, or taught (Neh 9:16). And sometimes the situation doesn’t lend itself to anything other than a need to obey immediately (Gen 19:26). But solid leadership is characterized by a servant’s heart and an approach that takes the time to consider, not just what needs to be said, but the way it needs to be said.

 

City Limits

/in /by

When God draws a line, it’s tempting sometimes to get as close as you can to that boundary without actually crossing over into forbidden territory.

After all, you’re not actually “sinning,” if you’re not crossing that line. You can drink without getting drunk (Eph 5:18), you can flirt without being intimate (1 Thess 4:3), and you can interact with some people without being influenced (1 Cor 15:33).

But there’s a pattern that you see, both in Scripture and in real life, that’s worth considering, when it comes to making those concessions that make it easier to fail.

Think of sin as a city. Within those city walls, you’ve got pain, regret, and all that occurs in the aftermath of disregarding God’s commands. No one in their right mind goes into that city on purpose. It happens, but for the most part, it’s the result of a process that begins with being within the city limits.

Adam and Eve

When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it should’ve been a situation where they prohibited themselves from going anywhere near the tree, let alone close enough to notice that the fruit looked genuinely appetizing.

But instead, they chose to be close enough to hear the serpent make his presentation and then actually pick the fruit off the branch and then stare at it for a minute.

They were within the city limits. Instead of remaining outside the city walls where temptation isn’t a factor, they willfully put themselves in harm’s way and what should’ve been a distant and inconvenient prospect is now a very reasonable looking concession.

Sodom and Gomorrah

In Genesis 13, it says that Lot pitched his tents near Sodom, a city that was already on God’s list of people who were “…sinning greatly against the Lord.”

In Genesis 14:12, we find that Lot is now living in Sodom.

He’s now within the city limits. Given the way he’s described in 2 Peter 2:8, he knew he was surrounded by depravity and perhaps it was that influence that made him so willing to offer up his daughters to prevent the homosexuals of Sodom to violate the angels that were in Lot’s house at the time (Gen 19:4-5).

Every Form of Evil…
Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22 [MSG])

This is a good means to prevent our being deceived with false doctrines, or unsettled in our faith; for our Saviour has told us ( John 7 17), If a man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. Corrupt affections indulged in the heart, and evil practices allowed of in the life, will greatly tend to promote fatal errors in the mind; whereas purity of heart, and integrity of life, will dispose men to receive the truth in the love of it. We should therefore abstain from evil, and all appearances of evil, from sin, and that which looks like sin, leads to it, and borders upon it. He who is not shy of the appearances of sin, who shuns not the occasions of sin, and who avoids not the temptations and approaches to sin, will not long abstain from the actual commission of sin. (Matthew Henry)

David and Bathsheba

1In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem. 2One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her… (2 Sam 11:1-4)

David is outside the city limits right up until verse 3. On the surface, nothing seems out of place. Even when he sent messengers to get her, there’s no line being crossed.

But when you hit verse 4, it’s then when he’s not just within the city limits, he’s right at the city’s gate. At that point, disobedience isn’t merely possible, it’s almost inevitable.

A Safe Distance

In each of the above scenarios, disaster could’ve been avoided had a safe distance been established between themselves and the one place they were told to avoid. But instead of remaining well outside the city limits, each of the above individuals positioned themselves in a way where satan’s voice and their own sinful nature were given more attention than they would’ve received otherwise.

Bottom line: The closer you get to sin, the easier it becomes to sin.

Maybe that’s part of what inspired Paul when he told the church in Thessalonica to reject every kind of evil…

20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22 [see sidebar])

No doubt, you can get into subject territory, as far as what constitutes “city limits.” Some use their desire to avoid a problem by becoming legalistic and harmless indulgences are processed as major infractions (see Ecc 7:16-18).

Every Form of Evil…

This command forbids not only the acts of fornication and adultery, but, (1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (James 1 15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it; there wants nothing but convenient opportunity for the sin itself. (Matthew Henry)

Then you’ve got the other extreme where reckless and irresponsible concessions lead to a world of sin and consequences that are nothing short of dramatic.

A great example of that is the way Christ talks about the way you can commit adultery in your heart without actually being physically intimate (Matt 5:28). On the surface, it looks almost absurd, given the way it seems that God is determined to condemn even the notion of infidelity.

But that’s not what this passage is saying.

Your thought life is the place where things are processed and identified as either good or bad. There’s nothing sinful about the task of discerning right from wrong (2 Cor 10:5).

There’s a difference between discernment and intention, however. Once you’ve crossed into plans and action items, you’re no longer just “thinking about it,” and you’re well within the city limits with every intention of taking a tour of main street. Regardless of how things might appear on the surface, God sees your true intentions (aka your heart) and can rightfully declare you guilty given the way you’re already made up your mind.

Conclusion

When God says “don’t,” you want to process that, not so much as an obligation, but as an invitation to pursue something that’s far more rewarding than whatever is being offered by the sin God is telling you to avoid. Given the way natural cravings can be problematic when not tempered with a wise disposition, and an enemy that is only too happy to promote decadence as a good decision (1 Pet 5:8), increasing the distance between you and that line God has told you not to cross is a healthy exercise.

While you’ll always be able to see the skyline of that city God has told you not to visit, you can prevent it from becoming a toxic distraction by staying outside the city limits, as opposed to lingering just outside the city gates.

Prove It! | Part IV: The New Testament

/in /by

Thus far in the “Prove It!” series, we’ve looked at:

In this segment, we’re going to look at the New Testament.

I) The New Testament
A) Content

It’s appropriate to rehearse what it is that we’re actually trying to deduce from the evidence that is available to us, as far as, not only the accuracy of Scripture, but the reasonableness of the Bible’s claim about itself to be the Word of God:

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. (2 Sam 22:31)

The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. (Ps 19:7)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Prov 30:5)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20-21 [2 Sam 23:2] )

Given Scripture’s Divine Audacity, as far as it refusing to accept the label of “accurate,” but instead insists on it being Inerrant, let’s start with the content of the New Testament and look at it in terms of being historically accurate.

1) Archaeology

Pontius Pilate Inscription

In 1961 the archaeological world was taken back to the first century Roman province of Judea. A group of archaeologists, led by Dr. Antonio Frova were excavating an ancient Roman theater near Caesarea Maritima. Caesarea was a leading city in the first century located on the Mediterranean Sea. A limestone block was found there with a surprising inscription. The inscription, on three lines, reads:

…]S TIBERIVM…PON]TIVS PILATVS…PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]

The inscription is believed to be part of a larger inscription dedicating a temple in Caesarea to the emperor Tiberius. The inscription clearly states, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”1

Heel of Yehohanan The practice of crucifixion in antiquity was brought to life as never before when the heel bones of a young man named Yehohanan were found in a Jerusalem tomb, pierced by an iron nail. The discovery shed new light on Roman crucifixion methods and began to rewrite the history of crucifixion in antiquity.2

siloam
“In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”3

Pool of Siloam

In 2004, some repairs were being done on a large pipe in Jerusalem when engineers stumbled upon a series of steps that led to a first century pool. By the end of 2005, archaeologists were able to confirm that this was the Pool of Siloam referenced in John 9. Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD In the book of Matthew, not long before He was put to death, Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matt 24:1-2)

Today you can look at an area in Jerusalem that was originally unearthed in the 1838. As the area was further excavated, you could see the massive stones that had at one point been part of the Temple’s structure that had been pushed over by the Romans when they destroyed in 70 AD.

To summarize, Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has every controverted a biblical reference.” He continued his assertion of “the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particular so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.”4

What makes the New Testament such a standout, however, is not so much the way in which it can be validated from an archaeological standpoint, as much as it’s the narrative of Christ’s death and resurrection.   

2) The Resurrection

We’ve already looked at how the Resurrection is the “archway” of the Christian faith. Without it, Scripture is a “cloud without rain (Prov 25:14).”

When you look at Paul’s commentary in 1 Corinthians, it’s obvious, even from the standpoint of those who had the most to lose, that the Resurrection was absolutely crucial to the Christian doctrine:

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:16-19)

The reliability of the gospels is beyond reproach, which we’ll see in a moment. While we’ve already looked at some of the secular accounts that reference the Resurrection, not as a theological talking point, but as a historical reality, there’s also the account of the eclipse in Luke 23:44.

Given the obvious nature of an eclipse, you could rightfully assume that it would’ve been documented as a significant anomaly, regardless of one’s knowledge of it happening right when Jesus breathed His last.

Sure enough, it was recorded by Phlegon (FLAY-gohn), the Greek historian

Greek historian Phlegon wrote: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an eclipse of the Sun which was greater than any known before and in the sixth hour of the day it became night; so that stars appeared in the heaven; and a great Earthquake that broke out in Bithynia destroyed the greatest part of Nicaea.”1

Again, you have historical “dots” that can be connected that validate the reality of the Resurrection.

B) Construction
1) Apostolic Origin
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

In the last session, we showed how some doubt the content of Scripture, believing it to be a patchwork of judiciously selected writings that happened to corroborate a message that could be used to manipulate the masses. But when you look at the criteria that was used to identify the books of the Bible, the end result is a very, very short list because of the required prophetic credential as well as the necessary fulfillment of any prophecy that was articulated.

The Old Testament is what it is, not because of preferences or subjective rulings, but because of the substance of the content and the proven credibility of the human author.

The New Testament is no different.

The criteria used to determine what book qualified as Scriptural was whether or not it was “apostolic” in origin. So, if the book in question was either written by an apostle or with the endorsement of an apostle, it was considered Authoritative. Otherwise, it was discarded.

An “apostle,” in the broadest sense of the word, is someone who had seen Christ alive after He had been crucified. That included more than the original Twelve. Paul had his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19) and James, the brother of Jesus, saw Him alive according to 1 Corinthians 15:7.

Luke, John Mark and Barnabas were close associates of Paul and Jude, being the brother of Christ, while they weren’t apostles, because of their association with those who were, were recognized as credible representations of apostolic credibility. Given that dynamic, consider the books of the New Testament:

Book(s) / Author Bio
Matthew
Matthew One of the original 12 disciples (Lk 6:15)
Mark
John Mark Close associate of Peter and Paul (2 Tim 4:11)
Luke
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
John; 1-3 John; Revelation
John One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Acts
Luke Paul’s associate & physician (Col 4:14; Phil 1:24)
Romans; 1-2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1-2 Thessalonians; 1-2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon
Paul Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19)
Hebrews
Barnabas Associate of Paul and cousin to John Mark (Acts 12:25; Col 4:10)3
James
James Brother of Christ and referred to as an apostle by Paul (Gal 1:19).
1-2 Peter
Peter One of the original 12 disciples (Matt 10:2)
Jude
 Jude Brother of Christ (Jude 1:7 [describes himself as a brother of James, which is most likely the author of the book of James)

In A.D. 393, a Church Council was convened called the “Synod of Hippo.” “Synod,” (pronounced “SIN-ed”) comes from a Greek word that means, “assembly.” Hippo is the city of Hippo Regius, which is the ancient name of the modern city of Annaba, in Algeria. Their purpose for meeting was to officially define the books of the New Testament. You can see how most of their work had already been done simply by filtering everything through the qualifier of “apostolic origin.” When we read the New Testament, we’re reading the Inspired words of God written by people who had either seen the risen Christ personally or were close associates of those who had. Bear in mind, too, that most gave their lives in defense of what they believed and what had been written through them. That’s strong!

2) Textual Criticism

The evidence to support the authenticity of the Scriptures, as far as them being an accurate rendering of what was originally written, is more than adequate. When evaluating works of antiquity from a textual perspective, you’re looking at two things:

  • How many original manuscripts (MSS) do we have today?
  • How long was it before the first copy and the initial writing of the text in question?

The Iliad, by Homer is considered to be classic and was a standard in intellectual circles for centuries. Look at how the two works compare with one another in terms of textual integrity:

Textual Integrity of the New Testament
work when written earliest copy time span # of copies
Homer (Iliad) 800-700 B.C. 415 B.C. 500 years 1900+
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years over 24,000*
* “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, PhD, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN, 2017, p52, 56

Dr F.F Bruce was the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at Manchester University after having served in various posts where he taught Greek after having served as head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947.He says:

 “Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.2

 Dr. Dan Wallace is Senior Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written, co-authored, edited, or contributed to more than two dozen books and is internationally known as a Greek New Testament scholar. He says:

The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches.3

 II) Conclusion

The following quotes were referenced in Part I of this discussion, but they’re worth repeating:

You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. (Clement of Rome)4

The Scriptures are indeed perfect. (Iraneus)5

The Scriptures have never erred…The Scriptures cannot err. (Martin Luther)6

The statements of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. (Tertullian)7

The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. (Augustine)8

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning his church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. (Augustine) 9

For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold that opinion. (Anselm of Canterbury)10

When one insists that the Bible is flawed, they don’t merely undermine contemporary scholarship, they refute the assertions of the early church fathers – some of whom gave their lives rather than recant their convictions.

There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of God’s Word – specifically in the way it presents itself as the inerrant Word of God. Some will try to dismiss the testimony of Scripture when it comes to the way some will try to use the Bible as way to certify itself. They label it as a circular argument and therefore inadmissible in the court of public opinion. But the Bible is not merely one book, nor is it one voice. Yes, it is the Word of God, but it’s expressed through over 40 different authors writing over a 1,500 year time span and distributed over three different continents.

The Bible doesn’t represent one witness, but many witnesses scattered over several centuries. Dr. MacArthur highlights the importance of a healthy regard for Scripture by saying:

It was A.W. Tozer who famously stated, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” The reason for this, Tozer went on to explain, is that deficient views of God are idolatrous and ultimately damning: “Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them.” And again, “Perverse notions about God soon rot the religion in which they appear…the first step down for any church is taken when it surrenders its opinion of God.” As Tozer insightfully observed, the abandonment of a right view of God inevitably results in theological collapse and moral ruin.

Because God has made himself known in his Word, a commitment to a high view of Scripture is of paramount importance. The Bible both reflects and reveals the character of its Author. Consequently, those who deny its veracity do so at their peril. If the most important thing about us is how we think about God, then what we think about his self-revelation in Scripture is of the utmost consequence. Those who have a high view of Scripture will have a high view of God. And vice versa – those who treat the Word of God with disdain and contempt possess no real appreciation for the God of the Word. Put simply, it is impossible to accurately understand who God is while simultaneously rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible.11

Archeology, Science, Textual Attestation – it’s all there. There is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament.

Still, to accept the Bible as Divine requires more than just what can be gauged by the senses. To embrace something as supernatural, you have to deploy the same kind of intellectual extrapolation that scientists do when confronted with things such as the boundary of the cosmos or the origin of gravity. Some things we are just not capable of quantifying simply because it lies beyond the human capacity to measure or observe.

That’s not to say we can’t make intelligent assessments, but there is, in some instances, an empirical certainty that exists beyond the limitations of the human paradigm. The empirical dots that can be connected are those that exist in terms of that which happened in the past. Our perspective is that of a rear view mirror. We can’t stop the car and witness those events in the present and build our convictions on having personally witnessed the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection. It’s in those moments when we have to place our trust in something we cannot see.

The Bible calls this faith. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:6 that without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Not because He expects you to disengage your intellect when surmising the evidence that validates His Identity and His Word, but because there are historical realities that cannot be observed today, only accepted as fact based on the evidence those events have left in their wake.

In other words, we have to be willing to go forward in our convictions based on what we cannot see. To embrace the Bible as nothing more than a fascinating text is to strip it of the Role it asserts as the Word of God. And it’s not just for the sake of information as much as it’s about the supernatural transformation that occurs when you realize that His Word is His Message to you personally (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23).

God, through the Scriptures, requires a response beyond a positive intellectual endorsement. It asks for the kind of obedience that God Himself facilitates through you by His Spirit (Phil 2:13). You become the permanent home for His Holy Spirit by accepting the Message He proclaims in His Word (Rom 10:17) and that ultimately requires faith.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:17) Not a blind faith, but faith nonetheless. Faith in Him, what He can do and… …the Integrity, the Substance and the Truth of His Inerrant Word.

For even more information about the credibility of the Old Testament, click here

1. Astronomy Today, “Eclipses from Ancient Times – Part Three, http://www.astronomytoday.com/eclipses/ancient-part3.html, accessed April 23, 2017
2. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972, p45
3. “Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture”, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2006 p82
4. “Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?”, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2007, p140
5. Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p252
6. “Evangelical Lutheran Synod”, “Luther and the Word of God’, http://els.org/resources/document-archive/convention-essays/essay1964-kuster/, accessed April 25, 2017
7. “The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological and Pastoral Perspectives”, John MacArthur, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2016, p124
8. Ibid, p125
9. Ibid, p126
10. Ibid, p125
11. Ibid, p12

The Federal Deficit

/in /by

Many of those who despise President Trump justify their hatred by insisting that he’s a heinous human being and anyone who supports him is just as sinister.

There was a question on Quora that I attempted to answer and it was, yet again, another situation where you feel as though no amount of facts can sway someone who’s determined to ignore anything other than what they want to hear.

At one point in the exchange, she said this:

…the US federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2026 (starting Oct 1, 2025) stands at approximately $1.17 trillion for the first six months, representing the third-worst first-half in history. While slightly lower than the same period in FY2025, the deficit remains historically high, with total FY2026 projections nearing $1.85.

When you read, “The US deficit is now at $1.17 trillion over the first 6 months of FY2026, the 3rd-worst first-half in history,” you are inclined to think the US economy is weak and getting progressively weaker.

The problem with that perspective is that it doesn’t take into consideration other information that significantly changes the conclusion that number by itself would imply.

Take a look…

Biden
2023 1.695 trillion + 138 billion “President Biden and Vice President Harris have ignored resounding messages from Iowans and Americans nationwide, as well as alarms from global credit ratings companies. By consistently choosing a spendthrift agenda over fiscal sanity, this administration has hamstrung our economy for generations to come,” Grassley said. “Our nation needs a change of pace from the one this administration has set. Vice President Harris’ recent proposals, however, signal an unwillingness to meaningfully address Americans’ concerns and a readiness to double down on policies that have caused major consequences, like prices rising over 20 percent in less than four years.” United States Senate Committee on the Budget
2024 1.833 trillion
Trump
2025 1.78 trillion -50 billion WASHINGTON, DC –Today, the Joint Economic Committee released its Monthly Fiscal Update. In FY2025, the nation ended with a $1.78 trillion deficit, $50 billion (2.8 percent) less than FY2024. Leading to the decreased deficit impact was the record-setting tariff collections of $195 billion for FY2025, increased tax receipts, and modifications to the student loan program authorized in the 2025 reconciliation act. While customs duties jumped significantly in FY2025, it still accounts for only 3.7 percent of total receipts. United States Congress Joint Economic Committee
2026 1.2 trillion (first half) -139 billion WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its monthly budget review which estimated the federal budget deficit totaled $1.2 trillion in the first half of fiscal year 2026. That amount is $139 billion less than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) released the following statement:

“The non-partisan CBO recently did a comparison of the first six months of last fiscal year (FY25) with the first six months of this fiscal year (FY26). The report showed that the combination of savings from cutting bureaucratic waste and increased revenue from tariffs helped lower the deficit by $139b, which is over 10%. If we continue cutting waste and fraud from the federal government as well as incentivizing economic growth, we will stabilize the debt and put our nation on a credible path to balance going to 3% deficit-to-GDP from 6% over the next several years.”

 Budget Committee 

If you take a closer look at the 2025 statement made by the Joint Economic Committee, you’ll see how they highlight the fact that the 2025 deficit was 50 billion dollars less than the last year of the Biden administration.

Then, if you take a look at what this year’s Budget Committee said,  despite the sobering amount represented by the first six months of this year, we’re nevertheless 139 billion dollars less than the same time last year.

So, would it not make sense to be encouraged by this number, based on the way it can be compared to last year’s situation which represented a 50 billion dollar improvement over the previous year?

Absolutely!

But if you’re determined to ignore anything that doesn’t promote what you want to believe, not only will your conclusions never be accurate, but you’ve restricted yourself and anyone else impacted by your thought processes to a world of pain and problems.

However nonsensical that may sound, it is precisely what happens when you’re resolved to define truth according to what you feel as opposed to what is real and that is the fundamental dispute that fuels all of the political tension that exists in our society today.

Faith

/in /by

Moses

Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. (Acts 7:22)

Before the burning bush, Moses was already one amazing individual.

When the book of Acts describes him as someone who was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” that means he was taught in the context of the same sort of intellect that built the pyramids (see sidebar).

He most likely would’ve received training in history, chemistry, and military tactics. In short, he would’ve been more than prepared to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

And yet…

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Num 12:3)

A King’s Education

Moses was adopted and raised in the house of the daughter of Pharaoh, which meant he lived in the royal household. Acts 7:22 states, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.” From this verse we see that Moses had all the education of the known world available while in the royal house of Pharaoh. Any university or tutoring scholar, as it were, would have deemed it a privilege to tutor the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.

Egypt was, at that time, one of the most productive and progressive countries of the known world, with educational achievements far above any other land. Their economic and social life, too, was highly developed. Even today, Egypt’s colossal pyramids, with their mathematical precision, confound the understanding of the most educated builders in the world. This was the environment in which Moses was raised from his youth. (Portand Bible College | The Call of Moses)

That’s significant because, according to Scripture, Moses spoke to God face to face…

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Ex 33:11)

That just makes Moses all the more admirable.

He was an accomplished military tactician, he was educated, and he was a prince. He would be the one who lead the Israelites through the Red Sea, he would write the first five books of the Old Testament and he would be revered throughout the ages as the great Law Giver (The Ten Commandments).

And in the midst of this, he was authentically humble.

Faithful

Yet, it wasn’t his humility that God appreciated, it was his faithfulness:

“When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num 12:6-8)

It’s not surprising that God would underscore Moses’ faith as being Moses’ most admirable characteristic given the way faith is described in Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6)

When you’re faithful, you’re not just obedient, you’re consistently obedient. And the reason you’re obedient is not just because you want to stay out of trouble, it’s because you want to honor the One Who’s showing you what to do.

It Comes From Him

But you can’t truly honor something that you doubt. Inevitably, compromise seemingly becomes necessary in order to accommodate the possibility that the object of your faith isn’t entirely trustworthy.

You see that in James 1:5-8

5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. (Jas 1:5-8)

The good news is that the faith that we want and need is not something that we have to manufacture within ourselves. God gives you the faith that you need. Both the faith that you used to accept the gospel as your bottom line (Eph 2:8), and the faith that you use to navigate your everyday activities is a something that comes from Him.

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Rom 12:3)

You’ve Got to Ask

But while the faith you need is always available, it’s not automatic. Just like you have to plug in your phone to keep it charged, you have to keep your brain connected to your King in order to access the Resources you need to keep both your perspective and your performance in line (2 Pet 1:3). You do that by spending time with Him – talking to Him in prayer and letting Him speak to you through His Word (Lk 11:9-12; 2 Tim 3:16-17). When you do that, you’re keeping both your powers of observation (Rom 8:6; 12:2) as well as your imagination (Is 26:3) founded on what amounts to Perfect Peace and Power.

Today and Tomorrow

Faith isn’t the ability to know the future as much as it’s a confidence in the One Who does (Matt 6:25-34). Ask for the faith that you need (Lk 17:5; Mk 9:24) and let yourself be energized by the Perspective that transforms both the moment in front of you and the road ahead.

For further reading: Why You Want to be Spiritually Ripped

How Do You Know?

/in , , , , /by

If you were asked, “How do you know that Jesus really did die and come back to life?” how would you respond, if you couldn’t point to the Bible as a Resource?

It’s Current

We wouldn’t still be talking about the Resurrection today unless it really happened.

Simon Ben Kosiba is one of a handful of “counterfeit” Jewish Messiahs that were revered as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy, but we don’t hear about them today because…

…they’re dead.

It works.

You live your life according to biblical principles, you benefit. If you opt to ignore those same principles, you have to deal with the consequences.

Some may respond by saying, “Well, it works for you…” While that’s not always the case, more often than not, that response comes from a mindset that wants to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences in order to justify maintaining themselves as their own bottom line.

If you’re not sinning, then you’re not lying, you’re not stealing, and you’re loving your neighbor as yourself. You’re on a much better path than if you were doing things differently and that applies to everyone.

It makes sense.

Every “religion” empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. After a while, that starts to sound a little suspicious in that the focus is more on you and what you’re capable of despite the obvious limitations of the human condition.  As a Christian, the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. That makes more sense in that the emphasis is now more on God – Who He is and what He’s capable of rather than on the individual and what they’re obviously not able to do.

For further reading, check out COEXIST.

What Does It Mean to be Saved?

/in /by

Being “saved” sometimes resonates as something illusive. You hear terms like “evangelical,” “born again,” “redeemed…”

But what does it mean and how does one make it happen?

First of all, let’s look at a couple of questions and scenarios that will help rule out some things that can be distracting otherwise.

You and Your Typical Demon

Imagine two individuals—one is a demon the other is a believer. Try to determine which one is which based on the way they might answer the following questions:

Question #1: Do you believe in God?  

James 2:19 says:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (Jas 2:19)

Based on that passage, what do you think the demon would say?

Question #2: Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?

In Matthew 8:29, several demons see Jesus coming and they say:

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”  (Matt 8:29)

Obviously the believer would answer yes, but how do you think the demon will reply based on the verse we just read?

Question #3: Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

Again, the believer is going to answer yes. What’s the demon’s answer going to be?

Colossians 2:15 says: 

“And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he (Jesus) made a public spectacle of them (Satan and demons), triumphing over them by the cross.” (Col 2:15)

Based on those two verses, how do you think the demons would answer? What do you think? Is there a difference in the way our two individuals answered the questions? Let’s take a minute and review what was asked:

  • Do you believe in God?
  • Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?
  • Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

There’s no difference between these two individuals based on the questions that were asked. Both answered in exactly the same way. James 2:19 indicates that demons believe in God. Matthew 8:29 quotes a demon as accurately referring to Jesus as God’s Son, and it’s evident from the other Scriptures we looked at that the devil and those who serve him are very aware of the defeat that was dealt them when Jesus rose from the grave.

Do you smell that?

That’s the aroma of reality.

The fact is, demons “believe” that Jesus is God’s Son and that He rose from the grave. So, there’s got to be something else besides just a willingness to acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure with some theological substance attached to Him.

But what?

Believing With Your Heart

When you believe something in your mind, it changes the way you think. But when you believe something in your heart, it changes the way you live. You see that idea expressed in Proverbs 4:23:

“Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Prov. 4:23)

It’s significant that Scripture references the heart as what constitutes the source of who you are rather than the mind. Some maintain that if you can change a person’s mind, you can change who they are, but who someone is as a person is determined by more than mere facts. Two people can be confronted with the exact same scenario and be presented with the exact same set of information yet process it differently because who you are determines the way you think.

With that in mind, take a look at Romans 10:9-10:

“That is you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Rom. 10:9-10).

“It’s with your heart that you believe.” It’s comparable to that situation where someone agrees that diet and exercise are healthy habits. But it’s the one who actually engages those habits that demonstrates a belief that resides in his heart.

So, Jesus isn’t just “the” Messiah, He’s “my” Messiah. He’s not just King of kings, He’s “my” King. He’s my Creator, He’s my Redeemer, He is my Lord.

A Complete Transformation

Your belief doesn’t merely qualify you as morally perfect before God – which is what happens when you accept God’s gift of grace.1 It also facilitates a complete transformation of who you are.

 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Cor 5:17)

When you make the Reality of Christ your reality – when you’re recognizing that what He did on the cross was for you in the most direct and personal way possible – at that point, you’re no longer respecting a Nativity scene or a crucifix, you’re now sitting down with the Son of God as your Savior and not just a lifeless idea.2 In that moment, you go from being a spiritual corpse to having a spiritual pulse.3 Your membership into the Kingdom of God is now guaranteed,4, but you’re also operating according to an entirely new internal paradigm in that God’s Spirit is living in you.

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard that word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). [See also Jn. 14:17; Gal. 4:7.]

It’s His Spirit that’s now providing a Voice that, up to now, wasn’t even available (see Eph 2:1). This Voice is now guiding you and giving you a new kind of desire for doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons.5

Conclusion

Let’s go back to the Q/A session with two individuals we were envisioning at the beginning of our discussion. Let’s imagine that they have to answer one more question, and here it is:

Does the Spirit of Christ live in you?

Romans 8:9 says:

“You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.” (Rom 8:9)

What would the demon say, what would the believer say?

What would you say?

According to Romans 8:9, that is the determining factor. That is what distinguishes the believer from the demon in our scenario.

There are many who go through life having convinced themselves that they’re believers—thinking that a mental acknowledgment of Christ’s reality equates to the saving belief referenced in Scripture. It’s not an uncommon fallacy, but it is nevertheless a departure from God’s Word that is both tragic and lethal.

On the other hand, the belief that comes from the heart that manifests itself as a personal conviction and not just a mental acknowledgement opens the door to a relationship with the One Who put the stars in their place and gives you, not only a guarantee of an eternity spent with Him, but a life that’s truly worth living as long as you’re walking this earth.

That’s what it means to be saved!

The Billy Graham Association has a great piece that will walk you through the verses and the subsequent steps you need to take to make Christ your personal Savior and not just a mental picture. Click here to read more.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:22; Titus 3:5; Hebrew 10:15-18
2. Revelation 3:20
3. Ephesians 2:1; 2:3-5
4. John 1:12; 14:3
5. Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:12; ; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:15-16

The Right to be Wrong

/in /by

The total population of the United States was reduced by 2% as a result of the casualties inflicted by the Civil War.1 It wasn’t fought over economic disputes. Financial disagreements are quickly revealed as trivial once the horrors of war park themselves in your front yard. And while it’s not inaccurate to say that the war was fought over slavery, there’s more to it than that. The bottom line is that the Civil War was fought over the way a human being was to be defined.

There were four political parties that came to the table during the Presidential election in 1860: The Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats, the Republican Party and the Constitutional Union Party.2 Each of these parties was defined by their stance on slavery. The reason the Republican Party chose newcomer Abraham Lincoln as their champion is because of the way he was able to identify the core issue at the heart of the slavery debate.

Many were distracted by the South’s justification of slavery by categorizing as a matter of “state’s rights.” Lincoln handily dismantled that argument. At one point he said: “…the doctrine of self-government is right – absolutely and eternally right,” but argued that “it has no just application” to slavery. “When the white man governs himself,’ he asserted, “that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government – that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”3

And the thing is, the South did not simply want to be left alone. As new territories were being added to the Union, the South was insistent that these new states were to be added as slave states.4  And when South Carolina announced its decision to secede, it simultaneously confiscated all Federal property and infrastructure and claimed it as its own. 5

This was not autonomy that was being desired, it was an attempt to gain authority over that which defined the nature of a human being as well as any resource that could aid them in their bid for control. That is what caused the North and South to war against one another.

What makes this topic important is that you will often hear deviations from Truth asserted in the context of a right to be left alone or a right to be happy. On the surface, it appears correct. But if the issue in question is predicated on something that is morally wrong, then it’s no longer a question of rights. The South did not have the “right” to enslave an entire race, nor did it have the “right” to confiscate property that was not their own. They did have the right to govern themselves, but not to the extent that it violated the rights of others.

Today we debate over things like same sex marriage and any one of a number of entitlements from health insurance to employment.  The pursuit of one’s own happiness is part of our philosophical foundation as a nation. But that same philosophy references an Absolute as the justification for our ability to secure the blessings of life and liberty. When we step outside the moral boundaries defined by that Absolute, we are no longer exercising our “right” as much as we are simply rebelling against that which is right. And while rhetoric and legal sounding verbiage can veil that for a season, inevitably it will be revealed for what it is – immoral, unjust and just plain wrong.

The Civil War was both tragic and costly. Whether it could’ve been avoided is speculative, but the lessons to be learned in terms of being vigilant in recognizing a perversion of the Truth are not vague or illusive. And those lessons need to be deployed now as we process what’s going in our culture and in our government.

The result of apathy may not be a Civil War, but left unchecked, the result will not be healthy.

Postscript: Check out this video from Prager University. It’s excellent and reinforces the point about the Civil War being about slavery and slavery alone – http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Was-the-Civil-War-About-Slavery.html

1. “Civil War Casualties”, “Civil War Trust”, http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html, accessed June 6, 2014
2. By the late 1850s, the Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats generally opposed slavery’s expansion while many Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist across the United States. In the presidential election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two, with Stephen Douglas running for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge representing the Southern Democratic Party. Two other political parties competed in this election as well. One of these parties was the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its candidate. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery’s expansion. The other party was the Constitutional Union Party. The party’s candidate, John Bell, hoped to compromise the differences between the North and South by extending the Missouri Compromise line across the remainder of the United States. Slavery would be permitted in new states established south of the line, while the institution would be illegal in new states formed north of the line. The Northern and Southern Democratic Parties only officially existed in the election of 1860. (“Northern Democrat Party”, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Northern_Democratic_Party, accessed July 3, 2013)
3. “Team of Rivals”, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Shuster, 2006, page 203
4. Ibid, p162 (The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a piece of legislation that prohibited slavery from those territories procured from France as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectually nullified that act by stating that states could choose by “popular sovereignty” whether or not they were to be slave or free. The problem was that those who had the resources and political clout to affect the outcome of these supposedly democratic procedures were predominantly wealthy slave owners. It wasn’t a compromise, it was a political maneuver that further revealed the true motivation of the more vocal proponents of the pro-slavery faction, while simultaneously galvanizing those who opposed it.)
5.Ibid, p297

Ask a Canaanite

/in /by

The Conquest of the Promised Land was a series of military campaigns led by Joshua (see Josh 12). The mission was to completely destroy the Canaanites and settle the land that God had promised Abraham in Genesis (see Gen 13:14-17; 15:19-21).

That same land, by the way, is the land that the nation of Israel occupies today. Some process the violence initiated by the Israelites against the inhabitants of Canaan as being similar to the way in which other nations throughout history have determined to overwhelm neighboring countries and expand their borders and influence by force.

But the Conquest of the Promised Land wasn’t a self absorbed determination to divide and conquer. For all intents and purposes, Israel was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered from the start. They were hardly a threat, let alone a force, to be taken seriously by any of the fortified cities and established armies that comprised the area of Canaan (Numbers 28-33). The reason Israel triumphed was not because of their military might or because of their superior rating in the eyes of God (Dt 9:1-6), rather, it was because the Canaanites had become so decadent and so heinous in the eyes of God. Israel was merely an instrument of Divine Judgement (Dt 9:4).

But who were the Canaanites and what had they done that made them such an irritant in the eyes of God?

Let’s take a look…

I) Who Were the Canaanites?

When Noah’s voyage came to an end, he left the ark with his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From these three boys came all of the nations that are scattered around the earth to this day (Gen 9:19). Ham was a problem child and his rebellious nature was passed on to his sons, who you see listed in Genesis 10:6: Cush, Mizraim, Put and…Canaan. In verse 15, you see the sons of Canaan listed. Taken together, these families / tribes comprised the people group collectively referred to as the Canaanites. They were a wide spread group and as they lived and prospered, their territory grew. But as their landholdings increased, so did their decadence and perversion.

You see that in Genesis 24:3 where Abraham asks his chief servant to swear that he would not get a wife for his son Isaac among the Canaanites who he could see were degenerating into a life of wickedness. He also knew that however heinous the Canaanites were at the time, their conduct as well as their prospects would only get worse based on the fact that God had already told him that their land would be given to him.

II) God’s CleanUp Operation

By the time Moses and Joshua began what was actually God’s “clean up” operation in Deuteronomy 2-3, the pagan practices of the Canaanites were in full swing.

The religion of these pagan people were basically a fertility cult. At temple scattered throughout their land, Canaanite worshipers actually participated in lewd, immoral acts with “sacred” prostitutes. Theirs was a depraved form of worship that appealed to the base instincts of man’s animal nature.1

But more than just depravity, part of Baal worship included sacrificing children by burning them alive (2 Chron 28:2-3). In light of this kind of lifestyle and behavior, you can see why God’s anger would be peaking. And that’s why, in some cases, God instructed the Israelites to destroy entire cities and leave nothing alive.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 instructs the Israelites to make an offer of peace to neighboring cities that were not within the explicit borders of the Promised Land. But verses 16-17 says to kill anything that breathes that lives within the walls of those cities that warranted the full wrath of God.

That included women and children.

Why would you kill women and children?

Do they not merit a kinder and more gentle treatment?

III) Women and Children…?

In Genesis 15:16, God is talking to Abraham and states how in the fourth generation of his family, his descendants would come back to the land he was living in presently and claim it as their own. There would be a bit of a delay because, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

Just how sinful many Canaanite religions practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929…Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination. God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.2

A generation, in this instance is 100 years. 400 years later, you see that prophecy coming true in Deuteronomy 2. This is one of the first areas that were conquered by the Israelites as they entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the desert. Every town belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites, is completely destroyed. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, elaborates:

They put all the Amorites to the sword, men, women, and children (v. 33, v. 34); this they did as the executioners of God’s wrath; now the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity was full (Gen. 15:16 ), and the longer it was in the filling the sorer was the reckoning at last. This was one of the devoted nations. They died, not as Israel’s enemies, but as sacrifices to divine justice, in the offering of which sacrifices Israel was employed, as a kingdom of priests. The case being therefore extraordinary, it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for military executions, which make no distinction and give no quarter: those will have judgment without mercy that show no mercy. 3

This was not “business as usual.” As has already been pointed out, not every city / people group was put to the sword. But those who had distinguished themselves by wallowing in the kind of decadence that equated to spitting in the face of God over and over again – as Matthew Henry pointed out – it wasn’t a military action that was directed towards the Amorites, it was the wrath of God being prosecuted in a way that resulted in the total destruction of an entire nation.

Again, this was not a template, nor a precedent, but it’s an example of what can, and often does, occur to a nation that doesn’t just turn their back on God, but runs in the opposite direction over a period of centuries and by so doing sinks deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity that ultimately becomes their grave.

IV) Still, Women and Children?

There are scores of commentary and attempts to reconcile the idea of a loving God with genocide. Some want to suggest that the Biblical text is a form of hyperbole – that what we read as a slaughter of innocent women and children is a figure of speech and nothing more.

But the question isn’t “How could God be so cruel and destroy an entire nation including women and children?” Rather, the question should be, “How could an entire nation collectively say ‘No,’ to a loving God?” And as far as taking the lives of women and children, however difficult that may be from a human standpoint to process, consider this:

1. The Cross

Anytime you’re inclined to think of God as cruel, you have to go back to the cross. With that one event, you have the ultimate exclamation point, as far as God’s unconditional love for all people (Rom 5:8). Is God capable of being a tyrant? The answer is “Absolutely, not!”

Just? Yes.

Cruel? No.

2. We Belong to Him

As far as human life is concerned, regardless of the age of the person in question, that individual was created by God (Ps 139:13). From that standpoint, we belong to God and our lives are ultimately His to do with as He pleases (Ps 24:1).

Rebuking God for the way in which He handles that which belongs to Him falls short of what’s logical and appropriate. And while some are quick to say, “But He has no right to be cold-hearted.” Again, the cross reveals that assertion as having no basis in fact. In addition, God’s essence is holy and completely devoid of anything evil (Job 34:10; Ps 77:3; 1 Jn 1;5; Jas 1:13). So, should He choose to do something that appears harsh, one can rest assured there’s a holy agenda being served (justice, punishment, discipline) as opposed to something sinister.

 3. More Than a Moment

When we see an infant, we see the innocence and helplessness that defines that child at that moment. On the other hand, God sees their entire life laid out before Him. It’s not a life that has never been lived, it’s a known existence from start to finish. If God chooses to bring that person home before they’re born, it could very well be an act of mercy if that child is to grow up and do all kinds of evil.

By bringing that child immediately to their eternal dwelling, they’re prevented from condemning themselves as a result of their sin. As a side note, is it not ironic that many of those who are indignant with God, as far as Him commanding the death of infants and children, have no problem with babies being destroyed in the context of abortion?

4. Don’t Forget Jezebel

While in most cases, it’s unfair to pit a man against a woman, in terms of physical strength, it’s neither wise nor healthy to suggest that a woman cannot pose a very real threat. Consider Jezebel. She was the wife of King Ahab. In 1 Kings 18, you see her behind a campaign to kill all of the prophets of God in Israel.

In the next chapter, after a brilliant display of God’s superiority over the Baal and his prophets that was facilitated through Elijah, Elijah now is running for his life in order to escape the indignation and the wrath of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:3). She was hideously evil (1 Kings 9:22; 21:25-26) and ruled over Israel through her sons after the death of her husband for a period of 10 years. In the end, she died a very violent and gruesome death (2 Kings 9:30-37) – a destiny that was prescribed in 1 Kings 21:23 as a punishment for the vile acts she committed against God and her subjects.

Jezebel demonstrates that one’s gender doesn’t limit the atrocities one can commit against God. No doubt, the females within the Canaanite  community, given their reverence for Baal, were guilty of similar behaviors and were therefore deserving of the same kind of fate.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you’re confronted with a Divine act or behavior that seems out of Character for God, you’re being wise by establishing the cross as your starting point and from there allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as justice and there is such a thing as discipline.

Our perspective is limited (Is 55:8) and we’re not capable of seeing the big picture. Given those two dynamics, it’s more than appropriate to trust God even though certain aspects of a situation lack the kind of bottom lines we would prefer.

But regardless of harsh God’s Judgment was against the Canaanites, the fact was they were living a life and revering a standard that taunted the Reality of God. While grace is always available, it is possible to incur the wrath of your Heavenly Father?

How?

Ask a Canaanite.

1. “Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1986, p205
2. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
3. “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible”, biblstudytools.com, Deuteronomy 2, accessed July 3, 2016