Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (John v. Herod)

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch, who ruled over Galilee and Perea, stayed with his half-brother Philip, on a visit to Rome.  While there, he coveted his brother’s wife, Herodias, who was also the brothers’ niece. She also coveted him.  She agreed to divorce her husband. He agreed to divorce his wife, Phasaelis, the daughter of Aretas IV, the king of Nabatea.  The two were married (Mark 6:17-18).

John, the baptizer, spoke against this.  John told Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18).  This tells us that it is possible to have a civil marriage, and it not be lawful in God’s law.  What was unlawful about it?  (1) It is possible that their divorces were not for reasons of “some uncleanness” (cf. Deuteronomy 24).  (2) This was an incestuous relationship.  It was unlawful under the Law of Moses for a man to have: (a) His father’s wife; (b) His sister, even a half-sister; (c) His grand-daughter; (d) His aunt, on either side; (e) His daughter-in-law; (f) His brother’s wife, unless he is dead and has had no sons according to Levirate Law (Herod was guilty of this); (g) A woman and her daughter; (h) A woman and her sister, while the first is alive (see: Leviticus 18; Leviticus 20; Deuteronomy 27).

John’s words demanded that the relationship cease.  He did not say, “It is not lawful for you to have taken her,” but “it is not lawful for you to have her” (Matthew 14:5 cf. Mark 6:18).  The Greek present tense could be rendered, “It is not lawful for you to continue having her.”

Herod had John arrested and imprisoned for the sake of his wife (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19-20).  He did not kill him because he feared the people (Matthew 14:5).  Herod also feared John, and considered him a just and holy man (Mark 6:19-20).  He had opportunity to hear him, and he heard him gladly (Mark 6:20).  Herodias eventually found a way to get Herod to have John beheaded (Matthew 14:6-12; Mark 6:21-29).  What a prideful and spineless man! He thought John just and holy … yet his lust, his rash words, his desired reputation before men, and his unwillingness to say no to his wife and her daughter cost John his life. His conscience seems to have bothered him for killing John (Matthew 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16).

Josephus informs us of what happened after this.  “Herod himself now quarreled with Aretas, King of Petra, whose daughter he had married.  But Herod had since fallen in love with Herodias, wife of his half-brother… and he promised to marry her and dismiss Aretas’ daughter… This and a boundary dispute led Aretas to attack Herod, whose whole army was destroyed.  Herod wrote about this to Tiberius, who was furious, and ordered Vitellius, governor of Syria, to declare war on Aretas.  But to some of the Jews, Herod’s disaster seemed to be divine vengeance for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist.  Although John was a good man exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives and practice justice toward their colleagues and piety to God, Herod had put him to death… Although John was brought in chains to Machaerus and put to death in that stronghold, the Jews decided that the destruction of Herod’s army was God’s vindication of John” (Josephus: The Essential Writings, pp. 266-267, from Antiquities 18).

John was a man of courage.  He did not hold back even from one in authority. He boldly proclaimed the truth, and rebuked.  Such men are rare. Such men are needed today.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Preachers, Preaching, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Did You Say? C’mon Man! (Part 2)

Posted on November 12, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“C’mon man” (come on man) is a phrase used on Monday Night Football in response to shockingly bad decisions, inappropriate decisions, poor execution, and bloopers.

I have heard, through the years, brethren say things which completely shocked me.  Things that make me want to say “C’mon man!” or “C’mon brother!”  Let us add to our previous list.

1.    “I would, if you were to run as a (political party).”

A faithful Christian was considering running for a political office.  He spoke with one of the elders of the church where he attended.  He asked the elder, “Would you vote for me, if I decided to enter the race.”  The reply was the above words.  Another member of the church overhearing this chimed in, “He would vote for Satan, if he ran as a (political party).”  The elder replied, “Yes, I would.  He would have to be better than who was in the other party.”  I do not believe that he was joking.

It is time that character and issues matter more than party.  Some are more loyal to their party than they are to God.  “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).  “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).

2.  “Let’s slow down on the baptisms.  We are baptizing too many.”

It was a productive year.  Hundreds of home Bible studies had occurred.  Dozens had been baptized into Christ.  Almost every week  another was baptized.  The church was experiencing some growth pains.  One man suggested that we show down on personal work and give new converts an opportunity to assimilate before adding more.

It is true that much work need to be done to help these new converts mature, but slow down on personal work when there is an open door?  C’mon man!  The early church grew rapidly.  “The Lord added to the church daily…” (Acts 2:47).  Let us get on with the work.  “Souls that are precious, Souls that are dying.  While we rejoice our sins are forgiv’n; Did He not also die for these lost ones?  Then let us point the way unto heav’n” (Song: Swiftly We’re Turning by Ruth Carruth).

3.  “What’s the benefit for us?”

I was preparing for a mission trip to a foreign country.  A man in a local church asked during a men’s business meeting how my trip would benefit the local church.  Now understand that the local church had not been neglected.  It was actually growing.  I was shocked.  After all, the church had agreed that I could make such trips.

How does one respond?  I wonder if the church at Jerusalem had this attitude when Peter and John went to Samaria (Acts 8:14)?  I wonder if the church at Antioch had this attitude when it sent Barnabas and Saul to Judea for famine relief (Acts 11:27-30)?  Or, when they sent Barnabas and Saul on a missionary journey (Acts 13:1-3)?  Richard Mansel remarked, “It is the height of irony that so many American Christians found it an abomination that the gospel was taken to African nations and India, when those countries will (possibly – B.H.) send missionaries back to the United States one day” (Mansel, How Dare We Take the Gospel to Those People!, forthright.net).

4.  “Can’t you just drive another way to work?”

A Christian sister (we’ll call her Mary) taught and converted a young lady (we’ll call her Beth).  Beth seemed to be doing fine for several months.  However, Mary started noticing something which concerned her.  Mary drove to work very early some mornings, and she came home very late on other days. Her drive took her past Beth’s house.  She noticed that a local man’s car was at Beth’s house at odd  times.  She talked to Beth about this, but flimsy excuses were made.  Mary talked with the elders about the situation.  They did not want to get involved.  They did not want to even make a visit.  One elder’s wife told Mary, “Why don’t you just drive to work a different way, so you won’t have to see the situation.”  It took a year for the elders to finally make a visit.  It did not go well. The couple was living together, and had been so living for a long time. The elders comforted themselves by saying that it would not have mattered if they had made an earlier visit; but, who really knows what an earlier visit may have done.

“C’mon man!”  Do we care about souls or not?  God said, “My sheep wandered through the mountains, and on every high hill; yes, my flock was scattered over the whole face of the earth, and no one was seeking or searching for them” (Ezekiel 34:6).

5.  “She is no longer a member here.”

A young Christian has very publicly sinned, even bragging about her sin on social media.  I remarked, to a member of that local church, that the church there had some work to do.  The reply was that the person was no longer a member, she had not attended regularly in some time. Whether she was still a member there, or not, I do not know.

However, Too many congregations wash their hands of their responsibility by saying, “He is no longer on our rolls.  We removed him when he stopped attending regularly.” When you start asking questions, many times you find that no real effort was made to visit or study with the person.

What about concern for the lost?  “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1).  “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his ways will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20).  Think of the words of the song seeking the lost – “Going afar upon the mountain, bringing the wanderer back again, into the fold of my Redeemer Jesus the Lamb for sinners slain” (Song: Seeking the Lord by W.A. Ogden).

6.  “Jesus Christ is King of the Jews, and the rest of it is garbage.”

It was one of these heated men’s meetings.  A controversy was simmering in the church over what the Bible taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  One man spoke the above words.  What he meant was let’s just teach Jesus is King and leave the rest alone.

However, if Jesus is King, then there is something implied.  His words have authority.  The rest of it does matter.  He taught on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5; 19).  It is up to us to study and discern the meaning, and application for man today.  His words matter (Matthew 7:24-27; John 12:48).

We all have made mistakes and have said and done things we shouldn’t. May God forgive us. May we seek to do better. “C’mon brethren,” let us take our Christian duties seriously, and give our very best. Eternity is coming! As the song says “(C’mon) Get right church and let’s go home.”

Posted in Church discipline, Dedication, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage (Old Testament)

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

God created marriage.  His ideal intent was for marriage to be a permanent, life-time partnership between one man and one woman.  Jesus reminded the Pharisees of this, saying, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.  Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6 cf. Genesis 1:27; 2:24).

God allowed divorce under the law of Moses.  It taught, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house…” (Deuteronomy 24:1-ff).  Why did God allow this?  Jesus said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8).  Divorce was never God’s ideal.  It was only allowed because of hardness of hearts.  Kerry Duke points out “The Old Testament does not indicate when divorce began… The law of Moses did not institute divorce, it merely permitted and regulated an already existing practice” (Duke, The Remarriage of a Divorced Couple, p. 13).

What was the permitted reason for divorce?  “Some uncleanness” (ervah dabhar).  What does this mean?  Some Jews, in Jesus’ day, thought that “some uncleanness” was any reason that the wife did not find favor in the husband’s sight.  Other Jews, in Jesus’ day, thought that “some uncleanness” was some issue of sexual morality.  Forms of the original term are applied to unlawful sexual activity (Leviticus 18:6-ff; 20:18-19), shameful exposure of the body (Genesis 9:22; Exodus 20:26; Isaiah 20:4; 47:3; Lamentations 1:8; Ezekiel 16:8, 37). However, the word is also used of non-sexual uncleanness, such as human refuse (Deuteronomy 23:12-14).  The “uncleanness” may  refer to a lack of moral purity (cf. Jeremiah 3:8).  However, there seems to be no linguistic reason or contextual reason to limit it to adultery.  Some have argued that it could not refer specifically to adultery, since adultery was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). However, others question whether it was always required (Jeremiah 3:8; Matthew 1:19).

Divorce was not to be taken lightly. It is important to understand that The Law of Moses permitted divorce, but it did not demand it (cf. Matthew 19:7-8). Moreover, The issuing of a certificate of divorce would slow the process. Ivie Powell commented, “The preparation of the legal instrument, by the very nature of the case, would require time. During this period of time the husband had opportunity to reconsider his actions” (ed. Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, The Spiritual Sword Lectureship 1992, p. 314).  Finally, If a man did divorce his wife for “some uncleanness” and she married another, then, the two could never again be remarried to each other (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). This is true even if the new husband divorced her. This is true even if her new husband died.

The Old Testament place other limitations on divorce and remarriage.  One who defiles a woman with pre-marital fornication, and then marries her, could not later divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 cf. Exodus 22:16-17).  If a man slanders his wife, falsely accusing her of pre-marital sexual impurity, and such is demonstrated to be false, he may not later divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:13-19).   A priest could not marry a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:7, 14; Ezekiel 44:22).

God hated divorce in the Old Testament (Malachi 2:16).  The manner in which some were divorcing and remarrying rendered their worship of God in vain (Malachi 2:11, 13-14, 16 cf. 1 Peter 3:7).

However, not all divorce was against His will.  When God’s people inter-married with those whom they had no authority to marry, they were instructed to put them away (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:1-3, 10-12).

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Angels (Part Five)

Posted on November 6, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

This writing will consider some difficult passages.  Let’s consider –

Sons of God and Daughters of Men

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the Sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose… There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them.  Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:1-2, 4).

Genesis 6 not only announces God’s coming flood on the earth (Genesis 6:6-7; 6:13-22), it also explains why God did this.  (1) The “wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Genesis 6:5).  (2) Man’s thoughts were “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).  (3) The earth “was corrupt before God… all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (Genesis 6:11-12).  God spared only eight souls (Genesis 7:13; 1 Peter 3:21).  (4) The earth “was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11, 13).  This judgment no doubt was for the good of future humanity.  “God is acting as a careful, loving doctor, cutting out the diseased cells that could kill all of humanity (Sarah Fallis, The Drama of Redemption, pp. 52, 226).

Another contributing factor which led to God’s judgment was that the sons of God married the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-2, 4).  What does this mean?  There are two common views: (1) Some believe that “the sons of God” refer to angels (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25).  It is thought that some angels came down to earth, took upon flesh, married and had sexual relations with women.  This created a breed of giants, who dominated the earth.  A common objection to this view is that angels are sexless beings (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34).  It is replied that angels were able to eat, when they appeared in the flesh (Genesis 18:1-8; 19:1-3).  Another objection is that evil angels are not elsewhere referred to as the sons of God.  “The reference to angels as ‘sons of God’ in Job 1:6 is contrasted with Satan; good spirit beings are thus contrasted with evil spirit beings (Trevor Major, The Meaning of “Sons of God,” p. 11).  Another objection is that angels are not elsewhere in Genesis or the Pentateuch referred to as “sons of God.”  (2) Some believe that “sons of God” refers to the followers of God (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:5; Isaiah 43:6; 45:11; Jeremiah 3:4; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; John 8:42; 1 John 3:11, etc.), and “the daughters of men” refers to the unrighteous, those who follow no authority greater than man.  The context is appealed to for support.  Cain and his descendants are mentioned (Genesis 4:1-24).  Nothing positive is said of their relationship with God.  Seth and his descendants are mentioned (Genesis 4:25-5:32).  There are positive things said concerning the relationship of some, in this list, with God.  Seth’s genealogy is associated with men who “call on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26).  Enoch walked with God (Genesis 5:22, 24).  Lamech spoke of the LORD (Genesis 5:29).  “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generation. Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8).  Trevor Major writes, “Thus, after the generations of Cain and Seth have been outlined in chapters four and five, and 6:2 then speaks of two groups of people, is it not reasonable to conclude that the earlier familial division is being carried into the later discussion?” (ibid, p. 13). According to this view, many married based looks and other matters. Spiritual matters were not considered.  These religiously mixed marriages weakened man’s spiritual condition, produced an ungodly offspring,  and contributed to the earth’s corruption.  The Bible warns man about such marriages (e.g. Exodus 34:1-16; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; 1 Kings 11:1-8).  Many godly parents had great concern over their children’s marriages (Genesis 24:1-4; 27:46-28:2; 28:8-9 cf. 26:34-35; Judges 14:1-3).  This seems a reasonable explanation to me.  Objectors point out that “sons of God” and “daughters of men” are not used this way elsewhere in Genesis.

If “sons of God” refers to the righteous, what about the “giants” (Genesis 6:4)?  The original word does not actually mean “giants.”  The word is “Nephilium.”  The word is generally thought to be from naphal, meaning “to fall.”  Those who believe that these are the offspring of angels and women think this refers to the fact that these are the offspring of fallen angels (who, some think, some how, were  able to pass on angelic DNA). Others take this to mean that they fall upon others; that is: they are a violent, war-like people. The word also appears after the flood in Numbers 13:33, and in such they are giants (though, the word “Nephelium” itself does not mean such).  Perhaps, it was based on this that the Septuagint rendered this “giants.” These Nephilium existed both “in those days, and also afterward.”  Some take this as Moses, from his prospective, indicating that Nephilim existed both before and after the flood.  If Nephilium are the result of the union of angels and humans, how do they exist after the fool? Others take this to mean that Nephilium did not begin with the intermarriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men, they existed both before and after this.

Judge Angels

“Do you not know that we shall judge angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3).

The Bible tells us that some angels are reserved for judgment (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).  In what way will we judge angels?  I could set forth some possibilities.  However, I really do not know for sure.  Such may be one of Paul’s points.  The Corinthians thought that they knew it all (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:8; 4:10; 8:1-2).  They needed some humility.

Because of the Angels

“For this reason the women ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11:10).

Why does it say, “because of the angels”?  Let us consider three common suggestions.  (1) Those who believe that angels once lusted after women claim that this is intended to prevent such.  However, this does not seem to fit.  First, this is not addressing lust, but a sign of authority.  Second, this is not saying that a woman is to always be veiled (e.g. while sleeping, while with her husband, etc.).  This is addressing public matters. Yet, if this were about angels lusting would not the veil be required even in private.  (2) This may have to do with the judgment.  We know that angels are watching over us (1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Timothy 5:21; possibly, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6; possibly, Psalm 138:1).   We know that angels will have a role to play in judgment (Matthew  13:47-50; 25:31-32; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). This could be a reminder that what we do is being witnessed (cf. 1 Timothy 5:16).  (3) This could be a reference to angels who sinned(cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 5-6). John Coffman comments, “The simplest explanation (since Paul was speaking of proper subordination of women) is that this is a reminder that ‘the angels who kept not their first estate’ lost heaven; and it is not far-fetched to draw the analogy that those precious angels called women should not go beyond the limitations imposed upon them by their creation.”

Note: A full discussion of the veil can be found on a previous post (The Veil, Long Hair, and the Red Purse;  https://bryanhodge.net/2013/03/05/the-veil-long-hair-and-the-red-purse/  ).  It is not our purpose to discuss such here.

Posted in Angels, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Angels (Part Four)

Posted on November 4, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

This writing will consider two specific angels who are mentioned by name in the Bible.  Let’s consider –

Gabriel

Gabriel is explicitly mentioned in four contexts in the Bible (Daniel 8:15-27; 9:20-27; Luke 1:5-20; 1:26-38).  The name Gabriel means “Man of God” or “Strong man of God.”  He may be viewed as a great announcer for God.  He announced the future difficulties of Israel the coming Messiah, His rejection, and the fall of Jerusalem (Daniel 8:15-27; 9:20-27).  He announced the birth of John (Luke 1:5-20).  He announced the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).

Michael

Michael is explicitly mentioned in four contexts (Daniel 10:10-21; 12:1-3; Jude 9-10; Revelation 12:7).  The name Michael means “Who is like God,” or “Who is like God?”  He is called “the archangel” or chief angel (Jude 9).  Michael alone is so-called in the Bible.  Some believe that he is one of the chief angels and not the only chief angel, since he is called, “One of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13).  “The Jews have taught that there are four: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael (angel who receives the dead), and Uriel (angel who summons the judgment).  Uriel is also called Phanuel… the last two belong to legend and tradition” (Charles Hodge, Angel, p. 18).  Michael stands watch over God’s people (Daniel 12:1).  He is a warrior for God (Revelation 12:7-10).

Michael teaches us how to deal with evil adversaries.  Jude writes, “Yet Michael the archangel in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘the Lord rebuke you’” (Jude 9 cf. Jude 4).  What was the contention about the body of Moses?  The Bible does not say.  Some have speculated that the devil may have wanted the location of Moses’ grave made known to Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 34:6), hoping that they would begin to worship him.  Others have other suggestions.  The Bible does not say.  However, the point is: Michael did not take things into his own hands.  He rebuked the devil by the authority and word of God (cf. Matthew 4:1-11; Ephesians 6:10-17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 4:2; Titus 1:9).  This is teaching us how to respond to a spiritual adversary (Jude 9 cf. Jude 4).  When confronted by a spiritual adversary do not be rash with the tongue.  Do not say something which you will regret later.  Do not cuss and resort to foul language. Do not attack the person (e.g. ‘baldy,’ ‘four-eyes,’ ‘fatty,’ ‘shorty,’ etc.).  Stick with the Bible.  Simply say, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Some have wondered if Michael the archangel is Jesus.  They make a couple of arguments. (1) It is pointed out that Jesus will descend with the voice of an archangel. Paul writes, “The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God” (1 Thessalonians 4:16).  Eric Lyons has written, “This verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His second coming He will be accompanied ‘with the voice of an archangel.’  Just as He will be attended ‘with a shout’ and ‘with the trumpet of God,’ so will    accompanied ‘with the voice of an archangel.’  Question: If Jesus’ descension from heaven ‘with a voice of an archangel’ makes Him… the archangel Michael, then does His descent ‘with the trumpet of God’ not also make him God?”  (Lyons, Is Jesus Really Michael the Archangel?, apologeticpress.org). (2)  It is pointed out that Michael said to Satan “The Lord rebuke you!” (Jude 9), and the Angel of the LORD said the same (Zechariah 3:1-5). Some infer that Michael is the Angel of the LORD, and they further infer that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD (see part three).  However, Jesus and Stephen said similar things (Luke 23:34 cf. Acts 7:60), but they were not the same person. Peter and paul some times made the same point (Acts 2:25-36 cf. 13:35-37), but they were not the same person. Stephen and Paul made the same point (Acts 7:48-50 cf. 17:24-25), but they were not the same person. similar words between Michael and the Angel of the LORD does not logically imply that they are the same person.

Jesus is described as “the Messenger of the covenant” (Malachi 3:1).  Messenger could be rendered angel.  There is a sense in which He is an angel; just as, there is a sense in which He is an apostle (Hebrew 3:1). However, such does not mean that He is one of the created angels of heaven (cf. Psalms 148:1-5; Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16).  We’re told of Jesus, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:3); “by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible… All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

Posted in Angels, Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Angels (Part Three)

Posted on November 2, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

This writing will consider some questions about specific angels.  Let’s consider –

The Angel of the Lord

“The Angel of the LORD” or “The Angel of God” appears several times in the Old Testament (Genesis 16:7-14; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Exodus 3:2-5; Numbers 22:22-25; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:2-25; 2 Samuel 24:16 cf. 1 Chronicles 21:15-17; 1 Kings 19:5-7; Isaiah 63:9; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8).  Who is this mysterious angel?  This angel seems to be called “God” and “LORD” or “Jehovah” (Exodus 3:2 cf. 3:4; Judges 6:12 cf. 6:14, 16, 20); though, it is also possible that this is language of agency.  This angel seems to call himself “God” (Genesis 31:11 cf. 31:13; Exodus 3:2 cf. 3:5); though, it is also possible that this is language of agency.  This angel is named “wonderful” (Judges 13:16-17 cf. Isaiah 9:6-7).  Some believe that this angel received worship (Joshua 5:14); though, such is not clear.  Many infer that this messenger was no ordinary messenger, but the pre-incarnate Christ.  I will only say, “Perhaps.”

Guardian Angels

Many think that an angel is assigned to each person to watch over him.  Does the Bible teach this?  It is true that angels are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).  However, I know of no passage which teaches that each of us have a specific guardian angel assigned to us.  Some have appealed to Matthew 18:10.  This certainly does teach that angels have a role in caring for us.  Does it teach that there is one angel assigned to each of us?  Such is not clear.  Others have appealed to Acts 12:15.  However, this reports what those in the house thought.  It does not necessarily endorse this view.  Some believed that one’s guardian angels could assume the form of the one to whom he was assigned (McGarvey, A Commentary on Acts).  Do we each have a guardian angel?  I will only say, “Perhaps.”

The Death Angel

Some believe that there is a death angel who comes to separate the spirit from the body at the time of death.  Does the Bible teach this?  Angels can certainly kill (Exodus 12:23 cf. Psalm 78:49-51).  Angels carried the beggar, Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22).  However, the Bible nowhere clearly teaches that there is a death angel.  There is so much that we do not know.  There is so much that has not been revealed.  Let’s just make sure that we are right with God before we die.

Posted in Angels, Death | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Make Disciples or Baptize?

Posted on October 30, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Did Jesus instruct His disciples simply to baptize or to make disciples?  The answer should be clear.  He said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:18).  Yes, baptism is necessary for salvation.  However, the instruction of Jesus was, “Go… make disciples.”

Alan Adams wrote, “In the summer of 1977, I was asked to participate in a camp sponsored by Christians for young people.  I was a high school teacher at the time.  Several counselors, usually preachers, used this occasion to ‘baptize’ a lot of kids, some very young.  There would be special campfire sessions where attention would be focused on particular people.  Then there would be the whispered promises of, ‘She said she would if you will.’  I vividly remember a preacher taking two giggling teenage girls down to the lake, solemnly raising his hand above their heads, quoting Matthew 28:19, and then ‘baptizing’ them.  I was disgusting.  I was also wrong for not speaking up.  Had the preacher baptized a rock that day, it would have had as much meaning as it had to those two immature, untaught, ignorant girls.  Baptism without prior knowledge of its meaning, purpose, result and implication is meaningless” (Adams, What Must I Know To Be Saved?, Part 2, Banner of Truth, August 1995).  Is he correct in his assessment?

Alan Adams suggested that too often our goals are wrong.  He wrote, “There is a ‘dirty little secret’ loose in our land.  Kids who cannot read and write in a proficient way are graduating from school.  People will asked, ‘Have you gotten your diploma?’  The answer will be, ‘Sure, I have my diploma.’  Change the question to: ‘Have you been educated?’  Answer: ‘Well, I have my diploma.’  Response: ‘That’s not my question’… Now what does this have to do with ‘being saved’?… Brethren, we are also failing to ask the right question.  We often hear, ‘Has he been baptized?’… Change the question to ‘Is he a Christian,’ or ‘Has he been saved,’ or ‘Has he been converted?’” (ibid).  He suggests that it is all about the numbers.  “The desired outcome in modern education has everything to do with numbers.  By tinkering with the test scores… and ‘dumbing down’ the curriculum, so-called educators do nothing more than meet an artificially contrived goal… We have ‘outcome based evangelism’ …with many it is about the numbers” (ibid).

What is the motive?  I can think of a few possible reasons. In some cases, it may be a zeal to save souls that caused some to rush people, before they are ready, into baptism.  In some case, it may be about ego.  Let me put another notch in my belt.  In other cases, it may be about money.  Alan Adams wrote, “Numbers are about money.  In education, the receipt of federal funds is based on numbers.  In the church, the receipt of support, airfare to foreign lands, funds for professionals or specialists (e.g. counselors, special designated ministers), meeting appointments and so on, are likewise based on numbers” (ibid).  Is he correct in this assessment?

Do not misunderstand him.  He added, “No doubt about it: Baptism is an essential step unto salvation; one cannot be saved without having finally taken this step.  However, I confidently affirm that if correct and sufficient teaching have taken place relative to the other steps unto salvation, then baptism, the final step, is virtually a given thing” (Adams, What Must I Know To Be Saved?  Part 3, Banner of Truth, September, 1995).

Jesus wants us to make disciples.  Discipleship involves much more than merely being dunked in water (Luke 14:25-33).

What should one understand before baptism?  Here are some things which should be understood: (1) He should have faith in God (Hebrews 11:6).  (2) He should understand that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (Mark 8:37; Acts 2:36-38).  (3) He should believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Mark 16:15-16 cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Romans 6:3-5).  (4) He should be taught the name of Jesus Christ (His authority; how He authorizes is also an important thing to know) and the Kingdom of God (the church).  Philip taught these things prior to baptizing (Acts 8:5, 12).  (5) He should be taught what it means to repent of one’s sins (Acts 2:38; 3:19 cf. Luke 3:7-14; Matthew 12:41; cf Jonah 3:10).  (6) He must confess Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 8:37).  (7) He should know that he has a sin problem (Acts 2:36-38; 3:14-15, 19; Roman 3:23).  (8) He should be baptized for the proper purpose, that is: in order to have his sins washed away (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 22:16).  If he was baptized to please a girlfriend, parents, wife or some other, such is the wrong motive.  If he was baptized thinking that he was already saved, such is not New Testament baptism.  Sometimes people are baptized to obey God, without understanding that it is for the remission of sins.  Is this acceptable?  Compare this to one who takes the Lord’s Supper in order to obey God, but does not understand what the bread and cup represent, and does not discern the Lord’s death, while partaking.  (9) He should understand the “mode” of baptism.  Baptize means “to dip.”  When one is baptized, he is buried and raised (Colossians 2:11-13 cf. 3:1-2; Romans 6:3-5).  It is commanded that one be baptized in water (Acts 10:47-48).

Objections

“There are examples, in the book of Acts, of seemingly rapid conversions” (Acts 2:41; 8:26-40; 16:13-15; 16:25-34).  No disagreement here.  However, there are still certain things which must be understood.  It does not necessarily take days to teach such.; though it may, depending upon where the person is.  If they do not believe that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God, it may take a great deal of time. If they need help out of their denominational thinking (e.g. Calvinism, Catholicism), it may take some time.

“All these things (the nine points you listed earlier) were not taught on Pentecost” (Acts 2). A couple of these points did not have to be taught (i.e. they already believed in God; they no doubt already understood what repentance meant).  The truth is: we do not know what all was taught on Pentecost.  What we have is an abbreviated record (Acts 2:40).  Alan Adam has written, “It take about two minutes and forty seconds to read Peter’s powerful sermon in Acts 2.  Does anyone seriously believe that one sermon is all that was involved in the conversion of these folks?  For one thing, verse 40 says, ‘with many other words did he testify and exhort.’  And for another thing, the audience was made up of ‘Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven’ (v. 5).  Reckon how much teaching these people had had during their lifetimes?  My grandparents took me ‘to church’ from the time I was a little kid.  Many years later, at the end of a particular sermon, I asked to be baptized.  Did it take one sermon?  No” (Adams, August, 1995).

“Philip did not teach all this to the Ethiopian” (Acts 8).  How do you know?  This same Philip taught the Samaritans about the name of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God before baptizing them (Acts 8:12).  Alan Adams wrote of a preacher who said of the record on the Ethiopian’s conversion, “See, there is no mention of the church anywhere in there.”  Alan Adams replied, “Of course, neither does the passage specifically say that Philip mentioned the subject of baptism, but I know that he did because the eunuch asked, ‘What doth hinder me to be baptized’ (v. 36)” (Adams, September, 1995).  He had to be taught about baptism at the same time.  Moreover, this was not a man who was without belief in God, or in a man-made religion.  He was a Jew, or a Jewish proselyte, who read the Old Testament.  He was a committed worshipper of God, who traveled hundreds of miles to worship.  This is not an atheist.  This is not an agnostic.  This is not a man who must be untaught a false belief system.

“Teach them enough for them to know that they need to be baptized.  You can teach them the rest later.”  It already has been shown that there are things that should be understood before baptism.  This philosophy has led some to be baptized, who will never attend.  It has led some to be baptized on one day, and attend still the denomination, which they have been attending, the next Sunday.  It has led some to be baptized, but continue their life of sin.   One certainly does not need to know everything about every subject in the Bible before he is baptized, I still do not.  However, there are some things one should know and understand before baptism.  Moreover, it does not seem fair to baptize them without them understanding the responsibilities and cost which comes with being a Christian.  Shouldn’t they be allowed to count the cost?  (Luke 14:28-30). It is almost like saying “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  Or, “Buy this house. I will tell you about your taxes, and home owner association dues and other matters later.”

“What about Matthew 28:19-20?”  It reads, “Go therefore and make disciples (teach KJV) of all nations, baptizing them… teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…”  Some suggest that this is saying, “Teach them about baptism, baptize them, and then teach them the rest of what Jesus commands.  It is true that teaching should occur before baptism (Acts 8:5, 12) and after baptism (Colossians 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Titus 2:4; Hebrews 5:12). However, Matthew 28:19-20 does not mean this.  Moreover, Matthew 28:19-20 is not teaching that some things are not to be taught until after baptism.  The words “baptizing” and “teaching” are present participles.  The Greek present participle expresses action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb, “make disciples.” These words show how a disciple is made.  There is no order of time expressed by these words.  An illustration: “The church showed hospitality to the hurricane victims by feeding, clothing, and providing shelter.”  No chronological order is implied.  Another illustration: “They serviced my car airing up the tires, changing the oil, and topping off the fluids.”  No chronological order is implied.  Alan Adams, “It is interesting the word teach in verse 19, and the word teaching in verse 20 are not translated from the same word.  In verse 19, the Greek word is matheteusate which is the verb form of the word ‘disciple,’… In verse 20, the Greek word is didaskontes which is the word commonly used for teaching or instructing.  So on the surface it’s clear that this passage does not have the teach – then baptize – then teach some more idea… Reach way back and remember one of your grammar lessons.  Now look at the two words “baptizing” (v. 19) and “teaching” (v. 20).  Notice that each has an –ing on the end.  These two words are present participle; they are not verbs.  The main verb is ‘teach (make disciples of).’  Here there is no –ing.  The point of all this is: our job is to ‘make disciples’ out of people.  We ‘make disciples’ by ‘baptizing’ them and ‘teaching them to observe…’  In other words, it is within the same frame of reference that I both baptize and teach a person in order to make him a disciple.  There is not this – then that  – then that idea in this passage; rather it is do this, by doing this and this… No, we don’t teach a person everything in the Bible before he is qualified to be baptized for the remission of sins, but, we must impress upon that person whom we hope to baptize that he is amenable to, obligated to every commandment of the Lord” (ibid).

Posted in baptism, Plan of salvation, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Angels (Part Two)

Posted on October 27, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The word “angel” means “messenger.”  This is true of both the Old Testament word (malak), and the New Testament word (angelos).  These words are used of human messengers (e.g. Genesis 32:3; Numbers 21:21; 2 Chronicles 36:15; Haggai 1:13; Malachi 1:1 (note: “Malachi” means “My messenger”); 2:7; 3:1; Mark 1:1-4; Luke 7:24; Galatians 4:14; James 2:25; cf. Joshua 2; possibly, 1 Peter 1:12 cf. 1:10], including prophets (2 Chronicles 36:15; Haggai 1:13; Mark 1:1-4; cf. Luke 7:28), and priests (Malachi 2:7).  These words also are used of non-human, heavenly messengers (e.g. Genesis 19:1; Exodus 3:2; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Daniel 3:28; 6:2; Matthew 13:49; Luke 1:11-13, 19; 1: 26-28; 2:8-15; 16:22, etc.).  Context helps one determine the usage.  In this series, the subject is non-human angels.

The Work of Angels

Angels have functioned as messengers from God to man.  Angels spoke about the births of Ishmael (Genesis 16:7-12), and Isaac (Genesis 18:1-5, 16, 22; 19:1 cf. Hebrews 13:1), and Samson (Judges 13:3-24), and John (Luke 1:11-20), and Jesus (Luke 1:26-38; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 2:8-15); An angel communicated with Joseph to protect the child Jesus (Matthew 2:13-15; 2:19-23).  Angels had a role in delivering the law of Moses (Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:1-3; Deuteronomy 33:2; Psalm 68:17).  Angels declared the resurrection (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12).  Angels communicated with the apostles (Acts 1:9-11; 5:17-20; 27:22-26).  Angels helped make sure that the Gospel went to all including: eunuchs (Acts 8:26-27 cf. Deuteronomy 23:1; Isaiah 56:3-5), and gentiles (Acts 10:1-8; 10:30-33; 11:12-14).  While revelation was being revealed, God used angels as His messengers.

Sometimes people claim that they can follow a different gospel than the one which has been revealed and confirmed.  They justify such by claiming that an angel has appeared to them.  Some have even said, “I don’t care what the Bible says, an angel has told me that I am OK in my practices, though they conflict with the Bible.”  However, Paul wrote, “If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9).

Angels have been used to aid and protect man.  Angels aided Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21:14-21), and the Israelites during the Exodus (Exodus 14:16-20; 23:20-23; 32:30-35; 33:2; Numbers 20:15-16; Psalm 78:25), and David (Psalm 34:4-7), and Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego and Daniel (Daniel 3:23-25, 28; 6:22).  Angels aided and protected Jesus (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 22:42-43), and Peter (Acts 5:17-21; 12:5-10).

Angels have served as God’s army.  Cherubim guarded the tree of life (Genesis 3:24).  Angels brought destruction to Sodom (Genesis 19:1, 12-14), and Jerusalem (2 Samuel 24:15-16), and the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19:35-36), and Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:20-23).  Moreover, Angels will be involved in the judgment (Matthew 13:47-50; 25:31-32; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9).

Angels are with the righteous at death.  They carried the beggar to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22).  There is no mention of angels connected with the death of Lazarus (Luke 16:22).  Do the unrighteous have to die alone?

Angels are “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).  Wayne Jackson has written, “But how do angels accomplish these missions?  One may not conclude that this phenomenon is miraculous, because the New Testament clearly teaches that the age of miracles has been terminated (1 Corinthians 13:8-10; Ephesians 4:8-16).  Since the super-natural era is gone, and only God’s providential activity (i.e. the divine manipulation of natural law) remains, one must conclude, I believe, that God employs angels in the implementation of his providential will on behalf of his saints in today’s world.  This seems to be a reasonable conclusion, but beyond this we should not speculate” (christiancourier.com, Do Angels Minister to Christians Today?).

What Angels Do Not Do

There are times when angels intervened to get a preacher and a hearer together.  This is the case with the eunuch (Acts 8:26-27).  This is the case with Cornelius (Acts 10:1-8; 10:30-37; 11:12-14).  Jesus, Himself, appeared to Saul (Acts 9:1-6).  However, no heavenly messenger ever tells one, in the New Testament, what one must do to be saved.  The message is always delivered by men (Acts 8:26-40; Acts 22:6-16).  Do not wait for an angel or Jesus to appear to your friends or family and teach them the Gospel.  You do it.

Good angels do not accept worship from men.  John twice fell down before an angel and was corrected for such (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9).  God alone is worthy of such.

 

Posted in Angels, Death, God's Providence | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Angels (Part One)

Posted on October 22, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Angels are mentioned throughout the Bible.  They are mentioned in Genesis.  They are mentioned in Revelation.  The word “angel(s)” appear 285 times in the King James version (108 times in the Old Testament and 177 times in the New Testament).  The word appears in 35 books of the Bible (17 Old Testament books and 18 New Testament books).  Moreover, these counts have not considered other terms for angels such as: “sons of God” (e.g. Job 38:7; Daniel 3:35); “saints” or “holy ones” (e.g. Deuteronomy 33:2; Zechariah 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:13 cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:7); “hosts” (e.g. Joshua 5:14-15; 1 Kings 22:19; Psalm 103:20-21; 148:2; Luke 2:13; James 5:4 – “Sabaoth” means hosts).

Let us consider what the Bible teaches, and doesn’t teach concerning angels.

Characteristics

They are a part of God’s creation (Psalm 148:1-5; Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16).  They were created before man (Job 38:4-7).  Many angels exist (2 Kings 6:16-17; Matthew 26:53; Hebrews 12:22).

They are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14 cf. Luke 24:39).  Man cannot see these beings unless God makes such possible by opening the eyes of man (Numbers 22:31-ff; 2 Kings 6:16-17), or unless they appear unto man in human form (Genesis 18:1-3; 16, 22, 33, cf. 19:1-5).

Their existence is very different from man’s current state.  They are not subject to physical death (Luke 20:35-36).  They do not marry or give in marriage (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36).  They evidently are sexless beings, without reproductive ability.

They are powerful and excel in strength (Psalm 103;20).  An angel can shut the mouths of lions (Daniel 6:22).  An angel can destroy a mighty army (2 Kings 19:35-36 cf. 2 Samuel 24:15-16).  An angel rolled the stone back from Jesus’ tomb revealing an empty tomb (Matthew 28:1-8).  Angels “are greater in power and might” than man (2 Peter 2:11).

They are intelligent beings.  They have the ability to discern good and evil (2 Samuel 14:17).  They have awareness of what happens on earth (2 Samuel 14:20; 1 Corinthians 4:9).

They have limitations.  They are not omniscient (Matthew 24:36).  They are not omnipresent (Daniel 10:10-14, 20).

Misconceptions

They are not depicted in the Bible with halos.  “The halo, which has become associated with angels, was adapted from mythology.  Originally, the halo was rejected by the artists of Christendom because of its pagan origin.  It was not used to exemplify angels until about the fifth century A.D.  There is no mention of halos in the scriptural teaching” (Wynelle Main, An Investigation of Angels, p. 103).  “According to mythology, a radiant light surrounded the heads of gods and goddesses when they came down from Olympus… Because it originated in paganism, it was at first rejected by early Christian artists.  About the middle of the fourth century, however, the circle of light was used in depicting Christ.  It was used to represent angels about the fifth century, but was not used for Mary until the sixth century” (ibid, p. 126).

They are not depicted in scripture with a pair of wings.  Seraphim are depicted with three pair of wings (Isaiah 6).  Cherubim are depicted with two pairs of wings (Ezekiel 1, 10).  Angels are described as flying (Daniel 9:21; Revelation 14:6), but if and how many wings they have – the scriptures do not tell us.

They do not appear as women in the Bible.  When angels appear to man, they did so in the form of men.  The two angels who are named have masculine names: Gabriel (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19; 1:26), and Michael (Jude 9; Revelation 12:7).  The truth is they appear to be sexless beings (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:5; Luke 20:35-36).  Where did the idea of winged female angels originate?  Wynelle Main remarked, “We find a strong resemblance in the depiction of victory, and the feminine, beautiful winged angel.  Nike, the ancient Greek goddess of victory, is usually represented as a beautiful, winged woman” (ibid, p. 103).

Some think that dead saints become angels.  However, angels are a distinct creation, created before man (Job 38:4-7).  We’re told that we will in some ways be like the angels (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25 Luke 20:35-36).  We are not told that we will be angels.

There is a good lesson to be learned from these common misconceptions (and others which we could have mentioned).  We need to be careful Bible students.  Charles Hodge has written, “This error simply says that artists have influenced men more than scripture” (Hodge, Angels, p. 2).

Posted in Angels | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Self-Destructive Sting

Posted on October 19, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

A honey bee colony has three types of bees associated with it: the queen; the workers (females); the drones (males).  It is the worker bees which sting.  “A honey bee will sting when it perceives a threat to its hive, but when it’s away from the hive foraging, it will rarely sting unless someone steps on it or handles it roughly.  And when it does sting it dies.  A honey bee stinger is made up of two barbed lancets.  When the bee stings, it can’t pull the stinger back out.  It leaves behind not only the stinger, but also part of its digestive tract, plus muscles and nerves.  The massive abdominal rupture is what kills the bee” (earthsky.org).  Not all bees or wasps have this problem when stinging, but the honey bee does.

Some people are like the honey bee.  Their attitude and action toward others actually destroy them (physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually).  (1) Some harbor envy and hatred for others in their hearts.  The Bible says, “A sound heart is life to the body, but envy is rottenness to the bones” (Proverbs 14:30).  “Anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9).  S.I. McMillen has written, “Man doesn’t ever seem to learn that the high cost of getting even may be toxic goiter, strokes of apoplexy, and fatal heart attacks… The moment I start hating a man, I become his slave.  I can’t enjoy my work any more because he even controls my thoughts.  My resentments produce too many stress hormones in my body and I become fatigued after only a few hours of work.  The work I formerly enjoyed is now drudgery.  Even vacations cease to give me pleasure. It may be a luxury car that I drive along a lake fringed with autumnal beauty of maple, oak, and birch. As far as my experience of pleasure is concerned, I might as well be driving a wagon in mud and rain. The man hounds me wherever I go.  I can’t escape his tyrannical grasp on my mind.  When the waiter serves me porterhouse steak with French fries, asparagus, crisp salad, and strawberry shortcake smothered with ice cream, it might as well be stale bread and water.  My teeth chew the food and I swallow it, but the man I hate will not permit me to enjoy it…The man I hate may be many miles from my bedroom; but more cruel than a slave driver, he whips my thoughts into such a frenzy that my innerspring mattress becomes a rack of torture. The lowest of the serfs can sleep, but not I” (McMillen, None of These Diseases, pp. 68, 72).  “Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a fatted calf with hatred” (Proverbs 15:17).   (2) Some people allow their own words and actions to harm them.  “Hatred stirs up strife.  But love covers all sins” (Proverbs 10:12).  “The wicked is ensnared by the transgression of his own lips” (Proverbs 12:13).  “A soft answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1).  “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit” (Proverbs 18:21).  Be careful before you decide to sting!

Moreover, sometimes the fight is just not worth it.  S.I. McMillen tells of a grizzly bear that tolerated a skunk.  He writes, “There was only one animal the grizzly would allow to eat with him – a skunk.  Of course, the grizzly could have won in any fight with a skunk.  He resented the skunk and yearned to get even with him for his imprudence.  But he didn’t.  Why?  Because he knew that there would be a high cost of getting even” (McMillen, None of These Diseases, pp. 67-68). “An angry man stirs up strife” (Proverbs 29:22). Make sure it is worth it, before you get sprayed!

Posted in animals, envy, Ethics, Mental Health, Peace, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment