In The News: Hezekiah’s Seal

Posted on December 3, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“On Wednesday (December 2, 2015), archaeologists in Jerusalem announced the discovery of a rare biblical-era seal… According to Hebrew University, the inscription reads: ‘Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz King of Judah… the back side of the clay imprint of the seal had markings of thin cords that were used to tie a papyrus document (theatlantic.com).  “The bulla was found during excavations in 2009 but its significance was initially overlooked… only this year did Hebrew University archaeologist Reut Ben Arieh decipher the inscription on the seal impression and determine its significance” (timesofisrael.com).  This is not the first seal of Hezekiah to be found.  Dr. Eilat Mazer, the leader of the excavation said, “Although seal impressions bearing King Hezekiah’s name have already been known for the antiquities market since the middle 1990’s… this is the first time that a seal impression of an Israelite or Judean King has ever come to light in a scientific archaeological excavation” (inquisitr.com).

Sennacherib, King of Assyria, also mentioned Hezekiah.  British Colonel R. Taylor discovered Sennacherib’s annals (the Taylor Prism) in Nineveh in 1830.  It reads, “As for Hezekiah, the Judean who did not who did not submit to my yoke, I surrounded and conquered forty-six of his strong-walled towns and innumerable small settlements…” (Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 272). 

This is not the only King of Judah or Israel that has been discovered in Archaeology.  On August 6, 1993, it was announced, “An Israeli archeologist has discovered a fragment of a stone monument with inscriptions bearing the first known reference outside of the Bible to King David, and the ruling dynasty he founded, the House of David” (nytimes.com).  “The Tel Dan inscription, or ‘House of David’ inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.  The broken and fragmented inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean King over his two southern neighbors: The ‘King of Israel’ and the ‘King of the House of David’” (biblicalarchaeology.org).  “A ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah.  The Stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings.  In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the Son of Ahab, Ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was ruler over the ‘House of David’ or Judah.  These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters eight and nine of 2 Kings” (bible.org). 

Jehu, King of Israel, has been found by archaeology. Archaeologist Henry Layard discovered a large black stone (The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III), in the ancient Assyrian city of Calah, in 1945.  “The store was a four-sided polished black (obelisk) of black limestone 6 ½ feet high.  On each side panel of the obelisk were carved five registers of relief sculptures depicting various scenes of tribute brought to the Assyrian court… the big surprise came when the lines above one register showing a figure kneeling before the Assyrian King was translated: Tribute of Jehu, Son of Omri…” (Price, p. 77). 

Jehoiachin, King of Judah, has also been found in archaeology.  “Shortly before World War II Ernst Weidner worked in a Berlin Museum on many uninspiring and unpretentious cuneiform records of a storehouse of grain and oil found with the palace compound of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon (The Babylonian Rations Tablet, B.H.)… To Weidner’s surprise he found the name of King Jehoiachin of Judah, together with his five sons and their Jewish tutor, as the recipient of grain and oil on several of these documents in the year 592 B.C., five years after Jehoiachin’s exile had begun” (Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology, p. 20). 

These Kings were historical characters.  We’ve looked only at some of Israel and Judah’s Kings.  However, many of the people and places of the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology. 

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Tested, Part 1)

Posted on December 1, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Jesus… came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.  And great multitudes followed Him… The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” (Matthew 19:1-3).

How was this a test?  It was a test in at least three ways.  (1) It was a test of courage.  Herod Antipas governed this territory beyond the Jordan (Perea).  Herod Antipas arrested, and beheaded John because of what he taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  Would Jesus speak on this subject? If He did, would His words agree with John’s?  (2) It was a test of consistency.  Jesus had previously taught on this subject (Matthew 5:31-32).  John’s death came.  Would Jesus change His teaching?  (3) It was a test of character.  Multitudes were now following Jesus.  This subject was highly controversial.  Many agreed with Rabbi Hillel (d. 10 A.D.), who taught that one could divorce for small reasons, such as burning a meal.  Others agreed with Rabbi Shammai (d. 30 A.D.), who taught that one could divorce only for serious offenses, such as sexually immoral or indecent behavior.  Any answer had the potential of offending some in the multitude of Jesus’ followers.  Would He water down His answer to please the masses?

The Pharisees were trying to damage Jesus’ influence.  If He was inconsistent with John, they would expose this.  If He said anything that might anger Herod Antipas, they could report this to Herod.  If He was inconsistent with His earlier teaching, this could be exposed.  Moreover, the Pharisees knew that any answer Jesus gave had the potential of not pleasing some in the multitude.

Jesus was unlike many (cf. John 12:42).  He never compromised truth for the sake of popularity (cf. John 6:66-68).

“And He answered and said to them ‘What did Moses command you?’  They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.’” (Mark 10:3-4).

They were correct.  The Law of Moses did allow divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

However, what else did Moses write?  Had they considered God’s design for marriage?

“And he answered and said to them, ‘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 be 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).

Jesus returned to creation.  He quoted Genesis 1:27 in Matthew 19:4 and Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5.  He said in effect, “This is God’s ideal for marriage: one man and one woman joined together for life.”  They were focused on divorce.  Jesus wanted them to focus on God’s ideal for marriage.

Two words are interesting.  The word in verse 5 which is translated “joined” (NKJV), “cleave” (KJV), and “hold fast” (ESV) means “’to join fast together, to glue, cement,’ is primarily said of metals and other materials” (Vine’s).  God’s design was for a lasting bond to exist.  The word in verse 6 translated, “joined” means “to yoke together” (Vine’s).  God’s ideal is for the two to walk together as one unit.

“They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away?’  He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:7-8).

The Pharisees returned to the subject of divorce, and pressed Jesus for an answer on Deuteronomy 24.  They said, “Moses commanded.”  However, Moses had never commanded such.  He permitted it.  Oliver Green commented, “The law did not command a man to put away (even – B.H.) an unfaithful wife, but it did command that he give her a ‘writing of divorcement’ if he did put her away.” (Green, The Gospel According to Matthew, Vol. 4, p. 222).

Jesus replied that Moses (the Law of Moses) allowed divorce.  He allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. This was not a compliment.  Ancil Jenkins commented, “If divorce had not been allowed, two greater evils would have prevailed.  Some people would not have married, thus promoting immorality.  Others, not having an opportunity for divorce, would have killed their unwanted wives” (Jenkins, A Commentary on Mark, p. 101).  Such is possible.

However, “from the beginning it was not so.”  That is: Divorce was never God’s ideal for marriage.  The words, “it was not so” are from gegonen, which is in the perfect tense.  Roy Deaver provides a literal rendering – “but from the beginning it stands in the position of not having become thus” (Deaver, A Study of Matthew 19:9, p. 7).  God’s ideal for marriage has never been found in divorce.

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’  ‘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 they are no more two but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9).

God’s ideal for marriage is found in creation.  He created one man and one woman.  He planned for the two to be joined together in a lasting union, an enduring partnership.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Thrift Stores, Ringing Bells and Red Kettles

Posted on November 24, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The Salvation Army operates thrift stores.  These stores resell donated items such as clothing, furniture, household items, and toys.  They even have trucks which will pick up donated items from  your house.  The revenue is used to fund their Adult Rehabilitation Centers, known as ARCs.  Many kind, generous people give to these stores.

The Salvation Army is most visible during the Christmas shopping season.  Volunteers and paid workers stand in front of stores ringing their bells, soliciting donations into their red kettles.  Across the nation, there are about 25,000 bell ringers.  Many kind and generous people volunteer to ring the bells.  Many kind and generous people give to these red kettles.  Almost $145 million was raised in 2014.  The revenue is used for Salvation Army charity work and disaster relief in the local community from which the donations came.

However, many who volunteer to ring bells, and many who give to The Salvation Army do so, not realizing that they are contributing to the work of a religious organization.  The Salvation Army is not simply a community charity (as Goodwill now is. Though, Goodwill used to be a work of the Methodist Church).

The history of the organization starts in England.  William Booth was a Methodist minister.  “He came to the conclusion that the masses of the non-church goers could not be reached through methods of the churches, so he resigned his pastorate, he began the Salvation Army.”  (The New Standard Encyclopedia).  He formed the East London Christian Mission in 1865.  The name was changed to The Salvation Army in 1878.

The Salvation Army is a religious group (Mead, Handbook of Denominations).  It is organized on military lines.  It operates in 127 countries with a worldwide membership of 1.5 million (Wikipedia).

What is its purpose?  Wayne Jackson has written, “According to its charter issued in New York State in 1899, the Salvation Army is an organization… whose paramount purpose ‘is to lead men and women into a proper relationship with God'” (Jackson, An Analysis of the “Salvation Army,” christiancourier.com).  Booth wanted to provide “soup, soap, and salvation” (salvationarmy.org).

What do they believe?  They have an organization structure which is foreign to the New Testament (soldiers, corp officers, including – envoys, cadets,  lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenants colonels, colonels, commanders, commissioners, chief of staff, and a general).  They have a method of fund-raising which is foreign to the Bible (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  They accept women preachers (cf. 1 Timothy 2; 1 Corinthians 14).  They worship with mechanical instruments of music (cf. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).  They believe in Hereditary Total Depravity (cf Ezekiel 18:20).  They believe in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion (cf. Luke 8:11-15; Acts 2:2:36-38; 8:12-16; 19:1-6).  They do not baptize.  They do not think baptism is necessary for salvation (cf. Acts 2:38).  Salvation is by faith only ( cf. Mark 16:15-16; James 2:24). They do not observe the Lord’s supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).  They believe that external rituals are unnecessary and dangerous.

My advice?  We can be benevolent on an individual basis (e.g. Luke 10:25-37).  We can be benevolent through the church (e.g. Acts 4:34-37; 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 9:13).  We can be benevolent through others (e.g. Philippians 4:18).  However, may we never help empower false teachers, or an organization of false teachers (cf. Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 6:3, 5a; 2 John 9-11).  Let us not contribute to the Temple of Diana even if they do some deeds of kindness.  Let us do nothing which glorifies such organization that are in competition with the church.

Moreover, let us think beyond the physical.  Benevolence can help satisfy physical needs.  It can also open up opportunities to speak of spiritual needs (e.g. John 5:8, 14; Acts 3:6-7, 11-ff).  When we show kindness, it is an opportunity to tell others about why we do such.   It is an opportunity to tell others about Jesus.  It is an opportunity to tell others about Jesus.  It is an opportunity to address the fact that man has greater needs, spiritual needs.

Posted in denominations, Doctrine, Fellowship, Giving, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Let Us Give Thanks

Posted on November 22, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The book of Psalms is filled with expressions of thanks to God.  The words “thanks” and “thanksgiving” appear 30 times in the book of Psalms.  Nave’s topical Bible classifies 37 Psalms as Psalms which offer thanksgiving to God (9, 18, 21, 23, 30, 34, 36, 40, 46, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 81, 85,91, 98, 100, 103, 105, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 121, 124, 126, 129, 135, 136, 138, 144, 145, 146, 149,).  It subdivides this as follows: (1) Thanksgiving for goodness to (the nation of) Israel (21, 46, 65, 66, 68, 76, 81, 85, 98, 105, 124, 126, 129, 135, 149).  (2) Thanksgiving for the goodness to mankind (23, 34, 36, 91, 100, 103, 107, 117, 121, 145, 146).  (3) Thanksgiving for (specific) goodness to individuals (9, 18, 30, 34, 40, 75, 103, 108, 116, 118, 138, 144).  You will notice that some of the Psalms are placed into more than one subdivision.

Let’s consider these three points –

1.  National Thanksgiving. Israel was to be thankful because God chose them (Psalm 135:1-4).  He delivered them from Egypt (Psalm 66:6; 81:10; 105; 135:8-12; 136).  He protected them (Psalm 46; 124).  He brought them back from captivity (Psalm 85:1-2; 126).  He provided them with daily benefits (Psalm 68:19).  He provided them with food and water (Psalm 65:9-13; 136:25).

America is not God’s chosen nation.  We do not have the same relationship with God that Israel had.  Due to the nature of providence (cf. Esther 4:14; Philemon 15), we cannot with certainty know the role God played in founding this country; though, we do believe that He is providentially in control (cf. Acts 17:26).  There are many things we do not know.  However, we are told that it is He who “makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).  He gives us, “rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17).  It is “in Him we live we move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).  It is “in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).  We should be a thankful people.

2.  Individual Thanksgiving. Individual Israelites, as well as Gentiles (cf. Psalm 117), were to be thankful.  God made man (Psalm 100:1-3).  He led His followers to good (Psalm 23).  He cared for them.  He was forgiving and merciful (Psalm 103:2-3; 117; 145:8-9).  “Bless the LORD, O My soul, and forget not all His benefits: who forgives all your iniquities…” (Psalm 103:2-3a).  He was slow to anger (Psalm 103:8).  “He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:10).  He was fulfilling.  “He satisfies the longing soul with gladness” (Psalm 107:9).

All of these points are still true for man today.  He is responsible for our existence.  He wants to lead us to heaven.  He is longsuffering toward us (2 Peter 3:9).  His desire is for “all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

3.  Specific Thanksgiving. Consider the following: “You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; You have put off my sackcloth and clothed me with gladness… I will give thanks to You forever” (Psalm 30:11-12).  “I sought the LORD, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears” (Psalm 34:4).  “I called on the LORD in distress, The LORD answered me and set me in a broad place” (Psalm 118:5).  “In the day when I cried out, You answered me and made me bold with strength in my soul” (Psalm 138:3).

God does not always give us what we request (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).  Moreover, when He does give us what we request, it may take time (Romans 1:9-10 cf. 15:22-24).  He always knows best.

He does answer prayer.  Do we thank Him for the good that we see Him working on our lives?  “Count your many blessings, name them one by one, count your blessings, See what God hath done!  Count your blessings, name them one by one, and it will surprise you what the Lord hath done’ (Song: Count Your Blessings by Johnson Oatman Jr.).

Posted in Appreciation, God's Providence, psalms, Thanksgiving | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Sermon on the Mount)

Posted on November 19, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“It has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality (fornication, B.H.) causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32).

The context should be considered: (1) Jesus in this same sermon said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).  The Law would one day be abolished (Ephesians 2:15), that is – render inactive (Vine’s).  However, Jesus’ aim in this sermon was not to contrast Old Testament teaching and New Testament teaching.  (2) The context concerns the Scribes and Pharisees.  Jesus taught, “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).  This was primarily a contrast between what God wanted, and how the Scribes and Pharisees had perverted His message.  (3) Jesus taught some things which went beyond Old Testament teaching.  He taught that they should turn the other cheek, be willing to give up cloak, go the second mile, love their enemies, and practice The Golden Rule.

When a man divorced his wife, he was to do so with a certificate of divorce (Matthew 5:31 cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  The Scribes and Pharisees were correct on this point.

They were great on legal procedure, but was this all that mattered?  Had they considered what divorce did to women?  Had they actively tried to discourage divorce?  Many then, as now, did not think past civil legality.

Consider a wife  living in the first century.  Her husband decided to divorce her; even though, she had not been unfaithful to him.  What happens to this woman?  The man  “causes her to commit adultery” (NKJV, KJV), “maketh her an adulteress” (ASV), “makes her commit adultery (NASB, ESV).  A suggested literal rendering is: He causes her “to be adulterized.”  How does he do this?  Here are two suggestions:  (1) Some have suggested that the meaning is that she was by the divorce “stigmatized as an adulteress” (Lenski, The Interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, p. 232).  The difficulty with this view is that Israelites divorced for reasons other than adultery.  Why should she automatically be thought of as an adulteress? (2) A better suggestion may be found in her likely eventual remarriage.  Remember that it was very difficult for a woman, at that time, to support herself.  Donald Carson has written, “A woman so divorced found herself many times in practical necessity of remarriage to find support for herself…  She was under pressure to enter into a union which was illegitimate because she was not eligible to marry” (ed. Jim Laws, Spiritual Lectureship book: Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 362).  Wayne Jackson has commented, “Now the presumption is this: if a man just whimsically and capriciously throws his wife out – he divorces her – what will she likely do?  Go find another man!” (Jackson & Scott, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 34).

Moreover, what about the man who married this woman? Had these leaders thought about him. He was committing adultery by marrying this woman.  The present tense could be rendered “is committing adultery” or “keeps on committing adultery” (Jackson, p.35).

May we develop a concern for others.  May we consider how our action might affect others.  May our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, sermon on mount, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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