Seven Sayings From The Cross: Humanity

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

“I thirst” (John 19:28).  “My tongue cleaveth to my jaws” (Psalm 22:15).  Thirst was something which went with death by crucifixion.  “The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates.  Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of jagged wounds produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated by the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained position of the body and insufferable thirst (emphasis mine).  The wounds swelled about the rough nails and the torn and lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony.  The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued… Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain…” (I.S.B.E., Vol. 2, p. 761).

Jesus was human.  Lee Strobel quotes Craig Everns as saying, “How human was Jesus?  For a lot… The human side of Jesus is superficial.  It is almost as though a lot of Christians think of Jesus as God wearing a mask.  He’s sort of faking it, pretending to perspire, his stomach only appear to gurgle… he’s not really hungry.  In fact, he doesn’t really need to eat” (The Case for the Real Jesus, p. 61).  Jesus wasn’t faking it.  He was fully human.  He grew tired and weary (John 4:6).  He needed sleep (Mark 4:38).  He experienced hunger (Matt. 4:2) and thirst (John 4:6-7; 19:2).  He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).  Yes, he was God in the flesh; But, let us not forget that he was in the flesh.  He willfully experienced all limitations of being made like us (Romans 8:3; Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:17).  He “emptied” himself (Philippians 2:7 NASB).  He gave not up his deity; But he gave up the independent exercise of super-human and/or supernatural divine abilities.  While on earth his knowledge was limited (Mark 13:32).  The power behind his inspired speech and miraculous workings was not that he was God in the flesh.  The source was the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18-19; Matthew 12:26-28; Acts 10:38), the same source of the inspiration and power that was upon the apostles.  It was not until after the Holy Spirit came upon him that Jesus is said to know what was within man (John 2:25 cf. 1:47-48), and to begin to work miracles (John 2:11).

Jesus on the cross thirsted.  He was first offered wine mingled with myrrh, but upon tasting it he refused to drink (Mark 15:23; Matthew 27:34).  Myrrh was bitter. It is called “gall” in Matthew.  The mixture was a pain medication commonly offered to those being crucified.  Jesus was suffering for humanity.  This pain he refused to numb.  He later was offered a sponge of vinegar, of this he drank (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30).  There was no indication of this being mixed with any narcotic.

Jesus went through this for us!  He was fully human.  We should remember this when we feel like giving up: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endures such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.  Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin” (Hebrews 12:2-4).

Posted in Cross, Jesus, Seven Sayings From The Cross | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven Sayings From The Cross: Aloneness

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

The chronology:  (1) Jesus was with Pilate the sixth hour Roman time, or 6 AM (John 19:14).  Note: John used Roman time see John 20:19.  (2) Jesus was crucified the third hour of the day Jewish time, or 9 AM (Mark 15:25).  (3) The sky was darkened from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, or 12 PM ‘til 3 PM (Mark 15:33).  This darkness is acknowledged by first century historians such as Thallus and Phlegon (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, vol. 1, p 84).  Thallus explained it away as an eclipse of the sun.  Phlegon however pointed out that it occurred during the full moon.  He’s correct.  A new month started with a new moon.  Passover occurred on the fourteenth day of the month (Leviticus 23:5).  This would be the period of the full moon, making a solar eclipse by the moon impossible.  (4) He then died.

It was during, this period of darkness that he cried with a loud voice, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 cf. Psalm 22:1).

What do these words mean?  One thing I know is that it does not mean that Jesus thought the cross meant failure.  He clearly knew that the cross was in God’s plan (Matthew 16:21; 20:17-19; 26:26-28).  He endured what he did “for the joy that was set before him” (Hebrews 12:2).

1.  The common explanation is that God distanced Himself.  He is of purer eyes then to behold evil (Habakkuk 1:13).  Sin separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2).  Jesus was bearing the sum total of the sins of humanity.

Some have taken the position that Jesus literally became guilty of all the sins of the world based on the wording of 2 Corinthians 5:21. However, The word “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is actually a figure of speech (metonymy) the cause (sin) is being put for the effect (sin offering) [see Exodus 29:14 (the word ‘offering’ is not in the original, see ASV); Hosea 4:8 (‘sin’ here being used for sin offering); also Hebrews 9:28]. Jesus was a lamb without spot or blemish (1 Peter 1:18).  He is our great High Priest “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Hebrews 7:25-26).  He did not become literally guilty of sin.  He no more became guilty of sin than did the scapegoat of old (Leviticus 16:15 –ff; 16:20 – ff).

2.  Another view is that Jesus is asking for relief (Psalm 22:1-2).  However, none was to be found.  Thus taking the Psalm as a whole we have Jesus saying, “I know this will work out in the end; But God can’t I have just a bit of relief?”  This I believe to be the correct position.

3.  Yet, another view is that this is Jesus speaking from the viewpoint of people.  Jesus, before the eyes of men, looked forsaken (Psalm 22:7-8).  However, such was not the case (Psalm 22:23 –ff).  This view takes Psalm 22:1 as sarcasm.  William Cline wrote, “instead of Jesus complaining of being left alone, he was in fact declaring his total trust in God, and his confidence that his heavenly father would never forsake him” (4th Annual Shenandoah Lectures, p. 484).

Some think that Jesus was making another effort to reach some of these people.  The Bible wasn’t divided into chapters and verses at this time.  One way of referencing a Psalm was by quoting the first words of a Psalm.  Thus, it is thought that by Jesus using these words “My God, My God…..” he would be bringing their minds to consider the out-come of the Psalm, that he was not forsaken in the bigger picture (Psalm 22:24).

If this is what Jesus was attempting it didn’t work on some.  Perhaps, his speech was unclear at this point.  They said, “This man calleth for Elias (Elijah)” (Matthew 27:47, 49).  [Elijah you’ll recall was to appear before the Messiah (Malachi 4:5).  The reference is to John (Matthew 11:13-14), who came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17, cf. 2 Kings 2:15).  Moreover, Elijah himself did appear (Matthew 17:1-4)].

Conclusion

Whether one takes the position that Jesus was in some way forsaken by God (views 1 and 2) or that Jesus was just forsaken from the view-point of the people (view 3), one thing is clear.  Jesus endured much from the cross.  “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3; cf. Psalm 22:6).

Posted in Cross, Jesus, Seven Sayings From The Cross | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven Sayings From The Cross: Family

Posted on May 11, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Willard Cox has written, “since death by crucifixion was slow, the dying men had plenty of time to talk.  The language of these men was often ugly with bitter cursing, false cries of innocence and pleas for help.  While Jesus was on the cross He spoke seven times, but his words were different.  He spoke words of forgiveness, salvation, benevolence, atonement, humanity, completion and fellowship” (Seven Sayings of the Suffering Savior, intro).  Jesus spoke seven times from the cross and one of these had to do with his mother.

“When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’  Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his home.” (John 19:26-27).

The words to Mary, “Behold your son,” I think refers to John.  Paraphrase – “Mary, look at John. He will be your son.”

The words “Behold your mother,” are addressed to John.  Paraphrase – ” John, I want you to treat Mary as if she is your mother.”

Get this! Jesus is dying, but he is thinking of his mother.  He is in pain, but is thinking of her well-being. It is thought that Mary’s husband (Joseph) is already dead.  Her sons (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) and her daughters (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3) may have been unable to adequately care for her; or, it may be that they were rejected as care givers due to their present unbelief (John 7:5).  Whatever the case, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John.  John was a nephew to Mary (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40; cf. John 19:25).  John was evidently the closest disciple to Jesus.  Tradition says that John took care of Mary until her death twelve years later.

We too need to love our mothers.  We should honor them in tongue (Proverbs 31:28).  We should honor them in deed (I Timothy 5:8, 16).

Your mother nursed you, changed your diapers, perhaps taught you morals from the Bible, helped you with your school work, prepared food for you, shopped for your clothing and so many other things.  HONOR HER THIS AND EVERY DAY!

Posted in Cross, Family, Jesus, Seven Sayings From The Cross | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven Sayings From The Cross: Salvation

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Jesus wasn’t the only one being crucified on that day.  There were two others, one on each side of Jesus (Matthew 27:38).  They were thieves (KJV) or more literally robbers (NASB, NKJV, ESV).  A thief (kleptos) steals with stealth or speed.  A robber (lastas) does so by force.

While Jesus was upon the cross even these men,  both of them it seems,  mocked him (Matthew 27:41-44; Mark 15:32).  They too were dying, still they lashed out at him.

As time elapsed, one of these men, evidently,  had a softening of heart.  He acknowledged Jesus’ righteousness, and he and the other robber’s sin (Luke 23:39-41).  He even expressed faith in Jesus and his kingdom (Luke 23:42).

Jesus responded, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).  “Paradise,” as used here, does not refer to heaven itself; instead, it refers to the blissful side of hades (John 20:17; Acts 2:27).

The Jehovah Witnesses have a difficult time with a conscious existence without a body.  Thus, they punctuate the verse, “truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise” (NWT).  Such a reading seems odd.  One certainly finds passage in which Jesus says, “I tell you” (e.g. Luke 4:25; 9:27; 10:24; 12:51, 59; 13:3, 5, 27; 17:34; 18:8, 14; 19:40), or “I say unto you” (e.g. Luke 7:9, 14, 26, 28, 40, 47; 10:10, 12; 11:8, 9, 51; 12:4, 5, 8, 22, 27, 37, 44; 13:24, 35; 14:24; 15:7, 10; 16:9; 18:17, 29; 19:26; 21:3, 32; 22:16, 18, 37), but where is the passage when Jesus says, “I say unto you today, …..?”  I don’t find it.  I do find, however, Jesus saying that something would happen “today” [(e.g. Luke 19:9; 22:34) – Also notice Hebrews 3:15].  Furthermore, the scriptures do speak of a conscious existence, on the other side (e.g. Luke 18:19 –ff; 9:28 –ff; I Samuel 28:1 –ff).

Don’t miss the point. We see Jesus’ concern for others.  Moreover, we see his willingness to forgive.  What a lesson for each of us to learn!

Some have insisted that this teaches that one can be saved without baptism.  It does no such thing.  Consider the following points:

(1) How does one know that this one hadn’t been baptized?  Many of that land had been (Mark 1:4-5; John 4:1).  He could have been baptized, then returned to sin, but finally was repenting of his sins.  No one knows that he wasn’t baptized.  This man obviously knew something of Jesus, his character and his teaching concerning the kingdom.

(2) This man did not live under the new covenant.  It didn’t go into force until after Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9:15-17).  It was not until after Jesus’ burial and resurrection that it is stated, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”  (Mark 16:16).  Moreover, New Covenant baptism is into the death of Christ.  It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6).  Jesus had not yet done those things.

(3) While on earth Jesus forgave sin (Mark 2:10) with varying conditions (Luke 18:18–23; 19:8-10; Mark 2:1-11).  Even his conditions for healing varied (Matthew 9:27-30; Mark 7:31-37; 8:22-26; Luke 17:11-14; Jn 9:6-7 -cf.  Naaman 2 Kings 5).  He knew the hearts (John 2:25) and thus likely dispensed these things as he saw fit.  Once he died his covenant went into force.  His conditions are uniform for all.

(4) Why is it the case that people are quick to run to this situation?  The thief couldn’t come down and be baptized if he wanted to do such; yet folks who can be baptized used this as an excuse for themselves.

Posted in baptism, Cross, Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus, Old Testament/New Testament, Plan of salvation, Seven Sayings From The Cross | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seven Sayings From The Cross: Forgiveness

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

An injustice had been done.  An innocent man had been condemned to die a horrible death by crucifixion.  Humanity cruelly mocked, ridiculed, and laughed him to scorn while he was in pain and agony.  One could understand why such a man would be filled with anger, bitterness, and even hatred.

However, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34a).  The literal force of the imperfect tense suggests that He prayed this over and over. “Of all the seven sayings of Jesus from the cross three of them were prayers….. in this crucified condition Jesus could not use His hands to help the needy; they were nailed to the cross. He could not use His feet to walk through Samaria; they were pierced and fastened to the cross.  But Jesus could still do something:  His tongue was not pierced.  His mouth would work, so He prayed.  In that condition Jesus did what He could . . .  Jesus did not pray for himself.  He prayed for His enemies” (Willard Cox, Seven Sayings of the Suffering, Savior, p. 1).

This was completely consistent with His teaching.  He taught “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, and prosecute you” (Matthew5:44).  We all know that such is easier to say than to do.  Jesus practiced what He preached.

If you were in His position on the cross is this how you would have responded?  Do you and I still need to grow in our love for our fellow-man?  Likely so!

Let us ask the question: Was Jesus praying that they be forgiven right then and there, without any change at all?  I do not believe that Jesus was praying for such.  If He was, understand that God did not immediately wipe their sins away without conditions.  Though, He did provided them an opportunity for forgiveness less than two months later (Acts 2:36-38; 3:13-15; 17; 19).  Brother Tyler Young has written, “He was not asking God to clear them of all guilt regardless of whether or not they persisted in their treachery; He was expressing, a desire that God grant them opportunity to repent that they might be forgiven” (Tract; When Should I Forgive My Brother?; p.4).  I think this is correct.  God could have struck them dead on the spot for doing what they did.  However Jesus wanted them to have an opportunity to repent.  He knew that many had done what they did out of ignorance of the truth.

Another question:  Do we pray for others, even our enemies, as Jesus did?  I want to be more like Him; what about you?

Posted in Cross, Forgiveness, Jesus, Seven Sayings From The Cross | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Legal

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

There are well over a million lawyers in the U.S.A. (1,143,358 as of the end of 2007. Source: wiki.answers.com). There are more per capita here than anywhere. There are only about 954,000 physicians (www.wsj.com).

There are also many lawsuits in the U.S.A., over 16 million civil cases were filed in state courts in 2002 (www.sixwise.com). “Seventy-six percent of American obstetricians have been sued at least once” (Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics, p. 69). ” According to an article in the London Financial Times, June 22, 1991 of all the lawsuits that were filed around the world in 1988 and 1989, a staggering 94 percent were filed in the United States alone … current statistics from the American Bar Association show that if you live in California, and make more than $50,000 a year, there is almost a one-in-four chance that you will be sued” (Anthony Robbins, Await the Giant Within, p. 168).

Is this good? Some think so. It means that in America, wrongs can be redressed.

However, there are also negatives to our society of easy lawsuits. The ease of lawsuits has: (1) Diminished personal responsibility. Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s and won $2.9 million (later reduced to $640,000) after she spilt McDonald’s coffee and burned herself. (John Stossel, Give Me a Break, p. 165). “From the European perspective it seems that Americans are always looking for someone to blame when anything goes wrong” (Anthony Robbins, p. 468). (2) Increased medical procedures. Many doctors admit to running tests, that they feel are unnecessary, out of fear of lawsuits. This is called “defensive medicine” (Sowell, p. 70). “According to The Economist, ‘few clinicians think that babies get cerebral palsy because the obstetrician failed to deliver them by caesarean section.’ Yet ‘fear of being sued prompts doctors to perform unnecessary C-sections …’ Nevertheless, ‘a five-fold increase in C-sections in rich countries in the past three decades has brought no decrease in the incidence of cerebral palsy’” (Sowell, p. 69). (3) Increased everyone’s cost.  “In particular specialties, such  as  obstetrics  and neurosurgery, the cost of malpractice insurance can exceed $200,000 a year, in some places. These cost of course gets passed on to the patient, the government, or whoever is paying for medical treatments” (Sowell, p. 68).

Witnesses

I had been called for jury selection.  During jury selection, the prosecutor asked the group of anyone would be unable to convict if there were not at least two  eye-witnesses to the crime.  She said that some thought that the Bible taught such (Numbers 36:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15; Matthew 18:6; 1 Timothy 5:19, 22).  A few indicated that they could not convict without at least two eye-witnesses.  They were dismissed.

Does the Bible teach that unless there be two eye-witnesses, we shouldn’t convict?  The Old Covenant did demand two or more witnesses for conviction (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15).  The New Covenant does seem to demand the same (Matthew 18:6; 1 Timothy 5:19, 22).  I have heard that some Roman Catholic priests, and Jehovah Witness leaders have appealed to such when their churches question them about child molestation accusations.  Here is a point to remember: Evidence can serve as a witness (John 5:31-36; 1 John 5:9; 2 Peter 1:18-19).

The Bible teaches that one should not be convicted on the word of one individual.  There must be more evidence than one person’s word.  If the State accuses someone of something, and there is sufficient evidence to back up that accusation, then conviction is possible.  Eye-witnesses are not demanded.

Confidentiality

What if someone has confessed a crime to me (either already committed, or planned to be committed) confiding in me?  Should I reveal such to authorities?  What if I promised to keep such a secret?

The general teachings of the Bible is that we’re to be protective of others.  Consider the following passages: (1) “A talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13 cf. Leviticus 19:16).  (2) “Debate your case with your neighbor, and do not disclose the secret to another” (Proverbs 25:9 cf. Matthew 18:15-19).  (3) Love “bears all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). McCord’s reads, “throw a cloak of silence over what is displeasing in another.”  Arndt-Gingrich defines the word to mean, “to cover, to keep confidential”.  Steve Williams comments, “Instead of trying to broadcast all the dirt and filth we know about other people through gossip, let us speak to others the best we can.  Let us quietly work to help others correct their faults” (The More Excellent Way, p. 37-38).

However, there are times when things should not be kept covered.  (1) Legally, disclosure is demanded at times (Leviticus 5:1; Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Proverbs 29:24).  We are to be a law-abiding people (Romans 13:1-ff).  (2) Love for others demands disclosure at times (Matthew 7:12; Romans 13:8-10).  Imagine if disclosure could prevent terrorism, rape or murder – could one remain silent?  (3) Sometimes in order to help save a soul disclosure is necessary (Matthew 18:15-ff; 1 Corinthians 1:11; 11:18).

What if a promise of secrecy had been made?  (1) The Old Covenant taught that men should be careful in what they promise (cf. Ecclesiastes 5:5).  However, there was a provision for rash vows (Leviticus 5:4-6).  (2) Common sense seems to tell us that sins of the lips should not be magnified in action (or lack of action).  Illustration: If I swore to another that I would kill you, should I keep my word?  Or should I repent for swearing what I never should have sworn?  Illustration: If I swore that I never would attend the assembly of the church again, should I keep my word?  Or should I repent for saying such?  There are some things which never should be promised.

Oaths

You’re called to the witness stand.  You’re instructed to place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand.  Then, you’re asked, “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”  God is sometimes invoked as a witness to this oath.

This practice is ancient.  It goes back to at least medieval Europe.  The right hand was raised in medieval Europe because in medieval Europe felons were often branded on the palm of the right hand, and felons were disqualified as witnesses.

This tradition was carried over into our own country.  Zephaniah Swift (a founding father) said, “An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being that he who takes it will speak the truth, and an imprecation of His vengeance if he swears false” (David Barton, Original Intent, p. 33).  In the early days of this country some witnesses were rejected who did not believe in God (ibid).

However, some have religious problems with this legal custom.  This objection is based upon the following passages: Matthew 5:33-37; Matthew 23:16-22; James 5:12.

There are internal things in these passages which help us to understand the issue: (1) It is clear from Matthew 23, that the Jews viewed some oaths as binding and others as not binding (or at least not as strongly binding).  Guy Woods commented, “Some rabbis held that one was bound to tell the truth only when the names of Deity were mentioned… but if His name were not included in the oath any promise made one did not have to keep.  Thus, by trickery, and evasive methods, by skillful use of words, many in that day callously broke their promises and violated their oaths” (The Epistle of James, p. 289).  (2) James says, “do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath” (James 5:12).  The word “other” is “allos”, meaning “another of the same kind”.  Not all oaths are being forbidden but a certain kind of oath.  The words “heaven” and “earth” take one back to Matthew 23:16-22.

There are external things to consider: (1) God, under the Old Covenant, regulated oath taking (see Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21-23, etc).  Therefore, it can’t be that the Pharisees were being rebuked for taking oaths.  (2) God swears (Hebrews 6:13; Acts 2:30; Luke 1:72).  (3) Paul, under the New Covenant, swore (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8).

The term “swear” means to take an oath, to make a promise, to vow.  If all oath-taking is wrong, then what about: (1) marriage vows? (2) business loans/contracts?

The Government has wanted to remind society how serious it is to testify falsely.  They have wanted to remind man or God.  I have no problem with such; However, Christians should tell the truth regardless of whether he is sworn in or not.

Note: If you have conscientious objections to the process, there are now legal alternatives to the traditional oath.

 Suing

Let us consider, the ethics of brother suing brother.  The Corinthian brethren were rebuked for how they were handling issues which occurred between brethren (1 Corinthians 6:1-7). Some, it seems, thought that the primary place (even the first stop) to settle real or imagined grievances was in government courts of law.

Jesus had already spoken on how to handle a situation of personal sin between brethren (Matthew 18:15-17). Were they not involving brethren, as steps two and three required in Matthew 18, but instead relying upon the court? Did there issues involve sin? Not all difficulties or injuries between brethren involve sin. Example: A brother, literally steps on a sister’s toe, breaking it. Example: A sister accidentally backs her car into a brother’s car in the church parking lot. Example: A brother loans a brother a certain item. The item is stolen while in the possession of the borrower (I’ve seen all of these things take place). None of these examples involves a brother sinning against a brother. However, damage was done. Should brothers rush to court against brother?

Paul reasoned with the brethren at Corinth, saying: (1) There ought to be someone within the congregation who can help settle a difference between brethren (1 Corinthians 6:5). At least some at Corinth prided themselves in their wisdom (see 1 Corinthians 4:10; 10:15; 2 Corinthians 11:19). If they were so wise, then couldn’t they handle some of these issues in the church? (2) There ought to be more wisdom in the church, than there is in a non-believing Roman judge (1 Corinthians 6:4). J.W. McGarvey commented: “If called on as a church to judge any matter, would you choose its simpletons and numbskulls as judges? I ask this to make you ashamed, for you do even more foolishly when you submit your cases to worldings…” (Thes. Cor., Gal., Rom, p. 75). (3) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world and angels? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). The words “do you not know …” seems to be Paul chiding them for their self-appraised wisdom (1 Corinthians 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19). How will we judge the world and angels? (a) Some think that Christ actually will allow us to take part in the final judgment. I know of no clear passage which teaches such. (b) It probably is a reference to the fact that the message which we believe, obey, and proclaim is the message by which man will be judge (cf. Romans 2:16). Moreover, it is a message which declares judgment upon certain angels (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6). (c) It could be a reference to our example which condemns the lack of proper response in others (cf. Hebrews 11:7; Matthew 12:41-42). The passage is difficult. The point isn’t. You should have enough wisdom to properly handle these type issues. (4) Some of these lawsuits are frivolous or even attempts to cheat another (1 Corinthians 6:8). (5) If you have been wronged, why not bear the wrong (1 Corinthians 6:7)? Sometimes it is better to suffer the loss [obviously, we’re not speaking of a situation which would result in a man being unable to provide for his family (1 Timothy 5:8)]. It is better to suffer a loss than to destroy harmony in the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 1:27; 2:1; Hebrews 12:14; Romans 12:19). It is better to suffer loss than to endanger a brother’s soul (Romans 14:20-21; 1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:33-34).  It is better to suffer loss than to bring reproach on the body of Christ [it seems to me that this was a great concern of Paul’s in this book. Their behavior was dimming the light of the Gospel. The church was: (a) Divided (1 Corinthians 1:2; cf. John 17:20-23); (b) Tolerating shocking sin that even the non-Christian wasn’t typically engaged (1 Corinthians 5:1; cf. Romans 2:24); (c) Worshipping in such a manner that others would think of them as mad (1 Corinthians 14:23). (d) Suing one another (1 Corinthians 6:1-ff; cf. John 13:35; 1 Corinthians 13:4-ff)].

Does this passage (1 Corinthians 6) forbid all usage of the judicial system to settle differences between church members? I do not believe that it does. Consider the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (Matthew 19:9). How could this issue possibly be handled within the church alone? If one remarries (even if the church says that it’s permitted) without a court declaration of divorce, the government calls such bigamy. Bigamy is a crime. Aren’t we to obey the laws of the land? This illustration should help us to see that not all usage of the judicial system is in view.

However, while this passage may not forbid the use of the court system in every circumstance; it does teach a clear point. We are to seek to handle disputes between brethren within the church.

Meditate on the following:

1. John 13:35—“By this all will know that you are my disciples. If you have love for one another.”

2. Romans 12:18—“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.”

3. 1 Corinthians 13:4-ff—“Love suffers long and is kind … is not provoked …”

4. Hebrews 12:14— “Pursue pence with all people, and holiness, without which no one will sue the Lord.”

5. Philippians 4:5— “Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men (NASB).

Note:The purpose of this ethics series has not only been to provide ethical answers to modern problems, but also to remind us of certain things.  Things like: (1) Every issue should be tested by the scriptures (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22).  (2) The Bible contains the answer to issues affecting every area of life.  (3) The Bible, in principle, speaks to even modern-day concerns.

Posted in Church discipline, Ethics, Stats, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Medicine

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

There are many advantages to living in twenty-first century America.  “It was not very long ago, as history is measured, when such things as oranges or cocoa were the luxuries of the rich and when it was considered an extravagance for the President of the United States to have a bathtub with running water installed in the White House.  Within the twentieth century such things as automobiles, telephones, and refrigerators went from being luxuries of the rich to being common among the general population” (Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 47).  Today, “Two-thirds of the statistically defined ‘poor’ have air conditioning, more than half own a car or truck.  More than one-fourth of ‘the poor’ own two cars and/or trucks and hundreds of thousands own hands costing more than $150,000” (ibid, p. 54).

One of the amazing things about living in twenty-first century America is health/medical care.  It wasn’t too long ago that it was unusual for one to keep his teeth till old age [When George Washington took office in 1789, he had only one natural tooth remaining (www.americanrevolution.org/dental)].  It wasn’t too long ago that smallpox was a dreaded disease [Dr. Edward Jenner made the first smallpox vaccination on May 14,1796 (John Tiner, Exploring The History of Medicine)].  Treatments now available were unknown to previous generations. Wonderful advancements have been made in medicine.  It wasn’t too long ago, that rabies meant certain death [The year 1885, Joseph Meister became the first human being vaccinated for rabies.  He escaped death (John Hudson Tiner, Exploring The History of Medicine, p. 102-106)].  Infant mortality and maternal mortality has greatly improved [CDC: “At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year.  From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less that 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births” (www.cdc.gov)].

However, medical advancements have brought ethical concerns.  Let us consider some…

Use of Medical Treatment

“In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe; yet in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12).  Does this verse suggest that it is wrong to seek the help of physicians?

Don’t overlook the context.  Asa (King of Judah) had a habit of immediately turning to men for help, instead of seeking the help of God.  (1) He made a treaty with Ben-Hadad (King of Syria) for protection from Baasha (King of Israel).  The prophet Hanani rebuked him, “Because you have relied on the King of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God… therefore, from now on you shall have wars (2 Chronicles 16:7, 9).  (2) He turned to physicians, and not God when sick (2 Chronicles 16:12).  “It was not because Asa relied upon human means of medical treatment… it was because he turned away from God entirely in all matters” that these words appear (Eddie Whitten, The 12th Annual Denton Lectures: Studies in 1, 2 Kings and 1, 2 Chronicles, p. 421).

Keep in mind the following: (1) The Bible contains examples of the use of midwives (Genesis 35:17; 38:28; Exodus 1); (2) Jesus said that the sick are the ones who need a physician (Matt. 9:12); (3) Luke is referred to as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14).  (4) Paul instructed Timothy to turn to a physical remedy  (1 Timothy 5:23).

It is not wrong to seek medical help.  However, may we never get to the point that we stop relying upon God.

Use of Anesthesia

Prior to the mid-1800’s, dentists and surgeons operated with speed.  Operations seldom lasted more than five minutes.  A leg bone could be sawed through in a minute or less.  Speed was essential due to a lack of our modern anesthetics.

Is it permissible to use chemicals to reduce, or remove pain?  Consider the following: (1) God put Adam asleep before removing one of his ribs (Genesis 2:21).  James Simpson (a 19th century M.D. in England) said, “Here is the first surgical operation.  God Himself chose to perform it with the patient under anesthesia (Tiner, p. 55-57).  (2) The Proverbs say, “Give strong drink to him who is perishing” (Proverbs 31:6).  (3) Paul told Timothy, “use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Timothy 5:23).  This may not be specifically speaking of anesthesia .  However, it is speaking of the use of chemicals for the sake of infirmities.

Birth Control

One one hand: The relationship between a husband and wife is not restricted to reproductive purposes (Proverbs 5:15-21; 1 Corinthians 7:2-5).  Couples are to continue to be together except by mutual “consent for a time, that (they) may give (themselves) to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that satan does not tempt you” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

On the other hand: There are certain considerations.  (1) There is the well-being of the children to consider.  God holds parents responsible for the physical and spiritual  well-being of the children (1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 6:1-4).  Thus, parents should not have more children than they can properly provide care.  (Remember Octomom?  She had eight children born following in-vitro fertilization.  She had six other children, for a total of fourteen children.  She had no husband.  She had no means of personally supporting her children.  Still, she chose to add more children.  Such is wrong!).  (2) There is the well-being of the wife to consider.  Are additional children wise? Can the woman bear another child without serious danger to her health?

These things considered, birth control makes logical sense.  Birth control has existed before modern birth control methods.  Breastfeeding, for example, has been used to control family size [The average return of mense is 14 months after childbirth for breastfeeding women.  Some return as late as 42 months postpartum (Wikipedia)].  Israelite women did not wean their children until age three (see A. Clark on Gen. 21:8.   Also 2 Maccabees 7:27.  Also 2 Chronicles 31:16).  Islamic women did not wean before age two (Koran 31:14).

Some have thought birth control is sinful based upon Genesis 38:9-10.  The sin of Onan was not in the general practice of birth control.  His sin was in violating the Levite law.  Coffman’s Commentary reads “The verbs… thus indicating, not a single act, but a long sustained purpose… Onan persistently and maliciously cheated Tamar of her legal rights.”  Wesley Simons has written, “Onan wanted all the pleasure that came with the sexual act, but he did not want to give seed to his brother.  The very reason for him knowing Tamar intimately was to raise up seed to his brother (2001 MSOP Lectures, p. 362)  The Levirate law was also a part of Moses’ law (Deut. 25:5-10; Matt. 22:23-28).  The purpose was to preserve the family inheritance and seedline.

A word on RU-486, or the ‘morning after’ pill.  This pill became available in the U.S. in September, 2000.  This pill is not mere birth control.  It is an abortion pill.  It changes the lining of the womb through hormones so that the week old embryo cannot implant.  Thus, the fertilized egg dies.

IVF

Louise Joy Brown was born July 25, 1978.  She was the first successfully produced child by in vitro fertilization.  In vitro is Latin meaning “in glass”.  The process is this: (1) Hormones are injected into the woman causing “superovulation” – the release of multiple eggs.  (2) Approximately 32 hours after the injection the eggs are taken from the womb and fertilized outside the womb.  (3) After two or three days the fertilized egg or eggs are returned to the woman’s womb.  This process has aided many otherwise infertile couples in having children.

The ethical difficulty is this: While multiple eggs may be fertilized, not all will be implanted due to the number of fertilized eggs.  The unused eggs are either discarded, or frozen indefinitely for possible future use.  Either way, there is a real ethical problem if life begins at conception (and it does!).

Blood Transfusion

In 1818, Dr. James Blundell performed the first successful blood transfusion of human blood (Wikipedia). Some have wondered about the ethics of such based upon  what the Bible teaches about the eating of blood [Acts 15:20; 21:25 cf (a) patriarchal Genesis 9:4. (b) Mosaic Leviticus 17:10-11; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23].

Things to remember: (1) Eating blood  and receiving a blood transfusion are different.  Randy Mabe explains, “Food is transformed by the process of the body into elements that energize the body.  A blood transfusion simply replaces blood that has been lost…  The argument is that food may be administered to the sick by way of intravenous injection… Therefore blood transfusions are food… This is fallacious because blood can only be used for food when taken through the digestive system… To illustrate… two dying people are admitted to the hospital.  One is dying of malnutrition.  The other has severe blood loss.  Both are given blood transfusions.  Which one will surely die?  The one starving for food (2002 Spring Bible Lectureship, p. 248-249).  (2) God has told men to “subdue the earth” (Genesis 1:28).  We should wisely use what exists in the physical realm.  (3) Paul speaking of the Galatians love for him said, “If possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me” (Galatians 4:15).  It wasn’t possible.  However, it is possible for us to give blood to save another’s life.

Organ Transplants

The first successful living-related kidney transplant occurred between identical twins in 1954.  The first successful cadaveric kidney transplant occurred in 1962.  The first successful lung transplant occurred in 1963.  The first successful liver transplant occurred in 1967.  The first successful heart transplant occurred in 1967.

Organ transplant has become fairly common.  There were 25,076 organ transplants performed in the U.S.A. in 2003; However, the number on the waiting list that year was 89,012.  More than 50,000 Americans were on the waiting list for kidneys, while only about 12,000 kidneys were available to be transplanted (Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics, p. 85).

Through the years, a number of xenotransplants (animal to human transplants) have occurred.  In 1984 “Babe Fae” received a baboon heart.  She lived only twenty days.  Most xenotransplants have been disappointing.  Pig-heart valves have been used in humans since 1970 with success.

What should a Christian think? (1) The basic points from “blood transfusion” should be reviewed.  (2) Wayne Jackson writes, “There does not appear to be any violation of biblical truth in the utilization of either plant or animal substances for the enhancements of human health.  In fact, a proper use of such things may be a part of our responsibility to ‘subdue the earth’ [(Genesis 1:28) Animal/Human organ Transplants, Reason and Revelation, Vol. XIII, No. 3, 1993].

Cloning

Cloning is a process of a-sexual reproduction that results in an exact genetic duplication of the original.  It does not reproduce the same person, but it does reproduce the same genetic composition.

There are many potential benefits to cloning technology.  Agricultural benefits include such things as: (1) better producing, better tasting milk cows; (2) greater grain harvest; (3) more drought resistant crops.  In these areas there is no Biblical problem.  God has given dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:24-26; Psalm 8:5-8).

The ethical concerns are as follows: (1) Women could reproduce without men (e.g. Lesbian couples; single women).  Let us not forget that God arranged the ideal home with a husband and wife in it.  (2) Clones could be created to be used for medical reasons, such as medical experimentation, Wayne Jackson has written, “Between 1932 and 1972, the United States Public Health Service, working at various times with the Alabama State Department of Health, and other agencies deliberately withheld treatment from more than 400 black men who were suffering from Syphilis.  They were duped into cooperating with the health program they believed was helping them.  The experiment has since been described as ‘science gone mad’” (Biblical Ethics and Modern Science, p. 30-31).  Some would do similar things with the cloned.  On organ harvesting – some already distinguish between “human cloning” (cloning designed to reproduce a human who lives a normal life) and “therapeutic cloning” (Cloning designed to reproduce for the purpose of harvesting body parts).  Things to remember: (a) The sanctity of life (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:8-10).  (b) The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12; Romans 13:8-10).

Stem Cells

Every cell in your body contains information for every other body part.  However, cells specialize.  For example: There are blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells, and bone cells.

A stem cell is a cell which hasn’t specialized.  It can still be used for any body part, tissue or organ.

Scientists are interested in stem cells for their potential medical benefits.  They could be used to re-grow brain tissue.  They could be used to regenerate skin in treating burns.  They could be used to re-grow the heart muscles following a heart attack.  They could be used to make new corneas.

Stem cells can be gathered from: (1) Fetus being aborted.  (2) “Extra embryos” from IVF.  (3) Umbilical cord blood.  (4)  Adult bone marrow.  (5) Adult body tissue that has been stressed via chemicals, or radiation (such stress call cause a cell to return to on unspecified state).  Globs of fat recovered from liposuction can be easily returned to an unspecified stem-cell state.

The use of stem cells have already benefited some.  “Umbilical cord blood (UCB) stem cells have restored felling and some mobility to a woman who had been paralyzed with a spinal cord injury for 19 years (Wesley Smith, Umbilical Accord, The Weekly Standard, Dec. 12, 2005).  “Based on the published science there are 72 maladies for which human patients have received some benefit from adult stem cells or Umbilical cord blood interventions.  Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use” (Wesley Smith, The Great Stem Cell Coverup, The Weekly Standard, Aug. 7, 2006).

Medically, there is difficulties still with embryonic stem cell use.  They cause “dangerous tumors” (Wesley Smith, 2005).  “They seem to be too flexible.  They can’t be controlled.  There’s a tendency to grow into a cancerous mass” (Stuart Shepherd, Stem Cells Found in Adult Blood quoting from David O’Steen of the National Right to Life Committee.  This article was ran in my May 17, 2002 bulletin).

Ethically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the use of stem cells gathered from numbers three, four or five on our source list.  However, not all are content to being confined to these options.  This is the case because: (1) The use of numbers one and two from our source list would greatly increase supply.  (2) Some believe that embryonic stems will eventually prove to be more versatile, and flexible in their use.

Ethically the first two sources are a problem if life begins at conception.  And it does!

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, science, Stats, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 5)

Posted on April 28, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

America is rare. Few countries in the history of the world have afforded so much opportunity to its citizens to select its leaders. This brings much responsibility. It is said that a lady asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” The response, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” James A. Garfield said, “People are responsible for the character of Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities… If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.” The Bible reads, “unto whomsoever much is given of him shall be much required (Luke 12:48b).

Principles by which to vote.

1. Character does matter.

God’s instructions in selecting Israel’s judges: “You shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…” (Exodus 18:21).

God’s instructions in selecting church leaders: (a) Elders—“not a novice” (1 Timothy 3:6). (b) Deacons—“let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless” (1 Timothy 3:10). Both of these verses teach that God wanted these men to have a proven track record.

2. Respect for God should be considered.

God’s instructions in selecting Israel’s judges: “You shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God…” (Exodus 18:21).

We should want leaders who understand that they are accountable to a higher power, the Almighty God. This accountability is emphasized in the Biblical record: Exodus 23:6-7, “You shall not pervert the judgment of your peer in his dispute. Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and the righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.” 2 Chronicles 19:6-7, “take heed to what you are doing for you do not judge for men but for the Lord… Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you…” Psalm 82 reminds judges that one day they will themselves be judged. All men, small and great, are accountable to Him (Revelation 20:12).

3. Desire for and discernment of truth is important.

A good leader will not surround himself with sycophants (“yes men”) who will tell him only what he wants to hear. “Righteous lips are the delight of kings, and they love him who speaks what is right” (Proverbs 16:13). “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6; also see, Proverbs 26:28; 29:12).

4. One should care for the poor and weak of society.

David said of Solomon, “He will judge Your people with righteousness, And Your poor with justice… He will bring justice to the poor of the people. He will save the children of the needy, And will break in pieces the oppressor… For He will deliver the needy when he cries, The poor also, and him who has no helper. He will spare the poor and needy, And will save the soul of the needy” (Psalm 72:2, 4, 12, 13). Also read, Psalm 82:2-4.

5. Judges should be fair.

Judges should not favor the rich over the poor, or the poor over the rich (Exodus 23:3, 6; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 16:18-19; Psalm 82:2-4). Judges should “judge righteously” (Proverbs 31:9). “The idea of impartiality in the law, exemplified by statutes of justice blindfolded, implies that particular results for particular individuals and groups are to be disregarded when dispensing justice…… (It should not say B.H.) ‘First tell me who you are and then I’ll tell you what your rights are’” (Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 186).

Judges should not take bribes (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19; 1 Samuel 8:1-3, 12:3; 2 Chronicles 9:6-7; Proverbs 17:23; Isaiah 5:23; 33:14-15; Amos 5:12), neither should other officials (Proverbs 29:4). The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) should be applied.

6. Law-makers should make just laws.

Laws should be made for the good of society (Romans 13:4) and not for some self-serving interest, or to commit legal robbery (Isaiah 10:1-2 cf. Matthew 7:12).

7. The Government should protect its citizens.

Concerning the kings of old: (a) David said, “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land” (Psalm 101:8 ESV). (b) Solomon would, “Save the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight” (Psalm 72:13-14 ESV). (c) “A wise king winnows the wicked and drives the wheel over them” (Proverbs 20:26 ESV cf. 20:8).

Government is to be “God’s minister to you for good … an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rev. 13:4). While it is true that it may not be feasible or even possible to make laws against every sin, governments should be striving to protect citizens against violence and molestation.

8. It’s not “the economy stupid”.

The economy should not be all that matters. The physical conditions of Israel improved under Jeroboam II, yet God wasn’t impressed (2 Kings 14:23-29). The Bible records “he did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kings 14:223-24). Mussolini made the trains run on time. Is such all that matters? “Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues without justice” (Proverbs 16:8).

Having said this, a good ruler will consider economic issues. It was a burdensome tax rate that led to a revolt in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Unwise economic policies hurt people. Millions have even died because of such.

9. Does the candidate value God’s design for the home?

God designed the home (Genesis 1-2). It was set up with one man and one woman.

There is an all out assault against God’s plan occurring today. Some would redefine marriage to include two of the same-sex. If this is allowed, then polygamy will not be far behind.  There are some advocating group marriages .

10. Does the candidate value the sanctity of life?

The ethics of abortion and euthanasia were earlier studied. The position of our politicians on those issues could become much more important under a national health care plan.

11. How does the candidate view man’s relationship to the environment?

Does this one understand that we are to be good stewards? Does this one understand that God has given man dominion and use of His creation? Does this one understand that man is superior to animal?  These are questions to ask.

12. Reflect upon the following passages:

(a) “When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people moan” (Proverbs 29:2).

(b) “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

Don’t leave God behind at the polls.

Posted in Ethics, Government, stewardship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 4)

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

This world is filled with evil, and it can be a very dangerous place. April 04, 1965: U.P.I. reported, “For the past 5,500 years, the world has known only some 300 years of peace. Since 3,600 B.C, there have been more than 14,000 large and small wars in which 3.5 billion people have been killed” (Alan Isbell, War and Conscience, p. viii). Do governments have the right, even the duty, to protect their citizens from violence and molestation?

Pre-Moses

Genesis 14: A confederation of kings from the east invaded the area around the Salt Sea. Goods were plundered. Lot, Abram’s nephew, was abducted along with others. Abram took 318 of his servants (14:14), and certain allies (14:13 cf. 14:24) and went after these invading kings. An attack was made by night. Lot was liberated and the goods regained (14:13-16). In this case, a righteous man took military action against aggressors.

Moses

Self-defense: “If the thief is found breaking in and is so struck that he dies, there shall be no blood quilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him there shall be blood quilt for him” (Exodus 22:2-3a ESV). The E.S.V. Study Bible comments, “This condition distinguishes between what is permissible retaliation when a thief is caught breaking in during the night (v. 2) vs. during the day (v. 3). The stipulation protects both the one who is surprised by a thief at night (v. 2) and the thief himself, who could be identified during the day and should be brought to the judges for punishment (vv. 3b-4). It is evident that the law of Moses recognized the right of a man to defend himself and his property with force, even with deadly force under certain circumstances.

The death penalty was a part of the law [see Ethics: Government/Citizenship (Part 3)]. Robert Morey has written, “If five men acting in a group murder one victim, all five deserve to die. The death penalty can thus be legitimately applied to armies which are invading, raping, robbing, beating, and killing. It makes no difference in principle whether an army or an individual is guilty… Once we admit the justice of killing a murderer for his crimes, then, in principle, we will have to admit the justice of destroying an entire army” (When is it Right to Fight, p. 22).

All is not fair in love and war. [Let’s dismiss the war the Israelites were to carry on with the Canaanites (God ordered the Israelites to be his instrument of wrath on the Canaanite people, much as the Great Flood was upon the ancient world)]. Here was God’s rules of warfare for the Israelites: (1) Cities (with the exception of the Canaanites) were to be provided opportunity to surrender (Deuteronomy 20:10-18). (2) There was to be no scorched earth policy (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). Moreover, we know that unjust practices were frowned upon by God earlier in history (Genesis 34:6-30a cf. 49:5-7): (a) Shechem alone was guilty, not the entire people. (b) They lied to those people.

God at times instructed the children of Israel to go to war, even against non-Canaanites (see Judges 20:18, 23, 28). God could never order what is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, war itself must not be intrinsically immoral.

New Covenant

Acts 23: A band of more than 40 Jews conspired to assassinate Paul. They vowed that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul (Acts 23:11-15). Some way, this plot became known to Paul’s nephew ([(Acts 23:16). Was this discovery by God’s providence? List of plots discovered in the book of Acts: (1) Acts 9:23-24; (2) Acts 14:5-6; (3) Acts 20:3; (4) Acts 23:16-ff; (5) Acts 27:30-31]. Paul appealed to the government for protection (Acts 23:17-22). A change of venue occurred. A total of 470 men were involved in moving Paul [(Acts 23:23). This included: (1) 200 foot soldiers; (2) 70 horsemen; and (3) 200 spearmen]. All of these men escorted Paul out of Jerusalem and for a distance of about 40 miles to Antipatris. The 70 horsemen continued on escorting Paul another 26 miles to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-25).

Paul also recognized the government’s right to wield the sword (Romans 13:4). It’s to be an instrument “for good” (Romans 13:4). This passage is not dealing with the subject of war. However, it does indicate the government’s right to use force to keep peace and protect citizens.

Three Views

1. Some believe that the use of force is unauthorized. They believe that God uses modern governments, just as He did Nebuchadnezzar, without approving of their deeds. It is true that such is the case with Nebuchadnezzar (Habakkuk 1:5-11; Jeremiah 25:9 cf. 25:12). However, nothing in the context of Romans 13 indicates that what the government does is evil.

2. Some believe that the use of force is authorized for the government, but not for the Christian. The difficulty with this view is amenability. Aren’t all amenable to the same standard? This setting of the government on one side and Christians on another seems difficult to argue. The Bible is filled with examples of righteous men and women working in government: (1) Patriarchy—(a) Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18); (b) Joseph (Genesis 41:41-ff; Acts 7:10). (2) Mosaic System—(a) Daniel (Daniel 6:1-3); (b) Esther (Esther 2:17; 4:13); (c) Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:11b-ff; 5:14). (3) New Covenant—(a) Erastus (Romans 16:23): (b) There is nothing said about a centurion or a jailor being told to leave their jobs (Acts 10-11, 16).

3. Some believe that the government is authorized to use force, and that the Christian may be a part of this. All men are amenable to the same standard of God.

Thoughts

1. We are to be a peace-loving people. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you. Live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Also read, Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 5:9.

2. We are to be long-suffering. “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39). Slapping one on the face does not represent a life-threatening situation, or even, necessarily bodily injury. Robert Morey writes, “Jesus specifically referred to the right check as being slapped instead of the left cheek because the slap of the right cheek by the back of the left hand was a personal insult and not an act of violence done in context of war. Slapping the right check was not a life-threatening attack. It was a personal insult, like spitting in someone’s fact” (p. 45).

3. As Christians, people who want to please God, we should be very careful in what we involve ourselves. Some wars involve a clear evil aggressor and an innocent people. Many other wars involve murky situations, and circumstances in which it is not so easy to discern the good guy from the bad guy. Moreover, one’s own countries propaganda and the truth may be two different things. We should: (a) Be cautious about putting ourselves under another’s control (1 Corinthians 7:21-23); (b) Not violate our conscience (Romans 14:23).

4. Governments should protect their people. This means bearing the sword. John F. Kennedy said, “We dare not tempt them with weakness” (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 256).

Posted in Ethics, Government, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 3)

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Governments pass laws. Ideally, the purpose of these laws should be for society to have greater peace, protection, and order. Some of these laws concern non-Biblical issues (example: traffic laws). Such laws, when passed, do become laws which God expects us to follow (Romans 13:1-2; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Other laws concern matters on which the Bible also directly speaks (example: murder).

Governments are authorized by God to punish those who violate their laws (Romans 13:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thomas Hobbes has listed five categories of punishment used by man: (1) Corporal—that is, bodily punishment. This includes capital punishment. The word capital has to do with the head being removed. It has been more generally used for the death penalty, no mater the method of death. (2) Pecuniary—that is, the deprivation of a sum of money, or property. (3) Ignominy—that is, the removal of badges, titles, offices and the like. (4) Imprisonment—that is, deprivation of freedom of movement, the restriction of movement. (5) Exile—that is, forced departure out of the land, or a portion of it. (Leviathan, chapter 28). Governments have historically used all of these methods to punish lawbreakers. Capital punishment has been used to punish violators of the most serious of crimes.

Many governments no longer use capital punishment. Wikipedia indicates that: “58 countries maintain the death penalty in both law and practice; 95 have abolished it; 9 retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war); 35 permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions or is under a moratorium.” Thirteen states/territories in the U.S.A. are without the death penalty option: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia is also without this option (www.clarkprosecutor.org. This list is as of April 1, 2008).

What should the Christian think about the death penalty? What does the Bible say on this subject, and particularly, what does the New Covenant say?

1. The Old Covenant prescribed the death penalty for 23 offenses. Let’s divide these offenses into the following broad categories: [A.] Serious crimes against others—(1) murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-21); (2) rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). (3) kidnapping (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7); (4) False testimony that could result in the death of another (Deuteronomy 19:16-19); (5) Striking or cursing parents (Exodus 21:15; Leviticus 20:9). [B.] Reckless or negligent behavior resulting in death—(1) home owners negligence (Deuteronomy 20:8); (2) animal owners negligence (Exodus 21:29); (3) causing miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25). [C.] Sexual sins—(1) adultery (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22). (2) pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:14-21; Lev. 21:9); (3) incest (Leviticus 18:16-17; 20:11-12); (4) homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). (5) bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16). [D.] Religious Sins—(1) human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2); (2) sacrifice unto false gods (Exodus 22:26). (3) false prophesy (Deuteronomy 13:1-8; 18:20); (4) divination/witchcraft (Exodus 22:18: Leviticus 19:20, 31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14); (5) violating the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36); (6) unauthorized individuals touching the holy furnishings of the temple (Numbers 4:15); (7) drunkenness of a priest (Leviticus 10:8-9); (8) blasphemy of God (Leviticus 24:10-16, 23). [E.] Presumptuous rebellion against authority—(1) against priest (Deuteronomy 17:12); (2) against parents accompanied with living as a glutton and drunkard (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Moreover, it was not just the nation of Israel. Jesus recognized the authority of Rome to execute (Jn. 19:10-11).

There are some things we can learn, and some things we cannot learn from the first point. We can learn that God is not intrinsically opposed to the death penalty. We cannot, however, learn whether or not governments are so authorized under the New Covenant.

2. The New Covenant authorizes governments to use the death penalty. Consider the following passages: [A.] Acts 25:13-19. (1) Paul recognized the authority of Roman officials to judge saying, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged” (25:10a). (2) He implied that there were things worthy of the death penalty, and that the government had such authority to execute. He said, “If I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying” (25:11a). (3) He again recognized Rome’s authority by saying “but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me … I appeal to Caesar” (25:11b). [B.] Romans 13:1-5. We’re instructed to be subject to governing authorities. Paul explained, “he is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (13:4). Swords are not mere switches or rulers which smart. Swords kill!

Questions.

1. Doesn’t the Bible say that we are not to kill? Yes, it does (Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21-22; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:15). Brother Kerry Duke has written, “The Decalogue warned, “You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13), yet the law required the death penalty (Exodus 21:12-17; Leviticus 20:1-21). In fact, divine authorization for capital punishment was given before Moses … (Genesis 9:6)… A common approach to reconciling these passages emphasizes the distinction between the English words ‘kill’ and ‘murder’ … An examination of Hebrew words and phrases denoting the taking of life, however, reveals the weakness of this argument… At least four categories of taking human life emerge from the Old Testament teaching: (1) the intentional, malicious taking of human life (Numbers 35:20-21); (2) the unpremeditated taking of human life, perhaps from a fight (Numbers 35:22-23); (3) the accidental causing of death (Deuteronomy 19:4-6). (4) The intentional infliction of death as a deserved form of punishment… (Deuteronomy 21:22). The killing involved in the first type is the act prohibited in the Decalogue. The other three types qualify the application of this prohibition. Also, the second and third type qualifies the application of the death penalty, since this punishment was not ordered in cases of unpremeditated or accidental killing” (ox in the Ditch, p. 26-28). This same qualifying principle must be in place in the New Covenant.

2. Does the death penalty really deter? (a) God indicates that it does (Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 21:21). (b) American statistics do not seem to indicate that it does. However, this may be due to the fact that very few criminals, even murderers are actually executed, and of those who are the process is very slow (Eccl. 8:11). Numbers: in 2004 there were 16,137 murders/non-negligent manslaughters in the U.S.A. 62.6% of these cases were cleared, or 10,102 (askyahoo.com). That same year there were only 59 executions (www.deathinfo.org). Only 2% of those on death row are executed each year (Freakonomics). (c) It should also be remembered that retribution is also a goal not just deterrence (Romans 13:4).

3. Isn’t life in prison a worse punishment than the death penalty? Ann Coulter has written, “Evidently not to the murderers on death row who regularly fight their executions tooth and nail” (Godless, p.27).

4. What if the wrong man were convicted? It no doubt has happened. Example: Charles Hudspeth was executed in 1892 for killing George Watkins. Watkins had disappeared. Watkin’s wife, Rebecca, was romantically involved with Hudspeth and testified that Hudspeth had murdered her husband to clear the way for them. Nearly a year after Hudspeth was executed, Watkin’s reappeared (www.bogley.com). The story reminds us that a high standard of proof needs to be required before using the death penalty. It does not mean that it should never be used.

Posted in Ethics, Government, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment