Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 3)

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Unjust prejudice exits all over this earth. Some times it takes the form of ethnocentrism, which is prejudice based on cultural differences. “Even people who look very similar can have improper attitudes toward each other… The Irish and the English… The Koreans and the Japanese are two examples that come to mind” (Trevor Major and Richard Melson, A Christian Response to Racism, a tract published by A. P.). Some times it takes the form of racism, which can be defined as “discrimination or prejudism based on race” (education.yahoo.com/reference;dictionary). Christians should shun such prejudism. We should see the individual, and not lump the individual into a stereotypical grouping. We shouldn’t judge the individual by our pre-conceived thoughts about the group.

In this article, we will explore some of the ways racism has been defended. Even the Bible has been misused by some to defend such.

Darwinism

The original title of Charles Darwin’s book was “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection — or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life.” Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, remarked, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts believes that the average Negro is equal, still less the superior of the white man” (Brad Harrub, Convicted, p. 198). Adolph Hitler parroted Darwin saying, “Nature … chooses from the excess number of individuals the best as worthy of living… A stronger race will drive out the weak” (Mein Kampf, p. 132). This thinking was also a part of the early eugenics/birth-control/sterilization movements of the 20th century. “Thus in the progressive era of the early twentieth century, racial and ethnic minorities were viewed in largely negative terms and the progressive support of the eugenics movement was not unrelated to the presumed desirability of preventing these minorities for propagating too many of their own kind” (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 111).

Here are some things to remember: (a) We’re all human beings. Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub have written, “We constitute a single biological species. Men and women with familial and cultural ties on different continents can meet, marry, and have families of their own — a fact that frustrates any attempt to parcel the world’s population into distinct subspecies or well-defined races” (The Truth About Human Origins, p. 436). (b) Moreover, some have confused education with ability “As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania” (Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, p. 23). However, “As late as the 1930s, only 7 percent of black youngsters of high school age were attending high school in Mississippi” (ibid., p. 230). The education of blacks was outlawed or discouraged in the South for many years.

Mormons

The Mormons have a long history of racism. (1) They teach that the Lamanites were once “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome” (2 Nephi 5:21). However, “because of their iniquity” and “that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21cf. Alma 3:6; Mormon 5:15). (2) The mixing of the seed between races was forbidden (2 Nephi 5:23). (3) However, if the Lamanites would repent they could be removed from the curse of their blackness (2 Nephi 5:22 cf. 3 Nephi 2:14-16). (4) It wasn’t until September 30, 1978 blacks were allowed into the Mormon priesthood.

The Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine as is taught within the book of Mormon.

Bible

1. Cain’s Mark.   The Bible speaks of a mark being placed upon Cain (Genesis 4:15). Some have suggested that the mark was dark skin.  The Bible does not say this. One has as much evidence to say it was dark skin, as another does to say it was white skin and blue eyes. Moreover, the mark was not a sign of condemnation. Instead, the mark was provided to protect Cain’s life. Finally, if the mark were black skin, and if this mark did pass on to Cain’s descendants, such would not have one thing to do with how Cain’s descendants should be treated, today. (Ezekiel 18).

2. Curse of Canaan.  Some desperate to find justification for their racism have inferred without adequate evidence that the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-27) was dark skin. Nothing in the text implies such.

Some have suggested that the curse was not only upon Canaan, but also upon Canaan’s father, Ham (cf. Genesis 9:18, 22). Then, it is claimed that the name “Ham” means “swarthy.” However, we should remember: (a) The curse is said to be upon Canaan, not Ham. (b) The name “Ham” does not seem to have originated with the curse (Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18; 9:22). (c) It is far from certain that the name “Ham” has anything to do with blackness. The term may mean “warm” or “hot” (Strong’s, B-D-B-G) or “submissive one” (ed. Curtis Cates, 35th Annual MSOP  Lectureship, p. 177). Scholarship does not support the idea of blackness to be a part of this word.

3. Inter-racial Marriages Forbidden.  Moses (a descendant of Shem cf. Gen. 10:21-ff; 11:14-ff) married an Ethiopian or Cushite (a descendant of Ham Genesis 10:6-ff; Numbers 12:1-ff). Note: Their skin color must have been distinct from Israel’s. Remember, Jeremiah asking, “can the Ethiopian change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23). Miriam and Aaron murmured about this, or at least used this as a pretense to complain against Moses. Yet, God upheld the leadership of Moses (Numbers 12:1-ff).

It is true that God instructed the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:2-4; Joshua 23:12-13 cf. Judges 3:5-6). However, a careful reading will reveal that the concern was not of race or color, but of religious and spiritual influence. Canaanites who submitted to the one true God seem to have been accepted (Rahab Matthew 1:5 cf. Joshua 2 cf. Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:7, 10). Moreover, it should be realized that there is no listing of nations or races that are forbidden to inter-marry in the New Covenant.

 4. The Jews Killed Jesus.  Many Jews were not pleased with the filming of “The Passion of the Christ”. They were afraid that the film would stir up anti-Semitic feelings and hatred. It was feared that the movie would make the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus.

The truth is clear. The facts cannot be denied. Jewish people were responsible (John 19:11; Matthew 27:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). These who delivered Jesus to Pilate were guilty of “greater sin” (John 19:11). Alas, this has been used to justify mistreatment of the Jewish people.

Things to remember: (a) Jesus was an Israelite (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-28; Romans 1:3, etc.). (b) The twelve were Israelites (Acts 1:11; 2:7). (c) Paul was an Israelite (Romans 1:11; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:39). (d) The early church was composed exclusively of Israelites and Jewish proselytes until the conversion of Cornelius’ house (Acts 2:4-ff; 11:19 cf. 15:7). (e) It was the Israelites who carried the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11; 13:45-46; 18:5-6; Romans 1:14-16). (f) The fact that God removed His hedge of protection from the nation of Israel has no bearing upon whether individual Israelites could be saved (Romans 1:16).

Posted in Ethics, History, Marriage, mormon, Mormons, Race | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 2)

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

In an ideal world, justice would be blind. People should be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, or the fatness of their wallet. Joseph Addison said, “Justice discards party, friendship, kindred, and is always, therefore, represented as blind.” The Law of Moses instructed such blind justice (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; 27:19; Proverbs 24:23). The New Covenant teaches us “The Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12), and that we are not to be “judges with evil thoughts” (James 2:4, cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15).

However, life is not always ideal. Economic prejudism does exist. It exists for a variety of reasons: (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes there is a belief that all poor people are poor due to their own faults, or their lack of right standing with God. It is thought that if they were right with God, they wouldn’t be poor. (3) Sometimes there is a belief that the rich are all crooks, or that they have unfairly enriched themselves at other’s expense.

Bible

James 2:1-4, “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15). Economic prejudice is nothing new. Guy Woods commented on James 2:1 “‛Hold not’ is me echete, present active imperative of echo, with the negative; i.e., quit having the habit of holding the faith in such fashion” (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 106).

(1) Many despise the poor. The Proverbs say: “The poor man is hated even by his own neighbors, But the rich has many friends… Wealth makes many friends, But the poor is separated from his friends… All the brothers of the poor hate him; How much more do his friends go from him! He may pursue them with words, yet they abandon him” (Proverbs 14:20; 19:4; 19:7 cf. Job 19:13; 42:11).

Some have made the error of equating all poverty and misfortune with personal foolishness or sinfulness (Job 8:5-7; 11:13-20; John 9:1-2; Acts 28:3-4). Such thinking is still common today. It is true that sometimes (even many times) the poor are poor due to their own choices. Some common causes of poverty are: (a) laziness (Proverbs 10:4-5; 19:15; 24:30-34; 28:19); (b) wastefulness (Proverbs 12:27; 21:17; 23:20-21 cf. the Prodigal son of Luke 15); (c) improper use of credit (Proverbs 22:7; 6:1-5). (d) lack of preparation for the future (Proverbs 6:6-11). However, poverty is not always the result of such.  Some other causes of poverty include: (a) health issues (cf. Job; Acts 3:1-3); (b) natural disaster (cf. Job); (c) evil men, thieves (cf. Job); (d) evil corrupt government; (f) persecution (cf. Revelation 2:9). Clearly, there are biblical examples of the spiritually righteous being in material poverty [Job; Lazarus (of The rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16), the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:9)].

(2) Others despise the rich. This is nothing new. The Law of Moses instructed, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor… You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute” (Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:3).

Some have made the error of concluding that all rich are dishonest and evil beings. It is true that some rich do cheat, oppress, and run roughshod over others (Proverbs 22:16; 30:14; James 2:6; 5:4 cf. Leviticus 19:13 cf. Deuteronomy 24:15). It is true that some rich use their wealth to wrongfully influence, and pervert judgment (Exodus 23:6 cf. Deuteronomy 16:19 cf. Amos 5:12). However, the Bible does speak of some who were materially rich and spiritually righteous [(Job (Job 1:3); Abraham (Genesis 13:2); Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57)]. Wealth itself is not condemned. The rich are instructed, “Not to be haughty, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God” and to “do good … be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share” (1 Timothy 6:17-18). We should thank God for the rich who so behave.

Some have a flawed understanding of economics. They assume that one man’s increase necessarily means another man’s loss. This simply isn’t so. Thomas Sowell has illustrated, “individuals who stand in the relationship of employer and employee, or landlord and tenant, would never have entered into such relationship in the first place unless both sides expected to become better off than they would have been if they had not entered into those relationships. In other words, it is not zero-sum activity” (Basic Economics, p. 421). The idea of turning a profit is not viewed in the Bible as something sinful (Proverbs 31:16, 18, 24; Matthew 25:14-30; Acts 18:3, you don’t think that they sold the tents for the exact same amount as the materials cost that went into the tents, do you?)

Remember

1. Look at the individual, and don’t generalize all into a class stereotype. Not all poor are sinful bums, or prodigals. Not all rich are rapists of society. “Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

2. Remember the words, “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in the faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (James 2:5).

3. Let us strive to be rid of envy (1 Peter 2:1), such thinking is not from above (James 3:14-15). Politicians often play upon class envy. Let us be careful not to be demagogued.

4. If one is right with God, one is rich indeed (James 2:5).

5. The righteous should not be envious of the wicked who are materially rich (Psalm 37:1-2; 73:3, 17; Proverbs 3:31-33; 23:17-18; 24:1, 19-20 cf. Luke 16:19-26). We need to understand their end (Psalm 73:17).

6. “The rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2).

Posted in Ethics, Money, Race, Textual study, Wealth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 1)

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

An ideal world, justice would be blind. We should be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin or our socio-economic level.

However, life is not always idea. Racism exists around the globe. The Jews have been the object of racial hatred in Europe, the Chinese minorities in southeast Asia, the Armenians in the Ottoman empire, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Japanese in Peru, the Indians in Burma, the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, natives and blacks in America.

Racism exists for a variety of reasons. (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes it exists due to fear. (3) Sometimes it exists due to some historical event.

Biblical Example

Racial or ethnic tensions certainly existed between the Jews and the Samaritans of the First Century A.D.. there were several reasons for this: (1) The Samaritans were a mixed breed, and not of pure Jewish lineage. After Assyrian conquered Israel (722-721 B.C.), a remnant of Israelites remained in the land (Amos 5:1-3; 2 Chronicles 30:5-9; Luke 2:36). The King of Assyria then moved foreigners into the land (2 Kings 17:24-26; Ezra 4:2, 8-10). It seems that in time, many from the remnant intermarried with the foreigners. (2) The Jews rejection of Samaritan help in rebuilding the temple. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians (586 B.C.). The Jews returned from Babylonian captivity (536 B.C.). The Samaritans offered their help in rebuilding the temple. However, their offer was rejected (Ezra 4:1-3). The reason for this rejection is not specified. Was it due to Samaritan idolatry? Was it due to some Samaritan plot to hinder the work? (3) The Samaritans became a great opponent of Jewish efforts to rebuild. They: (a) Lobbied Persia, lying about the Jews (Ezra 4:4-24; Nehemiah 6:6-9). Josephus says that the Samaritans told Persia that it wasn’t a temple, but more of a military fortress which was being built (The Essential Writings, p. 188). These lobbying efforts continued for about sixteen years and even brought the work to a complete halt for about two years (Ezra 4:4-7, 23-24). (b) Mocked (Nehemiah 4:1-6). (c) Plotted violence (Nehemiah 4:7-16). Joseph indicates, “They killed many of them (workers B.H.) and hired foreigners to assassinate Nehemiah. But Nehemiah surrounded himself with bodyguards and was not deterred (ibid, p. 191 cf. Nehemiah 6:1-4). (4) The Samaritans established a rival temple in Samaria (cf. John 4:20). One from the Jews, from the priestly tribe, married a daughter of Sanballat, a Samaritan and fierce opponent of the Jews (Nehemiah 2:10, 19; 4:1-3, 7-8; 6:1-3; 5-ff). Nehemiah said, “I drove him from me. Remember them, O my God because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them of everything pagan” (Neh. 13:28-30). Josephus writes, “Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat… Sanballat promised him not only to preserve him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest… He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizim, which is the highest of all mountains that are in Samaria” (ed. Dub McClish, Studies in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, p. 268 quoting Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, pp. 348-349). (5) The Samaritan’s behavior before Antiochus (167 B.C.). Josephus writes, “Antichos came back to Jerusalem… when he treated the inhabitants with great cruelty… He dismantled the walls of Jerusalem, burning the finest parts of the city, and stationed a Macedonian garrison in a citadel overlooking the temple. He carried away the golden vessels and treasures on the temple, putting a stop to the sacrifices. He polluted the altar by offering up a swine on it, knowing that this was against the law of Moses. he compelled the Jews to give up their worship of God and to stop circumcising their children. Those who persisted were mutilated, strangled, or crucified, with their children hung from their necks. When the Samaritans (emp. mine) saw the Jews suffering these cruelties, they sent letters to Antiochus denying any Jewish relationship. They also asked that their temple ‘temple without a name’ on Mt. Gerizim be known as that of Zeus Hellenias (Antiochus’ god B.H.)” (The Essential Writings, pp.209-210).

In Jesus’ day, The Jews had “no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). Robert Taylor Jr. writes, “Jews usually avoided traveling in Samaria thus crossing Jordan below the southern Samaria boundary, traveling north in trans-Jordan and crossing Jordan again when past Samaria’s northern boundary. Though about twice as far as the shorter route, they gladly did it due to the Samaritan alienation they felt with deep intensity” (Studies in John, p. 54). The term “Samaritan” came to be used much as some use the “N” word today (see John 8:48). The Samaritans were not always too fond of the Jews (Luke 9:51-56). Hatred existed on both sides.

However, Jesus was different. He traveled through Samaria (John 4;1-ff; Luke 9:51-56; 17:11-ff). He spoke with Samaritans (John 4:7-ff; 4:39-42; Luke 17:11-ff). He healed a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). Though, collectively the Samaritans may have done many evils, Jesus pointed out that we should consider the individual. He told a story showing that even a Samaritan could be kind and helpful (Luke 10:25-37). He pointed out the gratitude in a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19).

Moreover, it was just the Samaritans. Jesus pointed out good in Romans (Matthew 8:5-10, esp. v. 10), and Greeks (Matthew 15:21-28, esp. v.28; Mark 7:26 tells us that this woman was Greek), and in Syrians (Luke 4:21-28). “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Posted in Bible History, Ethics, History, Jesus, Race | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Sex (Part 2)

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

America’s view of homosexuality has radically changed through the years. Did you know that at Valley Forge Lieut. Enslin was court-martialed for attempting sodomy with a soldier, John Monhort? George Washington wrote that he “approves the sentence with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes (and) orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning … never to return” (David Barten, Original Intent, p. 306). Did you know that Thomas Jefferson authored a Virginia bill punishing sodomy by castration (ibid.)? Did you know that prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a psychiatric illness (Jeffery Stinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Chapter One)? Today homosexuality is no longer seen as evil, or even illness by many. A CBS News/N.Y. Times poll suggests that 42% of the Americans support the right of same sex couples to marry (www.cbsnews.com).

Homosexuality is gaining acceptance around the world. Ten countries now allow same-sex marriages: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden (www.cbc.ca). Five U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont (Wikipedia).

Old Covenant

1. Genesis 19 tells us how the men of Sodom wanted to know Lots guests (Note: a similar thing happened later in history. See Judges 19). It also records the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Defenders of homosexuality have claimed that Sodom’s destruction wasn’t the result of homosexuality. Instead, it was the result of: (1) long-standing sinful behavior (Genesis 13:13; 18:20-ff; 2 Peter 2:7-8). (2) inhospitality and pride (cf. Ezekiel 16:48-49). (3) The situation in Genesis 19 involves not simply homosexual behavior, but attempted homosexual rape. (4) Some claim the issue was not the desire for these men, but the desire for angels.

It is true that those of Sodom had a long-standing history of sin (Genesis 13; Genesis 18; 2 Peter 2:7-8). It is true that they were guilty of many sins including inhospitality (cf. Ezekiel 16:48-49). However, they were also guilty of “having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Note: The men of Sodom did not know that the guests were angels. They thought that they were men (cf. Genesis 19:5). They desired their flesh (Jude 7). Yet, angels do not have flesh. These angels appeared like men.

The attempted rape argument might seem a possible way around this passage. However, one still needs Biblical authorization for homosexuality.

2. Leviticus 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Defenders of homosexuality say that it is not homosexuality that is being forbidden here. Instead, they insist that it is the treatment of a man as an inferior. One man illustrated it this way saying, “When Moses said, ‘do not lie with a male as a woman,’… Moses means exactly the same as if he had said ‘do not talk to a king as with a slave…’” (Dr. Paul R. Johnson, Eaves-Johnson’s: A Debate on Homosexuality, p.36-37). In other words, it is not a sin to talk to a king, but to talk to him as a slave. It is not wrong to lie with a man. It is wrong to lie with him as if he were a woman.

In response: (1) Read Leviticus 20:13. The same phrase “as with a woman” appears. Notice that whatever this sin is, it involves both parties. It is not rape that is in view. (2) Where, we ask, is the passage authorizing homosexual relations? (3) Compare Leviticus 18:22-23 with Leviticus 20:10-13. Is it attitude or act being condemned? Notice that bestiality is discussed in context.

Some defenders of homosexuality have argued that what really is being condemned in old covenant passages such as Leviticus 18:22 is not homosexuality itself. Instead, it is homosexuality connected with idol worship.

However, read Leviticus 18:20, 23 cf. 18:22. Let’s ask, “Should we conclude that adultery and bestiality are permitted so long as these do not involve pagan idol worship?

New Covenant

1. It is claimed that Jesus never spoke on this subject. Therefore, such must have been acceptable to him.

It is true that Jesus never explicitly dealt with the subject, at least not, in what has been recorded for us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He never explicitly taught on bestiality, rape and a host of other things.

However, He did say: (1) that fornication was sinful (Matthew 15:19-20). The word fornication refers to “illicit sexual intercourse” (Vine’s); “Every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (Arndt-Gingrich). Homosexuality is not authorized. Therefore, it is under the category of fornication. (2) The apostles would be guided into all truth (John 16:13).

2. Romans 1:26-27 reads, “Even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

Defenders of homosexuality claim that sexual inversion is the issue in this passage. That is, heterosexuals who turn against their natural inclinations and become homosexual in behavior. It is not speaking of those whom God created homosexuals.

This argument would suggest that God made some homosexual. Questions: (1) Where is the passage which suggests that God made anyone homosexual? (2) Where is the passage which suggests that God ever approves of homosexuality? The bottom line is there is no authority for such behavior.

3. I Corinthians 6:9-11 reads, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Do not be deceived. Neither … homosexual [(NKJV (effeminate KJV)] nor sodomites [NKJV (abusers of themselves with mankind KJV)] … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Defenders of homosexuality sometimes claim, without any legitimate proof, that this passage is not condemning homosexuality itself. Instead, it is claimed that the issue is promiscuous behavior, or some other issue (which is not implied by the text).

The first word means: “soft … esp. of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness” (Thayer); “soft … esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually” (B-A-G).

The second word means: “One who lies with a man as with a female, a sodomite” (Thayer); “a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite ((B-A-G).

The ESV joins these two items together by simply using the wording “men who practice homosexuality.” A footnote is supplied saying “the two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the positive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”

4. The real issue is authority. No matter how one explains the passages we’ve listed, there is still the issue of “where is the passage which clearly authorizes such?”

Biblical Examples

Many couples are mentioned in scripture. We read that God created Adam and Eve. We read of Joseph and Mary, Aquilla and Priscilla, and other great couples. Where is the homosexual couple that is approved of by God?

Some think that they have found such approval. Consider:

1. Some have appealed to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi (recorded in the book of Ruth).

Read the book. There is nothing in the account about such a relationship being homosexual. It simply is not there. Naomi wanted Orpah and Ruth to find husbands (Ruth 1:9-ff; 3:1-ff cf. 4:13).

2. The relationship between Jonathan and David is a common appeal. (See 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:17, 30, 41; 23:16-18; 2 Samuel 1:25-26).

(a) They kissed (1 Samuel 20:41). This is true. Kissing was a common form of greeting. It occurred between those of the same gender (Genesis 27:26-27; 33:4; 45:15; 48:10; 50:1; Exodus 4:27; 18:7; Ruth 1:9; 1 Samuel 20:41; 2 Samuel 14:33; 1 Kings 19:20; Luke 7:45; 15:20; Matthew 26:49). It occurred between those of different genders (1 Kings 19:20; Luke 7:38). It occurred between relatives (Genesis 27:26-27; 33:4; 45:15). It occurred between friends (1 Samuel 20:41; 2 Samuel 19:39). The fact that they kissed proves nothing.

(b) Their souls were “knit” together (1 Samuel 18:1 cf. 20:17). This word is used elsewhere for a strong attachment between a father and a son (Genesis 44:30). There is nothing in this word which demands homosexuality.

(c) David indicates that Jonathan was “very pleasant” to him (2 Samuel 1:26). There is nothing inherently sexual in this word (cf. Psalm 133:1).

(d) The word “love” is used to describe their relationship (2 Samuel 1:26). This word is used in a variety of ways in the Bible (e.g., it is used of a father’s love of a son: Genesis 22:2; 25:28; 37:3, 4; 44:20; etc.).

(e) This love was said to be “surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). This may mean: (1) that David or Jonathan had a close relationship unusual to men, a relationship closer than women have one with another. (2) that Jonathan was a better friend to David than even his wives had been.

Remember: (1) Jonathan had a son (1 Chronicles 8:34; 2 Samuel 4:4: 9:3-ff; 21:7). (2) David had at least eight wives (1 Samuel 18:27; 25:42-43; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9) and ten concubines (2 Samuel 15:16). He had at least nineteen sons (2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-14; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9), plus daughters (2 Samuel 5:13; 13:1; 19:5; 1 Chronicles 3:9). They clearly were not homosexuals.

3. Some have appealed to the relationship between Jesus and John.

(a) John is referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). What about it? Jesus had an especially close relationship with Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37; Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 13:3; Matthew 26:36-46).

(b) John leaned upon Jesus’ breast (John 13:23, 25; 21:20). Guy Woods has written “in keeping with customs then prevailing not only in the Jewish world but also among the Romans, the Persians and Greeks, the disciples were reclining at the table… It was customary to stretch one’s self out on a couch, the left arm supporting the body, leaving the right hand free to use in eating. Situated next to Jesus at the table was the disciple ‘whom Jesus loved’… John was on the right side of Jesus, his head level with the bosom of Jesus” (A Commentary on The Gospel According to John, p. 292-293). John was situated the closest to Jesus. Being in the bosom of another, was synonymous with closeness (cf. John 1:18; Luke 16:23), not homosexuality.

One can imagine homosexual relationships into the Biblical text. However, the truth is there is not one passage which can be used to establish an approved example of homosexuality in the scriptures.

Genetics?

A common argument is that the homosexual can’t help it. He/she was genetically programmed that way.

The facts: (1) No “gay gene” has been found. (2) If the answer were purely genetic then one would expect consistency in identical twins. One study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard found a concordance rate for non-twin brothers of 9.2 percent. The concordance rate for non-identical twins of 22 percent (remember that non-identical twins have the same degree of genetic similarity as non-twin siblings). The concordance of identical twins was 48 percent (though, they are 100 percent genetically the same). Clearly, genetics alone is not an adequate explanation (Jeffery Staninover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 82-ff).

There was a study in 1991 by Dr. Simon Levay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies that has been appealed to by many. The study found subtle differences in the post-mortem brain tissue of homosexuals and heterosexuals. (1) A cluster of neurons (INHA) was found to be smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. In fact, they were of similar size to those in women. The thing to keep in mind is that all nineteen of the homosexual subjects died of complications from AIDS, a disease which decreases testosterone levels resulting in smaller INAH (Brad Harrub and Dave Miller, This is the way God made me, Reason and Revelation, Aug. 2004). (2) The study also found another cluster (INAH3) was twice as large in the homosexual man as in heterosexual men or in women. This does not explain how this area became so large. “One fascinating NIH study found that in people reading Braille after becoming blind, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger grew larger (Satinover, p. 79). (3) The study was based upon the assumption that the non-AID subjects were heterosexual. The study thus is questionable. (4) Levay himself said, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I didn’t prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way…” (Harrub, Miller).

Ten Percent?

Alfred Kinsey published a survey in 1948 indicating that 10% of American males were homosexual. Kinsey’s sample was flawed. He got his information mostly from institutional settings and not the general population. “Newsweek’s Patrick Rogers reports ‘New evidence … suggests that ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In nearly half a century since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplication his findings. Most recent surveys place gays and lesbians at somewhere between 1 and 3 percent’” (F. LaGard Smith, Sodom’s Second Coming, p. 42 quoting from Patrick Rogers, How Many Gays Are There, Newsweek Feb. 15, 1993). The ten percent figure is used to demonstrate that this is not that abnormal.

Remember this point “Morality … has absolutely nothing to do with statistics … no amount of Nazi consensus in Germany could justify Hitler’s systematic slaughter… If gays constituted 99 percent of the general population, their case for moral legitimacy would not improve by even one percent” (ibid. p. 51-52).

Health

Homosexuality is not a healthy life style. The average age of death for a homosexual man is between 39-42 (Harrub, Miller). “The American Psychiatric Association Press reports that ‘30 percent of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of Aids by the time they are 30’” (Satinover, p. 17).

Good News

Homosexuals can be saved. They can change (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Though one may have certain inclinations such doesn’t have to be turned into action. Both those with heterosexual desires and those with homosexual desires must learn to manage these desires so as to avoid sin.

Posted in Ethics, History, Homosexuality, Sex, Stats, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ethics: Sex (part 1)

Posted on April 7, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Sex is very much a part of the American life. “The Pill” was introduced to American married women in 1960. Since 1972, “The Pill” has been available to both married and non-married women. “In 2008, Americans spent $3.5 billion on birth control pills” (www.dddmag.com/new-The-Pill-Turning-50 year old). One can hardly turn on the T.V. without being exposed to an E.D. commercial. E.D. drugs became available to men in 1998. Sales have now “hit $1.5 billion or 19 million prescriptions a year” (U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 15-22, 2008, p. 52).

Sex has always been a part of the American life, but American sexual morals seem to have changed. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dunbar write: “Why has the prostitutes wage fallen so far?” Because demand has fallen dramatically… Prostitution, like any industry, is vulnerable to competition. What poses the greatest threat to prostitutes? Simple: any woman who is willing to have sex with a man for free. It is no secret that sexual morals have evolved substantially in recent decades. The phrase “casual sex” didn’t exist a century ago (to say nothing of ‘friends with benefits’)… Imagine a young man … not ready to settle down, who wants to have sex. In decades past, prostitution was a likely option… At least 20 percent of American men born between 1933 and 1942 had their first sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Now imagine the same young man twenty years later. The shift in sexual morals has given him a much greater supply of unpaid sex. In his generation, only 5 percent of men lose their virginity to a prostitute. Moreover, it’s not because he and his friends are saving themselves for marriage. More than 70 percent of the men in his generation have sex before they marry, compared with just 33 percent in the earlier generation…. As the demand for paid sex decreased, so too the wages of the people who provide it (Super Freakonomics, p. 30-31).

Pre-Marital Sex

The average age for first marriages in this country is now 26 for women and 27 for men (www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-16-young-wed). However, “Americans start having sex in their teens: 63 percent said they lost their virginity at eighteen years or younger” (Dr. Frank Luntz, What Americans Really Want … Really, p. 42). “Cohabitation, once rare, is now the norm… More than half (54 percent) of all first marriages between 1990 and 1994 began with unmarried cohabitation”  (www.marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation). The percent of all births to unmarried women: 38.5% (www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried).

Things to Remember:

1. Pre-marital sex is sinful (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-ff; Galatians 5:19-ff; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

2. Pre-marital sex sometimes has physical consequences.

       (a) “By age 24, at least one in three sexually active people are estimated to have an STD” (Marilyn Morris, Teens Sex and Choice, p. 77). Some of these STDs can have terrible consequences (Chlamydia and gonorrhea can scar the female reproductive system leaving the woman infertile. Syphilis and Aids can kill you).

       (b) “About 1 million teenage girls get pregnant each year. That is 1 out of 5 sexually active girls. Pregnancy is the top reason why teenage girls are hospitalized” (Marilyn Morris, ABC’s of the Birds and Bees, p. 151).

3. Pre-marital sex sometimes has financial consequences.

       (a) “About 50 percent of all unwed mothers go on welfare within one year of the birth of the first child. More than 75 percent … within five years” (Bill Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, p. 65).

       (b) “Children of single parents are six times as likely to be poor.” (Rush Limbaugh, See I Told You So, p. 98).

4. Pre-marital sex sometimes has family consequences.

       (a) “When daughters of teen mothers grow up they are 50 percent more likely to have children before they marry.

       (b) When sons of teen mothers grow up, they are 2.7 times more likely to spend time in prison than sons of mothers who delayed childbearing until their early twenties” (ABC’s, p. 151).

5. Giving into your boy friend or girl friend may not bring about a lasting relationship (Read 2 Samuel 13). It may just be the conquest that is truly desired. After he’s had you, he may be on to the next conquest.

6. Cohabitation does not improve marriage. “Sociologist at the University of Wisconsin stated ‘recent national studies in Canada, Sweden and the U.S. found that cohabitation increased rather than decreased the risk of marital disillusion’… Another study documented in the Journal of Marriage and the Family stated that the divorce rate is 50% higher among those who lived together before marriage… An Australian study found that couples who cohabitated before marriage were more likely to divorce than those who did not cohabitate before marriage…” (ABC’s, p. 41).

Extra-Marital Sex

High profile infidelity makes news: Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards, Jon Gosselin, Tiger Woods. However, it is not just celebrities who are unfaithful. One study from the University of Chicago reported that 25% of men and 17% of women have had an extra-marital affair (www.infidelity-etc.com). Parade Magazine puts the figure at 19% for men and 11% for women (Sept. 21, 2008). Whatever the true figure, it is clear that infidelity is not rare.

Things to Remember:

1. Adultery is sin (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-ff; Galatians 5:19-ff). Moreover, it often leads to other sins (remember David?).

2. Adultery can destroy your marriage. Your spouse may divorce you with God’s approval (Mt. 19:9). “Only 35% of unions survive an extra-marital affair” (www.infidelity-etc.com).

3. Adultery exposes you and your spouse to the possibility of contracting an STD.

4. Adultery could result in unexpected pregnancy (2 Samuel 11:4-5).

5. Adultery can destroy reputation and influence (2 Samuel 12:14).

6. Adultery could bring the wrath of a jealous spouse (Proverbs 6:33-34).

7. Adultery could tie one to an unstable person. Remember the movie Fatal Attraction?

8. One does not have to commit the adulterous act to have improperly acted. Caitin Flanagan writes, “When a married man begins a secret, solicitous correspondence with a beautiful and emotionally needy single woman, he has already begun to cheat on his wife” (Time, July 13, 2009, Why Marriage Matters).

Posted in Ethics, History, Sex, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: The Environment and Animals

Posted on April 5, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

There is a great divide in humanity over man’s usage of the environment and animals.  This divide has led to terrorism.  “During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism, and harassment, causing over $100 million in damage… Automobile dealerships, housing developments, forestry companies, corporate and university based medical research laboratories, restaurants, fur farms and other industries are targeted across the country” (www.adl.org/ext_us/Ecoterroism.asl).  In 1994, one animal rights group (ARM) “Sent letters… to the Safeway and Save-On Foods grocery store chains advising that rat poison had been injected into frozen turkeys which resulted in the birds on their shelves being thrown away and… over 30,000 returned by customers.   The letters were a hoax, but cost the stores over $1 million” (Terry Hightower, 2005 Contending For The Faith Lectureship: Morals For God or Man?, p. 159).

There are those who no longer seem to recognize a difference between man and animal.  Bill Maher, “To those people who say, ‘My father is alive because of animal experimentation, I say, yeah, well good for you.  This dog died so your father could live.’  Sorry, but I am not behind that kind of trade-off” (ibid, p. 132).  Chris DeRose, “If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me” (ibid).  “Cleveland Amory, when asked on Larry King Live show if he would kill a lamb in order to get insulin needed to save his own child’s life that was dying of diabetes responded, ‘I would not knowingly have an animal hurt for me, or my children, or anyone else'” (ibid, p. 141).  Tom Regan, author of “The Case of Animal Rights,” answered when asked if he was aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which he would rescue?  Regan replied, “If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I’d save the dog.”  (ibid, p. 142).

What should a Christian think about his relationship with the environment and with animals?

Principles

1.  Man is a steward over God’s creation.  It is His world (Psalm 24:1; 50:10-12).  God gave man the responsibility of caring for the created world.  We’re told, “The LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress [tend (NKJV); cultivate (NASB); work (ESV)] it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 KJV).

2.  Various passages suggest that God cares how we treat His creation (see: Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 20:19-20; 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverb 12:10; Matthew 14:20; 15:37; Mark 6:43; 8:8; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13; 1 Corinthians 9:9-10; 1 Timothy 5:17-18).  We should not be cruel, or torturous of animals (Proverbs 12:10).  We should not be wasteful (Matthew 14:20; 15:37; Mark 6:43; 8:8; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13).

3.  God has given man dominion over nature (Genesis 1:28-30; Psalm 8:5-8).  (a) Man may use the land: (1) to cultivate (Genesis 2:5; 3:19; 4:2; Job 1:14; 1 Kings 19:19; Jeremiah 4:3; Hosea 10:12; Matthew 13:3-ff; James 5:2.   (2) to build (Jeremiah 29:5; Matthew 21:33, etc.).  (3) to extract resources (Genesis 21:25-ff; John 4:6-ff; Job 3:21 cf. Proverbs 2:4).  (b) Man may use plants: (1) for food (Genesis 1:29; 3:2; Deuteronomy 20:6; Luke 13:6-ff; Matthew 21:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:7).  (2) for shade (1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4).  (3) for lumber (Deuteronomy 19:5; 1 Kings 5:6; Isaiah 44:14-15).  (4) for fire (Isaiah 44:14-15).  (c) Man may use animals: (1) for food (Genesis 9:3; Proverbs 27:27; Luke 11:11-12; John 21:15-ff; Acts 10:9-ff; 1 Timothy 4:1-5, etc).  (2) for clothing (Genesis 3:21; Job 31:20; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6. etc).  (3) for their produce, e.g. milk, eggs, wool (Genesis 18:8; Proverbs 27:27; Luke 11:12 cf. Job 6:6; Proverbs 31:13).  (4) for work (Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Kings 19:19; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18).  (5) Transportation (John 12:14-15; Acts 8:27-ff, etc.).  (6) Observe—man is even allowed to kill animals to protect and defend property (Exodus 21:28; 23:29; 1 Samuel 17:34-37).  Man is not completely distinct from nature.  He lives in a natural world.  He has natural needs.  He has been authorized to use nature to satisfy his desires and needs within the framework of God’s teachings.

4.  Man is of greater worth than animal life (see Matthew 6:26; 10:29-31; 12:11-12; 18:12-14; Luke 13:15-16; 14:1-5; 15:1-7).  This point is also evident from the record of Mark 5:1-13.  Any equating of animal life and human life to be of equal value is dangerously wrong, and a perversion of God’s design.

Other points

1. Man’s care of the environment can have an affect on his well-being. It was once the rule for major cities to have their streets filled with horse manure “Milwaukee, in 1967 had a population of 350,000 and a horse population of 12,500. It had a daily problem of 133 tons of manure… In 1908, when New York’s population was 4,777,000 it had 120,000 horses. Chicago in 1900 had 83,330 horses. Consider what happens to all of that naturally occurring equine pollution when it rains, or when the sun dries it out and the dust that would be created when the thousands of horses and wagon wheels ran over it and a breeze blew” (Gene Hill, The Sixth Annual Shenandoah Lectures, Biblical Ethics, p. 589). “Up to the close of the eighteenth century, hygienic provisions, even in the great capitals, were quite primitive. It was the rule for excrement to be dumped into the streets which were unpaved and filthy… It was a heyday for flies as they bred in the filth and spread intestinal disease that filled millions… deadly epidemics of typhoid, cholera, and dysentery” (S. L. McMillen, None of These Diseases, p. 13).

2. Man is not going to destroy all human life from the earth before the Lord’s return (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thes. 4:17). Let us ever live “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). Eternity is coming. This earth is not man’s eternal home.

Posted in Ethics, History, Nature, Stats, stewardship, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ETHICS: Life (Part 3)

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Definition: “Abortion” in this study does not refer to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) or accidental abortions. The word in this study refers to the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

Abortion is common around the globe. Since Roe v. Wade decision (Jan. 22, 1973), America has aborted about 45 million unborn children. This is approximately equivalent to the combined populations of 24 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. About 35% of all U.S. women will have an abortion (www. prochoice.org). About 20% of all pregnancies in the U.S. will end in abortion (www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates). Things are much worse in Russia. “Each year one in five women terminates a pregnancy and 90% of all first pregnancies end in abortion. For every 100 births there are at least 106 abortions.” (F. LaGard Smith, p. 116). China and India use abortions for gender selection (we will say more about this later). This truly is a global issue.

New?

Abortion is nothing new. Ancient writers wrote of such. (1) Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.) “I will not give a woman an instrument to procure abortion” (Hippocratic Oath). (2) Josephus (37-100 A.D.) “The law … enjoins us to bring up our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or destroy it afterward” (Contra A pinion Book II, chp. 24). (3) The Epistle of Barnabas (70-79 A.D.) “You shall not destroy your conception before they are brought forth, nor kill them after they are born” (14:11). (4) The Didache (80-120 A.D.) “Do not murder … Do not kill a fetus by abortion or commit infanticide” (2:2). (5) Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) said that Christians do not “take away human nature, which is generated by the providence of God by abortions, and applying abortifacient drugs to destroy … the embryo (Pedagogus 2.10.96.1). (6) Tertullian (150-220 A.D.) “But with us, murder is forbidden.… We are not permitted to destroy even the fetus in the womb… It makes no difference whether one destroys a soul already born or interferes with its coming to birth. It is a human being and one who is to be a man, for the whole fruit is already present in the seed.” (Apology, chp. 9, par. 8). (7) Anthenegalos (2nd Century A.D.). “All who use abortifacients … will account to God for their abortions as for killing men” (Embassy for the Christian, Patrologia graeca 6.919). These writings are cited not to establish doctrine, but to demonstrate that our generation is not the first to face this issue.

Science

Does life begin at conception? There are six characteristics considered to be signs of life: (1) reproduction; (2) growth; (3) metabolism; (4) movement; (5) responsiveness; (6) adaptation. Not all of these need to be present for life to exist. However, when a thing has all six of these characteristics it is typically considered to be alive. Brother Marion Fox has written, “The fetus has all of these characteristics prior to birth… These six characteristics are cumulative characteristics of life. If all six characteristics are present, it is generally accepted as undisputed evidence of life. If some thing having these six characteristics were observed on Mars, it would be said to be alive by scientists” (Marion Fox, When is a child a child? B. H.  Bulletin April 11, 2004). Model actress Kathy Ireland told The New American “I was once pro-choice … and the thing that changed my mind was, I read my husband’s biology books, medical books… This life has its own unique DNA … (and) it is growing” (June 16, 2003, p. 27). The unborn is distinct from the mother. It has its own unique DNA (at conception). It has its own unique heartbeat (at 3 weeks). It has its own detectable unique brain wave (at 6 weeks). It has its own unique fingerprints (at 8 weeks). Who can deny that it is life? “From a purely logical standpoint, if life does not begin at conception, then why does the growth process begin at this point?” (Kerry Duke, Ox in The Ditch: Bible Interpretation as the Foundation of Christian Ethics, p. 126).

Scriptures

1. The Bible uses a common word for the born and the unborn. Born Jesus is referred to as a babe (brephos): “You will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger … And they came with haste and found … the babe lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12, 16). Unborn John is referred to as a babe (brephos): “And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb… For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy” (Luke 1:41, 44). No distinction is made.

2. Other words used of the living are also used of the unborn. (a) Read Genesis 25:21-22. Esau and Jacob are called children while still in the womb. (b) Read Luke 1:36. Elizabeth conceived a son.

3. The Bible speaks of the unborn as precious (a) Read Psalm 139:13-15. Watch the personal pronouns “My,” “Me,” and “I”. (b) God at times, had plans for the unborn. He had plans for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5), John (Luke 1:15, 67 cf. 76-77), and Paul (Gal. 1:15). Cyrus is written of more than one hundred years before he was even born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1).

4. The Bible uses languages which sound like the unborn is considered life. (a) Read Exodus 21:22-25. “Life for life!” If the harm which follows refers to the harm which occurred to the unborn then it is clear that the Bible considers the unborn life. (b) Read Jeremiah 20:14-18. Observe that the mother’s womb is referred to as a “grave.” A grave is for those who have died.

5. Man should have Bible authority for what he does (Colossians 3:17). There is no direct statement, account of action, or implication in the Bible that abortion is permissible.

Arguments Made

The following are common arguments made in an attempt to defend legalized abortion:

1. Life begins with the first breath. This was Plato’s thoughts on when life begins. Some have defended this view by appealing to Genesis 2:7.

There are problems with this argument. (a) The unborn child receives oxygen even while in the womb via the umbilical cord. (b) Adam was simply dust prior to God’s breathing into him the breath of life. he did not have a beating heart, brain waves, and other bodily functions before the breath of life. An unborn child does.

2. The child may be a living creature. However, it can’t live apart from the mother and therefore has no right to choose its future.

Think of the implication of such a statement. Small newborn children cannot survive without their mother or someone’s care. Neither, can many elderly survive without the case of others. Moreover, one can’t appeal to the Bible to justify this argument.

3. It’s my body, and I’ll do with it what I please.

Is it your body? (a) The unborn is not your body. It is distinct in many ways (Chromosomes, heartbeat, brain waves, fingerprints, etc.). We live in the age of test-tube babies. The unborn can grow outside the womb. (b) Our bodies do not belong exclusive to self. We belong to God. (Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 10:31). We’re to have Bible authority for what we do (Colossians 3:17). We also owe our spouses consideration when it comes to what we do with our bodies (1 Corinthians 7:4).

4. It’s my child. I can do with it what I want.

Really? (a) This argument would allow parents to kill born children. (b) The child belongs to the Lord (Ezekiel 18:4).

5. It prevents the birth of the handicapped.

There are many who were born handicapped, or with the potential for many problems who went on to great things. (a) Tom Dempsey was born with a club right foot. Yet, he could kick a 63-yard field goal. (b) A college professor once told this story, “‘I want your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father had syphilis, and the mother had tuberculosis. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth had tuberculosis. What would you have done about the next pregnancy?’ ‘I would end it,’ quickly answers one student. ‘Congratulations’ responds the professor. ‘You have just killed Beethoven’” (Smith, when choice becomes God, p. 159). (c) Whose to decide which life is worth living, and which is not?

The bottom line is still authority. We have no authority from God to do such.

6. It prevents unwanted children. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argue that the reason crime dropped so sharply in the 1990s is due to abortion (Chapter Four of Freakonomics). They claim “Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to higher crime, legalized abortion therefore, leads to less crime” (Freakonomics, p. 140).

Let’s respond with two points: (a) What if my born children become unwanted by me. Can I end their lives? If not, why not? (b) There still is no Bible authority.

7. What about rape or incest?

Brother Marion Fox has written “What about the cases of rape, incest, or deformity of the child? These questions merely beg the question because they assume the fetus is not a living human being. Do those, who use these cases to prove abortion on demand should be allowed claim a 10-year-old person who was conceived as a result of rape should be killed … (or) an 11-year-old child conceived as a result of incest …” (Bulletin – When is a Child a Child)? Remember this is life of which we are speaking, and there is no Bible authority to end it.

Note: Only about 1% of all abortions are for rape and incest (www.abortion.org).

8. What if the mother’s life is in jeopardy?

Such cases are extremely rare. F. LaGard Smith puts the number at “no more than one-tenth of one percent of all abortions!” (When choice becomes God, p. 201). Dr. Alan Guttmacher (former President of Planned Parenthood) has said, “There are virtually no conditions that threaten the mother’s life in which abortion is a medically recognized treatment. In some conditions (e.g., an ectopic pregnancy or a cancerous uterus), a treatment may be required which indirectly kills the preborn. But in such cases, the treatment does not legally or morally qualify as an abortion. When removing a cancerous uterus the intent is to save the mother, every effort to save the child should still be made. Thus, even if the child dies, the treatment is still fully justified. The death of the child was never intended. In contrast, for an abortion the intent is always the same, to kill the preborn child” (www.all.org).

9. Do you want 10,000 women dying in back alleys?

Dr. Bernard Nathansen said, “It was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false … But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure … In 1967 … the federal government listed only 160 deaths from illegal abortions … In 1972, the total was only 39 … Christopher Tietze estimates 1,000 natural deaths as the outside possibility in an average year before legalization (When Choice Becomes God, p. 215). Admittedly, any death is tragic. However, such in no way justifies the unauthorized taking of life, by the medical community.

10. The Bible doesn’t say anything about it. The New York Times used this point in a 2005 article (Michael Luo, “On Abortion, it’s the Bible of Ambiguity,” July 17, 2005 quoted in Ann Coulter’s Godless, p. 93).

Ann Coulter replied, “It doesn’t have words like child rape either, but that doesn’t mean Christianity is ambiguous on the subject” (ibid, p. 93). When is the Bible authority?

Other Concerns

The use of abortion for gender selection is common in India. “Giving birth to a baby boy is like giving birth to a 401(k) retirement fund. He will be a wage-earning man who can provide for his parents in their sunset years … Girls are so undervalued in India that there are roughly 35 million fewer females than males in the population” (Super Freakonomics, p. 4-5). Girls are a burden. They cost a dowery. Thus, many Indians use ultrasound to prescreen gender. Such use of untrasound is illegal, though common. In the Northern state of Punjabi there are now 20% fewer girls than boys (www.ws;.com/health/2007/04118) ultrasound—fuels—India’s—preference for boys).

China has similar issues. China is now buying so many brides from North Korea that some think such will either be North Korea’s downfall, or they will become aggressive (www.paraunudits.com).

Europe also has problems. “At present birth rates, Europe must bring in 169 million immigrants by 2050 if it wishes to keep its population aged fifteen to sixty-four at today’s levels. But if Europe wishes to keep its present ratio of 4.8 workers … for every senior, Europe must bring in 1.4 billion emigrants … First World Nations are dying … Western fertility rates have been falling for decades … Western women are terminating their pregnancies at a rate that represents auto genocide for the peoples of European ancestry and an end of their nations (Patrick Buchanan, The Death of The West, p. 22-24).

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, History, Stats, stewardship, Suffering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Life (Part 2)

Posted on March 31, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Definition: Euthanasia is of Greek origin (eu = good, thanatos = death). Euthanasia is some times called “mercy killing.” Euthanasia has the following component parts: (1) one is terminating another’s life (with or without the consent of the one being terminated); (2) for the purpose of (a) sparing the one bearing physical or mental pain, or (b) speeding up what seems inevitable, or (c) sparing the family or society the time and expense of caring for a terminally ill, or permanently incapacitated person.

It is nothing new. The Bible mentions euthanasia: (1) Abimelech had his armorbearer take his life after a woman in a tower had dropped a millstone on his head crushing his skull (Judges 9:52-54). He did not want it said, “A woman killed him” (Judges 9:54). (2) Saul told his armorbearer to take his life, after Philistine archers had severely wounded him on the battlefield (1 Samuel 31:1-5). Saul did not want to be abused by uncircumcised men (1 Samuel 31:4). The armorbearer refused (1 Samuel 31:4). Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it (1 Samuel 31:4). (3) An Amalekite boasted to David that he had ended Saul’s life at Saul’s request (2 Samuel 1:1-16). [How does one reconcile this with the previous account of Saul’s death? (a) It is possible that the story was made up in an attempt to gain the favor of David. (b) However, it is likely that the account is true. Josephus writes, “Saul fixed his own sword and flung himself on it. When it failed to penetrate, he begged a young Amalekite to force the sword in. This he did …” (Josephus, The Essential Writings, p. 120-121)]. He came to David with Saul’s crown and bracelet (2 Samuel 1:10). David had the man executed (2 Samuel 1:14-16).

Principles

1. Life is from God (Genesis 2:7; Acts 17:25; 1 Timothy 6:13). “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).

2. All creation belongs to God (Psalm 24:1; 50:10-11; Job 41:11), including man (Ezek. 18:4). Christians should especially understand that they are not their own (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

3. Man is not his own master (Jeremiah 10:23). The Psalmist had the proper approach to life when he said, “Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105). We should have divine authority for what we do (Colossians 3:17).

4. It is worth noting that all Biblical cases of euthanasia involve the unrighteous (see list paragraph two). Never does one find someone right with God requesting or aiding in euthanasia.

5. When life is difficult, remember Job. He suffered (a) boils head to foot (Job 2:7). (b) intense itching (2:8); (c) difficulty eating (3:24); (d) depression (3:25); (e) parasitic worms and body sores that would run, crust over, and break open again (7:5). (f) shortness of breath (9:18); (g) gnawing pain in the bones (30:17); (h) high fever (30:30); (i) blackened skin (30:30). These conditions continued for months (7:3; 29:2). Yet he never asked for euthanasia.

6. Remember that the difficulties of life do not compare with the things to come (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1).

7. We should not consider the sick or elderly a burden. The Bible instructs us to show respect and kindness to: (a) the fatherless and widows (James 1:27); (b) parents (1 Timothy 5:8, 16); (c) the aged (Leviticus 19:32; Proverbs 23:22; 1 Timothy 5:1-2); (d) treat others the way we would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12).

Quality of Life

It is argued that euthanasia (or abortion) is justified on the grounds of the person not having a quality of life. There are a few serious flaws with this argument: (1) Who determines quality of life? Some would eliminate those with Down syndrome. Yet, I have known some with this syndrome, who are very happy and enrich others’ lives. Some would eliminate those with less than a certain I.Q. level. Who determines the level? What about Helen Keller? What about Tom Dempsey? (2) There is still that little issue of Bible authority. (3) Some who appear to be terminally ill and without hope have recovered, or gone into remission (see “End of Life Decisions” by B. H. bulletin April 2, 2006. In this article we also discuss when life ends).

Technology

There was a time when most Americans died in their own homes. Now 85% die in institutional settings, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and nursing homes (Edward J. Larson and Darrel W. Amundsen, A Different Death © 1998, p. 170; Also, President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine…March 1983, p. 17-18). We have become a people very dependent on medical assistance and technology.

There are concerns. Health care costs are soaring. Health care spending was 5% of GDP in 1960. It is now 16% (Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Super Freakonomics, p. 80). An overwhelming amount of health care spending is concentrated within the last year of a patient’s life. Nearly 30% of Medicare payments are attributed to patients in their last year of life (Different Death, p. 172).

Must one fight to hold on at all cost? I do not believe that it is wrong to desire death. Job desired it (Job 3:20-21; 6:8-9; 7:15). Someone has remarked, “While it is vanity to throw the gift of life back in God’s face…it is also vanity to clutch too strongly to temporal life when the greater gift of eternal life awaits” (Different Death, p. 174). Paul was not terrified of death, though he was mindful of others (Philippians 1:21-25). Jesus was not terrified of death (Luke 23:46). “So live when thy summons comes to join that innumerable caravan which moves to that mysterious realm when each shall take his chamber in the silent halls of death, Thou go not as a quarry slave at night scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed by the unfaltering trust approach thy grave like one who wraps the drapery of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams…” (William Cullen Bryant).

Must we always exhaust every means available to keep our loved ones alive? I do not believe that we must. There is a distinction to be made between terminating a life and allowing life to naturally end. However, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson have cautioned, “stopping food and water will undoubtedly lead to death within 14 days. Plainly put, the individual will die from dehydration – not the disease or injury that caused the hospitalization” cf. Matthew 25:31-46 (A Christian Response to ‘End of Life’ Decisions, Reason and Revelation, Aug. 2003, p. 79).

Posted in Ethics, Euthanasia, History, Stats, stewardship, Suffering, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Life (Part 1)

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Definition: Suicide is of Latin origin (sui = of oneself, cidium = a slaying).  The word is used of killing oneself, self- murder.

It is nothing new.  The Bible mentions several who contemplated, attempted, or accomplished suicide [(1) Saul (1 Samuel 31:4-5); (2) Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23); (3) Zimri (1 Kings 16:15-ff); (4) Judas (Matthew 27:5); (5) Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:27)].  One historian has written of the Roman world, “Suicide was considered an open door through which a man might escape the woes of the life at any time and that he had a perfect right to avail himself of it.  Pliny looked upon death as one of the best gifts given to man by which a man could remove himself from the miseries of life, and Seneca congratulates the human race on this ‘liberty’ which is in the reach of all” (James Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom, p. 23).

Principles

1.  Life is from God (Genesis 2:7).  “He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25 cf. 1 Timothy 6:13).  “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalms 100:3).

2. All creation belongs to God (Psalm 24:1; 50:10-11; Job 41:11; Ezekiel 18:4).  This includes man.  God declares, “Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine” (Ezekiel 18:4).  Christians should understand that they are not their own.  Paul writes, “Do you not know… you are not your own?  For you were bought with a price; Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

3.  One’s purpose on earth is to serve God, not self.  “None of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.  Therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (Romans 14:7-8).  We’re to be as Paul, who said, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).  Our lives are to be  conduits to His glory (1 Corinthians 6:20: 10:31).  Paul says of Jesus, “All things were created through Him and for  Him” (Colossians 1:16).

4.  Man is not to be his own master.  “The way of man is not in himself, it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).  The Psalmist had the proper approach to life when he said, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105).  We need to let God’s word lead us down the right path.  We need to have Divine authority for what we do (Colossians 3:17).

5.  It is worth noting that every contemplated, attempted, or accomplished suicide in the Bible involved those who were not right with God (see paragraph two for list).  Not once does one find a man or woman who is right with God taking his or her own life.

6.  When life is difficult, remember Job.  He was a man who experienced: (a) financial ruin (Job 1:14-17); (b) death of employees (Job 1:14-17); (c) death of all of his ten children (Job 1:2; 18-19); (d) serious, debilitating, physical illness (Job 2:4-8).  This illness continued for months on end (Job 7:3; 29:2); (e) an unsupportive spouse (Job 2:9); (f) alienation from friends and family (Job 19:13; cf. 42:11).  Friends blamed him for the death of his children (Job 5:4; 8:4; 17:5; 18:6).  Friends falsely accused him of mistreating the poor (Job. 20:19; 22:5-7).  This may have been motivated by envy.  This may have been motivated by fear of thinking this could happen to anyone (cf. Job 6:21), so Job, they decided, must be guilty of something.

The patience of Job is an example for us (James 5:11).  He, at times, wished to die (Job 3:1-22; 6:8-9; 7:15).  However, he never took it upon himself to end his life.  Moreover, he never turned his back upon God (Job 1:8; 1:20-22; 2:3; 2:9-10; 42:7-9).

7.  When life is difficult, remember what awaits the faithful.  Paul said, “I consider the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed” (Romans 8:18).  Again, “We do not lose heart.  Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day-to-day.  For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen.  For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.  For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1).

8.  Even painful, unpleasant situations can be used by God for good.  Joseph was mistreated by his brothers (Genesis 37:12-ff).  He was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:27-28; 39:1).  He was wrongfully accused of rape or attempted rape (Genesis 39:17-18) and imprisoned (Genesis 39:20).  However, God was using all of this for good (Genesis 50:19-20).

9.  Some take their life thinking that their life is so messed up that it can’t be turned around (e.g. Judas).  However, Peter, after his three denials of the Lord, went on to do great things.  Moreover, Paul that persecutor of the church, went on to do great things.

10.  There’s no second chance on the other side (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Suicide seals things up for eternity.

Stats

Suicide is common in our culture.  It is the eleventh leading cause of death (2003 Statistic, see www.alphapublications.org).  It is especially prevalent in the elderly (1990 – 2001 study; see www.suicide.org).  It is the third leading cause of death for those between age 10-24 years (2004 statistic, see www.cdc.gov).  Alaska, by far has the highest suicide rate in the country [(2004 statistic, www.suicide.org).  It is nearly four times the rate of Washington D.C.  It is over double the rate of Texas].

Mentally Ill

Some have wondered if all who commit suicide are mentally ill.  Normally men do not wish to harm themselves (cf. Ephesians 5:29).

It is my belief that at least some are capable of rational thought (cf. Philippian jailer).  Why would one of sound mind take his own life?  Several possibilities exist: (a) They may believe in reincarnation.  They can just begin again.  (b) They may believe in no after-life, no eternal reward or punishment.  They can just be done with their misery.  (c) They may believe that God welcomes all into Heaven, as in ‘once-saved-always-saved’.  They think their death will lead them to paradise.  Improper views of the after-life are an explanation of why some of sound mind might choose this end.

I do suspect that many are not of sound mind.  Wayne Jackson has written, “A person can become mentally ill and then, in that state, do things for which they are not morally accountable.  Many of us have seen older folks, or those who have suffered brain damage due to strokes or accidents, do or say things that they would never have done or said during their responsible years.  And so if a person slips into a state of mental illness where they no longer can exercise responsible control over what they are doing, and then in that state commit suicide, surely they will not be held accountable for such irrational conduct.  But remember this: every person is accountable for his or her actions up to the point of losing rationality” (www.christiancourier.com/articles/183-is-a-child-who-commits-suicide-lost).  The Judge of all the earth is all-knowing.  He will render justice.

Posted in Ethics, History, Stats, stewardship, Suffering, suicide | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Ethics: Body and Brain II

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

We are “fearfully and wonderfully made”, a “marvelous” work (Psalm 139:14). However, many are self-destructive and never come close to fulfilling their potential. Dr. Bess Francher observed, “we don’t have much to say about how we look at sixteen. But we are the ones who determine how we look when we are sixty” (S.I. McMillen, None of These Diseases, p. 116). Moreover, it is not just looks. It is mobility and physical ability. It is brain capacity and function.

Drug abuse is one of these destructive habits. We considered a variety of drugs last time. However, we did not consider the most abused drugs of all – alcohol.

Danger
Alcohol is involved in fatal accidents. Drunk driving is involved in about 32% of all fatal accidents (www.madd.org). Even the first drink slows reaction time. “There are subtle physiological effects after one alcohol equivalent drink… overall, intoxication is a matter of degree… a process that begins with the individuals first drink [Letter from Robert C. Bux, M.D., Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of Bexar County (San Antonio) Texas to Lynn Parker dated Nov. 16, 1993].

Alcohol lowers inhibitions. It causes some to lose clothing (Habakkuk 2:15 cf. Country music song, “Tequila makes her clothes fall off” by Joe Nichols). It causes people to do things they ordinarily would not do (Genesis 19:3-36). It has caused young men to “behold strange women” (Proverbs 23:33 KJV). An abstinence program director has written, “Alcohol is the number one reason why teens have sex. Think about it. Alcohol and drugs cause a person to lose self-control” (Marilyn Morris, ABC’s of the Birds and the Bees, p. 293).

It leaves one vulnerable and defenseless. Date rape and rape in general is very possible when one is in an inebriated state.

Most preachers can tell of seeing homes damaged or destroyed by alcohol. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial ruin, and divorce are common by-products of alcohol abuse.

Good wine / Bad wine
The Bible:(1) Sometimes speaks favorably of wine (e.g. Genesis 27:28; Deuteronomy 7:13; Judges 9:13; Psalm 104:14-15; Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 65:8; Joel 3:18; Zechariah 9:7; John 2:1-11); (2) Sometimes speaks unfavorably of wine (Deuteronomy 32:33; Proverbs 4:17; 23:29-35; 31:4-5; Habakkuk 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8).

How do we reconcile those thoughts? (1) Some have suggested that the term “wine” is used in two different ways in the Bible. Sometimes the term is used of alcoholic wine, and this is spoke of unfavorably. Sometimes the term is used of non-alcoholic wine (grape juice), and this is spoke of favorably. This first position is the position I hold. (2) Others suggest that the difference is in quantity. Drunkenness is condemned, but not moderate use of alcoholic beverages. This position is held by most, but not by me.

It is our aim to discern God’s will for us on this subject. Let’s study with an open mind.

Observations
1. It is commonly thought that preserving wine in an unfermented state was impossible in Biblical times.

The truth is history speaks of several methods by which those in Biblical time preserved the juice in an unfermented state. (a) The juice could be boiled down to a thick syrup. This would both prevent fermentation and eliminate and alcohol already present. The thick syrup was called honey (some think that the words “a land flowing with milk and honey” refers to grape honey and not bee honey. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible lists grape syrup as one definition of “honey”). The boiled down syrup could be eaten in that state, or it could be rehydrated into liquid. This method existed hundreds of years before Christ. (b) Grapes could be dried before the skin was broke, preserved in that condition, and later rehydrated. I have personally seen this method used in Africa. (c) Cold storage was another ancient method, dating back long before the time of Christ. Fresh juice was bottled, and sealed with pitch. It was then submerged deeply in ponds or lakes. If kept below 40 degrees for a month, the bottle could be removed from the water, and kept sealed without fear of fermentation. If fermentation had begun before the submersion, the cold separated the mass. This method was used hundreds of years before Christ. (d) Sulfur Fumigation also existed. The bottles or jars were not filled full. Prior to sealing the bottles, the room was fumigated by burning sulfer. The bottles were sealed with the sulfur fumes still being present in the unfilled portion of the bottles. This inhibited the formation of yeast germs. (e) Writers from the 1st century A.D. speak of filtration methods to remove gluten, thus preventing intoxicating juice (Note: Space has not allowed me to include the abundant historical testimonies which sustain these methods. I recommend for further study “Wine in the Bible” by Samuel Bacchiocchi, “The Bible, and ‘Social’ Drinking” by W.D. Jeffcoat, and “Bible Wines” by William Patton).

2. Many, when they see the term “wine”, immediately think the term necessarily means alcoholic wine. After all, this is generally how we use the term today.

The English term “wine” did not used to imply such. Many dictionaries from time past indicate that the term was generic and could refer to wine fermented or unfermented (grape juice).

The two most common words for “wine” in the Bible are “yayin” (Hebrew) and “oinos” (Greek). These are both generic words.

There are passages in which “wine” clearly refers to unfermented wines. Here are some examples: Genesis 40:11; Josephus commenting on this used the term gleukes, “sweet wine”; Genesis 49:11, notice the parallelism: garment = clothes, wine = the blood of grapes, which is connected in context with “the vine”; Isaiah 16:10, unless this is figurative language, this must refer to grape juice for alcoholic wine is not what is squeezed from the grape literally speaking; Isaiah 65:8, alcoholic wine does not literally abide in the grape; Lamentations 2:11-12, what mother gives infants alcoholic wine? My point is one should not assume when “wine” appears that it necessarily refers to the intoxicating kind.

Arguments for Abstention
1. The Bible warns of the dangers of wine (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35). True, these are Old Covenant passages. However, the same dangers still exist.

2. The Bible provides examples of otherwise good men being brought into shameful situations due to alcoholic wine (Genesis 9:20-ff; 19:32-ff). If good men can so fall to its influence, I surely should stay away from such.

3. The Bible counsels that wine be avoided (Proverbs 23:31). In fact, it tells man not to even look upon such. It certainly cannot be wrong to follow this path.

4. We’re taught to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22) and to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). Alcohol tends to break defenses down against sinful lusts.

5. We have an enemy trying to spiritually destroy us. Thus we’re told to “be sober” (1 Peter 5:8). The original word means “to abstain from wine” (Strong’s) The word is from ne = not, and piein = to drink. The word is figuratively used of being clear thinking; literally, it refers to not drinking. Can we afford not to be in our clear minds, when we have an adversary seeking to “devour” us? (The original word is from kata = down, and piein = to drink. It is a play on words –don’t drink, for someone wants to drink you down).

6. 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8
The context concerns being prepared for the Lord’s return, as one would want to be for a thief’s entry at night. When a thief breaks in one does not want to be asleep or drunk, but awake and sober. Even so, spiritually, we should want to be found awake and alert when He comes. In other words, we don’t want to be caught unprepared.

The language of 1 Thessalonians 5:7-8 is interesting. The first word “drunk” (methusko) is “an inceptive verb” (Vine’scf.Young`s). The second word “drunk” (methuo) refers to the state of being drunk. These words are positioned opposite of the word “sober” (1 Thes. 5:8), which literally means “not to drink”. Thus, the kind of soberness being taught is the kind which does not even take the first step toward drunkenness.

True this is figurative language. However, this figurative language is based upon the literal illustration. Question: How can one think that he is spiritually sober (spiritually clear thinking), when he isn’t physically sober (physically clear thinking)?

7. There is not one passage which clearly teaches that Jesus, or the apostles never engaged in what we call ‘social’ drinking.

Arguments for Moderation
1. Deuteronomy 14:26 – many versions render this “Wine and strong drink” (NASB, ESV). It is thought that “strong drink” must refer to alcohol. Therefore, the total abstinence view is incorrect.

This original term is shekar. Many scholars believe that this word refers to juice, from sources other than grape, whether fermented or unfermented (William Patton, Bible Wines, p. 51; W.D. Jeffcoat, The Bible and “Social Drinking, p. 23). The New King James Version renders this “wine or similar drink”.

However, even if the term does refer to alcoholic drink, it is an Old Covenant passage. It no more authorizes strong drink today, than other Old Covenant passages authorize worship with mechanical instruments of music.

2. Proverbs 31:4-7

This may justify the medicinal use of alcohol (cf. 1 Timothy 5:23) But it does not justify casual consumption. In fact, the dangers of alcohol are expressed in these verses (Proverbs 31:4-5).

Another point of view is expressed by Jim McGuiggan. He said, “The ‘give’ in verse 6 is not an order or inspired advice to follow… it is more of a ‘leave’ strong drink to those who use it” (The Bible, The Saint and the Liquor Industry, p. 111).

3. John 2:11

Many great lessons can be learned from this passage. It teaches that Jesus sanctioned marriage. It teaches that it is okay to enjoy life, and to celebrate.

It is not a warranted deduction to say this teaches that alcohol is permissible for social drink. The term “wine” is the generic oinos.

True, it is called “good wine” (John 2:10). The term refers to quality, not alcohol content. Grape juice differs in quality. “Plutarch points out that wine is ‘much more pleasant to drink’ when it ‘neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind’s passion’.” (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible, p. 42 quoting Plutarch, Symposiac 8, 7).

True the term “well drunk” is used (John 2:10). The American Standard Version renders this “drunk freely”. There is nothing in the term which demands intoxicating drink.

4. Matthew 9:17. The common explanation is that new wine skins were to be used due to elasticity. As fermentation occurred within the skins, the skins would be elastic enough to handle such without breaking. This must refer to the acceptable use of alcohol.

The explanation has problems. William Patton explains, “Chambers, in his encyclopedia… says, “The force of fermenting wine is very great, being able if closely stopped up, to burst through the strongest cask. What chance would a goat skin have?” (Patton, p. 66). W.D. Jeffcoat has written, “No skin… could remain whole if fermentation should get under full headway. The carbonic acid gas generated by the process would rupture a new skin almost as rapidly as an old one” (Jeffcoat, p. 66).

The true explanation is that freshly squeezed juice was placed in new skins to prevent fermentation. Old skins would “almost inevitably have some of the sour remains of the former vintage adhering to it” (Jeffcoat, p. 53, cf. Patton, p. 67).

However, some wonder why the parallel teaching, as found in Luke, indicates that the old wine is better (Luke 5:36-39). Doesn’t this indicate alcohol? The answer is not necessarily. “Age improves the flavor not only of fermented wine, but also unfermented grape juice (Bacchiocchi, p. 45).

Further, keep in mind that Jesus is giving an illustration. He is not necessarily approving or disapproving of the “wine.”

5. Matthew 11:18-19
Jesus must have drunk alcoholic wine.

The term “wine” is oinos. It may, or may not refer to alcohol.

The contrast seems to be this: (1) John lived in the wilderness (Matt. 3:1; 11:7), Jesus lived among men; (2) John lived under what appears to be a lifetime nazarite vow (Luke 1:15 cf. Numbers 6:1-23), Jesus ate and drank normally. They lived different lifestyles yet both were criticized for their lifestyles. Some people just can’t be pleased.

Also, remember this is being said by Jesus’ enemies. They also accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Mark 3:22), and teaching others not to pay taxes (Luke 23:2) – neither of which were true. He associated with sinful men (Matthew 9:10-11), perhaps this was the source of this misrepresentation. If Jesus was really guilty of what they claimed, He was guilty of a sin punishable by death (Deuteronomy 21:20-21).

8. Romans 14:21

The word is the generic oinos. It is joined with the word “meat”. Nothing here demands that alcohol is in view.

The teaching is that we should be willing to forego even morally neutral matters, if necessary, to prevent being a stumbling block
to our brother.

9. 1 Corinthians 11:21. It is argued that the word “drunk” indicates the use of intoxicating beverage.

The word “drunk” is used opposite to “hungry”. The word is being used of a state of fullness. The word is sometimes connected with things like milk, food, water, and wine (Patton, p 87).

Moreover, this is an odd place to look for approval. This passage is a rebuke.

10. Philippians 4:5, The King James Version uses the word “moderation.” Some have thought that this passage should be applied to the consumption of alcohol.

It is true that there are some things we should consume in moderation (cf. Proverbs 25:16). A Christian needs to possess self-control (Galatians 5:23; Titus 2:2; 2 Peter 1:6). We need to be good stewards of all we have, including our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20; Mark 12:30).

However, this is not the point of this passage. The word “moderation” (KJV) is also rendered “forbearance” (ASV), “gentleness” (NKJV), “reasonableness” (ESV). “The Greek term carries the idea of ‘yieldingness’, ‘gentleness’ or ‘sweet reasonableness’… the term suggests the disposition of one who is willing to forgo his own ‘rights’ in the interest of the higher good of others” (Wayne Jackson, The Book of Philippians, p. 79-80).

11. 1 Timothy 3:3 cf. 3:8; Titus 1:7 cf. 2:3. Defenders of the moderation view make a couple of different arguments from these texts.

(a.) Many stress the distinction between “wine” and “much wine”. They claim that those who would be elders are not to drink, at all; while, those who would be deacons, and women can drink a little.

The adjectives “much” does not necessarily suggest that a little is permissible. Illustration: An elder is not to be “covetous” (1 Timothy 3:3), while a deacon is not to be “greedy of filthy lucre” (1 Timothy 3:8). Does this mean that an elder can’t be greedy for money at all, but a deacon can be, so long as it isn’t “filthy lucre”? Illustration: Does 1 Peter 4:4 allow one to run to riot, so long as it is not to “excess of riot”? Illustration: James 1:21 suggests that it is okay to be naughty, so long as we aren’t of superfluity of naughtiness?

(b.) Some have been quick to appeal to the translations which use wording “addicted to” instead of “given to” (NASB, ESV). It is claimed that what is being condemned is addiction to wine.

The wording in 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7 is: me=not; para=with, near, by; oinon=wine. This sounds like total abstinence.

The wording in 1 Timothy 3:8 pros=to, towards; echo=have. This may refer to addiction.

The wording in Titus 2:3 is doulow=to be enslaved. This clearly refers to addiction. It is okay to be addicted to a little, but not much?

Keep in mind that more than once man has been warned to stay away from such (Proverbs 23:31; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8; 1 Peter 5:8). The condemnation of addiction does not justify moderate use.

12. 1 Timothy 5:23

Paul is not instructing Timothy to socially drink. The instructions are for medicinal purposes.

It could be that Timothy’s “frequent infirmities” were helped by the drinking of wine. The word for “wine” is oinos. It could refer to alcoholic wine, or mere grape juice. “There are historical testimonies attesting the use of unfermented wine for medical purposes” (Bacchiocchi, p. 57). However, if this is non-alcoholic wine one wonders why Timothy had avoided such?

Another possibility is that the water in the area was causing Timothy’s stomach ailments, and that it is for this reason Paul advises him to use a little wine. Non-fermented grape juice preserved in such a way as to need no rehydrating would have avoided the local water problem. However, some popular methods of preserving the juice did require rehydration. Since it mentions “a little wine”, it seems likely to me, the reference is to the use of alcoholic wine due to a water supply problem. This is to be an exception to Timothy’s normal pattern of abstinence.

Note: There has been much publicity in the news of the health benefits of drinking red wine. These same benefits are found in drinking red grape juice (archives.cnn.com).

Conclusion
Millions have started out believing in drink by moderation, only to find that they become enslaved to the wine. The best course of action is found in the words, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent and stings like a viper” (Proverbs 23:31-32). Avoiding such, except for medicinal usage, is a way which is right and cannot be wrong.

Posted in drugs, Ethics, History, Stats, stewardship, Temptation, Wine, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment