The Destructive Future of Vengeance
Vengeance in the Old Testament
The end of First Samuel and the beginning of Second recounts the transition between the reigns of Saul and David. The reign of Saul did not go well. It started disintegrating early for the simple reason that Saul wouldn’t listen to God.
The anointing of David as the new king happened in 1 Samuel 16. A few chapters later, female David fans chant, Saul slew his thousands and David his ten thousands. As that song went viral, Saul chucked a javelin toward David in his palace, wanting him as his own pin cushion. Saul quickly developed maybe the worst case of paranoia of anyone in all history. He obsessed over the violent demise of David.
The narrative contrasts the vengeance of Saul versus the clemency of David. David was an opposite of Saul in this matter. Saul put more into killing David than the larger threat, Israel’s national enemy, the Philistines. With his very large army, he chased David everywhere and with murderous intent.
The Contrast Between Saul and David
On the other hand, David performed harp music for Saul to soothe his bubbling psyche. With all his capabilities for revenge, in his generation David stood out in his non-vengeance. David had two point-blank chances to kill Saul and didn’t. He also thwarted the aggressions of his own men against Saul. Rather than cheer the death of Saul, David ordered the execution of an Amalekite who assisted Saul’s suicide.
David’s man Asahel died at the hand of Saul’s general Abner because he refused to stop chasing him down to kill him. With vengeance, David’s general Joab murdered Abner. David though for an entire day mourned the death of Abner. He protected Saul’s remaining living son, Ishbosheth, from the vengeance of enemies.
The story of Israel in the historical books of the Old Testament brings with it a tale of much vengeance. This vengeance affected the history of the nation in a very detrimental way. The history of the world recounts violence attending the transfer of power from one regime to another. The stain of vengeance colored the future for Israel. It diminished the trajectory of the nation.
God’s Will on Vengeance
Far back in Leviticus 19:18 God establishes through Moses:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
God says in Deuteronomy 32:15, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense.” Many might answer, “It’s easier said than done.” I understand. Even when someone “steals” our spot in traffic, we might decide to do something about it. The Apostle Paul repeats the Old Testament affection in Romans 12:19 as indicative of church submission to the Holy Spirit:
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Two verses later, Paul explains vengeance to “be overcome with evil” instead of overcoming evil with good.
Hedging against Destructive Vengeance
It really isn’t that vengeance itself is wrong. Vengeance is God’s. God isn’t doing wrong when He takes vengeance. God knows that (1) people cannot handle vengeance and (2) they will go astray trying to get it. Vengeance diverts people from their true purpose in life. Love for God and neighbor does not abide in a vengeful heart. Everyone must remain an audience of gospel preaching, as God seeks the redemption of men’s souls.
Vengeance rips apart institutions: family, government, and church. At the same time, in general men won’t heed warnings against vengeance without true conversion. Desire for vengeance holds them in a path of ruin.
When Jesus said the truth will set you free, that includes freedom from vengeful wrath. When God captures a man’s heart, He gives it strength to endure. One who possesses “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” can embrace this fullness as a hedge against revenge in his mind and heart. Rather than vengeance, the ambassador of Christ seeks mediation and reconciliation. “As much as possible, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).
Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5
Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.
You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Prosecutorial Misconduct, Mistrial, and Dismissal of Charges
I heard someone say recently and smartly, “There are repercussions for telling the truth, but they are never worse than not telling the truth.” It is tough to watch on and see the lies pile up in the United States and across the world. The worst of the lies is that God is not in charge, that this world will end in some other way than with Jesus Christ, Who created everything, owns everything, and will rule over the earth.
Four indictments in four separate locations occurred against President Donald Trump. They all represent a world of lies and lying. Perhaps the title of this post could characterize the future for those indictments: prosecutorial misconduct, mistrial, and then dismissal of charges. A case could end on appeal in a higher court with a prosecutorial overturn. The treatment of these lower courts, the cumulative pressure, grinds down an elderly person.
I am not a lawyer, but prosecutors, as I understand it, are immune to criminal charges for prosecutorial misconduct. They can receive disciplinary actions, perhaps losing their jobs. Prosecutors won’t in these cases because where they work their bosses reward them for misconduct. They want misconduct as their work product. No one in their sphere of authority stops them. Many others encourage their wrongdoing.
Prosecuting Crimes, Not People
A prosecutor by nature is one in authority. He can’t prosecute without authority. A prosecutor prosecutes crimes, not people. He doesn’t see a person he’d like to punish, so he looks for a crime to prosecute. A prosecutor sees a crime and he investigates a crime. In the midst of that investigation of a crime, he finds a defendant, someone to accuse with proof of having committed a crime.
People in authority might live above or outside the laws applied to those under their authority. One could use highway patrol as an analogy. In order to catch speeders, they must speed. Prosecutors might think themselves justified for violating the very laws they prosecute. They contradict them even more than those they charge with a crime. They “must” to enforce the law. Highway patrol is not a good analogy for thinking they can use misconduct to prosecute. Law keepers best prosecutes law breaking.
Prosecution Everywhere
Prosecution occurs in almost any institution and even outside of institutional life. In response to prosecution comes defense. Prosecutors may misuse their positions and their authority to prosecute others. You know this happens. Maybe it happened or is happening to you. It has to me.
When someone brings a charge against someone, makes an accusation, this is prosecution. Someone judges another person guilty of some offense or crime. Sometimes they sentence the person to a kind of punishment, becoming both judge, jury, and executioner. In his classic, The Law, Frederic Bastiat wrote in 1850 after and over the French Revolution: “Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” Under “the perversion of the law,” he wrote: “It has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”
Outside of a courtroom, often the prosecutor and the plaintiff are the very same person. It could be several ganging up against one person, agreeing on their charge. Intervention is necessary, a kind of righteous judge or mediator who can represent a defendant. Jesus Christ is the perfect depiction of this Person for an individual charged, a sympathetic high priest. He is an advocate. The prosecutors, it seems, are not advocates, like Jesus.
Purpose of Prosecution
Satan prosecuted his case against Job with an accusation. Job was a righteous man, but he wasn’t sinless. Job himself said that no one is just before God, implying justification by faith. However, Satan made a false accusation. Job really didn’t serve God because of the increased substance he enjoyed.
The Lord Jesus didn’t design the church for prosecution. No doubt churches need to judge, but like Jesus, they desire restoration. The idea of two or three witnesses is not a gang of inquisitors. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus says the point is to “gain the brother,” not “repulse the brother” or “destroy the brother.” The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 6:1-3:
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
The goal in faults is the spiritual restoring in the spirit of meekness. Again, it isn’t prosecution. The ongoing, never ending purpose is restoration. After that it is bearing the burdens. The enemy of these two aims or objectives is a man or men thinking themselves to be something, deceiving themselves.
Prosecution in Real Life
Let’s say the prosecution says, this person did this. It comes with this charge or accusation. He didn’t do this. No evidence exists that he did. He denies it. The prosecution still charges ahead with its prosecution, a rush to judgment. When he denies, the prosecution goes one step further and charges with perjury. Now he is a liar because he said, “I didn’t do that.” He apparently perjures himself because he denied doing something he didn’t do.
At the same time a prosecutor looks for a crime. The pretext for the charge is not a crime, but a desire to prosecute. “The defendant tried to skirt the law.” But he didn’t and no evidence exists that he did.
As a pastor, I have experienced people reporting on others. When they did, I always took their testimony with a grain of salt. I listened, but I did not conclude. Every time I investigated first with the presumption of innocence. “Destroy not him . . . for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ died to save, not to condemn. The goal in every situation is reconciliation and forgiveness.
I counseled at camps. Young people might violate camp rules. My job as counselor wasn’t to catch campers doing something wrong. I wanted to help campers, not kick them out of camp.
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs in more than criminal trials. They also occur in real life. Almost every institution includes forms of prosecution and defense.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Merriam Webster online says that “prosecution” is “the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment.” It is to bring an accusation or charges against someone. A judgment is made, such as guilty or not guilty, and then sentencing occurs.
The prosecutor leads a prosecution. He could represent a plaintiff, the latter one bringing the case against an accused. In ordinary life, outside of the courtroom, the prosecutor and the plaintiff are likely the same person. The prosecutor litigates the case, tries to prove the guilt of a defendant, even if he is also plaintiff.
Spolin and Dukes Law defines “Prosecutorial Misconduct”:
Essentially, prosecutorial misconduct is when the prosecutor commits misconduct, and what that means is when the prosecutor violates one of the rules about how there are certain rights defendants have. There are rules about what prosecutors are supposed to do and the rights that defendants have in a criminal case.
Prosecutorial misconduct should lead to a mistrial and then dismissal of charges. If you’re a prosecutor, the goal is not to win. It is justice and fair treatment. If you see those latter two did not occur, you yourself want mistrial and dismissal of charges.
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
Almost All Historians Get History Wrong
Habakkuk as a Paradigm
In the first four verses of the book of Habakkuk, the prophet questions God, “Why does He permit evil in Judah?” God answered Habakkuk in verses five through eleven by saying, “I am raising up Babylon to chastise Judah.” Habakkuk wanted Judah punished for her sin. How could God use Babylon, a more wicked nation even than Judah, to punish Judah? Habakkuk further complained (verses 12-17), “If You will chastise Judah, LORD, then why would You not do worse to Babylon?”
The answer from God to Habakkuk is one of the most famous and important verses in all of scripture. In Habakkuk 2:4 the LORD says to Habakkuk:
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
It is a kind of message in a message from God to Habakkuk. All of history has two essential groups, one that lifts up its soul so it is not upright and the other that is just or righteous by faith. To put it more simply, someone either doesn’ t believe or he does believe. Babylon is the former.
Babylon and Judah
When someone or a nation like Babylon or Judah lifts itself up, which is not believing, it will not be just, neither will it live. Judah had its opportunities and still didn’t believe, so God sent her into captivity. Babylon could have turned to the LORD by faith too. It didn’t, and the Lord destroyed it.
God expects faith especially from Judah and especially Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s response to God is a microcosm of what God expects of every soul. If Judah would believe, definitely Habakkuk should. Upon the hearing of the Word of God, the righteous respond by faith.
In the end, the righteous live. They live by and because of faith. No one lives without it. Faith is a conduit for the saving grace of God.
But how does all this have to do with the title of this piece? God raised up a great world empire like the Babylonian or Chaldean empire. God also destroyed that empire using Cyrus and the Persians. He also used the Chaldeans to chastise or punish the Southern Kingdom of Israel.
Cyrus and the Persians and Reading History
Read history. Which historian says God used Babylon as an instrument in His hand in the 6th century B.C.? Furthermore, name a historian who says that God designed Cyrus to defeat Babylon to fulfill prophecy? God said in Isaiah 45:1-7:
1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God told the name of Cyrus and predicted what he would do over 150 years beforehand. Every historian should point to this truth.
Caesar Augustus and the Correct Viewpoint of History
Which historian will say that God produced Caesar Augustus to tax the world (Luke 2:1) to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2? God sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem when she was nine months pregnant. He used Caesar Augustus to do it. The emperor of Rome was a pawn in God’s hand. That’s a historical truth.
The LORD, who is sovereign over history, talks about the correct viewpoint of history. He wraps it all up in Isaiah 41:22, when He says:
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
God connects the former things, history, with what they be, the present, and then the latter end of them, when He declares things to come. Former, present, and future interconnect. God does that.
Considerations
Consider the American Indian. Historians will not consider the paganism of American Indian tribes as a reason for their fall. Historians treat the American Indians as true owners of North America, because they were here first. They do not trace their downfall to idolatry or rebellion against God.
The just shall live by faith. And then there is the alternative — cursing for those lifting themselves up and against the one and true God. Overall, blessing comes by faith. Cursing comes by unbelief. This is our Father’s world. God will sometimes use wicked people to punish other wicked people. No one will get away with wickedness, because God is the Final Judge. Almost all historians get history wrong.
The Expectations of the Apostle Paul for the Visit of an Unbeliever to a Meeting of the Lord’s Church
Seeker Sensitive?
Maybe out of spiritual sensitivity someone seeks to visit a church meeting. Such seeking happens though in far less frequency today. A tension exists about the issue of seeking.
On the one hand, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:11, “There is none that seeketh after God.” That must be true. God said it.
Yet, on the other hand, twenty-nine times scripture says “Seek (ye) the Lord.” As if someone can seek the Lord when scripture says not. A classic location for this is Isaiah 55:6. It reads: “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”
One might ask, “How could God command someone to seek Him, when none can seek Him?” Although by nature dead to God, He enables men to seek Him through His revelation. When man seeks God, God caused that. He wants man to find Him.
The Grace of God and Seeking
With the grace of God that appears to all men, men can seek God. Without that grace, they would not. A good overall understanding of this truth, the Apostle John writes in 1 John 4:19, “We love him, because He first loved us.”
Seeking based on the grace of God begins not with a worldly temptation to attend a church service. That seeking is not seeking God. That person follows his lust to a meeting, because a church drew him with it. The worldly or fleshly enticement is not God’s love. God doesn’t allure or entice.
The attraction of God is either God Himself or the things of God. Those surpass any worldly or fleshly allure. Yet, unbelievers still seek worldly or fleshly allure. Church leaders know this. To increase attendance, they use other attractions besides God and the Word of God. Those don’t seek God.
Unbeliever Visits a Church
1 Corinthians 14:24-25
If an unbeliever sought after God and went to a church as a part of his search, what would he find? The Apostle Paul writes what he should find in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25:
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Carl Trueman wrote about this in World magazine:
Second, the church is not called to mimic the world. Far from it. There is only one description in the New Testament of how an outsider should react when he blunders by accident into a church service. It is in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25. Paul tells us that such a person will be convicted and fall on his face, knowing that God is there.
Presumably, this is because he finds himself in the presence of a holy God and is overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness. Turning worship into a comedy skit seems unlikely to produce the same result. In fact, far from being sensitive to the needs of any seeker, it sends a clear signal that the gospel is unworthy of attention by any serious-minded person, believer or unbeliever.
The Apostle Paul describes the random visit of an unbeliever to a church. Trueman calls it, blundering by accident into a church service. Paul’s description of a church meeting provides authority for what should characterize one. These verses open a window into the worship of the first generation church.
Psalm 40:3
1 Corinthians 14:24-25 remind me of what David wrote in Psalm 40:3, depicting the worship of God’s people:
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.
In this one verse, unbelievers witness the distinctive or new song of believers. They see their praise and what? Fear and then trust in the LORD. These unbelievers aren’t excited, entertained, enchanted, or mesmerized when they join a meeting of God’s people. Instead, they are shaken by “seeing” this praise from the mouths of a believing congregation.
Experience of Visitors with True Worship
When unbelievers choose to join a church meeting, 1 Corinthians 14:25 says the experience includes secrets of the heart made manifest. Gill writes that these visitors are shown “the naughtiness of” their hearts,
discovering the lusts that are in it, detecting the errors of the mind, and filling the conscience with a sense of guilt, and a consciousness of deserved punishment; so that the person looks upon himself as particularly spoken to.
He falls on his face, speaking of a visitor’s shame over sin. It also humbles him. The first experience of a true seeker is “worship.” God seeks for true worshipers (John 4:23-24), which is why they can seek Him. The first act of true worship means the offering of a soul to God. He converts or restores the soul of the one who offers it by faith. Jesus called this, losing one’s life for His sake.
Contrast with Contemporary Evangelical Experience
Qualities of 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 and Psalm 40:3 do not depict what most evangelicals offer an unbelieving visitor. These churches or “communities” long ago departed from the true nature of a New Testament church. They know their so-called “seekers” aren’t seeking those biblical, holy qualities. Instead they give them something else more to their liking or better, lusting. Then when they get a crowd of “seekers,” they attribute that to God working, which is a lie. It is nothing like the work of God.
Trivialization of Worship
Trueman continues his rebuke:
Such trivialization of worship rests ultimately upon a trivialization of God Himself. It is a function of the same culture where sports stars refer to the Lord as “the big man upstairs,” as if God was just one of their drinking buddies . . . . one more example of a world that does not take the holiness and transcendence of God seriously.
It raises the fundamental question of whether some pastors even understand what the nature of worship is and why the church exists. When worship is turned into a clown show with a religious patina, Christianity and Christians are infantilized and God is mocked.
Our God, our New Testament God, is a consuming fire and to be approached with awe and reverence, as the book of Hebrews teaches. And those incapable of acting in accordance with that have no place in the pastoral ministry.
Finding a Sweet Spot
Some churches are very good at the “clown show with a religious patina.” Other aren’t, but they still use the same strategy, only a lesser version. Sometimes, they modify the show to avoid the extreme. They attempt to find a sweet spot between reverence and lust. In either case, it’s a show. Sometimes it’s a show led by a natural showman. He just can’t help himself. He offers a show in the name of God. It’s still a show though.
In John 12:25, Jesus said:
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If someone wants life eternal, he hates and loses this life. A true seeker, who hates this life will stop seeking someplace to satisfy his lust. A true church will stop providing a show to attract seekers by lustful allurements.
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
For All Have Synd
Sin
“Sin” is a word most people rarely say or hear any more. If they admit they’ve done anything wrong, they’ve made mistakes and committed errors. Rightly so, because they’re not thinking so much about whether they offended God in what they’ve done.
A very biblical word, “sin” left common usage as people eliminated it from the general public. Sin describes a crime against God, breaking His law. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:28:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.
Even if people don’t deny the existence of God, they increasingly don’t consider Him related to their lives. It isn’t that they can’t retain Him in their knowledge. They don’t like to do it. People would rather not. They’ve got their reasons. Bad ones, but they’ve got them.
The truth of sin connects people to God. He is the Creator, Sustainer, Lawgiver, Judge, and Redeemer. All of these attributes of God relate to sin in some way.
Denying, Excusing, or Redefining Sin
Part of the rebellion against God means rebellion against the confession of sin. Rather than recognize who God is, acknowledge Him, and admit to the offenses against Him and His nature, people change the way they regard sin. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Instead of conceding on sin, people deny it, excuse it, or redefine it in many various ways.
In the Garden of Eden, after he sinned, Adam said to God (Genesis 3:12), “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” He said, It wasn’t my fault. First, it was your fault, God. You gave her to me. And second, it was the woman’s fault.
Adam did not take responsibility for His sin. Unlike David in Psalm 51:4 after his sins, Adam blamed it on someone or something else. Instead of saying, “All have sinned,” it could be, “All have synd.” Adam had a group of features that existed together. All of those came from God. He had the woman, the garden, the serpent, and his own vulnerability.
Syndrome
A mixture of features coming together and effecting someone like they did Adam, instead of a sin, someone might call a syndrome. Syndrome comes from a Greek word (sundrome) that appears once in the New Testament in Acts 21:30. It is a verb translated there, “running together.” A mob formed and came all at once and together against the Apostle Paul.
Merriam Webster online defines syndrome:
1: a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition
2: a set of concurrent things (such as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern
Hundreds, if not thousands, of syndromes exist. I’m not saying that actual syndromes don’t exist. Surely they do. Of all those listed, I couldn’t say which were legitimate and which were not. However, many use a syndrome as a means of denying, excusing, or redefining sin. Instead of saying, “I sinned,” someone might say, “I synd.” It’s not the only way to deflect from sin or salve a conscience, but it is a very common one today.
Sin Is Sin
Someone named Matthew Stanford wrote the following:
One question I am commonly asked by people of faith is, “Can sin be considered a disorder?” Typically what the person who asks this question wants to know is, “Can behavior associated with psychiatric disorders (for which there may or may not be a treatment) be considered sinful or wrong?”
Many negative behaviors considered “sinful” (e.g., rage, lying/stealing, addiction) are associated with specific psychiatric disorders. But does calling a behavior the Bible considers sinful, a disorder, somehow make that behavior no longer sin? Absolutely not!
Something called the Kairos Journal recorded this:
When English Puritan Richard Baxter penned his magnum opus of pastoral counseling, A Christian Directory, he appended a noteworthy subtitle: A Sum of Practical Theology, and Cases of Conscience. Directing Christians How to … Overcome Temptations, and to Escape or Mortify Every Sin. Though lengthy by modern conventions, it reflected his opinion that deviations from God’s standards of behavior are moral transgressions meriting judgment and correction.
In contrast, today’s most popular reference work on behavioral deviance operates from a worldview that is decidedly less spiritual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) never speaks of sin and hardly ever references moral categories of any sort. Instead, it often reclassifies as “disease” what humans have known simply as “immorality” for millennia, ignoring the moral aspect of human behavior.
Sin and the Gospel
I hear among many to whom I talk, much more than ever, a naturalness in psychology or psychiatry speak. This occurs very often now. I heard nothing like this from the average person thirty years ago. Much less today people mention sin and this parallels with greater ignorance of the gospel. Ninety-five percent or more to whom I speak call themselves “good people.” This starts with a misunderstanding or deceit about their own nature and the actuality of their sin.
Without someone understanding his own sinfulness, his propensity to sin, and sin’s ruination of him, he will not believe the gospel. For someone to receive the good news, first he must understand and comprehend the bad news. All have sinned, death because of sin, so that death passed upon all men (Romans 5:12). 1 Corinthians 15:3 says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
Scripture Is Science
Science
The English word “science” occurs only once in the New Testament, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” really is “science falsely so-called.” What is science? Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions:
1 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
4 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
“Science” translates gnosis in the King James Version, a Greek word that appears 29 times in the Greek Textus Receptus. Every other time, the KJV translators translated it “knowledge.” The English word “science” comes from the Latin scire, “to know,” and so science lays claim to knowledge. That doesn’t clash with definitions that I see for science in Merriam Webster, unless someone wanted to get more technical. I’m especially talking about the definition that includes obtaining and testing something with the scientific method.
Scripture Is Scientific?
In an earlier piece, I wrote, “Scripture is scientific.” After a friend challenged me, I changed that to, “Scripture is science.” I’m not sure I would want to call scripture, scientific, because that means something different. That is based on the principles and methods of science, which I don’t think is true of scripture.
One usage of gnosis is Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, saying: “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs.
Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Genesis 1. Scripture is science.
The Hearing of Faith
Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing.
Abraham questioned God’s covenant because he and Sarah were childless and old. God reaffirmed His promise in Genesis 15:4-5, and Abraham “believed in the LORD” (Genesis 15:6). God “counted it to him for righteousness.” God promised, “I will make of thee a great nation” (Genesis 12:2) and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Abraham questioned God in Genesis 15:1-2 because his empirical “knowledge” said “no children.” If he went to a doctor, a scientist of sorts, that doctor would say, “No on child birth for you and Sarah.” How would he know? After God spoke to Abraham, Abraham believed what He said. God counted it for righteousness. What God said was science.
Was Abraham righteous? Did he know that? Yes, because God said he was. When Abraham was to offer Isaac in Genesis 22, he would offer him. Why? Hebrews 11:19 explains. He knew God was able to raise Isaac up. He knew that. Is that science? Would an empiricist have raised the knife to sacrifice his son? God Himself also offered his own Son and raised Him up.
True Science
If one considers empiricism, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (Genesis 3:6). Scoffers in 2 Peter 3 thought highly of their knowledge, mocking the truth of the second coming. God prohibited the tree to Eve. And He promised the second coming. Those are knowledge. 2 Peter begins with this teaching on science (knowledge) [1:3]:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue
In Genesis 22:18 God said, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The Apostle Paul comments on this promise from God in Galatians 3:16:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul reports that “seed” is singular. It’s speaking of Christ, which parallels with Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Incorporate Galatians 3:8 with the above:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
God would justify the heathen through faith. The heathen would believe in the seed, that through the seed they shall be blessed. Their faith also counts for righteousness.
The way to blessing for the world is through Jesus Christ. That’s not what science says. Science says population decline, one world government, the center for disease control, and reducing emissions in farming. The hearing of faith proceeds from knowledge. Knowledge informs of the truth of eternal blessing.
10,000 Out of 10,000
God backs up scripture with mathematical probability. Everything He said would happen, happened. All that He says will happen, will happen. 100 out of 100. 1,000 out of 1,000. 10,000 out of 10,000. Nothing else brings that kind of record. We know what He says. It’s why the Apostle Paul could and should say (2 Timothy 1:12):
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
This isn’t a leap in the dark. We know. God holds us accountable, based upon knowledge.
Transcendent
Transcendental truth, goodness, and beauty are outside of what men call the “scientific method,” process, and peer consensus. Someone can know the transcendentals, but they come by means of the revelation of God. They are self-evident, because God revealed them. They dovetail with the miracles of the Bible. God upholds all things. He intervenes in what He made and according to His will or His purposes.
As one example, God commands us, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29), without informing us what corrupt communication is. The Lord assumes we know what it is. Some still deny it, but this is truth suppression. God reveals this knowledge and requires another hearing of faith.
Pleasing God requires knowledge. The knowledge informs the faith that pleases God. This is not a secret knowledge, but it won’t be found by those who refuse to seek it with their whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13-14).
Recent Comments