This blog is maintained by A.S. Wagner. It is not officially run by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
Monday
Friday
Using the Psalms in worship
Worship is a sacrifice to God. It is not merely doing what seems good to us, or doing what arouses our emotions the most. How we feel as we worship our holy Creator is not as important as offering Him an unblemished sacrifice of worship. How, you may ask, is it possible to offer God an unblemished sacrifice of worship? After all, we are sinful and imperfect creatures, are we not? Yes, we are imperfect, and therefore our hymns that are usually sung in churches across the world are also imperfect and blemished.
There is only one way to offer unblemished sacrifices of worship to God: by singing the songs that He gave us. The songs of praise that He inspired and gave us for use in worship are the 150 Psalms that are found within Holy Scripture.
There is only one way to offer unblemished sacrifices of worship to God: by singing the songs that He gave us. The songs of praise that He inspired and gave us for use in worship are the 150 Psalms that are found within Holy Scripture.
Exclusive Psalmody is one of the oldest forms of Protestant worship (dating back to the times of John Calvin). Christians who practice Psalmody in worship services today greatly benefit from its beautiful simplicity and its divinely inspired nature.
I hope that these words will reach the eyes of Christians who are not fully satisfied with the typical method of worshiping God. If you are tired of refraining from singing certain stanzas of hymns in order to avoid uttering words of questionable theology, then I have excellent news for you: You don't have to keep worshiping this way! If you're tired of being frustrated while you are trying to worship God, perhaps He has led you to this blog for a reason. I hope you will continue to read the following postings and browse through the provided links...
Thursday
Exclusive Psalmody? What about the Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs that Paul commands us to sing?
Ephrem said...
Sorry if this has already been covered, but what do you make of "sing gratefully to God from your hearts with Psalms, hymns and inspired songs?"
----------------------------------------------------------
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Ephesians 5:19 ... addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart…
When Paul uses the words “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”, he is quoting from the Greek Bible of his time (known as the Septuagint, or the LXX, as many of you already know). The titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint contain those three words. Some Psalms are titled “a song”, some are titled “a hymn”, and some, of course, are entitled “a Psalm” of David. Reading the titles of these Psalms from the LXX is a very enlightening experience. It gives great insight into what Paul is commanding us to do in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. He is commanding us to sing the inspired Psalms. (This reading exercise proves to be a great “ah-ha” moment for anyone who wants to seriously study the Psalmody subject).
Sorry if this has already been covered, but what do you make of "sing gratefully to God from your hearts with Psalms, hymns and inspired songs?"
----------------------------------------------------------
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Ephesians 5:19 ... addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart…
When Paul uses the words “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”, he is quoting from the Greek Bible of his time (known as the Septuagint, or the LXX, as many of you already know). The titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint contain those three words. Some Psalms are titled “a song”, some are titled “a hymn”, and some, of course, are entitled “a Psalm” of David. Reading the titles of these Psalms from the LXX is a very enlightening experience. It gives great insight into what Paul is commanding us to do in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. He is commanding us to sing the inspired Psalms. (This reading exercise proves to be a great “ah-ha” moment for anyone who wants to seriously study the Psalmody subject).
Wednesday
For anyone looking for a slightly more advanced analysis:
Colossians 3:16: ~O lo,goj tou/ Cristou/ evnoikei,tw evn u`mi/n plousi,wj( evn pa,sh sofi,a dida,skontej kai. nouqetou/ntej e`autou,j( yalmoi/j u[mnoij wvdai/j pneumatikai/j evn Îth/Ð ca,riti a;dontej evn tai/j kardi,aij u`mw/n tw/ qew/\
The word SPIRITUAL (in bold red Greek font) describes all three titles. Thus, we could translate the verse "...Spiritual Songs, Spiritual Hymns, and Spiritual Songs". The Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs are ALL "of the Spirit"; they are all inspired by the Spirit. It is more than safe to infer that Paul is describing the 150 Psalms of David here, since human hymns are not inspired.
An Objection to Exclusive Psalmody: "God Likes A Lot of Variety". But does the Bible really imply this?
In a comment section on this website, Ellie said the following:
“I think the idea [Exclusive Psalmody] is great, and if people use this as a tool to worship God, then great! … I would prefer modern music. Many of the words to modern music are Biblical”.
“I believe the form you choose to worship GOD reflects on the gifts, talents, tastes, cultures, nations, etc that he has exposed us to and lets face it. God likes a lot of variety!!! For anyone to suggest their music Glorifies God more than another... well I wouldn't go there”.
”I love learning new ways to worship him and how others worship him. Glorifying His Name above all names!!”
RESPONSE:
Does the Bible really teach that “God likes a lot of variety”? If you think carefully about it, couldn't the opposite actually be said about God? He has chosen only one way for our salvation (Jesus), only one way for eternally punishing unbelievers (hell), only one way to worship Him ("Those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth"), etc.
The Bible makes it clear to us that God actually REJECTS a lot of worship. We see this, for example, in the first chapter of Malachi. Note the white hot anger that God has for worship that He has not prescribed:
Malachi 1:6-14 If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, 'How have we despised your name?' 7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. 10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. 13 But you say, 'What a weariness this is,' and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. 14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.
In Isaiah 1:12-17, we read about God REJECTING worship from His people because they were not doing it as HE prescribed. His people thought that they could just offer up sacrifices without paying attention to the condition of their hearts, so God said that worship became a trouble and a burden to Him (1:14)! In Numbers 3:4, the sons of Aaron made a burnt offering to God in a way that was not prescribed by God. They wound up dying before Him.
Ellie, my main point in all of this is simply to urge you to consider that the Bible doesn't teach us that God likes a lot of variety. Granted, in the above Scriptures, the people were offering bad worship/sacrifices to God out of an arrogant and apathetic heart. I am not saying that people who sing hymns today are apathetic or arrogant; I know that this is not at all the case. I am just pointing out that the Bible doesn't imply that "God likes a lot of variety" when it comes to offering Him the sacrifice of worship. He demands absolute perfection in worship. And the Psalms are absolutely perfect.
“I think the idea [Exclusive Psalmody] is great, and if people use this as a tool to worship God, then great! … I would prefer modern music. Many of the words to modern music are Biblical”.
“I believe the form you choose to worship GOD reflects on the gifts, talents, tastes, cultures, nations, etc that he has exposed us to and lets face it. God likes a lot of variety!!! For anyone to suggest their music Glorifies God more than another... well I wouldn't go there”.
”I love learning new ways to worship him and how others worship him. Glorifying His Name above all names!!”
RESPONSE:
Does the Bible really teach that “God likes a lot of variety”? If you think carefully about it, couldn't the opposite actually be said about God? He has chosen only one way for our salvation (Jesus), only one way for eternally punishing unbelievers (hell), only one way to worship Him ("Those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth"), etc.
The Bible makes it clear to us that God actually REJECTS a lot of worship. We see this, for example, in the first chapter of Malachi. Note the white hot anger that God has for worship that He has not prescribed:
Malachi 1:6-14 If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, 'How have we despised your name?' 7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's table may be despised. 8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. 9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. 10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. 11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. 13 But you say, 'What a weariness this is,' and you snort at it, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. 14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations.
In Isaiah 1:12-17, we read about God REJECTING worship from His people because they were not doing it as HE prescribed. His people thought that they could just offer up sacrifices without paying attention to the condition of their hearts, so God said that worship became a trouble and a burden to Him (1:14)! In Numbers 3:4, the sons of Aaron made a burnt offering to God in a way that was not prescribed by God. They wound up dying before Him.
Ellie, my main point in all of this is simply to urge you to consider that the Bible doesn't teach us that God likes a lot of variety. Granted, in the above Scriptures, the people were offering bad worship/sacrifices to God out of an arrogant and apathetic heart. I am not saying that people who sing hymns today are apathetic or arrogant; I know that this is not at all the case. I am just pointing out that the Bible doesn't imply that "God likes a lot of variety" when it comes to offering Him the sacrifice of worship. He demands absolute perfection in worship. And the Psalms are absolutely perfect.
Tuesday
Some Critics of Exclusive Psalmody have askd: "But, Jesus isn't really seen much in the Psalms, is He?"
--------------------
Actually, the Psalms show Christians an excellent image of Jesus Christ and His work! Here is a small sample of Christ in the Pslams:
Christ's mediatorial offices are seen in the Psalms:
as Prophet - Ps. 40:9-10
as Priest - Ps. 110:4
as King - Ps. 2:7-12; 22:28; 45:6; 72; 110:1
---------------------------------------------------------
Psalms that are named "Messianic Psalms" because of their focus on Christ:
Ps. 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 69, 72, 110
----------------------------------------------------------
Christ's divinity - Ps. 45:6; 110:1
Christ's eternal Sonship - Ps. 2:7
Christ's incarnation - Ps. 8:5; 40:7-9
----------------------------------------------------------
Christ's betrayal - Ps. 41:9
Christ's agony in the garden - Ps. 22:2
Christ's trial - Ps. 35:11
Christ's rejection - Ps. 22:6; 118:22
Christ's crucifixion - Ps. 22; 69
Christ's burial and resurrection - Ps. 16:9-11
Christ's ascension - Ps. 24:7-10; 47:5; 68:18
Christ's second coming and judgement - Ps. 50:3-4; 98:6-9
Christ's kingdom - Ps. 2:6-12; 45:6 ff.
(from Brian Schwertley's book about Psalmody; see the "in-depth defense" link to read his entire work on Exclusive Psalmody).
But there is much more about Jesus in the Psalms! Consider these examples:
The Messiah would also be rejected by Gentiles.
Psalm 2:1
Acts 4:25-28
Political/religious leaders would conspire against the Messiah.
Psalm 2:2
Matthew 26:3-4
Mark 3:6
The Messiah would be King of the Jews.
Psalm 2:6
John 12:12-13
John 18:32
The Messiah would be the Son of God.
Psalm 2:7a
Luke 1:31-35
Matthew 3:16-17
Hebrews 1:5-6
The Messiah would reveal that He was the Son of God.
Psalm 2:7b
John 9:35-37
The Messiah would be raised from the dead and be crowned King.
Psalm 2:7c
Acts 13:30-33
Romans 1:3-4
The Messiah would ask God for His inheritance.
Psalm 2:8a
John 17:4-24
The Messiah would have complete authority over all things.
Psalm 2:8b
Matthew 28:18
Hebrews 1:1-2
The Messiah would not acknowledge those who did not believe in Him.
Psalm 2:12
John 3:36
Infants would give praise to the Messiah.
Psalm 8:2
Matthew 21:15-16
The Messiah would have complete authority over all things.
Psalm 8:6
Matthew 28:18
The Messiah would be resurrected.
Psalm 16:8-10a
Matthew 28:6
Acts 2:25-32
The Messiah's body would not see corruption (natural decay).
Psalm 16:8-10b
Acts 13:35-37
The Messiah would be glorified into the presence of God.
Psalm 16:11
Acts 2:25-33
The Messiah would come for His people.
Psalm 18:49
Ephesians 3:4-6
The Messiah would cry out to God.
Psalm 22:1a
Matthew 27:46
The Messiah would be forsaken by God at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:1b
Mark 15:34
The Messiah would pray without ceasing before Hisdeath.
Psalm 22:2
Matthew 26:38-39
The Messiah would be despised and rejected by His own.
Psalm 22:6
Luke 23:21-23
The Messiah would be made a mockery.
Psalm 22:7
Matthew 27:39
Unbelievers would say to the Messiah, "He trusted in God, let Him now deliver Him."
Psalm 22:8
Matthew 27:41-43
The Messiah would know His Father from childhood.
Psalm 22:9
Luke 2:40
The Messiah would be called by God while in the womb.
Psalm 22:10
Luke 1:30-33
The Messiah would be abandoned by His disciples.
Psalm 22:11
Mark 14:50
The Messiah would be encompassed by evil spirits.
Psalm 22:12-13
Colossians 2:15
The Messiah's body would emit blood & water.
Psalm 22:14a
John 19:34
The Messiah would be crucified.
Psalm 22:14b
Matthew 27:35
The Messiah would thirst while dying.
Psalm 22:15a
Psalm 69:21b
John 19:28
Johm 19:30
The Messiah would be observed by Gentiles at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:16a
Luke 23:36
The Messiah would be observed by Jews at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:16b
Matthew 27:41-43
Both the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced.
Psalm 22:16c
Matthew 27:38
The Messiah would be viewed by many during His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:17b
Luke 23:35
The Messiah's garments would be parted among the soldiers.
Psalm 22:18a
John 19:23-24
The soldiers would cast lots for the Messiah's clothes.
Psalm 22:18b
John 19:23-24
The Messiah's atonement would save His people.
Psalm 22:22
Hebrews 2:10-12
Matthew 12:50
John 20:14
The Messiah's enemies would stumble and fall.
Psalm 27:2
John 18:3-6
The Messiah would be accused by false witnesses.
Psalm 27:12
Matthew 26:59-61
The Messiah would cry out to God "Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Psalm 31:5
Luke 23:46
There would be many attempts to kill the Messiah.
Psalm 31:13
Matthew 27:1
The Messiah would have no bones broken.
Psalm 22:17a
Psalm 34:20
John 19:32-33
The Messiah would be accused by many false witnesses.
Psalm 35:11
Mark 14:55-59
The Messiah would be hated without cause.
Psalm 35:19
John 18:19-23
John 15:24-25
The Messiah would be silent as a lamb before His accusers.
Psalm 38:13-14
Matthew 26:62-63
The Messiah would be God's sacrificial lamb for the redemption of His people.
Psalm 40:6-8a
Hebrews 10:10-13
The Messiah would reveal that the Hebrew scriptures were written of Him.
Psalm 40:6-8b
Luke 24:44
John 5:39-40
The Messiah would do God's (His Father) will.
Psalm 40:7-8
John 5:30
The Messiah would not conceal His mission from believing people.
Psalm 40:9-10
Luke 4:16-21
The Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own disciples.
Psalm 41:9
Mark 14:17-18
The Messiah would communicate a message of mercy.
Psalm 45:2
Luke 4:22
The Messiah's throne would be eternal.
Psalm 45:6-7a
Luke 1:31-33
Hebrews 1:8-9
The Messiah would be God.
Psalm 45:6-7b
Hebrews 1:8-9
The Messiah would act with righteousness.
Psalm 45:6-7c
John 5:30
The Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own disciples.
Psalm 55:12-14
Luke 22:47-48
The Messiah would ascend back into heaven.
Psalm 68:18a
Luke 24:51
Ephesians 4:8
The Messiah would give good gifts unto believing men.
Psalm 68:18b
Matthew 10:1
Ephesians 4:7-11
The Messiah would be hated and rejected without cause.
Psalm 69:4
Luke 23:13-22
John 15:24-25
The Messiah would be condemned for God's sake.
Psalm 69:7
Mat. 26:65-67
The Messiah would be rejected by the Jews.
Psalm 69:8a
John 1:11
The Messiah's very own brothers would reject Him.
Psalm 69:8b
John 7:3-5
The Messiah would become angry due to unethical practices by the Jews in the temple.
Psalm 69:9a
John 2:13-17
The Messiah would be condemned for God's sake.
Psalm 69:9b
Romans 15:3
The Messiah's heart would be broken.
Psalm 69:20a
John 19:34
The Messiah's disciples would abandon Him just prior to His death.
Psalm 69:20b
Mark 14:33-41
The Messiah would be offered gall mingled with vinegar while dying.
Psalm 69:21a
Matthew 27:34
The potters field would be uninhabited (Field of Blood).
Psalm 69:25
Acts 1:16-20
The Messiah would teach in parables.
Psalm 78:2
Mat.13:34-35
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 80:17
Acts 5:31
The Messiah would come form the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:3-4
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would call God His Father.
Psalm 89:26
Matthew 11:27
The Messiah would be God's only "begotten" Son.
Psalm 89:27
Mark 16:6
Colossians 1:18
Revelation 1:5
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:29
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:35-36
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would be eternal.
Psalm 102:25-27a
Revelation 1:8
Hebrews 1:10-12
The Messiah would be the creator of all things.
Psalm 102:25-27b
John 1:3
Ephesians 3:9
Hebrews 1:10-12
The Messiah would calm the stormy sea.
Psalm 107:28-29
Matthew 8:24-26
The Messiah would be accused by many false witnesses.
Psalm 109:2
John 18:29-30
The Messiah would offer up prayer for His enemies.
Psalm 109:4
Luke 23:34
The Messiah's betrayer (Judas) would have a short life.
Psalm 109:8a
Acts 1:16-18
John 17:12
The Messiah's betrayer would be replaced by another.
Psalm 109:8b
Acts 1:20-26
The Messiah would be mocked by many.
Psalm 109:25
Mark 15:29-30
The Messiah would be Lord and King.
Psalm 110:1a
Mat. 22:41-45
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 110:1b
Mark 16:19
Mat. 22:41-46
The Messiah would be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Psalm 110:4
Hebrews 6:17-20
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 110:5
1 Peter 3:21-22
The Messiah would be the "Stone" rejected by the builders (Jews).
Psalm 118:22
Mat.21:42-43
The Messiah would come in the name of the Lord.
Psalm 118:26
Matthew 21:9
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 132:17
Matthew 1:1,
Luke 1:68-70
Compared to the inspired Psalms, our manmade, uninspired hymns are feeble. If we are to truly reflect our praise and love for Jesus, we must sing the Psalms.
Actually, the Psalms show Christians an excellent image of Jesus Christ and His work! Here is a small sample of Christ in the Pslams:
Christ's mediatorial offices are seen in the Psalms:
as Prophet - Ps. 40:9-10
as Priest - Ps. 110:4
as King - Ps. 2:7-12; 22:28; 45:6; 72; 110:1
---------------------------------------------------------
Psalms that are named "Messianic Psalms" because of their focus on Christ:
Ps. 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 69, 72, 110
----------------------------------------------------------
Christ's divinity - Ps. 45:6; 110:1
Christ's eternal Sonship - Ps. 2:7
Christ's incarnation - Ps. 8:5; 40:7-9
----------------------------------------------------------
Christ's betrayal - Ps. 41:9
Christ's agony in the garden - Ps. 22:2
Christ's trial - Ps. 35:11
Christ's rejection - Ps. 22:6; 118:22
Christ's crucifixion - Ps. 22; 69
Christ's burial and resurrection - Ps. 16:9-11
Christ's ascension - Ps. 24:7-10; 47:5; 68:18
Christ's second coming and judgement - Ps. 50:3-4; 98:6-9
Christ's kingdom - Ps. 2:6-12; 45:6 ff.
(from Brian Schwertley's book about Psalmody; see the "in-depth defense" link to read his entire work on Exclusive Psalmody).
But there is much more about Jesus in the Psalms! Consider these examples:
The Messiah would also be rejected by Gentiles.
Psalm 2:1
Acts 4:25-28
Political/religious leaders would conspire against the Messiah.
Psalm 2:2
Matthew 26:3-4
Mark 3:6
The Messiah would be King of the Jews.
Psalm 2:6
John 12:12-13
John 18:32
The Messiah would be the Son of God.
Psalm 2:7a
Luke 1:31-35
Matthew 3:16-17
Hebrews 1:5-6
The Messiah would reveal that He was the Son of God.
Psalm 2:7b
John 9:35-37
The Messiah would be raised from the dead and be crowned King.
Psalm 2:7c
Acts 13:30-33
Romans 1:3-4
The Messiah would ask God for His inheritance.
Psalm 2:8a
John 17:4-24
The Messiah would have complete authority over all things.
Psalm 2:8b
Matthew 28:18
Hebrews 1:1-2
The Messiah would not acknowledge those who did not believe in Him.
Psalm 2:12
John 3:36
Infants would give praise to the Messiah.
Psalm 8:2
Matthew 21:15-16
The Messiah would have complete authority over all things.
Psalm 8:6
Matthew 28:18
The Messiah would be resurrected.
Psalm 16:8-10a
Matthew 28:6
Acts 2:25-32
The Messiah's body would not see corruption (natural decay).
Psalm 16:8-10b
Acts 13:35-37
The Messiah would be glorified into the presence of God.
Psalm 16:11
Acts 2:25-33
The Messiah would come for His people.
Psalm 18:49
Ephesians 3:4-6
The Messiah would cry out to God.
Psalm 22:1a
Matthew 27:46
The Messiah would be forsaken by God at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:1b
Mark 15:34
The Messiah would pray without ceasing before Hisdeath.
Psalm 22:2
Matthew 26:38-39
The Messiah would be despised and rejected by His own.
Psalm 22:6
Luke 23:21-23
The Messiah would be made a mockery.
Psalm 22:7
Matthew 27:39
Unbelievers would say to the Messiah, "He trusted in God, let Him now deliver Him."
Psalm 22:8
Matthew 27:41-43
The Messiah would know His Father from childhood.
Psalm 22:9
Luke 2:40
The Messiah would be called by God while in the womb.
Psalm 22:10
Luke 1:30-33
The Messiah would be abandoned by His disciples.
Psalm 22:11
Mark 14:50
The Messiah would be encompassed by evil spirits.
Psalm 22:12-13
Colossians 2:15
The Messiah's body would emit blood & water.
Psalm 22:14a
John 19:34
The Messiah would be crucified.
Psalm 22:14b
Matthew 27:35
The Messiah would thirst while dying.
Psalm 22:15a
Psalm 69:21b
John 19:28
Johm 19:30
The Messiah would be observed by Gentiles at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:16a
Luke 23:36
The Messiah would be observed by Jews at His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:16b
Matthew 27:41-43
Both the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced.
Psalm 22:16c
Matthew 27:38
The Messiah would be viewed by many during His crucifixion.
Psalm 22:17b
Luke 23:35
The Messiah's garments would be parted among the soldiers.
Psalm 22:18a
John 19:23-24
The soldiers would cast lots for the Messiah's clothes.
Psalm 22:18b
John 19:23-24
The Messiah's atonement would save His people.
Psalm 22:22
Hebrews 2:10-12
Matthew 12:50
John 20:14
The Messiah's enemies would stumble and fall.
Psalm 27:2
John 18:3-6
The Messiah would be accused by false witnesses.
Psalm 27:12
Matthew 26:59-61
The Messiah would cry out to God "Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Psalm 31:5
Luke 23:46
There would be many attempts to kill the Messiah.
Psalm 31:13
Matthew 27:1
The Messiah would have no bones broken.
Psalm 22:17a
Psalm 34:20
John 19:32-33
The Messiah would be accused by many false witnesses.
Psalm 35:11
Mark 14:55-59
The Messiah would be hated without cause.
Psalm 35:19
John 18:19-23
John 15:24-25
The Messiah would be silent as a lamb before His accusers.
Psalm 38:13-14
Matthew 26:62-63
The Messiah would be God's sacrificial lamb for the redemption of His people.
Psalm 40:6-8a
Hebrews 10:10-13
The Messiah would reveal that the Hebrew scriptures were written of Him.
Psalm 40:6-8b
Luke 24:44
John 5:39-40
The Messiah would do God's (His Father) will.
Psalm 40:7-8
John 5:30
The Messiah would not conceal His mission from believing people.
Psalm 40:9-10
Luke 4:16-21
The Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own disciples.
Psalm 41:9
Mark 14:17-18
The Messiah would communicate a message of mercy.
Psalm 45:2
Luke 4:22
The Messiah's throne would be eternal.
Psalm 45:6-7a
Luke 1:31-33
Hebrews 1:8-9
The Messiah would be God.
Psalm 45:6-7b
Hebrews 1:8-9
The Messiah would act with righteousness.
Psalm 45:6-7c
John 5:30
The Messiah would be betrayed by one of His own disciples.
Psalm 55:12-14
Luke 22:47-48
The Messiah would ascend back into heaven.
Psalm 68:18a
Luke 24:51
Ephesians 4:8
The Messiah would give good gifts unto believing men.
Psalm 68:18b
Matthew 10:1
Ephesians 4:7-11
The Messiah would be hated and rejected without cause.
Psalm 69:4
Luke 23:13-22
John 15:24-25
The Messiah would be condemned for God's sake.
Psalm 69:7
Mat. 26:65-67
The Messiah would be rejected by the Jews.
Psalm 69:8a
John 1:11
The Messiah's very own brothers would reject Him.
Psalm 69:8b
John 7:3-5
The Messiah would become angry due to unethical practices by the Jews in the temple.
Psalm 69:9a
John 2:13-17
The Messiah would be condemned for God's sake.
Psalm 69:9b
Romans 15:3
The Messiah's heart would be broken.
Psalm 69:20a
John 19:34
The Messiah's disciples would abandon Him just prior to His death.
Psalm 69:20b
Mark 14:33-41
The Messiah would be offered gall mingled with vinegar while dying.
Psalm 69:21a
Matthew 27:34
The potters field would be uninhabited (Field of Blood).
Psalm 69:25
Acts 1:16-20
The Messiah would teach in parables.
Psalm 78:2
Mat.13:34-35
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 80:17
Acts 5:31
The Messiah would come form the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:3-4
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would call God His Father.
Psalm 89:26
Matthew 11:27
The Messiah would be God's only "begotten" Son.
Psalm 89:27
Mark 16:6
Colossians 1:18
Revelation 1:5
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:29
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 89:35-36
Matthew 1:1
The Messiah would be eternal.
Psalm 102:25-27a
Revelation 1:8
Hebrews 1:10-12
The Messiah would be the creator of all things.
Psalm 102:25-27b
John 1:3
Ephesians 3:9
Hebrews 1:10-12
The Messiah would calm the stormy sea.
Psalm 107:28-29
Matthew 8:24-26
The Messiah would be accused by many false witnesses.
Psalm 109:2
John 18:29-30
The Messiah would offer up prayer for His enemies.
Psalm 109:4
Luke 23:34
The Messiah's betrayer (Judas) would have a short life.
Psalm 109:8a
Acts 1:16-18
John 17:12
The Messiah's betrayer would be replaced by another.
Psalm 109:8b
Acts 1:20-26
The Messiah would be mocked by many.
Psalm 109:25
Mark 15:29-30
The Messiah would be Lord and King.
Psalm 110:1a
Mat. 22:41-45
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 110:1b
Mark 16:19
Mat. 22:41-46
The Messiah would be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Psalm 110:4
Hebrews 6:17-20
The Messiah would be exalted to the right hand of God.
Psalm 110:5
1 Peter 3:21-22
The Messiah would be the "Stone" rejected by the builders (Jews).
Psalm 118:22
Mat.21:42-43
The Messiah would come in the name of the Lord.
Psalm 118:26
Matthew 21:9
The Messiah would come from the lineage of David.
Psalm 132:17
Matthew 1:1,
Luke 1:68-70
Compared to the inspired Psalms, our manmade, uninspired hymns are feeble. If we are to truly reflect our praise and love for Jesus, we must sing the Psalms.
Sunday
The Late Dr. Roy C. Fullerton on Why Christians Should Subscribe to Exclusive Psalmody
The following excellent information is taken from a tract written by a former professor at RPTS Seminary named Dr. Roy C. Fullerton. There is no date on the tract (which is simply entitled "Psalmody"), but I have a hunch it was written at least a few decades ago. There is no copyright information anywhere to be found on the tract. I found it in an obscure area of an RPTS Library used book sale for 10 cents.
For the sake of preservation of what I believe is a very useful work, I have reproduced it in its entirety here.
--A. S. Wagner
--------------------------------------------------
Two hundred years ago the Psalms were used almost entirely in the worship of God. The change since then is due, to a great extent, to the work of Isaac Watts (1674-1748), who has been called the Father of English Hymns. As a boy he complained about the use of the Psalms in worship. He set out to replace them and wrote over 700 hymns, some of which are in use today. He grew up in the Congregational church, in which each congregation is almost independent. This contrasts with the Presbyterian form of church government. In the Congregational churches, each congregation is free to worship as it chooses. In the Presbyterian churches, any changes must first be approved by the General Assembly or Synod; then by the congregations. Then the change can be put into effect. So Watts only had to persuade one minister and one congregation to use his hymns to get them sung. Benjamin Keach, pastor of a Baptist church which is Congregational in its church government, used one hymn in a communion service. Then the congregation voted to use only Psalms in the worship service. Fourteen years later he began using a hymn at the close of the service, just before benediction. Some of the congregation walked out as soon as the hymn was announced, but they had already heard the sermon and given their offering. Since their protest against the use of hymns was of no influence, several members left this congregation and started a new congregation, which forbade the use of hymns in worship.
The use of hymns spread. Now it is hymns, not Psalms, which are used in the great majority of cases ... The Reformed Presbyterian Church, however, [as well as many scattered congregations from other denominations], continues the exclusive use of the Psalms in the public worship of God ...
Other Compositions Have Been Destructive of the True Faith
We, [exclusive Psalm singers], continue the exclusive use of the Psalms in public worship of God because the use of other compositions in His worship has been destructive of the true faith. I say this with both hesitation and regret, yet it is true. Isaac Watts may be the father of the English Hymn, but he was not the first hymn writer.
The early church sang nothing but Psalms. The church council of Laodicea, about 360 A.D., forbade the singing of uninspired hymns in church, and the reading of the uncanonical books of Scripture. These uncanonical books from which it was forbidden to read were the books of the Apocrypha. This council of Laodicea was a small council, not one of the great ones. But the Council of Chalcedon was a great council and it confirmed the decree of the small council of Laodicea and forbade the singing of uninspired hymns in Christian worship. This proves that, while there were some who wanted to sing other songs, the Psalms of the Old Testament were the songs in the Christian church in 450 A.D.
One of the early heretical groups was the Gnostics. They Taught that Christ is not the divine Son of God, but a Spirit-filled man. One minister, Bardesanes, was deposed from the Christian ministry for accepting this heresy. He was not allowed to preach his heresy, but he did write some hymns, set them to catchy tunes and they were sung. One writer says "A very dangerous heresy came into the church like a flood in the second century." He sugarcoated his heresy and many accepted it through the use of these uninspired songs. Apollinarius of Laodicea, about one hundred years after Bardesanes, did the same thing to spread his heresy, and he, too, turned many away from Christ.
The worst heretic of the early church was a man named Arius. He, also, denied that Christ is God. He was tried and deposed from the ministry. He, too, wrote songs, set them to attractive tunes and got them sung. His success must have surpassed his wildest dreams, for almost the entire church was carried away by his heresy. This heresy became so popular that it is said of Athanasius, who fought this heresy, that he was against the world. With good reason it has been said, "Let me make a people's songs and I care not who makes their laws."
These are men who set the example of breaking away from the use of the divinely given Psalms of the Bible and this is the reason why they did. These men, who denied the truth of the Bible, hoped to persuade others to believe by the use of their songs what they could never make the bible teach. The late Dean Farrar, a famous English minister, said of both ancient and modern hymns, "They abound, if not in heresy, yet in false theology." A modern teacher said that the Hebrew put his best theology into the Psalms, while modern man puts his worst theology into the hymns.
This fact, then, stands out in the early history of the church: those who sought the purity of the church and the honor of Christ used the Psalms in worship and those false leaders who tried to lure people away from the truth used songs of their own composition.
That was true in ancient times, and it is true today. No modern denomination has used hymns in the worship of God for 200 years without being disturbed by those who denied the infallibility of the Scriptures and other standards of faith. This is because men who are not inspired cannot always express God's truth. When we accept songs of purely human origin and use them in the worship of God, we are actually doing the same thing: using uninspired songs instead of inspired ones. The hymns in the average hymnbook were written by Protestants of various denominations, by Roman Catholics, by Unitarians who deny the deity of Christ and by others. They are almost certain to put their belief into their songs. When their belief is actually unbelief, their songs can hardly be in accordance with the Scriptures.
If our experience, then, would be the same as that of those who have used songs of human composition in the worship of God, we would, if we ceased to use the Psalms exclusively, surrender, sooner or later, some of the essential truths of the Christian faith. That result we do not want. Therefore, we [should] use the Psalms exclusively.
The use of hymns spread. Now it is hymns, not Psalms, which are used in the great majority of cases ... The Reformed Presbyterian Church, however, [as well as many scattered congregations from other denominations], continues the exclusive use of the Psalms in the public worship of God ...
Other Compositions Have Been Destructive of the True Faith
We, [exclusive Psalm singers], continue the exclusive use of the Psalms in public worship of God because the use of other compositions in His worship has been destructive of the true faith. I say this with both hesitation and regret, yet it is true. Isaac Watts may be the father of the English Hymn, but he was not the first hymn writer.
The early church sang nothing but Psalms. The church council of Laodicea, about 360 A.D., forbade the singing of uninspired hymns in church, and the reading of the uncanonical books of Scripture. These uncanonical books from which it was forbidden to read were the books of the Apocrypha. This council of Laodicea was a small council, not one of the great ones. But the Council of Chalcedon was a great council and it confirmed the decree of the small council of Laodicea and forbade the singing of uninspired hymns in Christian worship. This proves that, while there were some who wanted to sing other songs, the Psalms of the Old Testament were the songs in the Christian church in 450 A.D.
One of the early heretical groups was the Gnostics. They Taught that Christ is not the divine Son of God, but a Spirit-filled man. One minister, Bardesanes, was deposed from the Christian ministry for accepting this heresy. He was not allowed to preach his heresy, but he did write some hymns, set them to catchy tunes and they were sung. One writer says "A very dangerous heresy came into the church like a flood in the second century." He sugarcoated his heresy and many accepted it through the use of these uninspired songs. Apollinarius of Laodicea, about one hundred years after Bardesanes, did the same thing to spread his heresy, and he, too, turned many away from Christ.
The worst heretic of the early church was a man named Arius. He, also, denied that Christ is God. He was tried and deposed from the ministry. He, too, wrote songs, set them to attractive tunes and got them sung. His success must have surpassed his wildest dreams, for almost the entire church was carried away by his heresy. This heresy became so popular that it is said of Athanasius, who fought this heresy, that he was against the world. With good reason it has been said, "Let me make a people's songs and I care not who makes their laws."
These are men who set the example of breaking away from the use of the divinely given Psalms of the Bible and this is the reason why they did. These men, who denied the truth of the Bible, hoped to persuade others to believe by the use of their songs what they could never make the bible teach. The late Dean Farrar, a famous English minister, said of both ancient and modern hymns, "They abound, if not in heresy, yet in false theology." A modern teacher said that the Hebrew put his best theology into the Psalms, while modern man puts his worst theology into the hymns.
This fact, then, stands out in the early history of the church: those who sought the purity of the church and the honor of Christ used the Psalms in worship and those false leaders who tried to lure people away from the truth used songs of their own composition.
That was true in ancient times, and it is true today. No modern denomination has used hymns in the worship of God for 200 years without being disturbed by those who denied the infallibility of the Scriptures and other standards of faith. This is because men who are not inspired cannot always express God's truth. When we accept songs of purely human origin and use them in the worship of God, we are actually doing the same thing: using uninspired songs instead of inspired ones. The hymns in the average hymnbook were written by Protestants of various denominations, by Roman Catholics, by Unitarians who deny the deity of Christ and by others. They are almost certain to put their belief into their songs. When their belief is actually unbelief, their songs can hardly be in accordance with the Scriptures.
If our experience, then, would be the same as that of those who have used songs of human composition in the worship of God, we would, if we ceased to use the Psalms exclusively, surrender, sooner or later, some of the essential truths of the Christian faith. That result we do not want. Therefore, we [should] use the Psalms exclusively.
The Psalms are God's Inspired Book of Praise
2. Again, we use the Psalms exclusively in the worship of God because God inspired them and gave them to be used in His worship.
Physically and spiritually the Psalms are the heart of the Bible. Open your Bible in the center and you open it to the Psalms. The Psalms were used in the worship of God in the Old Testament church. The leaders of the New Testament church understood that the New Testament church was not given a book of praises because the Old Testament Psalter was sufficient. So the used it.
In his letter to the church at Colosse, Paul wrote, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Col. 3:16). In his letter to the church at Ephesus, he wrote, "And be not drunk with wine, which is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord" (Eph. 5:18,19).
These two verses may, at first sight, seem to contradict our position as to the use of Psalms– these believers were commanded to sing hymns. However, Greek scholars tell us that the word "spiritual" refers to all three nouns. Those Christians were to sing spiritual Psalms, spiritual hymns and spiritual songs. Dr. B. B. Warfield wrote that this word "spiritual", in twenty-four out of the twenty- five times it is used in the New Testament means, "Spirit given, or Spirit led, or Sprit determined." The lone exception is in Ephesians 6:12. There Paul writing about the Christian warfare spoke of "spiritual wickedness." But in both Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:18,19, it means "Spirit given"; it means the songs to be used in God's worship are God inspired. Only the Psalms meet that requirement for use in God's worship.
Paul had a reason for using those three words to describe the Psalms. The Jews were then a widely scattered people. Many lived in and near Babylon where they had been taken as captives. Others were captured as slaves and sold into other parts of the world. Our history books tell us that many English pilgrims went to holland to enjoy religious liberty. But they soon wanted to leave Holland because their children were learning the language of Holland. Many of these people later came to America where they could enjoy both religious freedom and use of the English language. All these Jews could not get back to Palestine, although her very dust to them was dear. So they and their children began to use the most popular language of their day: Greek. One who knew Greek could travel almost anywhere and be understood. Paul wrote a letter to the Christians in Rome, but he did not write in Latin; he wrote in Greek. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, but he did not write in Hebrew; he wrote in Greek. Paul commanded the Christians to sing inspired songs in the worship of God, and that meant the Psalms. Only the Psalms met that standard.
If you open your Bible to the Psalms, you can see why Paul used those three words to refer to the Psalter. Turn to Psalm 82, and you will notice that the title is, "A Psalm or song of Asaph." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, before the birth of Christ, the Psalms had the same titles. Some were "Psalms"; others were "songs"; and still others were "hymns." Psalms 67 is "A Psalm or song." But in the Greek translation, that word translated "song" is actually "hymn." When Paul wrote about "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs", he was referring to the psalms of the Old Testament. These songs, inspired of God, were to be used in His worship. God gave them to be sung and He gave nothing else.
As I tried to show earlier, it is dangerous to substitute an uninspired document for an inspired one, either in singing or reading. If you have read several Bible commentaries, you will agree that there are many things written in these commentaries which are not in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. These commentaries are not, and cannot be, substitutes for the Bible. Neither are uninspired, poetical writings of men good substitutes for God's inspired Word.
In a recent review of a hymnal in a theological journal, the reviewer named several hymns, not in this hymnbook, which are in many hymnbooks and are well liked by many. Then he said, "To be sure, some of these were not written by evangelical Christians." An evangelical Christian is one who accepts the plain Bible teaching about sin and salvation through Christ. The writers were not evangelical Christians, but many evangelical Christians sing their hymns. Is that not a strange situation? The believer sings songs written by an unbeliever - can they possibly strengthen and develop his faith? God is truth; the Psalms are inspired and therefore true. They are to be sung.
In the verses Paul wrote about singing, he wrote only about singing; there is not a word about writing songs. He took for granted that the songs they sang were already written, and they were the one hundred and fifty Psalms. If any other songs were used then in God's praise, they have been lost.
The New Testament speaks often of the gifts which God gave early Christians to be used for the glory of God and the advancement of the church. He gave ministers, evangelists, teachers and others, but nowhere in the New Testament, is there any mention of the gift of writing songs to be used in the worship of God. David said, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my mouth." But there is no comparable verse in the New Testament, because there were no inspired New Testament song writers. The early Christians sang the inspired Psalms.
The King James translation of the New Testament of Matthew 26:30 makes it read, "And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." What was this hymn Christ sang? It was not a hymn in the modern meaning of the word. The Jews sang the Great Hallel at the Passover Feast. The Great Hallel consists of Psalms 113 to 118. Those songs were the hymn He sang.
We sing the Psalms because they are full of Christ. The late Dr. And Mrs. John Coleman prepared a manuscript dealing with "The Life of Christ in the Psalms", choosing Psalms that referred definitely to Christ. They chose sufficient Psalms for an evening of Psalm singing, but they did not exhaust their subject. They had to leave out some of the Psalms referring to Christ. The Psalms are full of Christ.
Christ Himself said that the Psalms told of His coming work. He appeared to some of His disciples on the evening of the Resurrection and said to them, "These are the words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me" (Luke 24:44). John tells us that at one time the disciples remembered that it was written of Him, "The zeal of your house has eaten Me up" (John 2:17). This was written in Psalm 69:9 and was a plain reference to Christ. The word "Save" or "Savior" is found over fifty times in the Psalter. Whenever one sings, "Save me, O God, by Thy great name", (Psalm 54:1) he is praying that Jesus Christ will save him. No one can be saved without a Savior.
We sing the Psalms because God gave them to be sung, because they praise God for all His attributes. The Psalter is the only book of praises that does. The songs of the Psalter praise God as Creator and Ruler. They praise Him for His great love shown to sinners. But the Psalter also praises Him for His justice. Many condemn what they call the "imprecatory Psalms" which are really the Psalms of justice. But God's justice is one of His great attributes for which we praise Him.
If God is not just, then no one can have any possible assurance of salvation. Only a just judge can be depended upon to give a just verdict. My assurance of salvation lies in both the grace and the justice of God. A just God cannot give life to an unrepentant sinner, and mankind needs to know that. Neither can a just God condemn one whose sins have been borne by Jesus Christ. But an unjust judge cannot be depended upon to deal rightly.
The praise service is to praise God for His greatness and goodness. Many hymns are exhortations to sinners. A once popular hymn, "Brighten the Corner Where You Are", is not addressed to God. But the praise service is to praise God, not urge men to better living.
We love the Psalms because of what they have done. Kilpatrick wrote, "If the history of the use of the Psalter could be written, it would be a history of the spiritual life of the Church." Perowne wrote of the Psalter, "No other book of the Bible, unless it be the Gospels, has had so large an influence in molding the affections, sustaining the hopes and purifying the faith of believers."
Christ's spiritual life was nourished on the Psalter to a great extent. He sang the Hallel at the last passover and the first Lord's Supper. He quoted from Psalm 22 while on the cross. He gave up His life with the words of a Psalm, "Into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Psalm 31:5).
The Psalms were the praise book of the Jewish church and still are of the orthodox Jew. The early Christian church sang nothing but Psalms. The modern Baptist, Congregational and all older branches of the Presbyterian Church were at one time all exclusively Psalm singing. As Dr. M. G. Kyle said in a lecture given shortly before his death, "The Psalms were never surpassed, never equaled and never supplanted". Therefore we, as a denomination [Reformed Presbyterians], still sing them in our praise service.
Martin Luther and the Canon of Scripture
Introduction
Many evangelical Protestants enjoy engaging Roman Catholics in theological debates. Most of these evangelicals, unfortunately, lose credibility with Catholics as soon as the discussion turns to Martin Luther. This is simply because many Protestants are ignorant of Martin Luther's erroneous opinion of the cannon of Scripture. Protestants should educate themselves about Luther and losen their extremely esteemed view of him before entering a discussion about theology with Catholics. This is especially true when the subject pertains to the relationship between faith and works.
Admittedly, Luther did indeed expose many dangerously false teachings that were being propagated by the Church of his day, and he did open the door for Medieval Germans to read the Bible for themselves. For these accomplishments he should be commended for being a useful tool in the Hand of God. Protestants must not, however, attempt to trivialize his excessive judgment upon James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. We should instead endeavor to learn the reasons why Luther judged these books so harshly, and we should familiarize ourselves with arguments that defend their rightful place in the canon.
In fairness to Luther, it should be mentioned from the outset that he did hold a high view of Books of the Bible that he believed were inspired. In order to hold a balanced view of him, one must not interpret his rejection of these four books from the canon as unbelief in the doctrine of inerrancy. As N.B. Stonehouse notes,
[Luther’s] rejection of James and the others accordingly is in complete harmony with his declarations that Scripture cannot err; indeed his rejection of them, rather than attesting a rejection of infallibility, is intelligible only on the background of a firm maintenance of the doctrine. If Luther had had as low a view of inspiration as modern writers often
ascribe to him, his sharply distinctive treatment of the four would not have been necessary. [1]
His error was not that he held a liberal view of Scriptural inerrancy. “. . .Luther’s attitude towards James proves the exact opposite of what the liberal Bible scholar wants to prove. The primary question for Luther was not ‘Is this part of the inspired Bible false?’ but, ‘Is this a part of the inspired Bible?’" [2]
While venerating Luther to the point of believing that he could do no wrong damages the credibility of Protestants, it is equally ignorant and unhistorical to view him as holding a low view of Scripture. This foundation having just been laid, the focus will now turn to a defense of the books in question against Luther’s inappropriate judgement of them.
A Defense of Jude Against Luther
Of the Book of Jude, Luther wrote:
. . .[N]o one can deny that it is an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures
[Jude 9, 14]. . .Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith. [3]
How can Jude be defended against Luther’s criticism? To begin with, the scholarly consensus is that 2 Peter uses Jude, and not the other way around. Therefore Jude is probably not “an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle” as Luther purported. The only verbatim verses shared between the two books is 2 Peter 2:17 (“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.”) and Jude 13 (“These are. . .wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever”). Besides this, the two books are related in that they share similar ideas, words, Old Testament illustrations, and text order (1 Peter 2:1-18 and Jude 4-16). [4] What about Luther’s objection that Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, and that he did not write in Greek? The answer to this is that there is no indication in the letter of its place of writing or its destination. Nobody can say they know that Jude meant for this epistle to be read in Persia and not in a Greek speaking land, as Luther suggests.
What about Luther’s mentioning that Jude cites sayings that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures (Jude 9, 14)?
Allusion to or citation of extrabiblical materials is rare in the New Testament. But given the currency of apocryphal religious works during the period, and the desire of the New Testament writers to communicate the gospel in terms familiar to their readers, it is not surprising to find some occasional use. Examples include 2 Tim. 3:8, which uses Jewish traditions about Ex. 7:11; and the quotation of pagan poets in Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; and Titus 1:12. The inclusion of such quotations in the inspired canon, for illustrative purposes or as an appeal to conventional wisdom, does not imply that the apocryphal and nonbiblical documents were themselves inspired, nor that everything in them is being endorsed by the Bible. It is the use of the particular reference that is inspired, not the source of that reference. [5]
A Defense of Hebrews Against Luther
Of Hebrews Luther wrote:
. . .[T]he fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter 2...Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 [:4-6] and 10 [:26-27] it flatly denies and forbids to sinners any repentance after baptism. . . . This [is] contrary to all the gospels and to St. Paul's epistles. . .[6]
Luther should not have had any problem with the author of Hebrews not being an apostle. He accepted Mark, Luke and Acts knowing that these books were not written by apostles. His rejection of Hebrews 6:4-6 (because of his misconception that it contradicted the Gospels and Paul) was also unreasonable. The passage reads: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (ESV). Although there are many explanations of this passage, what should primarily be pointed out here is that it is not in contradiction “to all the gospels and to St. Paul’s epistles” as Luther claimed.
As Philip Edgcumbe Hughs points out, the sin shown in Hebrews 6 is a sinful disposition. . .
[a] sin against the light. It is sin committed, not in ignorance, but in the face of knowledge and even experience of truth - not the sin of those who are “ignorant and wayward” (Heb. 5:2) but of those who “sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” (Heb. 10:26)
. . .To enter into the light and then to reject that light in favor of the darkness of unbelief incurs the judgment of being broken off from the tree of life (cf. Rom. 11:17ff.). Within this perspective we can understand Paul’s. . .statement in 1 Tim. 1:13 that, though he had blasphemed and persecuted and insulted Christ, yet he received mercy because he acted “ignorantly in unbelief”: In other words, his unbelief was capable of receiving God’s pardon
. . . because his opposition had been exercised in the darkness of ignorance, whereas the man who rebels as an apostate after professing faith in Christ and entering into the sphere of evangelical blessing is not acting “ignorantly in unbelief”, but by a deliberate and calculated renunciation of the good he has known he places himself beyond forgiveness and renewal. [7]
This points out that the Hebrews passage does not contradict Paul; it can even be argued that Hebrews 6 offers useful insight into a statement of Paul.
The quote that follows will point out unity between Hebrews 6 and the Gospels.
A clue to what is intended is available, however, in the warning of Christ against the “eternal sin” (Mk. 3:29). . .By closing their [the scribe’s] eyes to the plain evidence that the kingdom of God had com upon them and wickedly describing as satanic the signs that the Holy Spirit was powerfully and beneficially acting in and through Jesus, these professors of godliness betrayed an attitude of hardened hostility to the truth. They showed themselves to be hard-hearted enemies of the light that had come into the world (Jn. 1:19-21). Such blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is sin for which there is no forgiveness (Mk. 3:29). “The apostle is not talking here about theft or perjury or murder or drunkenness or adultery,” comments Calvin. “He is referring to a complete falling away from the gospel, in which the sinner has offended God not in some one respect only but has utterly renounced his grace.” [8]
A Defense of Revelation Against Luther
Of Revelation he wrote:
. . .I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and His deeds, without images and visions . . . I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . [9]
Luther’s rejection of revelation has even less of a foundation than his rejection of the other books. His only hangup was his belief that God would never inspire one of His apostles to use symbolic language when writing about Christ. This is very subjective of Luther; why didn’t he object to the “images and visions” included in Daniel 7-12, Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 37-41, or Zechariah 9-12? He seems to have singled out only Revelation for comments such as “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it”. Luther apparently did not take into consideration the reason for symbolism within books of apocalyptic literature. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary maintains the following about Revelation’s use of symbolic language:
One reason is that these books were written in dangerous times when it was safer to hide one’s message in images than to speak plainly. . .Revelation was written originally for first century Christians who faced severe trials under a totalitarian political system. Its imagery reflects the historical realities of that time. This is not to say, however, that it is not also addressing succeeding generations, including our own. As is true of all Biblical prophecy, God’s Word comes to a particular situation; but it yields a harvest to later generations as they receive it. Thus, Revelation assures us that God is present, purposeful, and powerful today, no matter what forms the beast may take. [10]
A Defense of James Against Luther
Luther criticized James with more intensity than he did with any other book of Scripture. This is because he perceived it as being a threat to Paul's teaching of salvation by grace alone. Many evangelicals are aware of his famous “epistle of straw” remark, but his criticism of James went far further than this. For example:
We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. . . I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. . . He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! [11]
Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle. Some day I will use James to fire my stove. [12]
Luther claimed that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. [13] His difficulty was with a comparison of James 2:24 with verses such as Romans 3:28. These verses are compared below with some context.
Romans 3:28, 30 and 4:1-3
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.". . . He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
James 2:21-25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works. . .?
After seeing these two passages side by side, it is natural to wonder how (if possible) can they be reconciled. The first step to understanding the unity between James and Paul is to realize that the two authors are in writing under very different circumstances and are addressing themselves to opposite problems.
[A]gainst the reliance of Jews and Judaisers on obedience to the law (performance of ‘works of the law’ [RSV]) as the way of acceptance with God, Paul insists that justification is by grace through faith alone; against the ‘lazy faith-quietism’ of ‘solifidians’ James insists that ‘faith’ without works is dead and that a living faith will manifest itself in works. Thus, ‘they are not antagonists facing each other with drawn swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the Gospel’. [14]
These different settings and audiences that James and Paul were faced with caused them to use the words “faith”, “justification”, and “works” differently. Understanding the way they used these words is the second step to understanding the unity between James and Paul.
“Justification”
Paul is concerned with justification in the typical Biblical sense when he uses the word. For him it is a pronouncement by God that one is made justified from his sins. James, however, is speaking of the results of justification when he uses it. James is writing not about a pronouncement that one is just, but about the evidence that justification has taken place. [15]Paul writes about one’s justification before God, and James writes about one’s final vindication before men.
“Faith”
When Paul uses the word “faith” he refers to an act of self-committal to Christ. [16] James, on the other hand, uses the word to mean mere intellectual assent which has no bearing on a person’s conduct.
“[I]n 2:14-26, James has in view two kinds of faith, the genuine (18b,e, 22a,b; cf. 23b) and the spurious (14, 17, 18d, 20, 24, 26; cf. 19), and it is the latter only which he depreciates as dead and useless. His point seems to be that ‘a faith that is alive give evidence of being alive’. To the same effect Paul says that what matters is not circumcision or the want of it, but ‘faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6). [17]
“Works”
Ronald Fung quotes P.H. Davids to explain how James and Paul use the word “works”. Davids maintains that “Paul’s ‘works of the law’ are never moral prescriptions, but rather ceremonial rites added to the work of Christ. In James, erga [never erga nomou] are always moral deeds, especially acts of charity” [18]. Fung also quotes D.J. Moo: “Both Paul and James are operating with an understanding of ‘works’ that is basically similar: anything done that is in obedience to God and in the service of God.” [19] Their difference is that Paul denies efficacy of “pre-conversion” works for justification, and James affirms the necessity of post-conversion works as evidence of faith that justifies. [20]
James S. Gidley has something else to point out of interest -- that James is purposely using gripping language to get the attention of his readers.
James assumes that his readers are quite familiar with Paul’s formulation of the doctrine. But some of James’s hearers were using the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a pretext for being complacent about ungodly living. What better way is there to awaken them than by using words that at first glance seem to be a shocking departure from what they have been taught? James 2 is a bombshell that explodes carnal confidence at its foundation. The complacent can scarcely be moved by anything less. [21]
James Gidley points out that James is wisdom literature. [22] He reminds us that one common feature in Biblical wisdom literature is paradox, and that one of the clearest examples of this is Proverbs 26:4-5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (ESV).
Conclusion
After carefully looking at the arguments in favor of the canonicity of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, it should be plain that Martin Luther was out of bounds when he criticized these books. Many Catholics observe multitudes of Protestants blindly lauding and venerating a man who refused to take a more humble approach to the canon of Scripture. Although Luther should indeed be acknowledged for the ways in which he advanced the Kingdom of God, Protestants should be more discriminating in what exactly it is that we are celebrating him for (i.e., translating the Bible into German and fighting against the teaching of salvation by works, but certainly not for his desire to throw large portions of the Bible into his stove). Those Protestants who have a desire to encourage Catholics to look into the doctrine of justification by faith alone would be able to gain at least a modicum of credibility with Catholics if they would be willing to disassociate with Luther to some degree. The distance we put between ourselves and Luther can become an ideal opportunity to explain to Catholics why we believe so strongly in salvation by faith apart from works. How refreshing it would be if a few Protestants learned to say to a few Catholics “No, I’m not Catholic, but I wholeheartedly condemn Martin Luther’s unreasonably crude treatment of James. Let me show you why Luther was wrong, and how James and Paul use the words faith, works, and justification differently. Who knows; maybe you will see why I believe that a man is justified by faith alone”.
ENDNOTES:
[1] N.B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus.(Grand Rapids, 1957) pp.195-196
[2] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983)
[3] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960) pp. 397-398
[4] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1995) page 1,979
[5] Ibid, 2,000
[6] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 394
[7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids,
1977) 216
[8] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977) 215-216
[9] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 398
[10] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, 1995) pages 1,084 and 1,087
[11] Luther’s Works, Vol 35, Tabletalk (Philadelphia, 1960) 424-425
[12] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983) Quoting from Weimar, “Tischreden” (5) p. 5854
[13] Ronald H. Bainton, Here I Stand (New York, date unlisted) 331
[14] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161 [Quoted from Ross 53; cf. Beasley-Murray and H. Kung, ‘Justification. The Doctrine of Carl Barth and a Catholic Response]
[15] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[16] Ibid
[17] Ibid; Ronald Fung quotes from Travis, ‘James and Paul’, 61
[18] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[19] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[20] Ibid
[21] James S. Gidley, “James and Justification by Faith”, New Horizons, Feb. 2005, 4
[22] Ibid
Many evangelical Protestants enjoy engaging Roman Catholics in theological debates. Most of these evangelicals, unfortunately, lose credibility with Catholics as soon as the discussion turns to Martin Luther. This is simply because many Protestants are ignorant of Martin Luther's erroneous opinion of the cannon of Scripture. Protestants should educate themselves about Luther and losen their extremely esteemed view of him before entering a discussion about theology with Catholics. This is especially true when the subject pertains to the relationship between faith and works.
Admittedly, Luther did indeed expose many dangerously false teachings that were being propagated by the Church of his day, and he did open the door for Medieval Germans to read the Bible for themselves. For these accomplishments he should be commended for being a useful tool in the Hand of God. Protestants must not, however, attempt to trivialize his excessive judgment upon James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. We should instead endeavor to learn the reasons why Luther judged these books so harshly, and we should familiarize ourselves with arguments that defend their rightful place in the canon.
In fairness to Luther, it should be mentioned from the outset that he did hold a high view of Books of the Bible that he believed were inspired. In order to hold a balanced view of him, one must not interpret his rejection of these four books from the canon as unbelief in the doctrine of inerrancy. As N.B. Stonehouse notes,
[Luther’s] rejection of James and the others accordingly is in complete harmony with his declarations that Scripture cannot err; indeed his rejection of them, rather than attesting a rejection of infallibility, is intelligible only on the background of a firm maintenance of the doctrine. If Luther had had as low a view of inspiration as modern writers often
ascribe to him, his sharply distinctive treatment of the four would not have been necessary. [1]
His error was not that he held a liberal view of Scriptural inerrancy. “. . .Luther’s attitude towards James proves the exact opposite of what the liberal Bible scholar wants to prove. The primary question for Luther was not ‘Is this part of the inspired Bible false?’ but, ‘Is this a part of the inspired Bible?’" [2]
While venerating Luther to the point of believing that he could do no wrong damages the credibility of Protestants, it is equally ignorant and unhistorical to view him as holding a low view of Scripture. This foundation having just been laid, the focus will now turn to a defense of the books in question against Luther’s inappropriate judgement of them.
A Defense of Jude Against Luther
Of the Book of Jude, Luther wrote:
. . .[N]o one can deny that it is an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures
[Jude 9, 14]. . .Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith. [3]
How can Jude be defended against Luther’s criticism? To begin with, the scholarly consensus is that 2 Peter uses Jude, and not the other way around. Therefore Jude is probably not “an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle” as Luther purported. The only verbatim verses shared between the two books is 2 Peter 2:17 (“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.”) and Jude 13 (“These are. . .wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever”). Besides this, the two books are related in that they share similar ideas, words, Old Testament illustrations, and text order (1 Peter 2:1-18 and Jude 4-16). [4] What about Luther’s objection that Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, and that he did not write in Greek? The answer to this is that there is no indication in the letter of its place of writing or its destination. Nobody can say they know that Jude meant for this epistle to be read in Persia and not in a Greek speaking land, as Luther suggests.
What about Luther’s mentioning that Jude cites sayings that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures (Jude 9, 14)?
Allusion to or citation of extrabiblical materials is rare in the New Testament. But given the currency of apocryphal religious works during the period, and the desire of the New Testament writers to communicate the gospel in terms familiar to their readers, it is not surprising to find some occasional use. Examples include 2 Tim. 3:8, which uses Jewish traditions about Ex. 7:11; and the quotation of pagan poets in Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; and Titus 1:12. The inclusion of such quotations in the inspired canon, for illustrative purposes or as an appeal to conventional wisdom, does not imply that the apocryphal and nonbiblical documents were themselves inspired, nor that everything in them is being endorsed by the Bible. It is the use of the particular reference that is inspired, not the source of that reference. [5]
A Defense of Hebrews Against Luther
Of Hebrews Luther wrote:
. . .[T]he fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter 2...Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 [:4-6] and 10 [:26-27] it flatly denies and forbids to sinners any repentance after baptism. . . . This [is] contrary to all the gospels and to St. Paul's epistles. . .[6]
Luther should not have had any problem with the author of Hebrews not being an apostle. He accepted Mark, Luke and Acts knowing that these books were not written by apostles. His rejection of Hebrews 6:4-6 (because of his misconception that it contradicted the Gospels and Paul) was also unreasonable. The passage reads: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (ESV). Although there are many explanations of this passage, what should primarily be pointed out here is that it is not in contradiction “to all the gospels and to St. Paul’s epistles” as Luther claimed.
As Philip Edgcumbe Hughs points out, the sin shown in Hebrews 6 is a sinful disposition. . .
[a] sin against the light. It is sin committed, not in ignorance, but in the face of knowledge and even experience of truth - not the sin of those who are “ignorant and wayward” (Heb. 5:2) but of those who “sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” (Heb. 10:26)
. . .To enter into the light and then to reject that light in favor of the darkness of unbelief incurs the judgment of being broken off from the tree of life (cf. Rom. 11:17ff.). Within this perspective we can understand Paul’s. . .statement in 1 Tim. 1:13 that, though he had blasphemed and persecuted and insulted Christ, yet he received mercy because he acted “ignorantly in unbelief”: In other words, his unbelief was capable of receiving God’s pardon
. . . because his opposition had been exercised in the darkness of ignorance, whereas the man who rebels as an apostate after professing faith in Christ and entering into the sphere of evangelical blessing is not acting “ignorantly in unbelief”, but by a deliberate and calculated renunciation of the good he has known he places himself beyond forgiveness and renewal. [7]
This points out that the Hebrews passage does not contradict Paul; it can even be argued that Hebrews 6 offers useful insight into a statement of Paul.
The quote that follows will point out unity between Hebrews 6 and the Gospels.
A clue to what is intended is available, however, in the warning of Christ against the “eternal sin” (Mk. 3:29). . .By closing their [the scribe’s] eyes to the plain evidence that the kingdom of God had com upon them and wickedly describing as satanic the signs that the Holy Spirit was powerfully and beneficially acting in and through Jesus, these professors of godliness betrayed an attitude of hardened hostility to the truth. They showed themselves to be hard-hearted enemies of the light that had come into the world (Jn. 1:19-21). Such blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is sin for which there is no forgiveness (Mk. 3:29). “The apostle is not talking here about theft or perjury or murder or drunkenness or adultery,” comments Calvin. “He is referring to a complete falling away from the gospel, in which the sinner has offended God not in some one respect only but has utterly renounced his grace.” [8]
A Defense of Revelation Against Luther
Of Revelation he wrote:
. . .I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and His deeds, without images and visions . . . I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . [9]
Luther’s rejection of revelation has even less of a foundation than his rejection of the other books. His only hangup was his belief that God would never inspire one of His apostles to use symbolic language when writing about Christ. This is very subjective of Luther; why didn’t he object to the “images and visions” included in Daniel 7-12, Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 37-41, or Zechariah 9-12? He seems to have singled out only Revelation for comments such as “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it”. Luther apparently did not take into consideration the reason for symbolism within books of apocalyptic literature. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary maintains the following about Revelation’s use of symbolic language:
One reason is that these books were written in dangerous times when it was safer to hide one’s message in images than to speak plainly. . .Revelation was written originally for first century Christians who faced severe trials under a totalitarian political system. Its imagery reflects the historical realities of that time. This is not to say, however, that it is not also addressing succeeding generations, including our own. As is true of all Biblical prophecy, God’s Word comes to a particular situation; but it yields a harvest to later generations as they receive it. Thus, Revelation assures us that God is present, purposeful, and powerful today, no matter what forms the beast may take. [10]
A Defense of James Against Luther
Luther criticized James with more intensity than he did with any other book of Scripture. This is because he perceived it as being a threat to Paul's teaching of salvation by grace alone. Many evangelicals are aware of his famous “epistle of straw” remark, but his criticism of James went far further than this. For example:
We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. . . I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. . . He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! [11]
Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle. Some day I will use James to fire my stove. [12]
Luther claimed that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. [13] His difficulty was with a comparison of James 2:24 with verses such as Romans 3:28. These verses are compared below with some context.
Romans 3:28, 30 and 4:1-3
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.". . . He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
James 2:21-25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works. . .?
After seeing these two passages side by side, it is natural to wonder how (if possible) can they be reconciled. The first step to understanding the unity between James and Paul is to realize that the two authors are in writing under very different circumstances and are addressing themselves to opposite problems.
[A]gainst the reliance of Jews and Judaisers on obedience to the law (performance of ‘works of the law’ [RSV]) as the way of acceptance with God, Paul insists that justification is by grace through faith alone; against the ‘lazy faith-quietism’ of ‘solifidians’ James insists that ‘faith’ without works is dead and that a living faith will manifest itself in works. Thus, ‘they are not antagonists facing each other with drawn swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the Gospel’. [14]
These different settings and audiences that James and Paul were faced with caused them to use the words “faith”, “justification”, and “works” differently. Understanding the way they used these words is the second step to understanding the unity between James and Paul.
“Justification”
Paul is concerned with justification in the typical Biblical sense when he uses the word. For him it is a pronouncement by God that one is made justified from his sins. James, however, is speaking of the results of justification when he uses it. James is writing not about a pronouncement that one is just, but about the evidence that justification has taken place. [15]Paul writes about one’s justification before God, and James writes about one’s final vindication before men.
“Faith”
When Paul uses the word “faith” he refers to an act of self-committal to Christ. [16] James, on the other hand, uses the word to mean mere intellectual assent which has no bearing on a person’s conduct.
“[I]n 2:14-26, James has in view two kinds of faith, the genuine (18b,e, 22a,b; cf. 23b) and the spurious (14, 17, 18d, 20, 24, 26; cf. 19), and it is the latter only which he depreciates as dead and useless. His point seems to be that ‘a faith that is alive give evidence of being alive’. To the same effect Paul says that what matters is not circumcision or the want of it, but ‘faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6). [17]
“Works”
Ronald Fung quotes P.H. Davids to explain how James and Paul use the word “works”. Davids maintains that “Paul’s ‘works of the law’ are never moral prescriptions, but rather ceremonial rites added to the work of Christ. In James, erga [never erga nomou] are always moral deeds, especially acts of charity” [18]. Fung also quotes D.J. Moo: “Both Paul and James are operating with an understanding of ‘works’ that is basically similar: anything done that is in obedience to God and in the service of God.” [19] Their difference is that Paul denies efficacy of “pre-conversion” works for justification, and James affirms the necessity of post-conversion works as evidence of faith that justifies. [20]
James S. Gidley has something else to point out of interest -- that James is purposely using gripping language to get the attention of his readers.
James assumes that his readers are quite familiar with Paul’s formulation of the doctrine. But some of James’s hearers were using the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a pretext for being complacent about ungodly living. What better way is there to awaken them than by using words that at first glance seem to be a shocking departure from what they have been taught? James 2 is a bombshell that explodes carnal confidence at its foundation. The complacent can scarcely be moved by anything less. [21]
James Gidley points out that James is wisdom literature. [22] He reminds us that one common feature in Biblical wisdom literature is paradox, and that one of the clearest examples of this is Proverbs 26:4-5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (ESV).
Conclusion
After carefully looking at the arguments in favor of the canonicity of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, it should be plain that Martin Luther was out of bounds when he criticized these books. Many Catholics observe multitudes of Protestants blindly lauding and venerating a man who refused to take a more humble approach to the canon of Scripture. Although Luther should indeed be acknowledged for the ways in which he advanced the Kingdom of God, Protestants should be more discriminating in what exactly it is that we are celebrating him for (i.e., translating the Bible into German and fighting against the teaching of salvation by works, but certainly not for his desire to throw large portions of the Bible into his stove). Those Protestants who have a desire to encourage Catholics to look into the doctrine of justification by faith alone would be able to gain at least a modicum of credibility with Catholics if they would be willing to disassociate with Luther to some degree. The distance we put between ourselves and Luther can become an ideal opportunity to explain to Catholics why we believe so strongly in salvation by faith apart from works. How refreshing it would be if a few Protestants learned to say to a few Catholics “No, I’m not Catholic, but I wholeheartedly condemn Martin Luther’s unreasonably crude treatment of James. Let me show you why Luther was wrong, and how James and Paul use the words faith, works, and justification differently. Who knows; maybe you will see why I believe that a man is justified by faith alone”.
ENDNOTES:
[1] N.B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus.(Grand Rapids, 1957) pp.195-196
[2] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983)
[3] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960) pp. 397-398
[4] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1995) page 1,979
[5] Ibid, 2,000
[6] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 394
[7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids,
1977) 216
[8] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977) 215-216
[9] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 398
[10] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, 1995) pages 1,084 and 1,087
[11] Luther’s Works, Vol 35, Tabletalk (Philadelphia, 1960) 424-425
[12] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983) Quoting from Weimar, “Tischreden” (5) p. 5854
[13] Ronald H. Bainton, Here I Stand (New York, date unlisted) 331
[14] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161 [Quoted from Ross 53; cf. Beasley-Murray and H. Kung, ‘Justification. The Doctrine of Carl Barth and a Catholic Response]
[15] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[16] Ibid
[17] Ibid; Ronald Fung quotes from Travis, ‘James and Paul’, 61
[18] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[19] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161
[20] Ibid
[21] James S. Gidley, “James and Justification by Faith”, New Horizons, Feb. 2005, 4
[22] Ibid
Saturday
For Whom Should Christians Vote?
The following post does not reflect the beliefs of ALL Reformed Presbyterians. It does, however, reflect the convictions of the author...
Introduction
Americans from their youth are often told that it is their “duty” to vote. The Church also proclaims this statement with the goal of fulfilling the cultural mandate. Christians are often told to vote Republican, or to vote pro-life, or to vote for a not-so-great candidate in order to keep an exceedingly bad candidate out of office.
Voting is often viewed as a moral obligation regardless of the choices of candidates. Does this obligation, then, simply boil down to voting for the better of two evils, or for the candidate who is a member of a certain political party? Is the follower of Jesus simply to vote for a candidate who stands for lower taxes and who is pro-life?
Many Christians also claim that America was once a Christian nation, and that we are therefore obligated to vote for those men who will be more likely to uphold the biblical standards that best fit our country’s foundation. William Einwechter accurately states:
It has been some twenty years since Jerry Falwell launched the Moral Majority and issued
a patriotic “God and Country” call to fellow evangelicals to re-enter the political arena so as to rescue the nation from secular humanism and its attendant moral decline. Evangelicals responded to his call in large numbers and the Moral Majority quickly became the major force of the so-called “religious right,” exercising significant influence on national politics. One of Falwell’s major themes was that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that this was the reason for her greatness and prosperity. (1)
But what exactly is it that makes our nation’s foundation a Christian foundation? What makes a nation a Christian nation?
This post aims at answering the question “For whom should the Christian vote”. It will include key Scripture passages regarding this subject, as well as noteworthy inclusions from current and historical thinkers on the issue of Christian voting. This post will also address relevant issues pertaining to the United States Constitution.
The Reformed Presbyterian View of Voting
The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America tells us the following:
When participating in political elections, the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principals of civil government. Should the Christian seek civil office by political election, he must openly inform those whose support he seeks of his adherence to Christian principals of civil government. (2)
This statement obviously flies in the face of conventional American sentiment about voting. The Christian might ask “How will I vote at all, then, since political candidates are rarely devoted to scriptural principals of civil government?” It may surprise many Christians today that throughout American history Reformed Presbyterians did refuse to vote or even run for political office. Why would some Christians feel this way? The prominent reason for their refusal to vote or to hold office is that they believed that the Constitution of America was not at all a Christian constitution, and they had no intention on voting people into office if they were voting and running under an un-Christian constitution.
Is Our Nation’s Constitution A Christian Constitution?
Dr. D. James Kennedy sais the following about America:
If we know our history, we know that America was a nation founded upon Christ and His Word. But that foundation is crumbling in our time. Today some in our country are busily tearing apart that foundation. They would gnash their teeth at the idea that this is a Christian nation and will not be satisfied until they have removed every vestige of our Christian heritage from not only the minds, but also the monuments of this country. What made us great in the first place is our rich Christian heritage. It’s time to reclaim it. (3)
This is, of course, the majority view among Christians in America. There is, however, another (and more accurate) viewpoint regarding the nature of America’s foundation. It is stated well by William Gould in an open letter that he wrote to Dr. James Dobson. Dr. Dobson, in June of 1996, wrote a letter to subscribers of Focus on the Family regarding the treatment that Christians receive in our increasingly secular society. Part of Gould’s response to him is as follows:
You make the important point, that the Framers of our government believed Christian morality to be the foundation of democratic government, and that they knew the Constitution could only govern a nation where each person already governed himself according to the Ten Commandments. It is significant that some of the people you quoted were not themselves believers, in the sense of having a living, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Even they knew that only a Christian people could remain a free people.
There was however, a major error in what they did. They believed Christian morality and self-government were essential to the limited civil government they proposed in the Constitution. However, they neglected to mention that anywhere in the Constitution. The highest authority mentioned in the text of the Constitution is "We the People . . ." (4)
Gould also mentions in his open letter that this omission of Christ from the constitution “denies the most important fact about civil government: Jesus Christ is the Ruler of the rulers of Earth, and it is He who grants legitimacy to a civil government (Romans 13).” (5)
Because of this denial of Christ as Ruler in our Constitution, the framers, according to Gould, neglected to defend the Christian morality of future generations. The result of this is that they unwittingly enabled the militant secularists of our day to do great damage to America. This being the case, we can hardly call America a nation that has Christian foundations. Many of the framers may have been religious, and some may have even been Christians, but the unfortunate fact is that the framers never mentioned Christ.
According to the nineteenth century writer George Hill, America in one sense was in its origin a Christian nation -- namely, that the general character of its principals and laws were founded on Christian principals.
The principles, character, and usages to which I have referred constitute, so to speak, the unwritten constitution of the Government. ... These all have marked Christian characteristics.
But the written Constitution has not a distinctively Christian feature in it. It has not even a theistic feature. It is as silent as the grave concerning the existence of any being better or greater than man. It recognizes no obligation to, or dependence on, any power above “We the people” who “ordain and establish this Constitution.” (6)
Because the written constitution is a secular one, we should disagree with statements that comment on the “Christian foundations” of America. All Christians should note carefully that “There is no neutrality in constitutions! They either constitute God as King or man as king.” (7)
The secular nature of our constitution directly effected the voting practices of some Christians dating as far back as the 1860's. “The Old Light Reformed Presbyterians were so strong in their dissent as to refuse to vote or hold office or do any other act by which they would ‘incorporate’ with the godless United States Constitution”. (8)
In 1864 the National Reform Association was created, and they attempted to improve upon the constitution:
The National Reform Association has, for the last 125 years, sought to amend the Constitution to include a declaration that Jesus Christ is the Lord of civil government, as the Bible says in Romans 13. Our original proposal twice came up for a vote in the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1874 and 1896. It would have amended the preamble to read thus:
We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (9)
Who Should Christians Vote For?
Should Christians today take an all-out stand against voting of any kind in order to avoid incorporating with a godless constitution? According to William Einwechter, “The Scripture establishes the responsibility of the people to choose their magistrates. The citizens of Israel are charged by Moses to fulfill this duty on two distinct and separate occasions.” (10)
The Scriptural references he has in mind are Deuteronomy 1:13 and Deuteronomy 16:18. Therefore, rather than resolving simply to never vote (like some have done in the past), a more biblical course of action would be to vote only for godly men who honor Christ and who confess Him as the Ruler of rulers. Although many Christians argue that we are to vote Republican, or to vote pro-life, or to vote for a not-so-great candidate in order to keep an exceedingly bad candidate out of office, the Bible commands us to select godly men for public office! For example, according to Exodus 18:21 Jethro advises Moses to appoint men to help him govern the nation. Jethro's counsel to Moses includes the character of men that he should appoint as rulers: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness (Exodus 18:21).
But one might ask, “Why do elected officials have to be godly if they are against the things that we Christians are against?” Andrew Sandlin has the following answer to this question:
Unconverted people, according to the Bible, are estranged from and in rebellion against God. They are not subject to the law of God, and, according to St. Paul, they cannot be (Rom. 8:7). Spiritually, they are dead and blind. What if they are conservatives? They are still dead and blind. What if they are Republicans? They are still dead and blind. What if they support the school prayer amendment and vouchers? They are still dead and blind. What if they oppose abortion? They are still dead and blind. The point is that we cannot have the civil ministers doing what God requires unless they belong to God. We need not argue over what theologians term the decretive versus the permissive will of God. True, God sometimes sets ungodly rulers over his people to judge them; but the Biblically ideal civil government is one in which the rulers submit to Christ and to God's law-word. (11)
Long before Andrew Sandlin wrote about this subject, nineteenth century writer David McAllister stated that Scripture requires moral and religious qualifications of civil officers. His commentary of Exodus 18:21 is that “none but able, just, and God-fearing men should be exalted to the office of civil ruler.” (12)
He also rightly wrote that “When immoral men are elevated to the civil magistracy, wickedness and wicked men are encouraged”. (13)
This is based on his reading of Psalm 12:8 which reads “The wicked prowl on every side, When vileness is exalted among the sons of men” (NKJ). In contrast to this, McAllister wrote that “Just and God-fearing rulers bring the clear sunshine of peace and prosperity to a nation”. (14)
This is based on his reading of 2 Samuel 23:3-4, which reads
The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: 'He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds, Like the tender grass springing out of the earth, By clear shining after rain' (NKJ).
McAllister’s commentary of Psalm 2:10-12 is that “Civil rulers are enjoined to learn Christ’s law, and acknowledge and obey him as King”, and his comment regarding Deuteronomy 17:18-20 is that “They [civil rulers] are required to consult God’s revealed law as the great law-book of the nation”. (15)
To sum up what has just been presented about qualifications of magistrates, a quote from Einwechter is appropriate:
Now are we to presume that God gave the people the authority to select the men who would serve as His ministers in the office of civil magistrate, but then give them no definite guidance as to the kind of men they should choose? No, we should not, for the Scripture contains explicit teaching on the necessary qualifications for civil rulers. God reveals the standard for citizens in choosing their rulers in. ... Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13, and Proverbs 29:2. ... If the citizen is to honor God and establish justice in civil government, then he should support men who appear to him to meet these qualifications. (16)
Applications
How should Christians apply these biblical mandates regarding voting? One excellent point that Einwechter brings up is the need of the Church to encourage good men to run for office!
The church must labor to raise up men who will meet the biblical standards for magistrates. Where will men come from who are qualified for civil office if not from the covenant people? If there are no men qualified for a particular office, it is because the church has failed; it is not because the biblical standards are unworkable in the present context. The goal of the church should be to have a biblically qualified man running for every civil office in the land. We are a long way from reaching this goal. But the church must begin by equipping men to serve as magistrates and challenging them to glorify God as His minister in the civil sphere. Race by race, office by office, the church needs to take dominion over politics by raising up biblically qualified men. (17)
Another important concept that Christians must keep in mind is that we are commanded by God to vote for a certain type of man. When we don’t vote for a godly man because of his slim chances of winning, we are sinning.
Voting for a biblically qualified candidate who appears to have no chance of winning is not the waste of a vote, it is obedience to God. Obedience to God is never a waste of time or effort, but the compromise of biblical truth always is. Compromise sacrifices victory in the long run for the sake of immediate "success" or "peace," while godly obedience sacrifices immediate gratification for the sake of ultimate victory. Christians often complain that there are no godly men to vote for, but when one does appear, they don't vote for him anyway because, they reason, "he can't win." Can we expect the Lord to give us qualified men as candidates for civil office if Christians are not committed in principle to supporting them in obedience to biblical law? (18)
A Christian might ask “There should never be a time when I don’t vote at all, should there? What if a godly Christian man is not anywhere on the ballot? Should I not at that point simply vote for the candidate who is the most conservative, or who seems to be the most moral?” Amazingly, it seems that many Christians feel more guilt over neglecting their duty to vote than they do over neglecting the command to vote only for those who meet scriptural guidelines. To quote Einwechter again,
The only men who are truly qualified for civil office are those who meet the standards set down in the Word of God. God is sovereign over civil government, and the sole prerogative to establish what kind of men can and ought to serve as magistrates belongs to Him. Men who do not meet the biblical standards are not fully fit to serve as rulers. (19)
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that so many people in the Church judge whether or not a civil government honors Christ based on which political party currently has the majority in the White House. Many seem to believe that since devoted followers of Christ have such a slim chance of winning an election, issues such as patriotism, low taxes, abortion and civil marriage are therefore the only criteria by which we vote. It never seems to enter into the minds of many Christian voters that God is sovereign, and that the battle for the above mentioned issues would properly fall into place if truly godly men were in office.
These [scriptural] standards instruct citizens who have the liberty of choosing their civil magistrates on how to carry out their duty in accord with the will of God. It is God's revealed will that His ministers in the civil sphere be men who fear Him. God's blessings are on the people who choose men of ability, character, and spiritual maturity.
Christians should support with their time, money, and vote those men who meet the biblical qualifications. In all that he does the Christian is to seek to glorify God and promote the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christian gives his full support to men who meet the biblical standards for civil magistrates, he is doing these very things. If we are to have righteous civil government, then we must have righteous men as rulers. If we are to have a civil government that honors Christ, then we must have men who honor Jesus Christ as civil leaders. (20)
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
1. William Einwechter , Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), ix.
2. Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, Chapter 23, section 29.
3. D. James Kennedy, What if America Was a Christian Nation Again? (Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, 2003), 4.
4. William Gould, “A Letter to James Dobson”, The Christian Statesman, September-October 1996, Volume 139, Number 5
5. Ibid
6. The Rev. George Hill, D.D., The Aims and Operations of the National Reform
Association (No publishing information given), 1888?, 5-6.
7. William Einwechter, Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 80.
8. William Einwechter, Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 2.
9. William Gould, "A Letter to James Dobson", The Christian Statesman, September- October 1996, Volume 139, Number 5
10. William Einwechter , Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 75.
11. Andrew Sandlin, "Social Witness and Christian Voting:?", The Christian Statesman, May - June 1994, Volume 137, Number 3.
12. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 145
13. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 146
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 76
17. William Einwechter, "Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates", The Christian Statesman, September- October 1998, Volume 114, Number 5
18. Ibid
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
Introduction
Americans from their youth are often told that it is their “duty” to vote. The Church also proclaims this statement with the goal of fulfilling the cultural mandate. Christians are often told to vote Republican, or to vote pro-life, or to vote for a not-so-great candidate in order to keep an exceedingly bad candidate out of office.
Voting is often viewed as a moral obligation regardless of the choices of candidates. Does this obligation, then, simply boil down to voting for the better of two evils, or for the candidate who is a member of a certain political party? Is the follower of Jesus simply to vote for a candidate who stands for lower taxes and who is pro-life?
Many Christians also claim that America was once a Christian nation, and that we are therefore obligated to vote for those men who will be more likely to uphold the biblical standards that best fit our country’s foundation. William Einwechter accurately states:
It has been some twenty years since Jerry Falwell launched the Moral Majority and issued
a patriotic “God and Country” call to fellow evangelicals to re-enter the political arena so as to rescue the nation from secular humanism and its attendant moral decline. Evangelicals responded to his call in large numbers and the Moral Majority quickly became the major force of the so-called “religious right,” exercising significant influence on national politics. One of Falwell’s major themes was that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that this was the reason for her greatness and prosperity. (1)
But what exactly is it that makes our nation’s foundation a Christian foundation? What makes a nation a Christian nation?
This post aims at answering the question “For whom should the Christian vote”. It will include key Scripture passages regarding this subject, as well as noteworthy inclusions from current and historical thinkers on the issue of Christian voting. This post will also address relevant issues pertaining to the United States Constitution.
The Reformed Presbyterian View of Voting
The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America tells us the following:
When participating in political elections, the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principals of civil government. Should the Christian seek civil office by political election, he must openly inform those whose support he seeks of his adherence to Christian principals of civil government. (2)
This statement obviously flies in the face of conventional American sentiment about voting. The Christian might ask “How will I vote at all, then, since political candidates are rarely devoted to scriptural principals of civil government?” It may surprise many Christians today that throughout American history Reformed Presbyterians did refuse to vote or even run for political office. Why would some Christians feel this way? The prominent reason for their refusal to vote or to hold office is that they believed that the Constitution of America was not at all a Christian constitution, and they had no intention on voting people into office if they were voting and running under an un-Christian constitution.
Is Our Nation’s Constitution A Christian Constitution?
Dr. D. James Kennedy sais the following about America:
If we know our history, we know that America was a nation founded upon Christ and His Word. But that foundation is crumbling in our time. Today some in our country are busily tearing apart that foundation. They would gnash their teeth at the idea that this is a Christian nation and will not be satisfied until they have removed every vestige of our Christian heritage from not only the minds, but also the monuments of this country. What made us great in the first place is our rich Christian heritage. It’s time to reclaim it. (3)
This is, of course, the majority view among Christians in America. There is, however, another (and more accurate) viewpoint regarding the nature of America’s foundation. It is stated well by William Gould in an open letter that he wrote to Dr. James Dobson. Dr. Dobson, in June of 1996, wrote a letter to subscribers of Focus on the Family regarding the treatment that Christians receive in our increasingly secular society. Part of Gould’s response to him is as follows:
You make the important point, that the Framers of our government believed Christian morality to be the foundation of democratic government, and that they knew the Constitution could only govern a nation where each person already governed himself according to the Ten Commandments. It is significant that some of the people you quoted were not themselves believers, in the sense of having a living, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Even they knew that only a Christian people could remain a free people.
There was however, a major error in what they did. They believed Christian morality and self-government were essential to the limited civil government they proposed in the Constitution. However, they neglected to mention that anywhere in the Constitution. The highest authority mentioned in the text of the Constitution is "We the People . . ." (4)
Gould also mentions in his open letter that this omission of Christ from the constitution “denies the most important fact about civil government: Jesus Christ is the Ruler of the rulers of Earth, and it is He who grants legitimacy to a civil government (Romans 13).” (5)
Because of this denial of Christ as Ruler in our Constitution, the framers, according to Gould, neglected to defend the Christian morality of future generations. The result of this is that they unwittingly enabled the militant secularists of our day to do great damage to America. This being the case, we can hardly call America a nation that has Christian foundations. Many of the framers may have been religious, and some may have even been Christians, but the unfortunate fact is that the framers never mentioned Christ.
According to the nineteenth century writer George Hill, America in one sense was in its origin a Christian nation -- namely, that the general character of its principals and laws were founded on Christian principals.
The principles, character, and usages to which I have referred constitute, so to speak, the unwritten constitution of the Government. ... These all have marked Christian characteristics.
But the written Constitution has not a distinctively Christian feature in it. It has not even a theistic feature. It is as silent as the grave concerning the existence of any being better or greater than man. It recognizes no obligation to, or dependence on, any power above “We the people” who “ordain and establish this Constitution.” (6)
Because the written constitution is a secular one, we should disagree with statements that comment on the “Christian foundations” of America. All Christians should note carefully that “There is no neutrality in constitutions! They either constitute God as King or man as king.” (7)
The secular nature of our constitution directly effected the voting practices of some Christians dating as far back as the 1860's. “The Old Light Reformed Presbyterians were so strong in their dissent as to refuse to vote or hold office or do any other act by which they would ‘incorporate’ with the godless United States Constitution”. (8)
In 1864 the National Reform Association was created, and they attempted to improve upon the constitution:
The National Reform Association has, for the last 125 years, sought to amend the Constitution to include a declaration that Jesus Christ is the Lord of civil government, as the Bible says in Romans 13. Our original proposal twice came up for a vote in the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1874 and 1896. It would have amended the preamble to read thus:
We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (9)
Who Should Christians Vote For?
Should Christians today take an all-out stand against voting of any kind in order to avoid incorporating with a godless constitution? According to William Einwechter, “The Scripture establishes the responsibility of the people to choose their magistrates. The citizens of Israel are charged by Moses to fulfill this duty on two distinct and separate occasions.” (10)
The Scriptural references he has in mind are Deuteronomy 1:13 and Deuteronomy 16:18. Therefore, rather than resolving simply to never vote (like some have done in the past), a more biblical course of action would be to vote only for godly men who honor Christ and who confess Him as the Ruler of rulers. Although many Christians argue that we are to vote Republican, or to vote pro-life, or to vote for a not-so-great candidate in order to keep an exceedingly bad candidate out of office, the Bible commands us to select godly men for public office! For example, according to Exodus 18:21 Jethro advises Moses to appoint men to help him govern the nation. Jethro's counsel to Moses includes the character of men that he should appoint as rulers: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness (Exodus 18:21).
But one might ask, “Why do elected officials have to be godly if they are against the things that we Christians are against?” Andrew Sandlin has the following answer to this question:
Unconverted people, according to the Bible, are estranged from and in rebellion against God. They are not subject to the law of God, and, according to St. Paul, they cannot be (Rom. 8:7). Spiritually, they are dead and blind. What if they are conservatives? They are still dead and blind. What if they are Republicans? They are still dead and blind. What if they support the school prayer amendment and vouchers? They are still dead and blind. What if they oppose abortion? They are still dead and blind. The point is that we cannot have the civil ministers doing what God requires unless they belong to God. We need not argue over what theologians term the decretive versus the permissive will of God. True, God sometimes sets ungodly rulers over his people to judge them; but the Biblically ideal civil government is one in which the rulers submit to Christ and to God's law-word. (11)
Long before Andrew Sandlin wrote about this subject, nineteenth century writer David McAllister stated that Scripture requires moral and religious qualifications of civil officers. His commentary of Exodus 18:21 is that “none but able, just, and God-fearing men should be exalted to the office of civil ruler.” (12)
He also rightly wrote that “When immoral men are elevated to the civil magistracy, wickedness and wicked men are encouraged”. (13)
This is based on his reading of Psalm 12:8 which reads “The wicked prowl on every side, When vileness is exalted among the sons of men” (NKJ). In contrast to this, McAllister wrote that “Just and God-fearing rulers bring the clear sunshine of peace and prosperity to a nation”. (14)
This is based on his reading of 2 Samuel 23:3-4, which reads
The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: 'He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, A morning without clouds, Like the tender grass springing out of the earth, By clear shining after rain' (NKJ).
McAllister’s commentary of Psalm 2:10-12 is that “Civil rulers are enjoined to learn Christ’s law, and acknowledge and obey him as King”, and his comment regarding Deuteronomy 17:18-20 is that “They [civil rulers] are required to consult God’s revealed law as the great law-book of the nation”. (15)
To sum up what has just been presented about qualifications of magistrates, a quote from Einwechter is appropriate:
Now are we to presume that God gave the people the authority to select the men who would serve as His ministers in the office of civil magistrate, but then give them no definite guidance as to the kind of men they should choose? No, we should not, for the Scripture contains explicit teaching on the necessary qualifications for civil rulers. God reveals the standard for citizens in choosing their rulers in. ... Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:13, and Proverbs 29:2. ... If the citizen is to honor God and establish justice in civil government, then he should support men who appear to him to meet these qualifications. (16)
Applications
How should Christians apply these biblical mandates regarding voting? One excellent point that Einwechter brings up is the need of the Church to encourage good men to run for office!
The church must labor to raise up men who will meet the biblical standards for magistrates. Where will men come from who are qualified for civil office if not from the covenant people? If there are no men qualified for a particular office, it is because the church has failed; it is not because the biblical standards are unworkable in the present context. The goal of the church should be to have a biblically qualified man running for every civil office in the land. We are a long way from reaching this goal. But the church must begin by equipping men to serve as magistrates and challenging them to glorify God as His minister in the civil sphere. Race by race, office by office, the church needs to take dominion over politics by raising up biblically qualified men. (17)
Another important concept that Christians must keep in mind is that we are commanded by God to vote for a certain type of man. When we don’t vote for a godly man because of his slim chances of winning, we are sinning.
Voting for a biblically qualified candidate who appears to have no chance of winning is not the waste of a vote, it is obedience to God. Obedience to God is never a waste of time or effort, but the compromise of biblical truth always is. Compromise sacrifices victory in the long run for the sake of immediate "success" or "peace," while godly obedience sacrifices immediate gratification for the sake of ultimate victory. Christians often complain that there are no godly men to vote for, but when one does appear, they don't vote for him anyway because, they reason, "he can't win." Can we expect the Lord to give us qualified men as candidates for civil office if Christians are not committed in principle to supporting them in obedience to biblical law? (18)
A Christian might ask “There should never be a time when I don’t vote at all, should there? What if a godly Christian man is not anywhere on the ballot? Should I not at that point simply vote for the candidate who is the most conservative, or who seems to be the most moral?” Amazingly, it seems that many Christians feel more guilt over neglecting their duty to vote than they do over neglecting the command to vote only for those who meet scriptural guidelines. To quote Einwechter again,
The only men who are truly qualified for civil office are those who meet the standards set down in the Word of God. God is sovereign over civil government, and the sole prerogative to establish what kind of men can and ought to serve as magistrates belongs to Him. Men who do not meet the biblical standards are not fully fit to serve as rulers. (19)
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that so many people in the Church judge whether or not a civil government honors Christ based on which political party currently has the majority in the White House. Many seem to believe that since devoted followers of Christ have such a slim chance of winning an election, issues such as patriotism, low taxes, abortion and civil marriage are therefore the only criteria by which we vote. It never seems to enter into the minds of many Christian voters that God is sovereign, and that the battle for the above mentioned issues would properly fall into place if truly godly men were in office.
These [scriptural] standards instruct citizens who have the liberty of choosing their civil magistrates on how to carry out their duty in accord with the will of God. It is God's revealed will that His ministers in the civil sphere be men who fear Him. God's blessings are on the people who choose men of ability, character, and spiritual maturity.
Christians should support with their time, money, and vote those men who meet the biblical qualifications. In all that he does the Christian is to seek to glorify God and promote the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the Christian gives his full support to men who meet the biblical standards for civil magistrates, he is doing these very things. If we are to have righteous civil government, then we must have righteous men as rulers. If we are to have a civil government that honors Christ, then we must have men who honor Jesus Christ as civil leaders. (20)
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
1. William Einwechter , Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), ix.
2. Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, Chapter 23, section 29.
3. D. James Kennedy, What if America Was a Christian Nation Again? (Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, 2003), 4.
4. William Gould, “A Letter to James Dobson”, The Christian Statesman, September-October 1996, Volume 139, Number 5
5. Ibid
6. The Rev. George Hill, D.D., The Aims and Operations of the National Reform
Association (No publishing information given), 1888?, 5-6.
7. William Einwechter, Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 80.
8. William Einwechter, Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 2.
9. William Gould, "A Letter to James Dobson", The Christian Statesman, September- October 1996, Volume 139, Number 5
10. William Einwechter , Explicitly Christian Politics (The Christian Statesman Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997), 75.
11. Andrew Sandlin, "Social Witness and Christian Voting:?", The Christian Statesman, May - June 1994, Volume 137, Number 3.
12. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 145
13. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 146
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. David McAllister, The National Reform Movement: A Manual of Christian Civil Government, (Aldine Press Co., Philadelphia, 1890), 76
17. William Einwechter, "Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates", The Christian Statesman, September- October 1998, Volume 114, Number 5
18. Ibid
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
Friday
A Look into the Mindset of the Liberal Theologian
The following on-line conversations took place on a liberal "progressive Christian" blog forum. These conversations were all viewed as open letters to anyone who visited the "Jacksonville Declaration" web site. On this web site was an article entitled "God Also Created Adam and Steve: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage". The pen name of the author is "Public Theologian" (or "PT" for short). The open letters that I am displaying for you here were originally in the form of feedback to the author regarding his article. (As you will see, the author of "Adam and Steve" was not the only one who got involved in the heated battles).
The liberal theologians I have been dialoging with are spokesmen for the "Jacksonville Declaration", which is a religious/political statement that was recently drafted by a group of liberals and self proclaimed theologians in Florida. The group is claiming the goal of "taking back" Christianity from conservatives. One of the issues that they are speaking out on, as you will see, is the "full acceptance" of gays and lesbians in the Church.
Reading these conversations will give you a great deal of insight into liberal religious thinking.
My goal in engaging these liberal theologians was not to win them over to a more Bible-honoring worldview, but to let the Christians who read the letters see that the liberal arguments that were presented were fraught with problems and inconsistencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I, too, have high view of scripture, but I have an even higher view of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus look his leave of his disciples he didn't tell them he was going to send them the Bible. He said he would send them the Holy Spirit and the Spirit would guide them into all truth. I hold the ancient and univeral theological belief in the inspiration of scripture, but I do not hold to its inerrancy, which is a novel view dating to the last two hundred and fifty years in the church that arose in reaction to the use of methodological approaches coming out of the Enlightenment. Fundamentalists, such as yourself, confuse the Bible with the object to which it points and thus attribute perfection, which is to be ascribed to God and God alone, to something that is not God, which in the faith of both Jews and Christians alike, is tantamount to idolatry.
BTW, Walter Brueggemann and I wrote a review of the Reformation Study Bible, as well as three other study Bibles, in the fall book issue of the journal Christian Century, published in October 2004, which you might want to take a look at.
Regards,
PT
The concept of "homosexuality" did not exist until the 19th century, when German academics and early phsychologists began using the term.
Previously, especially in the ancient world, people were just "sexual." David was the beloved of Jonathan and of Michal. Judah was married but also felt no restriction from "Coming into" prostitutes on the side of the road. People had sex with one another, not too much thought was put into it, accept in how it related to inheritance. (And because there was no real form of contraception other than to spill your seed on the ground, sexual freedom for women was thus more strongly restricted.)
It is a completely new thing for people to be thought of as having sexual attraction to people based on the GENDER as opposed to must feeling sexually attracted to people because they find them attractive. It is also a relatively new thing for us to think of marriage of this great love-bond based on attraction and love as opposed to a family-bond used to control the inheritance of property.
Sex is often seen as being demonized in the Bible as this dirty thing that seperates us from God. Or people think of sex as a gift from God only to be shared by married couples. The restrictions on sex in the Bible are closely related to restrictions on death, preparing the dead for burial, childbirth, and mentruation. All of these, including sex, are closely connected to the mysterious cycle of life and death. In ancient societies, these are the great mysteries and powers of the divine. Contact with these mystical forces of nature, in ancient Webrew thought, made one contaminated with the power of these mysterious forces of nature. In order to properly interact in the cultic rituals of Judaism, one had to be ritually purified, to have these contaminating factors removed. Not only do these laws of purity apply to the body, but they also apply to the land. The rules on how sex makes one "dirty" are the same rules that apply to how the land is made dirty from murder, or a person is made dirty for preparing a body for burial.
The writings of Paul betray these influences. For him, by not marrying, he is avoiding all of the ritual impurity and purification that he would have to go through if he were married and having sex.
Coming from a fiath tradition that respects these ancient restrictions, we can find ways to apply ancient understandings of nature, the life cycle, and female anatomy, we can garner some insight into how the laws of the past affect us today.
We can see that the Bible is not conserned with validating or invalidating the social order of the time. It is conserned with taking the given social order and making it as just as possible. In a society where we understand and recognize different sexual orientations and gender identities, the call of creating a just social order demands giving equal rights to these people. If the established social order endorses slavery, then the Bible seeks to protect the rights of slaves. If the established social order condems slavery, then the Bible requires us to build a just system without slavery.
--John G.
The liberal theologians I have been dialoging with are spokesmen for the "Jacksonville Declaration", which is a religious/political statement that was recently drafted by a group of liberals and self proclaimed theologians in Florida. The group is claiming the goal of "taking back" Christianity from conservatives. One of the issues that they are speaking out on, as you will see, is the "full acceptance" of gays and lesbians in the Church.
Reading these conversations will give you a great deal of insight into liberal religious thinking.
My goal in engaging these liberal theologians was not to win them over to a more Bible-honoring worldview, but to let the Christians who read the letters see that the liberal arguments that were presented were fraught with problems and inconsistencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUE = My After-The-Fact Commentaries about the Conversations
BROWN = Writings of the Liberal Theologians
BLACK = My Writings
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
The first time I wrote in to the Jacksonville Declaration blog was in response to what "Public Theologian" wrote to a Christian woman. When she expressed her frustration that PT believes it is evil to regard homosexuality as a sin, he told her that his group doesn’t label ANYBODY as evil. I attempted to point out the hypocrisy of his statement:
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Public Theologian:
You said:
"We don't label people who disagree with us as 'evil'. If you can find that on this site I will be glad to see to it that it is removed, because this organization exists to keep alive dissenting views, even ones with which we disagree."
And then you said:
"What we do find evil is the mistreatment of gays and lesbians by people who use their Christianity as moral cover to mask their prejudice. That is something very different than mere disagreement."
Are you saying that you wouldn't label me as "evil" if I disagree that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and should be allowed to marry? If I want to "mistreat" gays in this way, and if I disagree with you on this discussion, you certainly would call me "evil". If I "use my Christianity as a moral cover to mask my prejudice", you certainly do label me as evil, do you not? Therefore, please recant your statements that
"We don't label people who disagree with us as 'evil'." and "...this organization exists to keep alive dissenting views, even ones with which we disagree."
And by the way--shouldn't we be discussing what the Bible sais about this subject, since this IS supposed to be a religious forum?
-------------------------------------------------------
Note that in his response back to me, PT actually said that a true follower of Jesus would never bar homosexuals from marrying each other!
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wagner,
The Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage but we can infer that covenant life is the best kind of life from a myriad of scriptures in both testaments. That is why religious conservatives have been so right in preaching the virtues of marriage to a society that would just rather shack up.
The person I disagree most in the world is my wife. But I hardly think she is evil. There is a world of difference between disagreement, even on matters of substance, and maltreatment, which is what we are talking about here. I have no problem identifying the discrimination against gays as evil any more than I would discrimination against any other group of people. That's not based on some liberal principle of loving everybody no matter what, but rather based on the biblical demand to love my neighbor like I love myself, which is according to Jesus the very core of all of biblical law. Having reaped all the benefits of marriage myself, what kind of follower of Jesus would I be to deny these same benefits to others? That is the very opposite of the good news of Jesus Christ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.T.,
You are right when you say
"The Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage but we can infer that covenant life is the best kind of life from a myriad of scriptures in both testaments".
Many Scriptures DO say that living in a marriage covenant is the best kind of life. It is true that the Bible doesn't speak of gay marriage, but isn't that because it is clear that this sort of marriage would be intrinsically sinful?
(Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination).
----------------------------------------------
The issue that the Alliance [the "Christian Alliance for Progress"] is discussing in the public sphere is not whether homosexuality is a sin or not. The New Testament also teaches that it is a sin to be "unequally yoked," or married, to a non-Christian but where is the Religious Right trying to prevent couples of different faiths from getting married, lest they be promoting the "interfaith lifestyle," winking at what God calls sin. That the Religious Right does not take such a stand is the clear sign that what is being argued about gay marriage is not some faithfulness to biblical principle but just good old-fashioned garden-variety bigotry. So when you begin your campaign to deprive interfaith couples a marriage license then you will have some street cred. with me and we can talk; or put in biblical terms, get the beam out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in mine.
The question is not whether this or that is a sin. The question is whether we are going to create a class of second-class citizens. It is very simple. We don't think that there is anything in the gospels to suggest that this is what Jesus would want.
Regards,
PT
------------------------------------------------
In my response back to Public Theologian, I wanted to get the point across to him that the Christians in the conservative media (I list a couple names in my response) do not usually speak for me, and that I think that he was RIGHT in saying that prominent right-wingers don’t speak out about common sins such as inter-faith marriages.
---------------------------------------------------
PT,
You said:
"The New Testament also teaches that it is a sin to be "unequally yoked," or married, to a non-Christian but where is the Religious Right trying to prevent couples of different faiths from getting married, lest they be promoting the "interfaith lifestyle," winking at what God calls sin...
So when you begin your campaign to deprive interfaith couples a marriage license then you will have some street cred. with me and we can talk; or put in biblical terms, get the beam out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in mine."
Although we are worldviews apart on the issue of civil marriage, I must say that you are correct in saying that there is hypocrisy with the Rel. Right. I don't hear the Limbaughs or the Hannitys rebuking a Christian woman who is married to a Roman Catholic or to a Muslim or to a Jew. This IS sin, and it is often (but not always) IGNORED in today's pop-Christian culture.
As soon as I graduate from seminary and get behind a pulpit, I will NEVER officiate an interfaith wedding. I believe that pastors who do this are no less sinful (or at least not MUCH less sinful) than pastors who allow two women or two men to marry.
My point of all this is to say that although I despise liberalism and the "theology" that comes out of it, I also, (like yourself), despise today's pop-Christian right-wing "theology".
------------------------------------------
As you will see in what follows, PT never got back to me on this. I did, however, receive a response from a man who I accidently offended. I originally assumed that he was a Roman Catholic, but I later found out (by researching his own blog) that he is a self proclaimed Christian Humanist. My apology to him is seen right after his words to me.
-------------------------------------------
You write that "I don't hear the Limbaughs or the Hannitys rebuking a Christian woman who is married to a Roman Catholic or to a Muslim or to a Jew. This IS sin, and it is often (but not always) IGNORED in today's pop-Christian culture."
I'm sorry, but I can't take at all seriously the opinion of someone who thinks Roman Catholics are not Christian.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide who's Christian and who's not, let alone who's saved and who's not, and I imagine you have a surprise or two coming on the other side of eternity--as do we all.
Dave Trowbridge.
---------------------------------------------
To Dave Trowbridge, who said "I'm sorry, but I can't take at all seriously the opinion of someone who thinks Roman Catholics are not Christian":
You're right; I shouldn't have said that. I'm sure that there are many Catholics who will be in heaven, and many Protestants who will be in hell.
-------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A liberal theologian (and spokesman for the Jacksonville Declaration) named "Jake" chimed in to the debate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am amazed by those who claim that the 5 verses that supposedly refer to homosexuality (which is questionable; the term didn't even exist at the time the scriptures were written) must be understood as absolute law.
Are you who are so sure of how God views same sex relationships really claiming that you follow all the bible?
What about, as but one example, all the passages that instruct us regarding which crimes merit capital punishment?
A rebellious child shall be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).
Working on Saturday is a capital crime (Ex. 35:2).
Ignoring the advice of your priest is grounds for execution (actually, I kind of like that one!;) (Deut. 17:12).
And, let's not forget gluttony and drunkeness; all shall be killed (Deut. 21:20).
I would hope that no one follows these passages literally. If you do, you need to be locked up to protect the rest of us!
Yet, when it comes to [homosexuality], all of a sudden we have to follow every letter of the law. A very curious thing.
I suggest that what is really going on is the "ick factor." Let me tell you how it works;
My grandmother used to make me eat cauliflower. I hate this stuff. It makes me ill even to smell it. I know it is a sin to cook this vegetable, and I think it should be against the law to do so!
Some heterosexuals find even imagining [homosexuality] to be icky. So, it must be a sin. They find a few verses, and a few preachers who agree with them, and start condemning all gays to a life of being second class citizens in God's kingdom.
Sorry, that doesn't sound very Christian to me. At the least, we should be able to acknowledge that it is not our place to judge committed, long term relationships. It would seem in this world, where the consequences of promiscuous sex are devastating, that we would be advocating for more committed relationships, not fewer.
I have a difficult time believing that a position founded on personal bigotry could ever be considered Christian. But there I go, judging others. Forgive me.
We must agree to disagree. But please, spare me the lecture on what makes a "real Christian." Been there, got the t-shirt, and am not convinced.
--Jake
----------------------------------------
Although I didn’t at THIS POINT comment on his erroneous "ick-factor" theory, I responded to him regarding his faulty belief that I (and others) do not follow ALL of the Bible. (You will see later how I responded to his "ick-factor" theory...
---------------------------------------
Dear Jake,
I have to take issue with what you said. You quoted some passages:...
"A rebellious child shall be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).Working on Saturday is a capital crime (Ex. 35:2).Ignoring the advice of your priest is grounds for execution (Deut. 17:12).And, let's not forget gluttony and drunkenness; all shall be killed (Deut. 21:20).I would hope that no one follows these passages literally. If you do, you need to be locked up to protect the rest of us!Yet, when it comes to gay sex, all of a sudden we have to follow every letter of the law. A very curious thing."
The problem I have with this is that all of the sins that are mentioned in these Old Testament passages are indeed STILL SINS TODAY. In the New Covenant, which Christ is the mediator of, the difference is that the CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS of these sins are no longer in affect.
I believe that it is a sin to ignore the Sabbath (which turned in to Sunday in New Testament times instead of Saturday), but I am no longer to be executed if I break that command. Children are in SIN when they rebel, but they are no longer to be executed when they rebel (in these times since Christ has appeared).
Likewise, homosexuality IS STILL a sin today (Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.'), but the Old Testament command to put homosexuals to death no longer applies today (in these times since Christ has appeared). The civil law and the ceremonial law no longer applies to Christians. The moral law, however, does apply to us today. (The 10 commandments are an example of the moral law).
Christians are commanded to LOVE homosexuals, and what better way is there to do this than to plead with them to live in a way that the Bible condones?
-----------------------------------------
Jake’s response back to me also included some of his responses to other people who wrote him to express their disgust in Jake’s views of civil marriages. As you will see, I chose not to write him back about his Biblically-ignorant response to ME (in which he displays some very insulting views about God), but I responded instead to his using Greek to try to prove to other Christians (named "Gumby" and Greg) that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality!
--------------------------------------------
So, you have decided to keep the sin, but change the sentence? On what basis? You are dismissing God's word regarding the execution of those who mow the lawn on Saturday? I'd suggest such selective setting aside the parts of scripture you don't like is no different than what you accuse me of.
The point of listing those sins and sentences was to highlight that those passages were written by primitive people during primitive times. The God they depict is a petty, jealous tyrant, who smites people for the most minor infraction of the law. Remember the story of Elisha and the children? God has bears maul the kids because they teased the prophet. Are we to accept this is describing the true character of God, or is it the perspective of the Hebrew people thousands of years ago? In the same way, we find God described as being quite homophobic, as well as condoning slavery, women as property, and quite a few other things that would be unacceptable to us today.
We use human reason to develop a hermeneutic with which to prioritize scripture. Some is culturally specific. Some is beautiful and inspiring. And some is just plain twisted.
Joe, thanks for the lecture, but I'll suggest to you that if you don't think there's a theocracy brewing, you haven't watched the news lately. And btw, the dominionists do indeed teach that homosexuals should be executed. These are the "good Christians" we should listen to?
Gumby, regarding I Corinthians 6:9; it depends on how you translate "malakoi arsenokoitai," which is the actual phrase used. The first term means "soft." The second is not so clear. It had been used to describe a male temple prostitute, but the early church understood the phrase to refer to one who had "soft morals." For some time, it was thought to refer to masturbation. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual," which is a combining of the Greek "homo" (the same) and the Latin "sexualis" (sex). No bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any translation.
Greg, it so happens that I have read the bible a few times, although I may be guilty of being ignorant. I do wonder if you have read that entire section of Romans? The first three chapters are pretty closely yoked to one another; you can't really pull a piece of those chapters out of context and really get their meaning, it seems to me.
But, just the same, let's talk about the first chapter. I suspect the phrase in question is "committing indecent acts," or in the KJV, "working that which is unseemly." The Greek word is "askemosunen." It is the term for "external appearance" with a negative particle. It is a reference to the interior or hidden parts of a person that are usually not revealed. I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim this is a condemnation of same sex love within a committed, long-term relationship, wouldn't you?
We may want to read a little further, to Romans 2:1. That seems to be an apropriate passage for this discussion;
"Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
---------------------------------------
P.T. also tried to justify homosexuality at this point by breaking out the Greek text. Again, this was aimed at "Gumby"...
--------------------------------------
Dear Gumby--
The word in question is the term "arsenokoitai," and it is a combination of wto other Greek words, "male" and "bed". If anybody tells you that they know what the word means they are lying, because this a aneologism, a word Paul made up. This is the first time the word is ever used in the Greek language--take a look in any Greek lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. The term is used in a list so it has no narrative context. You might think you know what a word means with "male" and "bed" as roots until you consider English words like "watercloset" which would give little indication that what was being referred to was a "restroom", which is just another euphenism. That is not any kind of evidence except for people who have already made up their minds as to what God thinks of homosexuals and who go fishing to find their justification in the scripture...
–P.T.
----------------------------------------------
Since "Gumby" admitted that he knew no Greek, and was therefore at the mercy of modern English translations, I chimed in and decided to challenge these liberals’ use of Greek. I am not sure if I did a noble job with the text or not, but I gave it the best shot that I could with the knowledge of Greek that I have:
----------------------------------------------
Dear PT and Jake:
I feel that I need to take issue with your translations of "malakoi", "arsenokoitai", and "askemosunen". May I ask what your sources are (out of genuine curiosity)?
First of all, Jake, you said that "malakoi" means "soft". Actually, "malakoi" (from malakos) can be translated "soft" in the sense of "effeminate" (according to Dr. James Strong's Greek Dictionary) or "voluptuous persons" (according to the interlinear translation by the British scholar Dr. Alfred Marshall). The word can also be translated as "luxurious" or - and this is a bit blunt; please don't shoot the messenger - "homosexual pervert" (according to the dictionary of the UBS's 4th Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament).
Secondly, as PT pointed out, "arsenokoitai" is a nominative-masculine noun that is derived from "arsen" (male; man) and "koite" (a couch; cohabitation). According to the same sources I listed above, it can be understood as romantic love between men and we label this as being "homosexual" in English. Who told you that it should not be translated as relations between men just because Paul "made the word up"? Who told you that hundreds of reliable and trusted Greek scholars are "lying" when they concluded that Paul was writing about homosexuality? What are your sources? Is it really logical to believe that Paul would just make up a random, meaningless word that his readers (hearers) would never have been able to understand? That would be ludicrous. Paul knew that his readers would understand exactly what he was talking about. He knew they would figure out that when the words "man" and "bed" were combined within a list of sinful practices, his recipients would take that word to mean a "man" in "bed" with a "man". What do you (or your sources) think he REALLY meant by using his word "arsenokoitai"? Could it have meant "killers"? Could it have meant "gossipers"? Probably not. Could it have meant "man" in "bed" with a "woman"? Or "man" in "bed" with an "angel"? Could it have meant a "man" who loves "beds" too much? Or a "man" who is "cruel" to "beds"? WHAT ELSE COULD PAUL POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT by "arsenokoitai"? PT, I don't buy your assertion that we can't translate "arsenokoitai" because "the term is used in a list so it has no narrative context". I would bet that the scads of Greek Scholars who have been translating our English versions for many years have got the right idea with this word. The ball is in your court; explain to me why I should believe that many hundreds of men and women are either "lying" (as PT accuses them of) or are simply making bad, unfounded, careless stabs in the dark about "arsenokoitai". I also doubt that one scholarly guy long ago said "Hey - let's make arsenokoitai mean "homosexual!" and all the other scholarly guys just blindly followed suite. I really doubt that these people are all incompetent boobs.
Jake, you said that "there is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual," which is a combining of the Greek "homo" (the same) and the Latin "sexualis" (sex)". Why do you say that? The reason why all of the Greek-English translators since the 1946 RSV use the word "homosexual" in their translations is simply because it is our English word for a man who is intimate with another man; NOT because it is supposed to be a Greek or Hebrew parallel! No translator is claiming that there is a Greek or Hebrew parallel to the word "homosexual"! There doesn't need to be a parallel. The fact that there is no parallel to the WORD doesn't mean that homosexuality was not the IDEA or the CONCEPT in Paul's mind when he wrote the verse. The question, then, is: Whose sources are right? Which are the more accurate lexicons? Mine or yours?
Thirdly, "askemosunen" can be translated "shameless acts" or "shame of nakedness" according to the above mentioned sources, as well as "indecency" and "that which is unseemly". The word is derived from "askemon" which can be translated as "inelegant" or "uncomely".
By claiming that these three Greek words do not really mean what all of our modern English translations say they mean, you guys are challenging the knowledge of hundreds of great Greek scholars. A few of them are Jonathan Watt, Daniel B. Wallace, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren, William Mounce, and Alfred Marshall. Why should I believe your sources over all of these great and learned scholars? Are you prepared to say that EVERYBODY involved with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research has got these words WRONG?
-----------------------------------------------------
A new liberal theologian entered the battlefield at this point. He called himself John G; he responded to me first, followed by PT, followed by R. Johnson (note his 3 word response!), followed by Jake.
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wagner,
No, they're not wrong. They're just doing the job of a Biblical translator: To translate the text out of a dead language and into a modern one.
The Bible is full of gaps, inconsistencies, and words so rooted in cultural context, no proper translation can be made.
Any act of translation involves interpretation as well. When Luther first translated the Bible into German, he commented that as a translator, he was obliged to shed light into these dark parts of the Bible. Since then, Biblical translators have often tried to fill in the gaps.
People don't tend to want a Bible in which key words are untranslated and footnoted with long explanations of what the word might be and what the cultural context might be. People look for Bibles that tell them exactly what the word of God is in modern day language.
To assume that anything resembling our modern day understanding of homosexuality existed in Paul's day is a stretch to say the least. I encourage anyone who doubts this to not only do some significant research into ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew sexuality, but also to check out research on patriarchal societies in general. In a patriarchal society, what we would call heterosexual marriage is a must. Society relies on families, tyrannically headed by a male, to exersize control. This is the picture of marriage the Bible gives us. The Bible never calls it a patriarchy, because it was simply the assumed cultural backdrop of the authors. We no longer live in a patriarchy, and so it is our task to read between the lines. We have to ask ourselves, what is the Bible trying to teach us about justice in this story? How can I apply teachings about patriarchal society to modern day society? How do I apply teachings of sexuality in a patriarchy to teachings about sexuality today? How do I apply teachings about a society that had temple prostitutes (ancient Israel's neighbors) or that freely let grown men use boys as sex objects (Hellenistic culture) to a society today?
John G.
--------------------------------------
Some of the NT scholars who have weighed in one this subject whose books are on my shelf and whose articles are in my files are Robin Scroggs, William Countryman, Victor Paul Furnish, Robert Brawley, Dale Martin, Dan Via, and Jeffrey Siker. This represents only a smidgen of the biblical scholars who are calling for the full acceptance of gays and lesbians on biblical and theological grounds. In my denomination alone, the Presbyterian Church USA, more than fifty professors of biblical studies signed a statement in 2001 to that effect. And these are no third-rate hacks either--their number included at least two former presidents of the largest academic society of biblical scholars in the world, the Society of Biblical Literature (of which I am also a member), namely Walter Brueggemann (my teacher) and Patrick Miller. You may not be aware of it but this topic has been discussed at length for the last thirty years in academic circles as well as in mainline churches. What we are talking about here, which seems very new to some people such as yourself, has been going on for a generation in my circles.
The problem with your interpretation is that you use clairvoyance rather than reason to interpret arsenokoitai. You do not know what Paul was thinking when he used that word, although you assume that what you think about homosexuality is buttressed by that term. It may mean something related to same sex practice, but exactly what is not clear. Is this a prohibition against men molesting children? Does it involve coercion of any kind? Is there money involved, i.e. male prostitution? Is there idol worship involved, as is the case in Romans 1 and in other places that we know of from antiquity in which same sex practices occurred as part of the cult rituals in pagan temples? Is this a reference to being the passive partner in a male sexual relationship, congruent with the prohibition of being the passive partner in some cultures which see nothing wrong with males adopting the supposedly more "natural" role of the insertive partner but which revile any display of passivity in men? In none of these instances can you provide an answer as to what the apostle is referring to, yet you recklessly demand based on this paltry evidence that the church willy-nilly apply it to whatever sexual relationship between men that strikes its fancy. But that is not how ethics or law is done, except perhaps by kangaroo courts.
Proper legal and ethical reasoning proceeds by analogy: THIS statute or principle fits THAT situation. And herein lies your quandry, for neither do you have a statute nor a principle. All you have is a word without any context and moreover a word that seems to have been made up just for the occasion. You simply cannot make any kind of normative ethical declaration across the yawning gap of time, language and culture that exists between Paul's world and ours without imposing your understanding of the matter onto the biblical text, which has little interest in the subject. You've written more about it in two days on this blog than the biblical writers did collectively in a thousand years! This is your obsession, not the Bible's.
Regards,
PT
------------------------------------------
Well said, PT.
--R. Johnson
------------------------------------------
"Malakoi"is also used in Matthew 11:8 to describe "soft" cloth. I think "soft" is a fair translation.
You and PT are correct that a literal translation of "arsenokoitai" would be "male bed". Consequently, it is not surprising that Martin Luther would think that what "soft male bed" referred to was masturbation.
There has been much disagreement as to what "arsenokoitai" means, and much moreso in the last twenty years, as these passages have come under closer scrutiny. Most scholars will admit to being unsure of the meaning, as it is a very unusual term. My point was simply to make clear that there is no firm interpretation of this rather obscure word.
As I mentioned before, an early understanding of the term was "male prostitute." I'm not sold on that one, but it may be close.
To figure it out, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 is helpful, where the term is also used. Some things can be deduced by the structure of the passage. Various terms are yoked together, forming a pattern, such as "Murders of fathers / murders of mothers / manslayers." But "arsenokoitai" is placed between "pornoi" and "andrapodistai", translated in the KJV as "whoremongers / them that defile themselves with mankind / men-stealers." They don't seem to fit together in the same way that the other parts of this passage do.
If we look at the other two terms more closely, a possible pattern emerges.
"Pornos" derives from the verb "pernemi" meaning "to sell." "Andrapodistai" is a slave dealer, kidnapper or "man-stealer."
So, if we place "arsenokoitai" (male bedder) between the prostitute and the slave trader. what might this term be? One who beds the prostitute, to the profit of the trader.
This may have been a reference to the boy prostitutes common in that culture, referred to "catamites." These were boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution. This practise was common in the Greco-Roman world.
Would bedding a boy prostitute be a sin? Sure. It's all about lust, and abusing a child. Sex as a response to nothing but lust is usually sinful. Abuse of a child is always sinful.
"Askemosunen" is, literally, "not outward appearing." If something is showing that shouldn't be, it could be shameful. But it could also be a reference to one's inner being.
PT provided you some good names. My choices would also include Countryman, as well as David Fredrickson, John Boswell and the scourge of all things conservative, John Shelby Spong.
Arguing the bible is usually an end run around what is really going on, it seems to me. We probably aren't going to get anywhere with these kinds of discussions.
For instance, let's assume you convince me that Paul was condemning all forms of homosexuality. It wouldn't change my view of things. Paul is well known for being a mysoginist (women should be silent, submissive, etc.), yet it is recognized that this is a perspective he inherited from the culture in which he lived. Both the Jewish and Roman cultures were very partiarchal. Paul also did not speak out against slavery, even though he had many opportunities. If Paul was indeed condemning all homosexuality, he would be responding to the Jewish tradition in which he was raised, which found homosexuality to be shameful because the male would be placed in a submissive position.
Most Christians today recognize Paul's cultural biases, and no longer treat women as inferior beings and have condemned slavery as an evil institution. In the same way, some Christians have come to recognize that is wrong, regardless of what Paul said (or didn't say, depending on what scholar you choose), to treat gay Christians as second class citizens in the kingdom of God.
Beyond that, it was assumed by Paul, and the authors of the OT, that everyone was born heterosexual. Consequently, the concept of homosexuality, a person born with that particular sexual orientation, was beyond their comprehension. Thus my comment that "homosexual" is a term that is not an appropriate translation of any biblical text.
And finally, we are not primarily talking about lust today; we are talking about love. I find no place in scripture where two people of the same sex in a committed, long-term relationship are mentioned. To assume that every relationship is all about sex is unrealistic, unless you are 20 years old. Let me assure you, as a 50 year old man, my relationship with my wife is not primarily about sex! It is about companionship, caring, and commitment.
Why should the heterosexual majority be allowed to dictate to a minority sexual orientation who they can choose as a life partner?
As I've said before, having led quite a few discussions on these matters, I am convinced that the disagreement is not about the bible; it is about the "ick factor." And, until a person is willing to address that factor, all the words in the world are but straw.
One final consideration. If you are willing, take a look at this article, which offers some insights that I found rather revealing; Fear of the Feminine.
–Jake
------------------------------------------------------
I responded to all of these defensive attacks by giving them three separate open letters. Here was my response to John G:
------------------------------------------------------
John G;
First of all: about your comment that
"To assume that anything resembling our modern day understanding of homosexuality existed in Paul’s day is a stretch to say the least":
I couldn’t disagree with you more. The modern day understanding of homosexuality involves a man in bed with another man, which is clearly seen in a verse of the Old Testament that Paul and the people of his day knew quite well (Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination). Regardless of whether or not there is any devotion or love between them, men in bed with men has been prohibited in Scripture since mankind can remember.
Are you actually suggesting that 21st century homosexuality is some new thing that was non-existent in ancient times? If you REALLY believe this, could you please ask certain people from the gay community to stop insisting that David and Jonathan from the Old Testament were gay? Should we really say to these people "How could they have been gay? Our modern day understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist yet?" I have also been told be some people from the gay community that the verse saying "men left the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another" (Rom. 1:27) means that the natural function for THESE PARTICULAR men was for women, and so even though THEIR homosexuality was a sin, it is NOT a sin for men to be gay if THEIR natural function - unlike the men spoken of in Rom 1:27 - is for other men. My response to them has always been "The Greek word in Rom. 1:27 is the word for ‘THE’ function; not ‘THEIR PARTICULAR’ function". Should I have instead told them "Rom. 1:27 CAN’T be allowing men to be gay if their natural function isn’t for women, because our modern day understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist in Paul’s day"?
Although my convictions against homosexuality offend people in the gay community, I’ll bet that they’d also be just a bit offended at the view that modern day homosexuality did not always exist within humanity.
Secondly: To say that the Bible gives us a picture of marriage as being "tyrannically headed by a male to exercise control" is to show your complete disregard for:
Ephesians 5:25 (which commands husbands to love their wives as they love their own selves, and clearly implies that men should be ready to give themselves over to their wives as Christ gave himself for his Church on the cross);
Ephesians 6:4 (which teaches men to be gentle with their children ["Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath"]);
Colossians 3:19 (which teaches men "love your wives, and do not be bitter towards them); and
Colossians 3:21 (which teaches men to give an environment of encouragement to their children ["Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged"]).
Where is the tyrannical control you speak of? When Paul tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands in Eph. 5:22, he is teaching us that God intends marriage to be a reflection of Christ and the Church ("The husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the Body"). Your view of what the Bible teaches about the man’s role in marriage is dead wrong. The Bible’s emphasis is NOT the husband’s authority to govern, but his responsibility and commandment to LOVE his wife and children. (I know that this is off of the homosexuality issue, but I can’t let the ‘tyrannical control’ remark slide).
-----------------------------------------------
Here is my response to PT (and, indirectly, R. Johnson):
-----------------------------------------------
No, R. Johnson, what PT wrote was NOT "well said".
I’ll try to point out to you why I say that in what follows:
PT, Thanks for the list of your sources; (I hope I’ll find some time to look in to some of their views and argumentations). I must ask you though: Why are they "calling for full acceptance of gays and lesbians on BIBLICAL and theological grounds" if the typical view in your circles is that the Bible is not fully and verbally inspired by God? If the Bible is full of "gaps" and "inconsistencies" (as John G. sais), and if Paul was simply regurgitating his "cultural biases (as Jake sais), and if "arguing the Bible is usually an end run around what is really going on" (Jake again), then WHY would people from your circles use this unreliable and fallible collection of human errors to argue that gays and lesbians should have full acceptance into the Church? Why use such worthless literature for anything at all? Why not just say "The Bible is garbage. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality". That’s exactly what I would say if I believed that the Bible is full of errors and cultural biases. Jake went so far as to say that some Christians believe that to call homosexuality a sin is wrong "REGARDLESS OF WHAT PAUL SAID"! If this low view of the Bible is held by the scholars in your circles, why did more than 50 professors of biblical studies from the P.C.(USA) sign a statement in 2001 to call for the full acceptance of gays and lesbians ON BIBLICAL GROUNDS?
You say that your problem with my interpretation of arsenokoitai is that I use "clairvoyance rather than reason". Again, are you really prepared to say that NOBODY involved with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research uses reason in this issue? Unless I see William Mounce or the other scholars that I trust agree that its improper to use arsenokoitai in the standard and usual way, I’ll continue to trust the traditional translation and to assume that they are not lying or trying to use clairvoyance. Do you think that Walter Brueggemann [[one of PT’s teachers]] would be willing to tell the scholars involved with the United Bible Society that they don’t always use reason to translate the words in the UBS Greek New Testament?
------------------------------------------------
Here is my response to Jake. (Note my refutation of his shoddy ‘ick factor’ theory):
------------------------------------------------
Jake,
You say that "malakoi" is used in Mt. 11:8 to describe "soft" cloth, and that "soft" is therefore a fair translation. Sure, "soft CLOTH" is a fair translation of malakoi in Mt 11:8 in light of its context. But "soft MAN" (or "effeminate") is a fair translation of malakoi in 1 Cor. 6:9 in light of ITS context.
About your view that arsenokoitai might refer to catamites: the Reformation Study Bible (a popular Bible among some conservative Christians) agrees. A footnote attached to 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "Catamites; those submitting to homosexuals".
If you take a look at the post I sent for PT, you’ll see my thoughts regarding what you said about the ‘cultural biases’ of Scripture. If you read what I said to John G., you’ll see my response to what you have to say about Paul’s treatment of women. Do you REALLY believe that Paul thought of women as inferior beings? Certainly you’ve read Eph. 5:25; 6:4, Col. 3:19, and 3:21 haven’t you?
You theory of the ‘ick factor’ doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. There are countless thousands of Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction even though they fully believe that God prohibits it in the Bible. Sure, very many people say "ick!" when they see two men kissing (such as myself), but since many thousands of Christians find the same sex appealing to them but do all that they can to discipline themselves to please God instead of giving themselves sinful gratification, this ick-factor you speak of is simply not an issue in this debate. The disagreement is about the Bible rather than the discomfort that heterosexuals have with homosexuality.
About your condemning Paul for not speaking out against slavery:
You are making the same mistake that many other people make about the slavery issue. You are assuming that the slavery that was present in Paul’s day was similar to the horrible institution of slavery that took place in america. First of all, the slavery in Paul’s day often involved a person voluntarily giving himself as a slave in order to make amends for a debt he couldn’t pay. Secondly, it was not the type of slavery that involved a supposed "superior" race owning and controlling a supposed "inferior" race (like America saw some time ago). The third thing you need to consider is that the Bible commands slave owners to treat their slaves respectfully, with no threats (Eph. 6:9), and to grant their slaves justice and fairness (Col. 4:1). "Slavery" is an emotionally charged word, and for good reason I suppose. But the slavery seen in the Bible isn’t much like the slavery that Americans normally think of, and Paul’s lack of condemning the institution is NOT the same as his not condemning what happened in America!
-------------------------------------
There were a few responses to my last three letters. However, at this point the "God Also Created Adam and Steve: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage" article went into an obscure archive, so I didn't do any responding back. Here are the last responses to me. They are very insightful, shedding light on how liberal theologians "reason".
--------------------------------
I, too, have high view of scripture, but I have an even higher view of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus look his leave of his disciples he didn't tell them he was going to send them the Bible. He said he would send them the Holy Spirit and the Spirit would guide them into all truth. I hold the ancient and univeral theological belief in the inspiration of scripture, but I do not hold to its inerrancy, which is a novel view dating to the last two hundred and fifty years in the church that arose in reaction to the use of methodological approaches coming out of the Enlightenment. Fundamentalists, such as yourself, confuse the Bible with the object to which it points and thus attribute perfection, which is to be ascribed to God and God alone, to something that is not God, which in the faith of both Jews and Christians alike, is tantamount to idolatry.
BTW, Walter Brueggemann and I wrote a review of the Reformation Study Bible, as well as three other study Bibles, in the fall book issue of the journal Christian Century, published in October 2004, which you might want to take a look at.
Regards,
PT
---------------------------
My compliment to PT is not somehow negated by your belief to the contrary.
And I do not wish to turn the discussion in a new direction, but your comments on why Paul did not speak out against slavery, whether factually accurate or not, or based on your own beliefs, have all the trappings of moral relativism. If the slavery of Paul's time should be viewed differently because you can assign some economic justification to the practice, then lets not forget the economic justifications that have been used in the United States to justify slavery here. If you dig deeper in Paul's time, I think you will find that slavery did involve 'superior' and 'inferior' ethnic divisions.
--R. Johnson
----------------------------------------------The concept of "homosexuality" did not exist until the 19th century, when German academics and early phsychologists began using the term.
Previously, especially in the ancient world, people were just "sexual." David was the beloved of Jonathan and of Michal. Judah was married but also felt no restriction from "Coming into" prostitutes on the side of the road. People had sex with one another, not too much thought was put into it, accept in how it related to inheritance. (And because there was no real form of contraception other than to spill your seed on the ground, sexual freedom for women was thus more strongly restricted.)
It is a completely new thing for people to be thought of as having sexual attraction to people based on the GENDER as opposed to must feeling sexually attracted to people because they find them attractive. It is also a relatively new thing for us to think of marriage of this great love-bond based on attraction and love as opposed to a family-bond used to control the inheritance of property.
Sex is often seen as being demonized in the Bible as this dirty thing that seperates us from God. Or people think of sex as a gift from God only to be shared by married couples. The restrictions on sex in the Bible are closely related to restrictions on death, preparing the dead for burial, childbirth, and mentruation. All of these, including sex, are closely connected to the mysterious cycle of life and death. In ancient societies, these are the great mysteries and powers of the divine. Contact with these mystical forces of nature, in ancient Webrew thought, made one contaminated with the power of these mysterious forces of nature. In order to properly interact in the cultic rituals of Judaism, one had to be ritually purified, to have these contaminating factors removed. Not only do these laws of purity apply to the body, but they also apply to the land. The rules on how sex makes one "dirty" are the same rules that apply to how the land is made dirty from murder, or a person is made dirty for preparing a body for burial.
The writings of Paul betray these influences. For him, by not marrying, he is avoiding all of the ritual impurity and purification that he would have to go through if he were married and having sex.
Coming from a fiath tradition that respects these ancient restrictions, we can find ways to apply ancient understandings of nature, the life cycle, and female anatomy, we can garner some insight into how the laws of the past affect us today.
We can see that the Bible is not conserned with validating or invalidating the social order of the time. It is conserned with taking the given social order and making it as just as possible. In a society where we understand and recognize different sexual orientations and gender identities, the call of creating a just social order demands giving equal rights to these people. If the established social order endorses slavery, then the Bible seeks to protect the rights of slaves. If the established social order condems slavery, then the Bible requires us to build a just system without slavery.
--John G.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
