Posted in New Testament

Other Tongues

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

In John 8:43 the Lord once asked some of his contemporaries, “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word” (ASV). The footnote shows that the Greek word translated “understand” is actually the word for “know.” The Lord was asking why it was that those who spoke the same language did not know what he was saying. His explanation was that they could not hear his word. That is, though they spoke the same language as he did, they could not grasp the meaning of what he was saying. It was one thing to know the meaning of isolated words; it was another to comprehend the connection of words in sentence construction. In verse 45 he declares why it was that they could not comprehend what he was saying. In their case, it was a perversity of character. Since Jesus was telling the truth and their hearts were not attuned to the reception of it, they were not getting it. And in verse 47, he ascribes their lack of understanding to the fact that they were not “of God.” Dishonesty stood between them and understanding of truth.

But there are other reasons why someone might not understand or comprehend a message, one of which is that the sound of the message may, in fact, be presented in a language that he does not know. That is, the message is completely unintelligible to him because he does not know the words of that language. Each word is merely a sound that signifies nothing to him.

The New Testament doctrine of “tongues” is historically rooted in an event that God had long ago caused. When men refused to scatter on the earth, God confused their language. At the time only one language was being spoken (Gen. 11:1), and the people were not scattering out over the earth. So, in order to motivate human scattering, God made it impossible for some of the people to understand others of them. The details are not provided, but somehow in the power of God, he changed the language comprehension of some of them so that a language barrier now existed. And since humans tend to associate mainly with those with whom they can by words communicate, some people then left the area. This change in language was preceded by changing the relationship between humans and snakes (Gen. 3:15), changing the male-female relationship (Gen. 3:16), and by changing the relationship between man and the sustenance of life (Gen. 3:19). These changes followed the commission of the first sin. Later following the flood, another change took place: the relationship between humans and animals (Gen. 9:1-4).

So, the change in the then immediate language capacity was the latest of the changes that God brought about to position man as he desired him now to be on this earth. This was God’s own way of separating people so that they would “replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28) and not simply stay in the vicinity where they had all been born. Evidently, there were none or few who would on their own at this time adventure out into the great unknown world. So, it was God himself who created the situation in which men could not understand other men. Because of human reluctance to venture out into the world, God created the language barrier between humans. We are not told how many languages were now being comprehended. We can only know that the number was sufficient in God’s eyes to cause the desired scattering.

Notice please that God divided the nations in the earth after the flood (Gen. 10:32). The division of the earth referred to in Genesis 10:25 is not geological; it is ethnological. God would later separate another group from all the rest of humanity, not by language but by a covenant. All of Abram’s descendants were to be distinguishable from the rest of the world. By means of the circumcision covenant that God made with Abram, God created the Hebrew nation (Gen. 17:1-14). Abram was “the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13). His descendants became known as “Hebrews” (cf. Gen. 39:14).

But our point just here is that all of these changes were initiated by God himself. And the language barrier was only one of the changes he wrought in the earth. And as with all the changes just mentioned, it affected the course of human existence and history for all time. The issue of the language barrier did not need additional divine attention until it was necessary for all men to hear the gospel of Christ. As long as Jews were amenable to God through the law of Moses and as long as the Gentiles were amenable to God through moral law (Rom. 2:14-15), (that is, as long as there was divinely imposed ethnic segregation) there was no necessity of divine intervention regarding the language barrier in any way.

But when the universal religion of Jesus Christ became operative on Pentecost of Acts 2, the stage was now historically set so that eventually all men would become answerable to God through Christ (Acts 17:30-31). Several years passed before the gospel was preached to the first full-blood Gentile (Acts 10), but by the end of the first century, all accountable men then living were answerable to the gospel (Col. 1:23; Mark 14:9; 16:19-20).

But in order to fulfill the mission of taking the gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15-16), the apostles made use of a gift in order to speak to men whose language they did not know (Acts 2:5-12). Later, when the Holy Spirit deemed it appropriate, other brethren were endowed with this gift as well (1 Cor. 12:4-11).

Since God had changed the structure of human accountability, it was up to God to make the announcement. Men could not be held accountable to a message that they never received since they were already living within the confines of divinely imposed religious responsibility. God had left Gentiles in Gentile-ism and the Jews in Judaism. But now that divinely imposed human amenability would no longer be sufficient in God’s mind to allow humans to any longer retain God’s favor. As the announcement of the change in amenability was made, human accountability changed. And since there were various languages spoken throughout the world, it was necessary (if God wanted the gospel carried throughout the world in a relatively short period of time) that men be able to speak languages that they had not studied and did not know in order to make the announcement known throughout the Roman empire.

Miraculous divine intervention was utilized in pointing out the places to go to for optimum success (Acts 16:6-10) and in providing the languages that must be utilized but were not by the teachers then known. It was God’s will that the change in amenability be announced within the historical context of divine miraculous involvement. He would not and did not leave matters simply to human decisions and human capacity. The work of taking the gospel to the world was finalized within the time of the miraculous workings of God. That is also the same time period in which he completed his divine book by inspiring the writing of the complete New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; 1 Cor. 2:12-13).

That book had to be completed before God could withdraw the miraculous element from the earth, just as the preaching of the gospel had to be completely taken into all the world before God could hold all men now answerable to the gospel and judge all men by Christ. Men became amenable to the gospel as the gospel became accessible. They were being called out of two divine systems already in place. Those alive in the first century were being “transitioned” from Gentile-ism and Judaism into a new divinely imposed accountability to the gospel of Christ. Nothing like that historic moment has ever existed again. That is, the time period in which God was relocating Jews and Gentiles under obligation to the gospel was a period of time and a religious situation that could never be duplicated since Gentile-ism and Judaism were divinely replaced by Christianity.

The “tongues” that the Spirit provided were the means of God’s addressing the language barrier that existed then (and which still exists now but without any need for miraculous intervention). God settled for all time the issue of human amenability within a thirty year period (from about 30 A.D. to about 63 A.D.). Everyone had access to God’s announcement of the change of amenability! There was no geographical area on earth inhabited by people that was not contacted.

“Tongues” were for a sign to the unbelieving world (1 Cor. 14:22). The kind of question raised by the yet unbelievers on Pentecost was no doubt raised time and time again. How is it possible for someone who does not ordinarily speak my language to speak it now (Acts 2:7-8)? The event itself signified that something divine and miraculous was occurring!

Thus, it is clear that “tongues” were languages. The disciples of John on Pentecost of Acts 2 spoke “with other tongues” (v. 4). These tongues were real languages (v. 6). They did not simply utter unintelligible sounds, but languages that were known and spoken by others. Furthermore, by the fact that “tongues” were always subject to rational interpretation, we know that they were sounds that made sense (1 Cor. 14:13).

It should also be observed that in 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul discusses the cessation of miraculous gifts (including miraculous tongues), he mentions three specific things that will cease as he compares the cessation of miracles to the permanence of faith, hope, and love. That is, in chapter 13 he is contrasting what is passing away and what remains. The miracles are coming to an end; faith, hope, and love are permanent features of the faithful church. So, in 1 Corinthians 13:8 he declares that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will all come to an end (v. 8), and the gift of prophecy was miraculous (1 Cor. 12:10). He states that tongues shall cease, and miraculous tongue-speaking was another miraculous gift (1 Cor. 12:10). Thirdly, he says that knowledge will cease. This, of course, is knowledge that is miraculous to which reference had already been made (1 Cor. 12:8). Thus interestingly, each of the three items that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 13:8 has to do with information! Miraculous information will cease being provided, he is saying. In verse 10, when he refers to “when that which is perfect is come,” he is contrasting that perfect or completed information with the partially and miraculously supplied information. When the perfect thing is finally here in its completed form, Paul is saying, then no longer is there a partial thing here. And when the perfect thing is here, there is no longer any need for the miraculous process that had delivered information up to the time of the perfected or completed form. When the perfect thing is come, that which is in part (the partial product) ceases. That is, there is no longer a merely partial thing. It has eventuated into the perfect or the now completed thing.

Finally, let me say a word about the transmission of scripture. God removed the miraculous element from the earth. Scripture would remain as promised (1 Pet. 1:25), but its permanence would obtain through translation. God would not keep scripture here by miraculous intervention. His divine providence would suit the situation so that capable people would be available at the right place and the right time to transmit scripture into languages that were then, as seen by God, now ready for scripture dissemination through them. Today those who are capable of translating scripture and those who have an inherent interest in certain people and places are all entailed in the marvelous providence of God. And neither group, translator or missionary, has access to the first-century gift of tongues.

Posted in Expository, New Testament

Turn the Sinner Back: Notes on James 5.19-20

Posted on by Randal

It would appear that James declares the purpose of his letter at the very end (Davids 1994, 1367), in Jas 5.19-20, by calling his readers to do what he has just done by writing:

My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back, he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (NET).

By leaving his purpose statement for the end, and crouching it in yet another recommended behavior, perhaps he hopes that his readers will not only repent of those sins and errors which he points out, but will themselves turn to their erring brethren and work toward their restoration as well.

The 54 imperatives in the 108 verses leave no doubt that James is concerned to straighten out problems among his readers. (The last imperative is in verse 20: “know.”) They also highlight what is evident from even a cursory reading, that the book emphasizes the necessity of obedient action among the faithful in order for faith to be genuine and effective for salvation. “Tests of a living faith” is the key that one writer finds to tie the letter’s diverse subjects together under a single theme (Hiebert 1978, 224). Continue reading “Turn the Sinner Back: Notes on James 5.19-20” →

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Church and State, Gender

Battle for the sexes: American women in combat

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

In Dec., 2015, the United States Secretary of Defense declared all military combat roles open to women. That proclamation led quickly to the question of whether women should have to register for the draft with Selective Service, as men are required to do. After all, if women can fight in uniform wherever men fight, however men fight, as well as men fight, then why should the country require one sex to register for potential combat roles, while exempting the other?

The question makes perfect sense if you have a godless worldview. Secularists are not the target of this piece, since no appeal to Scripture will convince those who already despise Scripture. But there are still many in America who claim respect for the Bible. A Christian worldview has always maintained a distinction between the sexes by appeal to biology (the way God created men and women) and the Bible (what God wrote about men and women).

[Read the rest of the article here.]

Posted in Old Testament

Abel

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Abel was the second person ever born, and the first victim of murder (see Gen. 4). A shepherd by trade, he died young at the hand of his older, wicked brother. Interestingly, Jesus includes Abel with the prophets (Luke 11:47-51). Abel is mentioned by name in only five chapters of the Bible, but what little is said of him speaks volumes to the kind of man he was.

The world of Abel contained four people. His parents were the extent of his family tree, and they could tell him firsthand stories of the Garden of Eden. There were no atheists, no agnostics, no idol worshipers, no false religions. The Flood of Noah’s day was still in the future. Dinosaurs roamed the earth and biological conditions made possible extraordinarily long life spans. With no Scripture yet given, God carried on personal conversations with people.

The worship of Abel is commended. When he brought an offering from his flock, God accepted it while simultaneously rejecting Cain’s plant offering. The reason is not immediately apparent, since the text does not state that Cain should have brought an animal offering. Suffice it to say, something was amiss in what Cain did. The New Testament affirms that Abel’s offering was made “by faith” (Heb. 11:4). Since faith results by hearing and trusting God’s word (Rom. 10:17), the implication is that God had, indeed, given Cain and Abel instructions on their offerings. Abel followed the instructions, thus making his offering “by faith,” whereas Cain did not. This principle has towering ramifications for our own day. As he did with Abel’s, God will accept our gifts to him when they are made by faith (i.e. informed by and carried out per God’s word). As he rejected Cain’s gifts, so will God reject today offerings and worship brought to him without following his revealed will.

The wounding of Abel is tragic testimony to anger grown so out of hand that Cain actually raised his hand against his brother and killed him. Prior to the crime, God had talked to Cain and tried to help him. God warned Cain of the nearness of sin if he failed to get his attitude straightened out. Cain would either rule over sin, or else be ruled by it. Sadly, and to his brother’s demise, he chose the latter. As the first human to ever die, Abel’s was the first spirit to ever enter Hades. And, he has been there awaiting judgment longer even than Adam and Eve. Though Abel’s death did not seem to weigh too heavily on Cain’s conscience, it was a serious offense to God. Much later, the apostle John will raise and answer the question of why Cain murdered Abel: “Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12, ESV).

The worthiness of Abel is evident wherever he is discussed. Inspiration even mentions his blood in the same sentence with the Savior’s: “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:24). Abel’s blood cried out for justice. Abel’s blood pointed back to the sin of Cain. Abel’s blood could not save. Jesus’ blood, on the other hand, heralded the message of redemption. Jesus’ blood pointed forward to salvation. Jesus’ blood could save. Whatever good could be said of Abel, better could be said of Christ. Abel died young, but he died right with God, which is all that matters. “And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks” (Heb. 11:4). And maybe — just maybe — that is why Jesus spoke of Abel in the same breath as the prophets.

Posted in Christianity and Culture, World Religions

Impressions from the Koran

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

Having read the Koran in its entirety (A. J. Arberry’s translation), I have various impressions of it. Some might accuse me of lacking objectivity, to which I would reply that everyone has a worldview which he brings to any subject. It is possible, by the evidence, to be persuaded out of a given worldview and into another. But, everyone brings his current beliefs to the table. So, I don’t claim “objectivity” in the sense of not already having my own conclusion. That would be akin to someone telling you, “Here’s a new math theory to consider, but first you’ve got to stop knowing that 2+2=4.” One cannot just “stop knowing” that 2+2=4, anymore than I can “stop knowing” that God wrote the Bible. Having completed my trip through the Koran, nothing in it came close to convincing me that Mohammad was inspired, or that I should abandon the Bible. What follows are a few scattered thoughts, though so much more could be said.

Beware the lone prophet. Mohammad lived c. 570-632 A.D. and the Koran was supposedly revealed to him by the angel Gabriel. Thus the content of an entire religion is filtered through one human being. In stark contrast, the Bible was penned over 1,500 years by about forty different writers—separated by time, education, ethnicity—who, nevertheless, composed a thematically cohesive book like no other. The last book in the Bible was written 500 years before the Koran. Mohammad was clearly influenced—directly or indirectly—by the Bible. There would be no Koran had the Bible not been here first, for Mohammad spends a lot of time talking about biblical characters, rewriting biblical accounts (e.g. Abraham was a Muslim), and criticizing Bible believers. At times, Mohammad introduces things without context or explanation, expecting the reader to know what he’s talking about, when the answer has to be sought somewhere outside the Koran.

The Koran is repetitive in the extreme. Not that repetition is bad, but read it yourself and you will soon see. Omitting the duplicate stories and phraseology, the book might immediately shrink by half. Or more. Were it a novel, the Koran would surely have few readers. Its content, style, and language plod on in a tautologous circle. The very last page contains a warning about evil women “who blow on knots.” I realize the suras (i.e. chapters) are arranged by length, not chronology, but, still, the whole thing winds down in a very anti-climactic “more of the same”—certainly nothing to compare with the moving, encouraging invitation in the Bible’s final chapter.

The Bible has convinced minds for millennia, on the persuasiveness of its evidence. While there are adults who voluntarily convert to Islam, the religion’s success is tied to pounding (not persuading) the Koran into children from earliest days. Read the New Testament and the Koran’s inferiority is painfully evident by any measure of comparison. There are unbelievers who read the Bible and even write commentaries on it. Even some unbelievers appreciate the moral influence the Bible has exerted in history. Were the Koran not drummed into their heads from childhood, it would not be convincing multitudes to convert on the merit of its message. In point of fact, it just might be the loneliest book on the library shelf. The late, former atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, decided at the end of his life that God exists, but he was not ready to embrace the gospel. However, in his book, There Is a God, Flew noted, “…I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul…If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat” (p. 185f.).

Maybe it’s me, but the Koran comes across as paranoid. Over and over it says “they cried lies.” The “they” who “cried lies” are those who reject Islam. Imagine someone who wants to rule other people by convincing them it is God’s will, but his case is so unconvincing. What to do? He can call names, threaten, intimidate, terrorize. It is incredible how much of the Koran is devoted to people who reject the Koran, as though Mohammad could not deal with opposers who called his work lies and fairy tales. He brings them up ad nauseam. “They cried lies,” and Mohammad cannot stand them for it.

Whatever the page, you are never far from a line in the Koran about unbelievers, chastisement, an evil homecoming, or being roasted in the fire, even having to drink “oozing pus.” Sura 56 warns, “Then you erring ones, you that cried lies, you shall eat of a tree called Zakkoum, and you shall fill therewith your bellies and drink on top of that boiling water lapping it down like thirsty camels.” There is an unmistakable fixation on punishment that permeates the Koran. The gospel of Christ stresses holiness and the struggle against sin, whereas the Koran hammers on the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, and how Allah is going to get all those who “cried lies.” Over and over the Koran criticizes Jews and Christians as unfit for friends on earth, and losers in eternity. Take out its constant criticism of non-Muslims, and its unending talk of their roasting in hell, and what is left? The Bible has warnings about hell, but it is all about avoiding the place. The Koran, on the other hand, seems to relish the fate awaiting unbelievers, and cannot emphasize it enough.

The Bible’s is a soaring story of redemption, inspiring with God’s own sacrifice for humanity’s sins. There is nothing remotely akin to it in the Koran. Islam is missing a Savior. It speaks much of sin, and says that God is forgiving, but offers no basis of forgiveness—there is no sacrifice to wash away sin. Christianity has the cross because that was the unavoidable price required, the only thing that could deal with sin. Islam makes salvation cheap. Say the prayers. Give the alms. Obey the Prophet. Paradise awaits. Islam fails utterly to provide a mechanism by which a holy God can save sinners. Only by the blood of Christ can it be done.

But what Islam lacks in a Savior it makes up in severity. The New Testament teaches Christians, “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:4, ESV) and “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12), and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). It is a far cry from Mohammad’s instruction to slay people. As one of a multitude of examples from the Koran, consider: “This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger…they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement…” (from Sura V). “Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another” (from sura XLVIII). Search the Koran in vain for anything resembling Jesus’ lofty ethic in the Sermon on the Mount. Islam, as portrayed in its founding document, is a violent religion. Anyone who says Islam is inherently peaceful is either ignorant or lying. The violent, so-called “extremists” have not hijacked Islam. They are the true believers, taking their cue from the Koran itself. Islam offers a theocracy completely incompatible with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Concerning the sexes, it was the gospel of Christ, more than anything in history, that elevated women. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25), and “there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). In contrast, the Koran advises, “…marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four” (sura IV). Likewise, Mohammad says “Men are the managers of the affairs of women…And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them” (sura IV). Thus, Mohammad condones domestic violence, at least in cases where a husband thinks his wife has a bad attitude.

The Bible and the Koran have vastly differing concepts of the next life. According to Jesus, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). The Bible says there are no sexual relationships in heaven. The Koran, on the other hand, describes Paradise as a place of sensual pleasure, full of “maidens…untouched…by any man” (sura LV) and “spotless virgins, chastely amorous” (sura LVI). Per Mohammad, “Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing” (sura LXXVIII).

Nothing in the Koran is worse than its denial of Jesus’ deity, which it does over and over. For example, “They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son’” and “The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger” (sura V). Muslims say Jesus existed, but that he was not God’s Son and he did not die on the cross: “for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’—yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him…” (sura IV).

This is a tiny handful of examples, and much could be said regarding the traits of inspiration in the Bible, and their absence in the Koran. The ethic of Christ and the ethic of Mohammad are light years apart. Remember, the New Testament and church of Christ had been on earth nearly 600 years before the Koran was written. Islam is a late comer on the scene. It offers nothing good except what it borrows from the gospel (which is always better stated in the New Testament), which it mixes, unashamedly, with a host of gospel-denying verses.

Islam’s threat to Christianity comes, not from any theological superiority, but from its oft-exercised powers of intimidation, threat, coercion, and violence. Those who still live in a culture not dominated by Muslim oppression should recognize the threat and refuse to buckle. Silencing ourselves for fear of reprisal means we are already losing to its influence, and being victimized by the very definition of “terrorism.”

Posted in Christianity and Culture

An Open Letter to Donald Trump

Posted on by carrie102

By Glenn Jobe

Dear Mr. Trump,

I praise you for your courage to stand up against Islam and your attempt to warn the American people of the dangers that have now infiltrated our borders. I know that you are under much criticism at this time from the politically “correct” and by those who are more interested in advancing their self-serving programs over that of protecting the American people.

I assure you that you are right in restricting Muslims and you have the First Amendment on your side. The First Amendment no more protects the practice of Islam in this country than it does those who would offer human sacrifices in the name of religion. I will explain how that is true shortly.

The American people have never received an answer to one question: Why do “radical Muslims” hate us? Other questions follow: Why do they want to kill us? Why do they blow themselves up?

What is common to all these “radical” Islamic groups? The answer is simple: you and I, everyone in this country (and in all other countries who do not come under the control of Islam) are “heathens, pagans, idolaters, unbelievers,” and according to the Koran, are slated for death. Not only does the Koran authorize the taking up of arms in order to defend Muslims, Muslims are explicitly instructed to kill all unbelievers in Allah. The Koran, itself, so indicates in several places. For instance, in 8:59-62, is written:

Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to God. All that you give for the cause of God shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged [emphasis mine].

Observe that carnal warfare is to be exacted against two kinds of offenders: “the enemy of God” (i.e. unbelievers in Allah), and “your enemy” (i.e., those who do not keep treaties, attack Muslims and do Muslims wrong). This is opposite to the religion of Christ (Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:14-21). The Bible reserves judgment for the afterlife. Islam calls upon those who do not believe in Allah to be killed in this life by those who do! It is impossible for Muslims who follow the Koran to live in this society. Indeed the prophet Mohammad wrote immediately prior to the previous quote, “Make war with them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme” (8:39). Any person who believes not in Allah is classified “idolater.”

On the next page, the divine instruction continues (9:3-8, under “Repentance” At-Tauba):

God and His apostle are under no obligation to the idolaters. If you repent, it shall be well with you; but if you give no heed, know that you shall not be immune from God’s judgement.

Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, except to those idolaters who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteousness.

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to safety. For the idolaters are ignorant men.

God and his apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep the faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.

[All quotations are from The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood (New York: Penguin Books, 1993). Though there are a number of translations into English, all references to The Koran are taken from this source. Since verse divisions in all consulted translations are ambiguous, verse numbers as here cited are intended as only approximate.]

I am a minister for a Christian church and have had to deal with this situation on several occasions. Just before 9/11 I had read the Koran and one evening while participating on a live community access television program in Lake County Illinois, our panel dealt with the teachings of the Islam and the Koran. An angry Muslim called accusing me—after I had read these and other quotes—of taking the Koran out of context and of depending on a translation. I do not read Arabic and thus have to depend upon a translation, but my response was quick and accurate: “Evidently, those who study the Koran in Arabic have come to the same conclusion because jihad is going on all over the world, including the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York.” He could not respond to that. There is no such thing as “radical Islam.” Terrorists are practicing Islam; they are carrying out what their holy book is telling them to do—murder unbelievers!

This country has always been at war with Islam, even as far back as the American Revolution. It is the reason why America developed a navy (see the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797).

How, then, can this country refuse Muslims into this country and shut down their mosques? Because Islam is a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. Islam denies it—convert or die! Here’s the argument:

  1. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and any religion that does not allow freedom of religion is not protected by the First Amendment.
  2. Islam is a religion that does not allow freedom of religion.
  3. Therefore, Islam is a religion that is not protected by the First Amendment.

To guarantee Muslims freedom of religion in this country makes as much sense as allowing Donald Trump to run for king. The Constitution makes no provision for either.

Thus, if the Koran is their holy book and they must revere and follow the teachings of the Koran, they cannot be “peaceable Muslims” in the midst of those who do not adhere to Islam. To speak of a “peaceable Muslim” is like talking about a “married bachelor”—they are contrary expressions. Islam is more dangerous and militant that Nazi-ism ever was. Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister, found out too late that peace with Nazi Germany was impossible.

What must our State Department do? They must require self-professed Muslims to deny part of the teaching of their Koran. Individual mosques, as they represent those who are associated with each mosque, must publicly announce that they do not believe that people of other religious persuasions must be killed, made war against, ambushed, arrested or besieged.

This move will pit Muslims against their Koran if they want to remain in the United States and practice their religion. It will also put them at odds with other Muslims, for true Muslims will want to kill them as they do so openly in other countries. To merely desecrate a printed copy of the Koran brings death!

Islam is not peaceable. When they feel that they have the upper hand, even with less than 25% of the population, they feel emboldened and will take over this country as they have in other countries (e.g. Iran and Egypt). Then we will have outright war in our streets. Where I preach, we had a refugee family here at the church from Iran. The father of the family had converted to Christianity. If he had stayed in Iran, he would have been hanged. He cannot return to his native country. In other Islamic countries the penalty is beheading.

Please, Mr. Trump, in your speeches and debates, educate the American people that you are the only candidate who is looking out for their rights as American citizens. To speak against what is morally wrong is not “hate speech.” Have your staff do the research on Islam, what it has meant in other countries, and what it will mean to the United States if it is not openly opposed. You are campaigning for the Executive Office of the United States which is to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If elected, you will have the awesome responsibility of protecting the citizens of the United States. I see no other candidate of either party committed to that. You give the American people a choice. Thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely,
Glenn A. Jobe

December 9, 2015

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Nature of Man

What Is Man?

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

“O Lord, what is man that you regard him, or the son of man that you think of him?” (Psalm 144:3, ESV). How we define ourselves—the human race—is tied to worldview and greatly affects how we live now, not to mention what we believe about the future. Notice the question is not seeking a definition as much as it is asking God why he cares so much for us. To the Psalmist, it was a given that God made man. Sadly, to many now, it is not.

Man is not a great ape, and it is not best to define us in terms of opposable thumbs, large brains, upright posture, tool use, complex societies, etc. The truth is far nobler and impressive: man is the only terrestrial creature made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27) who will live eternally in heaven or hell (Matt. 25:46; 2 Cor. 5:10). Man is also the only being on earth who can be described in relation to his personally named original ancestor. That is, mankind can accurately be defined as the descendants of Adam.

So many things separate us from all animals. Humans are self-aware. This is more than being alive; we can think about the fact we are alive and have individual, personal existence. Humans are able to ponder their own origin. No kangaroo wondered where the first kangaroo came from, or how Australia got here. Cosmology is not considered by canines and cattle.

Humans have an innate capacity to appreciate and reflect on beauty, whether it be outer appearance, personality, music, a work of art or a dazzling Texas sunset. Poetry and prose are not the province of the finned or four-footed. No aardvark has given us a treatise on aesthetics.

Humans ask about the right thing to do. Even if we sometimes arrive at the wrong answer, it is still because something in us seeks to define right from wrong. Dolphins do not have penal codes, courts of law, or crime statistics. Elephants do not philosophize on ethics. Animals operate on instinct. Calling people animals cannot nullify that we reason and behave on a higher plane, which gives the lie to our being labeled animals.

Humans have to do with time. We can ponder the past and plan for the future. Hounds do not study history, but people do. We are keenly, uniquely concerned with time. Squirrels may stash nuts for the coming winter, but they are not worrying whether there will be nuts left for their offspring twenty years from now. People, on the other hand, can plan long-term. Some of us even plan our own funerals and we leave behind wills to make sure our wishes are carried out when the clock no longer affects us.

And, humans think about what follows death. Even those who disbelieve the Bible still wrestle with the future and come to some conclusion about it—accurate or not. No horse ever entertained the concept of whether there would be divine judgment on its life, or decided it did not have a soul. It takes a human to grapple with such ideas. Eschatology is the field that studies last things, such as death, judgment, eternity, the end of the world. It is one more of the many areas where animals have no concern, and lack any capacity to have concern. Why is it we think on such things?

These facts, and more, should help us realize we are neither animals nor relatives thereof. To be human is to be different from every creature on earth in striking, undeniable ways. We can admit it and seek the One who made us like this (Acts 17:26-27). Or, we can kid ourselves in futile effort to deny the obvious. But, wherever the skeptic runs, he cannot get away from his own shadow. He, too, is man.

“When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Psalm 8:3-4). Here, again, is the question. The Psalmist begins to describe man, not in terms of physical traits, but that he is “a little lower than the heavenly beings,” and “crowned…with glory and honor” (v. 5). God has given man “dominion” over the whole of creation, including “beasts of the field” and “birds of the heavens” and “fish of the sea” (vv. 6-8). The conclusion? “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (v. 9). The right answer to “What is man?” should lead naturally and inevitably to praising the Lord’s majesty. If God is not worshiped because of our conclusion to the greatest question, then we have the wrong answer.

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Racism

Race and the Bible

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

If you are human, your ancestry goes back, initially, to Adam and Eve. Later, every one of us descends from Noah, and there were only eight people aboard the ark (1 Peter 3:20). The apostle Paul said that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26, ESV).

We are all kinfolk, all created in the image of God. That is why all human lives matter. That is why no animal life will ever be as important as any human life. That is why God himself said, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6). As the children’s Bible song goes, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.” Jesus died on the cross “for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9), and God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). No skin color has a claim on divine favoritism.

Behavior is another matter altogether. Among things that the Lord hates are “hands that shed innocent blood,” and “one who sows discord among brothers” (Proverbs 6:16-19). It will always be wrong to equate a behavior (e.g. homosexuality) with skin color (which has nothing to do with behavior) in the interest of fostering equal treatment for aberrant behavior. Wrong behavior has no inherent connection to race, and Americans are naive to be tricked into thinking civil rights based on being human are akin to civil rights granted for being perverse.

Black lives matter, as do brown and white. Fill in the blank with any other hue. Unborn lives matter. Everyone matters, not because of any particular skin pigmentation, but because we are all in God’s own image. To despise or mistreat a man because of his color, is to sin. We cannot get out of the skin we were born with, and there is nothing inherently better about a certain variety. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil” (Jeremiah 13:23). Importance is in the kind, not the color. Paul writes that “not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish” (1 Corinthians 15:39). Those who believe people are just sophisticated animals (as evolutionary theory teaches) will never grasp the God-designed, inherent distinction between humanity and other creatures, and the value God places on human life.

Skin color pales in comparison to spiritual condition. Ethics trumps ethnicity. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Corinthians 5:10). On that day, no one will be concerned with skin tone. Meanwhile, failing to love a brother made in God’s image is just one more crime for which we will answer at God’s judgment bar, if we are guilty of it. “For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Romans 13:9).