Is Water Baptism Necessary Before Partaking in Lord's Supper

"Last Supper" by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1750)

Yes, it is. Water baptism identifies one with the redemption work of Jesus Christ, with His death, burial, and resurrection. It is anticipated of visible identification with Christ and His Church. Every person has the personal responsibility to examine him/herself before deciding to partake in the Lord's Table. The Bible makes it clear that those who chose not to be baptized were rejecting the counsel of God (Lk.7:30). In a mixed congregation, it is not possible to always know who is worthy to partake of the Table; however, the minister must encourage only those who have been baptized for remission of sins (not just as a ritual but by faith in Jesus Christ) to partake of the Table.

Before Jesus sat down to dip bread in the cup, He washed His disciples' feet. He makes the statement that they are already "washed" and only need feet to be washed. Of course, this may not explicitly/only refer to their baptism, for they were washed by the Word. However, the element of water tying both the events of water baptism and washing of feet signifying the greater spiritual truth of wholistic salvation (of body-soul-spirit) cannot be ignored. They need to wash before they sit at the Table.

Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet!”
Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean…” (John 13:8-10)

Following are examples of the sequence:

FIRST: "...all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,"
THEN: "...all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1Cor 10:2-4)

FIRST: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
THEN: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

Example from Church History
A glimpse into the Early Church practice of the Lord’s Supper is obtained from Justin Martyr who lived between 103-165 AD; in his First Apology, he wrote:

Chap. LXV.—Administration of the Sacraments. But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chap. LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

Is it not cruel for God to kill His Son in place of us?

The doctrine of atonement is a stumbling block for some who feel that it not only exemplifies cruelty but also does away with human responsibility. The issue abounds with various questions and attempts to solution.

Questions:
1. If God knew that man would sin and fall, why did He create man?
2. Why doesn't God, if He exists, intervene and stop evil; why just be Judge but not be Governor with proper police security system that minimises the possibility of transgression?
3. How can the death of one particular man atone for the sins of many particular men?
4. Isn't it not cruel to punish an innocent man for the sins of others so that they go free?

Answers that challenge the Christian doctrine:
1. God does not require sacrifice in order to forgive, He can forgive by sovereign authority.
2. Every man must bear his own guilt so that he has a sense of responsibility and possess a genuine reason to pursue good and turn from evil.

Biblical Responses:
1. God's knowledge of human Fall is historical and not potential at par with His knowledge of the creation of man.
2. God is both Governor and Judge but humans live in a status of wilful rebellion and enmity against His rulership but with a choice to surrender or be judged.
3. The death of Jesus can atone for every man's sins because Jesus is the Source of all creation and Head of all things.
4. God is One and the sacrifice of Christ the One God was voluntary self-giving of Love.

1. God's sovereignty doesn't imply the denial of injustice by arbitrary pardoning, in which case the element of injustice is allowed to subsist rather than removed from the moral world. The crucifixion put an end to all rebellion by allowing the Judge Himself to die to rise again as Author of the new Creation with the power to destroy all things that do not submit to Him. The crucifixion and resurrection portray the victory of God over all chaos wrought by evil and injustice in the moral universe.
2. This is not contradicted by the doctrine of confession, repentance, and new life.

Does Morality Make Sense Without God? or Is God Necessary for Morality?

India is distinctly the birthplace of certain atheistic or agnostic religio-philosophical systems that have upheld morality without any reference to God as the Moral Governor of the universe. The systems of Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism, and Buddhism didn't find the concept of "God" as necessary for the validation of moral principles. Of course, popular religion as practiced by the masses cannot let go off the personal connection with a Deity or a Revered One, whatever be the theological explanation of the same. Yet, in polytheistic, atheistic, and monist traditions, God is not the source or ground of morality.

This seems to pose a pragmatic problem for the Moral Argument which some philosophers, like Kant, have considered to be the only possible argument for the existence of God. The problem, however, only relates to the nature of morality in each system. Most of the Indian systems are karmic in nature, though differing in their cosmological and ontological theories of reality--for instance, Jainism teaches a dualistic pluralism while Advaita propounds a non-dualistic cosmology. Whether these cosmologies can successfully sustain their respective karmic theologies is another issue. Philosophers in each system have tried to debate with those of others for centuries with little or no agreement.

The logical course eventually leads to a questioning of the supposedly cosmological foundations of the moral theory. However, one also needs to answer whether it is the cosmology that undergirds the moral system or is it the moral system that undergirds the cosmology. In other words, which is the first hypothesis: the moral theory or the cosmology?

Obviously, one cannot escape the fundamental nature of faith in the ultimate sense. But, faith can be questioned. One can still analyse where each of these systems is headed to; whether it be dissolution and recreation or the quest for awakening. The moral question, then, cannot succeed in not trying to address the issue of the whole picture, or worldview.

The significance of the theistic moral argument is in doing justice to the very intrinsic nature of morality.

1. Morality is inter-personal; therefore, its ground must be the infinite, inter-personal God.
2. Morality is absolute; therefore, its ground must be the transcendent and immanent, immutable, absolute God.
3. Morality implies rewards and punishment; therefore, justice must be provided by a moral God and not an amoral mechanism, which is deterministic in nature.
4. Morality is intentional; therefore, the Moral Governor must be omniscient.
5. Morality is practical; therefore, the Moral Governor must be omnipotent.
6. Morality is beneficial; therefore, the Moral Governor must be good.
7. Morality appeals to the affective; therefore, God must necessarily be Love.

How Can Those Already Dead in Sins Die in Christ Again?

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1 NKJ)

In Christ we die to sin.

How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Rom 6:2 NKJ)

Christ also did not die in sins; for He is the sinless One. But, He died to sin, i.e. to the condemning power of sin that held over the old creation.

knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Rom 6:9-10 NKJ)

Therefore, we are called to reckon ourselves "to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:11 NKJ)

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection (Rom 6:5 NKJ)

Thus, in Christ, by faith in Him, those who are dead in sins become dead to sin so that they can live to God.

To be dead in sins means to be separated from the life of God because of our sins. But, Christ Himself is Life and in Him is Eternal Life. Therefore, death could never touch Him. Death could not hold Him. By faith in Christ one is made alive in Christ, so that one is now dead to sin and alive to God.

7 Reasons Why Jesus Was Chosen As the Lamb of God

It was not just because He was sinless; for, even the Father and the Holy Spirit are sinless.

1. It was because all things were created through Him (Jn.1:3); therefore, only through Him could all things also be redeemed (Eph.3:9; Col.1:16; Heb.1:2).
2. It was because He is the heir of all things (created for Him); therefore, He alone had the right to redeem all things (Heb.1:2,3).
3. It was because the old creation was through Him; therefore, it's end could also be through Him (1Cor.15:45; Jn.5:22)
4. It was because the old creation was through Him; therefore, the new creation could also be through Him. (Rev.21:5)
5. It is in Him that all things consist (Col.1:17); therefore, it is in Him that all things (in heaven and on earth, not below earth) can be reconciled and gathered together (Eph.1:10).
6. It is by the word of His power that all things are upheld (Heb.1:3; 2Pet.3:7); therefore, it is by the word of His power alone that all things can be preserved for immortality (Jude 1:1).
7. It is because Jesus is the only begotten Son of God; therefore, it is only through Him that humans can obtain adoption, the redemption of the body (Rom.8:15,23,28; Eph.1:5), and inheritance (Heb.9:15); so, that the only begotten Son of God could be the Firstborn among many brethren (Rom.8:29).

The Security of the Elect – Is It Possible for the Elect to Fall?

The answer is “No”. But, this is not the doctrine of eternal security as taught by Calvinism. According to Calvinism, God predestines certain individuals to damnation and certain others to salvation. Those whom God has predestined to be saved will endure to the end. Thus, it is not “those who endure to the end will be saved” but “those who are saved will endure to the end.” In other words, the elect will endure; it is not those who will endure that are the elect. We reject the Calvinist explanation of the security of the elect for several biblical reasons stated elsewhere; but, primary, is that it paints a very wrong image of God. In this post, we will try to explain why we believe that the “elect” of God will not fall. Election is not unconditional, but conditional.

1. The elect of God are those whom God eternally knows as the ones who are His, i.e. those who have endured to the end in faith (2Tim.2:19).
2. These who are foreknown by God as His are the elect of God according to His foreknowledge (1Pet.1:2), because He predestines these, who He foreknows, to be conformed to the glorious image of His Son (Rom.8:29,30,33).
3. Similar is the case also of the elect angels (1Tim.5:21); they are called “elect” because they stood faithful to Christ as His angels (Matt.16:27) during Satan’s rebellion (2Pet.2:4; Jude 1:6).
4. Those who do not endure to the end, though they may have had faith earlier, are not counted as among the elect (1Jn.2:19). Again, it is not that they failed to endure because they were not the elect; on the contrary, they cannot be called “the elect” because they failed to endure, and because they cast away their faith.
5. In our earthly experience, every believer is accepted as “the elect” or as member of the “election” (1Thess.1:4-5), but only those who are diligent to make their election sure by enduring to the end are the true elect of God according to His foreknowledge (2Pet.1:10; Col.3:12).
6. Election is according to grace (Rom.11:5); however, that grace is not unconditional. Only those who did not bow their knees to Baal were protected by God from annihilation (Rom.11:4). Similarly, those who lack faith are cut off (Rom.11:20; Jude 1:5; Rev.3:5); however, those who continue in faith to the end, stand, because it is by faith that one becomes a recipient of grace. Faith is the subjective aspect of what grace is the objective side. In the same manner that “according to grace” doesn’t mean “according to works”, similarly, “according to faith” doesn’t mean “according to works” (i.e. of human merit). However, faith without works is also dead. We must differentiate between works of faith and works of the law.
7. False Christs and false prophets will try to deceive the elect, if possible, but the elect will not fall (Matt.24:24). The days of tribulation will be shortened for the elects sake and the elect will be gathered at Christ’s coming to God (Matt.24:22,31). But, there will certainly be a huge falling away from faith (2Thess.2:3; 1Tim.4:1). Those who fall away are not the elect of God.

If Christ Died For All, Why Are They Still Condemned?

"The sin of Adam," says Charles Hodge, "did not make the condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He wrought."

The great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon said: "If Christ has died for you, you can never be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins He will not punish you. 'Payment God's justice cannot twice demand; first, at the bleeding Saviour's hand, and then again at mine.' How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?", Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

While God's love is unconditional, salvation is not. Therefore, it says, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (Jn.3:16). The Atonement of Christ is God's provision for the salvation of the world. However, only those who make an independent choice to believe are saved.

While all men inherit death because of Adam’s sin, all men will not unconditionally inherit life because of the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5). Faith is the condition for justification. While in Adam, death “spread to all men” (Rom.5:12), in Christ righteousness is “imputed” to those who believe (Rom.4:24). In Adam, one talks of generations to whom death is passed by one man. In Christ, every person is given the opportunity to make his/her personal, independent, choice and be justified. Those who make this second, independent, Adamic choice to persist in the autonomy of Adam will inherit Second Death. Those who accept the Death of Christ (the Last Adam) will inherit the newness of eternal life of the Resurrected Second Man (1Cor.15:47).

Humanity fell by one man’s choice; but, each human is saved by his own single choice. Therefore, in the resurrection, the saints are a multitude of sons (not sons, grandsons, and great grandsons). [See Full Article]

Can the Forgiven Become Unforgiven Again?

Jesus gives the answer to this question in His Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt.18:23-35). The man was forgiven but his forgiveness became invalid and was withdrawn the moment he showed unforgiveness to someone else who was indebted to him. This man failed to walk according to the grace he received and soon turned to the law when it came to someone else. Jesus told that with the measure we measure out to others, it will be measured back to us (Matt.7:1-2). We are told not to judge. We must be forgiving not just in deed but also in disposition. Forgiveness doesn't mean that we restore people to the same circle of relationship; it means to harbor absolutely no hatred or desire to hurt or of they being hurt.

Forgiveness flows out of mercy and "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt.5:7). The entire service of the Temple was founded upon the concept of mercy; the Law only functioned to show people their state of sin. It was at the Temple, at the Mercy Seat, that people received mercy and forgiveness. Therefore, He says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Hos.6:6). It's because, the person who brings a sacrifice without mercy in his heart blocks himself from the mercy of God. One didn't bring sacrifices to perform the works of the Law but to obtain mercy. Similarly, one who approaches the Throne of Grace in prayer, is appealing to the mercy of God through our merciful High Priest (Heb.2:17; 4:14-16). However, one who approaches the Throne in a legalistic manner will not receive any mercy. To forgive anyone as an act of the law (in a legalistic way) is also unacceptable. One must forgive out of mercy and because we ourselves are recipients of the mercies of God.

Similarly, whoever lives with the attitude, "Oh, they are getting what they deserved!" or "Well, God created them in such a situation; they are "called" to bear it!" is walking according to the law and not according to grace. Our attitudes matter. We are called to show mercy. Those who think that their law (or system) is a hindrance to them from helping the weak and the needy are like the Pharisees who thought the law of Sabbath prevented them from helping a person in need. Jesus rebuked them for such an attitude of mercilessness and self-imposed weakness. We can break through any barriers in order to have mercy and kindness on others.

Is Tithe the Same as Income Tax?

There is a teaching going on that "tithes" in the Old Testament were a kind of income tax that the Israelites paid to the Levites in their theocracy, and so Christians are not obligated to bring tithes to the Church since they are already paying taxes to the government. However, this view is very misinformed. Governmental tithe as tax was separate from the Temple one (1Sam.8:15). Abraham gave tithes, not to a Levite, but to Melchizedek when the Levitical order was not there. In 2Kgs.4:42, a man brings firstfruits to Elisha who was from the tribe of Issachar, at a time when they could not go to Jerusalem. In the NT, Paul talks about Christian workers living by the Gospel in the same way that the Levites lived by the offerings in the Temple (1Cor.9:9-14). There are things of Caesar, but there are also things that belong to God if we belong to the Body. And, in a Body, it is not just about voluntary giving. Suppose, the eye says to the finger, "I am only going to look when I feel like looking, because I am no longer under the Law"; how will the finger of a watchmaker be able to work properly? In the Body, everyone is obligated to give even as one takes. Tithe is just the minimal; we are called to love God with all we are and present our bodies as a living sacrifice. To treat our talents, treasures, and time as first belonging to Christ. This is not to feed the vain, luxurious, "visions" of carnal-minded leaders, but to give in order that the work of the Gospel is provided for (2Cor.9:12)

Should a Christian Be Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian?

After the Flood, God blessed Noah and granted to him every living creature as food even as he had given the green herbs (Gen.9:3). Prior to the Noahic Covenant, we don’t find any mention of humans being non-vegetarian. But, after the Flood, man was granted to kill and eat every living creature, with the following two conditions:

1. Humans, under the Noahic Covenant, are not permitted to eat flesh with its blood (Gen.9:4)
2. Homicide (murder of humans) is affirmed as a capital offence (Gen.9:6)

When the Mosaic Law was given, God further stipulated meat laws that distinguished between clean and unclean animals and forbade the Jewish people from eating anything unclean (Deut 14:3-21). He also reaffirmed that blood must not be eaten but must be poured out on earth like water (Deut 12:16). Scholars have considered several reasons for the prohibition of blood-eating; but the prominent reasons considered are that God wanted to protect the animals from human cruelty and also protect humans from falling to savageness.

When the New Covenant came, Jesus reversed the law of the clean and unclean and declared all food as clean (Mark 7:19, RSV). This is ratified again to Peter in Acts 10 when, in a vision, a voice from heaven commands him to kill and eat creatures considered as unclean in the Old Covenant. When Peter objects by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, the voice declares "What God has cleansed you must not call common" (Acts 10:15). Thus, the Jewish-Gentile division is annulled here and the Old Covenant dietary law related to clean and unclean animals is repealed for both Jews and non-Jews who have become part of the New Covenant.

Again in 1 Timothy 4, Paul instructs that in the last days there will be an increase of demonically influenced legalistic doctrines that would prohibit marriage and eating of certain foods in opposition to the Biblical fact that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1Tim.4:4,5). Jesus Himself was a non-vegetarian. He not only distributed fish as food to people but also ate fish, even after His resurrection (Lk.24:42,43). So, it would be hyper-religiosity to declare non-vegetarianism as being antithetical to Christianity. On the other hand, the Bible does have some instructions to govern the ethics of eating. Following are some of them:

1. The Bible forbids gluttony, especially gluttony in relation to meat-eating. It also forbids associating with people who are gluttonous eaters of meat. Proverbs 23:20-21 says, "Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." We have a reminder in the Israelites who when they craved for flesh too much were destroyed by God in the wilderness (Num.11:4-35).

2. The Bible forbids cruel and unethical killing of animals. Proverbs 12:10 says that the righteous has regard for the life of his beast. Exodus 23:19 commands that one should not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. Leviticus 22:28 prohibits killing a cow and its calf on the same day. Deuteronomy 22:6 forbids taking a bird with its young ones and the eggs it is sitting upon. In Nathan's parable to David, snatching a poor man's dear lamb and cooking it is equated with ruthless homicide (2Sam.12:1-8).

3. The New Testament Apostolic Council in Jerusalem instructed the Church to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled" (Acts 15:29). The prohibition of blood is a ratification of the conditions of the Noahic Covenant. Regarding food offered to idols, Paul states that since an idol is nothing, therefore such food is innocuous if eaten unaware. However, he makes it clear that a partaking-eating of food offered to idols means partaking of the table of devils; it provokes the Lord to jealousy (1Cor.10:19-21). Jesus made it clear to the Seven Churches of Revelation that food sacrificed to idols was abomination in His eyes (Rev.2:14,20).

4. Paul instructed Christians to be context-sensitive and desist from eating meat if eating meat, whatsoever, could become a stumbling block for others. He says, "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables....I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died... Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." (Rom.14:2,14-15, 20-21).

5. He also instructs Christians not to judge anyone for eating or abstaining from meat, since each is accepted before God (Rom.14:3)

Thus, we see that the Bible doesn't prohibit a person from being vegetarian or non-vegetarian. However, carnality in matters of food is self-destructive. "Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them" (2Cor.6:13). God has called us to sanctification and holiness and He demands us to eat food in a sanctified manner with thanksgiving and prayer, accepted before Him (1Tim.4:4,5).


Last updated on June 18, 2015

Should Christians Celebrate Jewish Feasts?

The New Testament doesn't prescribe the celebration of the Jewish Feasts for the Church. The statement in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 actually intends to say that since the Passover is over and we are the Unleavened Bread (1Cor.5:7), we must celebrate sincerity and truth in our daily life (a leaven-free life).

With regard to the Old, the Book of Hebrews states that it was ready to disappear before the New (Heb.8:13). In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul mentions that Christians do not need to observe the feasts and festivals since their purpose is over (Col.2:16,17). The feasts were only shadows of the reality, that is Christ, to come. One doesn't need to go back again and again to the sign posts after having followed them, crossed them, and reached the destination. One doesn't keep gazing at a picture the whole day when the real person is close by.

Now, while some may choose to celebrate the feasts (which is not prohibited), one must not teach that the feasts need to be celebrated (as if it was mandatory), for that violates the Spirit of freedom, the New Man, and the Perfection of the New Covenant. We can look back to the feasts as having typical significance for Christ. However, observing them or not observing them doesn't make any difference to one's position in Christ. The Law can neither control us, nor curse us, nor condemn us.

See Also
Feasts of Israel
Feasts: Typical Significance
Three Purposes of Feasts
The Lord of the Sabbath

Is the Idea of a Christian Nation Rational and Biblical?

JESUS made a distinction between what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God (Matt.22:21). He also spoke of His Kingdom as "not of this world" (Jn. 18:36). The New Testament clearly marks off the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man as two separate realms. Of course, even in the kingdom of man, political authority ultimately comes from God (Rom.13:1,2). But, that doesn't certainly make politics "Christian". For instance, Nebuchadnezzar's authority came from God (Dan.2:37), but that didn't make his kingdom a Christian kingdom or his way of doing politics "Christian". Similarly, Cyrus was called the "anointed" of God (Isa.45:1), but that didn't make the Medo-Persian empire Christian.

It is always a threat to both politics and religion to fuse both of them together: not only do the people suffer, but they lose their freedom of religion as well. It doesn't matter which religion it may be, the loss of liberty is certain and when liberty is lost, politics loses a fundamental pillar.

Let's say, for instance, a "Christian nation". The next question would be "Catholic" or "Protestant"? History is not silent about the fact that whenever one of the traditions came to power, the other suffered. But, again, it's not just limited to "Catholic" or "Protestant". The same is the case also with, say an "Islamic nation". The next question would be "Shia" or "Sunni"? Again, say a "Buddhist nation". The next question would be "Theravada or Mahayana". And, one is aware what ramifications that has. Religion and state simply cannot ensure liberty. Not that liberty is lawless; but, when religion is enforced it loses its religious spirit.

"But, what about Jewish nationalism in the Old Testament?" one may ask. Clearly, there religion and state look indivisible. Jewish nationalism certainly was an issue when the Jews asked the question about whether it was right to render taxes to Caesar or not. Jesus' answer was that one must render what was due to the other, in this case what belonged to Caesar must be rendered to Caesar (Rom.13:7). In other words, it didn't matter what religious or ideological affiliation a state may have, religion and politics were still separate. Even in the Old Testament, there is a case when a king was struck with leprosy when he tried to mix up the two realms of authority (2Chr.16:18); also, there is a case where the monarch interfered in a religious matter when it became a political issue (1Kgs.2:27).

There will always be some ideological or religious/theological approach to politics. It is impossible for politics to be scientific, after all. Even science cannot be segregated from philosophy (much to the chagrin of the logical positivists or the 50s era); we do have a discipline called "Philosophy of Science". The logical positivists thought philosophy died under the sword of science, without considering the fact that science was still a servant to philosophy; it did what ideologies such as communism, humanism, or some religion said. Science provided the weapons, but ideologies decided how to (or whether to) use them.

Thus, it was possible for Daniel to offer a Biblical perspective of history and politics to Nebuchadnezzar while still serving as a servant in the Babylonian kingdom (Dan.2:37,39). His theology of politics didn't prevent him from involvement in politics; however, when a law made by the king conflicted with his theology, he chose to abide true to faith (Dan.6:7,10). But, in no way did he try to impose religion upon the state. He knew the Kingdom of God would come, but it was not going to be by any human hands (Dan.2:34,45). To Daniel, a proper biblical theology of politics and theology of history strongly conformed to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in both politics and history.

Thus, we do have a "Christian theology of politics" or let's call it "Christian politics", not in the sense that it was a politics in which Christians are engaged, but in the sense that it is a Christian view of politics - and, there have been various theologies of politics (e.g. Augustinian, Thomistic, Lutheran, Anabaptist, etc). Similarly, there are also various Islamic approaches to politics.

Luther's political theology of politics and the church being two separate realms doesn't allow the concept of a "Christian Nation" anymore. Politics is secular (this-worldly).

However, what if we keep the ideas of "nation" (as people of a country - not according to race or religion, but according to citizenship) and of "state" (as a political system) separate, then can one speak in terms of "Muslim nation", "Christian nation", and "Hindu nation" -- without meaning "Muslim state", "Christian state", and "Hindu state"?

Let's say "America is a Christian nation but not a Christian state, because Christianity is not the state religion of America". Well, if "nation" has nothing to do with politics at all, i.e. one doesn't use the term "nation" in the sense of a political nation, then there is no reason why one can't speak of a "Christian nation" or even of a "Hindu nation". However, generally that is not the case. When one talks of nation, the idea of a political nation does come into the mind. And, of course there is nothing like a religious nation (if it were there, it would not respect political boundaries and so the political adjective becomes meaningless). A nation can only be political, and nationality is political, not religious. To use the term "Christian nation" or "Muslim nation" or "Hindu nation" is to categorize nation under a particular religion, as a religious nation. That is a contradiction in terms and so is illogical and unbiblical as well. On the other hand, one can safely use terms like "Indian Christians" or "American Christians", since such terms carry the idea of individual religious affiliations of citizens in a country.

Is Polygamy Allowed in the New Testament Era? Practical Issues

Elkanah and His Two Wives. Wikimedia

It is indisputable that polygamy was allowed by the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament (Deut.21:15). However, the New Testament extols monogamy as a virtue (1Tim.3:2,12; 5:9). In the New Testament, remarriage is only allowed in the case of the death of the spouse (1Tim.5:14).

However, polygamy certainly was not the original marital institution. In the Old Testament, it was allowed because of the hardness of human hearts due to sin. The Law was given for the lawless (1Tim.1:9; Matt.19:5,6,8). One must note that even in the Old Testament unrestricted polygamy was not allowed (Deut.17:17).

...the commandments of Grace are tougher and more demanding than the commandments of the Law. The Bible tells us that the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came with Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Jesus ushered in the era of Grace. Not that grace was absent in the Old Testament; but that grace could only be available even in the Old Testament because of the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth. And, when Christ came Grace came in reality, for until then everything was only shadows (Col.2:17). Therefore, it says, "Grace and truth came with Jesus Christ".

The commandments of Grace, therefore, supersede the commandments of the Law. Grace teaches us true righteousness (Tit.2:11,12; Matt.5:20).

Thus, certain things that were allowed in the Old Testament (like divorce, swearing, polygamy, and tit-for-tat ethics) are not allowed anymore in the New Testament (Matt.5:31,34, 38,39). Most of these things were allowed because of the hardness of human hearts, but God never originally intended them so (Matt.19:8). However, in the Age of Grace when His Grace transforms our hearts, we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and to pray for our enemies, we are called not to resist evil people but turn our left cheek to someone who slaps on our right (i.e. severely insults and humiliates us). The demands of Grace are higher than the demands of the Law. [Grace Above Law]

In the earlier days of Christian work in Africa, the missionaries came face to face with the problem of polygamy. The question of what a person who has turned to Christ do with his multiple wives became an issue. To abandon them might mean doing injustice to them (since, they had come into the relationship before) and unwanted subjection of women and children to suffering. However, in most cases, the churches decided that those who had many wives should not be permitted to be baptized until they have sent away all the other wives except one (usually the first wife). It was also decided that a polygamist who becomes a believer may be admitted for lay leadership but not for ordination. This, however, had been met by severe criticisms with leaders objecting that "the usual practice of enforcing the separation of wives from their husbands, upon their conversion to Christianity, is quite unwarrantable, and opposed to the plain teaching of our Lord." (See Muthengi, p.71). Another view that the previous polygamist must keep only the first legal wife and take care of the other wives as sisters (having no sexual relationship with them) is also not without criticism.

A few more facts must be noted about the relationship between the Old Order of Law and the New Order of Grace:

1. The validity of the Old Law was not annulled by the New (Matt.5:17)
2. However, what was put to death in the New, with regard to the Old, was not supposed to be resurrected again (Rom.7:4; Luke 5:36,37; Col.2:20,21)
3. The old only gradually vanishes and fades away in the presence of the New (Heb.8:13). For instance, Paul didn't altogether give up the observance of the Old Testament Law and visiting the Temple, although he preached the New Testament. Similarly, Jesus also asked the lepers to show themselves to the priests after He healed them.
4. One must remember that Grace is not Lawless, but is the Original Law that teaches the perfect righteousness of God (Tit.2:11,12).

And so, with regard to pre-baptism polygamists we can say that the New Testament does not say that their marriages within the Old system was not legal (but, with regard to the hardness of hearts); however, it declares them to be no longer binding within the New Covenant, in the same way that it was no longer binding for the Apostles to visit the Temple every year anymore. However, one must no longer approach this issue after the manner of the rigidity of Law (in a legalistic pattern; for the New Testament is not merely about law) but after the spirit of Grace. Thus, to even put away the wives without proper "restitution" would be more evil. Also, since marriage is seen as a covenant, the comparison with cases of how the New Testament deals with some Old Testament issues like Temple law or even Slavery Laws may only be a little proximate, but not exactly mirroring. Further, we do note that slavery was not immediately abolished under the New Testament. Both the Temple Laws, for the Jewish Christians, and the Slavery Laws were still applicable except that the New Testament introduced the element of grace and the Christian was no longer legally required to visit the Temple, and while slavery was allowed, the masters were instructed to not be violent against the slaves, but even as the slaves were to serve the masters as slaves to Christ, the masters were to treat their slaves remembering that they had a Master in heaven (Eph.6:5-9). Christ came in the middle as Lord of both. But, the issue becomes a little complicated with regard to the issue of pre-baptism polygamy, and we cannot specify a general rigid rule for every situation. While the principles of justice are universal, the manner in which justice is to be meted out in a particular situation is only determined after a proper assessment of that situation. That is where one needs divine wisdom.

In any case, however, the New Testament gives no rationale for allowing polygamous sexual relationships. For, if the "hardness of heart" has already been dealt with already, then "loving wife as Christ loved His Church" is the spirit reflected even in the Song of Songs (the Old Testament book written by the most polygamist king ever), leaving no excuse.

External Resources
Julius K. Muthengi, "Polygamy and the Church in Africa"
Josphat Yego, "Polygamy and the African Church"

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

The Biblical institution of marriage is clearly between one man and one woman. The Genesis account is the foundation of our understanding of Biblical marriage. God created a woman for the man, when he was alone. Adam named her "Woman", declaring that she was the bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. The scripture states:

And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:23-24 NKJ)

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the great wickedness in those cities. One of the wickedness practiced there was homosexuality. We get our English word "Sodomy" from Sodom. When God sent his angels to destroy that city, the men of the city, on knowing that strangers had arrived, went crazy to have sex with the men. Such was their wickedness. (Gen 19).

The Biblical Law stipulated:

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. (Lev 20:13 NKJ)

Paul describes homosexuality as the result of religious corruption and mental debasement. When men exchange the truth of God for the lie of the world and exchange the worship of God for the worship of worldliness, then perversion ensues:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. (Rom 1:22-28 NKJ)

The Bible tells us that homosexuals who don't repent of their sins should not be deceived; they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Co 6:9-10 NKJ)

Did Jesus Turn Water into Liquor?

There are at least two ways in which we can attempt to answer this question:

1. Historical Approach. Try to understand the wedding customs during Jesus' times and see if people in His times gave fermented wine at weddings. But, a general practice doesn't need to be a necessary practice in every instance. For instance, just because a few instances tell us that Christians play also secular music during weddings doesn't prove that they do so in every wedding. Also, every Christian wedding on the same day in the same town may not include non-vegetarian food in dinner.

2. Theological Approach. The logical method in theology would certainly conclude that Jesus could not have made fermented drink to help people get drunk in abundance. That would be a miracle that facilitated drunkenness. Certainly, He made pure unfermented grape juice. Grape juice continues to be served today in hotter regions. 

Some Observations by Jim McGuiggan

Source: Wine: Fermented and Unfermented (Accessed November 29, 2014)

Tirosh is most likely unfermented wine and is not intoxicating, when Psalm 4:7 tells us that harvesting it (along with grain) gladdens people’s hearts we can be sure it isn’t talking about it intoxicating them (see too Judges 9:13). Psalm 4:7 doesn’t even read as if a “drinking” experience is in view—it’s a harvesting experience; here’s the text (NIV and the rest): “You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound.”

However, Psalm 104:15 uses yayin and most scholars think the word “means” an intoxicating wine. It’s true that the word is used that way all over the place but there’s no reason to believe that that’s because the word itself “means” an intoxicating wine. The word yayin like the Greek word oinos is almost certainly a generic term and only the context determines whether or not it is intoxicating.

The Greek OT always renders yayin with oinos but it always renders tirosh with oinos. Scholarly consensus says tirosh is unfermented wine and yet the Greek OT translates it with oinos. What does that tell you? It tells you that they thought oinos can speak of unfermented or fermented wine. Since they used oinos to translate unfermented wine and since they used oinos to translate yayin we have every reason to believe that yayin like oinos is a generic term and that the context determines where intoxicating or non-intoxicating wine is in view.

Oinos is the juice of the grape and ancient literature is saturated with illustrations of oinos in various forms (sweet, bitter, new, old, fresh, spoiled, drugged, mixed and so forth).

Jesus speaks of the universal practice of putting “new wine” in new wineskins to avoid the loss of the wine if and when it fermented and the old bags already stretched to the limit would burst (Matthew 9:17). This presumes that what they put in the bags was not fermented or intoxicating. But he calls it neos oinos (new wine). Manifestly, then, oinos can speak of a non-fermented wine. [There’s even more to learn from this “parable”. We often hear silly things said; “The ancients couldn’t keep grape juice from fermenting because they didn’t have modern chemicals.” You hear people say that intoxicating wine is all they ever drank. This is demonstrably false and in addition, even the naturally fermented wine was usually watered as a table drink. It was nothing like the high-octane stuff the booze industry sells so much of.]

Norman Geisler on Drinking Wine

From "To Drink or Not To Drink: A Sober Look at the Question"

It is axiomatic that a Christian should not do what God condemns, and the Bible condemns the use of intoxicating drinks. The Hebrew word for strong drink is shekar. It is used 23 times in the OT and refers to intoxicating drink made from barley, pomegranates, dates, apples, or honey. The more common word is yayin. It is used 141 times, most of which means fermented grape juice. The Hebrew word tirosh,occasionally translated "new wine" means freshly pressed juice. It is used38 times in the OT (e.g. Gen 27: 28; Joel 2:24; Mic 6:15). In the NT the Greek word gleukos (meaning "sweet wine") is used for new wine (Acts 2:13). The word oinos is more widely used for wine (cf. Eph 5:18). The following passages condemn the use of strong drink (shekar): "Wine is a mocker [yayin], intoxicating drink [shekar] arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise" (Prov 20:1).....

The NT exhortations about intoxicating drinks follow those in the OT. Paul wrote, "Now I have written unto you not to keep company with anyone named a brother who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard—not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11). "Do you not know that . . . Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals . . . nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9–11). "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation [debauchery]" (Eph 5:18).

From "A Christian Perspective on Wine Drinking"

Stein also observes that "in several instances in the Old Testament a distinction is made between 'wine' and 'strong drink'" (e.g., Lev. 10:8-9). Strong drink is one thing, wine is another thing. The same distinction is made in Deuteronomy 14:26; 29:6; Judges 13:4; and elsewhere. According to the Talmud the "wine" used in the Passover meal was three parts water and one part wine (cf. 2 Macc. 15:39).(9)

It may also be that the wine Jesus miraculously provided at the wedding in Cana (John 2: 1-11) was a similar drink, that is, wine mixed with water. The word oinos ("wine") refers sometimes to fermented grape juice (e.g., Eph. 5:18) and sometimes to fresh, not fully fermented grape juice (e.g., Rev. 19:15). Furthermore, in ancient times not many beverages were safe to drink. Stein indicates that in the ancient world water could be made safe in one of several ways. It could be boiled, but this was tedious and costly. Or it could be filtered, but this was not a safe method. Or some wine could be put in the water to kill the germs -- one part wine with three or four parts water.

Wine today has a much higher level of alcohol than wine in the New Testament. In fact in New Testament times one would need to drink twenty-two glasses of wine in order to consume the large amount of alcohol in two martinis today. Stein humorously notes, "In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts water, but one's drinking would probably affect the bladder long before the mind."

Updated on Dec 5, 2014

Can we pray for God’s wrath on our enemies like David did in the Old Testament

Written for Christian Trends Magazine, December 2013.

The question is an intriguing one, for three reasons: first, David is looked up to as a model to emulate; secondly, because the psalms were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and, thirdly, of course, because enmity, rivalry, and injustice are tempting enough for any Christian to desire the immediate downfall of the enemy. So, one asks “Is it wrong to pray for God’s wrath to fall on our enemies?”

Many of us know the answer; but, we still want to reason a way for immediate vengeance. Let me list out some New Testament facts that seem to indicate that seeking divine vengeance for our enemies seem justified in some instances.

1. Jesus said that it’s better for a millstone to be tied on the neck of the man who offends a little one (Matthew 18:6).
2. Paul struck the sorcerer with blindness who tried to oppose the Gospel (Acts 13:8-10).
3. Paul desired God to reward Alexander according to his deeds for doing harm to him (2Tim.4:14).
4. The Book of Revelation talks about the souls of the martyrs crying out for vengeance (Rev.6:9,10).

So, it seems that in some cases, divine intervention is sought to remove offences or to ensure justice. But, we cannot transform exceptions into rules. Yet, certainly, we also need to understand what the exceptional cases are in which such prayers are valid and what the general prayer-content of New Testament Christian must be with regard to any enemies – personal, communal, or anti-Christ. Let’s make these distinctions clear and also look introductorily into the New Testament rules for dealing with enemies at these three levels.

1. Personal enemies are those who are enemies for personal reasons. The reasons might be many. But, if the reason is just, Jesus taught us to get reconciled first, before bringing an offering on the altar (Matt.5:23,24). We must resolve the case with the offended party before he drags us to the court (Matt 5:25,26). However, if someone becomes an enemy out of envy and jealousy, we are commanded to pray for them, bless them, and do good to them (Matt.5:44). Now, “good” must be defined as benevolent action showed with the balance of wisdom.
2. Communal enemies are those who are enemies because they are enemies of the group we are in. It is enmity by label and brand. There are various types of such. National enmity, racial enmity, religious enmity, clan or tribe enmity, linguistic enmity, denominational enmity, corporation enmity, and so on. For instance, the Naxalites would consider anyone wearing the khaki uniform (police uniform) as their enemy. The New Testament principle still suggests benevolence with wisdom. A story from Abraham Lincoln’s life provides a good example of this. During the civil war when the South and North were boiling with rage for vengeance and victory, Abraham Lincoln paid a visit to the enemy camp where wounded soldiers were lying and shook hands with each speaking kindly to them. A lady confronted him and remarked, “You must be destroying your enemies instead of shaking hands with them.” Abe Lincoln replied, “I do destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.” Jesus prayed for His enemies and wanted them to be forgiven and saved. He commanded us to pray for our enemies and to do good to them. But, wisdom also teaches to be ready to protect people from destruction intended by the violent. That is where national security, human rights protection, and legally provided defense rights fall in place.
3. The third level of enmity is motivated by hatred for the Name of Christ. There are those who treat the Christian as an enemy just because of his/her commitment to Christ. Now, this must be differentiated from communal or denominational enmity. A communal enemy may not hate Christ but may hate the Christian community for some historical or communal reasons. But, when the enmity is due to the Name of Christ, it is anti-Christ (to be distinguished from anti-Christian just to avoid confusion with communal enmity). The beatitude teaches us to rejoice and be glad when people persecute us and speak bad things about us for the Name of Christ for our reward is great in heaven (Matt.5:11,12).

In all these then, it is clear that the New Testament mandate teaches benevolence coupled with wisdom. But, let’s look at a few case studies to understand the issue a bit more clearly.

When a village of Samaria rejected Jesus, James and John got so infuriated that they wished to command fire from heaven fall and burn that place. But, Jesus replied that their fury was not from a godly spirit. He then made this important statement that He had come not to destroy but to save (Luke 9:54-57). This is the guiding principle of our Christian attitude towards our enemies. However, when the rejection is clearly final, Jesus did also say that the disciples must shake the dust of the city off (Luke 9:5) and leave the place for God to deal with on the Day of Judgment (note: He still allowed space of time till the Day of Judgment). At the same time, when the deputy was willing to listen to the Gospel but was being misguided by the magician, Paul struck the magician with blindness, for a season – for the sake of the Gospel (Acts 13:6-12). Such apostolic authority to discern the spirit and deal with authority in such situations are evident in the New Testament when, for instance, Peter deals with falsehood in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, deals with the commercial motive of Simon the Sorcerer, and Paul writes a stern letter to the Corinthian Church. We’re ready now to glean some principles to guide us in situation of enmity:

1. Remember the New Testament rule of salvation: Jesus came to save and not to destroy; so, anyone who wishes the destruction of anybody in this time of grace wishes against the mission of Christ. We are in fact called to pray in such a way that will lead to the salvation of all men (1Timothy 2:1-8). The Old Testament was about condemnation and death (2Corinthians 3); but the New Testament ministry is the ministry of reconciliation, peace, salvation, and life. We are called to follow the example of Jesus in loving, forgiving, and doing good to those who unjustly hate us. But, if we have done something against someone, we must seek reconciliation and restoration.
2. Our motive of love being clear, we must remember that there are times when we must responsibly deal with people in accordance with our office and role in the world. For instance, a soldier at war with an enemy nation should have a benevolent spirit; but, that doesn’t mean that he stops fulfilling his role to defend his country. Yet, he must also be kind to his enemies when they have surrendered and in need of kindness. Similarly, the elders of the Church must be wise in the area of discipline and exercise of spiritual authority; yet, in the spirit of love and wisdom.

So, can we pray for God’s wrath to fall on our enemies in the New Testament? Absolutely not. Because we live in the age of grace and not the age of condemnation. Of course, grace was also available in the Old Testament, or else David himself should have been stoned to death for committing adultery and murder. But, it was still an age of condemnation that operated according to the Law of Moses. However, Jesus brought grace and truth to light (John 1:17). We must be messengers of peace, grace, and truth in the world. So, we do not pray for destruction of people; but, we pray for God to save people from their sins, thus putting a loving end to enmity. At the same time we, as sons of God must be peacemakers (Matt 5:9), ready to apologize when we offend and seek for reconciliation and peace with people at both personal and communal levels.

How Can Jesus Be Fully God and Fully Man At the Same Time?

Answer 1:

A contradiction can be defined in the terms "A=not-A"; a non-contradiction, in the terms "A≠not-A".
• The statements "Jesus is fully God" and "Jesus is fully man" don't involve such a contradiction, i.e, they don't say "Jesus is fully God," and "Jesus is not fully God" at the same time.
• Christian theology doesn't claim to say that Jesus is not God when it says Jesus is Man; likewise, it doesn't clam to say that Jesus is not man when it says that Jesus is God.

Answer 2:

• The divinity of Christ is eternal and immutable; therefore, in the Incarnation He was fully God. He was not created; He pre-existed. He was not born out of a man-woman relationship; but, was born of a Virgin; because He incarnated, He didn't come into being - there was not when He didn't exist.
• In the Incarnation, God partook of human nature; He could do that because He created the world and so the world belonged to Him and He sustained it. The world didn't cut off from Him in a way that God and creation were unrelated to each other. The world had not become a "wholly other" to God. The world was not closed out to God, as if it were an infinite and absolute entity by itself. The fact was that the world was contingent on Him. The world couldn't restrict His power. In fact, it was He who held it by the word of His power (Heb 1:3). The world is not eternal; it is temporal; therefore, it is impossible for the world (including man) to become God. That would be a contradiction of terms. However, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity did become man, because His creation was not beyond His reach. The temporal exists within the eternal; and the finite within the infinite (not vice versa). "In Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28). This is not pantheism or panentheism. It doesn't say the world contains God as its soul or the world is God; but, that the world is contingent upon God, therefore not beyond His reach. Miracles are possible, Divine intervention is possible (the universe is not closed) and the Incarnation is the greatest example of God's intervention in human history.

Further Reading:
The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
The Logic of Faith

Why Am I Still Alive?

"Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure... Why is life given to a man whose way is hidden, whom God has hedged in?" (Job 3:20,21, 23)

I'd put this question to Nick Vujicic, to Joni Eareckson Tada, to Fanny Crosby, and to Annie Johnston Flint and, without any doubt, there'd be a pleasant service right now overflowing with the testimony of what God can do and has planned for each one of us despite the impossibilities that we face.... The very fact that we are alive is proof that God has a reason to keep us alive, a plan and a purpose He's busy about.. even if we aren't able to see that now!

The very fact that we are alive is proof that God has a reason to keep us alive, a plan and a purpose He's busy about.. even if we aren't able to see that now!

Q&A: The Laws of Moses Look So Hard and Inhumane!

Ques: The laws of Moses look so hard and inhumane. He allowed social evils such as slavery and revenge. See for instance theses verses:
"if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." (Ex.21:7)
"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex.21:24)


Ans: When Jesus came, He said that He came to bring the Law of Moses to perfection (Matt.5:17). He didn't come to annihilate it but to bring it to perfection. It certainly implies that the Old Testament Law was not in a perfect state. Jesus said that Moses gave that Law because of the hardness of human hearts (Matt.19:8). The Old Testament itself stressed the importance of Mercy as the spirit of the Law; Jesus quoted it when He taught the key to the right practice of the Law:
"But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice,'you would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matt.12:7)

He highlighted the spirit of the Law:
Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:37-40)

And His Sermon on the Mount laid the foundation for Christian Morality; for instance:
--You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Mat 5:21-22)
--You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)
--You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Mat 5:38-39)

The Old Covenant Law was not bad. But, the problem was with the human heart and its hardness:
"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Rom 7:14)

When Jesus came, He brought the Law to its perfect state through another Covenant, which He called the New Covenant:

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Death - Was Adam Created Immortal? - Excerpt

(Excerpt from Hamartiology (Notes), 2006)

God created humans as mortals.[1] Mortality was known to Adam, or else reference to it in the command would have meant nothing to him. The world is Christo-centric, not anthropo-centric or eco-centric. The statement ‘let us make man…’ must be seen in this context. God did not create humans as males and females to remain so eternally. In the divine purpose, man is created to be glorified and transformed into the image of the Son. In this sense, then human creation must be seen as real but not final. As far as the creation of the animal kingdom was concerned, it was final; however, the creation of human was not final. Adam was not the complete man. He would only be complete when mortality puts on immortality. Human creation can only find finality in Christ.

Then in what sense, death passed from Adam to all men? It means that although God created humans as mortals, that mortality was not finality. The finality would be the absorption of mortality into immortality. However, through Adam’s disobedience and choice of autonomy (physical well-being), mortality reached finality in Adam and Adam became the first mortal. Thus, it is not the tree that finalized death,[2] it was the choice to disobey God and turn to nature for fulfillment that finalized death. This is the birth of natural religion, of idolatry. Finality also means eternality. Thus, the curse of death on Adam was eternal. Following physical death, his soul was doomed to a resurrection of Godless existence.

Since the command was directly given to Adam, and God first addressed Adam as responsible for the act (‘I commanded thee’), Adam’s disobedience counts primarily here. That Eve’s eyes were not opened before Adam ate the fruit seems to point to the finality of the decision in Adam from whom she was taken.

The divine statement ‘lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:’ (the use of also) seems to indicate that Adam and Eve had not eaten of it. Obviously, it is impossible for the tree of life to reverse the given verdict of death. ‘Forever’ thus must be taken in the sense of the possibility of prolonged life of a sinner, immune to almost all decay. There is, however, no indication that the fruit of life could render the human body indestructible[3] (as if even God could not destroy it). Long life of continuing sinfulness might have been meant here. Even if they had eaten it earlier, the death edict could not be reversed though life be prolonged; eventually, death would take its toll.

The reign of death (Rom. 5: 14) was the effect of Adamic sin. Hence, though people do not have the Law of Moses, and thus the knowledge of sin (and though they do not sin after the similitude of Adam), yet sin reigns over them through death because of Adam’s disobedience and act of unrighteousness. It is not the physicality of death that is fearsome; for all will be resurrected; rather, it is the Godlessness of a death that is condemned to the finality of banishment from the divine presence (and kingdom) that is fearsome. It is the death that misses the glory of God for which man was made. It is the death that leads to the resurrection of condemnation, of darkness, of indignation, tribulation, and anguish. The crucifixion of Christ destroyed the reign of sin through death in his flesh (Rom.8:3). Death could no longer have any effect on the Last Adam. The resurrection of Christ inaugurated the newness of life, of fellowship with God. He rose again as the Second Man to give life everlasting. To live according to flesh is to live by faith in the self and its ability to live the law of God. Man can live human laws (anthropocentric ethics by tree of knowledge). He could never live divine laws (Christocentric ethics by the Lordship of Christ and the empowering of the Spirit). To live according to the Spirit is to live by faith in the Son of God. This faith overcomes the world (the system of Godless autonomy and satanic reign).

---

[1] (1) If man were created immortal, death could not be predicted of him in any condition. For “immortality” implies inability to die (physically). (2) If man were created immortal, the Tree of Life would be a meaningless addition to the Garden. Perhaps, a safer proposition might be “God created humans as neither mortals nor immortals” because of the condition of non-finality. [Sep 14, 2010]
[2] Human death or Adamic death is evil only because it is a death that is not absorbed by the eternal life of Christ. Death in itself is not an evil, it is evil insofar as it fails to find a purpose. A death that lacks a purpose produces dread and anxiety, but hope in Christ produces joy.
[3] Indestructibility will be a quality of the spiritual body given to the believer on resurrection or glorification: the source, Christ (1 Cor.15:42-49). [Sept 14, 2010]