He's Serious

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ..." (2 Tim 3:16-17), so if "all Scripture" is "breathed out by God" it's all God's Word. However, there are some tough spots. In my day, Ronco was a force of culture. You had the "Ronco Pocket Fisherman" and the "Ronco Veg-O-Matic" ("It slices! It dices! It even makes Julienne fries!!") and on and on. It became a meme before memes were something. We had our own additions ... like "The Ronco Erasable Bible! Erase any verse you don't like, write in something new, and God has to do it because ... it's in the Bible!" Here's a passage that should have ended up erased, right?

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. (Deut 13:6-11)

Um ... yeah ... that probably shouldn't be in there. Of course, I'm not advocating that. And it's God's Word, so we can't just ... erase it. What, then?

Consider the context. Israel was a theocracy. The "King" of Israel at the time was ... YHWH. Trying to persuade people to idolatry, then, was the highest form of treason, both politically and spiritually. It is not uncommon for acts of treason to be punished by death. This law, if enforced, would have a devastating effect ... on idolatry. It would protect the community ... not from crime, but from God's wrath. It would protect Israel's position as God's representatives on Earth. It would protect their blessings of being a blessing to all nations. And it demonstrates an issue of vital importance ... God is really serious about idolatry.

We are not a theocracy. We don't enforce worship with force. The Church today isn't national; it's spiritual. We don't get to coerce spiritual purity. So we don't do this now. We don't kill heretics and we don't kill idolaters inside or outside our "nation" (especially since the "Christian nation" is a spiritual nation, not a geographic nation). We do need to understand that idolatry is a serious issue ... especially to God. Replacing God with anything -- fame, wealth, power, self, or any other modern "idol" -- should be met with extreme resistance. It doesn't matter if it's a close family member or a beloved spouse or a dear friend. We are called to "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you" (Col 3:5). Not "coddle it" or "indulge it" or "look the other way." Kill it. No, not physically. Our struggle is a spiritual one (Eph 6:12). I suspect, if we are paying attention, killing it in our own lives will be a pretty long task as it is. But keep in mind ... God is serious about it. We should be, too.

Hard Sayings - "Two or More"

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matt 18:19-20)

Verse 19 is not a method of coercing God to do what want. It is an instruction on how to deal with the difficulty of carrying out Matthew 18:15-17. It's hard to regard people you care about as Gentiles and tax gatherers -- as outsiders. But don't worry. God has already done it, so your task is merely to carry it out (Matt 18:18). He begins verse 19 with "again" meaning "I'm on the same topic," so in verse 19 the "ask anything" in view is "in regards to this discipline process." That's the context. Who asks anything? "Two of you." Any two? Not in context. Jesus already referenced two in verse 16, so I'd guess it is those who brought the case to the church. Those folks are praying for God's will regarding this sinning brother. God will answer that prayer.

The next verse -- Matthew 18:20 -- is another seriously misunderstood text from the lips of our Savior. I have been in multiple prayer meetings where they prayed, "Jesus, we gather here knowing you are here with us because You said, 'Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.'" It always left me wondering, "So, what if I'm praying with four other people? Or is He not there when I pray alone?" You know, like He commanded (Matt 6:6). So we have refused to examine this text for what it really means because we think that God requires a quorum to show up? The verse is at the end of a section of Scripture where Jesus is explaining how to handle sinning believers. Matthew 18:15-17 gives Jesus's four-step process of attempting to restore a sinning brother. The final step is a bit egregious, so in Matthew 18:18, Jesus explains that when we do that, we are doing what God has already done. Verse 19 tells us to do it with prayer. Verse 20 is a reminder that serves a dual purpose at the end of this difficult procedure. First, remember; Jesus is there. You didn't go through this alone. You did what He told you and He's there. Second, remember, Jesus is there. This was a serious and difficult thing to do, so don't make light of it. Remember it's about Him and not you. It is not lightweight or frivolous. It's important, and it's not about you.

Christ commands church discipline. He requires that we seek to bear one another's burdens even when that burden is their sin. We don't ignore it; we confront it in love and gentleness. As quietly as possible. If one is enough, great! If not, two or three. If that doesn't get there, make it a part of the whole group, always with prayer and self-reflection seeking restoration, not punitive action. If the group doesn't bring about repentance, the actions of the brother in question and their refusal to repent suggests they may not be a brother. Treat them as an unbeliever. Remember, it's God's call. Remember, God will do His will. Remember, Jesus is there. God approves of repentance and restoration as well as those who, with prayer and caution and love, seek to bring it about in those around them. Not quite the original thought of Jesus showing up when two are there, is it?

Hard Sayings - Woe to You, Chorazin

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." (Matt 11:21-24)

The text is well known. Jesus, speaking here, is denouncing unrepentant cities of Israel (Matt 11:20). And there are a couple of problematic things here.

First, there is that "It will be more bearable" concept. We tend to think that there is heaven or there is hell at the end. One will be glorious and the other will be horrible, but within these two there are no shades, no variations. Heaven is all good and hell is all bad. Now, to be sure, that's not universal. We've all heard of the "seventh level of hell" indicating a worse hell than, say, the 2nd level. Out of Dante's Inferno, the notion that some sins are worse than others isn't new, but we don't usually think of them that way. Well, here we have Jesus suggesting that it is true. Hell will be awful, but it will be worse for some than for others. That's difficult to ponder.

A lot of people, though, miss the second problem. Jesus here states a "would have" idea. He states with certainty what would have happened if things had been different. We call them "contingencies," and thinking about them could make you crazy. What would have happened if you had ...? The ripple effects of any one thing can go forever. Ultimately, what would have been is unknowable to us and, frankly, we're mostly happy about that because thinking it through could give you a migraine. I can't figure out how a chess player can plan all moves 10 moves ahead and Christ knew what would have happened if His miracles had been done in other places at other times. That's amazing and not particular problematic because we understand God to be omniscient. But then you consider. Jesus knew that if those miracles had been done, say, in Sodom, "it would have remained until this day." God knew that there was a possible approach in which Sodom would have repented ... and He didn't take it.

See the problem? We typically understand that it is God's will that everyone gets saved and here we have a plain presentation from the lips of Christ that God did not carry out the step required to do that for the people of Tyre and Sidon or Sodom (and who knows how many others?). If we let Jesus speak here, He seems to say that it is not God's divine plan to save everyone by any possible means. Now, it's clear that God has more than one type of will. We know, for instances, that He has what we might call a preceptive will -- that which He commands. Is it God's will that we don't commit murder? Yes, quite clearly. Do people commit murder? Yes, obviously. So, God's will is not accomplished! Yes, that's true -- His preceptive will. And Scripture talks about what God prefers. He "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:4) He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11), yet He certainly carries it out. This would be His preferential will and some of that certainly doesn't happen. So, if Scripture is true, how can we conclude that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11)? That must refer to a sovereign will -- things that He wills and that always come to pass. We see this in Joseph's story where his brothers sought to kill him and then sold him into slavery. "You meant evil against me," he told his brothers, "but God meant it for good." (Gen 50:20) There were two "wills" at work in that -- the brothers' evil will and God's good will. Both occurred, but God used the evil for good. God didn't "will" the brothers to act that way -- He didn't cause or influence them to sin; they did that on their own. But He used their self-directed choice for His sovereign will.

Jesus, then, is saying that God knew that there were things He could do to save the people of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, and, I would guess, others and God didn't do them. That means that God's preferential will is that everyone gets saved but His sovereign will has something else in mind. The idea, then, is that God allows the death of the wicked for a higher purpose. And the question becomes, "Is that okay with you?" If you say it's not, you stand an the amazing position that allows you to pass judgment on God. I'm not willing to go there. I will trust in Him even if He doesn't do what I think is right. Generous of me, isn't it?

Hard Sayings - Give to the one who asks

I haven't done one of these "Hard Sayings" entries for a long time. Here's another installment. (To find others, you can click on Hard Sayings over there on the sidebar.)
__________

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has a series of "You have heard ... but I say" things to say. He enlarges the concept of adultery from sexual relations to simple lust (Matt 5:27-28). He expands the problem of murder from actually killing someone to wishing they were dead (Matt 5:21-22). He speaks to the "keep your promises" problem with a much broader "have such integrity that you never need to make a promise" (Matt 5:33-37). And He addresses the "love your neighbor but hate your enemies" concept.

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." (Matt 5:39-42)

Well, folks, there you have it. The command of Jesus is to give anyone anything and everything they ask for and more. Now, go and do thou likewise.

But wait! Is that what He was saying?

Lots of these things have some difficulties if you take them in a woodenly literal manner. Jesus said, "Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery." (Matt 5:28) I would guess that includes all males for all time (with, I would suppose, the exception of Jesus). Jesus said, "Do not take an oath at all ... Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." (Matt 5:34-37) That would make anyone who has been required to take an oath or make a vow -- wedding, military service, giving testimony in a trial, etc. -- evil. Jesus said, "Whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." (Matt 5:22) Paul wrote, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Gal 3:1) Well, apparently Paul is in hell. Is this what Jesus intended?

Maybe you see it this way. Someone asked how to tell if one was looking at a woman with lust and the answer was, "It's the second look." Someone else quipped, "Depends on how long that first look is." How to tell? You might think the question shouldn't be asked. You might hold that all vows are evil and all harsh words are worthy of hell. You might believe that we must give to anyone who asks. Well, you might say you do, because if you actually did believe that you'd be broke. Every homeless person you pass is asking for money. Every charity on television is asking for money. Every church is asking for money. There is no end to "those who ask", but there is certainly a limit to what you have, and it wouldn't be very long before that ran out and you'd be asking alongside those homeless people. Then there's the other kind of asking, the kind that asks you to participate in sin. "Give to everyone that asks" would require you to do that, too, wouldn't it? You may say you believe that all this stuff is woodenly literally true, but what you believe is always displayed in what you do.

No, this can't be taken that way. Jesus was making broad statements to provide principles. What we need to do is discover the principles He was trying to provide. That's much easier, much clearer, much more reasonable. We are not to hate. We are not to lust. We are supposed to have integrity. These aren't that hard to figure out.

On the question at hand -- "Give to everyone that asks" -- what is the principle? It is unavoidable that the principle is compassion and generosity. And, on that, it is impossible to miss the fact that too many of us don't do that well. We are far more skillful at finding excuses than being diligent to care for the needs of others, to our shame.

On the other hand, Jesus didn't mean a blanket "give to anyone". Paul said, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thess 3:10) This would preclude the broadest version of this text. So what does it mean?

Context always explains content. What is the context? The principle is in the opening statement. Jesus contrasts two things -- revenge or not. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil." (Matt 5:38-39) The question at hand is not "Can I have anything or do I have to give it all away?" The question is "What do I do when I am mistreated?" Jesus said, "Don't fight them. Don't seek revenge. Don't withhold good from them or refuse to lend them something because they were unkind to you." What, then, is the guiding principle?

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies ..." (Matt 5:43-44)

In this principle we find coherence. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies. It's important, in this, to have compassion, and we Christians -- you and I -- need to be more diligent in this. It's important to be generous, especially we -- you and I -- who have so much. But it is most important that we love. That would mean that you don't enable someone who will not work by giving them what they need when they could earn it (2 Thess 3:10-12). You can fill in the blanks for other ways in which love would preclude giving everything to everyone who asks.

In all of these "You have heard ... but I say" things, Jesus illustrates that the problem is not activity, but heart. The questions are all of attitude and intent, not merely what is done. Lust is adultery. Hate is murder. This "Give to anyone who asks" (literally "begs, craves, demands") is addressing the attitude of revenge or retaliation, supposedly allowed by "hate your enemy". That is wrong.

It is important that we understand what is being said in Scripture. This is my idea of "literal" -- that which is intended to be conveyed. So this case doesn't mean what so many simplistically say it means (and no one that I know actually holds to). It doesn't mean that you must never respond when someone strikes you ("turn the other cheek"). It doesn't mean, "Give everything you have to thieves." It doesn't mean "Bankrupt your entire family to give to whoever asks because that's what Jesus commanded." It means that we are to love rather than retaliate. It means that we ought always to be generous and compassionate. It means that we must at all times rely on God who supplies. On these things we ought to be diligent and not foolish. In the Luke 6 version, Jesus started this with, "But I say to you who hear ..." (Luke 6:27). Clearly, this wasn't to be taken woodenly literally. Clearly He was saying that you really needed to listen to understand this. Failing to comprehend what He said is a mistake and failing to take Jesus at His word is dangerous. Don't let that be us.

Marry Your Local Rapist

There is a portion of the skeptics that like to claim that God requires rape victims to marry their rapist. "See," they conclude, "if God exists, He's evil!" (I cannot quite fathom why someone who believes no such being exists would wish to debate about the morality of such a being. I mean, the Chinese portray dragons as good and wise and the Europeans portray them as evil, but I'm not debating the existence of dragons based on whether or not they're either.) So, where do they get that claim?

#1
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." (Deut 22:28-29)

Well, now, look ... there it is, plain as day. He "seizes her" and, if caught, has to pay a dowry and marry her for life. Too bad for him. Make sure you rape a girl you wouldn't mind spending your life with. Oh, and too bad for her.

But ... is that what it says? Again, context is important. I numbered that account because there are more to consider. Prior to this command is an earlier one centered "in the open country".

#2
"If in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." (Deut 22:25-27)

They end differently. Why? What are the similarities and what are the differences? Well, in both we have a young woman who is "seized". In one they are "in the open country" and in the other they are not. In one he pays the father and marries her and in the other he is ... executed. Now, wait! Isn't there a logical problem here? I mean, if God requires women who are raped to marry their rapists, why is one rapist killed and the other not? Hmmm. Perhaps the accusation against God is not valid.

There is another version here to take into account.

#3
"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deut 22:23-24)

Keep in mind that "betrothed" was "married but not yet consummated" in those times. (It says "he violated his neighbor's wife.") This is why, when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant before he married her, he sought to divorce her (Matt 1:19). So in version #2 we were talking about a betrothed woman, and in this version it is a betrothed woman. The penalty for consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman (Deut 22:22) and someone not her husband is death for both as version #3 states. In version #2 -- non-consensual sex between a betrothed or married woman and someone not her husband -- the penalty is death for the rapist. So in version #1 regarding a "a virgin who is not betrothed", the penalty is somehow different.

So what exonerates the woman in version #2? In the case of married/betrothed women who encounter sex apart from their spouse, it is either death for both or death for the man, depending on whether or not it was rape. In the case of the betrothed woman in open country, the male dies, but "you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death." Why? "There was no one to rescue her." Ah, now we're getting someplace. In the instance where she was not in open country, note that "they are found", but not in the other accounts. This suggests that the act was mutual, not rape. If it is rape, she would cry out and find help. Oh, and in that case, the punishment for rape is death. Since she didn't cry out (remember, they were not "in the open country"), it appears to be consensual sex. For consensual sex with a woman who is not betrothed, the penalty is marriage without possibility of divorce.

Now, some will assure you that this is intended to protect the woman. No one would marry a non-virgin. She'd be stuck without a husband. Fine. I won't disagree. But my point here is that the text does not appear to require rape in the case of the virgin, but rather consensual sex. Therefore, the accusation that God requires a rape victim to marry her rapist is false. As in Exodus 22:16, the penalty for seducing a virgin is marriage. (Note that in the Exodus version the father has the right to refuse the bride-price and to give his daughter to him.) Since Deuteronomy means "the second law" and is supposed to basically be a restating of the law from the previous version, it's pretty clear that this is the case. The sad part is that too many Christians won't think it through sufficiently to be able to demonstrate this. So I would urge, "Christians ... know thy Scripture."

Hard Sayings -- Women and the Church

One of the most difficult passages in Scripture is that messy "women in the church" passage that upsets the whole male/female balance struck by many today.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim 2:11-15).

It doesn't take a super genius to see the difficulty. "Now, wait!" you will hear from both men and women, "Are you saying that women are supposed to learn quietly, to be in submission, and, most of all, not to teach or be in authority over men in the church?" So let me be, first and foremost, absolutely clear: no, no I am not saying that. The Bible is.

Okay, having said that, it seems abundantly clear that we should be abundantly clear on just what it is saying. If we wish to be followers of Christ, faithful to the Word, we need to know what is being said and follow it (rather than applying our own meaning to it and then calling ourselves "faithful to the Word").

First, it is unavoidable that there are instructions being given to men (1 Tim 2:8) and to women (the text above). Some would like to argue that it is to husbands and wives. This doesn't really work out. First, the context doesn't offer any hints of the kind. Second, Paul references "Adam" and "Eve" -- the prototype "Man" and "Woman" of all men and women -- in his explanation, so it would appear to be beyond "husband and wife".

No, it would appear, from the text, that Paul is indeed commanding that women learn quietly in submission and not to teach or take authority over men. The reasoning is based in the Creation Order and predicated on "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived." This, indeed, has been the understanding of the passage in the Church since the beginning. Only of late has this changed.

Still, that last verse is ... problematic. Just what does that mean? "Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control" (1 Tim 2:15). That one, you see, isn't quite so clear at all.

So, first, what it cannot mean:

1. The means of salvation from sin and God's wrath is different for men than for women. Men are saved by faith; women are saved by having babies.

2. Only mothers can be saved; childless women go to Hell.

3. Women are less important than men.

None of those are consistent with Scripture or the text itself. Fine, so what does it mean?

Some suggest that it is a reference to the promise to Eve in Gen 3:15 that the Savior would come through her. Most modern commentators dismiss this as untenable and somewhat useless in the context it is used here.

Barnes argues that the idea is that the stigma of being the one that introduced sin into the world will not be hers because of the woman's position as the progenitor of the human race. (Note: Barnes points out that the Greek term, τεκνογονία, translated here as "childbearing" refers to parentage as well as the entire set of maternal duties, including the education and training of offspring.)

Clarke believes this is a reference to Mary as the mother of Christ, that this is a reference to the fact that the Savior was to be born of a woman. Thus, this "saved" refers to the fact that all mankind finds their salvation in the Savior born of a woman. As it turns out, this is a very popular view in older commentaries.

Gill offers a hybrid that argues that this salvation refers both to being saved from the stigma of Eve's introduction of sin in the world by means of offspring and raising children as well as the fact that the Savior was born of a woman and brings salvation to the world.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown comments on the "through" aspect, similar to "through the fire" (1 Cor 3:15) as opposed to "because of". The thinking is "In spite of the problems of childbirth, women are saved." This commentary also hangs on the "home duties", her sphere (as distinct from the man's sphere).

Robertson's Word Pictures indicates this "saved" refers to the impact a woman has. Men have an impact by leadership roles and public teaching; women have an impact in the duties of a wife and mother. Both are significant.

Most commentaries point to "if they continue ..." as imperative. That is, they might be saved through childbearing (as in "in spite of"), but they are not saved from sin by childbearing. They are saved (from sin - 1 Tim 2:14) by faith demonstrated in a life that reflects saving faith.

Note that the "she" in this verse refers to all women (who are saved), not just Eve (see "they" at the end of the verse).

Men go through the pain of leadership (Mark 9:42) and public teaching (James 3:1); women go through the pain of childbirth, raising children, and making a home. Neither are saved from wrath by these things. Both leave their mark through them. Both are saved by a living faith.

I don't know that I've found a more diverse offering of meanings for a single text anywhere else in Scripture. All agree it isn't that women are saved by making babies. All agree that it does not mean that women are less valuable than men. Beyond that, it gets ... different. I like some of the ideas. I don't think that any of them either allow for a dismissal of the principle that women should not teach or usurp male leadership (the standard understanding throughout Church History) or for the notion that women are "less". Beyond that, it isn't clear. You may have to decide for yourself. Just don't do it by ignoring Scripture.

On Biblical Hate

In the famous "count the cost" passage (Luke 14:25-35) Jesus says something that is disturbing.

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26).

Wait, wait ... hate his own father and mother and wife and children? Are you sure that's what He said? Yes, indeed, that's exactly it. Of course, this is a problem because we are told not to hate (Matt 15:4). So what does He mean here? The answer is common and adequate. Look, for instance, at a story from Genesis. We learn that Jacob had two wives, one he wanted and one he didn't. The text says "he loved Rachel more than Leah" (Gen 29:30). The next verse says, "When the Lord saw that Leah was hated ..." (Gen 29:31). Now, wait a minute! It didn't say Jacob hated Leah; it said he loved her less than Rachel. Oh, and, yes, that's the idea. So the Matthew 10 language would be preferred.

"Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt 10:37).

That's more the idea. A comparative response. Not hate as we generally mean it, but that the difference between loving father and mother and loving Christ would be so great as to appear to despise (consider of no value) father and mother, etc.

That's fine. Every commentator agrees on this. It has been the historical position. The context, the parallel texts, the similar concepts elsewhere all confirm this. And we're okay with it.

But ... are we? It's an odd thing, I think, but when we start to wrestle with this passage, we forget, well, the passage. We work through all this, figuring out just what Jesus did and didn't mean by "hate" and finally come to a reasonable conclusion. But we forget to plug that conclusion back into the text. I say that because look at the text. If "hate" here means "to devalue", then Jesus is telling us that we must devalue father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters ... yeah, we see that ... and our own lives.

Now, wait a minute! That's going too far! After all, each of us knows how valuable we are. We know how important we are. We know that Christ died for us, that we hold great value as image bearers of God, that we are gifted and called and saved. We are important. I mean, look, isn't it a given that we will love ourselves (Eph 5:29)? So this is a bit too much, even if it doesn't mean actual hate. It is the bridge too far, so to speak.

Jesus said that unless we hate our own lives, we could not be His disciples. We now have a choice. Will we hold to a higher view of ourselves, or will we agree with Christ? On the surface it may seem like an easy question. "We'll agree with Christ!" Really? How about when bad things happen? Will you complain, "Why, God?!", or will you say, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord"? When trials occur will you bemoan the difficulties or will you "count it all joy"? Because, you see, it's much easier to handle hardships and trials from the hand of God if we don't have an over-inflated view of our worth. If, on the other hand, we're pretty sure God is lucky to have us, that gets a bit more difficult. Will you "hate your own life", at least in the sense of "devalue in respect to Christ", or are you going to stand on your own importance and value and demand that Christ agree? Because as far as I can tell the number one problem is our own demand for respect and consideration from God. "I will be like the Most High." And when He doesn't meet our demands, we're offended. Because, you see, we do not, in any sense of the word, hate our own lives. Something to consider.

Postscript:
Of course, there is another option. We can just say, "This text makes no sense as it is written and we will discard it in favor of some other obscure-but-favorable understanding because you can't treat the Bible like it's clear, true, or ... what ... divinely inspired? Come on!" But, then, you'll have to deal with every single passage that anyone might question and you'll lose any sense of basic certainty about anything "Christian". Your call.

Reaping Tares

Christians -- you know, those who try to follow the Bible, imitate Christ, submit to God's instructions, that sort of thing -- are often accused of being "judgmental". We are told that we are to "judge not" because everyone knows (except Christians, apparently) that this is Jesus's final word on the subject. (I mean, whatever you do, do not keep reading Matthew 7 after verse 1 because Jesus goes on to explain how to judge rightly, which kind of throws a wrench in the whole "judge not" theme.) So we are told that "only God can judge" and we are to leave ourselves out of it.

There is, of course, the problem that any lover of Scripture will encounter with this approach. It violates so many other Scriptures. I mean, we have the whole "judge not" thing, but Jesus goes on to say "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:15-16). It's very hard to hang onto a "judge not" theme and read Matthew 23 where Jesus gives the Pharisees a horrendous series of "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" statements which doesn't exactly fall in the "judge not" feel of things. And then there's the whole "moneychangers in the temple" episode which really is hard to slide into that "judge not" mantra. And those are just a few examples.

In Matthew 13, Jesus gives the parable of the kingdom of heaven being like a man whose field is seeded with tares by his enemy (Matt 13:24-30). We get the idea. Wheat and weeds look a lot alike. However, weeds kill wheat or, at best, damage it, so what's a body to do? (Get it? "Body", as in "the Body of Christ". Oh, never mind. If I have to explain it ...) In the parable, the servants ask the master, "Do you want us to go and gather them?" (Matt 13:28). The master tells them that doing so could damage the wheat, so leave that to the harvesters at the end. When Jesus explains this parable to His disciples (Matt 13:37-43), He explains that the enemy is the devil and the harvesters are angels and when they come they weed out the weeds "and throw them into the fiery furnace" (Matt 13:42). So in this parable, the servants (us) of the Master (Jesus) are not supposed to pull the weeds (false believers) from the field (the Church). Well, there you go! "Judge not", right?

But lay that up against Jesus's own words just a few chapters later. There He speaks of the "sinning brother" (Matt 18:15-17). This guy sins and you confront him. He doesn't repent so you take witnesses and confront him. He doesn't repent so you take it to the church and confront him. If he doesn't repent, Jesus says, "Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matt 18:17). Unclear on that? Well, Paul says, "I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11). He ends with "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13). Now, wait! Didn't Jesus say not to "pull the weeds"? Didn't He say to leave that to the angels on Judgment Day? So what's with this "Purge the evil" thing? That is, Jesus said "Judge not" and then told how to judge rightly. He said "Leave the weeds for the angels" and then instructed us to get rid of them. How does this work?

There are two basic approaches here you could take. One is the currently popular view. "The Bible is a good book, but, let's face it, it's flawed. Thanks for pointing out another one." Okay, good. Now we don't have to work at understanding Christ (the author of Christianity). Pick whichever you prefer -- "Judge not" or "purge the evil" ... or neither -- and move along. Or you could assume that we have a reliable God who could oversee a reliable Scripture and maintain the integrity of that Scripture through time ... and then have to figure out how to correlate these two (rather than ignore one or the other).

Assuming the Bible is actually God's Word, how would we correlate these two ideas? Well, it would be necessary to keep the ideas straight. The parable of the tares includes angels at the "close of the age" (Matt 13:39). This is the Final Judgment. The result to these tares is not simply being removed from the "field", but to, in biblical terms, "perish". It is Judgment in the final and complete way. End of story. No other chances. Sorry. You chose, you bear your own choice. The other concept, however, is different. That one is aimed at making people uncomfortable enough to repent. In the 1 Corinthians 5 event, for instance, Paul delivered the man to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). That is not eternal damnation. It is quite the opposite. Thus, the object of the reaping of the tares is final punishment and the object of purging the evil is to urge repentance to avoid final punishment. Two different concepts.

I don't have a problem with this correlation. Makes sense to me. It would suggest that the earlier Christians who burned heretics and the like were actually violating Jesus's "tares mandate". But, since I don't have a problem thinking that genuine Christians before me (around me, since me, including me) could make mistakes, that's not a big problem. If someone was suggesting to me that we should burn heretics again, I'd likely point directly to the "tares mandate" as a good reason not to. On the other hand, the current preference for leaving sinners alone is an equal violation of the "purge the evil mandate". I'd vote against leaving them alone, as well. Thus, there is a sense of "Judge not" when it comes to ultimate judgment and a sense of "Judge not" when it comes to judging others without judging myself (Matt 7:2-5). and terminating the lives of heretics would be a bad option. On the other hand it is necessary, biblical, and Christian to purge the evil from among us. We just do that without killing anyone for the purpose of urging repentance. A different animal altogether.

Shave and a Haircut

²⁶ "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. ²⁷ You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. ²⁸ You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:26-28).

This text is a one of several that are a favorite among skeptics. "Don't hear you lousy Christians preaching on this very much, do we? And you call yourself followers of the Bible!" Well, since I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and means what it says, I think it is wise to examine ... what it says. So, what have we here?

First, I'd like to avoid the standard pitfalls. One common response is, "Ignore it; it's Old Testament." In fact, many make that argument and then carry it over to "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" and other biblical commands. They do the very thing the skeptic complains about and pick and choose what works and what doesn't. We don't want to pick and choose. The other problem occurs if we take this text and, just because we want to, say, "It's about making the Israelites separate" (or something like that). I believe that there are commands given to Israel for that purpose, but here's the problem in this context. If we say, "That's just for Israel", look at what else we're going to set aside.

"Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father" (Lev 19:3).
"Do not turn to idols" (Lev 19:4)
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another" (Lev 19:11).
"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him" (Lev 19:13).
"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong" (Lev 19:33).

And that's just a sampling. You see, if you say, "That hair cutting thing is just to make Israel separate", then you'll also need to say, "That 'honor your father and mother' thing and that whole prohibition against idolatry is just to make Israel separate. We can steal, oppress our neighbors, and do wrong to visitors because that was just to keep them separate, not Christians." It's the problem I have with those who say, "The prohibition against a man lying with a man as with a woman is a religious thing", because if you look at the context we'd also need to pile adultery, incest, and bestiality as perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they weren't religious in nature. Doesn't work. Don't go there.

So, avoiding those errors, where do we go? It is really verse 27 that catches all the attention. "Christians shouldn't be getting haircuts if they say they believe the Bible!" That's what it says, right? And, indeed, the (commendable) orthodox Jew has uncut locks of hair on the sides of his head and an uncut beard. I say "commendable" because of the attitude. "If that's what it says, that's what I'll do." Regardless of the text, that should be our attitude as well. But, does the text say that? Notice that it speaks of rounding off hair and marring the beard. That's not quite the same as cutting the sides of your hair or grooming a beard. These appear to be indications of something beyond a shave and a haircut. So, am I splitting hairs (a little humor there), or are there reasons to think that this may not be a de facto command not to shave the sides of your face?

As always, I recommend text and context. What do we learn from the context? Well, I put the immediate context in the quote above because, if you're paying attention, verse 27 is not a verse in a vacuum. It starts with a command ("You shall not...") and ends with a reason ("I am the Lord."). This structure of terminating in "I am the Lord" is repeated throughout the chapter. So we have Lev 19:2-3 tied together, verse 4 as a command, verses 5-10 tied together, and so forth. Each of these is completed in the statement, "I am the Lord." Thus, Lev 19:26-28 is a thought, a set of commands tied together by a central theme and punctuated with "I am the Lord." What is the central theme? It appears to be a central theme of false worship, including eating flesh with blood on it, fortune telling, and cutting or tattooing for the dead. In the midst of this is something about rounding hair and marring beards. These are all tied together. What ties them together? Most obvious is the reason to obey: "I am the Lord." But if these are all tied together and if you don't get mixed up by verse markings, you'll see a second item tying them all together: "for the dead".

"Wow, Stan," I can hear you saying, "that's really stretching it." Is it? Let's trace the idea of "for the dead". In Lev 21, God tells the priests, "No one shall make himself unclean for the dead." Among the ways listed in which the priests should not make themselves unclean for the dead is this: "They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body" (Lev 21:5). Hmmm, the same things we see in Lev 19. Then again in Deuteronomy, the repeat of the Law, we read, "You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead" (Deut 14:1). I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's the intent. Indeed, the vow of the Nazirites, intended to separate these further, included the command not to cut their hair. If no one was allowed to cut their hair already, what was the point of the vow? No, I don't think that the most reasonable reading of Leviticus 19:27 in context is that God was commanding His people not to cut their hair. It just doesn't fit.

The complaint of the skeptic is that we don't follow the Bible even though we claim to follow the Bible. I would argue that too often they're right ... and that ought to stop. Too often we dismiss stuff that shouldn't be dismissed. It's in there. Let's conform our lives to God's Word rather than vice versa. On the other hand, tying ourselves to a text that doesn't say what they think it says and trying to conform to it makes little sense either. This text commands that we don't perform some religious practices that were intended to honor the dead. We shouldn't eat flesh with blood on it (like the Zabians who regarded it the food of the devils) or seek divinations or mar your hair or beard for the dead (as the Arabians, according to Herodotus, did to imitate Bacchus) or cut or mark your body for the dead (as the Scythians did). Far from dismissing this as "Old Testament" or "That was just for Israel", I would argue that we, too, should avoid all of this as a matter of obedience to God. I simply suggest that we submit to what God says rather than to what skeptics argue it says out of context and content.

God and Sex Slaves

One of the ever-so-popular objections that skeptics and critics like to raise is the complaint that the Bible approves of slavery. Now, I've already dealt with that. Remember two key points. First, regulating something is not approving of it. (We see this quite clearly in the parallel of divorce.) Second, slavery in the Bible was not the same thing as the slavery we recognize today. But this doesn't smooth too many ruffled feathers (as if reasoned arguments are what would do so), and when they get hold of the more powerful "ammunition", they think they really have something. What ammunition is that?

If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money (Exo 21:7-11).

Well, there it is in plain language. God has approved of the sex slave trade. Worse, He has approved of selling your daughter into sexual slavery! Talk about morally reprehensible!! What a fiend!!!

Now, remember, we are to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Is there a response that would "make a defense"? Let's see.

The most common defense I see is appalling to me. "That was then; this is now." It's "Old Testament" and we don't do that anymore. The suggestion is that somehow God changed. I'm not sure how. Maybe He figured out it was a bad idea. Maybe He saw the light and came around to a better way. Maybe He didn't really have an opinion back then, but has a more reasonable one now. This approach admits that God ordained the sex slave trade and we're just past it now. No, thanks. I'm not going with that answer.

Others suggest that this isn't real. It is indicative of a time, written about by men, not condoned in any way by God. It is simply the rules they made for themselves. It should not be used to reflect negatively on God. This, of course, eliminates the Bible as "the Word of God" and, as such, a reliable authority for faith and practice in the Christian life. Not going there, either.

Let's try out the text and see what it says. First, for purposes of transparency, I will point out that older translations indicate that she was sold as "a maidservant", but almost all newer translations say "slave". Having given that caveat, it should be abundantly clear that this is not intended to be a command. No father is commanded to sell his daughter. There is no command to do so. Instead, this is clearly an attempt to protect people in this condition. (We'll need to get to what "this condition" is, but let's finish this first.) The buyer can marry her, have his son marry her, allow her to be redeemed, or release her without obligation. He can't use her, sell her, abuse her, or diminish her. These are not bad things. These are protections.

"Yeah, sure," I can hear the critics saying, "but it's still a sex trade!" Why do they say that? Well, it says, "If she please not her master" which is clearly a reference to how good she is in bed. He takes her for a "trial spin" and if he "likes how she performs in bed", he can marry her. There it is, plain as day. Really? What in the text requires such a reading? Indeed, doesn't it violate the rest of the Law that forbids sex outside of marriage? Are we going to go with an irrational God as well as an evil one? I don't think so. So let's look at what else it might be saying.

First, the various translations do differ. Is it "slave" or not? The question is there because "slave" in the Near East in this time was a different concept than today. A "slave" could be someone owned for work or someone hired for work or even someone who was lower on the social ladder (see A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.). These don't really meet our vision of "slavery". Second, that culture operated on a different method of courtship ... as in, not at all. The parents arranged the marriages. Marriages included a price paid for the bride. Indeed, the dowry was called "the bride price". In other words, every father "sold" his daughter. It was a means of insuring her welfare. So there is ample reason to question whether or not this is slavery in the sense that we understand the term, and that is why the various translations differ.

Now, it would appear from the text that the family is in financial crisis and almost all commentators agree. This isn't the normal "bride search" kind of thing. The term applied for this situation is "concubine". Today's "concubine" is a mistress, not a wife, but among the people of those days, a concubine was a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank. It wasn't that they weren't considered married. It simply means that there was a "primary" wife and she was a "secondary" wife. Often, the concubine's offspring weren't considered heirs. So this would appear to be the situation here. The discussion is not regarding a sex slave trade, but protecting a daughter by giving her for the purpose of marriage to someone else for a price. Note that the purpose is clear. It is not a sex slave. No such possibility existed. The one who paid the price could marry her, give her in marriage, allow the debt to be paid by someone else, or release her without obligation. I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! Nothing in there about "Keep her around as a sex slave to abuse as he wishes."

It would appear to me that we're the victims again of a smear campaign without any real basis, lazy attackers intent on diminishing God and His Word. Slavery in those days was not the slavery we know. Further, marriages were arranged. Clearly this text is a protection scheme for people in financial problems who need to collect money. Their daughters are protected, offered as wives, and not as sex slaves. The only way to come to another conclusion is to begin with the premise that the only means by which a woman can please a man (Exo 21:8) is sexually. I would suggest that that is a thoroughly reprehensible perspective. We don't sell ourselves into jobs to pay off debts anymore and we don't think it's reasonable for parents to arrange marriages anymore (at least, most of us don't), but these are the things in view here, not selling into lifelong abuse and ownership. Sorry. That just doesn't work with the times, the text, or the character of God.

Does the Bible teach slavery?

Does the Bible teach slavery? Well, of course it does! Everyone knows that! Silly question! Or ... is it?

There is no doubt whatsoever that the word "slave" in its variety of forms (slave, slavery, bond-servant, servant, etc.) appears in the Bible. There is no doubt, either, that there are many regulations given in the Old Testament about slavery. I wish to point out first and foremost that nowhere does the Bible command slavery. So don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The biblical regulations around slavery limit slavery rather than command and endorse it.

One thing that should be noted right off the top is that biblical slavery was not the same thing that we moderns recognize as slavery. For instance, stealing a person and selling them was punishable by death (Exo 21:16). Further, the regulations in Exodus (ch 21) gave real protections to slaves. If a master knocked a tooth out, the slave was set free. Killing a slave resulted in the death penalty. They could only be kept for seven years unless they chose to remain. (Think about that. If slavery then was the same as the slavery we know, why would anyone want to choose it?) Note that slavery was primarily a means of paying off a debt. However, that debt was considered paid after 7 years regardless of how much was actually owed or paid in the transaction. In Deut 15, these laws are expanded. Not only did they have to release their slaves after 7 years, but they had to release them with goods. "You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him" (Deut 15:14). Slavery of a sort existed, but it was not the same thing that we know today. Did you know that it was a matter of divine command that you were not allowed to return an escaped slave to his master (Deut 23:15-16)? This is not your great, great grandfather's slavery. It was not a matter of kidnapping or force. It was not a matter of ownership or lifelong bondage. Hebrews sold themselves into slavery. Nor was it a matter of cruelty, but, rather, protection.

Another reason we know this to be true is the repeated terminology of the New Testament. James, Peter, Jude, and Paul all referred to themselves happily as bond-servants -- doulos -- slaves of Christ. Further, Paul assured us that we are either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness, and that, obviously, we should prefer the latter. Now, assuming that slavery is the evil that we think it to be, in what possible sense would Paul be pleased to be a bond-servant of Christ? How could that be a good thing? So it must be that our version of slavery is not the same thing as their earlier version.

Does the Bible approve of slavery? The Bible does not forbid it. But is that approval? I don't think so. Paul says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) " (1 Cor 7:21). Apparently "free" is better than "slave".

In spite of all this, we end up with a bottom line question. Slavery isn't good. No matter what we say -- "It was different" "It's not the same as today's slavery" "There were regulations and protections" all that stuff -- what we cannot say is that slavery is good. It begs the question. Why didn't God simply outlaw it? Why didn't He say, "No slaves!" The question, of course, requires a delving into the mind of God to which we aren't privy. However, I think there is a possible parallel that might shed some light. In the book of Deuteronomy God gives instructions on divorce. He doesn't command divorce. He regulates it. In fact, He doesn't regulate divorce, but remarriage. Later we read, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). So, wait, God, if You hate divorce, then why didn't You outlaw it rather than simply regulate it? We get the answer to that from the lips of none other than Jesus Himself. "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Please note, then, that it may be that God does not approve of slavery (as He does not approve of divorce) but did not outlaw it (as He did not outlaw divorce) because of human hard-heartedness. As such, given what we know to be true about the parallel of divorce, it is not safe to say that the Bible approves of slavery just because it is not forbidden. Nothing in the Bible approves of slavery; it regulates it. It assumes it and gives rules for it. That is not "approval" like regulating divorce is not "approval".

One final point I wish to make. There are those who would like to say that the references to slavery were wrong and that the Bible is in error for it. I'm not speaking here about unbelievers. (From their perspective, the Bible is wrong about most everything.) I'm talking here about so-called believers. I need to point out Paul's statement on the topic.

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain (1 Tim 6:1-5).

You can say what you wish about the biblical perspectives on slavery. Just keep in mind that Paul said that slaves were to honor their masters, and that those who held otherwise were teaching doctrines contrary to "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ." That, by definition, is not "Christian".

Does the Bible teach ...?

Maybe I'll do a series here. Maybe an irregular series. I've heard too many of these accusations that the Bible teaches what you and I know to be wrong. Sometimes this stuff can be ignored as too stupid to visit, and sometimes it needs a response. So, does the Bible teach that a rapist is required to marry his victim?

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deut 22:28-29 ESV)

And, of course, there it is in black and white. Or ... is it?

In the text at hand, there is a word used that may suggest, but does not require "rape". The text uses taphas -- to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably. It can merely mean "to overlay" (to lay on) or even "to use unwarrantably" or "to handle". Several commentators seize on "to manipulate" and suggest that the man simply seduces her. Compare this with verse 25:

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. (Deut 22:25 ESV)

Both texts are translated in the ESV as "seize", but this is not the same word. The reference in verse 25 uses chazaq -- to fasten upon; hence to seize, to bind, restrain, conquer. It is a harsher word, indicating seizing by force. Thus, it would appear that what happens in verse 25 is not the same as what happens in verse 28. These are not the same words. They do not carry the same force. Further, if the author intended for them to be the same, he likely would have used the same word. Apparently, then, the intent is different.

Beyond the terminology, however, is the other text. Here is it in full.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her (Deut 22:25-27).

Why is the rapist (for in this case he is clearly that) executed but not the woman? In a previous scenario (adultery) both were executed. Why not in this case? In this case the man attacked and the woman resisted. That's what the text says. Thus, it is reasonable to surmise that in the case of Deut 22:28-29 the woman did not resist, the man did not attack, and this is not the same thing as either adultery or rape. Neither the text nor the context support the accusation that this text requires that a rapist marry his victim.

There is one more reason to think that this is not talking about a rapist marrying his victim. Deuteronomy is intended to be a repeat. The word means "second law" and you'll find that it echoes many sections of the Law from earlier accounts. Thus, this part, Deut 22:28-29, is an echo of an earlier account. As such, they should match. Do they?

If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins (Exo 22:16-17).

First, note that this doesn't even hint at rape. In this case, it is seduction. This is why John Gill says of the Deuteronomy passage that she is "yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deut 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent." Notice also that in the Exodus account the permission to do such a thing (marry) is in the hands of the father. He can deny it. The point, then, is protection of the daughter either by payment or by marriage without divorce.

One other minor point. Some of the older (medieval) commentators do call this rape. "There, see? They disagree with you!" Maybe. But keep in mind that the older, medieval use of the term "rape" made an unbreakable connection between "rape" and "seduction". That is, "rape" in medieval terms was defined as any unlawful sex. Thus, for a medieval commentator to refer to this passage in terms of "rape" is simply to affirm that such sex is unlawful. And one other minor point. There are no records anywhere in Jewish history of any woman who was raped and married her rapist. There are stories of women who were raped but did not marry their rapists, but none that would corroborate that this was the law.

Summarizing, then, text, context, parallel passages, and commentaries all say that this reference is not to rape as we understand it today. It would seem, then, that those who say it is either prove that God is immoral in His commands or that God is not reliable. Oh, wait, that's the same thing, isn't it? So why would someone who claims to trust God make such a claim? That's a question for someone else to answer.

Avoid the Appearance of Evil

I'm of the opinion that it's a good idea not to do unto others what I don't like being done unto me. Revolutionary, I know, but it's my opinion and I'm welcome to it. You know that guy who sits in every meeting drumming his fingers on the table? Or that coworker who whistles tunelessly and drives you up a wall? Or the kid who sits behind you in church kicking the back of your seat? Or the aunt who cannot seem to tell a story without loading it with mindless and quite useless details? You know, all those people who don't seem to mind at all how irritating they can be. Well, I try not to do that. This creates some difficulties, however. Over the years, I've had people comment to me about this or that and I've tried to change what I do because this or that irritates them ... until I end up being completely unable to do almost anything at all because everything seems to irritate someone at some time.

Enter this famous verse from Paul's first epistle to the church of Thessalonica: "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thess 5:22). I grew up with that verse. I knew people, friends and relatives, who made it their life's goal. They didn't go to movies not because all movies were bad, but because it was possible that you could be coming out of a theater that was playing Bambi and someone driving by may not have realized that last week's R-rated movie had changed and they would think you were doing something wrong. You don't play cards because, even though you were just playing "Go Fish", someone looking on could easily conclude that you were gambling. As a kid I once took a game for a rainy day to school. This game had dice in it that had numbers on them. You rolled these numbered dice and then tried to fit the numbers into math squares -- "__ + __ = __; __ - __ = __", and so on. An educational game. No, no! The game had dice, and even though you knew they weren't gambling dice, onlookers might not know and you could have the appearance of evil.

This whole thing bothered me for years. You see, it's not very likely that you can find anything you can do that will not appear evil to someone. You may join the military to serve your country and be "evil" because you're joining the military or refuse to join the military because joining the military is wrong and be "evil" for refusing to serve your country. You can shop at Macy's and be "evil" for your extravagance or shop at WalMart and be "evil" for supporting an evil way of doing business. You can stand for the truth and be "evil" for being argumentative or keep quiet and be "evil" for not standing. It is very unlikely that you can find anything that someone won't find "evil".

So ... Paul, what are we to do? We can continue to try to meet its requirement but that's impossible. We could throw out the verse, but that's certainly not a good choice. Or, maybe, just maybe, we can figure out what it means.

As it turns out, this isn't as hard as it seems. The Greek word translated "appearance" is eidos. It is, most literally, "form". It references the appearance or shape of something. So what is actually being said here is "Avoid the form of evil." Of course, newer translations have figured this out (so it's not like I thought this up myself). Green's Literal Translation says, "Keep back from every form of evil." The ESV says, "Abstain from every form of evil." The NAS agrees. So does the New King James. So maybe this wasn't such a hard saying after all. The real difficulty occurs when people don't think through what they're reading. "'Avoid all appearance of evil'? How do I do that?" Now if only someone can help me out with this whole avoiding whatever irritates someone because I'm running out of options.

Hands and Sin

In the Sermon on the Mount we read this well-known statement from Christ:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell" (Matt 5:27-30).

Okay, well, perhaps "well-known" isn't exactly accurate. The best known part of it is the idea that Jesus classified looking on a woman with lust with adultery. Yeah, lots of people know that. I believe it was Billy Graham that suggested "The first look is normal; the second look is lust" to which others countered, "Depends on how long the first look is" and so forth. In other words, we've spent time dissecting this idea of lustful look = adultery. Fine. We've been pretty careful, however, to avoid the rest of what He said. I mean, seriously, this whole "tear out your right eye" and "cut off your right hand" thing is, well, a bit over the top, isn't it?

One would certainly think so, but, as it turns out, this wasn't the only time Jesus made such a proposition:

"Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire" (Matt 18:7-9).

Now, let me start out by being perfectly clear about something here. I am not suggesting that it was actually Jesus's intention that if your eye (or hand or feet or whatever) causes you to sin that you should in reality dismember yourself over it. As I reviewed the commentaries on these passages I found that they were all in agreement with me ... with the possible exception of Origen, an early Church father who apparently castrated himself in an attempt to obey this command. No, no, that's not where I'm going with this. I believe that Jesus was speaking here in hyperbole.

So where am I going with this? Well, it's a funny thing. Once we all agree that Jesus was exaggerating -- that He was not actually telling us to mutilate ourselves -- it seems as if Christians sigh a sigh of relief and ... throw the passage away. That is, if we don't actually have to pluck out our eye or cut off our hand or amputate feet, we don't actually have to do anything. Now, I would hope that this would seem completely nonsensical to you. I mean, the function of hyperbole -- of exaggerating a point to make the point -- is not to eliminate the point. It is to make the point.

So if Jesus was exaggerating to make a point, what point was He trying to make? It seems quite obvious to me. Do whatever it takes to rid yourself of the temptations that cause you to stumble. "Yeah, well, that doesn't mean cutting off your hand, right?" Okay, I'll buy that. But what about this? What about you guys who cannot go to the beach without lusting? How about not going to the beach? Is that too much to ask? If you have a tendency toward pride, perhaps being the leader of the worship team (any place up in front where you can draw attention to yourself) isn't the best place for you. If you are having a hard time fighting off temptation for Internet pornography, is the Internet really so important that you can't cut it off? If television is taking you away from important matters like reading your Bible, spending time with family, and so on, is it really unreasonable to remove television entirely? If TV is causing you temptation (buying, lusting, desiring stuff, lousy thinking, etc.), is TV so important that you cannot get rid of it? Ladies, is it really more important to be "fashionable" and "appealing" in your dress than the temptation it causes? ("Woe to the one by whom the temptation comes.") Here's what I'm asking. Assuming that a literal reading of "pluck out your eye" really is just a bit much, what is not too literal? Or, to put it another way, if avoiding Hell and having a right relationship with God is important, what would you consider more important -- important enough to allow to remain in the way?

I often see this argument that "That portion of Scripture isn't to be taken at face value; it was hyperbole" or some such. Oddly enough in almost every case the result of that position seems to be "therefore, we don't have to understand that portion to mean anything at all." There can be no doubt that some of Scripture is intended to be an exaggeration to make a point. I'm confident that the passages in this post are exactly that. The point, however, is not "Don't worry; you don't need to do anything about your sin. I was only joking about poking out your eye." No! The point is "Sin is a serious problem, and you ought to do whatever it takes to get it out of your life!" That would be taking the Bible "literally" -- as written. And our refusal to take the necessary steps to do just that is not a good thing.

No Distinction

Some of the hard sayings of the Bible seem like they shouldn't be that hard. And yet, sometimes they confuse people. One I've often seen used in completely the wrong way is this one:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

Plain as day, isn't it? Shouldn't be confusing at all. Clearly this verse is saying that when we are Christians, there are no distinctions in people.

Clearly this is a confusing point. It only takes a moment of thinking to realize that this cannot be the aim of this verse. That is, whether or not a person is a Christian, they are still, for instance, male or female -- not both and not neither.

Now, there are those who would take me to task for such a statement. "What do you mean, 'That can't be what it means'? We find similar thoughts in other places.

There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him (Rom. 10:12).

There is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11).

There you have it, Stan ... proof that in Christ there is no distinction between people. How many ways does it have to be said?"

So ... let's assume that these passages all mean that -- no distinctions whatsoever. If this is the case, what was Paul trying to convey when he gave different instructions to slaves and masters? In Col. 3:22, for instance, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. He never tells masters to obey their slaves (a statement that is obviously ludicrous). Instead, masters are supposed to be fair (Col. 4:1), not obedient. How can this be if there is no distinction? What can possibly be intended if the distinction of "slave" and "master" is meaningless? What could possibly be in mind when Paul says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3) when there is no distinction between "man" and "woman"? Looking at the question from an algebra viewpoint, if A = B, then what distinction is there? How can we discuss A and B if they are the same? If the intent of these passages is "Ignore any distinctions", then one would expect the Bible to ignore any distinctions. It doesn't.

Let's look again, then, at what these might mean. You see, I think that context doesn't leave any question about intent. And each of these verses has been yanked out of context.

The context of Galatians 3 is given in the opening verses of the chapter.

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:1-3)

The topic is straightforward: We are justified and sanctified by faith apart from works. Paul validates this position with a quote from Habakkuk (Hab. 2:4) -- "That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith'" (Gal. 3:11). Paul argues that "the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin" (Gal. 3:22). So if the promises God made to Abraham are dependent on works, they don't help the Jew or the Greek since everyone suffers from sin. The good news, then, is "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). So when Paul gets to the statement in verse 28, he isn't speaking about "in every case from all perspectives" but "in terms of being justified by faith". That is, in terms of who gets justified by faith and who does not, there is no distinction based on your race, gender, or any other human factor. It does not mean a generic, "All distinctions are removed."

You'll find, in fact, that each of the passages are the same in this sense. In Rom. 10:4 Paul says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The point of the Law is to point to justification by faith. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10). In this context ("justification by faith apart from works"), there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. Salvation is for all who call on Him regardless of external conditions.

The Colossians verse is completely yanked out of context in the middle of a sentence. The entire sentence reads more like this:

Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him -- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:9-11).

The topic here is "the new self". This "new self" is "being renewed to a true knowledge." This renewal is without distinction based on externals. It is a product of Christ who "is all and in all."

"A text without a context is a pretext," it is said. Clearly the context of these verses limits their application to the thought at hand. The idea is that salvation and sanctification are without distinction. They are both products of faith accomplished by God and without consideration of race, gender, classification, or any such thing. Thus, all references to salvation are without distinction. That does not mean that there are no distinctions between people. It simply means that in terms of justification and sanctification there are no distinctions. In terms of daily living, on the other hand, the Scriptures give distinct commands ... because there are distinctions. And we know that there are still distinctions. Men do not cease being male when they are saved. Women do not cease being female when they are saved. Our nationalities don't vanish at the point of salvation. We do not all get the same economic status at salvation. There are distinctions. The next time someone tries to tell you that there are no distinctions whatsoever for those who are in Christ, point to the context to counter the pretext and avoid this pervasive error.

Hard to Believe

One of the common complaints of skeptics is "If God was so interested in saving us, why didn't He make it more obvious? Why is He so hard to find?" We get stuck on that. We might answer boldly, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa. 19:1) or "Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20) -- you know, because these are the Bible's answers -- but we're still stuck with the fact that many don't believe. We think God is quite obvious, but they don't. What's up with that?

In Jesus's story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), after both Lazarus and the rich man are dead, the rich man pleads to have Lazarus sent to his father's house to warn his brothers of their doom if they don't repent. He is given this answer: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

How many times have you heard it? I asked my grandfather once who does not believe in God, "What would it take?" He said, "All I need is a direct miracle right here in front of me." And we think, "Well, God, how about it?" But it doesn't happen. Why?

I suspect the answer is found in John. There he tells of another dead man named Lazarus. The account has many fascinating aspects. There is this:

Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, so when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was (John 11:5-6).

Did you catch that. Because He loved them, He delayed visiting them when He heard Lazarus was sick. Interesting.

Of course, there is the famous verse that we all begged to be given credit for memorizing in Sunday School. "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). Very enigmatic. Why did He weep. He knew He was about to raise His friend from the dead. Why did He weep? Was it for the grief of those around? Was it for the sadness that death (the result of sin) brings? What was it for? No one is really sure.

The part that really gets me is this. Jesus goes to the tomb and orders them to remove the stone (even though "he stinketh"). Then He simply commands the dead man to "Come forth!" ... and he does. Not something you see every day. What really gets me is the reaction of the observers:

Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done (John 11:45-46).

"Some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done"????? What's that all about? Look, guys, you just had a verified, undeniable, actual miracle occur. There is no explanation. He hasn't been sleeping; he's been dead. And no one ever calls a dead man out of his tomb. But Jesus did. So you go and tattle on Him???

These people got exactly what the skeptic requires to believe. They witnessed a supernatural event. They didn't hear about it by email and have to check Snopes; they saw it occur. And still they were hostile to Christ and refusing to believe. How is that possible?

John doesn't leave us hanging. He tells us the answer in the next chapter. In chapter 12 we learn:

The chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death also because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus (John 12:10-11).

The chief priests, having been informed by hostile eyewitnesses that a man had been brought back to life on the command of Jesus (who claimed to be God Incarnate), plotted to kill him. He was causing them trouble. What was at the root of their hatred? You might think that their power was threatened, and there was some of that. But John tells us the real problem:

Though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they would not believe in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them." (John 12:37-40).

This is truly astounding. According to John, the reason that so many did not believe is because they refused ("would not"). The reason they refused was because they lacked the ability ("could not"). And the reason they lacked the ability was because they were intentionally blinded. John, quoting Isaiah, says that this was God's intent.

We who believe find all sorts of reasons to believe. It makes sense. It is logical. It is practical. We experience it. We see it. We understand it. We cannot even begin to fathom why it is that others don't. How is it even remotely possible that someone asks, "If God was so interested in saving us, why didn't He make it more obvious? Why is He so hard to find?" Hard to find?? In what sense? It's right there in front of your face!! The real answer is that, while God would like to save everyone (1 Tim. 2:4), He doesn't plan to save everyone. Instead, He has other, better plans. Unfortunately, that includes judgment on so many who have chosen to be their own god. And it is likely difficult for us to comprehend, being one of those worthy of judgment. But God has planned to allow many to be blinded because He does not plan to save them. There is no other possible conclusion.

Why is it that many don't believe? Why does it seem, sometimes, so hard for people to see the truth that we see so easily? It's because they are blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4) ... and God sees fit to leave them that way. We think it's easy to believe. It's not. It's hard -- very hard. So when we place our confidence in our apologetics or our persuasive speech, we're missing the point. Faith is a gift, and it's not given to everyone. Sight is a privilege that is not afforded to all. No one deserves it. No one receives it because they're more valuable than another. But it is a gift by the grace of God. That ought to make us far more grateful, and that ought to alter how we act.

Gates of Hell

"On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Most people get bogged down in this verse. Is it speaking of Peter? Is he intended to be the first Pope? "No," the Protestants cry, "it isn't speaking of Peter but his confession." "Yes," the Catholics respond, "clearly it's speaking of Peter. Who else would He be referring to?" And the disagreement rages. Me? I'm fascinated by the last phrase: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I like the previous phrase a lot. "I will build My Church." Talk about reassuring. Somehow in these latter times we've come to conclude that it is our task. We have to form better strategies, get better marketing, compete with the world's messages. We have to figure out ways to get the unchurched into our churches so we can build the Church. Funny thing -- Jesus said He would do that. Do we actually think that the rock on which Jesus plans to build His Church is our fancy strategies and approaches?

Still, it's that last phrase that catches my eye. Most of us read that pretty fast and keep moving. It seems to say that Christ will build His Church, and no weapon formed against it can stand. They seem to see it as a certainty that the Church will continue to the end. And while I agree that the Church will continue to the end, I'm having a hard time with this being a claim of the Church being an impregnable fortress. You see, "gates" are not a weapon of war; they are a defense. You don't close gates to attack an enemy; you close them to keep him out. It is my suspicion that many of us have missed the point on this phrase.

In his book, The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis posits a theory. Mind you, it's just his theory. I think there is merit to it. Lewis suggests that heaven and hell are much longer than we envision them. He suggests that for those who end up judged and in Hell, their Hell began at birth. Alternately, for those who are saved and end up in Heaven, their Heaven began at birth as well. The idea is that for those who end up damned (Lewis doesn't get into the "Double Predestination" discussion or the like, so let's not do that here, either.) all things that happen to them are miserable. Unpleasant things occur and it makes them miserable. Pleasant things occur and these, too, ultimately make them miserable. You see, if you are at odds with God, when He does good things to you it simply "heaps coals of fire on your head", so to speak. So everything becomes "Hell" to the one who ends up in Hell. To the one who is saved, everything "works together for good". All the unpleasant events form a tapestry of God's hand at work. All the pleasant events are blessings from above. Everything, in the end, is good -- heavenly. I don't know. Maybe Lewis has an idea with some merit here.

The other point to consider is the biblical use of the term, "hell". While we generally think of it as "the place of the damned", the final abode for evil people, a place of eternal torment, the Bible generally uses the term to simply refer to death and the grave. The Old Testament terminology is commonly "Sheol". It isn't the place final damnation; it is the place that you go to when you die, damned or not. This place is illustrated in Jesus's story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). These two characters both die and go to "hell", but the place is divided. The rich man is in torment, but Lazarus is in comfort. The place is referred to as "Abraham's bosom". The rich man can see Lazarus in comfort. It is one place -- the place of the dead.

Now, consider this. The Bible says that everyone is "dead in sin" (Eph. 2:1) until something changes that condition. There is a sense, then, in which each person is in Hell while they live on this earth. They are under the dominion of "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2), the "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). They are "slaves of sin" (Rom. 6:17). That's the condition of natural Man -- in Hell. It is my suspicion that this is what Jesus had in mind when He said "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." He was saying, essentially, "You are surrounded by an evil kingdom called 'Hell' with gates that you can't breach, but I will breach them and take those from it that I wish to take. I will take people from spiritual death to life and use those to build My Church." Years ago there was a Christian musical group called "Jerusalem". They had an album entitled 10 Years After and a song that caught this idea: "Plunder Hell and Populate Heaven". Maybe, just maybe, that's the idea behind Jesus's statement. We are to plunder Hell to populate Heaven.

Hard Sayings - "Turn the Other Cheek"

³⁸ "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' ³⁹ "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. ⁴¹ "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. ⁴² "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42).

What could be clearer than that? Obviously Jesus is commanding complete pacifism. All Christians must, if they are to follow the teachings of Christ, be pacifists. They cannot join the military. They cannot engage in legal battles. They cannot defend themselves and their families and homes. In short, Christians, if they are to follow the clear teaching of Christ, are to be doormats.

If there was no more information present in Scripture, we would be forced to conclude that this is what Jesus is commanding here. Further, we would be forced to do it or actually stand in opposition to the Lord. Many Christians have held this position. Historically, much of the early church believed that it was a sin to be in the military. Even today there are such churches as the Quakers, the Amish, and the Mennonites that believe that the only Christian choice is pacifism. The position is not new nor is it untenable. But there is more information, and when we look at it, we will find we have a problem with this view.

God's original design included the military and self-defense. God routinely commanded and blessed war in the Old Testament (assuring us that the concept of a "just war" is real). God commanded that a new husband was not required to go to war (Deut. 24:5). David wrote, "He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (2 Sam. 22:35). Face it; war was part of the Old Testament. And if we try to argue that the old was done away with, we have new questions to face in the New Testament. If pacifism is Christ's command, how do we explain the events in the Temple when He used a whip to clear it? Why would He command His disciples to buy weapons (Luke 22:36)? We find Cornelius, a centurion, who comes to Christ and nothing is mentioned about needing to leave the military. Paul says the the authorities bear the sword for good reason (Rom. 13:4). And if the command of Christ meant not to defend oneself at all, then Paul was a real mess when he defended himself against the Jews ... more than once (Acts 22; 24:10-21; 26). The argument is that Jesus clearly commands pacifism in Matt. 5, but if this is the case, He commands it against God's rules in the Old Testament and He and His apostles violate it. I would suggest that pacifism cannot be in view here, else we make Christ a sinner. Apparently we need to revisit Jesus's words here and find out what He did mean when He said, "Do not resist him who is evil." If Jesus did not mean that Christians must be pacifist doormats, what did He mean?

A lot of people have examined this question and come up with a lot of answers. Quite a few assure us that a strike on the right cheek from a right-handed person is a backhand insult, and this is a very specific instance. They conclude from this that turning the other cheek is either a demand for equality or allowing an insult and not at all about self-defense. That seems a bit obtuse to me. Let's try something simpler. What was the context?

Jesus starts in Matt. 5:17 by stating His overall direction in the things He is about to say. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Okay, clear enough. His goal is now to illustrate ways of fulfilling the Law. He does this in a series of statements that begin with "You have heard it said" followed by "But I say". He goes on in this manner to talk about murder and what it really includes, adultery and divorce, keeping promises, and this topic. What is this topic? What is He contrasting here with "You have heard it said"? "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you ..." (Matt 5:38-39). Now, the rule "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" represents a drastic reduction in acceptable response to evil from the world around them. As an example, a thief could have his hand cut off in the world around them, but God commands a more proportional response to a thief, including repayment of that which is stolen. The idea here is in regards to vengeance and justice. What should I do in retaliation to an injustice?

Hopefully I've planted a seed here, and you can begin to see where the rest is going, but let's look together. Note that Jesus did not speak of "whoever is going to slap you on your right cheek". The event occurred. He speaks about one who has already been forced to walk a mile. He is speaking of evil that already exists, not evil that might occur. He is speaking of the right retaliation to evil. In other words, Jesus is saying what Paul echoes when he says, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).

I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage as saying "Never do any violence" because Jesus did violence. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Never defend yourself" because Paul defended himself. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Keep quiet about sin" because Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles all spoke out against sin. The New Testament is full of the notion of the militant Christian, standing firm (often using the same term, by the way, that Jesus used when He said "Do not resist evil"). I think the only possible conclusion here is that Jesus was speaking out against retaliation for evil -- vengeance. To contort this into the place where a husband, for instance, tells his wife, "You can't protect yourself from me because Jesus said not to" is a lie. To twist this to say we cannot defend ourselves is simply to ignore Jesus, His words, His life, and the rest of Scripture.