Archive for November, 2019

Why It Is Wrong To Tell A Lie Even In Jest

November 28, 2019

Rev 21:8 (“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”) and many other Bible passages condemn lying. The definition of telling a “lie” is “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth …” (dictionary.com)

It is wrong to tell a lie even in jest because we are making a “deliberate intent to deceive” – even if only for a moment to be funny. Sometimes people say something that is not true in order to be humorous, but they are not trying to deceive anybody. Instead they expect their hearer to understand what they are saying is false; that is what makes the joke funny. That is not a lie as there is no intent to deceive.  But if one tells a falsehood with intent to deceive, even if it is just for a prank, that is a lie and falls under the condemnation of texts like I Tim 1:10.

Prov 26:19 reads “So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, “Was I not joking?” (NASB)  So even a deception done as a joke, or  for what we think is for our listeners own good, or we think is harmless, or “all in good fun” (like telling small children there is a Santa Claus) is a lie. We must eliminate all corrupt communication (Eph 4:29) from our conversations.

Were David And Jonathan Gay Lovers?

November 21, 2019

Gay church debaters say David and Jonathan had a gay relationship because I Sam 1:26 says Jonathan’s love for David was “passing the love of women.” But they should know that is not what this text is talking about – they know God’s love for us also “passes the love of women,” but it isn’t sexual.

Keil and Delitzch says about this verse in their Commentary On The Old Testament, pg.292: Comparison to the love of woman is expressive of the deepest earnestness of devoted love. Compare also to Prov 18:24: a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

It is good for a man’s wife to be his best friend, but evidently that was not the case here. Most likely Jonathan’s best friend was David. David means only what he says here; that Jonathan’s love (not sex) was greater than the love of women.

Following are the exact words Gale Sayers said in accepting an award (from the “Brian’s Song” 1971 TV movie):  “I love Brian Piccalo. I want you to love him too.” This illustrates that real love between males (like Father/Son or Friend/Friend) has nothing to do with sex!

“Washing” In Titus 3:5 Is Not Referring To Water Baptism Per Se

November 14, 2019

Titus 3:5 reads “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

I heard a preacher say recently the only thing in the New Testament that involves “washing” is water baptism, therefore the “washing” of Tit 3:5 must refer to water baptism. Through the years I’ve heard many gospel preachers make a similar assertion.

But I think they are accidently overlooking a very important washing in the New Testament and that is the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ – like in Rev 1:5b “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” And I am confident this is what the washing of Tit 3:5 is referring to – the washing away / forgiveness of our sins.

Tit 3:5 is saying we are saved by the washing away of sins that occurs when we are regenerated. Now we know from John 3:3,5 that regeneration involves water baptism, and we know that water baptism is when we receive the washing away (forgiveness) of sins (Acts 22:16, 2:38). But baptism and forgiveness of sins are not the same thing, and the “washing” in Tit 3:5 is referring to the later.

Eph 2:8-9, Tit 3:5, and II Tim 1:9 are all three discussing the earning basis for our salvation, not the conditionality of it – that is why they don’t contradict James 2:24. All three state our salvation is not by our works (like water baptism) but it is by grace. Specifically Tit 3:5 says salvation is not by “works of righteousness which we have done” and water baptism is most definitely a work of righteousness which we have done. This should also help us to see that the “washing” there is not talking about water baptism, because if that were the case, the verse would be saying we are saved not by baptism, but by baptism.  Seems unlikely.

There are plenty of verses that conclusively teach water baptism is necessary to salvation. We don’t need to force a round peg into a square hole to find another.

Isaiah 53:6c Means Jesus Took The RESPONSIBILITY For Our Sin

November 8, 2019

In prophesying about Jesus, Isaiah 53:6c says “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” A lot of gospel preachers don’t believe that is true. For example, Maurice Barnett wrote in Gospel Truths (July 2010) “It is said that Jesus took every sin of mankind into Himself on the cross … I deny that any … scripture says such a thing but to the contrary the scriptures deny it.” But obviously it is true that God laid every sin of mankind on Jesus; our text says that very thing.

But what does it mean when the Bible says “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”? As usual, the context should decide. Both verse 11 and verse 13 of the same chapter say Jesus would “bear their iniquities.” The same analogy is being used in verse 6 as in 11 and 13. God laying our sins on Jesus would be the same as saying Jesus “bare our sins” (I Pet 2:24) – when something is laid on someone, then they bear it. Heb 9:28 puts the same truth this way “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

But what does it mean that Jesus bore our sins? Well it doesn’t mean Jesus bore the guilt for our sins; that would be rewriting history. If John Doe commits a sin, it wouldn’t be accurate to say Jane Doe did it.  Instead the phrase Jesus “bare our sins” means Jesus “bore” the responsibility for our sins. Notice this meaning for the word in Lev 24:15-16 – “… Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.”

This is exactly what Ezek 18:20 says will not be done by one man for another – “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Jesus was obviously the exception to that rule.

And going back to Isaiah 53, we see that is exactly what is under consideration. The verse just previous to our text (verse 5) says “the punishment that brought us peace was on him” (NIV). So Isaiah 53:6c is saying our sins were laid on Jesus in the sense he bore the responsibility for them, he suffered the “punishment”/penalty for them – so we wouldn’t have to.

We should be so thankful the responsibility for our sins was laid on Jesus at his crucifixion (our sins were “laid on Him”). Else we would have no hope of salvation whatsoever.