Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 2 of 4

The quotation below from H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century in part 1, concerning the Colloquy of Marburg, is continued:

Luther was, however, by no means shaken. “This is my body,” repeated he, pointing with his finger to the words written before him. “This is my body. The devil himself shall not drive me from that. To seek to understand it, is to fall away from the faith.”

“But, doctor,” said Zwingle, “St. John explains how Christ’s body is eaten, and you will be obliged at last to leave off singing always the same song.”

“You make use of unmannerly expressions,” replied Luther. The Wittembergers themselves called Zwingle’s argument “his old song.” Zwingle continued without being disconcerted: “I ask you, doctor, whether Christ in the sixth chapter of St. John did not wish to reply to the question that had been put to him.

Luther.—“Master Zwingle, you wish to stop my mouth by the arrogancy of your language. That passage has nothing to do here.”

Zwingle, hastily.—“Pardon me, doctor, that passage breaks your neck.”

Luther.—“Do not boast so much! You are in Hesse, and not in Switzerland. In this country we do not break people’s necks.”

Then turning towards his friends, Luther complained bitterly of Zwingle; as if the latter had really wished to break his neck. “He makes use of camp terms and blood-stained words,” said he. Luther forgot that he had employed a similar expression in speaking of Carlstadt.

Zwingle resumed: “In Switzerland also there is strict justice, and we break no man’s neck without trial. That expression signifies merely that your cause is lost and hopeless.”

Great agitation prevailed in the Knight’s Hall. The roughness of the Swiss and the obstinacy of the Saxon had come into collision. The landgrave, fearing to behold the failure of his project of conciliation, nodded assent to Zwingle’s explanation. “Doctor,” said he to Luther, “you should not be offended at such common expressions.” It was in vain: the agitated sea could not again be calmed. The prince therefore arose, and they all repaired to the banqueting hall. After dinner they resumed their tasks.

“I believe,” said Luther, “that Christ’s body is in heaven, but I also believe that it is in the sacrament. It concerns me little whether it be against nature, provided that it be not against faith. Christ is substantially in the sacrament, such as he was born of the Virgin.”

Œcolampadius, quoting a passage from St. Paul: “We know not Jesus Christ after the flesh.”

Luther.—“After the flesh means, in this passage, after our carnal affections.”

Œcolampadius.—“You will not allow that there is a metaphor in these words, This is my body, and yet you admit a synecdoche.”

Luther.—“Metaphor permits the existence of a sign only: but it is not so with synecdoche. If a man says he wishes to drink a bottle, we understand that he means the beer in the bottle. Christ’s body is in the bread, as a sword in the scabbard, or as the Holy Ghost in the dove.”

The discussion was proceeding in this manner, when Osiander, pastor of Nuremberg, Stephen Agricola, pastor of Augsburg, and Brentz, pastor of Halle in Swabia, author of the famous Syngramma, entered the hall. These also had been invited by the landgrave. But Brentz, to whom Luther had written that he should take care not to appear, had no doubt by his indecision retarded his own departure as well as that of his friends. Places were assigned them near Luther and Melancthon. “Listen, and speak if necessary,” they were told. They took but little advantage of this permission. “All of us, except Luther,” said Melancthon, “were silent personages.”

The struggle continued.

When Zwingle saw that exegesis was not sufficient for Luther, he added dogmatical theology to it, and, subsidiarily, natural philosophy.

“I oppose you,” said he, “with this article of our faith; Ascendit in cœlum—he ascended into heaven. If Christ is in heaven as regards his body, how can he be in the bread? The Word of God teaches us that he was like his brethren in all things (Heb., 2:17). He therefore cannot be in several places at once.”

Luther.—“Were I desirous of reasoning thus, I would undertake to prove that Jesus Christ had a wife; that he had black eyes, and lived in our good country of Germany. I care little about mathematics.”

“There is no question of mathematics here,” said Zwingle, “but of St. Paul, who writes to the Philippians, μορφἡν δοὑλου λαβὡν.” [“Taking the form of a servant.”]

Luther, interrupting him.—“Read it to us in Latin or in, German, not in Greek.

Zwingle (in Latin).—“Pardon me: for twelve years past I have made use of the Greek Testament only.” Then continuing to read the passage, he concluded from it that Christ’s humanity is of a finite nature like our own.

Luther, pointing to the words written before him.—“Most dear sirs, since my Lord Jesus Christ says, Hoc est corpus meum, I believe that his body is really there.”

Here the scene grew animated. Zwingle started from his chair, sprung towards Luther, and said, striking the table before him:

“You maintain then, doctor, that Christ’s body is locally in the Eucharist; for you say Christ’s body is really there—there there,” repeated Zwingle. “There is an adverb of place. Christ’s body is then of such a nature as to exist in a place. If it is in a place, it is in heaven, whence it follows that it is not in the bread.”

Luther.—“I repeat that I have nothing to do with mathematical proofs. As soon as the words of consecration are pronounced over the bread, the body is there, however wicked be the priest who pronounces them.”

Zwingle.—“You are thus re-establishing Popery.”

Luther.—“This is not done through the priest’s merits, but because of Christ’s ordinance. I will not, when Christ’s body is in question, hear speak of a particular place. I absolutely will not.”

Zwingle.—“Must every thing, then, exist precisely as you will it?”

The landgrave perceived that the discussion was growing hot; and as the repast was waiting, he broke off the contest.

-TDR

The Tragedy of Young Women Taking Their Clothes Off in Public

One of the earliest moments of the whole Bible is God clothing the man and woman with a modest garment as opposed to nudity and their fig leaves.  Their coats God made are a Hebrew word for tunic all the way to the floor and long sleeves.  This is the same word used to describe the priestly robes.  Genesis 3:21 says, God "clothed them."  God wants people clothed.

Why in particular do young women want to take the will of God on clothing in a different direction?  God wants them clothed, but they want to take their clothes off in front of people.  Even when they're wearing clothes, they're tight.  I've walked behind so many males and females in these colder winter months, both wearing pants.  Two were in front of me at the bank today, and consistently young women wear leggings, a garment that could be mistaken for paint, leaving nothing to the imagination.  The male usually wears loose fitting trousers and the woman has some kind of very tight pants, which is mostly what differentiates them from what the man wears.

Young women are wearing their underwear in public, tiny little things that barely cover anything.  They are scriptural nudity.  They leave a lot of their skin and body parts uncovered on purpose.  They are going for people seeing their legs, their breasts, their navel, their bellies, and many other things in between.  When they choose a skirt, they on purpose choose one that is well above the knee.  They also stand in a manner, one leg in front of the other, for a fuller exposure.  The shoes, whatever kind and if any, accentuate a bare leg.

All of what I'm describing, that young women are doing, is wrong.  That's not why I'm writing this.  There are many biblical arguments against young women dressing like they do today, and sadly how professing Christian women are dressing, or worse undress, especially because churches are not teaching on it.  They don't preach biblical dress standards or enforce them, even defend or justify unscriptural dress for young women.  I'm writing this to explain the tragedy of the undressing of the young woman.

The first tragedy is that God isn't pleased.  He isn't being honored by these young women because of their dress.  God's angels cover themselves in His presence.  An argument for modesty for a woman is shamefacedness, which relates to the presence of God.  The pure in heart shall see God.  These young women are not pure in heart.  They are not ashamed.  They glory in their shame.  They snub the holiness of God.

Also while I was standing at the bank today, a woman twice in exclamation said the two words, "holy ___________," the latter word a crude word for excrement.  She said it to a younger woman, while looking down at something together.  The nature of those words is what these young women are doing with their undressing.  They are made in the image of God and they are profaning that image with their immodesty.

The second tragedy is that these young women are defrauding their fathers.  Their fathers or their brothers may not care.  I say brothers, because I think of the Shulammite's brothers in Song of Solomon chapter eight, who protected their younger sister by guarding her modesty and her virginity.  If she was a wall, they would reward her, and if she was a door, they would enclose her with boards of cedar.  Instead of enclosing her, some fathers and brothers are exhibiting her in her nudity today.

Today the young woman may say that the brother or a father, which seem to be absent, would not have a right to enclose her with boards of cedar.  That is for her to decide.  What scripture says is that when she is a door, that is, she gives intimate access to herself, that she is defrauding her father.  He is to give her away, not her giving herself away.  1 Corinthians 7:36-38 says that she belongs to the father to give away.  That's a joke in today's culture, a joke protected by the actual me-too movement.

A young woman, who undresses herself in public, is giving herself away to everyone.  She is intimate to everyone.  She is defrauding her father of that right, but she is also defrauding her future husband, profaning herself, making herself common.  She isn't special any more.  She isn't unique.  She is a trampled garden in the parlance of what the brothers were protecting.  They were saving her beautiful garden for a future husband.  She would have greater value.  So, third, she's defrauding a future husband.

Fourth, the unclothing young woman forsakes future intimacy when she takes off her clothes in public, related to what I said in the previous paragraph.  She isn't the gift she once was and by her choice, so, fifth, she has become easy for someone, who will not have to be a man or show manly qualities.  He can avoid a father, because she has given herself to not just him, but everyone who sees her.  She has done this because she wanted to.  She loses this.  She can get some of it back, but once she's out there, she can never get all of it back. She's lost something.  This matters too, because it will never be as special now.  She'll never know.

Related to the previous paragraph, she is opting for less of a man or not a man at all.  A real man would only go through her father.  A real man would have the confidence to do so.  She has narrowed her pursuers to those who need it easy for them.  She has made it easy.  Those so-called men who take that easy road will have an easy woman.  She has made it that way.

Seventh, is a comparison to fly paper.  Fly paper attracts flies.  Everything sticks on it.  The young woman who undresses might have in mind who she wants to look at her skin, objectifying her, making her a mere object of lust by her choice.  However, she's going to have everyone else sticking to that fly paper as well.  Every creepy minded and practicing person will be in on her show.

Someone might say that the above undressed young woman just lacks the confidence to wait, the satisfaction with God, with Jesus Christ, what is characteristic of a true Christian, to stay covered and wait for the right person.  That's all true too, but she's getting the lust of every man in public.  Maybe she thinks that is high praise, that men like seeing skin, her skin and body parts.  That doesn't require anything but lust and sin.

Eighth, the young woman who takes her clothes off in public is encouraging more of that with others.  She is offending one of these little ones.  She might not be taken advantage of to the extent that someone else is, but she will be partly at fault for it.  She is downgrading the culture.  She is turning it into Sodom and Gomorrah, a place for a righteous soul to have his soul vexed and for unbelievers to be made twice the children of hell they once were.  She is doing that.

I've given you eight reasons explaining the tragedy of young women taking their clothes off in public.  There are actually many more than these eight and those are all bad too.  None of them are good.  There is no good reason for young women to take their clothes off in public.  You can take some time to meditate on these eight.  They are enough reasons to stop this practice.

Is Piercing One's Self or Having One's Self Pierced Compatible with God?

In the history of the world and then the more specific history of the United States, new beliefs and practice begin that differ from what was previously believed and practiced.  Those beliefs and practices are either corrections or improvements to what was previously occurring or they are perversions, corruptions, or deterioration to or from what was previously occurring.  What is unique to United States history more than most cultures in the history of the world is that the United States culture has been shaped by the Bible.  If they are corrections or improvements, someone should go to the Bible for the defense or change.  The present belief and practice is bad and needs to be changed and this is why.

When I say, "piercing," it's this:

a form of body modification . . . the practice of puncturing or cutting a part of the human body, creating an opening in which jewelry may be worn, or where an implant could be inserted.

Piercing in the United States is a change of belief and practice.  You have not seen piercing in almost the entire history of the United States.  It's not that piercing never existed.  It wasn't accepted in the colonial America and the United States.  So, is it a correction or improvement, or is it a perversion, corruption, or deterioration?  When people began piercing themselves, did they go to the Bible to find this new belief and practice, or was it a movement of rebellion or paganism?

Someone might observe that changes occur all the time in a culture, for instance, something like handwriting, to typewriter, and now to computer.  It's a silly argument, but I'm going to deal with it, because it is the normal kind of argument piercers might use.  Using a computer for word processing is an improvement to handwriting.  It is faster and neater.  However, that isn't a cultural change that one can deem is right or wrong.  It's not wrong to handwrite or type or word process.  It is a better or easier way of doing things.  It has no inherent meaning if what you are reading is in handwriting or through word processing, any more than reading something on a tablet or on paper.

Piercing isn't an improvement on the human condition like the polio vaccine.  It isn't a better, more secure window. that keeps out the rain and the cold.  Piercing expresses something, means something, that is a departure or deviation.  We know from scripture that these types of practices arise from belief.  They are filled with meaning.  God warns about such practices.  They aren't neutral.  They reflect on a worldview.  In Leviticus 19:28, God warns:

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.

This could apply directly to piercing, and is surely the reason American culture had an aversion to piercings.

If I see someone with piercings, I don't think that pulling the implement out will bring a right relationship with God.  Not piercing doesn't get someone to heaven.  Obviously, the heart yields this behavior.  The piercing manifests on the outside something on the inside.  I'm more concerned with the inside, but that doesn't mean ignoring the outside.  If a person has it right on the inside, you'll know it by the outside.  The former precedes the latter.  The latter, however, will necessarily follow though.

The new covenant is a corollary to the old.  God still wants obedience.  It's enabled by a new heart.  Piercing is a manifestation of the old heart.  This is a person who says he has faith, but piercing is not showing that faith by his works.  It matters.  It isn't turning from idols to serve the living and true God.  You can't serve both God and mammon.  Piercing is mammon.

I see professing Christians, who call themselves Jesus followers, propagating their piercing more than they do Jesus, if they do Him at all.  They are ashamed of Jesus Christ, but proud of their piercing and other forms of worldly expressions.

God created male and female.  He created them obviously different.  He did a good job by His own perfect assessment in Genesis 1.  He expects male and female both to wear things, even as God Himself made garments for Adam and Eve to put on for the sake of modesty.  God doesn't tell either male or female to pierce.  That didn't start with God.  Mankind started piercing itself on its own.  Is it right for people to pierce themselves for whatever purpose they have for doing so?

Piercing is more than a form of jewelry, but it is a form of jewelry.  God doesn't promote jewelry, but it is regulated in scripture.  Not all of it is right.  1 Timothy 2:9 instructs:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.

Here Paul says, not, "not with . . . gold, or pearls."  When the Bible says something about it, it says, not.  This is not that women can't wear jewelry, but the problem is with wearing, not with not wearing.  The same is seen in 1 Peter 3:3:

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold.

These texts never even regulate men, because men are assumed not to be wearing these decorations.  Why are men wanting to decorate themselves like women with jewelry?  Think about it.  Women wear these things, not men.  That is in scripture.  That's why in the United States, men would never consider wearing an earring.  This didn't originate with godly men.

Piercing is new in the history of the United States.  Even as recent as when I grew up, it was controversial for a woman to be pierced and no men were pierced.  I remember men being pierced for the first time when I was a teenager in the 1970s.  Girls were never pierced.  They would only be pierced as a kind of point of reaching womanhood and then only once in each earlobe, and even then it was disputable among Christians.

Jewelry itself is not prohibited.  It is regulated.  It is an adornment, an accessory, like a decoration.  The goal is to allow the beauty of God to shine through.  This is where the simple single earring in the lobe of each ear has become acceptable in a mere supplementary way.  This is not to make a statement or express a philosophy.  It is for a woman and pertains to beauty within the nature of a woman:  feminine, dainty, delicate, splendid, and ladylike.

Multiple piercing and piercing all over various body parts is new in the United States and it corresponds to an ungodly trajectory in the culture.  It wasn't spawned by a growth in godliness.  Even for women, piercing only once in each earlobe even was frowned upon until the 1960s.  Men being pierced associated itself with the unisex movement.  It was entirely rejected by churches.

When I see a man with piercings, I still reject it as both unisex and pagan.  Personally it makes me sick.  I abhor it, when I see it.  Multiple piercings are significant of reprobate culture and depravity.  Amanda Porterfield in an entry within Religion and American Cultures: an Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity, and Popular Expressions reports that after World War 2, piercing began increasing in popularity among the gay male subculture.  That's where piercing of men started in the United States.

Piercings obviously mean something.  People want them.  They get them.  When they do, they're sending a message.  Even the world says that the piercings mean rebellion.  If you google the two words, piercing and rebellion, you'll get almost three million results, and dozens of articles.  It's a self-attesting truth.  A male piercing and all multiple piercing is a kind of rebellion, even according to the world.  Is this what should characterize a Christian?  Is it sacred?  Does it distinguish someone as profane and worldly, characteristics to be avoided for a true believer in God?  Does it matter if a Christian is worldly and presents himself in a profane way?  Of course it matters.  It dishonors God.

Many times children growing up in a Christian home start piercing in contradiction and in rebellion against their parents.  Apparently, they are showing their liberty or authority.  They don't have to do what they're told.  They want to embarrass or shame their parents with their appearance.  That's a big reason they're doing it.  They might still say they're Christian, especially with the state of evangelicalism today.  They have left the belief and practice of their parents.  They should consider what God told Moses in Leviticus 19:1-3:

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Right after, "ye shall be holy," God says, "ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father."  Young adults don't want to fear their parents.  The parents are horrified by the piercings.  This isn't God's will.  Adult children don't have to get pierced.  If their parents don't want that, they shouldn't do it.  It's something simple not to do.  God wants them to respect that in their parents and it is understandable their parents don't want it.  These childish adults though think having their own way is more important.

Some parents are afraid to show disapproval of piercing.  They don't want their children angry with them.  This is an unbiblical role reversal.   As Leviticus 19 above indicates, the children should fear their parents, not vice versa.  Adult children today really do want their parents afraid, so that their parents will pander to them.  Piercing is an expression of this rebellion.

Perhaps a child grows up in what he or she thinks is a suffocating environment, so that he or she feels nowhere to turn, is trapped.  Other people, their young friends, tell them they're ripped off, like Eve in the Garden of Eden was told by Satan.  Parents say, no, you can't do that.  Piercing shows the adult child controlling his or her own body.  No one will tell this person what to wear or what to do.  This lack of submission shows rebellion, immaturity, like a two year old throwing himself on the floor when a parent says, no.

The piercing is not a solution for the liberty some adult child seeks.  It's actual entrapment.  Even though the intention might be to show freedom, it actually shows bondage.  Satan is winning this one, even if the parents act like they've lost.  Jesus was pierced for our liberty.  That's where true freedom comes.  People are only complete in Jesus Christ.  Our piercing is His piercing.  He and his grace bring liberty not to sin, not to conform to the world.

Jesus Christ is who and what a true believer will show.  Associating with Jesus means separating from the world, revealing a difference between the holy and the profane.  The Christian is commanded as a reasonable sacrifice to the Lord, not to be conformed to this world.  Piercing conforms to the world.  It is not compatible with God.

Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

 Many modern Bible versions employ what they call "gender neutral" language.  So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads:

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

by way of contrast, the New International Version reads:

John 1:9  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

There is no textual variant here.  The Greek text reads:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon.

The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as "man"--which is what the word means, recognizing that "man" is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19).

For another example, consider John 12:32.  The King James Version reads:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

There is no textual variant here either.  The Greek text reads:

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.

The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered "all men."  The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist "all peoples" to prevent "man/men" from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, "humankind"; using "mankind" might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism).  Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; "all men" is not hard to understand in the least.

For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Compare the same verse in the New International Version:

Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Here again there is no textual variant.  The Greek reads:

αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.

The plural adelphon, "brethren," is from the Greek word  adelphos, "brother." The "and sisters" is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.

When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more "gender neutral"?  Or did the New Testament specifically use "man" as the generic term for all people--does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?

Consider Romans 11:4:

Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

 alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.

Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:

1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Notice that the word "men" is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4.  Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for "mankind" or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)--"men" as "males."  So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states "all men" in translating a less-specific original language reference.  

The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul.  Consider Matthew 12:41:

Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, "males," from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:

And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew 'adam, properly rendered "man" but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for "males" in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew 'adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humankind" and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a "male ... in contrast to woman" (BDAG).  Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament "gender neutral."  He does exactly the opposite.  Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.

So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less  gender neutral, not more gender neutral.

In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:

1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.

2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as "all men" and "mankind" if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.

3.) We should continue to use "man," "mankind," and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race.  We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.

4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God's infallible Word, less patriarchal.  They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father.  Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.

Learn more about Bible texts and versions by clicking here.

-TDR

Leviticus 10:8-11 and Its Conformity to the Two Wine View

It's obvious in scripture that some wine is permissible to drink and other is not.  This relates to alcohol.  Scripture prohibits alcohol (Proverbs 23:29-35).  However, all wine and strong drink is prohibited to the priesthood in the performance of their duties.  I'm reading through the Bible twice this year and moving through it the first time, I arrived at Leviticus 10:8-11 earlier this week:

8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; 11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

It was so important for Aaron and his sons not to be under the influence of alcohol that they were to take extra precautions by refraining from any wine or strong drink.  What does drinking any alcohol do?  If they were to be drinking alcohol of any amount, it would threaten their ability to do their job as a priest.

The drinking of alcohol could result in the execution of the priest by God like Nadab and Abihu were killed by God earlier in the chapter.  God commands Aaron and his sons not to drink wine or strong drink, so that they would not be punished with death by God Himself.  Leon Hyatt writes in his commentary on Leviticus:

Obeying this command would assure that they would not die for performing their duties incorrectly, but that assurance definitely implies that they would die if they disobeyed the command. The same stern penalty would result from disobedience to this command as from any other deviation from the instructions of Jehovah to the priests.

Refraining from alcohol would save the lives of the priests, but it would also enable them to "put difference between holy and unholy."  Drinking alcohol effects discernment.  Any alcohol at all could impede a priest from discerning between what is unholy and holy.  The mixing of the two is disastrous, a great offense to God, who is holy.

Lastly, abstaining from alcohol was a necessity to ensure the priest might teach the children of Israel all of God's statutes, part of the job of the priest.  God is saying that alcohol would get in the way of doing that.  The passage doesn't say "alcohol," but since wine and strong drink could become alcoholic, the priest in his role could not even drink what might be non-alcoholic out of safety for not being influenced by alcohol in a detrimental way in his duties.

Is there a priesthood today?  Every believer is a priest before God, the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer.  Usually people like to focus on the benefits of being a priest, but not the responsibilities.  If we look to the example of the Old Testament priest for lessons on the New Testament priesthood of the believer, we should acknowledge that the responsibilities outweigh the benefits.  The responsibility should be the focus.  We never stop our priestly duties.

Today we know when a beverage is alcoholic, because it is plainly labeled.  No believer should drink alcohol.  It impairs him from his duties.  He loses discernment for what is holy and unholy.  Alcohol results in a multitude of unholy thoughts, motives, and actions.  It keeps a believer from being filled with the Spirit.  The Apostle Paul commanded, be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess.  Excess is riotousness.  The wine possesses or contains riotousness.  When it is alcoholic it is riotous.  That is seen in Proverbs 23:29-35.

Our entire nation prohibited alcohol at one time for believers and unbelievers.  Now professing believers advocate for and promote alcohol, serving it themselves.  Habakkuk 2:15 warns:

Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Professing believers attempt to attract unbelievers and accommodate them by serving them alcohol, this sin a way to fit in.  I've read recently of a group of professing believers bringing people over on the Lord's Day and serving mimosas for brunch.  God gave the threat of death to Aaron and his sons for drinking alcohol.  Habakkuk directs a "woe," a severe judgment from God toward those who serve it to others.  Do not mock God by ignoring, rebelling against, or scorning what He says about this.

Alexander MacLaren writes on this passage:

Nothing has more power to blur the sharpness of moral and religious insight than even a small amount of alcohol. God must be worshipped with clear brain and naturally beating heart. Not the fumes of wine, in which there lurks almost necessarily the tendency to ‘excess,’ but the being ‘filled with the Spirit’ supplies the only legitimate stimulus to devotion. Besides the personal reason for abstinence, there was another,-namely, that only so could the priests teach the people ‘the statutes’ of Jehovah. Lips stained from the wine-cup would not be fit to speak holy words. Words spoken by such would carry no power. God’s servants can never impress on the sluggish conscience of society their solemn messages from God, unless they are conspicuously free from self-indulgence, and show by their example the gulf, wide as between heaven and hell, which parts cleanness from uncleanness. Our lives must witness to the eternal distinction between good and evil, if we are to draw men to ‘abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.’ 

Both the Hebrew and Greek words for wine in the Old and New Testaments are permissible for drinking, except when they are alcoholic.  Drinking becomes impermissible is when the beverage is alcoholic.  In that day, one didn't know exactly to what degree a product of the vine or the tree was alcoholic.  One had to be careful at all times, but the priest couldn't drink it at all.   It was forbidden, because if it was alcoholic, it would impair judgment necessary in the most important work in the world, the worship of God.

Future New Site for "What Is Truth" And Its Relationship to Censorship

If you are keeping track, which I'm sure you are, you know that big tech is censoring conservatives.  Certain men have lost their voice on the parent companies of twitter, facebook, google, and amazon.  They assume that we will do nothing, because we do not have alternatives.   They have even censored the alternatives, Parler deplatformed by Amazon, its cloud provider.  Should conservatives stay with these companies when others are being kicked off?  They'll be emboldened to do worse. 

Roger Kimball writes at American Greatness that the United States is governed by a woke oligarchy.  We have the government and then we have the oligarchy in control of them.  We have the people who are addicted to what the oligarchy knows they have them addicted.  They don't care, as they are amused to death.  Are we, even Christians, perhaps just professing ones, part of the horde under the swami-like domination of the imagination?  These tech titans and the mainstream media feed the bread and provide the circuses.  Can we say, no?

I suggest that we've got to start working at it, at least.  I understand someone not destroying every bit of their social media at one time.  We've got to do something.  I don't want to do it.  That inconvenience itself is enough to stop most.  It takes nothing to keep the account.  The oligarchs, the tech titans, who already have billions, are counting on us to stay.

Some would argue that we shouldn't remove ourselves from these settings, because we've got a ministry there.  They are the world.  We're just staying in the world.   Do we need all this stuff to do ministry?  They were supposed to be a means to an end.  Is that an excuse or reason for not leaving these forums?  Should we say that we really "need" them?  Could we not still just go directly to the people, walk right up to them and talk to their face?  Hand them written material?

Until about three months ago, I had not been a part of facebook, except for about a month before I left.  I got on for our mission work, to use for the livestream, which I didn't even use.  And then people started following me, and I thought that it was helping me connect with supporting pastors.  I don't know.  Maybe.  I'm probably leaving facebook this week, and I'm just letting you know.  I have joined mewe, requested by someone and, I say, yes.  We'll see if I stay there for the same reason.  One motivation is that it isn't facebook.

So I will be gone from facebook and I've never been on twitter.  How else am I connected?  I am connected on youtube, owned by Google, Instagram, owned by Facebook, and Blogger, which is owned by Google.  My blog is the biggest project.   So what do I do?

I just took all of "What Is Truth" to another platform.  I purposefully went to something that was detached from the usual suspects of the oligarchy.  I haven't moved it yet, because I want to give others time to move too.  For a little while, everything here will be there, until it isn't at blogger anymore.  I don't know what I'm going to use for our videos yet, but I'll let you know.  This is costing us something, because Blogger is free.  We're paying to move.  With all that being said, here is our new blog location:

http://kentbrandenburg.com/

That's going to be easier to remember.  What Is Truth Dot Com wasn't available.  I'm giving you time to move to our new site.  You can already start looking at it.

Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4

What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper?  Do you know?  If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should.  I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.

The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening.  Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper.  The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:

On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.

Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. … 

The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”

It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.

All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.

In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—

“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.

“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.

“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”

Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”

Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”

Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”

Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”

Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”

At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.

We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”

Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”

Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”

Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”

Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”

Luther.—“You are captious.”

Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”

Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”

Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.

Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”

-TDR

What Is It To Be a Witness? "Ye Shall Be Witnesses"

In the first eleven verses of Acts, the Lord Jesus Christ appears for the last time on earth until He reappears in the book of Revelation.  That section is a transition between the gospels and the rest of Acts.  Acts goes along with Luke like one big book of the Bible with two huge halves.  They make a case for Christianity.  It grew to the entire world because Jesus was the Messiah for everyone, not some regional figure accepted among just an insignificant and small population in a meaningless backwater territory.

The beginning of Acts 1 reads like a final checklist from Jesus for His followers with the keys to success.  The talking points were the first two verses, what Jesus did and taught.  Luke referred to his own gospel, which was the record by which Theophilus, a Gentile removed from the events, would be persuaded of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Acts would continue the attestation, explaining the worldwide spread. 

The first circulation came by mouth from the ones who were with Jesus and then those they told about Him.  There were many who saw the events of the gospels and could tell about them, but their writing and further explication of them came through inspiration from the Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit through God-ordained men.  This brings the second part of this checklist from Jesus, the revelation of a resurrected Jesus Christ to those men with "many infallible proofs" (verse 3).  The centerpiece, the resurrection, shows Christianity, setting it apart from every and any thing else, to be divine.  God came to earth, intervened in human history.  These men all saw that to tell about it and then write about it.

John the Baptist gave a prophecy before Jesus' baptism that is recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and then here in Acts 1 (verses 4-5).  The baptism of the Holy Spirit was an event that would confirm a new age, one by which the kingdom would be postponed (verses 6-7).   It would be clear from this baptism with what and whom God would work through His Spirit on earth, manifested by signs and wonders.  The baptism was on the checklist as was the delay of the kingdom.

If last on the checklist was the promise of the second coming as an incentive for the work (verses 9-11), next to last was the mission, be witnesses.  The way the testimony of Jesus Christ would spread out from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then to the uttermost parts of the earth was through witnesses.  Witnesses are those who can provide eyewitness testimony or the corroborated record of eyewitness testimony.

The apostles were uniquely qualified.  They were there to see all this happen, so they were the ones who would ensure that Christianity kept going after Jesus ascended into heaven.  The plan or the means by which God would have it spread all over the world was through witnesses.  Jesus Himself would not bring the message personally, but witnesses would.  From Jesus' perspective though, He was bringing the message by witnesses bringing the message, just like the Father was bringing the message by His Son bringing it.

Would the means or plan of witnesses work?  Yes, it would, and Acts is testimony to that.  Luke writes it.  Where does that leave us?

We're still witnesses.  The record of the apostles written in the gospels, Acts, and then the epistles is credible and authoritative.  Some might say, "No, you had to be there, you had to experience it personally, that's what would work."  But that wasn't God's plan.  We have scripture given by inspiration of God that is a more sure word than even the experience of an eyewitness (2 Peter 1:16-21).

When we report documentary evidence as written under inspiration, we are witnessing, bringing it to people who were not there.  At some point, no one would have seen it or have been there.  Everyone would be giving it based on what was written.  What is written stands.  It is the means by which someone believes in Jesus Christ.  There is more though.

A witness must believe the evidence, the testimony, himself.  The witness isn't credible if he himself doesn't believe it.  Not many, who call themselves Christians, seem like they do believe it.  They rarely to never tell the message, a lifechanging message that has all of eternity wrapped up in it.

The witness must also act like he believes it.  If someone believes the New Testament, the writings, are true, then he will live them.  His life itself is an epistle, a witness, that shouldn't contradict the written testimony.

Most people that say they're Christians don't treat the New Testament, the message of the gospel, like it's real.  Living by faith means living like you believe what God said through the human authors of scripture.  You take it seriously, you learn it, and then you talk to everyone about it.  That's how others are going to get it -- through witnessing.

Jesus said the apostles shall be witnesses, shall be.  It was a foregone conclusion, like an axiom. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, really believes in Him, shall be witnesses.  Are you a witness?  When's the last time you even witnessed?  If you are a Christian, what have you been waiting for?

Jesus is coming back.  That was last on the checklist.  Believing in Jesus Christ means believing that He's coming back and that the postponed kingdom is coming too.  Witnesses want to tell others about that kingdom and its King, Jesus Christ.  He's coming back some day.  People everywhere need to be ready to meet Him.  He's the King of the whole world and everyone needs to know about that.

For people to know the message of Christianity, the true story of their salvation, they need to hear it from someone else.  They need a witness, someone who will pass it along to them.  If you believe the message itself, you will be a witness.  Be one.

The Capitol Hill Chaos: Votes Canceled and Voices Censored Equal Violent Circumstances

The founders declared, "No taxation without representation," as a clarion theme leading to revolution.  No representation meant no vote and no voice, which lead to violent circumstances.  Two systems of justice existed, one on English soil and another in the American colonies, so mobs terrified the stamp tax agents, leading to its repeal, then triggered the Boston Massacre and the Tea Party.  English elites called these criminal sedition and insurrection.  American leaders voiced calm, yet in the end joined in a war for independence.  Are there modern echoes in the present United States?

Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!"  I think everyone could agree that the death part of his famous statement meant the anticipation of some type of violence.  A little later, the Texans at the Alamo believed that death was preferable to living under tyrannical government, albeit Mexican.  "Remember the Alamo" then fueled a Texan war for independence.

President Trump is called a populous president.  His support is populous.  He was and is a man for the time.  Could it have been someone else with a more pristine character resume?  It doesn't seem so.  I'm open to an alternative, but I haven't seen that person in my lifetime.

The never-Trumpers of the Lincoln project, who despise Trump supporters and would relish violence against them, say that his voters were so stupid that they thought he'd be a good leader because they watched him on The Apprentice television show.  I've never seen more useful idiots than the Lincoln ones.

Many factors led to Trump, but the quintessential motivation was an oppressive political correctness that incessantly violates rights of Americans.  This is even seen in the reaction to the events of January 6 in the capitol.  Political speech is not sedition and insurrection.  Using the term, "fight," as a euphemism is not a call to violence, just like saying "political target" doesn't mean you're going to shoot someone.

Political correctness is a kind of correctness in China, where the government says, this is correct, you disagree, saying, it's not, and then you disappear for the rest of your life.  Political correctness is a pressure to take a position at a cost for not taking it.  If you know what's good for your health, your professional career, and your mere future, this is the view you'll need to take.  Carolyn Glick writes in Israel Hayom that Democrats wish a new era of total political correctness.

President Trump says what many people are thinking in the United States.  When I say many, I mean about fifty million or more.  He has not "incited violence."  When Trump supporters came to Washington, DC on January 6, 2021, no elected official encouraged them to come to force their way into the capitol building and physically stop the electoral counting procedure in Congress, a violation of the law (read this account and this take).  In President Trump's speech, he didn't suggest that.  The people saying that know they are lying.  They are liars.

Democrats riot, protest, terrorize, picket, intimidate, and break the law without ceasing.   They not only get no condemnation but instead receive actual support from a vast majority of the media, celebrities, and educators.  They use government power to prosecute their political enemies and to crush their businesses and take away their property.  Even if they do not win in court, they waste the time and ruin the personal finances of their victims.  They tear apart our society.  They are never censored.  As an example, they use their power to allow men to use the girl's bathrooms.  Opposition is litigated.  They are given the widest possible bandwidth to spew the greatest possible amount of vile and deceitful discourse.

Those of the capitol mob were finished with conventional Republican or conservative way of change.  They decided to imitate their political opposition and give them a taste of their own medicine.  It was so odd and out of character that theories arose among conservatives that it must be someone else, that Antifa or BLM infiltrated the group, posing as them for purposes of discrediting.  Can you imagine someone asking, "Can you believe the Democrat party instigated violence and supported burning, pillaging, and looting of public property through their various collaborators, Antifa and BLM?"  Laughter ensues.  A serial murdering abortion doctor slaughters babies born alive and Democrat lawyers line up to defend him.

President Trump gave a political speech on January 6 (read the transcript here), protected by the first amendment without any mention of violence.  None.  It's true he doesn't attempt to calm down his listeners, tranquilize them.  He wants to fire them up, to inspire them.  That's what political speakers do, except for Joe Biden and a few others, but not because they don't wish they could energize someone.  No Republican has encouraged violence in any way.  Everyone knows that.  The people hearing Trump know that.

The crowd that rushed the capitol was enough of a surprise that the capitol police wasn't ready for it.  It is clear that a smaller faction of the gigantic crowd came to Washington DC prepared to do more than attend a rally.   As a template, they had Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, earlier in Washington DC, and urban areas all over the country as an immense sample size compared to their own efforts.  Those leftist mobsters took over several city blocks in Seattle and occupied them, fully armed, for weeks and those like them all over the country have incessantly toppled statues and threatened ordinary American citizens during meals and peaceful walks in public places.

What occurred at the capitol is called by the media and Democrats, an insurrection.  It was an insurrection like the LA police following OJ Simpson was a "car chase."  No one shot anyone except the police an unarmed Trump supporter, military veteran, and you know the story, she was threatening no one.

I wouldn't join them, but I get the anger inspiring the capitol hill chaos.  I understand frustration of the participants.  I'm quite sure that my belief in the future kingdom of Jesus Christ anesthetizes a desire for physical retribution.  A true believer opts for a peaceful solution now, starting with the gospel.  The party of senseless violence though is the left.  They kill millions and urge to kill millions more babies.  They are silent while thousands are murdered in America's cities.  They oppose all freedom of speech except for their own demented and reprobate positions.

One can judge true thoughts and standards by the consistency of the condemnation.  Unless all violence is condemned, the standard of violence still stands.  The left embraces violence.  It wants to disarm its opposition.  It uses the accusation of not-a-coup to cover its own actual coup.  The so-called antifascists are the actual fascists.  Who is attempting to take away rights and freedoms?  The left, represented by the Democrat party, finances and supports its own violence.  It condemns all violence against it.  It punches you in the face, puts its glasses on, and says, "You wouldn't hit a man wearing glasses, would you?"

The mob on capitol hill saw their votes as cancelled.  I agree with them.  The invention of Democrat ballot harvesting tipped the swing states.  They see election laws violated without recourse and even the Supreme Court cowed from dutiful examination.  There is no Republican voice allowed in the public school and state college system, the mainstream media, and the tech titans censor it on their government protected platforms.  The loss of vote and voice equal violent circumstances.  The people taking away freedom through their various means of state and corporate power fueled the capitol mob on January 6, not the president.

Evolution's Strongest Argument--Creationists are Ignorant! & the Cosmological Argument Examined

Class #1 of my Evidences for Creation class is now available. In it, the strongest argument for evolution--which is not any particular fact, but the claim that creationists cannot really do science and are ignorant--is examined, as is the cosmological argument. At the end, the outline for the class, which was on themes in Genesis, is examined.

I believe the video will be helpful to you in speaking to those who reject their Creator based on evolution. Please feel free to "like" the video on YouTube, comment on it here and on the KJB1611 channel, and share it with others.

On some devices there will be an audio issue, but that will, Lord willing, get fixed in the future.

Watch the class Evidences for Creation #1 on YouTube by clicking here, or watch the embedded video below:

-TDR

Tremendous Questions from God for Every Millennial to Read in Genesis 4 and the Example of Cain

Both Cain and Abel were religious people.  We can read in Genesis 4 that they both even worshiped the same God.  Cain was a monotheist.  I think I can safely speculate in saying that Adam and Eve talked and talked and talked ad infinitum, ad nauseum, about sin and the fall, warning after warning after warning, so that they would be given thorough, sufficient knowledge of God, Who He was and His expectations for them.

Cain could and probably would put on his instagram feed, "God follower."  Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:21-23, the now familiar words:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

"I never knew you:  depart from me, ye that work iniquity."  1 John 3 says that the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest by whether they do the righteousness of God, and in 1 John 3, Cain did not love his brother.  He killed him, why?  Verse 12, "Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."  It's not him that saith, Lord, Lord.  Cain could say, Lord, Lord, as well as almost anyone, but he did not do the will of Jesus' Father.  Someone, who isn't following Christ, isn't a "Christ follower," when He doesn't do the will of the Father.  Jesus did the will of the Father in every single instance, so if someone is following Christ, He is also following the Father.

Cain and Abel both brought offerings for God.  However, God judged both of them and their offerings and He rejected one and received the other.  God doesn't accept all worship or every worshiper.  Hebrews 11:4 comments:  "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts."

Abel's sacrifice was more excellent than Cain's.  Righteous people give God as a lifestyle what He wants.  The "gifts" of Abel were these sacrifices that He gave God, according to what God said.

What was wrong with Cain's?  Many would say that Cain's was the religion of human achievement, a salvation by works.  No passage specifically says that, even though I wouldn't argue with it.  It makes sense.  However, we have enough by just saying what the text says.

Abel brought the firstlings of his flock, and or even the fat, meaning that it was the first and the best of what he had.  That's what it says.   Cain also brought God the fruits of the ground "in process of time" (Gen 4:3).  Easily one could contrast "firstlings" with "process of time."  It took time before Cain came with his offering for the crops to be finished with the process.  God waited on Cain rather than Cain waiting on God.  Verse 4 says "the LORD had respect unto Abel and his offering."  The LORD respected both the worshiper and his offering.  Then in verse 5, "unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect."

There is no doubt that God was for both Cain and Abel.  The problem was that Cain was not for God.  God wasn't a hostage for Cain, but bear with me, because like with many apostates, and Cain represents  all apostates, he attempted to hold God hostage.  I'm not saying anyone can hold God hostage, but they try to, like children do so with their parents.  Cain was going to believe and act like he wanted, and God was expected to accept his belief and behavior.  When God did not, Cain was angry with Him, not with himself, and then pouting over it (verse 5).  People are self-deceived into thinking that if they behave down in the dumps or crest-fallen, they can get what they want.

The modern counterfeit alternative to the truth of God's disrespecting an offering is that God, contradicting Genesis 4, instead accepts offerings as a matter of His grace.  He "redeems" the offering. He takes the offering the false worshiper wants to bring and He turns it by His grace into an acceptable offering.  There is no biblical basis for this view of redemption.  It is a lie.  It is deception in the category of Satan telling Eve, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4).  What God does when He really redeems is turn a repentant false worshiper into a true one, who then brings God what God wants, not what he wants anymore.

God doesn't receive worship with this above corrupted view of redemption.  People may be saying God is being worshiped, but He isn't getting what He wants.  With this perverted notion, it doesn't even matter if He gets what He wants, because anything He doesn't want will be said to be accepted, because He redeemed it.  The point of worship is lost, just so the unredeemed Cain figure can be respected like he wants, even though that's not even true either.

In Genesis 4:6-7, "the LORD" asked Cain:

Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?

Three questions.  All three are rhetorical.

The first two questions would require a longer answer, but they are rhetorical, because the answer is obvious.  The last question has the answer of a simple, "Yes."

God uses questions a lot in the Bible.  Jesus used them much, as recorded in the gospels.  They are powerful, but to the wrong person, they can also be infuriating.  In the next verse (v. 8), Cain murders his brother, Abel.

Cain was angry.  Then God asked those three questions and Cain was even more angry.

Cain wasn't being respected by God.  He wanted acceptance from God and he wasn't getting that.  God was willing to respect Cain.  He was willing to accept him.  If he had only done well.  He didn't.

God did right in not respecting or accepting Cain.  It wasn't God's fault that Cain was angry or his countenance was fallen.  When someone doesn't do well, or how we would say it today, when he hasn't done good or he has done something bad, he shouldn't be respected or accepted for that.  These are basics in life still.

If behavior is rewarded it will recur.  Bad behavior if respected or accepted will recur.  Cain should have answered in his head, "I'm wroth because I'm not being accepted or respected for doing something bad or not doing something good."  Then, "My countenance is fallen (I'm moping) because I'm not being accepted or respected for doing something bad or not doing something good."  And then last, "Yes, I would have been accepted if I had done well or not done bad, by bringing an acceptable or respectable offering."

Much of the anger in the streets is over a lack of respect or acceptance.  In between the anger is discouragement or depression accompanied by alcohol and other "self-medication."  Young people are seeking for respect and acceptance and they're not getting what they want, what they think they deserve, so in various ways they damage, afflict, hurt, strike, and destroy.

What young people need to know is that they have the respect and acceptance of God if they do well.  That starts by believing like Abel did.  Abel got respect by faith.  He was accepted by faith.  Cain wanted to do what he wanted and also be respected and accepted, but it really doesn't work that way, at least not with God.  It really shouldn't work that way either, because it is bad for an individual and for all of society when it does.

God's Son, Jesus Christ, got acceptance from the Father.  He gave Him a name which was above every name.  He said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased.

Someone can get angry and down and depressed until he gets the respect and acceptance he thinks he deserves.  Maybe he or she will get it.  It won't be good if he or she does.  It will just result in more bad behavior.  God wants to accept you.  He wants to receive you.  He wants to respect you.  God is good.

What Cain deserved for killing his brother was death.  God was merciful to Cain, but still, Cain said (verse 13):  "My punishment is greater than I can bear."  Still thinking about himself.  Cain's focus was on himself.  His respect.  His acceptance.  It should have been, am I doing what God wants me to do?  That's the way to true acceptance and true respect. 

God's three questions continue to be three really good questions to ask.