Ray Ruppert's Blog, page 71

Declare Good Theology: Part 1 – Titus 2:13-15

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (KJV)
Declare ItIn verse 15, most versions say we are to speak these things. Others are more dramatic saying we are to declare or must teach them these things. However, the emphasis is still there. Paul has just unloaded a significant amount of theology in one sentence. Starting with grace, which was covered before, and ending with our response, Paul has affirmed the deity of Jesus, his atoning sacrifice for our sins, and our sanctification. In most cases, this message is sufficient to encourage people or rebuke those who try to bring a different gospel.
When we are speaking the truth of the gospel and biblical theology, we have Jesus’ authority backing us up. He said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore …” (Matt 28:18-19 NASB). It would be a mistake of our authority to minimize or be ashamed of any of these doctrines. How would you feel if your doctor diagnosed you with appendicitis with words like, “I think you might have appendicitis, but it might be gas. So I’m going to take a survey of other patients and see what they think.” How ridiculous, but that is exactly what the world does with theology. We have a sin problem and the authoritative answer to the problem is in the Bible. However, those in opposition to the Bible look to philosophers, gurus, TV personalities, and other for remedies other than the cross of Jesus Christ.
When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Matt 10:19-20 RSV)
Paul asserts that there is no reason for us to be despised when we share the counsel of God’s Word with others. OK, reality tells us that many will despise us and the Bible affirms that some will even be arrested for sharing the gospel. But look at the assurance we have when we yield to God’s plan. The Holy Spirit will speak through us. God the Father through His Spirit will be speaking. When using the gifts God gives us, we are speak oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). So, when Paul says, “Let no one despise you,” he isn’t saying that we should put someone in a headlock and make him say, “Uncle.” But he is letting us know that what they think can’t be what drives our sense of worth. We are not out to please men but to please God. Man’s attitude toward us is not to what we use to measure our success.
Going back to verse 13, let’s look at some of this great theology that we are to declare. I’m not going to take the doctrines in the same order that Paul presented them.
God and Savior Jesus ChristTo the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 25 NASB)
Take a good look at what Jude says here and what Paul says in verse 13. Jude says that God is our Savior through Jesus but Paul says that Jesus Christ is our God and Savior. Are they saying the same thing in two different ways or are they contradicting each other? If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you have been confronted with the doctrine of the Trinity, One God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the way orthodox Christianity explains how the Bible can call Jesus God and Savior as well as the Holy Spirit Lord.
However, the doctrine of the Trinity is probably one of the hardest things for us to explain and understand. It was not easy for the early church patriarchs and it has not become any easier for us in the 21st century. Obviously, I’m not going to be able to explain it completely and satisfactorily in this blog. However, Titus has always been one of my favorite books when it comes to recognizing that the Trinity is a solid biblical doctrine.
Starting in Titus 1:3, Paul says that God is our Savior. Then in the very next verse he calls the Father God and Jesus our Savior. Again in 2:10, he reiterates God is our Savior, followed by verse 13 where we see Jesus is our God and Savior. Once again in 3:4, he states God is our Savior followed by stating that Jesus is our Savior in 3:5. Three times in three chapters Paul reaffirms that God the Father and Jesus Christ are both God and Savior. The conclusion must be inescapable that God is at least both Father and Jesus Christ.
Salvation is also described in 3:5 as we are washed and renewed by the Holy Spirit. While this is not as strong evidence that the Spirit is also God, we can turn to other verses that describe the way the Spirit works in our salvation. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 also states that we are sanctified through the Spirit when we are saved. In this Because the Holy Spirit is active in our salvation, He is also Savior. To show that He is also God, we can turn to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, “Now the Lord is the Spirit … For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (ESV). Clearly, only God is Lord and Paul unequivocally says that the He is the Spirit.
The way Paul switches the words around in his writing it is clear that Paul recognizes the equality of the three persons of the Trinity. But the question could be asked, is the Trinity an invention of Paul? Not at all. Jesus clearly set the standard when He commissioned the disciples. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19 NIV). He did not specify baptism in His own name, just the Father, or any other combination. Equality of the Persons of the Trinity and the singleness of our one God is firmly established in the New Testament.
For to us a child is born, to us  a son is given;  and the government shall be  upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful  Counselor,  Mighty God,  Everlasting  Father, Prince of  Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace  there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it  with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.  The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. (Isa 9:6-7 ESV)
The Old Testament is not as clear about the Trinity as is the New Testament. However, there seminal verses like Isaiah 9:6-7 that should make any thinking person understand that the truth of the Trinity is also contained in the Old Testament. The incarnation is predicted in the coming of the Messiah and His description cannot be misunderstood. His equality with God the Father and identification with Him is overwhelming: Might God, Everlasting Father. He is to be a son and He will rule forever. The child that is born will never die and reign as the Sovereign of the world. As in Titus, the Spirit is in the background and not as evident. While the Old Testament did not identify the Holy Spirit as the Wonderful Counselor, He is identified as the Counselor in John 14:26 (NIV and RSV).
The use of ’ĕlŏhîm, the plural name for God when the singular was also available,[1]is used throughout the Old Testament. Every time God is mentioned in Genesis 1, the plural form of God is used. In verse 26, it is clear that this is not just a convention of writing but a keen way of showing that the one God of the Old Testament is more complex than a single person. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness’” (Gen 1:26 NIV). Not only is the plural used for God, but the plural is applied to His action and His likeness.
Next time, I’ll continue with more of the doctrines contained in these verses. [1] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: the Doctrine of God, (Wheaton. Ill: Crossway, 2006), 418-419, Kindle.

Two Effects of Grace – Titus 2:11-12

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age. (NASU)
SalvationThe first and most commonly acknowledge effect of grace is salvation. Almost every Christian knows that it is by grace we have been saved (Eph 2:8). Just exactly how grace works or appears is a matter of great controversy among Christian denominations. The biggest divide is regarding the way that grace comes to a person so that they can be saved.  Some believe that grace is imparted through the Church by participation in the sacraments,[1]specifically baptism. This is not just a Roman Catholic view but also the view of some Protestant denominations including those who believe that not only must you be baptized, but you must be baptized in their tub. Others believe that baptism of an infant saves the person even though they must later make a profession of faith at a later date. The grace received at baptism then enables them to make that decision.[2] Then there is the doctrine that grace is irresistible so that when God gives it at His time and choosing, the person upon whom it is bestowed is so moved that it is impossible for them to resist repentance and salvation.[3] Others believe that when God bestows His grace on a person it simple means that the person is then able to exercise his freedom to choose salvation. Before receiving God’s grace, he was only capable of rejecting salvation.[4] Some believe that this grace is given to everyone so that salvation is entirely dependent upon the person and not God’s choosing.[5] Others believe in universal salvation in that His grace brings everyone to salvation.[6]
As is evident, there is much confusion within Christianity over how grace saves. If Titus 2:11 were the only verse in the Bible that explains grace we would probably agree with those who believe in universal salvation, however that would rely on thinking that bringing (making available) and accepting salvation are the same. Furthermore, basing universal salvation on the word bringing would be totally inaccurate because the word was added by translators and does not appear in the original Greek. A literal translation is, “For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men” (Titus 2:11 Young’s Literal Translation). This makes it obvious that His save grace has come and that all can see it but does not imply that it brings salvation to everyone. While this doesn’t answer all the questions, it does eliminate universal salvation. A detailed answer for all the other options is not within the scope of this study.
A quick look at Ephesians 2:8-9 sheds light on several of the options above when taken for what it says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (KJV). Grace does the saving, because it is through faith, something that can only come about by hearing, seeing (deaf sign language), or reading and then understanding (Rom 10:14). This eliminates all forms of salvation by infant baptism since an infant cannot understand nor reason what to believe. Since it is a gift of God and it is not of ourselves, then that eliminates other concepts. It means that any action we take whether it is adult baptism or rituals to gain grace or elicit God’s approval must be eliminated as the source of grace to actualize our salvation.
This leaves only two options. The first is the Calvinist doctrine that grace is irresistible. The second is the Arminian doctrine that grace enables a person to choose salvation. Both of these depend on God giving the grace without a person earning it in any way. The Roman Catholic position does not fit simply because grace is earned by participating in the sacraments though some may argue that it is essentially the same as the Arminian position. I agree with the Calvinistic approach because salvation is then 100% God centered. The Arminian approach depends on man’s choosing salvation in cooperation with God. If God is not in total control, then man essentially usurps God’s choice by either refusing to accept salvation or by rejecting it at a later date either of which negates God’s election (Eph 1:4).
Godly LivesAccording to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. (1 Cor 3:10 NKJV)
I seldom hear of anyone explaining the instructional concept of grace and it is probably with good reason. It doesn’t shout out its presence in the same way saving grace does. Except for Titus 2:12, it is hidden behind the other concepts in a verse or it is the foundation supporting them. In 1 Corinthians 3:10 grace is prominent but what it is doing can only be discovered by looking at what it accomplishes. In this case, Paul received wisdom by God’s grace. He understood that he was building the church on the foundation of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:9, 11).
We can say with confidence and a clear conscience that we have lived with a God-given holiness and sincerity in all our dealings. We have depended on God's grace, not on our own human wisdom. That is how we have conducted ourselves before the world, and especially toward you. (2 Cor 1:12 NLT)
In this verse, it is clear that God’s grace enabled Paul to live a life of holinesses and minister sincerely to the Corinthians because he was depending on God’s grace instead of human wisdom. This echoes his declaration to Titus. In Paul’s life, he had been instructed by God’s grace to live godly and deny all the temptations for abuse that his position as an Apostle afforded. It is a good example that anyone in ministry should heed. If this were the attitude of all ministry leaders whether pastors of mega-churches or parachurch leaders, we wouldn’t see moral failures or abusive cults. Even if all we do is write a blog or hand out tracts, we need God’s grace to teach us how to live godly lives and avoid the strong allure of the world to be recognized by people.
In our daily reading program, we just read from Matthew 6, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Verse 1 is a stern warning not to practice our righteousness, charity, good deeds, piety, alms, kindness (all from different translations) before men to gain their approval. Grace teaches us that living a godly life does not include trying to impress others how godly we are. Paul lived this but had to depend on God’s grace to accomplish it.
May God’s grace be sufficient to get you through whatever you are facing at this time. Rely on His grace because it is the power of Christ resting on you (2 Cor 12:9).

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 ed. (Grand Rapids, USA.: Baker Academic, 2013), 837, Kindle. [2] Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn Wright, eds., introduction to Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ(Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007). [3]Erickson, 848-851. [4]Ibid., 844-845. [5]Ibid., 852-853. [6]Ibid.,942.

Christian Slaves – Titus 2:9-10

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. (NASB)
Slave, Bondservant, Employee      I’ve read or heard various reports about the status of a slave in the first century. Some say our own history of slavery has stereotyped it and slaves were not as bad off as we think. One article describes slaves being used in three typical areas. The first is doing work directly for their masters. The second was when they acted as managers of their master’s estate. The third was where they would actually own and manage property even though it technically belonged to the master.[1]We can see all three of these positions in parables that Jesus taught. In Matthew 18:23-35, Jesus described a servant (Greek doulous= slave) who owed his master ten thousand talents. Another of the master’s slaves owed the first slave a hundred pence (KJV). This is nothing like our concept of slavery so many translators use the word servant instead of slave. Matthew 25:14-30 is the familiar parable of talents where the master gives stewardship of his funds to three different servants. The word is again translated servant rather than slave because of the obvious management of resources. Luke 17:7-10 is a description of harsh slavery or drudgery where they work in the fields then come in and serve the master without thanks. Regardless of how the translators used servant or bondservant or slave, the status of a Roman slaves during this time was more in keeping with our current concept. The owners had the right to abuse (physically and sexually) and even kill a slave regardless of his or her position. The slave had only the right to serve as the master directed. Marriage was only with the master’s approval but it was not marriage in the sense we think of because the master still had sexual rights over the slave. The arrangement was called contubernium.[2]      How did the Law of Moses describe slavery? The first difference is that it there were very clear rules and regulations regarding the way a master could treat a slave. Exodus 21 contains many of the regulations for slaves. Killing a slave resulted in the same penalty as a free person but there was no penalty if the slave survives a beating or mistreatment. However, if the slave loses an eye or tooth, the slave is to be set free. Reading this chapter gives the impression that female slaves were often chosen as wives and had specific rights if chosen for the master or sons but fewer rights if given to another slave as a wife. Leviticus 19:20-22 clearly described sex with a slave promised to another man as sin even though the punishment was not death as it would have been for a free woman. While certainly not ideal, it was much better than the Roman practice.       When Paul wrote to Titus, he was not writing to someone with the Hebrew background and training regarding slavery. He was addressing Gentiles living under the Roman law. Clearly, all levels of slavery would be included in the term doulous. Some complain that Paul therefore endorsed slavery of any kind and that we can’t apply this to our current culture except where the culture has slavery. However, Paul is not talking to society in general, but to Christians. These slaves are people who are Christians and are owned by someone else and the implication is that their masters may not be Christians. He is saying that if you are a Christian, you must, you have no other option than to please your master. That means being subjective in everything. That is the positive attitude but you must also eliminate the negative attitudes and behavior of arguing and stealing from your master. How is this possible when a slave is subjected to humiliation, insult, and injury?You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42b-45 ESV)      Jesus described the situation clearly. He pointed us to culture of the time with Gentile masters, not the Hebrew culture. That means we have to consider the abusive Roman law as we consider the verses. Jesus takes our status down a notch by saying that to be great we must be a servant to others. He used the word diakonos, which is translated servant, minister, or deacon. There is no connotation that this is other than a hired person. However, if we want to increase our status up a notch to become first, then he takes us back down to the bottom rung and says we must become a doulous, a slave. Then He provides the ultimate example of his own death.       This is the attitude that a Christian slave has to have. Without this attitude, the life of a slave on the bottom rung is without hope. Now, is it possible to apply this attitude to our current culture and to our work when employed by someone else? Is it possible to apply this attitude to customers if we run a business? If not, then we need to go back and redefine what it means to be a Christian because Paul’s direction to Titus must apply to us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves because the doctrine of our Lord and Savior is to be servants and slaves first to Jesus then to everyone else. Of course, if we don’t care about being great in God’s kingdom, much less first, then becoming a servant or slave doesn’t matter.
In Everything      When Paul says that we should be submissive in everything to our masters, (boss, or whoever is directing the work and paying for our services), does he allow any refusal of service? Think of those slaves who were the sexual property of the owners. Would you tell them to submit joyfully to that kind of abuse? What would you do if the master ordered you to kill another slave because he spilled the master’s wine? If this means blind obedience, then that means that an accountant should falsify the books when the owner requests it. It means that a policeman should lie to protect his superior who has just beaten a homeless man without cause. I really get tired of people who look at a verse and find a word like all or everything and apply the meaning not just literally but inflexibly. While there are places where it may be appropriate, this certainly isn’t one of them. The principle of obeying God rather than being submissive to sinful commands of superiors is as ancient as the midwives who refused to kill newborn Hebrew boys (Ex 1:15-17), or the Apostles’ refusal to keep quiet about Jesus (Acts 4:19, 5:29), and extends to the future where believers refuse to take the mark of the beast in opposition to his rule over the earth (Rev 13:7).Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.” (1 Peter 3:13-14 NIV)      Paul’s point and that of Peter is that a slave or anyone else who wants to do good will generally stay out of trouble. This is not a guarantee that trouble will not come along. It is not a guarantee that you may be asked or commanded to do something wrong. So Peter says that when we suffer for doing right we don’t need to fear because we are blessed by God. Wow, when you put this in perspective of real slavery and not just a nasty boss, there is only one conclusion. We must have our eyes on eternity instead of the world or we’ll never survive or have any hope. Peter offers the way to do this in the next verse, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV). We can’t do it without Jesus and with Jesus, we will have the hope and others will see it. This is how we “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9).
What Are You?      An added thought about the issue of slave, bondservant, or employee, is our relationship with God. Yes, we are sons and daughter, not slaves according to Romans 8:14-14, Ephesians 1:5 and 3:15 as well as many other verses. However Paul also affirms that we are slaves of God (Rom 6:22) and Peter says we were ransomed out of slavery of sin (1 Peter 1:18). Paul also refers to himself as a slave of Christ in Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, Philippians 1:1, and Titus 1:1 as does James in 1:1, Peter in 2 Peter 1:1, Jude in verse 1, and John in Revelation 1:1. Furthermore, John says that the book of Revelation is written to show his servants (doulous) what is in the future. It should be quite obvious that while we are citizens of God’s kingdom (Eph 2:19, Phil 3:20) and members of his family, our attitude should be more that of slaves than kings. How do you view yourself and does your view adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9)?


[1] Odochiciuc, Ana, and Lucrețiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, "Occupations of Private Slaves in Roman Dacia." Studia Antiqua Et Archeologica 20, (January 2014): 231, EBSCOhost, accessed December 21, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l...., 232.

Manifestations of God’s Glory: Preparation for Mankind’s Acceptance of the Incarnation

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Manifestations of God’s Glory: Preparation for Mankind’s Acceptance of the IncarnationSubmitted to Dr. Daniel Mitchell, in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the completion of the courseTHEO 626 D01Doctrine of GodbyRay RuppertDecember 18, 2015Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1Historical Perspective ...................................................................................................................... 2God Is One ........................................................................................................................... 2God Has a Physical Presence ................................................................................................ 3Influence of Theophanies ......................................................................................... 3Contribution of Jewish Mysticism ............................................................................ 4Transition from Temple Glory after the Exile ........................................................... 4Intertestamental Messianism ..................................................................................... 5Progression of the Manifestations of God’s Glory ....................................................................... 5Appearance of God’s Glory to Moses .................................................................................. 6Appearance of God’s Glory to Isaiah ................................................................................... 7Appearance of God’s Glory to Ezekiel ................................................................................ 8Significance of Daniel’s Vision of the Son of Man .............................................................. 8Relating Jesus to God’s Glory ....................................................................................................... 9Jesus’ Transfiguration ........................................................................................................... 9Jesus and God’s Glory in Johannine Scripture ..................................................................... 10Jesus Is the Image of God .................................................................................................... 10Application for the Church ............................................................................................................ 12Deity of Jesus Denied in Current Culture ............................................................................ 12Revelation of Jesus’ Glory Is Transforming ......................................................................... 13Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 14Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 16

Introduction     God’s glory as represented in physical manifestations before Moses and Israel; Isaiah, and Ezekiel are mysterious and hard to understand especially in light of what the Lords says, “Man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33:20[1]). Appearances in total human form are theophanies, which add to the mystery. This paper will not attempt to explain God’s glory; rather it will focus on the long-range purpose of God’s eventual revealed glory, his incarnation in Jesus Christ. This requires an explanation of Jewish thought because it is evident that they believed God is one and looking upon his glory resulted in death. Examination of several of these appearances will reveal that instead of fatal consequences, these manifestations and other visions provide a progressive revelation of God and his glory. Intertestamental mysticism, messianic speculation, and apocryphal writing further affected the Jewish concept of God’s nature, which helped Jesus’ disciples more readily accept the Messiah to be more than just an anointed representative of God but the Son of God. Examination of New Testament references to Jesus’ glory and his being the “radiance of the glory of God” (Heb 1:3) will demonstrate that the authors accepted Jesus as the Son of God in part because of the Old Testament manifestations of God’s glory. The current state of the church is in peril as it often presents Jesus as only a prophet, teacher, or an example to follow. Reflecting on God’s plan in history to reveal himself in the incarnate Jesus restores the deity of Jesus. It renews the awe for the incarnation as God prepared his people to accept himself in human form. This should inspire greater worship of our Lord Jesus. This paper will use these historical perspectives, exegesis of relevant Scripture, and theological reflection, arguing that manifestations of God’s glory in the Old Testament prepared mankind to accept God’s glory in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The church needs reminding that this progression of revelation resulted in salvation and Jesus living in its members. With transformed lives, the church can renew its worship of Jesus because he is the radiance of God’s glory living in the church.Historical Perspective     Justin Martyr clearly taught that Jesus was the one who appeared in the burning bush, fire, and angels (1 Apol 63). Some in the early church, however, were more concerned whether the appearance is a vision or is physical. According to Bucur, Augustine believed that theophanies were real angelic beings but the Word of God was in those manifestations when they spoke as God.[2]Bucur also asserts, “The exegesis of Old Testament theophanies is a crucial element in early Christianity’s process of theological self-definition.”[3]His interpretation of Clement is that theophanies may have been Jesus channeling himself through an angelic representation.[4]While it is evident that early Christians identified the Son of God with most appearances of God’s glory, current scholars are often in disagreement.[5]God Is One     Israel had the clear command from God to understand that he is one (Deut 6:4) in contrast to the pagan nations around them. Additionally, his declaration to Moses that man cannot see his face and live (Ex 33:20) must have been very confusing for Israel to understand how God could appear to Abraham in bodily form, converse with him, eat with him, and even argue for sparing Sodom (Gen 18:1-33). The use of ’ĕlŏhîm, the plural name for God when the singular was also available,[6]either planted the seed for belief that God had a physical body along with his spiritual presence or was ignored. The former would help formulate and accept a physical Messiah.God Has a Physical Presence     God’s physical presence in theophanies and his several glorious appearances reiterate the fact that God is capable of making himself known in physical forms. Whether it was to Abraham, Moses, or the whole of Israel in the cloud (Ex 16:10), these manifestations probably led later ancient Israelites to believe some could see God under unordinary circumstances.[7]This developed into some rather astounding conclusions about God including attempts to assign specific measurements to different parts of his body.[8]Influence of Theophanies     The very idea that God can appear physically is at the heart of Calvin’s doctrine of accommodation. Two significant reason that God must stoop to man’s level and accommodate his being to enable mankind to view some essence or representation of himself is founded on his omnipresence and existence as a spirit (especially in the Old Testament before the incarnation).[9]His progressive accommodation, especially in the visions of Ezekiel, is instrumental in providing the impetus for Jewish mysticism and intertesamental development of who the Messiah would be.[10]Contribution of Jewish Mysticism     Merkabah, also known as throne visions,[11]is a Jewish mystical system that first appeared approximately 100 BC. Adherents focus on attempts to see the Shekinah, “The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to ‘dwell’ among men.”[12]In opposition to Exodus 33:20, they supposed it was possible to see God[13]even though this belief was not universally accepted. The Apocalypse of Abraham, because its vision of God was not anthropomorphic, was “a polemic against anthropomorphism.”[14]However, this validated that before the arrival of Jesus Christ, some people adhered to the possibility of seeing God in human form. Transition from Temple Glory after the Exile     The Shekinah departed from the temple in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 11:23). While Ezekiel saw his return (Ezek 43:1-5), this was also in a vision. The Bible does not record any incident of God’s glory returning to the temple after its reconstruction in the same fashion as it did at the dedication of Solomon’s temple (2 Chron 7:1). Because God’s presence among men was no longer in the temple as it had been, the Spirit depicted the presence of God among his people better than any other concept. The Second Temple period was devoid of God’s manifest presence, which heightened the expectation of the Messiah. When the Spirit descended on Jesus, it was a representation of God coming to his people in his temple not built by hands (Mark 14:58; John 2:19). “Wherever Jesus’ body is present, Jesus mediates the presence of God through the Spirit.”[15]Intertestamental Messianism     The intertestamental period produced many writings categorized as Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Some described the coming Messiah in varying terms as God and man who is both high priest and king.[16]Other representations of the Messiah were simply a “divinely endowed being … or coming of a god in human form on earth.”[17]Others believed that there would be a series of Messiahs who would take on the various roles of “Priest, Prophet, King, Son of Man, Son of God, Servant.”[18]Speculation of the Messiah’s coming was divergent but the impact of previous Old Testament appearances planted the seed with some that the Messiah would be God in human form. Progression of the Manifestations of God’s Glory     Theophanies acquired various forms in the Old Testament but the ones that represented his glory in Exodus 34:5, Isaiah 6:1, Ezekiel 1:26-27 and Daniel 7:9 increasingly demonstrate the progress of these theophanies by including anthropomorphic representations of God. The vision of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9 and the presentation of “one like the son of man” (Dan 7:13) who was then given glory is perhaps the most significant.Appearance of God’s Glory to Moses     God first appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:1-6. In comparison to other manifestations of his glory, this was almost commonplace. Yet, Moses was afraid to look at the Lord. The description of the angel of the Lord in a bush that burned without consuming the bush seems almost insignificant in comparison to Exodus 19:16-20 where God dramatically appeared on Mount Sinai with thunder, lightning, trumpet sounds, quaking, thick smoke, and fire. Moses ascended the mountain at God’s calling. Later, Moses took along seventy-three others, elders of Israel, and they all saw the Lord but Moses only described the sapphire pavement beneath his feet (Ex 24:9-11). This appearance is also in stark contrast to Exodus 33:20 where God says, “No man shall not see me and live.” Commentaries do not elaborate on why these people were able to see God in this glorious representation without being killed.[19]However, Calvin saw this as an advancement of God’s accommodation because they had refrained from attempting to see God for themselves until he called them.[20]     The pinnacle of Moses’ encounters with God and his glory occurs in Exodus 33:17-23 and 34:5-8. In response to God’s commendation, Moses asks to see his glory. Some have called this an impious request because it would be a revelation of God’s self-knowledge, something that only the Spirit of God can know (1 Cor 2:11).[21]However, if the Westminster Shorter Catechism is right, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever,” then asking to see God’s glory and know him more personally[22]is the most acceptable response to being in God’s presence. In response to Moses’ request, God related his face to his full glory (Ex 33:18, 20). He also responded not only by elaborating on his nature, but also by revealing more anthropomorphic characteristics that cannot be directly associated to his nature. When the time came, God descended in a cloud and stood with Moses (Ex 34:5). His hand covered Moses protecting him from an inappropriate view of God but removing it so that Moses could see his back (Ex 33:22). He revealed his nature in words[23]but these increased depictions of physical characteristics do not appear to add anything to understanding his nature. Rather, they express something that anticipates a future revelation.Appearance of God’s Glory to Isaiah      Isaiah’s vision of God’s glory at first appears to be a reversal in revealing any new physical descriptions of God. It depicts him on a throne being “lofty and exalted” (Isa 6:1 NASU) while the train of his robe fills the temple. The imagery clearly conceives a person though there is no further description of his glory. Rather, the seraphim and their activities consume the description of the remaining passage. The importance of this theophany is the reference to the throne. This throne reference appears several times in Psalms and as Justin Martyr identified these with Jesus, so Isaiah and the Psalms strengthens the association of theophanies with the coming Messiah.[24]In Psalm 47:8, God rules the nations from his throne. Several Psalms refer to his throne as the foundation of his justice and judgment (Ps 9:4, 7, 97:2), which enhance the messianic role.Appearance of God’s Glory to Ezekiel     The manifestation of God’s glory to Ezekiel is perhaps one of the most dramatic appearances in the Bible other than when he came to Mount Sinai. While the description of God is brief in contrast to the account of his approach and the heavenly beings who support his throne, it develops the image of God in greater detail than any previous appearance (Ezek 1:4-28).[25]The striking part of the description is that Ezekiel describes God having “a likeness with a human appearance” (Ezek 1:26). Even though engulfed in fire from his waist upward and downward, no vision to this point presented God in this manner. Previous theophany appearances to Abraham (Gen 18:2) and Jacob (Gen 32:24), although recorded as men, were not associated with God’s glory. Ezekiel’s descriptions are foundational to descriptions found in Daniel.Significance of Daniel’s Vision of the Son of Man     The details of Daniel’s vision (Dan 7:9-10) contain several of the same elements of Isaiah’s and Ezekiel’s throne visions. The Ancient of Days’ throne is described comprising fiery wheel similar to the emphasis on the wheels in Ezekiel. Corresponding to Isaiah, God is clothed this time all in white. A new description also includes his hair like pure wool. These would be enough to categorize the vision along with Isaiah’s and Ezekiel’s showing a greater anthropomorphic revelation. However, the significant vision relating specifically to Jesus follows as “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14) is ushered into the presence of the Lord. Like other visions, he approaches with clouds. The astonishing culmination occurs when he receives glory when all people and nations serve him and he receives an eternal kingdom. Since God does not share his glory with another (Isa 48:11), the clear implication is that this “son of man” must in some fashion also be God. This establishes the hallmark of the Messiah being both God and man. This is a significant influence on the Gospel of John.[26]Relating Jesus to God’s Glory     These manifestations of God’s glory, especially the later ones, increased in anthropomorphism. The intertestamental period accelerated speculation about the Messiah and prepared those who were willing, to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus’ followers had to overcome any latent hesitations about Jesus being both God and man. The Gospels are replete with demonstrations of his deity, but only a few will suffice to show that Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory.Jesus’ Transfiguration     God ultimately granted Moses’ request to see his face when he appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:2-3) with Jesus. For Paul said that the knowledge of the glory of God is in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6). Jesus’ face shone with light as bright as the sun and his clothes became white as light. As Peter spoke, a cloud overshadowed them and they heard the voice of God (Matt 17:5). They could not escape perceiving the correlation of Jesus’ appearance with the visions of Isaiah and Daniel concluding, “That Jesus is the embodiment of the theophanic Glory of God revealed in the Old Testament.”[27]Jesus and God’s Glory in Johannine Scripture     John directly appeals to Merkabah mysticism when he quotes Jesus in John 1:51. The Merkabah mystics sought a vision of God looking for the heavens to open for them. He alludes to their mystical viewpoint proposing that to see the glory of God, they need to see the Son of Man, who represents “Yahweh and the ladder of Jacob’s vision.”[28]     However, John invalidates one of the intertestamental concepts of the Messiah coming as the conquering king with his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey (John12:13-16). Jesus demonstrates that his kingdom will be peace and salvation after the crowd has already declared that he is the king of Israel. Jesus’ glorification will not be through conquest and displays of human power, but through the cross and manifestation of God’s power in his resurrection as Jesus stipulates and the Father affirms in John 12:23-28.[29]     The throne visions of God in his glory all incorporate an environment encompassing the throne with angelic beings, fire, and light while he sits on the throne robed in splendor. The glory of Jesus on the cross is the exact opposite. He was stripped naked, bleeding and dying, he is surrounded by enemies, “strong bulls of Bashan” (Ps 22:12), and in darkness. Yet nailed above his throne (the cross) was the declaration of his irrevocable kingship (John 19:19). This reversal of symbolism is potent in persuading any seeking to see God’s glory to identify Jesus as God incarnate.[30]Jesus Is the Image of God     While the Gospel demonstrated that Jesus is the incarnation of God, even drawing on allusions or direct reference to theophanies, Paul and the author of Hebrews taught explicitly that Jesus is the image of God. This is the culmination of the progressive revelation through the manifestations of his glory as well as all Scripture. In the past, humanity expected to see God only in visions but these authors reveal that seeing Jesus is seeing the glory of God. They amplify Jesus’ words, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).     Regarding Jesus, Paul states, “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). God, who is spirit (John 4:24) was previously visible only to a select few and then only in mysterious veiled surroundings. Paul unequivocally states that Jesus is the image of an invisible person, God. It is problematic to envision an invisible person, let alone, God. However, Paul directs all those who were seeking a vision of God on his throne well as everyone who comes after them to Jesus. While it may elude humanity how this is possible, God provided intimation that this would be the case in his revelation to Moses and throne manifestations.[31]The author of Hebrews affirmed the same concept, as did Paul. God’s glory radiates from Jesus (Heb 1:3). John Piper says, “Exod 33:19cd is a solemn declaration of the nature of God’s glory.”[32]God’s glory is his ultimate purpose and he would never do anything to detract from his glory.[33]So, declaring that Jesus is not only the radiance of his glory but “the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3), provides a significant emphasis that any anthropomorphic descriptions of God points to the ultimate revelation of his glory in Jesus. Application for the Church     The Christian church in America is significantly heterogeneous in doctrine and practice. The deity of Jesus is one element at the heart of this predicament resulting in doctrines denying the need for salvation. Reviewing how God has revealed himself with the understanding that his plan includes his incarnation in Jesus Christ reestablishes Jesus’ deity and salvation through him. This strengthens the church with people who are truly in God’s family. Looking to Jesus’ glory is transforming for individuals and therefore, the church.Deity of Jesus Denied in Current Culture     Barna Research reveals that 56 percent of Americans believe Jesus is God, but only 24 percent believe he was sinless.[34]This is a remarkable revelation. While many people may believe Jesus to be God, their concept of what that means is foreign to the biblical concept of God’s nature. This paper has argued that the manifestations of God’s glory were in part a preparation to reveals his glory in Jesus. Even a cursory study of the Old Testament reveals the holiness of God for he says, “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Lev 11:45). The manifestation of God on his throne reveals his holiness as the seraphim call out to each other, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa 6:3). Certainly, the repeated declaration of God’s holiness during his display of glory should be convincing of his sinlessness. Since these manifestations point forward to Jesus as the representation of his being, Jesus’ deity should include his sinlessness.      Regardless of the opinion polls, numerous churches do not uphold the deity of Jesus. Modern critics who read John 10:30 to mean only that Jesus and the Father had one purpose[35]motivate these churches to deny Christ’s deity. Reflection on God’s glory and revelation of himself, knowing that his appearances prefigured the coming of the Messiah, refutes these critics. There is no reason that God, who is a spirit, would provide anthropomorphic visions to his people if they did not convey meaning beyond symbols of his nature. The opening of this paper explained that God is one. He also prohibited construction of any images of himself (Ex 20:4). It is unexplainable why he would tempt Israel to make images by providing limited vision of a human personage.     An imprecise understanding of Jesus’ deity and his sinlessness results in doctrines in which Jesus cannot possibly be Savior. He had to be God so that his sacrifice was sufficient and he had to be sinless otherwise his sacrifice would have only covered his own sin. Revelation of Jesus’ Glory Is Transforming     “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). When Moses entered the tent of meeting without a veil to talk with God face to face, it was a foreshadowing of the time when every Christian would have the privilege of seeing the glory of God.[36]Israel is hardened so that when they read the Old Testament, they are unable to see the glory of God and relate it to Jesus (2 Cor 3:14). This implies that though we do not see Jesus physically at this time, we can see him and his glory when we read the Bible. As the Old Testament revealed Jesus incompletely but more fully in the New Testament, so the church has the advantage over the saints of the Old Testament to see his glory more fully. When we read of the theophanies and the throne manifestations of his glory, we gain the assurance that God has indeed become incarnate in Jesus and in this way, we behold the glory of Jesus.[37]     Now, the light of Jesus living in us transforms our being. In essence, Jesus’ life is manifested in our bodies (2 Cor 4:10). The transformation is inward as we are being renewed day by day (2 Cor 4:16). Becoming Christians, we put off the old and put on the new self “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24). The church can meditate on the glory of God manifested in the Old Testament that anticipated the incarnation and the glory of Jesus. We can observe our salvation and forgiveness then extend this to others demonstrating his glory shining out from us. The result should be transformed lives and magnified worship of Jesus and God the Father. ConclusionI     n accordance with Calvin’s doctrine of accommodation and the progressive revelation of God from the beginning of the Bible to the end, the manifestations of God’s glory with increasing anthropomorphic qualities prepared the eventual arrival of the Son of God incarnate in Jesus Christ. This preparation was necessary because God first had to remove the concepts of multiple gods in the images of men and animals from their thinking. Yet he had to communicate with his people and start the process of revealing the future Messiah who would come as a human being. He accomplished this by gradually adding human characteristics to his throne visions. Some during the intertestamental times exaggerated these appearances and sought to replicate these visions in their personal devotions. Others developed implausible measurements of God’s body. Still others misunderstood the purpose of the Messiah’s first advent. However, these excesses or misdirections serve to prove that God’s intent was to prepare people to accept Jesus as the incarnation of God. This is evident throughout the Gospels as the disciples recognized Jesus as one with the Father. The rest of the New Testament clarifies that Jesus is indeed the “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3). There is no more appropriate response for people than to receive salvation through Jesus Christ, live transformed lives, and glorify him in worship.
BibliographyAustin, Tom. “The Glory of God.” Reformation and Revival4, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 41-58. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Bogdan G. “Clement of Alexandria's Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies.” Phronema 29, no. 1 (2014): 61-79. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 20, 2015.http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... –––. “Justin Martyr's Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies and the Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism.” Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (March 2014): 34-91. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... –––. “Theophanies and Vision of God in Augustine's de Trinitate: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2008): 67-93. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l...? Chernus, Ira. “Visions of God in Merkabah Mysticism.” Journal For The Study Of Judaism In The Persian, Hellenistic And Roman Period 13, no. 1-2 (December 1982): 123-46. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 14, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... DeSilva, David A. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as Witnesses to Pre-Christian Judaism: A Re-Assessment.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23, no. 1 (2013): 21-68. Accessed October 24, 2014. http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/21. Ensor, Peter W. "The Glorification of the Son of Man: An Analysis of John 13:31-32." Tyndale Bulletin 58, no. 2 (2007): 229-252. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed October 29, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., John S. No One Like Him: the Doctrine of God. Wheaton. Ill: Crossway, 2006. Kindle.Greene, Joseph R. “The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 4 ((December 2012): 717-42. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 17, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... Kanagaraj, Jey J. "Jesus the King, Merkabah Mysticism and the Gospel of John." Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November 1996): 349-366. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed            . http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l....
Kibbe, Michael H. “'Present and Accommodated For': Calvin's God on Mount Sinai.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 1 (2013): 115-31. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., David, and Roxanne Stone. “What Do Americans Believe About Jesus.” Barna. April 1, 2015. Accessed December 9, 2015. https://www.barna.org/barna-update/cu..., Ralph W. "Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism." Concordia Theological Monthly 43, no. 8 (September 1972): 507-517. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 14, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., Meredith G. “Primal Parousia.” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 245-80. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., J. Carl. "God's Self-revelation in Exodus 34:6-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 629 (January 2001): 36-51. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., J. C. “Theophany.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1184-87. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Piper, John. “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14-15: an Interpretation of Exodus 33:19.”Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 3 (September 1979): 203-16. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 16, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., Thomas N. “Jesus of Nazareth: The Final Revelation of God.” Reformation and Revival 8, no. 4 (Fall 1999): 27-36. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Mark R. “Holiness through Beholding the Glory of Christ: A Meditation On 2 Corinthians 3:18.” Emmaus Journal 21, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 59-72. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Cullen I. K. “What Kind of Messiah Did the Jews Expect?” Bibliotheca Sacra 104, no. 60 (October 1947): 483-94. Accessed December 11, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... Stroumsa, Guy G. “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ.” Harvard Theological Review 60, no. 3 (July 1983): 269-88. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 29, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... Vries, Pieter de. "Ezekiel: Prophet of the Name and Glory of YHWH–The Character of His Book and Several of Its Main Themes." Journal Of Biblical And Pneumatological Research4, (September 2012): 94-108. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 1, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l..., John A. “Did Jesus Claim to Be God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 125, no. 498 (1968): 147-56. Accessed December 15, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert....

[1]Scripture in this paper is from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001), Biblesoft. [2]Bogdan G. Bucur, “Theophanies and Vision of God in Augustine's de Trinitate: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective,” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2008): 70, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 20, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l...? [3]Bogdan G. Bucur, “Clement of Alexandria's Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies,” Phronema 29, no. 1 (2014): 61, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 20, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [4]Ibid., 75. [5]J. C. Moyer, “Theophany,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1190. [6]John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: the Doctrine of God, (Wheaton. Ill: Crossway, 2006), 418-419, Kindle. [7]Ira Chernus, “Visions of God in Merkabah Mysticism,” Journal For The Study Of Judaism In The Persian, Hellenistic And Roman Period 13, no. 1-2 (December 1982): 125, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 14, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l...,. [8]Guy G. Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ,” Harvard Theological Review 60, no. 3 (July 1983): 276, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 29, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l...,. [9]Michael H Kibbe, “'Present and Accommodated For': Calvin's God on Mount Sinai.,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 1 (2013): 117, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost accessed November 20, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [10]Vries, Pieter de, "Ezekiel: Prophet of the Name and Glory of YHWH–The Character of His Book and Several of Its Main Themes," Journal Of Biblical And Pneumatological Research4, (September 2012): 108, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 1, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [11]Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Jesus the King, Merkabah Mysticism and the Gospel of John,” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November 1996): 364, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 19, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [12]Kaufmann Kohler and Ludwig Blau, eds., Jewish Encyclopedia(West Conshohocken: JewishEncyclopedia.com, 2011), s.v. “Shekinah,” accessed December 11, 2015, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/art.... [13]Chernus, 141. [14]Ibid., 125. [15]Joseph R. Greene, “The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption.,” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 4 ((December 2012): 718, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 17, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [16]David A. DeSilva, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as Witnesses to Pre-Christian Judaism: A Re-Assessment,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23, no. 1 (2013): 58, accessed October 24, 2014, http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/21. [17]Cullen I. K. Story, “What Kind of Messiah Did the Jews Expect?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104, no. 60 (October 1947): 488, accessed December 11, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [18]Ralph W. Klein, “Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism,” Concordia Theological Monthly 43, no. 8 (September 1972): 507-17, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 14, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [19]Kibbe, 124. [20]Kibbe, 125. [21]Thomas N. Smith, “Jesus of Nazareth: The Final Revelation of God,” Reformation and Revival 8, no. 4 (Fall 1999): 30, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [22]J. Carl Laney, "God's Self-revelation in Exodus 34:6-8, " Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 629 (January 2001): 39. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed October 27, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [23]Ibid., 43. [24]Bogdan G Bucur, “Justin Martyr's Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies and the Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism,” Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (March 2014): 44, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed November 20, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [25]Vries, 106. [26]Peter W. Ensor, “The Glorification of the Son of Man: An Analysis of John 13:31-32,” Tyndale Bulletin58, no. 2 (2007): 237-238, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost, accessed October 29, 2015, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [27]Meredith G. Kline, “Primal Parousia,” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 271, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [28]Kanagaraj, 351-352. [29]Ibid., 353-354. [30]Ibid., 361. [31]Kibbe, 130. [32]John Piper, “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14-15 an Interpretation of Exodus 33:19,” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 3 ((September 1979): 215, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Accessed November 16, 2015. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.l.... [33]Tom Austin, “The Glory of God,” Reformation and Revival4, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 42, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [34]David Kinnaman and Roxanne Stone, “What Do Americans Believe About Jesus,” Barna, April 1, 2015, accessed December 9, 2015, https://www.barna.org/barna-update/cu.... [35]John A. Witmer, “Did Jesus Claim to Be God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125, no. 498 (1968): 153, accessed December 15, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [36]Mark R. Stevenson, “Holiness through Beholding the Glory of Christ: A Meditation On 2 Corinthians 3:18,” Emmaus Journal 21, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 62, accessed October 27, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [37]Stevenson, 66.

Sensible People Are Dignified – Titus 2:6-8

Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. (NASB)
Sensible Young MenWhat does it mean to be sensible? Several versions say it is to be self-controlled. Others say it is to be sober-minded. Then there are a few other versions with other translations. But looking up the Greek word and where it is used elsewhere reveals what many older people think about most young men even in this culture – they are crazy and Paul is urging them to be sane. The word is soofroneoo which means, “to be of sound mind, (a) to be in one's right mind: [used in ] Mark 5:15. (b) to exercise self-control (1) to put a moderate estimate upon oneself, think of oneself soberly: (2) to curb one's passions, [used in] Titus 2:6.”[1]
The word is only used in six verses. The first is, “And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid” (Mark 5:15 ESV). The same incident in Luke 8:35 uses the same word. While demon-possessed, the man had been out of his mind. He had no self-control. In Romans 12:3, Paul urges everyone not to think too much about oneself but to “think with sober judgment.” In 2 Corinthians 5:13 Paul uses the word again in the sense of not being crazy. “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you” (ESV). Beside ourselves could be translated crazy or out of our minds. Right mind is again the word soofroneoo. And then Peter also uses the word in 1 Peter 4:7 where he says, “Be self-controlled and sober-minded” (ESV). If soofroneoowere translated sober-minded, it would read, “Be sober-minded and sober-minded” as Peter uses a different Greek word for sober-minded. What does all this prove? Not much, but it is interesting to see how closely the word is used in opposition to erratic behavior that stems from the mind and lack of self-control. Perhaps it proves that this is more serious than just being sensible.
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2 Tim 1:7 NKJV)
When it comes to sanity and self-control, Christianity has the corner on the market. Going back to the Greek reveals that the word for sound mind is a form of soofroneoo. In this case it is soofronismos,[2] a call to a sound mind or self-control. Where does insanity or a lack of self-control come from? In this verse it is related to fear. In the context of Second Timothy, it looks like Timothy may have been fearful of what other people thought about him, his faith and his association with Paul who was a now a prisoner. The craziness comes when someone feels an overwhelming desire to protect himself because he can’t deal with reality. There are many other reasons for people to act insanely such as wanting something so bad that they are willing to sin to get it. Think about the many reasons people have violent tempers. While we don’t usually call it insanity, it is certainly a lack of self-control. Foolishness and sanity are often linked and “Fools vent their anger, but the wise quietly hold it back” (Prov 29:11 NLT). Modern psychology doesn’t have the answer as it once advised, if does not still continue to do so, to vent your anger.
The answer in is God’s power and God’s love to overcome the fears and craziness that often abound because we either do not trust God, use His power to overcome, or experience and reflect His love. I mentioned Paul’s use of being out of his mind above (2 Corinthians 5:13), but I must follow up here as we can see from the next two verses how God’s love works. “For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor 5:14-15 NKJV). These verses explain how Jesus’ love working in us keeps us from being crazy because we are no longer focused on ourselves but on each other. It is really hard to be crazy when you care for other before yourself.
Good DeedsLook back at Titus 2:7 where the result of being sensible is, “A model of good deeds” (RSV). Some people grow tired of doing good deeds. They want to get out and have some fun. Unfortunately, that kind of fun usually results in regrets the next day, because of either personal consequences or having fun at the expense of others. Paul told the Galatians, “And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal 6:9-10 NASB). Which is more sensible? Having worldly fun or the pleasure of seeing others helped in some way. What we reap by doing good not only benefits our souls now but it is storing up treasures for eternity.
Jesus promised rewards for those who performed acts of kindness to His disciples (Matt 10:42; 25:34-40). On the other hand, he also predicted eternal punishment for those who ignored the needs of others, especially Christians (Matt 25:41-46). Hosea 10:12-14 is clear as God commanded Israel, “Sow for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love” (vs. 12 ESV), but follows it with a description of what happens when people are not sensible but trusting in their own ways. The result is war and destruction.
TeachingUnlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. (2 Cor 2:17 NIV)
The way we are to teach is a topic Paul often hits. In Titus, he provides three qualities for doctrines or teaching. Teaching must first be pure, then dignified, and sound in speech. Purity may relate to the topic of doctrine meaning that it is not corrupt or false. It could also mean as 2 Corinthians 2:17 says, the motivation is to be pure. They are both related. If the motivation is for profit, then the doctrine will likely be distorted to what people want to hear instead of what God wants taught. This would fit with the ESV and NIV translation that the teaching should be done with integrity. Integrity would also include the idea that it wasn’t done shabbily, without proper preparation and study. Too many preachers have an idea that they can just “wing it.”
Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. (Eph 4:29 NASU adds “of the moment”)
Being dignifiedin teaching is another matter. A teacher doesn’t have to come across as stuffy but teachers should be careful in the way they present doctrine. It can’t be flippant or peppered with so many jokes that the main point is lost. I’ve heard some preachers work through a very serious passage that has eternal consequences on a person’s soul or serious reflection on living a godly life. Then they ruin the moment with a flippant comment that makes the audience laugh or snicker. When the Holy Spirit is working on a person’s heart that moment is a time to be dignified.
Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. (Matt 12:13 NKJV)
What does this verse have to do with sound speech? The NLT tends to translate passages like Titus 2:8 according to its own bent so that alternate thoughts are stifled. It says, “Teach the truth.” However, the word that Paul uses to describe speech as sound[3]is only used in the New Testament in relation to healings where the person is made whole or healthy. Applying this word to speech implies that the presentation of the doctrine should be whole or healthy. While truth is certainly part of that, Paul already covered that when saying the doctrine must be pure. Here, we should look for additional, not redundant meaning. Like a hand that is made whole, speech that is sound would include completeness. A big issue with false teachers is that they generally camp on a single topic or issue and don’t teach the whole Word of God.
In context, the soundness of speech (along with purity and dignity) is related to being beyond reproach so that opponents will have nothing bad to say. Have you ever heard someone say or write something that should have been profound but it was so full of grammatical or spelling error it made you wonder if he really was qualified to make a reasonable statement about the subject? While I don’t want to imply that everyone must have advanced degrees to be able to teach or preach as God has used ordinary people like Billy Bray. However, this is usually the exception. I also don’t want to point fingers at others because of my own deficiencies in the area of grammar and spelling (I thank God for a good spelling and grammar checker in Microsoft Word). However, the point is that I don’t want to be so sloppy as to turn people away from what I have to say or write.
Nothing Bad to SayDo everything without complaining and arguing, so that no one can criticize you. Live clean, innocent lives as children of God, shining like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people. (Phil 2:14-15 NLT)
Being dignified and having soundness of speech relate to this verse along with all the other characteristics of a Christians that Paul expressed in Titus. No one likes to be around someone who is complaining or arguing. This goes on and on until it wears people down. “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Prov 12:18 RSV). It is hard enough to be around negative people when they don’t know the Lord, but it is especially irritating if they are Christians. Sometimes I think that unbelievers are even more sensitive about Christians who are obnoxious than we are. We want to extend grace to a believer who is acting poorly but others seem to know that insufferable Christians should know better and get their act together. Besides, it gives them reason to excuse their own behavior, tear down all Christians, and do their best at preventing others to become Christians.
Whether young or old, men or women, Paul’s advice to Titus applies just as well to each of us. A lot depends on how the world sees us as Christians. We don’t act sanely or dignified to impress people, but to please our Lord.

[1]Thayer's Greek Lexicon, s.v. “NT: 4993,” (Biblesoft: 2006), Electronic Database. [2]Ibid., s.v. “NT: 4995.” [3] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, s.v.” NT:5199” (Thomas Nelson, 1985).   Hugies(cf. Eng., "hygiene") is used especially in the Gospels of making sick folk "whole," Matt 12:13; 15:31; Mark 3:5; 5:34; Luke 6:10; John 5:4,6,9,11,14,15; 7:23; also Acts 4:10; of "sound (speech)," Titus 2:8, Biblesoft. 

Honoring God’s Word by Teaching – Titus 2:3-5

Similarly, teach the older women to live in a way that honors God. They must not slander others or be heavy drinkers. Instead, they should teach others what is good. These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to work in their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God. (TLB)
Older Women
Do you wonder why much more instruction is given to women than to men? Everything that applies to the men also applies to women as he says, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior” (Titus 2:3 ESV). That word, likewise, pulls in all the qualities that he addressed for older men and applies them to older women. These instructions parallel verses that list the qualifications for elders and their wives (1 Tim 3:8-13). Perhaps the reason that he spends more time with the women is that he previously (in Timothy) he has already instructedmen. Perhaps it goes back to the references about Cretans and there is something specific in this culture that women have been neglecting. Whatever the Holy Spirit’s reasons for this, it provides some good reminders for families and is applicable to both men and women.
Teachers and Trainers
Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. (1 Peter 3:1-2 RSV)
Where the NASU says that the women should encourage younger women, many versions and the NASU footnote use the word train. There are several implications of this instruction. The first is that older women have a duty to help younger women become godly wives. The second implication is that younger women need to be trained to love their husbands and children. We often think this comes naturally. Yet, the Lord used the idea that a woman could forget about her child in contrast to himself to emphasize that He doesn’t forget us (Is 49:15). Since it is possible for women not to love their husbands and children, they need to be taught how. By the way, men, I see ads on TV that tell us we need to train our boys to respect women. We shouldn’t need TV to tell us to do what is right.
The emphasis on women being submissive (Eph 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1) perhaps overshadows the reality that there needs to be love as well as respect. If we go back to Genesis 3:16, we find a punishment inflicted on Eve for her disobedience to God and it is passed down through the ages, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (NIV). While there is a lot of controversy over what this means, many believe that this means women have a sinful desire to rule over their husbands but God’s order is to have a hierarchy in the family with the husband as the head. If this true, it means that Christian women have a temptation that must be resisted. Paul’s solution to this is for older women who have found how to live in harmony with their husbands to teach younger women how to love their husbands. Peter says they do this by their godly behavior. I’ve also found out that what’s good for women is also is good for men. A godly husband with his behavior is able to resolve marital problems if he is patient and not overbearing demanding submission and subservience. Maybe Paul should have told older men to teach the younger ones as well, but the truth is that the instruction to the women is just as applicable to men as it is to women.
Submissive to Whom?
Submissive to their own husbands. (Titus 2:5 ESV)
Most translations correctly put the word “own” in this verse. While we may think it redundant to add “own” to “their,” the Greek distinguishes between simply saying it is their husbands and it is their own husbands. The word used for their own is idios,[1]which is used to differentiate between what belongs to one rather than belonging to another. Their (autos[2]) is used in other verses where there is no distinction between the ownership. An example is when the three kings opened their treasures (Matt 2:11). The implication is that their treasures were shared. With all that said, the implication is clear that there is no requirement for the women to be submissive to other women’s husbands. The point of this is the mistaken idea that women must be submissive to all men. It is very likely that the first century culture thought that women should be submissive to all men but Paul repeats what he said to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22) and what Peter said (1 Peter 3:1) applying submission only to the woman’s own husband. It also means that some of the appalling sexual communes are not biblical in any sense. Finally, it would mean that the normal marriage relationship would be only one man and one woman.
Shame on God’s Word
 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." (Rom 2:24 NIV)
This is the key to why Titus is supposed to establish elders who have great integrity and why everyone should behave in a manner worthy of the name of Jesus. Whether it is older men or women or the ones they are instructing, younger believers and their children, the point is that bad behavior blasphemes the name of Christ. You would think that people who are “foolish … disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending … life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another” (Titus 3:3 NASU) – and that is what we once were - would not care how Christians behave if we were no different from them. Surprise! They know better and when they see Christians doing these things, it casts derision on the name of our holy God.
In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. (1 Peter 4:4 NKJV)
Unfortunately, even when we do live godly lives, unbelievers will still find fault. Living a Christian life is a “Catch 22.” If we fail at a point, we are condemned as hypocrites. If we live godly live, we are condemned as being judgmental, self righteous, or intolerant, trying to force other to live up to our standards. Sometimes these things are true and we should avoid them. Other times, it is simply the world doing what the world does, trying to suppress righteousness and the truth (Rom 1:18).
When people's lives please the Lord, even their enemies are at peace with them. (Prov 16:7 NLT)
How should we react to all of this? We have to get our eyes off the world and people who will condemn us one way or another. Generally, and proverbs speak in generalities, when we are God-pleasers instead of people-pleasers, then we will not have many enemies. But we also know that at times in our lives, walking with Jesus and living to please him will bring persecution of one sort or another (2 Tim 3:12). Our goal is, “If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18 RSV). We know that we will have opposition, but we do not want that opposition to come because we claim to be Christians and are living ungodly lives bring shame on the Word of God.

[1]Thayer's Greek Lexicon, s.v. “NT:2398,”, (Biblesoft: 2006), Electronic Database. [2]Ibid., “NT:846.”

Sound Doctrine and Older Men – Titus 2:1-2

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. (NASB)
Effects of Sound Doctrine
Paul wants Titus to be a contrast to the empty talkers who preach doctrines that lead families astray. The contrast is going to show the effects of sound doctrine on families and relationships of slaves to owners. While Paul doesn’t list which doctrines of the Christian faith result in these snippets of advice, I wouldn’t be surprised if we can find other references in the Bible that will support them.
Our Purpose
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10 ESV)
Since Paul is emphasizing outward behavior, it would be easy to think that people who have been taught to get their act together are the ones that are saved. However, aspects of the doctrine of salvation make it clear that this is a result of salvation not the means of salvation. Where Ephesians 2:8-9 emphasize that God’s grace saves by a gift of faith from Him and has nothing to do with our actions, Ephesians 2:10 emphasizes the result of that salvation.
His workmanship – notice the possessive pronoun in the first phrase. We are the work of God. Salvation didn’t come to us because we cleaned up our act, but it came because God worked in us. He was working long before we made a decision to follow Jesus. It was His decision to save us even before He created the world (Eph 1:4).
Created in Christ Jesus – it is through Jesus that He has been working. While God made the decision to save us long before the earth, that work was only completed when he re-created us in Jesus. Before our salvation, we were different beings than we are now. Before, we were slaves to sin (Rom 6:19-20) and the master of sin, the devil (Eph 2:1-3). But in Jesus, we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). We are something totally different from what we were before. It is the fulfillment of the promise God gave to Ezekiel that He would give Israel a new heart and His Spirit so that they would want to obey (Ezek 36:26-27).
For good works – With a new heart and the Holy Spirit living in us, we are now able to do the good that we should have been doing all along. While salvation is not a result of good works, Jesus made it clear that good works can only come from a heart that has been cleansed of evil (Matt 15:19, Matt 7:15-17). This is the effect of salvation and it is this doctrine that Paul wanted Titus to teach.
Older Men
Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life. (Prov 16:31) NIV
Paul starts with older men because they are the ones that should be demonstrating a righteous life. They are the ones who have gained wisdom through a long life. If they are Christ followers, then that wisdom should be godly and reflect exactly what James described, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (James 3:17 NASU).
However, since Paul had to address these issues with the Cretans, it means that either the older ones were young in their faith or they had not applied good doctrine to their lives. The first are understandable and hopefully teachable. But the latter have no excuse. They have been living the way they wanted and their only option is to repent or face the Lord’s discipline.
Another interesting thing is that the qualities that Titus is to teach older men parallels the qualities of elders. Temperance is also translated as sober. This particular word is also used in 1 Timothy 3:2. It is most often used in relation to restraint in drinking wine. It is not referring to sober-minded as in 1 Peter 4:7 or 5:8. Just as it is not fitting for a church elder to be addicted to wine, neither is it fitting for an older person to be a drunkard. It is often the case that we think that an older person in not capable of changing or that it is too late to help them get sober. “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” is the common response to those who don’t want to change their life-long bad habit.
My dad was past 70 when he stopped smoking. He supposedly started when he was seven. Of course, he had incentive to stop when cancer caught up with him. And that is just the point. Being sober or temperate or being taught to overcome past bad habits is really a matter of incentive. The incentive for a Christian to get sober is to honor God. If they are not willing to renounce their behavior, then there has to be a question of how dedicated they are to their Savior.
Not Childish or Child-like
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor 13:11 NKJV)
Teaching a man to be dignified and sensible is often seen as stifling fun, creativity, and the joy of living. But, that is not Paul’s point. There is no prohibition of having a fun-filled life, however we must not think and reason as a child does. Children do not have the capacity to understand and it is only when they get older they can process things as an adult. They are very self absorbed and decisions will almost always be what they perceive to be best for them. Their goals are short term and don’t put others first. They have to be taught to renounce selfish ambition and look out for others (Phil 2:3-4). They have to be taught that there is more to this life and not live for instant gratification (2 Cor 4:18).
I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it. (Luke 18:17 NLT)
Some may point to Jesus’ words and insist that even as adults, there is virtue in being child-like. If they do, then they are misrepresenting the meaning. The context is in coming to Jesus, not living daily life. Child-like is carefree with regard to responsibilities as they are too young to support families hold down jobs or make decisions that affect not only their lives, but the lives of others. It doesn’t mean that our faith must not hold up to good reason just because a child can’t understand all the truths of Jesus’ atonement, virgin birth, or other doctrines. Child-like in coming to Jesus is being totally dependent on Jesus alone for salvation as a child has total dependence on his or her parents. It means trusting the authority of the Bible just as a child trusts his parents’ authority for his own good.
You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.(Ps 4:7 ESV)

So there is a big difference between being child-like, childish, and putting away childish things. It means that adult believers must accept the responsibilities of being a Christian and living an exemplary life. It doesn’t mean they can’t laugh, play, and enjoy life. It means that their laughter must be pure, not from crudeness (Eph 5:4) or the expense of other. Our joy should be centered on Jesus not in the abundance of the world or the cravings and desires of the world (1 John 2:15-17). That is the joy that can come only from knowing the Father through Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit indwells us. 

Gay-marriage: The Church’s Response to Married Gay Christians

 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARYGay-marriage: The Church’s Response to Married Gay ChristiansSubmitted to Dr. Christopher Moody, in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the completion of the courseTHEO 530 B01Systematic Theology IIbyRay RuppertOctober 9, 2015Table of ContentsIntroduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1Defining Marriage .......................................................................................................................... 2Christian Definition .............................................................................................................. 2Gay Definition ...................................................................................................................... 3Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 4Moral Status of Homosexuality ...................................................................................................... 5Conservative Christian Stance .............................................................................................. 6Gay Stance ............................................................................................................................ 8Justification for Welcoming Homosexuals into the Church ........................................................ 9Concerns ............................................................................................................................... 9Redefining the Sin ................................................................................................................ 10Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 12Church Discipline ........................................................................................................................... 13Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 16

Introduction     The issue of same-sex marriage is a big concern for the church. Christian parents are discovering that their children are gay.[1]Young people have gay friends and they do not view the church as a safe place.[2]There is division among individual Christians, denominations, and within denominations over the acceptance of homosexuals into the church.[3]Recent high court decisions in the United States and other countries, which enforce the right for homosexuals to marry, underscore the need for the church to determine if it should accept legally married people of the same sex. This paper cannot adequately discuss all of the various arguments for or against homosexuality and gay-marriages. However, it will provide biblical and gay definitions of marriage with a brief evaluation as well as the biblical and gay positions regarding homosexuality. Some justify accepting married Christian homosexuals into the church in the same way the church accepted Gentiles[4]or remarried divorced couples[5]by redefining homosexuality as sinless, and contending sexual fulfillment is a basic human need. This paper will argue that a gay-marriage is a proclamation of a continued intentional sinful lifestyle and churches should exercise church discipline with any professing Christian gay-married couples in the church for their own eternal good.     This paper will use the terms gay and homosexual interchangeably to refer to homosexuals (male) and lesbians (females) and their sexual activity regardless of transgender modifications. Gay marriage and same-sex marriage are interchangeable, meaning the legal union of two people of the same sex. Defining Marriage     A clear definition of marriage from both Christian and homosexual viewpoints is required to understand their differences as well as similarities. Christians usually approach the subject from a biblical viewpoint and add other societal concerns to the argument. Proponents of same-sex-marriage often reverse the two emphasizing societal and even biological concerns first. These definitions will only examine the biblical arguments.Christian Definition     The Bible is the authoritative source of the Christian definition of marriage. The Christian definition starts with Genesis 1:27–28, 2:18, and 23–24, showing that God inaugurated human sexual relationships between a man and a woman.[6]Second, God created them in his image and instructed them to procreate. Before the fall, God’s image was undefiled in them implying that this is the normal sexual relationship for humanity.[7]God started the human race with two people of opposite sex. He did not make provision for sexual relationships of the same sex as this would not enable filling the earth (Gen 1:28). Third, Genesis 2:23-24 adds the concept that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman; a relationship that Jesus endorsed and clarified in Matthew 19:4-6.[8]The fourth aspect of marriage addresses companionship using Genesis 2:22-25[9]and the fifth is that marriage provides for purity in sexual relationships (1 Cor 7:8-9 and Heb 13:4).[10]Sixth is that the enjoyment of sex (1 Cor 7:3-5: Heb 13:4) is approved by God only within marriage.[11]     In summary, there are five points defining marriage for Christians. (1) It is between one man and one woman. (2) Marriage is God’s design for procreation. (3) Marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God. (4) Marriage fulfills the human need for companionship. (5) Sex within marriage is pure. (6) Marriage is God’s provision for sexual enjoyment.Gay Definition     The gay community does not define marriage in the same sense that Christians do. Rather than propose a definition with clearly defined points they simply claim that same-sex marriage does not change the definition of marriage. However, the Freedom to Marry website offers a very brief definition, “What defines a marriage is love and commitment, and the ability to protect your family.”[12]In arguing for the rights to marry, fairness is a common issue. Usually, the argument has a legal basis supporting the claim that homosexuals have the same inalienable rights as straights and that should include marriage.[13]Liberal biblical scholars often focus on the issues of justice and love when they argue for accepting same-sex marriage.[14]The details of these arguments for gay-marriage must include an argument affirming that homosexuality is not sinful, as discussed below. If the contention that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage defined by Christians, then their definition must include the same points as a Christian marriage.Evaluation     The very first point of marriage is that it is between people of the opposite sex. Notwithstanding the various polygamous relations in the Bible, the Old and New Testaments affirm one man and one woman as the standard for marriage.[15]Same-sex marriage fails on the first point.     Same-sex marriage fails on the second point as well. Other than human cloning, there is no biological way that a same-sex marriage can procreate. While same-sex marriages may have children by artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or adoption, the reality is that, a third person of the opposite sex must be included in the equation. Robert Myrant succinctly states, “The introduction of a third person, even though he is ‘represented’ only by his sperm, breaks the one bond between a husband and his wife.”[16]Arguments claiming procreation is not a valid point because some heterosexual couples either choose not to have children or are incapable is a straw man argument. The point is that no same-sex couple can ever procreate.      Same-sex marriage may certainly be a covenant between two people. However, the part that is missing is God’s blessing of the covenant. If God established marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 1:28, 2:24; Matt 19:6) only with a man and woman, then believing that God blesses a same-sex marriage is a huge error in interpretation.[17]Again, same-sex marriage fails to be the same as Christian marriage.     The fourth point of marriage, fulfilling the need for human companionship is a huge issue for granting same-sex marriage. The argument is that homosexuals seek the same levels of love and trust as heterosexuals.[18]This is the only point that does not differ from heterosexual marriage.     To define same-sex marriage the same as Christian marriage it must also agree that sex within marriage is pure and it is where God intended sexual enjoyment to occur. So far, these discussions have not addressed the issue of whether or not God made provision for homosexual sex. The discussion regarding the sinfulness of and God’s disapproval of homosexuality is the focus of the next section, which will show that same-sex marriage cannot be called pure or God’s provision for sexual enjoyment because their homosexual activity is by definition sinful.[19]     Out of six points in the Christian definition of marriage, only one is applicable to same-sex marriage. To accommodate the same-sex marriage definition requires a marginalization of the concept of marriage[20]and becomes only a civil covenant based on providing companionship and legal rights to the participants.Moral Status of Homosexuality     The status of homosexuality, legally and morally, is a major factor when deciding whether same-sex marriage is acceptable. History shows that long before same-sex marriage became an issue, homosexual supporters sought to decriminalize and then normalize homosexuality. Homosexuality is not any different than it was fifty years ago but public perception of it is different.[21]Christians need to reexamine the biblical basis against homosexuality before they can make an informed decision about accepting gay-marriages within their congregations. Both homosexuals and Christians argue that Scripture supports their position but gay supporters use some inventive arguments; Christians must evaluate them from the Bible and stand on their conviction.[22]This section will cover several passages used by both Christians and homosexual supporters in different ways.Conservative Christian Stance     Genesis 19:1-11 describes the attempted gang rape of two angels who visited Lot in Sodom. A clear exegesis of the passage reveals that the citizens, young and old, who wanted to know the visitors, intended to know them in a sexual way. Otherwise, Lot would not have called their intention wicked (Gen 19:7). He would not have offered his daughters instead (Gen 19:8).[23]The Lord came to see if Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was indeed grave (Gen 18:20). The attempted action against the angels demonstrates that homosexuality was at least one of their grave sins.     Leviticus 18:22 is a clear command not to lie with a male in the same way as with a woman. There should be no confusion about this verse. God calls it an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 repeats the command. The context of both verses is among many other verses regulating sexuality. While the pagan nations may have included some of them in idolatry, it is doubtful all of them were. The overriding issue is that God condemned them all.[24]John MacArthur makes it clear; rather than associating the verses with pagan idolatry, they demonstrate that homosexuality is “morally equal to sins such as adultery, incest, and bestiality.”[25]These verses make no inference that condemnation applies only as a part of cult worship. The conclusion should be that these sexual sins apply universally, whether in cult worship or not.       Romans 1:18-28 is a clear statement that God views homosexuality as dishonorable and contrary to nature as he created it. These unnatural desires are actually God’s judgment on people who are in rebellion against him.[26]It is unfathomable that God would pronounce homosexuality as a judgment against people who are rebelling against him and on the other hand, pronouncement it as a blessing for those who want to honor God yet believe their homosexuality is natural. Romans 1:18-23 clearly show that any attempt to suppress the truth results in sin. In addition, verse 20 says they are without excuse because nature convicts them of God’s nature, which includes his holiness. The previous Old Testament verses clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination to God and this means that people who think otherwise are rebelling against him and make idols of their own thinking. In the case of homosexuality, they have made it an idol replacing God’s clear instructions.     1 Corinthians 6:9-10 clearly relates unrighteous people with those who practice three very specific sins involving sexual immorality. They include homosexuality with other sins that Christians often see as lesser. However, the outcome of all these sinful lives is the same, exclusion from the kingdom of God.[27]Gay Stance     Gays argue that in Genesis 19:1-11, the Sodomites did not want sexual relations with the two angels but they wanted to become acquainted with the visitors. They support this from other uses of the same Hebrew word for know.[28]This implies that homosexuality was not the reason for the destruction of Sodom. This understanding requires one to ignore the context of the verses.     Gays completely dismiss Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which prohibits laying with a male the same as a woman, because they believe the verses relate to cult prostitution. The reason that it is an abomination to God is not that it is inherently wrong but because of its connection to idol worship. They say that scholars on both sides of the debate agree with this interpretation.[29]     Gays redefine the word, natural, in Romans 1:24-28 to achieve their biblical approval of homosexuality. Verses 26 and 27 describe God giving up men and women to dishonorable passions and thereby having unnatural relations. Since gays and lesbians believe their passions for the same sex are natural because of their unchangeable sexual orientation, these verses do not apply to them. However if they perverted their natural orientation toward homosexual relations and instead have heterosexual relations then their action would fall under the condemnation of these verses.[30]     Homosexual supporters also argue that Paul was not describing Christians who are homosexuals. Paul clearly states that those given over to these degrading passions are those who have rejected God. Rather, since these Christian homosexuals love God, he would never give them over to unnatural lusts. Therefore, these verses only apply to non-Christians.[31]They do not explain why it would be a sin for one group but not another.     In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, gays interpret the word for homosexual as self indulgent and believe that homosexuals (NASU) refers to homosexual prostitution.[32]In addition, Paul encourages Timothy to moderately use wine (1 Tim 5:23). Paul’s encouragement to eat and drink to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31) is not license for over indulgence. Since gluttony and drunkenness are condemned but allowed in moderation, the same should apply to their definition of homosexuality. Therefore, gay supporters argue that Corinthians should not be a proof text against homosexuality.[33]     The next section will evaluate the gay understanding of these verses along with other justifications for allowing homosexuals into the church.Justification for Welcoming Homosexuals into the Church Concerns     In addition to the concerns for people finding the need to deal with friends and relatives that are gay, Jenell Paris claims that labeling homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right “puts same-sex-attracted believers in an impossible situation.”[34]They face a choice between leaving the church to live out their choice, attempt to become heterosexual, or be celibate and perceived as second-class citizens.[35]The concept that sexual fulfillment is a God initiated need in the same sense as a need for food is one foundation for accepting gay-marriages. While the Bible establishes sexual relationships as natural, it is always in the relationship of marriage. It does not establish sex as a need; otherwise, it would not specify singleness and abstinence in a positive light (1 Cor 7:8) or prohibit premarital sex.[36]       Another concern is whether the church should single out homosexuality as the worst sin. If the church does not treat adultery and co-habitation with the same seriousness, then it is possible that the church’s response to homosexuality is a sinful response. This hypocrisy is visible and may turn some away from God’s grace.[37]James Beck challenges the church, “The Church needs now more than ever a balanced approach, one that expresses the compassion of Christ for sinners as well as one that speaks the truth about homosexual behavior.”[38]What one person calls balanced another may call vindictive. As has already been seen, some deny that homosexuality is a sin. The church must have a biblical response.Redefining the Sin     Sylvia Keesmaat provides one justification of welcoming homosexuals into the church. She evaluated the way the early church welcomed Gentiles into the church and applied it as a model for excusing homosexuality among professing Christians. Keesmaat believes, “We need to discern what such faithful living looks like here and now, in new cultural situations, and in the light of new workings of the Spirit.”[39]     Keesmaat brings several principles to bear on understanding the authority of the Bible as whole. She refers to Exodus 32 – 34 and Hosea 11 as example of forgiveness rather than judgment or destruction.[40]The implication of this is that rather than punishing homosexuals, the church should find ways to forgive and take care of the hurts inflicted on them within the church.      In Acts 15, the Jewish leaders in the church were concerned that the immoral and profane reputation of Gentiles would harm the church. They believed that the only way to guarantee leaving their idolatry behind was circumcision and committing to the Torah (Acts 15:5).[41]After listening to Peter’s defense, James pronounced the final answer and Keesmaat states, “The citation: ‘The words of the prophets agree with this’ [Acts 15:15], not ‘this agrees with the prophets.’ Scripture is seen to agree with the contemporary working of the Spirit, not the other way around.”[42]The premise of welcoming homosexuals into the church is simply that the church must look at the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christian homosexuals and read Scripture to accept homosexuality instead of prohibiting it.[43]     While Keesmaat offers insight into an overall view of God’s judgment and forgiveness, she does what is unthinkable from a biblical viewpoint. She alters the meaning of Scripture to fit the circumstances. She declares right wrong (Isa 5:20) based on human observation of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) in the lives of homosexuals.[44]However, she ignores the fruit of self-control and the description of works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19 that includes sexual immorality. She therefore also sides with others who claim that the sexual immorality prohibited by the Jerusalem council only applied to sex in conjunction with idolatry.[45]     Keesmaat is not alone in this view. Lewis Smedes’ conclusion comes from a different angle. In the 1940s, His denomination, Christian Reformed, considered people who married a new spouse after divorce as adulterers based on Mark 10:11. The church excluded them unless they broke up their illegitimate marriage. He asks, “Could Jesus have actually meant the church to cast away people who were committed to him, on grounds that they were committed to each other too?” In the 1950s, the denomination reversed its stand and accepted these people in the church. He applies the same principles to welcoming committed homosexual couples.[46]     Smedes bases his theology on two points. The first is that God established humans with a need for a marriage-like relationship with another person. He believes homosexuals can only have this fulfillment in a homosexual marriage because it is the only way available for them.[47]     His second point is that Romans 1:18-27 is not about committed Christian homosexuals in a marriage-like relationship. Rather, it only applies to people who have rejected God. He believes Christian homosexuals have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts because they have never been heterosexual. In addition, Smedes argues that homosexuality in a marriage-like relationship is true to their nature so it is unfair to require a person with homosexual persuasions to be celibate.[48]Evaluation     It is impossible to interpret the Scriptures cited by homosexuals to condone their activity without appealing to questionable hermeneutics and logic. The clear understanding of the contested verses demonstrates the sinfulness of homosexuality. Applying the fuzzy logic condoning homosexuality from 1 Cor 6:9-10 would mean that moderate adultery, stealing, and swindling should also be acceptable in the church. However, this does not nullify the fact that many homosexuals claim to know and love Jesus strongly claiming as does Mel White, “We can be gay and Christian.”[49]They believe that God would not turn Christians over to unnatural lusts, which has implications regarding how the church must deal with Christians who are practicing homosexuals and wish to be married in the church. It is apparent that the way conservative Christians define marriage prohibits classification of a union between two homosexuals as a marriage. Even if most arguments against same-sex marriage were a failure, the issue is that a same-sex marriage involves homosexuality, which is an abomination to God. The concerns of well-meaning Christians for the spiritual welfare of homosexuals are not biblical reasons to let the church redefine homosexuality and gay-marriage as sinless. What then, should the church do with professing Christians who are avowed homosexuals and want to marry?Church Discipline     So far, it has been demonstrated that homosexuality is a sin (Gen 18:20, 19:7), an abomination to God (Lev 18:22, 20:13), not natural (Rom 1:26-27), and reason for exclusion from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). When two homosexuals unite in what they call marriage, all they accomplish is an agreement establishing monogamous companionship between them. It has none of the other characteristics of a Christian marriage. More than anything else, it is a declaration to the world that they will engage in homosexuality and even those supporting gay-marriage understand the church’s position as stated by Piers Benn, “If gay sex per se is bad enough, a solemnly declared intention to carry on with it in a particular relationship is, in an important way, worse.”[50]     Church discipline is the only consistent way to deal with the issue of practicing homosexual Christians in or out of a marriage relationship. Having declared their intention to continue in sin requires a response from the church. Several points need clarification regarding church discipline in order to avoid the implications of gay bashing or singling out homosexuality as a sin worse than other sins. These points also demonstrate that church discipline is a better response than redefining homosexuality as natural and not sinful.       1. Church discipline is only for Christians who do not repent of their sin. 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 applies to a person who was among the believers. Paul clarified that this did not apply to those outside the church (1 Cor 5:12).[51]Dealing with those outside the church is another subject.     2. Church discipline provides instruction (2 Tim 3:16-4:2). Since God inspired the Bible, those who would desire to redefine sin cannot alter it.[52]Church discipline reinforces this truth to the entire congregation.[53]It is an opportunity to teach that homosexuality is wrong.     3. Church discipline reinforces accountability to live godly lives as obedient members of the church (Rom 16:17-20).[54]Christians who live immoral lives weaken the church. If the church does not discipline those who want homosexual relations even in what they call marriage, it condones their actions and encourages others to continue in the same sin. In Deuteronomy, multiple passages command purging the evil from Israel and Deuteronomy 17:13 provides the added reason as a deterrent to sin.     4. Church discipline also provides for reconciliation and restoration to the church as described in Matthew 18:15-20 and 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. It is not to be done out of hatred but genuine concern for the spiritual wellbeing of the transgressor (Lev 19:17).[55]     Genuine concern and love for a person caught in sin, whether it is homosexuality or other sins, must realize that allowing people to continue in unrepentant sin has worse eternal consequences than relieving their temporal perceived needs. If they call themselves Christians and do not recognize their sin, they may not have eternal life (2 Cor 13:5). If they are truly Christians and do not repent, they may be forfeiting eternal rewards (2 Cor 5:10). It is much better to discipline them and pray for their repentance than to allow them to believe they are in right standing with God. [56]Conclusion     It is abundantly clear that the definition of marriage for Christians and homosexuals is vastly different. While they both recognize the element of companionship, gay-marriage cannot fulfill other points of the definition, between one man and one woman, designed for procreation, a covenant ordained by God, purity of sex, and God’s provision for sexual enjoyment. While both supporters and opponents of gay-marriage use Scripture to maintain their positions, gay supporters must rely on inventive methods of hermeneutics to conclude that homosexuality is not a sin. In addition they must take an unbiblical position that sexual fulfillment is necessary for a person to live a normal Christian life. This last issue is a foundational point in insisting on allowing gays to marry. Same-sex marriage is therefore a blatant declaration of two people’s intent on having a sinful lifestyle. The church has the responsibility to tell the truth and discipline those within the church who practice homosexuality whether in a marriage or not. Disciplining provides opportunity to teach the congregation as well as provide restoration for the unrepentant. Not disciplining members hurts the church and does not show genuine love because it does not seek the best for the sinners, their eternal good. BibliographyBeck, James R. “Evangelicals, Homosexuality, and Social Science.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 83-97. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. N.p.: Archon Books, 1955. Accessed September 30, 2015. https://books.google.com/books?id=Yjq.... Google Books. Benn, Piers. “The Gay Marriage Debate - Afterthoughts.” Think 13, no. 36 (Spring 2014): 23-31. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/14..., Ralph. An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality. Chicago: Moody, 1963. Quoted in Gary R. Gromacki, “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 63-95. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Denny. “How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 31-36. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Samuel. “A Review of Justin Lee, ‘Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.’” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 18, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 38-39. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert... to Marry. “Marriage 101 | Freedom to Marry.” Accessed September 28, 2015. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/m..., Gary R. “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 63-95. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Sylvia C. “Welcoming in the Gentiles A Biblical Model for Decision Making.” In Living Together in the Church: Including Our Differences. Edited by Greig Dunn and Chris Ambidge. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 2004. Accessed September 4, 2015. http://ir.icscanada.edu/icsir/handle/.... Kitchens, Ted G. “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 490 (April 1991): 201-13. Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Justin. Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate. Reprint ed. New York: Jericho Books, 2012.Lenow, Evan. “The Challenge of Homosexuality for Gender Roles.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 28-34. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., John. “God’s Word On Homosexuality: The Truth About Sin and the Reality of Forgiveness.” The Master's Seminary Journal 19, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 153-74. Accessed September 30, 2015. http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj19f.pdf.McGi..., Mark. “The Church’s Response to the Homosexual.” Journal of Ministry and Theology14, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 129-63. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Robert. “Biblical Ethics, Biotechnology, and Human Cloning.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 50-61. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Jenell Williams. The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011.Payne, Tony. “Gay Spin City.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 1,18-19. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Christopher L. “Same-Sex Marriage: A Current South African Christian Perspective.”Conspectus 2, no. 1 (September 2006): 40-56. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Roger L. “Discipline in the Local Church.” Central Bible Quarterly 2, no. 3 (Fall 1959): 1-28. Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Ron. “Bearing Better Witness.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life no. 208 (December 2010): 47-50. Accessed August 25, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/81..., Lewis B. “Like the Wideness of the Sea? - Perspectives Journal.” Perspectives A Journal of Reformed Thought. May 1999, Repost September 1, 2014. Accessed September 4, 2015. http://perspectivesjournal.org/blog/2..., Jenise T. “The Biblical Theology Regarding Homosexuality.” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 14-21. Accessed September 2, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Mel. Stranger at the Gate: to Be Gay and Christian in America. New York: Plume, 1995.


[1] Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate, Reprint ed. (New York: Jericho Books, 2012), 5.[2] Ibid., 7.[3] Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are, (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2011), 85-86.[4] Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Welcoming in the Gentiles A Biblical Model for Decision Making,” in Living Together in the Church: Including Our Differences, ed. Greig Dunn and Chris Ambidge,  (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 2004), 31-48, accessed September 4, 2015, http://ir.icscanada.edu/icsir/handle/... Lewis B. Smedes, “Like the Wideness of the Sea? - Perspectives Journal,” Perspectives A Journal of Reformed Thought, May 1999, repost September 1, 2014, accessed September 4, 2015, http://perspectivesjournal.org/blog/2... Jenise T. Stewart, “The Biblical Theology Regarding Homosexuality,” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 14-21, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 19-20.[7] Denny Burk, “How Do We Speak About Homosexuality?,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 31-36, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 34.[8] Christopher L. Peppler, “Same-Sex Marriage: A Current South African Christian Perspective,” Conspectus 2, no. 1 (September 2006): 45, accessed August 28, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 43--44.[9] Gary R. Gromacki, “Why Be Concerned About Same-Sex Marriage,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 9, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 84-85, accessed August 25, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 76.[10] Evan Lenow, “The Challenge of Homosexuality for Gender Roles,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 17, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 33, accessed August 25, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 31.[11] Robert Myrant, “Biblical Ethics, Biotechnology, and Human Cloning,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 3, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 50-61, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 60.[12] “Marriage 101 | Freedom to Marry,” Freedom to Marry, accessed September 28, 2015, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/m... Ron Sider, “Bearing Better Witness,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life no. 208 (December 2010): 47-50, accessed August 25, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/docview/81..., 50.[14] Peppler, 45.[15] Stewart, 20.[16] Myrant, 55.[17] Samuel Emadi, “A Review of Justin Lee, ‘Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from Gays-vs.-Christians Debate,’” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 18, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 38-39, accessed September 2, 2015,http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 39.[18] Smedes.[19] Lenow, 31.[20] Peppler, 52.[21] Tony Payne, “Gay Spin City,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 1,18-19, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., n.p.[22] Ibid.[23] Gromacki, 79.[24] Stewart, 22.[25] John MacArthur, “God’s Word On Homosexuality: The Truth About Sin and the Reality of Forgiveness,” The Master's Seminary Journal 19, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 153-74, accessed September 30, 2015, http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj19f.pdf, 165.[26] Burk, 34.[27] Stewart, 18.[28] Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (n.p.: Archon Books, 1955), accessed September 30, 2015, https://books.google.com/books?id=Yjq.... Google Books, 4.[29] Lee, 177-178.[30] Gromacki, 84-85.[31] Smedes.[32] Gromacki, 86.[33] Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody, 1963), 6, quoted in Gromacki, 87.[34] Paris, 95.[35] Paris, 95-96.[36] Pepple, 49.[37] Mark McGinniss, “The Church’s Response to the Homosexual,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 14, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 129-63, accessed August 28, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 137, 140, 147.[38] James R. Beck, “Evangelicals, Homosexuality, and Social Science,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 83-97, accessed September 2, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 88.[39] Keesmaat, 30-31.[40] Keesmaat, 32.[41] Ibid., 36.[42] Ibid., 38.[43] Ibid., 39.[44] Ibid., 44.[45] Ibid., 40.[46] Smedes.[47] Ibid.[48] Ibid.[49] Mel White, Stranger at the Gate: to Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Plume, 1995), 306.[50] Piers Benn, “The Gay Marriage Debate - Afterthoughts,” Think 13, no. 36 (Spring 2014): 23-31, accessed August 25, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/docview/14..., 27.[51] Ted G. Kitchens, “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148, no. 490 (April 1991): 201-13, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 204.[52] Roger L. Peterson, “Discipline in the Local Church,” Central Bible Quarterly 2, no. 3 (Fall 1959): 1-28, accessed September 24, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., 8.[53] MacArthur, 156.[54] Ibid., 10.[55] Ibid., 12-13, 17-18.[56]MacArthur, 155-156.

What Happens Immediately After People Die – Disembodied Existence

     This is the fifth and last post in my series and covers Disembodied Existence.      This series covers five leading thoughts about what happens to us after death, Annihilation, Catholic Options, Soul Sleep, Instantaneous Resurrection (intermediate body), and Disembodied Existence. None of these postings is an exhaustive discussion but I want to see what the Bible has to say about each.·         Disembodied Existence – this is the soul departing the body to go to paradise (believers) or Hades (unbelievers).[1]     Millard Erickson has a problem with belief that we will have some sort of body in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection. His problems lie with (1) the difference between Gehenna and Hades in the New Testament. He contends that Hades is temporary and only ungodly souls go there without a body. Gehenna (hell) is the eternal place of punishment and the ungodly body and soul end up there. The souls of the righteous dead do not go to Hades but go paradise, and (2) Paul’s statement that being absent from the body is present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:19-26).[2]Just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists founded their belief in soul sleep because they believed our being is a soul and body that can’t be separated, Erickson’s belief in a disembodied existence after death is greatly influenced by his contention that we are dualistic with a soul that can exist without our body.[3]This means that he interprets the verses noted above in this light rejecting any interpretation that would suggest otherwise. Let’s look at each of Erickson’s issues one at a time.     What is the difference between Gehenna (translated hell) and Hades? Jesus said, “Whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Gehenna]” (Matt 5:22).[4]Jesus also said, “The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment … He cried out, ‘… I am in agony in this flame’” (Luke 16:22-25). I don’t know about you, but it is really difficult to see why one should be seen as a place where only the soul goes and the other where both body and soul go. It seems that if a person is disembodied, fiery hell would not be a punishment because it is the body that suffers. The soul is not material and would not have a problem in a physical hell. But Jesus also said, “But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [Gehenna]” (Matt 10:28). Since the rich man had a body in Hades and God will cause both body and soul to perish in Gehenna, there is no reason to believe only souls go to Hades without a body.     The early church believed that the souls of believers went to Sheol or Hades[5]but Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise (Luke 23:43). Since this means a believer’s soul does not go to Hades upon death, it must go to heaven and therefore it is only his soul and not an intermediate body of any kind. That is faulty logic since there is no mention of soul or body. He also uses Acts 2:31 in support of the soul going to heaven.[6]“He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. (NKJV). However, it must be noted that the word soul is not in the original Greek. The King James and New King James added the word soul. Even if the meaning is soul, then this is talking about Jesus and the implication is that his soul first went to Hades. This is a bad verse to use if one wants to convince me that my soul will go to paradise upon my death and not have a body of some kind.     It is interesting that Erickson uses the same verses 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 to support his position that only the soul goes to heaven and there is no intermediate body as others use to support an intermediate body. The key verse is, “While we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6). Yet this verse says nothing about what it will be like in heaven. It is talking about the physical earthly body. That body will certainly die and decay without any possibility of going to heaven. Yet in the context of, “We do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed” (2 Cor 5:4), Paul speaks of death as putting on a new dwelling and this is before the resurrection. In the same way, Philippians 1:19-26 doesn’t shed any light on whether or not we will be disembodied in heaven. While Paul does say, “Having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake” (Phil 1:23-24), this does not rule out a spiritual body in heaven. It simply confirms that our current physical body will not exist in heaven.     Putting aside Erickson’s arguments, another issue is Paul’s repeated explanations of our resurrection. The strongest argument for a disembodied existence after death for either believers or the wicked is 1 Corinthians 15:35-57. Paul elaborately speaks of the resurrected body and what it will be like and what it will not be like. Key verses for disembodiment is, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor 15:50). Also, “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Cor 15:52) establishes that this will occur at one time for all the dead and those who are still alive. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 also supports this position.     The problem then, is how can we reconcile these verses with the ones used to support an intermediate body in heaven. One way was to say that Paul changed his mind from a disembodied existence supported by Rabbinical Judaism, (1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians) to an instantaneous heavenly body upon his death.[7]I don’t like this reasoning at all. It removes the Holy Spirit from the equation of inspired Scripture and places it in the hands of the human author, Paul. No, Paul didn’t change his mind, but the Holy Spirit could have revealed more to him.      The better reconciliation is that an intermediate body after death has always been what these Scriptures teach. Paul was talking about different subjects at different times. For believers, 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians were taking about the resurrection when Jesus returns, not the time in between death and his return. Even 1 Thessalonians 4:14 suggest that we will have bodies in heaven as Jesus brings us back with him. 2 Corinthians was talking about what happens immediately after death. Luke 16 explains what happens to the ungodly after death and Revelation 20 tells about their resurrection and eternity. Paul alluded to various bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:38-41 with four categories. There is no conflict with an intermediate body that is changed at the general resurrection to the eternal body that is promised.      My conclusion is that the disembodied state is less accurate than an intermediate body immediately after death. For those who know Jesus, it is with great expectation that we can look forward to some sort of heavenly body after death and be with Jesus. For those who do not know Jesus, there remains the physical suffering and torment between their death and final judgment, which will continue their agony forever. This makes it all the more important to turn to Jesus for salvation before it is too late.

[1]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 ed. (Grand Rapids, USA.: Baker Academic, 2013), 1084, Kindle. [2]Ibid., 1084-5. [3]Ibid., 478-80. [4]Scripture in this post will use the New American Standard Bible Update (NASU 1995) unless otherwise noted. [5]Erickson, 1085. [6]Ibid. [7]W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1970), 317-18 in Erickson, 1085.

What Happens Immediately After People Die – Intermediate Body

     This is the fourth post in my series and covers Instantaneous Resurrection.     This series covers five leading thoughts about what happens to us after death, Annihilation, Catholic Options, Soul Sleep, Instantaneous Resurrection (intermediate body), and Disembodied Existence. None of these postings is an exhaustive discussion but I want to see what the Bible has to say about each.·         Instantaneous Resurrection – this is the belief that upon death a believer receives a transformed heavenly body.[1]     Millard Erickson calls the “recent” concept of instantaneous resurrection novel and creative,[2]but not in a complementary way. However, I believe that most Christians believe in an existence immediately after death that includes a recognizable body. This may not be the same as the instantaneous resurrection Erickson was describing, but I believe it is the way Christians think now. Since Erickson attributed his description based on two pages from a book written in 1970,[3]I would rather explore current popular thought best expressed by Paul Enns, “Although believers will not receive their resurrection bodies until the rapture, it is apparent that believers will have bodies in the intermediate state in heaven.”[4]     Have you ever attended a funeral for a person who had spent years in some crippling life circumstances? Most often at a service like this you will hear the clergy or attendees make a comment like, “He or she is completely healed now and standing tall in heaven.” The clear implication of a statement like this is that the person has a body in heaven. It is now and not at a future resurrection. Are these just words of comfort or do they reveal a theology that most people have not fully thought out?      The first argument for this is a bit odd. It is biblically based but not necessarily good exegesis. It is based on what Jesus experienced. After His resurrection, He had a body that could appear and disappear at will (John 20:19-29; Luke 24:30). In addition, Jesus had a physical body that the disciples could touch, He ate in their midst and let them know that He was not a spirit, but had flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-43). You may argue that this doesn’t apply to us because Jesus is the firstfruit of the resurrected (1 Cor 15:23). True, but there was something different about Jesus between the time of His resurrection and His ascension into heaven. He told Mary Magdalene not to cling to Him because he had not yet ascended (John 20:17).      However, better explanations are available. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, Paul speaks of leaving our earthly tent (body). “For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor 5:2-4[5]). The part that supports the concept of a body in heaven is that we will not be naked or unclothed or disembodied but we will be “further clothed.” The clear implication is that in heaven we will have a body that is more than the body we have here. It is so clear that the NLT translation uses the words heavenly bodies rather than dwelling. Finally it says, “We will not be spirits without bodies” (2 Cor 5:3 NLT).      Another standard argument for an intermediate body is similar to my previous post disproving soul sleep. Enns took this direction also.[6]I made reference to Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), both of whom apparently had physical bodies, one in Hades and the other at Abraham’s side. Samuel also had a recognizable body (1 Sam 28:11-19), as did Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration (Matt 17:2-4). These verses are much harder to explain away than the previous arguments. Some would say that Lazarus was only a parable and not an actual event but they also use the same story to confirm torment in hell. They can’t have it both ways. Others will say that Samuel, Moses, and Elijah were only physical manifestations of their souls in the same way that angels (spirits Heb 1:14) appear in physical form or even Jesus appeared in a physical form before His incarnation (Josh 5:13-14). Regarding angels, Hebrews 1:14 is the only verse that describes angels as spirits. Everywhere else, when described they have bodies of one sort or another. So what makes us think that they don’t have heavenly bodies similar to Jesus’ resurrected body that can appear or disappear?     The only question that needs to be answered is what happens at the resurrection. Erickson points to Philippians 3:20-21 “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.” He uses this verse and others to claim that there is no need for a second resurrection if we already have a body.[7]     Next I’ll take up Erickson’s contention that a disembodied intermediate state after death and before the resurrection is more biblical.

[1]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3 ed. (Grand Rapids, USA.: Baker Academic, 2013), 1083, Kindle. [2]Ibid., 1083. [3]W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1970), 317-18. [4]Paul P Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, New ed. ( Moody Publishers, 2014), 8087-8, Kindle. [5]Scripture in this post is from the English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001 unless otherwise noted. [6]Enns, 8087-93, Kindle. [7]Erickson, 1084, Kindle.