Ray Ruppert's Blog, page 73

Who Is on Your 2 AM Prayer List?

Today’s devotion in Our Daily Bread was entitled 2:00 AM Friends. When I saw the title, I was thinking about my 2:00 AM prayer list, which comprises people I know. I pray for them when I wake in the middle of the night (when you get older, you get to do this every night). Colossians 4:12 was part of the daily reading, “Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured” (NIV). I pray for salvations, marriages, health, and whatever may be going on in their lives. Some of those needing salvation are hard-core atheists. I can’t say I wrestle, as I seldom stay awake after I’m finished. However, I know who I’m addressing my prayer to and God never sleeps or slumbers (Ps 121:4). Ps 121:4 Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep. Matt 6:7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 2 Tim 2:13 if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Is ISIS the modern day equivalent of the Chaldeans?

Do you ever wonder why Russia is building up its military might and no one terribly alarmed? Does it bother you that North Korea has nuclear capabilities. What about Iran’s promise that Israel will not around 25 years from now spoken one day after Obama secures enough votes to approve the Iran nuclear deal.
Thomas Erdbrink, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Israel Won’t Exist in 25 Years,” The Seattle Times, September 6, 2015, accessed September 17, 2015, http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/irans-supreme-leader-says-israel-wont-exist-in-25-years/.

Is Everything Biblical Black and White? – Titus 1:15-16

To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. (RSV)Not Black and White
It’s very easy for me to read this first verse and think that everything in the Bible is black and white. But is that true? If so, then it would seem that all we should have to do to live a godly life is to categorize and list verses and come up with a list of things to do and things to avoid. That is what the Pharisees thought and what did Jesus tell them? He warned them with seven “woes” that they were in big trouble (Matt 23:1-36).
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. (Rom 14:2 ESV)
While there are some clear commands in the Bible that are absolute and the verse stands on its own as does, “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:15 NIV). The context doesn’t change the meaning and the circumstances of the reader don’t change the need to obey. The pure understand and obey them, the corrupt will try to rationalize them away. On the other hand, there are many things in the Bible that have to be understood in context. Attempting to make every verse a black or white statement leads to legalism and to works. It can lead to futile attempts at perfectionism that end up in frustration and depression because we will never be perfect until we are completely removed from our earthly bodies and will be in heaven. Paul clearly addressed the issue of gray versus black and white in Romans 14. He discussed eating things, worshiping on holy days, and passing judgment about disputable things (Rom 14:1).
But Paul was not discussing disputable things in Titus. If we want to understand Paul’s meaning in Titus 1:15, we must first address its meaning in the current context. We’ve been looking at the qualification of elders and their need to be able to provide sound doctrine and rebuke those who are against it. Opposition comes from rebels, deceivers, and members of the circumcision party. Paul goes one step farther in the contrast by asserting this distinction between pure and corrupt people. Is this really a black and white statement? Does the use of the word all mean that this is an absolutely true statement under all circumstances? There are many Christians who attempt to live their lives in a black and white world. They make statements like, “When the Bible says all, it means all.” In this case, a pure person regards everything as pure. Does that mean that a Christian sees no impurity in the world or does it mean that Christians are always pure? Obviously neither of these things hold true since Paul was a Christian and he could identify sin in himself as well as in false teachers. Anyone who says he never sins is fooling himself (1 John 1:8). There are many other examples of when all doesn’t include everything or everyone.[1]This is to point out that understanding the Bible so that we can make application to our lives is not always as simple as it may seem on the surface.
Pure or Corrupt
And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15 NASB)
However, this does not explain what Paul means regarding purity. There are various opinions among commentators. Some believe that Paul is again referencing eating clean or unclean food. The emphasis on this also includes the fact that God declared all food clean to Peter and Peter interpreted this to extended to people (Acts 10:28). While this is accurate, some have taken this to mean that once we are saved, we are incapable of sinning. They believe that whatever we do is pure. Therefore, if we steal, it is not a sin because all things are pure to the pure. Others may take the extreme of total separation from the world so that they will only see or be around pure things. Others look on this passage as purely spiritual as we are forgiven of our sins, past, present, and future (Heb 10:2, 10) but not giving license to sin (Jude 4).
Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. (Rom 16:19 NIV)
Paul commended the Roman church because of their obedience and in doing so gave a hint to this problem of purity. In selecting elders and refuting those who are teaching false doctrine, two things would define purity. The first is being wise about good things. The pure person will look at what is good in doctrine and be obedient to it. He will be able to explain it and encourage others to understand and work though their issues. The second is to be innocent about evil things. That would mean having nothing to do with them, which probably means not excusing or condoning poor doctrine in others along with their resultant behavior that leads whole families astray. But it also means extending grace to those who repent.
An Example
A good example of maintaining a pure attitude or thought in doctrine is the virgin birth of Jesus. Actually the correct terminology would be the virgin conception of Jesus as the Bible does not maintain that Jesus’ delivery was miraculous but that he was simply born (Matt 1:25-2:1; Luke 2:6-7) in contrast to his miraculous conception (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). The pure accept that His conception took place without any kind of sexual intercourse, either with a man or with God. “The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God’” (Luke 1:35 NASU). The pure will reason that since the Holy Spirit does not have a physical body and the power of the Most High caused the conception, then there could not be any intercourse. It must be a miracle whereby the physical egg from Mary becomes a fertile egg without the need for a sperm yet with all the genes that cause Jesus to come as a man and not a woman. Truly, this could only be done by God and is a miracle.
What about the corrupt, how do they view Jesus’ conception? There have been many vile theories. The most common one and one that was probably thrown in Jesus’ face was that he was illegitimate (John 8:41). They think either that Mary and Joseph had relations while engaged or Mary had been fooling around with someone else during the betrothal period. Even a casual reading of Matthew 1:18-25 refutes this theory. On the other hand, some of the worst corrupted thinking advocates that God had physical relations with Mary and produced a son. This would make God an adulterer because Mary was betrothed at the time. Some even go so far as to advocate that Jesus is the product of an alien who visited earth, appeared to Mary as an angle then beguiled her with the story found in the Bible (Luke 1:26-37) and had a sexual relation. The resultant half-alien-half-human accounts for Jesus’ miraculous abilities.
The pure well recognize that Jesus had to be conceived as the Bible says for God to become incarnate. That is the only way that He could be both God and man at the same time. That way, He could stand in our place and be a pure sacrifice for our sins. If God had simply shown up as a man, He would not be the same as us (Heb 2:14-18) and His sacrifice would not have been representative for all humanity (Rom 5:15-19). Jesus also had to be God in every way also, otherwise He would have stayed dead. He claimed to be God (John 10:27-30) and if He were not, then it would have been a lie and He would have had to die for that sin. But, since He is God, God raised Him from the dead (1 Cor 6:14). The corrupt don’t like either of these things because they want to be saved by their own merits, they don’t want to admit to their sin, or they don’t want to be accountable to God. If God were an adulterer, then they would be off the hook for their own sins. If Jesus were not God, then they don’t have to listen to Him.
The Root Problem
For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge. (Jer 4:22 NKJV)
The problem of evil people distorting good doctrine into evil teaching has been a problem for centuries. St. Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-390) quoted Jeremiah 4:22 as he was explaining the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in opposition to the strange ideas of some people. He stated, "We certainly have here the arguments of people ‘wise to do evil,’ but unwilling to write what is good" (Oration 31:7). Jeremiah pinpoints the key to the whole problem of people who are corrupt is that they have not known God. As Paul says, “They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds” (Tit 1:16 RSV).
If you are wise and understand God's ways, prove it by living an honorable life, doing good works with the humility that comes from wisdom. (James 3:13 NLT)
It often comes back to the basics. Faith in Jesus Christ will develop a new life as a believer yields his life to the Holy Spirit. The result is a life filled with good works and demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). If these things are not evident, then the person is not wise. His corrupt life proves who his father is (John 8:44). God is certainly not his father. Paul says they are unfit for any good deed and this is true because even the things that they do which appear to be righteous are only corrupt in God’s eyes (Isa 64:6).
Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. (Ps 34:14 RSV) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:21 RSV)
Where do you stand? Are you like the university English professor who told his students, “If you want to understand the author’s meaning when you read this literature, think dirty.”[2]Do you delight in seeing evil intent in all things or do you see God working in and through His creation to overcome evil. Do you seek to overcome evil with good as you pursue peace? Which type of person would you want to be an elder in your church?

[1]Read the history of the plagues on Egypt in Exodus 7:14 – 10:29. There are many examples where all does not mean all. All the water, even in pots was turned to blood (Ex 7:19) but they were able to dig along the Nile and get water to drink (Ex 7:24). All of the Egyptian’s livestock died (Ex 9:6) from a plague, but in Exodus 9:19, they were told to get their livestock out of the fields or they would die in the hail. The hail stuck down everything in the fields, man, beast, plant, and tree (Ex 9:25). Yet there were still plants and trees with fruit left by the hail for the locust to eat (Ex 10:15). [2] I sat in on one session of an English literature class at the University of Washington. I don’t remember his name or the class but his statement made an impression on me as I was not a Christian at the time.

Religious Myths – Titus 1:12-14

One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. (NASB)
True or False?
Paul expands on a very interesting paradox as he quotes Epimenides from the 6th century BC. Paul takes one line from a hymn to Zeus.
They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica
Apparently, the Cretans built a tomb for Zeus and declared that he was dead, which is what prompted Epimenides to call them all liars, as he believed that Zeus was immortal. However, since Epimenides was also a Cretan and if it is true that all Cretans were liars, then he too was a liar, which means that his statement was false. That is the paradox. Paul takes it one step farther and says that what Epimenides said about Cretans is true. Logically this can’t stand so there must be some other reason that Paul affirms the truth of Cretans being liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons. Perhaps, he was pointing out how ridiculous were the teachers who were disturbing people with Jewish myths and turning them away from the truth. Relating the worship of Zeus with a tomb for Zeus is in contrast to the fact that Jesus’ tomb is empty. He is alive forever and it is only through Jesus that we have eternal life, our being and not through Zeus.
Do not lie to one another, seeing that  you have put off  the old self with its practices and  have put on  the new self,  which is being renewed in knowledge  after the image of  its creator.  (Col 3:9-10 ESV)
Paul’s command to the Colossians to stop lying and be renewed in the knowledge of our Creator is a good backdrop for understanding why he would single out the Cretans who were obviously lying about the way of salvation. It is possible that these Cretans were dispersed Jews or Jewish converts who were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost and became believers (Acts 2:11). However, without proper teaching they still relied on the Jewish customs for their salvation rather than Jesus. This isn’t uncommon even today. Some people hear about being saved by Jesus but never grow in their faith. Instead of studying the Bible and understanding it, they rely on human teachers and become prey for cults who talk about Jesus but insist that they have to belong to their church and perform according to their standards to be saved.
Jewish Myths
From the time when the last book of the Old Testament was written and the arrival of Jesus, many books were written. Some have seen these as of divine origin and believe them to be as authoritative as Scripture. Some of these are included in the Apocrypha. It is quite likely that Paul was referring to some of these writing when he denounced Jewish myths. The original meaning of apocrypha is “things hidden.” The writings and interpretation of them was theoretically understood only by an inner circle. Many of these writings had the character of being what we now call apocalyptic which relates to their predictive nature. They predicted the coming of the Messiah and the end of all things with the God’s kingdom reigning.[1]These stories fed the excitement that Jesus generated but they were not biblical. Many Jew continued to look for a Messiah because these mystical books led them astray and even continue to do so today through such things esoteric teaching as Kabbalah.
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (2 Cor 4:2-3 NIV)
Since many of these Jewish myths were esoteric, it required a person in the know to explain them to people. This made it easy for false prophets to deceive and proclaim another gospel. In contrast, when Paul preached the Gospel, he was careful not to distort the Word of God and add other sources. Today, the Gospel is the truth, it is printed, it is readily available for anyone to read, and has been translated into many languages. There are no codes in the Bible that only a select few are able to understand. However, we still must recognize that until God opens a person’s heart to understand and accept the Gospel, it is still veiled to them (2 Cor 4:3).
If you look up Jewish Mythology on the internet, you will most likely be led to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mythology. There you will find that whoever wrote this article classified all of the Old Testament under the category of mythology. While there are some accurate references, it leads a reader to believe that God was more or less invented by the prophets in opposition to other Near Eastern religions. Creation and the flood are in particularly expressed as myths. Christianity and Islam are said to have inherited these myths. Why do you think that this is the case? Why do people who want to distort or deny God and Christianity always single out creation and often the flood?
Modern Myths
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:5-7 NKJV)
Peter remarked that scoffers would come in the last days denying Jesus’ return because everything is continuing as it has in the past (2 Peter 3:3-4). Note that he says they willfully forget. They know the truth but they don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to acknowledge that God created everything and that he judged the world with a flood. The reason they don’t want to accept this is that it means they can reject the conclusion that God will again judge the world and ungodly people. Turning aside from the biblical account of creation is not based on scientific evidence but on a desire to rationalize ungodly behavior and accountability to God. Consider the following quote from Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.[2]
Materialism as used in this quote is not the desire to acquire more and more things, although that is one definition. The Encarta Dictionary defines materialism as “the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions.” Based on this philosophy, God is eliminated from any explanation of existence and replaced by evolution. He is eliminated from any moral decisions that a person may make because even thinking is only a result of natural, chemical reactions inside a mass of protoplasm called a brain. Natural selection has randomly allowed the human race to acquire the structure of a brain that has determined that murder is wrong along with other moral constraints. As our brains continue to evolve, outmoded morality is eliminated and new morality that will enable those with the best (according to nature) morality to reproduce and flourish while those without that new moral code will slowly become extinct. Under this philosophy, the outmoded morality that has suppressed homosexuality is disappearing and homosexuality will be universally accepted. Tell me how that will help mankind to flourish.
The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish. There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Prov 14:11-12 NASU)
However, when we add God to the equation, the outcome is significantly different. Man’s thinking process may lead him to believe something is right but if it doesn’t agree with God’s way, it only results in death. The scoffers that Peter talks about and those that Paul describes are wicked according to God’s Word. Just the opposite of the materialistic philosophy happens when God is considered. Those who flourish are not determined by the random chemical processes in nature. They flourish because they are in a right standing with God and His laws. This is the message that God has been delivering from the beginning of creation. While we may see the wicked prosper for a short time and righteous people killed, we must remember that this life is not all there is. Our ultimate home is not of this world and the number of the righteous who will attain to heaven’s glory will be more than we can comprehend (Rev 7:9). The end of the wicked is death, but it is not oblivion as the materialistic myth proposes. It is eternal punishment (Rev 20:14-15). There is only one reason that we will be among those who will worship God forever and not punished.
For you [Jesus] were slaughtered, and your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. And you have caused them to become a Kingdom of priests for our God. And they will reign on the earth. (NLT Rev 5:9b-10)
The way to turn us from myths is to tell the truth about Jesus and the need to accept His life-giving death on the cross for our sins. We need to repent of our sins, including following myths, and obey Him. Live for eternity with God and not the materialistic now (it does not promise a future after death anyway).

[1] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, electronic database, s.v. “Apocrypha,” ed. James Orr (Seattle: Biblesoft, 2006). [2] Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1977, accessed July 23, 2015, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/.

Silencing Heresies – Titus 1:10-11

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach — and that for the sake of dishonest gain. (NIV)Talkers and DeceiversThe previous blog in this series talked of rebellion but this now addresses rebels within the church (heretics), how to recognize them and deal with them.
Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:18 RSV)
Some rebels do little more than talk. They aren’t the kind that will get their hands dirty. Instead, they have lofty words and ideas but don’t put them into practice by outright rebellion. With words, they are able to instigate others. They may claim to expound a loving way of life but their own deeds reveal that that they have different motives. Paul encountered the same kind of people often in his ministry. In Corinth, he called them, “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13 NASB). He warned the Ephesians that wolves would be among them speaking twisted things so that they would get their own disciples (Acts20:29-30).
Paul warned that they must be silenced because they were upsetting whole families and that their motive was monetary. It’s usually easy to find these if we’re willing to look at outward signs. The first thing to look for is empty talk. If they write books, preach in a church, or write blogs, then examine their teaching. One way of determining if their talk is empty is to see how often they quote the Bible. However, simply quoting the Bible isn’t enough because Satan quoted it out of context (Matt 4:1-11). Does it line up with the rest of the Scriptures? Empty talkers will pick a subject, determine what they believe is right, and then look for verses that back them up. It makes them sound good, but one who wants to correctly handle the Word of God (2 Tim 2:15) must go first to the Bible to find out what it says and then conform his thoughts to it. When they write or preach, do they affirm salvation through Jesus or do they neglect to mention the exclusive claim of Christianity that salvation comes only through Jesus (John 14:6)? Do they talk about Jesus but fail to mention His deity (Rev 22:3) and atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:1-2)? No wonder their talking upsets families when they distort the truth of Christ.
Certainly, writing books and being paid when millions of people buy them is not dishonest gain. Neither is being well paid for being the head of a large church, which is a huge spiritual and fiscal responsibility. However, another way of determining if a person is an empty talker is to look at their lifestyle. How do they use the money they get either from their books or from their preaching and teaching? Do they live in multimillion dollar mansions or do they give most of their money away? Of course, it is their money to do with what they want so I need to be careful not to judge them. After all, the Word doesn’t say Christians should give significant amounts of their income, but to give what they have decided and without compulsion (2 Cor 9:6-7). Who am I to say what they should do with their money? On the other hand, the love of money corrupts and helps us to forget the Lord (Prov 30:8-9, 1 Tim 6:6-10). A very convicting thought about money and love is the comparison between Jesus’ sacrifice for us and our use of our resources. “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him” (1 John 3:16-18 NASB)? Personally, I would be very wary of any religious leader that lives an extravagant lifestyle.
Circumcision GroupFor we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh. (Phil 3:3 ESV)
In direct opposition to the Jerusalem Council’s determination (Acts 15:1-35), some people were still teaching that a person cannot be saved unless he is circumcised (Acts 15:1). At this time, Christianity was seen as a Jewish sect that was welcoming Gentiles. In the Jewish custom and command of the Old Testament, a male must be circumcised to be accepted as a Jewish convert. It started with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:10), included converts (Ex 12:48), and was part of the Law of Moses (John 7:22-23). The Jerusalem Council decided that since the Holy Spirit had been given to Gentiles without any adherence to the Law of Moses, but only by hearing the gospel and believing (they were saved by grace), then no legalistic restrictions should be placed on them (Acts 15:6-11). Rather they were given instruction to live holy lives once saved (Acts 15:28-29).
Circumcision was not an isolated custom for Jews. Other ancient Near Eastern civilizations also had the practice. The implication of Jeremiah 9:25-26 is that Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, and Moab all followed the custom. God included Judah in the list because he said that they were all circumcised in the flesh but uncircumcised in their hearts. God also made it clear in Jeremiah 4:4 that circumcision was truly meant to be a sign of a heart attitude toward him. Paul had this good biblical background when he declared that anyone who believes in Jesus and is saved by His blood is a true worshiper of God and is truly circumcised but not physically (Col 2:11-13).
What is so wrong with adding the need of circumcision to the requirement to believe in Jesus for salvation? Let’s first of all, make sure that we aren’t limiting this to the problem of Paul’s day. Circumcision isn’t the problem; it is adding this or any other human accomplishment to Christ’s death on the cross in order to be saved. The Galatians had the same problem. People were coming and telling them that they had to adhere to the Mosaic Law in order to be saved as well as believe in Jesus. Paul answered, “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Gal 2:21 NIV )! The point is that simple. If by being baptized, whether as an infant or an adult, saves me, then why did Christ have to die? If I give all I have to the poor, pray every day, go to church every week, and do every good deed possible in order to gain my salvation, then why did Jesus have to die? No one on this earth can legitimately claim that he has never sinned (Rom 3:23). In James 2:10, James clearly conveys the concepts that if anyone tries to win salvation by being perfect (keeping the law), he will eventually fail in at least one point. In God’s eyes, that is just as guilty as if he had failed at all points. Therefore, keeping a set of regulations or doing all sorts of good deeds can never make up for even one sin. Adding anything to believing in Jesus also means that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to gain our salvation.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Cor 1:27-29 RSV)
What did God chose that shames wise, strong, influential people? All these have reasons to boast. They are the ones that sing songs like, “I did it my way.” They are the ones that are like the Pharisee who went to pray and thanked God that he wasn’t like other sinful people. He went on to list all the good things he did (Luke 18:10-12). He was boasting before God. Surely, he believed that he was justified by his moral goodness to stand in the presence of the perfect, holy, God. Jesus clearly condemned him (Luke 18:14). Getting back to Paul, he says that God chose what was foolish. Did that Pharisee realize that he was born at that time, place, and into the family that allowed him become a Pharisee or did he think all these circumstances of life were his choice or based on his merit? Anyone who depends on his own merits instead of Jesus Christ for his salvation is a member of the circumcision group.
SilencedHow do you silence those who have different opinions about these things? Christians have not always been noble in their attempts to silence heretics and false prophets. In the earlier years, after the Apostles, excommunication was often used. However, it was ineffective as demonstrated by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Bishops from Antioch and Constantinople disagreed so much about the nature of Christ that they would not meet together and then excommunicated each other.[1]Later in church history, it became even worse; during the Inquisition heretics were murdered, property sized, or banished.[2]Later, Protestants were not any better in silencing heretics; John Calvin cooperated with the execution of Michael Servetus in 1553.[3]Fortunately, within Protestant Christianity, these methods of silencing heretics are not practiced anymore.
But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. (Matt 22:34 NASU)
Jesus gave the best example of silencing those with heretical views. He silenced them with clear and precise explanations from the Word of God. The Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection among other things. Jesus used Exodus 3.6, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” in a way that we would not easily recognize. By stating that God used the present tense in reference to three long dead people, Jesus argued that they were still alive validating the resurrection. Throughout history, even during the bad times mentioned above, Christians used verbal apologetics to silence those who speak heresy. John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, just to name a few, were prolific writers and defenders of Christianity. Paul stated that our methods should not be the same as the world’s. “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:3-5 NIV).
How do you silence heresy, false teaching, or justification of immorality? Do you know the Bible well enough at least to recognize any of these if not refute them? Are you willing to stand up and be counted on the side of righteousness or does your silence empower those who are corrupting influences in society and even in our churches? Paul was clear that they must be silenced or they will ruin households, which leads to communities and then nations.
P.S.Silencing critics can’t be done if you are not knowledgeable in the areas of controversy. People opposed to the Gospel are well versed and are able to eat most of us alive in a debate. If you want to gain a better understanding of why we should believe in a young earth (about 6,000 years) versus evolution from a scientific perspective, then I recommend you get the book, Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels . (Click on the link.) Written by nine scientists with PH.D.s, they give scientific evidence for a worldview based on the presumption of the Bible rather than a universe without God.

[1] Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 67. [2] Alan Neely, “Conquest as Christian Evangelization,” Faith and Mission 10, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 62-75, accessed June 20, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [3]Noll, 182.

Christianity and Islam: Historical and Current Differences Make Cooperation Unlikely

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 

Christianity and Islam: Historical and Current Differences Make Cooperation Unlikely 

Submitted to Dr. A. J. Smith, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the completion of the course

 CHHI 510 B01

Survey of the History of Christianity 

by Ray RuppertJune 26, 2015
Table of ContentsIntroductionHistorical Beginnings Historical Subjection Historical Religious Conflicts Modern Attempt at Cooperation 
Conclusion Bibliography
IntroductionChristianity and Islam have significantly different beginnings. The Christian era started as peaceful propagation of its beliefs and the ideals commensurate with those beliefs. Once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, forced conversions and corruption of ideas changed the way it spread. From the beginning of Islam, its spread was by the sword. Christians living under Islamic rule historically and currently face persecution and second-class citizenship with restrictions on their ability to share their faith and even worship. Muslims living in Western countries had various experiences, from peaceful relations to severe persecution. Currently, they have freedom of religion and no reduction in citizenship in most western nations although there is some cultural bias. Some blame the Crusades for Islam’s bias against Christianity. However, the ideological differences between Islam and Christianity are the same now as they were throughout history. Current appeals for peace and harmony by Muslim leaders do not reflect a significant minority of Muslims’ attitudes. This paper will examine the beginning and development of Christianity and Islam over the ages to demonstrate that it is not likely they will coexist peacefully as equals in the future.Historical BeginningsIt is necessary to understand the historical beginnings of both Christianity and Islam in order to demonstrate why conflicts continue. Comparisons include the founders and their claims, ideals, character, goals in addition to how the movements expanded after the founder’s death.
Jesus is the founder of Christianity. Being Jewish, he was without a doubt monotheistic. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and that he came not to establish an earthly kingdom but to serve and give his life as a ransom (Mark 10:45) to bring about his spiritual kingdom. He taught peace even in the presence of evil rather than retaliation (Matt 5:39). His theme was love of God and others (Matt 22:37-39). Jesus asked his opponents who could convict him of sin (John 8:46). Their only charge against him was that he made himself to be God (John 10:33) and the Messiah (Luke 22:67). After his crucifixion, he only had about 120 followers (Acts 1:15). After his resurrection, his disciples asked if he would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:7). Rather than establishing a ruling kingdom on earth, he directed them to make disciples and teach them his commandments (Matt 28:19-20).
In obedience to that command, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Christians suffered persecution from both Jews (Acts 8:1) and the Romans. They were persecuted by Rome not because they were in violent opposition to Rome but because of their exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ instead of the Roman emperor.In the following three hundred years before Islam came on the scene, Christianity merged with the state. Even though the emperors and the heads of the church remained separate, their influence on each other blurred the distinction between the advance of the secular and the religious kingdom. For instance, Emperors called church councils in A.D. 449 and A.D. 451, the latter at Pope Leo I’s request.In like manner as Christianity, the beginning of Islam is associated with the claims and teaching of one man, Muhammad. Muhammad’s claim is that of a prophet who was the person through whom God’s holy book, the Qur’an came. His goals were, “to replace idolatry with monotheism; to replace tribal differences with Arab unity; and to replace tribal rules with a central state.”Muhammad’s character was not pure. He received revelations that excused actions even contrary to his own teaching. He obtained fourteen wives, ten more than allowed for the normal Muslim. One of his wives was nine years old when he married her. He also had his adopted son divorce his wife and then quickly married her.After the death of Muhammad, his followers continued to advance Islam by the sword. Within two hundred years, Islam dominated from India in the East to the Mediterranean. They conquered the southern Mediterranean from Egypt to Morocco and all of Spain. About fifty percent of the world’s Christians came under the rule of Islam.A more modern example of Christianity within a Muslim nation is the case of Pakistan. In 1947, the formation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan included the promise of freedom of religion.The interaction of Muslims within Christian nations after the rapid advance of Islam is quite different from that of Christians living under Islamic rule. Not until the First Crusade established Christian states in the Middle East were significant numbers of Muslims living under Christian rule. These states generally allowed Muslims to practice their religion and live in peace. However, they were subject to restrictions and taxation in the same way that the Muslims had restricted and taxed Christians. Until Muslims reclaimed these areas, the Christian states provided a better environment for Muslims than did those living in Islamic states.After the expulsion of the Moors in the late fifteenth Century, attitudes toward Muslims changed and European non-Christians had no legal rights. Both the state and the Roman Church sanctioned the Inquisitions. They identified Islam as one of the heretical elements, which allowed seizure of Muslim’s property, banishment, or burning.[25]
After the Reformation and as Christianity began to get back to its original beliefs, the bloody persecution of other faiths and sects slowly diminished. This fostered an environment where Muslims could freely migrate to Europe and the United States. While the governments of these areas are secular, they still appear to be Christian from an Islamic viewpoint. There is still some cultural bias against them, but there is no widespread persecution against Muslims as indicated by recent studies. The majority of European Muslims do not feel hostility toward them.John of Damascus lived under Islamic rule from the latter third of the seventh century. He was quite blunt, calling Mohammad a false prophet who invented his own heresy. His writing describes several claims of Islamic apologists and his Christian response. John reveals the Islamic claim that Jews did not crucify Jesus, but only his shadow, that he did not die but God took him to heaven where he denied being the Son of God. John refuted these claims while sarcastically attacking Mohammad’s character by marrying his adopted son’s wife.Thomas Aquinas’ Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections did not engage much in the way of specifics of Islam. In Chapter 1, he outlined their claims against the Trinity, atonement of Christ, Jesus’ death, and Jesus being the Son of God in opposition to their charges based on the Qur’an (6:110, 72:3, and 4:157-8). The remaining chapters are his arguments simply putting forth the Christian doctrines without detailed counter points.Martin Luther also understood the precepts of Islam in conflict with Christianity. He listed Islamic denials including, “Christ is the son of God … that he died for our sins … he arose for our life … by faith in him our sins are forgiven and we are justified … that he will come as judge of the living and the dead … the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit.”There is not space in this study to go into detail of the Islamic arguments. However, the historical viewpoints of John of Damascus, Aquinas, Luther, and the current apologetics of White and Robinson indicate no substantial changes in Islam over the ages.  Modern Attempt at CooperationIn 2007, 138 Muslim leaders issued an open letter to Christians, “A Common Word between Us and You.” This is an attempt to explain why Muslims and Christians can cooperate for a better world with peace and harmony. The basis is that both religions have, “love of one God, and love of neighbor.”This proposed cooperation between Christians completely ignores two basic aspects of Christianity and Islam. Both religions have as their goal, the complete evangelism of the world. The Christian view is to go and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). The Islamic view is to make known all that Muhammad received (Al-Ma’idah 5:67). If both Christianity and Islam follow the basic tenets of their faiths, then each must try to convert each other in accordance with the methods ascribed to them by their faith. For Christianity it will involve peaceful means according to its roots in the first four hundred years and restoration to that evangelical faith expressed in the Lausanne Covenant.Statistical studies by the PEW Research Center reveal that while there may be many leaders seeking peace, there are frightening attitudes among Muslims that may predict the future. The first is that an overwhelming percentage of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to govern their land.

DD46C90F68DB42E4PQ/1?accountid=12085.vid=4&sid=964a2c4e-2830-4104-9099-aaa67c124603%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4204.

To Rebel or Not – Titus 1:10a

For there are many rebellious people ...  (NIV)
Rebellious People
Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up and rebelled against his master, and worthless men gathered about him, scoundrels, who proved too strong for Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, when he was young and timid and could not hold his own against them. (2 Chron 13:6-7 NASU)
Jeroboam was a rebel, but not in the sense in which Abijah painted him in this rebuke. Yes, he rebelled against Rehoboam, but it was at the direction of the Lord because of Solomon’s sin (1 Kings 11:26-35). Was he really a rebel or was he a God honoring person who was dedicated to doing God’s will? The question can be applied to any cause that seeks to overthrow a government. During the American Revolution, many people refused to join the revolution because they agreed strongly with Romans 13:1-2, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (ESV). In the case of Jeroboam, it appears that the term rebel fit him better than God-fearing. The first indication of this is that he gathered worthless men around him. You may point out discontents (1 Sam 22:1) and worthless (1 Sam 30:22) men came to David when he fled from Saul. This is true, but David handled them with integrity as he ruled over them.
Jeroboam, on the other hand, led the people of Israel into idolatry because of his fear they would turn back to Rehoboam. He didn’t trust God’s promise and rebelled against God. Rebellion is a heart problem. It is one that affects every person on earth. Romans 3:23 states it simply that all have sinned, which is rebellion against God. After salvation, there may still be remnants of rebellion in our hearts. This is what makes it difficult to determine when God is leading a people to establish a new government or they are following their own selfish desires. Then there is also the problem that God allows a rebellion, even foretelling it as in the case of Jeroboam, in order to punish the sins of the previous government.
But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20 NKJV)
How do you determine if you are a rebel or you are following God’s will? Acts 4:19-20 is often quoted whenever someone talks about obeying God versus the government. What was God’s specific command that they were setting in opposition to the Sanhedrin? Most likely, they recalled Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission. There, Jesus told them that His authority was above all authority, meaning governments (secular) and the Sanhedrin (religious). They were commanded to go and make disciples, which is precisely what they were doing. Take note that the Apostles told the Sanhedrin to judge what was right. In doing this, they acknowledged the Sanhedrin’s right to judge and in doing so, they would accept any punishment for disobeying the Sanhedrin. In addition, they made it very clear that the Sanhedrin was wrong.
In the same way, if the government is forcing us to do something that is clearly against God’s will, then we should stand up against it and disobey. It follows then, that we should also be willing to suffer the consequences of that disobedience. In 1 Peter 3:17 Peter gave the “formula” that it is OK to suffer for doing good, not evil. When we disobey, we must be careful that we don’t disobey God’s will. We must do it in ways that will honor Him. As example, blowing up abortion clinics is not a godly way to stand up to a law that allows evil. In fact, that is a bad example because the government isn’t forcing us to have abortions. Picketing is a better solution, but even one picketer doing it with hate and condemnation rather than pointing to a way to save the baby is out of line with God’s will.
But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. (Rom 14:23 NLT)
Is the law that says a flower shop or bakery that caters wedding must not decline their services for a gay wedding something that Christians must disobey? Certainly, the biblical pattern for marriage is only between one man and one woman. Does this give us the right to refuse our business to those who violate the Bible’s moral standard? The same question applies to renting to unmarried couples, gay or straight. In most states, it is illegal to refuse.
This issue is different from refusing to do something that is clearly against God’s law. Based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-12, one Christian may believe that renting to cohabiters is not engaging in their sin and catering a gay wedding is not engaging in their sin. Rather it is simply living and operating among sinful people. It may be an opportunity to witness the truth of the gospel to them, in which case, they may decline to engage your services. However, another Christian may honestly believe that such participation is condoning and therefore encouraging sin and refuse to provide the services. They look at Romans 14:23 and believe that it is a sin for them to help in any way. For that person, it is a sin if their conscience has convicted them. In the first example, that person may see it as a sin to refuse to serve because it would mean losing an opportunity to witness.
The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? (Ps 118:6 NIV)

It is much harder to determine when a Christian should rebel against authority than we often think. The one thing we need to make sure is that we don’t rebel against God. Jeroboam’s problem is that he feared people more than he feared God. Before we act in non-violent rebellion against ungodly laws or regimes, we need to fully understand the biblical principles or we may find ourselves on the wrong side of the issue. 

You Can Be a Priest – Titus 1:8-9

[The overseer must be …] hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (NASB)
Hospitality
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. (Heb 13:2 ESV)
The sense of hospitality is captured best in this verse. The roots of the word, philoxenos, in Titus are love and strangers.[1]In Hebrews, the word, philonexia, is derived from philoxenos. The point of this is that hospitality in biblical times was more than inviting friends and acquaintances over for a barbeque. A good example is in Judges 19:11-21. A Levite and his concubine stop in Gibeah hoping that someone will provide lodging for the night. He stopped in the town square but was ignored by everyone until an old man came by, took him in, fed his donkey, and then they ate and drank. John commends Gaius for his hospitality to itinerant preachers for doing this very same thing (3 John 5-8).
So hospitality was originally directed toward people who were stranger and in some need. We have various options to doing the same thing. The first level reflects Gaius actions. We can be host homes for missionaries who are home for a short time or guest speakers. These are Christian brothers and sisters who are doing the work of the Lord and need encouragement. It seems that this has fallen out of vogue as many churches arrange hotel accommodations instead of a home environment. Where is eating and drinking together that forms bonds of fellowship if these people are left to a hotel room and continental breakfast the next morning? Another opportunity for hospitality is with exchange students. These are indeed strangers with customs and cultures unlike our own. The marvelous opportunity is to be able to demonstrate to these young people what a Christian family is like, opening the doors for sharing the Gospel. A shorter-term example is connecting with a campus ministry and inviting students for a Sunday meal or a game night. There are untold thousands of international students who would love to learn more about this country’s culture. Unfortunately, many leave understanding that we are exclusive and inhospitable. These are all ways that literally fulfill the meaning of loving aliens.
Loving Good
Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.(Amos 5:14-15 NIV)
An elder must love good. God pleaded with Israel to seek and love good or there would be consequences. However, there would also be blessings for those who did love good rather than evil. The Lord would be with them and have mercy on them. An elder certainly needs to have God with him. Leading a congregation presents temptations and trials that others don’t face. Whether it means to treat everyone equally, handle finances honestly, or judge sin within the congregation, there is always the possibility that the leaders will sin while doing it. If there is any doubt, just look back on how many mega church pastors have fallen because they didn’t love good more than their own sinful desires. If the media emphasizes their sins, how many more small-church leaders sin and it never gets press? Church history provides abundant examples of abuses because people in leadership roles did not love good.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!(Isa 5:20-21 NASU)
It sounds so easy to love good and hate evil, yet many problems occur because people don’t know what is good and what is evil. Even worse are those who do know and blur any distinction or even substitute one for the other. Paul prayed for those who don’t know the difference; he prayed that their love would abound, but with knowledge and discernment so they would be pure and blameless (Phil 1:9-11). This is fitting for the role of an elder, to be able to teach and admonish so that they will be able know the difference between good and evil.
However, there isn’t much we can do for those who exchange evil for good except preach the Gospel and pray. Paul described them in Romans 1:18-32. Paul states that God’s wrath is revealed against their actions (Rom 1:18). He continues by stating that they have no excuse because they should have known God (Rom 1:19-21). Their rejection of Him leads to the foolishly thinking that they are wise (Rom 1:21-23). Then it gets worse as Paul clearly states that God lets them have what they want, impurity (Rom 1:24), dishonorable passions (Rom 1:26), and a debased mind (Rom 1:28). What is sobering is that following Paul’s indictment, he turns the table and tells us that we have no excuse when we judge people like this because we do the same thing (Rom 2 and following).
Praise the Lord! Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good! His faithful love endures forever. (Ps 106:1 NLT)
Loving good cannot be done apart from loving God. He is the only one who is truly good and it is demonstrated in his faithful love for us. An elder, and any Christian, must first love God. However, not all people who claim to love God live lives that reflect it. John told us that if we claim to love God yet hate others, then we are liars (1 John 4:20). Isaiah reprimanded Jerusalem for only paying lip service to the Lord (Isa 29:13) and Jesus quoted him when he reprimanded the Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem (Matt 15:8-9). The problem isn’t new so it is important to be fruit inspectors to see if a person’s life matches his mouth before appointing him as an elder. It applies to our own lives as well. How well do our lips and our lives agree with each other? Do we really love good?
Exhort and Refute
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:13 RSV)
Making it personal, we must also strive to have the same attributes as the elders. If we don’t hold fast to the faith and sound teaching, guess what happens? The elders will be the ones that will have to take us aside, and either exhort or refute us. Sometimes, they aren’t the first to do this. We are all called to exhort one another, and to do that every day. What is the difference between exhorting and refuting? The word exhort in these verses is also translated as comfort. It means, “Beseech, call for, (be of good) comfort, desire, (give) exhort (-ation), intreat, pray.”[2]Simply looking at all the ways that the Greek word is used in the Bible with different translations instructs us how we exhort each other.
 Matt 8:5 – the centurion came to Jesus and appealedto him to heal his servant (ESV). Matt 8:31 – the demons begged Jesus to let them escape into the pigs (NIV). Matt 18:32 – the master forgave his servant because he pleaded with him (NASU). Matt 26:53 – Jesus said that he could prayto the Father for angels to protect him (NKJV). Luke 3:18 – John the Baptist exhorted and preached to the good news (RSV). Acts 28:20 – Paul asked the Jewish leaders of Rome to come to and get acquainted with them (NLT).2 Cor 1:4 – God comforts us in all our afflictions (ESV).Titus 1:9 – encourage with sound teaching (NIV).

The depth of the emotion and the urgency of the situation in each passage determine the translation of the word. It shows that when we are called to exhort someone that it isn’t harsh criticism but everything from tender comfort to pleading and begging to good teaching. Exhorting would not be the same as preaching a hell-fire-and-brimstone warning. That is a different method altogether.
Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. (2 Tim 4:2 NLT)
Refute is not used as often as exhort, but the various translations and uses in different verses still convey ways that help us counter those who need correction. The meaning is, “1. to convict, refute, confute, generally with a suggestion of the shame of the person convicted … by conviction to bring to light, to expose. 2. to find fault with, correct; a. by word; to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove … contextually, to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation; b. by deed; to chasten, punish.”[3]
Matt 18:15 – tell a person his faultwhen they sin against you (NKJV).Luke 3:19 – John the Baptist reproved (ESV), reprimanded (NASU), criticized (NLT), rebuked (NIV) Herod.John 3:20 – the wicked like darkness because the light exposes their deeds (ESV).John 16:8 – the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (ESV).Eph 5:11 – we are to expose sinful behavior (NASU).1 Tim 5:20 – elders who sin are to be rebukedpublicly (ESV).

Rebuking doesn’t bring the same range of emotions as exhort. It leans toward the concept of laying out the facts and being harsh. Sometimes it is in private and other times it is public. With the Holy Spirit, it is internal whether He uses a person or the Word. On the opposite side of the scale, rebuking people can also be very public. However, it is often used in conjunction with exhorting. Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 4:2 does not condone blasting someone with the truth and then expecting a sudden correction of the problem. Patience suggests that it may take many times and different approaches. Just as in Matthew 18:15-17, it starts private, brings in others, and then finally becomes public when the rebuke is not heeded.
Sound Doctrine
Moreover, they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. (Ezek 44:23 NASB)
One of the duties of the priest in the Old Testament was to teach God’s people. The foundation of that teaching or doctrine was to enable people to make a distinction between the holy and the profane. What was holy would be things pertaining to righteousness, things consecrated to God or godliness are synonyms for holy. On the other hand, they also needed to know what was profane; those things that included wickedness and irreverence toward God. Unclean referred to those things that were contemptible in God’s sight; they were the things that cause people to sin. The clean things were those that were acceptable in God’s sight. This is the basic principle for sound doctrine. We are not under the law, so the concepts of clean and unclean are not the same for us as they were for those under the Mosaic Law. For example, Jesus declared all food clean (Mark 7:19) and it was reemphasized and expanded to Peter in Acts 10:9-16 when he had a vision of unclean animals but was told to eat them. However holy and profane are broader and emphasized in the New Testament in various places. Paul clearly sets the same kind of standard in Galatians 5:18-26. He says we are not under the Law but condemns the works of the flesh and upholds the fruit of the Spirit.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9 ESV)
So, sound doctrine has not changed from the Old Testament to the New. The foundation is the same and since we are all called to be a royal priesthood, we should be prepared to do the same as the elders. We don’t have an excuse for not learning good doctrines or understanding Christian theology (the study of the nature of God and belief). This will keep us from falling into the traps of cults, heresies, doubts, and other problems as well as helping those who have.
Rather, we will be doing exactly what a priest should be doing – making intercession between God and man. In this sense, we are not like the Old Testament priest who offered sacrifices. Instead, we are the priests proclaiming (using sound doctrine) the excellencies of God. The most excellent thing that God has done is to provide salvation through Jesus Christ. What greater thing can we do other than proclaim salvation to those who do not know Jesus? Jesus is the sound foundation of our doctrine; Jesus is both God and man, His death on the cross atoned for our sins, He was buried but was raised on the third day, and He appeared to many disciples (1 Cor 15:3-5). Of course, there are many other foundational principles, such as John 14:6, that proclaims Jesus is the only way to the Father. Another is that we are all sinners (Rom 3:23) and in need of salvation from an eternal death to an eternal life (Rom 6:23). Responding personally to Jesus is the only way that a person can also become a priest (Rev 3:20) and proclaim this new life to others.

[1]NT:5382 philoxenos "loving strangers" (xenia, "hospitality"), translated "a lover of hospitality" in Titus 1:8, KJV (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.) [2]NT:3870 (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.) [3]NT:1651 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Exegetical Paper: An Adulteress Faces Jesus, the Righteous Judge – John 7:53-8:11

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Exegetical Paper: Selected Passage – John 7:53-8:11 Submitted to Dr. A Boyd Luter, in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the completion of the course NBST 610 D01Hermeneutics by Ray RuppertMay 2, 2015 Table of Contents Thesis and Outline – John 7:53-8:11.............................................................................................. 1Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2Context.............................................................................................................................................. 3Historical-Cultural Context .................................................................................................. 3Literary Context ................................................................................................................... 4Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 6Jesus’ Courtroom (7:53-8:2)........................................................................................................ 6Introduction of the Other Characters (8:3) ................................................................................. 6The Prosecutors, Scribes and Pharisees (8:3a) ................................................................ 7The Defendant, a Woman Caught in Adultery (8:3b) .................................................... 7The Accusation (8:4) ................................................................................................................... 7The Question Regarding Sentence (8:5) ..................................................................................... 8Revelation of Prosecutors’ Motive (8:6a) ................................................................................... 8Wisdom of Jesus’ First Response (8:6b-c) .................................................................................. 9Jesus Bends Down (86b) ................................................................................................ 9Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:6c)................................................................................... 10Prosecutors’ Persistence (8:7a) ................................................................................................... 10Wisdom of Jesus’ Judicial Response (8:7b-8) ............................................................................ 11He Stands (8:7b) ............................................................................................................. 11Jesus’ Answer (8:7c) ....................................................................................................... 11Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:8) ................................................................................... 12Prosecutors’ Response to Jesus (8:9) .......................................................................................... 13Jesus’ Mercy in His Interaction with the Woman (8:10-11) ....................................................... 14Jesus Stands (8:10a) ........................................................................................................ 14Jesus Questions the Woman (8:10b) ............................................................................... 14Woman’s Response (8:11a) ............................................................................................ 15Jesus’ Acquittal of the Woman (8:11b) .......................................................................... 15Jesus’ Advice to the Woman (8:11c) .............................................................................. 16Application ...................................................................................................................................... 16Theological Principles ........................................................................................................... 16Personal Application ............................................................................................................. 17Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 17Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 19

Thesis and Outline – John 7:53-8:11The passage selected for this paper is John 7:53-8:11.[1]7:53 [[They went each to his own house, 8:1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]]
This paper will reveal the purity, wisdom, and mercy of Jesus the righteous judge as he demonstrates God’s grace and mercy to a woman who deserves punishment and to her accusers; it will also show how people can apply the theological principles of the passage to their lives.                    I.            Jesus’ Courtroom (7:53-8:2)                II.            Introduction of the Other Characters (8:3)A.    The Prosecutors, Scribes and Pharisees (8:3a)B.     The Defendant, a Woman Caught in Adultery (8:3b)              III.            The Accusation (8:4)             IV.            The Question Regarding Sentence (8:5)                V.            Revelation of Prosecutors’ Motive (8:6a)             VI.            Wisdom of Jesus’ First Response (8:6b-c)A.    Jesus Bends Down (8:6b)B.     Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:6c)          VII.            Prosecutors’ Persistence (8:7a)       VIII.            Wisdom of Jesus’ Judicial Response (8:7b-8)A.    He Stands (8:7b)B.     Jesus’ Answer (8:7c)C.     Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:8)             IX.            Prosecutors’ Response to Jesus (8:9)                X.            Jesus’ Mercy in His Interaction with the Woman (8:10-11)A.    Jesus Stands (8:10a)B.     Jesus Questions the Woman (8:10b)C.     Woman’s Response (8:11a)D.    Jesus’ Acquittal of the Woman (8:11b)E.     Jesus’ Advice to the Woman (8:11c) IntroductionSome scholars forcefully question this passages’ inspiration;[2]however, the pericope conforms to several themes in the Gospel of John and fits into the narratives surrounding the passage. It contributes to the goal of the book to help people believe Jesus is the Christ and have eternal life (John 20:31). Many Bibles indentify this passage with a woman caught in adultery. An exception is the New King James Bible, which states before John 7:53, “An Adulteress Faces the Light of the World.” While the woman caught in adultery is instrumental in this pericope, she is not the main character and the correct punishment for adultery is not the main issue. The other active characters in the passage, the scribes and Pharisees, are not the principle characters though they are also indispensable, as their goal is to discredit Jesus reveals the real issue. This passage is about Jesus Christ and the way he reveals himself as the righteous judge, who alone is capable of unbiased judgment. Jesus demonstrates his purity, wisdom, and mercy as the righteous Judge. He knows and abides by the Law of Moses, does not infringe on the Roman government’s authority, and demonstrates God’s grace and mercy to a woman who deserves punishment. The passage has several theological principles and provides practical application for Christian living and attaining eternal life. ContextHistorical-Cultural ContextThe Apostle John was the acknowledge author of the Gospel of John for the first eighteen hundred years of Christianity.[3]John Nixon reviews six patristic authors who referred to the Gospel of John and acknowledged John as an elder or apostle.[4]He also reviews seven later Church fathers who explicitly attest that John wrote the Gospel of John.[5]These are strong confirmation that John was the author.The stated purpose of John’s gospel is to convince people Jesus is the Son of God and see them saved (John 20:31). However, Jewish ritual and religion depended on the temple to satisfy the requirements of the Law. Written after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, John offered the opportunity for Jews to see that Jesus replaced the temple and symbolically fulfilled the feasts.[6]This passage demonstrates the distance the religious leaders went to try to avoid exactly what happened in A.D. 70, as they perceived Jesus a threat to the status quo.
Most scholars do not accept the passage of John 7:53-8:11 as genuine. Most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include this pericope. The Codex Bezae (circa A.D. 400) is the only major Greek manuscript that contains this passage.[7]Even though there are over 900 manuscripts containing the passage, no church fathers referred to the passage.[8]In defense of the passage, Jerome’s translation of the Gospel of John into Latin contains the pericope and Zane Hodges speculates that Jerome had access to manuscripts older than those available today.[9]
Internal evidence is also debatable. Allison Trites concludes, “The story of the adulterous woman fits admirably into the controversy developed in John 1—12.”[10]W. Harris III admits it fits with the Festival of Booths that bracket the passage; however, he states, “In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar.”[11]
In keeping with the overwhelming evidence, it appears that this passage was not part of the original Gospel of John and does not meet two of the three prescribed criteria of canonicity, apostolicity, and catholicity. However, it does meet the criterion of orthodoxy.[12]The later church accepted it for over a thousand years, most of Christendom accepts this passage as authoritative, and “it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.”[13]Literary ContextJohn establishes at least three trains of thought as he worked through the first twelve chapters of his gospel. The first is the ongoing conflicts that Jesus had with his opponents, the Pharisees.[14]Specific instances are in John 4:1-3, 7:32, and 7:45-52 before the pericope. Afterwards the conflicts continue in John 8:13, 9:22, 10: 22-39;  they decide to kill him in John 11:47-53. This last conflict reveals their selfish motive because they fear they will lose their powerful political and religious positions.
The second train of thought is the description of Jesus as the judge of the world. The Father gave him authority to judge and his judgment is just (John 5:25-30). Jesus declared that he judges righteously (John 7:24). Jesus then demonstrates his righteous judgment in John 7:53-8:11. Jesus follows this with the statement that his judgment is true because he judges along with the Father (John 8:16). Jesus reveals his mercy when he states that he did not come to judge but save the world. However, the world will be judged in the future by what Jesus said (John 12:47-50).
In closer context, the theme of the Festival of Booths is another train of thought included in this pericope. This context begins in John 7:1 and continues through the end of the chapter with the seventh day of the feast. On the eighth day of the feast, Jesus returns to the temple to teach and the Pharisees attempt to trap him but he demonstrates righteous judgment (John 7:53-8:11). Jesus then declares to be the light of the world in keeping with extinguishing the artificial lights of the festival by the light of day,[15]thus concluding Jesus’ fulfillment of the feast.
Each of these three themes ties in seamlessly with the pericope, shedding light on the passage. The passage provides a transition from the plot of the chief priests and the Pharisees to Jesus’ reappearance in the temple the next day. The transition from Jesus’ discussion with the woman in verse 11 to his next confrontation with the Pharisees appears rather abrupt because the Pharisees have departed in verse 9 but suddenly reappear in verse 13. This is not out of step with other transitions between topics in chapter 8. However, there is not agreement among scholars that the passage is seamless. Burge labels the placement of the text, “Awkward.”[16]AnalysisJesus’ Courtroom (7:53-8:2)“They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple” (John 7:53-8:1). The author sets the scene for the trial that is about to unfold. Tying in with the previous scene where the Pharisees and chief priest are frustrated at their attempt to arrest Jesus, they retire to the comfort of their homes following their seven days living in booths. In contrast, Jesus does not seek a more comfortable surrounding for his night. Perhaps in the same manner as he was accustomed when teaching his disciples privately (Matt 24:3), and when he prepared for his arrest and crucifixion (Matt 26:30-46), he sought this place of quiet and prayer to prepare for his next entrance into Jerusalem. The courtroom is the temple, which is not insignificant as this is where God, the eternal judge meets man year after year to forgive sins on the Day of Atonement, which was celebrate only a week before.“All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them” (John 8:2). Even though the people are confused about Jesus (John 7:40-44), they still come to listen to him teach, as the officers testified, “No one ever spoke like this man” (John 7:46). Jesus sits down to teach, the customary position of a teacher in his day. Thus, the scene is set for the trial to begin with Jesus as the judge and the people to witness Jesus’ handling of the affair.Introduction of the Other Characters (8:3)“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst …” (John 8:3). Jesus and the people are already in his court; he is seated and ready to judge just as the Ancient of Days is seated with thousands before him (Dan 7:9-10). The other characters of the scene now enter the courtroom.The Prosecutors, Scribes and Pharisees (8:3a)The scribes and Pharisees enter to bring accusations of adultery against a woman. This is the only mention of scribes in the Gospel of John; however, their mention is significant as they are the ones who will interpret the law as jurists.[17]They are present should Jesus make a mistake in his judgment, they will be witness to his deficiency. The Pharisees are the religious leaders with the authority to bring spiritual charges. They have decisive influence on prayer, worship, sacrifices and are “capable of counteracting the design of the kings.”[18]These prosecutors will bring the charges against the woman. They have a zeal for righteousness but not a zeal for the soul of the woman.[19] The Defendant, a Woman Caught in Adultery (8:3b) The woman committed adultery. Without a doubt, she is a sinner. Her identity is unknown. The prosecutors place her in the midst of the courtroom. In all respects, she is most likely an emotional wreck. Her sin is not just exposed, but also flagrantly paraded before the most important people of the country and in the holy temple.[20]Yet the author says nothing about her other than her sin and her position before Jesus who will be her judge. Thus, every sinner throughout time can identify with her.The Accusation (8:4)“They said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery” (John 8:4). The prosecution addresses Jesus with respect as a teacher even though they rudely interrupt his teaching session. Acknowledging him as a teacher will add to their case against him later. They are not coming to a distinguished Rabbi because the case is difficult, since capital punishment for adultery is seldom if ever enforced.[21]
Adultery is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone outside of the marriage. In the Jewish view, both the man and the woman are guilty of adultery. However, Roman and Greek law did not hold the man accountable but the penalty for the woman is death.[22]Considering the Hellenization of Palestine and the influence of the Roman occupiers, it is possible that the accusers did not see a need to bring the man as well as the woman. Leaving the man out of the equation may also give them the opportunity to accuse Jesus if he does agree with their sentence. The Question Regarding Sentence (8:5)“Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say" (John 8:5)? At one time adultery was a serious crime punishable by death (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:21-22). They caught this woman in the act, which requires the death of both the man and the woman involved. Stoning a woman and not the man can happen only upon learning of her adultery at the consummation of her marriage (Deut 22:17). Assuming that two or more of the accusers are also witnesses (Deut 17:6-7), the case seems open and shut.[23]Repeating her sin twice leaves no room to consider that she is not guilty. Jesus cannot deny her guilt. It only remains for him to agree or disagree with the prosecution’s assessment of the Law of Moses. Revelation of Prosecutors’ Motive (8:6a)“This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him” (John 8:6a). The author clarifies that the prosecutors’ motive is not to have the Law of Moses carried out against the woman. That is of little importance to them. Their motive is to execute Jesus; if they have to kill the woman in the process, then they are willing to sacrifice her. Since the man is not present, there is opportunity for Jesus to challenge the prosecution.[24]
Revealing that this was a trap prepares the reader to see how Jesus foils their attempt. Current readers may not understand the dilemma of the situation. If Jesus agrees with the sentence to stone the woman, the scribes may condemn him for not being strict enough about the Law since the man was free. He would not be an impartial judge if he sentenced the woman and not the man. If he advocates stoning her, the Roman government may take him to task for taking the law into his own hands since the Jews did not have authority to carry out the death sentence (John 18:31). They also can claim that he violates his own teaching of grace and forgiveness (Luke 5:20). If he dismisses the charge, then they can claim he is guilty of teaching against the Law of Moses and against Roman law.[25]In the eyes of the prosecution, their plan is perfect.Wisdom of Jesus’ First Response (8:6b-c)“Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground” (John 8:6b). There is little in contemporary Western culture that would explain Jesus’ action. It was most likely a surprise to the prosecutors as well.[26]The King James Version adds, “As though he heard them not.” While this is not in any Greek manuscripts, translators added this and it presents a valid idea that may help understand his action.Jesus Bends Down (8:6b)Presumably, Jesus is still sitting during this interruption, maintaining his position as a teacher as well as judge. Rather than standing in their presence to show respect for them (Job 29:8), he remains seated. Bending over, Jesus effectively ignores their demand to settle the case. “A person’s wisdom yields patience; it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense”( Prov 19:11 NIV). Jesus knows their deception and the offensive interruption of his teaching. He demonstrates wisdom and patience by bending down and ignoring their initial request.Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:6c)Speculations abound for what Jesus wrote on the ground; however, it is more important to note that he writes on the ground. Is it for the benefit of the onlookers, the prosecutors, the woman, or the reader? If Jesus is demonstrating his wisdom then one explanation makes sense. Jesus writes on the ground with his finger symbolically repeating what God did when he gave the Ten Commandments. This is the finger of God writing on the earth. These are the only two times in the Bible when God writes with his own hand. It is a reminder to the scribes and Pharisees of the full Ten Commandments as well as a reminder to the reader. For the readers who no longer have the temple to satisfy the requirements of the Old Testament, it is a statement that Jesus writes the New Covenant.[27]
The eighth day of the feast was a holy day of rest. According to their traditions, no one may write more than two letters, unless it was in the dust. Jesus demonstrates that he is well aware of the oral as well as the written traditions.[28]His judgment will take into account all aspects of their laws.Prosecutors’ Persistence (8:7a)“And as they continued to ask him …” (John 8:7a). It is apparent that the prosecutors have only one thing on their minds; they will not stop asking the question about the sentence until Jesus responds verbally.[29]It is hard to imagine that they do not take notice of what Jesus writes. Perhaps, Jesus’ ignoring them only fuels their anger against him. Their desire to eliminate Jesus dominates any sense of decorum. Their impatience is in contrast to Jesus’ calm.Wisdom of Jesus’ Judicial Response (8:7b-8)“He stood up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground” (John 8:7b-9). He Stands (8:7b)Now Jesus stands. He is face to face with the prosecution and the woman. It is time for Jesus to render his verdict and this simple action of standing transforms Jesus from a teacher, ignoring the rabble, to the judge of mankind. The reader may very well be acquainted with the Book of Acts and remembers that Jesus was standing at the right hand of God at Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7:55-60). It must silence the prosecutors not because they recognize Jesus but because they are about to trap him. Jesus’ Answer (8:7c)Jesus again demonstrates his wisdom in his answer. Rather than falling into their trap, Jesus turns the table on the prosecutors. He answers by synthesizing Leviticus 24:14, Deuteronomy 13:5-10, and Deuteronomy 17:6-7.[30]He does not render a verdict about the woman’s guilt or innocence, rather he clarifies that stoning must be carried out by the person who first sees or hears the offence, even if it is in secret. Furthermore, there must be two or more witnesses to the crime. It is obvious that in each of these situations, any person doing the stoning must also be free from blasphemy and idol worship, or they would be stoned as well. However, Jesus adds the requirement for the person to cast the first stone to be without sin in this situation as well. They can use nothing in his answer to accuse him before the people, their own religious establishment, or the Roman government.
The Law did not require the executioners to be sinless. If sinlessness is a requirement of a witness and therefore an executioner, then it would be impossible to convict anyone. Yet the Bible clarifies that the government’s has authority to carry out God’s wrath on evildoers (Rom 13:4).[31]The meaning of being without sin in the context of this passage and the synthesis of Jesus reply from the Old Testament brings two points to mind. The first is that the witness must be free from the sin of adultery. The second is that the witness must be free from complicity in arranging to catch her and trap Jesus. The judge of all mankind does not pass judgment on the woman, but on her prosecutors. In one sense, Jesus also becomes her advocate (1 John 2:1).[32]Jesus Writes on the Ground (8:8)Jesus’ purpose in writing on the ground this time may be to extend grace to those who must let his words sink into their hearts.[33]Rather than staring them down, face to face, he is willing to let them “save face” by leaving quietly. Jesus also demonstrates wisdom in that abruptly bending down, he sends the message that he is not willing to discuss his answer. The religious leaders have often attempted to justify themselves (Luke 10:29; 16:14-15).[34]Again, there is no point in speculating about what Jesus writes. He is patient, giving each person time to repent (2 Peter 3:9). The judge of this world is a patient judge.Prosecutors’ Response to Jesus (8:9)“But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him” (John 8:9). These men or their agents followed Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry (John 3:18). They know what Jesus taught otherwise they would not have been able to construct their trap nor would they feel constrained to kill him. When Jesus allows the one without sin to cast the first stone, his words are enough to convict these men. “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28). If this were not enough, God is also able to bring to their minds conviction from the Old Testament. Their intent against Jesus is obviously murder. A sobering passage is Proverbs 28:17, “If one is burdened with the blood of another, he will be a fugitive until death; let no one help him.” This demonstrates that Jesus’ word judges the thoughts and attitude of the heart (John 12:47-50, Heb 4:12).
Leaving from the oldest to the youngest may be part custom in deferring to the elders and part conviction of those most sensitive to their conscience.[35]On the other hand, those who have been Pharisees, using the negative sense of the word, the longest are most likely to have seared consciences (Titus 1:15). However, as they left, they admit their guilt. This is a huge contrast to their next conflict with Jesus as the Pharisees regroup and argue extensively with Jesus about his ability to judge, his Father, and his deity (John 8:12-59). Their admission of guilt does not bring about any long-term repentance or change of heart. Most likely, they leave because they are embarrassed. Regardless of their reason, this demonstrates God’s control of the situation because it is not yet time for them to take Jesus.Jesus’ Mercy in His Interaction with the Woman (8:10-11)“Jesus stood up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more’” (John 8:10-11). With no prosecutors, Jesus is the only one left qualified to pass judgment on the woman. Jesus Stands (8:10a)It is likely that she stands through the entire ordeal since Jesus stands to address her. He does not look down on her, nor does he sit again to teach. He demonstrates his respect for her just as he did for other women he encountered.[36]Jesus Questions the Woman (8:10b)Jesus does not question the woman about her guilt. He judges as he hears and his judgment is just (John 5:30). Just as Jesus spoke with respect to the woman at the well but also told her all she did (John 4:39), Jesus does not need witnesses to accuse her. He knows her heart and her life; he does not need to ask if she is guilty. Rather, his question is about her immediate crisis; where are those who want her dead? Jesus demonstrates his tenderness and compassion as a graceful judge.[37]This is in stark contrast to the Law that previously stood to condemn her.
The first question is about the location of her accusers. The second is asking even if anyone is condemning her. If there is no prosecution, then according the Law, punishment (condemnation) is not appropriate (Deut 17:6). Even in our culture, this is the practice. No judge would convene a trial if there were no prosecuting attorney willing to take on the case. However, that does not mean the person is innocent. [38]Woman’s Response (8:11a)“She said, ‘No one, Lord’” (John 8:11a). The woman has one brief moment to speak and simply replies to Jesus’ question. She calls him lord, but this may only mean she acknowledges his authority over her in the trial. Surely, Psalm 51:4 is familiar to her. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” Unlike David, she does not admit guilt, demonstrate remorse, or express relief. However, she is still at the mercy of the judge and he has not yet rendered his verdict. Jesus’ Acquittal of the Woman (8:11b)“And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you’” (John 8:11b). This is the second time that Jesus uses the word, “condemn.” Jesus uses the word in the strict sense of pronouncing a sentence, the punishment required for a crime, not a declaration of guilt. Even though Jesus is qualified to condemn her because he is without sin and the judge of all mankind, he will not sentence her because he supports the Law of Moses.[39]This is a legal acquittal, which means she is not guilty according to the law. It does not remove her moral guilt before God.
This does not mean that Jesus forgives the woman. Jesus does not say anything about forgiving her sins. In comparing this incident with other verses where Jesus specifically tells the paralytic (Matt 9:2) and the woman who anointed him and wept on his feet (Luke 7:48-50) that their sins were forgiven, there are two major differences. The first is that this woman did not come to Jesus willingly. She did not come to find forgiveness. The second is that she did not come in faith. In both of the other two instances, Jesus either sees or comments on their faith. He makes no such comment about the woman caught in adultery. His advice to her demonstrates this as well.Jesus’ Advice to the Woman (8:11c)“’Go, and from now on sin no more’” (John 8:11c). In neither of the other proclamations of forgiveness, does Jesus tell the person to stop sinning. Rather, he heals the paralytic and simply tells him to go home (Matt 9:6). He dismisses the woman in peace (Luke 7:50). However, the adulteress has no assurance of forgiveness; she has not expressed any faith in Jesus. In his next confrontation with the Pharisees, Jesus will drive the point home as he declares, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:22). While Jesus demonstrates his grace and mercy to the woman, it is only temporary unless she also repents and comes to him in faith.ApplicationTheological PrinciplesSeveral theological principles are within the pericope that are consistent with both the Old and New Testaments. The best-laid plans of men are unable to trap Jesus before his time, demonstrating God’s sovereignty in all situations. Jesus’ ability to uphold the details of the Law and his own teaching of mercy and grace demonstrate God’s wisdom. Conviction of the scribes and Pharisees reveals that no one can hide his sins from God. People will go to extreme sinful lengths to satisfy their desires rather than submit to God. Jesus will judge correctly in every situation and it will be with grace and mercy; but this does not mean he will forgive without faith and repentance. Jesus gives everyone ample time to repent. This passage does not apply to a theology allowing or disallowing capital punishment.[40]Personal ApplicationThe biggest difference between the circumstances of this passage and today is that Jesus is not physically present. While people cannot approach Jesus and challenge him, people do approach and challenge Christians trying to discredit Jesus and the Bible. There are also legalistic Christians who treat sinners harshly and without compassion. There are also sinners who need to make up their minds about their sins and whether or not they will forsake them and turn to Jesus for salvation. These similarities allow for personal applications.
We are often like the scribes and Pharisees in this passage. We judge others harshly and legalistically. We forget that Jesus graciously forgives us and expects us to extend grace to others. We need to give people with sin problems the opportunity to repent and change their lives rather than treating them harshly and hoping that God will “get them.” We must look at our own sins and realize that it is only because of Jesus’ patience and grace toward us that we are not treated the way we want him to treat others. Rather, we need to let them know that they can come to Jesus. Those who repent find assurance of their forgiveness.We are like the woman caught in adultery. But the devil is the prosecutor and Jesus is the judge and our advocate (1 John 2:1). We can be sure that Jesus will judge us fairly, as he has already defeated the prosecutor. But the question is whether we appear before Jesus unwillingly at the end of our life or we come to him while alive in repentance and in faith. If we do not come in faith, then we can be sure that our accuser will not stop. His witness will stand and more importantly, Jesus’ witness will stand. We will be condemned and it will not be temporal, but eternal.
We can be like Jesus. We can make sure that we examine cases carefully. We can be patient. We can be gracious and treat sinners with respect. We can make sure that we do not accept the condemnation of hypocrites who have an ungodly agenda. We can also warn against continued sin. Best of all, we can go one step further and share the gospel, praying that sinners will believe in Jesus and receive salvation.ConclusionThe authenticity of John 7:53-8:11 is questionable and that will never change. However, the passage provides a vivid look into the life of Jesus and the ongoing conflict he had with the religious leaders. It reveals him as the righteous judge. The details of this incident focus on Jesus’ wise application of the Law of Moses to the case of a woman caught in adultery. He weighs all the intricacies of their trap from the legal and Roman political angles. Yet, he shows grace to the accusers as he allows them to leave without his condemning stare. It is a powerful demonstration of God’s ability to convict and move even a sinner’s heart to his will. Jesus emerges as the judge of the accusers as well as the woman’s judge revealing his purity. He offers her the opportunity to admit her guilt and ask for forgiveness, which she does not do. Again, Jesus demonstrates mercy by freeing her and giving her another chance to repent and change her life. The theological principles found in this passage are consistent with other Scripture and are useful for application today.BibliographyBarnes, Albert. Barnes’ Notes. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc, 2005. Electronic database.Baylis, Charles P. “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet.” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (April 1, 1989): 171-84. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Gary M. “A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (June 1984): 141-48. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Adam. Clarke’s Commentary. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc, 2005. Electronic database.Constable, Thomas L. “Notes on John.” Sonic Light. 2015. Accessed April 20, 2015. http://www.soniclight.com/constable/n..., Joseph S. The Biblical Illustrator: New Testament Volumes. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc, 2006. Electronic database.Fausset, Andrew Robert. Fausset's Bible Dictionary. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc, 2006. Electronic database.Harris III, W. Hall. “1. Background to the Study of John.” Bible.org. February 2, 2009. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://bible.org/seriespage/backgrou....—. “10. Exegetical Commentary on John 7.” Bible.org. February 2, 2009. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://bible.org/seriespage/exegetic....—. “11. Exegetical Commentary on John 8.” Bible.org. February 2, 2009. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://bible.org/seriespage/exegetic..., Everett F. “The Gospel and the Gospels.” Bibliotheca Sacra 116, no. 462 (April 1959): 109-16. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc., 2006. Electronic database.Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8 the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:11-8:11) the Text.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 544 (October 1979): 318-32. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Stephen A. “The Adulteress and the Death Penalty.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 1 (March 1979): 45-53. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc., 2006. Electronic database.Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised Edition. Revised ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.Köstenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2009. Kindle.Nixon, John Ashley. “Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? The Authorship and Occasion of the Fourth Gospel According to Patristic Evidence from the First Three Centuries.” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 81-92. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., James, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc, 2006. Electronic database.Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” Bibliotheca Sacra 131, no. 522 (April 1974): 137-146. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert..., Merrill F. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Updated ed. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988. Biblesoft.Whitacre, Rodney A. “Commentaries for the Book of John.” BibleGateway.com. 2010. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://www.biblegateway.com/resource....—. “John 7 Commentary - Both the Crowd and the Pharisees Are Divided over Jesus.” BibleGateway.com. 2010. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://www.biblegateway.com/resource....—. “John 7 Commentary - Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery.” BibleGateway.com. 2010. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://www.biblegateway.com/resource....—. “John 8 Commentary - Jesus Reveals Himself as the Light of the World.” BibleGateway.com. 2010. Accessed April 13, 2015. https://www.biblegateway.com/resource....

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible references in this paper are to The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001)
[2]William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised Edition, Revised ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 123. [3]John Ashley Nixon, “Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? the Authorship and Occasion of the Fourth Gospel According to Patristic Evidence from the First Three Centuries,” Faith and Mission 20, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 81, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [4]Nixon, 82-83. [5]Ibid., 92. [6]Köstenberger et al., 8612-8668, Kindle. [7]Gary M. Burge, “A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (June 1984): 142, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [8]Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on John,” Sonic Light, 2015, 150, accessed April 20, 2015, http://www.soniclight.com/constable/n.... [9]Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8 the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11): the Text,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136, no. 544 (October 1979): 330-331, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [10]Allison A. Trites, “The Woman Taken in Adultery,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131, no. 522 (April 1974): 146, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [11]W. Hall Harris III, “11. Exegetical Commentary on John 8,” Bible.org, February 2, 2009, accessed April 13, 2015, https://bible.org/seriespage/11-exege.... [12]Klein et al., 115-116. Klein et al. provide the criteria for canonicity. [13]Rodney A. Whitacre, “John 7 Commentary - Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery,” BibleGateway.com, 2010, accessed April 13, 2015, https://www.biblegateway.com/resource.... [14]Trites, 146. [15]Andrew Robert Fausset, Fausset's Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Tabernacles, Feast Of,” (Seattle: Biblesoft, Inc., 2006), Electronic Database. [16]Burge, 144. [17]Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Updated ed., s.v. “Scribes,” ed. R. K. Harrison (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006), Biblesoft. [18]Ibid., “Pharisees.” [19]Whitacre, John 7. [20]Farrar, “The Scene and Its Significance,” in The Biblical Illustrator: New Testament Volumes, eds. Joseph S. Exell, (Seattle: Biblesoft, 2006), John 8:3-11. [21]Ibid. [22]Unger, “Adultery.” [23]Trites, 145. [24]Constable, 152. [25]Ibid. [26]Harris, “John 8.” [27]Constable, 152. [28]Whitacre, John 7. [29]Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes, (Seattle: Biblesoft, 2005), John 8:7, Electronic Database. [30]Constable, 152. [31]Stephen A. James “The Adulteress and the Death Penalty,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 1 (March 1979): 48, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [32]Constable, 152. [33]Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, (Seattle: Biblesoft, 2006), John 8:8, Electronic database. [34]Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Seattle: Biblesoft, 2006), John 8:1-11, Electronic database. [35]Whitacre, John 7. [36]Constable, 154. [37]Jamieson et al., John 8:11. [38]James, 47. [39]Charles P. Baylis, “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (April 1, 1989): 183, accessed March 29, 2015, http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.libert.... [40]James, 53.

Appoint Elders without Rebellious Kids – Titus 1:5-7

I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you. An elder must live a blameless life. He must be faithful to his wife, and his children must be believers who don't have a reputation for being wild or rebellious. For an elder must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker, violent, or dishonest with money. (NLT)
Complete the Work
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to get a letter from God with some specific instructions about what He wanted you to do? I know we have all sorts of instructions in the Bible, things like, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17). But this isn’t exactly a personal directive for a specific task at hand. I’m thinking about being as specific as Paul was when he wrote to Titus. For me, it might be a directive to finish writing a book I’ve been working on and get it done by a specific time. It could be an answer to a person praying and considering two job options in two different cities. Perhaps it would be, “Joe, I want you to go to Cincinnati and …” It could be, “Mary, don’t marry this guy, I have someone else in mind for you.” If you read books by some famous Christians, you would get the idea that this is exactly the way God works, after all didn’t God say, “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left” (Isa 30:21 RSV). Wouldn’t it be great if God told us exactly what work He wants us to complete and even how to do it?
I think, for most of us, God doesn’t micro manage us but macro manages. He paints the broad picture and it is up to us to figure out how to do the day-to-day work. He provides the big picture in verses like Revelation 4:11, where we declare that He is worthy to receive glory and honor because He created everything. Or consider Ecclesiastes 12:13, where our duty is defined as fearing God and keeping His commands. Jesus prioritized the commands in Matthew 28:19-20 in that we are to make disciples and teach them.
God also provides principles for the day-to-day work but we have look at those and apply the principles to the situation rather than having Him tell us specifically how to handle it. “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself” (Phil 2:3 NASB). This is a good example of a principle. We have to work out humility and putting others before our own selfish ambitions in almost every aspect of our lives. God doesn’t tell us to put down the remote and help the kids with homework or our spouses with whatever needs they have. If we don’t follow the principles, there will be some bad consequences but that isn’t micro managing.
Sometimes God micro manages, but that appears only when we are on the wrong track and there is a special task He wants done by a specific person. Paul was off track and God micro managed him for a short time until he got the hang of it. In Acts 9, God really had to intervene. He knocked him of his horse and then told him to go into the city and wait to be told what to do. He micro managed Ananais telling him to baptize Paul and give him his marching orders. Later, Paul was prevented from speaking in Asia but was told to go to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10). It seems odd to me that we are in awe of the times when God does this special leading and seldom give Him the glory when millions of Christians around the world are living and doing the things He wants without having to be micro managed.
Whatever we do must have as the ultimate goal of bringing glory to God (1 Cor 10:31, Col 3:17). When do we bring the most glory to God? Is it during a worship service when we are singing praises to Him? God made it clear that what He desires is obedience and that brings Him glory and one of the things that is high on His list is making disciples (Ps 40:6, Matt 9:13). How do we do that? Love God and love others (Matt 22:37-40).
Are you ready to glorify God and make disciples wherever you are?
Elders
Paul covered the qualifications of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 which I previously covered in detail (http://ray-ruppert.blogspot.com/2011/06/elder-qualifications-part-1-1-tim-31-4.html, http://ray-ruppert.blogspot.com/2011/06/elder-qualifications-part-2-1-tim-34-7.html, and http://ray-ruppert.blogspot.com/2011/06/deacon-qualifications-1-tim-38-13.html).
There are a few differences between the qualifications. When addressing Timothy, Paul spoke of managing his household with submissive children. His qualifications to Titus are more stringent. Their children must be believers and not wild or insubordinate. Submissiveness should include not being wild or insubordinate, but even nonbelieving children can be submissive outwardly and inward rebels. He used the same word for children in both Timothy and Titus so we can’t argue that the differences applied to having younger or older children. So why the difference and how does that apply to us today?
In the previous blogs, I explained the relationship that the elders, deacons, or overseers should have with their children in relation to managing the church. The way they treat their kids will in many ways reflect their attitude and behavior when dealing with the members of their church. If they have raised their children the way God indicates in various passages, then this is most likely the way they will run the church.
However, we know that even godly parents can do all that they should and have a child who rebels against God. The parable of the prodigal son is a good example (Luke 15:11-32). If the father in this parable is a representation of God and His forgiveness, then we can see that Jesus recognizes that in the best of families there will be rebels. In fact, there were two rebels. The younger son was the outward rebel, repented and came home. The older son was the inward rebel. A mature Christian who is qualified to be an elder should be able to tell whether or not his children are believers and if they are inward or outward rebels. What do you think? If he has an inward rebel who is behaviorally compliant, should he be an elder?
Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel? (1 Sam 2:29 ESV)
After reading about Eli and his worthless sons in 1 Samuel 2:12-36, the principle is demonstrated that a spiritual leader with rebellious sons is very likely to put his children above the Lord. Yes, Eli tried to rebuke his sons but they would not listen (vs. 23-25). Eli had the means as the high priest to do more than scold his sons. But as we find in 1 Samuel 4:18 Eli was “heavy.” Apparently, he also had fattened himself on the offerings that his sons took.
It appears that Paul is making it clear to Titus that a leader with corrupted children is likely to compromise his job as elder. If he is godly and tries to rebuke and discipline the children, even then, he will be spending significant time and distraction because of this. It is better for one to step back from his duties as an elder and deal with family problems than it is to try to correct his household and still manage the affairs of the church. This is not a popular opinion because most people believe they can do both. Probably, the bigger problem is that they are prideful and unwilling to admit that their children are rebellious as if it were a reflection on their parenting skills. They do not want to lose face in front of their peers or the church.
That brings up another question, is a rebellious child a reflection on a person’s spirituality and parenting skills? Suppose he [the righteous father] has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them) … [a list of wrongs] … Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head. (Ezek 18:10-13 NIV)
In the context of this passage, the Lord explains that evil men may have good sons and good men may have evil sons. Each is to pay for his own wickedness. While the passage doesn’t speak directly to what the good father should do to teach his children, (a godly Jew would already know) the implication is that he has set a good example for his son. In spite of his best efforts, the son is a rebel. This is seen over and over in the kings of Judah. Good kings beget bad kings and vice versa. While someone may quote Proverbs 22:6 (NASU), “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.” We need to remember, “The wisdom books are not a collection of universal promises. Rather, they are a collection of valuable insights into godly living, which, if taken to heart (and head), will develop godly character, a character that will make wise choices in the rough-and-tumble marketplace of life.”[1]Generally, when a person instills godly principles into his children, they will live godly lives as well. However, this is not a guarantee as many famous, godly people can confirm.
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:4-9 NKJV)
Every Jew knew these verses, but by looking at the history of Israel, it is evident that either they didn’t practice them or even godly parents can have rebellious children. However, Paul and Titus were working with Gentiles who knew little if any Jewish culture. Even today, many Christians do not know these verses much less practice them. While we don’t need to go to the extreme of tying Scripture to our hands or foreheads, the wisdom of teaching our children in everyday activities should be natural. If a person being considered as an elder isn’t teaching his children in this way, then the likelihood of having unbelieving children will increase. If he isn’t teaching his children in a natural way that everything he says and does is centered on Jesus, then his own maturity is in question.
In a sense, examining the attitudes and behavior of a person’s children reveals much. But it can’t be a surface overview as has been pointed out, godly people can have rebels, however, a person with rebels needs to focus on dealing with them. Even when they are older, dealing with rebels doesn’t stop and can be quite distracting and time consuming. An elder needs to be able to devote his time to ministry. If he has taught his children well, and they have not rebelled, he will be able to function well as an elder. Of course, this doesn’t apply only to elders, but to each one of us whether we have an official title or are serving the Lord in other ways.

[1]Duvall, J. Scott; Hays, J. Daniel (2012-05-08). Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (p. 423). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.