Welcome To The Gospel Unashamed Archive

Archived for your enjoyment are these past issues of the Gospel Unashamed. In the near future we how to have every issue here for your viewing pleasure. Also below are the latest Gospel Unashamed articles for you in Blog format. If you wish to search a topic just type in a key word in the search box at the top left of the page and hit search this blog. Enjoy! Below are the archived Gospel Unashamed issues:

Winter 2008 issue of the Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2007 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2007 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2007 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2007 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2006 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2006 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2006 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2006 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2005 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2005 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2005 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2005 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2004 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2004 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2004 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2004 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2003 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2003 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2003 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2003 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2002 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2002 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2002 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2002 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2001 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Summer 2001 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Spring 2001 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Winter 2001 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

Fall 2000 issue of The Gospel Unashamed

AN OLD FRIEND by George L. Faull

Yesterday I called an old friend of mine. His wife answered the phone. She told me, "He went home to the Lord." I never got to say Good-bye. He was a denominational preacher whom I had a close friendship with for 40 years.

I offered my condolences and hung up the phone. The tears came and I thought my heart would explode. He had meant so much to me. He had taught me so much. We had shared many a good time and we had argued and debated while eating many a fine meal together. It did not seem possible that he was gone. Oh, how the mind has a hard time accepting the reality of death!

Last night I retreated to my motor home down on the Eel River where I enjoy sleeping on some summer nights. Thunder woke me and the rain fell gently on the roof and the evening breeze blew through the window. It should have been easy sleeping but I was thinking of my friend.
Again, the tears came, the lump in my throat grew large and my face contorted as I tried not to cry. It was no use to try. The floodgates opened and I wept. I thought to myself, "Why am I weeping?" I never cried at the other 40 preacher friends that I’ve lost in the last 22 months!
Then I knew! The others I had no doubts of their salvation. I doubted my friend’s salvation! I had no positive hope. Instead there was doubt and apprehension.

Now I am fully aware that what I am writing will anger some and cause others to belittle me. That’s o.k. My convictions are my convictions and denying them won’t make them either true or false. My saying he was saved will not save him. My fearing he was lost won’t damn him. God won’t save him just because he was my good friend.

I do not doubt that he loved the Lord as much as I do, nor that he was as sincere as I am. He called Jesus, "Lord", and did many wonderful works in Jesus’ name. He sacrificed for his ministry, as I do mine. His sons were both preachers and teachers in their denomination. I spent time with all of them and loved each of them. They were happy people.

Many times I stayed overnight in his home and was on my knees praying with him and his wife at morning devotions. He loved me as a son. He introduced me to his friends that we had
dinner with from time to time. Many of them were famous in their own circles.

My friend was liked and admired by men of all walks of life. One would be hard pressed to find a more likeable and loveable personality.

So what’s the problem? He believed in the One God and His Son, Jesus Christ. He believed the Bible was God’s Word. He was a moral man. He was a doer of good works. But he would be the first to admit there’s many a hypocrite that believes and does all that. He was no hypocrite.
The thing that troubled me was that he believed and taught things that were untrue. He was a false teacher. I know that Carl Ketcherside says a man is not a false teacher unless he knows he is preaching something that is false. Frankly, I think that is just plain silly.

If I preach something that is false, I am a false teacher. Now granted, not all facts are of equal importance. If I teach that Methuselah lived to be 999 years old instead of 969 years old, I am saying something that is not true but it does not have the ramifications of saying that Jesus was not born of a Virgin or never arose from the dead!

One is an interesting fact, the other is essential to the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the resurrection is essential to my salvation. My friend taught things that were not true and denied things that were true. Let me explain:

FIRST:
He believes that all men are sinners BUT only because he believes that every man born inherited the sin, guilt, and nature of Adam.

ANSWER:
We did inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin but not his guilt or sinful nature. In Adam we die. This is not because something inherently changed in his being. He died because he was put out of the garden away from the tree of life. After he sinned the Lord says that he was put out of the garden "lest he would eat of the tree of life and live forever". The reason men die is because they do not get to eat of the tree of life.

So we share in the consequence of his sin, but we do not have his guilt. God wanted His people to stop saying "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge." We are not responsible for our father’s sins. "The soul that sins it shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

We do often suffer the consequence of someone else's sin but not their guilt. I was not born away from the fold. I went astray. I was not born away from the Father but like the prodigal I left the Father to do my own will. The Bible says we go astray after we are born. This idea of Adam’s guilt passing to all men is a great misunderstanding. If one is born a sinner simply because he was born of a woman, I would remind you that Jesus was born of woman. If He was born a sinner He cannot be our Savior.

SECOND:
He believed that God chose to save men BUT only certain men that He chose. The remainder of men would be damned.

This election of individuals was said to be done before we were born and in fact before the foundation of the world. Those He chose to save are elected individually and they cannot be lost. That elect group can neither be added to or subtracted from in number.

ANSWER:
This denies John 3:16 which plainly says that "…whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life".

If I believed that only the elect could be saved and that they could not be lost because they were chosen, and the non elect could not be saved because they were not chosen, I would never preach another sermon in my life. There would be no need to do so.

The elect would be saved regardless if I preached or not and the lost would be damned regardless of whether I preached. The chosen could not be lost if they wanted to be and the lost could not be saved if they tried to be. What a ludicrous doctrine this is!

It makes God a respecter of persons. No amount of talk about the sovereignty of God can remove the fact this is respect of persons. God is a sovereign God but He is not unrighteous. He is just.

The Bible teaches that the elect are those who choose to believe. Some will not repent that they may believe. God can choose vessels for His service by His sovereignty without respect of persons. He did so with Jacob instead of Esau but that is a far cry from choosing specific persons to go to heaven and others to go to hell. John 1:12, "12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

THIRD:
He believed Jesus died for sin BUT only for the elect and not for the sins of the whole world. This is called the "limited atonement".

ANSWER:
This is in flat contradiction of I John 2:2 "and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

FOURTH:
He believed that Jesus was sinless BUT only because He was born of a virgin and the stain of sin only comes through the man’s blood. Since God was His Father, no sin passed to Him from Adam.

ANSWER:
This is really strange since when a man child was born the mother was only unclean for 7 days then continued in her purifying 33 days while if it was a female child, the mother was unclean for two weeks then continued in the blood of her purifying 66 days. It would appear from this rational that girls were worse than boys!!

The truth is, sin does not pass from father to child any more than a man’s righteousness does.
Remember a child may be born drunk, on drugs, or with blindness due to VD and so forth but the guilt is not passed on. It is just the consequences of the parent’s sin that affects the child. The child may be born in poverty because of the habits and lifestyle of the parents but the child is not a sinner because of their sin.

If we were born sinners and Christ was not, then how can it be said that He was "made like unto his brethren in all things"?

If I was born with a sinful nature and He was not, then did He not have a big advantage over me? We, nor Christ, were born sinners.

We were born as innocent as Adam at his creation. He was made in God’s image and so are we. Adam marred that image and so did I. Jesus did not.

FIFTH:
He believed that faith was essential to come to God BUT he believed that faith was a gift that God gives only to the elect whom He chose before the world began.

He would quote, "for by grace are you saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast".

ANSWER:
It is not faith that is the gift of God. It is salvation that is the gift of God, as any Greek student will tell you. Faith is not the gift of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. The Scriptures were written that we might believe and believing we might have life in His name.

The word of God is the semen of God. We were begotten, not of corruptible seed, but by the incorruptible word of God. Without faith you can not please God because he that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. If faith is a gift of God that only He can give, then whose fault would it be if a man did not have it? It would be God’s fault. What dangerous and slanderous doctrine this is!

SIXTH:
He believed that the Church is the body of Christ BUT that it was established as a substitute for the Jewish Kingdom. Since the Jews killed Him, the Church was kind of like an afterthought that would be temporary until He came back and established His earthly kingdom.

ANSWER:
The Church is the eternal purpose of God, and not an afterthought to fill in until the Jews decided to accept Christ. Nations do not accept Christ, individuals do so, and we as His Church have His Words and must speak His Words faithfully.

Jesus said that He would build His Church even before they killed Him. Jesus used the word "Church" and "Kingdom" synonymously. He said, "I will build My Church. I will give unto you the keys to the Kingdom". The Jews did not postpone the Kingdom, they established it, for Peter preached on Pentecost that David was a prophet who foresaw Christ's resurrection to sit on His Throne.

If they had not killed Him, He could not have been raised from the dead to sit on the throne until His enemies were His footstool. Acts 2:30-34

If the Jews postponed the work of Christ by rejecting Him the first time, what is to say they will not postpone it again the second time? Daniel foresaw the Kingdom established in the days of the fourth kingdom on earth, that is, the days of the Roman Empire. He said the "interpretation was sure".

Any future day that the Kingdom would be established would not be in the days of the fourth kingdom that existed in Jesus’ lifetime. It has been almost 2,000 years and any kingdom now would not be the fourth kingdom on earth. We have already been translated out of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.

SEVENTH:
He believed in Baptism BUT that it was an outward sign of an inward act, he did not believe it was essential to salvation. He believed "he that believeth and is saved should be baptized."

ANSWER:
Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The Bible teaches that baptism precedes the remission of sins and the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 Of the conversions in Acts, the baptism of the converts are mentioned. Their faith and repentance and confession are not mentioned in every account. What is mentioned is their baptism. Yet the thing that is always mentioned is the one thing that my friend believed you did not have to do to be saved.

One cannot be saved if he is not IN Christ, nor is he a new creature unless he is IN Christ, nor is he without condemnation unless he is IN Christ. One gets into Christ by being baptized INTO Him. When my friend told people they were saved without being baptized he was making promises Jesus never made and was usurping the authority of Jesus and His apostles.

EIGHTH:
He believed Jesus was coming again BUT he was not touching down on the earth but catching the believer up to heaven for a while. Later in the second phase of the Second Coming He would come back to set up a literal physical kingdom on earth for a thousand years. While He was gone he believed people could still be saved. They would have to go through great tribulation but they would have a second chance.

ANSWER:
The Bible knows nothing of two parts to the Second Coming, a rapture, or a second chance. This doctrine did not originate till the mid-1700's. When Jesus comes again, that is the end of the world. He is coming in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who know not God and those who have not obeyed the Gospel. Unto those who look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin. The saints will be glorified and the wicked will be cast out of His presence. There is no second chance.

NINTH:
He believed that the Church will be raptured BUT the Holy Spirit will also be taken out of this world. When that occurs 144,000 converted Jewish evangelists will go out and preach and win more souls to Christ (without the Holy Spirit) than the Spirit empowered church did for over 2000 years!!!

ANSWER:
Surely you can see the 144,000 people are figurative. It is from the book of Revelation. When interpreted in this manner, it is an insult to the Holy Spirit. God’s Church is His evangelizers and with the help of the Holy Spirit many who were offered Salvation find Him.

TENTH:
He believed that one was made Holy at Conversion BUT he believed one could have a second work of grace and from that time on one could live without sin and never sin.

ANSWER:
He that says he has no sin, is a liar and "the truth is not in him". In many things we all offend. Paul calls himself, even after his conversion, the chief of sinners. He who controls his tongue is a perfect man but the tongue can no man tame.
Therefore it follows that no one is perfect since no man can tame his tongue. There will never ever be a time that Jesus can just "ring off of the clock" because we no longer sin and do not need His intercession to help us at the throne of Grace.

ELEVENTH:
He believed that there is not anything you can do to be saved BUT once you are saved there is not anything you can do to be lost. Once a son always a son.

ANSWER:
Why then do we say, "I was a child of the devil? If the Proverb "once a son you are always a son" is true how then can I say" I am no longer a child of the devil." If once a son always a son applied to God’s children, then why not the devil’s? We are told we must make our calling and election sure. We need to take heed lest we depart from the living God.

TWELFTH:
He believed in taking Communion to remember our Lord but did not see the need of following the apostolic example of doing so on the first day of the week.

ANSWER:
Why would one follow the apostolic example as to when to meet (first day of the week) and not follow the apostolic example as to why they met? The verse that says when they met tells us why they met. Acts 20:7, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Apostolic example is needful for obedience to Christ and for Christian unity. Jesus led them into all truth and told them to teach all the things whatsoever He commanded. Matthew 28:28

CONCLUSION:
These are but a few things that my friend believed and practiced. No, he did not deny the deity, nor the Messiahship of Christ but look at what he did teach. He denied many of the cardinal things that Jesus taught in His ministry.
When you tell people:

• Only certain ones that God chose before creation can be saved


• That the Church is a substitute for a Jewish physical Kingdom


• That baptism is not essential to salvation and the Lord’s Supper is not mandatory.


• That faith is only available as a Gift from God


• That once you are saved, you cannot be lost


• That He never died for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect few


• That the lost will get a second chance after a secret rapture


• That men can be saved simply by inviting Jesus into their hearts.


• Then I think you can understand why I weep for my friend. No wonder the Bible says "Be not many teachers knowing you’re going to receive heavier judgement"
  

If I am wrong in what I teach, I expect His judgement to come upon me. How can I believe that my friend will hear "Well done thou good and faithful servant"?

Oh Lord God, help me to "study to show myself approved unto God a worker that needs not to be ashamed, having rightfully divided the word of Truth." I know you are a merciful God. I want to be merciful too. I therefore believe I best serve my Lord and the memory of my friend by trying to correct those things he taught as truth by showing them to be in error. May my friends serve me likewise, not only when I am dead, but now while I live.

P.S. Obviously there are many other arguments that could be given against my friend’s assumptions. If you wish to have further arguments against any one of these ideas, please let me know and I will recommend Scriptures that may be of further help.

QUESTION ON HOMOSEXUALITY

DEAR BROTHER FAULL:
I read your article on homosexuality and how you have determined that it is indeed an abomination and thus something for the church to fight against. I would like you to comment on this well-known script from "The West Wing". Specifically why don’t you kill people that work on the Sabbath as explained below and in Exodus 35:2?

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination."

JENNA JACOBS:
"I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does."

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Yes, it does. Leviticus."

JENNA JACOBS:
"Leviticus 18:22 (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination.)"

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. (When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.) She’s a Georgetown sophomore, she speaks fluent Italian, and always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 32:2 clearly says he should be put to death. (Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death). Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important, ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7 (And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.) If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"

MR. FAULL’S ANSWER:
This is not going to be easy to answer for two reasons:

1. I doubt the sincerity of the character called President Bartlet.


2. It is obvious the person is Biblically ignorant of the purpose of the Law of Moses and the Jewish nation at that time of history.
   

LET’S THINK TOGETHER
The objector ought to be a little suspicious that his questions are not the problems that he imagines because they are not often asked. I have never seen the questions asked before by any scholar because they all are aware of the intent of the Law of Moses.
No one with even an ounce of knowledge of what God was doing in the Old Testament Law would ever wonder about these questions.

The absence of the slave issue, the Sabbath issue and the pig question in the New Covenant Scriptures should have raised another flag of the inappropriateness of his questions. The homosexual condemnation does appear in the New Testament Scripture but these others do not appear after Jesus’ death.

The use of the "Reducto Absurdum" argument also proves that the objector can see the difference between the scenarios.

The desire to reduce a prohibition against Sodomy to an absurdity by showing that wearing mixed clothing was also not allowed is used to try to take away the force of the prohibition against sodomy. It does not seem to have entered Mr. Bartlet’s mind that his objection could have been used as soon as it was pronounced by Moses.

Maybe Mr. Bartlet should think, "Why didn’t someone use that argument in Moses’ day? Could it be that they understood what Moses was doing by the many ‘mixture’ laws?"

Why didn’t Mr. Bartlet quote the Laws of Leviticus 19? In that Chapter there are laws of no mixed cattle, no mixed seed, no mixed garments, no shaping of the beard and other "Laws specific to the Jewish nation."

However, in that same Chapter we are told not to steal, lie, swear falsely, defraud our employees, curse the deaf, put a stumblingblock in a blind man’s path, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Now does Mr. Bartlet want these universal laws to have no instruction for us because of the obsolete nature in the same chapter with unique Jewish prohibitions?
But men saw God’s judgment on homosexuality before the Law of Moses was even given. It is not uniquely Jewish. The "No touch the pig" law, "Mixed clothing law" never existed until the Law of Moses.

It was the Law of Moses that revealed these new unique Jewish laws, but the world had already seen Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for the perversion of homosexuality.

Can Mr. Bartlet name any cities or nations that God destroyed before the Law for "touching pigs" and "wearing linen and wool together" or "planting mixed seeds"? A little thinking might have stopped him from even using these "Reducto Absudum" arguments.

But here is the REAL answer to Mr. Bartlet’s mocking:

The Law was not given in a vacuum. The children of Israel had just left idolatrous Egypt. They were going to be a nomadic people for sometime. Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers tell their journey and the forming of the new redeemed nation.

They were going into another terrible evil and idolatrous land (Canaan) where seven wicked nations existed. They were known for their debauchery.

Deuteronomy means, ‘second law’. In it, the Law is repeated and many new laws would be given on how they should conduct themselves in that new land.

What Mr. Bartlet seems to be ignorant of is that the Law of Moses was given for several reasons:

The nation of Israel would be a Theocracy where God ruled as King. Moses was the spokesman. This means this was their national law, it was not given to all mankind.

The Law was given to a people who had been living in the darkness of Egypt and going into an even deeper darkness in Canaan. Many of the laws that seem strange to us were given to prevent idolatry among the Jews or even the appearance of idolaters.

This was the nation through which God would send the Messiah to bless all nations. It therefore needed to be kept distinct and pure from the idolatry of their heathen neighbors. Their superstition must be avoided so Israel’s Messiah could come.

SO HOW DID GOD DO IT?
He gave them the unique Sabbath law. It was for Israel and for those who may live among them. God says: Exodus 31:13-17, "13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

The breaking of Sabbath was therefore the breaking of the covenant itself. It would be an act of treason. It would be like an early American burning the flag. (Since nothing is held as sacred today, I realize it will be hard for some to grasp this.)

To break Sabbath would be to rebel against God’s Theocracy, the nation itself and a denial of Israel’s unique position where God was King.

So no, Mr. Bartlet, since you’re not a Jew and your Chief of staff works on Saturday you won’t have to kill him today. Besides, Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and today we rest in Him from our works.

Hebrews 4:9-11, "9 There remaineth therefore a rest (keeping of a Sabbath) to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest (Sabbath), he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

The Sabbath has been fulfilled. Colossians 2:16-17, "16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday (annual), or of the new moon (monthly), or of the sabbath days (weekly): 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

He gave restrictions from the practices of the heathen around them.

The heathen made cuttings in their flesh for the dead and tried to move their god’s by doing so. Remember the 450 prophets of Baal in their contact with Elijah (I Kings 18:28) and how they cut themselves. By forbidding cutting and tattoos it stopped the idolatrous practice of worshipping the dead.

The heathen shaped their beards and made baldness on their heads (like Friar Tuck). They were sun worshippers. By forbidding them to dress like the heathen and forbidding them to make baldness on their head and other such prohibitions He curbed sun worship or even appearing as one.

In addition to not learning the heathen’s ways, consider this:

Look at Deuteronomy 22:9-11, "9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

What is the excellent principle that he was trying to teach in these prohibitions? Is it not that distinctions need to be made? An ox is a clean animal where an ass is an unclean animal. Paul interprets it, "Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers." Do not mix with the heathen. This is the same lesson of mixed seeds, animals, and garments.

The law was given as a middle wall of partition to separate His people from the idolatry of the rest of the world. Let them keep themselves separate. Their dress, diet, deportment, and duties kept them separate from the other nations until the Promised seed of Abraham that would bless all nations should come.

Now about Mr. Bartlet’s "pigskin". He wants the boys to keep handling a football. Why not touch a pig? Deuteronomy 14:8

The heathen offered swine on their altars. By forbidding them to touch the pig there was no danger of them offering to other gods. They were forbidden swine flesh to eat therefore they could not eat of the sacrifices of the heathen. It is reported that Gentiles often held a pig when making a covenant so when God forbade them to touch a pig he forbade making a covenant with them.

Later, Antiochus would force Jews to offer swine as sacrifices to God and eat the pork. This was the greatest of insult to the Jews because the world knew of their abhorrence of swine.

The Prodigal son feeding the pigs is the ultimate horror to the Jewish mind. Again, this was a national law to the Jews. It would be treason to offer a swine on God’s altar. However, in the New Testament whenever the law, the middle wall of partition, was broken down the Christian were told they may eat what God had cleansed. It was no longer unclean. I Timothy 4:3-5, Ephesians 2:14-16 So now that Jesus has fulfilled the Law, Mr. Bartlet may go play football.
As for selling his daughter, Mr. Bartlet needs to understand that in that day Jews sold themselves and families into slavery for 7 year periods. The girls were not returned at the end of 7 years as they were often made wives. As I said earlier, the Law of Moses was not given in a vacuum. This kind of slavery was practiced. It is not that God approves of it, He just regulated a practice that was common in that day.

Now he did more than regulate slavery that came from kidnapping. The penalty was death. Deuteronomy 24:7, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

There is nothing immoral in agreeing to be a bond servant to another in a bartering world. Jacob did so for his wives and his cattle. To steal another man and sell him into slavery is another matter.

Women, however, could be sold for wives and did not come back to the father at the end of the 7 years, as she and her children would belong to the man who purchased her.

So Mr. Bartlet might have gotten a good price for the girl he described in his attempt at "Reducto Absurdum".

I realize this may be difficult to understand for an unbeliever, or a mocker who is naïve of the times in which these laws were given, being ignorant of the scope of God’s purposes in keeping Israel a distinct or Holy nation. However, to the thinking believer we marvel at God’s Wisdom in the Law. The self-wise will stumble over these things of old specific Jewish laws.

Laws against homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality on the other hand, is not uniquely Jewish. Every nation, every race and every religion has considered them abominations. Sodomy is against nature as well as against God. Sodom shows God’s judgment on it.

WEEKLY COMMUNION by George L. Faull

DEAR BROTHER FAULL:

A mutual acquaintance of ours told me that you do not believe that weekly communion is necessary. Your comments please.

ANSWER:

I find it humorous that our mutual acquaintance would tell you that in light of the sermon I preached at The Northmen which hundreds have heard me preach.

In it, I defend weekly communion. I also have written on the subject. The last article I wrote about it is quite lengthy. I refute, “ANY TIME COMMUNION” and argue passionately that the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is the Biblically necessary way to observe the Lord’s Supper. The tapes and articles are available from Summit Theological Seminary.

But necessary to what? Salvation? Following the pattern of the New Testament? The forgiveness of weekly sins?

The discussion to which you refer with our mutual acquaintance involved a discussion of the heresy of those who say that if you willfully miss the Lord’s table on Sunday and die on Monday, you are lost. I deny that kind of thinking. I believe that is an abuse of grace.

The letter to the Hebrews was written to the Jews who were returning to the Law. They were beginning to drift back into Judaism. The Hebrew letter was written to show that the New Covenant was much better than the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has a superior priesthood, sacrifice, and promises. Jesus was superior to Moses, angels, Joshua, and Aaron. The writer shows them the folly of returning to an inferior system. He encourages them in Hebrews 10:23 to “hold fast to their faith in Christ without wavering.”

It is here that the writer encourages them to provoke one another to love and good works by not forsaking their assembling together. As they saw the destruction of Jerusalem’s judgment approaching (from the signs that Jesus gave in Matthew 24) they were to exhort one another.

He reminds them that if they sin willfully after they received the knowledge of the truth, (that is leave the New Covenant and return to the Old Covenant) there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Instead, he informs them judgment and fiery indignation awaits such.

If you forsook the covenant of Moses, you died without mercy. Jesus is superior to Moses. So how much worse punishment would a man be worthy if he trod the Son of God underfoot and counted the New Covenant’s blood by which he was sanctified, unholy and thereby despised the Spirit of Grace?

To return to Law keeping from grace is unthinkable. His exhortation to stay faithful to Christ is further encouraged by reminding them that God will judge His people and take vengeance on those who abandon His Son. He encourages them to remember the former days under the Law, and remember their afflictions and suffering upon becoming a Christian. They were to remember what they endured, and what he had endured to bring them to faith in Christ. Cast not away your confidence. There is a great reward for remaining faithful. Be patient so you will receive the promise when Jesus comes. It is by faith in Christ, not Law keeping, that we shall live. If you draw back to the old covenant, God will have no pleasure in you. He then shows the necessity of faith in holding to God’s promise by giving the roll of heroes who were saved by grace through faith (paraphrased).

You will note that the command was not, “Forsake not the assembly”, it is “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.” Now, for the record, I have never missed the Lord’s Supper more than four or five times in my Christian life. That was always a result of sickness. Last year, I averaged standing before an assembly teaching or preaching an average of 27 hours a week. It should be obvious that I believe in assembling together, and my views on this subject has never led me to be absent from His Memorial.

The illustration I gave our mutual acquaintance was this: Suppose my son and I was scheduled to preach in Arizona on Monday. I intended to leave Thursday, but a death in the congregation caused me to stay to preach a funeral that deferred my leaving until Saturday. So I leave on Saturday evening and start my trip for Arizona. I drive through Sunday to hear my son preach on Monday morning. I missed the Lord’s Supper because I did not take the time to find a church with which I could commune. If I had died on Monday evening not having taken communion, would I have been lost because I missed the Lord’s Supper? I deny it. God knows my heart. He knew I was not treading Him underfoot. I was not forsaking Him. I was not denying the efficiency of His blood. I was not returning to sacrifices of the Law.

It is interesting to me to realize that under the Law, one must observe the Passover each year. The penalty for missing it was to be cut off from the congregation. The one missing Passover could partake of it a month later if he was unclean due to touching the dead or was on a journey. Numbers 9:13

Now that was under the old covenant. How about the New Covenant? Well, under grace some believe that you have to take communion 52 times a year under a penalty of eternal damnation! Is that grace?!! Or is that Law?

Under Law you took Passover once a year with the exception of being on a journey or a death. Some say that under grace there is no such exception for missing 52 times a year!!! That is a strange theology! It seems to me that there is no more grace under Law!

Let’s not be ludicrous. Jesus desires for His people to come together on the first day of the week to remember Him. We are not Catholics. The Lord’s Table is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. We are not Jews offering up a sacrifice. We are Christians gathering to remember our Lord’s death and His sacrifice, and what He accomplished for us on the cross.

We gather to remember His death and share in the blood of His covenant. We do not wish to despise grace by turning back to Judaism or to the world. We do not wish to trod Him underfoot and count His blood unholy by not coming to assemble with the Church. That these things occur by a one-time absence while traveling, I wholeheartedly deny. That would be returning to Law keeping for salvation.

Our disagreement with our friend is this: What constitutes a permissible absence? It is not a question of whether weekly communion is to be the practice of the Church. On that we are agreed. The man’s problem who misses the memorial is not that he missed a service, but that he desired to do so. His problem isn’t that he missed receiving the remission of his sins, because he was not at a sacrifice, but that he had no desire to be there.

To turn grace to license, to trod Jesus underfoot, or to count His blood unholy by turning to another religion, or returning back into the world, is a fearful thing. However, to leave on a trip, to care for a sick child, to take a vacation, or to be where there are no saints with which to gather, is not to reject Christ. God is quite capable of reading hearts. He knows why we are absent, and what our heart’s desires are. I suggest that some need to stop trying to make the New Covenant Scriptures another Law from Mt. Sinai. We are not under Law. We should not Judaize and call it grace.

The point of communion is that we share in the benefits of Christ’s death when we partake of His Body and Blood. We have fellowship with Him in forgiveness, salvation, redemption, sanctification, justification, peace, joy, and hope because we commune with Him. I Corinthians 10:16

No Christian in his right mind would want to miss sharing in the benefits. To teach that a Christian only gets these benefits on Sunday at communion is heresy, and a return to Law keeping. I John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This promise is always effective to the Christian even if he was absent from the assembly.

I grieve over those whose concepts of God’s grace makes these New Covenant Scriptures a second thundering from Mt. Sinai. I do not think they believe it themselves, for I have never known one who held this view to practice Church discipline on one absent on Sunday.

Surely, an intelligent Christian can see that we have not traded a commandment for a “once-a-year sacrifice” to a 52-week observance of a ritual. The assembly is a time of joy when Christians gather together to share the benefits in Christ’s finished work on the cross.

Let’s not return to Law keeping as a means of salvation.

Let’s commemorate what He did for us on His cross each Sunday as the early Church did whenever we can possibly be there!

A MALE GOD? by Jerry M. Paul

Following is a portion of the letter sent to me by a church member in 1993 questioning our exclusive language used in always referring to God as a male. My reply addressed Scriptural, social, and congregational issues. You have my permission to use all of the following or any part of it in a way that will help others understand this issue more clearly. (I have edited the original letter and my response to eliminate personal information, and to create a smoother word flow in some sentences.)
--Jerry M. Paul
619 E Dupont Rd - # 148
Fort Wayne, IN 46825

THE LETTER TO ME:

“In the study I am doing, I have come to realize a pattern in Christianity, Judaism and the Muslim religion: at the time of God’s revelations to humankind, women were directly and intimately involved as equally worthy recipients of God’s messages as were men. But as organized religions grew from these divine revelations, especially as religion spread to other countries and cultures, religion adopted the societal norms of the day that were highly patriarchal. Thus practices, history (his story), and even interpretation of original revelation conformed to patriarchal society instead of divine will.

“In my reading, my heart was pierced by a letter to God from a 6-year old girl: ‘Dear God, Who do you love more—girls or boys? I know you are one, but please try to be fair.’

“I have come to believe that God is much bigger than our attempts to describe God as white and male. And I am increasingly feeling disconnected with our worship services that praise God the Father in both song and prayer. How can I—and my daughters—see myself as having been made in God’s image when all of the images are male?

“It may be that I will need to find a church home that sees value in inclusive language and interpretation to describe God and God’s revelation and will . . . I think that much good can come from freeing God to be bigger than our man-made traditions; and I know that God’s will can be even better served by freeing women followers from man-made limitations on their service…….I am willing to work wholeheartedly for (our congregation) in this area of growth and would appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about becoming a force for positive change.”

MY REPLY:

I find your letter very interesting….There is much which could be said, but I limit my response to four issues.

1. Addressing God as Father

You present this in such a way as to suggest it is inappropriate to refer to God in this manner. I would suggest to you that we have a very good authority behind this practice . . . namely, our Lord Jesus Christ. As you probably know, “Father” is used in the Old Testament only
on a limited basis. It was not a common term for God. However, when Jesus came, He began using this term for God on a consistent basis. The Gospels alone record 175 verses in which God is referred to as “Father.” Many of these spoke of Jesus’ personal relationship to God. However, 21 times He specifically referred to the relationship of His followers with God saying, “your Father.”

You spoke specifically of “feeling disconnected with our worship services that praise God the Father in both song and prayer.” I would remind you that it was Jesus Himself who taught us how to pray: . . . Matthew 6:9 – “This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven….”
In another place Jesus related our love for Him to our relationship with God as Father. John 8:42 - Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.”

In explaining how we demonstrate our love for Him Jesus said: John 14:15 - "If you love me, you will obey what I command.”

The bottom line is quite simple. This isn’t one of “our attempts to describe God as white and male.” Nor is it the result of “societal norms” or a “patriarchal society.” In fact, addressing God as “Father” and considering our relationship with Him to be that of Father and child is a simple matter of following the clear instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. Your letter refers to your study of various religions and your conclusions about how and why their practices and interpretations developed as they did.

It seems to me that every Christian has one place to go when studying any subject . . . Jesus Christ. After all, we are followers of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a religious system to be compared to other world religions. Christianity is not a set of philosophical beliefs or social practices to be selected from a cafeteria of choices. As one book in my library declares in its title, “Christianity is Christ”.

Therefore, before we as followers of Jesus go anywhere else to consider spiritual matters we should go to Jesus. That’s what makes us ‘Christ-ians’. That’s what shows our submission to Jesus Christ as Lord. That’s what shows our love for Him. So, I can’t help but suggest, shouldn’t your search for truth focus first on what Jesus said directly and what He taught through His divinely, inspired, handpicked apostles? Having established that, what difference does it make what the world believes and practices? I hope you won’t think I’m being impertinent when I say it really doesn’t make any difference what woman’s role or man’s role in world religions has been in the past. It doesn’t make any difference how the different religions dealt with abortion, war, poverty, wealth, organization of their practices, or anything else. In the final analysis the only thing that counts is Jesus and what He teaches us. It was Jesus who declared:

Mark 13:31 – “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
and:

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the

Father except through me.

[Incidentally, I think the next verse also fits this discussion: John 14:7 - “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." It is clear that Jesus Himself gave us a male image of God.]

I can’t help but think of other Scriptures, which are relevant, even though they do not address this specific subject.

Romans 12:2 – “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

Colossians 2:8 – “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:20 – “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

1 Corinthians 1:25 – “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.”

1 Corinthians 1:30 – “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”

Jesus alone is to be our source of spiritual knowledge and wisdom. God speaks to us through Him. Hebrews 1:1-2 - “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”

It is so easy to get caught up in the world’s approach to issues. We hear it on radio and TV; read it in newspapers and magazines; find it solidly entrenched in the minds and lives of friends and business associates. Before long, if we are not careful, we start following the thought processes of the world instead of thinking like Christ-ians.

I think we can appropriately paraphrase . . . 1 Corinthians 15:33 - Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character [Christ-like thinking].

That’s one of the reasons Scripture instructs us . . . 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 - "Therefore come out from them and be separate,” says the Lord. “Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." [Note: God called Himself “Father”’]

3 You write: “I . . . would prefer that (our congregation) embrace this concept of inclusion . . . in this area of growth . . . a force for positive change.”

With all due respect, what you propose may be a “concept of inclusion” from the world’s view, but from a Biblical view it is not to be considered “growth” or “positive change.” It is in fact a denial of what Jesus taught and would require forsaking His teaching in order to adapt worldly philosophy. Our goal should not be to adapt the church to worldly ways of thinking, but to change our thinking to fit the teaching of Jesus.

Many years ago a wise Elder gave this preacher some very good advice. I sought guidance about a specific Biblical issue and how to determine what Scripture taught. I’ll paraphrase part of his answer: “Always begin by asking who started teaching the doctrine and who is helping to spread it. If it didn’t start with godly people truly trying to seek the will of God, then that ought to tell you something right away. Then find out what the Lord had to say about it and go from there. Once you’re in step with Him, don’t worry about what someone else is proclaiming even if it makes you unpopular with other people.”

I would urge you to consider where and how these ideas got started. They didn’t originate in the church among godly people who were studying the Word of God and discovered they had been wrong all these years. The whole idea is an outgrowth of the feminist movement, which was originated by ungodly women who were not followers of Jesus Christ, as has been evident in both their words and their life-style.

One of the institutions attacked by these worldly women was the church. Since there were already churches which had thrown out the authority of Jesus Christ, denied the authority of Scripture as the Word of God, and concluded that the apostles didn’t know what they were talking about in their writings, it was to be expected that soon these same churches would have women and men who would turn a willing ear to worldly philosophy. It was what they wanted to hear. Their action fulfilled Scripture . . .

2 Timothy 4:3 - “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

One can only wonder where else they will distort the truth of God. They began by denying the authority of God’s Word, then the deity of Christ, which of course wiped out the blood atonement. A woman who was a member of a church in our city following this path visited our services several years ago. She informed me that she wouldn’t be back because of our emphasis on Christ. Her church stopped that kind of talk years before, she assured me. She indicated that it was inappropriate to think that you had to follow Jesus Christ alone to please God because, “God is the Father of everyone.” I suspect she might tell me today that God should not be called Father. Many in her denomination are propagating that doctrine.

4. You indicated that you might need to seek “a new church home.”

Consider the kind of church you’ll have to find in order to feel comfortable with their program. You’ll have to find a church that does not accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God and the final authority for faith and practice . . . ignores the teaching of Jesus Christ . . . and allows its doctrine to be shaped by the latest philosophy being proposed by the world. You will not find a solid, Bible-believing church which rejects the male terminology for God in favor of the “concept of inclusion”….I think I’m safe in predicting that the only place you’ll find that philosophy is in the liberal churches which long ago forsook faithfulness to Christ and His Word….churches which many of our congregation left for that very reason. It seems to me to be more appropriate for a Christian to look for a church which teaches the Word of God clearly and plainly, even when it conflicts with the current trends of the day.

I would hope that you would not choose to leave…If you make that choice I would still cherish your friendship. However, I’m sure you’ve worked with me long enough to understand that as a minister of the Gospel, I believe my first loyalty must be to Jesus Christ and His Word…I cannot change my commitment to the truth just to keep people in the church.

No additional discussion followed this letter as the writer chose to leave our church almost immediately. Within a few months she was an elder in a congregation of a well-known denomination.

REASONS I DO NOT ACCEPT THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS HOAX

This week James Cameron, producer of “the Titanic,” will announce a documentary to be shown on March 4th on the Discovery Channel on “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”. It was found in 1980. The Talpiot Tombs allegedly bear the names of Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph, Mary Magdalene and Judah, the son of Jesus. So, get ready for some laughable assumptions. Instead of Jesus rising from the dead supposedly He married Mary Magdalene and had a son named Judah. Cameron says, “It doesn’t get bigger than this. We’ve done our homework. We’ve made the case, and now it’s time for the debate to begin.” Jimmy, the debate started almost two thousand years ago.

1. The original discoverers who found it in 1980 totally rejected that they had found any significant find relating to Jesus. It took disinterested retailers of a documentary to make it big news and a project for greed.

2. The time period for that type of tomb was determined to be over a 600 year period!!! (538 BC – 70 AD) That opens up even greater possibilities for any coincidental mentioning of similar family names. There would be a lot more people named Mary, Joseph and Jesus in 600 years than in 70 years.

3. The tomb is much too elaborate as it belonged to an upper middle-class family of Jerusalem – not peasants from Nazareth.

4. The writings are not done by the same person, nor even in the same language (Greek and Aramaic) and since they were written in different languages and by a different person, the deceased persons could have been centuries apart and totally unknown to some of them whose bone box was buried there.

5. The names that appear are variants from Biblical texts.
The name of Jesus is greatly disputed. Also, Mariamene E Mara is not the name of Mary Magdalene in any of the Gospel accounts.

6. The names of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were common in that day.
Even today on any given Sunday I know 6 Mary’s in the congregation. A few years ago I could look out in a congregation of 130 and see Mary Sue, Mary Magdalene, Mary Kay, Mary Ann, Mary Renee, Mary Ellen, Mary Pauline and just plain Mary. There are 5 Mary’s in the New Testament and 12 Joseph’s in the Bible!!! Imagine how many Mary and Joseph’s there could have been at that time since these names were commonly used in that day!

7. The disinterested retailers have done DNA and compared it to the other recent finds called “The James Tomb”. It was a hoax. The forger is on trial at this time. So they unwittingly have connected their find to a renowned hoax. One wit said, “Finding James, the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus in Jerusalem was comparable to finding Sean (Shawn), the son of Ryan, the brother of Patrick in Dublin.” Perhaps they should do DNA on the Shroud of Turin and connect it to another hoax.

8. The ossuary is rejected as Jesus’ tomb by scholars that are atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It is one of the few things the four groups have agreed on about Jesus.

9. The disinterested retailers of the hoax reject the archeologists, historians, DNA experts, statisticians anthropologists, language experts who have testified “The Tomb of Jesus” is “a hoax,” “nonsense”, “a mockery of archeological profession”, “improbable”, “a publicity stunt”, “pimping on the Bible”. They pick and choose their witnesses and with a 3.5 million-dollar budget it may not have been hard to find witnesses to sell their professional integrity.

CONCLUSION

THEY ASSUME
- That the name is Jesus’ - this is disputed by many who believe that it is not even the name on the bone box.

THEY ASSUME
- That the name is Mary Magdalene’s. This is denied by Scholars who think it is more likely Martha!

THEY ASSUME
- That it was Joseph because an abbreviated name for Joseph was used.

THEY ASSUME
- This is the Apostle Matthew even though he was martyred in Ethiopia. Jesus did not have a brother named Matthew.

THEY ASSUME
- The tomb was between 0–70 AD when it could have been earlier anywhere from The Second Temple Era.

THEY ASSUME
- That the alleged Jesus in the tomb was married to the alleged Mary Magdalene in the tomb.

THEY ASSUME
- Judah was the assumed Mary Magdalene’s son.

THEY ASSUME
- That poor people from Nazareth would be buried in an upper middle-class tomb in Jerusalem.

THEY ASSUME
- That the statistics of likelihood of it being Jesus Christ are valuable insights, but the estimate of the population is greatly underestimated, making the statistics in favor of their theory an absurdity. When one extends it to back a couple of centuries, the alleged statistics of probability is ludicrous.

Isn’t it great that a totally unbiased man with no ulterior motive, such as money making, would be able to make this documentary for the world so we could see what a farce our faith has been?

Stop and think! Does James Cameron’s documentary require less faith to believe than God’s Word? Believing the Bible promises to save my soul. If the Bible is right, believing Cameron will damn my soul and leave me no hope of a resurrection.

Thanks anyway, Jimmy but I think I will exercise less faith and go to Heaven!

If you would like reasons to believe in Jesus death, burial and resurrection pleace click on the ten links below to learn ten reason why you should believe:

WHY_BELIEVE_1

WHY_BEIIEVE_2

WHY_BELIEVE_3

WHY_BELIEVE_4

WHY_BELIEVE_5

WHY_BELIEVE_6

WHY_BELIEVE_7

WHY_BELIEVE_8

WHY_BELIEVE_9

WHY_BELIEVE_10

THE SWORD OF THE PROPHECY By Jon Lanier

John 19:26-27 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Think of it - six long hours of excruciating pain.

• Jesus is suspended on the cross...


• Held there by iron spikes through His hands and feet.


• His chest muscles are paralyzed....


• The only way He can get another breath is to haul Himself up by pushing on the nails in


• His feet... and straining...


• Pulling against the nails in His hand..

All at the expense of maddening pain.

It is during these painful moments that Jesus utters seven dying phrases.

Amazing isn't it... that a man dying in such pain would think of others instead of himself?
He thought of those responsible for His crucifixion... the Jewish officials... the Roman soldiers... and us here this morning who crucify Him afresh... Again and again by our own sins...

"Father forgive them... They know not what they do."
A word of salvation to the thief hanging beside Him...
"Today you will be with Me in paradise."

Now we come to what is perhaps the most touching and tender of all the scenes at Calvary...

• A statement to His mother... "Dear woman... Behold your son.


• And to the disciple... Behold your mother."

What Jesus says here may very well be tied to that which was going on around the cross. You see, history tells us that the crucifixion victim was stripped of all his clothing... leaving him in the shame of his own nakedness.

We may not like to hear it... but that is the way Jesus hung on the cross. It was a part of the shame. The crucifixion team was to share in the victim's clothing.
— Jewish men in Jesus' day typically wore five pieces of clothing...
— A headpiece...A type of turban.
— Sandals...
— A tunic which covered the body from the shoulder to the ankles.
— A sash or belt which held the robe close to the body at the waist.
— And the under garment.

The first four outer garments were claimed or shared by each of the soldiers. The under garment..called a SHYÐTON … was a close fitting cover from the shoulders to the thighs. Usually, the mother of a Jewish boy made his first SHYÐTON... presenting it to him at manhood. In the case of Jesus…. Probably when He started His personal ministry…. at.... or near the time of His baptism by John. Scripture tells us that the SHYÐTON Jesus wore was woven….. seamless…. so the soldiers decided not to ruin it... but to cast lots for it…. Fulfilling the words of the Old Testament prophecy.

It was against this backdrop...With His chin resting on His chest...Eyes riveted to the ground...

That Jesus turns His attention to His mother. No doubt, she has been there all along. But because of the haggling over the seamless tunic she had made for Him, Jesus' attention is focused upon His mother.

So, He addresses her and her future needs: "And when He saw His mother standing nearby, He said... Dear woman... Here is your son. And to John... Here is your mother.

So, what can we learn here... What do we see? Are there some challenges for us in the church today?

1. We See Mary’s Faithfulness.

… And we are challenged by it.
We must know that Jesus is not the only one who is suffering here. Mary's heart is broken.
Her strength is gone... Emotionally she is a wreck...Hopeless... Helpless.

Yet, she is a wonderful example of steadfastness.

For instance, it is interesting to note that John says... "She is standing near the cross."

• She does not run...


• She is not standing afar off...


• Mary has not swooned...


• She does not crouch...


• She is not crumpled in a broken heap...


• She is standing tall and steadfast...near the cross in intolerable grief.


• I wonder what is going through her mind?


• Maybe she’s thinking about the words of the prophet Simeon.


• She may have been remembering that happy day when she and Joseph took Jesus to the Temple to present Him to the Lord.

Simeon took Jesus in his arms and blessed God... and then said... "This child is destined to be spoken against... And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

Indeed... Mary had felt that sword many times.

For instance she felt that sword when she found herself pregnant outside of wedlock... And the explanation that she was overcome by the Holy Spirit was not an acceptable explanation to many in her family or friendship circle.
She felt the sword again... as Jesus was born in a stable... laid in a manger.

The sword struck her and Bethlehem when Herod threatened... and the family had to flee to Egypt.

Again at Nazareth... when they threatened to throw Jesus over a cliff.
Mary felt the sword when all the family and friends rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

She felt the sword as the Jewish authorities put out public notices for the arrest of her son.

There was the beating before Pilate... The mockery by Herod... The insults from the crowd.

Finally... here at the cross... the sword of prophecy pierced her heart as her first born Son hang dying... and there was nothing she could do about it.

• She sees the crown of thorns... But cannot remove it.


• She sees the nails... But is not allowed to pull them out...


• She sees the lacerations... But is not able to soothe her Son's pain.


• She sees His nakedness...But cannot cover Him.


• She hears the mockery... But is not able to quiet the voices...

And yes... she would most likely have traded places with Him, but she knew she could not bring forgiveness and redemption to the world. She knew she must not interfere with the mystery of the Divine Will of God.

We are reminded of Mary's response to the angel... Gabriel... who first appeared announcing the birth of Jesus. Remember what she said? "I am the Lord's servant... May it be to me as you have said." And Mary also said... "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.

As we stand with Mary around the cross, are we challenged by Mary's attitude and commitment? Are we challenged by her faithfulness?
Jesus speaks to Mary, His mother and then, also to John.

2. John Challenges Us With His Repentance.

Let’s go to the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter... James... and John are asked by the Savior of the world... God in the flesh... to help Him watch and pray.

• John... like the others... carelessly falls asleep.


• Jewish officials... Roman soldiers come to arrest Jesus...

Matthew says... and all the disciples deserted Him and fled. This included John. But the good news is that he is back... not just back... but standing near the cross. As far as we can determine to this point, He is the only one to repent.

Now, I want you to note here that Jesus has no rebuke... no word of caution. But instead John is given an awesome responsibility - the care of Jesus' mother... what we could say, in a way, is Jesus' most prized possession.

Jesus was then... today... and is always ready to extend grace and forgiveness to all who will turn to the cross. He is always ready to restore our failures if we will come to Him.
Something else, I think this says to us... If you stand near the cross, expect Jesus to give you some special responsibility... Something extraordinary to accomplish in life.
We all would like to say... "Yes... Yes... I would be John at the cross... I would take care of Jesus' mother." Oh, really!

• Remember this is the same Jesus who said...


• Suffer little children to come unto Me... for such is the kingdom of heaven....


• The world will know that you are My disciple when you love the brethren...


• Submit to one another... Place the interest of others before self...


• Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the widows in their afflictions...


• As often as you do it to the least of these you do it unto me.

Jesus is saying... My mother... My brother... My sister is the one you helped today.

You see… Jesus' mother represents the ONE we have the opportunity to serve today...

• Be it a child...


• A widow...


• A shut-in...


• Someone sick...


• Someone at the nursing home.

Will we care for them... perhaps...

• With a smile...


• A hug...


• A word of encouragement...


• A prayer...


• A gift...


• A helping hand...

Maybe by simple things like... understanding... forgiveness... sympathy?

With John standing close to the cross it should make us understand that we are...

• The eyes...


• The heart...


• The hands...


• The feet...


• The lips... of Jesus in our world.

You know what? The mother of Jesus is all around us... Will we care for her?
Not to long ago I had a man say to me at a convention: "No one at work knows that I'm a Christian... a member of the church." And he added: "Actually, I like it like that." This man wanted to live far from the cross.

Jesus' statement in Mark Chapter 8 comes to mind... "If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

God help us to repent of our wanderings... to be like John and return to the cross.

John is our challenge to change... to come live closer to the cross, to become the person and the people God would have us be

Order of Jeremiah

A call to repentance is needed in our country before certain destruction comes as it did in the days of Jeremiah. After having watched the movie, “JEREMIAH”, we were moved as were many others in our congregation of the motivation this young man took in proclaiming the Words of God to his nation during that time. Inspired by his example we decided to form the "Order of Jeremiah."

We are a group of dedicated believes who have committed to take a stand against the down fall of our nation the way Jeremiah did. We are not an organization but rather a group of people committed to a task of calling America to repentance.

We believe the only hope of our country is if we as a nation repent of our sins and turn to God's grace. Believing deeply in the grace of God which is given freely to those who turn back to Him, we seek to share the message of hope and salvation to the repentant. Want to learn how you can join? Click Here.

Question About Jesus And Wine

Dear Brother Faull,

I've heard you say that Jesus never drank fermented wine. A preacher I know says that since grape harvest was in the Fall and Passover was in the Spring, they could not have possibly kept the juice from fermenting over that period of time. Therefore, the preacher says Jesus was using wine for the Lord's Supper at Passover.

What say you to this?

Signed - A Student

ANSWER:

The preacher needs to study a little bit more before assuming such a position.

In Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary under this we read, “Means for preserving grape-juice were well known: Cato, De Agri Cultura CXX has this recipe. “If you wish to have Must (grape-juice) all year, put grape-juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape-juice for a whole year.”

It also adds that the term “fruit of the vine” was a “studied avoidance of the term “wine” indicating that the drink was unfermented as the bread was unleavened.

Also, William Patton in “Bible Wines - Laws of Fermentation” says that grape-juice can be preserved in at least five other ways than fermentation.

So, unfermented juices were available all year long!

Also in “Wine in the Bible” by Samuele Bacchiocchi, he has a whole chapter of 25 pages giving quotes from Josephus, Columella, Pliny, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Virgil, John Kitto, Aristotle, Horace, Polibius, Athenaeus, Albright, Stein, and even the Talmud plus several dictionaries and encyclopedias. These will validate the use of the methods of preserving grape juice from fermentation.

He gives the five ways to prevent fermentation of grape juice. We have this book for sale for those who need to read the information themselves.

In light of the evidence, the preacher should make an apology for his assumption. It sounds reasonable but he is way off. I doubt if he does mention it as some have a hard time saying, “I was wrong.” Others have an agenda to defend their own drinking habits.

George L. Faull

Click here to send a comment

Question About The Gift Of The Holy Spirit

Dear Brother Carter,

Are you familiar with Franklin Camp’s teaching on the gift of the Holy Spirit? He was a non-instrumental preacher. From what I can digest, he taught that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” was purely miraculous for the apostolic age. As his defense he points to the prophecy of Joel as fulfilled in Acts 2:38, 8:20, 10:45, 11:17; Ephesians 3:7, 4:7. I take this teaching to mean that the Christian today does not receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

In his 1972 book, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, Camp quotes Lipscomb, Brents, Boles, and Campbell as holding this position (pp. 131-2). He writes in concluding his defense on page 155, “If the gift of the Holy Spirit is a non-miraculous gift that one receives when baptized, what does the Spirit do? Those who believe the Spirit leads and directs only through the Word are faced with explaining why one has received the gift of the Spirit, but the gift does not do anything for the Christian apart from the Word.” What are your views on this?

ANSWER:
I've not come across this particular view before. However, I believe the truth to be neither the extreme that he proposes, nor the opposite extreme that he refutes in his conclusion that you quoted. He is knocking down a "straw man" here. His argument is only valid against the polar opposite of his view, but not against the Biblical truth.

I know some of my brethren disagree with me on this, but I firmly believe the Holy Spirit can and does work apart from the Word. Let me explain. I am not saying that I believe in the miraculous gifts today. I am saying that I believe in the providence of God and the leading of the Spirit today. I believe it goes against Scripture, experience, common sense, faith in prayer, etc. to say the Spirit works only through the Word today. He will never work contrary to it, but always in harmony with it.

Have you ever prayed for guidance and gotten it? Have you ever struggled with the meaning of a passage of Scripture, prayed about it, meditated upon it and then had some event in your life "turn on the light" for you? Have you ever studied a subject in detail only to be questioned about it within a short period of time (maybe even the same day)? Have you ever had an experience in soul winning where you "happened" to say just the right thing although it had never occurred to you before that time? Have you ever believed that God put you in contact with just the right person at just the right time? I can answer yes, many times to each of the above questions. I believe that is God's providence or the leading of the Spirit.

Call it whichever you wish, I'm not sure they are two different things.

As to the question of what the Spirit does, I think the above paragraph is a partial answer. However, the Scripture fills in the rest. The Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, Galatians 5:22-23. The Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God, Romans 8:16. The Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God, Romans 8:26-27. The Spirit leads the sons of God, Romans 8:14. The Spirit convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, John 16:8.

This is just a partial list off the top of my head, but I think it clearly demonstrates that there is much work the Spirit has done, is doing and will continue to do besides the miraculous.
Remember that the church at Rome had the Spirit dwelling within them, Romans 8:11. However, Paul longed to see them that he might impart some spiritual gift to them so that they would be established, Romans 1:11. What gift required the presence of an apostle to impart? Obviously this is a reference to the miraculous gifts. They already had the indwelling of the Spirit.

Don't forget either that all the crowd on Pentecost was promised the gift of the Holy Spirit if they were baptized in the name of Jesus, Acts 2:38. 3000 responded and therefore received that gift, Acts 2:41. However, only the apostles were doing wonders and signs, Acts 2:43. In fact, nobody but the apostles are recorded as doing miracles until we come to Stephen in Acts 6:8. OF course, the apostles had laid their hands on him in Acts 6:6. Don't overlook the fact that he was described as being full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid their hands on him or he did miracles, Acts 6:3,5. Clearly he had the Spirit, but didn't work miracles.

Regarding the fulfillment of the Joel passage, there is no doubt that the events of Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius, even Philip's daughter's who prophesied were foretold by this passage in Joel. However, his argument as I understand it has a couple of flaws here. The first is that the prophecy involves more than just the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It also involves salvation for all who call on the name of the Lord. There were those who did this in the aforementioned events, but does that mean it no longer happens? Certainly not. Another problem is that this really has no bearing on whether the Spirit indwells us in a non-miraculous way today. If the prophecy is only about the miraculous, it has no bearing on anything else. If it is about more than the miraculous, his argument fails because something besides the miraculous was prophesied. Either way, the argument fails to support the assertion.

Much more could be said here. These are just my thoughts as I'm sitting here this moment. However, I think this is sufficient to set a few things in order in this regard. I'd be happy to discuss it in more detail if you'd like. Hope this has been helpful.

God Bless,

Terry Carter

Click here to leave a comment

DEAR BROTHER FAULL:

I read your article on homosexuality and how you have determined that it is indeed an abomination and thus something for the church to fight against. I would like you to comment on this well-known script from "The West Wing". Specifically why don’t you kill people that work on the Sabbath as explained below and in Exodus 35:2?

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination."

JENNA JACOBS:
"I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does."

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Yes, it does. Leviticus."

JENNA JACOBS:
"Leviticus 18:22 (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination.)"

PRESIDENT BARTLET:
"Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. (When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.) She’s a Georgetown sophomore, she speaks fluent Italian, and always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 32:2 clearly says he should be put to death. (Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death). Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important, ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7 (And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.) If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"

MR. FAULL’S ANSWER:
This is not going to be easy to answer for two reasons:

I doubt the sincerity of the person called President Bartlet.

It is obvious the person is Biblically ignorant of the purpose of the Law of Moses and the Jewish nation at that time of history.

LET’S THINK TOGETHER

The objector ought to be a little suspicious that his questions are not the problems that he imagines because they are not often asked. I have never seen the questions asked before by any scholar because they all are aware of the intent of the Law of Moses.
No one with even an ounce of knowledge of what God was doing in the Old Testament Law would ever wonder about these questions.

The absence of the slave issue, the Sabbath issue and the pig question in the New Covenant Scriptures should have raised another flag of the inappropriateness of his questions. The homosexual condemnation does appear in the New Testament Scripture but these others do not appear after Jesus’ death.

The use of the "Reducto Absurdum" argument also proves that the objector can see the difference between the scenarios.

The desire to reduce a prohibition against Sodomy to an absurdity by showing that wearing mixed clothing was also not allowed is used to try to take away the force of the prohibition against sodomy. It does not seem to have entered Mr. Bartlet’s mind that his objection could have been used as soon as it was pronounced by Moses.

Maybe Mr. Bartlet should think, "Why didn’t someone use that argument in Moses’ day? Could it be that they understood what Moses was doing by the many ‘mixture’ laws?"

Why didn’t Mr. Bartlet quote the Laws of Leviticus 19? In that Chapter there are laws of no mixed cattle, no mixed seed, no mixed garments, no shaping of the beard and other "Laws specific to the Jewish nation."

However, in that same Chapter we are told not to steal, lie, swear falsely, defraud our employees, curse the deaf, put a stumblingblock in a blind man’s path, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Now does Mr. Bartlet want these universal laws to have no instruction for us because of the obsolete nature in the same chapter with unique Jewish prohibitions?

But men saw God’s judgment on homosexuality before the Law of Moses was even given. It is not uniquely Jewish. The "No touch the pig" law, "Mixed clothing law" never existed until the Law of Moses.

It was the Law of Moses that revealed these new unique Jewish laws, but the world had already seen Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for the perversion of homosexuality.

Can Mr. Bartlet name any cities or nations that God destroyed before the Law for "touching pigs" and "wearing linen and wool together" or "planting mixed seeds"? A little thinking might have stopped him from even using these "Reducto Absudum" arguments.

But here is the REAL answer to Mr. Bartlet’s mocking:

The Law was not given in a vacuum. The children of Israel had just left idolatrous Egypt. They were going to be a nomadic people for sometime. Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers tell their journey and the forming of the new redeemed nation.

They were going into another terrible evil and idolatrous land (Canaan) where seven wicked nations existed. They were known for their debauchery.

Deuteronomy means, ‘second law’. In it, the Law is repeated and many new laws would be given on how they should conduct themselves in that new land.

What Mr. Bartlet seems to be ignorant of is that the Law of Moses was given for several reasons:

The nation of Israel would be a Theocracy where God ruled as King. Moses was the spokesman. This means this was their national law, it was not given to all mankind.

The Law was given to a people who had been living in the darkness of Egypt and going into an even deeper darkness in Canaan. Many of the laws that seem strange to us were given to prevent idolatry among the Jews or even the appearance of idolaters.

This was the nation through which God would send the Messiah to bless all nations. It therefore needed to be kept distinct and pure from the idolatry of their heathen neighbors. Their superstition must be avoided so Israel’s Messiah could come.

SO HOW DID GOD DO IT?

He gave them the unique Sabbath law. It was for Israel and for those who may live among them. God says: Exodus 31:13-17, "13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."
The breaking of Sabbath was therefore the breaking of the covenant itself. It would be an act of treason. It would be like an early American burning the flag. (Since nothing is held as sacred today, I realize it will be hard for some to grasp this.)

To break Sabbath would be to rebel against God’s Theocracy, the nation itself and a denial of Israel’s unique position where God was King.

So no, Mr. Bartlet, since you’re not a Jew and your Chief of staff works on Saturday you won’t have to kill him today. Besides, Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and today we rest in Him from our works.

Hebrews 4:9-11, "9 There remaineth therefore a rest (keeping of a Sabbath) to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest (Sabbath), he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

The Sabbath has been fulfilled. Colossians 2:16-17, "16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday (annual), or of the new moon (monthly), or of the sabbath days (weekly): 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
He gave restrictions from the practices of the heathen around them.

The heathen made cuttings in their flesh for the dead and tried to move their god’s by doing so. Remember the 450 prophets of Baal in their contact with Elijah (I Kings 18:28) and how they cut themselves. By forbidding cutting and tattoos it stopped the idolatrous practice of worshipping the dead.

The heathen shaped their beards and made baldness on their heads (like Friar Tuck). They were sun worshippers. By forbidding them to dress like the heathen and forbidding them to make baldness on their head and other such prohibitions He curbed sun worship or even appearing as one.

In addition to not learning the heathen’s ways, consider this:

Look at Deuteronomy 22:9-11, "9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

What is the excellent principle that he was trying to teach in these prohibitions? Is it not that distinctions need to be made? An ox is a clean animal where an ass is an unclean animal. Paul interprets it, "Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers." Do not mix with the heathen. This is the same lesson of mixed seeds, animals, and garments.

The law was given as a middle wall of partition to separate His people from the idolatry of the rest of the world. Let them keep themselves separate. Their dress, diet, deportment, and duties kept them separate from the other nations until the Promised seed of Abraham that would bless all nations should come.

Now about Mr. Bartlet’s "pigskin". He wants the boys to keep handling a football. Why not touch a pig? Deuteronomy 14:8

The heathen offered swine on their altars. By forbidding them to touch the pig there was no danger of them offering to other gods. They were forbidden swine flesh to eat therefore they could not eat of the sacrifices of the heathen. It is reported that Gentiles often held a pig when making a covenant so when God forbade them to touch a pig he forbade making a covenant with them.

Later, Antiochus would force Jews to offer swine as sacrifices to God and eat the pork. This was the greatest of insult to the Jews because the world knew of their abhorrence of swine.

The Prodigal son feeding the pigs is the ultimate horror to the Jewish mind. Again, this was a national law to the Jews. It would be treason to offer a swine on God’s altar. However, in the New Testament whenever the law, the middle wall of partition, was broken down the Christian were told they may eat what God had cleansed. It was no longer unclean. I Timothy 4:3-5, Ephesians 2:14-16 So now that Jesus has fulfilled the Law, Mr. Bartlet may go play football.
As for selling his daughter, Mr. Bartlet needs to understand that in that day Jews sold themselves and families into slavery for 7 year periods. The girls were not returned at the end of 7 years as they were often made wives. As I said earlier, the Law of Moses was not given in a vacuum. This kind of slavery was practiced. It is not that God approves of it, He just regulated a practice that was common in that day.

Now he did more than regulate slavery that came from kidnapping. The penalty was death. Deuteronomy 24:7, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

There is nothing immoral in agreeing to be a bond servant to another in a bartering world. Jacob did so for his wives and his cattle. To steal another man and sell him into slavery is another matter.

Women, however, could be sold for wives and did not come back to the father at the end of the 7 years, as she and her children would belong to the man who purchased her.

So Mr. Bartlet might have gotten a good price for the girl he described in his attempt at "Reducto Absurdum".

I realize this may be difficult to understand for an unbeliever, or a mocker who is naïve of the times in which these laws were given, being ignorant of the scope of God’s purposes in keeping Israel a distinct or Holy nation. However, to the thinking believer we marvel at God’s Wisdom in the Law. The self-wise will stumble over these things of old specific Jewish laws.

Laws against homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality on the other hand, is not uniquely Jewish. Every nation, every race and every religion has considered them abominations. Sodomy is against nature as well as against God. Sodom shows God’s judgment on it.