This morning I read a hymn titled Holy Holy. I don't believe I've ever heard this hymn before and I found the lyrics remarkable in terms of how it included the Trinity. It gave thanks to each person of the Trinity in a very faithful way: Gracious Father, we're so blest to be your children...Precious Jesus, we're so glad that you've redeemed us...Holy Spirit, come and fill our hearts anew. It kept the Trinity simple and understandable for the person singing.
We find it difficult to wrap our heads around the Trinity and rightfully so! There are many people who are dissatisfied with the Christian explanation of the Trinity, but how do you explain the nature of the eternal God to another person, let alone comprehend it fully despite your own human limitations? Moses couldn't even look upon the full glory of God!
The Trinity is the Godhead living in perfect unity within himself. Without the Trinity, we would have no foundation upon which we would build relationships with anyone or anything. This is, perhaps, the biggest difference between Christianity and every other religion. When all other gods are distant and untouchable because of their "holiness," our God designed us to practice relationships in a manner that is based on his own relational nature. In fact, Jesus prayed that we would all be brought into perfect unity with one another and with him (John 17:22-23). This is all a reflection of God's Trinitarian nature.
www.williamhseng.com
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Monday, March 27, 2017
Brief Reflection: Reading in Greek
I am fairly satisfied with how my morning devotions have been going; reading through the Bible in Greek. It is a slow progression through the Bible; literally taking each day verse by verse and, most of the time, taking more than one day on a verse. Some of my professors considered learning the original languages of the Bible to be a spiritual discipline. I could understand why, as it takes a lot of focus and thought to read just one verse in a foreign language.
Has studying the Bible become just a routine practice for you? You don't have to read it in Greek or Hebrew, for that matter, to bring new life to your daily devotions. Simply reading in another translation is sometimes enough to restore your focus and draw you nearer to God through his Word. Changing things up a bit and sticking with it is a spiritual discipline in itself.
Has studying the Bible become just a routine practice for you? You don't have to read it in Greek or Hebrew, for that matter, to bring new life to your daily devotions. Simply reading in another translation is sometimes enough to restore your focus and draw you nearer to God through his Word. Changing things up a bit and sticking with it is a spiritual discipline in itself.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
The Bible and Immigration
Immigration is a hot topic in the political realm today. Inside of the Church it has created confusion concerning how to deal with people from foreign lands. The conservative stance is that people should be expected to enter legally, abide by the laws of the land, and assimilate to the American culture. The liberal stance is that all people are welcome into the country, and all people can stay here, as long as they find a way to reach this great nation. Liberals believe that special exemptions to the law must be made for foreigners, so that they can continue all of their former practices and traditions. These are completely opposing viewpoints. How are we to know right from wrong on the topic of immigration? Fortunately, the Bible does lay out some ground work on immigration.
Let us first start with the purpose of citizenship. Citizenship is meant to a provide protection to an individual. Exodus 22:21 says that a person should not vex a stranger. Vex, for our purposes, could be translated into oppression or persecution towards anyone. Conservatives favor legally documented and approved immigration, because undocumented entry into the country puts the immigrant at risk. Great numbers of immigrants are at the mercy of drug lords, gangs, the sex trade, and even children are put into permanent bondage to satisfy the needs and desires of wicked people who take advantage of the weak. Liberals and moderates refuse to see this reality, while conservatives seek to protect the most vulnerable people.
Immigrants, on every level, are inherently excluded from certain practices. In the Bible, foreigners were excluded from the Passover. In America, it is seen that all foreigners are disqualified from ever having the opportunity to become President. When it comes to undocumented/illegal immigrants, they are currently prohibited from voting. This law is good because people who do not understand or fully embrace the American culture should not be allowed to tell those, who embrace and understand it, how they ought to be governed.
Immigrants are expected to keep the laws of the land. The Law of the Old Testament makes it clear that nobody in the land of Israel would get special treatment: "One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exodus 12:49). The punishment for breaking the law for a foreigner living in Israel was no different than if it were a natural born Israelite.
In the Old Testament, a foreigner was accepted into Israel so long as the foreigner chose to obey the national laws. Deuteronomy 31:12 states, Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of his law."
Reading the Biblical description of an immigrant that is acceptable inside of the nation of Israel is much like hearing out the conservative stance on immigration. In fact, the standard to be an Israeli citizen in Biblical times was more strict than what it is to become an American citizen today! The nation of Israel, like America, had a lot of protections for its citizens and applied the laws to its citizens impartially, whether the person was wealthy and powerful or poor and weak. Living in "the land of the free" comes with a cost, but the cost of freedom is worth the sacrifice.
Let us first start with the purpose of citizenship. Citizenship is meant to a provide protection to an individual. Exodus 22:21 says that a person should not vex a stranger. Vex, for our purposes, could be translated into oppression or persecution towards anyone. Conservatives favor legally documented and approved immigration, because undocumented entry into the country puts the immigrant at risk. Great numbers of immigrants are at the mercy of drug lords, gangs, the sex trade, and even children are put into permanent bondage to satisfy the needs and desires of wicked people who take advantage of the weak. Liberals and moderates refuse to see this reality, while conservatives seek to protect the most vulnerable people.
Immigrants, on every level, are inherently excluded from certain practices. In the Bible, foreigners were excluded from the Passover. In America, it is seen that all foreigners are disqualified from ever having the opportunity to become President. When it comes to undocumented/illegal immigrants, they are currently prohibited from voting. This law is good because people who do not understand or fully embrace the American culture should not be allowed to tell those, who embrace and understand it, how they ought to be governed.
Immigrants are expected to keep the laws of the land. The Law of the Old Testament makes it clear that nobody in the land of Israel would get special treatment: "One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exodus 12:49). The punishment for breaking the law for a foreigner living in Israel was no different than if it were a natural born Israelite.
In the Old Testament, a foreigner was accepted into Israel so long as the foreigner chose to obey the national laws. Deuteronomy 31:12 states, Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of his law."
Reading the Biblical description of an immigrant that is acceptable inside of the nation of Israel is much like hearing out the conservative stance on immigration. In fact, the standard to be an Israeli citizen in Biblical times was more strict than what it is to become an American citizen today! The nation of Israel, like America, had a lot of protections for its citizens and applied the laws to its citizens impartially, whether the person was wealthy and powerful or poor and weak. Living in "the land of the free" comes with a cost, but the cost of freedom is worth the sacrifice.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
The Bible and Homosexuality
After the land mark Supreme Court ruling a few years ago, homosexuality has been greatly accepted across the nation. Prior to the decision, conservatives fought hard to make sure that there would be no national mandate that would allow same-sex marriage to be forced upon every state. From a political perspective, the conservative stance is that such an issue should be left up to the states to decide. For the conservative libertarian, the state should not meddle in such affairs, and it ought to be left up to religious institutions and other social communities to make decisions regarding these issues. From a biblical perspective, homosexuality is a lifestyle of sin.
These days you will have people claim that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality. They will claim that Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are mistranslated. This verse reads, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men, who have sex with men...will inherit the kingdom of God?" This verse is pretty clear, even in Greek translations. The Greek strengthens the case against homosexuality.
People will, also, claim that Romans 1:27 is misinterpreted. Romans 1 details how mankind turned away from God. In verse 27, the Bible gives a specific instance of men departing from natural relations with women: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." The text means exactly what it says.
There are many other attempts to justify homosexuality throughout Scripture but one of the most notorious is that Jesus never addresses homosexuality during his ministry. If homosexuality is such a bad sin, why did Jesus not care to talk about it?
The nation of Israel had a law against homosexuality delivered by God himself through Moses: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22). Jesus dealt with issues/sins that were relevant to the context like divorce, breaking oaths, dishonoring parents, refusal to forgive, and so on. Homosexuality was not a sin that the nation of Israel questioned. They followed the moral laws of the Old Testament, which included this issue. Clearly, the Word of God speaks against homosexuality.
There is much more that could be said on the Bible's teachings against homosexuality, but what about from a political perspective?
Both parties, for the longest time, opposed same-sex marriage. President Obama opposed same-sex marriage during his first campaign for President. Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage all the way up to the early 2000's. Republicans have always had a strong voice against same-sex marriage and even wanted an amendment to the Constitution to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage.
Recently, the Democrat party has decided that gay marriage is part of their platform. It is consistent with the progressive ideology that drives liberal thinking. Obama was not the first to accept the practice, but he has been its biggest proponent during his 2012 campaign. Republicans have conceded to allow same-sex marriage in every state, but conservatives maintain the belief that individual states should be allowed to decide for themselves on this subject.
The reality is that the majority of states would strike down same-sex marriage as a legal institution. A few years back, states were voting on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage and the majority voted "NO." The country anxiously awaited California's votes to be counted, as they voted on the issue, expecting such a liberal state to easily legalize the practice. To the shock and dismay to the liberal movement, California voted against same-sex marriage. It was left to the state Supreme Court to swoop in and declare the vote of the people to be unconstitutional, thus nullifying the will of the people and legalizing same-sex marriage in California.
Homosexuality is promoted by liberals. They are in direct opposition to clear Biblical teachings. However, the majority of the people of this nation, as well as God Himself!, have a vote against this lifestyle.
These days you will have people claim that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality. They will claim that Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are mistranslated. This verse reads, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men, who have sex with men...will inherit the kingdom of God?" This verse is pretty clear, even in Greek translations. The Greek strengthens the case against homosexuality.
People will, also, claim that Romans 1:27 is misinterpreted. Romans 1 details how mankind turned away from God. In verse 27, the Bible gives a specific instance of men departing from natural relations with women: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." The text means exactly what it says.
There are many other attempts to justify homosexuality throughout Scripture but one of the most notorious is that Jesus never addresses homosexuality during his ministry. If homosexuality is such a bad sin, why did Jesus not care to talk about it?
The nation of Israel had a law against homosexuality delivered by God himself through Moses: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22). Jesus dealt with issues/sins that were relevant to the context like divorce, breaking oaths, dishonoring parents, refusal to forgive, and so on. Homosexuality was not a sin that the nation of Israel questioned. They followed the moral laws of the Old Testament, which included this issue. Clearly, the Word of God speaks against homosexuality.
There is much more that could be said on the Bible's teachings against homosexuality, but what about from a political perspective?
Both parties, for the longest time, opposed same-sex marriage. President Obama opposed same-sex marriage during his first campaign for President. Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage all the way up to the early 2000's. Republicans have always had a strong voice against same-sex marriage and even wanted an amendment to the Constitution to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage.
Recently, the Democrat party has decided that gay marriage is part of their platform. It is consistent with the progressive ideology that drives liberal thinking. Obama was not the first to accept the practice, but he has been its biggest proponent during his 2012 campaign. Republicans have conceded to allow same-sex marriage in every state, but conservatives maintain the belief that individual states should be allowed to decide for themselves on this subject.
The reality is that the majority of states would strike down same-sex marriage as a legal institution. A few years back, states were voting on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage and the majority voted "NO." The country anxiously awaited California's votes to be counted, as they voted on the issue, expecting such a liberal state to easily legalize the practice. To the shock and dismay to the liberal movement, California voted against same-sex marriage. It was left to the state Supreme Court to swoop in and declare the vote of the people to be unconstitutional, thus nullifying the will of the people and legalizing same-sex marriage in California.
Homosexuality is promoted by liberals. They are in direct opposition to clear Biblical teachings. However, the majority of the people of this nation, as well as God Himself!, have a vote against this lifestyle.
The Bible and Abortion
There was a day and age when Christians could be "pro-choice" in good conscience, but that day has come and gone. The movement now known as pro-life is the stand alone opposition to "pro-choice," and is the conservative stance in relation to abortion. Pro-life is the most consistent stance to Biblical teachings.
The Bible does not clearly address abortion. The closest the Bible gets to the topic of abortion is a law penalizing men who would hit a pregnant woman, causing her child to die (Exodus 21:22-23). Aside from that specific instance in the Bible of killing children inside of the mother's womb, there is mention of killing children once they have been born. And, that is abominable according to the Word of God.
The first noteworthy example in the Bible of infanticide is in the book of Exodus when Pharaoh orders for the murder of all newborn male children. It was such an abhorrent act that God commended the midwives for lying to save their newborn children. The act of infanticide is then reflected later on in the story of Jesus' birth where king Herod ordered for the death of every male child under the age of two years. The New Testament even cites a prophetic Scripture referencing Rachel weeping for her children. These two examples, however, are infanticide on a mass scale from an outside oppressor and not the decision of the parents.
In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says it is for wickedness' sake that he drove the Caananite nations out from before the Israelites. One of the chief sins among the Caananites was infant/child sacrifice where they would burn their children alive. This is very similar to the brutality involved in an abortion.
The case that is given to justify abortion today is made by liberal Democrats. They claim that it is in the name of women's rights that she may have an abortion if she so desires. It is also under the guise that the baby, in its mother's womb is nothing more than a mass of cells and is essentially part of the mother's body. This is not true.
Having taken courses in bioethics, I do not recall a single case where even the most liberal ethicists would say that an unborn child was not a living organism nor would they concede that it was not human. Every serious ethicist, that I studied, concluded that based off of scientific data the unborn child was both living and human. The argument that liberal ethicists make to defend a pro-abortion stance is that the child is not a contributing member of society, thus he or she is not a person. If you think that argument is absolutely absurd, you are correct.
It is a myth that killing an unborn child is in favor of women's rights. Pro-life advocates believe in women's rights, but they also believe in the rights of an unborn child. The woman has rights,the choice is made when two consenting adults decide to have intercourse, which may result in the conception of a child. Once a life is born, the right to harm that child is not a right. The baby has a right to live. If an unborn child is both living and human, it follows that he or she is not just a part of his or her mother. Baby is a distinct human being. Thus it is no longer a right for a woman to decide what to do with that child's life anymore than it is her right to murder a full grown adult.
There are, of course, objections to this argument. Without going to deep into the cases of rape and incest, I will simply state that a child should not be punished for the crime that another person committed against his or her mother. What about the case where a mother's life is at risk? Even in these cases, abortion is not necessary. A reliable OB will tell you that if worst comes to worst, a woman can be induced and prematurely deliver the baby to avoid an abortion. Even if the child dies in this instance, it at least gives them the possibility for life opposed to prematurely terminating the life.
As serious of an offense as abortion is, it is forgivable by God. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that includes those who have had an abortion. Where the Old Covenant would say such a person should be killed, the Gospel teaches that we can extend grace to people who have made a mistake like this. Sadly, most women consent to have abortions because they are misled into believing that their unborn child is just a mass of cells. My heart goes out to these people. I pray we now seek truth from the Word of God, rather than the ideas of sinful mankind.
www.williamhseng.com
The Bible does not clearly address abortion. The closest the Bible gets to the topic of abortion is a law penalizing men who would hit a pregnant woman, causing her child to die (Exodus 21:22-23). Aside from that specific instance in the Bible of killing children inside of the mother's womb, there is mention of killing children once they have been born. And, that is abominable according to the Word of God.
The first noteworthy example in the Bible of infanticide is in the book of Exodus when Pharaoh orders for the murder of all newborn male children. It was such an abhorrent act that God commended the midwives for lying to save their newborn children. The act of infanticide is then reflected later on in the story of Jesus' birth where king Herod ordered for the death of every male child under the age of two years. The New Testament even cites a prophetic Scripture referencing Rachel weeping for her children. These two examples, however, are infanticide on a mass scale from an outside oppressor and not the decision of the parents.
In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says it is for wickedness' sake that he drove the Caananite nations out from before the Israelites. One of the chief sins among the Caananites was infant/child sacrifice where they would burn their children alive. This is very similar to the brutality involved in an abortion.
The case that is given to justify abortion today is made by liberal Democrats. They claim that it is in the name of women's rights that she may have an abortion if she so desires. It is also under the guise that the baby, in its mother's womb is nothing more than a mass of cells and is essentially part of the mother's body. This is not true.
Having taken courses in bioethics, I do not recall a single case where even the most liberal ethicists would say that an unborn child was not a living organism nor would they concede that it was not human. Every serious ethicist, that I studied, concluded that based off of scientific data the unborn child was both living and human. The argument that liberal ethicists make to defend a pro-abortion stance is that the child is not a contributing member of society, thus he or she is not a person. If you think that argument is absolutely absurd, you are correct.
It is a myth that killing an unborn child is in favor of women's rights. Pro-life advocates believe in women's rights, but they also believe in the rights of an unborn child. The woman has rights,the choice is made when two consenting adults decide to have intercourse, which may result in the conception of a child. Once a life is born, the right to harm that child is not a right. The baby has a right to live. If an unborn child is both living and human, it follows that he or she is not just a part of his or her mother. Baby is a distinct human being. Thus it is no longer a right for a woman to decide what to do with that child's life anymore than it is her right to murder a full grown adult.
There are, of course, objections to this argument. Without going to deep into the cases of rape and incest, I will simply state that a child should not be punished for the crime that another person committed against his or her mother. What about the case where a mother's life is at risk? Even in these cases, abortion is not necessary. A reliable OB will tell you that if worst comes to worst, a woman can be induced and prematurely deliver the baby to avoid an abortion. Even if the child dies in this instance, it at least gives them the possibility for life opposed to prematurely terminating the life.
As serious of an offense as abortion is, it is forgivable by God. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that includes those who have had an abortion. Where the Old Covenant would say such a person should be killed, the Gospel teaches that we can extend grace to people who have made a mistake like this. Sadly, most women consent to have abortions because they are misled into believing that their unborn child is just a mass of cells. My heart goes out to these people. I pray we now seek truth from the Word of God, rather than the ideas of sinful mankind.
www.williamhseng.com
The Bible and Abortion
Issue #1: Abortion
There was a day and age when Christians could be "pro-choice" in good conscience, but that day has come and gone. The movement now known as pro-life is the stand alone opposition to "pro-choice," and is the conservative stance in relation to abortion. Pro-life is the most consistent stance to Biblical teachings.
The Bible does not clearly address abortion. The closest the Bible gets to the topic of abortion is a law penalizing men who would hit a pregnant woman, causing her child to die (Exodus 21:22-23). Aside from that specific instance in the Bible of killing children inside of the mother's womb, there is mention of killing children once they have been born. And, that is abominable according to the Word of God.
The first noteworthy example in the Bible of infanticide is in the book of Exodus when Pharaoh orders for the murder of all newborn male children. It was such an abhorrent act that God commended the midwives for lying to save their newborn children. The act of infanticide is then reflected later on in the story of Jesus' birth where king Herod ordered for the death of every male child under the age of two years. The New Testament even cites a prophetic Scripture referencing Rachel weeping for her children. These two examples, however, are infanticide on a mass scale from an outside oppressor and not the decision of the parents.
In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says it is for wickedness' sake that he drove the Caananite nations out from before the Israelites. One of the chief sins among the Caananites was infant/child sacrifice where they would burn their children alive. This is very similar to the brutality involved in an abortion.
The case that is given to justify abortion today is made by liberal Democrats. They claim that it is in the name of women's rights that she may have an abortion if she so desires. It is also under the guise that the baby, in its mother's womb is nothing more than a mass of cells and is essentially part of the mother's body. This is not true.
Having taken courses in bioethics, I do not recall a single case where even the most liberal ethicists would say that an unborn child was not a living organism nor would they concede that it was not human. Every serious ethicist, that I studied, concluded that based off of scientific data the unborn child was both living and human. The argument that liberal ethicists make to defend a pro-abortion stance is that the child is not a contributing member of society, thus he or she is not a person. If you think that argument is absolutely absurd, you are correct.
It is also a myth that killing an unborn child is in favor of women's rights. The woman has rights, and if she chooses to conceive, that is her choice. Once a life is born, the right to harm that child is not a right. The baby has a right to live. If an unborn child is both living and human, it follows that he or she is not just a part of his or her mother. Baby is a distinct human being. Thus it is no longer a right for a woman to decide what to do with that child's life anymore than it is her right to murder a full grown adult.
Ultimately, the choice is made when two consenting adults decide to have intercourse which results in the conception of a child. After this decision has been made, nobody has a right to abort a baby. Without going to deep into the cases of rape and incest, I will simply state that a child should not be punished for the crime that another person committed against his or her mother.
What about the case where a mother's life is at risk? Even in these cases, abortion is not necessary. A reliable OB will tell you that if worst comes to worst, a woman can be induced and prematurely deliver the baby to avoid an abortion. Even if the child dies in this instance, it at least gives them the possibility for life opposed to prematurely terminating the life.
As serious of an offense as abortion is, it is forgivable by God. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that includes those who have had an abortion. Where the Old Covenant would say such a person should be killed, the Gospel teaches that we can extend grace to people who have made a mistake like this. Sadly, most women consent to have abortions because they are misled into believing that their unborn child is just a mass of cells. My heart goes out to these people. I pray we now seek truth from the Word of God, rather than the ideas of sinful mankind.
www.williamhseng.com
There was a day and age when Christians could be "pro-choice" in good conscience, but that day has come and gone. The movement now known as pro-life is the stand alone opposition to "pro-choice," and is the conservative stance in relation to abortion. Pro-life is the most consistent stance to Biblical teachings.
The Bible does not clearly address abortion. The closest the Bible gets to the topic of abortion is a law penalizing men who would hit a pregnant woman, causing her child to die (Exodus 21:22-23). Aside from that specific instance in the Bible of killing children inside of the mother's womb, there is mention of killing children once they have been born. And, that is abominable according to the Word of God.
The first noteworthy example in the Bible of infanticide is in the book of Exodus when Pharaoh orders for the murder of all newborn male children. It was such an abhorrent act that God commended the midwives for lying to save their newborn children. The act of infanticide is then reflected later on in the story of Jesus' birth where king Herod ordered for the death of every male child under the age of two years. The New Testament even cites a prophetic Scripture referencing Rachel weeping for her children. These two examples, however, are infanticide on a mass scale from an outside oppressor and not the decision of the parents.
In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says it is for wickedness' sake that he drove the Caananite nations out from before the Israelites. One of the chief sins among the Caananites was infant/child sacrifice where they would burn their children alive. This is very similar to the brutality involved in an abortion.
The case that is given to justify abortion today is made by liberal Democrats. They claim that it is in the name of women's rights that she may have an abortion if she so desires. It is also under the guise that the baby, in its mother's womb is nothing more than a mass of cells and is essentially part of the mother's body. This is not true.
Having taken courses in bioethics, I do not recall a single case where even the most liberal ethicists would say that an unborn child was not a living organism nor would they concede that it was not human. Every serious ethicist, that I studied, concluded that based off of scientific data the unborn child was both living and human. The argument that liberal ethicists make to defend a pro-abortion stance is that the child is not a contributing member of society, thus he or she is not a person. If you think that argument is absolutely absurd, you are correct.
It is also a myth that killing an unborn child is in favor of women's rights. The woman has rights, and if she chooses to conceive, that is her choice. Once a life is born, the right to harm that child is not a right. The baby has a right to live. If an unborn child is both living and human, it follows that he or she is not just a part of his or her mother. Baby is a distinct human being. Thus it is no longer a right for a woman to decide what to do with that child's life anymore than it is her right to murder a full grown adult.
Ultimately, the choice is made when two consenting adults decide to have intercourse which results in the conception of a child. After this decision has been made, nobody has a right to abort a baby. Without going to deep into the cases of rape and incest, I will simply state that a child should not be punished for the crime that another person committed against his or her mother.
What about the case where a mother's life is at risk? Even in these cases, abortion is not necessary. A reliable OB will tell you that if worst comes to worst, a woman can be induced and prematurely deliver the baby to avoid an abortion. Even if the child dies in this instance, it at least gives them the possibility for life opposed to prematurely terminating the life.
As serious of an offense as abortion is, it is forgivable by God. Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that includes those who have had an abortion. Where the Old Covenant would say such a person should be killed, the Gospel teaches that we can extend grace to people who have made a mistake like this. Sadly, most women consent to have abortions because they are misled into believing that their unborn child is just a mass of cells. My heart goes out to these people. I pray we now seek truth from the Word of God, rather than the ideas of sinful mankind.
www.williamhseng.com
Friday, March 17, 2017
The Bible and Alcohol
For starters, this post is not meant to offend anyone on either side of this debate. It is intended to be educational on the subject of what the Bible says about the topic of drinking alcoholic beverages.
Having said that, both sides will find things they agree with in this post and both sides will find things they disagree with. If you decide to use this post to back your point in a discussion, great! But please use it within it's full context. The Bible has a lot to say about drinking.
I think it will be the easiest to start with the conclusions that we should all agree on, according to the Bible, DRUNKENNESS IS A SIN (Ephesians 5:18). On that point, I do not think I need to elaborate too much.
One justification that people use to say that drunkenness is alright, according to Biblical standards, is that Jesus was referred to as a "drunkard" (Matthew 11:19). It is true that people made those claims. They were trying to find fault with Jesus so that he could be executed. In Matthew 11:19, Jesus is addressing the hypocrisy of these claims. The people condemn John for not drinking, while these same people condemn Jesus for drinking. His accusers are actually quoting a command out of Deuteronomy in an effort to condemn Jesus: "They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town are to STONE HIM TO DEATH. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid" (Deuteronomy 21:20-21). Clearly, Jesus was not a drunkard, but drunkenness is condemned in Scripture.
Concerning drinking, in general, there have been attempts to cast condemnation on the entire practice of drinking. It is clear that the Bible condemns drunkenness, but it also has some strong passages against drinking. Proverbs 31:4, 6 reads, "it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer...Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish!" Proverbs 23 strongly warns against even spending time with people who make a practice of drinking and warns against personal indulgence of alcohol when it might seem to be most pleasurable. There is definitely a case to be made against drinking, as a regular practice, within the Bible.
However, contextually the Bible is not condemning drinking an alcoholic beverage on every occasion. The impression that these verses leave are that people who are consumed by alcohol have impaired judgment. We'd be lying if we said we don't know what they are talking about. I don't think a word for alcoholic had yet been invented, but it is clear that it is, in most instances, referring to people that have given themselves over to a routine of drinking excess amounts of alcohol. Once again, I defy anyone to tell me this is not clear given the context. In relation to "The king" in Proverbs 31, it is a very clear admonition that a king should not drink. Given the cultural context, however, I find it hard to believe that the king was discouraged from drinking at all.
Numbers 6:20 states, clearly, when a Nazirite, who does not drink wine, was permitted to drink wine. Numbers 18:12 reads, "I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the Lord as the firstfruits of their harvest." Wine in this context is a blessing. If we go into the New Testament, the case that drinking was permitted is even stronger. Jesus' first miracle in Cana in Galilee was to turn water into wine (John 2). One of the most significant practices in Christianity was instituted by Jesus, who established it through the drinking of wine and then declared that he would drink it again with his disciples in heaven (Matthew 26:29)! This brings us to the next argument, did the people of the Bible drink real wine or non-fermented grape juice?
An argument has arisen that claims that the juice that was Biblically approved was not fermented. On this subject, I have heard both sides of the debate. One Greek professor, of whom I am aware, said that it was merely grape juice, according to the language in Greek. Another professor I had, that has a doctorate in both Greek and Hebrew, who studied Greek at a seminary that required its students to translate the entire New Testament from Greek, and attended a Jewish seminary to get his doctorate in Near Eastern languages (Hebrew), WHO DOES NOT DRINK HIMSELF, stated that the word in the Greek is absolutely implying that the beverage WAS ALCOHOLIC. The first professor (Greek only) is a smart man that I highly respect, but had less than a decade of studying Greek. The latter professor devoted decades of his life to learning both Greek and Hebrew. To me, the Greek/Hebrew professor's word is good enough for me and the fact he does not use it as a justification to drink further strengthens his argument. I'm not going to get into the actual word study because neither I, nor the people who take the counter position, are educated enough in Greek or Hebrew to make an authoritative claim on the subject.
Romans 14:21 states, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall." People use this argument to say that a person should not drink. Overall, I agree. However, most of the time it is not believers trying to protect the weak in faith from drinking. Instead, most of the time, my experience is that it is believers of strong faith who are trying to discourage other believers who are strong in faith from drinking. It was either Billy or Franklin Graham that told a story about how one of their friends who lived in France invited them to dinner. In France, everyone drinks wine and a glass for every meal. Their friend said, "You refuse to drink wine. And you do it unto the Lord. My wife and I drink wine. And we do it unto the Lord."
Colossians 2:16 states, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink..." We need to be sensitive to those weaker in faith, but it is not our duty to allow them to remain infants in faith. The Apostle Paul and Timothy are the perfect example. Paul had Timothy circumcised so that the Jewish believers would hear him out regarding his ministry to the Gentiles. But when it came to the doctrine of circumcision, when he taught the Gentiles, he said that he did not encourage them to be circumcised in the flesh, but in the heart (Romans 2:29). And his rebuke toward Jewish believers who thought circumcision was necessary was harsh (Galatians 5:12)! There are other issues we could wrongfully discourage and have been discouraged at some points in church history. Marriage is one of the practices that we could easily condemn in the light of Scripture and yet I do not know a single person who would say that marriage should be forbidden throughout the church. Or what about modesty? Or women covering their heads or being silent in church? I'm not discouraging any of these things, but there are clear commands given within Scripture concerning these practices that are far more clear than the justification for churches that prohibit alcohol altogether.
This blog post is in response to a specific article that I skimmed regarding this topic in which the person who wrote the article stated, "I don't know a single person who would say drinking alcohol makes them feel anymore Christ-like." Fine and good, but what other pleasures, that are not prohibited by Scripture, do not make you feel more Christ-like? Maybe, eating a steak? Sitting in a hot tub? Drinking a soda? Eating a candy bar? Relaxing? I think you get the point.
St. Patrick brewed beer to keep the Irish, who drank a lot of whiskey, from getting drunk. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien would wind down at a bar over a glass of beer and discuss their books. I even heard one bold pastor say that he was going to enjoy a glass of his favorite beer as he watched the Super Bowl at home. Drinking is comforting to some people like eating ice cream is comforting to others.
My stance on alcohol: Drunkenness is wrong, period. Drinking in moderation is acceptable. Abstaining from alcohol is acceptable and should be practiced when it is clear it could cause someone to stumble. Looking down on fellow believers who enjoy a glass of wine or a cold beer from time-to-time is ill advised.
Concerning church prohibitions on drinking: I believe that individual churches have the right to lay down their criteria concerning church membership or eldership. If that includes abstinence from alcohol, that is acceptable.
I think my Scriptural case is strong, but what are your thoughts?
www.williamhseng.com
Having said that, both sides will find things they agree with in this post and both sides will find things they disagree with. If you decide to use this post to back your point in a discussion, great! But please use it within it's full context. The Bible has a lot to say about drinking.
I think it will be the easiest to start with the conclusions that we should all agree on, according to the Bible, DRUNKENNESS IS A SIN (Ephesians 5:18). On that point, I do not think I need to elaborate too much.
One justification that people use to say that drunkenness is alright, according to Biblical standards, is that Jesus was referred to as a "drunkard" (Matthew 11:19). It is true that people made those claims. They were trying to find fault with Jesus so that he could be executed. In Matthew 11:19, Jesus is addressing the hypocrisy of these claims. The people condemn John for not drinking, while these same people condemn Jesus for drinking. His accusers are actually quoting a command out of Deuteronomy in an effort to condemn Jesus: "They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town are to STONE HIM TO DEATH. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid" (Deuteronomy 21:20-21). Clearly, Jesus was not a drunkard, but drunkenness is condemned in Scripture.
Concerning drinking, in general, there have been attempts to cast condemnation on the entire practice of drinking. It is clear that the Bible condemns drunkenness, but it also has some strong passages against drinking. Proverbs 31:4, 6 reads, "it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer...Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish!" Proverbs 23 strongly warns against even spending time with people who make a practice of drinking and warns against personal indulgence of alcohol when it might seem to be most pleasurable. There is definitely a case to be made against drinking, as a regular practice, within the Bible.
However, contextually the Bible is not condemning drinking an alcoholic beverage on every occasion. The impression that these verses leave are that people who are consumed by alcohol have impaired judgment. We'd be lying if we said we don't know what they are talking about. I don't think a word for alcoholic had yet been invented, but it is clear that it is, in most instances, referring to people that have given themselves over to a routine of drinking excess amounts of alcohol. Once again, I defy anyone to tell me this is not clear given the context. In relation to "The king" in Proverbs 31, it is a very clear admonition that a king should not drink. Given the cultural context, however, I find it hard to believe that the king was discouraged from drinking at all.
Numbers 6:20 states, clearly, when a Nazirite, who does not drink wine, was permitted to drink wine. Numbers 18:12 reads, "I give you all the finest olive oil and all the finest new wine and grain they give the Lord as the firstfruits of their harvest." Wine in this context is a blessing. If we go into the New Testament, the case that drinking was permitted is even stronger. Jesus' first miracle in Cana in Galilee was to turn water into wine (John 2). One of the most significant practices in Christianity was instituted by Jesus, who established it through the drinking of wine and then declared that he would drink it again with his disciples in heaven (Matthew 26:29)! This brings us to the next argument, did the people of the Bible drink real wine or non-fermented grape juice?
An argument has arisen that claims that the juice that was Biblically approved was not fermented. On this subject, I have heard both sides of the debate. One Greek professor, of whom I am aware, said that it was merely grape juice, according to the language in Greek. Another professor I had, that has a doctorate in both Greek and Hebrew, who studied Greek at a seminary that required its students to translate the entire New Testament from Greek, and attended a Jewish seminary to get his doctorate in Near Eastern languages (Hebrew), WHO DOES NOT DRINK HIMSELF, stated that the word in the Greek is absolutely implying that the beverage WAS ALCOHOLIC. The first professor (Greek only) is a smart man that I highly respect, but had less than a decade of studying Greek. The latter professor devoted decades of his life to learning both Greek and Hebrew. To me, the Greek/Hebrew professor's word is good enough for me and the fact he does not use it as a justification to drink further strengthens his argument. I'm not going to get into the actual word study because neither I, nor the people who take the counter position, are educated enough in Greek or Hebrew to make an authoritative claim on the subject.
Romans 14:21 states, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall." People use this argument to say that a person should not drink. Overall, I agree. However, most of the time it is not believers trying to protect the weak in faith from drinking. Instead, most of the time, my experience is that it is believers of strong faith who are trying to discourage other believers who are strong in faith from drinking. It was either Billy or Franklin Graham that told a story about how one of their friends who lived in France invited them to dinner. In France, everyone drinks wine and a glass for every meal. Their friend said, "You refuse to drink wine. And you do it unto the Lord. My wife and I drink wine. And we do it unto the Lord."
Colossians 2:16 states, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink..." We need to be sensitive to those weaker in faith, but it is not our duty to allow them to remain infants in faith. The Apostle Paul and Timothy are the perfect example. Paul had Timothy circumcised so that the Jewish believers would hear him out regarding his ministry to the Gentiles. But when it came to the doctrine of circumcision, when he taught the Gentiles, he said that he did not encourage them to be circumcised in the flesh, but in the heart (Romans 2:29). And his rebuke toward Jewish believers who thought circumcision was necessary was harsh (Galatians 5:12)! There are other issues we could wrongfully discourage and have been discouraged at some points in church history. Marriage is one of the practices that we could easily condemn in the light of Scripture and yet I do not know a single person who would say that marriage should be forbidden throughout the church. Or what about modesty? Or women covering their heads or being silent in church? I'm not discouraging any of these things, but there are clear commands given within Scripture concerning these practices that are far more clear than the justification for churches that prohibit alcohol altogether.
This blog post is in response to a specific article that I skimmed regarding this topic in which the person who wrote the article stated, "I don't know a single person who would say drinking alcohol makes them feel anymore Christ-like." Fine and good, but what other pleasures, that are not prohibited by Scripture, do not make you feel more Christ-like? Maybe, eating a steak? Sitting in a hot tub? Drinking a soda? Eating a candy bar? Relaxing? I think you get the point.
St. Patrick brewed beer to keep the Irish, who drank a lot of whiskey, from getting drunk. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien would wind down at a bar over a glass of beer and discuss their books. I even heard one bold pastor say that he was going to enjoy a glass of his favorite beer as he watched the Super Bowl at home. Drinking is comforting to some people like eating ice cream is comforting to others.
My stance on alcohol: Drunkenness is wrong, period. Drinking in moderation is acceptable. Abstaining from alcohol is acceptable and should be practiced when it is clear it could cause someone to stumble. Looking down on fellow believers who enjoy a glass of wine or a cold beer from time-to-time is ill advised.
Concerning church prohibitions on drinking: I believe that individual churches have the right to lay down their criteria concerning church membership or eldership. If that includes abstinence from alcohol, that is acceptable.
I think my Scriptural case is strong, but what are your thoughts?
www.williamhseng.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)