One Church or Thousands

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me. One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it. I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her. Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor. Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist. I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion? Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects? There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth. I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with.

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them. They will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning. Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O. J. it simply cannot be so. It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it. That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their minds that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: ‘Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.’ ” Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV)

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see? Had God done it? The text says "their eyes they have closed." Why would a person do that? Could it be they did not want to see? Could it be they did not want to know? Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know? Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing. Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV) It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear.

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will." Both could have heard. The only difference between the two parties was the heart. The Jewish heart had grown dull. The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull." The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will. Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV) The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them. It is hard to get a satisfied person to change.

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man. The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context). It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions. Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will. Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong. The eyes were deliberately closed.

This brings me to what I really want to talk about. I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present. The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology. In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide." In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000. The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another and the number is growing continuously.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty-some thousand? What kind of new math is that?

How is it we have in the Bible a plain statement of scripture, as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews, and yet the eyes are closed today, and the ears are hard of hearing, and the hearts are grown dull, so that the scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty-some thousand? Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old. We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church. Where do you read that in your Bible? What book is that in? It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said. That parable is found in John 15. Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations. There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time. When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it. Why? Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper. Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations? It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account. It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines. When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.). The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else, and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination, then the reality is truth no longer matters. Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error. Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus. That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means. What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock. Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV) Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men, or the same group of men, do the same thing after Pentecost. What then? They are believers that Christ is the Son of God. Is that all that matters? Are they then in the "one church"? Are they saved? The failure to confess Jesus is the same as failing to accept him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief. When you begin to define saving faith as something more than just intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are admitting that doctrine does make a difference after all. And if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church." The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built. God adds you when you obey the gospel. The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved? In Acts 2, in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted), we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached. It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter, via the Holy Spirit, preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach? He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV) Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached. Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful? Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation. If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened. He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter. So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says. That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus." There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example). No one wants that kind of faith. We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject. You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds. They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts. It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either. They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question. Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside. Here are some examples: the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc. These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of. These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question. Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which a person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or, on the other hand, that there is only one church? I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling. It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them? Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church. I include Catholicism as just another denomination. It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad). But this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost), or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets, and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built. That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine. Every congregation was to abide in it. There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine. It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church. It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church. If that church is not found in your community why not restore it? You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Tongue and Hell

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

In this article, I will be dealing with the last of the three declarations or warnings Jesus gave as found in Matt. 5:22 regarding man's attitude and speech toward his fellowman. Jesus says that to say to one's fellowman "you fool" puts him in danger of going to hell itself. That is a frightful thought that the words out of one's mouth are enough to condemn a man for eternity, and yet the Bible teaches that.

"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12:34-37 NAS)

It is important that we remember what was just quoted. If we did so, we would be slow to speak, thinking about what we are about to say before we say it. We would not just blather out thoughtlessly the very first words that come to mind. James tells us, "Let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger." (James 1:19 NAS)

Words not spoken ordinarily cause no trouble nor lead to condemnation. However, certainly, there are times and places where it is appropriate to speak up and sinful not to. But words spoken that would have been best left unspoken have resulted in murders, hatred, anger, strife, bitterness, and condemnation before God.

For the moment I want to put emphasis on what Jesus said in Matt. 12 quoted above when he said, "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." (Matt. 12:34 NAS) Elsewhere Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts." (Matt. 15:19 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). It is the heart that loves God and loves man that is blessed with eternal life and happiness. "He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14 NAS)

The words we direct to our fellowman are a reflection of how our heart feels towards the one to whom we speak. Do we love him/her? Are we kind to the person, compassionate, caring? The words that roll off our tongue are a reflection of the inner attitude we have toward that individual.

To call a man a fool reflects the speaker's heart and lack of love. Even if he was right about the man to whom he was speaking and that man was indeed a fool, it would not get the speaker off the hook for violating the law of love toward one's fellowman.

The Greek word translated "fool" in Matt. 5:22 has been and is highly debated as to its exact meaning. You and I know what the English meaning of the English word fool is without being told, but is that what the Greek word meant that lies behind the English translation in our Bibles? That is the debated question.

Most of the old commentators I consulted (Barnes, Clarke, and Gill) believe it means a wicked reprobate man. Gill says, "The word 'fool' does not signify a man of weak parts, one that is very ignorant in things natural; this the word Raca imports; but a wicked reprobate man; in which sense Solomon often uses the word. The Persic version renders it here 'wicked'." (Gill's Commentary) The translation notes from the NET Bible say, "The meaning of the term moros is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, 'you fool,' although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term moreh 'rebel.'" Young's Literal Translation uses the word "rebel" rather than the word "fool."

I have no way of knowing the truth on this, but I suspect Gill was correct since Raca means fool, which Jesus had already addressed. Robertson's Word Pictures quotes Bruce as saying the word "more," "more" in the original language, "expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel".

Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "'Thou fool;' here the word means morally worthless, a scoundrel, a more serious reproach than 'Raca;' the latter (a reference to Raca--DS) scorns a man's mind and calls him stupid; moros (the word in question--DS) scorns his heart and character." (Page 444) Elsewhere, Vine says in reference to the word translated "fool" (in most translations) it means "a godless, moral reprobate." (Page 915)

Be all that as it may, Matt. 5:22 makes it clear that God has not relinquished his right to be God and handed that right over to me to make me the judge and make proclamation over others. When I call someone a fool, a reprobate, or whatever, I have proclaimed that I myself am not a fool and I am able to judge others, for I am superior. I know these things and you don't is the idea, and I know because I am superior. It is pride and it is arrogance and it is the placing of oneself on God's judgment seat.

Is it true there are no fools and/or godless reprobates on the earth? No, it is not. The book of Proverbs speaks of fools time after time (the word "fool" is mentioned in 40 verses in that book in the NAS and the word "fools" in 21 verses), and enough is said about them so that we can learn quite a bit about who is and who is not a fool. There are many who do not believe in God's existence. David, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms 14:1, 53:1 NAS)

God has not asked us to be naïve and go around acting like we cannot discern foolish things from things that are rational, and he has certainly not asked us to give up discerning righteousness from unrighteousness. We are not asked to live as though we are blind and see no evil and refuse to recognize evil or foolishness. We know there are evil men in the world; we know there are foolish men in the world. Jesus in the New Testament addressed a certain class of men as "fools and blind men." (Matt. 23:17 NAS) Paul did the same thing in Rom. 1:22. We are told by Solomon, "Do not be a fool." (Eccl. 7:17 NAS) Surely we can know what foolishness is.

That does not mean, however, that we are to take God's place and declare a man a fool, or worse, implying we are not. Have we not all played the role of the fool at one or more times in our life? I doubt I could find a man who would deny it if he has any honesty about himself at all. If we are, and always have been, so perfect, what need do we have for Jesus? Paul said, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NAS) We have no room to speak of others as being fools.

While the New Testament only uses the words fool and fools 3 times each in the New American Standard Bible (1977), it uses the word foolish in 25 different verses. The first instance is found in Matt. 7:26, "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand." (NAS) It is not hard to be foolish; not obeying the commands of Jesus will do it. Jesus and Paul both spoke of foolish men and foolish acts. One of the problems of the man who is inclined to call his brother, his fellowman, a fool is his failure to see that he too falls into the same category. His disregard for Jesus' words spoken in Matt. 5:22 clearly places him in the classification of being "a foolish man" according to Matt. 7:26.

What is needed is mercy and grace, kindness and love, and taking the speck out of our own eye. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3-5 NAS)

There is a "fiery hell." Jesus said so in the passage before us, and he told us of one personality headed there. It is our choice as to whether or not we make the decision to heed the teachings of Matt. 5:22 or disregard them. There is a path that leads away from the fiery hell. Jesus described it when he said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock." (Matt. 7:24-25 NAS) That is the rock that is higher than I.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Sin of Verbal Abuse

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

I want to deal in this article specifically with the second clause in this statement of Jesus where he says "Whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court." My main interest is how this applies to you and me today. There is a warning in this teaching that transcends the ages.

A good place to begin is with the word "Raca" which is meaningless to the average reader of the Bible. Consequently, many translations translate the Greek differently using terms or phrases such as "insults his brother" (ESV), "insults a brother" (NET, NRSV is similar), "You good-for-nothing" (NAS update—I used the original NAS in my quote at the top of the page, GNB), and "Empty fellow" (YLT). Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "It was a word of utter contempt, signifying empty, intellectually rather than morally, empty-headed." Strong's Dictionary described it as "a term of utter vilification." I believe from my study that the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) comes the closest of any of the versions in giving the best translation of the Greek. I also think the word "stupid" or "moron" would fit based on Vine's definition.

When one takes a look at the various translations given above for the Greek and learns the meaning of the Greek word used behind those translations it becomes obvious that we have a sin that can be committed today even though we might use a different word than Raca. The man that would say this kind of thing to a brother not only insults that brother but displays a lack of love and compassion, a lack of kindness for his fellowman. It tells you more about the man speaking than it does about the man he is insulting with such speech. It manifests a feeling of superiority in the speaker's mind and contempt for the other guy.

If you are an American, have you ever wondered why the desperately poor southern white who never owned a slave or had hopes of doing so fought to uphold the slave holding rights of rich southern plantation owners during our Civil War in the 1860s? I am told, through their writings, by those who have studied the subject, that the slave gave them a sense of self-worth in that there was at least one man below them in terms of how society judged its own. They were at least better than the black slave (as they saw it). As long as there were slaves, they were not in society's lowest caste. Take the slave away and then it is a different matter.

One wonders how much of this belittling of one's brother or sister is similar in kind. I insult and belittle you so I can feel better about myself. My low self-esteem leads me to drag you down to raise myself up. And, no doubt, a great amount of this kind of behavior comes not so much from low self-esteem but arrogance in those who speak to another person this way. Full of pride and puffed up, better than another in their own mind, the other guy is mere dust under their feet. But the motive makes little difference. It is the result that matters. One can be a jerk for this reason or that reason but he is still a jerk, if that is his character.

There is a price to be paid for such behavior. In school we call such conduct bullying. School shootings and suicides of young people oftentimes are directly related to some child being continually subjected to such torment by those who would verbally abuse others. When I was a student in high school I saw a young girl tormented (bullied) mercilessly daily (this was back in the early 60s). This was long before schools ever gave a thought of disciplining such conduct. I have always sort of blamed those tormentors of hers for the way her life turned out. I saw what she went through daily. She was going to have a tough go of it at best and needed all the love, friendship, and kindness she could get, but what she got instead was tormentors and bullies who verbally abused her daily and made her life miserable.

In another article on this passage, I talked about anger. We ought to be angry against sin and that would include the sin those engage in who would belittle others, insult them, and call them names. I hate this sin. My dad was an honest man and a hard worker. People thought well of him for that, but Dad had a speech impediment of sorts and had some difficulty pronouncing certain letters or sounds. I could understand him perfectly and everyone did who was around him all of the time but still, he did not quite pronounce some of his words correctly.

Dad never told me this but I learned it later and I never said a word to him, never brought it up to him, but I learned as they were eating lunch one day at work one of his co-workers was making fun of him, evidently mercilessly, and he slapped the man. No doubt Dad was too ashamed to ever tell it. He had to have been tremendously provoked to do that for it was totally out of character for him and hard to believe he had done such a thing.

Certainly, Dad was in the wrong but those who speak hurtful words to others tearing them down to the point of the loss of all dignity--what kind of love do they have in their hearts toward others? Is there any love, compassion, any mercy, any humanity in such speech? If I incite a person to the point it becomes intolerable for them and they just cannot take it anymore, am I guilt-free of sin? Dad knew he could not pronounce his words correctly and never liked to be out in public. No man wants to be embarrassed.

I think one can begin to see that this sin involves more than just words, it involves the heart. The man who would call his brother names and insult him has not only sinned with the words of his mouth but in his heart as well. He certainly has not loved his brother, the one he should have been protecting.

The Bible tells us, "Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phil. 2:4 NAS) Does the kind of speech of which we are speaking violate this scripture? This speaking humiliating things to others, putting them down, is a sin on so many levels—a sin of the heart, of the tongue, a violation of all the passages that speak of love, compassion, kindness, and mercy.

"And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell." (James 3:6 NAS)

In closing, it is readily seen that whatever this passage meant in the first century it is still applicable today in that there will be a judgment for such speech. We need not worry about the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court in the first century, for a greater than the Sanhedrin is here—Jesus Christ himself, the judge of all, on that special day that has been appointed for that. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10 NAS)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

America and Corinth

Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9 NKJV) When it comes to human behavior it is hard to argue that anything has changed since Solomon's day well over 2,000 years ago. Human pride and arrogance just seem to roll on from one generation to the next endlessly. I was reminded of that today (4/6/2015) when I was reading from 1 Cor. 5, Paul's letter to the church at Corinth.

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father's wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you." (1 Cor. 5:1-2 NKJV)

While America is certainly not a church it seems it has much the same attitude toward sin that the church at Corinth was displaying. There is no mourning in America today over adultery, homosexuality, fornication, lying, deception, malice, drunkenness, you name it. In fact, for some politicians their sins make them more popular with the public. Bill Clinton was one notorious example of that. Bill Bennett's book, The Death of Outrage, was written as a direct response to the public's reaction to that sordid episode.

Being caught in a lie no longer disqualifies one from holding even the highest office in the land. We have lied so much and for so long people no longer think much about it and it no longer seems to taint your character in the eyes of the public at large with but few exceptions. Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, just admitted lying about Mitt Romney not paying any taxes for 10 years but where is the public outrage? There is very little of it.

There is little difference with other sins. The quickest way for an actress to gain fame and fortune seems to be to take her clothes off and display herself publicly, maybe even get into pornography, and as for drunkenness, why everyone does it do they not? There is no shame in America anymore. If you are on your fifth live-in arrangement, so what? Who really cares? We will tolerate anything in America. Sounds like Corinth to me. We will in the name of toleration tolerate the very things that will lead to our personal and national destruction.

What outrage we do see today is against Christianity, not against sin and evil doing. We are experiencing the evolution of morals in America where we now call evil good and good evil. It is a destructive evolution for God has said, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

But why have we become this way? I think the following remark from Bill Bennett's book, The Death of Outrage, is on the mark:

"Why have we been drawn toward a culture of permissiveness? My former philosophy professor John Silber was correct when he spoke of an 'invitation to mutual corruption.' We are hesitant to impose upon ourselves a common moral code because we want our own exemptions." (Page 120)

We in America like to blame our leaders for our problems as a nation, but the problem lies within us, each of us. We have become proud, puffed up, much like the Corinthians. Add to that we enjoy our own personal sins and do not want to give them up. Living righteously no longer matters to us. We will set our own standards and they are far, far more lenient than God's standards for we like it that way.

The answer to our problems lies within each of us. While it is true "there is none righteous" (Rom. 3:10 NKJV), we are not righteous on our own, don't you think we might all be better off and our nation be better off if we made an attempt to live godly? The desire to do so has been lost but God has given us free will. We can change if we will just will to do it. With God's help, it is not impossible for men and women to live godly, righteous lives. If there is not a change, a sort of national repentance, we are doomed as a nation. On a personal level Jesus put it bluntly, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3 NKJV) "God is not mocked." (Gal. 6:7 NKJV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]