Today's question from a church attender:

What are your thoughts about how we are to think scripturally about our second amendment rights?

First, let us start by understanding the second amendment text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a ground or reason clause. It would be equivalent to saying this: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to security of a free State", then the following right has to be maintained.

That right is that the people, who must be ready to defend the security of the free State, also necessarily must be able to keep and bear arms. These arms are firearms, in short, and of a sort that can be effective to defend the security of the State. To keep means to own or possess, a necessity for security. To bear means to carry and transport with and/or on their person, again, to be able at a moment's notice to defend the security of the free State. The security of the State starts with the security of individuals within the State, so that it can be rightly said that individual self defense is at the core of the second amendment.

To hobble the type of firearm to be ineffective in comparison to what would be used against the citizen, or to prohibit gun or other similar weapon ownership, or to make it illegal to carry the weapon where it may be needed to provide security—all three of these restrictions are not permitted to the State. The constitution restricts the ability of the State in these areas. These would all be forms of infringement on the right of the people to defend the security of their persons and property.

The limitation in the constitution also serves to limit the power of the State against its citizens. History shows very clearly that when a people is disarmed, they are then often subject to horrific abuses of power and death at the hands of the State. The limitation on power imposed by the second amendment is very useful because people are depraved (a basic Christian teaching), and groups of people gathered into governmental agencies are also depraved. Their power needs to be limited to limit the damage of their depravity.

It should be rather obvious that this right is to be protected for individuals, not just corporate militias. Since militias are not even common these days, a militia-only interpretation would gut the amendment of its practical protections for the rights of the people. The point is that the people had to keep and bear arms so that they could join together in their militias to protect the security of the state.

Now, how is the Christian to think about this? Does this accord with Scriptural teaching?

The right of a person to defend himself or herself is present in Scripture. Consider the following:

Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

The homeowner is permitted to defend the security of his family, even by taking the life of a night-time intruder. The assumption is that a threat to personal safety justifies even homicide. The homeowner would not be guilty of murder in that case.

The astute reader will notice verse 3:

Exodus 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

The difference is the daylight. If a thief comes during the day to steal property, then taking his life is not justified, and the homeowner would be guilty of bloodshed. However, if at night, the intentions of the intruder are not well understood, and in the confusion of the situation, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. This mirrors advice that I heard from a police officer once. He said when people break into a home at night, they do not have good things planned for the residents there. This justifies using deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the occupants.

On the other hand, if a homeowner has daylight enough to see a thief carrying away his big screen TV, the homeowner is not justified to shoot the thief. That would certainly land the homeowner in jail, because the response was disproportionate to the crime. Only when death or great bodily harm is likely can deadly force be justified. Property crimes do not merit or justify the death penalty. The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery should have learned this fact long before they committed their heinous act against a man who they (wrongly) believed to be guilty of a property crime. Now they are justly jailed because of what they did.

One would be safe to assume that if the home invader comes in armed with an instrument of death, the homeowner should be able to "keep and bear" an arm of equal or greater firepower to defend his life. Thus the second amendment is not at all out of accord with Biblical teaching.

Guns did not exist during Bible times. However, another deadly weapon—the sword—did exist. Listen to the words of Jesus:

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Here the Lord expressly tells His disciples to acquire a sword. Does that sound strange coming from the lips of Jesus? Not if you understand that He is speaking of the "new normal" for the disciples. Previously, (see v. 35) He had sent them out with special divine provision. They would be cared for by a special divine providence. But now, He is sending them out again, after He will be gone, and they will be going out as sheep among wolves. This is the new normal. While they will try to be as harmless as doves, this does not mean that they cannot defend themselves from robbers or murderers. This is what the sword is for. It is not for offensive use, forcing conversions or enforcing a "Christian law" upon the places where we live. It is for defensive use. It is most obviously not for show. Like the Roman police, we do not "bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13:4). If it is carried, it is meant to be used in those situations where it is needed.

What are some objections to this?

I heard a very well-known evangelical preacher say that he would not use a gun against an intruder, for the criminal presumably needs eternal life, and the preacher already has it. If the preacher shoots the invader, then the invader goes to Hell. If the criminal shoots the preacher, the preacher goes to heaven, so he does not have anything to worry about in the end.

I respond to that objection this way: I have more than myself to "worry" about. I have a family—wife, children, and perhaps house guests, some of whom may not be going to heaven yet. I am charged with their safety, like Lot who welcomed two angels into his home instead of letting them stay overnight in the dangerous city square (Genesis 19:2-3, 8). Also, I feel that I have a moral duty to not only help when I see a person in need where it is safe to help them, but also, if necessary, to assist in the task of restraining evil where it pops up its ugly head. I certainly would rather not have to do that, and hope never to have to do so. But if it comes down to a question of "me or him" I know which I will lean toward. The innocent homeowner must not feel guilty if he defends himself. It is the criminal intruder who was in the wrong the entire time.

I take it then that the Lord could equivalently say, "he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy one." There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and Christians can support it and defend it thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with guns of all sorts and sizes.

In this day and age, however, there is increasingly something wrong with people who have access to guns. Witness the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, or the many other gun, knife, or bomb crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals around our land and throughout the world. Making new restrictive laws does not solve those problems, it only shifts them around. What we find most often, as in the Uvalde case, is a cascade of errors that resulted in a tragedy. The young man should never have had access to weapons because he was deeply disturbed. He was mentally incompetent to be responsible with a firearm.

One other point. Let us suppose that the elected officials in this land change the law to ban guns or certain kinds of guns. Or suppose that the second amendment were repealed. Would that justify an uprising of the gun-owning public? From a Christian standpoint, no, it would not justify revolution. It would be very undesirable to the ongoing of a free people, and it would be bad, and it would be out of accord with the founding spirit of our country, but if passed lawfully, it would be the new law of the land, and that law should be obeyed (1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1-2).

How do you inform someone who makes the following assertion:

Christians believe in polytheism—they have three gods.

The best way is to explain that we believe what the Bible says, and then let Scripture speak for itself (all quotations from ESV):

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ...there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all...

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isaiah 43:10 Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." (See also verse 8.)

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:6 That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:18 I am the LORD, and there is no other (see also 45:21, 22).

Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me...

After demonstrating that the oneness of God is a foundational truth of the Christian faith, you can explain that the one God exists as three persons sharing a single divine essence. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Hard to understand? Certainly, because God is not like we are. God is not a human being. He is an infinite, un-caused, un-created, no-beginning being who is unique. There is no one else like him.

Today's question:

Romans 3:30 says that one God will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Why are two different prepositions used?

First, let's double check that there are in fact two different prepositions in the Greek text, and there are: the first is "ek" faith and the second is "dia" faith.

Now to the question of why this is. Bottom line: this is most likely a stylistic variation and the prepositions are not conveying any difference at all.

This conclusion is supported by the truth gleaned from our systematic theology studies that there is only ONE way of salvation, by grace through faith. There is not one way for Jews and a different way for Gentiles. There is no such thing as a dual covenant or "automatic pass" for Jews because they are "God's people." Today, if they do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved. And if Gentiles do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved either.

Douglas Moo points out that there are two other places where these prepositions are neighbors to each other with the same object (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p. 252):

Romans 11:36 ESV For from (ek) him and through (dia) him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:5 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out (ek) of water and through (dia) water by the word of God...

In these verses, context demonstrates that the different prepositions do mean different things, that is, they are not used as synonyms. But in the context of Romans 3:30, they are used as synonyms.

This reminds me of an important principle of interpretation: you have to be VERY sure if you are building a big theological point on a small preposition (or two). Prepositions are outsized in their importance in language in general, and in Scripture particularly, in that they modify and connect ideas together to create larger and more significant ideas. But they are not that outsized whereby you can undermine a clear theological truth with an argument based on a dubious distinction between what can most easily be explained as synonyms.

You are saved by faith. You are saved through faith. Those two sentences mean the same thing. And thank God for them, otherwise we would not be saved at all!

One of our church leaders wrote to me a few months ago about what he called a "strange shortage of workers" in spite of the high demand for jobs by employers (over 10 million at this writing). I would add that the large number of side-lined workers and people on unemployment (today numbering over 1 million) make the causes of this worker shortage somewhat mysterious. Where did all the workers go? This has become an issue at corporate meetings and in the media.

The person who was communicating with me commented that this whole scenario represents an opportunity for Christians to stand out as being different, which we are in everything, including labor. I agree with him.

Although I am unable to determine the root causes of the great worker shortage, let me offer a few thoughts sparked by my friend at church:

1. Wages are stagnant. They are not keeping up with inflation. If wages are going up at 3%, that sounds wonderful. But with inflation at 8.6%, that means wages are actually going down by 5%, more or less. It can be a depressing situation. But this does not mean that Christians give up work. God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to work the garden. Work is a gift from God, and it is something we can do and enjoy to a certain extent.

2. The government dole is easy to access. Many people are on unemployment. Some are on disability but are perfectly able to hold some job—not any job, but some job. We have a dear senior citizen in our church who has a disability and rightly receives disability support. But she wants to work, and does work, to supplement at the level she physically is able, and within the constraints of her low income housing and such. My point is that she works. Good for her!

3. There is a poor work ethic. An entitlement mentality exists in many people whereby they feel that they are "owed" some basic level of subsistence. The calls for UBI (universal basic income) and other "free" money are manifestations of this. Christians should be far away from this trend. Any family man who, in this economy, is out of work for any length of time is not looking hard enough for work. It is not as if there are 1 million job openings and 10 million seekers. There are 10 million job openings and 1 million seekers. It is easy to find work. You might not like the work, but that is why it is called work! If a man will not work, then neither should he eat! (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

4. Anecdotally, I spoke with a business owner in our area who said that he has noticed many families are switching gears to have mom stay at home. This trend is because, according to his explanation, sending the kids to daycare at $400 per week means that mom earning $650 outside of the home per week does not get the family significantly farther ahead, when you consider the other costs of having a second vehicle, gas, insurance, etc. The American Psychological Association laments the movement of women out of the workforce. They attribute it to "insidious societal messages that women should be mothers and that mothers should put their families first...Instead of opting out...women are being pushed out." I actually rejoice at this trend because children need mom at home. That is ridiculed as an old-fashioned patriarchal thing to say, but many women are recognizing the blessing of being at home with their children in the young years. If you want to be a mom at home, go for it! There is nothing wrong with it, and there is no higher calling to which you can aspire than to influence the next generation.

I have long believed that the entrance of many women into the workforce over the years has had the completely predictable impact of increasing worker supply; this depresses wages. As a result, it has become harder for a family to make it on the income of one spouse. But if some (women) pull out of the work force, this reduces the supply of workers and should push up wages a bit. I do not count that as an "insidious" thing.

5. There is the great resignation. Some of these resignations were what we might call permanent, but others were simply to move on to another better job. Some people left work because they disagreed with the COVID and vaccination policies of their employers (either too strict or too lenient). Others left their job because the pandemic caused them to realize things about their quality of life, dissatisfaction with their career, or a desire for more liberal remote-work policies.

At some point when I was studying Matthew 12:1-14 a few months back, I jotted this note down, but I do not know where it came from or if I came up with it:

Christianity provides the rest and joy of an internal righteousness wrought by God, in contrast to the blasting burden of legal regulations and mere external obedience required by attempting to earn favor with God.

Obviously my thoughts were not on justification at the time, which provides a "from-elsewhere" alien righteousness for forensic justification. That in addition to the transformation created in regeneration gives the believer a package of righteousness before God and in the heart that is a source of great joy and rest.

Round 4 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021.

1. The conscience may in fact be misinformed, but it is still dangerous and not consistent with Christian principles to violate it. Since this is the case, it is cause for patient education, not governmental mandate. Why? Mere fiat cannot change a person's conscience, and they must live with that conscience whereas the governing authorities do not have to live with a violated conscience.
2. Historical factors can weigh on the conscience of later generations. For example: The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male permanently destroyed the trust of many of our fellow citizens in the CDC and other government departments involved in health research. How can one trust a group of humans who would run Nazi-like experiments on their own countrymen? (Note that I hesitate to use the full title of the study because of the second-to-last word; yet it seems important to include that fact for best understanding.) The COVID-19 vaccine may not in fact be a population-wide research project, but after such an awful 40-year experiment, it will be difficult to convince some.
3. Some people simply will never be convinced. It is the Christian viewpoint that withholding from those people the means of support of a job or food or medical care is immoral. The willingness of some pro-vaccine-mandaters to treat non-vaccine-takers as sub-human and not worthy of the right to life or work is very disturbing to the religious conscience—even to those who have taken the vaccine. Think of it: if the vaccine mandates were carried out universally in New York, objectors would be prohibited from working; prohibited from eating in restaurants; prohibited from social activity; and eventually probably prohibited from living in certain locations. That kind of death penalty has no place in a civilized society and is an unjust form of punishment for the "crime" of not wanting a certain vaccine.
4. Also bothersome to the conscience is the fact that no religious exemption requests have thus far been approved by the U.S. Navy. This appears to be a complete denial of religious free expression, which makes the conscience of some feel "put upon" and pushes such people to take an even stronger stand in an attempt to exercise what seems to be dying religious liberty in our land. To many, that liberty is an important part of their conscience as well, because the religious principle of separation of church and state is integral to our life and worship.

Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2022. This year, the schedules start on 1/2 (or 1/3 for Monday-Friday plans) at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once
• Read Acts and the NT letters in chronological order
• One chapter a week for young readers

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

Round 3 of background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted on December 29, 2021.

1. The conscience can be "forced into a corner" by difficult dilemmas. "If you say you believe in Jesus, I will shoot you in the head;" or "If you do not take this vaccine, you will lose your job." Those dilemmas should be avoided by authorities if possible. Reasonable accommodation must be offered to avoid impingement on free religious exercise.
2. The reasons for conscience objections to the COVID vaccine are varied. Some are: (1) The vaccine is made and/or tested with fetal cell lines resulting from abortion, and abortion is an abominable act that is clearly rejected in Christian teaching; (2) The vaccine is mandated with severe economic penalties such as loss of livelihood, inability to purchase food at restaurants, etc., which set precedent for future Christian and Jewish persecution predicted in the Bible. Not that the vaccine is exactly this, but here is the idea: "No one can buy or sell unless he has the vaccine," which sounds eerily similar to the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17). It sets precedent for that future terrible event. (3) The vaccine is mandated, which runs counter to God-given natural rights which are recognized the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. (4) There are health risks to the vaccine which, if experienced, may impact one's ability to live productively and serve God. (5) The vaccine is an artificial chemical to which some Christians object because they prefer to trust God's design of the body to fight infection. (6) If one has been naturally immunized by a prior COVID infection, the unnecessary additional risks of taking a vaccine (such as myocarditis) are simply too costly to outweigh the vanishingly small incremental benefit (if any) that might be obtained over natural immunity. The religious principle in this case has to do with stewardship of one’s body: Christians are taught not to do things to their bodies which may reduce their ability to live for and serve God. (7) Children are at extremely low risk of complications from COVID-19, therefore giving them a vaccine that has potentially long-lasting side effects even in a small percentage of cases seems to be putting the Lord to the test. That is too much for the conscience of some. (8) The risk of becoming ill and dying prematurely pushes the conscience of others to really desire the vaccine to reduce their own human suffering. (9) The risk of spreading illness to others encourages the conscience of some to take the vaccine to provide whatever protection is available, even if imperfect.
3. Importantly, remember that the conscience is not informed only by "purely" religious factors. All information—even scientific—has some religious connection because of the information itself, where it comes from, the motivations behind it, the manner in which it is conveyed, etc. It is the view of many Christians that science is a discipline under the dominion of God, not man. Inasmuch as it has ignored God, it has run amok.
4. A person’s conscience may be fully convinced that if God permitted her to be infected with COVID and survive, He has provided through His creative design all the natural immunity that is required going forward, and in fact that immunity is very likely far better than artificial immunity from a vaccine. This weighs in decision-making regarding the risks-versus-benefits of the vaccine. The risks are entirely unnecessary in this case, and subjecting oneself to the vaccine would be putting God to the test.

I offer further background on the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted a couple of days ago.

1. Stated from the perspective of the church and its leadership, conscience decisions are often not uniform within a single church or denomination. In the non-religious community and even in the religious community, it is commonly thought that a particular church or denomination either has or does not have a conscientious objection to vaccines, or certain medical procedures like blood transfusion, or to war, or other such matters. While this sometimes may be the case, it is not always so. The Bible teaches explicitly that there may be within a single church some who conscientiously object to a certain practice while others do not. Two individuals who differ on a particular matter can still be members of the same church and in good fellowship with one another. From the church's perspective, these are matters of indifference that should not divide the community of Christians.
2. There are some issues which do not fall into the "matter of conscience" bucket at all. "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, pay taxes," etc. are not matters where conscience exemptions can be claimed. Vaccines are in the conscience category.
3. One’s conscience can choose differently at a later time if it receives new information that impacts how it adjudicates the matter at hand. Therefore, if information comes to light in the future, a person's decision about some matters may change, without there being any validity to a charge of inconsistency. The frequency of such conscience objections can be reduced by the authorities giving good, objective, full disclosure, rather than merely making pronouncements from on high. A mandate itself grates against the consciences of some (see Part 3), and to some is evidence that the thing mandated cannot stand on its own merits.
4. The conscience can be troubled by inconsistent information. For example, the COVID vaccine was said unequivocally to be effective. Yet we now know that it was only partially effective for a short period of time, approximately 6 months. This inconsistency is a significant input to the conscience decisions of religious citizens. Another example: general masking of the population was known for decades to be largely ineffective against airborne viruses like the influenza; so at the start of the pandemic masks were not needed according to Dr. Fauci; then masks were mandated; now on CNN we hear that cloth masks—the type most people are wearing—are not appropriate for an airborne virus. Which is it? The inconsistency throws the conscience into a confused state and weighs against a clean-conscience decision in any direction.

I offer the following thoughts in support of the conscience-based COVID-19 vaccine exemption letter that I posted yesterday.

1. Conscience operates on a case-by-case basis. It does not operate on a class or category basis. That is, if a person took some vaccines but not others, he could not necessarily be charged with inconsistency. For example, an individual’s conscience might be fine with some vaccine given that it is satisfied with the information about it, its risks to life and ability to serve God, side-effects, efficacy and longevity of efficacy, testing, length of usage, etc. But another vaccine may not be satisfactory to that individual’s conscience because of shortcomings of that particular vaccine in the aforementioned categories.
2. Conscience operates freely and fully at a mature age. A person may have received vaccination as a child when his sincerely held religious beliefs were not yet fully formulated nor freely exercised. This does not undercut a present conscience objection to a particular vaccine.
3. Conscience operates in such a way that a person must be fully convinced. Romans 14:5 teaches that each person must fully convinced in his own mind about his choice in which there are differences between people. The example given in the Bible is that some may choose to eat certain foods; others may not. Those choices are up to individual discretion in accordance with the conscience.
4. Conscience operates on a person-by-person basis. Two people in the same Christian church may disagree on a particular issue, both parties being fully sincere in their beliefs. This idea is itself a Christian teaching and recognizing it is part of our free religious exercise. To reiterate: this idea—that not every person in a church has to share the same view on matters of conscience—is a matter of doctrinal importance in the Christian faith. To demand that my views line up exactly with that of my church or denomination is an impingement on my free exercise of religion. The fact that I cannot “find” a church that agrees with all my views or will support an exemption based on those views does not mean that my views are unworthy of conscience protections. It may simply be that I have different views than the church, or that the churches I have asked to help with an exemption do not want to put their names “out there” as supporting an exemption because of potential persecution by authorities.

by Pastor Matthew Postiff, Ph.D., Th.M., November 17, 2021

I wrote this today in memory of a dear fellow servant who passed on Monday in South Africa. It is directed at his family and the churches there who mourn his passing.

Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. (Heb. 13:7 NKJV)

Regrettably, I am unable to be with you all today as you remember the life and ministry of Dr. S. Wilfred Matham. My name is Matt Postiff. I have been pastoring Fellowship Bible Church since 2006 and involved in its ministry prior to that time when its founding pastor, Raymond Saxe, was leading the ministry. Therefore, about 22 years ago, we became acquainted with Dr. Matham through the connection with Pastor Saxe.

Before I was married I was able to enjoy Dr. Matham’s company in my home. Afterward as well, my wife Naomi and I had the privilege of hosting Dr. Matham and his wife in our home from time to time when they came to the United States to visit their supporting churches. We supported the Mathams for many years along with a few EBC works that he told us about.

The text in Hebrews 13:7 exhorts us to remember those who taught us God’s word. Although this applies to those who are presently our teachers and preachers, it also applies to those who came before and who spoke God’s word to us. Pastor Matham is one of those key men who upheld the text of Scripture as the authoritative voice of God in the church and for the world. He exalted the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore Pastor Matham himself is worthy of our remembrance.

The Bible adds that we are to consider the outcome of the conduct of such people. Ample testimony was given during the service at EBC Eersterust in Pretoria, South Africa this evening to the conduct of our brother. And the outcome of that deportment is indeed is worthy of our consideration. We think of churches impacted in the States, first, because that is how Dr. Matham impacted us. But we also recognize his evangelistic and church planting work; his missionary work; his expositional teaching and Christian academics in the Bible colleges where he ministered. His relational warmth and his seriousness about the things of God, his leadership role in the EBC, and his personal holiness all are worthy of our consideration. These things were wrought in him by the Spirit of our God (Galatians 5:22-25), after the God the Father was shown to him by God the Son (Matt. 11:27). The outcome of his work is something that he has left as a legacy—a family, churches, saints edified, unbelief challenged, and a heritage of exalting Christ Jesus.

The third and final word of this Scripture—besides remembering such men and considering the outcome of their lives—reminds us that we have something to do. We must follow the faith of such men. Not that they are infallible guides, but such faithful servants have a lot to teach us even though they are gone. They have left foot tracks for us to observe. Men and women there in South Africa and here in the States must take up the mantle of our dear brother and follow his faith. The church will die if we do not follow the faith of our fathers, that precious truth deposited in the first century and handed down through a line of God’s servants into our care. We must follow and be the next generation’s Pastor Mathams where we are.

May God bless you and keep you, my dear Christian brothers and sisters. May He make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He show a smiling countenance upon you and give you peace. May the grace of our God, and the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, and fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be your portion.

Love and Prayers,

Pastor Matt Postiff

on behalf of Fellowship Bible Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan

Here is the next installment of Bible literacy in minutes:

Of serious personal importance is that at some point in the future, barring one very unique exception, each of us is going to die. As zerohedge.com says, “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” The Bible said it first: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). But what is death? What happens after you die? Many people believe in ideas like reincarnation or soul sleep or annihilation. Those things are not found in the Bible. What does the Bible say about death?

Of most personal importance is that at some point in the future, barring one very unique exception, each of us is going to die. As zerohedge.com says, “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” The Bible said it first: “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). But what is death? What happens after you die? Many people believe in ideas like reincarnation or soul sleep or annihilation. Those things are not found in the Bible. What does the Bible say about death?

Death means “separation.” In physical death, the spirit leaves the body. In Genesis 35:18 it speaks of a mother who was dying in labor, and it says “as her soul was departing (for she died)…” After death, the body is buried or cremated, but the spirit departs and goes either to Heaven or Hades.

For the Christian, when the spirit leaves the body, it is immediately with God in Heaven (2 Cor. 5:8). In the future, the Christian escapes the state of death when his or her body is raised again and rejoin their spirits. After that, they will enter the glorious kingdom of God and then Heaven, and live forever.

The spirit of a non-Christian leaves the body and goes to Hades immediately. Jesus told about a man who died and was buried, and was in torment in Hades (Luke 16:22-23). Hades is like a local county jail. Non-Christians will be resurrected from this place and then will be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:13). But no one can be saved by doing good works—you cannot do enough good to outweigh the bad things you have done or thought or said (Romans 3:20, 28). Therefore, this works-based judgment will result in a negative outcome and non-Christians will be sent to the final place of the dead, which is called Hell. If Hades is like the county jail, Hell is like the state penitentiary. Such judgment is a highly unpleasant thought, but it is taught by Jesus, and after all, He does define what Christianity is.

The upshot of all this is that every human being has an eternal future. The destination depends on whether you are a follower of Jesus by faith—or not. Where will you be?

Here is the fifth installment of Bible literacy in minutes:

At some future point, God has said in the Bible that there will be an event called the rapture. This word simply means “to be taken away” or snatched up. According to the Scripture, people who believe in Jesus will be taken immediately to heaven if they are alive. This is the one exception to the rule that everyone dies. Or, if they have died before the return of Jesus begins to unfold, their bodies will be raised up to life, and they will go back to heaven.

Following this event will occur a time of great difficulty on the earth. This period is called the Tribulation. The Bible presents it as lasting for 7 years. It is the subject of much of the last book in the Bible called Revelation.

At the end of the great time of trial, Jesus will return at what is called His “second coming.” It is “second” because He already came once, at which time He died for sinners and rose again from the dead. At the second coming, He will invade the earth and intervene in world affairs by setting up His kingdom. His kingdom will be worldwide and will be governed out of Jerusalem. This kingdom will be the true “golden age” of world history, and will last 1,000 years.

Then there will be a resurrection of all the rest of those who have died, and each one will be judged. Those who do not trust in Jesus Christ will be cast into Hell.

In the end, God will re-make the heaven and earth. The current earth will be burned up and everything on it will be gone. God’s people will forever dwell with Him on the new earth—which is what we normally think of as heaven. There, God’s people will enjoy His good gifts, and serve God amid a perfect society. This is the answer to the global pain and suffering that we see all around us in the world today.

Here is a brief listing of the few papers I have published. I had to consolidate these into one place for another purpose, so I figured it would be good to keep a record here as well.

Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 14, 2009, 31-58.

God and Counterfactuals, DBSJ Vol. 15, 2010, 23-73.

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 19, 2014, 95-103.

Cherry Picking Theology?, Inside Sources, July 31, 2015.

Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology, DBSJ Vol. 21, 2016, 31-58. This was cross-posted at SharperIron.

Today's question from an email:

Are elements of race/ethnicity etc. a result of sin?

It is an important question today. I will give you a quick outline of what I see Scripture to teach on this matter.

1. There is a single human race, not multiple races (Acts 17:26). We all descend from Adam and Eve.

2. There are different nationalities, ethnicities, people groups, cultures, etc. The Scripture uses the phrase tribe, tongue, people, nation to refer to this concept (Revelation 5:9, 13:7, 14:6). Other words are used, such as clan and families (Gen. 12:3).

3. Two main points of Babel: a) it was the event that brought different languages into the world; b) God designed it to induce the people to spread out and fill the earth. They had stuck together generally and were not obedient to God's command. So God scattered them (Gen. 11:9).

4. Babel is not firstly about the creation of different ethnicities. However, as people with the same language congregated into small groups and then scattered over the face of the earth and became isolated from one another, they began to become specialized in not only language, but culture and appearance as they intrabred mainly with those in the same group. Thus we have different people groups, and within each group common characteristics like skin color, shape of face and eyes, etc. Cultural differences developed at the same time.

5. God designed this variation into the human DNA from the beginning so that there would be a glorious variety among the human race, even as there are among the various kinds of creatures--so many dogs and cats and fish and horses and so on. Among humans, this variety would have come out without Babel--and even without the fall of Adam and Eve--but it would not have then been found in such pronounced groupings as the language barriers have helped to create. Without sin, the world would be full of all people living together with no negative thought associated with their wide variation in appearance.

Two parents have a child and the child looks similar to them but also different than each one. A child may have blue eyes but have two brown-eyed parents (like in my case, due to recessive genes from the grandparent generation). Even today, a single set of parents can have a white baby and a black baby. See here and here for examples.

6. As for the "Ham curse" as some call it, I wrote about that several years ago. Let me be clear that it is unsupportable from Scripture to suggest that dark skin color is a curse from God. See also this post from Answers in Genesis that touches on the same topic.

7. Bottom line: elements of race/ethnicity etc are NOT a result of sin. They ARE a result of God's creative design of the human race. How humans use those things, and twist them, and criticize them, and exalt them, and so on, THAT is a result of sin in the heart of mankind.

Here is a new installment of Bible literacy in minutes:

According to secular belief, world history started over 4 billion years ago, and the plant and animal creation came about because of evolution—time, chance, and random mutations. The Bible’s record of earth history is very different, although with regard to the last 4,000 to 6,000 years of human history the secular account and the Biblical account overlap very neatly.

The Biblical account of history starts somewhere around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. In the span of just under a week’s time, God created the world and filled it with plant and animal life. The creation had an appearance of age after God’s work was done, but in reality, creation jump-started world history. God created two human beings to be managers over his creation. They were named Adam and Eve. They lived in an ideal, brand-new world.

Very soon, however, sin entered the world, and with it came death. Over 1600 years passed and a catastrophic flood enveloped the entire earth’s surface as a judgment from God. Out of that devastation one family remained intact—Noah and his three sons, and their wives. From them the earth is now populated.

The first 39 books of the Bible focus on a single people group—the Semite people, starting with Abraham. Later, God used Moses to organize a growing group of Abraham’s descendants into a nation. This nation resided in what we know as Palestine, or Israel. It has existed from around 1440 B.C. to the present. During the 700s B.C., a world power named Assyria harassed the northern tribes of Israel. After them arose the Babylonians, followed soon after by the Medo-Persians. In the fourth century B.C., Alexander the Great raised the Greek empire to prominence, and after that the Roman empire dominated the region.

A rabbi named Jesus was born and lived during the opening years of the first century A.D. He was more than a rabbi, however, and died on a cross at the hands of the occupying Roman government. He was buried, but then many witnesses saw him alive again. He started the church, which has spread worldwide since the first century until the present day.

These are some of the events that the Bible highlights for us as significant in world history. In another video we will consider what the Bible says about the future of our world.

Today's question came in the email and had to do with whether the mentions of David in Jeremiah and Ezekiel refer to resurrected King David, or to the Messiah.

Jer. 30:9 "And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them."

Ezek. 34:23-24 "I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them--My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken."

Ezek. 37:24-25 "David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statues, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where you fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever."

Hosea 3:5 "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days."

MacArthur consistently takes David to refer to the greater David = Messiah Jesus in all the cases above.

My problem with that interpretation is that there are other easy ways to refer to God's anointed, and I wonder why the prophets say "David" if they meant "Messiah."

David, like all OT saints, will be resurrected and enjoy the millennial kingdom (Dan. 12:2-3). It is very plausible that he will hold a significant place of rule over the kingdom as a prince under the Messiah. Perhaps Solomon will as well. After that, there are only a few historical kings who were "good." Maybe they all will have some sort of role in the millennial kingdom. Obviously Jesus will outshine them all by a large margin!

My Bible outlines are now available on Kindle.

Another installment of literacy in the Bible:

We mentioned in the video about God’s role for government and the video about abortion that God did—and still does—permit society to exercise capital punishment. This is clear from Genesis 9:6. But does this run afoul of another well-known text of the Bible in the Ten Commandments? Look at Exodus 20:13, where the sixth commandment says “You shall not murder.” In saying this, does God contradict himself? Or does Moses contradict God when he wrote “You shall not murder”?

The key to resolving this question is the difference between murder and killing. The old King James version says “You shall not kill.” But that is a bad translation. Murder and killing are two different things. Granted, they have a similar outcome for the person who is dead, but morally they are entirely different. In a just war, for example, people are killed, but the soldiers are not guilty of murder. A policeman who kills a gun-wielding perpetrator at a crime scene is not guilty of murder either. When a home invasion ends in the death of the homeowner, this is murder. When the same home invasion ends with the death of the invader, that is justifiable homicide, meaning that the homeowner is not guilty of murder because he was simply defending himself and his family.

So, the answer to our question is NO—capital punishment is not murder. Instead, it is a justifiable penalty assigned for certain horrific crimes. Otherwise, God himself would be guilty of murder for allowing and even predetermining the death of certain individuals. Even Jesus himself was killed—was God at fault? No indeed. According to 1 Peter 3:18, Jesus died in the place of unjust people so that He might bring us to God. He voluntarily came to the earth to do that. Certain humans were guilty of putting Him on the cross, to be sure. But in effect it was our sins that killed him. So are we guilty of murder?

Here is a short "Bible Literacy" video about abortion and capital punishment.

Many people who are in favor of capital punishment are opposed to abortion, including a good number of Christian people. But, isn’t this inconsistent? It is about the same as someone being for abortion but against capital punishment! Those who are opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, or who are in favor of both, seem more consistent from the standpoint of preserving life.

But our interest is not in who is more or less consistent on the basis of a single metric—that is too limited of a view. We are trying to increase our basic Bible literacy by understanding what the Bible teaches about these matters.

We turn to Exodus 21:22-23, where a matter of case law is given in which a pregnant woman is struck by someone. If she gives birth prematurely but the baby lives, it is a civil infraction with a monetary penalty. But if the baby dies, the Law of God in the Jewish theocracy stated that it was to be punished by the lex talionis, “life for life.” The law stated that if the baby died, the perpetrator was to be punished with death. That is how seriously God takes human life. It is precious in His sight, even in the mother’s womb. Abortion is just a “decorated” word for what amounts to exactly the same thing—murder of an innocent human.

The reason that some people take the “inconsistent” position for capital punishment and against abortion is that the Scripture teaches so. Consistency comes to view when you look at the issue through the lens of justice—it is unjust for an innocent baby to be killed, but it is perfectly just for a murderer to forfeit his life. The opposite view—that capital punishment is wrong and abortion is OK is actually inconsistent from this justice perspective—why does an innocent baby deserve to die, but a criminal guilty of a horrific crime deserve to live? Abortion basically is capital punishment…done to an innocent child.

The Bible has three important sections that explain what God wants government to do.

First is Romans 13:1-7. It says that there is no governmental authority except those appointed by God. The government’s rulers are to oppose evil. The governmental authority (police officer, president, governor) does not bear the sword in vain, because he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Because of this, God has permitted governments to exercise the authority of capital punishment. Now this has been in place for thousands of years. In the first book of the Bible, for example, Genesis 9:6 says “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” There is only one punishment that fits the crime of murder, and that is to forfeit the murderer’s life. Our society exercises a great amount of mercy toward such offenders by assigning them life in prison, but this can leave the victim’s family feeling as if justice has not fully been done for their loved one. By the way, the idea is that the corporate body of society as a whole exercises that authority—not individual vigilantes.

The third passage is 1 Peter 2:13-14. It explains that the king and governors are sent by God to punish evildoers and to praise those who do good. There are whole departments of government—like the FBI, department of justice, state attorneys general, and the like which are focused on punishing evildoers. And we are thankful for that because it helps keep law and order in our society so that we can live peacefully. There are no governmental departments I am aware of which are dedicated to praising those who do good! But I am thankful for the recognition that is afforded to good and heroic citizens.

Summarize: the basic role of government is to punish evil and praise those who do good.

In the medical community, "SOAP" is an acronym that is a helpful guide for a doctor-patient interaction. The letters stand for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. The patient comes in with some complaint, the subjective. The doctor looks him or her over very well and makes observations for the objective part. Then the doctor makes an assessment and sets out a plan of treatment. All of this is documented in summary fashion in the SOAP note retained in the patient's chart.

The SOAP Bible study method uses the same acronym, which in this case means Scripture, Observation, Application, and Prayer. An example can be seen here. Basically, you determine the Scripture passage that you will study. It would be good to even write it out. Then you can write down everything you observe about the passage, including questions and relevant leads to other portions of Scripture. Then you can think about how to apply the passage to your own life situation, and pray to ask God for help in following His word.

I think the SOAP method can be very helpful. However, it often leads to superficial Bibles study, as pointed out in this article.

To remedy this deficiency, we should think about the SOAP method as the sOap method, with an emphasis on the letter O. The observation part needs to be much more careful and deep than the example linked above. Without proper observation--in other words, exegesis--you cannot arrive at correct interpretation. And you need a correct interpretation before you can determine the appropriate application.

We have previously discussed the Swedish Method and the COMA Method of Bible study.

I taught some recently about the Hebrew Roots Movement--what it is, and why we do not believe it. The following messages were delivered in December of 2020: December 2 December 6 December 13

I received a couple of negative comments on the message. Here is the first:

Moses didn't ever make up his own law. Who's finger do you think wrote the 10 commandments?

I replied:

Hello Mike, the statement and question you write in your comment are not a point of difference between us. That is, we never said or even implied that Moses made up his own law. It was obviously the Law of God; it is called the Mosaic Law for short because God gave it through Moses. And, of course God wrote the tablets (twice--Deut. 9:10/10:2 and Exodus 31:18/34:1). But Moses wrote them again in the manuscripts of Exodus and Deuteronomy which have passed down to us through preservation and translation.

Now, perhaps your question is meant to suggest that GOD wrote the Law, therefore it is eternally binding. That is, it is not man's law, but God's law, and therefore must be followed by all men of all ethnicities at all times. We differ with you very firmly if that is your point. Illustrations: Have you had a son and had him circumcised? Did you do it on the eighth day? If not, you broke the Law of God (Lev. 12:3)--if you believe that God has made it still binding, even upon Gentiles. And if you broke the law in one point, you have broken all of it. The Apostle Paul commanded the Gentiles in Colosse that they were not to accept a man's judgment against them if they did not observe days such as Sabbath, and months, and other sorts of external religious rites. Those rites do nothing to restrain the appetites of the sinful nature of man (Col. 2:16-23). The book of Galatians is clear, as is Acts 15, that circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles to practice. Only if you believe that God's law is like the Law of the Medes and Persians (which cannot be revoked, book of Daniel), could you believe that once God sets an instruction in place that He can never change it again. He is the boss, and can change the terms and conditions whenever He pleases. A great example is found in Ezekiel 40-48 where the temple and its operation have quite a number of differences compared to that given under Moses.

Hope that is helpful. If not, please try to formulate your follow-up question in a way that is a bit more clear, and less adversarial sounding. Thanks, and may God bless you with a clear understanding of His Word!

The writer responded:

OK, brother, at about 10:50, you begin to say that 1 John is not speaking about the law of Moses, but about the "law of Christ" and your own words, "the law of God." It is manipulative. (I don't say you were intentionally trying to mislead). Over time, a little twisting of words and phrases will tend to establish one's viewpoint, but it can be misleading. We can discuss more over email if you prefer.

And I reply again:

Hello again Mike, Thank you for recognizing there is no intent to mislead here. In using the phrase "Law of Christ," I am following the apostle Paul in Galatians 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21. I understand this law to be precisely the same as the law of liberty in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is the code given by Christ through His teaching and the writings of His apostles (the New Testament). It is summarized by the law of love for God and neighbor. Indeed, it looks very similar to the Law given through Moses because it comes from the same God. But it is different--circumcision is not required; Sabbath observance is not required; kosher diet is not required; observance of the three major Jewish holidays is not required; animal sacrifice is not required. All these things are abundantly clear in New Testament teaching.

I would offer this rebuttal to the HRM viewpoint: The words I used were not twisting or manipulating the text of Scripture. Rather, something has become twisted in the teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement. It appears to be going back to something substantially similar to the Galatian error that Paul wrote so strongly against.

There is a certain romantic idea of going back to the early church, but the church had a lot of problems as evidenced in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. It was not the pristine thing that we might like it to be. Furthermore, we have the benefit of completed written revelation which in the first decades of the church, the believers did not. Finally, in those early years, there was a lot of going back and forth on the Jew/Gentile issue. Acts 15 made clear that the church is not primarily Jewish in flavor. Of course it arises from the Jewish faith in the Old Testament; but it includes the Gentiles as Gentiles.

Here is today's question:

I was listening to your "God forgives sinners" message and at the end before communion you mentioned that people shouldn’t take communion unless they were baptized or intended to be baptized. I was not at the service and only listening to audio so it’s hard to know how the church functions by one audio message but it kind of came off as baptism was a work. Is that what you meant or was that said for possible visitors so they don’t take communion lightly?

Thanks for your inquiry. Your impression that we believe baptism to be a work is not right--if by "work" you mean "a deed necessary to acquire salvation." No works are required, or even able, to save anyone's soul, except for the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. On the other hand, baptism is a "work" in that it is something Jesus tells us to do, and it is a "good work," and it should be done by all true believers. But let me be clear: baptism saves no one.

What I was illustrating with my statement about baptism is this point: if you are refusing to obey the commands of Christ, such as baptism, then you are living in sin and need to deal with that first, before taking communion. I add the exception "or intend to be baptized" because we do not have baptism services every month, so maybe someone has newly realized they need to be baptized, or just become a Christian so they have not had the opportunity yet to be baptized because of the church schedule. I have no problem with offering communion in that case. Other churches believe differently on that, but that is where I'm at on it.

Strange things are going on these days with COVID and the recent election. On a broader scale, the troubles in the world, the evil and lawlessness that abounds, and the like, may get you down. But do not forget, dear friends, God is still working:

1. To teach us more about Himself, that He is sovereign and administers His Universe as He sees fit, not as we see fit! Just like He taught Job, he instructs us.
2. To guide us to trust more in God, like He taught Paul. 2 Cor. 1:9.
3. To equip us to comfort others, as He did for the Corinthians. 2 Cor. 1:3-4.
4. To help us to strengthen our fellow believers, like Peter. Luke 22:32.
5. To bring honor to Himself, as He has appointed the wicked for the day of judgment and to rescue the godly from wickedness. Rom 9:21-23. 2 Peter 2:9.
6. To point us to a heavenly country, that is, a world with a heavenly origin, like Abraham and Sarah and their forefathers. Heb. 11:16.
7. To prove our faith and love for God is genuine—to us and to others. 1 Peter 1:7. Like Jesus in His temptation (Mat. 4, Luke 4). Or like Abraham in his test with Isaac (Heb. 11:17).
8. To increase our endurance, patience, perseverance, like the believers from the 12 tribes scattered through the world. James 1:3.
9. To redirect our hope, as the Romans learned. Romans 5:3-5.
10. To remind us of the end of things, like Asaph. Psalm 73:17.
11. To keep us humble, like He did for Paul. 2 Cor. 12:2, 4, 7-10.
12. To make us more holy, like the Hebrew Christians. Hebrews 12:10-11.
13. To bring a good outcome for His children. God is working all things together for good. Rom. 8:28.