September 14, 2015

From Gary... A little kindness can go a long way!!!!

http://ktla.com/2015/09/11/victorville-deputys-act-of-kindness-documented-in-witness-photos/

I have no idea what goes through the mind of someone who decides to become a police officer.  However, it seems to me that most would probably do it to "protect and serve" their community. I encourage you to click on the above link, or paste the web-address into your browser to read the full story. The good that police officers do seems to always be ignored and frankly it is time that changed. 

A few weeks ago, I went to "Sunrise", a favorite restaurant of mine in Zephyrhills, Florida and noticed several police officers having breakfast. I stopped one of them as they left and thanked him for work that he does- the word "startled" does not even begin to describe the look on his face! I think I made his day; I certainly hope so.

Paul says...

Romans, Chapter 13 (WEB)
1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.  2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.  3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same,  4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.
AND
7 Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor.  8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 
Officer Sims is not alone in his kindness; there are untold men and women who risk their lives daily for our protection. Thank one of them as soon as you can; they deserve it!!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading September 14

Bible Reading  
September 14

The World English Bible


Sept. 14
Psalms 68-70

Psa 68:1 Let God arise! Let his enemies be scattered! Let them who hate him also flee before him.
Psa 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away. As wax melts before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
Psa 68:3 But let the righteous be glad. Let them rejoice before God. Yes, let them rejoice with gladness.
Psa 68:4 Sing to God! Sing praises to his name! Extol him who rides on the clouds: to Yah, his name! Rejoice before him!
Psa 68:5 A father of the fatherless, and a defender of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
Psa 68:6 God sets the lonely in families. He brings out the prisoners with singing, but the rebellious dwell in a sun-scorched land.
Psa 68:7 God, when you went forth before your people, when you marched through the wilderness... Selah.
Psa 68:8 The earth trembled. The sky also poured down rain at the presence of the God of Sinai-- at the presence of God, the God of Israel.
Psa 68:9 You, God, sent a plentiful rain. You confirmed your inheritance, when it was weary.
Psa 68:10 Your congregation lived therein. You, God, prepared your goodness for the poor.
Psa 68:11 The Lord announced the word. The ones who proclaim it are a great company.
Psa 68:12 "Kings of armies flee! They flee!" She who waits at home divides the spoil,
Psa 68:13 while you sleep among the campfires, the wings of a dove sheathed with silver, her feathers with shining gold.
Psa 68:14 When the Almighty scattered kings in her, it snowed on Zalmon.
Psa 68:15 The mountains of Bashan are majestic mountains. The mountains of Bashan are rugged.
Psa 68:16 Why do you look in envy, you rugged mountains, at the mountain where God chooses to reign? Yes, Yahweh will dwell there forever.
Psa 68:17 The chariots of God are tens of thousands and thousands of thousands. The Lord is among them, from Sinai, into the sanctuary.
Psa 68:18 You have ascended on high. You have led away captives. You have received gifts among men, yes, among the rebellious also, that Yah God might dwell there.
Psa 68:19 Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears our burdens, even the God who is our salvation. Selah.
Psa 68:20 God is to us a God of deliverance. To Yahweh, the Lord, belongs escape from death.
Psa 68:21 But God will strike through the head of his enemies, the hairy scalp of such a one as still continues in his guiltiness.
Psa 68:22 The Lord said, "I will bring you again from Bashan, I will bring you again from the depths of the sea;
Psa 68:23 That you may crush them, dipping your foot in blood, that the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from your enemies."
Psa 68:24 They have seen your processions, God, even the processions of my God, my King, into the sanctuary.
Psa 68:25 The singers went before, the minstrels followed after, in the midst of the ladies playing with tambourines,
Psa 68:26 "Bless God in the congregations, even the Lord in the assembly of Israel!"
Psa 68:27 There is little Benjamin, their ruler, the princes of Judah, their council, the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali.
Psa 68:28 Your God has commanded your strength. Strengthen, God, that which you have done for us.
Psa 68:29 Because of your temple at Jerusalem, kings shall bring presents to you.
Psa 68:30 Rebuke the wild animal of the reeds, the multitude of the bulls, with the calves of the peoples. Being humbled, may it bring bars of silver. Scatter the nations that delight in war.
Psa 68:31 Princes shall come out of Egypt. Ethiopia shall hurry to stretch out her hands to God.
Psa 68:32 Sing to God, you kingdoms of the earth! Sing praises to the Lord! Selah.
Psa 68:33 To him who rides on the heaven of heavens, which are of old; behold, he utters his voice, a mighty voice.
Psa 68:34 Ascribe strength to God! His excellency is over Israel, his strength is in the skies.
Psa 68:35 You are awesome, God, in your sanctuaries. The God of Israel gives strength and power to his people. Praise be to God!
Psa 69:1 Save me, God, for the waters have come up to my neck!
Psa 69:2 I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold. I have come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.
Psa 69:3 I am weary with my crying. My throat is dry. My eyes fail, looking for my God.
Psa 69:4 Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head. Those who want to cut me off, being my enemies wrongfully, are mighty. I have to restore what I didn't take away.
Psa 69:5 God, you know my foolishness. My sins aren't hidden from you.
Psa 69:6 Don't let those who wait for you be shamed through me, Lord Yahweh of Armies. Don't let those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me, God of Israel.
Psa 69:7 Because for your sake, I have borne reproach. Shame has covered my face.
Psa 69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's children.
Psa 69:9 For the zeal of your house consumes me. The reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
Psa 69:10 When I wept and I fasted, that was to my reproach.
Psa 69:11 When I made sackcloth my clothing, I became a byword to them.
Psa 69:12 Those who sit in the gate talk about me. I am the song of the drunkards.
Psa 69:13 But as for me, my prayer is to you, Yahweh, in an acceptable time. God, in the abundance of your loving kindness, answer me in the truth of your salvation.
Psa 69:14 Deliver me out of the mire, and don't let me sink. Let me be delivered from those who hate me, and out of the deep waters.
Psa 69:15 Don't let the flood waters overwhelm me, neither let the deep swallow me up. Don't let the pit shut its mouth on me.
Psa 69:16 Answer me, Yahweh, for your loving kindness is good. According to the multitude of your tender mercies, turn to me.
Psa 69:17 Don't hide your face from your servant, for I am in distress. Answer me speedily!
Psa 69:18 Draw near to my soul, and redeem it. Ransom me because of my enemies.
Psa 69:19 You know my reproach, my shame, and my dishonor. My adversaries are all before you.
Psa 69:20 Reproach has broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness. I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; for comforters, but I found none.
Psa 69:21 They also gave me gall for my food. In my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psa 69:22 Let their table before them become a snare. May it become a retribution and a trap.
Psa 69:23 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they can't see. Let their backs be continually bent.
Psa 69:24 Pour out your indignation on them. Let the fierceness of your anger overtake them.
Psa 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate. Let no one dwell in their tents.
Psa 69:26 For they persecute him whom you have wounded. They tell of the sorrow of those whom you have hurt.
Psa 69:27 Charge them with crime upon crime. Don't let them come into your righteousness.
Psa 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written with the righteous.
Psa 69:29 But I am in pain and distress. Let your salvation, God, protect me.
Psa 69:30 I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.
Psa 69:31 It will please Yahweh better than an ox, or a bull that has horns and hoofs.
Psa 69:32 The humble have seen it, and are glad. You who seek after God, let your heart live.
Psa 69:33 For Yahweh hears the needy, and doesn't despise his captive people.
Psa 69:34 Let heaven and earth praise him; the seas, and everything that moves therein!
Psa 69:35 For God will save Zion, and build the cities of Judah. They shall settle there, and own it.
Psa 69:36 The children also of his servants shall inherit it. Those who love his name shall dwell therein.
Psa 70:1 Hurry, God, to deliver me. Come quickly to help me, Yahweh.
Psa 70:2 Let them be disappointed and confounded who seek my soul. Let those who desire my ruin be turned back in disgrace.
Psa 70:3 Let them be turned because of their shame Who say, "Aha! Aha!"
Psa 70:4 Let all those who seek you rejoice and be glad in you. Let those who love your salvation continually say, "Let God be exalted!"
Psa 70:5 But I am poor and needy. Come to me quickly, God. You are my help and my deliverer. Yahweh, don't delay.


Sept. 14
1 Corinthians 10

1Co 10:1 Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food;
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.
1Co 10:5 However with most of them, God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Co 10:7 Neither be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play."
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them committed, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.
1Co 10:9 Neither let us test the Lord, as some of them tested, and perished by the serpents.
1Co 10:10 Neither grumble, as some of them also grumbled, and perished by the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.
1Co 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands be careful that he doesn't fall.
1Co 10:13 No temptation has taken you except what is common to man. God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
1Co 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men. Judge what I say.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, isn't it a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn't it a sharing of the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one loaf of bread, we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf of bread.
1Co 10:18 Consider Israel according to the flesh. Don't those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?
1Co 10:19 What am I saying then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
1Co 10:20 But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God, and I don't desire that you would have fellowship with demons.
1Co 10:21 You can't both drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You can't both partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.
1Co 10:22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up.
1Co 10:24 Let no one seek his own, but each one his neighbor's good.
1Co 10:25 Whatever is sold in the butcher shop, eat, asking no question for the sake of conscience,
1Co 10:26 for "the earth is the Lord's, and its fullness."
1Co 10:27 But if one of those who don't believe invites you to a meal, and you are inclined to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no questions for the sake of conscience.
1Co 10:28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," don't eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for the sake of conscience. For "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness."
1Co 10:29 Conscience, I say, not your own, but the other's conscience. For why is my liberty judged by another conscience?
1Co 10:30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced for that for which I give thanks?
1Co 10:31 Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Give no occasions for stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the assembly of God;
1Co 10:33 even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

From Jim McGuiggan... The Instrument of God's Justice



The Instrument of God's Justice

Bible believers don't bat an eye when they say that God sent Assyria or Babylon against Israel as ministers of his punitive justice as he furthers his larger gracious purposes. (Take a look at Isaiah 10:5-6 as a single illustration of the kind of thing I mean.) They say it without a moment's hesitation because for one thing, God himself said he did it and for another, it was a very long time ago. Besides, it doesn't hurt if you have to say that sort of thing about people other than your own.
Try telling Americans that Osama Bin Laden was God's instrument of justice and from anguished hearts you'll hear ten thousand good reasons why that can't be so and why it's scurrilous to even suggest it. Try telling Europeans that God was racing through the continent in the Panzer divisions of the ruthless German army. Ten thousand of us church-going people will yell ourselves hoarse denying such a thing. But in Bible class we'll nod contentedly when we read Habakkuk chapter one or Isaiah 10 or think it "interesting" when God calls the Babylonian war-lord Nebuchadnezzar, "my servant" as he levelled Jerusalem in 586 BC.
We "understand" of course the reason Habakkuk protested but we seem to have little sense of the violence that such a word from God did to the man's mind. We have no trouble sensing his feelings when someone seriously argues in the face of invading hordes coming after us that it's our turn to feel the agony of a divine visitation. So rather than face the real possibility that God has come to us on the wings of terror or cruelty we "explain" God out of the picture and talk about "perverted free will" or about our not being able to "know that this is the will of God". Or we say, "We know it was true in Habakkuk and Jeremiah because the text says so but we can't know it now." Not surprisingly our pain drives us wild and coupled with our soothing theology we'd rather not believe it is the work of God because somehow that might mean we'd have to bear it without bitterness and our cosy theology might have to go.
But there was no doubt in Habakkuk's mind who was responsible for this foreign invasion. "You're bringing in ruthless international gangsters to deal with local gangsters?" When Jeremiah told Judah that God was coming in judgment and that his face would look like Nebuchadnezzar's, his fellow prophets and leaders loaded up with stones to slaughter him. All because he said it was God who was bringing the city to ruins. These prophets would rather admit their bitterness than deny it was the work of God. At least when they were protesting they were facing the truth rather than some overly pious defence of God.
What do you say when God looks you right in the eye and repeats, "No. No! It isn't them, I'm the one doing it"? What's called for then? "Explanations" that explain that he didn't mean what he clearly meant or that we don't need to trust that through judgment something profoundly gracious is being wrought? What's called for? A ceaseless brawl with God, threatening to walk away from him or a hard-won, trembling trust that somehow God is in the middle of all this pain and chaos, that it is his doing and he is being faithful in it?

From Jim McGuiggan... The Proud And the Trusting

The Proud And the Trusting

It would appear that the "arrogant" in 2:4, the one whose soul is puffed up speaks of the Babylonian. Earlier in chapter 1 the general description of them reeks with arrogance. They mock kings and jeer at every fortress they are challenged to tear down (1:10) and they live according to their own rules that they make up as they go along (1:7). In practice, the only god they recognise and serve is their own power (1:11). Their success proves to them that they should believe their own press so it's little wonder that they are a "proud one" whose soul is out of whack within them (2:4).
It doesn't matter that the sovereign Lord is eternally sovereign in contrast to the fly-by-night human rulers (1:12), it doesn't matter that Babylon is his instrument to work to work his will, the Babylonians are ruthless and proud because they want to be. Babylon has no sense that in its cruel conquests it is doing God's bidding (be sure to see Isaiah 10:5-7,15). God doesn't choose cruelty for them but in their choosing cruelty to fulfil their own agendas they don't know it but they are fulfilling God's prior and overarching agenda.
If they were to recognise that they were God's instruments we would have a different picture but they deny all connection. Nebuchadnezzar expressed Babylon's spirit when he said (Daniel 4:30), "Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?" No confession of dependence here. No need of God here. I have built it, by myself and for myself. This is the way to power and greater power? No, this is the way to destruction and death. This is the way to swelling and puffing up like a toad but it's not the way to life and peace (Habakkuk 2:4a).
Older interpreters all agreed that our original sin was pride. I'm not sure that can be established but if they were wrong they went in that direction with good reason. Our stupidity in deciding we could do without God was monumental. Our lust for godhood is as alive today as ever it was even after countless years that prove we might make good servants but we'll never make good gods. We're not up to the job.
And who will "live"? The vulnerable but dependent ones. Those who have renounced self-sufficiency and clung to God. Those who come weaponless and without the assurance that they can be trusted to work it all out. Those whose trust is also faithfulness to the One to whom they've trusted themselves and their destiny.
But this isn't the kind of trust that poor Nietzsche raved against. This trust and faithfulness isn't weakness. It isn't the strong who give up on God when times are calamitous, it's the weak that do that. There's truth in what Phil Yancey said about the book of Job. He said Job is less about where God is when times are bad and more about where man is when the sky's falling.
Trust is power but it isn't the power of the trusting one. His life and sustenance lie outside of himself and in someone else. And so it is that the glory of Babylon has vanished and the trusting ones dance on the grave of pride and self-sufficiency.

Homosexuality and “Strange Flesh” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1428

Homosexuality and “Strange Flesh”

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Some defenders of homosexuality maintain that Jude condemned the men of Sodom—not for their homosexuality—but because they sought to have sexual relations with angels. They base this claim on the use of the expression “strange flesh”: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, emp. added). The reasoning is that the men of Sodom were guilty of desiring sexual relations with the angelic visitors (Genesis 19:1-5). However, several problems are inherent in this interpretation.

THE MEANING OF “STRANGE”

In the first place, the English word “strange” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) creates a different meaning in the mind of the English reader than what is intended by the Greek word heteros. The term simply means “other, another” (Beyer, 1964, 2:702-704). Moulton and Milligan note “how readily heteros from meaning ‘the other class (of two)’ came to imply ‘different’ in quality or kind” (1930, p. 257; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 315). Thayer even defined the word as “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind,” giving Jude 7 as an instance of this use (1977, p. 254). However, he did not intend by this definition to imply that the difference extended to angelic flesh, as is evident from his treatment of the verse in his section dealing with sarx (flesh): “to follow after the flesh, is used of those who are on the search for persons with whom they can gratify their lust, Jude 7” (p. 570; cf. p. 449). In their handling of either “strange” or “flesh,” none of these lexicographers offers any support for the connotation of nonhuman or extraterrestrial, i.e., angelic.
It so happens that eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of “different.” In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term:
The sense of “different” grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean “different,” but merely “one other,” a second of two. It does not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it (1934, p. 748, emp. added).
So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can indicate, quite coincidentally, that the “other” being referred to also is different in some additional quality.
Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”
Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences (in English) in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh” (Moulton, et al., 1978, pp. 392-393).
Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).
The frequent allusion to “nature” and “unnatural” by scholars must not be taken to mean “beyond nature” in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining “strange flesh” as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: “In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame” (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: “The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity” (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word “natural,” in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural—i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).

CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS

In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).
Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? The opportunity presents itself on a regular basis, right? The country is full of “single angel” bars! No, what Barclay labeled as “the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah,” which is “flung down the whole length of Scripture history” (p. 218), is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be issued to America!
Additionally, the men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). Lenski called attention to the Aorist participles used in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”) as further proof of this fact: “An appeal to Gen. 19:4, etc., will not answer this question, for this occurred [i.e., the Sodomites descending on Lot’s house—DM] when the cup of fornications was already full, when Jude’s two aorist participles had already become facts, on the day before God’s doom descended” (1966, p. 624).
One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.
An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful.

REFERENCES

Alford, Henry (1875), Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1980 reprint).
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barclay, William (1958), The Letters of John and Jude (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Barnes, Albert (1978 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: James, Peter, John, and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Beyer, Hermann (1964), “miaino,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1981 reprint).
Hauck, F. (1967), “heteros,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1982 reprint).
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1966), The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Macknight, James (no date), Apostolical Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Mayor, J.B. (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Jude, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint).
Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition.
Perschbacher, Wesley ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Salmond, S.D.F. (1958 reprint), The Pulpit Commentary—Jude, ed. H.D.M. Spence and J.S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schneider, Johannes (1964), “erchomai,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1982 reprint).
Seesemann, Heinrich (1967), “opiso,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1981 reprint).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1977 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Williams, George (1960), The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition.
Woods, Guy N. (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Homosexuality and Disease by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1723

Homosexuality and Disease

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the sexually transmitted disease, syphilis, has skyrocketed among men engaging in homosexual intercourse—from 5% in 1999 to 64% in 2004. Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, acting director of CDC’s HIV, STD, and TB prevention programs, emphasized the need to prevent outbreaks: “Syphilis increases, especially among men who have sex with men, demonstrate the need to continually adapt our strategies to eliminate syphilis in the United States” (“New CDC Data...,” 2005). However, as usual, “strategies to eliminate” do not include the only rational, moral solution: “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Only the directives provided by the One who created human sexuality can solve the nation’s problem of widespread sexually transmitted diseases. He prescribed one man for one woman for life (Genesis 2:24). He insists that “because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). If Americans would return to the Christian value system, most of our national woes would dissolve.

REFERENCES

“New CDC Data Show Syphilis Increasing in Men” (2005), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051108.htm.

Homosexuality and Female Menses by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1456

Homosexuality and Female Menses

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Bible speaks consistently throughout its pages in condemnation of same-sex relations. For example, God made clear His will on this matter when He handed down the Law of Moses to the Israelite nation. In a chapter dealing almost exclusively with sexual regulations, His words are explicit and unmistakable.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who sojourns among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God…. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13, NKJV, emp. added).
I suggest that a reader would need help to misunderstand these injunctions.

COMPARED TO FEMALE MENSTRUATION?

Nevertheless, attempts have been made to offset their seemingly unmistakable import. For example, it is argued that in the same chapter (i.e., Leviticus 20), five verses after the injunction against homosexuality, the death penalty was also required for a man and his wife for having sexual relations during her menstruation: “If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18). Thus the homosexual activist (who wishes to maintain some semblance of affiliation with the Bible) dismisses this text as ritualistic and limited to Israel’s peculiar concern for purity, thus having no universal significance. After all, the Israelites lived during an ignorant, primitive period of human history. Consider the following wording of this viewpoint:
Of course, many now live in quite different cultures. But that has not stopped some from selectively using regulations like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to support their condemnation of homosexual intimacy. Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev. 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment (Carr, 2003).
This interpretation of the biblical position stands in conflict with several factors. First, are those who dismiss the condemnation of homosexuality, on the basis that the same context condemns sexual intimacy during a woman’s menses, also willing to dismiss the condemnations in the same context of child sacrifice (20:2-5), bestiality (20:15-16), incest (20:11-12), and bigamy (20:14)? What proves too much, proves nothing.
Second, a closer reading of the text reveals that while all the items alluded to are clustered together because they share a common concern for the principle of “separateness” (which constitutes the theme of Leviticus—e.g., 10:10; 11:44; 19:2; 20:7,26), nevertheless, a distinction may be made between those actions that were temporary and limited in their scope to the Israelites and those that are clearly permanent and universal in their application. For example, child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5) has always been an abominable sin before God (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; Psalm 106:37-38; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezekiel 23:37,39). The same may be said of bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16), sorcery, witchcraft, astrology, and the like (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:26,31; 20:6,27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Isaiah 8:19; Acts 19:19), as well as various forms of incest (Leviticus 18:6-17; 20:11-12; 1 Corinthians 5:1). Homosexuality fits into this same category since it is condemned in every period of Bible history, and repeated in especially strong terms in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).
This distinction is reinforced by the variations given to the penalties associated with each infraction. Two expressions must be distinguished in the pericope of Leviticus (i.e., chapters 17-20, what Pfeiffer labeled “The Holiness Code”—1957, p. 46). The first is “cut off,” which, in the Pentateuch, includes being cut off “from his people,” “in the sight of their people,” “from among the congregation,” “from Israel,” “from the congregation of Israel,” and “from My presence.” Linguistic scholars agree that the Hebrew verb translated “cut off” (karat) has both a literal meaning and a metaphorical meaning, which in turn gives rise to “the extensive range of the root’s literal and extended semantic spheres of meaning” (Hasel, 1995, 7:343). The basic literal meaning of the verb is “to cut” (7:344-345), and so may be used to refer to everything from cutting down a tree to cutting off a piece of cloth. However,
In addition to the literal meaning of this root, “to cut off,”…there is the metaphorical meaning to root out, eliminate, remove, excommunicate or destroy by a violent act of man or nature. It is sometimes difficult in a given context to know whether the person(s) who is “cut off” is to be killed or only excommunicated (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:457, emp. added).
In this metaphorical sense, being “cut off” consists of “exclusion from the community” (Harris, et al., 1:457), “in the sense of being cut off from a center or circle in which the offender lives” (Hasel, 7:347).
The “cutting off” formula therefore does not appear to refer solely to human execution of the death penalty. In the majority of offenses, “cutting off” means a “cutting off” which leads to “banishment” or “excommunication” from the cultic community and the covenant people…from life in God’s presence through exclusion (7:348, emp. added).
Gesenius confirms this understanding of the term, recognizing that its figurative meaning is “to be cut off from one’s country, i.e., to be driven into exile, to be expelled” (1847, p. 417, emp. added). Though Gesenius listed Leviticus 20:18 under the literal meaning of “to be destroyed,” translator Tregelles rightfully added a note to the section: “In some of the passages it appears only to signify severed from the congregation of the Lord” (p. 417, emp. added).
The Scriptures themselves bear out this observation. For example, in a context addressing contact with the dead, the Israelites were told, “Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him” (Numbers 19:13, emp. added; cf. vs. 20). It is evident, both from this verse and surrounding verses, that those who had been defiled by corpses were to be separated from the congregation for the appropriate period of purification—not executed.
This dual use of the expression is further confirmed by comparing it with a second one that is germane to the discussion: “put to death.” Both expressions are used in Exodus 31:14—“You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people (emp. added). Observe that the phrase “cut off from among his people” is the broader expression. “Put to death” is the more narrow expression, and clarifies by what means the individual would be “cut off.” Thus, to be “cut off” from Israel could be accomplished in two distinct and separate ways: (1) through temporary isolation of the individual by physically removing him from the community, transporting him to a location away from the social/religious life of Israel (cf. “put out of the camp”—Numbers 5:2); or (2) through permanent removal of the individual from Israelite society by legal execution, i.e., the death penalty. Context must determine which meaning is intended.
Of the 12 occurrences of karat (“cut off”) in the Niphal conjugation of the Hebrew verb in Leviticus (see Wigram, 1890, p. 619), those outside of chapter 20 that refer to being merely quarantined for a period of time until correction/cleansing could be made, are 7:20,21,25,27; 17:4,9; 19:8; 22:3. A generic use is seen in 18:29 where it is found in a summary statement of offenses without further specification as to its meaning—since chapter 20 is intended to be the portion of the pericope that prescribes punishment for the offenses mentioned in chapter 18. The only instance in Leviticus where the expression apparently includes the death penalty is 23:29. However, even in this instance, that the death penalty is intended is derived from the verse before and the verse after, which indicate that “afflicted” (NKJV), “humble” (NASB), or “deny himself” (NIV) pertain to the defiant refusal to abstain from work on the Day of Atonement (which elsewhere was treated as a capital offense when done on a holy day—Numbers 15:33ff.), and the accompanying threat by God to “destroy” the culprit.
Additionally, when one examines the pericope with regard to prescribed penalties, those for the offenses listed in chapter 18 are not given until chapter 20 (with the exception of the generic formula, “cut off” [18:29]). Chapter 20 clarifies in what sense the offender was to be “cut off,” depending upon the offense committed. “Cut off” in the Hiphil conjugation of the Hebrew verb was the penalty for child sacrifice (20:2-5), clarified as “put to death” (vs. 2), as well as for the person who engaged in sorcery, i.e., turned to mediums and spiritists (20:6), which also is further pinpointed as “put to death” (vs. 27). For adultery (20:10), certain forms of incest (20:11-12), homosexuality (20:13), and bestiality (20:15-16), the penalty was “put to death.” Those who committed bigamy were to be “burned with fire” (20:14), i.e., put to death and their corpses cremated (cf. Joshua 7:15,25; Jamieson, et al., n.d., p. 88; although Clarke insisted that branding with a hot iron was meant—n.d., 1:578). For another form of incest, and relations during a woman’s menstruation, only the expression “cut off” is used (20:17-18), and three other forms of incest have only “they shall bear their guilt” (20:19), “they shall die childless” (20:20), and “they shall be childless” (20:21).
When one reads all three injunctions pertaining to menstruation given in Leviticus, their meaning and harmonization become apparent:
If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (Leviticus 15:19-24, emp. added).
Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity (Leviticus 18:19).
If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18, emp. added).
Comparing the three injunctions shows that a woman was to be set apart from the community during her monthly menstruation. If her husband were to have sexual relations with her during that time (the implication possibly being that her menstruation commenced during intercourse, catching both unawares—see Wenham, 1979, p. 220; Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 1:394), then he, too, was ceremonially defiled and subject to the same separation. Hence, “set apart for seven days” (15:19), “unclean seven days” (15:24), and “cut off from their people” (20:18) are three ways to express the same proscription. “Cut off” did not mean execution in this case (cf. Harris, 1990, 2:600-601).
Based upon these observations, the regulation pertaining to refraining from sexual relations during a woman’s period of menstruation, when violated, did not involve the death penalty. The injunction was limited to the Israelites, and served to reinforce the concept of being a holy people. Blood, a term that is used 86 times in Leviticus, was a critical feature of this Old Testament teaching, especially in its relation to life and atonement (e.g., Leviticus 17:11). Beyond this central significance, the injunction could possibly have been intended to emphasize (1) the importance of being health conscious or (2) the importance of the husband being thoughtful and considerate toward his wife during a difficult time of the month.
Concerning the former, there is some debate in the medical community over whether or not intercourse during menstruation increases the risk for exposure to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (see “Pelvic Inflammatory…,” 1998; “Causes of Pelvic…,” 2003; “PID,” 2004). Blood, of course, can be a significant medium for bacteria and infectious diseases. As one medical authority noted: “Intercourse during menses and frequent intercourse may offer more opportunities for the admission of pathogenic organisms to the inside of the uterus” (“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,” 2001). Though great strides have been made in increasing medical understanding over the centuries, medical science has not provided all the answers to questions that still exist regarding the Bible’s inspired declarations concerning various matters of health and medicine.
Concerning the latter, some authorities point out that this law was a benevolent injunction designed to render compassionate assistance to women during a difficult time (Knight, 1981, p. 83; Harris, 1990, 2:586-587,600). Even today, women are vulnerable to the whims of thoughtless men. The Law of Moses manifested a comparable concern for women in other aspects of life, including pregnancy (Exodus 21:22ff.) and unfair divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). It is notable that Jesus manifested tender compassion for the poor woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years (Matthew 9:20ff.; Mark 5:25ff.; Luke 8:43ff.).
We are forced to conclude that some Israelite laws (like the prohibition of eating unclean foods) affected only Israel and, in most cases, were subject to penalties that simply required purification and cleansing procedures. Ulrich Falkenroth agreed: “Intercourse during menstruation…was not subject to a civil penalty but brought ritual uncleanness” (1978, 3:95). This was unquestionably the case for matters pertaining to a woman’s menses. [NOTE: Interestingly, in addition to ceremonial cleansing, both a sin and a burnt offering were required following childbirth (Leviticus 12) and a non-menses discharge (Leviticus 15:25-30), but not for normal monthly menstruation.] It is these very laws of ritualistic purification that are noted in the New Testament as having been confined to the Israelites prior to the cross of Christ, having no abiding relevance or application (e.g., Colossians 2:14-17; cf. Mark 7:19). On the other hand, these ceremonial laws were treated differently from the universal sins that repeatedly surface elsewhere in Scripture as having a broader application to all cultures in all times, i.e., lying, stealing, adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, homosexuality, etc. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were expressions of God’s will pertaining to same-sex relations that represent a continuing prohibition (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; cf. Flatt, et al., 1982, pp. 27-29).

REFERENCES

Carr, David (2003), “Chapter and Verse,” [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/special_chapter_3.html.
“Causes of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pelvic_inflammatory_disease/causes.htm.
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Falkenroth, Ulrich (1978), “Punishment,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Harris, R. Laird (1990), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Leviticus, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Press).
Hasel, G.F. (1995), “karat,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Knight, G.A.F. (1981), Leviticus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (1998), National Institutes of Health, [On-line], http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdpid.htm.
“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2001), Joseph F. Smith Medical Library, [On-line], URL: http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00060140.html.
Pfeiffer, Charles (1957), The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“PID” (2004), Health Communities, [On-line], URL:http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/pid/index.shtml.
Wenham, Gordon (1979), The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).