January 28, 2016

From Gary... What a dog needs (and people too)




Two pictures: One is real life and the other is a cartoon. Only problem is that the cartoon occurs daily in real life.  Why? Because both dogs want to be in the recliner next to my wife Linda. Why? Read on...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 13 (WEB)
4  Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud,  5 doesn’t behave itself inappropriately, doesn’t seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;  6 doesn’t rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;  7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  8 Love never fails.

Even a "guard Poodle" needs love and will do what is necessary to get it. And people are no different. Today, show someone you love them. A chair is optional.

ps. The white poodle is Buddy and the creme (Apricot when his coat is long) one is Pal. Buddy is the worst "offender" of the cartoon; with Pal a close second.

From Gary... Bible Reading January 28



Bible Reading   

January 28

The World English Bible

Jan. 28
Genesis 28

Gen 28:1 Isaac called Jacob, blessed him, and commanded him, "You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
Gen 28:2 Arise, go to Paddan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father. Take a wife from there from the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother.
Gen 28:3 May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a company of peoples,
Gen 28:4 and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you, and to your seed with you, that you may inherit the land where you travel, which God gave to Abraham."
Gen 28:5 Isaac sent Jacob away. He went to Paddan Aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, Rebekah's brother, Jacob's and Esau's mother.
Gen 28:6 Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan Aram, to take him a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he gave him a command, saying, "You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan,"
Gen 28:7 and that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan Aram.
Gen 28:8 Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan didn't please Isaac, his father.
Gen 28:9 Esau went to Ishmael, and took, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife.
Gen 28:10 Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.
Gen 28:11 He came to a certain place, and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. He took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.
Gen 28:12 He dreamed. Behold, a stairway set upon the earth, and its top reached to heaven. Behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
Gen 28:13 Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, "I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed.
Gen 28:14 Your seed will be as the dust of the earth, and you will spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. In you and in your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed.
Gen 28:15 Behold, I am with you, and will keep you, wherever you go, and will bring you again into this land. For I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken of to you."
Gen 28:16 Jacob awakened out of his sleep, and he said, "Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I didn't know it."
Gen 28:17 He was afraid, and said, "How dreadful is this place! This is none other than God's house, and this is the gate of heaven."
Gen 28:18 Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on its top.
Gen 28:19 He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
Gen 28:20 Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on,
Gen 28:21 so that I come again to my father's house in peace, and Yahweh will be my God,

Gen 28:22 then this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, will be God's house. Of all that you will give me I will surely give the tenth to you."

 Jan. 27, 28
Matthew 14

Mat 14:1 At that time, Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus,
Mat 14:2 and said to his servants, "This is John the Baptizer. He is risen from the dead. That is why these powers work in him."
Mat 14:3 For Herod had laid hold of John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife.
Mat 14:4 For John said to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her."
Mat 14:5 When he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.
Mat 14:6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced among them and pleased Herod.
Mat 14:7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should ask.
Mat 14:8 She, being prompted by her mother, said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptizer."
Mat 14:9 The king was grieved, but for the sake of his oaths, and of those who sat at the table with him, he commanded it to be given,
Mat 14:10 and he sent and beheaded John in the prison.
Mat 14:11 His head was brought on a platter, and given to the young lady: and she brought it to her mother.
Mat 14:12 His disciples came, and took the body, and buried it; and they went and told Jesus.
Mat 14:13 Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat, to a deserted place apart. When the multitudes heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities.
Mat 14:14 Jesus went out, and he saw a great multitude. He had compassion on them, and healed their sick.
Mat 14:15 When evening had come, his disciples came to him, saying, "This place is deserted, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food."
Mat 14:16 But Jesus said to them, "They don't need to go away. You give them something to eat."
Mat 14:17 They told him, "We only have here five loaves and two fish."
Mat 14:18 He said, "Bring them here to me."
Mat 14:19 He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the multitudes.
Mat 14:20 They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of that which remained left over from the broken pieces.
Mat 14:21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.
Mat 14:22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat, and to go ahead of him to the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
Mat 14:23 After he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain by himself to pray. When evening had come, he was there alone.
Mat 14:24 But the boat was now in the middle of the sea, distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary.
Mat 14:25 In the fourth watch of the night, Jesus came to them, walking on the sea.
Mat 14:26 When the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It's a ghost!" and they cried out for fear.
Mat 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying "Cheer up! It is I! Don't be afraid."
Mat 14:28 Peter answered him and said, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the waters."
Mat 14:29 He said, "Come!" Peter stepped down from the boat, and walked on the waters to come to Jesus.
Mat 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was strong, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Mat 14:31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand, took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Mat 14:32 When they got up into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 Those who were in the boat came and worshiped him, saying, "You are truly the Son of God!"
Mat 14:34 When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret.
Mat 14:35 When the people of that place recognized him, they sent into all that surrounding region, and brought to him all who were sick,
Mat 14:36 and they begged him that they might just touch the fringe of his garment. As many as touched it were made whole. 

From Roy Davison... Why do so few become Christians and live as Christians?



http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/041-whysofew.html

Why do so few become Christians
and live as Christians?
Jesus said: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart: and you will find rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28, 29).
Living as a Christian means to have rest, peace with God. Do we have rest and peace? If not maybe we have not really gone to Jesus to learn how to live.
One must first become a Christian in order to live as a Christian.
One is not a Christian by birth. Personal commitment is required. Our parents cannot decide for us. Everyone must decide for himself to follow Christ.
What does this involve?
Becoming a Christian means being saved by God's grace on the basis of faith in Jesus. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned: but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:16-19).
Jesus did not come to condemn the world. The world was already condemned because of sin.
"For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12).
Jesus brought salvation. He came "to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). "For the Son of man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life: but he who disobeys1 the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God rests upon him" (John 3:36).
An obedient faith is required to escape the wrath of God. One's faith must be confessed, "For with the heart, one believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).
One must repent and be baptized: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
People are faced with a choice. "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision" (Joel 3:14).
To live as a Christian we must make a personal decision. We must become a Christian by faith and obedience.
Why do so few live as Christians?
After Jesus has done so much to make salvation possible, why are so many lost anyway? Why do so few live as Christians? This has several causes.
Many do not live as Christians because of selfishness, self-centeredness.
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). "Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit" (John 12:24, 25).
"He who finds his life shall lose it: and he who loses his life for my sake shall find it" (Matthew 10:39).
"For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it: and whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it. For what does it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:25, 26).
"Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" (Luke 17:33).
Since Jesus gave His life for us, He asks us to forfeit our lives to serve Him. Many do not want to do this.
Many do not live as Christians because of impenitence.
Most people refuse to repent. Referring to such people, Paul said: "But because of your hard and unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath when the righteous judgment of God shall be revealed" (Romans 2:5).
Jesus made repentance a condition for salvation: "There were some present at that time who told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered, saying to them, Do you suppose these Galileans were greater sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, No: but, unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-3).
"The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some men count slowness; but is patient toward you, not wanting that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).
"This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as other Gentiles walk, in the futility of their minds, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts: who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to licentiousness, greedy to practice all kinds of uncleanness" (Ephesians 4:17-19).
"Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
"Therefore, submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up" (James 4:7-10).
Many do not live as Christians because they set their minds on earthly things.
Earthly-minded people scorn the sacrifice of Christ. "For many, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even with weeping, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, with minds set on earthly things" (Philippians 3:18, 19).
When people make this world their god, they are struck with spiritual blindness: "But if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. For the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, lest they should see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4).
In their blindness they think God's word is foolishness: "For the preaching of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness; but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
They do not think very highly of Christians either. Even worse, to them we stink. If we want to live as Christians, we must be willing to endure the ridicule and persecution of people of the world.
"Now thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and makes manifest through us the fragrance of the knowledge of him in every place. For we are an aroma of Christ to God, among those who are being saved, and among those who are perishing: To the one we are the aroma of death to death; and to the other the aroma of life to life" (2 Corinthians 2:14-16).
Someone who loves money cannot live as a Christian: "But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil" (1 Timothy 6:8-10).
The waging of war is also an expression of earthly-mindedness because of which many are lost, as Jesus warned Peter: "Put your sword back in its place: for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
Earthly-mindedness leads to spiritual infertility: "And these are the ones who are like seed sown among thorns; they hear the word, and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lust for other things enter in, and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful" (Mark 4:18, 19).
Many do not live as Christians because of false doctrine.
Jesus warned: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matthew 24:11-13).
Peter warned that ignorant and unstable people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who secretly shall bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1).
People accept false doctrine because they lack love for the truth: "And then shall the lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy by the brightness of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is through the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that all those might be condemned who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Tessalonicenzen 2:8-12).
Why are their so few who live as Christians even though Jesus died for them? Because they are self-centered and earthly-minded they refuse to repent. Because they reject love for truth they believe a lie by which they are lost.
Let us live as Christians.
Let us walk the narrow road: "Enter in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there are who enter in by it: but small is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there are who find it" (Matthew 7:13, 14).
Although it is not an easy road, Jesus will help us. As Paul said, "Persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed" (2 Corinthians 4:9).
The salvation of Christ extends beyond death: "And some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And you shall be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head shall perish. By your perseverance you shall win your souls" (Luke 21:16-19).
Jesus takes good care of His sheep: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give them eternal life; and they shall never perish, nor shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:27, 28).
"Therefore be imitators of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also has loved us, and has given himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet smelling aroma to God" (Ephesians 5:1, 2).
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen" (Galatians 1:3-5).
Footnote:
1 Some translators have interpreted απειθων in this verse as 'those not believing' but the word means 'those not obeying'.
Roy Davison
New Testament quotations are from the Revised King James New Testament
(RKJNT) and Old Testament quotations are from the translation of the Jewish Publication Society.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Jim McGuiggan... Do you see what I see?

Do you see what I see?

Abraham must have been very troubled about something in Genesis 15 because God comes to assure him that he has no need to be afraid. “I’m your shield,” he tells the troubled man, "and in and through me you will be greatly rewarded.” That’s all very well, but can you take words to the bank, can you buy a grave to lay your wife in without silver?
Abraham wanted to know if God saw the things he was seeing. “Do you see what I see?” he might have said. “I have no child of my own and a servant is going to inherit all I have or might end up having. My body is old—look at me—and I’m getting older. Look at Sarah—“come here a minute sweetheart”—she’s barren. My situation’s desperate and prospects range from bleak to non-existent—that’s the world I’m looking at.”
The text says God took him outside and showed him the stars (did the “man” have his arm around Abraham’s shoulders?). “Can you count those?” Have a look some night when you’ve nothing else to do in a hurry and get something of the sense of it. Of course he couldn’t. “You won’t be able to count the number of your children either,” God tells him.
Despite the host of torn-off pages of the calendar, even in the face of his wife’s barrenness and his sense that his body (though not especially old) was ageing and despite the visible presence of the servant Eliezer the old man believed God. He took a long hard look at them all, turned and looked at God and said, “I believe you.”
And God wrote a note to himself. “He's righteous!”
It makes it easier that all that is covered in only six verses. It doesn’t seem to last as long, the trouble is over quickly. But it was a long haul. Still, the old man took God at his word!
And what is it that you look at? What are the difficulties that face you? What’s the situation that leads you to want to say to God, “Are you seeing what I’m seeing?” Poor hurting soul, who must carry an awful burden for what seems like half of forever. I pray that by God’s strong grace you’ll be able to look at life with steady eyes and turn and tell God you believe him, that you’ll commit your life and your future to his care. This is moral heroism and these are the kind of people of whom the world is not worthy (Hebrews 11:38).
God bless you.

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276&b=Exodus

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, they came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the gospel of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence that on one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went through the grainfields on the Sabbath…were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived, likely was even more relentless than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, what the disciples were doing on this particular Sabbath was considered “work,” which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).
Jesus responded to the criticism of the Pharisees by giving the truth of the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David (recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some commentators have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated:
In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).
Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who had been exposed—silence.
Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.
They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).
One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath. The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [NOTE:Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Coffman thus concluded: “Just as the priests served the temple on the Sabbath day and were guiltless, his [Jesus’—EL] disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt” (p. 167). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6).

REFERENCES

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Coffman, Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Dummelow, J.R. (1937), One Volume Commentary (New York: MacMillan).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).

Hate Your Parents—or Love Them? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=781&b=Exodus

Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

From the pens of Moses and Paul, we read clear instructions that describe how children ought to treat their parents. Both the books of Exodus and Ephesians state that children should honor their fathers and mothers (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2). From the mouth of Jesus, and a host of New Testament writers, we have been given the injunction to love others, which certainly would include our parents. Paul wrote: “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8). Jesus, to illustrate how a person should love his neighbor, told the unforgettable story of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:30-37). In light of these verses and the thoughts they contain, one easily can deduce that a person should love his or her parents. Not only is love for parents natural, but it also is commanded by God throughout the Scriptures…or is it? Luke, in his account of the life of Jesus, has the Messiah on record saying, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26, emp. added). So which is it, should we love and honor our parents and family—or hate them?
Needless to say, this statement by Jesus has been seized by many skeptics and offered as “proof ” that the Bible contradicts itself. Steve Wells, in his work The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, cites Luke 14:26 as a verse in contradiction to Exodus 20:12. He further attacks Luke 14:26 as a verse that goes against family values, and one that presents an unjust command (Wells, 2001).
Admittedly, if the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 means what most twenty-first century Americans use the word to mean, then Jesus’ statement is a contradiction, unjust, and goes against decent family values. What anyone who studies the verse should quickly discover, however, is that the word translated “hate” does not always mean “to despise, detest, loathe, and abhor,” which are synonymous with the general use of the word “hate” in our modern culture. Instead, the word also can include the meaning “to love less.”
Atheist Dan Barker has disavowed such an explanation, saying, “Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word ‘hate’ to something like ‘love less than me,’ even though the Greek word miseo means ‘hate’ ” (1999, p. 158). Barker failed to explore, however, the legitimate times in the Bible (and in secular documents) where the word or its Hebrew equivalent is given the meaning “to love less,” and is not forced into a strict, uncompromising, literal usage of detest, loathe, or abhor.
The story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah perfectly illustrates the biblical use of this term “hate” in its meaning of “to love less.” To briefly summarize the story, Jacob loved Rachel, and agreed to work for her father Laban for seven years in order to marry her. At the end of the seven years, Laban tricked Jacob, and gave Leah to him as a wife. When Jacob discovered the deception, he was given Rachel as a wife, but was forced to work another seven years for her. In Genesis 29:30, the Bible says that “Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah.” Yet, in the next verse the Bible says, “And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb” (29:31, KJV). Jacob did not despise, detest, and treat Leah like an enemy, as in the modern use of the word “hate.” Instead, he simply loved Rachel more than he loved Leah.
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).
Add to all this the fact that, with His last few words, Jesus Christ showed honor to His mother, and made sure she had a provider (John 19:25-27). The simple meaning, then, of Jesus’ statement in Luke 14:26 is that a person must be willing to sever ties with his or her family if those ties hinder the person from following and obeying Christ. And blessed is the man who puts service to Jesus above all else.
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Bruce, A.B. (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bullinger, E.W. (1968 reprint), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Vine, W.E. (1940), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/index.html.

Should Christians Support the New Hate Crimes Prevention Act? by Matt Vega, J.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2862

Should Christians Support the New Hate Crimes Prevention Act?

by Matt Vega, J.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff writer Matt Vega, who received his doctorate from Yale University Law School.]
On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Harry Reid quietly slipped the bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid any debate in the Senate on the merits of the bill. It was named after Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student practicing homosexuality who was beaten to death in 1998, and James Byrd, Jr., a black man dragged to death in Texas the same year.
As Christians, we should be sickened by the knowledge that people are so full of deeply seated hatred that these sorts of crimes still happen today. It is impossible to use Christianity to justify bombing abortion clinics or attacking two men on the street holding hands. As the apostle Paul reminded the church in Galatia: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14; cf. John 13:34). The New Testament does not condone such improperly motivated acts of violence—even in opposition to sexual sins. For example, Jesus saved a woman caught in adultery from stoning by pointing out the improper conduct of her accusers (John 8:1-11). Jesus did not excuse the woman’s actions, but instead called her iniquity “sin.” He told her to “go, and sin no more” (vs. 11). On the other hand, Jesus did not condone the crowd’s actions either. There is no evidence the people had followed the procedural safeguards under ecclesiastical law, or that the woman’s accusers had satisfied the strict burden of proof required for capital crimes. By all accounts, this was just an unruly mob. The mob was likely just using this woman to trap Jesus, or they may have been guilty of the very same sin of adultery (Miller, 2004, 24[11]:97-103). Alternatively, the entire mob may have been guilty of unfairly singling the woman out when the old law plainly required that both the man and the woman be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Therefore, Jesus rebuked the crowd with these words: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). The illicit nature of their conduct is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the guilt-ridden mob dispersed one by one in response to Jesus’ words (vs. 9). In the end, since there were no accusers, the woman could not be condemned. Under Mosaic Law, a person could not be sentenced to death unless his or her offense was confirmed by the testimony of at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). Thus, Jesus uttered those famous words, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” When she confirmed no one was left, Jesus told her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (vs. 11).
Despite the foregoing, whether Christians should engage in hate crimes is very different from the question of whether Christians should support the new hate crimes law. Christians must prayerfully exercise discernment (Hebrews 5:14; Philippians 1:9-10) to determine how God wants us to respond to this new statute. The answer depends first on whether the law is valid, and second on whether it is moral. However, some laws that appear on their face to be both valid and moral, are not necessarily morally neutral when applied. This raises a third question of whether the new hate crimes law is potentially an anti-Christian law. To the extent the law is not morally neutral, we must make sure the law does not compel us to disobey God. Each of these important questions is discussed in the context of the new hate crimes law more fully below.

IS THE NEW HATE CRIMES LAW LEGAL?

The 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law permits the federal prosecution of anyone who “willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person’s race, color, religion or national origin” (“Title 18...”). Similarly, the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act required the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed because of these protected characteristics of the victim as well as his or her ethnicity or sex (Violent Crime...).
The new Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) expands the definition of federal hate crimes to specifically include those committed based on the victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity (e.g., transsexualism), or disability. It also makes it a federal crime to attack U.S. military personnel because of their service. The Act does away with an earlier provision that limited the law to cases in which the victim was attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities. Finally, the new law allows the U.S. Department of Justice to assist in the prosecution of these particular hate crimes.
In 1992, the Supreme Court held in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that some hate crimes laws violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The Court concluded that statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech violate the First Amendment; therefore, most cross-burning statutes or statutes criminalizing verbal intimidation have been deemed unconstitutional. However, inWisconsin v. Mitchell the Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin statute which provides for an enhanced sentence where the defendant “intentionally selects the person against whom the crime [is committed] because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person” (1993). The HCPA most likely falls within this second permitted category of hate crime law.
Nevertheless, critics of the HCPA claim it creates a double standard. They argue traditional laws already make it illegal to assault someone, and already take general malice into account. Therefore, there is no need to impose still further penalties on acts of violence motivated by enmity or animus against certain protected classes. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionguarantees that no class of individuals should be treated any differently under the law. Therefore, opponents argue the new law fails to provide equal protection of the law. However, the Supreme Court has yet to so hold.
Opponents of the HCPA also argue that the federal law circumvents constitutional safeguards against federalism and double jeopardy. Only 31 states currently include bias against a person because of his or her sexual orientation within their state law definition of a hate crime. Critics argue the federal government should leave this determination up to the states. They argue the bill would allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be re-prosecuted in federal court. They also see the federal law as a way for the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. Until it is ruled unconstitutional, however, Christians should operate under the assumption that the HCPA is still good law.

IS THE NEW HATE CRIMES LAW MORAL?

The new crimes law does not require anyone to do anything immoral. On the contrary, the HCPA is intended to discourage acts of hatred. As Christians we should obey the laws of the land even if we disagree with them (Romans 13:1-2)—unless doing so would require us to disobey God (Acts 5:27-29). The notion that the penalty for a crime ought to be increased based on the perpetrator’s motivation is not a new idea. In fact, it is a very old, even biblical idea. In the Old Testament, the penalty for killing a human being was greater when it was done out “of hatred” (Numbers 35:20). Thus, there is no moral impetus for violating the HCPA.
However, this does not mean the HCPA is necessarily moral. One potential problem with the new hate crimes law is that it elevates certain sexual sins to the status of a federally protected characteristic. The only characteristics previously protected by any federal law included a person’s race, color, age, sex, national origin, disability, religion, veteran status, or marital status. The HCPA, however, would extend protection to homosexuality and transsexualism and enshrine them as moral equivalents to race, religion, and the other protected categories. This expansion is legally and morally difficult to justify. First, there is no credible evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race, color, age, sex, and national origin. The American Psychological Association has stated: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors” (Answers to..., 2008, p. 2). In addition, the HCPA’s definition of “sexual orientation” is not limited to immutable characteristics because it includes the status of being, or the perception of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
Further, those that engage in deviant sexual behavior generally refuse to equate it with a physical or mental disability. In 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after reviewing evidence that it was not a mental disorder (Psychiatric Treatment and..., 1998). In 1987, ego-dystonic homosexuality was not included in the revised third edition of DSM (DSM-II-R) after a similar review (Psychiatric Treatment and...).
There is also no comparison between the practice of homosexuality and the practice of religion in terms of their respective contributions to law and society. Finally, transsexuals and homosexuals do not merit the same status given to veterans, or to marriage between a man and a woman. The military is necessary to the defense of our country. Marriage is a procreative partnership and the foundation of the family. While the military and marriage both fulfill essential roles in our society, homosexuals and transvestites are merely fulfilling their own selfish, unnatural lusts of the flesh. As J. Budziszewski put it, “Sodomy cannot ground families; it is sterile in every sense of the term” (2003, p. 205, emp. added).

IS THE NEW HATE CRIMES LAW ANTI-CHRISTIAN?

The new law is intended only to apply to violent acts based on bias. For example, it does not make it illegal to preach against homosexuality. The U.S. law does not go as far as laws in the EU and Canada that censor speech deemed mean-spirited or bigoted by societal standards. If, however, the speaker later commits a violent crime, then the HCPA may allow evidence of the accused’s statements to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
The HCPA is also not supposed to allow a person to be prosecuted on the basis of his or her beliefs. If, however, a person commits a violent crime against a homosexual, the fact that he or she is an active member of a group (or church) that publicly opposes homosexuality may be used against him or her in a court of law. Section 7 of the law merely states that the wrongful act must be “because ofthe actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person” (emp. added). Thus, the accused’s beliefs, even sincerely held religious beliefs, could theoretically be used to justify a more severe punishment if the accused is found guilty.
Whether intentional on the part of Congress or not, the HCPA may have a chilling effect on what is preached in the pulpit. However, gospel preachers should boldly continue to proclaim what God has said about all forms of sexual sin. As long as we do not live hypocritical lives, and do evil ourselves, we have nothing to fear from this law (Romans 13:3-4). That said, this law will likely have long-term cultural implications, gradually eroding the religious freedom to oppose homosexuality and other sins on moral and religious grounds.

CONCLUSION

Many sins other than homosexuality led to the passage of the HCPA. The Act is a direct consequence of all the sins that have given rise to hate crimes, including anger, malice, hostility, quarreling, and hypocrisy. The new law was apparently deemed necessary by our government because of a few misguided individuals engaged in drunkenness and other foolish behavior. Some of them even distorted Christian teachings against homosexuality into a license, not only to commit the most savage sins imaginable, but to ignore the New Testament command to “be at peace with all men” to the extent possible (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14). Therefore, elders and preachers need to make sure that these sins are equally condemned from the pulpit alongside homosexuality.
Unfortunately, hate crimes will continue to be used to fuel the growing culture of moral relativism in this country. It is getting harder and harder to find an example of conduct that society agrees is always wrong. In addition to tolerating homosexuality, our society no longer condemns the adulteress, philanderer, or even the pedophile in all cases. As G.K. Chesterton remarked: “The modern world is insane, not so much because it admits the abnormal, as because it cannot recover the normal” (1922, p. 25). Although popular opinion does not make wicked conduct right, it can make it legal. Yet, God’s opinion on these matters has not changed, and faithful Christians must take His message, in a peaceful manner, to the public square. The New Testament message in this regard is two-fold. First, all forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality, are sin (Romans 1:26; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Jude 7). Second, any sin, even homosexuality, can be forgiven—if the individual is willing to obey the Gospel (believe, repent, confess, be baptized—Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9; 1 John 1:9).

REFERENCES

Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality (2008), American Psychological Association, [On-line], URL:http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf.
Budziszewski, J. (2003), What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Dallas, TX: Spence).
Chesterton, G.K (1922), Eugenics and Other Evils (New York: Cassell), [On-line], URL:http://books.google.com/books?id=pogJaU68oscC&printsec= frontcover&dq=Eugenics+and+Other+Evils&cd=1#v=onepage& amp;q=&f=false.
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), [On-line], URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Reason & Revelation, 24[11]:97-103, November, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2643.
Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation Position Statement (1998), American Psychiatric Association, [On-line], URL:http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/ PositionStatements/199820.aspx.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
“Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 245, Federally Protected Activities” (1969), [On-line], URL:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/245.html.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (1994), [On-line], URL:http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), 508 U.S. 476 (1993).

Situation Ethics by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1064

Situation Ethics

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Human beings throughout history have been susceptible to a desire to be freed from the dictates of higher authority. Most people wish to be free to do whatever they desire to do. This attitude runs rampant among the baby boomers whose formative years occurred during the 1960s. Expressions that were commonplace at the time included, “Do your own thing” and “Let it all hang out.” These simple slogans offer profound insight into what really was driving the countercultural forces at that time. Underneath the stated objectives of love, peace, and brotherhood were the actual motives of self-indulgence and freedom from restrictions. This ethical, moral, and spiritual perspective has proliferated, and now dominates the American moral landscape.
Despite all of their high and holy insistence that their actions are divinely approved, and the result of a deep desire to do Christ’s will and save souls, could it possibly be that those within Christendom who seek to relax doctrinal rigidity are, in reality, implementing their own agenda of change simply to relieve themselves of biblical restrictions? Is it purely coincidental that the permissive preachers have been both willing and eager to accommodate the clamor for “no negative, all positive” preaching? Is it completely accidental and unrelated that many voices are minimizing strict obedience under the guise of “legalism,” “we’re under grace, not law,” “we’re in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996), and that we are “free to change” (e.g., Hook, 1990)?
No, these circumstances are neither coincidental nor unrelated. They are calculated and conspiratorial. Those who have aversion to law have breathed in the same spirit that has led secular society’s psychological profession to view guilt as destructive, while unselfish, personal responsibility is labeled “co-dependency.” They have embraced the same subjective, self-centered rationale that secular society offers for rejecting the plain requirements of Scripture in order to do whatever they desire to do: “God wants me to be happy!” and “It meets my needs!” The spirit of liberalism has indeed taken deep root, both in the country and in the Christian religion (see Chesser, 2001).

SITUATIONISM DEFINED

In the mid-1960s, Joseph Fletcher published the book, Situation Ethics, thereby securing for himself the dubious distinction, “the Father of Situation Ethics” (1966). Of course, Fletcher was by no means the first to advance the ideals of situationism. Men like Emil Brunner (The Divine Imperative), Reinhold Niebuhr (Moral Man and Immoral Society), Harvey Cox (The Secular City), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Ethics), and John A.T. Robinson (Honest to God) promoted ethical relativism before Fletcher’s popular expression of the same. Existentialist philosophers like Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger promulgated this same subjectivism. Though Fletcher at first attempted to deny this tie to existential philosophy (1967, p. 75), he eventually ended up admitting it (pp. 77,234). However, we need not think that situation ethics is a twenty-first-century phenomenon that was invented by modern theologians and social scientists. Situationism goes all the way back to Eden when Satan posed to Eve circumstances that he alleged would justify setting aside God’s law (Genesis 3:4-6).
Fletcher summarized his ideas in terms of six propositions that he came to identify as “the fundamentals of Christian conscience” (1967, pp. 13-27). This ethical theory stresses “freedom from prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules” in exchange for “the relative or nonabsolute and variant or nonuniversal nature of the situational approach” (p. 7). “Right and wrong depend upon the situation” (p. 14). The “situation” is defined as “the relative weight of the ends and means and motives and consequences all taken together, as weighed by love” (p. 23). The situation ethicist feels free to “tinker with Scripture” and to form “a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ ” (pp. 18-19; cf. p. 56).
Situationism is simply ethical relativism, in that it moves “away from code ethics, from stern and ironbound do’s and don’ts, from prescribed conduct and legalistic morality” (p. 24). Situationism bears close affinity with existentialism (pp. 26, 77,234). “Imitative practice,” uniformity and conformity, and “metaphysical morals” are all disdained (pp. 26,106,240). Objective principles and abstract rules are repudiated, in exchange for “freedom and openness” (pp. 72,76,233,235). Concrete absolutes are viewed unfavorably as “authoritarianism” and “rules-bound thinking” (p. 240).
Situationism calls for “creative” moral conduct, accommodation to “pluralism,” “freedom,” and “openness,” as well as “spontaneity and variety in moral decision-making” (pp. 78,123-124,235,241). Constant emphasis is placed on “love” as the only intrinsic good, with the loving thing to do depending on each situation that arises. Since “love” is the only inherent, intrinsic value, the moral quality or value of every thing or action is extrinsic and contingent—depending upon the situation (pp. 14,26,34,38,55,76,123-124).
Though Fletcher offered formal expression to these concepts several decades ago, it would not be an exaggeration to state that situationism has “gone to seed” in American society, and now constitutes the prevailing approach to making ethical decisions. As pollster guru George Barna remarked in a 2003 survey of American moral behavior:
This is reflective of a nation where morality is generally defined according to one’s feelings. In a postmodern society, where people do not acknowledge any moral absolutes, if a person feels justified in engaging in a specific behavior, then they do not make a connection with the immoral nature of that action.... Until people recognize that there are moral absolutes and attempt to live in harmony with them, we are likely to see a continued decay of our moral foundations (2003, emp. added).

FLAWS IN SITUATIONAL THINKING

At least two foundational errors cause Fletcher’s theory of situationism to be irreparably flawed. The first is the failure to grasp the Bible’s identification of the central concern of human beings: to love, honor, glorify, and obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:37; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:9; 10:5; 1 Peter 4:11). Fletcher is virtually silent on this dimension of human responsibility. Instead, he focuses his entire theory on love for fellow man. While love for fellow man is certainly crucial to Christian ethics, and is absolutely mandatory for the Christian (e.g., Luke 10:25-37), it must be viewed in its rightful position, subsumed beneath the greater, higher responsibility of loving God. One cannot love God without loving one’s neighbor (e.g., 1 John 4:20-21). But, theoretically, one could love another person without loving God. Consequently, love for fellow man must be viewed in the larger framework of focusing one’s life on pleasing God first and foremost.
Since this must be the singular all-consuming passion of human beings, God’s Word must be consulted in order to determine how to love God and fellow man. In other words, to comply with the number one responsibility in life, one must consult the absolute, prefabricated, prescriptive, ironbound do’s and don’ts of Scripture! This, by definition, is love for God (1 John 5:3; John 14:15). It follows, then, that Fletcher is incorrect in identifying the only intrinsic good as “love” for fellow man (1967, p. 14). According to the Bible, intrinsic good includes fraternal love. But superceding even this love isfilial love, i.e., love for God (Matthew 22:36-37; cf. Warren, 1972, pp. 87ff.). Consequently, God defines what love entails in man’s treatment of both God and fellow man. But those definitions are found in the Bible in the form of prescriptive rules, regulations, and ironclad do’s and don’ts.
The second fundamental flaw of Fletcher’s brand of situationism is the subtle redefinition of “love.” While Fletcher was correct when he identified love as an active determination of the will rather than an emotion (pp. 20-21), his idea of “love” is materialistic and secular, rather than scriptural and spiritual. “Love,” to Fletcher, is what human beings decide is “good” or “best” in a given situation. This humanistic approach allows man and his circumstances to become the criteria for defining morality, rather than allowing God to define the parameters of moral behavior: “The metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic values and laws says, ‘Do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.’ The situational moralist says, ‘Whether what you do is right or not depends precisely upon where the chips fall!’ ” (p. 26).
But the Bible simply does not place law and love in contradistinction to each other. In fact, according to the Bible, one cannot love either God or fellow man without law. The only way for an individual to know how to love is to go to the Bible and discern there the specifics of a loving behavior. When Paul declared, “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:19), he did not mean that it is possible to love one’s neighbor while dispensing with the law (cf. Fletcher, 1967, p. 70; Hook, 1984, p. 31). Rather, he meant that when you conduct yourself in a genuinely loving manner, you are automatically acting in harmony with the law (i.e., you are not killing, stealing, coveting, bearing false witness, etc.). God, in His laws, defined and pinpointed how to love. To treat any of God’s laws as optional, flexible, or occasional is to undermine the very foundations of love.
In situationism, human beings become the standard of morality. The human mind, with its subjective perceptions of the surrounding moral environment, becomes the authority, in direct conflict with the words of an inspired prophet: “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). The psalmist certainly could be accused of being a “metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic values and laws.” In his great psalm on the law of the Lord (Psalm 119), the writer conveyed his conviction that objective, prescriptive rules and prefabricated principles were indispensable to his survival. Observe carefully a small portion of his unrelenting extolment of divine laws: “You have commanded us to keep Your precepts diligently” (vs. 4); “I would not be ashamed, when I look into all Your commandments” (vs. 6); “Behold, I long for Your precepts” (vs. 40); “I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love” (vs. 47); “I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life” (vs. 93); “Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way” (vs. 104); “The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever” (vs. 160); “My soul keeps Your testimonies, and I love them exceedingly. I keep Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before You” (vss. 167-168).
To Fletcher, “love” directed toward one’s fellow man is a materialistically defined love that he calls “personalism.” “Personalism” is “the ethical view that the highest good, the summum bonum or first-order value, is human welfare and happiness” (1967, p. 33). Fletcher’s ethical humanism is “a personalist devotion to people, not to things or abstractions such as ‘laws’ or general principles.Personal interests come first, before the natural or Scriptural or theoretical or general or logical or anything else” (p. 34, emp. added). What such assertions really mean in practical, behavioral terms is that, ultimately, human beings may do whatever they deem “good” or “best.” A glance at Fletcher’s illustrations shows that the most “loving” decisions are those that ease physical pain, alleviate hardship, lessen emotional suffering, or accommodate human desire and personal preference. For Fletcher, “evil” is physical imprisonment, separation from family, the hardship of unjust labor, an unpleasant marriage, or lack of commitment to a person (e.g., pp. 32,39). “Human happiness” is, by definition, what human beings think will make them happy—not what God says actually will bringtrue happiness—even in the midst of, and while enduring, unjust or unpleasant circumstances.
Sin, in situationism, is not “transgression of God’s law” (1 John 3:4). Rather, “sin is the exploitation or use of persons” (p. 37). It is withholding what a person perceives to be the means to personal happiness. But this understanding of sin is a radical redefinition of love and happiness in comparison to the Bible. In contrast, the Scriptures make clear that “intrinsic evil on the purely physical level does not exist” and “neither pain nor suffering is intrinsically evil” (Warren, 1972, pp. 93,40). Since sin (i.e., violation of God’s law) is the only intrinsic evil, “evil” and “good” exist only in relation to the ultimate will of God (pp. 39,41).
By Fletcher’s definitions, many people in Bible history were not sinners as previously supposed, but were, in fact, mature, responsible individuals who acted lovingly: Eve (Genesis 3:1-6); Cain (Genesis 4:3); Lot and Lot’s wife (Genesis 13:12; 19:16,26); Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3); the Israelites (Numbers 21:4-6); Balaam (Numbers 22-24); Saul (1 Samuel 13:9; 15:9,21); and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). On the other hand, if situationism is correct, many persons in the Bible were not righteous, as is claimed, but were slaves to abstract rules and principles, and were unloving in their conduct toward their fellow man, including: Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5); Joseph (Genesis 39:7-12); Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14:6-9); Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-9); Joshua (Joshua 7:24-25); and John the baptizer (Mark 6:18-19). Here were people who set aside the preferences of their fellow man, ignored their contemporaries’ desire for “happiness” and “self-fulfillment,” and instead followed divine prescriptions—even though those precepts were considered to be contrary to the consensus view.
Taking into account the components of “the situation” as Fletcher recommends—“the end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences” (1967, p. 25)—Uzzah would have to receive Fletcher’s sanction as a loving, moral person (2 Samuel 6:1-7). His motive was unquestionably good, since he wanted to avoid the unpleasant end and foreseeable consequences of the Ark of the Covenant toppling from its precarious resting place. The means that Uzzah used were the only ones available to him at that particular instant in time. His only mistake, which resulted in his immediate execution by God, was his failure to give heed to the prefabricated, prescriptive, abstract, legalistic, absolute, metaphysical, ironbound “don’t” of Numbers 4:15,—i.e., “don’t touch!” [For a useful treatment of situation ethics, especially for young people, see Ridenour, 1969].

SITUATIONISM ILLUSTRATED

The true nature of any false philosophy or ethical system is often apparent in the concrete examples that advocates set forth as illustrative of their position. Fletcher is no exception in this regard. He approves of divorce “if the emotional and spiritual welfare of both parents and children in a particularfamily can be served best” (1967, p. 23, emp. in orig.). He would approve of the suicide of a captured soldier under torture to avoid betraying comrades to the enemy (p. 15). Two additional instances are seen in the following comments. Fletcher said that he knew of
a case, in which committing adultery foreseeably brought about the release of a whole family from a very unjust but entirely legal exploitation of their labor on a small farm which was both their pride and their prison. Still another situation could be cited in which a German mother gained her release from a Soviet prison farm and reunion with her family by means of an adulterous pregnancy. These actions would have the situationist’s solemn but ready approval (p. 32).
Additional examples of situation ethics at work are seen in the statements: “Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth. Stealing could be better than respecting private property” (p. 34). Fletcher asks: “Is the girl who gives her chastity for her country’s sake any less approvable than the boy who gives his leg or his life? No!” (p. 39). Further,
a couple who cannot marry legally or permanently but live together faithfully and honorably and responsibly, are living in virtue—in Christian love. In this kind of Christian sex ethic, the essential ingredients are caring and commitment.... There is nothing against extramarital sex as such, in this ethic, and in some cases it is good (pp. 39-40, emp. in orig.).
Consider also the situation ethicist’s view of abortion:
When anybody “sticks to the rules,” even though people suffer as a consequence, that is immoral. Even if we grant, for example, that generally or commonly it is wrong or bad or undesirable to interrupt a pregnancy, it would nevertheless be right to do so to a conceptus following rape or incest, at least if the victim wanted an abortion (p. 36; cf. Hook, 1984, p. 34).
When one abandons the objective standard conveyed by the eternal God from Whom flows infinite goodness, the means for assessing human behavior is then “up for grabs,” and is pitched into the subjective realm of human opinion in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Such a person will inevitably begin misrepresenting the biblical treatment of Christian liberty and freedom, and will maintain that “freedom in Christ” means being relieved of the “burden” of a “legal code.”
The Bible certainly speaks of the wonderful freedom that one may enjoy in Christ. But biblical freedom is a far cry from the release from restriction, restraint, and deserved guilt touted by the antinomian agents of change (cf. Hook, 1984, pp. 43ff.). The Bible does not speak of the “flexibility and elasticity” of God’s laws (pp. 29-31). Rather, with sweeping and precise terminology, Jesus articulated the sum and substance of exactly what it means to be “free in Christ.” In a specific context in which He defended the validity of His own testimony (John 8:12-59), He declared the only basis upon which an individual may be His disciple. To be Christ’s disciple, one must “continue” in His word (vs. 31). That is, one must live a life of obedience to the will of Christ (Warren, 1986, pp. 33-37). Genuine discipleship is gauged by one’s persistent and meticulous compliance with the words of Jesus.
The freedom that Jesus offers through obedience to His truth is noted in His interchange with the Jews over slavery. Those who sin (i.e., transgress God’s will—1 John 3:4) are slaves who may be set free only by permitting Christ’s teachings to have free course within them (vs. 34-37). This kind of freedom is the only true freedom. Genuine freedom is achieved by means of “obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16). Freedom from sin and spiritual death is possible only by obedience to God (vs. 51).

SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS:
THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN

Another way to grasp the substance of a false philosophy is to assess the way in which the Scriptures are given treatment to support the philosophy. The remainder of this article will confine itself to examining two favorite proof texts frequently marshaled in an effort to defend situationism. [Additional proof texts (e.g., 2 Chronicles 30:18-20; Matthew 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23, the notion of “legalism”) are examined in a lengthier, unabridged version of this article, which can be found on-line at www.apologeticspress. org/rr/rr2004/r&r0411b.htm.]
“What about the woman taken in adultery? Didn’t Jesus free her from the rigid restrictions of the Law?” One of the most misused, mishandled, and misapplied passages in the Bible is the narrative of the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John 8:1-11. [For a discussion of the technical aspects of this passage as a textual variant, see Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224; 1971, pp. 219-222; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Woods, 1989, p. 162.] This passage has been used by situation ethicists (e.g., Fletcher, 1967, pp. 83, 133), libertines, and liberals to insist that God is not “technical” when it comes to requiring close adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom has abetted this notion by decontextualizing and applying indiscriminately the remark of Jesus: “He who is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her first” (vs. 7). The average individual, therefore, has come to think that Jesus was tolerant and forgiving to the extent that He released the woman from the strictures of God’s law that called for her execution. They believe that Jesus simply “waved aside” her sin, and thereby granted her unconditional freedom and forgiveness—though the Law called for her death (Leviticus 20:10). After all, isn’t it true that Jesus places people “in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996)?
Those who challenge conclusions such as these are derided as “traditionalists” who lack “compassion,” and who are just like the “legalistic” scribes and Pharisees who cruelly accused the woman and wanted her handled in strict accordance with Mosaic Law. Did Jesus set aside the clear requirements of Mosaic legislation in order to demonstrate mercy, grace, and forgiveness? A careful study of John 8:1-11 yields at least three insights that clarify the confusion and misconception inherent in the popular imagination.
First, Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is said about the identity of the witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.
Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely sidestepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go!
A third consideration that often is overlooked concerning this passage is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you...” (vs. 7). If this statement were to be taken as a blanket prohibition against accusing, disciplining, or punishing the erring, impenitent Christian, then this passage flatly contradicts a host of other passages (e.g., Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). Jesus not only frequently passed judgment on a variety of individuals during His tenure on Earth (e.g., Matthew 15:14; 23; John 8:44, 55; 9:41; et al.), but He also enjoined upon His followers the necessity of doing the same thing (e.g., John 7:24). Peter could be very direct in assessing people’s spiritual status (e.g., Acts 8:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction concerning their fornicating brother: “Do you not judge those who are inside?...Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added). Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must judge (i.e., make an accurate evaluation of) a fellow Christian’s moral condition. Even the familiar proof text so often marshaled to promote laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew 7:1) records Jesus admonishing disciples: “...then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current culture-wide celebration of being nonjudgmental (cf. “I’m OK—You’re OK”) is clearly out of harmony with Bible teaching.
So Jesus could not have been offering a blanket prohibition against taking appropriate action with regard to the sins of our fellows. Then what did His words mean? What else could possibly be going on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine, and terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack Him, by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Christ’s words that had such power to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their clamor faded to silence and they departed “one by one, beginning with the oldest” (vs. 9)?
Most commentators suggest that Jesus shamed them by forcing them to realize that “nobody is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley crew—with their notorious and repeatedly documented hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had conveyed the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is perfect,” or “We’ve all done things we’re not proud of.” The heartless scribes and Pharisees were brazen enough to divert her case from the proper judicial proceedings, and to humiliate her by forcibly hauling her into the presence of Jesus, thereby making a public spectacle of her. Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters, they cruelly subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2) who had come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been discouraged from their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus that “nobody’s perfect.”
So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Consider two possibilities. First, it may be that Jesus was calling attention to their failure to follow legal protocol in dealing with the woman. He was challenging them for violating the law with regard to treatment of the woman, essentially condemning them as being incapable of making a solid legal case against her.
A second possibility is that Christ was striking at precisely the same point that Paul drove home to hard-hearted, hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1, emp. added). Paul was especially specific on the very point with which Jesus dealt: “You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (vs. 22). In other words, no person is qualified to call attention to another’s sin when that individual is in the ongoing practice of the same sin. Again, as Jesus previously declared, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). After all, it is the “spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).
Consequently, in the context under consideration, it may well be that Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were guilty of the very thing for which they were willing to condemn her. (It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the fellow with whom the woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusers.) Jesus was able to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made it clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or ineligible. Jesus was striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were unqualified to fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on similar charges. They were intimidated into silence and retreat by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own indiscretions—and possibly on the verge of divulging them publicly.
Observe carefully that, at the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal questionwhen He asked: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV). The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you....” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous! The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”
Incredible! These scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a trap. Yet Jesus, as was so often the case (e.g., Matthew 21:23-27), “turned the tables” on His accusers and caught them in a trap instead! At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and abiding respect for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and His Father had authored. Jesus was the only Person Who ever complied with Mosaic legislation perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). He never sought to excuse human violation of law, nor to minimize the binding and authoritative application of law to people. Any interpretation of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating the law of God in order to forgive or accommodate man is a false interpretation, as is any interpretation that relegates law to a status of secondary importance (cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11; Romans 7:12). Jesus was not in sympathy with the permissive mindset of today’s doctrinally lax thinkers who soften doctrine and the binding nature of law in the name of “grace,” “freedom,” or “compassion.”

SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS:
THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW

But doesn’t the Bible make a legitimate distinction between the ‘letter of the law’ and the ‘spirit of the law’?” It is argued that sometimes it is necessary, even mandatory, to violate the “letter of the law” in order to act in harmony with the “spirit of the law.” According to this line of thinking, those who insist that obedience to the law of God is always required without exception are “hung up on the letter of the law” instead of being led by the “spirit of the law” (cf. Hook, 1984, p. 42).
This perspective naturally breeds and nurtures a relaxed attitude toward obedience. It militates against a desire to be precise and careful in conformity to biblical teaching. One individual explained how his feelings of devotion to Jesus made him feel that as long as he maintained a close “sense of nearness” to Christ, he did not have to fret over “nit picky” concerns, like whether Christians should be meticulous in their obedience to the laws of the land. Another person avowed that she did not “sweat the small stuff,” since she was living her life in recognition of God’s grace, and felt certain that Jesus would “cut her some slack.” The “small stuff ” to which she referred included such things as whether God will accept instrumental music in worship to Him, whether God will approve of unscriptural divorce and remarriage, and whether sprinkling may pass for New Testament baptism.
The primary passage in the New Testament marshaled in an effort to support the “spirit vs. letter” antithesis is Paul’s remarks to the church of Christ in Corinth (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). I urge the reader to pause and read the third chapter of Second Corinthians before reading the analysis that follows. Two phrases are typically excised from the context and used as proof texts to support a notion contrary to the chapter: “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (vs. 6), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (vs. 17). These phrases are set forth by some as proof that Christians ought not to be too meticulous in conforming strictly to various New Testament directives. Those who suggest such assume that “letter” refers to the commands of God—the written statements of Scripture that specify and regulate human behavior. They also assume that “spirit” refers to one’s attitude or feelings. Hence, if the individual feels devoted, concerned, and sincere, he or she is deemed in line with “the spirit of the law.” On the other hand, the individual who appears inflexible and rigid, or overly concerned with strict obedience, is perceived to lack “compassion” and “sensitivity,” and too concerned with “the letter of the law.”
However, if a person takes the time to study God’s Word, and refrain from mishandling its intended meaning (Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), he or she will see that neither Paul nor any other inspired writer agreed with such thinking. In a pericope dealing with his apostolic ministry, Paul crafted a beautiful allegory—what D.R. Dungan once called “the most perfect antithesis to be found in the whole Bible” (1888, p. 349). By arranging the contrasting phrases of the antithesis into two columns, the Bible student is able more easily to grasp Paul’s intended meaning.
2 CORINTHIANS 3
Old CovenantNew Covenant
 Ministers of the new covenant (vs. 6)
Of the letter (vs. 6)Of the Spirit (vs. 6)
The letter kills (vs. 6)The Spirit gives life (vs. 6)
Ministry of Death (vs. 7)Ministry of Spirit (vs. 8)
Written/Engraved on stones (vs. 7) 
Ministry of condemnation (vs. 9)Ministry of righteousness (vs. 9)
Glorious (vss. 7,9.11)Much more glorious (vss.8-9,11)
Passing away (vs. 7)Remains (vs. 11)
Veil on Moses’s face (vs. 13)Great boldness of speech (vs. 12)
Veil remains in reading O.T. (vs. 14)Veil taken away in Christ (vs. 14)
Veil lies on their heart (vs. 15)Veil taken away when one turns to the Lord (vs. 16)

Comparison of “the letter” vs. “the spirit” of the law (O.T./N.T.)
It should be immediately evident to the unbiased observer that “the two legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old Covenant” (Dungan, p. 268). Precisely the same meaning is conveyed by the same terminology in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:29; 7:6). The Old Testament legal system, though an excellent system for what God had in mind (Romans 7:12), was unable to provide ultimate forgiveness for violations of law and, in that sense, “kills.” It took Jesus’ death on the cross to make “life” possible—i.e., actual cleansing from sin.
When one recognizes the existing contextual meaning, it becomes apparent that these verses have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged “spirit vs. letter” contention! In fact, the Bible nowhere postulates such a thing. Like all liberal thinking, one must refrain from thinking too much about it if one does not wish to see the absurdity and nonsensical nature of it. The “spirit vs. letter” contrast is “better felt than told” gobbledygook that makes no sense. In an article titled “The Letter that Killeth,” written on April 3, 1897, J.W. McGarvey responded to this type of thinking:
Just once in the course of his writings Paul makes the declaration that “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:7); and no remark that he ever made has been applied in a greater number of unlicensed ways. If a man insists upon preserving some ordinance in the very form of its original appointment, such an ordinance as baptism or the Lord’s Supper, for example, he is accused of contending for the letter that killeth, while the man who makes the charge, and who changes the ordinance, claims that he is following the spirit that giveth life. All of that large class of writers who make free with the Scriptures while claiming to reverence their authority, employ this device to excuse their departures from the word of God, while those who remonstrate with them for their license are denounced as literalists or sticklers for the letter that killeth. In all these instances, it seems to be claimed that if you stick close to the ordinance as Christ gave it, you will kill somebody. The last example that attracted my attention was in connection with the number of elders that should be appointed in a church. The writer says: “It has been thought to be a greater evil to have a congregation without a plurality of elders than to have an eldership without the requisite qualifications;” and he adds: “This is to do violence to the spirit of the New Testament in an effort to be loyal to its letter.” But which, in this case, is the letter, and which is the spirit? To have a plurality of elders is certainly the letter of the New Testament; that is, it is the literal requirement; and the literal requirement also is to have elders of prescribed qualifications. Where, then, is the spirit as distinguished from the letter? Echo answers, Where? The writer was so in the habit of using this favorite expression where he wished to justify a departure from Scripture precedent that he evidently applied it in this instance from pure habit and without thought (1910, pp. 160-161).
Indeed, redefining the biblical expressions “spirit of the law” and “letter of the law” enables the situationist to promote his agenda under the cloak of Bible backing.
If one wishes to use the expression “the spirit of the law” to refer to a proper attitude, and “the letter of the law” to refer to compliance with the explicit dictates of Scripture, it certainly is true that a person can distort or disregard “the spirit of the law” while following carefully “the letter of the law.” A person may engage in external, rote compliance without heartfelt, genuine love for God and His will. But it is impossible to represent faithfully “the spirit of the law” (i.e., to have the right attitude) while acting out of harmony with the specific details of the law. When Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commands” (John 14:15), He pinpointed the fact that “love” for Him includes obedience. It is possible to obey and not love; but it is not possible to love and not obey. One may have good intentions in one’s religious pursuits, but if those religious actions are contrary to God’s specified will, the activity is unacceptable to God. The situationist’s claim that sincerity and feelings of “love” legitimize whatever action “love” takes, is in direct contradiction to Bible teaching.
Situationism, antinomianism (freedom from law), and liberalism (loosing where God has bound) share in common their mutual aversion to law keeping. Christians must not fall prey to these sinister forces that attempt to soften and obscure the clear call from God to render obedience to His directives. What He seeks from people is conformity to His laws out of hearts full of sincerity, earnestness, and love.

CONCLUSION

Probably no greater threat to the stability of society exists in our day than the humanistic, antinomian philosophy of situationism and its multi-faceted pluralistic and/or post-modernistic manifestations. It is part and parcel of the general rebellion against the authority of God’s Word that engulfs America. Vast numbers of people are living life and making decisions based upon their own subjective perceptions and personal feelings. For them, the concepts of right and wrong, truth and error are obscure, blurred, hazy, gray, and complex. What is wrong in one situation may be right and acceptable in another. Satan has done his job well. He has made great strides in American culture in the last half century in his effort to break down biblical values and moral absolutes. He has succeeded in replacing this framework with a tolerant, open, permissive attitude and outlook that refrains from passing judgment on anybody or anything. The “I’m OK, You’re OK” perspective has been embedded firmly into American civilization.
The mindset of today’s situationist is not new. We humans do not generally regard rules and regulations as positive phenomena. We usually perceive them as infringements on our freedom—deliberate attempts to restrict our behavior and interfere with our “happiness.” Like children, we may have a tendency to display resentment and a rebellious spirit when faced with spiritual requirements. We may feel that God is being arbitrary and merely burdening our lives with haphazard, insignificant strictures. But God would never do that. He never has placed upon anyone any requirement that was inappropriate, unnecessary, or unfair. During the Israelites’ final encampment on the plains of Moab prior to their entrance into Canaan, Moses articulated a most important principle: “The Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes...for our good always” (Deuteronomy 6:24, emp. added; cf. 10:13). God never would ask us to do anything that is harmful to us. He does not restrict us nor exert His authority over us in order to purposely make us unhappy. Quite the opposite! God knows exactly what will make us happy. Compliance with His Word will make a person happy (John 13:17; James 1:25), exalted (James 4:10), righteous (Romans 6:16; 1 John 3:7), and wise (Matthew 24:45-46; 7:24).
Those who wish to relieve themselves of restriction will continue to invent ways to circumvent the intent of Scripture. They will continue to “twist” (2 Peter 3:16) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2). They will exert pressure on everyone else to “back off,” “lighten up,” and embrace a more tolerant understanding of ethical conduct. But the “honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15) will “take heed how [he/she] hears” (vs.18). The good heart is the one who “reads...hears...and keeps those things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3, emp. added). After all, no matter how negative they may appear to humans, no matter how difficult they may be to obey, they are given “for our good.”
The Bible simply does not countenance situation ethics. Jesus always admonished people to “keep the commandments” (e.g., Matthew 19:17). He kept God’s commands Himself—perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26). And He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Barna, George (2003), “Morality Continues to Decay,” [On-line], URL: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?Press ReleaseID=152&Reference=F.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1955), Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (London: SCM Press).
Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Chesser, Frank (2001), The Spirit of Liberalism (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs).
Cox, Harvey (1965), The Secular City (New York: MacMillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Fletcher, Joseph (1966), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hook, Cecil (1984), Free in Christ (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author).
Hook, Cecil (1990), Free to Change (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author).
Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932), Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s).
Ridenour, Fritz (1969), The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books).
Robinson, John A.T. (1963), Honest to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. (1986), The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).