What Does the Bible Say about Having a Sex Change? by Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5351

What Does the Bible Say about Having a Sex Change?

by	Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

A Brief Introduction to Transgenderism

In April 2015, Bruce Jenner, the gold medal men’s decathlon winner at the 1976 Montreal Olympic games, participated in a nationally televised interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer in which he explained that he had struggled with his gender identity since childhood. In his words, “My brain is much more female than it is male. It’s hard for people to understand that, but that’s what my soul is.... That female side is part of me. That’s who I am.”¹ A few months later, in July 2015, Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine dressed as a woman and announcing that he had changed his name to Caitlyn.² In the same month, he received ESPN’s prestigious Arthur Ashe Award for Courage, largely because of his very public “transition” from Bruce to Caitlyn.³ In December 2015, he was featured once again, this time in an extensive article in TIME Magazine.⁴
People like Jenner suffer from “gender identity disorder,” or “gender dysphoria,” and are referred to as “transgender.” Transgender people are biologically members of one gender but identify in their minds with the other. While Jenner is probably the most famous transgender person in the world, he certainly is not alone. For instance, Chastity Bono,the only child of Cher and Sonny Bono, explained in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that she felt that her body was betraying her and discussed her transition from female to male in the 2011 film, Becoming Chaz.⁵ According to a June 2016 report from the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law dedicated to research on sexual orientation law and public policy, approximately 0.6% of adults in the United States, or 1.4 million individuals, identify as transgender.⁶

A Brief Introduction to Sex Change Operations

A percentage of transgender individuals, including some youths, undergo sex change operations, or “gender reassignment surgeries,” each year.⁷ Generally, before undergoing surgery to alter the genitalia and other body parts, people must be diagnosed with gender identity disorder, procure a letter of recommendation from a therapist, begin hormone therapy, and live publicly as a member of the opposite sex for up to one year.⁸ Women desiring to live as men often have mastectomies and hysterectomies. Men transitioning to live as women can have procedures to alter the appearance of their eyes, noses, chins, and Adam’s apples, and to remove their male sexual parts. The full panoply of surgical procedures can cost well over $100,000.⁹
Efforts to provide legal and social support to transgender individuals have been underway for quite some time, but those efforts have recently erupted into the public consciousness in sometimes shocking fashion.¹⁰ For instance, the phenomenon of people claiming that their true gender is inconsistent with their physical anatomy has progressed so that there has been much public and political debate about which public bathrooms males and females should be able to use.¹¹ In April 2016, Target Corporation, the retail giant, issued a statement welcoming “transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”¹² In May 2016, the federal government threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools declining to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity rather than the gender listed on their birth certificates.¹³ These issues have been matriculating through the courts of law for several years now, and many have been alarmed and saddened by the aggressive advances of those presently seeking to legitimize transgenderism.¹⁴

CONSIDERING THE SCRIPTURES

While the Bible has much to say about human sexuality, it comes as no surprise that it does not specifically address the idea of having a sex change operation or gender reassignment surgery. The technology obviously did not exist in Bible times, and there is no reason to suspect that Bible writers would ever have contemplated a “sex change.” However, the Bible’s provision of “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, ESV) includes principles that bear directly on matters relating to transgenderism.

What the Scriptures Teach about Determining Gender

As an initial matter, “[t]he hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁵ However, in light of recent efforts to define gender as a psychological construct, that is, the consequence of what one thinks or feels, one must consider the way gender is depicted in Scripture; it is consistently presented as a consequence of nature. God created Adam as a male, and He created Eve as a female (Genesis 5:1-2; Matthew 19:4). They were physically complementary beings capable of producing offspring together (Genesis 1:28), and their offspring were distinctly male or female as they were (Genesis 5:3-4). On the one hand, males had an anatomical design that included the ability to produce “seed” while  impregnating females (Genesis 38:9). On the other, females had an anatomical design consistent with bearing and nursing children (see, for example, Genesis 4:1-2,17,25; 3:16, 20; 21:7; 1 Samuel 1:23). So, then, since the beginning, each human being has been “fearfully and wonderfully made” in the image of God as either a male or a female (Psalm 139:14-16; Genesis 1:26-27; Isaiah 44:2,24).¹⁶
Notice that the determination of one’s gender did not depend on his or her individual thoughts or preferences. The classification was readily made at birth based on physical anatomy.  A Hebrew “man child” was to be circumcised on the eighth day following his birth (Genesis 17:12-14; Leviticus 12:3). Moreover, under the Law of Moses, a woman who birthed a male child was ceremonially unclean for seven days (Leviticus 12:1-2), but a woman who birthed a female child was ceremonially unclean for two weeks (Leviticus 12:5). The Bible clearly depicts ancient people, at God’s direction, making determinations regarding gender at the time children were born based on their anatomy, and proper classification depended exclusively on one’s physical characteristics at birth. The appropriate social roles and psychological constructs, then, flowed from a person’s anatomical design.

What the Scriptures Teach about Transvestism

Following diagnosis that a person has a gender identity disorder, i.e., that he or she identifies psychologically with the opposite gender, a transgender person desiring to undergo a sex change operation typically has to live publically as a member of the opposite sex. This would include efforts like cross-dressing or transvestism, i.e., dressing in a manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. While public sentiment regarding such behavior has changed rapidly in recent years, the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) classified transvestism as a “sexual deviation,”¹⁷ and it used to be commonly understood to be a psychological disorder that required intervention.¹⁸
The “sexual deviation” designation concurred with God’s Word. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:13-14 teaches that the natural differences in gender in a culture ought to be maintained. Also, in Deuteronomy 22:5, the Bible says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” The Hebrew word translated “abomination” refers to something disgusting and repugnant, whether ritually or ethically.¹⁹ These verses clearly preclude a woman from changing her appearance to look like a man or a man from altering his appearance to present himself as a woman, and they describe Jehovah’s feelings about men and women wearing clothing properly associated with the opposite gender.

What the Scriptures Teach about Elective Mutilation

As noted above, “transitioning” sometimes involves drugs and/or operations to alter one’s physical appearance so that one looks more like a member of the opposite gender.  In the Old Testament, self-mutilation is associated with idol worship (1 Kings 18:24-29) and mourning among those who did not know Jehovah (Deuteronomy 14:1-2). The Lord specifically prohibited His people from engaging in such cuttings of the flesh (Leviticus 19:28). In the New Testament, a demon-possessed man engaged in self-mutilation before he was healed by Jesus (Mark 5:2-5). Clearly then, the Scriptures depict self-mutilation as an indicator of underlying spiritual and psychological disturbances, and certain studies seem to confirm this observation.²⁰ For instance, a 2011 study of 324 Swedish transsexuals by the Karolinska Institute noted that “[p]ersons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”²¹
While amputations were sometimes prescribed as punishment (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or inflicted during times of war in Bible times (Ezekiel 23:25), there are no instances of God approving elective amputations in Scripture. Moreover, the New Testament teaches that Christians’ bodies belong to God and must be used to glorify Him (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). There simply is no authority for elective mutilation without His direction or approval.

Concluding Observations

It is not surprising that the Bible does not speak specifically about having a sex change or gender reassignment surgery. Predictably, though, it does address each stage in the progression toward such procedures. First, according to the Scriptures, gender is determined by physiology rather than psychology. Second, attempts to present oneself as a member of the opposite gender are unnatural and condemnable. Third, elective mutilations of the body are indicative of an unhealthy mind that does not recognize and accept God’s ownership of the human body. In short, while the Bible never mentions the phrase “sex change operation,” it denounces every step along the way to such procedures, up to and including the procedures themselves.
A right-thinking person, one free from spiritual and psychological encumbrances, would nourish and cherish his or her body, rather than hate it enough to intentionally disfigure it (Ephesians 5:29). Hence, it is illogical and self-contradictory to recognize gender identity disorder as a mental disorder where the mind does not embrace the reality of one’s physical gender and then proceed to alter the healthy body to conform with the troubled mind.²² Those suffering from gender dysphoria need to change their minds rather than their bodies. Consequently, transsexuals, like everyone else, desperately need Jesus and the Gospel. There is forgiveness and healing in Christ, of course, but, like everyone else, they must submit to His lordship and repent if they want to be saved from the eternal consequences of their sins.

EndnotES

¹ “Bruce Jenner: The Interview,” (2015), ABC News, April 24, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/fullpage/bruce-jenner-the-interview-30471558.
² Buzz Bissinger (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner Talks About Her Mother’s Reaction and Transgender Fans,” Vanity Fair, June 2, http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-photos-interview-buzz-bissinger.
³ “Caitlyn Jenner to Receive Ashe Award” (2015), ESPN , June 2, http://www.espn.com/espys/2015/story/_/id/12992941/caitlyn-jenner-receive-arthur-ashe-courage-award.
⁴ Katy Steinmetz (2015), “Caitlyn Jenner,” TIME Magazine, 186[25/26]:144-150.
⁵ Sheila Marikar (2015), “Chaz Bono Talks ‘Becoming Chaz,’ Cher on ‘Oprah,’” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/chaz-bono-tells-oprah-cher-chaz/story?id=1356 1517; Jeremy Kinser (2011), “Because Chaz Bono is a Fortunate Son,” Advocate, 1050:24-31.
⁶ Andrew R. Flores, Jody L. Herman, Gary J. Gates, and Taylor N. T. Brown (2016), “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United-States,” The Williams Institute, p. 3, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-as-Transgender-in-the-United-States.pdf.
⁷ Erika Napoletano (2016), “Young and Transgender: Supporting Youth to be Their True Selves,” Chicago Health, http://chicagohealthonline.com/young-and-transgender/; “Sex-Change Treatment for Kids on the Rise” (2012), CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/.
⁸ Bethany Gibson and Anita J. Catlin (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part I,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[1]:53-59; Bethany Gibson (2010), “Care of the Child with the Desire to Change Gender—Part II: Female-to-Male Transition,” Pediatric Nursing, 36[2]:112-117; Bernd Meyenburg (1999), “Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescence: Outcomes of Psychotherapy,”Adolescence, 34[134]:305-313.
⁹ Mary Sobralske (2005), “Primary Care Needs of Patients Who Have Undergone Gender Reassignment,” Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17[4]:133-138; Alyssa Jackson (2015), “The High Cost of Being Transgender,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/ 07/31/health/transgender-costs-irpt/.
¹⁰ Kevin D. Williamson (2016), “The Transgender Culture War,” National Review, 68[10]:30-32.
¹¹ Michael Scherer, et al. (2016), “Battle of the Bathroom,” TIME Magazine, 187[20]:30-37.
¹² “Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity” (2016), Target Corporation, https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/04/target-stands-inclusivity.
¹³ Evie Blad (2016), “Feds to Schools: Don’t Restrict Transgender Access,” Education Week, 35[31]:1-14.
¹⁴ Charlotte Alter (2016), “Hundreds of Thousands Boycott Target Over Trans-Inclusive Bathroom Policy,” TIME.com, p. 1; Eva Marie-Ayala (2016), “Transgender Policy Altered After Uproar in Fort Worth Schools,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2016/07/20/transgender-policy-altered-uproar-fort-worth-schools; Karen Workman (2015), “Missouri Teenagers Protest a Transgender Student’s Use of the Girls’ Bathroom,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/teenagers-protest-a-transgender-students-use-of-the-girls-bathroom.html?_r=0.
¹⁵ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:8, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016.
¹⁶ A discussion of hermaphroditism is beyond the purview of this article. Cf. Elizabeth Mitchell  (2009), “Feedback: Hermaphroditism,” Answers in Genesis, December 3, https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/feedback-
hermaphroditism/.
¹⁷ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-2 (1968) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association).
¹⁸ Luk Gijs and Anne Brewaeys (2007), “Surgical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adults and Adolescents: Recent Developments, Effectiveness, and Challenges,” Annual Review of Sex Research, 18[1]:182-183; Paul McHugh (2004), “Surgical Sex,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 147:34-38; Stephen I. Abramowitz (1986), “Psychosocial Outcomes of Sex Reassignment Surgery,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54[2]:183; John E. Bates, et al. (1975), “Intervention With Families of Gender-Disturbed Boys,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45[1]:150-157.
¹⁹ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. (2008),  A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), pp. 1072-1073.
²⁰ Mayer and McHugh, p. 9; Masahiko Hoshiai, et al. (2010), “Psychiatric Comorbidity Among Patients With Gender Identity Disorder,” Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 64[5]:514-519; Annelou L.C. de Vries, et al. (2010), “Autism Spectrum Disorders in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 40[8]:930-936; Azadeh Mazaheri Meybodi, Ahmad Hajebi, and Atefeh Ghanbari Jolfaei (2014), “The Frequency of Personality Disorders in Patients with Gender Identity Disorder,” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 28:1-6.
²¹ Cecilia Dhejne, Paul Lichtenstein, Marcus Boman, et al. (2011), “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” PLoS ONE, 6[2]:1-8.
²² Colin A. Ross (2009), “Ethics of Gender Identity Disorder,” Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 11[3]:166.

More Conflicting Evidence from Evolutionary Dating Techniques by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4136

More Conflicting Evidence from Evolutionary Dating Techniques

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The discovery of carbonaceous materials in extremely old rocks (as dated by evolutionary methods) has been used as evidence that Earth’s “early” atmosphere contained organic materials (i.e., microbes) billions of years ago. However, recent research using cutting edge technology casts significant doubt on that interpretation and adds further weight to the danger inherent in the assumptions that characterize evolutionary dating techniques.
Rocks from the Nuvvuagittuq Supracrustal Belt in Quebec, Canada are considered among the Earth’s oldest (Gronstal, 2011), and yet they contain carbon-based materials which are a result of the decay of living organisms. Recently, researchers from Carnegie Institution of Washington, Boston College, and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. discovered that the carbon-based materials in those rocks are actually younger than the rocks in which they reside, according to evolutionary dating techniques (Papineau, et al., 2011). The researchers concluded that carbon must have seeped into the rocks later in history, instead of already being in the rocks when they first formed.
This research has significant implications. First, while the creation model predicts the rapid formation of many rocks through cataclysmic events (e.g., Creation and the Flood), some of which will, and some of which will not, have carboniferous materials present at their formation, the evolutionary model predicts long periods of time with slow, gradual change leading to the formation of rocks. Thus, if there ever were a period of millions or billions of years with only microbial life in the atmosphere, there should be an immense amount of such evidence in the fossil record. Evolutionists believed they had found such evidence with these rocks in Canada. However, this latest research nullifies that theory, and adds further weight to the fact that Earth’s atmospheric conditions have never been conducive to the spontaneous formation of life or its evolution.
Second, macroevolution is false, and the Earth is relatively young. However, evolutionists believe that long ages of time would allow for the gradual evolution of simple organisms into complex organisms, and evolutionary theory is based on that assertion. This research indicates, based on the evolutionists’ own model and erroneous dating techniques, that there is much less time available for the evolution of life from single-celled entities into complex life as we know it today; since life allegedly was not already in existence at the time of the formation of these rocks.
Finally, this research indicates that once again, uniformitarianism, a central tenet of evolutionary dating techniques, is unreliable and even unscientific—it simply does not follow from the empirical evidence. One of the foundational assumptions of uniformitarian geology and dating rocks is that the parent and daughter isotopes in a rock have not been altered by anything except radioactive decay. The fluidic transport of daughter elements into an existing rock would violate that assumption and cause significant error in the dating of that rock. The potential of daughter elements being carried into rocks by fluid transport over time is high, and that potential gets higher the older a rock is. If such fluidic transport happens regularly in the geologic column—and we have every reason to believe it does—evolutionary dating techniques will regularly yield ages of rocks that are inaccurate by millions and billions of years.
Of course, another interpretation of the evidence—one which evolutionary scientists would summarily dismiss without investigation—is that evolutionary dating techniques are inaccurate and regularly contradict one another. It is possible that the formation of the rocks and the carbon materials within them happened at the same time in a cataclysmic event that caused accelerated decay rates and the rapid formation of those rocks and their subsequent appearance of age. Evolutionary dating techniques simply cannot account for such a scenario because of the unobservable assumptions inherent in those techniques. Regardless, once again, it is the Creation model that is in keeping with the scientific evidence and needs no adjustment to be in line with empirical science. The evolutionary model simply does not pass the test. [NOTE: For an in depth study of evolutionary dating techniques and their erroneous assumptions, see DeYoung, 2005.]

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Gronstal, Aaron (2011), “New Evidence Challenges Oldest Signs of Life,” NASA: Astrobiology, May 25, http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/new-evidence-challenges-oldest-signs-of-life/.
Papineau, D., et al. (2011), “Young Poorly Crystalline Graphite in the > 3.8-Gyr-Old Nuvvuagittuq Banded Iron Formation,” Nature Geoscience, 4:376-379.

Was Jesus Married?—Again by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5070

Was Jesus Married?—Again

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

I teach senior Bible at a Christian high school in northwest Alabama. Recently while teaching, I looked down and saw that one of the students was wearing a pair of Chuck Taylor Allstar shoes made by Converse. I found this interesting, because when I was 12, those same shoes were all the rage. It just so happens, as I understand it, styles often have about a 20-year cycle, so that what was in style 20 years ago is back in. Turns out, false theories about Jesus and other Bible characters seem to have a similar cycle. Let me explain.
On November 12, 2014 the Associated Press published an article titled “Married Jesus? New Book Adds Fuel to Conspiracies” (2014). This article discussed a new book written by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson titled The Lost Gospel. Supposedly, they have “unearthed” new evidence that would show Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and possibly had children. The problem with this bold “new” claim is two-fold. First, it is historically wrong. Second, it is not in any way “new.”
The documents of the New Testament are the most historically accurate, most widely attested books from the first century. They give no hint that Jesus was married. In fact, even the document that was written much later than the New Testament books that Jacobovici is using to build his case, according to him, has to be “decoded” in order for a person to find the “secret” message that Jesus was married. But the text, according to Bible professor Greg Carey, contains a story that “was already well known to Bible scholars and ‘doesn’t require any decoding’” (“Married Jesus?...,” 2014). It is interesting that Dan Brown floated this “married Jesus” idea in his book The Da Vinci Code back in 2003, which contained similar fallacious allegations (Lyons, 2007).
Turns out, Jacobovici is rather well-known for his outlandish claims about Jesus. The Associated Press author noted that he has “a record of headline-grabbing but contested claims” (“Married Jesus?....,” 2014). The phrase “contested claims” is a rather subtle way of saying that his wild claims cannot stand up to any type of critical, historical analysis. One of these claims was Jacobovici’s declaration that he had found the family tomb of Jesus. Needless to say, neither the evidence, nor biblical, historical scholarship backed up this claim. [For a thorough refutation of the alleged tomb of Jesus, see Bryant, 2007.]
Two years ago, Apologetics Press’ Executive Director wrote an article answering the idea of Jesus being married (Miller, 2012). Seven years ago, Eric Lyons dealt with Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene. Now, in 2014, we have seen the “cycle” of rumor come back around to surface the idea of Jesus being married. How many times must a false idea be proven to be false before it finally dies out? Who knows, but as long as it keeps popping up, like one of those crazy-eyed, plastic moles in the game of Whack-a-Mole, the mallet of truth will just have to keep beating it back down.

References

Bryant, Dewayne, (2007), “Discovering the Truth about ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus,’” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=2130.

Lyons, Eric (2007), “The Real Mary Magdalene,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=1803.

“Married Jesus? New Book Adds Fuel to Conspiracies” (2014), Associated Press, http://www.newspressnow.com/news/science/article_2f2b3bec-3ab5-5e80-b5cc-866d5a5c11c4.html.

Miller, Dave (2012), “Was Jesus Married?”, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4519&topic=71.

Questioning Quotation Marks by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2550

Questioning Quotation Marks

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Quotation marks in written texts are often very beneficial to the reader. They help the reader know exactly when a person is speaking. They also help the reader understand exactly what the person has said. Did the husband merely say that he appreciated his wife, or did he tell his wife: “I love you more than life itself”? Did Patrick Henry merely ask for freedom, or did he cry, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Did Abraham Lincoln state, “About 90 years ago, our pappies started a country,” or did he actually say, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation”? Quotation marks help the reader to know the difference between an actual quote and a paraphrase of what was said.
Whereas writers in modern times are accustomed to using quotation marks for direct quotes, students of the Bible must remember, “ancient writers did not use the same literary devices employed today. Quotation marks, colons, ellipsis marks, brackets, etc., were unknown to them” (Jackson, 1988, emp. added). It is very important for Bible students to keep in mind that the inspired writers of Scripture and the amanuenses who copied their works, did not use quotation marks to identify what various individuals said. As with all writers of antiquity, quotation marks were foreign to the Bible writers. The thousands of quotation marks in many modern translations were added by translators in hopes of helping the Bible student have an easier time understanding the text. Unfortunately, quotation marks can be a hindrance if the Bible student does not first understand that the inspired writers often did not intend for their statements to be precise quotations, but rather summaries of inspired truths.
Sometimes it is quite obvious that quotation marks are out of place. For example, the inspired writer of 1 Kings 14 recorded how God informed the prophet Ahijah that King Jeroboam’s wife was coming to pay him a visit. The penmen then wrote: “Thus and thus you shall say to her” (14:5). In several versions that utilize quotation marks (e.g., NKJV, NASB, RSV, etc.) you may be left with the impression that what God told Ahijah was literally, “thus and thus….” In actuality, “thus and thus” was merely the inspired writer’s way of saying that God spoke some things to Ahijah—the things that Ahijah then specifically relayed to Jeroboam’s wife in verses 6-16. God did not literally reveal “thus and thus” to Ahijah. He revealed to him some very specific words that the phrase “thus and thus” summarizes.
The same terminology was used in 2 Kings when, after an Israelite servant informed Naaman’s wife that Elisha could heal Naaman of his leprosy, Naaman told the King of Syria, “Thus and thus said the girl who is from the land of Israel” (2 Kings 5:4, emp. added). Naaman obviously did not approach the King of Syria and literally say, “thus and thus.” Rather than repeat what the girl said to Naaman’s wife, the inspired penman of 2 Kings summarized Naaman’s statement to the king with the words “thus and thus.” Yet, because these words appear within quotations marks in certain modern translations, some might misinterpret the encounter. These two examples from 1 and 2 Kings are elementary, but they clearly demonstrate how Bible students in the 21^st century must be careful when interpreting “quotations” from 1,900+ years ago.

QUOTATIONS OF JESUS

Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palin gegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?
First, it is possible that some differences throughout the gospel accounts are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.
A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ quotations of Jesus is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may paraphrase a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words. Similar to how two different but honest, intelligent newspaper reporters can give accurate accounts of the same event, all the while using different terminology, styles, etc., God’s inspired penmen could give accurate accounts of what Jesus communicated to mankind, especially considering “they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, emp. added).

CONCLUSION

Throughout the Bible, one can find accurate statements that Jesus and others made, but not necessarily the exact quotations (despite the fact that modern translators and publishers often offset the sayings of Jesus and others with quotation marks). Keep in mind, however, that inspired summaries of what someone said do not take away from the accuracy of the God-given Scriptures, nor a person’s ability to apply those Scriptures to one’s life.

REFERENCE

Jackson, Wayne (1988), “Principles of Bible Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 8[7]:27-30, July.

Why is Good Good? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3601

Why is Good Good?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In the Nuremburg Trials, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war criminals appealed to a law higher than “the provincial and transient” to ground his prosecution (The Trial of..., 1946, 19:383, July 26). Those of us at Apologetics Press have cited this case as an example of the need for human acknowledgment of universal morality in order to make objective judgments (e.g., Miller, 2008). And, if we appeal to a universal moral law, then this law must have as its source the universal Law Giver, the Creator (see Jackson, 1995). This is a brief way of stating the moral argument for the existence of God.
One objection to this moral argument has been summarized and adapted from a 2,400-year-old debate concerning the following question: “Why is good good?” In questioning the foolish young man Euthyphro, Plato’s Socrates tries to determine the definition of “pious” or “impious” (Plato, 1997, p. 4). Socrates offers two possibilities, but rejects them both: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (p. 9). The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is extensive, but the general results are these: (1) Euthyphro cannot define “pious” as “that which is loved by the Greek gods,” for the gods are said to disagree with one another on occasion—a thing cannot be both pious and impious (see p. 4). And, (2) after numerous attempts, Euthyphro cannot say what quality the pious things have, if “pious” means something other than “loved by the gods” (pp. 11ff.).
The Euthyphro dialogue has been adapted by later philosophers in the debate concerning the very existence of God, and this adaptation has been codified in philosophical literature as the “Euthyphro Dilemma” (e.g., Benn, 1998, pp. 47ff.). For example:

There is the further question, which has often been debated, but was raised originally by Plato, in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Should we follow God’s laws just because they are His or rather, because His laws are good? If the latter, then we have to decide what is good in order to know that God is good. If the former, then one has to decide whether or not to believe in God precisely on the basis of whether we can accept those laws. Either way, we have to decide for ourselves what laws of morality we are willing to accept (Solomon, 2008, p. 460).

Perhaps a clearer way of phrasing the dilemma is this: Is good good because it is good, or because God says it is good? If good is good independent of God (and He merely identifies it), then God does not hold the high position which theists have ascribed to Him. On the other hand, if good is good because God says it is, then there is the possibility that God has commanded something that is actually wrong (we are being deceived) and He is merely arbitrary in His ethical requirements: He could just as easily say that lying is good as He could say it is bad. The dilemma is meant to show that objective morality does not exist, because morality is actually grounded exclusively in each moral agent’s subjectivity (and in whatever consensus develops between agents). Any explanation of morality that involves a divine standard is either contradictory or explains itself in terms of itself (i.e., it is circular). This position corresponds with an atheistic position, as it does away with the need for a divine Law Giver.
What response to the Euthyphro dilemma is available for the Christian apologist to use? Consider the following three principles:
1. There Is A Universal Moral Law. In his book, Mere Christianity (2001, pp. 1-8), C.S. Lewis argues for the existence of a universal moral law (and a corresponding Law Giver) in the following way (summarized by Geisler, 1999):

1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do. 2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are). 3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good. 4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver (p. 500, parenthetical items in orig.).

The conclusion that a universal moral system exists causes us to cast suspicion upon any dilemma that purports to disprove the very possibility of such a system. The Euthyphro dilemma falls into this category. Furthermore, the Euthyphro dilemma proves inapplicable when applied to the God of the Bible.
2. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false one. For the purposes of answering current critics of Christianity, the Christian apologist need not evaluate the dilemma in terms of the Greek gods, but in terms of the one, true God (i.e., the God of the Bible). The Bible teaches that God certainly is good (e.g., Genesis 1:13; 59:20; Deuteronomy 6:24; Psalm 89:14; etc.). God’s essence is to exist as He is (Exodus 3:14). God cannot exist apart from all of His attributes, including goodness. If He existed and lacked any of His attributes, then He would not be the God to Whom we refer when we speak of the biblical God. Therefore, God is good, but not in virtue of a standard of goodness that exists separate from Him. As further evidence for this, consider that there are possible acts which God refuses to do because such acts do not accord with His moral nature. For example, God cannot lie (see Miller, 2009; Colley, 2004).
Because God is infinite, goodness is measured in relation to Him. Jesus illustrated this in His parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15). In the story, only the landowner (representing God) was in a position to determine what was “good” (20:15). Humans, as created beings, are not in a position to argue with God concerning His rightness or wrongness (see Job 29-31; 38-40). The Euthyphro dilemma presumes that we do exactly that, despite the fact that we are incapable of it (Jeremiah 10:23).
Therefore, there is no dilemma as alleged by some who appeal to Plato’s Euthyphro (see Warren and Flew, 1977, pp. 26-28,32). Yet, some maintain that God’s moral principles are unreasonable or that He is contradictory (see Butt, 2009b), and we must therefore reject the biblical God in favor of atheism or another notion of divinity. We now turn to this allegation.
3. While God’s moral principles do not owe their existence to human rationality, they nonetheless appeal to human rationality. Indeed, if it could be shown that God’s rules run counter to human rationality, then it would appear that His principles are deficient to ground human morality, and that we were not made in His image. However, there is not a single biblical principle of morality that can be, when interpreted properly, shown to be in conflict with the best interests of humanity.
The creationist model would anticipate such a perfect correlation between human needs and the provisions of biblical morality, inasmuch as God was motivated by His own character to create the human race in a way that is “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and placed requirements upon humanity that are suitable for the fulfillment of human needs. To demonstrate the truthfulness of this statement would require further studies (e.g. Butt, 2009a; Colley, 2010a; Colley, 2010b). Consider the words of the psalmist:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea than much fine gold; sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward (19:7-11; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8).

The suitability of God’s laws to man’s needs diffuses the motivation for the Euthyprho dilemma, as the facts about God diffuse the logic of the dilemma.
Therefore, our answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows: Good is defined by God’s goodness, which is inseparable from His nature. His standard of goodness applies to all mankind by virtue of creation.

REFERENCES

Benn, Piers (1998), Ethics (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s Press).
Butt, Kyle (2009a), “Biblical Ideas Concerning Killing and Murder are Not Contradictory,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240253.
Butt, Kyle (2009b), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240272.
Colley, Caleb (2004), “God Cannot Lie,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561.
Colley, Caleb (2010a), “In Defense of the Golden Rule,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240331.
Colley, Caleb (2010b), “Defending the Biblical Position Against Lying,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240320.
Geisler, Norman L. (1999), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jackson, Wayne (1995), “The Case for the Existence of God [Part III],” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=362.
Lewis, C. S. (2001), Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins), revised edition.
Miller, Dave (2008), “A Higher Law,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240092.
Miller, Dave (2009), “Things God Cannot Do,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2292.
Plato (1997), Euthyphro, trans. G.M.A. Grube, in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
Solomon, Robert C. (2008), Introducing Philosophy (New York: Oxford University), ninth edition.
The Trial of German Major War Criminals (1946), 187th Day: Friday, 26th July, 1946, (Vol. 19, Part 1 of 12), (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office), [On-line], URL: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-187-01.shtml.
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate On the Existence of God (Moore, OK: National Christian Press).

Believing What Jesus Believed by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1223

Believing What Jesus Believed

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It has become increasingly popular to accept certain parts of the Bible and to reject other parts. Such amazing events as the miracle of Creation, Jonah’s being swallowed by a sea creature, and the Flood of Noah often are brushed aside as mere myth, while more “credible” things such as the teachings of Jesus are accepted as fact. Although this line of reasoning might have some initial appeal to our “enlightened” society that rejects biblical miracles off hand, it contains a major flaw. When the teachings of Jesus are analyzed, it can be shown that Jesus Himself believed and taught the Old Testament stories that some label as myth.
For instance, the story of Jonah has come under attack due to its extraordinary details. According to the Old Testament Scriptures, God’s prophet Jonah disobeyed the Lord and was swallowed by a great sea creature. For three days, he dwelt as a damp denizen of that creature’s belly, until finally he was vomited onto the land and given another chance to obey God. To certain scholars, the story of Jonah finds a place in the Scriptures, not as a factual narrative of a specific historical account, but as a myth or allegory. What did Jesus believe about the story of Jonah? His sentiments in this regard were emphatically stated.

Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here (Matthew 12:38-41).

Quite clearly, Jesus accepted the story of Jonah as an accurate description of a real, historical event. He included not only the fact that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the fish, but also affirmed that the city of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. If the story of Jonah were simply an allegory or myth, Jesus’ entire point about being in the belly of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the fish would be weakened to the point of ridiculousness. For, if Jonah wasn’t ever really in the belly of the fish, then what would that say about the Son of Man actually being in the belly of the Earth?
Another story endorsed by Christ is the formation of man and woman at the beginning of Creation. Some scholars, in an attempt to find a compromise between the Bible and organic evolution, have postulated that the Creation account of Genesis need not be taken literally, and that room can be found in Genesis to accommodate the idea that humans evolved gradually in Earth’s recent past. What did Jesus say about this idea?
During His earthly sojourn, Christ spoke explicitly regarding Creation. In Mark 10:6, for example, He declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” Note these three paramount truths: (1) The first couple was “made”; they were not biological accidents. Interestingly, the verb “made” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, implying point action, rather than progressive development (which would be characteristic of evolutionary activity). W.E. Vine made this very observation with reference to the composition of the human body in his comments on 1 Corinthians 12:18 (1951, p. 173). (2) The original pair was fashioned “male and female”; they were not initially an asexual “blob” that eventually experienced sexual diversion. (3) Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning of the creation.” The Greek word for “beginning” is arché, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The Greek word for “creation” is ktiseos, and denotes the “sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.). Christ certainly did not subscribe to the notion that the Earth is millions or billions of years older than humanity.
Accepting the testimony of Jesus Christ further demands that the global Flood of Noah be taken as a literal, historic event. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:

And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).

The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. John Whitcomb correctly noted that the word “all” must refer to the totality of people on the entire Earth in Noah’s day, and in Sodom during Lot’s time. Jesus’ argument would be weakened considerably if some of the people on the Earth, besides Noah’s family, escaped the Flood, or if certain Sodomites survived the fiery destruction sent from Heaven (1973, pp. 21-22). It is evident from the text that Jesus affirmed that the same number of ungodly sinners who escaped the Flood will be the same number of disobedient people who escape destruction at His Second Coming—none. From His remarks, one can clearly see that Jesus accepted the Genesis account of a global flood as a historical fact.
The sayings of Jesus contain numerous references to some of the Old Testament’s most extraordinary events. A person cannot consistently maintain a belief in Jesus and His teachings, while denying the details of the accounts that He endorsed as factual. The testimony of Jesus and the factual accuracy of the stories He commended stand together.

REFERENCES

Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (London: T & T Clark).
Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

"THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS" Not Ashamed Of The Gospel (1:14-17) by Mark Copeland

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                  Not Ashamed Of The Gospel (1:14-17)

INTRODUCTION

1. As Paul began his grand epistle to the Romans, he wrote of his desire to see them...
   a. His diligent prayers toward that end - Ro 1:9-10
   b. His desire to encourage them through mutual edification - Ro 1:11-12
   c. His plans to come, that he might have some fruit among them - Ro 1:13

2. His desire to see them was related to the gospel...
   a. Which he served as an apostle of Christ - Ro 1:1
   b. The good news concerning Jesus - Ro 1:3
   c. Of which he was not ashamed - Ro 1:16

3. Are we ever ashamed of the gospel of Christ...?
   a. Embarrassed to tell others about Jesus?
   b. Could this be a reason why many are not active in personal evangelism?

[Perhaps by examining how and why Paul was not ashamed of the gospel, we
might be more diligent in our efforts to share the good news of Jesus Christ...]

I. PAUL WAS NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. HOW HE WAS NOT ASHAMED...
      1. He felt obligated to preach the gospel to everyone
         a. To Greeks and barbarians (non-Greeks), to wise and unwise - Ro 1:14
         b. His obligation due partly to favor God had shown him 

              - 1Co 15:9-10; 1Ti 1:12-14
      2. He was ready to preach the gospel in Rome
         a. Whatever opportunity was given him, he would take it! - Ro1:15
         b. Even though his preference was to preach where Jesus had not
            been proclaimed before - Ro 15:20
      -- Paul showed that he was not ashamed by his willingness and
         preparedness to preach the gospel anytime and anywhere!

   B. WHY HE WAS NOT ASHAMED...
      1. It is the power of God to salvation
         a. For everyone who believes, both Jew and Greek (Gentiles)- Ro 1:16
         b. For it tells of Christ, the power of God and wisdom of God- 1Co 1:23-24
      2. It reveals the righteousness of God in salvation
         a. How the just shall live by faith - Ro 1:17
         b. How God is both just and the justifier of those who believe
            in Jesus - Ro 3:21-26
      -- Because of its power and message, Paul was not ashamed to
         preach the gospel to anyone willing to listen!

[From Paul, then, we should note several reasons why...]

II. WE SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. THE GOSPEL REMAINS THE SAME...
      1. It is still God's power to save
         a. The power to produce faith in the hearts of those who hear
            it - Ro 10:17
         b. The power to produce fruit in those who hear and know the
            truth - Col 1:5-6
      2. It still reveals God's righteousness in salvation
         a. How Jesus died for our sins - 1Co 15:1-4
         b. How we can receive remission of our sins in Jesus through
            faith, repentance, and baptism - Ac 2:36-38; 22:16
      -- The passing of time has not weakened the power and message of
         the gospel of Christ!

   B. THE NEED REMAINS THE SAME...
      1. Souls are in need of salvation
         a. All have sinned - Ro 3:23
         b. The wages of sin is death - Ro 6:23
      2. Both wise and foolish, both near and afar
         a. Jesus is still the only way to the Father - Jn 14:6
         b. His gospel still needs to be preached to every creature - Mk 16:15-16
      -- The passing of time has not lessened the need and scope of the
         gospel of Christ!

[From the example of Paul, we can know the proper attitude and conduct of..]

III. THOSE NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL

   A. WILL FEEL A SENSE OF OBLIGATION...
      1. To God who saved them
         a. Are we not thankful for what God has done for us?
         b. Will this not affect how we live our lives? - cf. Ga 2:20
      2. To those who are lost
         a. Are we not concerned about their eternal destiny should they
            die in their sins?
         b. Will this not move us to do something? - cf. 2Co 5:11
      -- Those not ashamed of the gospel will feel an obligation similar
         to Paul's - Ro 1:14

   B. WILL MAKE THEMSELVES READY...
      1. To share the gospel as they have opportunity
         a. If uncertain what to say, they will learn it (even relearn
            it) - cf. 1Pe 3:15; He 5:12
         b. They will not rest until they have found some method, aids,
            or tools, whereby they can communicate the gospel to others
         c. Then they will be looking for "open doors" to teach others- cf. 1Co 3:5
      2. To spread the gospel as they have opportunity
         a. They may not be in a position to go, but they can still send
            - cf. Ro 10:14-15; 3Jn 5-8
         b. They may not be in a position to teach, but they can still
            invite - e.g., Ac 10:24,33
         c. Then they will be looking for "open doors" to send - e.g., Php 4:15-16
      -- Those not ashamed of the gospel will make themselves ready like
         Paul - Ro 1:15

CONCLUSION

1. Are you ashamed of the gospel of Christ?  You may be, if you are not...
   a. Doing anything to share the gospel yourself
   b. Involved in helping others to spread the gospel

2. You have no reason to be ashamed, it is still the same gospel!
   a. With power to save the souls of men
   b. Revealing the wonderful righteousness of God to save men

May we never be ashamed of the gospel, or of Jesus Himself...

   "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and
   sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when
   He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38)

   "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but
   let him glorify God in this matter." (1Pe 4:16)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Change by Gary Rose

Ever say to yourself?: Change, I don't need to change, I'm fine the way I am!!! Really? Ask a few people who will be honest with you and you will probably hear some answers that will surprise and perhaps even offend you.

Moral behavior, lifestyle changes and attitude are sometimes hard things to change, but for Christians, change is an absolute necessity! Why? Well, to be like Christ of course!!! 

OK, what should I change? For the answer to that, lets go to Paul's letter to the Colossians...

Colossians, Chapter 3 (World English Bible)

¹ If then you were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.  ² Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth.  ³ For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  ⁴ When Christ, our life, is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory. 

  ⁵ Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: sexual immorality, uncleanness, depraved passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.  ⁶ For these things’ sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience.  ⁷ You also once walked in those, when you lived in them;  ⁸ but now you also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and shameful speaking out of your mouth.  ⁹ Don’t lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings,  ¹⁰ and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator,  ¹¹ where there can’t be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondservant, or free person; but Christ is all, and in all. 

  ¹² Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, humility, and perseverance;  ¹³ bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, if any man has a complaint against any; even as Christ forgave you, so you also do. 

  ¹⁴ Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection.  ¹⁵ And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body, and be thankful.  ¹⁶ Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord. 

  ¹⁷ Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.

Our Motivation 

(vss. 1-4)

Paul begins some motivation. Be like Christ, because you desire to be the best possible Christian you can be (by being pure). Therefore, you earnestly desire to be with Christ in heaven. You became a Christian and acknowledged Jesus as LORD, so fulfill your commitment.

"Put off" 

(vss. 5-9)

Now, for the hardest part, Paul lists things we should not do (see also Galatians, 5: 16-21). As he puts it- things to "put off". In a word- SIN! Christians should not tolerate a life-style of sin for themselves and encourage their fellow brothers and sisters to stop sinning as well. These things are not meant to judgmental, but rather an encouragement to be like Christ!

"Put on"

 (vss. 10-13)

We don't live our lives in a vacuum, if we remove something in our lives and don't replace it, then that which is removed will eventually return. What to put on? Again Paul gives a list (once again, see Galatians 5, this time vss. 22ff.) And once we have begun to do this, we should be very careful of our attitude- its all to easy to have a "holier that thy attitude", so be understanding and encouraging to others, not fault-finding. (Compare Matthew 7:1-5 with John 7:21-24)

Aim for the highest 

(vss.14-16)

Aim for the highest of all- love. And be at peace in yourself and others. How? Well, as you read and study God's word, God will teach you in ways that are beyond description. And when you worship your love will pour forth from the depths of your being as you sing, which will encourage not only yourself, but fellow Christians as well!!!

A condensed solution  

(vs.17)

What would Jesus do? Do this! Verse 17 is a short description of a lifestyle that defines Christianity. Want a little longer version? Take some time and read what is commonly called Jesus' "Sermon on the mount" Matthew, chapters 5-7. Still to long? then read Matthew 5:1-16 (commonly called the beatitudes)!

Tolstoy had it right: "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself"

Let me add but one thing- Christians should!!!