The Anglican Problem

I am a literalist. The Bible was “God breathed” it is the inspired word of God and infallible. If any writings of man contradict the Bible then the Bible is the fall back and only truth. While I rely on the writings of man to inspire me to dig deeper, or to offer insights that the Holy Spirit has shown them, the truth is always in the word. Solo Scriptura is my motto. If you can invalidate even one small part of the scriptures you have destroyed the whole. We cannot pick and choose the scriptures we like and ignore the rest, (see the current scandal with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopalian church and her statements in Curacao).[1][1] Therefore any discussion as to which parts of the Gospels are “True” or “Historically accurate” and which parts are fabrications added later are foolishness. The only source we need for an accurate and true depiction of Jesus the Bible. Other sources may add credence for the unbeliever, but for me I only need the Bible. The Gospels are 100% accurate and wholly reliable.

The Anglican Church is gone.  Their current Presiding Bishop is not a Christian. I know I will take some flak for that statement but I can see no other way of saying it.

To be a “Christian” is to be a follower of Christ. The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God. Whole of Scriptures are true, and no part can be discarded or it all crumbles to the ground. Homosexuality is a sin. I do not say that, the Bible does. To say that that teaching was just a prejudice of Paul or a cultural norm that does not apply today is blasphemy. We all sin, don’t get me wrong there, and all sin is equal. Homosexuality is no greater sin then lying, stealing, adultery or fornication. The difference is in the acceptance of sin. We cannot accept sin and pretend it is okay. We are commanded to confront sin in all its forms. When we sin, and we all do, we are to repent and seek forgiveness. When our brothers sin we are to go to them in love to help them through their sin. We do not judge the sinner, we judge the sin. And confront it no matter where we see it. In us or in others, If I am openly living in any sin and deny that it is sin, and my brother confronts me I should thank him, not accuse him of being a bigot or a hater.

In my humble opinion it is not possible to be an openly practicing homosexual, adulterer, or any other sin, parsing the word to suit your own morality and denying the divinely inspired word and still call yourself a “Christian”.

---

---

[1][1] http://anglicanink.com/article/diversity-not-jesus-saves-says-presiding-bishop

The Man of Genesis 32:24

Who was the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled?

We are not told in the scriptures who the man Jacob that was wrestling with was. Was he a mere man, an angle, or a theophany? Jacob asks the “man” for a blessing, and the “man” gave him a new name. When Jacob asks his name, the “man” replies asking “why do you ask my name?” implying that Jacob should already know who it is he is dealing with. This has led some to believe that the man was an angel or the pre-incarnate Jesus. Talbot also notes that, “This was both a literal wrestling match and a spiritual one.”[1] “He (Jacob) was convinced that he had been in a struggle with God himself, and he was grateful that he not only survived but that he was a changed man”[2] Jacob believed the “man” was able to bless him and had the authority to give him a new name.

So who was this man? It is interesting to note that Jacob was in his nineties at this point and even so the prospect of besting an angel at any age seems ludicrous. If we consider it as mainly a spiritual battle it makes more sense. John Walton notes that “The ease at which he inflicts physical damage on Jacob (32:25) indicates that any inability must be in the spiritual arena, not the physical one.”[3] Hosea 12:4 clearly indicates that the “man” was an angel “⁴ He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor. He found him at Bethel and talked with him there.” (NIV). Whether it is an angel or “The Angel of the Lord (Jesus)”, we do not know for sure.

Jacob struggled all of his life, he struggled with his family, he struggled with himself and he struggled with God. At the conclusion of this fight, Jacob was convinced this struggle was with God “Jacob’s remark did not necessarily mean that the “man” with whom he wrestled was in fact God. Rather, as with other similar statements (e.g. Judg 13:22, when one saw the “angel of the Lord” it was appropriate to say that he had seen the face of God.”[4] Jacob knew he had been bested, and submitted to the man after receiving his blessing. Jacob realized this man was God.

I lean towards the belief that the “man” was the pre-incarnate Jesus. In Genesis 32:30, Jacob calls him Elohim, while it is true that that word does not necessarily refer to God, I believe that here it does. Jacob was wrestling both physically and spiritually with God and himself.

---

[1] Gordon Talbot, A Study of the Book of Genesis,(Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1981), 200.

[2] Ibid, 201.

[3] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 605.

[4] John H. Sailhamer,The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol 2, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 210.

"What is the 'desire of woman?'” (Genesis 3:16)

In ‘Paradise to Prison’, Dr. Davis states that Eve will have “a deep natural attraction: to Adam.[1] Davis implies that the word is best translated as a physical and emotional desire. Verse 3:16 of Genesis is God telling Eve the consequences of her sin. The KJV reads: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.“ Different translations have translated the Hebrew here as “desire” differently. The NIV: “Your desire will be for your husband”, the NLV says, “desire to control”, the ISV: "since your trust is turning toward your husband”, the NET: “You will want to control your husband” The same word is used three times in the Old Testament.

Dr. Talbot interprets this verse to mean that”(Eve) was created to be a “help meet for him” (Gen 2:20), but now her role as his companion would be a submissive one.”[2] Talbot seems to imply that the desire is more for the position of authority of Adam, then a physical desire. She will certainly have physical and emotional desire for her husband, but those desires were already present prior to the sin. Dr. Sailhamer agrees and relates it to the pre fall marriage and the post fall marriage. Sailhamer calls the pre-fall marriage a “harmonious partnership” and the post-fall marriage will be tainted by the curse of the sin.[3]

I tend to agree more with Sailhamer and Talbot then Davis. I believe that the physical and emotional desire of a wife to her husband is a gift from God that has no relation to the fall. The woman’s desire will be her desire to control the man and her life but she will be submissive unto her husband.

---

[1] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison. Salem: Sheffield Publishing, 1998, 94

[2] Gordon Talbot, A Study of the Book of Genesis. Harrisburg,: Christian Publications, 1981, 33.

[3] John H. Sailhamer, The Expositors Bible Commentary vol 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, 56.

The Nakedness of Noah

Genesis 9:20-23 “²⁰ And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. ²¹ Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.

²² And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. ²³ But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.” (NKJV)
What was the ‘nakedness of Noah’ and what was Ham’s sin?
On an initial reading Genesis 9:20-23 is a very simple narrative. Ham discovered his father ‘exposed’ in his tent. There have been many attempts to find some deeper or extra meaning in the text. In his commentary on Genesis, John Walton cites many of the differing theories about just what the “nakedness of Noah’ was.  Walton writes; “The results have been incredible, insofar as Ham has been accused of incest with his mother, homosexual activity with his father, or even the castration of his father.”[1] While ‘nakedness’ is used as a metaphor for sexual acts elsewhere in the bible, Shem and Japheth’s act of walking backwards to cover their father leads me to believe that it was Noah lying exposed and unconscious. Walton also points out that since in Leviticus 18, the nakedness of the wife, is the nakedness of the husband; “is it possible that both Noah and his wife became drunk and falling into unconsciousness after intercourse, lie exposed in the tent?”[2] I believe that the nakedness of Noah was just that, he and his wife or Noah by himself was lying in their tent naked and exposed.

Which leads us to the second part of the question; what was Ham’s sin? Gordon Talbot thinks; “The discovery of Noah’s nakedness was not the offense, but Ham’s disrespect for his father.”[3] Ham discovered his father and ran and told his brothers, we are not told what this motivation was but it was almost certainly not respectful or edifying to his father. The disrespect is even greater if both Noah and his wife were exposed. Ham’s behavior and actions were what was reprehensible not his discovery.

I personally try not to read too much into the narratives in the Bible. God has given us all the information we need and the Holy Spirit to interpret it. When we try too hard to find secret or hidden meanings we often look like fools and can destroy the meaning that is there.

---

[1] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 346.

[2] John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 348.

[3] Gordon Talbot, A Study of the Book of Genesis, (Harrisburg: Christian Publishing, 1981), 72.

Who was Melchizedek?  An historical character or “something” other?

We are first introduced to Melchizedek in Genesis14:18-20 “¹⁸ Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, ¹⁹ and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. ²⁰ And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (NIV). We see Melchizedek once more in the Old Testament in Psalm 110:4. The significance of Melchizedek is expounded upon in the New Testament book of Hebrews.

Who was Melchizedek? It has been suggested that Melchizedek was not an actual historical character. What does the Bible say about him?

            In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John Sailhamer treats Melchizedek as a real person and the King of Salem. Sailhamer notes that “After his return from Battle, Abraham was met by two kings in the “Valley of Shaveh” (Lit.,”the king”).[1] Sailhamer identifies these two kings as the King of Sodom and the King of Salam. Sailhamer believes that these two kings are presented as a contradiction. The response to the King of Salem is positive, while the response to the King of Sodom is negative. Sailhamer sees no indication that Melchizedek was anything other than a real historical character.

            John Walton treats Melchizedek as a real person as well. Walton equates Salem to Jerusalem and indicates that Melchizedek, the King of Salem, “is portrayed as the principle king of the region”[2]. Many commentators view Melchizedek as a priest/king of Jehovah God. Walton disagrees. Walton claims that “Since El Elyon could represent the designation of a Canaanite god, we have no reason to think of Melchizedek as a worshiper of Yahweh or even as monotheistic.”[3]

            Gordon Talbot, in his book ‘A Study of the Book of Genesis’, says that Melchizedek is “a mysterious person”. Talbot admits that it is possible that Melchizedek is a Theophany as some scholars believe, but thinks it more likely that Melchizedek was a real person. Talbot asserts that Melchizedek was a priest and worshiper of Jehovah God. “He was not only the king of Salem, but he was also a priest of the most high God. Somehow the concept of Jehovah, the true God, had penetrated the heart of this man.”[4]

            I believe that Melchizedek was in fact a real historical person. I also believe he was the king of Salem, (Jerusalem) and a priest of Jehovah God. I see no indication otherwise. Abraham showed him reverence and gave a tithe to him. The New Testament claims that Jesus “has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20b NIV). If Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, it only makes sense that Melchizedek was a priest of the same God Jesus served, namely God the Father, Jehovah.

---

[1] Sailhamer, John, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 122.

[2] Walton, John H., The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 418.

[3] Walton, John H., The NIV Application Commentary, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 419.

[4] Talbot, Gordon. A Study of the Book of Genesis, (Harrisburg:Christian Publications, 1981), 101.

The evil that is abortion

So much better then anything I could say, please check out Vox Day and his post on abortion.

http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/abortion-is-slaughter.html#comment-form

Gay marriage and Polygamy

I believe God created and sanctioned marriage as one man-one woman. Throughout history marriage has always been defined by the majority of people, cultures and countries as, one man-one woman. Recently the SCOTUS has been hearing two cases revolving around the definition of marriage and the States or Federal government’s recognition of said marriages.

I have long held that the Federal government has no business recognizing marriage beyond any other legal contract. There should be no special rights or privileges granted based on marriage. I knew several “couples” in the military that got married solely for the benefits that marriage brought. They received more pay, free housing, and more privileges.

Whit the current argument, I can’t see how any of the pro-gay marriage crowd can deny polygamy. What argument can they possible present against it? If it is okay for a man-women, man-man, woman-woman to get married why not man-man-woman, man-woman-woman. Why stop there why not man-woman-daughter. Does it have to be two humans? Can I marry my dog?

Someone please give me a valid reason why if we can redefine what marriage is, why stop at two people?

At this point I say fine, Let whoever marry whoever. The government gets completely out of the marriage business. No marriage certificates, not divorce, no benefits for getting married, no tax advantages. Marriage again would be a vow between God and those involved.

JUST AS GOD INTENDED. God never gave authority to government to sanction marriage.

Stop all government interference in marriage period.