The Nature of Eternal Punishment

The Bible teaches us about hell as a place of eternal punishment for sins (Mat 25:46). But what is the nature of this punishment? Traditionally people have believed that the unsaved; that is, those who have not put their faith in Christ for salvation, will experience some kind of torment, both physical and mental, forever in hell. This is a particularly frightening thought; that there might be some intense pain which will never cease, for an unending period of time. But there are those who, having read the Bible, conclude that this is not, in fact, what the Bible teaches about hell. Annihilationists believe that ultimately the unsaved will be thoroughly annihilated in hell. That when God casts them into hell, their body, soul and spirit will cease to exist altogether. Their “eternal punishment”, therefore, is that they will be denied eternal life and will instead be eternally dead. Today I wanted to discuss this view of hell, and why I think it’s wrong.

Will you just disappear forever?

Annihilationists often argue that their view is more consistent with a God of love and mercy, annihilation being more “humane” of God; and will even go so far as to say that this is more just of God as well. What I find interesting, though, is that annihilation is precisely what atheists expect will happen to them after they die, and they seem fairly content with that. That is to say, no atheist believes in divine justice, and annihilationism is consistent with their view. When I consider what it might be like if annihilationism were true, I feel as though I could live my life however I please, raping and murdering and stealing, because presuming I could avoid the vengeance of my fellow man, I would go to the grave and escape all consequences for my sins. I would effectively “get away with it all.” Even if there were a God, I could have lived as I pleased and be blissfully unaware of what life with God might be like. I don’t think this is compatible with the perfect justice of God.

But what does the Bible say about hell, exactly? Many passages refer to it as a place of fire, and so the annihilationist sees this as an illustration of annihilation... you put something in a fire in order to completely destroy it. Other passages like Matthew 10:28 say that “soul and body” are destroyed in hell. And finally, being cast into hell is described by the Bible as being the “second death”, and since physical death is the destruction of the body, so the second death must be destruction of the soul. And so, of course, the annihilationist rests heavily on these passages. But I think that hell, being a spiritual place, can be a place where a fire (of sorts) inflicts torments (of sorts) on the people who will be there forever. We can consider the burning bush of Moses, or the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego who were cast into the fire and did not get burned. They were protected by God from the fire, but we can imagine that God could control the degree to which they might have been burned by the fire, perpetuating it for all eternity. Further, we can understand destruction in the sense of someone saying “drug addiction destroyed my life...” That is, they still have life, but it’s somewhat of a “hell on Earth”, as people are also apt to say. And when the Bible uses the term death in a spiritual context, we can consider a passage such as Ephesians 2:1-2 which reads "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked". Obviously death in the spiritual sense doesn't entail a lack of consciousness and awareness. The passages of Scripture which annihilationists appeal to may be spun a certain way in their favour, but I don't think their spin holds up in light of the rest of Scripture.

The reason I think that hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment is not just that I think this is more compatible with God’s justice, but because the Bible describes it precisely as a place of eternal punishment and torment. Annihilationists will say that the once and for all punishment of having been annihilated is “eternal” in the sense that those who have eternal life will remember it forever. But I think that’s an unnatural way to read “eternal punishment”, and an even more unnatural way to read of “eternal torment”. Punishment and torment are things experienced by the one receiving the punishment and the torment. To say it lasts forever means that the experience of it must last forever for the one receiving it. Let’s consider the following passage:

and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

It is impossible to read this as saying that the devil’s own torment will somehow be perpetuated after he has been annihilated. How can his torment exist if he doesn’t exist? Now, some annihilationists say that the rules for the devil are different from the rules for people, but there is no justification for that at all. We know that the unsaved go to the very same place (v15 of the same chapter). And the truth is that if the devil is worthy of eternal torment in hell, rebellious people are more so, because they have rejected the sacrifice of God’s own Son.

Now, I don’t think we know perfectly what the eternal torment of hell will actually be like, but I think we can certainly say that there will be conscious individuals present there for all eternity, suffering. Sometimes the appeal is made that “Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if we were constantly upset about our loved ones being in hell”, but then, is it any better that the memory of their annihilation must necessarily live on in our memories, according to the annihilationist view? And then some say “What about the God of mercy?”, emphasizing the mercy of God. But then I would reply that God's mercy is to be found, and it is found in the cross. And we can also cite a passage like Hebrews 10:28-29...

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God...? (Hebrews 10:28-29)

The traditional view of eternal punishment in hell is, I think, the true one. Hell is a terrible, terrible place, but I can’t apologise for telling you that it’s a reality. Christ came precisely in order to save you from that place, and through Him you can escape it, whoever you may be. God is merciful; that’s why He died for you! God is loving, that’s why He sacrificed His Son. And His love for you is why He, Himself, taught us about how terrible a place hell is. The warning goes out to you now, before it’s too late... See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. (Hebrews 12:25)

The Justice of Hell

Browsing various atheist blogs, I came across the objection that it doesn’t seem fair or just for a man to be sent to hell when he did not know that there was such a devastating consequence for his sins. That is, if he had been told that hell would be the consequence of his sins he might not have done them. The most obvious response is that we Christians do tell people of hell, but they sin anyway. And they sin anyway because they simply don’t believe us. And I would want to remind us all at this point also, that the threat of hell is not designed to keep you from sin; the fear of hell won’t work at preventing your sin nature from exercising its desires. Rather, the doctrine of hell is taught by Jesus because it’s the truth, and because there is no hope of escape from it except through Him. Jesus taught it, therefore, so that we would understand that He is our only hope. Good works and the strictest refrain from sin, on the other hand, is not our hope.

But against this idea that it’s not fair to send someone to hell who was unaware of this dire consequence for their sin, I imagine it this way... Let’s set up a “desert island” scenario, where perhaps two brothers have been stranded since a very young age. They have had such little contact with society that they are completely unaware of the whole concept of a prison. But let’s imagine that one day, one of the brothers kills the other; and that around this very time a ship comes to the island, filled with men from our own society. These men see that a murder has taken place, and so they put the boy in prison. This boy, though he did not know that prisons existed, will himself still say “Yes, this is certainly something I deserve for what I did!”

Now let’s extend this illustration further. Let’s say that there’s a disagreement in the courtroom as to what the sentence should be. Nobody disputes that the boy should go to prison, but some say ten years, others say thirty, and yet others say a life sentence is in order. In such a case, the opinion of the boy himself carries no weight, even if he should say “I deserve life!” In a human court, this may be put to a vote, or perhaps the judge’s own view stands regardless. But in the reality we live in, God is above all human opinion and all human judgment. It doesn’t matter whether we think the boy should go free, pay a term of his life, or pay with all of his life; God sets the rules, and the rules are that sins must be punished for eternity. Since we are all sinners, our estimation of the penalty due is biased... would you really ask prisoners whether they should be set free?

Two common justifications for why we deserve an eternity in hell are that, though our sins are finite they are against an eternal God, and a God who is Holy beyond our comprehension. The second is that, once we’re in hell we may continue to sin for all eternity, and so the punishment is self-perpetuating. Like if a prisoner went to jail with a six month sentence but ended up there for life because every infraction of the prison’s own code of conduct extended his sentence. But this is, of course, speculation; maybe we really can’t understand, this side of death, why we deserve an eternity in hell, but I think that we all will when we see the glory of God first hand. And in as much as we may not be able to understand how God can punish a sinner for all eternity, it can also be said that we cannot readily understand how God could reward eternal life to those who put their faith in Him. Why are we not far more confounded by the amazing grace of God? How can anyone, as sinful as we are, receive eternal life is similarly beyond our comprehension.

Some have built a doctrine of purgatory, which is the idea that suffering in hell is only for a limited time, after which we will eventually have paid the debt for our sins and will then go to heaven. This idea is not supported by Scripture at all. The reason Christ had to die is precisely because we cannot ever atone for our own sins. If even billions of years in hell could atone for our sins, then Christ would not have died for us. He died because our situation is hopeless.

Both eternal life and eternal damnation are to do with God’s perfect justice. Justice demands either a just punishment for sins or a just reward for righteousness. No one is righteous which is why we should all receive the just punishment for sins. But Jesus Christ is perfectly righteous, and through His death on the cross He imputes His righteousness to us, though we are sinners, if we put our faith in Him. This is how people like you and I can receive the just reward instead of the just punishment; not for our personal righteousness but for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith. How does this work? The honest answer is, I don’t think anyone perfectly understands how this works. But understanding how it works is different from believing and trusting that it does work. We can believe that Christ was raised from the dead, that He is the incarnation of God, and that He told us the truth when He said that those who follow Him will be given eternal life and shall never perish. This is where my hope lies.

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:9)

Yahweh: God of the Gentiles

Yahweh delivered the people of Israel out of Egypt and made a covenant with them and told them that He would be their God and they would be His people. And yet, isn’t He supposed to be the God of all? What about the poor Gentiles? Somewhat related to my last post, some might argue that God, throughout the Old Testament, was fairly exclusively “the God of Israel” and not “the God of all”. What I want to talk about today is how, even in the Old Testament, Gentiles were not excluded at all from worshipping Yahweh as their God.

Now, why was there an Israel at all? We can spend a lot of time answering that question, but as it pertains to today’s discussion, we can say a few important things about Israel - that through Israel God revealed Himself to the whole world, giving them the Law and the Priesthood, the Prophets and their theocratic government. Israel’s mission was to teach the whole world about God and to be a nation of priests for all (Exodus 19:5-6). When God said to Abraham, “in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3), this didn’t just mean “ultimately through Christ”, but it was intended to begin through Israel itself. In the New Testament, Christ Himself replaces the role of the Priests, the Prophets and the King. Whoever joins themselves to the people of God necessarily make Christ their Priest, their Prophet and their King. So too, in the Old Testament, whoever would join the people of God would necessarily put themselves under the Priests and Prophets and Kings of Israel. These three offices stood in place of Christ until the advent of Christ. And so Yahweh was certainly the God of all, but just as we must come to Christ to be counted one of God’s people, back then you would have to identify yourself with Israel.

It makes sense, then, that no Gentile could ever be a Priest or a Prophet or a King in Israel. Israel itself, as a body of people, had to remain “pure” in that respect. But all throughout the Old Testament there are many examples which support this claim I’m making - that Gentiles were welcome to identify themselves with the people of God by identifying themselves with Israel. Of course, we have several well known examples of individuals. Rahab married an Israelite and finds herself in the genealogy of Christ Himself. Likewise, Ruth, who is well known for her overt identification with Israel when she told her mother in law “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16). These are two of the most well known examples because of their presence in the genealogy of Christ, but they are by no means the only examples.

Jesus Himself makes a similar case for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Old Testament when He is speaking in the synagogue in Luke 4...

And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon [ie a Gentile], to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian [ie a Gentile].” (Luke 4:24-27)

Jesus’ point, in fact, is one echoed by Paul in a number of his epistles; that the true people of God are not ethnic Jews, but anyone who puts their faith in Him.

So I’ve said that the purpose of Israel and its Priesthood was really to be a Priesthood for all, Jew and Gentile alike. So, then, the temple was for all, Jew and Gentiles alike, to come and interact with that Priesthood. And this is precisely how Solomon saw the purpose of the temple he’d just built, when at the dedication of the temple he said:

Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name. (1 Kings 8:41-43)

Jesus also understood this to be the purpose of the temple. In an outburst of righteous anger, Jesus overturned the market place which people had set up in the temple. Specifically, this market place had been set up in a part of the temple which was dedicated to the Gentiles for them to worship in. And He explains “Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? [Isaiah 56:7] But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:17)

So from the very beginning of Scripture, God has always been the God of all nations. Now, God did demand some separation between Israel and Gentiles. He forbade intermarriage, for example. But we need to understand that this way... that once a Gentile identifies themselves with Israel, as Ruth did, then it was not really applicable any more. That Gentile was, for all intents and purposes, an Israelite! King Solomon married foreign wives who lured him into worshipping their foreign gods (1 Kings 11:1-8). Now that is precisely what God forbade! (Both the polygamy and the marriage to a woman who clearly wasn’t interested in the exclusive worship of Yahweh.)

Aside from the Priesthood, the Prophets also were not exclusive to Israel. A Prophet’s job was to deliver messages from God to specific people; almost always to kings. If you read the prophets (books like Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc), just about all of them include messages for Gentile nations. That’s precisely because God is the God of all. Take Jonah, for example, where the entire book is about Jonah’s mission to deliver a message from God to the King of Nineveh. Not only does Jonah deliver the message, which in essence said “Repent of your sins”, but the King of Nineveh takes heed to the message! This is quite remarkable... the people of Nineveh didn’t live under the Mosaic Law, and yet they recognized that the God of the Jews had the right to tell them that they had sinned against Him and that they should repent. This tells us that God held people accountable to the “moral law” which is “written on our hearts”, and that the Mosaic Law was not designed to be an exhaustive specification for right and wrong. The same goes for any message of repentance from the prophets to the other nations... they weren’t under the Mosaic Law, but they all knew that they were idolaters. And that their idolatry was sin should have been evident to them as it typically involved human sacrifice, orgies, and so forth; and that their false gods were a pretense in order to practice those sins. The people of Nineveh certainly understood the authority that Yahweh had over their lives, even though they weren’t Israelites. Furthermore, Jonah himself never questions what authority Yahweh had over the Ninevites; he understood very well that Yahweh was God over all nations. None of the Old Testament authors saw it any other way.

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” (Psalm 2:1-3)

Yahweh: No Mere Tribal Deity

Christianity believes that there is one God who is the Creator of all things, and who is sovereign over all things. But a religion like this was very rare in the historical period of the Old Testament. Typically each nation had their own national god which dealt exclusively with that nation. When nations would go to war against each other, they saw it as one god warring against another, and the victor would boast that their god had overcome the other nation’s god. That’s what religion was like back then. But the God of the Hebrews wasn’t like that. He was the supreme God who created all things, and who could both establish nations and tear nations down. All nations were under His sovereign rule. And yet many today will try to tell you that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, was actually (at least at the start of Hebrew religion), just another tribal deity.

One of the Biblical “evidences” for this is a passage like Deuteronomy 32:8-9...

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

Now, before we can discuss this verse, we need to get a handle on some Biblical terminology. The first thing to note is the term "sons of God". This is a reference to angels. Many Bibles translate this as "sons of Israel", but the most reliable manuscripts (eg the Dead Sea Scrolls) say "sons of God", or "angels". The next thing to note is that, traditionally, Bible translators use the word "LORD" in capital letters when translating the name Yahweh, which is often referred to as God's "personal name". And finally, that the name "Jacob" is synonymous with "Israel". With this in mind, we can see how some people want to read this verse. They will see the "Most High" as allocating gods (or "angels") to each of the nations, just as we discussed in the first paragraph; and that Yahweh (“LORD”) is just another one of these angels, distinct from the "Most High", and he happens to get allocated to Israel, making him just another tribal deity in the typical religious world view of the period.

Now, of course, there is an abundance of Biblical Texts which speak of Yahweh as the Creator of all, and sovereign over all, and that certainly uses "Most High" (Elyon) synonymously with "Yahweh". The first chapters of Genesis are sufficient to show this. But that's not really much help to address this issue. You see, the apparent problem here is that the Bible appears to contradict itself. And what proponents of this view would say is that Yahweh is the product of human invention and mythology; that since the time of Moses people's view of Yahweh changed... he started out as a tribal deity fitting the model of religious belief at that time, but later on Israel sort of changed the mythology behind Yahweh. Proponents typically believe in the "documentary hypothesis", which is the idea that the books of Moses (the “Torah”) is actually a compilation of texts written at various times throughout Israel's history, from some unknown point in the past right up to the Babylonian captivity. So that even if Genesis tells us that Yahweh is the Creator, that's just one person's view (not Moses' own view), and the song written in Deuteronomy 32 is some other author's view of Yahweh; presumably a very early one before Israel made Yahweh "God of all".

What this passage in Deuteronomy 32 is really telling us is that God set up all the nations, and He seems to have set an angel over each one, but that God Himself (and not some angel) is over Israel, and has a special relationship with Israel. This idea that angels have been allotted to certain nations may be Biblically supported by a passage such as we find in Daniel 10...

Then he [an angel] said to me, "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come." (Daniel 10:12-14)

This certainly seems to refer to angels over nations, since the speaker is an angel and would not be opposed by a human prince. Later, Daniel writes:

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. (Daniel 12:1)

Daniel certainly sees Yahweh as being the supreme God over all. A central theme in the whole book of Daniel is how God is over all nations to rise and fall as He pleases. There is no doubt in Daniel’s mind as to who is sovereign over all nations (eg Daniel 2:21). And we just saw in Daniel 10:12-14 and 12:1 that Daniel also understands there to be angels given charge over the nations, and he even cites Michael, not Yahweh, as the angel given charge over Israel. Deuteronomy tells us that Israel is “Yahweh’s portion”, and that remains true for Daniel; Michael and these other angels are servants of God; or as the book of Hebrews puts it, “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

In a documentary on Biblical archaeology, I once heard an archaeologist point to various stone idols of pagan gods which he’d dug up in Israel, and he said “I hate to tell you folks, but Israel was not a monotheistic culture!” And I was a little dumb-founded... like, “Who on Earth has read the Bible and doesn’t already know that!?” The Bible exposes at great length the idolatry of the people of Israel, and of the neighbouring nations. Furthermore, it goes so far as to say that many of these gods were literal, spiritual beings. For example, the Bible says “So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore...” and in the Psalms “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons” (Psalms 106:37). So Deuteronomy 32 is, in a sense, telling us of a “polytheistic” reality. From a human perspective, angels and demons are gods in so far as we have worshipped them. But from God’s perspective they are no gods at all, as it reads in Deuteronomy 32 itself...

They sacrificed to demons that were no gods... (Deuteronomy 32:17)

My point is this... There are two ways we can take Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In both, God has given angels charge over the nations, and people have worshiped those angels as gods. But in one interpretation, the “Most High” is distinct from Yahweh and Yahweh is just another “tribal deity”. Alternatively, we can take it as referring to Yahweh being synonymous with the Most High God Himself, and having a special relationship with Israel. The interpretation that the rest of the Bible supports unwaveringly is the latter, where Yahweh is synonymous with the Most High, and where the existence of “tribal deities” is acknowledged alongside the absolute supremacy of Yahweh, a supremacy which is never once in doubt. Clearly I think that if you want to believe that the people of Moses’ time saw Yahweh as a tribal deity, it’s because you choose to believe that, since there is nothing Biblically which would compel you towards that view.

I would also be careful of how we take the supposed evidences from other ancient literature which uses terms like “Most High” (Elyon) or “Yahweh” in their religious writings. These arguments can sound very scholarly, but all they really tell me is that God, through Moses, used language to reveal Himself to the people. That is, He used common everyday language which people understood.



Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:5-6)

What Is Immoral About Homosexuality?

Since I wrote last about the topic of homosexuality, it occurs to me that there is surprisingly little Christian material out there which actually answers the question "What exactly is immoral about homosexuality anyway?" Christians are typically seen as against homosexuality simply because the Bible tells us that God doesn't like it. And whilst, in a sense, this is sufficient, in so far as we should trust God whether we understand Him or not; we ought to explore the question of why God disapproves of homosexuality.

The very question of why anything is immoral must come into this discussion. From a materialistic, or "Evolutionist's" world view, what might be immoral about homosexuality will be different from a Theistic world view. But interestingly enough, I think that even an Evolutionist's world view should logically deem homosexuality to be immoral. Let's consider what the philosopher Peter Singer has to say about incest, for example. He put forward a hypothetical; that a brother and sister find themselves alone and mutually agree to sexual intercourse. They take precaution agaist pregnancy, and afterwards both agree that their relationship is better off now through this experience. He argues, then, that there is technically nothing wrong with what they did since no harm was done in any way. They didn't have inbred children, and they both felt emotionally better off. And yet we all say... "But it's wrong! It's just plain wrong!" We don't have a rationale for why it's wrong, but we cannot be convinced that it's not wrong. And Peter Singer then explains the rationale for why it's wrong... it's wrong because natrual selection has given us this innate aversion to it, precisely because if incest were to flourish in society it would be devastating to the species. Inbred children do not fare well. It is essentially the argument of "If everyone did it, it would be a truly bad thing indeed." But it's not even a human mind that's using that rationale but the mindless process of natural selection. So people do then reason that because natural selection is dumb and we know better, then maybe incest is ok within certain boundaries... Well, "good luck with that", we can say sarcastically; because mankind simply cannot keep within any set of moral boundaries. If we approved of incest, "natural selection" would soon be saying "I told you so..."

And of course, the direction I'm headed with this is to draw a parallel between homosexuality and incest, in so far as they are both sexual dysfunctionality in which, "if everyone did it", it would be detrimental to the species. In the case of homosexuality, we have no offspring to carry on the species. Are we to say "Homosexuality is only immoral if a small percentage of the population are gay, but as soon as that number increases it's then immoral?" If, as it is according to some people's view, that morality is whatever the majority agrees upon, it would make far less sense to call homosexuality immoral in a world where the majority are gay; and yet that's most certainly when the world would cry out to see an end to it!

So even without a Biblical world view, I think homosexuality should, "by rights" be considered immoral, based purely on materialistic, Evolution-based ethics. But of course, that's not why homosexuality is wrong from God's perspective. What does God have against homosexuality? To answer this question, I'm going to cite an illustration which helped make this clear to me. Bryan Chapell, president of Covenant Theological Seminary, tells the story of his friend who was struggling with same-sex desires. When asked once what the appeal of a homosexual encounter was, he thoughtfully replied, "Because it's like having sex with myself." Now, I've never had homosexual fantasies, so I can't gauge whether that's something that gay people would identify with, but I kind of understood from that response the tie-in to what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. It's not so much the apparent selfishness of that desire, but the self-worship of that desire. That is, it's not that gay people are somehow more self-centered than others, but rather that homosexuality is a manifestation of self-worship, which is something I think we're all guilty of in some sense. Self-worship is not the same as being self-centered... every humanist and atheist, after all, is essentially a worshiper of self. When the ultimate authority over your life is man, then man is your god and your idol, and who you worship. Precisely in the context of speaking on idolatry, Paul explains that people, rather than worshiping God, tend to worship what God has made; and the most common creation that we worship is ourselves. Listen to Paul in Romans...

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! (Romans 1:22-25)

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." I explained at the start of this post how people will condemn incest and yet approve of homosexuality without any Biblical basis at all. This is inconsistent, and so to approve of homosexuality is foolish in this sense. It should be evident to anyone that there is something wrong with homosexuality, which considers our reproductive organs useless. Why do people approve of homosexuality then? Because they have "exchanged the glory of God for images resembling mortal man..." The glory of God is seen in heterosexual union, even as man and woman imitate the creative act of God in their procreation, for example. And there are far more ways that heterosexual marriage, as it ought to be according to the Bible, displays the glory of God. Man is created in the image of God, which means that we are to demonstrate God's character in the way we live; which we do when we live according to the Bible, which reveals God's character. When we worship man instead of God, we begin to become "images" of each other rather than images of God. But we are sinful man, and so the whole picture becomes more and more corrupt. Homosexuality as a result of self-worship makes sense as a fitting judgment from God, which is what the passage is saying. If you want to worship yourself, God will condemn you to do so.

Again, I think it's sufficient to say that God disapproves of homosexuality, and we should simply trust Him that homosexuality is not for our benefit, because we will only ever be truly happy when we are doing what we were created to do; and that is to "be an image of God". Quite often it's only through obedience to God's Word that we begin to understand why God has given us the laws which He has. What I've said possibly won't make much sense to some people. They'll go away saying "That doesn't answer the question." But to me, it does, because I understand the whole concept of self-worship versus God-worship from an experiential level. Both homosexuality and the approval of homosexuality is, I think, a kind of worship of mankind. God's primary concern isn't the survival of the species as a whole, where a minority of 1-2% being gay isn't going to make a difference. God is against homosexuality because He is concerned for you, personally; as its affect on you, personally, is to draw you away from the worship of Himself.

The Glee Agenda

I have to admit, I love the show Glee. Not sure I'd be labelled a "Gleek", but of all that's on TV, it's the show I'm most enthusiastic to watch. Last year I watched a televised contest called The Glee Project, which selected two winners for a role in the current season of Glee. In the most recent episode of Glee, aired on Valentines Day, winner Samuel Larson appeared for the first time in what I would certainly call a controversial episode. For those who never saw The Glee Project, here's some background which I think is of interest.

One of the contestants on The Glee Project identified himself very early on as a Christian. His name was Cameron Mitchell. And as the competition went on, Cameron began to struggle with the fact that, as an actor on Glee, he might be asked to enact some sexually provocative or intimate scenes which he felt that, as a Christian, would compromise his faith. And so, choosing Christ first, he actually quit the competition. As he announced that he was quitting, and told writer Ryan Murphy why he was quitting, Murphy pleaded with him to stay. Ryan Murphy told him that he'd really love to portray a Christian character on his show, and that's why he had a particular interest in Cameron. But Cameron quit none the less, and I for one was pleased that he did. In the first place, you don't need a genuine Christian to act as a Christian. Ryan had said to Cameron, (along these lines), "Imagine the influence you could have on the lives of so many people!" But of course, the actor has no influence whatsoever, really. They simply do what the writer, Ryan Murphy, tells them to. And I said to myself, as though I were giving advise to Cameron, "You will portray a Christian, but it won't be you're faith... it will be Ryan Murphy's version of a Christian, and what do you suppose that looks like?" Ryan Murphy's agenda is clear... for those who don't know, Ryan Murphy is both openly gay and a Church-going "Christian" at the same time. But before we get into that controversy, we can at least see that the kind of Christian who leaves a show because he might have to kiss a girl he doesn't love probably isn't going to be the kind of Christian who sees being gay as compatible with Christianity.

It was at this point, after Cameron quit, that Samuel Larson "suddenly" (you might say) identified himself as a Christian, too. Which to me just seemed like a ploy once he'd become aware of what Ryan Murphy was after for a new role. Whether he's a genuine Christian or not, I don't know, but of course, all that I suspected and would have, myself, warned Cameron to avoid has come upon Samuel. In Samuel's first appearance on the show, he is presented as a new kid in school and a Christian, attending a meeting of the "God Squad", a club for students who want to discuss religion. Very quickly the topic turns to the fact that a few of the members of "Glee Club" are gay, and what Samuel's character will think about that. In particular, would he sing a love song for one of these gay characters if asked to? And in typical modern style, a very rapid stream of arguments, without any counter reply at all, was given to justify why Samuel's character, Joe, shouldn't have any issues with it at all. And these arguments certainly sounded wise, but I'll be happy to point out their faults directly. But before we look at that, I want to deal with the question; "Should Samuel/Joe, being a Christian, have had a problem singing to a gay person?"

Let's first consider how a Christian's attitude should be towards a gay person. In one respect, it should be no different to their attitude towards anyone else, in so far as we are all sinners in need of Jesus Christ. We all need to feel the love of Christ toward us which is expressed through the kindness of Christians! A gay man or woman is just as worthy of our friendship, our compassion, our favour, our love. This should go without saying, and it's sad that it needs to be said at all. However, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, and sin only leads to unhappiness. Our attitude towards gay people should be no different to any other person, but we all have different weaknesses, and are subject to different sins. And so just as I would not approve of a friend's alcoholism, or a friend's promiscuity, or even just an arrogant friend's pride... my best friend in the whole world could be a gay man, but I would not condone his sexual desires. And so, to answer the question "Should Joe sing a love song for a gay person..." There is no problem in singing for any person; a Christian should happily even sing a duet with a gay person. But to sing a love song in the context of Valentine's Day is precisely to condone their lifestyle, which from a Christian perspective is not doing them any favours at all.

Now to quickly cover the arguments to justify homosexuality in this episode of Glee, there were basically three (from memory.)
1. To be Christian is to love, and it is therefore "more Christian" to promote homosexuality.
I think we've dealt with that one already.
2. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
This, to me, reveals much about one's view of Christ. We need to remember that Jesus Christ is God, and that God wrote the Bible! He wrote all of it. And so if Moses said it, Christ said it. If Moses condemns it, Christ condemns it. And if Paul said it, Christ said it. If Paul condemns it, Christ condemns it.
3. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but it also calls eating shellfish an abomination, so...
Well, an abomination is "something to be abhorred", but we can abhor things for different reasons. I would say that God, through Moses, wrote to the Israelites that they should abhor shellfish for one reason, and that they should abhor homosexuality for a different reason altogether; namely that it is sin. Eating shellfish was not a problem because it was sinful. You could read my post on "The Purpose of Old Testament Purity Laws" for more about that.

So after all this, if there's one thing I would want to stress more than anything, it's that true Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals, it hates homosexuality; in much the same way that we don't hate people suffering from cancer, but we hate cancer. The difference there is that people suffering cancer also hate cancer, but gay people love their condition. While that makes it more difficult to understand, it doesn't make the Christian view invalid.


Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)

Should We Pray For The Sick?

Yesterday I wrote that it is more like God to give us faith and righteousness than to heal us of our physical ailments. Does this mean we shouldn't pray for God to heal us of our sicknesses? And what about James chapter 5, which says "And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick"?

First of all, we should certainly pray for the sick. How can we not pray for the sick? If we love and care for people as we should, praying for their sicknesses should be something we can't help ourselves from doing. But I would say that, rather than pray for a miraculous healing, we should be praying that we find the right treatment, find skillful doctors, pray for those doctors who treating our loved ones, pray about the emotional endurance of those who are sick... there are all kinds of things we can pray in regards to sickness. But as I mentioned in yesterday's post, taking away our sicknesses and diseases is not God's plan for this time; the removal of these physical ailments is what we long for when Christ returns. And if it were a reality in this life, where would be our longing? The Bible uses the term "hope" rather than "longing", but it's not "hope" in the sense that we typically use the word "hope" where we often mean "wishful thinking", which is why I use the word "longing". But Romans 8 says this...


For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:22-25)

So "hope", in this sense, is a longing for the things we "wait eagerly" for, and for what we "wait for with patience". Things like sickness are supposed to be a present reality, keeping that longing alive. And of course, this comes just after Paul has said "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." We are, in fact, supposed to suffer in this life; and God's purpose for that is for us to maintain faith in the promises of His Word.

But what does James intend when he tells us "the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick"? The first thing we need to recognize is that sometimes God uses sickness as a disciplinary measure. That is to say that sometimes, if we are disobedient towards God, He may cause us to become ill. We have an example of this in 1 Corinthians 11...


Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Corinthians 11:28-30)


In the Corinthian's case, they were not behaving as they ought in regards to the Communion. Not all sickness is a result of sin, though. In John 9 the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man, asking who's sin caused this man to be born blind. But Jesus essentially tells them that the man's blindness was not the result of anyone's specific sin at all. But in the case of James chapter 5, I believe he is speaking of those who are sick because they're being disciplined by God. James is calling his readers to sincere repentance. James has been speaking to them throughout the book of their various sinful ways, and his assumption, then, is that some of them will be sick as a result of their sinful ways. James is saying that it's time to repent, and that sickness which God has given them in order to bring them to repentance, will be taken away. Let's look at the passage in this light...


And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit. My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:15-20)


We can see here that James is speaking more about confession of sins ("that you may be healed") than simply about healing of any kind of sickness at all. James also uses the illustration of Elijah where, in 1 Kings 17-18, God (through Elijah) brings a drought upon Israel as judgment for their sin of idolatry. After the idolaters are dealt with, God (through Elijah) takes away the drought. So likewise, God does sometimes inflict us with sickness because of our sins. But if we deal with that sin through repentance, the sickness can be taken away. Is this a common thing? That, I don't know. But examining ourselves to see whether there's sinfulness in our lives is something we should be doing continually, regardless.


But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:31-32)