Let's Re-introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people.  They want those clearly lost in sin to hang around and listen and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker--unless, if a person who is 'way out of line', they might reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week. The fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication.  Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   In some evangelical churches, many times the only real church discipline might occur if someone questions the pastor’s authority, or points out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship.  Disputing the knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.

A few isolated independent churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, they will carry a reprimand to the point of shunning.  They go overboard on applying discipline too much; the cults are big at this.

My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of people whose purpose is to sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized when you are seeking the truth--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and you and possibly the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases should be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“… if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

After one-on-one failure, the church should be an interested party, if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  The church's role in my example is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple people to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means it's time to tell the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step, and has the potential to make reconciliation harder. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim--or the rebel—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ (or pastor's) call. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear (God).” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told of this rebuke, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.  God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish."

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel.  In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.  You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians who have had a long time growing up--and haven't.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, that would be the meaning where the Pharisees ruled (they threw people out of the synagogue).  Keep in mind, that wasn't a church.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew). There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are "righteous," as in righteous to God; it’s more like self-righteous.  And “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in the later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' visit was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this time He spent with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, and even if the person showed repentance, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for a while longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ and buckled under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Temporary ex-communication, or denying the Lord's Supper, could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, and never have Communion again.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  Again, with giving him explanation. In the Middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.

But despite all these negatives, here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open.  You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from socializing). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public church rebuke and ex-communication--but to no effect.  Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is.  He is still practicing his grievous sin.  He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this.  So we break away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, and won't repent, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to rescue them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy).  Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior through practicing serious sin could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare, where one can work, but has no intention to work, was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should experience repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect God couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to rescue him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for a while, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  But it advises that we don't even speak to this person.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations.  Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

 

The Virgin Birth, and Why It Was Necessary

 Let’s talk about the virgin birth of Jesus. Specifically, two things: Scriptural verses predicting and saying that it will be happening; and secondly, the meaning of it—why a virgin birth was necessary. We’ll begin with Luke 1:26-37, as the New King James Version (NKJV) presents it. Partial verses in some, to reduce the length:

²⁶ Now in the sixth month (ed., of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, as will be explained later), the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

²⁹ But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. ³⁰ Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹ And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. ³² He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. ³³ And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

³⁴ Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” ³⁵ And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. ³⁶ Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. ³⁷ For with God nothing will be impossible.”

As you can see from v.34 and on, NKJ Scripture emphasizes that Mary was a virgin. Why was that necessary? Let’s begin our discussion with this:  People have had a sinful nature ever since Adam and Eve; we have a natural tendency to ignore, or even do the reverse of God’s commands. His Word tells us not to lie; but we lie frequently when it serves our purpose. I could name many such examples of different sins such as this, but you get the point. All of us; all through time, lean toward sinning. Wanting to be holy, fearing and loving God, should be our first priorities, but we fail on all counts. As Romans 3:23 puts it, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It’s important to emphasize that God cannot stand sin (Habakkuk 1:13). This means we humans are not reconciled to God, and cannot have access to heaven no matter what we do on our own, because our sin prevents that. We need forgiveness, and for our sins to be expunged. A just God cannot just avert His eyes from our rebellion against Him, which means hell is our destiny for sin. No matter whether we’re “generally good.” But God wanted to make a way for us to escape hell. He provided a way, but only for those who abide with Jesus. Reading Scripture tells Jesus’ exact role in that. Though He had eternal existence, Jesus did not come from heaven to earth to primarily be a moral leader, nor to heal people, nor to be a martyr. He came to save sinners. Consider I Timothy 1:15 and Luke 19:9-10, on why He came:

…Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... 

⁹ And Jesus said to him… the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Many “theologians” assert that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus or His conception. This would make His birth and life just about another sinful man, though good. But how could Jesus save us from hell, if he was just another guy like us? Even a philosopher, or a super-religionist, when he died, would just be another human death, since all humans sin and cannot enter heaven, for themselves or for others.

It helps figuring it out, to remember this primarily:  Jesus was God, also called the Son of God, which is the same thing—both titles say  He was God. Part of the Trinity. Scripture confirms His deity, in a slew of places. Here’s a good one: Hebrews 1:1-3, 8:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ³ who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…8 But to the Son, He (God the Father) says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Note the many phrases asserting Jesus’ deity:

1)     God spoke to believers through His Son (Jesus)

2)     God appointed Jesus to be heir of all things

3)     Jesus was involved in original creation

4)     Jesus was the “express image” of His (the Father’s) person. The term “express image” means “the exact representation of God’s being;” and “the visible form of the invisible God.” He was called “Immanuel” three times in Scripture. One is in Matthew 1:23:

²³ “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Do not think lightly about “God with us.” While Jesus was on earth, God, who created the vast universe, was truly right there with people. His birth was called the Incarnation—taking on flesh.

5)     Jesus upholds all things (even the universe) by the word of His power. Did you ever wonder, what holds all of this, flying around in space, together? It’s Jesus.

6)    God (the Father) calls His Son, Jesus, “God.”

Finally, the phrases “sat...at the right hand,” and “A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom” are important. In ancient literature, these are symbolic references to equals, to acknowledge their honor and power. To have these bestowed by God the Father upon Jesus, can mean only one thing. Jesus is God.

So the only way to be acceptable to God, as Scripture says, was to believe that we couldn’t do it, being sinful, but Jesus was God-in-the-flesh and did it for us. But if Jesus was a man, how was He also God?

There is a phrase coined by St. Augustine about the New and Old Testaments: “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”  So in the Old Testament, a foretaste of the New Testament, the Jewish priest would, as God commanded, offer up the blood of a healthy innocent lamb, as a substitute (the innocent lamb paid for the sins of the people and for the priest himself). The priest had to do this yearly, since obviously the people sinned often. (Each offer of a lamb only covered sins of the people submitting the lambs to that date—they would have to come each year—if they could). Jesus, being a greater High Priest, had a New Covenant; He offered up Himself—as a Lamb, an innocent substitute, for our sins, not His—and He only had to offer it once, covering all the sins of people.

To explain it deeper for this paper, look at Hebrews 7:26-27, where Jesus is called the High Priest:

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners…²⁷ who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Jesus’ sinlessness enabled Him to be our Substitute Lamb. He offered up His body as payment for our sin—if we are believers in what He did. God the Father accepted that offer, because of Jesus’ sinlessness. That’s the only way Jesus gets His believers reconciled to God. There were no other sinless people.

But how did Jesus remain sinless, if He was also a man? The answer is, in His conception—he was not a regular man. How is that?

The explanation lies in two important facts. First, the curse of the sin nature began with Adam and is passed through the male. Everyone has a father, so everyone has the tendency to sin. Why not through Eve? Two reasons: Scripturally, the male is the head of the wife, and takes the accountability for her actions. Anyone in the hierarchy of the military knows what I am talking about here. Secondly, he is the head of the house, so a child was called “his seed.” See Genesis 9:9, 12:7, 15:13, 19:32, etc.

 Also, because while the curse for Eve in Genesis did not mention disobedience, Adam was accused of disobedience in God’s curse, which can be seen from this partial verse from Genesis 3: 

 ¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’

The women, starting with Eve’s sin, get a totally different curse. Adam, in his curse, carried the sin-nature to the next generation—as all men do, ever since. Therefore, Joseph Could Not have been father to Jesus. Jesus would then have obtained that dreaded sin nature from Joseph, and could not have been God because He would have sinned. The solution was, Jesus’ Father was the Holy Spirit, who also was God, and sinless. Let me repeat again Luke 1:35:

 ³⁵ And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 

It is obvious that Joseph knew he did nothing to her at that time to be a father. He thought she had lain with somebody else. As Matthew 1:19-20 puts it:

Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ²⁰ But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, part of the Trinity of God, who obviously did not have a sinful gene, was the father. Only Joseph’s exclusion, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s intervention,  made it possible for Jesus to be Divine (we are not).

You say, Isn’t it enough that He was the greatest moralist, the greatest teacher, of all time? That is not enough. Jesus had to be sinless, or His death would have been an unacceptable offering to the Father to relieve us from our sin. That’s how much He hates sin. Certainly that assures us that no matter how “good” we are, we cannot obtain heaven on our own. If Jesus weer not God, no matter how good Jesus was, with a curse passed onto him like the rest of us, He would be sinful. We would still be on the way to hell. John 1:29 confirms that: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" I Peter 1:18-19 says:

…you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, ¹⁹ but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 

This blows apart any claim that Jesus is the same as Buddha, or Confucius, or Muhammad, or Ghandi. Jesus alone was sinless, and alone had the “superpower” of substitution—and the power of resurrection, to prove that he alone among men was God, and save us from hell. His followers, I mean.

Hopefully you can see why Mary had to be a virgin, and be impregnated by the Holy Spirit. (This was not a physical act). There are many Old Testament verses suggesting Jesus would have a virgin mother. Such as Genesis 3:15, which is spoken by God to satan:

I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.

Note that Jesus was called her Seed. (Scripture always calls a child “his seed” because a father was the head of the house.  See my references above.)

Note that Seed is capitalized (suggesting the child would be God), and note that it is singular (just one Seed, Christ--we are not gods).

Satan, of course, was the serpent in the temptation of Adam and Eve. God’s prophecy here predicted a battle between satan and a Seed—Jesus—which battle Jesus won at His death and resurrection. Satan would “bruise” Jesus’ “heel” with a temporary hurt--His crucifixion, but He rose from the dead. But Jesus would crush satan’s “head”—a mortal wound administered to satan—which will happen in the last days.

Our desire is to be like Him, and Scripture is pointed that to remain saved, we must crucify our sinful desires, to bear His part in crucifixion; and we must live a new life, a resurrection, as it were, to be seed of our Lord and Master—we must strive to be in His service.

I like the way GotQuestions.org puts it: “The virgin birth is important in that it preserves the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. His physical body He received from Mary as her biological child. But His eternal, holy nature was bestowed by the Holy Spirit. He was all-God and all-man. Thus, He was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. Therefore, He is our perfect sacrifice and also able to empathize with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). Our God graciously revealed His love for us.”

Hopefully that explains how Mary had to be a virgin; so Jesus could, without a sin nature from Joseph, be an acceptable substitute, since He was sinless, paying the price for our sin, enabling us to follow Christ and avoid hell and obtain heaven. Please note: the Holy Spirit is what made Jesus the Holy One—not Mary. Mary had no immaculate conception, and she was not a co-redeemer. She was sinful, but she was a devout person. So Mary’s virginity was part of a pathway for God to enable a way for us to heaven. I have never heard a sermon on this, which is odd, considering its importance.

Now let’s explore a tragically related topic—how some Bibles have attacked Mary’s virginity. The New King James quote I gave you from Luke 1 at the beginning of this paper is in updated English, based from the venerable King James edition of 1611. The King James was the result of an English translation from Greek partial texts, that Erasmus (16^th century Dutch theologian) put together, all 27 books, the New Testament that were earlier acceptable as Holy Spirit-inspired. Since there were insignificant differences among those 5-6000 partial texts of the Bible, they were trustworthy. Erasmus’ Greek Bible was called the “Textus Receptus” (Received Text). The reason I mention all this is that there were false prints of “Bibles” going around then—and there still are. Those false “Bibles” often spread the doctrine that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus. But word spread among believers as to which ones were false; so if a large portion of a Bible was years past its release, yet in great shape, it was pretty certain to be a false Bible, since not too many believers would read it, since they could tell if it was false. The true Bibles and partial texts, on the other hand, were passed around everywhere and grew tattered, in contrast. Only pieces are found—but there were thousands of them. Erasmus, codifying Scripture over a millennium later, was a master theologian, and did a great job of deciding which texts that crossed his path were real or false. He used this “in great shape” as one of several measures of whether it was a false Bible. We should do the same. But…we didn’t. Every single Bible produced today (except KJV or NKJV) came from the Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus texts, from Alexandria, a city known for its notorious heresy known as Gnosticism. (I have more on another pair of blogs). They were “discovered” in near-perfect shape, but altered to make them look old; and they had that guilty suspicious mark—they were whole volumes of the New Testament together, not pieces.

Let’s dig into the subject of modern, false versions from those questionable texts further, and show how it questions Mary’s virginity. You only have two choices in determining what Bible to buy: the King James or New King James will stress her virginity, thus directing us clearly how Jesus made salvation possible. OR, you can choose ANY OTHER version, since they are based on the two false texts. When they back off her virginity, they are saying they want us to think that Mary was a fornicating slut. And Jesus was not God. And we can’t be saved. All that is satan’s theme for you. I will show this choice clearly for you. Keep in mind, the false versions will only get worse, not better, as time passes. If you have any of the false versions, including the ones I outline below, it would be good advice to throw out the bad Bibles. As Google AI puts it, “the two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) disagree with each other on over 3,000 occasions in the gospels.” That huge number is in only four books—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, what are the disagreement numbers on the other 23 New Testament books? That sort of blows the infallibility of Scripture out of the water for their readers, doesn’t it? Textus Receptus doesn’t have significant disagreements like that.

So here we go. Let’s start with Isaiah 7:14, a famous verse predicting that the Messiah (the Jewish Savior) would be born of a virgin—or does it, according to modern “versions”? Our pattern will be, we give you the KJV first, then the false reading after.

a.     King James Version (KJV) says: …Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel

b.     The New International Version (NIV)  (which has sold over 500 million copies worldwide) says: The virgin^[d] will conceive and give birth to a son…(note the handy footnote (d) which, in the bottom of the page, calls her a “young woman”). This may seem OK to you, since the false claim is “only” in a footnote, but they are not expounding clear Truth. The Hebrew word means “virgin.” Isaiah, the writer of his book, says “Behold!” (Which means, “here comes a shocker fact.”) So he definitely means a virgin conceiving. (The NIV conveniently left off the Behold!) No pregnant young woman would deserve a “Behold! A young woman is pregnant—what a shocker.” The NIV writers are copping out, wanting you to make the choice. If you make the wrong choice, and decide that Mary was not a virgin, then she was a slut who fornicated with someone, and Jesus was just another baby--that’s your choice, not theirs, they would say. Joseph thought that, too, until the angel set him straight. (Of course, begging the question: if she’s just a young woman who got pregnant, why all the angelic fanfare for a fornicated birth?)

 

a.     Now let’s try Luke 1:34. In the KJV, it says, in Mary’s quizzical question of the angel about being pregnant: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? This archaic phrase, “know not,” which means, “haven’t had sexual intercourse with,” was prudent, considering how children read Scripture too. The words are used elsewhere, some very interestingly.

b.     But consider the Revised Standard Version: "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" Well, obviously, women can become pregnant without a husband, so this verse tells us nothing about the uniqueness of Mary’s upcoming birth.

c.     Or consider the “Basic English” Bible: How may this be, because I have had no knowledge of a man? I would say, “Well, read a book.” Knowledge is terribly abused here.

 

a.     Let’s look at Luke 3:23: KJV gives a crowd’s thoughts, giving Joseph credit for the birth: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The “as was supposed” says their thoughts were in question.  Very crafty interpretation to English, and true.

b.     But the New Living Translation (more than 50 million copies sold), says: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. The phrase “was known as” doesn’t suggest that their thoughts were wrong—which they were. The new reader would think that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This is tragic theology.

 

a.     Look at Matthew 1:25. KJV: And (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Once again, we have the discreet “knew her not.” Joseph first had sex with her after she had Jesus, making her not a virgin any longer.

b.    Once again, the Basic English Bible founders on modern English: And he had no connection with her till she had given birth to a son; and he gave him the name Jesus. Since when did “connection” necessarily mean sex? Maybe, with the vague word “connection,” they didn’t hold hands? The word “connection” falls under the “Hey, whazzup” interpretation of the Bible. I must remember, never to tell my children after our good conversation, “we have connected.”

 

a.   In Luke 1:26-27, the KV reads: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

b. But the bad Good News Translation has Luke 1:27 thus:

…He had a message for a young woman promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. Her name was Mary. No virginity at all.  This falsity is not even limited to a footnote. The ultimate bad-news for honest theology.

c.     The Weymouth version is hardly better, considering there is confusion over the word “maiden,” in Luke 1:27: to a maiden betrothed to a man of the name of Joseph, a descendant of David. The maiden's name was Mary.

You can see how different modern “theologians” like to play with “virgin.” You can tell, they really can’t stand the word. It’s supernatural—and they were trained in seminary to distrust supernaturalism. Right now, the only version trustworthy is the (New) King James edition.

So that is the end of my paper. There’s a lot of other things you get, if you read carefully and think about it. If Jesus was God, shouldn’t the Gospels be the first place to go for Truth about how to be saved? Get the word on salvation from Jesus, God Himself, since Jesus will someday judge us for heaven or hell. And Jesus was the only person who said much on hell—and He said a lot—most of which are unknown because few pastors will preach on it. So if you need to know more about heaven vs hell, Jesus in the Gospels is the place to go first. Just read those red-letter editions in context. You will be shocked, and might even consider you haven’t been getting the path to salvation from your pastor. That’s what I concluded. And every word Jesus spoke is serious; He won’t change the rules that He lays forth. And don’t even think that His rules are too difficult, so I can ignore Him.  And don’t let any “theologian” tell you that Jesus’ words in some particular verses were for Jews only, or for Gentiles exclusively. Or, telling you that He is speaking about behavior “not for now, but for a specific future time period.” Scripture says nothing about such discriminations. Pray every time you read Scripture, which should be frequently. It is God’s Words for you, for all of us. Be like the Bereans, who checked out what was preached. Your pastor or denomination are not gods. The Holy Spirit can help you to obtain wisdom and judge what you hear. And get a Bible that is untainted with those modern versions where the theme is “avoid supernaturalistic stuff. Like virginity, or angels.” May God bless you.

Is Adam's Guilt Transferred to Us?

 Is Adam's Guilt Transferred to Us? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred (Suppose We are Not Righteous in Our Behavior)?

There is a problem in the doctrine of salvation from hell that most denominations also believe in. Their theory surrounds the word “imputation.”  First, let’s define the word “impute.” That's the translation of the Greek word "logizomai" in Scripture.  Unger’s Expository Dictionary (highly reputed and reliable) defines "logizomai" as: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account; to charge with, or credit with.” The theorists believe that imputation leads them to three doctrines: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Christ; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. However, note that their usage of "impute" also means a transfer from one person or party to another person or party. This is a distortion, an important one. To read carefully the definitions of the word I gave you from Unger’s above, you do not get that it has to be a transfer from one person to another. It seems to say it is a simple charge on the books, for whatever reason.

 

Let’s look at the three verses in the New Testament where "impute" appears.  First, here's Romans 4:11:

And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also

This is a difficult verse, but there is no way God is doing a transfer of righteousness—unless you twist the verse and say that Abraham is the “father,” and his faith is transferred through the generations of believers. That’s impossible, since you’re effectively saying Abraham is our savior. No, it’s simply saying, if they believed, they get the same righteousness before God that he did. No transfer is going on.  

 

Imputed next appears in Romans 4:21-24:

 

²¹ and (Abraham) being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. ²² And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” ²³ Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, ²⁴ but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead

 

Abraham's conviction in God's faithfulness and ability to perform, is also credited to our account IF WE BELIEVE, as you can see.  Again, Abraham's belief doesn't transfer to us.  Finally, the last usage of the "logizomai" is in Romans 5:13:

 

¹³ For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

Sin is not laid to the charge of the sinner, IF he does not know that he has sinned, and no Law exists for him to know about. (I don't want to get into a discussion about when sin is debited to Old Testament people before Law). This has nothing to do with Christ, or any transfer.

 

That's it, the only verses with the word logizomai. No transfers are implied.

 

You know, the Jews of Jesus' day believed in at least one of the three transfers of the faulty doctrine listed above. Namely, transfer of righteousness. But Jesus has a few things to say about that in John 8:37-44:

³⁷ “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. ³⁸ I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”

³⁹ They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. ⁴⁰ But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. ⁴¹ You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

⁴² Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. ⁴³ Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. ⁴⁴ You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do

The Jews insisted that they were OK with God since Abraham was their father (ie, they were in his lineage). They had circumcision, further "proof" of their righteousness.  But He assures them they were lost in unbelief--after all, they slandered who Jesus’ Father was. They believed Jesus was fathered by Joseph, before he and Mary were wed. Jesus’ father was the Holy Spirit, so implying that Jesus was the result of fornication was a blasphemy. And, don’t forget, they killed Him. He bluntly tells them that they obtained no righteousness from Abraham; no transfer there.

So, in all three verses where impute appears, we have shown that no transfer was going on. And Abraham’s credit of righteousness was not passed along to the Jews.

The real meaning of "impute" should not be distorted on the guilt side of the ledger either--but their theory has done it.  They took their distorted definition and applied it to Adam’s descendants, smearing us with guilt because of Adam’s sin.

 

Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? Their theorists say "yes."  Well, I think their flaw warps out as this:  they make it a gigantic cross-generational curse that God has attached to Adam's descendants. However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:

 

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not charged by God; they are not part of God’s plan for eternity.  Thinking carefully, Adam was created with the ability to not sin; he could make a free choice to sin or not.  Unfortunately, he chose the latter.  The actual result is:  We are born with a tendency to sin.  This is a disadvantage that we got from Adam.  But it is a tendency; it is not a guilt transfer.  They have different meanings. The fact that we all sin is from our choices.

Beside our leaning toward sin, we also got from Adam his mortality.  It was necessary for God to put mortality on us:  If we live forever, our abilities to sin will have no limit. And sin would become immortal in us. Bad thought. We prefer release from that bondage, and we obtain immortality--when true believers go to heaven.

Despite our inheritance, assuming we are of accountable age, we decide--on our own--whether to sin in a situation or not.  Freedom of choice. No cross-generational curse; we are responsible from our own sins.  Thankfully, God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins.  From all that wonderful love and mercy, do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly reasonable minds to make them. What’s important, in summary, is that our tendency to sin does not mean that we inherited guilt. Believing this theory may have a dangerous consequence: ie, some people believe that they are beyond getting saved.

But there are other favorite verses presumably backing their theorists that we need to deal with. Such as Romans 5:12.

 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This verse does not say that Adam’s guilt is transferred to us. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? As the verse says, because “all sinned.” We are only responsible for our own sin.  We can’t blame Adam or God for sin that we chose to do. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

I should add, this theory can lead to another evangelism problem. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin,” it is easy for them to refuse accountability for their sin. But God lays it on us, and promises judgment will come for all those who did not seek shelter in Jesus. But the theory makes it tougher to reach them with the Gospel in that way too.

The other favorite verses for their theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

 

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

 

In the phrase “as in Adam all die:” does it say, we all die because we have his sin guilt on us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on.

 

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of the theory: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

 

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

 

Now I don’t have any argument here at all (as long as we are talking believers). Christ made a substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. That includes a transfer, thank God.

 

On to the third claim of the theory: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a conservative evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But it means that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.”

 

The phrase “set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, as they say, or efforts in doing so. Or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other articles on eternal security know where I’m going with this. Yes, salvation is simple initially; once we repent of our sin, and accept who Christ is, God looks over our past sins. BUT if we don’t live a godly life, we could lose our salvation. Their theory says nothing about the future; it implies that it’s a “one and done;” that when we are saved, we get Christ’s righteousness for our whole lives. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call this theology “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. They sometimes also say, in essence, that behaving righteously just comes naturally out of our love for what God has done. The Encyclopedia sets the bar lower; it says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try typing the word “righteous” in a Biblical search engine (such as biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references of verses that dispute that, such as Genesis 7:1:

 

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

 

God told Noah he was righteous—because his belief was evidenced in his behavior. There are over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments, just like that one. Then search for “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending this defective argument should not have to include twisting the word "righteous." Having God call us "righteous" in our behavior, after we put our trust in Him, is attainable.  In fact, God expects His children to behave righteously.  His demand for righteousness after we accept what Jesus did does not mean He expects perfection, praise Him.  Believers can sin now and then, and still be "righteous."  He does commend His believers who strive to make their lives a righteous living for Him. If we do not abide with Christ, we are denying Him.  He will then deny us (John 15:1-6).  I have other blogs on that subject.

 

One more of the theory’s favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

 

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This contempt for righteous behavior seems to contradict over a hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. Is that possible? Let’s analyze this verse further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here?  In context, it is a prayer of penitence and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites, to plead for God's mercy. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer of that culture does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness, which amplifies the greatness of the Lord for even considering mercy upon us. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with Isaiah's version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? Scripture must be taken in context, and with the assumption that every word is originally God's Word, and that any copy errors are not significant to salvation.

Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like these above, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

 

There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind. As I point out in another blog, this theology does not lead you into sweaty uncertainty.  Yes, be fearful of God before sinning.  Do some things that intentionally remove them in our lives, so we can bear the fruit of sanctification.  Confess known sins, and repent of them regularly.  Believe that God forgives.  Doing those should eliminate most uncertainty.  You can't, Scripturally, expect certainty that we would all like to have. We would get complacent--like the Jews did.

We thus conclude that of the three imputations, two were biblically incorrect --by emphasizing one or two Scriptures, and ignoring many other ones. Only the imputation of our sin on Christ was correct. As long as we keep in mind, it’s not a “one-in-done” transfer. They demean righteous behavior, they teach cross-generational curse, as well as the cheap grace of ignoring the necessity of a godly life to maintain salvation. We do not get guilt for Adam's sins.

Read my other blogs to get more on this picture.  Or, better, read Scripture!

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.