Truth or Consequences

Transcript

GRM 892
Truth or Consequences
Selected Verses
03-07-04


I want to continue the theme that we talked about last week. We talked about some matters relating to The Passion of the Christ, the movie. And I just want to talk about some current things going on, and then review some pertinent matters relating to the scriptures with you that I think we have to keep in mind as the foundation for what is going on. It’s easy in all that takes place for us as Christians to get caught up in the issues and begin to promote our convictions, but with the wrong motivation. And the right action without the right motivation is hollow and empty, and it won’t last. So we have to be careful that we are not promoting the right thing on a foundation of sand, but have our convictions and our reasons given as they are in scripture.

The movie, The Passion of the Christ, continues to get a lot of attention, both in the newspaper and in news magazines. U.S. News & World Report, their cover story this week is on The Real Jesus, Searching for the Truth between Mel Gibson and the Gospels. And my purpose in talking about some of these matters, and not either to promote the film or attack the film, but I want to point out some of the issues that are being brought up that I think are a concern to us as believers. Charles Krauthammer, I had noted an editorial in the local paper this past week and he often presents a conservative view on political and social issues that many of us would find identification with. I was reminded as I read his comments on The Passion movie and the gospels, that again often our agreement on issues is superficial. We realize we have no more in common, Biblically and theologically, with theological conservatives than we do with theological liberals. Now we might agree more on certain positions with theological conservatives, but the foundation is nowhere the same. Let me read you a little bit of Krauthammer’s article. This came from the March 5th editorial in the local Lincoln paper, The Lincoln Journal Star. Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. Muslims have their story, God’s revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story, the covenant between man and God at Sinai. Christians have their story, too, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of co-religionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people, and with the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story they come off rather badly.

Now that thinking, if you have your own story, as he calls it, and it only relates to you and people like you, then you have a right to your story. But Christians, their story involves other people. It involves the Jews. Now where he’s going with this is therefore, the Christians do no have the right to their story, because it affects other people. Because of that peculiarity, that the story of the Christians involves others, particularly the Jews, because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story, but is a story with its own story. Now we’re going to move away from what the Biblical story is, to history. It’s a story with its own story, a history of centuries of relentless and at times savage persecution of Jews in Christian lands. Now we would say that the bible does talk about the persecution that will come to the Jews wherever they are. But you see he says this persecution has taken place in Christian lands, and using the Christian term broadly. Therefore, the telling of the Christian story has been bad for the Jews because that is the reason Jews have been persecuted. This history is what moved Vatican II, and we really jump here. I must say I’ve admired some of his editorials and comments as they’ve been on different news interview programs and so on. But I’m amazed at his lack of ability to think through what the Bible says here and the issues related.

This history is what moved Vatican II. So we’ve gone now to what the Bible says in the New Testament and the persecution of the Jews, and since it happened in Christian lands it must be somehow tied to what the Bible says about Jews. So ultimately Christians are responsible for the persecution of Jews. This kind of reasoning will ultimately lead to the persecution of Christians for proclaiming truth, because the proclaiming of truth as believers believe it in the scripture is detrimental to society and on we go.

Well this history is what moved Vatican II in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to un-teach the lesson that has been taught for almost 2 millennia—that the Jews were Christ-killers. Now we talked about the part the Jews had in the crucifixion of Christ, their role and responsibility in a previous study. We’re not going to go off in there. But you’ll note he said Vatican II said that henceforth the teaching about the sufferings of Christ should be done in such a way that there is no indication that the Jews were responsible. Now we’ve moved for the Christians that the authority for what they do should be found in Vatican II, not in the Bible. This becomes part of his article. Vatican II did not question the gospels. It did not disavow its own central story. It took responsibility for it and for the baleful history it has spawned, recognizing that all words, even God’s words are necessarily subject to human interpretation. It bordered an understanding of those words that was most conducive to recognizing the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people.

Now that might have merit, I’m not getting into his interpretation or the issue of Vatican II. But you know Vatican II ordered that God’s Word should be interpreted in such a way that recognizes the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people. I don’t know whether he’s aware that Protestants don’t recognize Vatican II. Many Catholics don’t recognize Vatican II. But Vatican II is not an authoritative document for us. What the pope and the Roman Catholic hierarchy declare is of no interest to me. I view them as a pagan godless religion in conflict with the Word of God and the salvation that God proclaims. He doesn’t seem to be aware of this. I’m sure he is, but it doesn’t come out in his article. And I still don’t know that I would read you the whole editorial, but the Vatican did that for good reason. The blood libel that this story had affixed upon the Jewish people has resulted in countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre of 6 million Jews under Hitler.

Now see where we’ve come. A literal interpretation of the Bible is what resulted in the Holocaust. A literal interpretation of the Bible had resulted in countless Christian massacres of Jews. That’s preposterous. And we went through why a literal understanding of scripture teaches just the opposite. I’ll read another article in a moment which explains why evangelical Bible-believing Christians are the greatest supporters of Israel today in the Gentile world. Acknowledged by Jews, I’ll read you a Jewish article on that. But here you see the connection. Those who interpret the Bible literally in what it says regarding the death of Christ and the role of the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust. You see we’re getting perilously close to saying you cannot allow people to believe and teach what the Bible says, because it will lead to things like the Holocaust.

It’s no accident the Vatican II occurred just 2 decades after the Holocaust. Let’s face it, the Holocaust occurred in the ‘40s. Everything since then happened after the Holocaust. That’s not exactly of logical reason to explain why there was Vatican II. It’s no accident that Vatican II occurred just 2 decades after the Holocaust. Well it didn’t occur 2 years after, we’re talking 20 years after the Holocaust. Somehow he sees the connection.

Indeed in its very shadow. Well by that basically everything since World War II has happened in the shadow of World War II. That is what makes this movie on the passion of Christ such a singular act of interreligious aggression. I’m not defending the movie. What concerns me is what the Bible says about the role of the Jews and the actual suffering of Christ. That’s what his problem with the movie is, directly. His problem with Mel Gibson is he openly rejects the Vatican II teaching. So what? As a Protestant I do, too. Maybe that’s an inconsistency with Mel Gibson as a Catholic, but that’s hardly the issue here of what does the Bible say. But Vatican II becomes the authority for all Christians as far as Krauthammer is concerned. And all Christians ought to recognize what Vatican II did, and so he goes on. And he gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews. See he’s stuck on Vatican II, and how could anybody give us the pre-Vatican II story of the Jews. Which means what? We’re going to take the Bible literally. That doesn’t mean we are to be involved in persecuting the Jews, nor does it mean the Jews do not bear a significant responsibility and a unique responsibility in the death of their Messiah and King.

And then he goes on to question the motives and intentions of the movie and the writer of the movie. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central and take care to give it the most invidious pre-Vatican II treatment possible. Now you see we keep coming back to Vatican II and how could you give the account of the Jews in a pre-Vatican II. I mean, how could you go back beyond 1965. Well, I open my Bible and I read it. Then he goes on to say that Gibson’s defense would be he’s just telling the gospel story. Just listen to this. His defense is that he is just telling the gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single gospel story of the passion. There are subtle differences among the 4 accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. Now he is off to why you’re not allowed to handle scripture that way. You see where we’re going here with the driving criticism of this. The real problem is you took the gospel literally, and you’re not allowed to do that. That’s offensive. Now I’m not defending the movie or getting into details, he brings in other things about the move. But the fact is the Bible says what it says, it does not contradict itself. To say that it is nonsense to take the gospels literally because they contradict one another, they have subtle differences and every text can be interpreted in its own way. He wrote this editorial, published across the country, and assumed people would be able to read it and interpret it. But he doesn’t think you can handle the Word of God that way. Everything is subject to interpretation. If that’s the case, then why does he bother writing articles, because everybody will interpret their own way; and so he really says nothing. Well that’s not true with my editorials, it’s only true with the Bible. And the fact that some people do that with the Bible is true. But the fact that you want to write your editorial as though no one has the right to take the Bible the same way they’ll take your editorial, literally, is a farce. This is a man who has a medical degree from Harvard University. We’re not talking about someone who doesn’t think well. Educated in the world’s system. He goes on.

Here’s a contrast, and this also appeared in the Lincoln paper the 3rd of March. And this is written by an unbelieving Jew. He titled it Jews Need to Relax. About how Gibson’s Passion is overly vicious to Jewish people and now a Jew writes and says the Jews need to relax. He said he had to leave the movie early because he had to go, his babysitter had a deadline. But he says none of the 4 New Testament accounts of Jesus’ suffering and death are as horrid or sadistic as Mel Gibson’s. But the Biblical versions all tell the same story. Jesus gets on the nerve of the Jewish priest of Jerusalem, they demand the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, put Him to death. Pilate is at first unwilling but eventually orders the crucifixion. End of story. At least to me that’s the end of the story. I don’t believe Jesus was resurrected, that He was the Son of God or the Messiah. I think of Him, when I think of Him at all, as just another charismatic revolutionary who threatened the status quo and paid with His life. But I’m a Jew and not a Christian. And so he goes on.

Later in the editorial, Gibson is telling a 2000-year-old story. Most Christians are smart enough and reasonable enough to understand the distinction between Caiaphas and Jerry Seinfeld. It’s insulting to suggest otherwise. It’s also insulting to instruct Christians on how to interpret their own religious text. Hey you’re not allowed to read the Bible that way anymore, the critics say. Go ask the Vatican, check with the Harvard Divinity School. Isn’t it interesting, here’s a man who does not believe Jesus was the Son of God, does not believe He was the Messiah, doesn’t believe He was resurrected from the dead. But can see through this. It’s insulting to instruct Christians on how to interpret their own religious text. Hey you’re not allowed to read the Bible that way anymore, the critics say. He can see through that. Why aren’t Christians allowed to read their Bible that way? Why do they have to go ask the Harvard Divinity School how they are allowed to read their Bibles.

The plain fact is that the gospels are Christianity’s collective account of the saga of Christ. And quibbles aside, the Passion is faithful to that account. If Gibson’s movie is anti-Semitic it’s because the New Testament itself is a book that aims to supercede Judaism by discrediting it. We wouldn’t agree with that, but he does at least see the fact that it’s consistent with what the Bible says about the Jews. Then he goes on to say, today Muslims are waging a worldwide Jihad against Zionists and crusaders. Devout Christians are the allies of the Jews in this war. Branding these Christians as dumb and potentially dangerous bigots is obnoxious, it is also impolitic. In fact Jewish activists should embrace the Passion. After all, if Jesus was divinely sent to die for mankind, then the high priest, Caiaphas, was God’s instrument. If Jesus was just another rebel from Galilee, well no harm, no foul. Well keep in mind it’s written by an unbeliever, at least there’s more clarity there than others.

The article in U.S. News is the same as the article in Newsweek, in that their whole tone of the argument against the movie is against the gospels. Their argument is, they’re interpreting the gospels literally. They’re ignoring the last 50 years of scholarship. What this Jewish writer said, you have to go to Harvard Divinity School to find out how you’re allowed to interpret it. A combination of church politics, deeply ingrained prejudice and limited evidence impeded a full or fair examination of Jesus’ Jewishness well into the 20th century. That has changed during the last 50 years. Aided by finds like the Dead Sea scrolls, scholars have made great strides in reconstructing the centuries surrounding the crucifixion. Then you have quotes from people from all the different universities and scholars to show. And so the real problem. What then are some of the highlights of the corrective curriculum that recent scholarship has provided? Then he goes on to talk about the last 50 years. And basically where we come to again, it’s anyone who tried to interpret the Bible literally is politically dangerous. I mean they’re the ones who created the Holocaust. They’re the ones who’ve been responsible for and on you go. And you see the attitude that is there.
Along a different line. We as believers need to be careful in all these debates and arguments that are going on, not only regarding this particular subject, but in other areas that our reasons are firmly grounded in scripture. The world is adrift and in prior days in our society there was an acknowledgement of God and His authority. I’m not saying we were a Bible-believing nation, but we recognized the authority of God and gave general assent to the authority of the Word of God—the Ten Commandments and things like that. We are now living in a day when there is no absolute authority, no absolute standard of right and wrong. You can see that reflected in, you can’t take this literally. How do you take it? You take it according to the scholars. Which scholars? Well the scholars that believe like I believe, is what they would say. You know they don’t reference one evangelical scholar. Reminded me when we had a scholar come and lecture at the local university here, not the big one, but the next one. And you know what his observation to the leadership of that school was? You have the most unscholarly library I have ever been in. What do you mean? You have nothing reflecting the evangelical position. How can you claim to be a scholarly institution when you don’t even provide the opportunity for your students to become aware of the other positions. You know what they had to ask him? For a list of the scholarly books from that viewpoint because they weren’t aware of them. So you just stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no view but ours, so it has to be the right view.

But we see there’s a battle going on over gay marriage and what is marriage now, and the marriage amendment. This to me is an example of a right action with wrong motive. And we have to be careful as believers. I get too many magazines, I’m trying to let my subscriptions run out. And you know why I get all these magazines—they come to me cheap because I get professional discounts. So if I have to buy 2-3 of them off the newsstand, I might just as well get the whole year’s subscription. But then I get them stacking up and that helps teach Marilyn grace and patience. I try to keep them stacked with all the newspapers we get, too. But in the article, this was in Newsweek with that giant of the faith on the front. And Newsweek doesn’t propose to be a religious magazine, and they’re better when they stay out of those issues. But it’s on gay marriage. And what I want to be careful of here is we have the statistics and the statistics we like. In fact we could claim some statistics here. Despite the sentiment in the Bay area, what’s going on in San Francisco, a new Newsweek poll finds that only 23% of registered voters support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Now we’re not careful we as Bible-believing Christians want to go out and say you know only 23% of the people in our country support gay marriages, homosexual marriages. And that becomes the foundation for us wanting to get a marriage amendment and all that. But what if it gets to be 51% of the voters? Will it then be right? What if it gets to be 68% that approve it? Will it be right? No, it won’t. We need to be careful if our reason for arguing why we should have an amendment against it. If they take a poll and find out that some day down the road not very long that 75% support homosexual marriage, then we ought to have an amendment in favor of it. Because we had an amendment against just because of what? The percentage. So our reason for supporting heterosexual marriage, opposing divorce, living together heterosexually outside of marriage or homosexual activity of all kind is not because of the number of people for or against. It’s because of what God says.

Cal Thomas had a good editorial on this. This is editorial night. This came from the Omaha World Herald, March 3rd, Standards Give Way to Fairness. And we would acknowledge Cal Thomas as an evangelical Christian, as many of you are aware. The argument most often heard in favor of same sex marriage is that it is the fair thing to do. It is an interesting position because having jettisoned one standard for marriage, those pushing for the inclusion of same sex marriage now appeal to the public on the basis of another standard. But if there are no standards, or only standards that shift with the changing winds of culture, which then don’t count as standards at all, on what basis are advocates of same sex marriage appealing to the majority of us, who, according to opinion polls, want to keep marriage for heterosexuals. Let’s put it this way. If you tell me you do not believe in God and then say to me that I should brake for animals or pay women equally or help the poor, on what basis are you making such an appeal? If no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness, compassion and fidelity exists in the universe, then what you are asking me to accept is an idea that has taken hold in your head but has all the moral compulsion of a bowl of cereal. Why should I brake for animals? You know we have PETA today. They, you know, we ought to treat animals like humans. Why? Because we think we should. Why? Because it’s good to do. Why? You know like your kids, why? Why? Shut up and go to your room.

You are a sentimentalist trying to persuade me to a point of view based on your feelings about the subject, not rooted in the fear of God or some unchanging earthly standard. Then later in the editorial he says I recently asked Republican New York governor, George Potocki, if he favored same sex marriage. He said he doesn’t but thinks some accommodation should be made to homosexuals, offering similar benefits. What about polygamy? He quickly rejected that saying it’s against the law. This is where we’re going round on these. There’s a good note in this Newsweek article, Outlaw Vows, but within this they have a section on the state of our unions. If marriage is in trouble, don’t blame gays. Straights change the rules. And what they’re showing here is there has been an erosion in the sanctity of marriage because, and they’ve got charts in here and all, on the number of couples that are just living together. The number of births to unmarried mothers. The divorce rates in the United States. So this issue of homosexual marriage is just part of an overall trend in our society which has discarded marriage. Become acceptable to divorce for about any reason. We have no fault divorce, which basically is what? I don’t like you anymore, or I’ve found someone I like better, or whatever. Having children outside of marriage, used to be a stigma. Now what do we do? Well even our teenagers in school now, we think it’s time we have classes for them and their kids so they can bring their kid to school so other kids can wish they had kids. And all this going on. So the breakdown of marriage has gone on and nobody can answer why should we get married. So they interviewed couples in here that are living together and have children and say when are you getting married? And their question is why should we get married? Good question.

But then we have to find out why have standards, and these have been raised in other articles. Why should we have standards against polygamy, as Governor Patocki was asking. It’s against the law. Well let’s break the law. So some judge says you know I don’t think it’s fair to discriminate against those wives who would like to have multiple wives with one husband because then they divide the work and have less trouble with the guy. Why should we discriminate those people? It’s their choice. Don’t we have freedom today? I mean I’m not saying you have to marry 10 women or 10 women have to agree to marry 1 husband, but if they want to shouldn’t they have freedom? And why do we have ages? What if a 16-year-old wants to marry a 35-year-old? We say that’s against the law. Why? I mean we want to give teenagers the right to do everything else and they should have freedom to decide when they have sex and with whom they have sex, and their parents don’t need to know, and we should just facilitate it. Why should we limit their freedom? And on we go. Now just what should be the limits? Well if it’s harmful to other people. Well that’s a standard pretty hard. Who’s going to decide what’s harmful? I read you an editorial where this man feels that interpreting the gospel literally is harmful to Jews. So that means, therefore, we shouldn’t be allowed to take the Bible literally.

Well we should function with love. How can someone who has no authority outside themselves even agree that there is such a concept of love. Some of you are reading and rereading or reading for the first time Francis Schaeffer. If not, I’d encourage you. Twenty or twenty-five years ago he was writing about this, maybe thirty years ago. But I used to go down to the university years ago, would raise this question with the young people at the university. Upon what basis are you making your decision? Why is it right or wrong? What determines right and wrong? Why is it right for me to talk to you, but not slit your throat in the alley later? Well because that wouldn't be good. Why? We see people doing terrible things in the world today, they think it’s the right thing. They think it’s a good thing to do. We say no it’s not. But in their society they have a different standard. The problem is we create our standards and we ourselves are the standard. Where will it stop?

All these things, we have one reason for what we do as believers. Have one reason why I hold to what is right and wrong. Because the Bible says it. I brought a page out of a Christian magazine from a large Christian organization. And one section of this, and it’s a large magazine, I just tore out the page before I came. Here, a poll. The majority of Americans are pro-life. Attention Democratic Presidential nominees. A December Zogby international poll, I don’t know who Zogby is, but he had an international poll, has revealed that Americans are becoming increasingly pro-life. A nonpartisan polling firm found that be a significant 53 to 36 percent margin the public supports this statement. Abortion destroys human life and is manslaughter. Does that make any difference to me as a believer? I mean I can see the polls because that’s what determines right and wrong for our society. But in a Christian magazine I read it and say so what. If the poll was reversed, 36% against abortion and 53% in favor, would it change anything for us as believers? Absolutely nothing. So we have to be careful we don’t begin to frame our arguments on sand, because the tide of the world just shifts and goes. Now let’s face it, we see what’s happening. We had a judge in Alabama who had to be removed from his position. Why? He broke the law. He wouldn’t remove the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. But we have mayors now marrying homosexuals, even though the law of their state says it’s a breaking of the law. But who is speaking against it? Not very many people. Certainly not the people who were saying that judge ought to be ousted because we have to respect law or our society will disintegrate. But we don't have to respect it here. Why? Well we don’t want to. So we can see what happens. They have no absolute standard, it’s just we decided, so it doesn’t apply to us.

I just want to look at some scripture with you to remind you. This is the authority for us. I recognize the world says we don’t recognize that as the Word of God, these people, I read you some of the editorials, we don’t accept it. It can be interpreted a variety of ways. All of these things. The issue in our land of so-called religious freedom, do I have the right to read this Bible and take it at face value. We’re getting close to where that may not be allowed because it will be homophobia to preach against homosexuality, it will be a hate crime, and on we go. But for us as believers we are anchored in the Word, we will die for this. Multitudes of people down through history have died. Why? They would not give up their claim that the Bible is the absolute authority. And it is God’s Word.

Let me give you some statistics and then I want to take you to some scriptures. These aren’t new, I’ve shared it with you before but I’ll remind you. The Bible claims to be a revelation from God. That’s our only hope. If we do not have a word from God that is understandable, there is no standard of right and wrong. That will change. Tomorrow it may be all right for a 40-year-old man to marry a 6-year-old girl. Why isn’t it? Well everybody knows it’s wrong. Says who? I mean if you’re born this way you can’t help it. An article of a man, psychiatrist who had degrees from Harvard, he was on the way to prison for sex crimes with children. You know what his statement was? Why can’t you people understand I was born this way. Well if he’s born that way, you get enough people who claim they were born that way, pretty soon it becomes what? Loving to let them live that way. We need a revelation outside ourselves. The Bible claims to be that, and what we will do for the next 6 Sunday nights, over 2000 times expressions such as thus saith the Lord and the Lord spoke are used in the Old Testament. No, we won’t do that. But you could go through and look up every one of those 2000 times, 2000+.

What I’m saying is repeatedly the Bible makes the claims, this is the Word of God, this is God speaking. For example, Isaiah the prophet 20 times declares his writings are the Word of God. Jeremiah, 100 times, and these are round numbers, declares that the Word of the Lord came to him. Ezekiel says the same things some 60 times. Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, all those prophets begin their writings with the word of the Lord came to me. Malachi, small book that closes the Old Testament, uses the phrase saith the Lord 25 times. All this to say that is a claim that has to be carefully considered. Is this God speaking? Now we have a terrible erosion. The fact that the world denies this doesn’t shake me, but we have a terrible erosion going on in the evangelical church that is willing to compromise on this. Which is really saying what? I don’t believe it is the Word of God. Otherwise we couldn’t compromise it, could we? They think we can’t give on it.

Go to Hebrews chapter 1, just an example that encompasses all the New Testament. Hebrews chapter 1 verse 1 ”God after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets.” So this New Testament writer accepts the fact that it was God who was speaking to His ancestors in the prophets. It wasn’t the word of men, it was men being used of God to communicate His message. He did it in many portions and in many ways, dreams, visions and so on. Peter wrote that the holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God. So the sovereign God has chosen to reveal Himself and make Himself known. If there is a God and we are to know anything about Him, He will have to make Himself known to us. If He’s playing hide and seek, there is no way for us to find Him. If there is a God and we are to know anything about Him He must make Himself known to us. If there is a God and He has chosen to reveal Himself and make Himself known, then I will have to assume that He is intelligent enough, if He is God, to communicate to us His creation in a way that we can understand. And how did He create us to communicate? Verbally. I read you articles by men who assume that by putting their article in print people would be able to read it and understand it. They didn’t write it and assume everyone who reads this will have a different interpretation. They assumed they were communicating in an understandable way. I take it the God who made us and gave us the ability to communicate to us in an understandable way.
So we talk about God spoke, we say oh yes but everybody has a different idea. Doesn’t change the fact that He spoke. The fact that 10 people would read an editorial that I just read to you and say well I have my own idea, the fact is the man who wrote the editorial had a basic idea and he communicated it. We’d say well we’re going to limit ourselves to the normal rules of speech and language as we read this, we would all come to the same basic understanding of what was said. Everything we do is predicated on that. It’s so overly obvious it seems like well what are we talking about. You get up and go to the store tomorrow and you go through the cash register and they’ll say that’ll be $19.50, and you’ll say how do you interpret that? I have a different view of that. That’s not my understanding. And they’d be calling store security, right? Because everything we do is predicated upon the ability to understand in normal speech. And a person who doesn’t have that ability, we say there is a serious malfunction, they are not able to function in normal society.
So when we come and say God spoke, and then to say well everybody has a different interpretation, we’re either saying that every single person is unable to understand normal communication or God is not able to communicate in an understandable way. That’s a serious charge against God. What kind of God is He? He would create us but He doesn’t know how to communicate to us in a way that we can understand. Now we sometimes are like our children are. What do our children do? You tell them to do something and then they don’t do it, or they do the opposite of what you told them. What do they say? I didn’t know what you meant. That doesn’t wash here. You knew exactly what I meant. Then you see them start to flush. Trapped. That one didn’t work. Well my brother made me do it. I mean we’re not done. But the fact is they know. You put it in clear language. That’s why the Bible says that unregenerate people suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Doesn’t say they are not able to comprehend it in that sense, they don’t want to know it, they don’t want to hear it. Then God now in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. So Old and New Testament alike are the Word of God.

That’s the standard. God is truth, His Word is truth. There is a finality to that. These are basic things. The character of God is truth. Titus, Paul begins the letter to Titus by saying the God who cannot lie, Titus 1:2. It says this, God cannot lie in His very nature and being. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. We won’t take the time to go back to the Old Testament passages like Deuteronomy 32:4. God in His very character and being is righteousness, justice. I mean that’s what He is in His being. So what comes from Him is truth. We do the same thing today, don’t we? You get in a trial in a courtroom, someone comes as a witness. What do they want to demonstrate? The integrity of this witness and show that he is a person who is characterized by telling truth. You want to discredit him, what? You try to show, oh he’s been a liar. Well God in His very being is truth, so what He says will be true. So His Word is true. So you have these kind of statements and let me just read you some, we won’t turn there because of time. In Psalm 119, your law is truth, all your commandments are truth, the sum of your Word is truth. You repeatedly have these sayings, this is what God’s Word is, it is truth. You know Pilate’s question to Jesus, what is truth? He was standing in the presence of the One who was truth, but he doesn’t want to admit it, he doesn’t want to know it. Because immediately that you acknowledge this is truth, that makes you responsible to submit to it. Right?

So let me sift out a couple of scriptures here for you. God’s truth is always truth, Old and New Testament alike. Now people say well then you should be sacrificing animals today, then you should be doing all the things the Law said in all of it. Well you understand Jesus said in Matthew chapter 5 verse 18, “not one jot, not one tittle will pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled.” That’s not different than we do, you tell your children to do something, six months later they do the same thing you say wait a minute, why are you doing that? Well six months later you told me to do this. Well you did it, that fulfilled your word at that point, it was accomplished, it was done. Or you promised them you will do something and you do it. That’s what God did. Parts of the Old Testament have been fulfilled. Mosaic Law served its purpose, was brought to completion with the coming of Christ, so we don’t observe the Mosaic Law. Well then you don’t take the Bible literally. We take it absolutely literally because God said that His purposes with that portion of His Word have been fulfilled, they are done. Just like the Old Testament prophesied the coming of Christ, that He would suffer and die on the cross. That was done, it was fulfilled. He’s not going to come next month, next year or ever again to suffer and die on the cross. When He comes the second time, Hebrews says, it won’t be to deal with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

The fact that people want to try to set the scripture against itself and make it look ridiculous doesn’t change the fact that scripture is not ridiculous, men are ridiculous in all that they will go through to try to reject it. It is truth, it is eternal truth. Isaiah chapter 40 verse 8 says the word of our God stands forever. “Heaven and earth will pass away, my word will not pass away”, Jesus said in Matthew 24:35. It is a final word of truth. That’s why we as believers can keep coming back to this Book and say it’s truth, it’s truth. We have to interpret it properly, yes, but that doesn’t mean everyone can have their own interpretation. You must interpret it according as God gave it. That’s why we follow grammatical interpretation. We follow the rules of grammar. You’re not just to free to say well it says that but I think what it really means is this. What it really means is what it says. Oh parts of it are deep and hard to understand. Well that may be. Parts of it take more study, parts of it presuppose that you have an understanding of one portion that enable you to understand other portions that builds. Doesn’t mean just anybody off the street can open it up, read it and know what it says. We don’t do that with our other documents. We have kids go to school, people go to school, adults go to school and take classes so they can read and understand and learn more and build on it. This idea that the Bible is some kind of holy book, it is holy in the sense it is a revelation if the holy God. But it’s interpreted normally. I realize sin comes into the question and the role of the Holy Spirit to give understanding, but man is accountable to the truth as God has revealed it.

Go to Isaiah chapter 8 verse 19, Isaiah chapter 8 verse 19, “when they say to you consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter, should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?” There were some that wanted to know more about God and Israel so they were going to the witches and the spiritists and those who supposedly could consult with the dead and with the spirit world. To the law and to the testimony, to the Word of God as they had it, if they do not speak according to this Word it is because they have no dawn, no light. It’s that simple. The Word of God is the authority and anybody who speaks contrary to the revealed Word of God is in darkness. You say well that’s arrogant. Well, no. It’s arrogant to say that God would speak and we would think that we don’t need to pay attention. I mean you understand, I’m not saying people have to believe what I believe. They have to believe what God says. People want to confuse it and say oh you think everybody has to believe the way you do. No. I think everybody has to believe according to what God has revealed. And I am right and correct only in so much and insofar as I am in accord with scripture.

That’s why Peter wrote and said those who twist the writings of Paul, the scripture, they do so to their own destruction. And I think there is a logic to that. A person may deny it, but if there is a God and He has revealed Himself, then anyone who rejects that revelation or distorts that revelation is guilty of rejecting the Word of God. And thus becomes under the judgment of God. You know men think they have the right to rule. We have judges ruling in our country today and they want to overrule laws because this is what they believe is right. They think they have an authority, and in a certain realm they do. But as soon as we talk about God’s authority, oh my, oh my. Isn’t it amazing, we’ve come in our country that the worst thing that could happen is the Ten Commandments would be posted on a wall. But you know people are willing to go to the line for homosexual activity and free sex. But it shouldn’t surprise us. They are without a standard. Who determines right and wrong in their world? My feelings, my desires, my wants. And you know fallen humanity identifies with that.

That’s why it seems like Christians are pushing uphill and losing ground. It’s as though society wants to go with the freedom. I don’t want my freedom restricted, why should I try to restrict their freedom? They’re not hurting anyone. If it’s love, let them do it. So I love my dog, should I marry him tomorrow? You say oh you shouldn’t make fun of it like that. Well what is the difference? And PETA tells me there is no difference. There is a movie actor, I won’t call his name because I might be mistaken on his name, but said it would be every bit as serious to him if his pet dog died as if his son died. Because he didn’t want to acknowledge there would be any difference. Well if there is no difference then, why don’t they marry? Next thing we’ll know we’re going to have a chimpanzee and a human being standing there and they’ll say it’s love. I’ve had this chimpanzee for years, my life would be empty without them. Well it’s their chimpanzee, chimpanzee doesn’t have a problem. Let’s give it a marriage license. We say that’s carrying it to the ridiculous. Who decides what is ridiculous? What was ridiculous 50 years ago is not considered ridiculous today. I don’t think when I was a student anybody was talking about putting condom machines in the hall. That would have been so absurd, now. I was reading the editorial, one of the ones I didn’t read you, and Planned Parenthood arguing how absurd it is to teach abstinence. That will only promote unwanted pregnancies, venereal disease and so on. So they aren’t even talking about people learning self-control, that’s ridiculous.

You see what we have when we have a society that has no God. I say we’re going to have to tell them what the standards are. No. What they need to do is come to know the God of the Bible. So I want to do what I did when I went to the university I’d say look I can’t prove to you there is a God, you can’t prove that there isn’t a God. I’m going to begin with the assumption there is a God. And if we’re going to know anything about this God He’s going to have to reveal Himself to us. I want to share with you what the Bible that claims to be that revelation says. I wouldn’t try to argue to prove to them why the Bible is the Word of God, I would say this is my assumption. You have your assumptions, I have my assumptions, and since I know you believe in freedom of speech I know you will give me the freedom to share with you my assumptions and what the Bible says. Then I’d proceed to share with them the plan of the gospel. Then when they would disagree I’d say oh that’s fine. What is the authority in your life? How do you know what is right and how do you know what is wrong? Everybody knows. Everybody knows what? Everybody knows what is right and wrong, everybody knows I am right and you’re wrong. Is that what we’re saying? No.

We as believers have truth. We ought not to give the truth, give it in the sense of yielding it, compromising it. People who are living without the truth have lives adrift. They are bouncing off the walls, they don’t know where they are going, they don’t have meaning in life. But they are in rebellion against God and that rebellion just continues to lead them down that road. Whatever they do, they will not submit. That’s an indication of their sinfulness. It is their right at this point, but they will be called into account for it by God. They exercise their wills for that, we have the Word of God. So why do I believe homosexuality it wrong? It’s not because statistics show this, it’s not because people know this in their heart. It’s because God says it is wrong. Why do I believe divorce is wrong? Well not because divorce is harmful to children and…. No, I believe divorce is wrong because the Bible says God instituted marriage. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is right because God said it. You say well the world won’t accept that argument. Well that’s their loss. But that’s why I believe what I believe. That’s why I do what I do.

So we have to be careful we bring all these things back to the scripture. That’s what it’s about. We have an authority. We have a word from God. It is true, it is trustworthy, it is reliable. I went to a theology class at the university a number of years ago, it was at the university I referred to. And I went through a presentation of the gospel and so on and the theology professor of the class said well you know the problem with that is that’s just your interpretation. He said people have different interpretations of the Bible. I said that may be so. Let’s see how it works. So I turned to Romans and I said let me read this verse, “all have sinned.” Now I think I understand what all means, and I think we have an understanding of what sin is. Know what he said? I could interpret that 50 different ways. Well I can’t help you. But it’s not a problem that is not clear, not understandable. It says what it says. You’ve chosen not to believe what it says. For that you will be accountable. So I trust that we will go out and people will know we have these convictions, we hold them in love, we hold them because that’s what the Bible says. Opinion polls run 99% against us, won’t change a thing. They run 100% against us, won’t change a thing. You know why? Our God is truth and His Word is truth.

Let’s pray. Thank you, Lord, for your truth. Thank you, Lord that you have chosen to reveal yourself and make yourself known. Thank you, Lord that by your grace even we as fallen, sinful human beings have come to understand the truth. Your Spirit has opened our blinded eyes. We pray that we would be clear in our testimony in these days and we share with the lost world the truth concerning your Son. It’s true not because we believe it, it’s true because you, the eternal God, have spoken. Lord, only you can change a heart. We pray that we would be bold in the sharing of the truth and giving forth the message. Give us confidence in these days, these great days of opportunity to share the truth as we look forward to the coming of your Son in whose name we pray. Amen.