JREnsey blog for January, 2020

Happy New Year! Welcome to the January 2020 blog. Please note the change of email address for JREnsey. Please use jrensey1@gmail.com for all personal communication. Thanks!

♦♦♦♦♦♦

The Word for Today

“For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. 25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.[a] 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault” (Ephesians 5:22-27 NLT).

♦♦♦♦♦♦

The doctor “made a mistake”

Terry Beatley, founder and president of Hosea Initiative, a pro-life organization, recently gave President Trump the “Courageous Witness for Life Award.” She said the organization selected Trump for his “courage to be able to stand up for the right thing.”

Beatley was inspired by her 2009 interview with Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson (left), an American medical doctor who was once known as “The Abortion King.” Nathanson later said he “made a mistake” in leading the pro-abortion cause and became a prominent opponent of the procedure. Two years before his death in 2011, the doctor told Beatley that he misled American public opinion in the 1970s about abortion, promoting it as “women’s health care.” [Let that sink in.]

According to Beatley’s book, Nathanson claimed responsibility for the death of more than 75,000 pre-born babies, including two of his own unborn children. A few months after the Roe v. Wade decision, a new technology, ultrasound, transformed his views on abortion.

“The bombshell was real-time ultrasound. It made everything come alive,” he told Beatley. “I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient. This was a person. I was a physician, pledged to save my patients’ lives, not destroy them. So, I changed my mind on the subject of abortion.”

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson, accepted the award for the President. Speaking at the event, Carson praised pro-life advocates for their courage. He said as a former neurosurgeon, he spent a lot of time working on babies, even premature babies born between 25 and 27 weeks, and “operating all night trying to save their lives. That’s why no one will ever convince me that what’s in a mother’s womb is a meaningless bunch of cells,” he said.  – Report by Emel Akan, The Epoch Times

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Was the Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the early fourth century, actually a forgery?

Some claim that this important early manuscript containing almost all of both biblical testaments, was a 19th century forgery accomplished by a man called Simonides. He claimed he wrote the manuscript when he was 19 years old while residing at Mt. Athos in northern Greece. Although he was discredited as either a liar or delusional at the time, some have recently revived his claim because, if true, it would potentially negate the position that the manuscript, which has earlier readings than the Textus Receptus/KJV, is older and likely to read more like the autographs.

I researched this claim a few years ago and dismissed it out of hand as entirely ludicrous. Since others have already published rebuttals of the claim, let me lean on another well known researcher of biblical texts, James Snapp, Jr. He provides twenty facts that prove Sinaiticus was not a forgery and certainly not the work of Simonides. To see his work, click on the links below (each site has 10 reasons):

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/03/ten-reasons-why-sinaiticus-was-not-made.html

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/03/ten-more-reasons-sinaiticus-was-not.html

♦♦♦♦♦♦

The search for perfection

Mark Galli, the editor of Christianity Today has railed against the President’s morality, suggesting that he should be put out of office. Evidently, he sided with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives during the impeachment process. Perhaps he will come out for Pelosi for President, or perhaps Adam Schiff who led the impeachment effort. Or he may opt for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or even Pete Buttigieg, the current gay mayor of South Bend, IN. Will he support one of them for president? Surely one of them has a spotless past.

If he had been living in 1790, would he have condemned President George Washington for owning slaves? He surely would have castigated later presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower for their extra-marital dalliances. Would he have called for the resignation of John F. Kennedy who was known for the stream of young women brought to the White House for his “comfort”? Galli was editor during the Obama administration. We can only assume that he overlooked the many “inaccuracies” Obama told publicly and his background connections with communism. Did Galli ever write an editorial condemning Obama or Clinton for their stand on abortion and homosexuality? The numerous ethical violations and governmental corruption of Obama and Biden must have been considered mere “oversights” by Mr. Galli. If he is into condemning office holders for their peccadillos and moral failures, we should look for a long editorial in the next issue. We can only assume that he has not excoriated Mayor Pete is because he is plugged into political correctness. The mayor’s type of immoral conduct is apparently off limits, even by some Christian editors.

No one is justifying Trump for anything he has done in his past. Everyone winced when some of his actions were disclosed. He will go to judgment for any unforgiven sins he may have committed. However, if we are looking for someone with experience and a spotless moral or ethical record to serve in a non-religious political position, we may be looking for a long time.

The Innocents?

We’ve all known for a long time that Mark Galli, CT’s editor was liberal to the core. He evidently supposes he represents Evangelicalism in America. For a glimpse of what he really believes and what he thinks of the God of the Bible, visit the website below and read his article where he casts God as a Divine Drama Queen.

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/christianity-today-editor-chief-called-god-divine-drama-queen-worried-about-president

♦♦♦♦♦♦

What else do these candidates have up their sleeves?

Openly gay mayor Pete Buttigieg (center top above), Democrat running for the presidency, has promised to legalize drug possession across the board. Wow, what a blessing that would be! Reckon whose votes he is fishing for? According to Fox News, the sheriff of Polk County, FL comments, “He is guaranteeing more drug addicts, he’s guaranteeing more crime, and he’s guaranteeing less help because we don’t have enough services for those who are addicted to crimes now and he’s going to create more addiction.” He also promises to reduce deportations. His policies will spur economic growth, he says. Increasing the number of drug dealers, thieves, and illegals will definitely spur the economy—in a number of Latin American countries whose economies depend in part on drug production and sales.

We didn’t know that until he said it publicly. What else do we not know that they are secretly planning to foist onto the American people? We know what the man who is in the office now will likely do. He keeps his promises. He is not perfect, but is probably as transparent as a president can be.

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Is “mutual submission” in marriage conveyed in Ephesians 5:21-25?

These verses are a focus of egalitarian writers today who have embraced the concept of gender equality at all levels of Christian life. Do they really teach mutual submission of husband and wife or are they misinterpreted by a flawed hermeneutic?

If the mutual submission of husband and wife is truly a biblical principle being expressed in v. 21, how did it escape most of the textual exegetes who have closely examined the Scriptures for the last two millennia? After checking with many of the often quoted Protestant commentators[1] of the last two hundred years, none appear cognizant of this principle. In other words, it is a recent concept.

In Christian circles, contemporary egalitarian authors like Letha Scanzoni, Paul Jewett and Craig Keener are often quoted by those leading the charge for cultural change. Keener focuses on Ephesians 5:21 to insist that it includes the relationship of husbands and wives in the mutual submission principle. Is that what the apostle Paul is teaching in this verse or is it merely being used as a prop for a larger agenda?

Different types or levels of submission

The target of Paul’s words in verses 19-21 is the body of Christ as a whole. All Christians, male and female, defer to one another in ways that maintain unity and harmony in that setting. More specific types of submission are the focus of vv. 22-25. As Wiersbe points out, the submission Paul speaks of in v. 21 “has nothing to do with the order of authority, but rather governs the operation of authority. …Often Jesus tried to teach His disciples not to throw their weight around, or seek to become great at someone else’s expense. Unfortunately, they failed to learn the lesson, and even at the Last Supper they were arguing over who was the greatest (Luke 22:24-26). When Jesus washed their feet, He taught them that the greatest is the person who uses his authority to build up people, and not, like the Pharisees, to build up his own authority and make himself important. We are to esteem others more important than ourselves (Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:1-4).”[2]

Verse 21 addresses a general submission by all members of the body of Christ to each other to ensure unity and harmony. It acts as an introductory sentence to the more specific areas mentioned in the next verse, where submission is a factor in the relationships of husband and wife, children and parents, and slaves and masters. In those relationships, a submission is called for that emulates that of the church to its Head (authority), which is Christ: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” [sic – KJV] (vv. 22-24; Titus 2:5). There is no mutual submission suggested in these three areas or of Christ and the church. The order and line of authority descends from God through Christ to man to woman: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3).[3]

There is submission both in v. 21 and in v. 22, but of different types. One is reciprocated and the other is unrequited in kind. That in v. 21 is marked by reciprocity which does not appear in v. 22. Both husband and wife submit, but the wife’s submission is to her husband, and the husband’s is to the principle of selfless love of v. 25. The wife is to submit to her husband, but the husband is not told to submit to his wife.[4] Again, there is no correlative mutual submission in Paul’s four illustrations: husbands/wives, parents/children, slaves/masters, Christ/the church. Otherwise, total confusion would ensue.

How can a husband and wife live in harmony with both having equal authority? It would be a standoff and both would be in their right. Confusion would result. Someone has to be in charge. That which is two-headed is usually considered an anomaly or unnatural. There is no clear analogy in either Testament of mutual submission that can be applied to husbands and wives.

Some attempt to tie v. 22 to the submission command of v. 21 because the verb “submit” does not appear in the Greek in v. 22 but is “borrowed” by the presumption of Greek grammar from v. 21. This grammatical insertion changes nothing.

Misquoting the Scriptures

According to Keener, “Sometimes Paul gets a bad rap. The slave narratives are replete with sentiments from former slaves who loved Jesus but hated Paul, because slaveholders regularly quoted Ephesians 6:5, “Slaves, obey your masters.” What the slaveholders didn’t bother to quote was the rest of the passage, which goes on to say, “masters, do the same things to them” (6:9). That is, if slaves have to obey their masters, masters must also obey their slaves.”[5] Virtually anyone can see that the passage does not say that masters are to obey their slaves. That would be quite problematic. Masters were to treat their servants according to the principles laid down in vv. 20-21. The thrust of the passage is that masters manifest the same spirit of heartfelt sincerity and humility, treating their slaves/servants with respect and dignity as a brother in Christ, but it does not say that masters must obey their slaves. This amounts to a manipulation of the language, subjecting it to his own assumptions and presuppositions.

Keener doesn’t give up: “Moreover, he never instructs the male householder to rule; instead, he is to love his wife, serving her by offering his life for her (5:25), to avoid provoking his children (6:4), and to treat slaves as fellow servants of God (6:9).” Has he never read I Timothy 3:12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”? (Italics mine) It seems best to follow Paul’s advice and ignore the secular humanists and radical egalitarians, else we could find ourselves slouching toward serious theological error.

The idea of the mutual submission of husband and wife can be made to sound so kind, so relevant, so thoughtful and reasonable as to make one think if it is not actually expressed in Scripture it should have been. Are some Apostolics picking up this concept from the secular sociologists, the media, and the feminist authors who are trying to coerce us to bow to the god of political correctness? Paul’s admonitions may not find acceptance with the social philosophers of the 21st century, but popular human reason cannot be placed above the authority of the Word of God. Perhaps we have sat at their feet so long and been indoctrinated with how pagans and Christian liberals conceive of Christianity that we are beginning to think like them. Have we become so enamored with letters behind our names that we now believe that all who have many of them are smarter in all ways than any who have fewer or none?

(For those who need more supporting references, I suggest they turn to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who published Life In the Spirit In Marriage, Home and Work: An exposition of Ephesians 5:18-6:9, pages 85-86.)

The source of this concept

Where did this concept of “mutual submission” of husband and wife originate? In the ever-darkening minds of modern secular humanists and sociologists? In the bowels of Berkeley, Columbia, and Harvard? In the glass-enclosed, downtown highrises where the media monsters lurk? In the hot-button books of the pop psychologists so faddish in the last half of the 20th century? In the 1960s cultural revolution that brought the Women’s Liberation Movement to the forefront in England and America? All may have had a part in the meteoric rise of this idee fixe among current sociologists and liberal Christian authors.

Early secular feminists were inclined to dismiss the Bible entirely and take their cues from contemporary sociologists. “Progressive” Christians, however, were hesitant to go that far. Too many American women were still conservative church goers. So they began to cast their lot with new Bible interpreters like R. T. France, David Thompson, and I. Howard Marshall who promote the idea that the Gospels gave Christianity a good start, but the faith has been sort of “unfolding” since then. Therefore, we know more today, we are more educated, and our understanding of ethics and morality are set in a more equitable light than that of the apostles. They suggest that a “fuller outworking of God’s purpose” is being captured today by modern thinkers. They propose fundamentally equalizing the roles of men and women, husbands and wives. They posit that Pauline admonitions were good for that time period, but new perspectives update Christianity and make it relevant to our time. These “progressive” new perspectives include the dismissal of the traditional complementarian view of women’s roles in favor of a more radical egalitarianism.[6]

These “progressive” ideas are espoused by Christian feminist authors Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty who are emboldened to say Paul was wrong. His admonitions about female subordination in marriage were simply unresolved holdovers from his former rabbinic training. His references to passages in Genesis reflected contemporary understanding and the way they were interpreted “in his day.” Therefore, since Paul’s statements were based on misguided Jewish concepts current at that time, and were inconsistent with other NT passages, we are not obligated to obey the apostle’s commands regarding husbands and wives.[7]

A new hermeneutic?

A word about hermeneutics. Should we employ “Pentecostal” hermeneutics or Baptist hermeneutics or some other religious tradition’s hermeneutics to interpret Scripture instead of standard “biblical” hermeneutics? To do so could bring pressure on leaders to accept theological error merely to accommodate whatever is already is being done by prominent pastors. In throwing a grid of Penteccostal hermeneutics over the Bible, we could possibly find ourselves in doctrinal error along the way, depending on what stripe of “Pentecostal” created the grid.

The modernists’ “trajectory hermeneutic” suggests that the commands Paul gave in the first century need not be followed today. Gender equality advocate R. T. France proposes this approach: “The gospels do not, perhaps, record a total reversal of Jewish prejudice against women and of their total exclusion from roles of leadership. But they do contain the seeds from which such a reversal was bound to grow. Effective revolutions are seldom completed in a year or two. In this, as in other matters, the disciples were slow learners. But the fuse, long as it might prove to be, has been ignited.”[8] Fellow egalitarian, I. Howard Marshall adds, “Paul wrote as he did about marriage because in his world he did not know any other form than the patriarchal. As he did with other relationships, he worked within the structures of his time and gave directions for Christian behavior within them. The danger is to think that this validates the setup for all time.”[9] Ah, now we see the plan—today other moral standards (read: ours) apply. Paul’s statements applied to his time, but our more erudite, educated and more ethical understanding is the way for today. I trow not.

Do Paul’s statements give husbands the right to mistreat or abuse their wives as some may have assumed? Absolutely not. Tyrants are not countenanced in the Scriptures. There are other verses which make that abundantly clear (I Peter 3:7; Colossians 3:19; et al). Deferment is included in love. A husband must recognize that there are times he should defer to his wife’s needs, wishes, abilities and ideas. This does not usurp his ultimate leadership. In the case of slaves, the same is true. Masters were enjoined to treat them as Christian brothers (see the Book of Philemon). Nor does it allow for child abuse, although there is no mutual submission directive for parent/child relationships. Additionally, there is no hint in these or other verses of a husband’s superiority or a wife’s inferiority. All persons are of equal value and worth in the sight of God. That being said, there is no justification for expanding the scope of the Scriptures merely to condemn selfish or violent acts.

Conclusion

The happiest couples are those who follow scriptural directives. Aside from the fact that such admonitions are “commandments of the Lord” (I Corinthians 14:37), they are actually stress relievers. Much of the pressure and stress on contemporary marriages has evolved from the departure from biblical principles. God’s way is always the better way, the happiest way, and the less stressful way.

Let me conclude with a thoughtful observation lifted from Barnes Notes on the Bible: “Submitting yourselves one to another – Maintaining due subordination in the various relations of life. This general principle of religion, the apostle proceeds now to illustrate in reference to wives Ephesians 5:22-24; to children Ephesians 6:1-3; and to servants, Ephesians 6:5-8. At the same time that he enforces this duty of submission, however, he enjoins on others to use their authority in a proper manner, and gives solemn injunctions that there should be no abuse of power. Particularly he enjoins on husbands the duty of loving their wives with all tenderness Ephesians 5:25-33; on fathers, the duty of treating their children so that they might easily obey them Ephesians 6:4; and on masters, the duly of treating their servants with kindness, remembering that they have a Master also in heaven; Ephesians 6:9. The general meaning here is, that Christianity does not break up the relations of life, and produce disorder, lawlessness, and insubordination; but that it will confirm every proper authority, and make every just yoke lighter. Infidelity is always disorganizing; Christianity, never.”[10]

Endnotes

[1] In the commentaries listed at Biblos.com, including Clarke, Poole, Pulpit, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Ellicott, Barnes, Expositors, etc., etc., I found no principle of mutual submission of husband and wife extracted from these verses in Ephesians 5. One would assume if the concept mutual submission of husband and wife was apparent in Paul’s admonitions, some of them would have caught it. Obviously, it is a recent idea, concocted to support the new perspectives regarding male and female relationships.
[2] Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Colorado Springs: Cook Comm. Ministries, 1989), p. 50.
[3] One should not assume from this that every woman is to submit to every man, even strangers, “in everything.” The principle is being applied here only to the marriage relationship.
[4] There is deferment and agreement along the way in any relationship. No one is absolutely right all the time, in every case. However, this does not alter the basic principle, oft repeated in the Epistles, of wives’ submission to their husbands.
[5] Craig Keener quotes in this article are found in https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/case-mutual-submission-ephesians-5. Keener lamely concedes that “there is much less mutual submission in the instruction to fathers: children do need guidance.”
[6] Galatians 3:28 has been called upon by gender equality advocates to prove that gender is no longer a factor in the kingdom of God. We shall deal with that topic in another setting. I Corinthians 7:3-5 has also been used in the discussion, but one can see that the passage there is dealing with the matter of deprivation of sexual fulfillment in marriage, not authority.
[7] These ideas were set forth by Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty in All We Were Meant To Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation (Waco, TX: Word Publishers, 1974), pp. 28,212,213, et al. In What God Hath Joined Together: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage (San Francisco: Harper 2005), Scanzoni would reveal her direction and ultimate goal: God sanctions gay marriage and so should we. One must be careful which path he chooses—where will it lead? She was following the concepts of Fuller Seminary professor Paul Jewett who wrote Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
[8] Quoted by Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p. 54. Apparently a total reversal of roles, not merely an equalization, is the goal of the more progressive feminists. This is apparent in Barack Obama’s recent statement suggesting that it would be better if females ruled every nation in the world.
[9] Ibid., p. 58.
[10] Barnes Notes on the Bible at the Biblos.com website.

♦♦♦♦♦♦

IHML Bible studies are still winning souls after three decades!

Into His Marvelous Light
IHMLCoverAvailable in English, Spanish, German & Italian
No other one-hour Bible study has enjoyed the consistent results of IHML over the years. Often copied but never fully duplicated. It is attractive, well written, and doctrinally sound. Those who are seeking for Availabletruth will see that the new birth is absolutely essential and that Acts 2:38 constitutes that experience. Over 2 million copies sold.

Qty
Price
1-49
$1.75 ea
50-99
$1.50 ea
100+
$1.25 ea

order

Guide For Living 
IHML_GFL_RevisedA follow-up Study for the new convert. This little booklet can be given to the new convert to go through alone and then come back to you with any questions they may have. It covers the new birth —what has happened to them and goes through what their responsibilities are now.

Qty
Price
1-49
$1.75 ea
50-99
$1.50 ea
100+
$1.25 ea

Promotional Tracts 
pampletsAvailable in English & Spanish
Hand out these tracts to help you promote the Bible study in your community. Available in English and Spanish. It’s easy to get Bible study opportunities with these tracts.  $9.95 per 100

Order all materials shown above from Advanceministries.org/store or call 936-537-0250.

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Actual gun used by Democrats in attempted assassination of President Trump via impeachment

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Worth repeating

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” – Rick Warren

“God simplified NT church structure by giving only ONE job opening to every member: SLAVE.” – Raymond Woodward

♦♦♦♦♦♦

The Last Words

Breaking news (tic): President Trump to begin deporting Democrats; Mexico announces building of border wall.

I hate spelling errors. You mix up two letters and your whole post is urined. – Patriot Post

Please remember to change my personal email address in your lists to jrensey1@gmail.com.

Enjoy January. Endure February. Spring is not far behind.

JREnsey

Published in: on January 1, 2020 at 1:14 AM  Leave a Comment