Friday, July 03, 2015

Luke 17:32

Luke 17:32

 Remember Lot's wife.

a. NLT: Remember what happened to Lot’s wife!

b. NIV: Remember Lot’s wife!

c. YLT: remember the wife of Lot.

d. Amplified Bible: Remember Lot’s wife!

e. Worrell Translation: Remember Lot’s wife.

1. “Remember Lot’s wife.”

a. remember [3421 * mnemoneuo] [Strong: from a derivative of 3420; to exercise memory, i.e. recollect; by implication, to punish; also to rehearse:--make mention; be mindful, remember.]

b. Lot’s [3091 * Lot] [Strong: of Hebrew origin (3876); Lot, a patriarch:--Lot.]

c. wife [1135 * gune] [Strong: probably from the base of 1096; a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.]

1). Although she is only mentioned three scant times in Scripture, Jesus said very specifically that we should remember her. She is mentioned twice in Genesis 19 and once in Luke.

a). Genesis 19:15, 16 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
19:16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

b). Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

c). Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

2). We must go a little deeper to find out why Jesus said it. It is a fact that Lot was not married when he separated from Abram.

a). Genesis 13:5-11 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
13:6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
13:7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

3). This means that Lot met and married his wife after he moved to the Sodom area. In fact, Jewish tradition teaches that Lot’s wife was a native of Sodom, raised there and perhaps even born there. In all of the references to Lot previous to his going to Sodom there is no mention of a wife or children, the first mention of Lot’s wife is Genesis 19:15, 16. There is mention of his daughters, his sons in law earlier in Genesis 19 but his wife is not mentioned until verse 15. The evidence about her being a native of Sodom is intriguing, and because of that the facts surrounding her demise must be studied closer to find out more.

4). Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

a). The note in the Amplified Bible says the following:  Note in Amplified Bible: Lot’s wife not only “looked back” to where her heart’s interests were, but she lingered behind; and probably overtaken by the fire and brimstone, her dead body became incrusted with salt, which, in that salt-packed area now the Dead Sea, grew larger with more incrustations—a veritable “pillar of salt.” In fact, at the southern end of the Dead Sea there is a mountain of table salt called Jebel Usdum, “Mount of Sodom.” It is about six miles long, three miles wide, and 1,000 feet high. It is covered with a crust of earth several feet thick, but the rest of the mountain is said to be solid salt (George T. B. Davis, Rebuilding Palestine According to Prophecy). Somewhere in this area Lot’s wife looked back to where her treasures and her heart were, and “she became a pillar of salt.” Jesus said, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32).

5). When the Amplified Bible note says  “…Lot’s wife not only “looked back” to where her heart’s interests were, but she lingered behind; and probably overtaken by the fire and brimstone, her dead body became incrusted with salt…”, there is good evidence to support it. The destruction of the cities of the plain did not happen until Lot was in the next town. Look carefully at this passage.

a). Genesis 19:23-26 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

b). The evidence suggests that Lot’s wife was not just about ten feet behind him and she just turned around and became a pillar of salt because she turned around. It suggests that when the destruction began Lot and his daughters were in the next town and she was close enough to the destruction she was engulfed in it. Lot’s wife was not with the rest of the family.Notice the context where Jesus said theses words.

(1) Luke 17:28-32 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

(2) Looking at the words of Jesus it is easy to see the implication that she did not just linger but began to return. Because of Jesus warning it seems to suggest that she returned for her material things. Personally I don’t believe it was just material things that caused her to return but family ties also. Luke 17:33 causes me to believe that family ties blinded her to the fact she would be destroyed along with Sodom if she returned.

6). Luke 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

a). These words are at the end of a warning of Jesus he gave concerning escaping with our physical life at the expense of our material things would being destroyed. Jesus gave these very words in a discourse concerning our relationship with Him and the relationship with our families.

(1) Matthew 10:34-39 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

b). I may be wrong but I believe that Lot’s wife was blinded, not just by material loss but more also by family and emotional ties that caused her to ignore the clear warning from God which resulted in her death. The warning of Jesus to Remember Lot’s wife is pertinent to the contemporary issue over homosexuality because it surrounds the judgment of Sodom, of those who engage in same sex behavior and their supporters. How many families in America are fractured over what the Bible says about homosexuality and other Biblical truths? The truth of God’s word has divided families because some in those families have put personal experience or family relationship above God. I do not know what the spiritual condition of Lot’s wife was, but the fact is she ignored God’s warning to leave in order to “save” her life in Sodom, and she lost everything. It is God who created the earthly family to be a blessing to mankind. The family was to be patterned after the family in heaven, but God’s word clearly says our relationship with Him must be a higher priorty than with our earthly family. Only through spiritual rebirth is that possible, as Jesus said, “We must be born again.” For those of us who have family members who are not believers, we must pray for them to be saved, walking in love before them, standing on the Word that it is God’s will for them not to perish but have everlasting life. It is a very comforting thought that God wants my family members in relationship with Him more than I do, and when I pray for them standing on His Word, there is a resounding “Yes, we are in agreement” that comes from the throne of God!


Thursday, July 02, 2015

Matthew 22:12

Matthew 22:12

And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

a. NLT: ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?’ But the man had no reply.

b. NIV: He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.

c. YLT: and he saith to him, Comrade, how didst thou come in hither, not having clothing of the marriage-feast? and he was speechless.

d. Amplified Bible: And he said, Friend, how did you come in here without putting on the [appropriate] wedding garment? And he was speechless (muzzled, gagged).

e. Worrell Translation: and he says to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here not having on a wedding-garment?’ And he was speechless.

1. “And he saith unto him…”

a. and [2532 * kai] [Strong: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.]

b. he saith [3004 * lego] [Strong: a primary verb; properly, to "lay" forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate (in words (usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 4483 is properly to break silence merely, and 2980 means an extended or random harangue)); by implication, to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say(-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter.]

c. unto him [846 * autos] [Strong: from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]

2. “…Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?...”

a. friend [2083 * hetairos] [Strong: from etes (a clansman); a comrade:--fellow, friend.]

b. how [4459 * pos] [Strong: adverb from the base of 4226; an interrogative particle of manner; in what way? (sometimes the question is indirect, how?); also as exclamation, how much!:--how, after (by) what manner (means), that. (Occasionally unexpressed in English).]

c. camest thou [1525 * eiserchomai] [Strong: from 1519 and 2064; to enter (literally or figuratively):--X arise, come (in, into), enter in(-to), go in (through).]

d. in hither [5602 * hode] [Strong: from an adverb form of 3592; in this same spot, i.e. here or hither:--here, hither, (in) this place, there.]

e. not [3361 * me] [Strong: a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas 3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverb) not, (conjunction) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer (whereas 3756 expects an affirmative one)) whether:--any but (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise in), none, nor, (can-)not, nothing, that not, un(-taken), without. Often used in compounds in substantially the same relations.]

f. having [2192 * echo] [Strong: including an alternate form scheo skheh'-o; (used in certain tenses only) a primary verb; to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition):--be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.]

g. a wedding [1062 * gamos] [Strong: of uncertain affinity; nuptials:--marriage, wedding.]

h. garment [1742 * enduma] [Strong: from 1746; apparel (especially the outer robe):--clothing, garment, raiment.]

1). This is referring to the parable of the marriage super. The whole parable is Matthew 22:1-14.

a).  Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen andmy fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

2). In this verse the King comes in and sees a man who does not have on a wedding garment. Before I was born again I used to hear this verse and get an attitude toward the king. I used to think it was the king’s fault for not giving the guy a wedding garment. It wasn’t until after I was born again that I heard this passage preached in the light of the whole gospel that I really understood it. The “wedding garment” is a garment of salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ at our salvation experience.

a). Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

3). The marriage is the marriage supper of the Lamb.

a). Revelation 19:7-9 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

4). Jesus said we must be born again. The only way to get to heaven is to be born again.

3. “…And he was speechless.”

a. and [1161 * de] [Strong: a primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.:--also, and, but, moreover, now (often unexpressed in English).]

b. he was speechless [5392 * phimoo] [Strong: from phimos (a muzzle); to muzzle:--muzzle.]

1). This is of course a parable to illustrate the truth that there is no way to get to heaven outside of Jesus Christ. When we stand before God and He asks us why we didn’t get saved there will be no words to defend ourselves.


Matthew 22:11

Matthew 22:11

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

a. NLT: “But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn’t wearing the proper clothes for a wedding.

b. NIV: “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.

c. YLT: 'And the king having come in to view those reclining, saw there a man not clothed with clothing of the marriage-feast,

d. Amplified Bible: But when the king came in to view the guests, he looked intently at a man there who had on no wedding garment.

e. Worrell Translation: “And he saw there a man not having on a wedding garment;

1. “And when the king came in to see the guests…”

a. and [1161 * de] [Strong: a primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.:--also, and, but, moreover, now (often unexpressed in English).]

b. when…came in [1125 * eiserchomai] [Strong: from 1519 and 2064; to enter (literally or figuratively):--X arise, come (in, into), enter in(-to), go in (through).]

c. the king [935 * basileus] [Strong: probably from 939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively, or figuratively):--king.]

d. to see [2300 * theaomai] [Strong: a prolonged form of a primary verb; to look closely at, i.e. (by implication) perceive (literally or figuratively); by extension to visit:--behold, look (upon), see.]

e. the guests [345 * anakeimai] [Strong: from 303 and 2749; to recline (as a corpse or at a meal):--guest, lean, lie, sit (down, at meat), at the table.]

2. “…he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:”

a. he saw [1492 * eido] [Strong: a primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent 3700 and 3708; properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know:--be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot.]

b. there [1563 * ekei] [Strong: of uncertain affinity; there; by extension, thither:--there, thither(-ward), (to) yonder (place).]

c. a man [444 * anthropos] [Strong: from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:--certain, man.]
d. which had…on [1746 * enduo] [Strong:  from 1722 and 1416 (in the sense of sinking into a garment); to invest with clothing (literally or figuratively):--array, clothe (with), endue, have (put) on.]

e. not [3756 * ou] [Strong: also (before a vowel) ouk ook, and (before an aspirate) ouch ookh a primary word; the absolute negative (compare 3361) adverb; no or not:--+ long, nay, neither, never, no (X man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.]

f. a wedding [1062 * gamos] [Strong: of uncertain affinity; nuptials:--marriage, wedding.]

g. garment [1742 * enduma] [Strong: from 1746; apparel (especially the outer robe):--clothing, garment, raiment.]

1). This is referring to the parable of the marriage super. The whole parable is Matthew 22:1-14.

a).  Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen andmy fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

2). In this verse the King comes in and sees a man who does not have on a wedding garment. Before I was born again I used to hear this verse and get an attitude toward the king. I used to think it was the king’s fault for not giving the guy a wedding garment. It wasn’t until after I was born again that I heard this passage preached in the light of the whole gospel that I really understood it. The “wedding garment” is a garment of salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ at our salvation experience.

a). Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

3). The marriage is the marriage supper of the Lamb.

a). Revelation 19:7-9 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

4). Jesus said we must be born again. The only way to get to heaven is to be born again.


Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Matthew 13:31

Matthew 13:31

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

a. NLT: Here is another illustration Jesus used: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed planted in a field.

b. NIV: He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

c. YLT: Another simile he set before them, saying: 'The reign of the heavens is like to a grain of mustard, which a man having taken, did sow in his field,

d. Amplified Bible: Another story by way of comparison He set forth before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.

e. Worrell Translation: Another parable He set before them,saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man, having taken, sowed in his field.

1. “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying…”

a. another [243 * allos] [Strong: a primary word; "else," i.e. different (in many applications):--more, one (another), (an-, some an-)other(-s, -wise).]

b. parable [3850 * parabole] [Strong:  from 3846; a similitude ("parable"), i.e. (symbolic) fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral), apothegm or adage:--comparison, figure, parable, proverb.]

c. he put forth [3908 * paratithemi] [Strong: from 3844 and 5087; to place alongside, i.e. present (food, truth); by implication, to deposit (as a trust or for protection):--allege, commend, commit (the keeping of), put forth, set before.]

d. unto them [846 * autos] [Strong: from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]

e. saying [3004 * lego] [Strong: a primary verb; properly, to "lay" forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate (in words (usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 4483 is properly to break silence merely, and 2980 means an extended or random harangue)); by implication, to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say(-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter.]

2. “…The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed…”

a. the kingdom [932 * basiliea] [Strong: from 935; properly, royalty, i.e. (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively):--kingdom, + reign.]

b. of heaven [3772 * ouranos] [Strong: perhaps from the same as 3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel (Christianity):--air, heaven(-ly), sky.]

c. is [2076 * esti] [Strong: third person singular present indicative of 1510; he (she or it) is; also (with neuter plural) they are:--are, be(-long), call, X can(-not), come, consisteth, X dure for a while, + follow, X have, (that) is (to say), make, meaneth, X must needs, + profit, + remaineth, + wrestle.]

d. like [3664 * homoios] [Strong: from the base of 3674; similar (in appearance or character):--like, + manner.]

e. to a grain [2848 * kokkos] [Strong: apparently a primary word; a kernel of seed:--corn, grain.]

f. of mustard seed [4615 * sinapi] [Strong: perhaps from sinomai (to hurt, i.e. sting); mustard (the plant):--mustard.]

3. “…which a man took, and sowed in his field.”

a. which [3739 * hos] [Strong: including feminine he hay, and neuter ho ho probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:--one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who(-m, -se), etc.]

b. a man [444 * anthropos] [Strong: from 435 and ops (the countenance; from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:--certain, man.]

c. took [2983 * lambano] [Strong: a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively (properly objective or active, to get hold of; whereas 1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while 138 is more violent, to seize or remove)):--accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, X when I call, catch, come on (X unto), + forget, have, hold, obtain, receive (X after), take (away, up).]

d. and sowed [4687 * speiro] [Strong:  probably strengthened from 4685 (through the idea of extending); to scatter, i.e. sow (literally or figuratively):--sow(- er), receive seed.]

e. in [1722 * en] [Strong: a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); "in," at, (up-)on, by, etc.:--about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-)by (+ all means), for (... sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-)in(-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-)on, (open-)ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, (speedi-)ly, X that, X there(-in, -on), through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), under, when, where(-with), while, with(-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion, and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) preposition.]

f. his [846 * autos] [Strong: from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.

g. field [68 * agros] [Strong: from 71; a field (as a drive for cattle); genitive case, the country; specially, a farm, i.e. hamlet:--country, farm, piece of ground, land.]

1). The “field” in this parable is the heart of man. We have the responsibility to sow the word into our lives by study and prayer and obedience. Just as important we determine what kind of ground we have, as the Parable of the Sower illustrates.

2). I believe it is important to see that many of the parables illustrate prosperous growth in the kingdom of God.


Monday, June 29, 2015

Matthew 11:15

Matthew 11:15

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

a. NLT: Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand!

b. NIV: Whoever has ears, let them hear.

c. YLT: he who is having ears to hear -- let him hear.

d. Amplified Bible:  He who has ears to hear, let him be listening and let him consider and perceive and comprehend by hearing.

e. Worrell Translation: He that has ears let him hear.

1. “He that hath ears to hear…”

a. he that hath [2192 * echo] [Strong: including an alternate form scheo skheh'-o; (used in certain tenses only) a primary verb; to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition):--be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can(+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, + return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.]

b. ears [3775 * ous] [Strong: apparently a primary word; the ear (physically or mentally):--ear.]

c. to hear [191 * akouo] [Strong: a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.]

1). Probably everyone in the crowd had physical ears, but Jesus was not referring to physical ears but spiritual ears. Unless we are handicapped in some way we all have 5 physical senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The Bible speaks of 5 spiritual senses also.

a). Hearing: Matthew 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

b). Taste: Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

c). Seeing: Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.

d). Touch: Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

e). Smell: Psalm 115:6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but theysmell not:

2). Spiritual senses are developed and maintained by obedience to the LORD.
a). Hebrews 5:11-14 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

2. “…let him hear.”

a. let him hear [191 * akouo] [Strong: a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.]

1). Institution Of Creation Research Daily Devotional 1/31/12 The Lord Jesus Christ must have considered this exhortation to be of great importance, for it appears eight times in the four gospels and seven times in Revelation, all as spoken by Christ Himself--as well as one more time apparently uttered by John (Revelation 13:9). It is urgent, therefore, that people not just "hear" God’s Word with their ears ("in one ear and out the other," as the saying goes), but really hear it, with understanding minds and believing hearts and obedient lives. It is most important, first of all, for unsaved men and women to respond to the gospel message in this way. Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). Hearing this message with believing minds and hearts means all the difference between heaven and hell. But that’s just the beginning. Jesus also said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:27, 28). He not only promised us everlasting life when we first heard His voice, but also assures us that this life is truly everlasting, and can never be taken away from us, as we continue to hear His voice in His Word. Not only everlasting life, but resurrection life! "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, . . . and the dead in Christ shall rise. . . : and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (John 5:28, 29;1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17). He that hath ears, let him hear! HMM


Sunday, June 28, 2015

Matthew 8:3

Matthew 8:3

And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

a. NLT: Jesus reached out and touched him. “I am willing,” he said. “Be healed!” And instantly the leprosy disappeared.

b. NIV: Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.

c. YLT: and having stretched forth the hand, Jesus touched him, saying, 'I will, be thou cleansed,' and immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

d. Amplified Bible: And He reached out His hand and touched him, saying, I am willing; be cleansed by being cured. And instantly his leprosy was cured and cleansed.

e. Worrell Translation: And, stretching forth His hand, He touched him, saying, “I amd willing. Be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

1. “And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him…”

a. and [2532 * kai] [Strong: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.]

b. Jesus [2424 * Iesous] [Strong: of Hebrew origin (3091); Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:--Jesus.]

c. put forth [1614 * ekteino] [Strong: from 1537 and teino (to stretch); to extend:--cast, put forth, stretch forth (out).]

d. his hand [5495 * cheir] [Strong:  perhaps from the base of 5494 in the sense of its congener the base of 5490 (through the idea of hollowness for grasping); the hand (literally or figuratively (power); especially (by Hebraism) a means or instrument):--hand.]

e. and touched [680 * haptomai] [Strong: reflexive of 681; properly, to attach oneself to, i.e. to touch (in many implied relations):--touch.]

f. him [846 * autos] [Strong:  from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]

2. “…saying, I will; be thou clean…”

a. saying [3004 * lego] [Strong: a primary verb; properly, to "lay" forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate (in words (usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 4483 is properly to break silence merely, and 2980 means an extended or random harangue)); by implication, to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say(-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter.]

b. I will [2309 * thelo or ethelo eth-el'-o, in certain tenses theleo thel-eh'-o, and etheleo eth-el-eh'-o, which are otherwise obsolete apparently strengthened from the alternate form of 138;] [Strong: to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas 1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:--desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, - ling(-ly)).]

c. be thou clean [2511 * katharizo] [Strong: from 2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively):--(make) clean(-se), purge, purify.

3. “…And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”

a. and [2532 * kai] [Strong: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.]

b. immediately [2112 * eutheos] [Strong: adverb from 2117; directly, i.e. at once or soon:--anon, as soon as, forthwith, immediately, shortly, straightway.]

c. his [846 * autos] [Strong:  from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]

d. leprosy [3014 * lepra] [Strong: from the same as 3013; scaliness, i.e. "leprosy":--leprosy.]

e. was cleansed [2511 * katharizo] [Strong: from 2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively):--(make) clean(-se), purge, purify.]

1). Even though Jesus healed the man, Jesus still operated under the Old Covenant and he expected the man to obey the Old Covenant commands also.


Matthew 8:1

Matthew 8:1

When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.

a. NLT: Large crowds followed Jesus as he came down the mountainside.

b. NIV: When Jesus came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him.

c. YLT: And when he came down from the mount, great multitudes did follow him,

d. Amplified Bible: When Jesus came down from the mountain, great throngs followed Him.

e. Worrell Translation: And, when He came down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him.

1. “When he was come down from the mountain…”

a. when [1161 * de] [Strong: a primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.:--also, and, but, moreover, now (often unexpressed in English).]

b. he [846 * autos] [Strong:  from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]

c. was come down [2597 * katabaino] [Strong: from 2596 and the base of 939; to descend (literally or figuratively):--come (get, go, step) down, fall (down).]

d. from [575 * apo] [Strong: a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):--(X here-)after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for(-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-)on(-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.]

e. the mountain [3735 * oros] [Strong: probably from an obsolete oro (to rise or "rear"; perhaps akin to 142; compare 3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain): -hill, mount(-ain).]

1). The mountain he was coming down from is the mountain where he preached the sermon on the mount. The sermon includes all of chapter 5, 6, & 7 of Matthew.

a). Matthew 5:1  And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2. “…great multitudes followed him.”

a. great [4183 * polus] [Strong: including the forms from the alternate pollos; (singular) much (in any respect) or (plural) many; neuter (singular) as adverbial, largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely:--abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) great (age, deal, -ly, while), long, many, much, oft(-en (-times)), plenteous, sore, straitly.]

b. multitudes [3793 * ochlos] [Strong: from a derivative of 2192 (meaning a vehicle); a throng (as borne along); by implication, the rabble; by extension, a class of people; figuratively, a riot:--company, multitude, number (of people), people, press.]

c. followed [190 * akoloutheo] [Strong: from 1 (as a particle of union) and keleuthos (a road); properly, to be in the same way with, i.e. to accompany (specially, as a disciple):--follow, reach.]

d. him [846 * autos] [Strong:  from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.]


Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Wrath of God and the Supreme Court

The Wrath of God and the Supreme Court

On the subject of the wrath of God, Christians a wide variety of opinions that cover a wide spectrum. One definition that most Christians are ignorant of is the wrath of God that is active today, the wrath of God that is all around us and we are for the most part clueless about it. The defining passage that brings this to light is Romans 1:18. In the New King James Version it reads: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The New Living Translation says “wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” The NLT also adds the note, “Or who, by their wickedness, prevent the truth from being known.” What this verse basically declares is that God does reveal his wrath towards ungodly man who in his ungodly efforts suppress the truth. The text in Romans 1 tells us how.

The passage goes on in Romans 1:19-32:

“Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

Notice carefully that the above passage Romans 1:18-32 does not say all of the wickedness including homosexuality will bring the wrath of God, it says it IS the wrath of God. What we see in this passage is a step by step process of apostasy of spiritual and social corruption, of man’s willful disobedience and God’s wrathful response of turning them over to their sin. Rejection of the truth is always followed by becoming vain in thinking and becoming heathen in behavior. What is so important to this study is the principles revealed in these and other Scriptures are universal spiritual law, so to what degree individuals or groups and even nations reject revealed truth, will be the degree they will become vain in their thinking and the amount of spiritual foolishness or heathenism and paganism they will adopt and live out. Concerning America, this process has been operating in the United States since our founding.
In verse 18 the Scriptures tell us the wrath of God is revealed against men who resist and suppress the truth by their wickedness. In verses 19-22 a spiritual process is described which always follows rejecting the truth: becoming vain in thinking and heathen in behavior. Another witness to this spiritual process is found in 2 Kings 17:15:

And they rejected his statutesand his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his Testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vainand went after the heathen that were round  about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.

The same process occurred after Israel rejected the truth of God’s word as did after Noah’s flood, vanity in their thinking that resulted in heathen religions and behavior. Needless to say, the same process is occurring in the United States. For at least the last five plus decades America has been incorporating rejecting Biblical truth into constitutional law, as a result, we have become vain in our thinking and have been adopting heathen customs. This will be shown below in the section, In Contempt of Court.

In verse Romans 1:24 & 26 we see the revelation of the “wrath of God” in response to when man “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image” (verse 23), and “changed the truth of God into a lie” (verse 25). In verse 24 God “gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.” Then in verse 26, “God gave them up unto vile affections:” The Greek word translated “gave them up” is paradidomai and it means “to deliver over or up to the power of someone”. In these scriptures it is revealed that when someone is walking in rejecting or suppressing the truth, that God in his wrath delivers the individual or group over to the power of their sin to suffer the consequences of it. This principle is echoed in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

In Contempt of Court

As I said previously, America has for over 5 decades been purposely incorporating rejecting Biblical truth into our Constitution and as a direct result America is adopting ancient Canaanite customs. We are as a culture becoming barbarians. This is being accomplished through our media, television, music and movies. Through our education system and through our courts. All of these entities, within their respective realms of influence, continue to push thought processes, attitudes and behaviors that purposely remove any true knowledge of God. The courts then, declare through landmark decisions that these are the standards for the nation. The decisions below all embody the spirit of numerous scriptures that will be shown in the various cases. The two primary passages though are Romans 1:18, which is discussed above and Psalm 2:1-3.

Psalm 2:1-3 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Constitutionally, one of the primary ways the Supreme Court determines whether a law or action violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is use of the “Lemon Test”, a test taken from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This ungodly test is probably cited and used in most if not all the instances where godly Christian traditions or practices have been removed from our cultural and social landscape.  

The Lemon Test: In order for a state statute to be permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) the statutes principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster and excessive government entanglement with religion.

The Lemon Test in all its prongs is ungodly. The first prong, a secular purpose: according to thesaurus.com, some of the synonyms for secular are: civil, materialistic, worldly, lay, profane, earthly, nonreligious. Taking it a little bit further, the definition for profane one of the synonyms for secular according to the same site is: abusive, blasphemous, indecent, irreverent, nasty, obscene, sacrilegious, vulgar, dirty, foul, unhallowed, atheistic, filthy, godless, heather, idolatrous, impious, impure, infidel, irreligious, pagan, raunchy, sinful, smutty, unconsecrated, ungodly, unholy, unsanctified, and wicked. This is one of the determining factors in deciding if a law or statute is “constitutional”.  The above definitions for “profane” follow exactly the warning found in 2 Timothy 2:16:

Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

The word profane also means “unhallowed” and “void of religion and lacks all relationship or affinity with God”. This prong written into our Constitution increased ungodliness. It was the use of this prong that did away with the Ten Commandments in public schools and in county courthouses. See Stone v. Graham (1980), and McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU (2005). It was also used to strike down Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act, which was Louisiana’s state law requiring creation to be taught alongside evolution in their public schools. See Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

The second prong, it must neither advance nor inhibit religion. A prong that erroneously declares the Courts to be neutral. There is no neutrality with God. Jesus said you are either with me or your against me, Mt.12:30.

The third prong, the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. This prong has an eerie similarity to the purpose of the kings, rulers, and judges of the earth in Psalm 2, as they declare their rebellion against the Lord and against his Christ. “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their cords from us.”  Let us not forget Romans 1:18 [New King James Version] that warns, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

How is the “wrath of God” revealed? It is revealed when the willful disobedience that man exhibits toward God produces a slow descent of a culture deeper into corruption as described in Romans 1. As the culture pushed the envelope of immorality, “God gave them up”, in verse 24, 26, and 28.

 Romans 1:24-28 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,  who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

It is also described as the result of rejecting God’s wisdom in Proverbs 1:24-31.

Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. “Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.  Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the Lord,
They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be filled to the full with their own fancies.

As we disdain all of God’s counsel in verse 25, and despise God’s rebuke in verse 30, we will “be filled to the full with their own fancies”, verse 31. Or as Romans 1:29-31NKJV lists, “…being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them..” 

This is exactly what happened to Israel. Psalm 81:11, 12 says “But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts lust: and they walked in their own counsels.” And this is exactly what is happening to America. All of the decisions of the Supreme Court against God have the effect of suppressing the truth. They know full well of what they are doing.

The Cases


1). Roth v. U.S., 1956

Justice Brennan wrote this decision. This is a landmark case because it redefined pornography and obscenity. One of the Constitutional standards for obscenity as a result of this case became “the material has to be taken as a whole.” In the decision Justice Brennan writes:

“The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin, [1868]. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of an isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.”

This is why magazines like Playboy are constitutionally protected. They put in articles about sports, cooking; biographies and they are “protected”. At the beginning of the opinion Justice Brennan wrote:

“The guaranties of freedom of expression in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. As early as 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon” in imitation or mimicking of religious services…Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offences.”

Some of the examples listed in footnote 12 are: “Act Against Drunkenness, Blasphemy, Connecticut, 1737; Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, New Hampshire, 1791; Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, North Carolina, 1700; Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness, Rhode Island, 1703.”

It is obvious that the standard of early America was much stricter than what we have today. All those actions that were illegal in 17th, 18th and early 19thcentury America have been and are now “protected” in 20th and 21st century America. They were incrementally included into the freedoms of the press and speech of the First Amendment. Some would try to defend the changes on the grounds it was necessary for the advancement of science and education, but this is not true. In another obscenity case, this one from 1972, Miller v. California, Chief Justice Burger wrote:

“There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex, in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an “extraordinary vigorous period,” not just in economics and politics, but in bellesletters and in “the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.”

The real reason for the change is earlier in our nation’s history, the local, state and federal government was still guided for the most part by Biblical principles, and we still acknowledged our dependence on God. But over time “secular/profane” “rulers” and “judges” have arisen and purposed to “break their [the LORD and his anointed] bands asunder, and cast away their cords”. Because of this our nation is eating the fruit of its own ways.



2). Engel v. Vitale, 1962

This case forbids children in our nation’s public schools to pray while at school. Job 21:15 asks, “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?” But as Job 21:16 says, this is nothing but “the counsel of the wicked”, and full of hypocrisy. Justice Stewart’s dissent in this case lists 10 different president’s requests for prayer, he lists how each day the opening Session of the Supreme Court is opened in prayer, he shows how both houses of Congress open their days with prayer. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Or is the Court suggesting that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer but prohibits school children from doing so?” But the most shocking part of this decision is from the pen of Justice Black.:

“It is true that New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others—that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago.”

Perhaps he was referring to laws such as the Sunday laws. In McGowan v. Maryland, 1961 a case that challenged Sunday closing laws Chief Justice Warren writes. “The American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement.” One of the examples that he lists is a 1695 New York Sunday law that reads:

“Whereas, the true and sincere worship of God according to his holy will and commandments, is often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners in this province, who do not keep holy the Lord’s day, but in a disorderly manner accustom themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse-racing, frequenting of tipping houses and using many other unlawful exercises and pastimes, upon the Lord’s day, to the great scandal of the holy Christian faith, be it enacted, etc.”

Or perhaps Justice Black in Engel v. Vitale, was referring to the many laws against cursing and blasphemy, such as North Carolina’s Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, from 1790. Or maybe he was referring to Rhode Island’s Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness from 1703. “Encroachments upon religion?” These were state governments acknowledging their dependence on God. His reasoning is reprobate, it is backwards. What the courts are doing now to squash all Christian tradition from our nations heritage is encroachment upon religion. The point is these judges know the Christian influences of our nations founding, and they are doing their unholy best to stamp it out. They are as Romans 1:18 declares, they are suppressing it.

3). Abington v. Schempp, 1963

This is the Bible reading decision that came down in 1963. In describing the counsel of the wicked Job said in Job 21:14 “Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” And yet this is the counsel of the highest court of land. Justice Stewart writes in his dissent:

“As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted soley as a limitation upon the newly created National Government, The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments…Each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. Thus Virginia from the beginning pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism. Massachusetts, by contrast, had an established church until well into the nineteenth century…And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”

As I read this I am reminded of the relationship of “secular” and “profane”, they are synonymous. The warning in 2 Timothy 2:16 is so applicable. “But shun profane/secular babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Nothing could be more true for the high court. As the years have passed since those early ungodly decisions much more ungodliness has come down to us through the court. As they seek to establish a state of neutrality, they are establishing a state of secularism, a state of profanity.

4). Roe v. Wade, 1973

No doubt the most offensive and ungodly decision to come down from the court. In 2005 the count was over forty million lives have been snuffed out from this decision. Child sacrifice legalized. When God sent Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Judah and Jerusalem, it was because of their shedding of innocent blood in child sacrifice, 2 Kings 24:3, 4.

5). Stone v. Graham, 1980

This is the first Supreme Court case that dealt with the Ten Commandments and the second time it dealt with the word of God in public schools. The posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools were declared unconstitutional because, the majority said, it failed the first prong of the Lemon test-a secular purpose. Again I am reminded of the relationship of secular and profane. Paul warned Timothy that profane babbling will increase unto more ungodliness. This ruling was indeed a profane babbling and it increased unto more ungodliness. In Adams County, Ohio, this ruling was used as authority to force the county to remove the monument of the Commandments away from the school. It was used in Cobb County Georgia to force them to move its Ten Commandment plaque out of the courthouse. And lastly it was appealed to when McCreary County Kentucky and all U.S. County Courthouses were forced to remove the Ten Commandments from inside the courthouse.
The majority wrote:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

I have no information on school shootings before 1980 or even up to the mid nineteen nineties. On the website, www.infoplease.com in its Crime Data section it listed 40 people murdered and 108 wounded in school shootings from 1996 to 2005. In light of this quote from Stone v. Graham, and the fact that Stone V. Graham was sighted as a precedent in 2005 in McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU, it appears the Court is willing to sacrifice the lives of school children to protect it’s perverted interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I am reminded of Hosea 4:6 that says, “…because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” I am also reminded of Proverbs 1:30, 31 that declares that those who will have nothing to do with God’s counsel or reproof shall eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with their own devices.

It was Martin Luther who wrote: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.” I am not na├»ve enough to think that simply posting the Ten Commandments would prevent these murders; I know there are many more factors to consider. But at the same time, the word of God, because it is the word of God and because it is spiritual and supernatural, is able to deter individuals by causing a conflict in the conscience of an individual meditating a crime and convince them not to commit the crime. See Romans 2:15.

There is one more example of the foolishness of their reasoning that I want to reveal. It is grievous enough to watch the times when the Ten Commandments are stripped from public schools or from county courthouses. It is even more grievous to know the Supreme Court is more lenient toward pornography thatit is toward the Commandments. In Miller v. California, a 1972 obscenity case, the Justices defined obscenity in three parts. The first, “whether the average parson, pplying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…” The second part deals with state laws and doesn’t concern us here. The third part is, “…whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” The phrase used twice in this definition, “the work taken as a whole” is the leniency shown toward pornography. In any pornographic publication, all that the publishers have to do is throw in a few articles on sports, biographies, or short stories and Presto! It’s protected free speech because the whole work is considered. But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, no such leniency is shown. In Stone v. Graham, the majority wrote, “The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20:12-17; Deuteronomy 5:16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers; worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20:1-11; Deuteronomy 5:6-15.
Pornographic magazines are protected because, the publication must, “be taken as a whole.” But the Ten Commandments are not allowed because, “they do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters”, but also, “concerns the religious duties of believers.” This is such a twisted interpretation; its only source of inspiration could be wicked spirits whispering into the ears of judges.

6). Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987

This decision was about a Louisiana statute that required Lousiana’s public schools to give “balanced treatment” to “creation science” and “evolution science.” This decision forbids public schools from teaching that God created all life including mankind and allows them to teach exclusively that all life evolved from slime. Not only is it a God hating opinion, it is also hypocritical. Its demonic effort to protect Louisiana and the nation from a violation of the Establishment Clause is in itself a violation of the said clause. In Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court established Secular Humanism as a religion, and evolution is a basic tenant of that religion.

7). Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000

Partial birth abortion became known to America through the Pro-life ministry Right To Life. Their March of 1993 newsletter focused on this procedure.

“As described by Dr. Carhart, the D procedure [dilation and evacuation] requires the abortionists to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or “drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.” The fetus, in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time prior to removal of the portion of the fetus,…the fetus [is]alive”. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed…and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physican who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” At the conclusion of a D [dilation and evacuation] abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.” The other procedure implicated today is called “partial-birth abortion” or the D. The D can be used as a general matter, after 19 weeks gestation because the fetus has become so developed that it may survive intact partial delivery from the uterus into the vagina. In the D, the abortionist initiates the woman’s natural delivery process by causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated, sometimes over a sequence of days. The fetus’ arms and legs are delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman’s body. At this point, the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As stated by one group of physicians, “[a]s the physician manually performs breech extraction of the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she continues in the apparent role of an obstetrician delivering a child”. With only the head of the fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, a leading proponent of the procedure, the appropriate instrument to be used at this stage of the abortion is a pair of scissors. Witnesses report observing the portion of the fetus outside the woman react to the skull penetration. The abortionist then inserts a suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain and other matter found within the skull. The process of making the size of the fetus’ head smaller is given the clinically neutral term “reduction procedure.” Brain death does not occur until after the skull invasion, and according to Dr. Carhart, the heart of the fetus may continue to beat for minutes after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out. The abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact except for the damage to the head and the missing contents of the skull.”

7). Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart, 2007

This decision reversed the 2000 partial-birth abortion decision, Stenberg v. Carhart. There is no doubt that this was an answer to prayer. It occurred after President George W. Bush appointed two pro-life justices to the High Court.


8). Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

In this section I want to apply the wisdom of 1 Timothy 1:8-11 & 2 Timothy 4:3 & 4 to the laws of our nation. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 writes,

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.”

One of the messages the Apostle Paul is saying in these verses is that laws that forbid among other things, lying, murder, kidnapping, and homosexuality are not only “good” and “sound doctrine” they are also according “to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”. One reason that makes these verses vitally important to our time is the definitions of a couple words. The Greek word “whoremonger”, is pornos. It means a male prostitute, (Zodiates, 4205). The other phrase, “them that defile themselves with mankind”, is one Greek compound word. It is arsenokoites , and it means, “a man that lies in bed with another man”, (Zodiates, 733); these definitions are important to our present time in light of the warning the Apostle Paul writes in his second epistle to Timothy 4:2-4:

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

The Apostle Paul warns that the time was coming when people would no longer believe and uphold sound doctrine, i.e. laws that forbid homosexuality, but they would gather around and listen to teachers who would accommodate their lusts. There are denominations out there that proclaim homosexuality to be simply one of the varied orientations that make up human sexuality. There are people who flock to these teachers to have their ears tickled. They turn away from the truth of the word of God concerning homosexuality and turn to listen to myths rather than God’s Word. As of June 26, 2003 all laws within our nation forbidding homosexual conduct have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The justices have now found in the Constitution the right to engage in homosexual behavior. This decision is so rebellious and so void of wisdom but at the same time it fulfills the prophetic word. It also establishes that present day America is not the America the founders envisioned.

In the beginning of our republic, the framers of the Constitution never intended for that document to protect the right to engage in homosexual acts. We know this by using simple common sense: If committing an act is against the law, it is not possible to give someone a right to commit that act. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld state laws that prohibited homosexual sodomy, Bryon White, writing for the majority said,
“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 states when they ratified the Bill of Rights…In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy…” This is such a prophetic development. When our nation started, homosexual behavior was forbidden in every state and up until 1961 in all 50 states, homosexual behavior was against the law. Now remember, the Apostle Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, wrote that such laws were “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”. They were “sound doctrine.” Then here we are in 2004, 43 years later, not only is homosexual behavior a protected right, but we are fighting to preserve the God given institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus is coming soon.

In 1961 Illinois became the first state to drop its sodomy laws. Between then and 2003 there was a relentless effort by individuals and groups to repeal all sodomy laws until by the time Lawrence came about in 2003 there was only a small number of states that still had laws on the books to prosecute homosexual behavior.

During the period 1961-2003 as states were decriminalizing homosexual conduct, municipalities began enacting ordinances that added “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws. This began in the late 70’s. The Miami-Dade ordinance of 1977 and the fight that resulted was probably the most famous. To counter the homosexual juggernaut and their allies, communities began enacting ordinances that prohibited adding “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination laws. Cincinnati’s Issue 3 is an example of a city wide authority while Colorado’s Amendment 2 is an example of statewide authority. Issue 3 was enacted by popular vote on November 2, 1993, and though it survived challenges lasting years, and became an amendment to Cincinnati’s Charter, Article XII to be exact, it was overturned by the voters of Cincinnati on November 2, 2004, eleven years later. Colorado’s Amendment 2 was a response by voters in Colorado to ordinances that were adopted by various Colorado cities that added “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination laws. The amendment was adopted after a majority of voters approved it in 1992. It was overturned on May 20, 1996 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision titled, Romer v. Evans was written by Justice Kennedy. In the decision Justice Kennedy wrote, “…the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects;” In other words, in his mind the only thing fueling this amendment was animosity toward homosexuals. Justice Kennedy’s contempt for moral disapproval of homosexuality is very revealing. Proverbs 8:13 says, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil:” Now that’s moral disapproval from God’s perspective.

Justice Kennedy also wrote the decision Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court case from 2003 that struck down all laws prohibiting homosexual conduct. In doing that it overturned a previous Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick from 1986 upholding laws that prohibited homosexual conduct. The same contempt he had in Romer v Evans is also evident in Lawrence v. Texas. In Lawrence v. Texas Justice Kennedy wrote:

“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and private spheres…The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial…it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of their criminal conviction…We are advised that if Texas convicted an adult for private, consensual homosexual conduct under the statute here in question the convicted person would come under the registration laws of at least four States…This underscores the consequential nature of the punishment and the state-sponsored condemnation attendant to the criminal prohibition.”

In this writing, Justice Kennedy is condemning the God ordained role and effect of law in civil government. There are consequences to crime and God has ordained civil government to be his ministers in meting out those consequences. Romans 13:3 & 4 in speaking of the condemnation from civil government says the following: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” One of the last statements Justice Kennedy writes in this decision is unacceptable in that he applies it to godly law. “…times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” What the Bible calls “the fear of the Lord” and “sound doctrine”, Justice Kennedy declares to be discrimination and oppression.

In a little more than 4 decades we have gone from homosexual conduct being constitutionally illegal in all 50 states to being a constitutionally legal conduct in all 50 states. That in itself is, in light of Scripture, a prophetic fulfillment. Add to that the fact that ‘the fear of the Lord” i.e. the moral disapproval of homosexuality that used to be considered normal, is now characterized as mental illness (homophobia-the irrational fear of homosexuals), or evil shows that in regard to homosexuality, we have been turned upside down. What Isaiah wrote concerning Israel 2700 years ago now certainly applies to contemporary America.

Isaiah 5:20,21,23,24: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight….Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore…their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”