CONTROVERSY XIV: What about Restoring the Fallen Brother?

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” (Gal. 6:1-3 NASB)

Paul had just spent the majority of his letter passionately reprimanding this Galatian church for allowing the Judaizers, a sect of “Jewish Christians” who taught that salvation comes only with circumcision, to undermine the Gospel of grace, which he had taught when he was present with them. He explained that Christ’s salvation is a gift of His grace, which is not dependent upon the religious works of men. However, knowing the tendency of human nature to flee from one extreme to adopt the other, Paul states that Christ’s freedom does not infer succumbing to carnality either.

“For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh…” (5:13)

Following this statement, Paul details the difference between a spiritual life of freedom and a life of the flesh (5:20-25). He closes this account with the statement, “Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another,” (vs. 26) to ensure that when one does walk in the spirit, he is not to look down upon those who are not.

Now we come to the selected text of chapter 6. The main point of the three verses is verse two, exonerating the believers to bear one another’s burdens according to the law of Christ. The key words of the passage are the following:

· “trespass”: paraptoma-to fall beside or near something a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness a sin, misdeed
· “spiritual”: pneumatiko-one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God
· “restore”: katartizo-ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be
· “gentleness”: prautes-mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness, consideration, humility
· “bear”: bastazo-to sustain, i.e. uphold, support; to take up in order to carry or bear, to put upon one's self (something) to be carried
· “burdens”: baros-heaviness, weight, burden, trouble

Paul is speaking to the Church about how one should “deal” with a brother, who has fallen into sin or is living according to the flesh, as he had described in the previous chapter. Those, who are living according to the Spirit, are not to chide or reject the fallen brother; they are to restore him, strengthen that, which is spiritual within his being. The manner, by which they are to do this, is in the manner of the fruit of the Spirit gentleness (5:23), in a meek and humble spirit, recognizing that they too, are not immune to the carnal nature, as Paul had described in chapter 5:17, 24:

“17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please…24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Moreover, the members of the church are exonerated to “bear” or “uphold and take on” the “burdens” or “weights and troubles” of their brethren, for this fulfills/completes the law of Christ, which was detailed also in chapter 5:14:

“For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’” (ref. Matt. 22:39; Jn. 15:17)

This concept is related to Paul’s description of the body of believers as being apart of the Body of Christ. He wrote to the Corinthian Church a more detailed account of this concept, prohibiting any member to reject another for its weakness or “fallenness”:

“But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you;’ or again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary…so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.” (1 Cor. 12:20-22; 25-26)

All are apart of a body, a family of believers, and all should take the viewpoint to ensure the wholeness and health of all members of the body. Furthermore, Paul denounces any self-righteousness or haughtiness of perspective from the “spiritual” brothers of the Lord, for they too may find themselves in such a predicament, a potentiality that Paul states in another letter:

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Rom. 3:23)

How is this applied to today? It is not uncommon for Church members of the present day to quickly judge and criticize the fallen among the congregation. Gossip, rejection, and self-righteousness seem to characterize the majority of congregations across the nation today. However, Paul is imploring the Church to reach out to those within her family and restore, not reject, those, who are trapped in carnality, recognizing that no one is invincible to the temptations of the flesh. This fulfills the second Greatest Commandment, and one of the only commandments Christ gave to His disciples:

“‘This I command you, that you love one another.’” (Jn. 15:17)

If one has fallen, the others who are stronger are to “… to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please (them)selves.” (Rom. 15:1) How does one bear with another? Meeting with them, praying with and for them, counseling them, and walking the road of discipleship, i.e. “doing life” with them, challenging them to put off the old man and put on the new (ref. Eph. 4:22-24). This is fulfilling the law of Christ, to love others as one would have others love them. This is dying to selfish desires so that Christ may be preached.

CONTROVERSY XIII: What about War?

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

When can Christians feel that war is justified? Is the war in Iraq “just”?

This is another very sensitive issue, and many Christians have varying opinions. Some would say that war is only justified when it is in “self-defense;” but is this the only justification for battle?

Then why would the Lord say in His word (through Solomon) “There is a time for war and a time for peace…” (Ecc. 3:8b). Why would the Lord charge His people to completely destroy the peoples in the Promised Land when the Canaanites were not “hurting anyone” yet…in fact, if you think about it, the people of Israel were the ones attacking them! If anything, according to the “self-defense” ideology, the Israelites were wrong and the Palestinians were in the “right.” (Now, I am NOT implying that there was anything wrong with these tactics for war…God knows what He’s doing and I would never question His judgment).

I agree and disagree with the idea of war being just only if it’s out of self-protection. Sometime wars have to be fought because there is injustice going on in the world…and if nothing is done about it, it will eventually affect us sooner or later.

Take WWII-nothing was being done about the persecution of the Jews and the spread of the Nazi regime; and the U.S. didn’t get involved because it had nothing to do with them…yet. Then the Japanese joined forces with Germany, and we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Then, we got involved out of “self-protection,” but we could have gotten involved a lot sooner, and who knows how the war would have turned out then or how many Jewish and/or European lives could have been saved.

The war which the U.S. is in is a "just war" in the sense that we have liberated people, real people, from lives of torment and injustice. Nobody else was stepping out and defending the defenseless, which is one of God’s roles (Defender of the Defenseless), Who uses people to do His work (He could intervene supernaturally, but He doesn’t always). Moreover, God has blessed us. the U.S. with so much and he expects those with more to use it to help others-to him whom much is given, much is required (ref. Lk. 12:48).

I think that a lot of us really don’ have a fair idea of what exactly is going on in the War on Terror, nor the true reasons for why we are over there…because the majority of our media is spinning it one way or another. Yet, if you talk to the majority of veterans (there are the few exceptions who think otherwise) who have fought over there-you would definitely come away with a more positive perspective on the war.

The truth is we don’t know all the reasons why we went to Iraq, maybe some but not all. The truth is we don’t know what happened to the WMDs, if they were or were not there. The truth is that a Hitler type figure, Saddam Hussein, was removed from power and from his oppressive position. The truth is you can’t leave a job until it is 100% completed or as much completed as possible, ethically speaking-that is integrity. And if we are a nation that stands for honor, righteousness, valor, whatever, then we have to finish what we started...and finish it well.

CONTROVERSY XII: What about Tithing?

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

Some have thought that the promise of material blessings for Israel if she tithes (Mal.3:8-12) applied to that nation, not to other nations today. They have argued that the principle for the Church is that she should given generously to God as He leads, which would incur a reward from Him, BUT, that the “tithe” is a different issue. In other words, God will not withhold financial blessings from the Church for “not tithing.”

Yes, God does appreciate and desires a cheerful giver (ref. 2 Cor. 9:7), but the principle of the tithe is prevalent throughout Scripture. God desires to be the first in our lives; we are to love the Lord with all of our hearts, minds, bodies, and strengths.(Deut. 6:5) We cannot serve two masters; we cannot love God and money (ref. Matt. 6:24)...but how do we know we love God first or over something (like money) if we are not willing to give Him our firsts (like a tithe)?

God established the principle of a tithe in the Garden of Eden. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the one tree that God designated as "off-limits" to Adam. Adam could eat of everything else, just not what God designated as His. When Adam partook of the tree, sin entered into the world.

Samuel was Hannah's tithe to the Lord of her first-born. She dedicated this "first fruit" of her womb to God, and God blessed her with five additional children. (1 Sam 2:21)

Jesus was, in a sense, God's tithe. He was the First born of many brethren (ref. Rom. 8:29) and He was sacrificed as an offering for the atonement of sin.

The principle in Mal.3 is to put God first in our lives, including our pocketbooks. God commands that we serve Him and Him alone, and there's no greater indicator of our faithful service than to give Him that, which is so precious or useful to us; in this case, the first fruits of our labor.

I have learned that Tithing is a very sensitive issue in the Church because it involves money. There is nothing wrong with having money, but if it begins to take precedence over God, that's when it becomes an issue. Our God loves us so much and is jealous for us (ref. Ex. 20:5; 34:14) and He will do anything to prevent His relationship with us from losing its fire and intimacy. If that means financial blessing when we tithe or financial withholding when we don't, then you can bet that God will do that. It's a promise in His Word. (Mal. 3:8-12)

CONTROVERSY XI: What about Words?

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

Have you ever wondered about “swearing” or “cussing”? Recently, I had a conversation with a friend of mine, and she had heard different accounts regarding the use of our words. She had heard that slander, gossip, and lying are all wrong, and maybe sometimes swearing. But she had also been told that there are times when “curses are appropriate.” But is this accurate?

Well, we’ve heard both Christ's admonition and James's in regards to making promises/oaths:

"But I tell you, Do not swear at all...Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matt. 5:33, 37)

"Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned." (Jms. 5:12)

What they were talking about here was that, when someone comes up to you and asks a question, you should come to a place in you integrity that you don’t have to “swear” by what you say—what you say is true. Christ further tells us that all such swearing is wrong because we really don’t have the position to do so:

“Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black…” (Matt. 5:34-36)

In other words, we have no place to swear on anything because a) we have no control over it and/or b) it’s not ours to begin with…

Now, that covers those passages, which we’ve already known about…but what about cursing/cussing? Say, for example, you discover that your longtime secretary or coworker, whom you’d almost consider a brother/sister, has embezzled millions of dollars from your firm? Or what if you found out your fiancé or spouse has been unfaithful: would you consider these situations “ok” for cussing?

This is the real kicker for me:

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Eph. 4:29)

Does cussing out your “ex” or your “traitor” ‘build him/her up according to his/her needs"? I don't think so...Jesus says something else that is very tale-telling and troubling too:

"For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks...But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.'" (Matt. 12:34, 15,18)

And you do know who He was talking about in these verses...the "church folk." The Pharisees, who were supposed to have the Word of God written on the tablets of their hearts (ref. Prov. 7:2-4)...and yet, what was coming out of them was "dead men's bones," filth...anything deserving for the LORD to called them a "brood a vipers" (see Matt. 23:27, 33)

When we curse, it just reveals what's in our heart. Anytime we’re upset, we have to mindful of the words we speak. If we speak expletives, words of anger, bitterness, malice, unforgiveness, hatred, etc., that is only what has been placed in our hearts, what we’ve allowed the enemy to stick in there through our ear gate or through our woundedness.

Have you noticed, that the people who curse throughout the Scriptures are either the enemies of God's servants, or are those possessed by demons? And look what Mark 7 says:

"He who curses or reviles or speaks evil of or abuses or treats improperly his father or mother, let him surely die." (Mk. 7:10)

And that was written in the TORAH! That was the Law that God gave Moses!

Moreover, Christ warned us that we will give an account for every thoughtless word spoken!

"But I tell you, on the Day of Judgment men will have to give account for every idle (inoperative, nonworking) word they speak." (Matt. 12:36 AMP)

There is NEVER a "good time" to curse...EVER! God says "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay..."(Heb. 10:30)

We must learn to have the reverential fear of God in our lives and in this culture. He is the Word of God made flesh, the Word of Truth, and there is not darkness in Him (Jn. 1: 1-3; 1 Jn. 1:5-6). And we were created in Him image (ref. Gen.1:26)! If we are to be reflectors of His image, then we must reflect His light by the words that we speak!

"May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer." (Ps. 19:14)

CONTROVERSY X: What about the Holy Spirit?

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

What are your thoughts on the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Do you take the same stance as many scholars that, like the event of the Law at Mt. Sinai, it is a "one time event"?

I guess I can agree with that there was a “one-time” initiation of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Law had a one-time initiation on Mt. Sinai, and the glory of the Lord fell on that first day in wind, fire, and earthquake, enacting the Old Covenant. Likewise, the Spirit fell on the apostles in the Upper Room, manifested in fire, wind, tongues, embarking the age of the New Covenant. I thought Unger made a very good correlation there.

But I have to disagree with this philosophy that the Holy Spirit came only once, and does not continue to manifest Himself on His people in the miraculous today, i.e. prophecy, tongues, miracles.

I do not believe that Sinai was a “once and for all” event (although the initiation of the Law was), for the glory of the Lord descended upon and ascended from the tabernacle, filling the Holy of Holies, on multiple occasions, depending on God’s directive in moving His people throughout the wilderness. He ceased His movement when He found His resting place at Jerusalem in Solomon’s temple.

The Lord had entered into His rest until the time of the Exile, when He left His resting place until another appointed time, which is still to come. Thus, the presence of the Lord in the Old Testament moved from place to place, yet God was still omnipresent throughout the universe simultaneously while He was present with this “moving manifestation.”

Likewise, the Spirit is present in this world at all times, but His presence falls in many places and manifests in a multitude of evidence, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and even miracles. The Spirit finds His resting place in the believers’ hearts, but He continues to move until the coming of the third age, which is Christ’s return.

Yet some contest about the “presence” of the spirit. Some have stated that “such things as tongues and miracles are primarily to help in the advancement of the Gospel. Now that we have the Bible, there is no use for such things.”[1]

However, the Bible is not available everywhere, for one, and two-even though it is, you cannot understand it unless it is revealed to you by the Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:10-15).

Also-if you look throughout the evangelism in Acts, how were so many persuaded of the Gospel's authenticity, and won for Christ? By the manifestations of the Spirit, in prophecy, signs, tongues, etc...

Even we, who are apart of Christ's Body, need His Spirit's encouragement to continue running our race and to get to know Him better. Our relationship is developed through His Word, through personal encounters with Him, and through community with His people. I can't tell you how many times the Lord has used the "gift of knowledge" through a complete stranger to grace me with the courage to continue walking the unending road of illness. WOW! You talk about an awesome way God uses to comfort His kids!

We need Him to manifest Himself to us in all sorts of ways, in "rhemas," in signs, and in His Body of believers. We can't make it through this life victoriously without it.

I don’t think I always believed this way…it has come from being exposed to and experiencing the miraculous signs of His presence. When I was first baptized, I did not speak in tongues. But that did not make me any less of a sold-out believer in Jesus than someone who did. That’s another topic that I won’t get into, but the point I’m trying to make is God is always moving and yet He is always there; you can sense when His presence falls in a room, and yet, at the same time…He is always present, as if He'd never moved. We can’t figure it out…He’s just…God!

[1] Anonymous, citation from theological forum.

CONTROVERSY IX: What about the Sanctity of Human Life? Part Three—Capital Punishment

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

The final quandary to discuss is the issue of capital punishment and/or war. If one is to honor life, which is holy, then how can a nation enter into war ethically? Are all people to be pacifists in order to adhere to God’s commandments?

BUT! How can one accept such a lifestyle as ethical when God Himself declared war on the heathen nations against Israel, is deemed a Mighty Warrior, and Who charged His people to administer the death penalty as a consequence for murder and even adultery?

Again, these are very serious issues to ponder in light of the arguments posted in the beginning of this article. How can one reconcile such actions as war and capital punishment when they are attempting to maintain and honor all human life as holy? These issues can only be considered in light of Scripture:

“…(There is) a time for war and a time for peace.” (Ecc. 3:8)

“Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” (Ex. 21:12)

Clearly, there is an appointed time for war, as horrific and dreadful as those times may be, where death is an inevitable result of battle. The Lord knows that in war, many will die, and to serve one’s officers, nation, family, etc. one must participate in the killing of other individuals. During these seasons of adversity, though it seems the Sixth Commandment is violated, God’s grace allows such times to occur without finding fault.

In regards to capital punishment, again, the sanctity of human life is in question; should one’s life be ended in light of the sixth commandment? God’s answer is “yes.” That, which has been extinguished must be repaid in just measure, “a life for a life” (ref. Deut. 19:21). However, even this consequence must be taken in deep consideration of the Spirit’s leading. Consider David and Saul; David had every right to kill his adversary, who was seeking to destroy him. However, David felt the conviction of the Lord in this regard:

“‘Who can lay a hand on the LORD's anointed and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9)

Even in this time of war, David had to follow the leadings of the Spirit to know when to destroy and when to administer mercy:

“‘“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’” (Matt. 9:13)

Understanding such times is only found in seeking God’s wisdom, for man cannot know the ways or thoughts of the Lord nor understand who deserves life and who deserves death (ref. Isa. 55:8). Only God, Who sees the hearts of man (ref. Lk. 16:15) can dictate the just punishment for each individual:

“‘(I) will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’” (Ex. 33:19)

Upon searching Scripture in depth and in its entirety, one can glean a fuller understanding of how God, the Just One, views the sanctity of human life and how He would desire it to be revered. Life is holy to Him, regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception. Moreover, the length and quality of life lies under His sovereignty and His responsibility to bring through to fruition; man is not responsible for the ending of an aging life. In addition, there are times for war and peace, in which man must take the lives of others. Finally, the sanctity of human life requires the administration of just recompense for the life that was unjustly taken. However, such administration must be laid before the throne of God’s grace to determine the timing and instigation of such punishment.

If the Church and this nation could review God’s establishment of justice in regards to the sanctity of human life, there would be little division over the plethora of matters surrounding such issues. Many would see how one’s natural rights of privacy and pursuit of happiness do not override the inviolability of man’s rights to life as ordained by God. Such a conclusion, however, is only reaped when one takes the Scriptures as a whole, and reveres them as the very life he breaths. Without the foundation of the Word, the ethical issues concerning life remain complex, inundated in endless debate, and unresolved. The answers are within the Book, if man will simply take the time to search it.

This concludes my “dissertation” about the sanctity of human life…I hope you enjoyed it, and I hope it gave you some topics to think about and discuss…

CONTROVERSY VIII: What about the Sanctity of Human Life? Part Two—Euthanasia

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

The next question regarding the sanctity of human life concerns euthanasia; caring for the elderly when their very life source is held only by the technology of medicine. One article I have read poses several good questions, which are included here:

“…assume that a condition has been reached and you are the person legally stated as the one to sign to allow this person to die…What responsibility do the living have to such (the dying) persons? Does it mean leaving your job to care for a dying parent? What sacrifice is ethical? Could it involve losing your home to pay the medical bills?”[1]

These are very real concerns, very real issues, and cause very real anxiety over how one should behave in an ethical matter, especially for a Christian, whose faith is grounded upon Biblical principles. As stated above, God clearly views human life as sacred. How does He address the issue of caring for a dying parent? He states His view, again, in His Ten Commandments:

“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the LORD your God gives you.” (Deut. 5: 16)

It is clearly stated that man is to honor and respect his parents. This is his heritage, from whence he was given life. To God, the parents of a man are just as sacred as his children, for they have participated in an action that is solely God’s privilege, creation. On another note, this commandment is the only one that includes a promise: that it may go well with the one, who honors his parents, in the land that the Lord has given to him. The Lord’s promises are everlasting:

“The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind…” (Ps. 110:4)

“‘Because I have spoken, I have purposed, and I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it.’”(Jer. 4:28).

The Lord promises to prosper the hands and lives of those, who honor their parents. Honoring a parent may include caring for them in their dying hours, regardless of personal sacrifice. As extreme as this principle may sound, the child has no right to end the life of the parent; he has the obligation to care for them until the Lord takes their lives from them.

The Lord is a Redeemer of that, which is lost. The rewards and blessings of those, who honor and obey His commands, are numerous, and He is faithful to bestow them (ref. Deut. 28). The battle in this issue is not so much “whose responsibility is it to end a life,” but rather “who will believe God in the midst of pressuring finances, emotional turmoil of watching an individual die, etc. that He will restore that, which the locusts have eaten, and give a double portion for the suffering one has endured? (ref. Joel 2:25; Isa. 61:7) The concern is not one’s personal suffering, but one’s faith in the God, Who honors those Who love and obey Him.

Sanctity of Human Life discussion to be continued…

[1] http://atheneo.coccdegree.com/st06.php?id=2080&sched=812 (Article: Life and Death: Biomedical Issues).

CONTROVERSY VII: What about the Sanctity of Human Life? Part One—Abortion

(This is a new article series that I am "trying out" with my readers. These are intended to be thought-provoking. Please see their Intro Article: Jan. 26, 2008)

Ok guys…I’m going to get real “philosophical” with you on this one…but I think that it is absolutely necessary because we have heard so many “intelligent” dissertations, which argue for “terminating the life of a fetus” (which some don’t consider a “real person”), which state why euthenasia is the “compassionate” method of medicine, and suggest that capital punishment is inhumane…I may bore some of you; but others, well, I hope this gives you some food for thought, or some ammunition for discussion if you ever encounter a fellow believer, who holds unbiblical theories. This is divided into three parts: abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

I believe one of our key societal ethical issues today is our lack of respect for the sanctity of human life. Granted, we do have laws against homicide, etc., and the general opinion of this nation is negative towards those, who abuse, torture, and extinguish the life of other human beings.

However, this appreciation for life has its limits, becoming vague and of much dispute in different “life/death” scenarios, such as abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. The discrepancies are so universal in the United States that even the American Church is divided on these issues. Such a division is detrimental to the solidarity and unification of the nation as well as for the Bride of Christ because:

“‘Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.’” (Matt. 12:25)

How then can these divisive issues surrounding “human life” be resolved in this nation? How can the Church become united in purpose when it comes to honoring life, being good stewards of one’s life as well as respecting others’, with whom they have to do, in addition to living in accordance with justice?

To best answer these questions, one must study how the Just One views human life; how He handles the elderly and capital punishment; and how He would have us, His people, implement His perfect justice as is humanly possible for us as finite beings.

To begin our quest of discovering “ethical rightness” in regards to the above issues, the inquirer must observe God’s initial opinion regarding man.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in His Own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them… God saw all that He had made, and it was very good…” (Gen. 1:26-28, 31).

God created man and woman in His image. In other words, as God is holy, God created man to be holy in His initial purpose for man’s creation. Man was intended to be holy as He is holy (ref. 1 Pet. 1:16).

What does it mean to be called “holy”? “Holy,” as defined by the Online Etymology Dictionary, is “that, which must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated.” [1] Moreover, that, which is holy is “regarded as deserving special respect or reverence.”[2] Therefore, God regards man as that, which is deserving of special reverential respect, to be preserved whole, without any violation of his sacred existence.

God continued to propound upon His reverential opinion of man when He laid down the Ten Commandments, His most basic and normative form of ethical standards:

“Thou shall not kill…” (Ex. 20:13)

God clearly made known His intentions of preserving the holiness of human life by commanding the human race to honor His position towards it.

How does this apply to abortion? Do we have a right to choice, as is apart of our human natural rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness? Does not an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy infringe upon one’s plight to attain such goals?

The answer to this is that just as man has a right to make good decisions, he also has a right to make poor ones. Should a pregnancy be untimely or unwanted, it was not the fault of the baby in the womb; but the responsibility lies with the father and mother. Just as man has a right to enjoy the good results of responsible living, he also has the right to suffer consequences for his irresponsible actions.

What about the situations of the pregnancies, which are the result of rape? The choice was not the mother’s; her status of holiness was greatly transgressed against by the perpetrator of injustice. Should she have a right to “redeem” her life and liberty by extinguishing the life of that, which is within her?

The answer is no. Upon closer examination of the scriptures, God clearly states His views of human life, regardless of circumstance surrounding its birth:

“The LORD brings death and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and raises up.” (1 Sam. 2: 6)

As finite creatures, man cannot possibly dictate adequately between a life that is rightfully created and that, which is a “sinful” creation. God creates life, and He has created all humans as holy, regardless of the methods of their siring. Moreover, in the situation of rape, one can only muse that:

“…all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28)

Who is man to judge whether or not the life within the womb, be it a result of poor choices or horrendous violation, be not called by the Holy One for a purpose beyond that of human comprehension. What of the rights of the rape victim? Does she not have a right to redemption and vengeance for that, which was so viscously stolen from her? Again, the Word gives the answer:

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,’ saith the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19)

It is God’s place to avenge that, which is wronged. God is far more creative in His redemptive agencies and means; His ways pass far beyond the capabilities of one avenging one’s self. The rape victim’s rights were severely breached, but God has a way of redeeming the loss that surpasses the efforts of man’s finite abilities.

Sanctity of Human Life discussion to be continued…

[1] holy. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holy.
[2] holy. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holy.