What is Exegesis?

Col. 19:20

verses 9-12a, the prayer of Paul and Timothy: spiritual maturation of the believer

verses 12b-14, position of the believer through God’s redemptive work

verses 15-17, The Son as ultimate authority and sustainer of all creation

verses 18-20, all things reconciled to God through His divine Son

            The letter to the church in Colossians addresses life after salvation for the believer.  It can be seen not only as an exhortation to continue in the faith, but as also as an explanation concerning the role of God in the spiritual growth of the believer.  Paul writes the believers in Colossae to “present to [them] the word of God in its fullness” (Col 1:25b, TNIV).  The section spanning from verses 9-20, presents the new life of believers, which is a life of continual growth and freedom from darkness, as well as God’s activity in their salvation and perpetual growth.  Interestingly, throughout the section, we observe the motions of God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son in that process of maturation.  Paul, however, chooses to focus on who Christ is, and presents this discussion as the pivotal theme throughout the rest of the letter.  But, how does Christ express “the word of God in its fullness”?  And, what are the implications in this to the believers?

Exegesis

            “Exegesis” exists as a term to distinguish the practice of deriving an interpretation from out of a text (or some other means of language) as opposed to projecting or imposing our interpretations into the text, which is eisogesis.  Exegesis is the discipline of allowing the text to speak to the reader, rather than allowing our presuppositions to manipulate the text to conform to what we would like it to mean.

            Exegesis is investigation because it endeavors to explore the text both in its own historical and cultural context and as it relates to other relevant texts.  For example, we might ask, “How does Colossians 1-9 relate the rest of Colossians?” or “What are some ways that Paul’s words in verses 15 through 20 could have impacted its original audience?”  The investigation aspect of exegesis uses variety of methods and approaches—historical, literary, formal, etc—to derive meaning from a text.

            Exegesis is conversation because it enters into a dialogue with a community—particularly a literary community where various types of literature are discussed critically.  It is a community predominantly preoccupied with “literary theory” (which has oftentimes been defined as the application of theories, originally meant for another discipline, upon Literature; some examples include Freudian, Foucauldian philosophy, or Marxism.)  Exegesis persuasively addresses various topics, themes, and issues found within both a religious community as well as a literary one.

            Finally, exegesis is an art.  It is an art because it employs the sensitivity and imagination of the exegete, which is the one doing exegesis.  Because exegesis is a discipline, using “scientific” methodologies, it takes experience and practice on the part of the exegete to hone the skills for improvement.  Yet, it is also a creative practice, using the unique perspective and personality of the exegete as an enlightening quality of interpretation, rather than just a hindrance (this is also another way in which exegesis serves as conversation).  The experience, discipline, and creative talents of the writer, or the explorer, work together in the practice of critical interpretation.

Psalm 3

verses 1-2, enemies rise up, saying the LORD (YHWH) won’t deliver

verses 3-4, the LORD protects

verses 5-6, the LORD sustains

verses 7-8, the LORD delivers

Psalm 3 is an ancient Jewish poem (which seems to use chiasmus), written by King David, celebrating the LORD as deliverer, protector, and sustainer.

The Psalm can be seen as a general movement of intensification:  Verses 1-4 begins with an unknown number of scoffers, or enemies, which soon results in the LORD’s “answer” from His holy mountain.  Then, verses 5-7 begin with the interruption of a dramatic (and very curious) refrain, where David lies down to sleep—it is the LORD doing the work here.  David awakens, who will now not even fear the “tens of thousands” of enemies assailing him at all sides, and LORD’s breaking teeth and smashing jaws; thus, in verse 8, the LORD has delivered.

Kardia or "heart" according to the TDNT

    A.      לֵב, לֵבָב in the OT.

  The use of לֵב and לֵבָב is not promiscue. C. A. Briggs has shown that “the earliest documents use לב.לבב ״ ״ appears first in Isaiah.” For details cf. Briggs and Holzinger.
  1. “Heart” in the literal sense, a. in men and animals, the “neighbourhood of the heart,” “breast,” passim; סְג֥ר לֵב the “caul of the heart,” Hos. 13:8. b. “Seat of physical vitality,” vitalising (סעד) by nourishment, e.g., Gn. 18:5; “physical brokenness,” כָּל־לֵבָב דַּוָּי Is. 1:5.
  2. Fig. the “innermost part of man.” Men look on the outward appearance, God looks on the heart,” 1 S. 16:7; par. to קֶרֶב Jer. 31:33; to talk to oneself, to think (אמר, דבר passim, חשׁב Zech. 7:10, ברך Dt. 29:18; Job 1:5). The heart is the seat of mental or spiritual powers and capacities.
  a. The heart stands firm in bravery and courage (עמד Ez. 22:14): לֵבָך. par. כֹּחַ Da. 11:25, מָצָא אֶת־לִבּוֹ to find the heart, 2 S. 7:27, יִגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ his courage arose, 2 Ch. 17:6, אַבִּירֵי לֵב the stouthearted, Ps. 76:5. The failure of courage רכך ׃(לֵב) e.g., Dt. 20:3, מסס e.g., Dt. 20:8, חרד e.g., 1 S. 4:13, יצא Gn. 42:28, עוב Ps. 40:12, נפל 1 S. 17:32, מוג Ez. 21:20, דִּבֶּר עַל־לֵב to encourage, e.g., Gn. 34:3. Joy: שִׂמְחַת לֵב e.g., Dt. 28:47. Of merriness of heart: βφψ e.g., Ju. 19:9, טֹוד e.g., 2 S. 13:28, שׂמח e.g., Zech. 10:7. רנן Job 29:13, רחשׁ Ps. 45:1, עלץ 1 S. 2:1. Trouble and sorrow (כְּאֵב לֵב Is. 65:14) lurk in the sides of the heart (קִירֹת לֵב Jer. 4:19). Of sorrow of heart: רעע Dt. 15:10 (רֹעַ לֵב Neh. 2:2), שׁבר ni e.g., Ps. 34:18, חיל Ps. 55:4, הפך ni Lam. 1:20, חמץ hitp. Ps. 73:21, כאב Prv. 14:13, סְחַרְחַר Ps. 38:10, זעק Is. 15:5. Pride: זְדוֹן לֵב Jer. 49:16, רֻם לֵב Jer. 48:29, גֹּבַהּ לֵב 2 Ch. 32:26. Of arrogance of heart, רום e.g., Dt. 8:14, גבהּ e.g., Ez. 28:17, נשׂא 2 K. 14:10. Inclination of heart, הָיָה לֵב אַחֲרֵי 2 S. 15:13, הִטָּה (הֵסֵב) לֵב e. g., 1 K. 8:58; Ezr. 6:22, הֵשִׁיב לֵד לֵב עֵל Mal. 3:24, נָטָה לֵב מֵעִם 1 K. 11:9. Anxious concern: אֶל or שִׁים אֶת־לֵב לְ. 1 S. 9:20; 1 S. 25:25. Sympathy: נֶהְפַּךְ לִדִּי Hos. 11:8. Incitement: חמם e.g., Dt. 19:6, קנא pi Prv. 23:17; dereliction: לֵב מַרְפֵּא Prv. 14:30. Desire: תַּאֲוַת לִבּוֹ Ps. 21:2; lusts: לֵב par. to עֵינַיִם e.g., Nu. 15:39, אַחַר עֵינַי הָלַךְ לִבִּי Job 31:7.
  b. The heart as the seat of rational functions. The heart is given by God לָדַעַת Dt. 29:3. Those who have won understanding (קנה לב Prv. 19:8) are אַנְשֵׁי לֵבָב Job 34:10 or חַכְמֵי לֵב e.g., Job 37:24, with far-reaching insight (רֹחַב לֵב 1 K. 5:9). To them belongs לֵב חָכָם וְנָבוֹן 1 K. 3:12; of them may be said לֵב נָבוֹן יִקְנֶה־דַּעַת Prv. 18:15; they speak out of the treasures of their knowledge (מִלִּבּם Job 8:10). Accordingly לִבּוֹ חָסֵר: his understanding fails him, Qoh. 10:3, חֶסֶר־לֵב (or חֹסֶר־לֵב, cf. BHK2, 3) folly, Prv. 10:21, חֲסַר־לֵב: lacking in understanding, e.g., Prv. 6:22, אֵין לֵב without understanding, e,g., Hos. 7:11, גָּנַב אֶת־לֵב: to deceive someone, e.g., Gn. 31:20, wine takes away understanding יִקַּח לֵב Hos. 4:11, תִּמְהיֹן לֵבָב confusion of mind, Dt. 28:28. Thoughts dwell in the heart רַעְיוֹנֵי לֵבָב Da. 2:30; חִקְרֵי־לֵב Ju. 5:16, including evil thoughts מַשְׂכִּיּוֹת לֵבָב Ps. 73:7, fantasies תַּרְמִית לֵב e.g., Jer. 14:14, self-invented visions חֲווֹן לֵב Jer. 23:16, artistic sense חָכְמַת־לֵב Ex. 35:35 (חֲכַם־לֵב artist, e.g., Ex. 28:3). עָלָה עַל־לֵב to come into the mind, e.g., Is. 65:17, הֵשִׁיב אֶל־לֵב to remember, e.g., Lam. 3:21, שִׂים (שִׁית) לֵב to direct attention to, e.g., Hag. 1:5; Jer. 31:21.
  c. From the heart comes planning and volition (תְזִמּוֹת לֵב e.g., Jer. 23:20): בִּלְבָבוֹ it is in his purpose, Is. 10:7, הָיָה עִם־לֵבָב to have a purpose, e.g., 1 K. 8:17, עָשָׂה בִלְבַב וּבְנֶפֶשׁ to act according to the will, 1 S. 2:35 (כְּלֵב 1 S. 13:14 etc.), נָתַן לֵבָב לְ 1 Ch. 22:19 or הֵכִין לֵבָב לְ Ezr. 7:10, to direct one’s purpose to, שִׂים עַל־לֵב to purpose, Da. 1:8, עָלְתָה עַל־לִבִּי it has been my purpose, e.g., Jer. 7:31. Inner impulse comes from the heart: כָּל־אִישׂ אֲשֶׂר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ each whose heart moved him thereto, e.g., Ex. 36:2 (with מלא Est. 7:5), נְדִיב לֵב one who is willing, e.g., Ex. 35:5. לאֹ מִלִּבִּי not of one’s own impulse, e.g., Nu. 16:28. Attitude of will, or character, is rooted in the heart (comprehensively כְּלָיוֹת וָלֵב Jer. 11:20). If the will (דֶּרֶךְ לֵב Is. 57:17; יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לֵב Gn. 6:5) is inclined in the right direction (הִטָּה לֵב Ps. 119:36, הֵכִין לֵב e.g., Job 11:13), this is renewal of heart (לֵב חָדָשׁ e.g., Ez. 18:31). The whole man with his inner being and willing is comprised in לֵב: full committal בְּכָל־לֵב (par. to בְּכָל־נֶפֶשׁ e.g., Jos. 22:5, בֶּאֱמֶת 1 S. 12:24, בְּכָל־רָצוֹן 2 Ch. 15:15, בְּכָל־מְאֹד Dt. 6:5) or בְּלֵב שָׁלֵם e.g., 1 Ch. 29:9 (par. to בְּנֶפֶשׁ חֲפֵצָה 1 Ch. 28:9, בֶּאֱמֶת 2 K. 20:3). Thus לֵב can be used for “person,” e.g., Ps. 22:26 (along with כְּלָיוֹת Prv. 23:15 f., כָּבֵד Ps. 16:9, שְׁאֵר Ps. 73:26, בָּשָׂר Ps. 84:2), though with a slightly different nuance.
  d. Religious and moral conduct is rooted in the heart. With the heart one serves God (1 S. 12:20; par. to בֶּאֱמְת 1 S. 12:24; “with the whole heart” passim). In it dwells the fear of God, Jer. 32:40. The heart (לוּחַ לֵב) accepts the divine teachings, Prv. 7:3 (תּוֹרָתִי בְלִבָּם Is. 51:7). The heart of the righteous (יִשְׁרֵי־לֵב e.g., Ps. 7:10) trusts in God. Prv. 3:5, is faithful to Him לֵבָב נֶאֱמָן (Neh. 9:8), and is without fear אמץ hi, Ps. 27:14. We read of the defection of the heart: רחק pi, Is. 29:13, סור e.g., Dt. 17:17, סוג e.g., Ps. 44:18, פנה e.g., Dt. 29:17, פתה Dt. 11:16, זנה Ez. 6:9; of the hardening of the heart, חזק q and pi, e.g., Ex. 4:21; 7:13, כבד and hi, e.g., Ex. 9:7, 8:11, קשׁה hi, e.g., Ex. 7:3, אמץ pi, e.g., Dt. 2:30; the hardened: חִזְקֵי לֵב. 2:4 (par. to קְשֵׁי פָנִים), אַבִּירֵי לֵב Is. 46:12; obduracy: שְׁרִירוּת לֵב e.g., Dt. 29:18, מְגִנַּת לֵב Lam. 3:65. The heart of the sinner (sin is written עַל לוּחַ לִבָּם Jer. 17:1) is uncircumcised: עָרְלַת לֵבָב e.g., Dt. 10:16, עַרְלֵי לֵב Jer. 9:25. Circumcision of the heart (מול e.g., Dt. 10:16) comes with conversion of heart: שׁוב Jl 2:12, הֵשִיב אֶל־לֵב 1 K. 8:47, לֵב נִשְׁבָּר Ps. 51:17. וַיַּךְ לֵב is used for conscience smiting us at 1 S. 24:5, and מִכְשׁוֹל לֵב for a scruple of conscience at 1 S. 25:31. The righteous is pure in heart, בַּר־לֵבָב Ps. 24:4, אֹהֵב טְהָור־לֵב Prv. 22:11; cf. ישֶׁר לֵבָב Dt. 9:5, תָּם־לֵבָב Gn. 20:5, יִשְׁרַת לֵבָב 1 K. 3:6, לֵב טהוֹר Ps. 51:10. He speaks the whole truth, אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ Ju. 16:17. The ungodly man has a corrupt heart, עִקְּשֵׁי־לֵב Prv. 11:20, חַנְפֵי לֵב Job 36:13; he speaks with a double tongue, בְּלֵב וָלֵב Ps. 12:3.
  3. Figur. בְּלֶב־יָם “in the midst of the sea,” passim.
  The various nuances are reproduced in the LXX. The most common renderings apart from καρδία or στῆθος are διάνοια, ψυχή, ἐνδεὴς φρενῶν, νοῦς.

Baumgärtel

    B.      καρδία among the Greeks.

  The word is primarily used 1. lit. for the heart in a physiological sense as the central organ of the body of man or beast, e.g., Hom. Il., 10, 94: κραδίη δέ μοι ἔξω στηθέων ἐκθρῴσκει; 13, 442: δόρυ δʼ ἐν κραδίῃ ἐπεπήγει; Aesch. Eum., 861: καρδίαν ἀλεκτόρων; P. Leid., V, XIII, 24 (Preis. Zaub., XII, 438): καρδία ἱέρακος; Gal. passim; cf. also Plat. Symp., 215d: ἡ καρδία πηδᾷ (also Aristoph. Nu., 1391; Plut. Aud. Poet., 10 [II, 30a]); P. Lond., 1, 46, 157 (Preis. Zaub., V, 156 f.): ὄνομά μοι καρδία περιεζωσμένη ὄφιν.
  It also occurs 2. figur., especially in the poets, infrequently in prose, for the heart as the seat of moral and intellectual life: a. the seat of emotions and passions: anger, Hom. Il., 9, 646: ἀλλά μοι οἰδάνεται κραδίη χόλῳ; Eur. Alc., 837: ὦ πολλὰ τλᾶσα καρδία, courage or fear, Hom. Il., 21, 547: ἐν μέν οἱ κραδίῃ θάρσος βάλε; I, 225: κυνὸς ὄμματʼ ἔχων, κραδίνη δʼ ἐλάφοιο, joy or sadness, Od., 4, 548: κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ; 17, 489: ἐν μὲν κραδίῃ μέγα πένθος ἄεξεν Epict. Diss., I, 27, 21: τὸν δὲ τρέμοντα καὶ ταρασσόμενον καὶ ῥηγνύμενον ἔσωθεν τὴν καρδίαν, love, Sappho, 2, 5 f. (Diehl, I, 329): τό μοι μὰν καρδίαν ἐν στήθεσιν ἐπτόαισεν, Aristoph. Nu., 86: ἐκ τῆς καρδίας υʼ ὄντως φιλεῖς; Theocr. Idyll., 29, 4: οὐχ ὅλας φιλέειν μʼ ἐθέλησθʼ ἀπὸ καρδίας; M. Ant., II, 3: ἀπὸ καρδίας εὐχάριστος τοῖς θεοῖς. b. The seat of the power of thought, Hom. Il., 21, 441: ἄνοον κραδίην ἔχες; Pind. Olymp., 13, 16 ff.: πολλὰ δʼ ἐν καρδίαις ἀνδρῶν ἔβαλον ὧραι … ἀρχαῖα σοφίσμαθʼ …; Corp. Herm., VII, 1: ἀναβλέψαντες τοῖς τῆς καρδίας ὀφθαλμοῖς (cf. IV, 11); VII, 2: ἀφορῶντες τῇ καρδίᾳ εἰς τὸν [οὕτως] ὁραθῆναι θέλοντα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν … ὁρατὸς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ἀλλὰ νῷ καὶ καρδίᾳ. c. Seat of the will and resolves, Hom. Il., 10, 244: πρόφρων κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ; Soph. Ant., 1105: καρδίας δʼ ἐξίσταμαι τὸ δρᾶν.
  In philosophical terminology we find in Plato a weak trend toward ascribing to the καρδία functions of the soul, cf. Symp., 218a: δεδηγμένος τε ὑπὸ ἀλγεινοτέρου καὶ τὸ ἀλγεινότατον ὧν ἄν τις δηχθείη—τὴν καρδίαν γὰρ [ἢ ψυχὴν] ἢ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸ ὀνομάσαι πληγείς τε καὶ δηχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων, Resp., VI, 492c: ἐν δὴ τῷ τοιούτῳ τὸν νέον, τὸ λεγόμενον, τίνα οἴει καρδίαν ἴσχειν; Tim. Locr., 100a: τῶ δʼ ἀλόγω μέρεος τὸ μὲν θυμοειδὲς περὶ τὰν καρδίαν, τὸ δʼ ἐπιθυματικὸν περὶ τὸ ἧπαρ. But the basic physiological concept is maintained, cf. Tim., 65c: τὰ φλέβια (veins), οἷόν περ δοκίμια τῆς γλώττης τεταμένα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν. Aristotle, for whom the heart is primarily the centre of the blood-stream, and hence the centre of physical life in general (e.g., De Somno et Vigilia, 3, p. 456b, cf. 458a; Mot. An., 10, p. 703a), locates the emotions in the neighbourhood of the καρδία on the basis of his physiology of the senses, cf. De Sensu et Sensili, 2, p. 439a, 1 f.: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ τὸ αἰσθητήριον αὐτῶν, τῆς τε γεύσεως καὶ τῆς ἁφῆς, Part. An., II, 10, p. 656a, 28 ff.: ἀρχὴ τῶν αἰσθήσεών ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν τόπος, διώρισται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ αἰσθήσεως· καὶ διότι αἱ μὲν δύο φανερῶς ἠρτημέναι πρὸς τὴν καρδίαν εἰσίν, ἥ τε τῶν ἁπτῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν χυμῶν, ibid., 656b, 22 ff.: ἔχει δʼ ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν τὸν ἐγκέφαλον πάντα τὰ ἔχοντα τοῦτο τὸ μόριον, διὰ τὸ ἔμπροσθεν εἶναι ἐφʼ ὃ αἰσθάνεται, τὴν δʼ αἴσθησιν ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας, ταύτην δʼ εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, καὶ τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἐναίμων γίνεσθαι μορίων, φλεβῶν δʼ εἶναι κενὸν τὸ ὄπισθεν κύτος; ibid., III, 4, 666a, 11 ff. (after a physiological discussion of the heart): ἔτι δʼ αἱ κινήσεις τῶν ἡδέων καὶ τῶν λυπηρῶν καὶ ὅλως πάσης αἰσθήσεως ἐντεῦθεν ἀρχόμεναι φαίνονται καὶ πρὸς ταύτην περαίνουσαι. In Stoicism the heart is in some sense the central organ of intellectual life, the seat of reason, from which feeling, willing and thinking proceed, cf. Chrysipp. acc. to v. Arnim, II, 245, 34 ff.: τούτοις πᾶσι συμφώνως καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτʼ ἔσχηκεν ἡ καρδία κατά τινα κράτησιν καὶ κυρείαν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ εἶναι τὸ κυριεῦον καὶ κρατοῦν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος, ὡς ἂν κρατία λεγομένη, ibid., 246, 1 f.: ὁρμῶμεν κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος καὶ συγκατατιθέμεθα τούτῳ καὶ εἰς τοῦτο συντείνει τὰ αἰσθητήρια πάντα, cf. ibid., 246, 13 f.: Χρύσιππος δὲ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ πνεύματος πλήρη φασὶν εἶναι τὴν κοιλίαν ταύτην (sc. τὴν ἀριστερὰν τῆς καρδίας), ibid., 244, 18 ff.; 248, 33 ff.; 247, 26 ff., 34 ff.; 249, 5 ff.; 236, 15 and 25 ff., esp. 34 f.: ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τὸ λογιστικὸν ὑπάρχειν; also Diogenes of Babylon, the pupil of Chrysipp., ibid., III, 216, 16 f.: ὃ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἐν τούτῳ ὑπάρχει τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ὃ δὲ πρῶτον τροφῆς καὶ πνεύματος ἀρύεται, ἡ καρδίὰ ibid., line 9 f.: ἡ διάνοια ἄρα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ, ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς κατωτέρω τόποις, μάλιστά πως περὶ τὴν καρδίαν, and other Stoics, cf. v. Arnim, II, 228, 4 f.: οἱ Στωϊκοὶ πάντες ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ ἢ τῷ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν πνεύματι (sc. εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν); Diog. Laert., VII, 159 (ibid., line 1 ff.): ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ εἶναι τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐν ᾧ αἱ φαντασίαι καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ γίνονται καὶ ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἀναπέμπεται· ὅπερ εἶναι ἐν καρδίᾳ. On the whole, however, this discussion does not go beyond the question of the seat of the spiritual life in the body. There is no strict transposition of the concept καρδία into the spiritual realm (cf. v. Arnim, II, 248, 33 ff.: καθʼ ἣν ἔτι φορὰν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται πάντα· “ἡψάμην σου τῆς καρδίας” ὥσπερ τῆς ψυχῆς … τῇ δὲ καρδίᾳ καθάπερ ἂν τῇ ψυχῇ χρώμεθα, cf. ibid., 249, 5 ff., 247, 26 ff. and 36 ff.). That is to say, the process of thought is not specifically identified with the καρδία.
  3. Figur. of nature, the “inward part,” the “core” of a plant or “kernel” of a tree, e.g., Theophr. Historia Plantarum, I, 2, 6: καλοῦσι δέ τινες τοῦτο καρδίαν, οἱ δʼ ἐντεριώνην· ἔνιοι δὲ τὸ ἐντὸς τῆς μήτρας αὐτῆς καρδίαν, οἱ δὲ μυελόν, P. Leid., V, XIII, 24 (Preis. Zaub., XII, 438): ἀρτεμισίας (wormwood) καρδία; P. Leid. W., VI, 50 f. (Preis. Zaub., XIII, 262 f.): λαβῶν βάϊν (palm branch) χλωρὰν καὶ τῆς καρδίας κρατήσας σχίσον εἰς δύο.


    C.      The LXX, and Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism.

  1. In the LXX καρδία is the true equivalent of the Heb. לֵב or לֵבָב, more rarely translated διάνοια and ψυχή, and very rarely φρένες, νοῦς and στῆθος. Only in a few verses is καρδία used for קֶרֶב (ψ 5:9; 61:5; 93:19; Prv. 14:33; 26:24), for מֵעִים (Lam. 2:11; ψ 39:8 B), for רוּחַ (Ez. 13:3), for בֶּטֶן (Prv. 22:18; Hab. 3:16 vl.), or for עֹרֶף (2 Παρ. 30:8 B). Nowhere in a certain LXX text does καρδία correspond to נֶפֶשׁ (cf. Dt. 12:20 A; ψ 93:19 S; 130:2 A). The wealth of nuances in the underlying Heb. words is reflected in καρδία in the LXX. Thus καρδία is first the principle and organ of man’s personal life. It is the focus of his being and activity as a spiritual personality (cf. Prv. 4:23: πάσῃ φυλακῇ τήρει σὴν καρδίαν· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἔξοδοι ζωῆς cf. ψ 21:26). Hence it is also the source and seat of his moral and religious life, Dt. 6:5; 1 Βασ‌. 12:20, 24; Ἰερ. 39:40; Prv. 7:3; 3:5; Jl. 2:12 etc. καρδία is often interchangeable with ψυχή, διάνοια, πνεῦμα, νοῦς etc., but in contrast to even these synonyms it relates to the unity and totality of the inner life represented and expressed in the variety of intellectual and spiritual functions, → ψυχή.
  2. When it follows OT lines of thought, Hellenistic Judaism uses καρδία in the same sense as the LXX, e.g., Test. L. 13:1: φοβεῖσθε κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν; Test. Jos. 10:5: εἶχον τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου; Test. S. 5:2: ἀγαθύνατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ἐνώπιον κυρίου; Test. D. 5:11: ἐπιστρέψει καρδίας ἀπειθεῖς πρὸς κύριον; Test. S. 4:5 (cf. Test. R. 4:1 etc.): ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας; Test. R. 6:10: ἐν ταπεινώσει καρδίας ὑμῶν; Test. Iss. 3:1: ἐν εὐθύτητι καρδίας; Test. N. 3:1: ἐν καθαρότητι καρδίας; Test. Jos. 4:6: κύριος … εὐδοκεῖ … τοῖς ἐν καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ … αὐτῷ προσερχομένοις; 17:3: τέρπεται … ὁ θεὸς … ἐπὶ προαιρέσει καρδίας ἀγαθῆς; Test. S. 4:7: ἀγαπήσατε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγαθῇ καρδίᾳ; Test. G. 5:3: (the righteous and humble) … οὐχ ὑπʼ ἄλλου καταγινωσκόμενος ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας; 6:7: ἄφες αὐτῷ ἀπὸ καρδίας; Test. S. 2:4: ἡ γὰρ καρδία μου ἦν σκληρά Test. Jud. 20:5: ἐμπεπύρισται ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας; Test. Zeb. 2:5: ἐβόμβει ἡ καρδία μου; Test. Jos. 15:3: ἡ καρδία μου ἐτάκη; Test. D. 4:7: συναίρονται ἀλλήλοις ἵνα ταράξωσι τὴν καρδίαν; Test. Jos. 7:2: πόνον καρδίας ἐγὼ ἀλγῶ; Test. L. 6:2: συνετήρουν τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου; 8:19: ἔκρυψα … τοῦτο ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου; Test. D. 1:4: ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ἐθέμην; Gk. En. 14:2: νοῆσαι καρδίᾳ; Ep. Ar. 17: ἐπεκαλούμην τὸν κυριεύοντα κατὰ καρδίαν.; cf. 4 Esr. 3:1: “My thoughts pierced to my heart” (cf. Is. 65:17 etc.); 3:30: “Then my heart (I) was startled”; 3:21: Adam had an “evil heart,” hence he sinned (cf. 4:30); similarly his descendants have an evil heart, which “has turned them from life and led them to destruction and to the way of death” (3:20, 26; 7:48).
  Similarly Philo, directly following the OT, can speak of ἀπερίτμητοι τὴν καρδίαν, Spec. Leg., I, 304 (cf. Lv. 26:41), or demand with the Law, τὰ δίκαια … ἐντιθέναι … τῇ καρδίᾳ, Spec. Leg., IV, 137 (cf. Dt. 6:6). He constantly refers to Dt. 30:14: ἔστιν σου ἐγγὺς τὸ ῥῆμα σφόδρα … ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, Poster. C., 85; Virt., 183; Mut. Nom., 237 f.; Som., II, 180; Omn. Prob. Lib., 68; Praem. Poen., 79 f. But the biblical idea that the heart is the centre of the inner life is alien to Philo. To him καρδία is an inexact term. It is merely a symbol of διάνοια or βουλαί (βουλεύματα). In Mut. Nom., 124 the name Caleb is explained in terms of πᾶσα καρδία, but in the allegorical exposition ψυχή replaces καρδία, which Philo knows only in a physiological context. The καρδία, seated in the στήθη (Leg. All., I, 68; cf. also the image in Vit. Mos., I, 189), is one of the 7 inner parts of the body, the entrails (Op. Mund., 118; Leg. All., I, 12). Its significance is as the centre of the blood-stream, Spec. Leg., I, 216 and 218. He has learned of the action of the heart from doctors and scientists: δοκεῖ τοῦ ὅλου σώματος προπλάττεσθαι ἡ καρδία, θεμελίου τρόπον ἢ ὡς ἐν νηὶ τρόπις (keel), ἐφʼ ᾗ οἰκοδομεῖται τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα—παρὸ καὶ μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν ἔτι ἐμπηδᾶν φασιν αὐτὴν ὡς καὶ πρώτην γινομένην καὶ ὑστέραν φθειρομένην, Leg. All., II, 6. If there may be seen here the influence of Gk. philosophy on his understanding of καρδία, acquaintance with the anthropology of Hellenistic philosophers (→ 608 f.) may be seen in his frequent mention of the problem whether the ἡγεμονικόν is located in the heart or the brain. Though he occasionally equates καρδία and ἡγεμονικόν (Spec. Leg., I, 305), he leaves the question open (Spec. Leg., I, 214; Som., I, 32; Poster. C., 137; Det. Pot. Ins., 90) even when referring to the Torah of sacrifices, which says nothing about offering the mind or heart, though this would be specially sanctified if the ἡγεμονικόν could be assumed in one or the other according to the will of the legislator, Sacr. AC., 136; cf. Spec. Leg., I, 213 ff. Once with reference to the tree of life in Paradise he mentions the view of those who regard the heart as the ἡγεμονικόν, Leg. All., I, 59: τὴν καρδίαν ζύλον εἰρήσθαι ζωῆς, ἐπειδὴ αἰτία τε τοῦ ζῆν ἐστι καὶ τὴν μέσην τοῦ σώματος χώραν ἔλαχεν, ὡς ἂν κατʼ αὐτοὺς ἡγεμονικὸν ὑπάρχουσα. On another occasions he adopts the strange argument for circumcision that it is designed to conform the organ of generation to the heart, the more valuable inward organ which produces thought, Spec. Leg., I, 6: τὴν πρὸς καρδίαν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ περιτμηθέντος μέρους· πρὸς γὰρ γένεσιν ἄμφω παρεσκεύασται, τὸ μὲν ἐγκάρδιον πνεῦμα νοημάτων, τὸ δὲ γόνιμον ὄργανον ζῷων. But his own opinion, in connection with his religious criticism of reason, is that the seat of the ἡγεμονικόν is not to be found in the human body, and that the heart, the physical organ which alone he has in view, cannot be the seat of the higher life. Joseph. mentions the καρδία exclusively as an organ of the body of men and beasts, after the manner of the Greeks, e.g., Ant., 5, 193: πλήξας δʼ αὐτὸν … εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, 7, 241: τοξεύσας κατὰ τῆς καρδίας ἀπέκτεινεν; 9, 118: τοῦ βέλους διὰ τῆς καρδίας ἐνεχθέντος; cf. 19, 346: διακάρδιον ἔσχεν ὀδύνην. The movement towards a figurative understanding in εὐκαρδίως, “of good heart or courage,” Ant., 12, 373: σφόδρα εὐκαρδίως ἐπʼ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν ἐλέφαντα) ὁρμήσας; Bell., 7, 358: φέρειν εὐκαρδίως (sc. τὸν θάνατον), is again in accordance with Gk. usage,12 and there is no analogy to it in the LXX. Where the OT has heart, Joseph. uses διάνοια or ψυχή.
  3. Rabb. Judaism follows the OT in its use of לֵב, לֵבָב, Aram. לִבָּא, cf. e.g., Ber., 2, 1: כון לבו, “he thinks of, is aware of”; S. Dt., 33 on 6:6: תץ הדברים האלה על לבבך; S. Dt., 24 on 1:27 (p. 34, Kittel): (proverb) “what you have in your heart against your friend is the same as what he has in his heart against you”; Midr. Qoh. on 1:16: the heart as the centre of life; Ab., 2, 9: “What is the good way to which a man should keep? … A good heart … What is the evil way which he must avoid? … An evil heart”; S. Dt., 41 on 11:13 (p. 95, Kittel): “Is there a service (of God) in the heart? … This is prayer”; M. Ex., 20, 21: כל גבהי לבב קרוים תועבה, “all the proud are called an abomination.” “So long as the Jew spoke of the heart, he had in view the inner life as a unity with all its willing, feeling and thinking.”


    D.      καρδία in the New Testament.


The NT use of the word agrees with the OT use as distinct from the Greek. Even more strongly than the LXX it concentrates on the heart as the main organ of psychic and spiritual life, the place in man at which God bears witness to Himself.
1. The thought of the heart as the central organ of the body and the seat of physical vitality is found only in Lk. 21:34 and the select poetic expressions of Ac. 14:17: ἐμπιπλῶν τροφῆς … τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, and Jm. 5:5: ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν (cf. 1 K. 21:7; ψ 101:5; 103:15).
2. That the heart is the centre of the inner life of man and the source or seat of all the forces and functions of soul and spirit is attested in many different ways in the NT.
a. In the heart dwell feelings and emotions, desires and passions.

  Joy, Ac. 2:26 (cf. ψ 15:9); Jn. 16:22 (cf. Is. 66:14); Ac. 14:17; pain and sorrow, Jn. 16:6; 14:1, 27 (cf. ψ 54:4; 142:4; Lam. 2:11; Job 37:1); R. 9:2; 2 C. 2:4; Ac. 2:37 (cf. ψ 108:16); 7:54; 21:13; Lk. 4:18 K (cf. Is. 61:1; ψ 33:18), love, 2 C. 7:3; 6:11; Phil. 1:7; desire, R. 10:1; Lk. 24:32 (cf. ψ 72:21; 38:3), of God, Ac. 13:22: ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου (cf. 1 Βασ‌. 13:14); lust, R. 1:24; Jm. 3:14; Mt. 5:28; 6:21 and par..

b. The heart is the seat of understanding, the source of thought and reflection.

  Mk. 7:21 and par.; Mt. 12:34 and par.; 13:15b; Jn. 12:40b and Ac. 28:27b (Is. 6:10); Lk. 1:51 (cf. 1 Ch. 29:18); 24:38 (cf. Da. 2:29 Θʼ); 2:35; 9:47; Ac. 8:22; Hb. 4:12; Ac. 7:23: ἀνέβη ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, “it came into his mind,” v. 1 C. 2:9 (cf. Ἰερ 3:16; 51:21; Is. 65:16; 4 Βασ‌. 12:5); Lk. 2:19, 51 (cf. Da. 7:28 Θʼ); Mt. 9:4 (cf. Da. 1:8); Mk. 11:23; λέγειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, “to think,” Mt. 24:48 and par.; R. 10:6; Rev. 18:7 (cf. Is. 47:8; ψ 13:1; Dt. 8:17; 9:4; 1 Βασ‌. 27:1); R. 1:21; Lk. 24:25.

c. The heart is the seat of the will, the source of resolves.

  2 C. 9:7; Ac. 11:23; 1 C. 4:5 (cf. Sir. 37:13); 1 C. 7:37; Lk. 21:14: θέτε οὖν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, “then propose,” v. Ac. 5:4 (cf. Hag. 2:15; Mal. 2:2; Da. 1:8 Θʼ); Jn. 13:2; Rev. 17:17 (cf. 2 Esr. 17:5); Ac. 5:3; Col. 4:8; Eph. 6:22.

Thus καρδία comes to stand for the whole of the inner being of man in contrast to his external side, the πρόσωπον, 1 Th. 2:17; 2 C. 5:12 (cf. 1 Βασ‌. 16:7), to his mouth and lips, Mk. 7:6 and par. (Is. 29:13); Mt. 15:18; R. 10:8 ff. (Dt. 30:14); 2 C. 6:11; R. 2:29: περιτομὴ καρδίας in contrast to the ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή, v. 28; Ac. 7:51 (cf. Ἰερ. 9:25; Ez. 44:7, 9; Lv. 26:41). Ac. 4:32: καρδία … μία (cf. 2 Ch. 30:12). The heart, the innermost part of man, represents the ego, the person, Col. 2:2; 1 Jn. 3:19 f.; 1 Pt. 3:4: ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος.

  καρδία phrases are often used for personal or reflexive pronouns, e.g., Mk. 2:6: ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν == v. 8: ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; cf. Jn. 16:22; Col. 4:8; Jm. 5:5.

d. Thus the heart is supremely the one centre in man to which God turns, in which the religious life is rooted, which determines moral conduct.

  Lk. 16:15 (cf. 1 Βασ‌. 16:7; 1 Ch. 28:9); R. 8:27; 4 Th. 2:4 (cf. ψ. 11:20); Rev. 2:23 (cf. ψ 7:9; Ἰερ. 17:10); Gl. 4:6; R. 5:5; 2 C. 1:22; Eph. 3:17; Hb. 8:10; 10:16 (Ἰερ. 38:33); 2 C. 3:3 (cf. Prv. 7:3); R. 2:15; Lk. 8:15; Mt. 13:19; 2 C. 4:6; Eph. 1:18; Ac. 16:14 (cf. 2 Macc. 1:4); Ac. 15:9 (cf. Sir. 38:10); Hb. 10:22b; 2 Pt. 1:19; R. 10:9 f.; 1 C. 14:25; Mk. 12:30 and par. (Dt. 6:5); Mt. 18:35 (cf. Is. 59:13; Lam. 3:33); R. 6:17; 1 Pt. 1:22. The heart of natural sinful man, Mk. 7:21 and par.; Mt. 13:15a and Ac. 28:27a (Is. 6:10); Mk. 3:5; 6:52; 8:17; Jn. 12:40; Eph. 4:18; Jm. 1:26; Ac. 8:21 (though cf. ψ 7:10; 10:2); 2 C. 3:15; Hb. 3:12; R. 1:21, 24; 2:5; 1 Jn. 3:20 (→ 610); 2 Pt. 2:14; Ac. 7:39. The heart of the redeemed as it ought to be, Mt. 11:29 (cf. Da. 8:25); 5:8 (cf. ψ 23·4); 1 Tm. 1:5; 2 Tm. 2:22 (cf. ψ 50:10); Hb. 10:22a (cf. Is. 38:3); Lk. 6:45; Ac. 2:46; 1 Th. 3:13; Col. 3:22; Eph. 6:5; 1 Pt. 3:15; Jm. 4:8 (cf. Sir. 38:10); 5:8 (cf. ψ 30:24; 111:8; Sir. 22:16); Hb. 13:9; Col. 3:15; Phil. 4:7; 2 Th. 3:5 (cf. 1 Παρ. 29:18; 2 Παρ. 19:3; Sir. 49:3).

3. Mt. 12:40: ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, “in the inward part, the bosom, of the earth,” cf. Jon. 2:4; Ez. 27:4, 25 f.; 28:2; 4 Esr. 13:3 etc.

  † καρδιογνώστης.

  Only in the NT and early Christian lit., Herm. m., 4, 3, 4; Act. Pl; et Thecl., 24; Act. Thaddaei., 3; Didasc., 7; 15; 18; 24 (cf. Const. Ap., II, 24, 6; III, 7, 8; IV, 6, 8; VI, 12, 4); Const. Ap., VIII, 5, 6. In explanation of the word Cl. Al. Strom., V, 14, 96, 4 adduces Thales: τὸ “καρδιογνώστην” λέγεσθαι πρὸς ἡμῶν ἄντικρυς ἑρμηνεύει. ἑρωτηθείς γέ τοι ὁ Θάλης, … εἰ λανθάνει τὸ θεῖον πράσσων τι ἄνθρωπος “καὶ πῶς,” εἶπεν “ὅς γε οὐδὲ διανοούμενοσ;”



The designation of God as ὁ καρδιογνώστης, “the One who knows the heart,” expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Βασ‌. 16:7; 3 Βασ‌. 8:39; 1 Παρ. 28:9; ψ 7:9; Ἰερ. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely, that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (→ 609; 612).

  † σκληροκαρδία → σκληρός, σκληρότης, σκληρύνω.

  “Hardness of heart,” “obduracy.” Coined in the LXX for the Heb. עָרְלַת לֵבָב, Dt. 10:16; Ἰερ. 4:4; cf. Sir. 16:10 (3:26f.: καρδία σκληρά); the adj. to which it corresponds is σκληροκάρδιος, Prv. 17:20; Ez. 3:7 (cf. σκληρὸς τὴν καρδίαν, Prv. 28:14); analogous is σκληροτραχηλία, Test. S. 6:2 (vl.) from σκληροτράχηλος, Ex. 33:3, 5; Dt. 9:6, 13; Prv. 29:1 etc.; Ac. 7:51. Philo Spec. Leg., I, 305 adduces Dt. 10:16 and refers σκληροκαρδία to the περιττεύουσαι φύσεις τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ, ἃς αἱ ἄμετροι τῶν παθῶν ἔσπειράν τε καὶ συνηύξησαν ὁρμαὶ καὶ ὁ κακὸς ψυχῆς γεωργὸς ἐφύτευσεν, ἀφροσύνη. The term is also found in the OT pseudepigrapha (e.g., Gr. En. 16:3; Test. S. 6:2), but apart from this it occurs only in the NT and early Christian authors, Herm. v., 3, 7, 6; Just. Dial., 18, 2; 45, 3; 46, 7; 137, 1; Act. Thom., 166 etc.



At Mk. 10:5 and par.; 16:14 (here with ἀπιστία, cf. R. 2:5: τὴν → σκληρότητά σου καὶ → ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν) σκληροκαρδία denotes the persistent unreceptivity of a man to the declaration of God’s saving will, which must be accepted by the heart of man as the centre of his personal life (→ 612).


, vol. 3, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 606-14.

Does Calvinism teach that human beings do not have “free will”

The charge often leveled against Calvinism is that it denies the free will choices of human beings and, by that premise, makes God the author and cause of the evils committed by men. The logic typically goes something like, “If man has no free will, and God elects only some and controls everything, including man’s sinful acts, then God is responsible for evil.” Oftentimes, it is further concluded that for God to cause men to do evil, where men have no choice in the matter, it would be unjust for God to punish them, since they had no choice in the matter. Therefore, the Calvinist’s God is unjust and the author of evil.

The problem with such charges against the Reformed camp, usually from Arminian Christians, is that they utterly fail to understand the position they are attacking. Calvinism does not deny free-will or that God pulls strings, as though people were marionette puppets, causing them to do evil things so that God can condemn them to eternal damnation later on. That is an uncharitable mis-characterization of the Reformed position, a straw-man. Those who attack the Reformed position on such grounds are merely attacking an argument that a Calvinist would never make.

If you think I am confused on this matter, then please feel free to pick up the works of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and countless others to see what they teach on these matters. Feel free to investigate for yourself the teachings of Albert Mohler, James White, or RC Sproul concerning the Reformed position. Indeed, please exercise your free-will by looking into the first fifteen hundred years of church history, to the writings of Paul, and to the teachings of Jesus. What will you find? The Reformed position.

The debate is not, and never was, whether or not mankind possessed a “free-will.” Rather, the real question asked by Calvinists and others of the Reformed ilk is more appropriately expressed as follows: “Is the will a thing? If so, then what kind of a thing is it?” And to this philosophical inquiry, comes the theological exclamation: “The human will is a created thing with an essence or a nature!” In other words, the free will exists as a contingent thing with a nature—that is the Reformed/Calvinistic position.

This might seem like silliness to those of you hearing this for the first time, but it is actually very important. It is important for our purposes here because the Arminian is actually the one ultimately denying the human will. I understand that all of your lives you have been indoctrinated to think the opposite, but that’s because so many churches and pastors have adopted some very unbiblical notions about “free-will” which they got from humanistic and secular philosophers. Yes, Arminianism is a late-comer on the stage of history.

The real debate between Calvinists and Arminians is, and has always been, whether or not the human will is a created thing with an essence. Armenians posit what is called “autonomous” or “libertarian free-will,” while the Reformed position declares “complimentarian free-will.” Notice here that everyone agrees that mankind has free-will. However, to the Calvinist, the will is simply the mind choosing, it is a faculty of the human soul. For the Arminian, the will is autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient, and self-caused.

Is the will caused or not? There is no “middle road” here, since either the human will is either caused or uncaused. If you say it is “self-caused,” then you are saying that it brought itself into existence before it existed, which is self-contradictory. If it is uncaused, then it must be the first cause, in other words, God. Did you notice above how the Arminian definition of free will actually takes on divine characteristics (autonomous, self-contained, and self-sufficient)?

Seeing how I am writing this to Christians, I don’t think I need to point out the absurdities of either self-contradiction or about human wills being Gods. Therefore, the human will is a thing which was caused to exist. And if it was caused, then it was caused by another thing with a nature. Either that prior thing was also caused or it was God. And that prior thing was caused, either by God, or yet another contingent thing. Ultimately, either God is the first cause, or we have an infinite regression of created things causing other created things to come into existence—an infinite regression of causes and effects. However, if we have an infinite regression, then there was no first thing. And if there was no first thing, then there cannot be a second, or a third, and so on to infinity. Therefore, either God causes and creates the human will, or it does not exist.

Does this mean that man has no free will? No. However, it does mean that will is contingent, which is to say, dependent upon something else for its existence. Otherwise, you are elevated the human will to the level of deity, like humanistic secularists have done. But the will of man is dependent upon the nature of man—his preferences, his passions, his mind, and so forth. It is complimentary to his nature. I don’t choose things arbitrarily, like a sucking on a fudge bar verses my shoe. If I preferred the shoe, I would be sucking on that! And if it was arbitrary, and utterly autonomous, then it should make no difference as to my preferences. However, common sense says that it does depend upon my preferences, my nature.


This what Arminians do not get. They don’t understand Calvinism, and persist in misrepresenting it. I don’t care what you've heard about so-called “hyper-Calvinists” and so forth—and in actuality, hyper Calvinist exist because they, like Arminians, deny at least one of the five-points of Calvinism—we are talking about Calvinism, the Reformed and the orthodox view. Don’t believe me? Good! Be good Bereans and check it out for yourselves. You’ll find libertarian notions of “free-will” consistently condemned as heresy throughout church history.

Now, if I give my children a choice between chocolate and candy bars to eat, verses worms and poop and dirt, which would they choose? Does my foreknowledge or my setting up this state of affairs “violate” their free-will, since I foreknow they will choose the candy? Of course not! I know that they will choose in accordance to their nature, their preferences, and so forth prior to me giving them the choice. I don’t even need to look into the future to know that.

So how much more can our Sovereign God know our choices?

He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He created the man and sustains him, even more than like a potter shapes his clay. He even created and fully sustains the will, the volition of man. He fully knows what we will choose.

Since our choices are motioned forth by our natures, just as my own children choose candy over crap, the unregenerate chooses sin over holiness because that holiness is abominable to him. Just as eyes adjusted to darkness shut to hide themselves at the site of such intense, violating light, the sinner cannot choose God because God is abominable to him, painful, and piercing to eyes adjusted to darkness. As Scripture has said, the sinner flees because of their wicked deeds. They cannot choose God because they are slaves to that darkness, slaves to sin and haters of the Light, which is God.

I know this is a great mystery, but praise be to God.


Original posted on Facebook February 3, 2013

Hating Religion: Why I disagree with the video

Just to be up front about it, I think the sentiments of the video are largely in the right the place. Jesus is lifted up, honored, and respected. Amen to that. So what problem could I possibly have with the video? Am I chasing ghosts? Splitting hairs?

Before I try to answer the question, let’s take a look at some of the video comments on YouTube:

“God Bless You!! I agree completely. Everyone at my church, including me, does not call our selves Christians, but Christ-Followers!!! Thanks for the great video!!”

“This poem is well said. Being a Christian has nothing to do with Religion. Instead it is a relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen & Amen”

“Are you retarded? He made it about Christianity half way through the video, implying all other religions suck. Believing Jesus was the son of god, believing sin and believing the bible and living your life on those premises means you are following a religion. Now, you're clearly a religious person, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you because religious people have a tenancy to disregard all logic and substitute their own for anything they don't like.”

“I hate the church" "Now don't get me wrong I love the church”

“Saying you hate religion but love Jesus is like saying you hate rodents, but love squirrels. If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of the Abrahamic God whose only purpose was to forgive sin and open heaven, that's religion right there. That's Christianity at it's barest.”

Personally, I agree with the last post. I find it rather disingenuous to claim that you hate religion, while being so utterly religious...as one of the posts indicated. Being religious is not necessarily opposed to having a relationship with Christ or vice-versa. It is not one or the other, but both. People tend to forget that having a relationship with God is, by its very nature, a deeply religious affection.

God is holy, holy, holy. And by this very fact, He demands much more than just “a relationship” from us. I don’t even know what “a relationship” is supposed to mean. It’s such a vague term that anybody could mean anything by it. The Bible, however, gives us specific doctrines, instructions, and even practices to which we ought to adhere, believe, and obey. This is not to say that the relational aspects, devotion, or sincerity are not important, but to point out that such things actually have a divinely prescribed content to them, according to the very words of God! There is a reason why God chose prayer and not divination or sorcery, for example. There is also a reason why He commands us to love Him with not just our hearts, or sentiments, but also with our minds. This doesn't just mean having “good thoughts” about God, but also includes actually studying the things about Him, what He has said, and how He reveals Himself throughout history.

The video really demonizes religious people, especially other Christians. Jesus did not speak against anyone merely on the account of them being religious. This claim is false. (Indeed, He didn't even speak out against them just because they were a Pharisee or Sadducee). He spoke out against them mainly because they were 1) self-righteous and 2) attempted to prevent others from entering the kingdom. These are the actual reasons Scripture gives. They were not chastised for “being religious” or “too logical” or “following a list of laws.” Actually, if anything, they were picking and choosing which laws to follow, while breaking other commands, not being rational about Scripture, and elevating their traditions above the religion they professed to follow, which is what many of us do today. As far as people of other religions go, we are not to pass judgment upon them. As demonstrated in the Apostle Paul’s conversion, God can take the worst of sinners and change them into the greatest of saints.

As the comments up above demonstrate, there is much confusion over the video. It isn't difficult to understand why, if one stops to consider it for a moment: Does the author mean that those who are “religious” are automatically judgmental, legalistic, and without grace or mercy? Or is the author merely being creative with the word “religious” in order to redefine the term just to make a point? Personally, I do not know. I hope the second option is what he’s doing. At least, I lean in favor of the second possibility. The first one would be rather hypocritical right?...and ironically so.

Nonetheless, whichever way is intended, why use the word “religious” in order to signify something bad? I can understand using words like “legalistic,” “judgmental,” or “hypocritical,” but why this word? What does it mean? According to Webster’s, it means:

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity religious person>religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a="">religious order></joined>

3: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

So what bad thing, exactly, is referred to in any of these definitions? Aren't Christians (or “Christ-followers”) supposed to manifest faithful devotion to God? Aren't we supposed to have beliefs about God and engage in certain observances? And shouldn't we be scrupulously and conscientiously faithful to our God?

One might object by pointing out that being religious could be—and often is—bad because of its devotion and relation to false gods. That may be so. However, could the same be said of faith? Wouldn't you, then, agree that faithfulness is also bad, since it is more often than not wrongfully, and sinfully, invested into false deities and practice? But I am guessing that you shirk at that idea, right? So, if this is the case for you, why the double-standard? Are you taking for granted that being religious is actually according to God’s created order and according to His command? If so, we do not judge the design by the way it is abused.

Original posted on Facebook January 12, 2012

A Religious Question: a response to the issue of homosexuality, slavery, and the Bible.

About a month ago, I shared a note pertaining to the question of homosexuality and Christianity. If you read it, you might recall that the author, Mr. Adkins, supported same-sex marriage and condemned Christians for their alleged lack of love for homosexual couples. The writer of the post also meandered off-topic to conflate the issue of slavery in the Old Testament.

Below, I re-post the note to which I am responding; and then proceed to answer each point made. This is my response to his multiple allegations....

A Religious Question.

Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended. As its a serious question. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament. So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous) You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it? He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime? Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable. And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave. If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered. (if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact). The point is,

Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love. And if gays are "going to hell" and shouldn't be getting married. That is not why your here to make that call anyways. That's for your God, Jesus, or whatever magical leap of faith you've conjured up to take care of that matter.

So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?

Get, over it

~Cody Adkins

I respond by quoting the post, part by part, and giving an answer after each quotation:

“Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended.”

I’m not offended. Since you've opened your questions to “any Christian,” I feel quite comfortable with responding, however, and with as much enthusiasm and liberty as you've taken in your note. You've offered several challenges here. They can be answered fairly easily. However, can you answer the challenges made by numerous Christians concerning your views?

“A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament.”

Correct, a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. However, both Testaments are crucial to the Christian faith, from Genesis to Revelation. The Old Testament has just as much authority as the New Testament. Nonetheless, the OT was written in anticipation of the Messiah; while the NT was penned after His earthly presence. Certain aspects of Old Testament Law were fulfilled in Christ, and written in anticipation of His coming. Since He has already come, there is no longer any need to sacrifice animals, just for an example, because Christ is our ultimate sacrifice. Likewise, it is no longer mandatory to keep the Sabbath because Christ is our Sabbath.

“So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous)”

Because the Bible—both OT and NT—clearly condemns homosexuality as an abomination and a grievous sin against God (but more on that later).

You are correct to anticipate that not all of us hate gays. I don’t hate gays either. However, just because I may love someone, does not mean they are not committing sins. Our religion is not against the people themselves, but against the practice and the political movement—the gay agenda. There will also be more on this subject later.

“You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it?”

Most of Jesus’ earthly ministry was toward the Jews living under Roman authority in those days. The subject of committing homosexual acts or whether such acts were morally acceptable was not controversial to the Jewish mind. It was simply considered unholy and repugnant. Think about it. Let’s use murder as an example: if my audience already agrees that murder is wrong, how much time would you expect me to spend teaching them that murder is wrong? None, right? He didn't address that issue directly because it wasn't a controversy in His day. He did, however, address the topic indirectly.

He talked about what marriage was, defining it as a covenantal union between a man and a woman. He then commanded that no one break this covenant:

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:6–9 NASB).

Notice the reason for the union? It says because God made them male and female. He is alluding to the creation of man and woman in Genesis. This is what marriage is, by definition, according to Jesus Christ. In other words, He is agreeing with the Old Testament teachings about the purpose and definition of marriage. He then commands us to let no man separate the very union that God instituted upon making His creation.

“He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime?”

It is true that Jesus spoke against rich people on numerous occasions. However, it wasn't merely because they had wealth. Job had wealth, but God did not speak against him because of it. Solomon and David also had wealth, but God praised these men. The issue is the love of money. It is about greed, avarice, and treating others poorly. God blesses some people with wealth, but they squander it, loving their money and status more than they love the God who blessed them with it.

“Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable.”

Well, actually it isn't debatable: The OT does, in fact, condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, the verses do not just vaguely “allude” to gays, but clearly condemns homosexual acts and practices. Had Mr. Adkins been familiar with the OT, he would have known this.

In the book of Genesis, God appears before Abraham and announces that He will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. God calls their sin “exceedingly grave” (Gen 18:20) and tells us what this grievous sin is:

“Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway” (Gen 19:1–11).

The men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the two men visiting Lot. The men of Sodom did not know that they were angels of the Lord, but thought they were merely foreigners. Homosexuality clearly permeated the culture of Sodom. Lot knew this. He even offered up his own daughters in exchange for the protection of his guests, which he also did not know to be angels. While this was a sinful act on Lot’s part, it does seem to indicate that Lot had been affected by the wickedness of Sodom while living there. As we will see, pervasive homosexuality does indeed affect those who live amongst it. Not only had it corrupted Lot, but we later learn that even Lot’s own daughters had some severe misconceptions about sexuality when they attempt to have sex with their own father. The men of Sodom had a “sexual orientation” and were very forceful about it, somewhat like the Gay agenda today. At any rate, God destroys this city shortly afterwards because their sin was exceedingly grave.

The book of Leviticus also condemns the practice of homosexuality:

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22).

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev 20:13).

Clearly, these commands do more than merely “allude” to gays. They outright condemn such practices.

“And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave.”

I do not know any Christian who owns a slave, and I certainly never had one. Judging by the curse word, and the fact that it is contained in a belligerent sentence, it leads me to believe that this was an emotional response. However, I wonder how far Mr. Adkins goes to avoid products or clothing made by modern-day, slave labor? I honestly must wonder about the sincerity of a culture that condemns the practice when talking about early American history or the Old Testament, but does not seem to mind benefiting from the fruits of slave-labor. I suppose as long as it’s over-seas (or as long the American farmer’s crop is decently priced), benefiting from another’s slavery is okay, right? The reason you get your clothes and technologies so cheaply, Mr. Adkins, is because some Asian fellow is getting worked to death just to have a meal. Many oriental families live in horrible poverty, but work nearly every waking hour. That way, their masters can sell you products at little expense to them. The United States is the largest consumer in the world, and much of it comes from slave-labor.

We could also discuss the ethics of such a matter from an evolutionary standpoint—Survival of the fittest, right?—but I know such an emotional (or moral) objection could hardly be derived from that. The irony here is that Mr. Adkins’ objections about slavery come from his cultural conditioning; and those moral objects which our culture uses concerning slavery come from the Bible—both OT and NT.

Nonetheless, it is a bit of a dilemma: If we completely stopped buying such products, I highly doubt that slavery would end in those countries. Instead, those slave-laborers would have nothing, and they would starve, right? Those civilizations do not have the benefit of biblical ethics. They have no beginning moral foundations within their non-Christian world-views to even imagine that such a thing like slavery is wrong. Let’s think about this for a moment.

Throughout world history, the primary countries to abolish slavery have been those traditionally steeped in a biblical world-view. Why? Let’s look at India, for example. They have caste-system, where there is no upward mobility, no one helps the poor, and slavery conditions are perfectly acceptable. Mr. Adkins may not realize it, but it there are actually religious reasons why India’s culture is set up in such strict, caste systems.

In traditional Hinduism, there is no belief that all people are, somehow, intrinsically equal. They believe in reincarnation, a system that teaches that there are, indeed, hierarchies embedded in the very nature of living things—from insects on up to men. Even within humankind, there are those who are of lesser societal value, because they are not “enlightened,” to those who have attained such statuses as “godhood,” because they have become “enlightened.” Furthermore, there is hardly any charity given to those who suffer because the belief is, well, that they are paying their penance for sins committed in a previous life. It is wrong to interfere. Karma is at work. So, what religious motive would drive such a culture to refuse something like slavery? Leaving a person in the societal role of slavery is seen as a good thing—which is precisely why they have caste systems with no upward mobility. The same is true in traditional Buddhist countries too. Buddhism evolved out of Hinduism.

By contrast, anti-slavery movements came largely out of the Christian church. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend. When he said, “I have a dream that all men were created equal,” he made this appeal on the basis of Genesis, where all people were created in the image of God, and derive their value and purpose from being made after the likeness of God. When Martin Luther King exhorted Americans to deliver slaves unto freedom, he appealed to the OT God’s deliverance of slaves from the hand of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus. Likewise, when our American forefathers taught that American citizens should have equal and inalienable rights, liberty and justice for all, and sought to abolish the tyranny of government, they appealed to Genesis to validate those beliefs. Having “inalienable rights” means that these rights are not to be foreign to mankind, because they are required as per the dignity of his very nature, which he derives from being made in the image of the Old Testament God.

God allows evil and suffering to occur in the world in accordance with the counsel of His own will. It is true that God prescribed certain laws for the treatment of slaves; however, stating that such a institution was “happily” accepted fails to seriously engage what times were like in those days as well as the way in which the OT engages the problem of slavery.

For one thing, there were actually several different varieties of slavery in Old Testament times. Most slavery, for example, was actually voluntary and even chattel slaves could still own their own property. For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you know that Moses himself served as a slave. Some slaves were taken as spoils of war, these would more appropriately be called vassals. God had judged the nations for their grievous sins—like idolatry and child-sacrifices—and condemned them to death. The nation of Israel was His chosen tool in orchestrating that punishment, which included slavery. After all, in ancient times, the two most common ways to deal with prisoners of war and so forth was to either kill them or take them as spoils of war (vassals). So, really the question boils down to whether a holy God has the right to judge others for their sins, and sentence them to slavery. I think He does. According to what superior moral law does Mr. Adkins judge God?

While such judgments upon sin are a part of the over-arching structure of the OT, so too is the release from the bondage of slavery. Indeed, slavery as well as the freedom from it are crucial parts of both Old and New Testaments: Mr. Adkins’ divisions of the two is quite artificial. Christians do not read the Old Testament without considering what is in the NT. To us, it would be somewhat akin to reading a novel without considering its final chapters. Who does that? The point and the consummation of the novel is revealed in the story’s final culmination.

Nonetheless, the OT does not just “happily” accept the institution of slavery. Indeed, its very dealings on the matter create tensions of the sort which effectively undermine the institution in some profound ways. For one thing, isn't the entire book of Exodus about how God chose a slave-race of people, demonstrating His mercy and exposing the wickedness of Pharaoh for not setting them free? Did Mr. Adkins just not notice the pattern where it is not the cruel masters God shows partiality towards, but it is the slaves He shines His mercies upon? Surely more astute readers would wonder why God would take Moses, a prince of Egypt, and make him a slave BEFORE he heard the calling of God?

In contrast, wasn't much of early American slavery rooted in notions of evolution, where some races were superior humans while other, less-evolved races were “sub-human?” Indeed, we also have Hitler who murdered six million Jews based on his eugenics program. Does anyone seriously think eugenics came from the Bible, when we all know it came from an atheistic world-view? Interestingly, eugenics was the idea of an amateur scientist, Francis Galton, who was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He accredited Darwin for his theories, in letters to him, and thanked Darwin for helping him give up his religious beliefs as a Quaker. Likewise, Mr. Adkins also seems oblivious to that fact that the Nazi’s planned to obliterate the Christian church. Hitler merely applied Galton’s atheistic theories. As early as 1937, Protestant churches issued a manifesto objecting to Nazi policies, and the Nazis retaliated by arresting 700 pastors, infiltrating their offices. Hitler wrote his own bible, teaching his followers a “survival of the fittest” ideology. They were told that they have sinned against natural selection and that weaker races should be exterminated.

At any rate, the concept of slavery as it appeared in the “New World” (the Americas) was foreign to the Bible. The vast majority of slavery found in the Old Testament was voluntary and done in order to pay debts. God instituted a number of laws in order to restrain the evils which might occur in this arrangement, recognizing the humanness of the slave and setting time-limits for the duration of his required services. Furthermore, OT slavery was mostly conducted within family clans. People in Old Testament times—the ancient Near East—did not value personal freedoms in the ways modern Americans do. Instead, they valued belonging to a group, partly because of the protections provided to them through their clan elders/ masters. The particular type of slavery used in the early Americas was not known by the Old Testament, ancient Near East. Their word for “slavery” did not mean the same thing.

The accusation of God being “bitter and angry” in the OT is a gross misrepresentation. God was both just and merciful in both testaments, not just one of them. God did not create slavery, but He did use it as a tool for his purposes of justice as well as mercy. We could also get into NT books, like Philemon, where Paul pleads for the release of Onesimus at his own cost. However, I would challenge anyone to make a list of the things which make slavery evil and see for themselves if such things are condoned in the Bible. I do believe that what you will find is that slavery was not created by God, that treating others with undue cruelty is explicitly forbidden, and that God’s plan involved the abolition of slavery from the beginning.

Would anyone like to provide a rationale for the abolition of slavery from the atheistic perspective of “survival of the fittest?” It’s funny what they do not mention in history classes concerning the influence of Darwinism nowadays. The very objections you have against slavery did not come from atheistic, Darwinian beliefs, but from the pages of the Bible into our Western culture, being passed on to you, Mr. Adkins. Where was the atheist during the trading of black slaves? Making a profit, of course! Where was the atheist during the Holocaust? Constructing the Nazi death camps to help evolution along. After all, might makes right.

“If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered.”

Actually, you are quite wrong. Jesus dealt with issues such as power, favoritism, poverty, and status on numerous occasions. Many of His own followers either had been or were slaves. You simply do not understand the cultural backdrop of His day or the Bible. In regards to the world of man, Jesus put everyone on equal footing in respect to power, favoritism, poverty and status—this included masters and slaves. He rebuked and preached against the very attitudes and beliefs which comprise the institution of slavery throughout His entire ministry. The biblical writers followed suit. What you do not understand, however, is that Jesus’ ministry was not about abolishing Roman political institutions. Actually, He attacked such evils at their very roots, which are spiritual in nature. His mission was to lead many out of their bondage of spiritual slavery to sin. He did this knowing that earthly manifestations of sin flow out of spiritual bondage.

It is true that Jesus did not deal with the institution of New World slavery specifically; but it is silly to expect such a thing, since it did not yet exist. You are imposing modern controversies on an ancient text, and modern sensibilities onto an ancient world, without realizing that issues such as slavery or culture are very complex.

“(if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact).”

That depends on what you regard as “stone fact” and whether or not you are willing to look at the evidence objectively and coherently. I happen to believe that the evidence for His existence is simply irrefutable. It becomes much more difficult to explain Him away than to simply accept the overwhelming evidence. However, that does not stop many people. If human beings have the capacity to deny a truth because it offends them, how much more would you suppose that they might deny The Truth?

“The point is,…Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love.”

Your understanding of Jesus and what He taught (or what all of Scripture teaches) is obviously very limited. Have you even bothered to read the very book you are criticizing? You don’t even seem to be aware that some of the strongest condemnations against homosexuality is actually in the NT. You also do not seem to have much of a grasp on the larger picture: God has announced already His condemnation upon homosexuals. It is not my condemnation, but His. I am merely warning them about the impending judgment they will face, not because I desire to see them burn (as popular culture has misinformed you), but because I want to see them saved from God’s righteous judgment, just I have been. They hate Christians for this—and do not seem to mind mislabeling and judging us—but we do it because a sincere love and concern for their well-being, both in this life and the one to come.

Furthermore, you also seem oblivious to how absolutely destructive the homosexual lifestyle is to the very people who engage in it. Anyone who would ever promote such a lifestyle is the one who must be full of hatred. You seem to think that Christians refer to Genesis as a fairy-tale to be used at their convenience in order to excuse their contempt for others. You are quite wrong. The reason why Christians tell you that God created them male and female is to demonstrate God’s purposes for His creation. To deviate from God’s intended purposes is to fall into futility and the corruption of the very faculties which He design for our own well-being and His glory. In other words, when things are designed for one thing, but misused for another, there are very serious consequences attached to such misuses. For example, with food, if we are designed to be nourished through one means but exchange those means for another, then we become malnourished until we either die or do what is suitable for our diet. Likewise, society and culture is nourished by the union of one man and one woman—through marriage. It is through the union of one man and one woman that society may continue, propagate with children, and maintain relative health. You have been brought up to believe the myth that what we do, as private individuals, has no impact on the larger society. Therefore, it is no one else’s business. This is called individualism and it is a myth. Let me lay down the brutal facts of the homosexual lifestyle; and then we’ll look at how the Gay agenda (and the Gaystapo) deconstructs and corrupts the very identity of people as men and women through legal tyranny, political misinformation, and the systematic enforcement and propagation of its reconstituted death culture.

I refer to it as a death culture for some very obvious reasons, not just as a function of rhetoric. The average lifespan of a homosexual male is about 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual male. While it has been argued that the reasons for this are due to discrimination and its associated pressures, the empirical data does not seem to support such an explanation. When comparing the U.S. to Denmark, for example, a highly tolerant society toward gays, lesbians, and homosexuals, there is no difference in the data. Furthermore, homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse compared to the rest of the population, and those who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are about 200% more likely to commit suicide.[i] In addition, while only 2% of the population is gay, it accounts for 61% of all HIV infections[ii] and are the only risk group in which new HIV have been increasing steadily since the 1990’s.[iii]

It might be interesting to note that the Greek word translated as “homosexual” in the NT (1 Co. 6:9) is “arsenocoitus.” The word literally refers to one who burns in sexual passions. The Book of Romans indicates a loss of control over this sexual faculty and an exchange from a natural desire to an unnatural one (1:26-27). These biblical teachings are apparent in our own times, as the statistical data fully notes:

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners."[iv] Indeed, one Kinsey study showed that 79% of the homosexual men surveyed reported that over half of their sexual encounters were with strangers, with 70% reporting that over half of their partners were people with whom they’ve only had sex once. In other words, the reality about the homosexual life-style does not so much entail committed or monogamous relationships, but rather strongly indicates casual encounters outside of any sense of a committed relationship.

This fact seems to better explain the discontent so prevalent in the gay community, despite Mr. Adkins’ claims that they are happy. Actually, when one investigates the domestic trends and mental well-being of the gay community from a more objective, empirical stand-point, one cannot help but notice the deeply ingrained dissatisfaction and unhappiness prevalent to the lifestyle.

In a national health study, 75% of nearly 2,000 lesbian respondents said they had pursued some form of psychological counseling of some form, much of which involved treatment for long-term depression or sadness.[v] According to another study, homosexual men are about six times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual men.[vi] Domestic violence and abuse is nearly doubled in gay co-habitations; [vii] while a survey of lesbian couples showed that 54% had experienced ten or more incidents of abuse, 74% had experienced six or more incidents, 60% reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71% claimed it grew worse over time.[viii] Meanwhile, The National Violence against Women Survey found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[ix]

In addition to the detrimental domestic trends and psychological health of adult gays and lesbians, children raised by same-sex couples are two to four times more likely to be homosexuals. Adult children of homosexual parents were found to be about fifty times more likely to be victims of sexual molestation by their gay parent—29% of children with homosexual parents versus 0.6% of children with heterosexual parents.

At any rate, these are only a few of the statistics. Many more could be added. The point, however, is to ask: how is it loving to encourage others to embrace a life-style which clearly lowers their quality of life, as well as longevity, makes them more prone to deep dissatisfaction, and exposes them to various dangers, diseases, molestation, and violence?

Skipping ahead, Mr. Adkins demonstrates where he gets his faulty understanding concerning the morbid world of gays and lesbians when he writes, “So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?”

Welcome to the reality outside the television box Mr. Adkins.





[i] onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614.

[ii] Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html.

[iii] Ibid, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm.

[iv] Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

[v] J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

[vi] Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities…”, Table 21.12.

[vii] D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.

[viii] William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000): 393.

[ix] "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30.


Original posted on Facebook December 8, 2011.

Does God predestine? Is it just?

On predestination, God’s love, and His justice….

The question was put to me that “If God predestines, why would He create people for the purpose of sending them to hell?” It’s a reasonable question to ask. After all, how would it be loving or even just for God to do such a thing? At least this was the objection as it was put to me.

I understand that this is a controversial topic—even within the scope of Christianity. Actually, this was one of the most difficult questions I have wrestled with as a Christian. I understand that many who read this will not agree with my conclusion, but it seems quite clear to me—both logic and the Bible clearly teach that God creates and predestines many to eternal punishment. Is it loving, you ask? But I ask “loving” according to whose standard? Is it just, you ask? Once again, “justice” according to whose standard?

Cannot the Potter break the work of His own hands? Are not the works of His hands His own to do with whatsoever He desires?

Here’s the thing—the question assumes much. One could also ask, why would God create people knowing that they will go to hell? So, unless the Christian also wants to deny the foreknowledge (the omniscience) of God as well, it seems they may have a similar predicament, right?

Behind the question is the presumption of purpose on the part of God. If God creates a person for the singular or express purpose of that person’s eternal punishment, then this would be malicious indeed. It implies an all-powerful sadist: a cosmic bully who derives pleasure from pulling the wings from flies and setting them on fire. However, if this truly was the case, then sadism would be okay since the ground and foundation of all ethics and morals is, by logical necessity, God.

All would be lost.

However, who has ever claimed that eternal punishment was His sole or express purpose for predestining people to eternal punishment? Those, like me, who believe in predestination, do not claim such a thing. Rather, perhaps He creates unrepentant sinners and predestines them to eternal damnation so that He might 1) demonstrate His patience and long-suffering on vessels of wrath and 2) demonstrate His justice by condemning those who did not follow His ordinances and broke His laws. Since we know that all things (and Scripture says “all things”) work together for the glory of God, then perhaps His purposes in predestination are for His own glory?

Consider what the apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” (Romans 9:10-13 ESV)

Notice here that this is according to God’s election—His free choice—and not because of anything Jacob or Esau had done? The apostle continues:

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Romans 9:14)

Did you notice that Paul anticipates the very objection we are dealing with, here, in what I am writing?

“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Romans 9:15-16)

Doesn't this verse explicitly say that it does not matter upon human will or exertion, but only upon God’s choice and election? Of course it does! That’s exactly what it is saying.

And, in case we missed it that last time, Paul uses yet another example to express that same teaching in the very next verses:

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:17-18)

Who has mercy?—God! Who hardens?—God!

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”” (Romans 9:19)

Isn't this essentially the same question I am addressing because of predestination in this note?

“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”” (Romans 9:20)

Cannot the Potter break the work of His own hands? Are not the works of His hands His own to do with whatsoever He desires?

“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory….” (Romans 9:21-23)

So, as we see, all of creation—including mankind—belongs to God, and He is free to do with it whatsoever He pleases. The free choices of mere, finite men cannot and do not limit the infinite knowledge, power, or the free choices of God to do with His creation all the He pleases. There is no injustice or wrongdoing on God's part just because He freely elects some to be the subjects of His mercy while freely choosing to bring others to justice. For all have sinned. Therefore, all deserve their just-desserts for violating God's infinite holiness.

Original posted on Facebook, May 15, 2012

Another lesson on probably the most misquoted verse in the Bible—“Don’t judge.”

““Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:1–6, ESV)

This passage has a parallel passage in Luke:

““Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:37–45)

Here’s what a well-known and widely respected commentary says about Matthew 7:

7:1–6 (Luke 6:41–42). A final illustration of Pharisaic practices pertains to judging. The Pharisees were then judging Christ and finding Him to be inadequate. He was not offering the kind of kingdom they anticipated or asking for the kind of righteousness they were exhibiting. So they rejected Him. Jesus therefore warned them against hypocritical judging.

This passage does not teach that judgments should never be made; Matthew 7:5 does speak of removing the speck from your brother’s eye. The Lord’s point was that a person should not be habitually critical or condemnatory of a speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye when he has a plank—a strong hyperbole for effect—in his own eye. Such action is hypocritical (You hypocrite, v. 5; cf. “hypocrites” in 6:2, 5, 16). Though judgment is sometimes needed, those making the distinctions (krinō, judge, means “to distinguish” and thus “to decide”) must first be certain of their own lives.

Furthermore when seeking to help another, one must exercise care to do what would be appreciated and beneficial. One should never entrust holy things (what is sacred) to unholy people (dogs; cf. “dogs” in Phil. 3:2) or throw … pearls to pigs. Dogs and pigs were despised in those days.

*Louis A. Barbieri and Jr., "Matthew" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Mt 7:1–6.