I can see clearly now . . .

 

---

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." — C. S. Lewis

---

Dear friends, faithful prayer and financial partners,

Paul has captured the spiritual plight of our generation when he wrote that,

“The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Sadly, the truth is that modern secularism has failed miserably to deliver the promised utopia of freedom and liberating spirituality that it has so passionately championed. Instead, we have been handed a culture of death both from war abroad and the abortion industry nationally. 

Our personal freedom has been corroded with an ill-defined political correctness that insists on equal rights for all except those that dissent. Our youth has been and are harassed daily to conform to worldly standards that even the most flagrant of sinners would have blushed at in times past. Heterosexual and indeed traditional marriage unions in general are considered just one ‘moral’ choice among others—yes, others, as in homosexual unions, and believe it or not, there is a strong from this ungodly crowd to legalize polygamy and even polyandrous (two men/one woman) government sanctioned relationships.

May I ask, where is there freedom in sex addition or liberty in the shackles of politically correct speech? 

This great Apostle to the Gentiles also cues us in on why modern secularism has failed us so miserably.

For [he writes] although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)

Now, I challenge you to take the front page of any national newspaper or tune into the headlines of any international news broadcast and place either of these two Biblical references side by side with what the media gives us 24/7 and tell me that there is not a parallel there.

Sadly, in my opinion, we have become a nation of secular Hindus—more interested ecology  and animal rights than we are with pleasing God; not understanding that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

But then, I am preaching to the choir, aren't I? And, we all know that is not good enough; we must also act. If we can agree upon this, then my next question is, Why then are so many Christians willing to sit on the sidelines and  let the few carry the banner and wage the war?

Truly, the harvest is plenteous. We need, therefore, to pray that the Lord of the Harvest will send forth laborers into the harvest field. 

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~

P.S. I've sent my passport particulars to begin the visa process for Russia. At present, we have received some, but not nearly enough to pay the expenses.You are a vital part of this ministry. So, please keep us on your prayer list. 

The Jury Is Out

The six female jurors who determined whether George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year have heard the case and reached a verdict. Innocent on all charges.

During almost three weeks of testimony, they listened to 56 witnesses — 38 for the prosecution and 18 for the defense. A number of items were the source of conflicting testimony, and jurors had to sort out those contradictions in the deliberation room without any new evidence.  The trial was over. The decision was theirs.

Thanks God for America and for our judicial system. It is not perfect.  Yet, if I were going on trial in any county and had a choice it would be America.

Hopefully, on Judgment Day the judge of all the earth will come to the same conclusion. Who am I to second guess then or now, however.

Another verdict of enormous consequence is awaits America right now, and the jury of public opinion is still out. Thousands of innocent victims are sentenced to death each year in this otherwise great country simply because they were so unfortunate to be given a chance at life at a time like this. I am thinking of those precious little one who struggle for life in the womb of a potential mother who decides to abort the child because of (in most cases) the inconvenience it might cause her.

I must admit that I sat in total astonishment as I watched the Texas House deliberate on whether or not a surgically safe environment should be provided when a child is aborted prior to the 20th week of pregnancy—previously it was 24 weeks, and the pro-choice fanatics in mob fashion tried to disrupt the proceedings.

The sad fact is, however, timing is the only consideration at this point. Killing is still okay, it is just a matter of time and whether or not it should be done in a sterile environment. The argument is, therefore, not that abortion should be outlawed; but rather that dirty killing is just undesirable.

I know that we must be pragmatic about these things, but how can one be pragmatic about killing? I guess about the only pragmatic comfort that I can get out of the whole affair is that these little ones are now safe in the arms of Jesus. 

Abortion: a moral choice

Every single day, abortion kills more Americans than were killed on 9/11. Every single year, this silent horror snuffs out about as many Americans as have been killed on all the battlefields in all of the wars in U.S. history combined. This is a national disgrace. At the current time, more than 50 million babies have been slaughtered since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

What a tragedy.

The longer I struggle with the abortion issue, however, the more I am convinced that abortion is a moral choice, and the most effective way to swing the pendulum towards righteousness is through a national spiritual renewal.

Legislation has failed us, and will continue to fail us as long as moral corruption infects the hearts and lives of our people. Pass all the legislation you want to and hopefully it will stem the tide, but it will never stop the flow to back alley abortion clinics or to the morning after abortion pill.

Yes, there are major issues involved here, and I am not saying that we should not strive for legislation that is fair and just for all. This we should do. That said, however, does not solve the problem.

If we believe that life begins at conception (as I do) then abortion, any abortion is a horrid choice. What do we do, however, if the life of the mother is at stake. Well, the argument goes, that hardly every is the case. Hold on a minute. What about an ectopic pregnancy? Many times a heart beat is even registered there. There is, however, absolutely no way the child can survive, and in most cases the mother will either die or suffer years of excuciating pain. And, the facts are that ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester of pregnancy.

So, exception number one in favor of pro-choice.

Now, let’s take the case of rape or incest. The best way to cover this, I believe, is to use the example of Jaycee Dugard who was kidnapped and held hostage for 18 years by convicted sex offender Phillip Craig Garrido and his wife, Nancy; during which time Jaycee gave birth to two beautiful girls which were fathered by Garrido.

Following Jaycee’s rescue, she remarked at the birth of her first daughter that,

"She came out and then I saw her. She was beautiful. I felt like I wasn't alone anymore. I had somebody who was mine."

Now, as horrible as that whole episode is with kidnapping and rape with torture, Jaycee still cherishes her daughters and said she would do anything to protect them, including giving her own life.

Jaycee, by the way, is not a Christian, but she did make a moral choice. That is, she came to the conclusion that these two precious children had a right to live and be loved by a caring mother.

So that we understand what I am saying, please understand that I in no way condone rape or incest for that matter. All I am saying is that one must decide whether life is worth saving under the most dire circumstances. It is interesting to note, however, that in Old Testament times that a woman caught in adultery was stoned thus by extention killing the fetus (if any) within her. Which some may construe to indicate the lack of value placed on a potentially unborn child.

We, have, however, a more humane example with Christ which is best express when the woman caught in adultery was brought to him in John 8:7, he replied,

"Let him that is without sin cast the first stone."

Thereby, saving both the woman and, once again by extention, any unborn child which may have been concieved.

So, let’s call this decision a tie between a pro-choice stance and a pro-life stand. Me? I am a man, that is not a personal choice that I must make; however, even in those circumstances life is a beautiful gift, and I would struggle long and hard to make the right choice.

Perhaps, this is why Billy Graham has said,

“We should accept abortion in these cases: rape or incest or if the delivery of the child is a threat to a mother's life."

Do I agree? Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and if I were a woman I certainly would agonize before my maker before making either of these choices except for a medical condition like an ectopic pregnancy.

My position is, and really has always been, I am not God, therefore not the final judge and all I can do as a minister is lay out the case and pray with you that you make the right choice.

Thank you for taking time out from your schedule to read this, and may God give you wisdom, understanding and courage to vote with the firm belief that your candidate choice champions the sanctity of life.

May God richly bless you!

A trajectory of love? How logical is that as an hermeneutical choice?

Remember the old advice, don't mix religion and politics?

Well, I am here to tell you that you had better mix your religion with your politics because politics involves moral choices.

Now, at the onset, let me make it clear that there are some moral choices that are personal, either on an individual basis or between two consenting adults. That, of course, includes one’s sexuality; again between two consenting adults. 

Marriage license and tax laws, of course, are effected when the State sanctions same sex unions. Naturally, as an Evangelical minister, I believe that Scripture is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. And, no, I am not homophobic. However, I have come to the conclusion that we do not have exclusive rights to the use of the English language; so, if States decide to call same sex unions marriage there is not much I can do except object and protest against the use of the word to describe such unions.

There is, however, a world of difference between the legality of certain aspects of the gay agenda and nurturing such beliefs in innocent children as an viable choice. Scripturally, it is not a viable choice, ever! That is, unless you are willing to employ what is known as trajectory hermeneutics which liberal impose on biblical interpretation. The essence of which is that scripture, for example, once condoned slavery which the church finds no longer acceptable. Other examples are the stoning of adulterers in Old Testament times, or insisted that women remain silent in church during New Testament times. Today, they point out, this is no longer accepted, and is, indeed, considered barbarous.

The whole idea is that morals are determined by a trajectory of love which eventually will eradicate the unloving response to such issues as homosexuality and/or abortion. The logic for either case is, I must admit, beyond me.

Paul, as a matter of fact, says that it is unnatural; which it is. Intuitive, nature itself argues against it; yet, gays and gay sympathizers continue to search for that elusive “gay” gene. The truth is, however, that gene not unlike evolution’s “missing” link is simply not there.

Enough of that, however.

What about “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion rights? I agree that there should be a choice; but it should be the baby’s choice, not some immoral adult that has decided that a new member of the family or a child would cause an inconvenient burden or interfere with their hedonist lifestyle.

So, “pro-choice”? Yes. But, let’s make that the baby’s choice!
   

What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality?

Statement/Question: 'Jesus never condemned homosexuality. So, why do you?

Answer: "Well, technically speaking Jesus said he did not come to condemn, but to give life. Jesus himself said,

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17)

However, to say that Jesus did not address the homosexual issue is simply not true.

Jesus said, "[that] from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:6)

Jesus in this instance points out our biological differences: that is, male and female. Furthermore, he says that a man should cleave to his wife (female). Nowhere does Jesus mention cleaving to someone of the same sex, or that we were created anything but male and female. One’s psyche or sexual preference is not mentioned.

Anti-Homosexuality Related Scriptures

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.  (Leviticus 18:22)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends.  Don't do this wicked thing."  (Genesis 19:5-7)

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  (Romans 1:26)

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  (Romans 1:27)

Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  (Romans 1:27)

The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.  Woe to them!  They have brought disaster upon themselves.  (Isaiah 3:9)

We should also keep in focus some other Scriptural comments on sins in general:

For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.  (Proverbs 5:21)

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.  No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.  (1 John 3:6)

Some say they are born gay. Is this true? And if they are born that way is that a sin?

First of all, in response to the question: "Is it a sin to be born and found yourself gay?"

Apparently, some think it is possible, or you would not be asking the question. However, in all honesty, since I am not gay, nor do I have any desire to be gay, I cannot put myself in anyone's shoe that is gay. I have some gay friends; however, I have never really discussed their feelings or why they chose to be gay.

I do know, however, that the Bible says in Genesis 1:26,27,31:

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 saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

So, there are a couple of observations that can be made here.

• One, we are created with Godlike qualities (in His image), so in my opinion that is a high standard.
• Secondly, God created male and female, and after it was all done, the Scripture says, “God saw all he had made and it was very good.”

From that I gather, God felt that making male and female was good. Now, following that, we are all aware that the Old Testament laws were totally against homosexuality in any form. And, that brings us to the New Testament. The New Testament is also very strongly opposed to homosexuality. Romans chapter one is a good example. Now, I know that some say, “Well, the Bible also condoned slavery, and we don’t practice slavery anymore, so how can we just take the Bible or some preacher’s word on what is right and wrong as far as anything goes(?).”

However, without going into great detail, the New Testament, in my opinion, never condoned slavery. As a matter of fact, in the letter to Philemon, verses 12—16,  Paul says that he is sending a runaway slave by the name of Onesimus back to his owner, Philemon, with these words:

“I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.”

To me, this gesture by the Apostle indicates his true feelings. Firstly, he was against slavery, but totally committed to a nonviolent approach for the abolition of this practice. In other words, as with any morality, it must be voluntary; whether through consent or fear of the law. Goodness originates in the heart, not from a judge’s bench. Furthermore, in this case, a minority of Christians would have been decimated had they taken to arms. Paul did the best he could under the circumstances.

Now, as far as slavery in the Old Testament, we could save ourselves a lot of time arguing about this if we would just substitute the word “bondservant” in place of the word “slave” in most cases. Benjamin Franklin was an indentured servant (i.e., a bond-servant) but he was certainly not a slave in the typical fashion of the practice. There is much more that I could say about this, but since this article is about homosexuality and not slavery, I shall leave that for another time.

So, in conclusion, let me say, to excuse homosexuality activity off as that was the way one was born is certainly at odds with scripture, and, in my opinion, biology. Now, that does not take away the desire, or the complications, I realize. Just to say that something is a sin is not enough. The homosexual must break the hold that sin has on them, and fully commit themselves to Jesus and accept his offer of salvation.

Politically, should gays have the same rights as heterosexuals? I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so I really cannot argue that. However, I personally feel the Scripture is absolutely against homosexual marriages. How that translates into public polity in our egalitarian society is yet to be seen. So, unless our Supreme Court rules otherwise, we are pretty much left up with what our individual States decide on the matter. Right now, every State that has allowed the issue to come up for a vote has come out clearly on the side of the traditional stance of one man to one woman.   

Has Sex Gone Viral In America?

Has Sex Gone Viral?

I don’t know, but are people more sexually charged than they were say, when I was a young man?

Great day in the morning, it seems that almost everyday some well known figure is accused of sexual harassment. Well, I should be quick to add, not only accused, but in far too many incidences the accusations are actually proven.

Today it is Herman Cain’s 15 minutes of fame. Tomorrow, who knows?

Then there are the cases involving school teachers. Now, we are not just talking about testosteroned charged football coaches talking trash in front of innocent little cheerleaders—no, not on you life—we’re talking about genders of both sexes, male and female. And, they are not just talking trash, they are actually bedding up with students, some as young as 13 and 14 years of age.

Excuse me, but what brought this perversion on?

Well, if you listen closely to what the perpetrators are saying, usually they blame it on an abusive childhood, or a manic depressive disorder, or some other nonsense. Reminds me of the day when Flip Wilson in character as Geraldine used to say, “The Devil made me do it!” At least he didn’t blame his parents or genetics.

Flip, however, was also wrong. It wasn’t the Devil, it was Flip that made him do it.

James wrote a long time ago:

A man must not say when he is tempted, “God is tempting me.” For God has no dealings with evil, and does not himself tempt anyone. No, a man’s temptation is due to the pull of his own inward desires, which can be enormously attractive. His own desire takes hold of him, and that produces sin. And sin in the long run means death—make no mistake about that, brothers of mine! (James 1: 13-16) (J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Now, let me get quickly to the real issue here. One’s sexuality may be the by-produce of many contributing factors—hormone levels, learned behavior, cultural mores, and a host of other causes; however, in the final analysis individuals hold the lasting responsibility. Unchecked lust is a disaster in wait. Garbage in, garbage out is still a fact. In the words of Scripture, “For as [a man or woman] thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7)

Hope you didn’t miss the words “thinks in his heart” because these words are very important. Thinking governs us and in turn society. Flip through any secular magazine, look at a preponderance of advertisements and it is obvious what inspires the average consumer to take a closer look at the product—in a word, sex. Sex sells. Why? The blunt answer is, because modern society's mind is in the gutter.

Hinduism’s Kuma Satra pales in the face of all the trash portrayed in our media where homosexuality, transvestism, transgenderism, polygamous marriages (the list goes on and on) are promoted as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. Morality is no longer an absolute, you can just pick and choose which style you think fits best.

Let’s face it, modern society’s thoughts are all wonky. Why? Because people's hearts are all wrong.

Cases in point. You can’t smoke on television, but you can fornicate. You can’t use the “n” word (and you shouldn’t); but you can defame the name of God. You can’t blow up Brooklyn Bridge (and you shouldn’t); but you can write a book on how you can. Parents can’t stop a minor daughter from getting an abortion, but she generally needs permission to get her ears pierced.

Want more? How about locking up people for smoking pot, unless they bought it at the local pharmacy? Show me any logic in any of that and I will eat my hat.

No wonder our kids are confused.

Do the ungodly have a Constitutional right to pursue that lifestyle? Sure they do, if we can protect the innocent. However, there is where the rub comes in—you can't. So, the question is mute, as far as I am concerned.

So, what am I saying? Simply this: until individuals in society change society by first changing their hearts, we are in for some rough sledding ahead as a nation and as a community of Christians.

Chaz & All That Razmataz

Television’s most popular show for several seasons in the running has been “Dancing With The Stars.” Now, I have never been into dancing. That was a no-no when I was growing up; however, I understand that quite a few Evangelical Christians love to dance. Anyway, I’m not here to pontificate on that subject at this point, except to say that it does seem like our standard of holiness has been thrown out the window with otherwise faithful church going Christians watching all the filth on television these days.

The point I want to make in this brief commentary is that curiosity got the best of me and I had to watch Chaz Bono dance just because it was such an anomaly. Old Chazy is not a lesbian. No sir, far from that. At least that is what Mr/Ms Chaz claims. Now, I have not been reading up on transgender sex transformation surgery, but I understand from someone who has that Mr. Chaz is still Ms. Chaz technically speaking. Chaz does have a female partner, however.

So, if you are not confused enough by now, hold on.

Chaz has taken so many hormones that it has puffed him and/or her up like an oversized balloon, just ready to pop. The side effects of so much testosterone has produced the desired results, however. She (woops!) — well, let’s just say, shim — shim now has a nice squiggly set of Dutch sideburns.

Now, what is odd about the whole setup is that Chaz seems perfectly at ease with this bizarreness. And, that’s not all, so does most everyone else on the show—at least publically. Not only that, Chaz who bounces around like a rubber penguin got voted back on, thereby eliminating a couple that the show’s judges felt would be in the finals. So, there must be a whole lot of strange people out there voting. I say that because otherwise Chaz’s dancing alone would have never cut it.

Someone said a long time ago, “You should never mix religion and politics.” Well, whoever that person was must have been pretty persuasive because not only have we screwed up politically because of that but we have also allowed science to go wonky on us.

Let’s start with politics. Tear down the traditional family through gay marriages and transgender sex changes and you will rip America apart at the seams. Secondly, let science willy-nilly meander around test tubing babies, changing genders, shooting our vegetables and animals full of artificial hormones, condoning homosexuality as just an alternate life style choice, and doing all the other things that science does and dogmatizes on, and we will end up destroying not only mankind as we know it but sanity itself, in my opinion.

Albert Schweitzer, the eminent German theologian and medical missionary, was once asked by Adlai Stevenson, then a presidential candidate, what he thought was the greatest threat the world would have in the future. Schweitzer replied without hesitation, “Science without moral restraints.”

In many aspects Schweitzer was right. Think of it. Weapons that can destroy every living thing on earth in a matter of minutes. Freakish mutations that portend human abnormalities. Water that is unfit to drink. Air that is unsafe to breathe. Food that is harmful to ingest. And, the list goes on and on.

When will it stop? Never … unless men change for the better morally. Otherwise, we can kiss civilization goodbye as we know it.

Science does not have the final word, though. God does.

And, oh yes, Chaz you are still Chastity, whether you like it or not. Sorry.

Same-sex Marriages

Gay marriages are in the news these days. Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who has championed same-sex marriage in the state since taking office in January, held a party in New York City and promised to help push for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry in other states. "Passing this law not only completes the promise that we made to the people of the state during the campaign; it's going to make a real difference in people's lives,"

Mr. Cuomo told reporters at the Dream Downtown Hotel near the meatpacking district, where he hosted a reception for lawmakers and gay rights advocates. "And I don't think this is just about gay people who now choose to get married," the governor added. "This is a statement that we should all feel good about."

A city official married the first couple in New York City to wed under the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage Sunday. Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, were married in a chapel at the city clerk's office as a crowd of onlookers cheered.

The two, of New York, have been together for 23 years. Kopelov left the clerk's office in a wheelchair, but used a walker to approach reporters. "Your cheers are wonderful," Siegal told well-wishers outside the office.

She told reporters the experience was "just so amazing. It's the only way I can describe it."

Surprisingly, very few Christians understand or can defend the Biblical stance on this issue.

Many have asked what my position is on the subject. So, perhaps, a blog is the best place to deal with it.
First of all both Old and New Testaments are adamantly opposed to sexual activity between people of the same sex. The scriptures explicitly forbid it.

For starters, just read Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

And, of course, the New Testament follows though on this theme culminating with Jude 5-7 which reads: "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day - just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Of course, advocates of same sex marriages are well aware to these verses of scripture, but through a series of contorted hermeneutical maneuvers manage to illogically circumvent these obvious proscriptions. Perhaps, the most ridiculous one is to somehow tie heterosexual marriages with the ancient practice of slavery as an example on how we must change our position on same sex marriages to keep up with the times.

Well, for one thing, marriage between the opposite sexes is not slavery-nor is it, archaic. Furthermore, Jesus recognized the marriage as consummated when the opposite sexes were joined together. To put it bluntly, the puzzle just does not fit in same sex marriages.

Read it for yourself: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matt. 19:4-6

Finally, even reason itself dictates against the practice. It simply is not natural.

I know that some argue that gays are just born that way; but I maintain that the same line of reasoning and argument could be used to condone pedophilia.

Monogamy In A New Testament Context

My dear friend, please don’t confuse the issue with the genitive—that’s not the point; the translation and context is, however. So, I have gone over some of what I have written you and hopefully improve the clarity.

 

As I said, there are 8 occurrences of the word μιᾶς in the New Testament. Here they are with their meanings (pay particular attention to the context of each):

 

Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον.

 

They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.'

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I have bought one field, only—not two or three, only one …”

 

Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται•

 

I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “two in one bed, one taken, one left”

 

Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν.

 

After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “About an hour …”

Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν.

 

“[U]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I am being judged for one thing only — not two or three, only one!”

 

Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ.

 

[Le]st there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like

Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “One meal” not two

1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν,

 

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.

 

if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Let's look at some other examples:

 

"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB (Contextually, a plurality is not suggested here.)

 

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy, in my opinion—unless, one applies a strange new hermeneutics.

 

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

 

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

 

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

 

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

 

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

Then I pointed out:

 

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

 

Friend, since none of these indicates a plurality—unless you choose use an Old Testament polygamous paradigm as your hermeneutical tool. I choose to accept the contextual and New Testament linguistical approach.

 

Again, since in my opinion, the overwhelming use of the Greek points in the solid direction of monogamy and since we can easily deduct this from the context of the other examples, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? It just does not make sense to me. Friend, in times past, God winked at such practices (my words here, not Jesus’ because I know that he was addressing the issue of divorce here) but he now calls all men to repentance.

 

May God bless you,

             

Jim

P.S. And as far as I can determine, the use of the μία form is just as singular, no matter how you slice it as it regards marriage.

Does The New Testament Teach Monogamy?

The following question was sent to me by a proponent of polygamy to answer true or false. Kind of like asking the question of whether or not you have stopped beating your wife. So, although, I was tempted to answer it as both true and false, I thought it would be better to go into detail a little more. T/F The word mia can mean first or one or other. (See Strong’s Concordance). Answers Actually, there are 8 occurrences of the word in the New Testament. Here they are with their meanings (pay particular attention to the context of each): Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον. They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.' Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται• I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν. After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!" Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν. “[u]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'" Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine 1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching; Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine 1 Timothy 3:12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. Let servants be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. “[I]f anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ. [L]est there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Since none, of these indicates a plurality. And, if that be the case as we can easily deduct from the context, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? You and I both know that there are no examples of Christian (or Jewish) polygamy in the New Testament. So how do we find out what the New Testament says about polygamy? We take a look at what the New Testament says about marriage. What we'll find is that the New Testament ALWAYS describes marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman. It never allows for more than one wife. Let's look at some examples: "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB 1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy. Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives. "Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB When Paul speaks to individuals, it is husband and wife. ONE man and ONE woman. That is marriage. But there is something even more important here. The relationship of husband and wife in marrige is the same as the relationship between Christ and His church. "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB Take care, Jim