The Ten Commandments -or the Decalogue as it is sometimes referred- was given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai shortly after the Hebrews left Egypt in the Exodus.  The story of the Exodus is familiar to us, as is the corresponding story of the forty-year pilgrimage in the desert.  My focus is on one of the commandments in particular and how it has been misinterpreted, resulting in its misapplication.  I would like to share what I see as the proper interpretation of the commandment and the implication of this interpretation upon all who call upon the name of God.

The specific commandment is “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” The commandments can be found in the book of Exodus, chapter 20.  Depending on one’s religious tradition, the placement of the commandment will vary. If one if Jewish, the commandment is third; if one is Catholic, it is second; if one is Protestant Christian, generally the commandment falls third.  The wording of the commandment also differs depending on one’s religious tradition.  For religious Jews, the wording of the commandment also includes the remainder of the passage found in Exodus 20: 7 which states, “…for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” I believe this to be an important tool in instructing how important this commandment to be and I will return to it shortly.

The commandments as we understand them are ten laws that were given as precedent as the foundation for changing the character of the recently freed Israelites to reflect the nature and character of God for the benefit of the nations. It is important to remember that these laws were given at a particular time in history for a particular people.  With that said, I believe that the Ten Commandments are still relevant to us in our contemporary setting.  At the same time, many of the laws that are contained in the Levitical code are not relevant to us in our contemporary setting and I think we as Christians forget this important detail. But the Ten Commandments are as relevant as ever.

As it relates to this particular commandment, we often hear it translated as “You shall not use the Lord’s name in vain” and it has often been translated and understood to mean that we should refrain from using God’s name in conjunction with expletives- be them mild or explicit. Throughout many years of Christian and Catholic schooling, church attendance and seminary education, this is the commandment was taught and how it should be understood.

But as I said earlier, I believe this to be a misinterpretation and misapplication of the commandment. Though I agree that it’s inappropriate to use God’s name in conjunction with swearing, I don’t believe that is how we are to understand the depth, meaning, importance and the application of the commandment. The commandment of not taking the Lord’s name in vain does not expressly mean improperly using the Lord’s name in conjunction with an obscenity.  I don’t believe that was God’s intention when he gave the commandment to Moses and the severity of the punishment seems to indicate as much.

The literal translation of the commandment from the Hebrew text is “You shall not carry God’s name in vain.”  The word generally translated as “take” is the Hebrew word “tissa” which can mean either “take” or “carry” or “use,” based on the Hebrew lexicons I have used.  The word translated as “vain” is the Hebrew word “la-shav,” but this word also means “empty,” “untrue,” or “thoughtless” in manner.[1] As a side note, the word “vain” (la-shav) has also been translated to mean “false” as is found in Deuteronomy 5:20[2] based upon Strong’s Concordance in conjunction with a Hebrew lexicon.  This hints to why the punishment was attached for breaking this commandment.

Understanding the commandment to mean we should not carry or use the Lord’s name in an empty, thoughtless or false manner, what is the thrust of the divine injunction?  It means that to carry God’s name in an empty and thoughtless manner impugns his name and character.  It also means participating or attributing something that is evil or false in the name of God. But one may ask how this is done.

One way this is done is when Islamic radicals murder innocent people and justify their actions or “religious duty” by invoking the name of God.  When an Islamic terrorist yells, “Allahu Akbar”[3] prior to murdering someone, they are claiming that in committing these acts of terror and violence, they are doing God’s will.  This is an obvious case of attributing evil to the nature and character of God.

Another clear example is found in the sex scandals involving Catholic priests.  When Catholic authorities chose not to promptly remove the predatory priests from their parishes whom they knew to be guilty of pedophilia, and subsequently chose to transfer them to other parishes which enabled them to continue to prey on children, this was an abuse of religious authority and faith that injured God’s name and his credibility.  This also injured the body of Christ who are to be the faithful community of believers who bear his name on earth.

Considering the seriousness of attributing evil to God, we see why the latter part of the commandment says that God will not hold anyone guiltless for doing so.  Another indicator of the severity of breaking this law is that it is the only one of the Ten Commandments where God clearly states that he will not forgive the commandment’s transgression. The transgression is so serious that it is repeated in the New Testament by Jesus in Matthew 12.  In this text, the Pharisees were attributing Jesus’ power and ability to cast out demons to Beelzebub (Satan). In this passage, Jesus is quite clear in his admonishment of those who attribute the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan, labeling it blasphemy and teaching that those guilty of the offense would not be forgiven in this life or the next.

But why is it that God will not forgive the transgression of the commandment in the Old Testament and its corresponding indiscretion in the New Testament? The answer is simple, actually.  When God’s name is desecrated, it discredits his reputation and alienates people who may have otherwise come to worship and have a relationship with him. The concept of desecrating God’s name in Judaism is referred to as “Chillul Hashem” which translates “to defame God’s name.”  When God’s name is defamed and his character or reputation is ruined, it influences people to have a misconception of who God is and who his followers are.[4] This is why God will not forgive those who are active in placing obstacles in the path of those who would find salvation.

As a result, religious Jews have a concept that they take seriously to thwart “Chillul Hashem” and it is something that I believe Christians should adopt as well and it is the concept of “Kiddush Hashem”[5] meaning, “sanctifying God’s name.”  What this means is that Christians have an obligation not to say or do anything that dishonors God’s name (and by extension, Christ) which would prevent others from coming into a relationship with Jesus.  When we as Christians interact with non-Christians and they know our religious inclinations, we no longer represent ourselves individually but we also represent the church and the Christian faith. We are ambassadors of the faith and as such we must conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of being called a disciple of Christ. If we fail this task, we risk people making broad, negative generalizations about Christians based on our behavior and they may choose not to accept the free gift of grace in Christ.

Therefore, to use the Lord’s name in vain is to wrongly attribute his name, character or will to things that are empty, thoughtless, false and or evil- in other words conflating God with words and deeds that are not representative of his character. The punishment for this violation is that God will not forgive those who do.  Knowing that, we have a duty to righteously reflect the nature of God in Christ by being disciples that serve the purpose of evangelizing through our actions which will result in bringing more souls to Christ and ultimately to God.

In my opinion there is a tangible reason numbers are falling when it comes to congregations that espouse liberal Christianity- it’s because they don’t need church to get this kind of dogmatic liberalism.  They can easily get it from a number of news outlets, media sources and from the campuses of academia, which makes going one more place to be reinforced (or offended) is pointless.

By Ken Connor , Christian Post Guest Columnist

The recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church has prompted a broader discussion of the fate of liberal Christianity. No surprise-the Episcopal Church has been one of the most aggressively liberal influences in American Christianity in the past few years, pushing hard against the traditions of the broader Anglican Communion. In The New York Times, Ross Douthat goes so far as to ask, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” But that question necessarily prompts two others: What is Liberal Christianity, and Should it be saved?

Liberal Christianity is dying on the vine. Mainline denominations are taking big hits across the board. According to The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, among Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, more adults are leaving the church than entering it. Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans are retaining less than half of their children. And in these denominations, no one is sitting in the pews! Gallup reported in 2005 that weekly and near-weekly church attendees made up less than 45% of self-identifying Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, with Episcopalians at a dismal 32%. And the numbers aren’t getting any better.

But what, exactly, is liberal Christianity? Over the past several decades, liberalism has primarily defined itself by what it is not. Its message is “We’re not like those stodgy old traditionalists-we’re hip and accepting” (as long as they’re not asked to accept unchanging morality or the truth of Scripture). Liberal Christianity rejects the core tenets of Christianity, including the belief that Jesus is God, that all of mankind is guilty of sin and condemned to hell, that God sacrificed His Son to bear the punishment for our sins, that Scripture is the absolute, unchanging, perfect Word of God, and that the only path to salvation is through believing in Christ’s sacrifice and accepting His gift of eternal life by grace through faith.

In place of these tenets, liberal Christianity embraces a series of denials: Christ is not divine, mankind is not inherently sinful, the Scriptures are not authoritative and unchanging, heaven and hell are not literal, morality and theology are not absolute, and social mores do not flow from Scripture, but are an ever-changing product of our evolutionary enlightenment.

All of these beliefs allow liberal Christians to be more “comfortable” in the culture around them. The common message of the liberal Christian is that “God is love” and we need to speak to the rest of culture in the language of loving acceptance. “Love” here is code for the conviction that there is no absolute moral standard which humankind has violated. Hence, to believe in justice, morality, sin, punishment or an unchanging God is to be “judgmental” and “unloving.”

If this is the heart of liberal Christianity, is it worth saving? Douthat argued in his article that conservatives “should not be smug” about the failures of liberalism, but rather value the work liberal Christianity has done to advance the social duties of the Church. While liberal Christianity might have gotten the Church talking more about social justice, it provided all the wrong answers. Liberal Christianity looks primarily to the government to shoulder our social responsibilities. But the social duties of Christians are clearly spelled out in Scripture, and they are directed to individual Christians and to the church. Christians-individually and collectively-are primarily responsible for this work, not the civil government.

It is not the message of “acceptance” but the truth of historic, traditional Christianity that has transformed society over the centuries. The spread of the biblical Gospel message throughout generations has changed the world. Christianity has grown and spread because Christians have taken seriously Christ’s great commission to go into all the world and make disciples. Animated by love for their neighbor (dictated by Scripture) and concern for their eternal future (heaven or hell), believers in historic Christianity have sought to spread the truth of the Gospel throughout the world. Concern for their fellow man and the belief that ministering to the poor and needy is the same as ministering to the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 25:40) has been the impetus to build hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, pregnancy care centers, water purification plants and the like around the world.

Liberal Christianity undermines the Truth that has motivated so much good work. Liberal Christians reject the core tenets of historic Christianity. They have embraced the contemporary fancies of an ever-changing culture. They have nothing to live for, nothing to die for, and nothing to work for. For them, church is just another social club, devoid of power because it is not animated by transcendent truth and accountability for living in conformity with that truth. They have no authority for faith or action. They embrace a counterfeit Christianity, a pale image of the real thing, a hollow shell, a thin gruel that offers little sustenance for its followers or the culture at large.

It is no wonder that the ranks of liberal Christian churches are shrinking. Liberal Christianity is passing with a whimper, not a bang. Increasingly, its adherents have concluded it is not worth saving.

I decided to re-print an article written by Owen Strachan, courtesy of Christianity Today, discussing why Christians should take a closer look at President Obama’s faith and why it’s important. Regardless of how one feels personally about the President, Strachan’s position is thought-provoking and in my opinion, spot on.

This piece is a response to “Barack Obama: Evangelical-in-Chief?“

Is Barack Obama a Christian?

This perennial question came to the fore recently after American President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts. Speaking of his views on the issue as the result of “an evolution,” Obama relayed that he had decided that it was “important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Referencing the ethical witness of his daughters, the President made his argument on biblical grounds, specifically the “golden rule,” the idea that we should “treat others the way you’d want to be treated,” as he paraphrased Matthew 7:12.

The question of whether any person is a Christian is important, not just a President or celebrity. Scripture offers numerous examples of people who claim faith and yet are not necessarily converted (Matt. 7:22; Luke 8:4–21; 2 Tim. 4:3–4). Christians and local churches act biblically when they examine a confession of faith to see if it is backed up by a holy, God-pleasing life (1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:22). Though a vocal Christian contingent argues that such analysis is hostile, it is necessary for us to examine the faith of those who profess it.

At first blush, President Obama can certainly sound like a Christian. As seen above, he cites Scripture as an inspiration and moral guide. At the 2012 Easter prayer breakfast, he explored the “all-important gift of grace” that came through the endurance of “unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world.” At the 2011 prayer breakfast, he spoke of how he came to “know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior.” The President had sounded similar themes in his 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani.

Yet in that interview, his most fulsome statement to date of his religious views, President Obama diverged sharply from Scripture. In the interview, never refuted in print or in word, spirituality boils down to values: “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power … there are values that transcend race or culture.” Accordingly, to sin is to fail to abide by these values, not to dishonor a holy God per Exodus 20. In terms of salvation, “there are many paths” to an undefined “place,” not one exclusive path to heaven, contradicting John 14:6. Disavowing belief in hell, the President opined that “if I live my life as well as I can … I will be rewarded.” This reward, though, does not mean “harps and wings” but rather successfully “transferring values that I got from my mother” to his daughters. Heaven, then, is not the perfected realm of God found in Revelation 21. It seems to be the perfected civic order found in liberal Protestant theology.

President Obama’s understanding of God as well presents a few problems. God is conspicuously absent from surprising places. When it comes to prayer, for example, the President has spoken of pausing to “take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.” The act of prayer, as the President said in 2011, is not only a chance for confession but “itself is a source of strength.” Prayer offers a kind of Protestant Zen moment, a dialing-in to deeper currents and larger realities. So too with conversion. Though the President speaks of God as his savior, he does not picture his conversion as a rebirth from righteous damnation per Ephesians 2:1. Instead, it “allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.” This version of his conversion is a centering of the self, a Western remix of Eastern spiritualism.

President Obama’s Christology also veers into unbiblical territory. In his 2012 Easter prayer breakfast talk, he spoke of Jesus’ “doubts,” casting Jesus as not able to fully trust the Father. Surely Christ knew immense sorrow over his fate, but as Denny Burk has suggested, Jesus never sinned by doubting God’s goodness or wisdom (John 17:4). To update the language of German liberal theologians like Martin Kähler, this is the Jesus of postmodernism, Christ for a generation that has baptized doubt as a virtue and questioning as an imperative.

Given all this, what does actionable faith look like for the President? It seems to mean personally participating in a pan-religious mission of cosmic justice: “I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can, for as long as I can, and … somehow God will buttress these efforts.” Not only Christians undertake this work, however: “It also helps to know that none of us are alone in answering this call.It’s being taken up each and every day by so many of you—back home, your churches, your temples and synagogues, your fellow congregants—so many faith groups across this great country of ours.” We can read this as mushy politico-speak. It also reveals, crucially, the strain of non-exclusivistic ecumenism that runs throughout President Obama’s religious pronouncements. Those who are not Christians—Jews and Mormons, apparently—can “answer the call” of God and work for justice.

It is not only President Obama’s confession of faith that is troubling, but his policies. Though in response to Rick Warren’s question he famously argued in 2008 that the question of life’s beginning was “above his pay grade,” when compensated by the citizens of Illinois in 2001 he knew no such humility. As a state senator, he actively opposed legislation that would have mandated care for fetuses that survived abortions. He has also made it a point of presidential pride to let the Defense of Marriage Act go unenforced, contributing substantially to the weakening of the traditional and biblical view of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman.

The culture, not Scripture, is the primary driver of President Obama’s views. With abortion, his own values matter, not Psalm 139; with homosexuality and marriage, his daughters’ opinions matter, not Genesis 2 and Romans 1. But it is not merely President Obama’s isolated policies, troubling as they may be, that give many Christians like me pause. It is the whole worldview. As seen above, there are deeply unbiblical ideas running beneath the surface of the President’s orthodox declarations. The President’s oratory sometimes smacks of Billy Graham, but those who listen carefully will also hear the dulcet tones of Harry Emerson Fosdick. His is a no-injury Protestantism, liberal Christianity enrobed in a revivalist shell.

Faith as construed by the President gives no offense and draws no boundaries. In the final analysis, what is missing from his theology is nothing other than the gospel, the message of God-given righteousness grounded in the cross of Christ that when received by faith and repentance runs roughshod over a sinner, transforming a ward of Satan into an angel of light. This exclusive reality—and the top-to-bottom ethic it creates—is noticeably lacking in President Obama’s actions and proclamations.

This, then, is why evangelicals come away so confused from the President’s faith-friendly speeches. He sometimes sounds the thrilling chords of the gospel of life, but his policies smack of the culture of death. How can a man who shows such charm toward his wife help to destroy the foundational institution of human society? How can a man who so clearly loves his adorable daughters stand on the floor of the Illinois senate and declaim the right to life of a child who, against the terrible odds only a womb-bloodying scalpel can produce, miraculously survives an abortion? Saving faith creates a relentless desire in the name of Christ to heal the wounded, restore the weak, and defend tiny fetuses that kick and spin and wave their miniscule arms when they hear their parents’ voices. Saving faith causes us to weep and yell and wrestle with God in prayer for infants that are savaged in the womb. Saving faith cannot abide unlawful death. It must and will decry it.

So when someone professes faith, yet has none of these instinctive reactions—and actuallyopposes such instincts despite years of membership in supposedly Bible-teaching churches—we realize, chillingly, that something greater than right morality is missing. The gospel, the ground of our ethics and the animator of our conscience, is very likely missing. Perhaps the person speaks of faith and their nearness to God. In reality, though, they are far from him. They may have come near at some point to the kingdom, but like the rich young ruler who chooses reigning with sinners over reigning with Christ, they are desperately far.

I do not write this with politically-driven glee. I write it in sorrow, because I am all too aware of the deceptive nature of depravity. Yet I also write it in hope, because I am aware of the stunning power of the gospel that has saved a wretch like me. I write it as one who knows because of Scripture that he must pray for President Obama (1 Tim. 2:1–3). He and I have major differences, but he is my President. Beyond this, however, we are at base the same: fellow sinners in desperate need, as we all are, of divine grace.

Owen Strachan is assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College. Author of essays in The Atlantic and First Things, he has worked for the White House in the U.S. Department of State and for the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Labor.

This has been an eventful week regarding the national conversation surrounding homosexual marriage.  On Tuesday, May 8, North Carolina voted overwhelmingly to amend their state’s constitution to define marriage as a union that exists solely between a man and a woman.  The 61%-39% vote in favor of what has been called “traditional marriage,” makes North Carolina the 30^th state that has voted against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Obama stated (finally) that he believes that, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”  As I have said, it was no surprise.

Both of these incidents of course increased the amount of participation in the chattersphere of blogging sites, Facebook, Twitter, talk radio and television punditry.  Yet in all the back and forth, there were several issues that seemed to me to have been overlooked, be it on purpose or inadvertently or they simply haven’t been discussed with the proper detail so I will attempt to address what I think is important and needs to be addressed.

Before I begin I’m going to acknowledge and confront the painfully obvious -and that is the topic of homosexual marriage is an emotional one.  It’s emotional for those who happen to be homosexual and who desire to be married.  It’s emotional for those who have friends and loved ones who are gay and want their loved ones to be “accepted” and part of that acceptance is having the opportunity to be married.  It’s also emotional for those who, though they may have friends and loved ones who are gay, still hold to the understanding that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Further still, it’s emotional for those who struggle to remain faithful to their religious worldview which impacts their understanding of marriage.

In recognition of the emotional nature involving homosexual marriage, I will attempt to discuss this issue with the sincerity that excludes trivialization. Though many may disagree with what I will say below, keep in mind that what I say isn’t infused with ill will and in this case, isn’t said for purposes of provocation.

With that said, I am not in favor of redefining marriage to include homosexual partnerships and I applaud all states in which the people have voted against this redefinition. Hopefully you will be able to understand why during the course of my discussing the issues that are ignored.

The one thing that seems to return time and again when discussing homosexual marriage is the notion of ‘rights.’ Advocates of homosexual marriage argue the concept of marriage being a basic ‘right’ that is being denied to homosexuals and as such, is illegal.  Therefore in the interest of fairness, marriage (by law) should be extended to homosexuals in the same way that it is extended to heterosexuals.

On first blush, this sounds convincing.  To deny a basic right to one group of people while extending it to another group of people is wrong and discriminatory.  And if that is what the law does, it should be rescinded.

But that isn’t what the law does.  To begin with, marriage isn’t a ‘right.’  It’s a civil institution that all societies in history have used and have recognized as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the law doesn’t deny a basic ‘right’ to a particular group unfairly.  When the law defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman, it doesn’t exclude any homosexual person from marrying. The law treats me as a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person in regards to marriage: we both are prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.  Which means, under the law a homosexual person would have to marry a person the same way everyone else in society has to marry – they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex.  As it relates to all unmarried persons in America, the law is extended equally and doesn’t discriminate based upon sexual preference.

Incidentally, that is exactly why ‘gay marriage’ is a misnomer.  Gays, under the law are allowed to marry.  As we’ve seen, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. The more appropriate term is ‘homosexual marriage’ because as the law exists- equally, homosexuals cannot marry other homosexuals.

Marriage law: one man and one woman.

Furthermore, there is no ‘right’ to marry found in the US Constitution.  Every single time a person or even a court claims the denial of the ‘right’ to marry is ‘unconstitutional,’ they’re not being truthful.  The Constitution says exactly nothing about homosexual marriage.  Thus when this claim is offered as a defense of homosexual marriage, especially by a court as was the case in California in 2008, it is legally unfounded and is therefore a created ‘right.’

Consequently, when homosexuals and homosexual advocates assert the desire to marry someone of the same sex is a denial of rights that exists for everyone else, it simply isn’t true.  What they’re actually claiming is a new so-called ‘right’ that doesn’t exist anywhere for anyone regardless of orientation- the right to marry someone of the same sex. The ‘right’ for a person to marry someone of the same sex has been denied to everyone.

Another claim that is continually offered up is that people should be allowed to marry who they love, especially if they’re consenting adults.  But unfortunately, this also isn’t credibly defensible and here’s why.  First, technically, homosexuals can get married to other homosexuals.  These ceremonies happen all the time as there are numerous religious clergy members who have been more than willing to perform these ceremonies. So consent away.  The only thing that the newly married won’t receive is governmental and societal sanction and recognition of being ‘married.’

Secondly for argument’s sake, let’s say that it is discriminatory to preclude homosexuals from marrying one another.   If they’re in love and consenting, they shouldn’t be prevented from marrying.  But at what point is it ok to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation and how is it justified? If it’s okay for homosexuals to marry other homosexuals because of love and consent, why don’t we allow/legalize polygamy when the parties involved are in love and consenting? Why not brothers who want to marry sisters when the same requirements are present? Why not aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces?  Again, this is not trivializing the situation, but if it’s discrimination against homosexuals why would it not be discrimination against these other parties? And if it is discrimination, how is it justified in light of the qualifications that are used in favor of homosexual marriage?  If we’re to be intellectually honest, legalizing homosexual marriage means legalizing a number of other relationships based on the same criteria used for homosexual marriage.

In the end, the law doesn’t take into consideration love when defining marriage- and rightly so. If it did, all the relationships above would have to be legalized, normalized and accepted as equal.

Yet even another claim homosexual marriage advocates use for legalizing homosexual marriage is to claim it’s a ‘civil rights issue,’ equivocating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages and ending segregation of the past.  Again, the attempts to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn’t hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing homosexual marriage isn’t the same as legalizing interracial marriages.  As we’ve seen, to legalize homosexual marriage is to redefine marriage.  But even more than that, legalizing interracial marriages actually fulfilled the legal understanding of marriage being between a male and a female.  Why? Because when it comes right down to it, there’s no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman.  That was the essence of the civil rights movement.  But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.  It’s why there’s an NBA and a WNBA, why there are no women in the NFL, why there’s a PGA and an LPGA .  It is also why in all aforementioned sporting leagues, though they are rightly separated by gender, races and nationalities of all kind are represented. Race doesn’t matter, gender does.

Furthermore to equate the struggle of homosexuals to redefine marriage for their purposes specifically, with that of the struggles that black Americans went through to gain civil rights actually undermines their argument because it trivializes the suffering and misfortune blacks went through to gain the level of acceptance that we have today.  There are no “gay only” bathrooms, drinking faucets or entrances; gays aren’t relegated to sitting in the back of the bus or forced to say “yes sir” and “no ma’am” to their heterosexual equivalents.  They aren’t being attacked by dogs, water hoses or lynched; nor are they having food and drink poured upon them as they attempt to order food at the counters of Woolworth stores.  And thank God for that.

This isn’t to say that homosexuals haven’t endured any misfortune or suffering because it would be ridiculous to assert as much.  But the sufferings of blacks and homosexuals though both being unfortunate are not equitable.

I hope the reader has noticed that during the course of discussing the issues that I believe are important regarding homosexual marriage, I have not made one single appeal to the religious as to why I disagree with homosexual marriage. I did so for a couple of reasons. One, I think the case against the redefinition of marriage can be made coherently aside from religion based upon the law and common sense.  Two, homosexual marriage advocates tend to demonize and belittle people who appeal to religious reasons when they try and defend marriage. I think that tendency is absolutely shameful and wrong because people refer to and depend on their religious convictions all the time when making important decisions.  Yet I wanted to discuss these issues in a rational fashion and not have them dismissed because of my religious beliefs.

To conclude, marriage as it is understood and has been understood throughout the course of human history has been between a man and woman (or women).  Also, marriage is marriage, not “traditional marriage.”  Homosexual marriage is not a basic “right,” a “constitutional right,” or a “civil right.”  It also isn’t equitable to race.  Homosexual marriage rightly understood would be a redefinition of marriage and it’s “legality” would be the creation of a new right that had not existed prior to its creation.  In addition, its potential legality would also make other illegal relationships, legal, based on standards that government cannot and should not quantify.

Lastly, discussing these overlooked issues in a mature way, I feel that I have to say that being against homosexual marriage isn’t the same as being against homosexuals.  Can one be against homosexuals and against homosexual marriage? Of course one can and many are.  But not in this case. I am simply against redefining marriage based upon the emotional influence enveloping the issue and disregarding the law in the process.

Indeed… the tomb is empty because He has risen. This is the day that the Lord had made; let us rejoice and be glad in it and for it.  Today we celebrate the resurrection which is the justification of Jesus’ claims of identity and thus his ministry.  We also express our gratitude for God’s merciful gift of salvation (Yeshua) to all of us who are unworthy of this gift, yet have humbly accepted it.

God bless all of you who willingly embrace and embody the name of Christ and are found worthy of being called a disciple of Christ. Today is as much about you as it is about Christ.

The story of Jesus before Pilate through his crucifixion and burial-

Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You have said so.” But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?” But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

 
Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas (transliteration, “the son of the father”), or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream.” Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!” And he said, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!”

 
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.

 
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him.

 
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

 
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again [Father, into your hands I commit my spirit; it is finished] with a loud voice; and yielded up his spirit.

 
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

 
There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

 
When it was evening [Preparation Day], there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus [and a member of the Sanhedrin]. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.”

Matthew 27:11-65

At times, these words may not engender the proper effect upon our hearts because the habitual reading of the passion narratives may have the tendency to lessen the impact.  In the case that this may happen, I encourage you to rent or buy and watch Mel Gibson’s, The Passion of the Christ if you haven’t done so already.  Even if you have had the opportunity to see this incredibly done film, you should view it again.  The visceral effect of seeing what Christ suffered out of love – for our salvation – will engender an appreciation of his obedience and service.  It will also animate what he said and meant about his body being broken and his blood being poured out for us. It should also instill a healthy understanding of the obligation for those who count themselves as disciples who bear his name.

The Passover with the Disciples

 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.

When it was evening, he reclined at the table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing* it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body [do this in remembrance of me].” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks* he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the [new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:17-28 ESV; see also I Corinthians 11:23-26

The traditional Jewish blessing when eating bread-

ברוך אתה ה’ א‑לוהינו מלך העולם, המוציא לחם מן הארץ.‏

Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha’olam, ha’motzi lehem min ha‑aretz.

Which translates to- “Blessed are You, LORD, our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

The traditional Jewish blessing when drinking (non-alcoholic) wine-

ברוך אתה ה’ א‑לוהינו מלך העולם, בורא פרי הגפן.‏

Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu Melekh ha’olam, bo’re p’ri ha’gafen.

Which translates to- “Blessed are You, LORD, our God, King of the universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

Amen and have a blessed Good Friday.

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.

“Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt.

“This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. Seven days you shall eat unleavened [matzohs] bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven [chametz]out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you. And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever. In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread.”

Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever. And when you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service. And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.’” And the people bowed their heads and worshiped.

Then the people of Israel went and did so; as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.

Exodus 12:1-28

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (See Psalm 118:25-26)

And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

Matthew 21:1-11

But is justice really what they seek?  Based on what I’ve seen, heard and read, justice is the very last thing these people want.  In actuality, what is really sought is retributive vengeance, not justice. Supporters along with the emotional fan-flamers of this incident want George Zimmerman to pay for what he did, whether the facts support his claims of self-defense or not.

Think about it.

For weeks we’ve seen his family on tv pleading for justice; we’ve seen tv pundits and heard radio voices debating the merits of justice and the lack of an arrest of Zimmerman; we’ve seen the New Black Panther Party put out an unprompted bounty on Zimmerman, saying that they will do what the police didn’t; now we see Al $harpton, the preeminent racial divider, claiming that if the Sanford PD refuses to arrest Zimmerman-regardless if the facts warrant it, there will be an “escalation” in “peaceful” civil disobedience.  What has Al $harpton ever done that has been civil or peaceful?

What $harpton and Trayvon supporters desire is for Zimmerman to be arrested regardless of the facts of the case- which at this point, are not all known- which means what they really want is for Zimmerman to be punished for killing a black person, specifically, not necessarily “justice” for Trayvon. These calls for justice are about people wanting their (racial) anger satiated by vengeance- be it by Zimmerman’s arrest, by his death at the hands of a member representing the aggrieved or by an escalation of civil disobedience. So let’s be clear about what this is. This is openly advocating, supporting and justifying violence against a non-black(s).

This isn’t justice by any stretch.  This is vengeance.  Everyone who defines justice in this manner, inverts the true nature and understanding of justice.  Justice is rooted in truth and righteousness (Psalm 106:3).  Since this is the case, for true justice to be had the public will have to wait, as painful as that may be for some, until all the evidence has been disclosed and that won’t come until after the grand jury convenes and the Justice Department concludes its investigation. At that point decisions can be made in regards to the deliverance and leveling justice.  Until then, to arrest Zimmerman based upon partiality and emotion would be to pervert the very justice that the supporters of Trayvon Martin seek.

Justice and Divine Vengeance pursuing Crime

Human-sought vengeance does not equal justice.  We are admonished to purse justice;  Vengeance is administered by God (Romans 12:19).

But I have another question that I haven’t heard asked nor answered.  If the Martin family and their supporters truly seek justice, and the grand jury along with the federal investigation provide the facts that support Zimmerman’s case that Trayvon attacked him resulting in Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in self-defense (without the intent of killing him), will the Martin family and their supporters be satisfied with justice? After all, justice would be served:  even though and unfortunately Trayvon is dead, an innocent man (based upon the determination that Zimmerman didn’t kill Trayvon intentionally or because he was black) would not be arrested, tried and charged with guilt and then sentenced to life in prison.

The answer to that question is an obvious and resounding no.  They would not be satisfied, nor would they consider it justice. Even though justice would be served, it wouldn’t qualify as “justice” for Trayvon.  We’d see $harpton in front of cameras yelling as loud as possible that the criminal justice system is still racist (even though the head of that system is black and his boss is black) along with the never-ending, unqualified statements about institutional racism and that America continues to be a racist nation still out to get blacks.  He would then proceed to incite mob violence and rioting and justify it by claiming it is a response to continued “injustice.”  This impending result will make Trayvon this generation’s version of Rodney King, not Emmett Till (Emmett Till? Really?) and it will be covered and substantiated by the very same media who was complicit in creating the narrative that facilitated the violence.

As I said in my previous post, it’s sad and unfortunate that Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.  And if the facts prove Zimmerman’s guilt, the law should be applied responsibly and accordingly in meting out punishment for what he did.  But if the facts prove his innocence and he in turn is not arrested and jailed based upon the recommendations of the grand jury and federal findings, then justice will have been served, despite how it has been improperly defined.

Then vengeance will ensue.