Tribulation Saint

Historic Christianity in the Twenty First Century

Category: Morality / Ethics



Anthony van Dyck Family Portrait


The great tragedy of our time is that many people do not know what a good marriage is – they have never seen one.  Their parents’ marriages may have ended in divorce, and their own relationships may be far from satisfactory.

In this context it is important to emphasize several things.  First of all, the world was created by God, and when He created it He intended it to function a certain way.  God’s norms are the standard.

Secondly, the world as we see it is fallen and corrupt.  It does not function the way God intended.

What all of this means is that when we come to a subject like marriage we must go by Scripture, not experience.  The question is, what does God want?  If we want our marriages to work the way they were supposed to work, we have to do it God’s way.  That is only way we can expect to find happiness and fulfillment, and any other way is bound to lead to disappointment and sorrow.

There are several passages of Scripture that describe what a Christian marriage is supposed to look like, but we will focus on just one, Ephesians 5:22-33.  The apostle Paul is giving practical exhortations to believers, and in these verses he deals specifically with husbands and wives, urging them to live with each other in a Christ-like manner.

The key to understanding how a godly marriage would work is actually found immediately preceding – verse 21: “. . . submitting to one another in the fear of God” (NKJV).  This is addressed to believers in general, and what is required in all of our relationships with each other is that we “submit to one another.”  We are not to be stubborn, selfish and self-willed, but are to subordinate our individual needs and desires to those of others.  That is the Christian way.  There is not place in the church for rugged individualists.

The passage makes it clear that husbands and wives do have different roles in marriage, and to explain how these different roles work Paul compares marriage to the relationship between Christ and the church.  He also uses an interesting analogy: Christ (and the husband) is the head; the church (and the wife) is the body.  The head gives direction to the body, but has an integral connection to it.  The head tells the body what to do, but cannot function without the body and is very much affected by what happens to the body.  Therefore the head cares very much for the welfare of the body.

The husband, then, is to love his wife – not merely tolerate her, not merely coexist with her, but actively care for her.  The word “love” (agapate) here does not necessarily that he likes everything about her.  Rather, it is a self-sacrificing love that puts her welfare ahead of his own. Moreover, in enjoining this duty Paul sets the highest possible standard: the husband is to love his wife “just as Christ loved the church” (v. 25). It is the love that Christ showed us when He gave His very life for us, even though we were sinners.

But exactly how does Christ love the church?  First of all, He is attendant to the church’s needs – He is preeminently concerned with her welfare.  These needs include both the church’s true needs as well as her felt ones.

First of all, Christ aims for the church’s genuine well-being: “. . . that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it with the washing of water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having stain or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it might be holy and without blemish . . .” (vv. 26,27).  The words “present the church to himself” suggest the idea of a wedding, with the bride looking resplendent in her beautiful gown as she marches down the aisle to her waiting groom.  Will there ever be a day when she will look more beautiful than she does on this day?  But there is an element of Cinderella here as well.  Christ found his bride in rags; now she is “glorious, not having stain or wrinkle or any such thing” (v. 27).  In order to get to this point He had to “wash her with water in the word.”  This may be an oblique reference to conversion and its attendant ordinance of baptism.  Before conversion the elect were hardly fit to be called the bride of Christ.  But now look at the church!  But it must never be forgotten that it is Christ who makes the church what she is.

But he husband will also pay attention to the wife’s felt needs as well.  Paul reminds the husband that he and his wife are “one flesh.”  Therefore he ought to have the same care and concern for his wife that he has for himself: He will feed and warm her (v. 29).  Is she hungry?  He will provide her with food.  Is she cold?  He will warm her.

But more importantly, Christ showed His love for the church by sacrificing Himself for it.  The text says that He “gave Himself for it” (v. 25).   The word “gave” (paredoken) literally means “to hand or give over, to deliver up,” often to be arrested.  In this context the reference is obviously to Christ’s arrest and crucifixion.  And if Jesus was willing t make the supreme sacrifice for the church –to lay down His very life for her, should not a husband be willing to do the same thing for his wife?

Loving your wife, however, does not mean fulfilling all of her demands.  When Christ gave Himself for the church He had a specific end in mind: “. . .that He might sanctify and cleanse her . . . that she should be holy and without blemish” (vv. 26,27).  Christ (and the husband) is looking out for the bride’s total well-being, not just her desires and wishes.  In some cases the husband, using his own judgment, may actually have to contravene his wife’s wishes, but he should do so with her true well-being in mind.

A husband, then, must devote himself to his wife’s well-being.  She is not his chattel slave to do with her as he pleases.  He is the head of the home.  But that means that he is responsible for the well-being of everyone in the home, and must make wise decisions accordingly.  On occasion he may have to sacrifice his own personal well-being for the sake of hers.  And he should do this because he genuinely cares for her, “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.”





Rembrandt: The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp

Death is an existential question that calls out for an answer.  Why do people have to die?  To an atheist the question is pointless – everything in nature dies; that is just the way things are.  But there is something inside of us, an ingrained part of our humanity, that will not settle for an answer like that.  To have known and loved someone, to have seen that person as a living, breathing person, full of life and energy, and now to see that person as a lifeless corpse, is to feel a profound sense of loss.  And if we live in a universe that was created by an intelligent Supreme Being, then the philosophical question inevitably arises, why death?  Death would seem to run against God’s creative purposes.

The biblical answer is that death is a judicial punishment for man’s rebellion against God.  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . .” (Rom. 5:12; NKJV).  And so, “For dust you are, / And to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19).

But the Sixth Commandment says, “You shall not murder,” and this raises some serious questions about the medical care of dying patients.  What specifically concerns those of us who are not medical professionals is giving informed consent to various treatment options.  People are often asked to prepare living wills or advance medical directives that give instructions on how they would like to be treated if they are incapacitated.  Among the issues frequently addressed in these documents are resuscitation, feeding tubes, IVs, mechanical ventilation, and antibiotics.  Most of us dread even being in a situation where such measures are possibilities, and our natural inclination is to not want any of it.

But we must always ask the question, what would God want?  We are morally responsible creatures, and are ultimately accountable to Him.  What, then, is the moral thing to do?

The Sixth Commandment forbids the taking of innocent human life.  That means that there should be no action our part to shorten someone’s life or to hasten death.  On the other hand it does not mean that we should artificially prolong the process of dying.  Ultimately it is God who determines the time of our death.  “You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust” (Ps. 104:29; cf. Job 34:10-15).  Or, as the apostle Paul put it, “For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.  Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8; cf., II Cor. 5:9,10).

On that basis I think that we would have to say that it is wrong to remove a feeding tube from a patient while he is still alive.  Every living person needs both food and water to sustain life, and they must be delivered to the body by some external means, whether baby bottle, knife and fork, or feeding tube.  To deprive a person of food and water is to starve him to death – the immediate cause of death is humanly induced starvation.  That, then, would constitute an impermissible taking of human life.

But what sort of medical treatment should be given to persons who are terminally ill?  Obviously a disease that is treatable should be treated.  But there are two opposite tendencies that should be avoided: the tendency to prolong life as long as possible and the tendency to shorten the process of dying.

The first tendency is to resort to heroic but futile attempts to prolong life because the patient is simply unwilling to accept the fact that he is dying.  Death is a terrifying thing, and the natural tendency is to resist it as long as we possibly can.  But if the patient has been diagnosed with stage four cancer (cancer that has spread to other organs) the value of radiation therapy and chemotherapy is questionable.  The therapy is expensive, destroys good cells as well as bad, and in the end is futile.  There comes a time when we must accept our mortality.  When your time has come your time has come.

On the other hand there is a natural desire in some cases to want to hasten death.  When a patient is stricken with a painful and debilitating disease, it is only natural to want to end the suffering.  It is also tempting to argue that a person’s “quality of life” is so poor that there is no point in keeping him alive.  But the Sixth Commandment still applies – we are not permitted to take human life.  We were created in the image of God, and there is something sacred about human life.  Obviously every effort should be made to ease pain and suffering, but any idea of “mercy killing” should be avoided.

This is not to day that end of life decisions are always easy.  There is a wide variety of possible circumstances, and it is impossible to anticipate exactly how one’s life will end.  Thus great care should be exercised in filling out living wills and advanced medical directives.  When they are good health many people will say that they would not want the use of artificial means to prolong life, but they often change their minds when faced with the actual prospect of death.

Much depends on the overall condition of the patient.  If a patient is terminally ill, or is elderly and in failing health, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and mechanical respiration may not make much sense.  On the other hand, for a younger person who is the victim of an accident or heart attack, aggressive intervention may save his life and spare his loved ones the grief of a loss.  For a person with a long-term disability measures to enhance functionality may be appropriate, even if the disease itself is incurable.  And for a person who is at the end of life, palliative measures are appropriate even if they have the effect of minimally shortening life.  If death is immanent it is best to accept the fact and make the patient as comfortable as possible.

But above all else, let us make sure that we are spiritually prepared for death.  We must all face death sooner or later; we must all reckon with eternity.  We all have an appointment to meet our Maker.  Let us settle our accounts with God now before it is too late, so that we can face the hour of death with calm equanimity.

There is something about the awful finality of death that is truly terrifying.  It is for good reason that the Bible calls it “the king of terrors” (Job. 18:14).  But for the Christian it is nothing to fear – death is but the gateway to paradise.  “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21).

“When I tread the verge of Jordan,

Bid my anxious fears subside;

Death of death, and hell’s Destruction,

Land me safe on Canaan’s side . . .”

William Williams





In our last blog post we concluded that it is possible for a Christian to serve in a civil government, and that there is such a thing as a just war.  But does this mean that the military in doing whatever it pleases to achieve an objective?  It is justified in engaging in wanton slaughter?

Not at all!  For the basic moral principle of the sanctity of human life still applies.  It is never permissible to take human life unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent even worse consequences.  What, then, are the criteria of a just war?

First of all, a war must have a just cause.  We are not at liberty to attack another country merely for the sake of territorial expansion or commercial advantage.  There must be some immanent threat to our territory, to the lives and property of our citizens; or conceivably, in some cases, gross human rights violations may warrant an invasion from another country; but this should only be done under the sanction of international law.  Moreover, the good to be achieved through the war must outweigh the inevitable loss of life and property.  Fighting a war with a vague or unachievable objective, or a doubtful outcome, amounts to an immoral waste of human life.

Once a war has begun there are important things to keep in mind as well.  All efforts should be made to avoid the unnecessary loss of civilian life.  Killing, abusing or neglecting prisoners of war is a war crime.  The use of force must be proportionate to the military objective.  This makes the use of weapons of mass destruction highly problematical.

It must be conceded that there are grave practical difficulties with the just war theory.  Many wars are the result of a failure of diplomacy, and could have been avoided through a little more flexibility on the part of the different sides.  Governments are not always transparent in their foreign relations, and the real causes for going to war are often shrouded in secrecy.  Once started, a war quickly degenerates into a struggle for survival, and the longer it drags on, the more brutal and barbaric it usually becomes.  And subordinates are rarely in positions to question the orders of their superior officers.  All of these factors combine to make it extremely difficult for a military serviceman who is a Christian to make an intelligent judgment about the justification for a war or the tactics employed.

The 19th Century American Presbyterian theologian A.A. Hodge made this telling observation about war:  “War is an incalculable evil, because of the lives it destroys, the misery it occasions, and the moral degradation it infallible works on all sides – upon the vanquished and the victor, the party originally in the right and the part in the wrong.  In every war one party is at least must be in the wrong, involved in the tremendous guilt of unjustifiable war, and in the vast majority of cases both parties are in the wrong.  No plea of honour, glory or aggrandizement, policy or profit, can excuse, much less justify war; nothing short of necessity to the end of the preservation of national existence” (The Confession of Faith, p. 296 – Hodge wrote these lines in 1869, only four years after the end of the American Civil War).

Even in our own day we have witnessed the phenomenon of returning war veterans suffering “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” in which in some cases they experience guilt or remorse over things they saw or were forced to do during combat operations.  The biblical explanation for this is that God has given us consciences; the returning vets “show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . .” (Rom. 2:15; NKJV).

The separation of church and state ought never to mean the separation of secular government from morality.  And perhaps no weightier moral question will face a civil government than the decision of whether or not to go to war.  On this question the church dare not remain silent.  It has a solemn obligation before Almighty God to act as a prophetic voice, faithfully proclaiming “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) to a world filled with hatred and violence.  To fail to do so is to be unfaithful to God and to do a great disservice to humanity.



Today makes the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.  It was a decision that profoundly changed America, that changed the values that guide us as a nation.  It short, it was nothing less than a cultural revolution.  In moral terms it was probably the most catastrophic decision since at least the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the Court held that African-Americans could not be citizens and had not rights which white men were bound to respect.

Roe v. Wade had far reaching social and cultural consequences.  The argument for legalized abortion is usually based on the idea of a “woman’s right to choose.”  Abortion, it is argued, involves a woman’s control over her own body, and that it should be a private decision between her and her physician.  But what about the fetus itself?  Is that just a part of the woman’s body, like her tonsils or her appendix?  Simple high school biology would tell us otherwise.  The reason abortion had been made illegal from conception was the realization that the fertilized egg has its own genetic makeup quite distinct from the mother’s.  The embryo undergoes a continuous process of development, and as it does so it acquires its own heartbeat and the ability to move on its own.  It is a distinct, living, human being.  How, then, can we justify taking its life?   Abortion amounts to infanticide in utero.

But this, in turn, raises a deeper moral question.  What makes killing wrong in the first place?  The Sixth Commandment reads, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13, Dt. 5:17; NKJV), and the Judeo-Christian tradition has always held that human life is sacred.  Human beings are created in the image of God, and thus killing a human being is not the same as killing a deer or a bear.  Roe v. Wade represents a decisive break with Judeo-Christian morality.

But what then?  What makes anything right or wrong?  Feminists argue that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion.  But does she really?  Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything at all about abortion?  The Court tried to argue that it was implied in a generalized right to privacy which, in turn, was supposedly implied in several other provisions of the Constitution.  But this was quite a stretch.  The tendency in modern times has been for the Court to treat the Constitution as a “living document” to be construed in different ways as the needs of society change.  But the problem with this approach is that it amounts to judicial tyranny – the Supreme Court can create law at will.  But the Constitution represents a social contract among the people – “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . . ,” and only the people have the right to change it.  It is not for the Supreme Court to read into the document what it will.

But suppose that the Constitution actually did stipulate a right to have an abortion (as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently suggested New State should put in its Constitution).  Would that make it right?  The U.S. Constitution, as it was originally written, tacitly recognized the existence of slavery, and stipulated that runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters.  But did that make it right?  What about the Nazi Holocaust, which was also official government policy?

What the Feminist argument amounts to is a denial of the existence of any higher, universal moral law.  It assumes that moral norms are man-made, and that we are not accountable to any Supreme Being.  But human societies have repeatedly shown themselves to all kinds of cruelty and injustice.  Does might really make right?

What we have today in America is a culture that is increasingly secular and amoral.  We think of ourselves as autonomous individuals acting in our own self-interest, without any respect to any higher moral principles.  This, in turn, has led to an increasingly lawless society.  Life is a matter of what we can get away with.

This lack of universal ideals has also led to identity politics.  Instead of seeing ourselves as sharing a common humanity, and as united as members of a single country, committed to the ideals of “liberty and justice for all,” we see ourselves instead as part of this or that oppressed minority group, engaged in a perpetual struggle against some other group or groups.  It was only a matter of time when white, working class people would begin to see themselves as an oppressed group; hence we have the ruse of white nationalism and Donald Trump.

But democracy cannot long endure under such circumstances.  Politicians need to be able to find common ground and reach a compromise, which is increasingly difficult when society is deeply divided over core values.  And people need an incentive to obey the law voluntarily – they need to be motivated by a higher moral law – that one needs to obey the law even when the police are not looking.  When that is lacking, when people are guided solely by individual self-interest, only a dictator can maintain order in society.

America is a very different country today than it was 46 years ago.  Roe v. Wade was a decisive break with cultural traditions held by Western Civilization for thousands of years.  It remains to be seen what the future will hold.




The Sixth Commandment reads “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17; NKJV).  Most of us would recoil at the thought of murdering a fellow human being.  It is one the moral principle that is universally accepted.  Yet all too often, when it comes to issues like war, abortion and euthanasia, we find ourselves trying to rationalize the taking of human life.  Perhaps the commandment deserves closer examination.

One might begin by asking why it is wrong to take human life but not animal life.  To answer that question we must go back in time to the aftermath of the Great Flood.  After the flood waters receded God gave Noah and his family permission to eat animals as well as plant life, but He added this caveat: “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4).  God then went on to state: “Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man.  From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man” (v. 5).   And then He adds this explanation: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, / By man his blood shall be shed; / For in the image of God / He made man” (v. 6).

The passage is significant, for it establishes the sanctity of human life, and yet at the same time it gives a warrant for capital punishment.  The two, in fact, go hand in hand.  It is all based on the principle of retributive justice.  “. . . then you shall give life for the life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .” (Ex. 21:23,24).  It is the gravity of the offense that warrants the severity of the punishment.

What makes human life precious, then, is the image of God in man.  In certain ways human beings bear a resemblance to God himself.  We have the capacity to think and reason, and to communicate verbally.  More importantly, we have the capacity of moral discernment and the ability to enter into a relationship with God.  All of these characteristics set up apart from animal life below.  Murder, then, is sacrilege.  It is an assault on the special dignity that we have derived from God himself.

And thus we have the sanctity of human life enshrined in the Ten Commandments.  The word there translated “murder” (“You shall not murder”) is the Hebrew word “ratzach,” which is a relatively rare word, and can refer to manslaughter as well as murder.  It is never applied to God, but refers specifically to the taking of human life by a private individual.  It does not preclude capital punishment or just war, as both are sanctioned by Scripture.

It is important to emphasize that in the eyes of God the real sin is the attitude of our hearts.  This is why Jesus could say, “Bit I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment.  And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council.  But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22 – “Raca” is thought to be an Aramaic word meaning “empty headed one”).  When Jesus said this He was not really adding anything new to what was already stated in the Old Testament.  What the Old Testament Law required, in fact, was this: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.  You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.  You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:17,18).

God is love (I John 4:8,16), and what He requires of us is that we love each other.  Anger and hatred are the exact opposite of how we are supposed to think and behave.  They are the very epitome of what is wrong with the fallen human psyche and the essence of our rebellion against our Creator.  It is a moral catastrophe.  Do we need to look any further for evidence of our guilt before God?



Anthony van Dyck: Family Portrait


The Fifth Commandment reads, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (Ex. 20:12; Dt. 5:16; NKJV).  So seriously was this commandment taken that the death penalty was attached to it.  “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastised him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the rulers of his city . . .” (Dt. 21:18/,19).  The parents would then make a declaration that their son was incorrigible.  “Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear” (v. 21).

This commandment touches on the root of all man’s difficulties: the rebellious attitude we display to persons in authority.  It began with our rebellion against God himself, and that same spirit of rebelliousness aims at every form of human authority as well, and thereby threatens to undermine the whole structure of civilized society.

While the immediate reference is to the parent / child relationship, by implication it extends to other human relationships as well.  The apostle Peter could write, “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake . . .” (I Peter. 2:13).  This includes servants being submissive to their masters (vv. 18-20) and wives submitting to their husbands (3:1-6).  This does not mean, however, that persons in positions of authority are free to abuse their subordinates at will.  Husbands, for instance, are told to dwell with their wives “with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered” (3:7).

The fact of the matter is that society cannot function without authority structures.  We need rulers and managers to plan and organize, guide and direct.  Otherwise unproductive chaos would be the result.  But the basic moral principle holds throughout: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).  That means that those who are in subordinate positions must cooperate with those in authority to the full extent of their ability, so that the leaders can accomplish their tasks with a minimum of interference.  But by the same token those in authority are responsible for the wellbeing of those under them.  They are fellow human beings, of equal moral worth in the sight of God.  To mistreat or abuse them is unconscionable.

Much of this, of course, is just plain commonsense.  But what is significant about the biblical view is that it puts a divine sanction on our duty to respect authority.  It is a human authority; but it is also much more than that – it is also divine authority as well.

All of this is a little hard for Americans to grasp.  We are used to a political ideology that says that governments “derive their just powers from the Consent of the Governed.”  But according to the Bible we are to obey the government “for conscience’ sake” (Rom. 13:5).

This might strike a believer as somewhat odd.  We do not often think of the government as a particularly godly entity.  Governments are formed by men, often with little or no regard for God or morality.  Moreover a civil government operates on the basis of coercion, and in that sense does not reflect the Christian principle of “turning the other cheek.”  The whole political process can be a tawdry affair.  Yet Paul could call the civil magistrate “God’s minister to you for good” (Rom. 13:4).  He makes the observation that “there is not authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (v. 1).  The word translated “appointed”  could also be rendered “ordered” or “directed.”  The idea is that God in His sovereignty ultimately controls all that happens here on earth.  Hence Paul could say that “there is no authority except from God.”  The implication, then, is that “whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves” (v. 2), and thus we “must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake” (v. 5).

Significantly Paul said all of this when the pagan Roman government was in power. In fact the emperor at the time was none other than Nero, although this was before the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64 and the persecution of the Christians which followed it.  Nero himself was known for being personally profligate throughout his reign.  Such was the kind of person Paul calls “God’s minister to you for good.”

Thus government derives its moral authority from God, not the people.  We are to be subject to it because God wants us to – it is part of our duty toward Him.  This does not mean, however, that the government is free to do anything it pleases.  While the authority of the state has been established by God, it is limited by Him as well.  God is the final Judge, and He is a God of justice.  He has promised to punish injustice and oppression.  No government has the power to command anything that directly contradicts God’s will.

Moreover there is a danger to the government itself when it tries to detach itself from God and morality.  If fails to gain the respect of its citizens, if it can command obedience only at the point of a sword, it will either become tyrannical or be swept away in revolution.  In a functioning democracy people obey the government voluntarily – and they do that only t the extent that they believe that it is their moral obligation to do so.  Let us ever remain “one nation under God.



Jean-Francois Millet: The Gleaners


The Fourth Commandment reads, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8; NKJV).  Interestingly this is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is not repeated in the New Testament, which raises the question, is it really a part of the moral law?  Are Gentiles required to keep the Sabbath?

To answer that question we must examine the purpose and nature of the institution.  The Ten Commandments are given in two different places in the Old Testament, and in each place a different reason for it is given.  The first place is the one just cited, Exodus 20:8-11.  There the reason given is that God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh (cf. Gen. 2:1-3).   Thus the Sabbath is presented as a kind of “creation ordinance” – something that is built into the very nature of things, and intended for all mankind.  It was designed to meet a universal human need.

But then when Moses repeats the Ten Commandments in Deut. 5:12-15 he gives a different reason for the observance of the Sabbath.  He reminds the Israelites that they had been slaves in Egypt, subject to harsh exploitation.  The Exodus was a deliverance from misery and oppression, and the achievement of a long sought rest.  Therefore the Israelites were under a special obligation to observe a weekly day of rest.  Furthermore, it was called “a sign between Me [i.e., God] and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you” (Ex. 31:13).  In other words, the Sabbath was a sign or token of the special covenant relationship that God had with Israel.  Gentiles are not included in this covenant.

At one point Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).  In other words, the primary intention was to serve a humanitarian purpose, not to be an unbearable burden.  The idea is to give both man and beast a needed periodic rest.  “Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest, that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and the stranger may be refreshed” (Ex. 23:12).

Christian believers are not under the covenant that God made with Israel, but we are still human beings and have the same basic human needs as all the rest of mankind.  Thus the basic underlying principle remains valid: we need regular, periodic rest from our secular pursuits and labor that we might be physically and spiritually refreshed.

The Sabbath is, in fact, a part of the larger theme in Scripture condemning labor exploitation.  In Deuteronomy 24:14,15 we read “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy.  Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the Lord, and it be sin to you.”  And the same theme carries over into the New Testament as well.  “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries are coming upon you! . . . Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth” (Jas. 5:1-6).

As our modern society become more secularized, and imagines itself as having thrown off the shackles of religion, the business community becomes more ruthless and rapacious.  We got rid of our “blue laws” that forbade most businesses to operate on Sundays.  Now most businesses want to operate seven days a week, twelve hours a day or more.  Most business owners seem to think that the only thing that matters in life is making money, and they want to do it “24-7.”  Workers are paid less than a living wage and are required to be available for work any day of the week, including weekends and evenings.  This obviously makes it difficult for them to meet family obligations and religious commitments.   But that does not matter to investors – money is the main thing.

The great prophet of modern laissez-faire capitalism, Adam Smith, tried to argue that in pursuing one’s own self-interest a capitalist is advancing the interests of society at large.  “. . .he is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (Wealth of Nations, IV.II).  Unfortunately it does not always work out that way in real life.  Too often we have sacrificed our souls and the common good on the altar of material gain.

We need regular, periodic physical and mental rest.  But more than that, we need regular time off to put life in its proper perspective.  What is life all about?  What are we trying to accomplish here on earth?  Why do we work in the first place?  In the long run employees are more reliable, trustworthy, highly motivated and productive if the spend time each week in a place of worship contemplating the larger issues of life.

But most of all we need to spend a certain amount of time thinking about God.  As finite human creatures we are all ultimately dependent upon Him, “for it is He who gives you power to get wealth” (Dt. 8:18).  Therefore we ought to “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matt. 6:33).  We need to keep our priorities in life straight.

Thus when a company requires its employees to be available for work any day of the week, any time of the day, it shows a complete disregard for the personal well-being.  And regardless of what Adam Smith says, the essence of morality is to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and that means practicing the Golden Rule.  If you would not want to work those kinds of hours for that kind of pay, then you should not make your employees do it either.

When we insist on a seven day business week we are ultimately destroying ourselves – we are weakening the social and moral fabric of the nation.  If we neglect church where will our children develop the moral sense to know that it is wrong to lie, cheat and steal?   And how can the business community thrive and prosper in a dishonest society?  Ultimately we ignore God’s will to our own detriment.




The Third Commandment (“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. . .” – Ex. 20:7: NKJV) prohibits the use of God’s name for any vain or worthless purpose.  This would include, of course, outright perjury, but also much more than that.  It would also include the use of God’s name in incantations, sorcery, divination, as well as common everyday oaths and curses.

One might ask, what is so terrible about swearing?  Isn’t it only a manner of speaking?  To answer that question we must first consider the importance of God’s name and what is involved in using it for any purpose.

In the Bible names have much more significance than they do for us today.  Today, when we name a newborn infant, we are likely to pick a name for any one of a reasons – it was grandfather’s name, or the name of a favorite aunt, or it just sounds cute.  For us a name is simply an identifier, nothing else.  But in the Bible a name was much more than that.  It was the representation of the person himself – his honor and reputation, and sometimes even revealed something about himself, something the way a nickname does today.  To abuse someone’s name was to insult the person himself.

What all of this means is that the name of God ought always to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.  God is the Supreme Being, the Maker of heaven and earth, the source of all our blessings, yes, even of life itself.  He is wise and good and gracious.  If anyone is worthy of our honor and respect, it is He.  Thus if we use His name for a light, frivolous or trivial purpose, we are showing Him disrespect.  And if we use His name for an outright falsehood, as in a case of perjury, we make Him a party to our crime.  It is no wonder, then, that He says, “for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (same verse as above).

Our duty toward God, then, involves much more than simply not committing perjury.  Rather, we ought to advance His glory through our worshp.

“Give to the Lord, O families of the peoples,

Give to the Lord glory and strength.

Give to the Lord the glory due His name;

Bring an offering, and come before Him.

Oh, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness!”

I Chron. 16:28,29 (cf. Ps. 29:1,2)

When we gather together on a Sunday morning we should have a sense of entering into the very presence of the Almighty Himself, and our conscious aim should be to praise and glorify Him.  And whoever is leading the worship has a responsibility to ensure that that is indeed what is happening.

Prayer plays an important role in bringing glory to God’s name.  When we invoke His name in prayer we show that we are trusting God to help us with our difficulties.  And then when He answers the prayer it becomes evident that the deliverance came from Him.

“Moses and Aaron were among His priests,

And Samuel was among those who called upon His name;

They called upon the Lord, and He answered them.”

Psalm 99:6

When God answers prayer it becomes evident to all that He is the God of mercy, grace and power.

The fact of the matter is that God has a vested interest in the people who are called by His name.  Whatever they do, and whatever happens to them, reflects on Him.  When they suffer it makes Him look like an apparent failure, and when they prosper it speaks well of His providential care.  “He restores my soul; / He leads me in the paths of righteousness / For His name’s sake” (Ps. 23:3).  On the other hand when Israel sinned and God had them sent into exile where they were abused by their foreign captors, the pagans naturally assumed that God was unable to save His people.  “’Those who rule over them / Make them wail,’ says the Lord, ‘And My name is blasphemed continually every day’” (Isa. 52:5b; cf. Ezek. 36:20; Rom. 2:24).

Likewise our personal behavior reflects on God’s reputation.  Servants are urged to obey their masters “so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed” (I Tim. 6:1); and young women are admonished to be good wives and mothers, “that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:9).  When we call ourselves Christians and then fail to act like Christians, we bring reproach on the gospel.

And, of course, honoring God’s name means keeping the vows and promises we make in His name.  When we take an oath or make a vow in the name of God, we are asking Him to bear witness to the truth of what we are saying.  But if what we are saying is false, or if we fail to keep the promise we made, then we are making Him a party to our lie and inviting His judgment to fall upon us.  “when you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you . . .” (Dt. 23:21-23).  A righteous man keeps his vows even when it hurts him to do so.  He “swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Ps. 15:4b).  A Christian, in fact, should have such a reputation for honesty that he should not need to swear at all to confirm his declarations and statements (Matt. 5:33-37; James 5:12).

Too often, in the daily affairs of life, we are apt to forget about God.  We figure that He can take care of Himself and we will worry about ourselves.  Yet we exist for His glory and what we do in life affects His honor and reputation.  How differently would we behave if we thought about Him and our purpose in life here!



Simone de Beauvoir



The Second Sex

Simone de Beauvoir

H.M. Parshley, trans.

Vintage Books, 1974

814 pp., pb.


The American publisher of The Second Sex calls it “the classic manifesto of the liberated woman,” and so it is.  Simone de Beauvoir was a longtime close associate of Jean-Paul Sartre, and as such was close to the center of the French Existentialist movement.  And yet in some ways she came to have an influence far greater and more lasting than of Sartre or Camus.  It is because her book really was destined to be “the classic manifesto” of the Feminist Movement, and as such it has had a profound effect on Western culture and society.

The book is quite lengthy (814 pages) and devotes a great deal of space to describing in detail the condition of womanhood from birth through childhood, marriage and motherhood.  It is a dreary picture of subservience and drudgery, of women not being able to reach their full potential as human beings due to the male domination of society.  Throughout it all she insists that there are no purely natural differences between the genders.  The apparent differences in behavior that we see in day to day life are the result of social pressure and conditioning.  It is human society, civilization, that has put women in this position, and if we could change society to permit the full development of women’s potential, women could compete with men on an equal basis.

De Beauvoir sees the problem, naturally, through the lens of Existentialist philosophy.  Throughout her discussion she sees herself as an autonomous being who seeks to be an active “subject” who “transcends” her natural circumstances to shape her own destiny, rather than a passive “object” who is trapped in the “immanence” of her environment.  The goal of life, then, is not “happiness,” which can be achieved by being a loyal and devoted family member, but liberty, in which you are free to pursue you own dreams and ambitions.

Throughout her book de Beauvoir emphasizes the role of environment as opposed to heredity in shaping the human personality; but she is opposed to any form of naturalistic determinism.  She scarcely mentions the role of hormones in influencing the way a woman thinks and acts.  “. . .it must be repeated once more that in human society nothing is natural, and that woman, like much else, is a product elaborated by civilization . . . Woman is determined not by her hormones or by mysterious instincts, but by the manner in which her body and her relations to the world are modified through the actions of others than herself” (p. 806).  She concludes, then, that “woman is the victim of no mysterious fatality; the peculiarities that identify her as specifically a woman get their importance from the significance placed upon them.  They can be surmounted, in the future, when they are regarded in new perspectives” (p. 809).  Hence the impulse to write her book.

So according to de Beauvoir, what would an ideal society look like? She points to what the Soviet Revolution originally promised: women would be trained and educated exactly the same as men, and would work for the same wages.  “Erotic liberty was to be recognized by custom.”  A woman would be obligated to support herself financially, and “marriage was to be based on a free agreement that the spouses could break at will; maternity was to be voluntary, which meant that contraception and abortion would be authorized . . .,” and the state “assume charge of the children” (pp. 805-806).  In her discussion about abortion she goes into great detail about problem pregnancies, but scarcely mentions the moral problem involved in taking a human life.

De Beauvoir in particular paints a dreary picture of traditional marriage.  “Marriage is obscene in principle in so far as it transforms into rights and duties those mutual relations which should be founded on a spontaneous urge . . .” (p. 496).

The underlying worldview in all of this, of course, is an Existentialist one.  There is no God.  There are no divine, eternal essences that define reality.  We exist as autonomous beings and are free to choose our own individual destinies.

But what if God actually does exist?  What if we really are created beings designed to fulfill a divinely ordained purpose?  That would mean that the only way society as a whole can function properly, and the only way that we can find individual fulfillment and happiness, is by conforming to the will of the Creator.  In that case neither man nor woman is free just to “be himself,” to pursue his own selfish desires and pleasures.  Rather we are called to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37, quoting Dt. 6:5; NKJV), and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (v. 39, quoting Lev. 19:18.  And love, in turn, requires that “whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12).  Love, the genuine kind of love that God requires, does not act in a selfish or lustful manner, but looks out for the wellbeing of others.   It honors commitments.  It is a self-sacrificing love, a love that imitates Christ.  It is not just that wives are to be subservient to their husbands; both husbands and wives are to be subservient to God.

In a sense, what de Beauvoir is advocating is the very essence of mankind’s rebellion against God.  She could not have stated it in starker terms.  But in the end we must all face divine judgment.



Recently the nation has been shocked by a wave of violence leading up to the election.  One person mailed pipe bombs to a number of prominent of Democrats, and another barged into a synagogue on a Sabbath morning and began shooting at the congregation, killing eleven.  Both of the men appear to have motivated by hate, and the question arose as to the role that President Trump’s sometimes inflammatory rhetoric and the social media may have played in the incidents.

In all fairness to Mr. Trump it must be pointed out that part of the blame for the overheated political climate goes to the left.  For some time those on the liberal, progressive left have chosen to see themselves as a loose assortment of oppressed minority groups and have accused their imagined oppressors of being “racist,” “sexist,” and “homophobic.”  It is identity politics, an “us against them” mentality, and it was only a matter of time before white, working class Americans would see themselves as a besieged people group and respond with a kind of white nationalism.

But none of this bodes well for democracy.  In a democratic society there has to be a free and open discussion of the issues, and the ability to reach a compromise.  Name calling and violence eat away at the fabric of democracy by intimidating people and keeping them from making their own decisions.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .”  But does that mean that people have a right to say whatever they want?  The plain fact of the matter is that we can hurt others in more ways than one by the things we say about them and to them.

The Ninth Commandment reads, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Ex. 20:16; Dt. 5:20; NKJV).  The immediate reference, of course, involves what happens in a judicial proceeding.   A person has been accused of a crime.  Witnesses are called forth to testify, and the fate of the accused hangs on the testimony of the witnesses.  In order for justice to be served it is vitally important for the witnesses to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  Anything less could result in the defendant being punished for a crime he did not commit.

But as we look through the Bible as a whole it becomes apparent that there is a broader moral principle as well.  The fact of the matter is that what we say has an effect on other people – for either good or evil.  “Death and life are in the power of the tongue . . .” (Prov. 18:21).  Gossip, for example, separates friends (Prov. 16:27,28) and causes strife.  “Where there is no wood the fire goes out; / And where there is no talebearer, strife ceases” (Prov. 26:20).   Juicy gossip distorts facts, destroys reputations and inflames passions.  Likewise someone who simply likes to argue causes strife.  “As charcoal is to burning coals, and word to fire, / So is a contentious man to kindle strife” (v. 21).  In a word, “The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor . . .” (Prov. 11:9).

On the other hand the things we say can have a positive effect on others as well.  “Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, / Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones” (Prov. 16:24).  “A man has joy by the words of this mouth, / And a word spoken in due season, how good it is!” (Prov. 15:23).  But to say the right thing it behooves us to listen first to get the facts straight.  “He who answers a matter before he hears it, / It is folly and shame to him” (Prov. 18:13).  And when responding to someone who is visibly angry it is helpful to remember that “A soft answer turns away wrath, / But a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1).

None of this means, however, that we should never say anything negative to others.  In its own way flattery can be just as harmful as slander: “A man who flatters his neighbor / Spreads a net for his feet” (Prov. 29:5).  And if someone is genuinely guilty of wrongdoing, even for his own sake it needs to be addressed.

“Open rebuke is better

Than love carefully concealed.

Faithful are the words of a friend,

But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

(Prov. 27:5,6)

Likewise the New Testament tells us, “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it might impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29), and that “neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting” should “be named among you,” “but rather giving of thinks” (Eph. 5:3,4).

It is obvious, then, that words have consequences, and it is for this reason that God is concerned with what we say.  “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, / But those who deal truthfully are His delight” (Prov. 12:22).  And Jesus warned His hearers, “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment.  For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36,37).

In short,

“’These are the things you shall do:

Speak each man the truth to his neighbor;

Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice and peace;

Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor;

And do not love a false oath.

For all these are things that I hate,’

Says the Lord.”

(Zech. 8:16,17)

As Americans our freedom of speech is guaranteed by our Constitution.  But we must never forget that as human beings we are ultimately accountable to a Supreme Being, and we do not possess the moral right to say whatever we please, whether it be true or false or damages other people’s reputations.  Politicians may rant and rave, giving distorted views of the facts and use inflammatory rhetoric; and this, in turn, creates a charged atmosphere in which some deranged people may resort to actual violence.  But in the end we will all answer to our Creator for what we have said and done.  May God have mercy on us all.