A few miles before you exit the highway to get to the street that takes you to the entrance of your neighborhood, you notice blue and red lights flashing behind you. A little shocked and wondering what may be going on you turn your blinker on and pull over onto the shoulder of the road. You roll your window down, turn off the ignition, go ahead and pull out your license and insurance, and await an answer from the officer strolling up to your car.

“Good afternoon Officer. What did I do wrong,” you ask. “You were speeding. May I see your license and insurance?” As you hand him the information you already had ready, you ask “Are you sure I was speeding? The posted speed limit is 65. I had my cruise control set at 64.” The Officer looks at you in disbelief and says “The speed limit may be 65 here, but it’s 45 just a few miles down.” As he begins to write your citation you stare in absolute awe thinking that this may be a joke, or perhaps he misspoke. “Officer,” you say, “how can you give me a citation for doing 65 in a 45 on a road where that speed limit is not in jurisdiction? That seems not only unfair, but it seems wrong.” To which the Officer replies, “It may seem wrong to you, but I am the law. Furthermore, the principle of breaking the speed limit is present since someone, somewhere, at some time has violated the posted speed limit. I am merely applying the principle.”

“Really,” you say, “I must protest. This just is not right.” He replies, “Who are you to tell me what is and is not right? Do you have formal training in the law? Have you been handed down traditions of law keeping from well respected men? No! I do not think so. Besides, I am simply protecting the drivers I am given charge over. I am protecting them from people like you. And I am confident that this discipline will show you what breaking the speed limit does and that you will not do it again.”

Were this scenario to actually happen (and I guess there is that chance, although I am not aware of it) to a driver then such a driver would be beyond livid. They would seek to defend themselves against in justice. They would seek vindication against such a faulty application of law and jurisdiction. They would be right to do so.

2 John 10-11:

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting…

Out of all of the shadows cast onto the wall by moonlight exegesis, this one has the loudest bump that causes people to tremble in fear. By that I mean, this verse has the most forceful language, in my opinion, which causes people to do whatever it takes to not be like whoever this person is. And rather than examining the text within its context to see that the shadow is really nothing at all most people will simply submit to those wielding the sword of accusation. Consider the force of the text:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world… (v.7)

… [They] do not confess the coming of Christ (v.7)

Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist (v.7)

When 2 John 10-11 is used as proof text for severing children of God from the Body community, if the severed member notices the context and brings up the deceiver, antichrist language to the accuser, then the accuser will typically resort to sophistry. They may say something like “I am not questioning your salvation. I understand how tough this sounds. This is ‘church discipline’ and it has to be tough. Although this specific Scripture isn’t applicable to what’s going on, I am employing the principle of the text for the protection of the flock and your restoration.” Such lip-service is deceitful. How can someone rightly dividing the Word apply Scripture as a prescriptive text when it is descriptive of something entirely different historically, thematically, and grammatically? This is akin to the story at the beginning of this paper.

Furthermore, how can a deceiver and antichrist be restored to a Body in which they were never a member? Do not let the weight of this contextual question slip by unnoticed. If Body restoration is the goal of the misuse of 2 John 10-11 then how does the one misusing the text explain a deceiver and antichrist being restored back into a Body to which they never belonged? Is not the clear implication that the one not bringing the teaching spoken of in v.10 is the deceiver and antichrist? If this be true, would someone actually posit that this deceiver and antichrist is a believer who needs to be restored back into the Body of Christ?

Notice the similarities in 1 John to 2 John with regards to the antichrist:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us (1 John 2:18-19).

John, writing to a 1^st century audience, tells them that it is the last hour. They had heard that antichrist was coming. John informs them that antichrist have already come. These antichrist are not a Greek, mythological type character as is fantasized by many commentators. These antichrists are people that were among the Church, but who had left the Church.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).

Further describing the antichrists of the 1^st century, John calls them liars. What are they lying about? They are denying that Jesus is the Christ. This, John declares, is the antichrist.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out in the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already (1 John 4:1-4)

These people who were among the Church but left the Church are called spirits and false prophets. Spirits (people) who confess that Jesus came in the flesh are from God. Those who do not confess Jesus are not from God but instead are the spirit of antichrist which was already in the world during the last hour.

These antichrists, these people, spirits, and false prophets were denying the testimony of God; namely, that the love of God, Christ, was made manifest among them (1 John 4:9). He came in the flesh and dwelt among them (John 1:14). To embrace this by faith was the work of God and it was embracing Love, i.e. Christ. This resulted in those in darkness being transferred into the kingdom of the beloved Son (Colossians 1:13). Those who were transferred into the kingdom of the beloved Son, those who had seen the light and embraced the truth of God being made manifest in the flesh through the Person of Jesus Christ no longer sinned the sin of denying the Savior. This is why John could say “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 John 5:18).

Compare this to the context of the erroneous proof text in 2 John:

For many deceivers (antichrist) have gone out into the world (they went out from among us), those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh (the liar, deceiver, antichrist). Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves (Christians in juxtaposition to the non-Christian antichrist), so that you may not lose what we have worked for (confidence in the teaching), but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ (faith in the Person and work of Christ Jesus manifested in the flesh which results in love), does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son (since to deny the One is to deny the Other). If anyone (of these antichrist persons) comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

At the risk of being deemed caustic because of a sarcastic remark, so much for evangelism if we take seriously the shadow casting exegesis. According to such teachers we should never open the door for a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon. We should never invite an Atheist or Agnostic in to our home to share the Gospel. In fact, if we take the principle method to its logical conclusion then we should go to every length to remove ourselves from these people’s presence and influence. Fortunately this is not the case.

Gnosticism:

Lastly, the historical context of 1^st and 2^nd John absolutely must be considered. Why is John so concerned with defending the truth that Jesus Christ came in a flesh ministry against antichrist people? The answer is a historical fact agreed upon by nearly every commentator unanimously. That answer is that Gnosticism was prevalent and it was growing in regard.

In the 1^st century there was a man named Cerenthus. Cerenthus was a man who followed the Jewish Law customs and employed the Gospel according to the Hebrews (or Hebrew Gospel) as his canon of Scripture. He believed that the Law was the means to salvation. Interestingly, Cerenthus taught that Jesus would establish a thousand year reign on earth before His return and ending of all things (a general resurrection was part and parcel of his teaching). He interpreted Revelation 20 literally. The Council of Nicea and Hippo both fiercely opposed Cerenthus and eventually his premillenial eschatology was deemed heretical. Cerenthus based his eschatological belief on Jewish tradition and a misquoting of Matthean texts, but I digress.

Cerenthus was teaching that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary; not a virgin Mary, but a married Mary who had copulated with Joseph. Cerenthus taught that a naturally born Jesus was not the Christ, but that the spirit of Christ entered Him at His baptism and then left Him at the crucifixion; the same belief taught, coincidentally, by some Jewish Christians in the 1^st century. The Christ was from heaven, fulfilled a task in the material world, and then returned to the spirit world.

This early form of Gnosticism was furthered by a belief called Docetism.  Docetism as a belief said that Jesus’ body was not physical. The body of Jesus was illusion. This belief system stated that Jesus did not actually suffer and die. This, too, was an illusion. Docetism as a belief said that Jesus was purely spirit, a ghost.

Knowing this historical fact sheds much light on the following statements from John to a 1^st century Church:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out in the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already (1 John 4:1-4)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one if the deceiver and the antichrist…If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting… (2 John 7, 10)

Now that we have tested the moonlight spirits who bring a false teaching that cast shadows on the wall at night, disrupting our peace and security in the work and Person of Christ, and have found it lacking any sound exegesis we can rest in the Son who counts us worthy to be in His Body. When these officers of an empty law steeped in the principle method try to pull us over and cite us, we have liberty and confidence in the Word of God in its proper context. His jurisdiction supersedes every earthly jurisdiction.

When Mema was 19 she got her Realtor® license and began to help buyers and sellers with one of their biggest life decisions ever. She was in the real estate industry for 36 years and was a Top Producer© until the year she died of colon cancer. I was privileged enough to hold her hand as she took her last breath and I watched her go to be with God in the fullness of her resurrected life. Truly amazing!

During the summers I would go with her when she held open houses. She put me to work at the age of 9 mowing yards, pulling weeds, and doing various odd jobs. If I broke something in oversight or carelessness then I paid for it with the money that I made. The adage she reiterated to me over and over was “Idle hands are the devils work shop.” I had absolutely no idea what she meant. I was too busy to ponder her words.

Eventually, and unfortunately, I became hard hearted and obstinate to her wisdom and I rebelled. In that rebellion I became idle. My greatest pleasure was, quite literally, doing nothing. I was a totally unproductive person whose greatest concern was himself. If I was ever in the presence of those who were adversarial to my lifestyle then I sought to tear them down. If others spoke about those who were adversarial to my lifestyle then I became a gossip and busy-body in an effort to tear them down. I was a burden to everyone. Idle hands and idle time manifested itself in evilness. I learned my Mema’s adage the hard way.

2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is waking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

This passage is used as another proof text to say that if a brother or sister is under “church discipline” (a very nebulous and abused formula for division, which I will address soon), or if members of the Body differ in doctrine, then one member (or members corporately) should sever the other member(s) from the community and fellowship. This bump in the night pretext is quickly dismantled once the context is observed. There is no need to strain one’s eyes to make out this particular verse.

First, let’s take a look at the charge laid against these people. Paul says this is a brother who “…is walking in idleness…” This is the first of 2 charges. What exactly is “…walking in idleness?”  Other Bible translations will translate this as an “unruly” or “undisciplined” life. Young’s Literal Translation defines it as “disorderly.” The tense of “walking” is in the present, continuous. It is, literally, a constant mode of behavior. It could be translated “…is walking about.” To be “walking about” was a common idiom in the 1^st century. This person is manifesting a pattern of life described as undisciplined, idle, or unruly.

The word “idle” can also be defined, as I’ve pointed out, as undisciplined or unruly. The word literally means to “play truant.” It occurs in the papyri to describe how an apprentice must make good on the days he has played truant from work. And so the charge laid against this brother in v.6 is, quite literally, a charge of persistent and perpetual truancy from working to support his self, which is the tradition received from the Apostles. A Roman adage of the time was “By doing nothing, men learn to do evil.” The Rabbis said “He who does not teach his son a trade, teaches him to be a thief.” This brings us to the second charge laid against this person.

This type of person was violating a tradition given to them by the Apostles themselves. What was the tradition that was being violated? In his first letter to the Thessalonians Paul says “…and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (4:11, emphasis mine). This is strikingly similar to the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where in verse 12 Paul says “…work quietly and to earn their own living.” In v.12 of his first letter, connected to v.11 we’ve already looked at, Paul says “…so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.” And in chapter 5, verse 14, Paul says “…we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle…” This was the traditions given the Apostles that was then handed to the Thessalonians, i.e. works with your hands, take care of yourselves so that you are a burden on no one and are above reproach with outsiders. To disobey the command, which was a tradition, was to shame the Church undergoing scrutiny and persecution by Jews (1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:5-7).

Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonians is to keep away from a person who is manifesting persistent and perpetual idleness, thus being a burden to their fellow brothers and sisters and simultaneously bringing shame and further persecution on the 1^st century Church. The motive for this shunning is that the offender may be ashamed (v.14). He is to be warned (v.15) while being treated as a brother (v.15). This is a far cry from the 21^st century excommunication mantra. There is nothing within the context that would lead us to believe that this offender was not welcomed to worship with his brothers and sisters or that he would be ostracized from the entire community.

Philosophical Queries:

Having looked at the context it becomes clear that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (and 14-15) does not set a precedence for blanket excommunication or avoiding those placed under the nebulous “church discipline” dogma. I do, however, want to point out 2 philosophical considerations that are extremely germane to the topic -

First, since 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is incorrectly used to describe how the Church should treat a fellow child of God who is already under “church discipline,” then how can this person be kept away from and avoided? Wouldn’t such an exhortation be a moot point if the person was removed from the community and handed over to Satan?

Second, how do we strictly apply this precept today without partiality? This is something that must be dealt with exegetically, else those who tout this verse as a proof text have judged themselves hypocrites who judge with partiality and are erroneously condemning certain members in the Body of Christ. Consider what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3:14:

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him that he may be ashamed.

Notice the pronoun “anyone.” Notice the sweeping “in this letter” set against the proof text of 3:6. Thus, if anyone is not obeying what Paul wrote in that letter then that person should be excommunicated, per the custom of today’s moonlight Exegetes who cast shadows on the wall. Let’s consider some of what Paul says:

• There is the most obvious one that we’ve been dealing with, i.e. idle people who refuse to work. Are the Church and its leaders consistent in their judgment and excommunication of those who are idle (v.6), are a burden (v.8), won’t work (v.9), is a busybody (v.10)? We should be looking for these people and removing them from the Church, correct?
• “Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored…” (3:1) How many of us are obeying what Paul commanded in 3:1, to pray for he and the other apostles that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored as they fulfill Matthew 28:19? If this is not being taught from the pulpit, done in “life” groups, practiced in the home, and everywhere else for that matter, then leaders and laymen alike must be excommunicated and avoided.
• “Finally, brothers, pray for us…that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men” (3:2). How many of us are praying that Paul and the other apostles would be delivered from wicked and evil men, i.e. the Pharisees prophesied of by Christ in Matthew 23 and fulfilled in the Acts of the Apostles? If a person is not obeying what Paul wrote in that letter then that person needs to be excommunicated and avoided.

These are just 3 examples in 1 letter showing an inconsistency in exegesis and application. It is proof texting, with a pretext, out of context. The historical, social, and political context is altogether ignored. While it is true that there are timeless precepts within the pages of God’s holy, living, active, sharp and glorious Word, those precepts have been codified as formulaic, rigid dogmas apart from their proper Biblical place and are being wielded with brute force at blood bought souls who are slain in the wake and name of “church discipline.”

No matter a person’s personal thoughts on how “church discipline” should work within a global, corporate, and/or local Body of believers, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (and 14-15) is not a proof text for severing the Body of Christ from each other over a doctrinal difference; nor is it a proof text to place someone under “church discipline.”

Bad exegesis, pastoral intimidation, neo-legalistic exhortation, and socio-psychological, party spirit coercion presents us with the same type of scenario. Far too many Christians are walking around with the covers pulled up to their chins as they lay in fear of the moonlight exegesis. And they are straining their eyes to make out the doctrine that goes bump in the night. However, when sound exegesis is given then the Son dispels the ominous shadows and we realize that there is, in all reality, absolutely nothing to fear.

In this example, specifically, I am dealing with the shadow of 1 Corinthians 5:11 as a proof text for a brother or sister in the Body of Christ ostracizing another brother or sister in the Body of Christ over a differing eschatological position or for the sake of a false taxonomy entitled “church discipline.” This occurs either by the moonlit exhortation of a Pastor over a flock of sheep; or it occurs by a brother or sister who reacts to the shadow on the wall, which ends up being really nothing at all.

1 Corinthians 5:11

A brief look at the context of chapter 5 casts the Son’s light on the shadow of division. Paul says in v.1 “It is actually reported that there Is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” We see that the context is sexual immorality. Paul goes on to admonish the Corinthians for being arrogant rather than mourning over this situation. In v.2 Paul says “Let him who has done this be removed from among you.”

• This is dealing with a specific man in the 1^st century
• This specific man is involved in a sexual sin; namely, having sexual relations with his father’s wife

Immediately it is to be noticed that this passage cannot be used as a blanket proof text to say “Brothers and sisters, if you differ with someone in doctrine, or if someone is under ‘church discipline,’ then you should purge this person from among you. Do not even eat with such a person.” Such an application is foreign to the context and is certainly eisegetical.

Further contextual evidence to the specificity of Paul’s application is v.13 where Paul says “Purge the evil person from among you.” In conjunction with this man who is guilty of specific sexual immorality being called evil, he is also called leaven (v.6) and is said to “[bear] the name of brother (v.11),” thereby implying the possibility that this evil, leaven man who is to be purged may not be a Christian at all. I am unfamiliar with any passage(s) in the Scriptures that identifies a Christian as evil. This possibility should cause anyone great pause before purging a brother or sister (evil one?) from the community of believers.

Philosophically the moonlit, shadow eisegesis runs into serious problems when we consider v.11. Paul says “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to eat with such a one.” If a person posits that Paul is stating definitively that a person fitting any of these description is leaven, evil, and must be purged, then these descriptions must be quantitative. Which of you reading this has never looked upon a woman (man) with lustful intent (Matt. 5:28)? If you have then you are guilty of sexual immorality, if even just once, and are evil, leaven, and should be purged from the Church community. Which of you has ever placed anything above the Lord your God? If you have then you are guilty of idolatry, are evil, leaven, and should be purged from the Church community.

Someone will be quick to say that this is a lifestyle of sin rather than just a onetime occurrence. What quantity of any of these would define “lifestyle” or “habit?” Or is this an instance where we are straining our eyes at the shadows trying to make out something that isn’t actually there? Such dogmatic definitions to decide excommunication (anathema) is a slippery slope, indeed.

The context seems to indicate that the Corinthian’s were dealing with a person of ill repute. This evil person was leaven amongst an unleavened lump. He was a person who bore the name brother but was transgressing a law forbidden, not only by the Roman government, but a law laid out in Deuteronomy –

A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness (22:30).

Cursed be anyone who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s nakedness. And all the people shall say, “Amen” (27:20).

Paul had labored diligently as an Apostle and example to teach that the Church was to be above reproach with regards to the culture around them so that they could “lead a peaceful and quiet life, Godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2). Yet these believers were arrogant and dismissive towards a man who was marring the Church in the eyes of a godless government, when the Church was called to be the “pillar and buttress of truth” in just such a society (1 Timothy 3:15).

The question must also be asked, “Is it safe to deduce that this is a hard hearted man who is unrepentant of a clearly defined sin?” If so, then what do you do in the situation of believers who disagree over doctrine? Is the disagreement sin towards God or each other? A person will be hard pressed to prove this is the case Biblically. Who decides which Christian should be repentant in the case of doctrinal differences? It would seem that either a) the Scriptures must be labored through in order to identify who is correct and who is not (and even at the end of this there may be no clear and Biblical precedence set); b) there may be no need for repentance at all since doctrinal differences are unavoidable and rampant in every congregation in the known world.

Lastly, if a person holds to the Matthew 18:15 formula for Church discipline as an Apostolic and Biblical command then this person would be forced to admit that the man in question in 1 Corinthians 5 had been taken through the steps. What is assumed into the text of 1 Corinthians 5 is that this man has been gone to privately in order to acknowledge the sin (which coincidentally Paul does not say was against another brother, per Matthew 18:15), two or three witnesses have been taken to him in order to establish every charge (which is a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15 and has to do with false witnesses against someone else – something this text is not dealing with at all), he has been taken before the Church, and is now being treated as a pagan or a tax collector and handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. This is total conjecture contextually.

1 Corinthians 5:11 is not a proof text for how to treat a child of God. 1 Corinthians 5:11 is not a parallel to Matthew 18:15, which means to conjecture that it is a model for the Church discipline formula is a non sequitur. 1 Corinthians 5:11 does not address how to approach members of the Body of Christ who differ in doctrine. To proof text with a pretext out of context does an injustice to God’s word. And when mishandled in the way that it is mishandled it devastates the Body of Christ, both individually and corporately.

I am exhausted by the pseudo Exegetes who brand and divide as they sway to and fro when challenged.

Don Preston’s We Shall Meet Him in The Air, The Wedding of the King of Kings is brilliant. I have a suspicion that it will be a long while before someone with an opposing view will write anything objecting. And when/if they do it need be as honest, exegetical, and exhaustive as Preston’s work rather than the typical regurgitation of presuppositions (non sequiturs).

For a great review of Preston’s book that is far lengthier than what I’ve written go to Sam Frost’s site – HERE. Sam Frost is another great mind of our day and a force to be reckoned with.

I am amazed at the things I did in middle and high school because of my desire to please man. I became the class clown for the sake of approval. I dressed in a way that associated me with the wrong kinds of people. I skipped school when asked because the “cool” kids wouldn’t think I was so cool if I didn’t. I treated young ladies as though they were not ladies. Sadly, I even began to drink and do drugs over time. And it didn’t happen all at once. It was a slow and progressive trek down the wrong path. The approval of man is a strong and driving force!

The author of Galatians, Paul, was warning the Galatians about the temptations of seeking the approval of Israelites, Jews (1:11-14). He did not want them to turn from the good news of Jesus Christ, the freedom Christ brought from the Law of Moses, or the freedom that Christ brought from man made laws heaped on top of other laws. Instead of being bound to those old and decaying remnants of a time now gone, Paul wanted these Galatians to thrive in the freedom that they now had so that they moved towards the Savior that rescued them (Colossians 1:12-14).

You see, the Jews (Pharisees, specifically) were the popular crowd back in that day. Paul says in Romans 9:1-5 that they had the privileges. Everyone else was kind of lower class. And these Jews knew this about themselves. Some of them were extremely arrogant. And if you were not a Jew and you became a follower of Christ, then you suddenly became a part of this “in-crowd.” And the tendency was to do the things that they did so that you could be like them. Paul says in chapter 3 “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (v.1). See, the Galatians had started by following Christ but were lured away by the “in-crowd” so that they began to do the things that the cool crowd said to do rather than what Christ said to do. This led them away from freedom and into bondage.

Yes, the desire to be accepted is a strong and driving force. In our verse for the day Paul continues and says “…or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (v.10). Trying to please man is a good thing if you are honoring your parents in obedience, serving the Body of Christ in love, or serving man in the sense of self-sacrificial giving of time, money, or gifts. However, pleasing man in any other way is a very, very dangerous behavior. Your focus is no longer on the glory and desire of the Master. Your focus is now on the approval and desires of man. And when all is said and done, these people will not be there; Christ will!

Questions:
1. Have you ever found yourself doing things to please people or to get their approval? If so, what kinds of things?

2. Can you see how doing these things would slowly lead to other things? Talk about this.

3. What kinds of things have you seen others do to please man or to gain their approval? Do you think that these people ever thought they would eventually do those kinds of things or did it happen slowly?

4. Why would the Gentiles (non Jews) seek the approval of the Jews?

5. Why would this be dangerous for the Gentiles to do?

6. What would it take for you to desire the approval and honor of Christ over all things – even the approval and honor of man?

I am saddened to be writing a devotional on this subject. I am saddened because I am not writing this devotional to adults. I am saddened because I am writing this devotional to youth. It would be shocking enough were I writing it to adults. But the fact that youth are more involved in this behavior than adults is an overwhelming reality to me. The behavior I am speaking of is homosexuality! And this behavior has become cool now. It is the “in” thing to be bi-sexual (which is homosexual). It is cool to be feminine for a man, manly for a woman, and “curious” about these things.

Directly before our verse of the day, Paul says “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…” (v.24). It is after he says this that he gives us the “because” in v.25. The dishonoring of the bodies in this context involves homosexuality. And Paul attaches homosexuality to self-worship and creation worship. He says that to be involved in this is to make an exchange (v.25). We exchange truth for a lie. We exchange true worship for idol worship. We exchange life for death since, because of such a lifestyle; God gives us over to the lusts we live for, to our impurities, and to the dishonoring of our bodies.I have heard so many interesting arguments to negate what Paul says here. And yet look at how clear the text is – For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (vs.26-28). There are natural relationships we are created for and then there are those which are unnatural. These homosexual relationships are contrary to nature. They stem from a debased mind. And they are self-worship and worship of the creation rather than true worship which is worship of God and the natural relationships He has created us for.

I must admit, deep within me I am convinced that those involved in the homosexual lifestyle know very well that what they are doing is contrary to the natural way. I am convinced of this because a) the Bible makes it very clear that the natural way has been made known to us and b) I have had many conversations with active homosexuals and those who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. Each person who has come out of that lifestyle has said that they knew that what they were doing was wrong.

Some, I hope most, of you reading this are not involved in this lifestyle. However, you are surrounded by it in school, in the media, in songs, on the television, and in movies. And there is a type of pressure to accept it and tolerate it. Please do not give in to such a pressure. Stand for the truth! There are some of you who are teetering on a dangerous edge right now as you entertain some of the ideas of homosexuality. I beg of you not to get on that slope. The slope is dangerously slippery and there is no telling where you may end up. And, heartbreakingly, there are some of you who have exchanged truth for a lie, true worship for idol worship, the natural for the unnatural, and are bound to a debased mind. To you I say it is not too late. Today is a new day. His grace for you is new right now.

Questions:
1. Is it true that homosexuality and bi-sexuality (which is homosexuality) is now a trend among youth? Is it true that this behavior is all over the media, i.e. music, television, and movies?2. What kind of behavior do you see among young men and young women that seems contrary to what is natural?3. Is there pressure among youth to be accepting and tolerant of such behavior that is contrary to Scripture? Why?4. Can a homosexual lifestyle start with seemingly innocent behavior? If so, what kind of behavior?5. What can you do to guard yourself against the temptations of the culture? (Romans 12:1-2; Colossians 3:1-2)6. Read Lamentations 3:21-24. What hope does this give you whether you are involved in homosexuality, curious about homosexuality, or dealing with the cultural pressures of homosexuality?

Words Defined

Homosexuality – Any relationship between 2 people of the same sex that is sensual or sexual or based upon the principles of a natural boy/girl relationship

Negate – To make void or of no effect

Debased – Lacking common sense; vile or corrupt

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14)I cannot help but believe that this truth is a matter of common sense. I do not think that much has to be said. There are no tangled webs to unweave. God, through Paul, says something that, I believe, we all know to be a matter of simple truth. And so I do not feel an overwhelming urge to comment much on an issue that is more a matter of submission to the Scriptures than it is a profound and mysterious truth needing great exposition. So let’s look at what God says. Do not… There is nothing fuzzy about this. None of us would sit and debate over what might have been meant by this statement. It is a command, not a suggestion. Paul continues “…be unequally yoked…” Here is what we are not to do. We are not to be unequally yoked, or bound. So far none of us would have a problem with this. Being unequally anything is a matter of common sense. But Paul goes on “…with unbelievers.” Herein lays the problem we have. We do not like the who of the command, not the command itself. If the command said “Do not be unequally yoked with a lion” then we would laugh and say “Paul, how silly of you to feel a need to write such a thing.” And yet aren’t the enemies of God called “roaring lions” who seek someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). And if unbelievers are enemies of God then they will hate God within us and they will not, no, they cannot exhort us on to love and good works (Hebrews 10:25) because they do not live for love and good works. But this statement of Paul’s is not a stand alone. Paul goes on to ask some questions of clarification that are meant to drive home the truth. Let’s wrestle with these questions. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? (v.14b) What partnership can you have with an unbeliever? Christian, meditate upon this. Do not just glibly skip over it. Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (v.14) Are light and dark common to each other? Are they friends of each other? Do light and dark compliment each other? Or are light and dark in opposition to each other? What weight does this carry to being yoked with unbelievers? What accord has Christ with Belial? (v.15) What bond does Christ have with false gods? Christ lives in you! Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (v.15) Your inheritance (portion) is eternal life with God. What inheritance (portion) does the unbeliever have? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God… (v.16) Children of the Savior, I cannot help but believe that this is as clear to you as it is to me. I do not say that it is easy to do. I am, however, saying that it is a command, i.e. Do not… We are to be obedient to God rather than our own desires. You may ask the question, “Then what of witnessing to these unbelievers? Do I just ignore them altogether?” But this question is meant to distract from the clear truth. Are we to say that being yoked (bound), fellowship, partnership, accord, portion, and agreement are the same as sharing the gospel? The words just listed are attached to what believers who share the same Spirit have with each other; not what blood bought children of God and His enemies have together.
Questions:
1. What is the definition of a friend? Is your definition based upon philosophy or what the Scriptures describes as a friend (John 15:13, Hebrews 10:25, 1 John 2)?How serious should we take the Scripture when it says Do not… do something?When the Scriptures give us a command like this, is it meant for our good or our displeasure?What fellowship, accord, agreement, or portion do you have with someone who denies Christ?How are unbelievers enemies of the cross?How does your thinking need to change concerning this topic?

Have you ever been anywhere close to a trash dumping site? The smell of it is overwhelming. The stench of piled up, putrid, and decaying trash can almost be touched it is so thick. And if you’ve not spent any time near a trash site then you will cover your nose, turn your head, and wish to exit as quickly as possible. This is a normal and healthy reaction to something so vile. However, an odd phenomenon takes place if someone chooses to remain for any length of time. After a while, maybe a short while or maybe a long while, a person will become use to the smell. They no longer have to cover their nose and turn their head. Although they do not necessarily like or enjoy the smell, they have become use to it.

As if this were not strange enough, over a period of time the person will not only become use to the smell, but they will also become acclimated to the smell. What does this mean? This means that the smell and the location become tolerable or even likeable to them. It is no longer a foreign and vile place. It has become a part (whether small or large) of who they are.

When this person walks away from the trash dump to go somewhere else, there is a sense of longing to be back in familiar territory. There is a part of them that desires to be amongst the piles of rotting trash because it has become, at least in small part, a type of home. It is slowly becoming a piece of who they are. And what is strikingly amazing is that this person will not recognize something that has happened as a result of being amongst the trash – they smell! Others around them who have been in a healthy environment will be near them and overwhelmed by the stench of the trash smell that has become a part of their clothes, skin, and hair.

Do not be deceived, says Paul. I know how easy it is to be deceived into thinking that the enemies of God can be our friends. I know that it is easy to be deceived into thinking that those who deny the beautiful work of Jesus, our Savior, can be true friends capable of having fellowship with us. But this is deception! There is a very real, very grave truth that these people can never have anything in common with us. I also know how easy it is to be deceived into thinking that a “good” person is not evil. But ask yourself this, is the person who denies Christ, who lives for themselves, and who rejects God’s word good?

Companionship with such “good” people, as Paul says, ruins good morals. Fellowship with such “good” people ruins good morals. You may say “This is not so! I have friends who are enemies of God and we get along just fine.” Could it be that, much like the person at the trash dump, you have slowly become accustomed to, familiar with, or even connected to the stench of the bad company you are keeping? And why would we not choose to have fellowship with those who will never possibly ruin our good morals rather than fellowship with those who may? Is it worth it? What is of more value – friendship with the world or the honor of the Lord who has saved us?

Question:

1. What are some of the way in which the world tries to slowly get us use to its stench?
2. Have you ever fallen victim to hanging out at the trash site, getting use to the smell, or even liking it after awhile?
3. How easy is it to be deceived by sin? What are some ways we can remain strong against such deception?
4. Are “good” people truly good if they are enemies of the cross?
5. What defines a real friend?
6. How can an unbeliever encourage you to be more Godly? How can a believer encourage you to be more Godly?

There is, what I call, felt needs. Felt needs are those needs that we feel are critical or necessary. For instance, I feel like I need a new phone because my current one seems to have a slight glitch. I don’t actually need a new phone; I want a new phone. This is an example of a felt need. But then there are real needs. Real needs are actual necessities. For instance, I really need food and water in order to survive. I really need to look both ways before crossing the street so that I do not get run over in traffic. Felt needs and real needs are vastly different. And, unfortunately, we often live our lives based upon felt needs rather than real needs.

The Scriptures tell us that Zacchaeus “…was a chief tax collector and was rich” (v.2). A person might think that Zacchaeus had all of his needs met. After all, a chief tax collector was extremely popular. This kind of a person would have been very well known and his position would have demanded respect. Not only was he popular, but he was rich. Zacchaeus could probably buy anything that he wanted to buy. Yet the Scriptures say that “He (Jesus) entered Jericho and was passing through…And he (Zacchaeus) was seeking to see who Jesus was…” (v.1,3). There was a need in Zacchaeus that still needed meeting. Something inside of Zacchaeus was curious about this man he had heard about – this, Jesus. In fact, there was such a curiosity that Zacchaeus went to great measures to see Jesus.

“And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way” (v.3,4). This says a lot about what was going on inside of Zacchaeus. The popularity of Jesus had spread. The rumors about His being the Savior were known. And even though Zacchaeus seemed to have it all, something inside of him, a real need, drove him to run ahead of a crowd and climb into a tree to catch a glimpse of a man from Nazareth. But unlike Hollywood’s stars, which we seem to idolize with posters, memorabilia, and our affections and adoration, this Star of Jerusalem really had something to offer.

Imagine what was going through the mind of Zacchaeus as he ran ahead of the crowd in his plush clothes. He was rich. He would have been dressed accordingly. And imagine what was going through his mind as he climbed into a sycamore tree while others watched, wondering what he was doing, and the crowd began to approach. Might he have been slightly self-conscious, fearful, and deeply hoping that whatever need had driven him to do such a thing would be met in this Man he had heard so much about? “And when Jesus came to that place, he looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down for I must stay at your house today’” (v.5).

Jesus called him by name. Imagine being the little boy in the mans body, just hoping that you catch a glimpse of Jesus as He passes by; and when He passes by He stops, looks up, and calls your name. Not only does He call Zacchaeus by name but then He tells Zacchaeus to “hurry and come down…” Excitement! Jesus wants to see you. Why? “…for I must stay at your house today.” I might compare this to the President picking you out of a crowd, calling you by name, and then saying he is to stay at your house. But this comparison is infinitely less synonymous. God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, had called Zacchaeus by name and then given him the good news that He would be coming to stay at his house. This, my friends, is having your real needs met. This surpasses having felt needs met in greater ways than can ever be described.

Questions:

1. Does the difference between felt needs and real needs make sense to you? If so, talk about some of the felt needs and real needs you have in your own life.
2. What do you think (if we were to guess) was a real need that Zacchaeus had that made him run ahead of the crowd and climb up into a tree to see Jesus?
3. What were some of the social pressures (peer pressures) Zacchaeus may have faced by doing what he did?
4. Who or what do we “climb into a tree” to see in our lives? In other words, who or what will we go to lengths to spend our time with?
5. Really meditate upon and talk about how it must have made Zacchaeus feel to have Jesus call him by name and then say that He was coming to dinner at his house?
6. What needs does Jesus meet in your life, specifically? What needs are you trying to have met outside of Jesus?
7. Pray together right now that you would go to Christ to have your needs met.