Where are the husbands?

Christian husbands, let me present a parable for you: if your wife one day told you, "Honey, I'm about to take a casual stroll through that dangerous part of town that even the cops don't go to," would you let them? If they told you, "Honey, I'm about to go have a nice private chat with that guy we suspect is a serial killer," would you let them? Obviously, most husbands would answer "no" to these questions. You'd probably want to protect your wives from all possible danger to their persons. Why then do so many husbands, when these situations are placed in the spiritual realm, answer "yes"?

Husbands are commanded by scripture to love their wife as Christ loves the church, and part of this is to "nourish" and "cherish" her (Eph 5:29). As the spiritual head of the house, the husband is not only the spiritual role model for his children, but is the one who provides the spiritual nourishment and education to his wife and, consequently therefore, from him and the wife to the children. He is directly responsible for what his family professes as orthodoxy and what his family declares to be their object of worship. "But as for me and my house," Joshua famously declared, "we will serve the LORD" (Jos 24:15). The definition of "LORD" means as much today as it did back in Joshua's day. Is is the husband's role to make certain that by "LORD" his family means the LORD our God, and not another deity such as Ba'al.

Yet constantly on social media, I see married women posting quotes from men and women who claim to be teachers of God but who have been proven to be wolves in sheep's clothing. They quote from individuals who, if they had existed in the Old Testament, would most likely have been stoned for their false prophecies, false visions of God, and false doctrines. What I immediately think each time is, "Does her husband know she's posting that?" I think to myself, "Is her husband aware from which fountain his wife is getting her spiritual nourishment?" Is the husband aware that his wife is seeking theological grounding from a heretic and false teacher? Is he aware that his fellow sheep is wandering towards a ravenous wolf? Of course, it will be granted not all the quotes shared are not necessarily bad or even "wrong" to some degree, but why would we permit our loved ones to traverse through a mine field of error hoping they won't step on the wrong spot?

In some respects, the wives may intentionally not care, and perhaps the husband permits her to be over him in this respect, not realizing that part of the husband's role, as said earlier, is to guide his wife on spiritual matters she may not fully understand (cf. 1 Cor 14:35). Other times, it might well be that the husband is fully aware, and doesn't care...in fact, he may approve of the false teacher having influence in his home. In this case, he invites danger into his life, and willingly puts his entire family in a line that leads to great sin, error, or even apostasy.

Christian husband, your role is to be used of God for the sanctification of your wife. Just as you need to be aware of the budget, the needs of the individual family members, and other serious concerns, so too do you also need to be aware of what your family is being exposed in their spiritual studies. Are they learning the truth of God, or are they learning heretical nonsense? Are they being fed on spiritual fruit or demonic junk food? Ask yourself, again, if you would put your wife or even family in such danger as I illustrated at the beginning of this post. If not, then why would you dare to put your family in danger related to their eternal soul?

I write this not as an open condemnation or a judgment against others, but merely a call for discernment.

Podcast: The State of African Christianity Today

Is there revival going on in Africa right now? Or is there a greater need for reform? Find out in this podcast as I'm joined by brother Kofi from the Fiery Logic blog. We discuss the history of Christianity in Africa, how the Word of Faith and Hyper-Charismatic movements became so big, what things are like now, and even how the situation can change.



Some additional links:

The video of "Bishop" Oyedepo slapping a poor young lady in front of the congregation.

An article by Conrad Mbewe that explains much of the cultural context of what was discussed in the podcast.

Another article by brother Mbewe, this one also discussing the religious state of many African churches.

A brief documentary from Kenya showcasing the corruption and false theology in many of these churches.

A Brief Thought on Criticism and Discussion

Since I and fellow bloggers Steven and Kofi did our collaborative podcast regarding Michael Brown's support of Mike Bickle and other false teachers, there has been some response to the episode. Most of it was fairly positive, but some was not. This, of course, is not bad in and of itself.

What I could not help but notice, however, was that the criticism tended to follow the same format:

1. The person makes a statement of criticism.
2. A request is made to substantiate the statement.
3. Either the person employs a burden of proof fallacy, or the statement is simply repeated.
4. Another request is made to substantiate the statement.
5. The person either backs down immediately, or simply refuses to offer any substantiation.

For example, I received an email from someone accusing me, Steven and Kofi of being ungracious and unnecessarily mocking of men like Brown or Bickle. When I asked him to tell me where, in the podcast, any of us had been ungracious or mocking. He told me to listen to the podcast again. I told him I had, and wasn't aware of anywhere that I had been ungracious or mocking towards people. He said that it was probably fine then, and then later admitted that a friend of his listened to the podcast and couldn't find anything ungracious or mocking.

I was then accused of having, in essence, a personal vendetta against IHOP-KC, and that my criticism of them was really minor and not worth denying that Mike Bickle and his peers are true believers. I asked the person to interact with what I had written and said on the subject, and show me where I was overstepping my bounds and to demonstrate that I simply had a personal vendetta against them. After much prodding to do this, the person replied, and I quote: "I don't have the time or the interest."

Immediately, I had deja vu regarding my interaction with Michael Brown (see here and here). Namely, a refusal to read criticism of a certain false teacher, a refusal to interact with what a person has said about the false teacher...and yet, a strong condemnation of what the person has said regarding the false teacher. The mindset of some people seems to be, "I don't know what you believe or why you believe it...but it's wrong." Such a mindset is neither gracious nor rational.

This mindset, indeed, is one that has already made it's mind up. It doesn't matter what Mike Bickle, Rick Joyner, and countless other false teachers could teach, or what they might teach, the fact is they fit the standard for a biblical teacher in the individual's mind, and that's that. Anyone who opposes this false teacher is automatically in the wrong, even if they may have valid reasons for it. In fact, said valid reasons aren't even considered. They are instead automatically deemed irrelevant without being examined, or at best are dismissed in straw man renditions. Sadly, this kind of thinking is all too common in Hyper-Charismatic circles, where the cult-like mentality of "Don't touch God's anointed" and "Don't pass any form of judgment on anyone ever" becomes a repeated mantra that ignores all teachings from scripture regarding biblical discernment. It becomes a veil for someone to hide behind, so that they can ignore the plain truth and love a lie. Brothers, this is not how it should be.

If we are to enter discussion on the topic, we must do so with a desire to examine and see, from scripture and plain reason, if what is taught is indeed truth and honesty. If we truly worship He who is Truth, then let us show that we are Truth's disciples.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part V

Here is the final part in our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Thoughts on the "Sons of God" and the Nephilim

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. [Genesis 6:1-4]

These verses present one of the more interesting moments in scripture, which has created a lot of theology and stirred a debate or two. The belief held by some is that the "sons of God" are angels, who came down and married, and procreated with, women, resulting in the creation of "giants" (the Nephilim). This was a Rabbinical tradition, likewise recorded down by the Jewish historian Josephus:

For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. [Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1:3:1; source]

It was also seen in some early Church Fathers, such as the second century apologist Athenagoras:

Some [angels]...created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them...these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants. [Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, XXIV; source]

Let's take a moment to examine this passage of scripture, and do so by examining two points:

The Identity of the "Sons of God"

Many people, as we've seen, identify the "sons of God" as fallen angels, who went to earth and procreated with human women. This is partially because the term "sons of God" is used in reference to angels in the book of Job (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7), as well an assertion that Jude's epistle states the fallen angels engaged in sins of the flesh:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 1:6-7]

However, the term "sons of God" is likewise use in reference to believers, especially in the New Testament (Matt 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26). The similar phrase "children of God" is likewise used to refer to believers, both by the apostle Paul (Rom 8:16, 21; 9:8; Php 2:15) and the apostle John (John 1:12, 11:52; 1 John 2:28, 3:1, 10; 5:2).

In like manner, the words in Jude's epistle do not explicitly clarify that these angels are the "sons of God" seen in Genesis 6. We must likewise consider the full context of what Jude has written:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 1:3-7]

Jude explains that he had begun a letter talking about faith in general, but felt compelled to write about a serious topic: false teachers had infiltrated the churches. He then goes into examples of how those who disobeyed and rebelled against God were treated in the past: many saved out of Egypt were punished for unbelief, fallen angels were put in eternal chains as a result of their rebellion, and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their immorality. Those who attempt to tie in the fallen angels with Sodom and Gomorrah forget that these three examples are all one train of thought. They also forget the example of the people fleeing Egypt - were these people also guilty of sexual sins? Perhaps as much as everyone is, but Jude's point in citing them is irrelevant to the matter of sexual purity. The use of "which likewise indulged" in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah is most likely referring back to the false teachers mentioned earlier, whom Jude will make mention of as "defiling the flesh" (v. 8). Jude's point in this discussion is to cite various examples of those who sinned against God for various purposes. He does this again when he cites Cain, Balaam, and Korah together (v. 11) - obviously these three men were not guilty of the same exact crime, but were all guilty before God for specific, unique crimes. Therefore, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be tied backwards into the fallen angels, and hence it is assumed that these fallen angels engaged in sins of the flesh.

Perhaps the most problematic part of assuming that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are angels is the fact that they said to have married daughters of men. Why is this problematic? Because, as Christ himself said, angels do not marry.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." [Matt 22:30; see also Mark 12:25]

In this verse, Christ is talking to the Sadducees about the resurrection and the place of marriage, and says that those in the resurrection live like the angels in heaven. One trait is that the angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage." We therefore have a dilemma here, as either: 1) Christ gave a contradiction, as clearly there's an example early on in scripture where angels marry and were given to marriage; or 2) the "sons of God" are in fact not angels. The only logical course would be to assume that the "sons of God" are not angels.

If the "sons of God" are not angels, then who were they? That answer comes with the age old rule of reading: context, context, context. Genesis 6 comes from a long narrative in Genesis 4 and 5, detailed the lineage of both Cain and Seth. Seth's lineage especially continues all the way down to Noah, who takes center stage in Genesis 6. It is likewise said during the beginning of Seth's lineage that "at that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Ge 4:26). Following this trail of thought all the way to Genesis 6, we have to conclude that the "sons of God" are those early believers, and the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain, who were not believers. The two begin to mingle and marry in Genesis 6, and scripture always presents negative results when believers are swayed by unbelievers in marriage. We see this in Genesis 6:5, where, after the procreation, wickedness is said to have filled the earth.

The Identity of the Nephilim

Most people are more familiar with the translation of "giants" for the word Nephilim. This was how the word was translated in many older translations, in particularly the KJV, the latter of whom has given a great influence on how we understand certain wordings within scripture. The very word nephilim (נפלים), however, is of unknown origin, as the NET notes explain. Many commentators believe that it comes from the word naphal (נפל), meaning "to fall."

The use by some translations of the word "giants" most likely comes from two sources: the only other use of the word, in Numbers 13:33, in which another group of Nephilim are described as being of great height; the Septuagint, which renders the word here in Genesis 6 as γίγαντες, from which we get the word "gigantic."

Many assume that the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men. The argument they make is, "Would two normal people be able to produce a giant?" However, scripture seems to suggest they existed at the same time. Genesis 6 reads that the Nephilim were already on the earth "in those days," when the sons of God and daughters of men procreated, as well as "afterward." In other words, you have two parallel timelines: you have the sons of God and the daughters of men marrying and procreating; at the same time, you have the Nephilim frolicking across the land. Therefore, we cannot immediately assume that the Nephilim here are the results of the breeding between the Sons of God and Daughters of Men.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part IV

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of Matthew Gallatin handling the question of whether or not Romans 9 teaches predestination and election.

A Salute to John Knox

When Reformation Day was around the corner, I was studying the life and times of John Knox, the Scottish Reformer: what he said, what he believed, what he put up with, etc. Each Reformer seemed to live a unique life, in one way or another, and Knox is certainly no exception: from his days as a bodyguard to George Wishart, to his time as a tutor of children at St. Andrews, to his two years as a galley slave for a French ship, to his time in the Church of England, his time in Geneva, and finally his time of sincere Reformation in Scotland, including the four big meetings with the Queen Mary.

Knox was definitely not a politically correct man, by today's standards that is. He called the pope the Antichrist, called the Latin mass idolatry, and openly said Purgatory was a fiction. When compelled to venerate a statue of the Virgin Mary on a French galley, he replied by tossing it into the river and assuring them that she was light enough to swim. He annoyed Anglican bishops by speaking out against anything resembling the Roman church, campaigning especially to remove any worship of the host during communion. Even when Scotland was ruled by a queen who was popular among the people, Knox was not afraid to call her out for her political or religious faults - either from the pulpit or to her face. At his funeral, the Regent of Scotland said, "Here lies one who never feared the face of man."

You have to look at us today and ponder if we are willing to be as bold as Knox is. Are we willing to tell others they're wrong? Are we willing to speak out against false Christianity when we see it? Are we not afraid of offending everyone when we believe the right thing needs to be said? Or are we willing to forgo error for the sake of "charity" or "unity"? Are we willing to speak out against national leaders and church officials alike? Can it truly be said that we never fear the face of man?

Let us pray that God grants us to be as brave as Knox was, and that many more men like Knox will arise in the centuries to come. Amen.