Politics and Other Things

This is a Christian blog. In the early days, almost all of the articles were in some way related to Christian school education, since I was involved in Christian schools variously as a principal, teacher, and basketball coach for thirty-four years. Since retiring in 2012, I have broadened my scope somewhat.

For a long time, I have tried to minimize addressing politics. Christians are so often told that we should avoid political issues based on the alleged “separation of church and state” that some believe is found in the U.S. Constitution, which it is not. Sometimes it is even said that Christians have no business bringing their convictions into the voting booth. I have never bought into such foolishness. The reality is that some of the things that are called political issues are more than Republican vs. Democrat or right vs. left. They are, in fact, matters of common sense vs. foolishness, right vs. wrong, Christian vs. non-Christian, Biblical vs. non-biblical, and good vs. evil. Christians do have a role in politics. Some issues are not merely political. Issues that involve normalizing sin are not political issues. Rather, they are moral and Biblical issues, and ignoring them by saying that Christians and the church should stay out of politics is at best cowardly and at worst a denial of our convictions and a great detriment to our nation. For my article on this topic, click here. 

Following are a number of thoughts on such issues. Some of these things are absolute facts. Others are merely my opinions, based on my experience and knowledge. There are many other things I could mention, but these are a random collection of ideas.

• The legitimate function of government is outlined in the Scriptures.  “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1-2), NASB). This makes it clear that God’s requirement for government, which He established, is to defend its citizens so that they are free to live godly lives. This would include law enforcement, national defense, border security, and anything else necessary to provide for national security. That’s it. Anything else government chooses to do must not interfere with this primary function. Sadly, government so often spends so much time and resources doing things it has no business being involved with that it has nothing left for its primary purpose. “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7, NASB).
• The Tenth Amendment must be honored and obeyed literally. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The government spends far too much time, effort, and money on things it is not authorized to do, and often it uses resources from those things it is supposed to do (such as national defense) in order to pay for activities that are reserved for the States and/or the people. The federal government has usurped authority it is not authorized to have. A good place to start would be to note that the government has no business overseeing education, medical care, and energy. All of these things can be done far more efficiently by private organizations that do not have the luxury of operating at a deficit. There are many other things that could and should be added to this short list, but these would be a good place to start.
• Defense of our country is a primary responsibility of the government. While funds for this purpose must be spent in a wise and prudent manner, funds must not be diverted from national defense and defense of our national interests abroad in order to pay for social welfare programs.
• Requiring voter ID is not racist. It is the best way to insure the integrity of the election process. Voting is a fundamental right of all age-eligible U.S. citizens, and eligibility to vote must be determined by a valid birth certificate and resulting picture I.D. in order to determine eligibility. Opposition to voter ID laws is a very thinly-veiled effort to allow people to vote who are not eligible to do so and therefore to cheat in elections. In reality, those who are against voter ID are acting in a racist manner by implying those they pretend to speak for are too stupid or otherwise incapable of getting an ID. People should be insulted by such an attitude. If people come to this country and want to vote, they should go through the legal process to become citizens. For my article on voter ID, click here. 
• Voting against a minority candidate is not racist. Those who voted for Mitt Romney instead of President Obama in 2012 were not racist unless their votes were based strictly on skin color. Voting either for or against a candidate based on skin color is racist, but no vote is racist if it is based on the positions of the candidate. Voting against a woman is not sexist. Those who voted for President Trump instead of Hillary Clinton were not sexist unless their votes were based on sexism. Voting either for or against a candidate based on gender is sexist, but no vote is sexist if it is based on the positions of the candidate.
• The Electoral College is our method of electing a president. The popular vote is irrelevant. I addressed the electoral college in a previous article. For that article, click here. 
• Socialism has never, does not now, will never, and cannot possibly work. Those who call themselves “progressives” and then want to go back to the failed policies and procedures of socialism should actually be called “regressives.” Such people are either ignorant of or willingly ignore reality.
• The government is not Santa Claus. It cannot provide everything for everyone. Those calling for Medicare for all, free college tuition, free medical care, etc., etc., have lost touch with reality and can never answer the question of who is going to pay for all this with any other response than “the rich” or “the government.”  It is important to remember that the government has nothing to give away other than that which it has taken from someone. Government produces no wealth, and money is not created by a printing press. Under a situation of “everything for everyone,” there would not be any rich people to pay the taxes, because there would be no motivation to work and produce anything.
• A few years ago a congressman said that business does not exist to make a profit but to provide revenue for the government. This is an illustration of the fact that there is much foolish thinking among our alleged “leaders.” This demonstrates very clearly the need for term limits on Congress.
• Higher taxes cause an economy to stagnate and result in more poverty and less revenue for the government. Lower taxes stimulate an economy, create wealth for more people, benefit everyone, and result in more revenue for the government. This has been illustrated many times. A previous U.S. President said he understood this truth, but he operated against it in order to be “fair to everyone” and “level the playing field.”
• When someone says, “The rich don’t pay their fair share,” the speaker is generally someone who pays little or nothing. So who isn’t paying their fair share?
• The largest tax cuts will inevitably go to those who pay the most. Anyone who understands third grade math should understand this. “Tax breaks for the wealthy” are so often talked about as a terrible thing, but the truth is that “the wealthy” are those who put more money back into the economy if they don’t have to give it to the government. More money in the economy creates jobs and produces more goods and services for everyone.
• We often hear about “immoral profits.” It is really unclear why the word “immoral” needs to be put before the word “profits.” Profits are earned, and that money, in one way or another, goes back into the economy. As an example of “immoral profits,” consider the oil industry. “Big oil” (a term used as a pejorative by many) companies do research and development, exploration, drilling, etc. These companies take all the risk, and often their efforts lead to dry wells. On the other hand, the government puts taxes on everything corporations do, including on each gallon of gasoline. It takes no risks but just stands there with its hand out. The government actually makes more off of each gallon of gasoline or diesel than the oil company does. If anyone is making immoral profits, it is the government.
• Calling people “racist” because of differing political views is neither accurate nor appropriate. When people have no legitimate argument for their positions on issues, they tend to fall back on name-calling, usually calling their opponents “racists” or one of several other “…ists” or “…phobes.” Mocking, ridicule, and name-calling are usually a sign of unwillingness to debate because of having a very weak position on the issues in question.
• If there is a speaker who holds an opposing point of view, the proper response is to either listen respectfully or to simply not attend the event. Burning buildings, breaking windows, vandalizing cars, and doing all sorts of other mischief in order to prevent that speaker from speaking will accomplish nothing but illustrate a fear of someone else’s position. Much of this seems to be done in the name of “free speech.” This is utter hypocrisy.
• People who preach tolerance should practice tolerance instead of being the most intolerant of people.
• It is not racist for a country to control its borders.
• Some say, “Not my president.” There is no such elected office as “My President.” There is the “President of the United States.” I did not vote for Barack Obama, but he was my president. Currently, Donald Trump is my president, and he is “our president,” including all of the “not my president” types.
• All rights ultimately come from God, not the government. This is made clear in our Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” 
• None of the legal rights given by God and spelled out in the Bill of Rights can be legitimately taken away, but it must not be interpreted to guarantee imaginary rights, such as the "right" to an abortion, which it never mentions and which was never intended.
• Abortion is the murder of a human being. No amount of convoluted reasoning and foolish arguments can change this reality. This is our modern-day holocaust and will ultimately bring God’s judgment.  God knows us before he forms us in the womb. God said to the Prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5, NASB). King David amplifies this truth:  “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them” (Psalm 139:13-15, NASB). ",,,abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image." (Reference here.) 
• The First Amendment has two parts relative to religion:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means not only that the government is not to establish a religion, but it also means that the government is not to interfere in religion. It does not mean that the government can compel the removal of religious symbols, such as crosses, that have meaning to the people in a historical sense. Our country was established based on religious freedom and Christian beliefs. It also does not mean that the government must recognize violent political movements disguised as religions. This amendment limits what Congress can do. It says nothing about what the church can or cannot do.
• “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it” (Edmond Burke). We do a great disservice to our younger generation by refusing to teach the history of the United States, including the reality of the Civil War. Tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee (who actually opposed slavery, although many today do not even realize it) and other Confederate figures is nothing more than pretending our history does not exist. Such is foolishness and does nothing to improve anyone’s life. Acknowledging the reality of the Civil War is not racism.
• The Second Amendment means exactly what it says, and it is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, religion, etc. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Those who want it to mean something other than what it says must recognize that if they destroy the Second Amendment, the whole Bill of Rights becomes meaningless. This amendment guarantees every citizen the right to own and carry firearms for the purpose of defense, and it states that this right must not be “infringed.” To “infringe” is to “encroach or trespass.” This falls far short of the desire of many who would not just “infringe” on this right but would totally take it away. Quite literally, this amendment makes almost all, of not all, gun control laws unconstitutional. To “bear arms” means to carry a loaded firearm. An unloaded gun is a club. So many who seem to love freedom of speech, at least for those with whom they agree, also seem to hate the right to keep and bear arms. This is inconsistent and hypocritical. A “gun-free zone” is actually a shooting gallery for those who have no respect for the law.
• All laws passed by Congress must apply to the all government employees, including the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
• It seems as if most foreign aid is a waste, especially when it goes to countries that hate us. Following are two examples of legitimate foreign aid:  (1) In cases of natural disaster, humanitarian aid should be carried out as long as there are safeguards to insure the aid ends up in the hands of those for whom it is intended and not in the hands of dictators, and (2) Economic and military aid must continue to the nation of Israel, since friendship with Israel is our greatest guarantee of national security. God said to Abraham, “…I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you,
  And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3). This promise has never been rescinded, and it will not be, because God is truth and cannot lie.
• Judges, elected officials, and other government employees who ignore and violate the Constitution and other laws must be held accountable and removed from office. Members of the Executive Branch must not hide behind "executive privilege" in order to defy the courts and the law. On the other hand, federal judges should not be allowed to overrule the executive branch based on a political philosophy rather than on the law.
• It does not matter if a judge or Supreme Court Justice is a Democrat or a Republican, nor does it matter how that judge would vote on a hypothetical future case. What matters is that the judge or justice believes the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Legal decisions must be made based on the rule of law instead of the political philosophy of the court.

This list of things could go on and on. Instead of doing so, I present a sampling of Scripture that addresses politics and government from a Biblical perspective, as well as a brief quote from Patrick Henry.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34, NASB).

“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan … Scorners set a city aflame, But wise men turn away anger”  (Proverbs 2:2&8, NASB).

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12, NASB).

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here” (The Trumpet Voice of Freedom, Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. 3).

IF THIS MAN WERE A PROPHET . . .

Luke 7:39 NAS

by Ed Cardwell

The word ‘IF’, though one of the smallest in our English language, has often been acclaimed the biggest word in the dictionary. That may very well be true in a practical sense, because even the simplest of decisions, contingencies, and eventualities often hang precariously upon the uncertainty implied by this single two-lettered word. As we have all become painfully aware, much in life pivots on this one-syllable instrument of communication.

 

Throughout the Scriptures this one word introduces an almost limitless parade of intrigue and fascination. In Luke 7:36-50, for example, we read the fascinating story of our Lord’s acceptance of an unlikely invitation to dine at a Pharisee’s house. While there He was attended by a woman of ill repute who had found in Him her living Messiah. He had lifted her burden of sin and guilt, and had thereby filled her heart with unspeakable joy and gladness. As He reclined at table she came in behind Him, as was permitted by custom, and attended Him in reverent service while pouring out her soul with tears of thanksgiving.

 

The Pharisee, reclining at table across from Jesus, observed her intimate actions, and knowing who she was, said to himself:

 

“IF this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.”  ^{LUKE 7:39 NAS}

 

On the surface of it one may wonder whether this Pharisee named Simon is on the threshold of a great discovery. Is he searching out this man wondering whether or not He is a prophet? Or is he giving Him the benefit of the doubt waiting to see the outcome?

 

Our key to the penetration of the Pharisee’s thoughts lies in the exactness in the Greek of that smallest of words ‘IF’. We are unable to feel its force in the English, but in the original it speaks volumes!  Let us examine the word more closely so that we might gain added insight into what the Holy Spirit has preserved for us.

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

There are primarily three different classes of ‘IF’s in Greek, each one introducing a conditional clause. Each has its respective form and carries its particular power and weight to the meaning of the statement:

 

CLASS I – The ASSUMED-TRUE Condition. This condition was used when the speaker assumed, or wished to assume, that his premise was TRUE. The grammatical construction is simply the introduction of the Greek word ‘if’ (eiv) at the beginning of the conditional clause followed by a verb in the indicative mood (in the same clause).

As an illustration we have the case of the Temptation of our Lord in Matthew 4. In verses 3 and 6 the Class I condition of ‘IF’ is used both cases:

 

“IF You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” ^{vs 3 NAS}

 

“IF You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.” ^{vs 6 NAS}

 

Satan’s objective was the nullification of the plan of salvation. His strategy was to lure Jesus out of His self-imposed human character as an obedient servant of God and into His rightful character as Lord over nature, but without first going to the Cross. The leverage the Tempter uses on this occasion is the assumed fact of Jesus’ deity. Satan insisted that the Lord make His rightful demands upon the ‘IF’, or better interpreted, ‘since’, or ‘it being true that’ He was the Son of God.

 

How this passage comes alive to us today with all the intensity of a great drama!  How we can more readily see the infinite pathos of our Lord’s suffering in order that His work FOR US might be fully accomplished.

 

CLASS II – The CONTRARY-TO-FACT Condition. This condition was used when the speaker assumed, or wished to assume, that his premise was UNTRUE. Let us look at three illustrations:

 

a.       A simple example would be the declaration made by both Mary and Martha in John 11. In addressing Jesus upon His arrival, each said in turn:

“Lord, IF You had been here, my brother would not have died.” ^{Joh 11:32 NAS}

 

The condition is Class II, contrary-to-fact. We can, of course, surmise this by the context of the narrative. We know that Jesus was not there when Lazarus died; He tarried beyond the Jordan. But had we been unaware of these added circumstances we could have made the matter certain by reading the passage in the original. There we find the special Class II grammatical construction (eiv [ei] + past tense of a verb in the indicative mood + a;n [an]).

 

b.   Another illustration can be found in our Lord’s declaration in John 15:22 and 24. This statement concerns the meaning and result of His coming to earth – to bring the glorious light of Truth and thus to expose sin in all its hideousness, so that men might see their desperate need and thus be drawn to Him, the True Light.

 

“IF I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin.” ^{vs 22 NAS}

 

“IF I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin.”  ^{vs 24 NAS}

 

But our Lord DID come and He DID speak to them; and He DID work among them the works which no one else did. So the condition presented is stated contrary-to-fact; and the net result of the unreality is revealed by our Lord in verse 22:

 

“But now they have no excuse for their sin.” ^NAS

 

In this case, as well as in example ‘a’ above, the meaning is plain from the whole context. But again the Greek grammatical construction of the sentence (eiv [ei] + verb + a;n [an]) confirms the conclusion with certainty.

 

c.   A slightly less obvious example is found in John 5:46. Jesus says, in addressing His skeptical Jewish audience:

 

“For IF you believed Moses, you would believe me .” ^NAS

 

Our Lord is not leaving anything open to conjecture here; the simple Greek grammatical construction (eiv [ei] + verb + a;n [an]) proves the existence of a conditional clause the negative reality of which is assumed. They didn’t believe Moses. They were idolaters. They were a self-initiated elite who had long since lost the true meaning of being the children of Abraham. They flatly rejected Moses. OTHERWISE, Jesus was saying, “you would believe me.”

 

CLASS III – The UNDETERMINED-FULFILLMENT POSSIBLE Condition. In this condition uncertainty is implied, with the possibility of fulfillment. In Scripture the use of the Class III is far more frequent than any of the other conditions, but two examples will suffice:

 

a.   In the story of the Temptation in Matthew 4, referred to above, we have an illustration of the Class III condition in verse 9 where the Tempter says:

 

“All these thing will I give You, IF You fall down and worship me.” ^NAS

 

Satan was hoping for fulfillment, but doubt encompassed the issue. The premise was neither a question of being True (Class I) nor Untrue (Class II), but remained, at least to him, a possibility of fulfillment. The uncertainty in such cases is often clear, but should the context leave us in doubt, the original once again comes to the rescue with the Class III construction in Greek:  eva.n [ean] + subjunctive mood of the verb.

 

b.      Another interesting example of the Class III condition is found in Acts 5:38 where it is contrasted with a Class I condition in verse 39.

 

The wise Gamaliel seeks to restrain the Council’s murderous intentions against the apostles. He challenges his colleagues to keep their heads cool in this matter:

 

“And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, For IF this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown.”

 

“But IF it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

 

In the conditional clause in verse 38 we find the Class III construction – Doubt, but Possibility. But in verse 39 we find Class I – Assumed True.

 

Gamaliel assumes the validity of Christianity, at least for the sake of his argument, and he puts the alternative (that these activities under discussion are only from men) in the realm of uncertainty. We cannot conclude absolutely that Gamaliel was a Christian nor that he was leaning in that direction; he may merely have wanted, as some suggest, to score a further point against the Sadducee contingent of the Council, whose opposing political and religious influence was suffering embarrassment at the hands of the apostles. On the other hand, neither can we rule out his leaning toward the apostles’ faith at this time, for we read in Acts 6:7 that “A great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” ^NAS  Also early tradition includes Gamaliel by name in that innumerable company of saints. If so, it would be this contrast in conditions of Class III (verse 38) and Class I (verse 39) that gives us the first hopeful hint at such an eventuality.

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

 

Now, having examined the three possible conditions, let us return to our story in Luke 7.

 

The woman who is attending Jesus is a woman who has been deeply shattered by a new and keen awareness of her sinful state; she is now, however, rejoicing in reverent jubilation that He, her Messiah, has brought to her a new life and a lasting hope, and that without measure. By her presence and by her attendant adoration she is a living testimony to all those reclining at that table that this great Personage has a special attraction for those in great need. Sinners whose lives have become hopelessly shackled to the bonds of sin and degradation need only appeal to Him. And this woman! How animated is her intense display of thanksgiving! What a message to all who are witnesses!

But does the Pharisee hear her testimony?  Does he accept her witness?

By no means! He has a closed mind. He welcomes any shred of evidence that might point to Jesus as a fraud. How revealing is the statement by Simon – to himself:  “IF this man were a prophet…!” How intimately we are able to peer into the abyss of his darkened heart and at once learn of his sad condition (and that from his own thoughts!) - that he is a man ruled by pride and overcome by spiritual blindness.

(His ‘if’ statement in Luke 7:39 is found in the original to be Class II – his premise is assumed UNTRUE!  He has, to his own peril, already concluded in his heart that this man IS NOT a prophet. To give evidence and weight to this conviction he reasons to himself further that:  “Otherwise, this man would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” ^NAS)

Why do such men reject this Jesus? Why do they deny Him? How can they ignore all the evidence that points to His deity?

This Pharisee has judged Jesus through the eyes of one who is confined to his fallen nature, devoid of all spiritual insight. He imagines that his Guest must conform to the contrived and futile standards of spiritually impoverished men, who compare themselves to one another to establish their goodness. He is the ‘natural’ man (1 Cor 2:14) who finds nothing worthy of adoration in Him, but only contempt, and he is, therefore, utterly repulsed by what he observes.

The Pharisee’s mind had been prejudiced by the sundry doctrines of humanism of his day (as is true in our day).  As examples:  We exist by the chance occurrence of ‘favorable’ mutations, ie, we are brothers of the boulders and we are cousins of the stars [evolution]; there is no God outside of ourselves; there is no life after death nor is there a day of judgment awaiting us; and, for the ‘religious’, there are many ways to God. The list is almost endless.

Salvation had come to Simon’s house – in Person!  Oh, how many would have given anything to trade places with Simon! But our Lord chose to visit him. Because it was at Simon’s house that a great sermon was to be preached. But Simon didn’t think that the message was for him. There is no grand reception, no hint of appreciation. He is thankless, cynical, and proud. For he was blinded by his pride and trapped in unbelief, and thus did not recognize this great hour of his visitation – that the full embodiment of the Love and Mercy of the great God of the Universe had left His home in glory to come down to dine before Simon at his very table.

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

FOR FURTHER STUDY:

Additional Scriptural passages which contain the conditional ‘IF’ are given according to Class:

CLASS I:  Mat 5:29, 30; Mar 3:26; Luk 12:26; Joh 8:46; Act 4:9; Rom 7:16, 20; 1Co 7:9; 2Co 3:7; Gal 2:14; Col 2:20; 3:1; 1Th 4:14; 2Th 3:14; 1Ti 3:5; Phm 17, 18; Heb 2:2; Jms 1:5; 1Pe 1:17; 2Pe 2:4; 1Jo 3:13.

CLASS II:  Mat 11:21, 23; 12:7; 23:30; 24:43; Luke 7:39; 10:13; 19:42; Joh 4:10; 5:46; 8:19, 42; 9:41; 15:19; 18:36; Act 18:14; 26:32; Rom 7:7; 1Co 11:31; Gal 1:10; 3:21; Heb 4:8; 8:4; 11:15; 1Jo 2:19.

CLASS III:  Mat 6:14, 15; Mar 1:40; Luk 17:3(2), 4; Joh 11:25; Act 9:2; Rom 2:25(2), 26; 1Co 5:11; 2Co 5:1; Gal 5:2; Col 4:10; 1Ti 1:8; Heb 13:23; Jms 2:2; 1Pe 3:13; 1Jo 1:6, 7, 8, 9. 10; 2:1; 3Jo 10; Rev 3:3; 22:18, 19.

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

NOTES:

1. Some scholars identify four Classes of conditions, the fourth being a further division of Class III. This further distinction is most often hazy, is never found in its full form, and has been characterized as a highly ornamental and little used construction. It is therefore omitted here from discussion.

2. Because thought is not always expressed in the most clearly defined forms, the student of the New Testament is met throughout with sundry mixed, implied, and elliptical conditions and grammatical exceptions. All of theses insure that one will never master the language entirely and that he will never exhaust the innumerable challenges presented by these variations.

3. It must be emphasized that the condition itself of Class I and II is concerned only with the statement, not with the actual reality or unreality of the matter.

ecardwells6@gmail.com
 

2 Peter 3:9 - A Misused and Misapplied Verse

There are a number of Bible verses that are consistently misused. One of these verses is 2 Peter 3:9. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (NKJV).

 

This verse is often used as ammunition against what we have come to call “Calvinism,” specifically the doctrine of “unconditional election.” There are several facts that must be addressed.

 

First, when we read that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise,” we must ask, “What promise?” The context indicates that the promise being referred to is the return of the Lord. Jesus made it very clear that He will come back and that He will not ever “cast out” or “lose” any who are His own, because they are the ones His Father has given to Him. Each and every one of them will come to Him for salvation, and the seeming delay in His return will give all of them time to be saved. None of them will be left out. His redeemed ones are safe and secure. This is a promise.

 

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:37-40, NKJV).

 

Second, we must determine to whom He is writing. 2 Peter 1:1 answers this very clearly:  “To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJV). This letter, including Chapter 3, Verse 9, was written to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. When Peter says that “…the Lord…is longsuffering toward us,” it is very obvious that the “us” (NASB and ESV say “you”) in the passage refers to those to whom He is writing. Since he is writing to believers, he is saying that the Lord is longsuffering toward all believers, all of His own, or that term that so many fear, all of “the elect.” It violates the context to suddenly shift gears and claim the passage says He is longsuffering to all the world, even though God clearly is longsuffering, or He would likely have destroyed the world a long time ago. He certainly was longsuffering in the days of Noah as the ark was being built, but when the flood came, only Noah and his family were on board. My point is that we should not use this passage incorrectly to support doctrine that is not addressed here. We must base our doctrine on the Scriptures rather than selectively finding verses to support our doctrine.

 

Third, we must realize that when Peter says that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance,” he is not talking about the all-inclusive “all” that means every person who has ever lived or ever will live. I knew someone who was fond of saying, “All means all and that’s all all means.” There is a sense in which that is true, but in reality, it would be more accurate to say, “All means all and that’s all all means, except for when it doesn’t.” In the context of 2 Peter 3:9, this is the limited “all” that means “all of a specific group,” in this case, the group that is referred to as “us” or “…those who have obtained like precious faith with us.” God is not willing that any of that group should perish, but rather it is His will that they all come to repentance, and they all will. If the “all” in this passage means “everyone in the world,” then “everyone in the world” will be saved. That is the false doctrine of universalism. It is impossible to establish from Scripture that it is the sovereign will of God that all people will be saved, because we know that not all people will be saved. God is all-powerful, and His will is going to be done. What kind of an omnipotent God would be unable to perform His sovereign will?

 

Regardless of where someone stands on the issue of “Calvinism” vs. “Arminianism,” it is important to base doctrine on Scripture. I believe it is illegitimate to use 2 Peter 3:9 to say that God wants everyone to be saved, but He is somehow unable to accomplish His will. It is more accurate to let the verse say what it says:  The “all” that God determines to be saved will, in fact, be saved. “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing…” (John 6:39, NKJV).

 

Some would say that God's electing grace is unfair and unjust, but in reality, it is a glorious truth for all believers. Not one of us can ever be lost or tossed aside. We are safe for all eternity. The truth of the matter is that without His electing grace, we would all choose condemnation because of our sinful nature, but that is another topic for another time.