W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

Thank you very much for your reply! I really appreciate it. However, there are still some passages in the Bible which I hope you will clarify for me.

INCEST: 'Sexual intercourse between two persons who are too closely related.' (New Collins Dictionary).

I was shocked to read cases of incest in 'Gods' book. Here are some examples.

INCEST BETWEEN A FATHER AND HIS DAUGHTER

'That night they (both the daughters of Lot) gave him (their father Lot) wine to drink and the older daughter had INTERCOURSE with him... 'The next day the older daughter said to her sister, I slept with him last night. Now lets get him drunk again tonight, and you sleep with him. Then eaxh of
us will have a child by our father. So that night they got him drunk and the younger daughter had INTERCOURSE with him... 'In this way both of Lot's daughters became PREGNANT by their father.' GENESIS 19:33-35 (From the 'Good News Bible-In Today's English')
 

INCEST BETWEEN MOTHER AND SON

'While Jacob (Israel) was living in the land, Reuben (his firsborn, his eldest son) had SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with Bilhah, his father's concubine.

GENESIS 25:22. The older Versions of the Bible, use the word, 'lay' for Thanks for you earlier reply! However, these are some passages which I take deep offence to, and hense I cannot accept that these passages are from God.

WHOLESALE RAPE AND INCEST BETWEEN SON AND HIS MOTHERS!

'So they set up a tent for Absalom (another son of King David) on the palace roof, and in
the sight of everyone, Absalom went in and had INTERCOURSE with his father's concubines.'

2 SAMUELS 16:22

'..In the sight of everyone' is rendered in the King James Version as 'In
the sight of all Israel.' This is a fulfillment of God's promise to David
the King.

WHOREDOMS OF THE 2 SISTERS- AHOLA AND AHOLIBA

'And she kept LUSTING in the style of concunines belonging to those whose whose fleshy member (genitals) is as the fleshy member (genitals) of male asses (donkeys) and whose GENITAL ORGAN is as the GENITAL ORGAN of male horses. EZEKIEL 23:1-49 (New World Translation) '..for the spirit of
WHOREDOMS hath cause them (the Jews) to err, and they have gone a WHORING from under their God' HOSEA 4:12, 6:10, AND 9:1

Are these immoral statements from God. Is the Bible from God? Did God inspire the authors to write such filth. Did he?
 
 

WORLD WIDE WEB WITNESS INC.

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your question regarding some actually or apparently abominable things, historically recorded in the Bible. I shall be pleased to seek to clarify these, just as you ask, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name I will set to this task. In the end, it will become rather like a chapter in a book; but what of it ? You ask, and you must be prepared to receive.

There appear seven basic adjustments needed in your understanding on these issues; and then there are the issues themselves.
 

As to these things in the word of God, in the places in view:

We shall therefore look both at the principles that relate, and the examples you cite, and see what becomes of them. It will take time; but so does any serious study.

As you have made many allegations, there will be a resultant need to examine many situations. One thing at a time, one answer; many things however require due assessment, each considered, with relevant facts pondered. One is aware of your concern that one should clarify, and appreciates both this, and the opportunity to seek to help in the name of the Lord. To do this is a pleasure, and you are most welcome.
 
 

First, there is a generic point. What is history ? Hollywood or Dunkirk, fiction or reality ?
Who is wrong ? The one who shamelessly distorts, or the one who faithfully records ? Take your pick. If you want truth, bear it, wear it. If you want records to your own taste, this is neither scientific nor useful, but an excursion into romantic thinking unworthy of serious discussion. That is a simple and a just principle. No historian can decide what history is, by first stipulating what is to his taste. For this NO marks would be the examination score.

Some people cover up their wrongs, and the Nixon Watergate affair is the classic political example. We do not admire this. It is deceitful. Nixon resigned. More recently, we hear of apparently almost shameless acts in USA government, which were brought to light, and deserved heavy rebuke, if not more. It does not adorn evil to cover it up; it merely gives it head. It needs rebuke, exposure. Enough should be enough, but it needs to be done.

It would be EVEN WORSE if such sins in the US were IGNORED, and not recorded in history. How unreliable this would become, and how uninstructive, because human evils were inaccurately deleted.

God is the truth, and His word states it. It is therefore useless for anyone to say what he/she will, or would rather not, permit the truth to be. It is even more futile to blame God for exposing human sin, as if it were His! That is merely to court delusion, of which there is enough already! The pretence of prettiness in man when it is not pretty, is rather like the mortician who makes the corpse look fine. In that case, it is not deceit, but a sense of seemliness, perhaps, which motivates; but if it WERE to cover up and deceive, that too would be deceit. The Bible insists on honesty. God does not cover up.
He exposes. His intense morality does not leave dirt under the carpet, but sweeps it up. He is too clean to leave it there. His purity is infinite.

The Lord does this for His own reasons, evidently including such as these: to reveal
 

• a) the nature of His rebuke,
• b) the case of justice.
• c) the lessons we all must learn from such follies, duly rebuked.

 

God neither needs nor allows pretence. HE is the truth. As He says, "His eyes behold, His eyelids try the children of men" - Psalm 11:4.

This then is the first generic principle, and we may now apply it in the very field, indeed, which you note in particular (1). (See colour code throughout for your cited cases, not in your order, but covering your concern.)

Accordingly, in Ezekiel 23:1-2, He is speaking of two ‘sisters’ in Egypt (from which land, the Lord mightily rescued the Jewish people of old). Later, however, the rescued Israel is entranced by immoral possibilities with the Chaldeans (verses 12-16). God will "raise up your lovers against you" - and this is referring to NATIONS (verses 22-23) such as the Chaldeans.

In Ezekiel 23:33, we find that one of the sisters has for her other sister "Samaria". Indeed, this is expressly STATED in Ezekiel 23:4! It is now doubly apparent that this is a parable in which the two sisters are, and must necessarily be, those to whom the prophet Ezekiel is commissioned to speak as announced at the outset (Ezekiel 2:3-5), namely Israel; and that a comparison is being made between her and her ‘sister’, Judah. It is a NATIONAL exposure in which the Lord is engaging in this passage, therefore.

The message is that the farce of religion in the midst of such revolting immoralities (which followed wholesale departure from the faith, trifling with it and infidelity to GOD, in SPIRIT - as in Hosea 4:1 and ff.), is unacceptable to the Almighty. He is not interested in supporting, and will not tolerate the activities which may righteously be compared in a form or figure of multiplied sexual immorality, faddish infatuations and giddy twirling of the emotions, in fact the whole decline of the people from the Lord, and the incredible follies resulting. He will rebuke. He will in the end destroy. They are on notice.

"Because," God says in Ezekiel 23:23:35, "you have forgotten Me, and cast Me behind your back, therefore bear also your lewdness and your whoredoms." To make the point even more obtrusive, look at the Psalms.

In Psalm 106:34-39, you have a rather long list of spiritual evils, incredible follies indeed: concerning politics, separation, idolatry, child sacrifice, demon immolation, murder, and find the review wording as follows: "and played the harlot by their own deeds." THIS was no way for one consecrated to the LORD to behave; it was a violation of divine mercy, purity, righteousness, integrity well compared with proligate impurity.

One observes therefore that God denounced these activities and exposed them with rigour some 2 and one half millenia before you did! He was revolted before you were. So ? He however is their God, their Creator indeed; and you are not: so He has occasion for action. So He has it written.

It is difficult to see why He should not have done so, or should not have used figurative indications of their enormities, in order to drive them like nails into their consciences. Besides, in addition to their spiritual unfaithfulness with IDOLS of other peoples who did not believe in God but in the cultural proclivities of their own hearts, just as is common as dirt to this day, which in figure : they really did engage in much adultery and injustice of other kinds. In fact, in the ENTIRE BOOK OF HOSEA, such things are in view, and the parallel between lust of body and lust of spirit is so brought to mind and to light, to expose it vigorously, and denounce it penetratingly. Both styles of folly are noted (Hosea 4:6ff., 7:6ff.), and indeed the political format of it, as well (Hosea 7:11ff.), all resulting from departure from the living God (Hosea 1:9).

Meditate therefore on II Kings 17:17-18, , II Chronicles 36:15-17, Amos 2:7, Hosea 4:14,17, 7;13-16, Hosea 7:4. In these you see NOT ONLY the SPIRITUAL ‘adultery’ (being like a bride to the Lord, spiritually, as a figure, but turning like an adulteress to the ‘lordship’ of gods which yet are no gods (as in Deuteronomy 32:21), but the physical; and you see, moreover, the close association of the one TYPE of lust (spiritual lust) with the other (physical lust, disorderly emotions, slavery to sin of the desire, including that sort of fawning folly which so many show to singing gurus, in their vast crowds, who sing ‘spiritual’ songs with odd messages….)

You see at work two major phases. God loves them and does not tolerate iniquity; and hence exposes, rebukes, uses imagery (as He explicitly and in principle states, in Hosea 12:10) and that in a varied and frequent manner, with a view to

It is no good trying to extort from a parable this or that: a parable is to make its point, and must be seen like an experiment in the laboratory, as showing some principle or point, or attesting it. We must not confuse the one with the other, or make the characterisation which is undoubtedly present in the parable, in order to attack the speaker, as if it were HIS evils and not those of the people which are thus exposed, with such penetrating realism, in a setting which not being the literal case, is therefore the more arresting.

Now we come to a third principle, in the realm of fantasy, but in this man so often walks, not always realising it: indeed, whole SCHOOLS of thought have been famous for their bent to fantasy, this way or that. God is what He is, and is neither ensnared with human sin, to be like it, nor harsh in its judgment, to leave no hope to the sinner. Fantasy would have Him all judgment or all laxity. NOWHERE is such seen.

In reality, mercy and truth are found, but truth is not made to deviate by mercy, for it is what it is; nor is mercy made to deviate by truth, for it provides its sacrifices. God never varies from being both merciful and just; and when mercy is exhausted, it is not that He is tired, but that the flesh is worn out, the conscience seared, the case shunted into the irrevocable (as in II Chronicles 36, precisely, I Timothy 4:2 cf. Genesis 6!).

Thus, it is possible to grow like the Pharisees and be ‘appalled’ that the Lord did not instantly kill them all (or for that matter, remove the world from the first, when man sinned - let’s think it through then!). In this fictitious model, justice is to abort mercy.

On the other extreme, it is possible to be lax, like modern day spiritual descendants of the Sadducees, and to be appalled that God corrected them at all, annoyed because He rebuked them, and even destroyed the Northern Kingdom, giving enormous penalties to the Southern one (which Ezekiel so tellingly assailed with the parable to which you refer, moved by the Lord to act in the love of those to be so grievously punished, and in the testimony of truth). Ignoring such as Ezekiel, this model would have it that mercy is to abort truth. But it simply cannot be done. Nothing can ever change a fact, a reference to what has been; and mercy is not manipulated, but covers what it may and will.

It is better to realise that the Lord is slow to anger, and we do well to be likewise. He DOES testify, as I did in my Melbourne seminary, and that sharply. He however does also warn, and saves some, while meanwhile at times, whole bodies are lost, whether false betraying churches, modern day counterparts of Judas Iscariot, or people, or nations or empires…

The marvels of God’s redemptive love on the one hand, His glorious holiness on the other, and His willingness to make up the difference between our performance and His holiness by His sacrificial splendour, in bearing the sins of those who receive His salvation: these are full of mercy and truth. He does not leave either.

"Let," says the Proverbs 3, "mercy and truth not forsake you.

Bind them around your neck.

Write them on the tablet of your heart,

And so find favour … in the sight of God."

Jesus Christ, in accord with the nature of God whom exact image He is, even the brightness of His glory (Hebrews 1), of equal honour, so exposed the Pharisees that it almost removes the skin of the eyes to read of it in Matthew 23. They are in the Bible likened to graves on which a man might walk, and not realise it, to whited sepulchres, to those who for pretence make long prayers, in fact seeking the ‘reward’ of having widows leave them money in their wills. Presumptuous, pompous pretenders do not please God; He spares nothing, like the X-ray which shows up lung cancer in all its horror. He spreads it out. Sometimes an X-ray of the lung of a cancer victim, being made available, might stop someone ELSE from dying likewise.

Unwise is he who objects to the picture. Wise the one who, realising he too is a sinner in HIS OWN WAY, repents rather and seeks peace with God by the sacrifice He has provided, than attacking the word of God because it attacks sin, and does so with mercy in mind; for man in his works is so far

Thus in Matthew 22:1-14, we see the picture of those who are too concerned with their own affairs, to come to the feast of the King (the Father) for His Son (Christ), to which they are actually even INVITED. Hence they justly incur the wrath of the righteous and kindly King, who Himself is providing what is needed for attendance. HENCE to the byways and under the hedges they go, to seek and to save that which is lost, and to bring THEM to the feast. There is however, one man, presumptuously attending the wedding without the ROBE REQUIRED: and he ? That man is cast into outer darkness for his folly, pride and arrogant self-assurance.

The meaning is seen in Isaiah 61:10, where it is the LORD WHO PROVIDES the clothing of righteousness, and covering the ‘bride’ with this garment: so attributing to the saved sinner HIS own righteousness, exhibited and exposed on the Cross of Calvary, and receiving in His own pierced Person, the sin of the same. In this way, He is making a transfer precisely as itemised and detailed in II Corinthians 5:17-21.

In the Matthew 22 parable, therefore, the man who presumed to come into the pure and holy presence of God without this COVERING in Christ is rejected as an impostor. He has forsaken his own mercy^*1 . There is no other (Acts 4:11-12). God makes His own terms. He is not the United Nations. Man’s only option is to reject them (John 3:16-36). The result is judgment, where sin is not tolerated at all. Without the advocate, Jesus Christ, appointed, sin has no tolerance at all! (I John 2:1-2), but with Him is mercy that He might be served. The extent of it is shown by the extent of His own determined suffering, the just for the unjust to bring us to God (I Peter 3:18).

So much, for the time, concerning God’s realism (He IS the truth), refusal to COVER UP, exposure, rebuke. In the case of Ezekiel 23, it is seen in a parable, teaching a lesson which, not heeded, resulted in the destruction of the northern nation. It was worth exposure, worth the graphics, worth the unvarnished depiction, the imagery if only some might come. God descibres it as "rising up early (II Chronicles 36:15).

Hence a doctor might make the uttermost of the state of a smoker’s lungs, using imagery to MATCH his folly, in order to awaken him to his plight, before he dies in agony. Any objections! I feel sure the smoker who awakes in TIME has no objections to such loving realism.

To call such exposure filth is not fitting. It is factuality. It is mercy, protestation, asseveration, but never exculpation except where there is repentance and return to His mercy, through faith, based on the sacrifice of Christ.

All this: It does not exalt man; man is not exalted. Some cannot stand this. The true filth is actually to suppress the sin of man, to build empires of morality that do not touch the earth, merely adding pride to ill-performance, and neglecting the Lord, never to be made clean. Thus in Jeremiah 13:27: "Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you not be made clean ? When shall it once be ?" HOW they paid! Read of it in the book of Lamentations! Truth must stand, and lies and fraud fall. They will, in any case, in judgment. Realism is the only way to mercy. As God says:

"Yet you say,

‘Because I am innocent,

Surely His anger shall turn from me.’

Behold, I will plead My case against you,

Because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’ "

Whatever opposes truth opposes God; for God is truth, and will deal with evil ONLY by mercy, not by negotiation or mere preference for this or that.
 
 

Truly revolting however is the translation you give of Ezekiel (1). We must not adorn it, if invention of evils could be called … adornment. It appears that in your letter, you are citing Ezekiel 23:20: "She longed for her paramours, who were lustful as donkeys and impetuous as stallions" (Berkeley Version). Literally, the term is "flesh", which you adorn with the concept of genitals. There is no way this ‘genital’ reference can be sustained (even if it were an issue). It is a work of the imagination.

The simple term used is flesh. Dr Laird Harris and Gleason Archer, in their almost incredibly scholarly work, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" speak on the meaning of the term at length (transliterated, basar). It means flesh, can be used of skin, of life in general , kin. Flesh or body is the point, with emphasis on the expression of life in form. As the Queen’s motto says, Let him be dishonoured who thinks it! (Honi soit qui mal y pense! - it is French.)

To the pure, says the word of God, all things are pure. In other words, there is the mind of the reader as well as that of the writer. In the translation you have elected to use, the degeneration of the text is not commendable, but what it exposes it not what is written, rather an addition of meaning.

There is no reference at the point cited, to genitals. The point AS WRITTEN is this: There is an attraction of the nature of lust (which can be emotional, physical, mental, spiritual, and in the context is several of these), which both expresses departure from the Lord and leads to more of it (as in Romans 1, Hosea 4).

This evil worked in Israel, so that, in a figure or image, being like a wife of the Lord, she is now drawn like an adulteress to others. This is a giddy, whirling folly of unrestraint. That is what is being said.

Now as to the precise nature of the imagery used: it is asserted that the flesh, body, life, kin, nature of the Chaldeans resembles that of examples noted for their brash rashness. Thus, it is being divinely asserted of the sinning, straying, rebellious nation of Israel (as in Isaiah 30:8ff., II Chronicles 36), that something is to be said of their disposition, of their nature: it is this.

They are as untamed as donkeys and stallions. This gives the picture of wildness, thrust and lust, but nothing more. Do you object that wildness, thrust and lust is compared to wildness, thrust and lust in notable examples ? Would you then object if a judge said of a young man who misused in vehement speed, a powerful sports car: You are as passionate as a tiger! What then are you trying to do!

Do you want to tell the Almighty to be silenced about degrading things, and to fail to exhibit them tellingly, with attestation of their baseness to cause shame and blushing, even amongst the unblushing! Should a dentist throw away the X-ray showing the abscess? Not expose it! And when it is a nation, shall they be left in silence! THAT would be immoral. This, it is moral. It is as simple as that.

But would you even add to what He actually does say, and then complain about what He did not in fact state! This is becoming something other than scholarly, sustainable or even relevant. No, this will not do. It is simple failure to comprehend. For that, it is not well, or indeed wise, to blame the Almighty, whose name must be used with a care which is singular.

The word of God, the Bible, demonstrated to be His on our site, is not affected by such things; but those in error may be. Hence I am seeking to help you, as you request. It is a pleasure if I may do so, but the cases, involving His name, require meticulous care. God is loving, and it is not of Him that the children of men are willingly afflicted (Lamentations 3:33). To ACHIEVE THIS, however, it is necessary to exercise great watchfulness (or "circumspection", to use His word) in His worship, and great concern at His requests, avoiding needless provocation. He is far too wonderful for such things to be done! And who would want to provoke one whom he loves!

In fact, the Pharisees of old were experts in it, making additions and distortions, though they never prevailed, and indeed, neither have any others (cf. Matthew 22 and the cases there noted).

Thus, in literal, etymological fact, then, the explanation you give of "flesh" is not warranted. The term means flesh, and the superimposition of some conception of genitals is mere addition to the word of God: a practice which, not surprisingly, the Lord condemns, warning as well on such a topic (Proverbs 30:6). Rebuke as a liar is a possible result of such addition, the word of God indicates in that passage! We all must be careful not to be involved in such things, even if such was not the intention.

What the text actually does is to provide a mere parallel; what is translated and criticised, however, is mere intrusion! The case is base, but not from God: as usual it is from man!

Yes God said what He said, and with great, and restrained realism, neither erring to excess, nor to too little, as lovingly He acts to awaken. What He said, He said; and what He has attributed to Him, is not to the point, except to learn the valuable lesson, to watch HIS words, when talking about them, and to keep STRICTLY to them, when wanting to question them! If you can do this, it will be excellent.
 
 

Incidentally, by now you should be readily able to realise what is meant by "the spirit of whoredoms" which you cite from Hosea (2). For interest, one notes that Webster’s dictionary indicates that Biblically, this term, ‘whoredom’, refers to the worship of false and obscene gods… God does not approve of this incessant SPIRITUAL falling into IDOLATRY which in imagery is a TYPE of lust and whoredom, as explained above. It is a SPIRIT OF DISLOYAL AND DISGRACEFUL SELF-INDULGENCE WHICH IS LIKEWISE POLLUTED IN SPIRIT and often followed by other immoral consequences, sometimes indeed, quite formally and systematically in the false religion. Further, it is the negative side of a spectacular glory, the reference to His people as to a wife.

This shows the intimacy of love, the cherishing by strength and many such things: it DOES have the obverse side. If the ‘wife’ strays in a desire for other teaching, false prophets and the like, it is LIKE adultery. That is the nature of the image. It brings out the horror and abominable character of serving false gods, prophets and the like, through consistent application of the imagery of health, to the disease.

Thus God rebukes repeatedly, in terms which shame the perpetrators. How dare they use HIS name and DO these things (this is explicit in Jeremiah 7:8-11)! It led at one point to the massive reprisals following their exposure on Mount Carmel in the days of Elijah (cf. I Kings 18:36-40, together with the law on the topic, in Deuteronomy 13, which provided the death penalty for such lying fraud in the name of the Lord, in the theocracy of Israel, as it then was).

Thus in Jeremiah 7, we read:

WHERE and when they persist in a people called by His name, the PEOPLE will be removed; and they were. In the case of Judah, it was ‘only’ for a 70 year exile. Next time it was for 2000 years. That is rather a long sentence… Not moral!

Far worse than adultery, gross and appalling as it is, is this adulteration of spiritual purity, this breach of covenant, this treachery against a holy alliance with God, watching to Him as the one in authority, in this like a bride with her husband. The first and greatest commandment is to love God with all the heart and mind and soul and strength, and to put ANYTHING else before this is just this passionate displacement in which the desires of flesh (whether, again, mind, or body, or spirit) dominate. It is foul. It is spiritually adulterous for those committed to Him, like a wife. It is obscene in those not so.

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Romans 1, remember) against those who HOLD DOWN the truth repressively, and in so doing, become fools, falling into all sorts of moral pits, whether pride or perversion or whatever.

That the physical follies followed is awful, but comparatively, incidental.
To fall from God is fatal, for those whose ‘faith’ is no more than verbal; but to fall into this and that sin, is TYPICAL, and like the rocks falling after a volcano.

What can you expect with a volcano: but IT, for its part, is spiritual. The rocks follow. They may seem worse; but they are consequences of the initial eruption (spiritual).

In Hosea 4:12, which surprisingly, you mention (3), God is mocking their resource to natural things in their endeavour to achieve real understanding and spiritual results (just like the mythical case of organic evolution today, which is just one more case of nature worship, false gods, far more immoral than adultery, which defiles the flesh, for this defiles the name of God as well - cf. That Magnificent Rock Chs. 1,  8). In fact, they forget the One who has introduced them to Himself, and look at His other creations in a perfect splendour of pollution, defiling His greatness and exalting their own, or that of ‘nature’! (Cf. Jeremiah 2:27.)

The spirit of IMPURE LOVE is alas upon them. It is indeed like other impure love. It is a category, and just because it is not so apparent in SPIRITUAL terms to the blind, does not mean it is not just as bad: it is worse. God compares the one to the other, to achieve some recognition in their blindness: rather like those advertisements on smoking which show cigarettes like giant chimneys polluting (by your own personal choice) YOUR LUNGS! Love will use imagery, and this is LESS horrible than the actual; as well as being ONE result of the actual. When the great Physician speaks, it is well to listen, and not to minimise the diagnosis, or object to the concern! That is the fifth principle.
 
 

Thus in the other verse you cite, Hosea 6:10 (4), the nature of the particular ‘whoredom’ in view has just been stated. In this case, it is this: "as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness". Disgusting you say of this verse ?

Yes, human avarice is disgusting, but is this in some way, supposedly, relevant to some criticism of the word of God, of the Bible! Because God here is assailing this vicious meanness of spirit, are you offended! If this offends you, then it is you who judge God for judging, and that, it is not a very sustainable case. To judge someone for His judgment on immorality is scarcely moral! It is to object to it! Justice WILL out, and it is quite futile to come in-between. ONLY mercy can do that.

So then what is this case which you cite in Hosea 6 ? It is rapacity, robbery, murder: that is this case. This LUST, this passion for self and self’s will and wishes is a FORM of lust. We do the same with this term, in English. He lusted for prestige, power and position, we say. Do you object ? This is the nature of the term, that it may be used in one way or another. The GENERIC sense is DISORDERED and UNCONTROLLED desire for selfish purposes, ungoverned and ungodly. Let us then use the language as it comes, and not read into it more than it says. To criticise the Creator for His criticism of human sin is unproductive and wholly irrelevant to any rational ground for complaint - except, of course, that OF the Almighty that such criticism should be made. But that, it is His business. It is necessary, as noted, to be CAREFUL. His name is very great, and so is His word. It must be studied. There is nothing to criticise but oneself.

What, then, does the text say ? it is just that concerning the ethical evils in view, robbery and the like, in this case. Where however it does compare spiritual passion for folly to physical passion for physical lust, or for murder and so on, let us not object as if we could govern the language, or invent a new sense for it. These things are related in vile violence; and analogy can compare; and when the one sense is a result of the other, and separately attested, this is merely just and careful use of the language or rebuke, stinging the conscience and exposing the spirit. God does this. He made it. He does not spare denunciation on the way to hell, in the interests of an AWAKENING OF CONSCIENCE, through the exposure of the nature of the interests in view, that men might turn from their evil ways! He does not adorn a corpse: He indicates rather its pollution (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10, 4:17-19). Nor does He invent what is not occurring, in any case, in the example in view, as has been shown.

Shutting the eyes to disease, on the other hand, is a first-rate way of turning disease into death…

In Romans 1 you see the whole thing trace in principle. Thus in Romans 1:17-20, you find the offence. People HOLD DOWN the truth (suppress it, like a wrestler) and so incur the wrath of God. It is not that the truth is not available; it is just that it is not desired, and every sort of effort may be made to avoid it! How obvious it is, the truth (Romans 1:20).

What there do we find, in this first chapter of Romans ? There are people, in this case, well supplied with opportunity to know God. However, disesteeming this, they turned to become "vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image … Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonour their own bodies… who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creation more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." (See Romans 1:21-24.)
 
 

Hosea 9:1 you also cite (5).

This is similar to the current passion for something new (the ‘itching ears’ syndrome noted by Paul, and assigned, as a speciality in the last days, in the context of I Timothy 4:1-2, II Timothy 3, and of course, II Timothy 4:3: it has come as predicted, as such things always do).

Thus in reading Hosea 9:1 it is well to read 8:14, first, after all, for 9:1 follows it! The fault is that "Israel has forgotten his Maker, and builds temples, and Judah has multiplied fenced cities", and the result ? "I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour its palaces." It is in this case a spiritual folly, allied to self-reliance as a nation.

Doctors can look for root causes of disease, and compare one disease with another, as well as note underlying principles for varieties of disease. It is not for the ignorant to correct them in this. It is time to listen!

Now you wish that one look at the case of Lot and the incest which occurred (6). Yes it did occur in that case, and the results were horrendous. It is well not to pretend that incest has never occurred. Engineers do not hide cracks in the tail assemblage (honestly)! Doctors do not hide diseases. Historians do not rightly suppress their coverage. We wish to learn what happened, and what happened because it happened, if we are to study the position, not to be anaesthetised. In the Bible we are not confused by glosses or superficial pretences.

Intense realism precedes, enormous sacrifice follows, for those who repent and receive the pardon plus regeneration God offers. It culminates in Christ on the cross. It is consummated in the resurrection by power, and will be applied in the judgment, pardon for those who have accepted this prodigious action of the living God; everlasting contempt for those who refuse it. And "THIS," says Christ, "is the condemnation: that light has come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." The escape however is near, in the Gospel, while it is still called ‘today’ (II Corinthians 6:1-2).

What then do we here find ? What really happened is briefly exposed and the penalty - unless real repentance issues - is to be looked for. In this case of Lot, the Moabites and the Ammonites resulted. These nations became bitter enemies of Israel, and the penalty was enormous. What then of this lapse from faith, on the part of Lot’s family, reacting foolishly for self-preservation in the plight of seeing their civilisation destroyed (from which they had just be rescued - as in Genesis 19, even from the fabled and hideously immoral Sodom) ? What was the consequence ? This: It led ironically to the very thing they feared. Evil means to achieve safety, led to insecurity and many disasters. There is the lesson, and the word of God teaches lessons. The grossness of the evil is mirrored in the calamity of the consequence. Lessons by halves are mere rote. We need reality.

What then do we find ? It is this. The desire of the refugees, of the daughters of Lot was for children and re-establishment. In so seeking, by illicit means, they fell on this occasion to horrible depths. The result however had a sting in it which lasted for many generations! How much did the Moabites and the Ammonites cause Israel trouble! The moral sped like light to the darkness of their evils; and while pardon may accrue, and does, to saving faith in the Lord, where rebellion continues, the results accumulate. In this sense, the evil comes to the third and fourth generation of those WHO HATE HIM (Exodus 20).

The justice of God is not mocked; nor is His mercy to be misused. This is clearly taught. It is necessary to have faith in Him at all times, and do what is right, leaving by faith, the problems perceived, to HIM for HIS resolution.

So are we taught the seduction of morality to base sin, the pathology, on the one hand, and the beauty of faith, in the mercy of God, to avoid the one and cling to the other. This is more, but not less than morality! How often God chides them for FOLLOWING the ways of the very nations He judged, as they entered the promised land, and how often He told them the penalties, which duly came (e.g. Psalm 106:24-40, 78:52-64, II Kings 17:7-8). How eloquently He would plead with them (as in Proverbs 1, with its pathos, appeal and judgment in a love and a beauty of holiness entirely arresting, teaching a lesson best practised with keen faith, from the earliest years!) Could I ask you to read this chapter, the first of Proverbs!

It does seem, then, Frank, that you are speaking without sufficient knowledge in much of your protestations, as well as breaching sound principles in these things, more generally. Still, you ask for clarification, so that is far better than merely erring! In fact, it is well in this respect, that the word of God, as always, shows in its magnificent completeness, clear answers for every confusion, testimony for every query, and overcomes in all things. There is literally in all that is written, nothing like it, speaking on over its 3500 years or so, needing no updating, no revision. Science fades grossly in much, in 50 years, but the word of God, by contrast, does not fade or fail in 70 times as long. Inspired ? Nothing else can so control events as to assure outcomes, as the One who has the power and wisdom.

Grass and flesh fade, says the word of God, but the word of God endures forever (I Peter 1:24-25): this is simply factual concerning what is observed. You ask me ? Well then, I reply. I can only reflect what is there. One must be accurate. But it is a joy to reflect it, because … it is SO very polished!

When you see this, these things continually in practice, and examine their wonder, over some 50 years, it is like driving a beautiful car, a delight and a joy of heart.

Inspired ? you ask. Yes, inspiringly inspired, I am forced to answer as I test things in this way and that, following their demonstration as on the Home site.
 
 

Now we come to another case you cite (7). Your case of Absolam, however, is most strange. There is no reference to Absolam being the son of a concubine! Where did you obtain this idea ? His mother was "Maacah, the daughter of Talmah king of Geshur" (II Samuel 3:3). There is no reference to her becoming a concubine. Maacah is placed in category as a wife of David. Action with the concubines is not at ALL the same thing as this.

Now, what is your ground for saying this about mothers and sons, in this
case ? Alas it is one more instance of not adhering to what is written!

There was wholesale and daring expression of contempt for King David by his son Absolam, who was in the midst of a godless, treacherous and evil revolt. It was foul (though not what you imagined), but arrogantly contemptuous, designed to humiliate, to show his power and glory, to impress Israel with his total power, like an Idi Amin, perhaps. This was the evil means chosen in his evil and treacherous rebellion against his father. SO ?

Do you want us not to learn of the evils of the misuse of the scimitar or the atomic bomb, each in its day, because they are evil ! Do you want to learn of the evils of people being given second class citizenship, and death if they revolted, UNLESS they ‘converted’ to some other faith, such as the Moslem case ? Will we ignore this ? Or Hitler ? Or Mao ? WHY! Are the Japanese in their misuse of women, systematically, to be ignored in this, so that they feel the affront is not after all so very great! Are you then offended when you learn of the deaths from the cruelly paranoid hand of Stalin! Should we be ignorant of this, so that Communist propaganda should the more readily trick us into consideration of its system ?

We MUST know what is happening, so that we may attest the fruits of each system, each way, and see the misuse of power to gain spiritual ends, in fact to seek ‘conversions’, where this appalling evil occurs, as it very frequently does. It is not so, of course in the Bible. (See SMR pp. 50ff., 977-978, 986-993, 1080ff..) God NEVER uses power as an extortion for conversion, since this is merely a contradiction in terms. Rebuke in judgment for evils is one thing; misuse of power to intimidate the heart into a false appearance of acceptance, this is another. GOD HATES FRAUD, whether of those who act AS IF they believed in Him, or not; and especially the former (as in Isaiah 1!). He is not hard up (Psalm 50:12-14, 21ff.): He does not need to EXPAND His glory. He is the truth; and He speaks it. The wonder is that He is also merciful. But He sets down His way, and it may not be changed. God speaks; we listen. Yet what we hear, it is wonderful, it is unimpugnable. It is divine indeed.

It is thus man’s freedom, not God’s failure which is the basis of sin; it is God’s rebuke, not man’s resistance which is the upshot. It is repentance, not objection, which is the path towards remedy. It is Christ alone who IS the remedy, the difference between the standards of God and those of man, vicariously given (Matthew 28:20).

What then ? Are we to be blind so that we may repeat in horrid, torrid history what we should be willing to accept for instruction! You amaze me by the implications from what you appear to be intimating.

Is it ‘quite impossible’ then also to accept that author’s writings because he exposes such appalling evils! Or is he rather to be given (as happened from earlier works, of like kind) the Nobel prize for literature, and respected in Russia for fearless exposure of utter horror, helping its overthrow and deliverance for those oppressed!

No, Frank, you err in attributing evil to its report, and wrong motive (apparently, in terms of your reaction) to its exposure. Will judges, then, be sacked because they investigate evil, and assign penalties! THAT would be immoral. The expression in due form for good reason is instructive. To suppress this is merely to add to the grounds for wrath from God, who, having GIVEN us a true account of human depravity, is then NOT blamed for exposing it. On the contrary, He is telling us not to be high-minded, and to realise that we are all sinners in this or that way. ALL are without God except by His mercy; and this mercy should be sought where it may be found (see Isaiah 55), not blighted!

Many, however, DO reject the diagnosis, both of their doctors and of their God, and many die as a result, first physically before their time, and then spiritually, in eternal contempt. God loves, and gives facts with realism, while condemning sin, and requiring us not to befuddle ourselves: NONE of us is righteous, and the worst cases, as Christ indicates so clearly in Matthew 23 and parallels, are those who preen themselves on their imaginary capacity to stand as they are before God!

What says Paul ? "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God." THAT is a gift: it may be rejected. The results WILL be inspected - as the wedding guest parable, noted earlier, so dramatically shows. To ‘establish one’s own righteousness’ is both futile and in the end, arrogant. God WILL NOT ACCEPT IT. It flows from His regeneration, but the STANDARD of perfection as required, is Christ’s and Christ’s alone. To forsake this by not receiving it, is wilful, is blind; but it is also quite fatal … morally!

What then ? You would appear to assume that what God exposes, He approves; but we have just seen that enormity of His condemnations, the severity of His ultimate justice (whether on Christ as Saviour or on those who reject Him as sinners), the breach of His STATED principles and the cited consequences. God’s purity is utter, and NOTHING short of it will ever reach heaven. In vain does anyone look for any immoral principle of GOD in His word! It is the immoral breaches by MAN of which we read, as well of course, as the glorious measure of conformity by some, to His ways.

If now, you object to the citation of sin, HE objects to the elevation of sin to the hope of heaven. You cannot gate-crash there, let alone by rejecting His OWN attested mercy (cf. Matthew 7:21ff.). Many, says Christ, will come and boast of their works, but He asseverates, to many who come thus in their OWN name and not in HIS, He will profess: "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" You need to be clothed with God’s righteousness to have any way to heaven (Titus 3:5ff., Romans 3:23ff., Ephesians 2:1-12, Isaiah 61:10, Matthew 22).

To judge the mercy of God, and to object at His realism, what then of this ? Logically, this approach is simply neither sound, nor warranted. As to sin, to expose it - this is the opposite of to approve. To state judgments and expose them in this way or that, or in the midst of strong appeals and rebukes, and wholly adequate provisions for mercy, and then to go on to destroy a people BECAUSE they REFUSE TO FACE IT: this is not at all immoral. It is however what happened! That is what you must face. Facts.

This is the nature and outcome of much of what you quote, and of all of it, in whole or part, by direct statement or by implication. To object to it, then, what is that! Consider this, for it would be fitting for you to do so!

It is however the very height of morality, to call to mind, to cite, to expose, to appeal, to provide by mercy the way of escape, and to leave no way for pretence and pride to follow. There is a truly beautiful morality, moreover, in having NO ROOM FOR PRIDE in heaven. It would be false, and is almost endemic in man. There however it is SYSTEMATICALLY out of the question. "For by grace," He says to the Christians, "you are the saved ones, through faith; and that is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." {The ‘that’ is neuter in gender and implies that the WHOLE process is not of yourselves, but the gift of God (exactly as in John 1:12-13).}

Moreover, when God Himself comes as man to die for the immorality, the sins of the flesh, whether the mind, the spirit or the body, and worse, to suffer for the spiritual depravity of forsaking HIM (than which nothing is in essence worse, for it is presumptuous and contemptible, brash and illicit), then mere morality is surpassed by so much that though it is beautiful, this is by super-eminence far more so. THIS is the glory which surpasses (II Corinthians 3:9-10).

THIS is divine.

The perfect morality and justice is so severe that it does not rest until it has met the perils of bad performance in the perfections of righteous performance (Christ’s), and found the way to attribute to sinners what they lack, from the reservoir of the sacrifice of Christ. As the Lord created alone, so He redeems, and He alone (cf. II Corinthians 4:6). The perfect morality of God is not satisfied with imperfection. It lashes out at the failures of pride to be realistic. It allows lashings to be given to Christ to satisfy perfect morality, and to bear the burden of the failure so those who come to Him, that He "might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). What does it say of the believer ? "By HIS stripes, we are healed" - Isaiah 53:5.

Now we arrive at your reference to Bilhah as being in Genesis 25:22 (8). Unfortunately, this is incorrect. It is 35:22. Now as to the case, this too is incorrect. Reuben is not the son of Bilhah. It is difficult to see how you could have gained such an idea. Reuben is clearly specified to be the son of Leah (Genesis 29:32).

One can have only ONE mother, if one is human! It does not therefore matter too much, I should think, that this repels you. What you state is not what is recorded! (As an example: I am repelled by human butchery. In general, some things are indeed hard to accept - but they happen, and some people have to CORRECT them, say, physically, on the operating table: we must face facts if we are to be friends of the Lord whose world holds them. It is HOW we deal with them, not shutting our eyes, which matters. It is not appropriate to distort the facts albeit by oversight, and then be repelled however, even if being repelled by just exposure of sin were correct in the first case!)

Anyway, this does not matter, since this matter to which you refer, did not happen, or at any rate is not recorded; and I say with some painful concern, that you have once again attributed to God what He did not say. If HE DID say history, again, that is HIS business. My God is the God of truth and HE DEALS WITH IT, and its cost the cross.

I am glad He does not ignore it blindly, since His holiness is pure; but equally, that He has a place to put it, instead of merely being unable to "accept it". All sinners, blighted by their errors and evils, and disposed from the divine mind without decisive intervention, would be in hell. THAT is the nature of love: it is realistic and practical and does what it takes. It did intervene. First, it does not hide from facts; it faces them. Then, in due course at the date predicted in Daniel 9 (SMR pp. 886ff.), Christ took them on His mauled face, on the cross, FOR THOSE who receive Him as He is. We read this:
 

"Just as many were astonished at you:
 

So disfigured, His appearance was not human, and His form not like that of the children of men:

so will He make many nations to tremble; kings will shut their mouth at Him: for they see what has not been told them, and discover what they have not heard" -

(as the exceedingly famous Delitzsch renders Isaiah 52:14-15, in his volume on Daniel, in the set of Old Testament commentaries: Keil and Delitzsch).

It is not He who should erroneously be now attacked, in the word which He endorsed (Matthew 5:17-19).

Since we are dealing, then, with what one cannot "accept", consider this. Some of the things which you attack are NOT stated by GOD, and yet it is HIS WORD which you attacked! This is so in the last case just name concerning Bilhah. Now, what is it called when someone attacks someone else’s speech, on grounds which are not substantiated! What is it called when someone does this to God! I do believe you must consider this. Truth is necessary, accuracy is lovely, and reality is inescapable. It applies in word and in deed. One must never wander from the truth. That way is the abyss.

On the other hand, Christ who outfaced sin, is the way home. But first one must realise that home is a long way off, without Him (Ephesians 2:12), and hence be realistic about the high cost of not KNOWING GOD, and receiving His salvation at HIS hand! (cf. John 17:1-3).
 
 

What in fact we find in this record is that God is not mocked. He does not blindly ignore sin in those who name His holy name, as if He were a respecter of persons, with favourites who could do no wrong. He "is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity" - calmly consider it without response (Habakkuk 1;13); and judgments follow as the case requires. The judgments ON THE JEWS ARE PHENOMENAL, world-wide in their acknowledgment, famed and a source of amazement to many. The Lord stated what He would do for their successive sins against Him, which He predicted accurately as always with that divine power which is evidenced as that of the God of the Bible ALONE, and detailed what the penalties would be; and they have come to pass just as He said in Leviticus 28, Deuteronomy 28ff., over the last nearly 3500 years.

Let us repeat for emphasis: THIS IS HIGHLY MORAL. He gives warning. He gives principles and laws. He shows mercy, but He imposes judgment where mercy is disdained. This is the HEIGHT OF MORALITY. When He bears the penalty Himself for those who repent and receive His redemption, long forecast (Barbs, Arrows and Balms 17) in many Old Testament prophets, with enormous detail and accuracy, this is more than morality:

"Are these immoral statements from God. Is the Bible from God ? Did God inspire the authors to write such filth…"

An immoral statement is one which exhibits or endorses immoral principles or practice, as if such things were right. In no case have you shown any such thing. It would, for example, be the most gross of misrepresentations to pretend that the case of the rebel leader Absolam, whom God crushed before his father David, and who did NOT have sexual intercourse in any case with his mother by any record in the Bible, was APPROVED by God. THAT appears to be in your mind; it is NOT in the Bible! To whom then does one have to attribute the moral error in this case ! You make just the same error relative to Jacob in the matter of Reuben. This is not mother and son.

Nor indeed, is there the slightest indication that God approved of this immoral presumption of Reuben. In fact, and quite the contrary, Reuben was to suffer acutely at this very family level, when he tried in vain to deliver Joseph, and then in the blessings by Jacob, was told this: "Unstable as water, you shall not excel!" (Genesis 49:3-4). Further, Leviticus 18:6 is quite clear that such things are condemned by God.

Indeed, some of these statements which you cite are from God. Some are not. Some you add to, some you mischaracterise, mistaking terms or misusing them. In all, you misinterpret record of condemned conduct virtually as if it were commended, and wrongly assault the author of the Bible as if record is acceptance, its exposure approval, or even commendation. In this you violate the Lord’s EXPLICIT statements on what is right, and attribute to the judge the faults of His subjects. Who then is being immoral here ? Is it moral to accuse falsely, and to state that the judge is guilty of the fault of the one He judges! Is it ? Is it then ?
 

The filth is only by blasphemy attributed to God, where it is in fact filth (some of the cases only). To protest at a record of filth (which is by no means what you assert, but does include evil, certainly) and to suggest that the record betokens filth in the writer, is not sustainable. Medical records are not indictments of physicians, and divine records of sin, are not indictments of the judge who in His outrage, cites them.

What is exposed is sin and what is imposed is judgment.
 
 

In fact, you must realise a seventh principle. The word of God is for INSTRUCTION in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16), and as to the warning arising from the breaches of law in the past, this are part of that instruction. In I Corinthians 10, we see this exemplified, when the follies of the Israelites are openly exhibited as a present ground for humility and care in the days of Paul, so very much later. THIS is the use made of the cited transgressions in the context of the just God and His actions towards man. Would you condemn the police for warning the young with the examples of the old, when they show all too much willingness to follow them!

Love does not mess around with pretence; it faces facts. Pride may resent its abasement, but better abased than wasted in ruin! (cf. Jeremiah 13:16-19). Reality of mercy purges and pierces, as well as pardons, and it spares nothing in its cleanness. The floors are not clean by magic, but by work!

God works, and His word exposes, rebukes and insists.

Thus you too must be realistic ! Is not the truth a holy thing! Have you not yourself in this very letter wrongly accused God by using His word inexactly, making erroneous characterisations (which at times do not even draw near the truth of the record as it is written)! Can you ‘accept’ this! It is necessary Frank to accept facts.

Without that, repentance does not occur, and so remedy is not found! It is just the same in medicine: quite useless to attack the doctor for your X-ray images.

Better it is, to acknowledge guilt and repent and seek the Lord and His forgiveness. In the medical case, an operation is needed. In this one too: it is called "repentance to life" and it is called being "regenerated" (Acts 11:18, Titus 3:5). God has wrath with sin, and your aversion to the record of some evils men did, which God exposes and rebukes, is as NOTHING compared with His aversion to sin… such as wrongly representing Him, however unintentionally, for example. Truth, it is indispensable.

In sum then: There is no moral problem in God’s exposing, condemning and bringing penalty on sin. You cite correctly a few things where this occurred, incorrectly quite a number of things, which you mistake. But in principle, it is so: men sin, and the work of God does nothing to spare the facts. Moreover, though the rebukes in longsuffering may not be fatal at first, yet they are vehement in the end, if need be, through lack of repentance. As some say, "the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small" - As Reuben found when his ‘blessing’ came! Of course, at times God acts suddenly, but not without all due longsuffering.

This is love, not laxity. Without this, no man including yourself could so much as live one moment out of hell. God does NOT tolerate sin AT ALL, and it is only on the basis of Christ the redeemer that any HOPE is available to ANY ONE. In heaven there is NO place for the evils (as in Revelation 21:8).

The "spirits of just men made perfect" (Hebrews 12:21-24), through the intervention and redemption of Christ, are the only sort that get in. The idea of making your IMPERFECT works even part of the degraded quality relevant to gaining entry, it is this which is morally and spiritually abhorrent. Such things as those, as a GROUND of salvation, or any part of it, make the status polluted, and heaven already on the way to hell. These things however are not so, and God does not so demean His holiness!

There really IS a problem in not accepting the perfection of Christ as prescribed in the highly moral word of God, which refuses any iniquity and insists on perfection (as in Matthew 5:48) as alone adequate; and which rebukes the pride that would imagine it can by ANY MEANS satisfy the pure standards of God with any contribution from its own polluted soul (Titus 3:5, Galatians 6:14, , Philippians 3:8-13, Colossians 2:1314, Ephesians 2:1-10). THAT is immoral, to foist on God what is below Him! HE will not "accept" that.

"He is the Rock, His work is perfect;

For all His way are justice,

A God of truth and without inequity:

Righteous and upright is He" - Deuteronomy 32:4.

It is not that I will not "accept" debasement (for who am I to determine what God is to accept!), but that GOD HIMSELF WILL NOT ACCEPT IT (as in the parable in Matthew 22, given in some detail above, and as in Romans 3:19). NONE is good enough; the BEST is too little for God (Titus 3:5). The very idea of making some sort of contribution with imperfect spirit and mind to the status of a child of God: this is vile beyond belief.

Your horror, then, misplaced as it has here been, is as nothing compared with this one! God is PERFECT in purity, and not only disciplines the hypocrite, but the child who strays, and INSISTS on making a full and complete cover for ALL sin before there is ANY question of ANY standing WHATEVER in His presence. Only the standards of God are good enough for God, and no of us has ever met them: but the One who has, is Christ. He, God in the flesh, is the only exception. For repentant and believing man, He stands condemned; by Him Christians arise covered, and the righteousness of God is satisfied by PERFECTION as wrought in Christ ALONE (II Corinthians 5:17-21).

The word of God stands pure and demanding; the grace of God stands perfect and covering; the blood of Christ has fallen pure and adequate in sacrificial substitution; the holiness of God is satisfied with nothing less. As Hebrews 2 puts it: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation…" How indeed! Thank God we have received His word’s analysis, X-rays, remedy and the operation of salvation which He alone conducts! Not only for us, but for all, this is required.

Therefore, we find that the demonstration of the word of God as provided on the Home Site, is not altered by personal preferences. God is purer than to accept covering up of sin, and indeed, misuse of His word! It is when evil is attributed to HIM, not by Him, that the real evil occurs. It is necessary to flee to Him, and to face sin, where it may be faced, in Christ.

In sum, Frank, although this your letter had some mistakes, it is good to hear from you. I cannot pretend it was all good, because error is not good; but it is good to see some signs that you are seeking. If you seek Him with all your heart, you will find. It is only by His grace that will ever happen. To fall in repentance before Him, and to receive the blood of Christ as your personal cover is an essence of salvation, that nothing else can replace (cf. Galatians 6:14, 3:10-13, 5:1ff.). The word of God as demonstrated, is to be performed, not misused. It stands now as ever. It is proved positively; and verified without flaw, negatively.

May the Lord yet bless you. Be assured we are praying for you. I know how long it took me to see, so it is well that we can seek mercies and compassion for you. For who is any one of us, compared to Him, who did what it took, and stood ready to take what we, one and all, so illicitly provided, even the sin which His word so accurately and unsparingly depicts.

But for whom did He take it (Isaiah 53:3-6) ? Those on whom the sin falls (verse 6) are those who are statedly healed by His stripes (verse 5), the recipients of His saving grace. "Who," says the prophet, "has believed our report ? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ?"

So it is all perfected.The word of God is pure, seven times refined; there is no fault in it, but only the brilliance of His mind who inspired it, who sustains it, so that it glows like the rose in the dawn. To assault it is to be exposed; to accept it is to find the repose of reality.

To reply then: Yes, yes a thousand times, GOD DID INSPIRE THIS; for it surpasses man’s power experimentally beyond all measure, is demonstrated to be such in principle, verified in practice. Follow it to your delight; fall from it to your ruin. It is the same for one, and for all.

Finally: some fail even more than this. When they begin to realise that the Bible is in fact the height of morality, spirituality and predictive power, always right and covered with glory, which experimentally is the case, and realise it is inspired by God for man, containing the only Gospel, expressive of the only Messiah: such people STILL FAIL.

How is this possible ? In this way, it is more than possible, it is quite likely. There is often a fateful omission. It is necessary not only to commend the word of God, but to FOLLOW IT. Where ?

To Christ. It is He, Jesus Christ who rebuked those who approached the Bible as the word of God and then - like a patient failing to follow the prescription of his physician - still fell. Why ? They did not take it, for as Christ declared:

"You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to ME that you may have life. I do not receive honour from men. But I know you, that you do not have he love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name him you will receive" -
(it. added) John 5:39-43.

*1 This is from Jonah 2:8: "Those who regard worthless idols forsake their own mercy." Idols can be of the mind, spirit, eye, in kind, in thought, in spirit. They are unattested and unauthorised fictions, preferred but not substantiated, misleaders of the race. In the opposite place, Christ is predicted in His ways, and fulfils them to this day (cf. That Shadow of a Mighty Rock Chs. 8  -  9), and is appointed:

"Indeed I have given Him as a witness to the people.

A leader and commander for the people."
 
 

With every good hope, and goodwill,

Robert

for

World Wide Web Witness Inc.

Rev. Dr. Robert Donaldson
Philippians 1:20-21