Are All Marriages Equally Bound?

DISCLAIMER!!!: THE FOLLOWING POST IS NOT SOMETHING I AM CONTENDING FOR HERE, JUST POSTING IT FOR CONVERSATION. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT. I WANT PEOPLE TO DISAGREE WITH IT!

1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There has been much discussion about what Paul means by, “the unbelieving husband is SANCTIFIED BY the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.” A number of different views have been forwarded as possibilities. Inherent to each interpretation are necessary implications. The practical implications of a given interpretation must be considered while deciding which position is true.

CLARIFICATION:

1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

One thing that I would like to clarify before engaging this text is the particular type of marriage that is being discussed here. The kind of marriage that is being discussed is one where a husband or wife is converted and the spouse remains unconverted. Paul is not addressing in this text, though it MAY apply, one who is already a saint in the Corinthian church and becomes “unequally yoked together” with an unbeliever.

“If either husband or wife is converted, and the other is not, they must not on this account forsake the unbelieving helpmeet, provided he or she is pleased to remain.”[1]

“This is a new problem, the result of work among the Gentiles…Paul has to deal with mixed marriages as missionaries do today in heathen lands...The Christian husband married his wife when he himself was an unbeliever.”[2]

“He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.”[3]

“A Christian man, have a wife that believeth not, i.e. who is a heathen, not yet converted to the Christian faith, and she be pleased to dwell with him, notwithstanding his turning Christian since their marriage, let him not put her away because she still continues in her heathen superstition.”[4]

“that is, if any man who is now a brother, one called by the grace of God, and is in church fellowship, has a wife to whom he was married whilst in a state of unregeneracy and infidelity; who is as she was when he married her, entirely destitute of faith in Christ; not one that is weak in the faith, or only makes an outward profession, but that has no faith at all in Christ, nor in his Gospel, not so much as an historical one; who disbelieves, denies, and rejects, the truths of the Gospel:”[5]

“This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels.”[6]

Keep this idea in mind as we continue to study through this text. If one concedes that this interpretation is true, it changes and greatly impacts the way the text is viewed.

INTERPRETATION:

What is Sanctification?

The purpose of this blog is to set forth one of the interpretations as a possibility and briefly explore its practical implications. What does “sanctified” refer to? The various views are laid out by Albert Barnes:

“But the expression cannot mean here: (1) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, “by the mere fact” of a connection “with” a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor, (2) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife (Whitby), for this would not be true in all cases; nor, (3) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favorably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler); for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor, (4) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife (according to Rosenmuller and Schleusner), because he is speaking of something in the connection which made the children holy; and because the word ἁγιάζω hagiazō is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connection; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified “in regard to the subject under discussion;” that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, “They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation.””[7]

For the reasons listed above Albert Barnes argues that sanctification in this text refers to the sanctification of the marriage bond; the right for this believer and unbeliever to be married. Paul cannot be arguing for personal sanctification in the salvific sense. It appears to me the only possibility is sanctification of the marriage bond.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown says:

“It is the fact of the husband being a “brother,” that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.”[8]

JFB also agrees that sanctification refers to the marriage union and not to the individual person of the unbelieving spouse.

It is impossible to read this text without knowing that Paul has in mind Ezra 10:1-3 and the command to put away strange wives. The wives were to be put away solely on the basis that they were heathen. It is important to note that these marriages between Jew and heathen were treated differently than marriages between Jew and Jew. God had command his people not to marry those from other nations (Exedous 34:12-17); therefore the rules of marriage did not apply.

Paul corrects the idea in the church at Corinth that one can put away a spouse solely because they are pagan; however, he too gives a different rule for marriage with two believers than he does marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

Paul says to the married (equally yoked marriages), “let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).” Then Paul says, “but to the rest…if any brother hath a wife that believeth not (1 Corinthians 7:12),” he shifts from equally yoked marriages to unequally yoked marriages. To the equally yoked marriages in verses 10 and 11 his instructions are, “let them remain unmarried, or be reconciled.” When addressing the unequally yokes marriages, and the unbeliever deserting the believer, instead of saying, “remain unmarried or be reconciled,” he says, “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

Why the different instructions if God views both marriages equally? Because even though God sanctified the marriage because of the believer, he still views it differently than He does when two believers are married. Why? What is the difference? Why the different rules?

Sanctified, but How?

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

We have clearly demonstrated that there is some sort of difference in God’s eyes between equally yoked and unequally yoked marriages. I suggest to you that the difference is faith. How did sanctification come to the mixed marriage union in 1 Corinthians 7:14? According to the text, sanctification comes “by the believing.”

The unbeliever is “sanctified by” the believer. What does it mean when the Bible uses the phrase “sanctified by?” In every case, whatever the bible says someone or something is sanctified by, it cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT it. “Sanctified by” describes the means through which the sanctification occurs. Let’s Illustrate.

Acts 26:18 KJV To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Could they have been sanctified BEFORE or WITOUT faith? No!

Romans 15:16 KJV That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Could the Gentiles have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Holy Ghost? No!

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Can one be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the name of Jesus and the Spirit of our God? No!

1 Timothy 4:5 KJV For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Could this food have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Word and prayer? No!

Jude 1:1 KJV Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Can sanctification occur BEFORE or WITHOUT God the Father? No!

Now my friends, apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 7:14. The marriage of unbelievers cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT a believer, because the believer is the means by which the union is sanctified. Marriage without a believer is not sanctified!

Before you insist too heavily that all heterosexual, first marriages are inherently sanctified by God, and are therefore subject to the same rules of marriage, let me remind you of Ezra 10 where marriages were to be put away entirely and solely because an unbeliever/pagan was involved. Ezra 10 and 1 Corinthians 7 proves that God judges marriages that include unbelievers differently and that they have a different set of parameters.

Else Were Your Children Unclean

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

I am not going to spend a lot of time here, but Paul further illustrates my previous point by saying, “else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” “Unclean,” is set in the same context with and in contrast to “sanctified.” Whatever sanctified means, unclean means the opposite. “Sanctified” refers to the marriage union being sanctified in the ceremonial sense, and so “unclean” and “holy” must refer to the ceremonial condition of the children depending on whether the marriage is sanctified or not.

If the marriage is sanctified, then the children are holy; however, if the marriage is not sanctified, then the children are considered unclean (illegitimate). Else, meaning if the union is not sanctified by having a believer in it, the children are illegitimate. The union is sanctified, not because they are legally married. The union is not “ sanctified by the law,” but the union is “sanctified by the believing.” This means that children from a marriage union that is not sanctified by having at least one believer in it are considered unclean.

IMPLICATION:

So, the implication and practical application is that since marriage unions are not sanctified without one of the spouses being a believer, whenever someone comes to Christ and they are divorced for whatever reason they can remarry in the church. A divorced person who becomes a Christian can remarry in the Church regardless of the reason for the divorce, since his faithless marriage was never sanctified.

---

[1] Peoples New Testament, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[2] Roberson’s Word Pictures, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[3] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[4] Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[5] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[6] Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[7] Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[8] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

Ambition: Steve Pixler

This is an essential message to every preacher, especially young ones. It is also essential to any person aspiring to be used by God in any way. This is a MUST hear message.

Matthew 19:9: Espoused or Married Wife

Matthew 19:3-9 KJV

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

The question that Jesus is being asked by the Pharisees is, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" To put away one's wife for every cause was the view espoused by the liberal Rabbi Hillell and his students. They believed that a man could put away his wife for something as small as burning a meal. They held to the right of the man to put away his wife at his pleasure.

So, they are asking this question in light of their understanding of Deuteronomy 24. This is where Moses gives the regulations for putting away wives. So, the point I want to establish from this verse, and the following verses, is the kind of wife that is being discussed in this context. Is it only the espoused wife (Matthew 1: 18-20), or is it a married wife? The kind of wife being discussed in these verses, especially verse 9, has much to do with how one understands the teaching of Jesus on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

I think that it will become abundantly clear that the kind of wife that is being discussed in this text is the married wife, and not the espoused wife. Beginning with the question under consideration here in verse 3, we immediately realize that the premise of the question is Deuteronomy 24. So, if we can determine what kind of wife is under consideration in the question, then we will know the kind of wife that is under consideration in Jesus' answer. What kind of wife is being asked about by the Pharisees?

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.” Deuteronomy 24:1-2 KJV

Clearly from this text the wife under consideration is the married wife, for she will depart out of his house and go be another man’s wife. She must be a married wife, and not merely an espoused wife, for she is cohabitating with him.

So, the wife of the Pharisees’ question is the married wife, and therefore the wife of Jesus’ answer must also be the married wife. If she is not, then Jesus is answering a question that was not asked. It is impossible to understand Matthew 19 apart from the backdrop of Moses (Deut 24).

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

In verses 4-6 Jesus answers the question of verse 3 on the premise of the first husband and wife. Jesus appeals to the beginning. He states that the man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Again, this tells us the kind of wife that is being discussed; the wife of this text is the cohabitating wife. This is exactly parallel with Deuteronomy 24.

Jesus further proves that the kind of wife that He is addressing is the married wife by saying, “they shall be one flesh.” The phrase “one flesh” refers to the sexual union (1 Corinthians 6:16). So, the husband-wife that Jesus is addressing is the sexually joined husband-wife.

This “one flesh” husband and wife are married because Jesus says, “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” It must be understood that Jesus is addressing regulations concerning marriage and not espousal.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

This proves my initial premise correct that the Pharisees were asking about Deuteronomy 24, and the next couple verses are going to prove that is what Jesus is responding to as well. What are the Pharisees quoting here? It can only be Deuteronomy 24, and Deuteronomy 24 is addressing the marred wife and not the espoused wife.

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

So, Jesus responds to their appeal to Deuteronomy 24 by saying that Moses allowed divorce for uncleaness, because of the hardness of your heart, but I say from the beginning it was not so. When Jesus says, “Moses said, but I say,” He is giving His teaching concerning the same topic as Moses addressing, namely the divorcing of married, cohabitating wives.

This proves that the instructions that Jesus is giving here is God’s will concerning what Moses gave in Deuteronomy 24. Moses said, but I say, is contrasting two opinions about the same subject.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

“And I say unto you,” is Jesus contrasting His teaching with Moses in Deuteronomy 24 concerning married wives. “And I say unto you,” is Jesus giving what is to be taught by the Church. If Jesus is not addressing married wives Matthew 19:9 it makes gobbledygook out of the flow of this text. If this is not what Jesus is addressing it makes no sense whatsoever.

Jesus clearly, by the context and backdrop of Deuteronomy 24, is addressing married wives in verse 9. Jesus’ plain teaching is, if a person divorces their spouse and marries another, except for fornication (See Fornication: What Does It Mean Parts 1 & 2), they commit adultery. So, marital unfaithfulness is an exception to the rule: Whosoever divorces his spouse and marries another commits adultery.

Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 2

In my post, Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 1, I used sources to prove that in both the English and the Greek fornication includes sexual intercourse by a married person with someone other than his/her spouse. The objection raised by those that hold to a no divorce and remarriage view is that when both adultery and fornication are used in the same text, fornication cannot refer to a sexual act committed by a married person.

In other words, if the word adultery is also used in the text (Matt 19:9), then fornication cannot also refer to adultery. They argue that both words cannot be used in the same text to refer to the same act. This is the point that I want to focus on in this post, and I am going to demonstrate that argument to be false by the scripture.

"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." Revelation 2:20-22 KJV

In verse 20 John says that Jezebel seduced God's servants to commit "fornication;" yet, in verse 22 it is said that they committed "adultery" with her. Here is a case where both "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the same text and refers to the same act. This verse alone proves their argument wrong.

The same point can be made about Israel, God's wife, in the Old Testament. The reason that God put Israel His married wife (Jer 3:14) away was adultery (Jer 3:8); however, when she went after other nations God called it fornication (Ex 16:26 & 29), and said it was as a wife that commits adultery (Eze 16:32) and breaks wedlock (Eze 16:38). I must also point out that God is married to Israel at this point because she had borne him children (Eze 16:20).

The point is, what Israel did with the cities and nations about her was fornication, but the same act was adultery against God. Is was fornication with the nations because she was not in covenant with, but it was adultery against God because she was in covenant (married to, not espoused to) with God.

Apply this same logic to Matt 19:9 and you will understand why both "fornication" and "adultery" are used in the same verse. It is abundantly clear that Matthew 19:9 is referring to the married wife when you read the flow of the text. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is the same wife of Matthew 19:5-6, which all agree is the married wife.

Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 1

In my experience a great deal of the divorce and remarriage debate centers on the definition of “fornication” in Matthew 19:9. The “no divorce” advocates argue that the use of fornication proves that Matthew 19:9 is addressing espoused (engaged) couples and not married couples. This is based on the idea that fornication can only be committed by a person who has never been married. I think that it is clear from the context of Matthew 19 that is not the case, but let that be as it may, I want to focus on the definition of fornication from both the English and the Greek.

ENGLISH:

“voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.”[1]

It is clear from this definition that fornication is not limited to people who are not married at all, but also to people who are not married to each other, although they may be married to someone. Anytime two people who are not married to each other have sexual intercourse it is fornication. Married people can commit fornication by having sex with someone with whom they are not married.

When a married person has sex outside of their marriage it is both fornication and adultery. It is fornication because they had sex with someone they were not married to, and it is adultery because the sex violated a covenant.

“voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage”[2]

Here fornication is defined as, “voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage.” The question that must be asked is, can a married person have sexual intercourse outside of their marriage? The answer must be yes. If a married person has sex outside of their marriage they have committed fornication.

“sexual immorality in general, esp adultery”[3]

This dictionary includes adultery in its definition of fornication. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

GREEK:

The following are quotes from Greek scholars defining fornication. Greek scholarship virtually unanimously includes adultery in the definition of “pornea,” the Greek word for fornication.

“sexual intercourse in general…used of adultery.”[4]

“harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.”[5]

“in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery”[6]

“it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (porneia) which is technically adultery.”[7]

OTHER TRANSLATIONS:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ESV

“I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ISV

“And I say to you, That whoever leaveth his wife not being an adulteress, and taketh another, committeth adultery. And whoever taketh her that is divorced, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Murdock

“And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Webster

“And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 WNT

“And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9 YLT

CONCLUSION:

It is undeniable from the Greek that fornication includes adultery. It is also certain that the English word fornication is not limited to sex between two people who have never been married, but includes married people who has sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

Matthew 19:9 correctly uses the term fornication as an exception to the divorce and remarriage law, because sex outside of the marriage bond (i.e. fornication) is a valid reason for the innocent person to divorce and remarry.

---

[1] "fornication." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[2] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[3] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[4] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 532

[5] James H. Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 364

[6] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing), p. 465

[7] Robertson’s Word Pictures, Quoted from E-Sword version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.24.10, http://www.e-sword.net/

Equal With God

Philippians 2:6 KJV Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

I submit this post at the risk of being thought a theological imbecile, but here it goes any way. Most of you know that I have been involved in a few public debates and have moderated a few others. The foremost subject that I enjoy hearing discussed is the Godhead. I also enjoy preaching and teaching it as well. So here are some thoughts on this verse.

I will not try to analyze the entire text as that would be entirely too time consuming for the purpose of this thread. I also understand that this is an incredibly tedious text with a lot of grammatical nuances.

One of the great grammatical nuances of this text is the word “form” translated from the Greek “morphe.” This is a topic of must discussion on all sides of the Christological debate. Does it mean nature as translated by the NIV , or does it means external appearance only? There is credible scholarship on both sides of this debate. While that would be an important and interesting discussion, that is not the intent of this post.

Then you have a great battle in theological circle as to how the phrase “equal with God” should be translated. In an attempt to explain this passage, depending on one’s Christological view, other translations are cited that give quite a different shad of meaning to this text than the KJV does.

Allow me, for the purpose of this thread, to assume that “equal with God” is the best and most accurate rendering of this passage and give some possibilities of this verse of scripture from a Oneness perspective.

TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT

I am making the following statement based on debate experience and not an official statement from official Trinitarian doctrine found in the Councils or elsewhere. The argument is frequently forwarded by Trinitarian debaters that the word “equal” necessarily infers two persons in the Godhead. They argue that, In order to determine equality you must have separate items for the purpose of comparison. You cannot have equality with only one thing. I think you understand the point without me having to belabor the point. So, the argument is, for Jesus to be “equal with God” he must be a separate person.

GRAMATICAL RESPONSE

The Greek word for “equal” is “isos” . This is the same word that is used in Acts 11:17 as “like” gift. This like gift is the one that fell at the beginning (Pentecost) in Acts 11:15. So Peter is defending the conversion of the Gentiles in chapter 10 by say that the Holy Ghost that they, the Gentiles, received is the same Holy Ghost as the one he received on the day of Pentecost. He uses “isos”, not as a term of contrast, but a term of identity. The isos/like/equal gift indentifies the gift of Acts 10 as the gift of Acts 2.

ATTRIBUTE OF ESCLUSIVITY

God asked the question in the Old Testament, who is like me or my equal (Isaiah 40:25 & Isaiah 46:5). Then He answers his own question by saying that he has no equal and that none is like him I(Isaiah 46:9). God has no equal and there is none like him, so that if you find one who is equal with God you have found God and not another.

Let me illustrate it as follows. A fingerprint is an attribute of esclusivity. No one has a fingerprint that is equal to mine. If you find a finger print that is equal to mine, you have found my finger print. Because it is something that belongs only to me, equality in this way would be identity, not contrast.

To further illustrate this point: what if someone with a prior criminal record committed a murder and left his fingerprint somewhere at the scene of the crime for CSI to find? While they may not know at the scene of the crime who the perpetrator, once they get back to the crime lab and run the fingerprint the crime lab data base and they find a fingerprint in the database that EQUALS the one at the crime scene they have indentified the murder. So again equality is proof of identity in this case.

When you run the fingerprint of God through the data base of scripture you are going to come up with Jesus. Since only God is what God is and Jesus is equal with God he must be God. Jesus possessed and possess every essential attribute of deity. Truly He is EQUAL WITH GOD!

Pardon the elementary nature of this post and thread.

Trip To Jamaica

I am really excited about the upcoming trip to Kingston, Jamaica. I am going for a week of doctrinal teaching and preaching. I will be presenting on the Oneness of God as well as other related topics: I am going to be preaching about the Church. I plan to teach one of the evenings about doctrine itself. I want to give a biblical definition of doctrine and discuss its essential value to the church.

It is an increasingly popular attitude among Christians to reject doctrine. There are those who teach against teaching doctrine. Ironically to teach against doctrine is a doctrine; it is the "anti-doctrine" doctrine. It is impossible to escape doctrine. So, we seek to teach doctrine that is in line with the Word.

I look forward to meeting the congregation in Kingston as I have never been there. I also look forward to being in their beautiful city and worshiping with the Apostolic saints of Jamaica.

Library: Glen Carbon, IL

I am at my favorite library here in Glen Carbon, IL. I am hoping to print off a set of notes for a lesson that I want to teach at my father-in-law's church tonight. I also sent a friend the forward to a book that he wrote. The title is, "Calling on the Name of Jesus." It is going to be a great book. It is a response to the modern Church of Christ view of silent (no formula) baptism. They argue that nothing has to be said when someone is baptized.

Jason does an excellent job rebutting this view. His book was birthed out of years of study in preparation for a number of debates over the last two decades. I think that he does the best job of any of the Oneness Pentecostals in defending the baptismal formula in public debate. I am excited about people getting to read this book.

You can also listen to the Weatherly-Reeves debate on the baptismal formula online. http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/Debates/ReevesWeatherlyDebate/tabid/98/Default.aspx

October 11-19 I will be preaching a youth conference in Kingston, Jamaica. I have never been to the Caribbean, so I am very excited about going. I am really looking forward to the worship services; I love the Jamaican way of worshiping. I will have several preacher friends going with me to keep me company, although they will not be a valid substitute for my wife.

I will really miss my wife. I will be gone for a total of 11 days on this trip. I will especially miss her while in Jamaica. The reason that I will miss her so much is I expect those days in Jamaica to be some of the best days that I have ever had, and I always like to share those times with my wife.

I am going to be doing a lot of doctrinal preaching (by request): Theology and Ecclesiology, as well as other topics. I look forward to preaching to those hungry young people as they seek to know God better.

I met the pastor of the church in Kingston while we were both preaching a conference together in the New England states. I also look forward to again seeing some of the other Jamaican pastors that I met in that conference. Can barely wait! I will be posting pictures here and on Facebook while I am there.