El Problema del Mal

por Anthony F. Buzzard

Una de las grandes cualidades de Dios es que no nos hace robots. 1 Timoteo 2:4 dice que Dios quiere que todos se salven, pero en las Escrituras no todos se salvan. Entonces, ¿cómo explicamos eso?

Dios nos ha concedido una medida de libre albedrío. Ahora bien, no tenemos libre albedrío para ser presidente; en mi caso no podría, soy residente con green card, eso no es una opción. Pero en otras cosas sí tengo elección.

El punto fundamental que los ateos y agnósticos no han captado es que Dios no nos creó como robots. Él permite el mal. Permitió que Satanás, un ángel caído, fuera malo. Pablo habla de la condenación en la que cayó Satanás. Satanás fue condenado por ser malo; él eligió ser malo. Dios no castiga a personas que son totalmente inocentes; las castiga por ser malas. A veces quedan atrapadas en una sociedad malvada y reciben el castigo que esa sociedad recibe —eso es cierto—, pero el diablo eligió desviarse, y Adán y Eva eligieron desviarse. Adán es castigado, Eva es castigada y el diablo es castigado.

¿Acaso no experimentamos en las situaciones familiares que un padre sabe perfectamente que sus hijos no siempre eligen lo correcto? Se alegra de que no sean robots. Los castiga, o debería, cuando se equivocan. Así que el libre albedrío es la respuesta aquí: libre albedrío dentro de ciertas limitaciones. Por lo tanto, Satanás es permitido por Dios hasta el límite que Dios establezca.

En el Antiguo Testamento encontrarás que Dios puso a prueba a Israel, y el paralelo en 2 Crónicas dice que Satanás puso a prueba a Israel. Eso no es una contradicción; simplemente muestra que lo que Dios permite, se puede decir que Él lo ordena. Todo lo que Él permite, también lo ha ordenado. Pero eso no significa que sea Su voluntad última que los hombres pequen. No lo es. Él siempre les está diciendo que se arrepientan, que “vuelvan a Mí”, y que no hagan el mal. Así que es una acusación muy injusta contra la benevolencia de Dios decir que el mal se puede culpar a Él. No se puede. Se culpa a nosotros. Y Dios nos ha dado el enorme privilegio de no ser robots, sino agentes de libre albedrío que pueden elegir entre el bien y el mal —lo cual generalmente no hacemos nada bien—. De ahí el estado del mundo.

Una de las cosas que se aprende de la Biblia es la enseñanza sobre el pecado. Ese es el problema: no el Creador, sino nosotros. Está inherente en nosotros porque hicimos una elección a través de Adán de desobedecer. Cuando llegas a la Biblia y a la cosmovisión cristiana, esta ofrece una respuesta muy sólida y sólida al llamado problema del mal, precisamente porque pecamos, lo cual equivale a la desobediencia al Dios Creador.

Parte de la debilidad de mucha predicación es que no usa esos versículos clave, sistemáticamente claros, cristalinos e inequívocos. Siempre debería haber eslóganes presentes desde el púlpito. Hebreos 5:9 dice que la salvación —obtener la inmortalidad y aprender a vivir para siempre mediante la resurrección cuando Cristo regrese— es causada por la obediencia a Jesús. “¿Por qué me llaman ‘Señor, Señor’”, seguía diciendo Jesús, “y no hacen lo que yo digo?” Dios ha establecido a Jesús como el modelo de cómo debe actuar un ser humano. Eso es completamente razonable.

En todos los demás campos tenemos nuestras estrellas. Hollywood tiene sus estrellas; el mundo de la canción tiene las suyas. Se les toma como modelos de cómo se hace esa profesión a la perfección. Jesús es exactamente eso. Como agente legal de Dios y ser humano él mismo, Jesús modela lo que es vivir en perfecta obediencia a Dios. Se supone que debemos seguir ese estándar y comenzar obedeciendo el primer y gran mandamiento: “Escucha, Israel: el Señor nuestro Dios es un solo Señor”.

Así que es el pecado —la desobediencia a la ley de Dios según se define en el Nuevo Pacto— lo que constituye el problema del mal. No es el problema de Dios.

De la Pascua a Jesús: La comunión del Nuevo Pacto

La Cena del Señor, o comunión cristiana, nació en el contexto de la Pascua judía, pero Jesús le dio un significado nuevo y profundamente centrado en él mismo. En su última cena con los discípulos, tomó el pan y la copa y los relacionó con su muerte cercana, una muerte que sería entregada en favor de otros.

Jesús ya había explicado el propósito de su misión en Marcos 10:45, cuando dijo que el Hijo del Hombre vino “para dar su vida como rescate en lugar de muchos.” La palabra griega anti tiene precisamente ese sentido: “en lugar de”. Es decir, Jesús no murió simplemente para dejarnos un ejemplo de amor o sacrificio. Entregó su vida por nosotros, en nuestro lugar, cumpliendo así las profecías de Isaías acerca del Siervo sufriente de Yahvé (Isa. 42; 49; 50; 52–53).

Isaías 53:6 resume esta verdad de manera poderosa: Yahvé hizo recaer sobre su Siervo la culpa de todos nosotros. La muerte de Jesús, por tanto, fue una muerte sacrificial en favor de otros.

Bajo el pacto de Moisés, la Pascua recordaba la liberación de Israel de la esclavitud en Egipto (Éx. 12:14, 26–27; Deut. 16:1–3). Lucas 22 muestra claramente que Jesús y sus Apóstoles prepararon y celebraron aquella Pascua. Sin embargo, durante esa misma cena Jesús hizo algo extraordinario: dirigió el significado del memorial hacia su propia persona.

“Este es mi cuerpo entregado por ustedes; recuérdenme haciendo esto” (Lucas 22:19).

Para un judío fiel a la Torá, estas palabras debieron de ser impactantes. Durante siglos, la Pascua había recordado la salida de Egipto. Ahora Jesús les dice a sus discípulos que hagan esto en memoria de él.

El centro del memorial cambia. Ya no se trata simplemente de recordar la antigua liberación de Egipto, sino de recordar al Mesías y la liberación que Dios realizaría por medio de su muerte.

Jesús hace todavía más claro este cambio cuando toma la copa y dice:

“Esta copa es el Nuevo Pacto ratificado por mi sangre, que está siendo derramada por ustedes” (Lucas 22:20).

Estas palabras recuerdan el lenguaje del pacto establecido por medio de Moisés en Éxodo 24:8, pero ahora Jesús habla del Nuevo Pacto prometido en Jeremías 31:31–34. El pan y la copa reciben así un nuevo significado para la comunidad cristiana: apuntan al Mesías, a su muerte y al Nuevo Pacto establecido por medio de él.

Más tarde, Pablo confirma que esta práctica debía continuar en la iglesia. En 1 Corintios 11:23–26, explica que recibió del señor aquello mismo que transmitió a los creyentes.

Sobre el pan, Jesús dijo:

“Hagan esto en memoria de mí” (v. 24).

Y sobre la copa:

“Hagan esto, cada vez que la beban, en memoria de mí” (v. 25).

Después Pablo explica por qué la iglesia sigue celebrando esta comida:

“Porque cada vez que comen este pan y beben de esta copa, están proclamando la muerte del señor hasta que él venga” (v. 26).

Aquí vemos las dos direcciones de la Cena del Señor. Por un lado, miramos hacia atrás y recordamos la muerte sacrificial de Jesús. Por otro, miramos hacia adelante, esperando su parusía, es decir, su regreso.

Esta esperanza futura también estaba presente en las palabras de Jesús durante aquella misma cena. Él dijo que no volvería a beber del fruto de la vid “hasta que venga el Reino de Dios” (Lucas 22:18). Poco después prometió a sus Apóstoles que comerían y beberían con él a su mesa en su Reino (Lucas 22:29–30).

Por eso, la Cena del Señor no solo habla de la cruz; también habla del futuro Reino de Dios.

Pablo vuelve a utilizar el lenguaje de la Pascua cuando declara:

“Messiah, nuestra Pascua, ha sido sacrificado” (1 Cor. 5:7).

Luego exhorta a los creyentes a estar “celebrando continuamente la fiesta”, no con la vieja levadura del pecado y la maldad, sino con “los panes sin levadura de la sinceridad y la verdad” (1 Cor. 5:8).

El lenguaje es claramente figurado. Pablo no está mandando a los cristianos gentiles a guardar una Pascua judía anual. Está tomando las imágenes de la Pascua y aplicándolas al Mesías y a la vida diaria del creyente bajo el Nuevo Pacto.

Algo semejante aparece en Colosenses 2:16–17, donde Pablo menciona las fiestas, las lunas nuevas y los sábados del calendario judío y los describe como una “sombra”, en contraste con el “cuerpo” del Mesías. Juan también se refiere varias veces a estas celebraciones como fiestas “de los judíos” (Juan 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55).

Finalmente, Pablo muestra que la Cena del Señor no es simplemente un acto privado entre el creyente y Dios. En 1 Corintios 10:16–17, explica que la copa representa nuestra participación en la sangre del Mesías y que el pan representa nuestra participación en su cuerpo. Como todos compartimos de un mismo pan, formamos un solo cuerpo.

Por eso, la comunión tiene un sentido comunitario. La iglesia se reúne para recordar al Mesías, proclamar su muerte y expresar visiblemente que todos sus miembros forman parte de un mismo cuerpo.

Cuando reunimos todos estos pasajes, aparece una línea muy clara: de la Pascua del Éxodo pasamos al memorial del Nuevo Pacto centrado en Jesús, el Mesías.

Él entregó “su vida como rescate en lugar de muchos”, cumpliendo el papel del Siervo sufriente anunciado por Isaías. Por eso, cada vez que los creyentes comparten el pan y la copa, recuerdan su sacrificio, proclaman su muerte y esperan su regreso.

La Cena del Señor mira hacia atrás, a la muerte del Mesías; mira alrededor, a la comunidad de creyentes que forman un solo cuerpo; y mira hacia adelante, a su parusía y al día en que Jesús establecerá el Reino de Dios sobre una tierra restaurada.

Recordamos su muerte hasta que él venga.

Why David’s Son Is His Lord

In Matthew 22:42-46 Jesus asks the Pharisees:

“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the spirit call him lord, saying, ‘The LORD said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’? Therefore, if David calls him lord, how is he his son?” No one was able to offer him a word in answer, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask him any more questions.

The implication of Jesus’ question — how can a descendant occupy a position superior to his ancestor? — has an interesting parallel in the story of Joseph in Genesis 37:9-11. Jacob initially rebukes the extraordinary idea represented by Joseph’s dream: the younger son would somehow be elevated above the rest of the family.

The Word Biblical Commentary notes that the Hebrew word translated “rebuked” means “reprimanded” and is frequently used of God rebuking nations or the wicked:

“It is an expression of great authority, often as here tinged with anger…. Despite his deep affection for Joseph, Jacob feels that this time he has gone much too far.”

Yet Jacob did not simply dismiss the dream. Genesis specifically says that “his father kept the saying in mind.”

Why?

Because dreams could function in Scripture as a means of divine revelation, and Jacob himself certainly knew what it was like for God to reveal His purposes through dreams. In other words, Jacob did not totally dismiss the possibility that God had extraordinary future plans for his son.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges similarly says that Jacob “secretly cherished a presentiment of its fulfilment,” pointing forward to Genesis 42:6:

“Now Joseph was the ruler over the land; he was the one who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down to him with their faces to the ground.”

The very brothers who had mocked the prospect of Joseph ruling over them now bowed before him. The principle is now made visible: God can exalt a younger descendant to a position of authority over those who naturally preceded him. That helps us understand Jesus’ question in Matthew 22.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary notes concerning Matthew 22:44 that, in the Jewish culture of the time, for a father or ancestor to call his descendant “lord” would have appeared inconceivable. Yet Scripture itself demonstrates that God can overturn the normal hierarchy through His own sovereign appointment. Jesus therefore silenced his opponents by confronting them with something they had failed to reconcile: the Messiah is genuinely David’s son, yet God exalts this son of David so highly that David prophetically calls him “my lord.”

And Psalm 110:1 tells us exactly what sort of “lord” he is:

“Yahweh says to my lord [adoni]: ‘Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet.’”

The Hebrew is adoni — “my lord,” my human superior — not Adonai, the title used for the Lord God. So David is not calling his descendant Yahweh. Yahweh is the first LORD in the verse. He tells David’s lord to sit at His right hand until He puts his enemies under his feet.

Peter later makes precisely this point. After quoting Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2, he concludes:

“Therefore let the whole house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both lord and Messiah — this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).

God made Jesus Lord.

There are other biblical examples that make the cultural point even clearer. When Solomon became king, his own mother Bathsheba “bowed and prostrated herself before the king” (1 Kings 1:31; compare 2:19). Solomon remained her son, but his God-given royal office placed him above her in rank.

And Jacob repeatedly addressed his own brother Esau as “my lord” and called himself Esau’s “servant,” while bowing to the ground seven times (Gen. 33:3, 8, 13-15).

So there is nothing inherently divine about being called someone’s “lord,” nor is there anything impossible about God elevating a younger person or descendant above someone who naturally preceded him.

That is precisely the point the Pharisees could not answer.

How can the Messiah be David’s son and yet David’s lord?

Because the God of David exalts David’s human descendant above David himself.

The answer is sitting there in Psalm 110:1: the LORD, Yahweh, is God, and David’s adoni is his exalted descendant, told to sit at God’s right hand.

Adonai adoni Misreporting List

All Known Documented Cases of Misreporting adoni as Adonai in Psalm 110:1

NOTE: The “Church Fathers” do not identify the second lord in Ps 110:1 as Adonai, mainly because they used the Septuagint Greek and, later, the Latin Vulgate translation.

1. c. 1180–1200 — Thomas Cisterciensis, Commentarium in Cantica Canticorum: “invocat Christum Adonai.”
2. c. 1498 — Jan Lubrański manuscript tradition
3. YHWH represented as speaking to Christ as “Adonai.” Secondary manuscript attestation.
4. 1555 — John Calvin, Gospel Harmony on Matt. 22:44: “not the essential name of God, but only Adonai.”
5. 1655 — John Owen, Vindiciæ Evangelicæ; or, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined: “Adonai, Ps. cx. 1” among divine names applied to Christ.
6. 1683 — Thomas Goodwin, A Discourse of the Knowledge of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ: “Jehovah unto Adonai.”
7. c. 1776 / 1784–1786 — Ambrose Serle, Horae Solitariae: “We find him addressed under this appellation by Jehovah the Father, in Psalm cx. 1: Jehovah said unto my Adonai.”
8. 1817 — Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, with a Commentary and Critical Notes: “The Lord … said unto my Lord, Adni or Adonai…” Psalm commentary: “Jehovah said unto my Adoni.”
9. 1817 — Edward Bickersteth, A Scripture Help, Designed to Assist in Reading the Bible Profitably: “The word Lord in the common characters, is, in the original, Adonai… The distinction… may be observed, Psa. 110:1.”
10. 1828 — Robert Hawker, The Poor Man’s Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures: “JEHOVAH said unto my Adonai.”
11. 1834–1835 — Joseph Sutcliffe, A Commentary on the Old and New Testament: “Jehovah said to my Adonai.”
12. 1860 — A. A. Hodge (Archibald Alexander Hodge): “He is here called David’s Lord (Adonai), and invited to sit at the right hand of Jehovah…”
13. 1865–1885 (series) — Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: “‘The Lord said unto my Lord.’ Jehovah said unto my Adonai…”
14. “How condescending on Jehovah’s part to permit a mortal ear to hear, and a human pen to record his secret converse with his co-equal Son!”
15. “Though David was a firm believer in the Unity of the Godhead, he yet spiritually discerns the two persons, distinguishes them, and perceives that in the second he has a peculiar interest, for he calls him ‘my Lord.’”
16. 1866 — Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments: “The other word translated ‘Lord’ — אדני ’Adonāy — means one who has rule or authority…”
17. “The phrase ‘my Lord’ refers to someone who was superior in rank to the author of the psalm.”
18. 1874 — F. W. Farrar, Life of Christ: “The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai), Sit thou on my right hand.”
19. 1875 — William Burt Pope, The Person of Christ: Dogmatic, Scriptural, Historical: “The former ‘Lord’ is Jehovah, and the latter Adonai.”
20. 1889 — H. D. M. Spence-Jones and J. S. Exell (editors), The Pulpit Commentary: St. Luke: “The Hebrew runs thus: ‘Jehovah said to my Lord (Adonai).’”
21. c. 1890 / 1902 printing — F. W. Farrar, Luke: “Jehovah said to my Lord (Adonai).”
22. 1896 — Edward Dennett, The Name Above Every Name: “The Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai]…”
23. 1896 — Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke: “In the Hebrew we have two different words for Lord: ‘Jehovah says to Adonai.’”
24. 1909–1922 — E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible: “my Lord = Adonai, Ap. 4.8: i.e. David’s Lord: i.e. the Messiah. Cp. Matt. 22.41-46.”
25. 1917 — C. I. Scofield: “The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Adonai).”
26. 1924 — G. Campbell Morgan, The Acts of the Apostles: “it would be a good thing to retain the Hebrew form — ‘Jehovah saith to Adonai.’”
27. 1933 — William Childs Robinson, “Jesus Christ Is Jehovah,” Evangelical Quarterly: “the Lord Adonai at the right hand of Jehovah.”
28. 1947 — G. Campbell Morgan, Notes on the Psalms: “Jehovah said to Adonai.”
29. 1949 — Walter Drum, Encyclopedia Americana: “In Psalm 110:1 ‘Yahweh said to Adonai, Sit thou at my right hand.’” “This passage is cited by the Christ to prove that he is Adonai seated at the right hand of Yahweh…”
30. 1956 — V. A. Spence Little, The Deity of Jesus Christ: “The Lord (Jehovah) saith unto my Lord (Adonai).” The author subsequently describes this “Lord Adonai” as a “Divine Personage.”
31. 1965 — Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology: “in the Hebrew the first ‘Lord’ is the tetragrammaton, the second [the king] is Adonai.”
32. 1975 — Herbert Lockyer, All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible: “Here, Jehovah speaks to Adonai words that are properly applied to Christ.”
33. 1979 — Michael Green, Evangelism Now and Then: Jesus given “the name Adonai, Lord.”
34. 1983 — Robert Sumner, Jesus Christ Is God: David called Christ “‘my Lord’ using one of the names of deity, Adonai.” “Lord translates the Hebrew Adonai/adonay, used only of God.”
35. 1983/1985 — The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (editors John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck): “‘Lord’ translates the Hebrew adonay, used only of God.” “If the Messiah were simply an earthly son of David, why did David ascribe deity to Him?”
36. 1983/1989 — Larry Hurtado, New International Biblical Commentary / later Understanding the Bible Commentary: “The first Lord is the Hebrew name for God [Yahweh]; the second Lord renders Adonai, roughly equivalent to the English ‘Sir’ or ‘Lord,’ and the Greek Kyrios.”
37. 1988, 2000 — Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus: “The Lord [kyrios; Heb. YHWH] said to my Lord [kyrios; Heb. Adonai]…” 2nd ed.: David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, “The Lord [kyrios; Heb. YHWH] said to my Lord [kyrios; Heb. adonai], Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies at your feet.” David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?” (Mk 12:35–37).
38. 1990 — James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: “The Hebrew of Ps. 110.1 uses two different words — Yahweh and Adonai.”
39. 1992 — Craig Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, vol. 22: “the second ‘Lord’ (Heb. adonai, not Yahweh) can only be the Messiah.”
40. 1993 — Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “David’s reference to ‘my Lord’… points to… Deity… since ‘Lord’ (Hebrew Adonai) was a title for deity.”
41. 1995 — Ryrie Study Bible: “David hears a conversation between the LORD (Yahweh, God the Father) and David’s Lord (Adonai, the Messiah)…”
42. 1998/1999 — Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: “Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not as explicit in the Old Testament as the New Testament, nonetheless, there are passages where members of the Godhead are distinguished. At times they even speak to one another (see Ps. 110:1).” “The Lord (Yahweh) speaks to my Lord (Adonai).”
43. 2003 — Thomas Constable, Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes on Psalms: “LORD (Yahweh) refers to God the Father and Lord (adonay) refers to God the Son, the Messiah or Anointed of God.”
44. 2004 — William Varner, The Messiah: Revealed, Rejected, Received: “A literal translation… ‘Yahweh said to my Adonai.’”
45. 2007 — R. C. Sproul: “Yahweh calling somebody else ‘Adonai.’”
46. 2013 — Charles Quarles, A Theology of Matthew: Says “Lord” may translate Hebrew Adonai.
47. 2013 — Bob Utley: “The second term… reflects the Hebrew Adonai.”
48. 2013 — TLV Psalms with Commentary: Hope and Healing in the Hebrew Scriptures: “‘my Lord’ is literally ADONAI.”
49. 2015 — Amplified Bible, note on the second “Lord” in Acts 2:34: “In Ps 110:1 Heb Adonai.”
50. 2019 — David Guzik, Psalms 81–118: “The fact that Yahweh — the LORD… spoke to one that David himself called Lord (Adonai) demonstrates that both Yahweh and Adonai mentioned in this verse are God.”
51. 2020 — Justin Dillehay / The Gospel Coalition: “my Lord [Hebrew, Adonai].” Contemporary — Matthew Emadi / The Gospel Coalition: “my Lord [Adonai]”; “David’s Lord (Adonai).”
52. 2023 — John Piper: Calls the generic second “Lord” adonai.
53. 2024 — Scott Brazil, Jesus and YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic Gospels: “in Psalm 110, the first ‘Lord’ translates YHWH and second translates Adonai…”​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

This Thing Called Courage by Barbara Buzzard

The value of a hard question is very great. It forces us to focus on how we would answer it. And it might cause us to reflect on it, honestly and somberly. This Christian life of ours was never meant to be easy.

The Courage of Our Convictions

I have written about courage not because I imagine that I have it, but because I know I am weak in that area. This would be one of those hard questions I have to ask myself. It is very sobering to know that in Revelation cowards are the first to be thrown into the lake of fire. God is not mocked, nor is He fooled. He hates cowardice and so should we, especially our own. A valuable theological lesson for us all is that we must hate what God hates and love what He loves. I note that the KJV obscures the word “coward,” not even using the word but instead softening it to “timid” or “faint hearted.” And yet in the Scriptures the lost are referred to as cowards. So cowardice in Scripture is a big deal, a very big deal. It is said of God that He takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back.¹

How do we possibly survive with all that the world has to throw at us — with all that is being fed to us by the influencers at work — without the courage of our convictions?

Courage is rare — exceedingly rare. It seems that we all have a predisposition towards cowardice. Perhaps we are all cowards at heart. But we must not remain so. That is a freedom we don’t have as Christians. Being timid (!) in the faith is not an option. Being part of the herd is not an option. It might be one of Satan’s biggest lies — to hide from us the fact that courage is required.

Think about what fear does: “The fear of human opinion disables”² (The Message). As Scripture says, fear of man is a snare, a trap — we are trapped by what others think. And yet, more than 500 times we are told not to be afraid. Fear paralyzes, inhibits, and excuses us from doing what we should. It is like an acid which corrodes us and leaves us disabled.

Dangerous Detours

Courage is not shown in maintaining the status quo and peace at all costs. Courage is certainly not in “keeping your head down.” I am confident that Jesus would not approve of trudging through life with your head down. According to Scripture we enter through a narrow gate (Matt. 7:13), but some are continually and persistently and aggressively trying to widen that narrow gate. There is no widening of that narrow gate allowed biblically, even though we are being bombarded by efforts to be inclusive.

Pastors are in danger here as they are subject to “keeping the peace” and maintaining the equilibrium of the group, but as one person said to us: “My pastor is bought and paid for.” Which is to say that the pastor will not go against what his elders instruct him either to say, or not to say. Which is to say that he cannot preach the Truth unless it is acceptable to them. Which is to say that pastors, too, must work to overcome cowardice and to develop courage.

We Must Not…

One of our most serious responsibilities as Christians is to discern good and evil. Scripture emphasizes most strongly and repeatedly that we must not call evil good or good evil. The discernment necessary to judge what is good and what is evil seems to be a required addition to our character.

One of the Christian’s gravest responsibilities is to discern when he is being lied to. An evil that looks “neutral” or “tolerable” or “necessary” should be seen for what it is — evil. We must seriously address Scripture’s emphasis and in fact, its commands: not to call evil good and good evil. I was actually quite shocked when I first saw the importance of this in Scripture. “One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”³ We must not be caught in that camp. This instruction is repeated several times over.⁴ “Abomination” is a very strong word. It cannot be a part of a Christian’s conduct. “Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve.” Please meditate on those words.

But wait! We have a dilemma here! We are told both by society and by many Christian leaders that judging is the very thing we must not do! If there is anything more widely known than the ubiquitous “Do not judge,” I don’t know what it is. Along with it is the unbiblical “Who am I to judge?”

Doing Justice

Consider the following Scripture: “Do not judge and you will not be judged.”⁵ You will hear it over and over and over again. And they are Jesus’ words! But Jesus’ intention is that we judge rightly, not that we condemn. Jesus is warning against self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Have you noticed that those saying that one mustn’t judge are in fact making a judgment? We must judge to discern the true from the false. We do not believe that Jesus said one thing but practiced another. Just a few verses after saying this, Jesus speaks of not throwing your pearls before swine — which would, of course, indicate that you discern if they are swine or not. Think of this: What kind of moral and ethical vacuum are you operating in when you refuse to judge? And what disaster there would be if we were to misunderstand Jesus? (As we have done.) The idea that we not judge between Truth and error would lead to a kind of mental anemia, and even more seriously, to turning our backs on Truth.

Could it just be that we have this all wrong? The popular culture in tandem with many church leaders has waved away God’s requirement for discerning judgment. But in reality, justice has to do with love. Loving justice and desiring to have a role in it are the natural end products of hating evil, which is commanded for us: “Hate evil and love what is good.”⁶ Hatred of evil is in fact, according to Romans 12:9, the mark of a true Christian, and please note that it cannot happen without judgment as to what is evil.

The entire Bible is a book about how to judge. It tells us what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral, what to practice and what to stay away from. Doing justice is not a forbidden, angry sort of behavior. In fact, it goes hand in hand with walking humbly and loving kindness! It is far from being unloving, harsh, and finger pointing. “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.”⁷

Is Judging a Moral Obligation?

One writer⁸ points out that it is on the subject of homosexuality that many Christians fall apart and want to find harmony between a Christian view and a worldly view. No such harmony exists. No blessing of both sides exists. He uses the example of standing on earth at the same time as standing on the moon — it is impossible. In agreeing with society’s morality, one automatically leaves the Christian view behind, because the two are in direct opposition to each other. Attempts to appease, harmonize, soften, or to make the unbiblical excuse that we are not to judge on such matters will open us to the charge of cowardice. How so? Because we have at this point compromised Scripture so as to fit in with current thought. Hard question: What are the demands of your faith? What is your moral obligation here?

Regrettably we have arrived at the point where this has to be said: opposing evil is not wrong. Not to judge is to give a pass to a condition or situation or behavior that the Bible condemns.

When you think about it, it’s not really judging that people have a problem with — it is judging negatively. For example, hardly anyone would get upset if something positive is said about another’s behavior, even though in doing so we have passed judgment. But that kind of judgment which is affirming is seen as OK. Only when a judgment is disapproving is there a problem and you will hear, “We are not to judge.”

As we must train and practice and train and practice and train and practice in discernment, so must we train in right judgment. Think of Olympic athletes and the countless hours dedicated to their training. How can we become fit for the huge responsibility and reward of judging individuals and even angels in the Kingdom? We must exercise sound judgment in this life so as to grow in wisdom and exercise that wisdom in the future Kingdom.

Scripture indicates that we have gone wrong in failing to judge error. And we have gone wrong in failing to judge ourselves.⁹

In an effort to protect myself from being misheard and/or misunderstood — please know:

• Superficial judgment is wrong.
• Hypocritical judgment is wrong.
• Harsh, unforgiving judgment is wrong.
• Judging someone’s motives is wrong.
• Judging as to whether someone is saved is wrong.

We are “always to be gentle to everyone.”¹⁰ Probably the most important aspect of all of this is that it must be done with humility and with love.

A Big Surprise

One of the greatest gifts a parent could give his/her children is the idea and example that it is to their good that they are different from the crowd. It would be a blessing to drum into their heads that it is good that they are different from the rest of the world, that they stand apart from the crowd. I know that this is very difficult because the pull is to be just like everybody else. Our culture values conformity. Our God does not! Not only are we not to act as everybody else, but the stakes have been raised so that we are told, “Do not think like everybody else.”¹¹ Strength of character is shown by standing against the crowd.

Here is the surprise: “The word holy, then, does not mean particularly religious. What it actually does mean, essentially, is ‘different.’ It speaks of something or someone being distinctive, set apart and separate.”¹² In our pursuit of life — or as our Constitution says, pursuit of happiness — we must not, we dare not adopt the attitudes and ways of those who do not reverence God.

“For Israel, then, being the people of Yahweh meant being different too. When God said, ‘You shall be holy because I, the LORD your God am holy,’ what it meant, colloquially, was ‘You must be a different kind of people because I am a different kind of God’…Israel would be a nation among other nations, but they were to be holy – i.e. different from the rest of the nations.”¹³

There is great danger in being in the majority. Let us never forget that it was the majority, the crowd who crucified Jesus!

ABORTION and Moral Clarity

A couple of desperately hard questions: Could good people bless evil? Could Christians bless evil?!

I repeat that I must continually fight against cowardice in myself. I am not holding myself up as a model. But I CAN see where courage is NOT. Courage is not in any church that refuses to speak out on the horror of abortion. There is no case for abortion. I feel compelled to include this whenever I speak or write because abortion is “the most significant, serious, dreadful reality in the history of the world.”¹⁴ I have to stand against this evil. Abortion is not just a sin; it is murder. What have we come to if you do not or cannot say that abortion is murder, and that it is sinful, that it is perhaps the greatest sin any human being can commit? What, as Christians, do we say about this greatest moral evil of all time?

Believers used to draw hard lines and not cross them, but it feels like that was something from yesteryear. What has happened here is that the focus in church is to make people feel welcomed and loved (and that is important), but the loving action of helping them to see the evil in our world, and warning them to hear and fear and become aware of their sinful nature (with a view to their repentance) is missing. The tone has changed, revealing a monumental shift in the philosophy of church going.

Many pastors have chosen not to speak out against the horror of abortion; they are hesitant and reluctant to become involved. I am struck by the Isaiah verse which says, “Don’t ask me to get involved” (Isa. 2:7b). Does that not sound current? “All of them [your leaders]…refuse to defend the orphans and the widows” (Isa. 1:23b).

I have to wonder — if pastors don’t stand for the innocent, who should do it? And isn’t it true that a few honest words can change the direction of someone’s life? Could it be that acceptance and toleration¹⁵ of even the thought of abortion is an indication, a fruit of a reprobate mind? (Remember our Moloch-worshipping history.) Ongoing sin causes the mind and the conscience to shut down. Might it be that the hideous act of abortion is in itself a judgment?

Listen to the words of the man who led the abortion culture in the U.S. He oversaw and performed tens of thousands of abortions. After he repented, he refers to his previous life as moral squalor, and he admits to making up and promoting the lies that Roe v. Wade used. The whole of the case was founded on lies. Lies are a feature of evil. Bernard Nathanson says that he fell into shameless debauchery. Listen to his words as he describes his journey into the Satanic world of abortion:

“As I look back across the 25 years separating me from the revolting extravaganza playing itself out on the bodies of pregnant women and their slaughtered babies, I am struck by the moral and spiritual vacuum at the core of this fantastic operation. And yet the thing was so obviously sordid. Why couldn’t we make the link between the ethical and the moral, between the shoddy practices and shabby practitioners, the evident greed and callous motives, between the crassness of the enterprise and those involved in it, between all these ethical indicators and the grotesque immorality of the act itself?”¹⁶

The Greek word brephos is used in Scripture of both children in the womb and those outside the womb. There is no difference. Pre-born children are not disposable. Without question the Bible recognizes life in the womb.

Biblically those who do not oppose the sin of abortion are as guilty as those who actually perform the killing. Could it be a theological deformity to think otherwise?

I hasten to add that repentance and God’s wonderful forgiveness cover all who have been involved in abortion and have repented.

Silence Please — OR NOT!

Could silence be a violation of our faith? Are we free to overlook murder or other evil in our midst?

Reason and speech are gifts of God to enable us to think. There is little that is more dangerous for a Christian than indifference. Indifference is a Laodicean quality which is not pleasing to God and it comes with perils. As we are warned not to be lukewarm, i.e. it is better to be either hot or cold, so it is with evil. How can one be indifferent to the murder of an innocent life by way of abortion?

Yes, in this country we have the right to remain silent, but I would argue — not as a Christian. Why? Because as Martin Luther King taught, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”¹⁷ This architecture of silence is unbiblical. As we must watch ourselves and our doctrine, so we must do what is advised here: “See at any rate, that I do not lend myself [my support] to the wrong which I condemn.”¹⁸ We do lend ourselves to evil unless we speak out against it.

This is a powerful picture: “And yet even in the face of this abomination, the churches of America, the pastors of America, are silent. Where is the cry of outrage? Where is the indignation of the people of God?”¹⁹ Is there any way under God’s heaven that you can stand for or defend the taking of sixty million innocent lives? Or even one?!

We are all aware of those who impose their views on others. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about Jesus-centered people. Shouldn’t people know what we believe — and how fervently we believe it? “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”²⁰

These are some of the most profound words ever spoken. “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”²¹

Conclusion

We must build practices that keep us from falling prey to those who are attempting to deceive us. As our world has distanced itself from the Bible, it becomes even more important to be courageous in standing for our beliefs.

God wants far more from us than just good deeds. He wants our participation in the faith. He wants our dedicated minds, our passionate stand for Truth. God’s people should respond. And we are to share what understanding we come to from practicing discernment and critical thinking about these subjects.

It is right that God’s people raise their voices in protest to godless trends. It is right that they join the urgent battle to save those unborn lives that are fashioned in the image of God. Doing less would be tantamount to surrender; it is capitulation to the “evil one.”

Again, it was never meant to be easy. The battle for Truth is on, and we must be in the fight. And so, one of those hard questions: What is your participation with the faith?

And one last hard question: If we don’t have the same faith as Jesus, what is the point? Churches can manufacture belief systems that seem to work, but at the point of comparison to Jesus, they fall so short that Jesus doesn’t even recognize them. We must constantly be on the alert and compare our faith to that of Jesus’ teaching. We are not free to make a substitution for what Jesus said is the greatest commandment.

We are called to witness, which means more than just to see. It means to speak. Speaking is critical because it is a way of safeguarding Truth. Bearing witness is not optional. Integrity demands that we do so. We are not allowed to dodge the hard stuff.

Silence is unacceptable. We are to be “acceptable in His sight.” Remember the thought as expressed in Psalm 19:14: “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to You, O LORD.”

I will finish with this: One of the very practical ways that we can use Truth is to teach others to be fair and wise and discerning, and to be active in the faith.

Jude 3: “I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

The bottom line: Cowards don’t contend for the faith!

Let us proceed with courage.

---

Footnotes

¹ Heb. 10

² Pro. 28:25

³ Pro. 17:15, also Pro. 24:24, Isa. 5:20, Mal. 2:17

⁴ Rom. 14:22b

⁵ Mat. 7:1

⁶ Amos 5:15a

⁷ Micah 6:8

⁸ Matt Walsh, Church of Cowards

⁹ John 7:24 “Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment.” Rom. 16:17, Luke 7:43b “And Jesus said to him, You have judged rightly.”

¹⁰ Titus 3:2

¹¹ Isa. 8:11

¹² Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, p. 203

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ R.C. Sproul

¹⁵ The words “tolerance” and “toleration” are not used in Scripture. Tolerance is currently seen as a good thing, but that doesn’t fit with biblical standards. The word “tolerable” can be seen in relation to Sodom.

¹⁶ Dr. Bernard Nathanson, The Hand of God

¹⁷ Martin Luther King

¹⁸ Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

¹⁹ Dr. Laurence White, The Sin of Silence

²⁰ (Attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr.)

²¹ (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

¿Tres dioses? El dilema de la Trinidad

En su carta A Ablabio: Sobre «No tres dioses», Gregorio de Nisa, uno de los principales arquitectos de la teología trinitaria del siglo IV, aborda abiertamente una pregunta difícil: Si la consustancialidad basta para hacer del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo un solo Dios, ¿por qué el mismo razonamiento no hace de Pedro, Santiago y Juan un solo hombre?

Su analogía pone de manifiesto el dilema de la Trinidad: Pedro, Santiago y Juan comparten la misma naturaleza humana; sin embargo, naturalmente los llamamos tres hombres, no un solo hombre. Entonces, cuando se aplica el mismo razonamiento a la Trinidad, ¿por qué no se puede hablar de «tres Dioses»? El propio Gregorio afirma que la pregunta es «muy difícil de abordar» y reconoce que el argumento parece obligarnos a elegir entre negar la divinidad del Hijo y del Espíritu o afirmar que «hay tres Dioses».

Gregorio continúa argumentando que el lenguaje común es, en realidad, impreciso cuando llama a Pedro, Santiago y Juan «tres hombres». Puesto que «hombre» se refiere propiamente a la naturaleza humana que comparten, la naturaleza misma permanece siendo una a pesar de la pluralidad de personas. En otras palabras, filosóficamente hablando, el «hombre» en Pedro, Santiago y Juan es uno. Pero el lenguaje común, evidentemente, no llama a Pedro, Santiago y Juan un solo hombre. Los llama tres hombres.

Gregorio va aún más lejos al argumentar que los seres humanos realizan acciones separadas: Pedro puede hacer algo independientemente de Santiago y Juan. El Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu, sin embargo, nunca realizan operaciones divinas separadas. Toda acción divina procede del Padre, por medio del Hijo, y es perfeccionada en el Espíritu. Sobre esta base, Gregorio rechaza llamarlos «tres Dioses». Aunque rechazó enfáticamente el triteísmo, reconoció, no obstante, el dilema subyacente: una naturaleza compartida por tres personas distintas no explica, por sí sola, por qué debemos decir «un solo Dios» en lugar de «tres Dioses».

Eso es lo que hace tan reveladora la carta de Gregorio. La simple afirmación de que «tres personas comparten una sola esencia» no era suficiente ni siquiera para uno de los grandes arquitectos de la teología trinitaria. Él reconoció que la fórmula parece permitir precisamente la conclusión que pretendía evitar —tres Dioses— y que, por tanto, se necesitaban argumentos filosóficos adicionales para descartarla.

Por último, y quizá aún más importante, Gregorio no desestimó la pregunta sin más, ni mucho menos condenó a un colega obispo por plantearla. Por el contrario, tomó en serio el dilema e intentó responderlo. Este hecho, por sí solo, es significativo para los cristianos posteriores que han luchado con la misma pregunta, y especialmente para quienes, a la luz de lo que enseñan las Escrituras, finalmente rechazan la solución trinitaria al dilema.