Significance of Blood, Water and Spirit

There are good reasons Saint John reported water and blood flowed from Jesus’ side after the Roman soldier pierced him with a spear. The medical explanation is called pericardial tamponade – a condition usually resulting from major chest trauma.

Many NT scholars believe Jesus suffered from this condition in his final moments. Basically, it is a condition where water fills the sac surrounding the heart (called the pericardium). Since we know Jesus was flogged and beaten, this is where he could have suffered the chest trauma. Pastor Mark Driscoll, Marshill Church, said he believes it was either this, or that Jesus fell under his cross beam when he was carrying it. Cross beams could way more than 100 pounds (like a railroad tie) and would crush a man's chest if he fell under it. This would explain why John's gospel mentions Jesus carried his own cross, but the synoptic gospels claim Simon carried it. One could mend this surface contradiction by holding that Jesus began by carrying his cross beam, but weakened from his flogging, fell underneath the weight and was crushed, and from that point being unable to carry the beam, thus needing Simon's help.

With that kind of chest trauma, fluid would build around the heart causing massive heart failure and death. This would explain why blood and water came out when his side was pierced with a spear. This would also debunk the swoon theory, which states that Jesus merely passed out on the cross, and the Romans, (who were professional executioners) mistook him for being dead. If water came from his side, chances are he surely died from massive heart failure.

Here's why it was significant enough for Saint John to record it. Water and blood played significant roles in the ritual cleansing of a person. Baptism was a very common ritual, and the law required baptism for a number of situations. For example, a woman who finished her menstrual cycle would need to be immersed in water before being clean again. Another example is seen with the high priest, who was baptized five times before entering the Most Holy Place on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).

Also, we know that blood atones for sin, and "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22). In fact, in many cleansing rituals, blood and water were used together. For example, in order for a leper who had been healed, to be pronounced ceremonially clean, he needed to be (among other things) sprinkled with blood and water together, then baptized (Lev. 14:1-9, Heb. 9:19-20). The blood is necessary for atonement because the wages of sin is death, (Rom. 6:23) and the life of a creature is in its blood (Lev. 17:14). Water (I suppose) is significant because it is the one base substance needed for all kinds of cleaning – so blood for the life, and water for the cleansing. These things don't evoke very much imagery in our culture because we are so far removed from animal sacrifices (which required blood and lots of water). But to the first-century Jew, blood and water together evoked graphic imagery of death, substitution and purification. 1 John hammers on this: "This is he who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood" (5:6a). Additionally, water in the near east has always been a symbol of life. Consider that Jesus referred attaining eternal life through “living water” (John 4:14).

This is also why the Christian sacraments (baptism and communion) are symbols of water and blood. The third element is the Spirit, where Jesus will "baptize us in spirit and fire" (Luke 3:16). Further along in 1 John 5, the spirit is mentioned as the third witness (verses 6-9). So, water blood and the Spirit are major themes for us. One could even argue our baptism is a picture of the great flood from Gen. 6, and our immersion with the spirit a picture of how God will one day immerse the earth in fire (Rev. 8) - both having cleansing properties. We see all three elements at the cross right at the point of Jesus’ death. His last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" Then, water and blood flowed from his side. Water, blood, spirit.

A warning: When to "pluck out the right eye"

There are times when the study of books, even scripture, is such a focus in our lives as students, we tend to lose the proper perspective on our purpose here, (which is to love other people). This perhaps is one of my greatest struggles. It is a subtle temptation when we are deceived into taking a good thing (acquiring knowledge) and elevate it above the best thing (love). This is what makes possible the greatest of evils - because all other good things can be used for a bad purpose (charisma and charm can lead people astray, knowledge can be used for the wrong purpose, etc.). But genuine love can never be used for an evil purpose.

For this reason, the below quote is a warning to myself and perhaps anyone else who may be tempted to put knowledge, or their church, or family or self, above the virtue of love:

"We may come to love knowledge -- our knowing -- more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents, but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in the scholar's life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. the time for plucking out the right eye has arrived" (Lewis 57).

- C. S. Lewis. The Weight of Glory. New York: HarperCollins, 1949.

Good Friday - The Crucifixion

As of the time of this writing, it is 9:30 a.m. on Good Friday, which represents the very time Jesus was crucified and had been hanging for about 30 minutes on a stake. He would have another five hours and thirty minutes before his suffering is finished.

To put this into perspective, crucifixion is considered the most offensive and painful death ever invented in this world (Hengel). By the time of Jesus it had been perfected over a period of more than six hundred years, beginning with the Persians. In fact, the very word excruciating is a Latin word meaning literally “from the cross.”

The Romans had a custom of flogging most people before nailing them on the cross, just as Jesus was (John 19:1). The result of a Roman flogging was a flayed back and buttocks, leaving only ribbons of skin. According to scholars, many didn’t survive the flogging because of shock and loss of blood. The Jews had a law limiting the number of lashings to forty (Deut. 25:3), presumably to prevent death by torture – but the Romans had no such law.

Crucifixion involved being stripped totally naked (unlike how we’re used to seeing Jesus with a rag about his waist). Nails were driven through the most sensitive nerve centers in the body. A crucified man could be in only two states: rigid, with pressure on the nailed feet, allowing him to draw breath; or limp, with pressure on the nailed hands in a state of asphyxiation. Crucifixon is a state of constant agony and sometimes lasted as long as four days, or in some cases nine days (Hengel). According to Hengel, it is likely Jesus died after six hours from loss of blood due to his flogging. Mark Driscoll said he believes it was a heart attack from falling under his cross beam as he carried it. Either way, six hours is a long time to hang against a roughly hewn block of wood with a skinless back. Think about what you were doing six hours ago, and imagine hanging from then until now.

Hengel claims the idea of crucifixion was so offensive to ancient civilized society, it was the main barrier to getting people to believe. No all-powerful, dignified deity would lower himself to that level of barbarity. Paul supports this idea when he wrote the crucified Lord is “foolishness” to Gentiles (1Cor. 1:23). Indeed, the scene was filled with more than blood. During those last six hours Jesus gradually lost control of his body, whereupon his vomit, urine and feces collected with his blood at the foot of his cross. This was for everyone to see – he was naked. During the last hour, his skin (that was left) was completely white and blanched, with no blood to give it color. His beard was pulled out, his body in ribbons, and his skin blanched white. Only Isaiah captures best how people saw Jesus in his last hours: “his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind” (Isa. 52:14, ESV).

In his book called The Problem of Pain, C. S Lewis talks about the divine humility of God, that he would accept us by dying the way he did, even when He is our last resort, and our last choice. God deserves more, he demands more, and he knew we could not meet his demand – so he met it on the cross, and that is what today is all about. May all of you know, I don’t need to say “God bless you” because he already has.

Works Cited

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. London: Fortress, 1977.

The Bible: Reliable, Reputable, Well Preserved

During a recent debate on Nightline, Bishop Carlton Pearson attacked the historical reliability of the Bible, saying people are free to pick and choose what they want to believe from it. His argument was based on the Bible’s separation from us by language, culture and time. He claimed it had gone from Hebrew, to Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, and finally to English, over more than a thousand years.

But thanks to a science called textual criticism, we can be sure that our Bible is reliable, factual, and is perhaps one of the best-preserved historical documents – ever.

First, it is not true English translations of the Bible passed through all those languages to get what we have now, (as if it were some sort of text-based rumor). As a rule, modern translators go back to the earliest extant manuscripts to make up modern English translations. And since there are thousands of extant manuscripts in the original language, (Hebrew and some Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament) our English translations are pulled right from the ancient text.

There are currently more than 3,000 extant Hebrew manuscripts from the OT, about 8,000 in the Latin Vulgate and more than 1,500 from the Septuagint (Greek OT translated around 200 B.C.). More than 200 of the extant Hebrew manuscripts date as far back as 250 B.C. [ESV 2586]. Out of all these manuscripts, all agree with each other, in that the meaning of the texts don’t change or contradict. Areas where wording differs is very minimal, (less than one percent), “and even among that 1 percent there are no variants that would change any part of the doctrine” (2587). The sheer quantity of these texts alone is a remarkable testimony that the Word has been accurately passed down.

Since the NT was written later, those manuscripts are even more prevalent. There are more than 5,700 extant Greek NT manuscripts, some of them are fragments dating so far back the authors who wrote them were possibly still alive when they were copied (second century A.D.). Also, there are nearly 25,000 NT manuscripts available in other ancient languages. The ESV Study Bible notes that “if all these were destroyed, the NT text could be reproduced almost in its entirety by quotations of it in sermons, tracts and commentaries written by ancient teachers” (2587). This not only shows that it was well preserved, but that it was considered holy writ by the contemporaries of the authors.

In fact, the high view of scripture is one of the reasons it is so well preserved. Those who copied the OT (scribes) made a whole career just out of meticulously copying and preserving the OT. When scrolls wore out, they expressed reverence by having a ritual burial for them (2585). The exactness of the scriptures was taken very seriously, and not treated as some sort of bedtime tale.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is good evidence for the near perfection of scripture preservation. Before they were discovered in 1947, the Masoretic texts were the oldest extant OT Manuscripts, dating back to 1008 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent more than a thousand-year gap, and when compared to Dead Sea Scrolls scholars found Masoretic texts to be “very accurate” (2586).

Compared to classical ancient manuscripts, the Bible far exceeds them in number and proximity to original manuscripts. The average number of manuscripts from ancient Greek or Latin authors is less than twenty! (2587). Also, the average extant classical manuscripts are more than 500 years separated from the original writing. But there are extant NT manuscripts only seventy years separated from original writings (this is a conservative estimate) [2588].

On top of all this, if you speak English, you are more likely to have a better understanding of the original manuscripts based on the large diversity of words in this language. Author Bill Bryson calls English “The Mother Tongue” because there are more than 200,000 words in common use, (excluding scientific and technical terms). By comparison Bryson points out German has 184,000 words in common use and French has only about 100,000. English is also the only language big enough that it needs and has books devoted to synonyms. Therefore English “is able to capture nuances better and more often because there are more words to describe subtle differences” (Ragan).

The Bible has been carefully preserved, mainly because its stewards always considered it inspired by God. No other book in the world is translated into more languages. Therefore, we know it to be God’s Words – and we would expect that a God who loves people and wants to reach them, would have provided a way for all the world to know him. He has done this through the Bible.

References:

English Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Ragan Communications Inc. “First Draft” newsletter, March 2009 issue

The Temptation of Adam?

Note: What if Adam had been tempted instead of Eve? How would Satan have approached Adam? What tactics would he have used? We may never know, but I’ve taken a crack at spinning the tale myself. The following is a re-telling of the temptation in the Garden, inspired by Milton’s epic, Paradise Lost. Please let me know what you think:

So it was Eve who departed from Adam at her request. She first took a step backwards swaying her body, almost as if she were teasing him, playfully, as if inviting him to pursue her despite her request for temporary solitude (9.386). Adam resisted his urge to go after her. Could she want him to follow? This woman was so hard to understand. Would she ask for one thing and really want another? He decided to just give her the space she plainly asked for, instead of trying to decode or interpret what she wanted. Her company was his desire. But Adam loved Eve, and he refused to bully, or oppress her for the sake of his own desire. Eve’s happiness was a high priority. Thus, they separated for the day, each to their own tasks.

Eve’s absence made Adam feel a bit melancholy. He watched her lightly stepping away, and his heart raced thinking about the way she moved, the sound of her feet, her backward glances, and playful smirks. She pleased him even in her most casual expressions. God did and excellent job with her. The pink scar on his side burned.

On the day before this, pure evil waited in hiding among the untamed shrubs. It was targeting the man. The devil abandoned a previous scheme to tempt the woman for several reasons. From his careful study he found that the woman-creature lives on a cycle. “Not only does her emotions oscillate,” thought the devil, “but her body goes through a physical undulation. Now is not the time to approach the woman, for she is about to bleed. I’ve observed her emotions are strained just prior to this physical phenomenon, making her less tolerant of company. I wonder if this is why she wants temporary respite from the man. Anyway, my objective is to have her eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but during this apex in her cycle, she seems more interested in the cacao bean, and not fruit.

“Besides, am I not great enough to conquer the man? Only the cowardly and fearful go after the smaller game. Why should I, the great cherub, who rules a third of heaven’s army (Rev. 12:4) and a thousand demigods (Milton 1.796), seek out the weaker of the two? (Milton 9.382-83). Am I not up to the challenge of engaging the man? Yes. I AM. I will take man’s worship from his creator, and wear it like a garment before my Enemy.”

Hence, the devil abandoned his plan to tempt Eve. And because of that, he decided the serpent was not the best choice of form any longer. “The subtlest beast of the field might work well for the woman (Milton 9.86),” said Satan, “for her strength is in hair-splitting rhetoric. However, for the man, subtlety would pass over him.”

After careful contemplation, the devil made a new choice of animal. To serve his purpose for the man, he found the fox more cunning than any beast of the field. Now that his mind was made up, the devil made one last lament before possessing the fox:

“This sucks. Here I am, about to take on the form of a smelly dog-like beast to hide my dark intentions. I have sunk to the level of cheap shenanigans to entertain this man. I once sat with the gods of the highest heaven! But now, I am to mix with fur and drool and perform silly animal tricks (Milton 9.160-165). But I will do what it takes. My ambition and commitment to revenge are stronger than my desire to stay separate from dust. How spiteful to me is the man’s Maker! How could he make such a spirit-animal hybrid – and call it his favorite? Disgusting.” (Lewis 37).

Therefore, during the night the devil entered the fox through its nose, and took on all its animal-like instincts – but the fox slept on until morning, and arose with prey on his mind (Milton 9.187-191).

Upon first sight of the man, Satan was still. How could something made from dust so resemble the strength of the Enemy? Obviously, the man was an animal. But an animal that seemed to burst and overflow with the supernatural. The man’s spirit spilled forth from his eyes. The fox fixed his stare on the god-like face of the man. That wonderful, bushy beard was like a mane! The man’s mere presence commanded respect. Every twitch of his face; every ripple of muscle stirred up awe in the fox’s heart. The deeply grooved frown of the man’s mouth combined with his hulking body brought back a chilling memory of the devil’s last civil moments with God. Satan had to repress a reflex of fear. Was he not, after all occupying a body subordinate to the man? Déjàvu flooded his heart. With one stomp of a foot, this muscle-bound man could break every bone in the fox. But Satan’s pride redoubled its strength and his hate rekindled in a burning flame and he strengthened his resolve.

On walked Adam, alone in his contemplation after departing from his lover. But suddenly, an interesting sound distracted him from his thoughts. Up ahead, coming from the vineyard he planted, Adam heard a sound in which he would later call music. As the man moved closer, he saw a large, red, bushy-tailed fox walking in the vineyard on his hind quarters (S.O.S. 2:15). Out of the fox’s mouth flowed a deep, rich Gregorian chant, complete in four-part harmony. Adam’s jaw dropped in astonishment and his legs brought him to a halt. The fox advanced on his hind legs, each step moving in rhythm to the chant, and each syllable pronounced with pious enthusiasm. The sound was incredible. Although the fox sang in a language Adam could not understand, the music was moving, and the sound was heavy. Every time the fox hit a low series of notes, Adam felt the vibrations in his chest. The man pressed his lips together and squeezed his eyes shut, producing a single tear. The fox’s song rose in volume and pitch until finally it resolved with a reverent,

“Aaw-hawh-men!”

The fox then eyeballed Adam, and with a quick, jerky gesture, plucked a large red grape with his paw, popped it into his mouth, and smacked loudly. After licking his lips, he said to Adam, “You’re not who I’m looking for,” and turned around to walk away.

“Do my eyes deceive me?” gasped Adam. “How is it that I hear the voice of four men proceeding from the mouth of a single animal? Do not leave me fox. Please do me the favor of satisfying my curiosity. Tell me, how did you come to speak, to sing, and to do so with such charming appeal?”
“I will spare time from my search for love to tell my story, man,” said the fox. “For you are large and burly and carry an intimidating stare – that almost of a god. Your voice is like thunder, your arms hard as stones, your chest as broad as a boulder, and your legs like tree trunks. I will entertain you for a moment, for you are surely a vision of power. But alas, what I seek is a thing of delicacy and beauty, not strength and grit.

“As a dumb beast, I once roamed the fields without high thinking of any kind. There were no words in my mouth or songs on my tongue. As chance would have it, on one sunny afternoon a sweet fragrance lured my attention. The aroma was better than the smell of any egg and sweeter than honey, so I followed my nose to a towering tree with plentiful leaves and broad, bulb-like flowers. I rushed up into the branches and found these flowers, each one closed over a single fruit. They were unavailable to other beasts because of their height, and inaccessible to birds because of their thick rind. But I, with my clever paws and maw, opened the bulb and ate. Such a taste was intoxicating and full. One taste of this fruit awakened my mind and my appetite for higher things. My body grew larger, my limbs more dexterous. My tongue attained speech and my mind gained understanding. But most importantly, my heart swelled and I learned how to feel passion. A song welled up from my chest and burst out of me! I came to understand I was no longer fettered to the instincts of a lowly beast.

“With these new abilities came a desire to please another being. It is a creature of beauty that I now seek – not some lowly animal. I know there is such a being, because all desires are matched with something to fill them. And when I find this creature of beauty, my songs will enchant her and hold captive her attention for all our lives. She will love only me.”

Then Adam thought, “Who or what does this fox seek? I’ve seen every creature on earth. Indeed I have named them all. There is none of such beauty as he describes that I can think … save one, and that is Eve … oh no!”

A new feeling surged up in Adam’s chest. Something almost tart and electric – it was not a comfortable feeling, but tense and urgent. It beat against his chest and made his mouth dry. This new and unpleasant feeling squirmed inside and gave him cause for alarm. Must he compete for Eve’s love? He surely didn’t want to lose her – she was his own flesh.

Then Adam spoke. “Dear fox, I will trouble you a moment longer. Please show me this tree so that I may eat of its fruit and gain the skill of charm and chant like you.”

“It is not far from here,” replied the fox, “follow me.”

But upon arrival, Adam’s heart sank. “That is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” said Adam, “and of it the LORD commanded me not to eat.”

“Really? No! Don’t misunderstand the LORD, friend!” said the fox. “He surely did not command you not to eat. He merely said if you ate from it you would die. But you surely have the option to eat.”

“Don’t be a fool, fox,” replied Adam. “I have no desire to die.”

“Listen to me, man. You know nothing of death because you have not tasted it. Death does not mean exactly what you think.”

“But,” said Adam, “I know it involves cessation of life, and that cannot be good.”

The fox sighed, shook his head, as if this was something he dealt with often. “Let me explain,” He said in a rather snobbish and pompous tone, as if speaking to a dull pupil. “You see that plush vineyard you planted? That is an example of death. It started out as an ugly brown seed. Had that seed not dried up, died and been buried, it would not have come back as a large, beautiful vine which bears delicious, red grapes. You see? Death is like graduating to something higher.” Then the fox burst forth in a brief song:

For when I took and ate of this fruit,
My life ceased and I died as a brute.
Only to come back again,
Strong, and red, in search of my hen.
If death of this brute produced a new fox,
What would death do to human stock?
Surely a god’s form you would step in,
Impress the LORD with a new life of sin.

Then, when Adam saw the fruit’s result on the fox, that it would bring a “new” life and also make him more appealing to Eve, he took a bulb, ripped off the rind, and ate. The fox quickly ran off twitching his tail.

Then, Adam’s eyes were opened and his desire for Eve twisted out of its original shape, changing from a delightful feeling to a ravenous hunger. As chance would have it, Eve was approaching in the distance. He quickly snatched another fruit and sprinted away from the tree, adjacent to Eve’s approach, to conceal the fruit’s origin. He then uttered three simple words to his bride:

“Come ‘ere Rib!”

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. London: Penguin, 2000.

Why trash the Law?

Can anyone point out in the Bible a claim that it’s not possible for people to be able to keep the entire Old Testament Law? I often hear Christians say it is impossible to keep God’s Law, and that’s why Jesus came.

Okay, before some of you blow a vein and label me a heretic for implying salvation by works, let me first assure you I agree that no amount of work can earn salvation. Yes, we’re all unworthy of Jesus and only saved by his grace – we’re not better than anyone else. I just disagree God gave a law that can’t be followed (that would be cruel) – and there is scripture back this up.

For example, consider what God tells Moses to speak to the people after giving them the entire Law, (all 613 commandments). About these commandments God said, “‘For this commandment [to follow the whole Law] that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off … But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Duet. 30:11 & 14, ESV emphasis mine).

Also, consider that Job was blameless, (Job 1:1) yet he admits to despising himself because of his sin (Job 42:6). Noah was “blameless” (Gen. 6:9). Of Zechariah and Elizabeth (parents of John the Baptizer) this is written: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. (Luke 1:6 emphasis mine).

Furthermore, how could Paul admit to being sinful yet audaciously claim he kept the law perfectly as a Pharisee? I’m referring to these words: “as righteousness under the law, [I am] blameless” (Phi. 3:6b). (Incidentally, he considered that righteousness as “rubbish” [3:8]).

Now, let me point out here there is a key difference between keeping the law and sinning, (otherwise, the Bible wouldn’t claim some people followed the Law blamelessly). Many people blur law-breaking and sin together. I’m saying this: It’s possible for a person to keep law and still sin. Even a cursory reading of the Pentateuch will reveal God’s Law to Israel made room for sin. That’s because he knew people were sinful and would sin. Imagine that! There is grace in the Old Testament! God provided ample opportunities for people who sinned to be keepers of the Law. That’s where the terms guilt- and sin-offerings come from. If you offer a sin offering, you’re admitting to sin while keeping the Law.

So the old form of the Law could be kept. (I say, “could” because the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and sin offerings using animal sacrifices are now superseded by Jesus’ sacrifice.) BUT Jesus didn’t come because it was inconvenient to make animal sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the upright Jew considered keeping the Law one of his purest joys (Psalm 119: 97-104) and a privilege. It was an outward way to express an inward love toward God. This is quite the contrast to what Martin Luther taught about the Law being there to terrorize sinners.

Jesus pointed out the difference between following the Law and not sinning when he said one must not only avoid adultery in action, but also in heart (Matt. 5:28). What Jesus is saying here is that in order to be without sin, one must do more than keep the Law. In other words, you can keep the law, and still be guilty of sin – as many people were and are.

This, I believe, is what Hebrews means where it seems to claim the old covenant had faults: “For if that first covenant had been found faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second” (Heb. 8:7). It wasn’t that God’s a Law had faults – the law was perfect (Psa. 19:7, Jam. 1:25). The imperfection is in our hearts and not the Law. That is where the law comes short of what we need – it can show us how to live, but it can’t change our hearts so that we want to live that way. It points in the right direction, but offers no inherit motivation to go there.

That is part of the genius of Jesus’ intervention. Not only does it clear our past sins, his love for us gives us the desire to want to be perfect. His sacrifice changes our hearts’ desires to him and directs us away from things of the world – the law couldn’t do that because it is merely a standard to measure by, like a plumb line or a level.

The best thing I can compare it to is the mirror analogy in the epistle of James. He compared the Word of God to a mirror that accurately reflects and reveals to a person what he looks like – flaws and all. The man without a changed heart will look in the mirror, see his flaws, and walk away forgetting about it. But the person whose desires have been changed based on what Jesus did will look into that “perfect law” and “act” on what he sees to correct it.

That is why I submit that God’s Law (in its amended form according to the Hebrews epistle) can indeed be followed – I believe the opposite view will produce apathy in striving for purity and love among Christians.

For the people who have had their hearts changed by the sacrifice of Jesus – they will delight in following the Law of God, and it will be no burden.

(As an amendment added later, I want to emphasize that any good works completed as a result of the desire to be perfect, still fails to justify the Christian/sinner. Only Jesus can do that for us. The point I'm making is not that one must follow the law of Christ, but that the true believer will want to follow it. For this reason, a Christian is always in a state of repentance. Birds fly, fish swim, Christians repent.)

Islam: peace or wrath?

Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole western world is giving Islam a giant pass when it comes to holding this religion accountable to what it teaches?

Here's the most recent example: a Muslim man, in America, cut off his wife's head after she asked for a divorce. Ironically, this happens to be the very man who founded a TV station devoted to countering the public perception that Islam encourages violence. Read the story here.

Islam experts claim this has the markings of an honor killing, which is a right of a Muslim man to kill a female relative, (without question according to Sharia Law) if she has done something to dishonor the family name. A divorce request from a wife falls into that category.

This comes after the headlines about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the anti-Islamic video called "Fitna" - a fifteen-minute film that juxtaposes Islamic texts calling for killing, along with scenes from 9/11 and other violent terrorist acts. This guy is being attacked for hate speech. What did he do? He put together a video with scenes of Imams (Islamic teachers) preaching hate and violence against westerners, and added texts from the Quran (the Islamic religious book) that commands the killing of non-Muslims. The video is almost entirely made up of Islamic teaching and texts, and Wilders is attacked for hate speech against Muslims.

Am I missing something here? Didn't Wilders just connect the dots? The only hate speech in the video is from Islamic teachers and the Quran calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims. There wasn't even any stretching - he packaged certain Islamic ideas all together in one spot. Here's just one article about it.

Don't worry though. There were plenty of Muslims who made a move to prove him wrong by threatening to kill him. He now requires 24-hour security because of all the death threats he's been getting.

There are some other very disturbing teachings of Islam that are hidden away and not discussed by Muslims or the media. Things such as vigilante justice, polygamy, views on rape, and the goal for global dominance, just to name a few. To get an idea of the worldview of Islam I suggest reading Nonie Darwish's book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. The author is a former Muslim who spent the first thirty years of her life in Egypt, under Islamic Law.

Another disturbing view is how Islam divides the world. To Islam, there is only two kinds of places in the world. The first is called The House of Islam. This is all the countries that live under Islamic rule and law, called Sharia. The rest of the world is called The House of War. In other words, any country or place that isn't ruled by an Islamic government, is considered a place of siege. You can read more on this in Bernard Lewis' objective book called The Crisis of Islam. (Lewis is a renowned professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.)

Now, having said all this, I know what some people may be saying: "There has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ as well. All people are evil and prone to use a religious system as justification of violence." I agree. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christendom. Christ never would have consented to it. People are evil and are capable of gross violence for the sake of advancing their own enterprises.

But here's the difference: When people who profess to be Christian commit violence and crime of this type it goes against what their Bible teaches them. But what do you do with a religion that encourages violence? When a Muslim abuses his wife and commits violence against innocent "infidels," his religious texts claim there is reward for the Muslim. He is in direct line with what his teachings call for. He may be violent, but he is no hypocrite.

Even from the very beginning Mohammad set an example for violence. He began his movement by killing nearly 800 Jews in Medina for not converting to his new religion. He and his followers made their living from raiding caravans in the desert. Muslims are quick to point out that he took Mecca peacefully, but that was only because he was marching there with an army intent on attacking. To avoid bloodshed, Meccan authorities surrendered to him.

Compare this with Jesus' life and teachings and the contrast is startling: Jesus condemned violence, taught turning the other cheek, encouraged to give Caesar his taxes, encouraged love and self-sacrifice and eventually died a cruel death for his people.

Mohammad had thirteen wives (his favorite whom he married when she was only nine years old) and fought many battles, taking women and children as booty. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did the same thing, but (a) it was never encouraged, only recorded and (b) Jesus is our example, not anyone else.

The point I'm getting at is, it is the history and texts of Islam that present a problem, and not the Muslims in themselves. People need to understand that something must be done about the teachings of Islam that incite hatred and violence - and until something changes within the core teaching, Muslims will be able to commit violence and claim that it was only in harmony with their worldview.