Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
AIDS
(From Forerunner Commentary)
Exodus 20:14
As far as we know, the crisis of AIDS has been with us since 1981, although blood samples from as early as 1959 show evidence of the HIV virus. Already, tens of thousands have died from it in the United States alone. Although the disease can be spread by other means, the primary vehicle for the contagion is sexual contact. Before AIDS, sexually transmissible diseases (STDs) like gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and chlamydia—politely called "social" or venereal diseases—raged around the world for centuries. Like AIDS, these are primarily spread by sexual contact, usually of an illicit nature. Today, the Centers for Disease Control reports, 87 percent of all reportable disease is sexually transmitted! This means, of course, that 87 percent of all disease is preventable—by keeping the seventh commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), which includes all forms of sexual immorality. Mankind could eliminate nearly nine-tenths of all disease by changing sexual behavior to conform to the standard of God's law! Imagine the health, joy, and peace this would cause! What a breakthrough, right? Wrong! The medical establishment worldwide—except for a few "radical" countries, most of which are Muslim—utterly rejects behavioral changes in favor of the politically correct "safe sex" procedures. Dr. Ed Payne, a faculty member at the Medical College of Georgia, calls the medical community's attitude of rejection of moral values "deliberate naiveté" (World, November 1, 1997, p. 5). Like children, they believe that if they just shut their eyes to the underlying cause of the problem, it really does not exist. Dr. Payne writes: The crisis of American medicine is not tobacco, AIDS, silicone, the Gulf War Syndrome, breast or any other form of cancer. . . . The crisis of American medicine is far greater than any one of these problems; indeed, it is far greater than all of them combined, because the answers to these problems do not come from within them, but from medical ethics. It is the same crisis that faces our culture in every other area: How do we decide ethics? That is, how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? (ibid.) What is the result? In the case of STDs, the medical establishment actually promotes promiscuity and immorality. Rather than "weigh in" on pre-marital sex, it provides sex education, condoms, and birth-control pills to adolescents. To the majority of "health professionals," homosexuality is not wrong, but unsafe homosexual sex is "at-risk behavior." They do not see the risk that God will punish for this sin (see I Corinthians 6:9-11; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-32; I Timothy 1:8-10; Deuteronomy 23:17; Revelation 21:8), but that a person might get a fatal disease. Wrong becomes right, and if it is so right, their actions say, we should do more of it!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Right? Wrong?
|
Leviticus 22:1-7
I Peter 1:16 says, ". . . because it is written, 'Be holy, for I am holy,'" which is precisely the lesson contained within Leviticus 22:1-7. Our holy God is clearly saying, "Those who serve Me must also be holy." Holy essentially means "set apart," but it also carries with it the sense of "different," which helps explain why a person or thing is set apart. Certain factors or characteristics distinguish the set-apart one or thing, making it different from persons or things of the same kind. Holy also has the sense of cleanliness or of being undefiled. God can just as easily be saying to the priests and their children, "I am a clean God, and I want those who serve Me to be clean." In this case, His transcendent purity of intent and character sets Him apart from others or things that people may consider to be god. He is therefore completely undefiled. The Leviticus passage mentions leprosy, a corpse, and semen. We must not forget that, when this was written, God was addressing a carnal people. Thus, the instruction is couched in physical terms, but we must look for spiritual meaning within the physical instruction. The Tabernacle, altar, priesthood, furniture, vessels, and all of the rites have spiritual significance, and Paul writes that they are "shadow[s] of good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1). Leprosy is a horrible, dreadful disease, thus it is a type of a spiritual disease. It is externally visible in its disfigurement of its victim's body. At times, there can be running sores. It probably does not parallel any one spiritual disease, but rather it symbolizes any number of sins that disfigure a person's character and/or attitude. Both a corpse and semen possibly represent carriers of disease. Something causes a person to die, and all too frequently, it is an invisible, internal disease, of which infections and cancers are examples. The widespread AIDS virus is a good example. It can be carried within a man's semen into a woman's body. The carrier may look healthy externally, but a deadly disease is present. Only the carrier may know of its existence within him. A corpse and semen represent sins that are not easily perceived. Withdrawal from participation in the fellowship requires the sinner to exercise discipline, as he may be the only one aware of his problem. Creeping things are also defilements from sins that are less obvious. Perhaps in this case, it might be problems with one's attitudes like resentment, bitterness, envy, jealousy, and lusting. Regardless of what rendered a person unclean, he was not allowed to participate until he cleaned himself by washing in water, a type of the Holy Spirit. Even then, he was still considered unclean until evening of that same day. This process was a form of excommunication. The unclean person was symbolically excluded from communion with God and held unfit to eat of the holy food of the altar, symbolizing the Word of God, until he had cleaned up his act. Verse 7 distinctly says he was free to eat of the holy things only after the sun went down. Even given this permission, he was still eating in the dark! Though accepted back into fellowship, he was still somewhat removed from full exposure to the light of God's throne until the next day, when complete communication with God was restored. Taking steps to rid ourselves of uncleanness has awesome ramifications when we grasp how burdened we are with the potential for sin. The apostle Paul labels himself as a wretched man who greatly needed deliverance (Romans 7:24-25). Despite what we can do on our own—and God requires us to strive to do so—complete deliverance can only come through the work of Jesus Christ. It is essential that we know this, yet it is perhaps beyond our full understanding and appreciation that God is so merciful and full of grace to provide the sin offering that precedes us! If it were not for these elements—because we are so full of spiritual creeping things and spiritual leprosy—we would never be permitted to eat from the Lord's table. I and II Corinthians offers us great comfort by showing that, though one may be cut off from the body, he can return once he has cleaned himself through repentance. It shows that even though he is denied close communion with God because of some spiritual uncleanness, he still remains tied to God through the New Testament priesthood. Disfellowshipping is intended to be a temporary, corrective tool. I Corinthians 5:4-5 says, "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The purpose of excommunication is to save the person from his uncleanness that is destroying his communion with God and others in the fellowship. Therefore, if he can still be saved, that person is not completely cut off from God. II Corinthians 6:14-17 adds more information to this subject. Paul asks four questions that provide comparisons that clearly urge us to avoid or depart from what is unclean so that we can be at peace and in communion with God. Fellowship with God and being allowed to eat spiritual food from His table are clearly conditioned upon our not falling into uncleanness but instead striving to maintain the purity provided by Christ's sacrifice. Our part in striving to maintain the purity is to follow Christ's example of thorough dedication in fulfilling the requirements of the burnt and meal offerings. Doing so in no way earns us the fellowshipping privileges expressed in the peace offering, but it does show God our understanding of faith, love, sacrifice, thanksgiving, and the links between total devotion to Him, Jesus Christ, our fellow man, and His wonderful purpose. God has invested a great deal to provide this for us. The least we can do is give back to Him full devotion in our life as a living sacrifice.
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Offerings of Leviticus (Part Five): The Peace Offering, Sacrifice, and Love
|
Deuteronomy 6:6-7
One of the failings of modern education is that it fails to teach children to look for and predict cause-and-effect relationships. This receives short shrift in our schools because values and moral judgments have been eliminated from curricula and classroom discussions. Modern—or rather, postmodern—educators strive for valueless teaching and what they call moral equivalency, that is, no idea, no person, no belief, no religion, no government, or no fact is better than anything else—everything has its own intrinsic value, neither more nor less than any other thing does. For those of us who have learned differently, this is a strange concept. However, it is the basis of liberal intellectual humanism, the guiding beacon of most major colleges and universities, think tanks, advocacy organizations, political parties, governments, and corporations in America and in many other parts of the world, particularly Europe. In simple terms, it means that solutions to the world's problems will not be solved by eradicating the cause. Instead, they will be treated by assuaging the symptoms, because to acknowledge the cause would be to make a moral judgment. For instance, the fight against AIDS is a classic case of postmodern, valueless thinking. The major cause of AIDS is clearly perverted homosexual behavior, but rather than enforcing anti-sodomy laws (which have their basis in biblical morality), the powers-that-be decided to caution against "unprotected sex" and handed out free condoms and free needles to intravenous drug users. They also threw billions of dollars at finding a cure for the disease and drugs that will dampen or delay the onset of full-blown AIDS. The cure, however, is simple: stop the behavior (biblically termed "repentance") and quarantine the diseased. But that is not politically correct. This example points out the ultimate solution for every problem of behavior: character. If people had the character not to lie and steal, billions of dollars of fraud and the trauma of countless victims would disappear. If people had the character to be faithful to their spouses, divorce and the heartache and compounded problems it brings would cease. If people had the character to forgive and work out disputes fairly, war would soon become a distant memory. While carnal human beings walk this earth, this is a pipe dream. Even under the government of Jesus Christ in the Millennium, there will still be sin and the evils it causes, though they will be far less frequent than happens today. Then, however, most of the world will understand the need to develop holy and righteous character and will be working on building it in their lives. From the words of Deuteronomy 5:29, God must on occasion experience the same disappointment in people as we do: "Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!" Thank God that we know the solution and can put it into practice in our own lives!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
The Solution? Character
|
Amos 3:9-10
In verse 9, God invites the pagan nations to witness the decadence in Israel. Then He says in verse 10 that our moral sense is so warped, our concepts of right and wrong so blurred, that while pagan nations plunder each other, Israelites plunder and violate each other! That is not what one would call even normal, human common sense, let alone a godly perception of true morality and responsibility.
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Scourge of AIDS and the Sacrifice of Christ
|
Amos 6:11
"The great house" refers to the noble or wealthy family in society, and these "big names" will certainly be destroyed along with the common folk. The rich and powerful will not be able to escape the dreadful punishment God promises. God makes it clear that He has given the command to destroy them. We should never forget that God's punishment falls upon Israel because of disobedience, rebellion, and sin. America and the British nations are rapidly following ancient Israel's example as they spiral downward to their destruction. We can see this pattern in the murder on the streets, bloody crimes like rape and mutilation in our once peaceful towns, AIDS and other sexual diseases rampant among all sectors of society, as well as sexual deviancy, perverse music, self-indulgence, drugs, and alcohol abuse. Wealth is being funneled into the hands of the few, and the poor and weak keep becoming poorer and weaker. These nations may look fine on the outside, but the cancer has spread from head to toe, and they have only so long before the disease proves fatal (Isaiah 1:5-6).
John W. Ritenbaugh
Prepare to Meet Your God! (The Book of Amos) (Part Two)
|
Malachi 2:17
It is not that God gets tired, as we do physically, but that He becomes annoyed by human reasoning and self-justification of sin. He does not accept complaints from people who say that living His way of life is useless. His way of life is the only way to long life and happiness. On a national radio talk show, the host interviewed a young man who had written a book at age 17 about ex-President Bill Clinton's immoral influence on America's youth. His conclusion seemed to be that Mr. Clinton's immorality while in the White House so profoundly and negatively affected the youth of this nation that his generation is not responsible for their immoral way of life today. According to him, it is Clinton's fault. He did concede to a caller's point that parents share in the blame for not teaching them morality and for not calling for Mr. Clinton's removal from office for his despicable behavior, including his sexual assaults on both willing and unwilling women. Shortly afterward, a black woman called, jumping on the bandwagon to complain about Bill Clinton's immoral behavior while in the White House. Her main point was that for three generations the Democrats' leadership had intentionally encouraged blacks to shun marriage and family life in favor of single-parent, welfare status. She claimed the Democrats targeted black Americans with social programs that were available only to non-married parents, thereby encouraging teen pregnancy to increase with each succeeding generation until it became a way of life for the black community and permanently endearing her particular race to the Democrats' welfare policy. If this were true, it would have undeniably influenced the morality of her community in a negative way. According to her, it is the Democrats' fault. Next, a man, identifying himself as a Democrat, called to place blame on the Republican Reagan administration, which he claimed caused more immorality because people were encouraged to make money and have fun at any cost. This, he argued, had caused an increase in immorality in America through the 1980s. He asserted that Reagan encouraged sheer greed, taking people's minds off morality and placing their focus on material things. According to him, it is Republican Reagan's fault. We cannot help but see the common thread running through each of these arguments. Hardly anyone is willing to take personal responsibility for his own actions. Was each of these arguments a factor in influencing increased immorality in this nation? Certainly! Are the people innocent when the leaders lead them astray? Can we legitimately blame others for our own actions? Do we not have an individual responsibility to "behave ourselves"? Most people are not convinced that sin has consequences until they acquire a deadly disease such as AIDS, and even then, they deny that it is spread primarily by an immoral lifestyle. They are willfully blind and seek to place the blame on someone else. Generally, people refuse to acknowledge that their sins are their own—committed personally by them—and penalties must be paid. The continent of Africa is a case in point, where AIDS is killing off millions from the populations of many nations mostly because of the personal sin of sexual immorality. The root cause of the immoral condition of today's society lies clearly in the fact that few people truly fear and reverence God. Because God is longsuffering in his temporary forbearance of sin and His seemingly slow enactment of the penalty, each individual who does not fear and obey Him is going to do evil. King Solomon of Israel, known for his wisdom, expressed it this way: Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him. (Ecclesiastes 8:11-12) Immoral behavior is the result of a choice made by each individual, making the individual responsible. No other human being can choose our behavior for us. We choose how we will conduct ourselves. We choose whether or not to fear God. When we fear Him, it will be well with us.
Martin G. Collins
In What Way Have We Wearied Him?
|
Romans 2:14
Even before Isaac Newton wrote down his observations about gravity, people had a pretty good working knowledge of the principle. It was widely understood that when an apple fell from a tree, it would hit the earth. Children learned at an early age not to throw rocks straight up—what goes up, must come down. The average peasant did not need Newton's proofs to verify these things; he had enough experience on his own to vouch for this natural law. The effect was easily observable. The law of gravity exists entirely apart from human legislation. Isaac Newton did not create it, but merely wrote it down. It is a fact of everyday life and cannot simply be ignored. It is always in operation. A man may choose to pretend it does not exist, but he does so at tremendous risk to himself and others. Gravity is but one of the many natural laws—those phenomena, not of human origin or governance, that have been proven to always occur whenever certain conditions exist. These cause-and-effect principles govern much of our lives. We may not be aware of the specifics—or willfully choose to ignore them—but, like gravity, they operate continuously. These are not laws we can vote on. We either comply, or we suffer the consequences. The rest of God's laws are no different. They are not of human origin, and thus are beyond human regulation. They are always in force. They were not created by Moses but were merely recorded by him. And, like gravity, a man may choose to pretend they do not exist, but he will still reap the consequences for transgressing them. One of these very broad natural laws is stated as follows: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life [through] Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). We normally consider "death" just to mean "the cessation of life," yet that definition is too narrow for this verse, where death is contrasted with eternal life. Eternal life is more than just life without end; an endless life would be torment without relief unless it also had with it the proper quality. Eternal life is living the way God lives. It is knowing or experiencing God (John 17:3), which will always produce the best and the most. It is not necessarily synonymous with material success, but instead consists of things that money cannot buy: security of mind, peace among relationships, joy without regard to physical circumstance, etc. Death, then, while it would include the cessation of life, also means not living the way God lives. It means having a quality of life that is not eternal, whether in duration or in excellence. We can see that sin produces death by three means: 1) Sin brings on the penalty of eternal death, which can only be atoned for by Christ's sacrifice; 2) sin will always diminish the excellence and quality of life, whether it is immediately recognized or not; and, 3) some sins hasten physical death. A few examples demonstrate this powerfully: -
The article, "The Empty Cradle Will Rock: How abortion is costing the Democrats voters—literally" (Wall Street Journal), details the "Roe Effect." This postulates that since children tend to absorb the values, political views, and lifestyle of their parents, abortionists are actually damaging their cause through its very practice. They are destroying the individuals in the next generation who would be most likely to support abortion. Abortion not only results in the death of an innocent, but also in a greatly diminished quality of life as the mother copes with guilt, depression, and even an increased risk of breast cancer. -
As Pam Stenzel discusses in her sobering presentation "Sex Has a Price Tag," some of the most common sexually transmitted diseases may not be fatal but instead render the recipient unable to have children. Incidentally, a large number of these STDs can be contracted even when so-called "safe sex" is practiced. In this example also, the individuals in one generation who practice a sinful lifestyle have a decreased chance of producing another generation. Yet, even if neither pregnancy nor infection occurs, there is still an emotional price to pay. Sex outside of the bonds of marriage will always result in a diminished quality of life. -
Likewise, the homosexual lifestyle is aptly named the "culture of death." It is more concerned with self-gratification than with having a stable, secure family life as God intends. In addition, this lifestyle is essentially synonymous with AIDS and other debilitating diseases. From 1981 through 1999, there were 751,965 cumulative reported cases of AIDS in the U.S. At least 56 percent of the AIDS diagnoses occurred in homosexual or bisexual men. In other words, two percent of the population had at least 56 percent of those reported AIDS diagnoses (see "A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage"). As well, the average life expectancy for homosexuals is 20-30 years less than for heterosexuals, not only because of the high rate of disease, but also because of the extremely high rates of suicide, substance abuse, and "domestic violence." Natural laws, whether they govern falling apples or human relationships, can be seen as harsh or restrictive, especially if one is on the wrong side of them (Romans 8:7). Or they can be seen as benevolent guides to help us live the way God Himself lives—both with excellence and longevity. The apostle Paul considered God's laws to be holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12) because they instruct us in the best way to live—the way that will not just produce length of days but also true fulfillment. We can either take God's Word for it, or we can observe the consequences of the choices of others. Or we can do what is natural for mankind and personally re-prove each of these laws the hard way. Jesus Christ was once asked what should be done in order to have eternal life. His answer? "If you want to enter into life [eternal life—godly life], keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:16-17).
David C. Grabbe
Natural Law
|
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
What an individual does—good or evil—affects the lives of others as well. Whether committed by man, woman, boy, or girl, there is no such thing as a victimless crime or a private sin. Sins of commission and omission affect the doer, his family, friends, and society. Robert Bork ("The Necessary Amendment," First Things, August/September 2004, p. 16) drives this point home in his comments about the effort to legalize homosexual marriage. Bork cites three reasons why "the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live." First, sanctioning gay marriage will endorse heterosexual promiscuity. By its very nature, legitimatizing homosexual marriage demeans "traditional marriage, [which] comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others." Studies of the consequences of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands hint that nontraditional marriage arrangements break "the symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family." When that happens, there follows a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community. Second, sanctioning gay marriage will result in an increase in the number of practicing homosexuals. To legitimize homosexual marriage goes a long way to equating heterosexuality with homosexuality. What were once elemental differences become blurred in peoples' minds. "By removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals." Bork continues by pointing out that young people, "as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality" may find it easier to develop a homosexual orientation. This in turn will lead to an increase in the "homosexual syndrome," a collection of physical and psychological symptoms homosexuals are far more prone to display than heterosexuals. HIV/AIDS is just one set of these symptoms. Attempted suicide rates, commonly 300% higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, manifest another symptom (see "How Normal is Deviance?" CGG Weekly, October 22, 2004). The word gay, attached to homosexuals, is a real misnomer, for homosexuals' lives are not at all gay. The homosexual syndrome manifests itself even in the most "gay-friendly" cultures. This fact exposes how absurd is the argument that psychological disorders in gays are the result of "social disapproval." Bork points out that no research exists to corroborate the notion that society's disapproval of homosexuals' lifestyles results in their increased incidence of psychological disorders. The homosexual syndrome, then, is directly related to sexual perversion itself and is not the product of a guilt-trip forced on sodomites by a supposedly intolerant culture. Third, sanctioning same-sex marriage opens the floodgate to even more outlandish behavior. Bork quotes William Bennett, who points out that homosexual rights activists, having won the battle for same-sex unions, will have no reasons to criticize the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they . . . explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter. In arguing this way, Bork is saying that legitimizing same-sex marriages crosses a line. Once crossed, no other moral barrier will hold against the onslaught of even the most bizarre proposals. How bizarre can bizarre become? Well, how bizarre is the proposal to legitimize pedophilia? After all, if a teenage girl no longer needs to receive parental permission to obtain an abortion, how far are we from legally approving intercourse between an adult and a consenting teenage boy? This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the floodgate principle. Mary Eberstadt shows that "the taboo against pedophilia is weakening." Are those enough consequences of legitimizing same-sex marriages? Just three, but each one is horrid beyond words. In the name of "choice," America is destroying her young people. It is only a matter of time before even the most unspeakable deviant practices become legal, rampant, public, and "acceptable" in America. And, all that to the hurt of sinner and society alike.
Charles Whitaker (1944-2021)
Sodom, Here We Come
|
Hebrews 13:4
In the United States, marriage has been under assault for many years, at least for the last five or six decades. We could perhaps pinpoint the publication of the Kinsey Report in the early 1950s as a starting point of the major offensive against marriage. Very quickly after that, the sexual revolution lurched into full swing, launching the era of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. While we tend to confine this to the 1960s, that era has never really ended but only transformed over the years. Millions are using their "sexual freedom" to dally with multiple partners before marriage—and continuing the practice even after saying, "I do." On January 1, 1970, California's no-fault divorce law went into effect, and before long many other states followed suit, easing divorce. In the same decade, feminism reared its head in two major efforts: the legalization of abortion and the push for an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. Abortion—of which there are about a million performed each year—made the consequences of illicit sexual activity easier to avoid. The next decade saw the onset of AIDS, early on traced to perverse sexual activity among homosexuals, and the rise of the homosexual movement, which has pursued such goals as homosexual rights, hate-crimes legislation, and most recently, homosexual "marriage" and transsexualism. Along with AIDS, gonorrhea, and syphilis, at least 25 new sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)—some of which are viral like AIDS—have ravaged many who have participated in the "sexual revolution." Modern medicine cannot really "cure" any of these, only make the symptoms more bearable (although antibiotics can kill Chlamydia and gonorrhea, scars and sometimes infertility may result). These diseases have reached pandemic proportions, as 15.3 million new STD infections happen each year, including over three million in teens. All this so-called progress has its effect on marriage. In addition, we cannot forget that potentially huge problems are inherent simply in two different people trying to create a life together. One that should not be minimized is each mate's unique set of sins and weaknesses that must be overcome. Everyone has "baggage," and when a man and a woman try to make a marriage work, they must be prepared to deal with such potential "skeletons in the closet" and their aftermaths.
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Marriage—A God-Plane Relationship (Part One)
|
|
|
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 150,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|