Author Archive: admin

What Really Happened on the Threshing Floor?

Posted on by

The story of what happened between Ruth and Boaz on the threshing floor has become one of the more controversial chapters of the Bible.  I failed to realize how controversial it was until I looked up the meaning of “uncovered his feet.”  That’s when I discovered that some people claim that Ruth and Boaz had a sexual relationship that night when Naomi instructed Ruth to go and meet Boaz there after a hard day’s work.

Context is very important when studying the Bible, and most people would agree with that statement.  However, by context, I mean more than the words surrounding a particular verse, or the chapters surrounding a particular chapter.  The Bible is how God reveals himself to mankind and we must keep that context in mind at all times when studying God’s Word.

Before the Bible was completed approximately 2,000 years ago, God would use miracles and prophets to reveal himself.  When Christ fulfilled the salvation promise and God wrote the book of Revelation through the Apostle John, that was the end of the Bible and from that point, God has used his Word to reveal himself.  He can still perform miracles if he so chooses, but by far his primary means of revelation is the Bible.  Therefore, by context, I mean understanding Ruth chapter 3 in the context of first who God is.  Second, who was Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi, and what was their character?

As I read what others wrote, they all seemed to miss the unnamed person in this chapter that adds to the need of having a proper context.  We will discuss him in just a bit.

Ruth Chapter 3: 1-4 Paraphrased

  1. The scene begins after the harvest of Barley and Wheat has been completed and the work has turned to winnowing and threshing what has been reaped.  Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law, has a match-making plan that will find Ruth a husband for protection and to keep her from having to work so hard to meet their needs.
  2. The man Naomi has in mind is Boaz who had shown a tenderness toward Ruth which revealed his attraction for her.  He would be tired from a hard day’s work and it would be much easier for Ruth to approach him in a place of work as opposed to his home.
  3. Ruth tells her to clean-up, wear a nice “dress,” and make herself attractive.  Not as a harlot, but as a lady.  She also cautions her to keep out of sight until Boaz ate and drank until he has mellowed.
  4. Naomi instructs her to make a mental note of where Boaz had made his bed so she can find it in the dark after everyone has fallen into a deep sleep as a result of a hard day’s work.  She then instructs Ruth to uncover his feet, and this is where the controversy begins.

What does it mean to “uncover his feet?”

My research suggested that some believe it is a euphemism for another male body part and that it’s akin to the modern euphemisms of sleeping together or hooking up.  Some people think that Ruth seduced Boaz on the threshing floor, but is that what the Bible says?

Keep in mind that the Bible first needs to be interpreted in the context of who God is.  As it says in II Peter 1:20-21

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

In other words, there is one interpretation for God’s Word and that comes from the Holy Spirit as it says in I John 2:27.  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The second context of what we must keep in mind is what is the character of Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi?  We cannot divorce God from this story since the story is ultimately about revealing who God is.  God gives us no reason to doubt the character of Boaz, Ruth, or Naomi.  Actually, the opposite is true.  Naomi’s motive for instructing Ruth on what to do is love. Ruth did not yet know the customs of the Hebrews and she trusts Naomi because she knows her motive is love and she would do nothing to bring reproach upon her.

Naomi would also know the character of Boaz since they were near kinsmen.  The fourth person in this story, which in my research no one else seemed to acknowledge was the kinsman who had first rights to Ruth since it wasn’t Boaz.  Naomi knew Boaz would be the better match.  That was a problem that must be overcome and these instructions from Naomi would motivate Boaz to seek a solution.

Boaz, even if he wanted Ruth to be his wife, could not do wrong by taking that which belonged to another man.  She was obligated first to the nearer kinsman as Boaz told Ruth in verse 12.  As for the unnamed man, human nature causes us to hold on tighter to that which we feel someone else might be trying to steal from us.  If the nearer kinsman felt Boaz was being selfish and trying to steal Ruth from him, he may have held onto her more tightly.

Because of what happened here in Chapter 3, Ruth had let Boaz know that he was her choice, then this would take away the “selfish” factor and let Boaz know that he was asking for Ruth for her sake and not just his own.  Therefore, Ruth had to approach Boaz in his most vulnerable state, yet she had to do so without guile.

Was there a sexual connotation to uncovering his feet?  I do not believe so.  Uncovering his feet served two purposes.  First, it would wake him up without startling him as cold feet can cause us to awake.  Second, it would reveal to Boaz the subtle hint that Ruth chose him for marriage if he would only do something about it.  Handing another man your shoe in the Hebrew culture was very similar to shaking a man’s hand in our culture to seal the deal.  The contract Ruth was alluding to by this act of uncovering his feet would be read by Boaz to mean the marriage contract.

Naomi said in verse 4 that Boaz would instruct Ruth after he woke, and that’s exactly what he does.  If Naomi had been using guile, then she wouldn’t have relied on further instruction from Boaz.

The plan was put into motion and when he awakens to find Ruth at his feet, look at how he reacts in verse 10.  And he said, Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich.

How had she been more kind at the last than at the first?

In the beginning, when they had met, she had been doing her work out of her love for Naomi and meeting their needs, but now he recognized she was showing her love for him by keeping herself pure by not seeking another, more available, husband.

In verse 11 he tells her to fear not because he will keep her virtue intact.  She had a good reputation in Bethlehem and he will not ruin it.  This verse settles the controversy as to what happened on the threshing floor of Boaz.  And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.

Why did he tell her to stay with him in verse 13?  Because he cared for her and did not want her to return home in the darkness where possible danger might still be lurking in the form of young men.  Don’t forget, only a few short years before young men of Benjamin had raped and killed a young woman from Bethlehem and this horrible act and its consequences were still fresh in everyone’s mind (Judges 19).

Ruth then returns to Naomi with grain so that if anyone saw her returning from the threshing floor early in the morning, they would think she had just gone to get grain.  They were not covering up sin.  Boaz was protecting her reputation from those who like to gossip without evidence.

That morning after Ruth left, Boaz would go to the man who had first dibs on her, and chapter 4 tells us that the man forfeited his right to Boaz.  From that union, David would be their grandson and the Lord Jesus Christ would be born of a virgin a thousand years later.

God never hesitated to reveal the failures of the patriarchs and prophets.  Yet here in Ruth no failure was revealed by God.  Ruth and Boaz were both virtuous and what happened on the threshing floor was part of God’s pure plan for the coming Messiah.

My Encounter with an Angry Black Man

Posted on by

As I was walking back to my house the weekend before Inauguration Day 2021, my neighbor from across the street and a block south, called out to me, so I crossed over to talk with him.  As we were talking I heard a voice behind me say gruffly, “How are you?”

I know that was a question and I was supposed to write “he asked gruffly,” but his tone was more a formality than a question.  I turned, smiled, and said, “I’m doing just fine!  How are you?”  My exuberance was at a higher level than usual, which surprised me since I’m usually more subdued by nature.

The gruff man was wearing a white hoodie that he had pulled up over his head, baggy pants, and a rather disheveled look in the manner he was wearing his clothes and the way his shoulders were stooped over.  He was a dark skin black man, maybe in his late 30’s, who had a weathered look and a scraggly beard which appeared to only grow from his chin.

As he passed behind me on the sidewalk he uttered, “Not too good.”

So, naturally, I asked, “What’s wrong?”

He stopped a few feet past me, turned half-way toward me and while looking down said, “I’m surprised you asked me that.”

I laughed and asked, “Why would you be surprised I asked you that?”

He hesitated, then replied, “Because I’m black.”

I once again laughed and said, “What?  I wasn’t supposed to ask because I’m white?”

“Well, I didn’t think you would.”

“What makes you think I wouldn’t care how you’re doing?  just because you’re black and I’m white?”  He didn’t immediately respond so I asked another question.  “Are you buying into what the media is telling you, that there’s a big racist divide in this country and white people don’t like black people?”

He nodded his head “Yes,” and said, “It’s a crazy world.  Kids are killing their parents and burning things down and lying about people.”

I responded by agreeing and added, “It sounds to me like you’ve bought into to some of those lies.  I’ll tell you who’s lying to you, it’s whatever your source of information is that is telling you white people are against black people.”

He continued standing with his head down, so I asked, “What’s your source of information?  Where are you getting this?”

He said that he got his news from his phone and I recognized his “Breaking News” source came straight from an Apple app.  He was listening to the liberal news media and he was an angry black man.  “Let me tell you what the truth is.  Do you think I’m a racist?”

He looked at me, still with that anger in his eyes and replied, “Well, you’re white and I’m black.”

I laughed and said, “We live in a mixed neighborhood.  If I was a racist would I choose to live in a mixed neighborhood?”  I then pointed to the neighbor I had been talking to and asked, “Would he live in a mixed neighborhood if he was a racist?”

His countenance softened and he said, “Probably not.”

“No, we’re not the ones lying to you.  The media is lying to you.  Why do I think the media is lying to you?”

He looked at me and said, “I don’t know.”

“I’ll tell you why, but first let me ask you a question.”  He nodded and so I continued, “Do you think Donald Trump is a racsist?”

“I don’t know,” he answered and I could tell he was listening instead of reacting to it with the anger he had been displaying just a few moments before.

“The left loves to say Donald Trump is a racist and so are the people who voted for him.  Where do they get that?  Did he win some kind of award for being a racsist?  No, but he did win some awards for helping the black community.  He used to be ‘loved’ by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson before he was President.  So what changed?  I could prove more easily that Joe Biden is a racist than I can Donald Trump, so why then would the Democrats and the media, which supports them, lie to you about us?”

He looked at me and asked, “Why?”

I said, “Have you ever heard the term, divide and conquor?”  He nodded that he had.  “That’s why.  They’re trying to divide us so they can conquor us.”

The conversation continued in a political vein as I told him what conservatives really believed, as opposed by what the media and Democrats say we believe.  After all, they’re two very different beleifs.  As I did so he said, “You’ve opened my eyes to some things.”

“I’ve opened your eyes to the truth and you recognize truth when you finally hear it.”

The neighbor excused himself and went back inside.  When he did so, the formerly angry black man introduced himself as Mr. Hubbard, so I gave him our names and shook his hand and said, “See, I’m not afraid to touch you because you’re black or because of Covid.  I’m not afraid of either.”  For the first time, I saw a hint of a smile cross his face.  He told me his story at that point, about having been in a gang in his youth and how he had been recently falsley accused by a woman of holding a knife to her throat.

I told him, “Then you understand what it is to be falsley accused.”

He responded by saying, “Yes, like Trump and Jesus.”

By this point I had determined not to be distracted by politics.  I said, “There’s something much more important I need to tell you about that is a lot more important than politics.”  I then asked, “If you were to die today and stand before God and he were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?,’ what would you say?”

He hesitated and said, “I’d tell God that I hoped he’d let me in because I know I don’t deserve it, but I’d hope he’d let me in because I really want to do good.”

With understanding and compassion I replied, “That won’t work because you can’t be good enough and all God will see is your sin.  It only takes one to keep you out, and my guess is you’ve committed more than one.”

He nodded and said, “I used to be in gang and so I did a lot of things I shouldn’t have.”

I asked, “Would you like to know that when you die and stand before God, that you have the right answer and that you can know you will be accepted into heaven?”

“Yes I would.”

“You’ve already admitted you’re a sinner and that you don’t deserve to get into heaven, and that’s the hardest part for people to admit.  So, you’ve already done the hardest part.  Now all you have to do is to ask God to forgive you of all those sins and put your complete faith in Jesus Christ who died and paid for those sins on the cross so that when you stand before God he doesn’t see your sin, but instead he sees the righteousness of Christ, who is God, and his blood covers your sins.”

I asked, “What is the most precious substance on earth?”  He responded, “water?”  I said, “The most precious substance is blood.  Without blood you can’t live.  Once you’re saved, when you get to heaven and God looks at you he doesn’t see your sin because it’s covered by the blood of his son and he only sees the rightousness of Jesus Christ.  That way, he can let you into his heaven.”

I then paused and asked, “Would you like to be saved?”

Without hesitating he said, “Yes, I would.”

I said, “I’ll pray first and then you pray.  These aren’t the words of some kind of magic formula.  All that is required for you to be saved is for you sincerely believe that you’re a sinner and confess that to God when you pray.  Then ask him to forgive you and save you so that when you die you will go to heaven based on what Christ did for you on the cross and not because of anything you’ve done.  Do you understand?”

He once again nodded so I prayed a brief prayer in which I once again went over the plan of salvation as given in the Bible.  That if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrightousness.  I emphasized that it’s important to be sincere and not to pray hoping for a sugar daddy, or because we want anything more than salvation.

It then became his turn to pray and he prayed one of the most powerful prayers I have ever heard.  I listened carefully to make sure that he understood salvation and the importance of asking forgiveness and asking Jesus Christ to save him from his sins.

He did so.

The anger was gone.  It had been replaced by a joy that is only understood by those who have prayed that same sinner’s prayer and been sincere.

He thanked me for opening his eyes and we talked for a bit more about the importance of getting into a good Bible believeing church so he could grow in knowledge of who God really is.  Just like in politics, find out what people believe and not what the enemies of those people say they believe.  Find out what God says about salvation and who he is, not what his enemies say about him.

The next time you encounter anger, counter that anger with God’s love.

Video of Message – “It’s the Christian Thing to Do”

Posted on by

Below is a video that was taken by my wife at my very first message given to a church.  The church was Victory Baptist Church in Spout Spring, VA, and the message was, “It’s the Christian Thing to Do.”  My wife held her camera up to take this video, so there were a few times I might not be centered, but I thought it was a great job, especially when you consider it was unplanned.  The video is only about 24 minutes long, so watch it and as a result, I hope you will start telling people, “It was the Christain thing to do,” so that God gets the glory.

https://rumble.com/vbofpp-its-the-christian-thing-to-do.html

My Latest Book Available as an E-Book

Posted on by

My latest book, Where’s the Party?, is available as an ebook on Amazon, Nook, and other sites where ebooks can be found. The book discusses political philosophies and shows where the parties stand in relation to the Ten Commandments. The price is $6.99 or less.

Good News for Trump Supporters During This Crisis

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

Many conservatives are angry at what they see as an attack on the Trump economy.  The response to the COVID-19 virus is seen as an extreme overreaction that is unprecedented in our lifetime.  We conservatives do not trust the mainstream media, and so when they fan the flames of fear and panic that they have created, then in the immortal words of Patrick Henry, “I smell a rat.”

However, I come bearing good news.  Trump is going to defeat the Democrats at their own game! Once that dawned on me this morning, all my concerns about the economy and the Trump-bashing the media has been doing evaporated.  I’ll be glad to let you in on why I believe Trump will overcome and why this latest tactic by the media will fail, just as the Russia Hoax and Ukrainian Phone Call Fiasco failed.

Before I get to that, let me explain why we conservatives are upset at the media for this attack on our economy.  Did the Democrats create the COVID-19 virus and launch it against America?  No.  Do conservatives not care what happens to people who contract the virus?  Of course, we care.  If we care, then why are we upset at the response to this crisis?

To answer that question, let’s look at this crisis in the context of history.  I used to tell my students in the classroom that whenever the media starts crying “crisis,” we as Americans need to do two things.  First, grab your wallet because someone is after your money.  Second, protect your freedoms because someone is after those freedoms.

How often does the media cry crisis?  They do it every chance they get because it makes them the center of attention, which in turn makes them money and gives them power.  Health issues are especially beneficial to them because everyone wants good health.  Since the media is over 90% liberal, and liberals seem to thrive on fear and emotion, then anything that might threaten their health instills a massive amount of fear into them.  Conservatives tend to be more optimistic and realistic; therefore, we don’t have that same level of fear.  I think it also has something to do with our faith.

So when news of this new virus from China reached us, we remembered the other outbreaks which originated in China and rightly became concerned.  However, the media doesn’t want us concerned, they want us glued to the TV.  So, they did what they do best.  They created a panic in this country like they do whenever there’s a shark attack.  After all, it means ratings.

Combine that penchant for overhyping with their total disdain of Trump, and conservatives get suspicious.  Before COVID-19 the media lamented that a strong economy was Trump’s greatest strength.  Some leftists even suggested that Democrats needed to do something to harm the economy so they could get rid of President Trump.  Do conservatives believe the media and Democrats would intentionally scare the public to the point it hurt our economy?  There’s no doubt they would do that.  Do conservatives believe that is what happened with COVID-19?  Yes!

The reason being, comparatively speaking, COVID-19 has been less dangerous than nearly all the other flu epidemics that have hit this country.  Don’t forget, between April 2009 and 2010, 12,469 people died from the H1N1 flu.  During that crisis, and the others before, or even after it, the response was not to shut down businesses and events.  People did what they could to protect themselves, but the economy was not attacked by closing down businesses or canceling events.  So, since this is unprecedented in our lifetime, it’s only natural that conservatives see this overreaction as an attack on Trump and his economy.

Also, during this flu season, there has been at least 22,000 deaths.  Compare that number to the 97 COVID-19 deaths reported by the CDC and you can see why we think the response is not proportionate to the actual threat.  Conservatives care about people.  Not only do we care about people’s physical health, but we also care about their financial health.

When Adam Silver, the left-wing Democrat Commissioner of the NBA shut down the season, it started a domino effect that has led to job losses and mass hysteria.  Was Silver politically motivated to shut down the NBA?  I believe it played a part in his decision.  His innate fear caused him to worry and his leftist beliefs made it a case of killing two birds with one stone.  After all, anything that hurts Trump, they would reason, helps them.

So why am I so optimistic that this media-manufactured hysteria is going to be good for Trump and backfire on the Democrats?  Because Trump is beating them at their own game.  What would be the Democrat’s response to COVID-19 had they been in power?  They would have used the power of the federal government to ease its impact.  That’s just what Trump is doing.  That’s why the governors of California and New York, two Democrat governors, praised his response.  Even Omar, the socialist Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota has praised the response of Trump.  He’s doing what they would have done, so now they can’t say vote for the Democrat because the Democrat will do things differently.

Does that mean Trump has caved to the Democrats?  No, not at all.  The difference between the Democrats and Trump is that Trump is a capitalist.  He created a booming economy by unshackling it from Democrat policies and he’ll do the same once this “crisis” is over.  What Trump has that the Democrats don’t is a belief in capitalism and that belief will save this country from total economic chaos and lead to his reelection come November.

How the Democratic Party Violates the Third Commandment

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

What does it mean to take the name of God in vain? It seems by popular culture standards all that means is we are not to say “God damn.” At one time in this country that was a rare combination of words to hear, but presently it has become a common form of speech. But is that all it means in Exodus 20:7 when it says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

Taking the name of the Lord in vain is much more than using profanity. When you take something in vain, you are saying it has no power, that it means nothing, that it is useless. The name of God is invoked, but since the person invoking it doesn’t believe in God’s power, that person is giving lip service to God. Giving lip service to God is breaking the Third Commandment.

In a previous article I compared the 2016 platforms of the Republican and Democratic Parties and discovered that the latter did not even mention the name of God in their platform. In that same article I also mentioned how the Democrats believe the highest authority in our lives is government. Titus 1:16 states, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”

Let’s use former Vice-President and current Presidential candidate Joe Biden as an example of using the name of God in vain when he was asked for his stand on abortion and faith during the 2012 Vice-Presidential debates. His response was, “My religion defines who I am.” He then went on to talk about how he has been a practicing Catholic his whole life and that he accepts his church’s doctrine that life begins at conception, then added, “… I refuse to impose that on others.” 

How is it logical that our pubic and private beliefs on such a life and death issue can differ? If Joe Biden really believed his church’s doctrine, as he said, then he would support his church over his party. However, he stated he believed it was wrong to impose the will of God on people who don’t believe like him. Since when is God’s will an imposition that can be ignored?

He began his statement on abortion by saying, “It has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about those who, uh, who uh, can’t take care of themselves.” I ask you, who is less able to take care of themselves than a baby in the womb?

The reason Joe Biden and other Democrats who claim to be religious, yet oppose the will of God, is because they really do not believe in the power of God. They simply give God lip service, as Joe Biden did during the debates.

Isaiah 29:13 says, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”

In the Democratic Party the precept of men says that the most defenseless human on this earth can be legally murdered. If they truly feared God, they surely would not support taking the life of a baby.

Let’s go back to the 2012 Democratic National Convention and revisit the time half the delegates booed God. Did the 2012 Democratic Convention really boo God? The truthful answer is at least half, if not more, of the delegates did boo the failure of the chair to remove the mention of God from the platform.

Why would a political party not mention God in their platform? Not even a token mention of God? If a token mention of God by people who don’t believe in the power of God could be seen as a classic example of taking the name of God in vain. Then how much worse is leaving God out of the entire platform? That goes from giving God lip service to open hostility.

The Democratic Party has shattered the third commandment of God, because they have moved from lip service to contempt. Any argument otherwise is merely an effort to put the head in the sand so as not to face the truth.

How The Democratic Party Violates the Second Commandment

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

We are not to worship anything other than God.   Whatever man puts his faith in and sets up as a guide that influences his actions is what he worships.   Therefore, the person who believes the highest authority we are answerable to is government, worships government.

The Second Commandment simply states that, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” (Exodus 20:4)  Meaning, we are not to have idols or anything we put before God.

It goes hand in hand with the first commandment with the difference being, the first commandment is speaking spiritually of God alone being worthy of worship.  Whereas the second commandment is referring to the physical world and worshiping something man made, or tangible, such as government.

Where do the two parties stand when it comes to God? On page ii of the 2016 Republican Party Platform it states, “Every time we sing, “God Bless America,” we are asking for help. We ask for divine help that our country can fulfill its promise. We earn that help by recommitting ourselves to the ideas and ideals that are the true greatness of America.”

Conversely, the 2016 Democratic Party Platform says on page 17, “Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.”

The difference between the two platforms is the Republican Party turns to God for divine help for America whereas the Democrat Platform says that faith comes in many forms and the government will help where possible.  Where the Republicans seek God and his help, Democrats say there are many gods.

In the New Testament, Jesus had this to say about the second commandment.  Matthew 22:37-39 says, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

How do the two parties go about loving our neighbor?  Notice that there is no financial litmus test on who we are to love.  If we love our neighbor, it goes well beyond helping the poor.  However, for the purpose of this article let us limit our discussion to how the two parties help the poor.

First, let us realize there are two different definitions of poor we are dealing with here.  The Bible’s defines a poor person as a person who cannot help themselves. Specifically the widow, fatherless, or physically handicapped. The Bible does not define the poor as someone who has less money, or someone who lives under the government defined poverty line.  The latter is how our government defines poor.  But since we are talking about government, we will use the governments definition in this article.

The question then becomes, whose responsibility is it to help the poor?  Is it the individuals responsibility to help the poor, or is it the governments?

We can see how compassion is practiced by members of both parties by how they want to help the poor and less fortunate.  Republicans tend to give of their own personal belongings to the needy without coercion and out of an inner motivation of compassion.  Whereas, Democrats tend to believe the government needs to help the poor and needy and to do so they take, through taxation, what belongs to someone else and then redistributes it in an effort to help those below the poverty line, or in need, as defined by the government.

In a nutshell, the conservative sees compassion as an individual choice.  Whereas, the liberal sees it as a collective and compulsory duty of our government.

Former President Barak Obama incorrectly used the Bible in an attempt to justify welfare programs to help those deemed poor by the government.  He would say we are to be our brothers keeper.  Meaning, in a Democrats way of thinking, that it is up to the government to provide for our needy brother.

The “brother’s keeper” story is found in Genesis 4:9 and it is the story of Cain killing his brother Abel.  When God inquired of Cain the whereabouts of Abel, Cain answered, “I know not, am I my brother’s keeper?”  Cain didn’t ask God that question expecting the answer to be yes.  He knew the answer would was “no,”  because he correctly knew that God never called us to be our brother’s keeper.  That phrase, “brother’s keeper,” in today’s parlance is akin to saying, “That’s not my job.”  Cain was right, it wasn’t his job.  Biblically speaking, we are not our brother’s keeper.

That doesn’t mean we are cold and callous to those in need.  Quite the contrary, it is part of our personal responsibility to help those in need.  We are not to leave it up to the government.

When we believe it is the responsibility of government to provide for the needy, we are transferring that responsibility from the individual to the government.  That is a convenient way for the Democrat to say they care, when in reality they don’t care enough to do something themselves.

God says we are personally responsible to love our neighbor as ourselves.  He doesn’t say, the government is to love your neighbor, you are the one with that responsibility.

I am not my brother’s keeper.  I am my brother’s helper in time of need.

The Democrat Party violates the second commandment because it denies God and places its faith in the government as demonstrated by their practice of using government welfare to fool people into thinking they are helping the poor.  After all, which is more compassionate?  The number of people a party can add to the welfare rolls, or the number of people a party can free from the welfare rolls.  Welfare keeps people where they are, it does not cause them to rise above their circumstances.

Keeping someone poor is not love.

Are There Lies in the Bible?

Posted on by

Are there lies in the Bible? Our knee-jerk reaction is to vehemently deny the Bible contains any lies, and then to stand fast in our righteous indignation. However, the Bible does contain lies, and one of the biggest is recorded right here in chapter one. Now, before you slam this book shut, in the self-same righteousness indignation, read a bit further.

Years ago, I had some teens in my Bible class say that their teacher at school insisted there were contradictions in the Bible. Having studied the Bible for years and being unable to find even one contradiction, I marveled that their public high school teacher, who was not a Bible reader, could have made such a claim. So I asked them about their teacher’s claim and they pointed out this chapter in II Samuel as the proof their teacher gave them of this apparent error in the Bible. Being a firm believer in the inerrant of the Word of God, and not being familiar with the alleged contradiction at the time, I saw this as an opportunity to teach these teens how to discover truth. Was I worried I might not be able to prove to these teens there was no contradiction? Not at all; I trust God when he says he will preserve his word (Matthew 24:35). So all I had to do was let them discover which was right – the teacher who claimed there was a contradiction in the Bible, or the inerrant Word of God.

Chapter One begins with David having returned to Ziklag after having pursued the Amalekites and rescuing all the families they had stolen during the attack on David’s village, as revealed in I Samuel Chapter 30. They had only been back two days when a man stumbled into Ziklag, the current home of David, which had been given to him by Achish, a Philistine.

The man appeared to be in mourning, with his clothes rent and ashes on his head. When David asked the man where he was from, he said he had managed to escape the camp of Israel.

I’m sure David’s heart must have raced since he would have been eager to hear news of the battle in which the Philistines would not allow him to fight (I Samuel 29:9-11). When David asked how the battle went, the man informed him that Israel had been routed and that Saul was dead.

This was not the news David had hoped for, so David asked him how he knew Saul was dead, and in verse 10 the Amelkite said he had killed him at Saul’s own request.

This was the verse that the ignorant teacher told the teens was a contradiction in the Bible. Was this something the teacher had searched out himself and discovered? No, he had read it elsewhere and instead of searching the matter to see if it was true, he put his faith in the writing of a man instead of the writing of God. His predisposition was to believe the lie because he wanted to believe it. The alternative would have been to face God, which would cause him to face himself. His pride wouldn’t allow him to admit he needed a savior, so he chose to believe the lie, and sadly, spread it to teens.

So, what is the alleged contradiction? According to this unbelieving teacher, in I Samuel 31:4 and I Chronicles 10:4, he claimed that Saul’s armor bearer killed Saul. Of course, if you actually read those two verses, it does not say that at all. The teacher was the one wrong here, in more than one way, when he said the Bible contradicted itself. It wasn’t the armor bearer that killed Saul; in those same verses we find that Saul fell on his own sword.

However, there still appears to be a contradiction. In the two aforementioned verses Saul fell on his sword, but in II Samuel 1:10 the Amalekite claimed he did the deed. So if Saul fell on his own sword, why then did the man here in II Samuel claim he killed Saul at the request of Saul? The man lied; thus, the Bible contains a lie because it records the lie. Incidentally, the first lie the Bible contains is when Satan deceives Eve and tells her if she eats of the fruit, she will not die. So yes, the Bible does contain lies, the lies of others as recorded in the infallible Word of God!

How did David know the man was lying? The man’s story simply didn’t add up. In verse 6 he claims he just happened to be at Gilboa, where Saul died. Why would a man be on a battlefield unless he was participating in the battle? The man knew this, and so he tried to make it sound like he was on Israel’s side in the battle. However, this was another lie because in I Samuel 30:14, David was given intelligence by the Egyptian, who had been left to die by the Amalekites, that those very same Amalekites had invaded Judah and were fighting against Saul, not with him. The man also admitted he was an Amalekite, the very people that David had just finished slaughtering after they had attacked and burned Ziklag.

Also, the man said that Saul was being pursued and called behind him to ask the man to kill him. If Saul was being pursued and called to the man behind him, then that man must have been one of his pursuers. The man even admitted to taking Saul’s crown and the bracelet off his arm. He said he did so because he wanted to find David and give it to him.

David knew better than to believe this man because his own words betrayed him. He was an Amalekite, who was at war with Israel. He was behind Saul as Saul fled, meaning he was pursuing Saul. When he came upon the body, he then stole the crown and bracelet and was on his way back to his people, and to get there, he had to pass through Ziklag, which he apparently thought was going to be empty because he may have thought it had been destroyed.

Note that the Amalekites were a nomadic people that lived in the area of the Negev Desert, including the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ziklag was between Israel and the region where the Amalekites dwelt. So when the man told David he was bringing the crown to him, it was easy to see through the lie. He wasn’t going to Ziklag, he was going home. (See Appendix)

What was David’s reaction upon hearing the news of Saul’s death? Keep in mind that Saul had been pursuing David and his men in an effort to kill him. Many people would have taken the occasion to celebrate, but not David. In verses 11 and 12, we see how they mourned and fasted for Saul. Not just for Saul, though. They were also in mourning for the defeat of Israel, and David, in particular, mourned for his close friend, Jonathan.

After the mourning, David returned his attention to the man who had brought the news and asked him again who he was. The man confirmed he was an Amalekite, and then David asked him a more direct (and I’m sure unnerving) question: “How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” After all, David would not do it when had the chance, nor would Saul’s armor bearer even after Saul asked him to; yet, this Amalekite claimed to have killed Saul. Why would he make the claim when he didn’t actually do it, since Saul fell on his own sword?

How else could he explain how he had come into possession of the crown and bracelet of Saul? David knew the man had been lying about nearly everything he said, so in verse 15, David ordered one of his young men to execute the Amalekite for his actions against not only Saul, but against the nation of Israel. In verse 16, David lets it be known that the man’s own words condemned him.

(The above is an excerpt from the first chapter of my new, soon to be published book, Inside the House of David, a commentary on II Samuel.  The book will be available online in early December.)

The Danger Facing America

Posted on by

I recently was talking to a man born and raised in Hong Kong who was asking questions to clarify the differences between Democrats and Republicans.  He seemed to have a mixture of the two and didn’t quite understand which side his thoughts were on.  During this conversation he asked something that took me a few moments to wrap my mind around because his way of thinking was so foreign to me.  He thought nationalism and being a patriot was dangerous.  

The way he spoke I identified this as being a liberal thought, but I still didn’t understand why the liberals thought love for country was dangerous.  So I asked him to explain his thought process.  He said it was because in Nazi Germany people who loved their country did horrible things to their enemies, both foreign and domestic.  He went on to say that Kamikaze pilots in WWII dove their plans on suicide missions into American ships out of love for their country.  So what is to stop an American who loves his country from also committing heinous acts of brutality against enemies both foreign and domestic?

That was a very good question and a few years ago I would have answered his question differently, but now because of the violence coming from the left that is not being condemned by Democrats, I had to agree it could happen in America too.

I asked him if he was a Christian and he said he was.  So I asked him which laws Christians are to obey first, God’s laws or man’s laws?  He said Christians are to obey God’s laws first.  I then asked if God’s laws would permit us as individuals to commit heinous acts against our enemies both foreign and domestic?  He said no.  To which I asked, which political party has as their basic core belief morality as defined in the Bible?  He answered, “The Republican Party.”

I then asked which political party in American was currently carrying out acts of violence against those they disagree with.  His reply was the Democratic Party.  I asked him why that was and he wasn’t sure at first, then answered, “Because they don’t base their morality on the Bible.”  I agreed, the morality of the Democratic Party is based on Humanism which says that morality is defined by the individual and society.

All patriotism is not bad, as it was in Nazi Germany and Japan during WWII.  I gave as an example the British Empire on which the sun never sat.  They didn’t commit mass outrageous atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanjing.  Places colonized by the British Empire were given their freedom and advanced as countries under British rule.

America saved Europe and the Pacific region during WWII and we have been a force of good in the world by fighting tyrants and those who would destroy their own people.  We did so because we had as our core the beliefs of Bible and its morality.

However, as the left has abandoned those beliefs and turned wholeheartedly toward humanism and socialism, we do have reason to fear what could happen should they come to power again because they do not have a higher moral authority than that defined by society, and thus the government, which they would control.

Americans used to wander how Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s could come to power in Germany.  The German Worker’s Socialist Party (Nazi) came to power because they bullied and intimidated their enemies into silence.  Does that sound familiar?  It should because the same thing is beginning to happen in the United States of America!

It has become clear that the Democrats will do anything to regain power as evidenced by not only their silence, but by their very words which not only fail to condemn the violence, but they actually encourage it.  As the woman picked to lead the Democratic Party as their Presidential candidate said in October of 2018, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

If this hadn’t come on the heels of a socialist shooting up a Republican Congressional softball practice, the calls for the harassment of Trump administration officials and Republican Senators and Representatives, the death threats received by Justice Kavanaugh and those who voted for his confirmation, the attacks on Republican candidates and their staff; then I might give her the benefit of a doubt,   However, there is no doubt the Democrat Party is currently encouraging violence against Republicans.

If the right instigates violence or threats, Republicans condemn it.  When the left does the same, the Democrats not only refuse to condemn it, but they actually encourage it!  Just ask Maxine Waters.

As long as those in power believe in a higher authority than society or the government, then patriotism and love for country should be encouraged.  However, when a party that has no higher authority to answer to other than itself, then fear that party and see it for the danger it truly represents.

The Democrat Party now openly favors socialism.

When socialism turns to violence and intimidation, it becomes fascism.  Fascism gave us the Holocaust.

When socialism turn deadly it becomes Communism. Communism gave us Gulags and tens of millions killed by their own governments.

If you are a Democrat, bring your party back from this dangerous precipice.

If you are a Republican, stand up and recognize the threat that is now facing us!

How To Talk To A Trump Hater

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

The mere mention of the name Donald Trump sends some people into a rage that has to be seen to be believed.  I have been doing political canvassing and I’ve witnessed this emotional fury first hand after knocking on a door and saying the word Republican.  Suddenly arms start flailing and words are slurred angrily as the emotional whirlwind sends up a cloud of hateful rhetoric that threatens to engulf everyone within ear shot.

 

The haters I’m speaking of are not protesters who think they are being cool by acting the fool.  These are seemingly normal people who happen to listen to a little too much left-wing media which distorts their power to reason and think objectively.  They have fallen for the left-wing media tactic of emotionalizing every issue so as to cloud the truth.

What do you do when you find yourself to be the brunt of such an assault?  At first, not being used to encountering such levels of intense hatred, I wasn’t sure how to respond.  However, after being verbally accosted by about ten or so of these unhinged people, I developed a way to at least get them to listen for a few moments.

Here’s what you do when you encounter a Trump hater.

  1.  Calm – Take the exact opposite demeanor and smile calmly as if you’re intent on listening to their complaints.
  2.  Release – Allow them to vent until the pressure has been released enough that they need to come up for air.
  3.  Issue – At that moment, say, “I’m curious about something.  Do you mind if I ask you a question?”  You may have to wait a few more moments as this sometimes leads to the hater needing to release more pressure as they throw another fit.  Once they have calmed enough to allow you to speak, ask, “What specific issue upsets you about Trump?”  The hater at this point will look confused and may take a little time to try to think of a reply, but since their hatred is not based on issues, they will offer a weak argument based on deceptive media reports.  You may make a quick reply to whatever issue they come up with, but only say enough to let them know you know the truth behind the matter.  Do not start arguing issues.  The hater at this point always launches into another tirade against Trump by saying it’s the man they hate because they don’t like how he speaks and how he doesn’t act properly.
  4. Empathy – Tell them you understand and empathize with them.  This will get them to listen long enough to plant a few seeds and here’s how.  Immediately after showing this empathy, and before they have a chance to launch into another vicious attack on Trump, say, “You may not like how Trump speaks, but he has done one thing no other Republican has been able to do in our lifetime – not even Ronald Reagan!”  At this point they’ll try to launch into another tirade, but hold up a finger and say, “One second.”  Believe it or not, they will listen because you have been showing them respect by listening to them.
  5. Socialism – This is the key part of the entire conversation.  Say, “Trump has been able to expose the Democrats for who they really are.”  Then proceed to list as many points of evidence as you have time for.  I begin by saying, “We’ve always known the Democrats are really socialist, but now they’re admitting it.”  Follow this with your own list of evidence depending on what you are most familiar with.
  6. ! – As you notice them begin to jump back into the conversations, laugh and say, “You have to admit one thing, the Democrats are trying to out-crazy each other.”  You’d be surprised how many times the hater concedes that very simple point.

Remember, you are not trying to win an argument.  You are not trying to put them in their place.  You’re simply trying to open their mind long enough to plant a few seeds.  The idea is to get the hater to think, so that maybe they will start to see the truth instead of believing every lie fed to them by the left-wing media.  Be sure to keep a calm, friendly and smiling demeanor and by the time you’re ready to leave, you will do so as friends instead of enemies.  One woman even hugged me!

Next time you run into a Trump hater, try the CRIES! method of responding, then let me know how it went by commenting below or sending me an email.