The Incompatibility of Sports and Competition with the Christian Lifestyle
Sports and competition have long been celebrated as avenues for physical fitness, personal growth, and entertainment. However, when examining them through the lens of the Christian lifestyle, a conflict arises. Christianity emphasizes love, humility, and unity among individuals, qualities that often clash with the competitive nature of sports. This article explores the reasons why sports and competition can be incompatible with the values and principles of the Christian faith.
- The Primacy of Love and Humility: Central to the Christian faith is the commandment to love one another as oneself. Christianity encourages followers to prioritize selfless acts of compassion and kindness. In contrast, competition fosters a mindset that often exalts personal achievement over the well-being of others. The desire to win can lead to selfishness, arrogance, and disregard for the feelings and needs of opponents. The focus on individual success can undermine the essential Christian virtues of love and humility, as it fosters an environment where others are seen as rivals rather than fellow human beings.
- The Ethical Dilemma of Cheating: Fair play and honesty are fundamental values within Christianity. Engaging in sports often involves fierce competition, which can lead some individuals to compromise their integrity. Cheating, doping, or engaging in unsportsmanlike behavior to gain an advantage contradicts the principles of honesty, justice, and fairness espoused by the Christian faith. These acts not only undermine the spirit of the game but also erode the character and moral fiber of individuals involved. Such compromises tarnish the Christian witness and contradict the call to live a life of integrity.
- Division and Strife: Competition tends to foster an environment where divisions and rivalries are encouraged. Sports fandom can lead to animosity between supporters of opposing teams, often resulting in hostility and conflict. In contrast, Christianity advocates for unity and harmony among believers. Engaging in competitive sports can sometimes exacerbate divisions and create unnecessary barriers between individuals. The emphasis on one’s allegiance to a particular team can overshadow the common bond shared by all Christians, regardless of their sporting preferences.
- Misplaced Priorities: Christianity urges believers to prioritize their spiritual well-being and the cultivation of virtues such as compassion, forgiveness, and selflessness. Engaging in highly competitive sports can consume excessive time and energy, diverting attention away from spiritual growth and the development of a Christ-like character. Sports, when pursued with an imbalanced priority, can become idols that replace God at the center of one’s life. This misplaced focus can hinder the pursuit of a Christian lifestyle characterized by a deep relationship with God and the service of others.
While sports and competition can offer numerous benefits, it is crucial to recognize their potential incompatibility with the Christian lifestyle. The emphasis on love, humility, fairness, unity, and the pursuit of spiritual growth may require Christians to carefully examine their participation in competitive sports. Striking a balance between sports and Christian values can help individuals align their actions with their faith, ensuring that they live in a manner consistent with the teachings of Christ.
The Problem with Penal Substitutionary Atonement: A Case Against Heresy
The Problem with Penal Substitutionary Atonement: A Case Against Heresy
Introduction:
Penal substitutionary atonement is a theological concept that has sparked significant debate and controversy within Christian circles. It proposes that Jesus Christ, through his death on the cross, took upon himself the punishment that humanity deserved for their sins, satisfying the justice of God. While this view has gained traction in certain theological traditions, it is essential to critically examine its implications and understand why many consider it to be a heresy.
- Distorted View of God’s Justice:
One of the fundamental problems with penal substitutionary atonement is its portrayal of God’s justice. This view suggests that God is an angry judge who demands satisfaction through punishment. It reduces God’s character to a merciless deity who must inflict pain and suffering on an innocent substitute in order to forgive humanity. However, this understanding fails to acknowledge the biblical depiction of God as a loving and merciful Father, seeking reconciliation rather than retribution.
- Inadequate Understanding of the Cross:
Penal substitutionary atonement places excessive emphasis on the penal aspect of Christ’s sacrifice, often neglecting the broader significance of the cross. It reduces the profound meaning of Jesus’ death to a mere transaction, devoid of its transformative power. The cross is not solely about satisfying divine wrath but serves as a means of demonstrating God’s love, offering redemption, and initiating a new covenant between God and humanity.
- Violation of Justice and Moral Responsibility:
One of the core tenets of penal substitutionary atonement is the idea that an innocent individual can bear the punishment for the guilty. This notion contradicts the principles of justice and personal responsibility. In a just system, each individual is held accountable for their actions, and it would be unjust to transfer guilt and punishment to an innocent party. Penal substitutionary atonement fails to uphold this fundamental moral principle.
- Undermines the Nature of God’s Forgiveness:
Another critical flaw in penal substitutionary atonement is its impact on the concept of forgiveness. True forgiveness involves the relinquishment of justified resentment and the restoration of a broken relationship. However, this view suggests that forgiveness can only occur when an adequate punishment has been meted out. By linking forgiveness exclusively to punishment, it diminishes the unconditional and freely offered forgiveness that is central to the Christian faith.
- Alternative Biblical Perspectives:
Critics of penal substitutionary atonement argue that alternative biblical views provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of Christ’s sacrifice. For instance, the Christus Victor theory highlights Jesus’ victory over sin, death, and evil powers through his resurrection. The moral influence theory emphasizes the transformative power of Christ’s love and sacrifice, inspiring believers to live righteous lives. These alternative perspectives align more closely with the biblical narrative and present a more coherent theological framework.
Conclusion:
Penal substitutionary atonement, though widely embraced by some theological traditions, is not without its flaws. This theological concept distorts the nature of God’s justice, fails to adequately comprehend the full significance of the cross, violates principles of justice and moral responsibility, and undermines the essence of God’s forgiveness. By examining alternative biblical perspectives, it becomes clear that there are more comprehensive and coherent understandings of Christ’s sacrifice. As Christians, we must critically evaluate theological doctrines to ensure that they align with the broader teachings of Scripture and accurately reflect the character of our loving and merciful God.
Are You Interpreting Matthew 24:14 Wrong?
The KJV reads: Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Now too many have read this verse and thought this meant every place in the world (kosmos) would hear the Gospel, including Peru and Australia) before “the end would come.”
BUT the word translated “world” is οἰκουμένη, translit. oikouménē, which means the inhabited land. In the New Testament οἰκουμένη always refers to the Roman Empire. Josephus made it clear that οἰκουμένη meant the four borders of the Roman Empire.
When we understand this, then we understand Matthew 24:14 correctly.
The Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:5-6 “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in ALL THE WORLD; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:”
Romans 10:16-18 “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ENDS OF THE WORLD.“
Romans 16:25-26 “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made MADE KNOWN TO ALL NATIONS for the obedience of faith:”
Yes, in the first century, the gospel had been preached “in all the world, to all the nations.” So then we should expect that the end came in the first century.
AND IT DID! Jesus was speaking of the end of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant, both of which ended in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.
Does The Bible Mention Russia?
Is Russia In The Bible?
The Internet is filled with claims that modern-day Russia is the ‘Rosh’ of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Those who believe this rarely read the chapters in terms of the time the prophecy was revealed to Ezekiel, the weapons used in battle, and parallels to other parts of Scripture.
There’s a much simpler solution. Consider these words: “King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite [Gogite?] and advanced him and established his authority over all the princes who were with him” (Esther 3:1; also see 1:3). Having “authority over all the princes who were with him” made him the “chief prince,” not the “prince of Rosh (Russia).
In Esther 3:12 we read how Haman is described as the leader of the satraps, governors, and princes.“Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, ‘There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other people and they do not comply with the king’s laws, so it is not in the king’s interest to let them remain. If it is pleasing to the king, let it be decreed that they be eliminated, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who carry out the king’s business, to put into the king’s treasuries.’
Then the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. And the king said to Haman, ‘The silver is yours, and the people also, to do with them as you please.’”Where was Haman going to get the silver to pay the mercenaries and fill the king’s treasury? From the Jews he was planning to exterminate: “Have you assembled your contingent to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to capture great spoils?” (Ezek. 38:13, compare with Ezra 1:4).
Using the Bible to interpret the Bible is a better approach than trying to find an interpretive solution outside the Bible.
The following is from ‘An Exposition of the Prophet Ezekiel’ by William Greenhill (1591–1671). Greenhill was an English Puritan and member of the Westminster Assembly. His extended comments show the diversity of opinion on Ezekiel 38 and 39 over the centuries. There is a common feature among most of them: they try to find a solution outside the Bible.
“Son of man. Set thy face against Gog.”
There are a great variety of opinions concerning Gog and Magog. The Jews affirm them to be the Scythians, which live near Caucuses and the Caspian mountains: some understand by them the Roman emperors and empire: some, the pope: some, the Turks and Saracens: some, the Goths: some, heretics: some, all the persecutors of the church: others, antichrist: some interpreters understand the affliction of the Jewish nation, by the successors of Alexander, which possessed Asia Minor and Syria.
Junius hath labored to give light here, and tells us, that Gog is the name of a nation, derived from Gyges, or Gog, the servant of Candaules, king of Lydia, whom he killed and married his queen, namely the land Gygaea., or Gog’s land, which, sayeth he, is Asia and the Less, and Syria, where was a city called Gog’s City: these nations should infest the Jews, which were held by Antiochus, Seleucus, Demetrius, and Nieanor.
Bibliander and Bullinger interpret this prophecy literally of Alexander and his successors, especially of Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, who, as you find in the Maccabees, did greatly afflict the Jews; and especially of antichrist and his members. Alapide, denies this prophecy to concern Alexander, the Kings of Syria and Egypt, because the Jews never conquered them, though they had some notable victories over them; and had they had such destruction as is spoken of in the end of this chapter.
Josephus, who was an exact observer of Jewish affairs, would have mentioned it. Neither did Josephus Gerionides speak anything thereof, who wrote the history of Gog. Sanctius leans to that opinion, which conceives Gog to be Antiochus, in whom antichrist was prefigured, and the great troubles of the church by him; so do many expositors: yet, Maldonate and Vatablus think this prophecy not fulfilled; of which mind are divers [many] who write up on the 20th of the Revelation, where John, in the 8th and 9th verses, alludes to this prophecy.
By “Gog” here, understand, the name of a man, not of a province; for he said to be a “prince,” verse 3; to come “out of the north,” ver. 14; and he with his multitude, shall be buried in “the valley of Hamon-Gog,” chapter xxxix.11: these things cannot be spoken of a province, but of a person. The prophet must set his face against him; that is, he must prophecy constantly and firmly against him…. “The chief prince of Meshech.” In Hebrew it is, prince of the head; that is, the principal head, or the chief prince.
Why Did Jesus Allow The Demons To Enter The Herd Of Pigs?
Why did the demons ask Jesus to be sent into the pigs when those pigs would be immediately drowned? After the demons were cast into the swine, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank, into the sea and drowned in the waters.
Mark 5:1–20 King James Version
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the aGadarenes. 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs ba man with an unclean spirit, 3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and cworshipped him, 7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of dthe most high God? I eadjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is fLegion: for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. 11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. 14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And ffthey went out to see what it was that was done. 15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the flegion, sitting, and gclothed, and hin his right mind: and they were afraid. 16 And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. 17 And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. 18 And when he was come into the ship, ihe that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 20 And he departed, and began to publish in kDecapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
The demons know that in the future, they are appointed for final torment. And they wonder if Jesus has come to start that final judgment. They say, have you come here to torment us before the time? You know, we know there’s a time coming when we’re going to get final torment, but not yet Jesus, or is it, or is it?
The fact that there was a herd of pigs nearby shows that we are in Gentile territory since the Jews regarded pigs as unclean, Deuteronomy 14:8, and did not raise them for food or anything. In other words, this is one of those rare moments when Jesus is reaching out into the Gentile world as a pointer to the fact that his ministry is going to result in a global mission to all the peoples of the world,
The herd was about 2000 pigs large and when the demons go out from the two demonized men into the herd and they all perish, we get a very clear sense of how big, how large, how serious the condition of this man was and how even this was no problem for Jesus.
The fact that the demons pleaded to be sent into the pigs shows how much they hated roaming about in the world without any habitation. This seems to point to how evil they are and how the maximizing of their evil comes from entering into any kind of being that can get their hands on to ruin their lives.
The demons could not have seen that their new habitation, the pigs would suddenly run down the hill at all. And drown. Because if in fact, they saw that coming, they wouldn’t ask for it. That’s not what they were trying to do.
They were trying to get a new place to live and do damage, not a place to be destroyed in the sea. And from what we know of Jesus in the gospels, he would have known what was about to happen so that what they feared, namely, that he was here ahead of time to begin their final judgment was in fact, true.
He had not let them escape into some lesser being for the misery they had brought on this man, but he had them to depart as it turns out without any habitation. And the fact that it was lost in the sea points to the fact that he was sentencing them probably to the abyss.
Now all that seems more or less clear, but is there more that can be said as to why Jesus would bring about the destruction of the pigs.
The herdsmen fled going into the city and told everything. And then it doesn’t say especially about the pigs. It says, especially about what happened to the demon-possessed men. In other words, they told of deliverance and liberation and freedom and healing and behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus.
And when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.
Now, two amazing things have happened in this Gentile region suddenly, and by the power of Jesus, number one, two demon-possessed men were now free and their humanity was restored. Their relationships were restored up. They were ruined and now they’re not ruined anymore. Their humanity has given back to them.
And the second amazing thing that happened was a large herd of pigs was destroyed. Now, what this causes me to ponder is another situation in the Bible where the satan attempted to negotiate with God, namely in the first two chapters of Job, the satan asks permission to afflict Job and God gave the satan permission, which proved to be a test of Job’s faithfulness to God.
Job would face the choice. You can love God and trust him, or you can love your possessions and your family and your health more and curse God for taking them away. In other words, God used the satan to test Job.
That seems to me, that’s more or less what’s going on here. Jesus comes into this Gentile world. He conquers the devil. He sets the prisoner free. He presents himself as a great deliverer, able to restore life and hope, but he also takes away a herd of pigs, the livelihood, the wealth from some in the community. He forces a choice, prosperity over love, money over Jesus’ human resources, over divine power.
That is the power and grace of Jesus to give life and hope or the love of possessions and wealth gotten from these pigs and to our utter amazement, they begged Jesus, the life-giver to leave their region.
It seems to me that the story has several levels of meaning.
- Jesus is the son of God
- Jesus is triumphant over unclean spirits.
- Jesus liberates the captive and gives hope to hopeless people, even Gentile people
- But Jesus demands a choice. Love him and his salvation or love your prosperity and your wealth, namely your pigs. And they failed. They failed the test as mark and the other Gospels report it,
What will you choose?
Who Or What Is Azazel In The Bible?
We are introduced to Azazel in Leviticus 16:8-10 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
Azazel (or Azael) is one of the leaders of the angels who desired the daughters of men. In the account of the sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. 6:1–4) in the First Book of Enoch, it was Azazel who taught human beings how to manufacture weapons and ornaments (8:1–2).
Several translations do not translate the word Azazel as scapegoat:
- KJV: And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
- RSV: and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one for the Lord and the other lot for Aza’zel.
- ESV: And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.
Azazel was a demon, he is a deity. He’s a wilderness entity, a god, a deity associated with the wilderness.
AZAZEL (Heb. עֲזָאזֵל), name of the place or the “power” (see below) to which one of the goats in the Temple service of the *Day of Atonement was sent.
The identification of this Azazel with the biblical Azazel is clear from the continuation of the story, as the angel Raphael is commanded to “bind the hands and feet of Azazel and cast him into the darkness. Make an opening to the wilderness which is in Dudael and cast him there. Put upon him hard sharp rocks” (10:4–5). Dudael is the Bet Hadudo (or Bet Harudo) which is mentioned in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:8) and the association is certainly with the cliff from which the goat was cast.
The remnant of a pesher (commentary) on Azazel and the angels found in Cave 4 at Qumran resembles the account in the Book of Enoch. Although the remnant is deficient, it is possible to learn from it that the pesher is dealing with Azazel and the angels who lusted after the daughters of men so that they might bear them strong men, and that Azazel taught human beings how to deal wickedly.
Azael is also identified with Azazel in several late Midrashim (cf. Yalkut Shimoni, Gen. 44; Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, vol. 4, p. 127). Azazel also appears in the Apocalypse of *Abraham where he takes the form of a fallen angel.
This view is reinforced by the widespread belief that the wilderness was the habitat of demons (see Lev. 13:21; 34:14; esp. Lev. 17:7). The demonic identification would indicate that the original purpose of the ritual was to get rid of the impurities by banishing it to its original source.
All the things in the Levitical system that render someone ritually impure are things that are unavoidable in life. They’re not designed to teach the Israelites anything about how awful they are. They’re designed to teach the Israelites, how human they are and how other non-human, how above human God is.
We associate with the day of atonement, because that is the chapter where the, you know, the ritual ceremony is laid out in Leviticus16 in verse eight. Again, we’re familiar with the fact that Aaron is told to pick two goats and cast lots over the two goats. So we’ve got two goats, Aaron cast lots over them. One lot falls on a goat. And then that goat is for the Lord, for Yahweh.
Azazel was a demon, he is a deity. He’s a wilderness entity, a god, a deity associated with the wilderness. He is not Yahweh. The wilderness is his domain. It’s the opposite of Eden.
The wilderness is not the habitation of Yahweh. He is leading the Israelites through the wilderness, to his land. To the land He is giving them. To the new Eden, the land that flows with milk and honey
But while they were in the wilderness, they were given the instructions in Leviticus 16. They have these two goats. One of them is for Yahweh. The other one is for Azazel.
Well, is this a sacrifice like you have, have God like telling the Israelites to sacrifice a goat to a different God? No. If you actually look through and read Leviticus 16, only one of the goats is sacrificed. The goat which was dispatched to Azazel was not a sacrifice since it was not slaughtered.
There’s one goat that is sacrificed to Yahweh. The blood of that goat is applied to the structure of the tabernacle.
Leviticus 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
It’s sprinkled on the mercy seat where the Ark of the covenant is it’s. This is the day of atonement. It actually has nothing to do with the forgiveness of any individual sins.
The blood is never applied to people but with two exceptions:
- Where blood is applied to people and they have to do with the priesthood sanctifying the priesthood because they will occupy sacred space and perform various rituals to protect Yahweh’s land.
- To protect sacred space from defilement and allow access to worshipers and people who bring offerings.
The offerings are consistently about purging and cleansing sacred space so that the people are accepted into sacred space, or at least on to some part of sacred space to bring their offering, regardless of whatever kind of offering it is.
So the blood of the one goat is applied to the tabernacle itself. It’s spring cleaning for the tabernacle. It makes it clean for another year. It’s about sacred space. It’s not about people. The blood was never applied to people.
Now, the second goat, what is that? This goat is not sacrificed.
Some have taught that the second goat, the scapegoat was an offering to the god Azazel. But we don’t have an offering sacrificed to some foreign God. What the priest does with it is he lays his hands on the head of the second goat. And he symbolically transfers the sins of the people.
Everything that would defile sacred space, that would be an offense to Yahweh, is transferred to the head of the goat. And then the goat is sent off into the wilderness to Azazel.
Why send the goat to the wilderness? Well, this is where sin belongs. This is where impurity belongs. It doesn’t belong in the camp of Yahweh. It doesn’t belong in sacred space.
Once a year the tabernacle was purified. Through the year, people came and they were often unclean. They had contact with a dead body or with blood, or the other day to day things the law speaks of.
None of those things have to do with moral failure or moral impurities. They’re not sins. They are things that happen to people that render them, ritually, impure, and all the things in the Levitical system that render someone, ritually impure are things that are unavoidable in life.
They’re not designed to teach the Israelites anything about how awful they are. They’re designed to teach the Israelites, how human they are and how above human God is. This is the point. This is the logic of the system.
We’ve sort of read New Testament, forgiveness and sacrifice of Jesus terminology back into the old Testament. And therefore we don’t understand what’s going on here. What we should do is understand what’s going on here and then read that into New Testament material. We do the reverse and it creates a lot of confusion.