Saturday, 30 November 2013

Apollos the Faithful Apologist



“For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.”
(Acts 18:28, ESV)

Apollos is introduced for the first time in Acts 18: 24-28 and is considered to be one of the earliest apologists of the Holy Scriptures. He knew the Scriptures well. Not only that, he was a very fine and accomplished speaker as well. There are three points that distinguish Apollos as one of the early Churches’ great champions of the faith. Let's consider them together.

  1. Apollos, Mighty in Speech! (Acts 18:24).
  2. Apollos, Mighty in the Scriptures! (Acts 18:25-26, 28).
  3. Apollos, Mighty in Spirit! (Acts 18:25).

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Men, Femininity and Gender Reversal


Times are getting even more difficult for men who just want to be men to live in a society that demeans and demonizes masculinity; and bizarre for those men who want to embrace femininity. More and more we are seeing today's women becoming increasingly assertive in their demeanor, while more men are sadly embracing a more passive feminine role. 

I remember a little while ago watching a video online that explored the issue on male behavior  in relationships with women. The reporter asked a number of women on the street, in parks, and malls what they thought about the behavior of men in today's society. What was interesting, many of them had this to say. "Men are too passive," and "men need to be more assertive in their relationships with women." Some other women said, "I would like it if men would lead more in the relationship." Though this does not tell us anything about whether these men have embraced their femininity. What it does tell us is that men are no longer aggressive in a healthy masculine assertive way as their fathers were before them.  

Male femininity as portrayed here in today's Western culture is embraced as a good thing, instead of a shameful behavior.  Though both men and women possess feminine and masculine characteristics, this in no way gives license for a man to become effeminate in his behavior, nor does it give a woman the right to behave in a more masculine way.  Since God created a man to be a man, his very identity requires him to function in a masculine manner. Why? because to act in a feminine way is a contradiction to his identity as a man. The sexual identity of a man testifies to the fact that he should behave in a manner that compliments who he is as a man. The very core nature of a man is to be masculine, not feminine. Sadly, all too often this is the attitude of such men in today's culture who have embraced their femininity as their identity. One online article confirms this in these words: 

"They are not bogged down by others and are proud of their new found identity. Male femininity has its roots in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia and has been an increasing phenomenon from the dawn of the 20th century. Men today no longer have an inferiority complex in declaring their status and the society too, to a large extent has embraced feminine men. Economic openings for them have also gone a long way in their integration to the society. There is no particular reason for men becoming feminine. It may vary from individual to individual but mostly an interest in the 'female way of life' is the root cause of Male Femininity."[1] 

Personally, I believe there is much more to it than the above quote by the author who says it is men who have an interest in the "female way of life" who have embraced this new feminine identity. I believe the real root to this problem can be traced to the dominate influence of feminism and homosexuality in today's society. These influences are largely responsible for gender confusion that has lead to a certain segment of the male population to accept Male Femininity. Here's a quote I had written about gender confusion on my Facebook page a couple years ago:  

"We are living in a society that seems to glory in the confusion of genders. Our culture is increasingly abandoning the distinction between men and women, by feminizing men and masculating women. This of course, deeply affects relationships between both genders. Men are uncertain to what their role is as a man in the relationship; whereas, women are dissatisfied with their role in leading the relationship they know in their heart belongs to the man."[2]  

How could this have happened? This has happened through feminism and homosexuality being indoctrinated in people's lives through the use of the education system, the media, movies and other avenues such as literature that has given it wide acceptance. Even the law and courts are now reinforcing these negative world views in our Western Culture. Over the past 30 or 40 years of these views being promoted and given first a toehold, then a foothold, and now a stronghold in our society has allowed feminism and homosexuality to flourish and become a dominate force in our culture.  

Though my primary focus is on how feminism has affected and oppressed men, with "Gender Reversal" being one of the repercussions of feminist indoctrination; I only mention here homosexuality because it to is responsible as well in influencing men to embrace their Male Femininity that has lead to Gender Reversal.  

Such "esmasculation" of the male identity in today's society is the sad result of many men accepting as normal the effeminate life style that has been influenced by feminism. And make no wonder, since the masculine nature of man is demonized in our society, many men have embraced a more feminine approached to life. In other words, they have denied their true masculine role as men for a feminine role that is more acceptable in today's society.

Yet what people need to realize is the term "effeminate" is one of the sins in the list the Apostle Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It is not a compliment for a healthy heterosexual male today to take on the effeminate role. When the Apostle Paul mentioned those who were not going to inherit the kingdom of God, the distinction is made in the KJV between the "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as the "passive" and "active" roles of homosexuals. In the same verse the Darby translation is quite bold when it defines effeminate as "those who make women of themselves." ("effeminate by perversion," Darby lit. Trans.). In a more modern translation, the ESV includes both passive and active partners together in these words, "nor men who practice homosexuality." The footnote for this verse further confirms my point, "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." So men who are considering or have already embraced the "effeminate" life style should really reconsider what they are actually accepting. Do such men really want to associate themselves with the perverted life style of a homosexual? It is indeed sad that our society has come to this. 

I am aware this chapter on “Men, Femininity, and Gender Reversal” may be a point of contention for some of my readers, while others will immediately understand where I am coming from. I do not hold any hostility against any homosexual or transgender person, but with love seek to share the truth with those willing to listen. Unfortunately, many have been brainwashed by schools, the media, movies, T.V., and popular literature to be hyper sensitive to other people’s views that goes against the culture’s narrative. Such hyper sensitive people get easily upset, offended, and closed minded to any views that may differ from theirs. They associate disagreement with them as hate. To such people I make no apologies and would ask that you just simply skip this chapter if the truth is too much for you to handle. 


For more information on the subject, I would also like to recommend to the reader the Special Report on “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences” by Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer and Dr. Paul R. McHugh in The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, Num. 50, Fall 2016. Another helpful work is Frank Turek’s small book, Correct, Not Politically Correct.


[1] http://emasculated.org/content/emasculated-and-oppressed-men
[2] My Facebook page, October 5, 2011. (Slightly revised from the original).

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

I Am The Living Bread!


“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

(Matthew 4: 4, ESV) 

This morning the Lord made His presence known in the Men’s Morning Meeting at St. Thomas’. The Lord gave Art, Derek, and myself bread, but then again the Lord has been faithful in making his presence known each week in our small group. I just found this morning unique in that He gave each of us a different aspect to the same truth being conveyed in this particular study Art was leading us in. Each one of us was given a different point on this morning’s theme text, John 6:51. These three aspects are as follows: Art was given the truth about “Giving Out” the Bread we feed on; Derek was given the truth about “Living Out” the Bread we feed on; and I was given the truth about “Taking In” the Bread we feed on.  

The truth of this order would be as follows:

  1. “Taking In” conveys the truth that just like we would eat natural bread, so are we to feed on the Bread of God’s Word. Bread is no good to us if we do not digest it, so it is with God’s Word. Let us not be just tasters of God’s Word, but rather let us be eaters of the Bread of God’s Word. “Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart” (Jer. 15:16, ESV).
  2. “Living Out” tells us the truth that just like natural bread sustains us and gives us the physical strength to live from day to day, so the Bread of God’s Word sustains us spiritually, giving us the necessary strength to “live out” the truth of God’s Word in our daily lives. “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22).
  3. “Giving Out” implies the truth that a part of “living out” the Bread of God’s Word is to share it with others. This can be done in two ways: first, in ministering and teaching God’s Word to fellow Christians; secondly, in proclaiming the Gospel to needy souls who do not know Christ. (See Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). 

Here are four aspects to consider about the term “Bread” in John 6:32, 33, 35, 51:

  1. THE TRUE BREAD FROM HEAVEN: This truth is interesting in this verse for a couple reasons. First, “the true bread” is distinguished in this text apart from “the bread from heaven.” The bread from heaven that Moses prayed for the children of Israel in the wilderness was angel’s food (see Ex. 16:4-17; Psalm 78:25). It was called “manna,” yet it could not satisfy. The term “manna” means “what is it?” Second, “the true bread” here identifies metaphorically the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Three truths can be seen in regards to bread here: (1.) The "bread" prepared by the hands of men speaks of the flesh (1 Cor. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9); (2.) The "manna" that rained down from heaven to the children of Israel speaks of the law that was to be given; (3.) Jesus "the true bread" speaks of salvation by grace. All three types of bread gives sustenance, but it is only the "true bread" that can eternally satisfy.
  2. THE BREAD OF GOD: Now this truth speaks of the divine aspect and origin of this Bread. This bread is neither angel’s food nor is it the natural bread from man. It is Bread, the Bread of God that imparts divine life. Manna and the natural bread made by the hands of man will perish. It only feeds the natural, earth bound life that is subject to the laws of this present life. It nourishes the flesh, but does nothing for the spirit. The natural man does not receive the things that be of God (see 1 Cor. 2:14). Now the spiritual man born of God receives all things that is of God (see 2 Cor. 5:17).
  3. THE BREAD OF LIFE: The Lord Jesus in this text begins with these words “I am,” making the truth about the metaphor Bread personal. And this Bread imparts life. Not natural life, but rather spiritual life. An abundant life that is both satisfying and eternal. Jesus’ promise to whoever comes to him he/she will never hunger or thirst (6:35). “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt. 5:6).
  4. THE LIVING BREAD:  The Lord Jesus Christ again makes it personal with these same words “I am.” Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am…the life.” Jesus identifies Himself as equal with God in John 6:32-33, 51 when He says He originated from heaven, which offended the Jews. “This pronouncement exactly reiterates verses 33, 35, 47-48. bread…is my flesh. Jesus refers here prophetically to his impending sacrifice upon the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Jesus voluntarily laid down his life for evil, sinful mankind (John 10:18; 1 John 2:2)."[1] This truth is echoed again when Jesus fortold his death to His disciples in the upper room (see Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). 

In ancient times in the Middle East bread was an important part and source of food for the Jew and Arab. Bread indeed is a source of nourishment, but it is no good unless it is broken and eaten. This truth can be seen when Jesus fed the 5,000 with only five barley loaves and two fishes. (see John 6:1-15). The truth here is that only the Lord Jesus can satisfy our need. Just as He provides for our need for physical sustenance, so does He meet our spiritual need for daily sustenance from His Word (see Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). Just as Jesus became broken bread for us, we must become broken bread for others. We must understand that bread never broken can never feed others. This same truth applies to a believer’s life. If we willfully remain unbroken bread, then God cannot bless and multiply our brokenness to feed others. So if the bread of our lives remains intact, it cannot make the necessary contact that imparts the impact that nourishes others. (Matt. 6:11).




[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible: ESV, (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois, 2010), pg. 1551.

Thursday, 31 October 2013

Concerning Halloween

By James B. Jordan

It has become routine in October for some Christian schools to send out letters warning parents about the evils of Halloween, and it has become equally routine for me to be asked questions about this matter.
 
“Halloween” [not Holloween] is simply a contraction for All Hallows’ Eve. The word “hallow” means “saint,” in that “hallow” is just an alternative form of the word “holy” (“hallowed be Thy name”). All Saints’ Day is November 1. It is the celebration of the victory of the saints in union with Christ. The observance of various celebrations of All Saints arose in the late 300s, and these were united and fixed on November 1 in the late 700s. The origin of All Saints Day and of All Saints Eve in Mediterranean Christianity had nothing to do with Celtic Druidism or the Church’s fight against Druidism (assuming there ever even was any such thing as Druidism, which is actually a myth concocted in the 19th century by neo-pagans.)

In the First Covenant, the war between God’s people and God’s enemies was fought on the human level against Egyptians, Assyrians, etc. With the coming of the New Covenant, however, we are told that our primary battle is against principalities and powers, against fallen angels who bind the hearts and minds of men in ignorance and fear. We are assured that through faith, prayer, and obedience, the saints will be victorious in our battle against these demonic forces. The Spirit assures us: “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).

The Festival of All Saints reminds us that though Jesus has finished His work, we have not finished ours. He has struck the decisive blow, but we have the privilege of working in the mopping up operation. Thus, century by century the Christian faith has rolled back the demonic realm of ignorance, fear, and superstition. Though things look bad in the Western world today, this work continues to make progress in Asia and Africa and Latin America.

The Biblical day begins in the preceding evening, and thus in the Church calendar, the eve of a day is the actual beginning of the festive day. Christmas Eve is most familiar to us, but there is also the Vigil of Holy Saturday that precedes Easter Morn. Similarly, All Saints’ Eve precedes All Saints’ Day.

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom. What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.
(The tradition of mocking Satan and defeating him through joy and laughter plays a large role in Ray Bradbury’s classic novel, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a Halloween novel.)

The gargoyles that were placed on the churches of old had the same meaning. They symbolized the Church ridiculing the enemy. They stick out their tongues and make faces at those who would assault the Church. Gargoyles are not demonic; they are believers ridiculing the defeated demonic army.
Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day.

Similarly, on All Hallows’ Eve (Hallow-Even – Hallow-E’en – Halloween), the custom arose of mocking the demonic realm by dressing children in costumes. Because the power of Satan has been broken once and for all, our children can mock him by dressing up like ghosts, goblins, and witches. The fact that we can dress our children this way shows our supreme confidence in the utter defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ – we have NO FEAR!

I don’t have the resources to check the historical origins of all Halloween customs, and doubtless they have varied from time to time and from Christian land to Christian land. “Trick or treat” doubtless originated simply enough: something fun for kids to do. Like anything else, this custom can be perverted, and there have been times when “tricking” involved really mean actions by teenagers and was banned from some localities.

We can hardly object, however, to children collecting candy from friends and neighbors. This might not mean much to us today, because we are so prosperous that we have candy whenever we want, but in earlier generations people were not so well off, and obtaining some candy or other treats was something special. There is no reason to pour cold water on an innocent custom like this.
 
Similarly, the jack-o’-lantern’s origins are unknown. Hollowing out a gourd or some other vegetable, carving a face, and putting a lamp inside of it is something that no doubt has occurred quite independently to tens of thousands of ordinary people in hundreds of cultures worldwide over the centuries. Since people lit their homes with candles, decorating the candles and the candle-holders was a routine part of life designed to make the home pretty or interesting. Potatoes, turnips, beets, and any number of other items were used.

Wynn Parks writes of an incident he observed: “An English friend had managed to remove the skin of a tangerine in two intact halves. After carving eyes and nose in one hemisphere and a mouth in the other, he poured cooking oil over the pith sticking up in the lower half and lit the readymade wick. With its upper half on, the tangerine skin formed a miniature jack-o’-lantern. But my friend seemed puzzled that I should call it by that name. `What would I call it? Why a “tangerine head,” I suppose.’” (Parks, “The Head of the Dead,” The World & I, November 1994, p. 270.)

In the New World, people soon learned that pumpkins were admirably suited for this purpose. The jack-o’-lantern is nothing but a decoration; and the leftover pumpkin can be scraped again, roasted, and turned into pies and muffins.

In some cultures, what we call a jack-o’-lantern represented the face of a dead person, whose soul continued to have a presence in the fruit or vegetable used. But this has no particular relevance to Halloween customs. Did your mother tell you, while she carved the pumpkin, that this represented the head of a dead person and with his soul trapped inside? Of course not. Symbols and decorations, like words, mean different things in different cultures, in different languages, and in different periods of history. The only relevant question is what does it mean now, and nowadays it is only a decoration.
And even if some earlier generations did associate the jack-o’-lantern with a soul in a head, so what? They did not take it seriously. It was just part of the joking mockery of heathendom by Christian people.

This is a good place to note that many articles in books, magazines, and encyclopedias are written by secular humanists or even the pop-pagans of the so-called “New Age” movement. (An example is the article by Wynn Parks cited above.) These people actively suppress the Christian associations of historic customs, and try to magnify the pagan associations. They do this to try and make paganism acceptable and to downplay Christianity. Thus, Halloween, Christmas, Easter, etc., are said to have pagan origins. Not true.

Oddly, some fundamentalists have been influenced by these slanted views of history. These fundamentalists do not accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of Western history, American history, and science, but sometimes they do accept the humanist and pagan rewriting of the origins of Halloween and Christmas, the Christmas tree, etc. We can hope that in time these brethren will reexamine these matters as well. We ought not to let the pagans do our thinking for us.

Nowadays, children often dress up as superheroes, and the original Christian meaning of Halloween has been absorbed into popular culture. Also, with the present fad of “designer paganism” in the so-called New Age movement, some Christians are uneasy with dressing their children as spooks. So be it. But we should not forget that originally Halloween was a Christian custom, and there is no solid reason why Christians cannot enjoy it as such even today.

“He who sits in the heavens laughs; Yahweh ridicules them” says Psalm 2. Let us join in His holy laughter, and mock the enemies of Christ on October 31.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Worry is the Absence of Faith and Faith is the Absence of Worry

"Do not worry about your life."
(Matthew 6: 25)
 


So much energy gets wasted on worrying. Worry is a burden that God never intended for us to carry. Worry is not taking God at His word. Worry is sin. Yet many people worry about things they either cannot change or about things that they later find never happened. When facing worry, realize worry is the absence of faith, whereas faith is the absence of worry. Three things are essential to rid oneself of worry.

1. Give it over to the Lord. If you truly have faith in God, then entrust the matter that worries you into God's hands. Believe that God will take care of the issue that is worrying you.

2. Be Confident. This is trusting God at His Word about an issue that worries you. It is a trusting assurance that the Lord will take care of the matter in your life that is worrying you.

3. Be Determined. Since God does not work according to our time schedule. We need to wait on the Lord to resolve the issue that is causing us distress. We need to determine in our hearts by faith. To determine: "deter" -to put off; so determine therefore means to "put off" worry and "press on" in faith trusting that God knows best.


Tuesday, 22 October 2013

The Kindness of this Present, Momentary Suffering?


"the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings"
(Phil. 3: 10)


1. The REALITY of Suffering.
2. The REVELATION of Suffering.
3. The REWARD for Suffering.
4. The GIFT of Suffering.
5. The GUIDANCE of Suffering.
6. The GOOD that comes from Suffering.
7. The FRUSTRATION of Suffering.
8. The FELLOWSHIP of His Suffering.
9. The FRUITFULNESS of Suffering.
10. The CONSEQUENCES of Suffering.
11. The CROSS of Suffering.
12. The CROWN of Suffering.

 As much as we don't like hardships, pain and suffering are the TOOLS God uses to make a man and woman of God to resemble Christ. And none had suffered quite like Christ did on the Cross. So since Christ came into our world of suffering and pain and experienced it like none ever had, ought we not to count it a privilege in some small way to enter... into "the FELLOWSHIP of His sufferings" (Philippians 3:10)? Those who suffer the most, have the most to give to others. The GIFT of suffering helps us to love, understand, and empathize in a deeper level into what our neighbor is suffering. So let us consider this “momentary [and] light affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:17, Darby Trans.) a KINDNESS in this present life, as opposed to the eternal SUFFERING of hell that we so deserve. He suffered the CROSS for our sins so that we might not suffer the CONSEQUENCES of our sins in hell. When He came into our world, man gave Him a Cross; whereas Christ gave HIMSELF. Now that’s amazing Love. May we never forget that!

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Does Deuteronomy 23: 20 on the Issue of "Usury" Prove that the Bible Favors Jews over Non-Jews?


" Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
(Deut. 23: 20, KJV)
 

Tonight I met two middle aged men downtown. We had quite a lively discussion about injustices the government and society at large heap upon those with disabilities, and about why these gentlemen discredit the Bible? According to one of these middle aged men, by the name of Calvin, the Word of God can't be trusted because it was written by a bunch of fascist Jews who own the banks that control everything. Also, The Bible can't be trusted because the Roman Catholic Church were responsible for putting together the Word of God as we have it today and is used to control the masses.  

So naturally, I asked him to prove his point by presenting to me evidence to why I should believe his outrageous claim. So he quoted to me two possible passages of Scripture taken from Deuteronomy 23: 28-29 or 28: 28-29 that speaks about how Jews were allowed to exploit non-Jews by charging them "usury" (interest). Since I had a small Bible on me, I looked up the passages Calvin had cited to me. The first thing I noticed was that verses 28-29 does not even exist in Deuteronomy 23, for it ends at verse 25! The actual verses that speaks about "usury" is verses 19-20. Secondly, he said the Deuteronomy passage is the first mention of "usury" in the Bible. This of course is false. The first mention of "usury" in the Bible is found in Exodus 22: 25. The third thing I noticed was the passage he mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28-29 had nothing to do with "usury." Actually, from what he shared with me about the hardships he had  endured in life due to his disability and his apparent rebellion and animosity towards God and His Word made me wonder if the Lord was rebuking Calvin through Deuteronomy 28: 28-29 that I had read to him.  

Alexander Cruden, the author of Cruden's Complete Concordance defines "usury" as follows:
 

"By usury is generally understood in the Bible any interest on a loan, whether in money or in wheat or other commodities. Modern usage has confined the meaning of the word to an unlawful interest.  

The law of God prohibits rigorous imposing of interest or exacting it, or a return of a loan without regard to the condition of the borrower; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect of gain by employing the borrowed goods. 

The Hebrews were plainly commanded  in Ex. 22: 25, etc., not to receive interest for money from any that borrowed for necessity, as in the case in Neh. 5: 5, 7."[1]
 

The word "usury" is used 17 times throughout the Bible. 15 times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New Testament according to Cruden's Concordance. (See Ex. 22: 25; Lev. 25: 36-37; Deut. 23: 19-20; Neh. 5: 7, 10; Psalm 15: 5; Prov. 28: 8; Isa. 24: 2; Jer. 15: 10; Ezek. 18: 8, 17, 13; 22: 12; Matt. 25: 27; Luke 19: 23.) The specific verse in question that Calvin quotes to demonize Jews is Deut. 23: 19-20. Verse 20 is the primary passage under question. It reads as follows: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." (KJV). 

 The Jew was the 'lender' while the stranger was the 'debtor.' The stranger was required in the agreed amount owed to pay interest as well to the Jewish lender for the money or item borrowed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines two words in relation to the lender and the one who borrows as follows. The Jew who is a lender is a usurer, "one that lends money esp. at an exorbitant rate." The Jew was required to charge usury that was only fair and reasonable. He was not to over charge interest to the stranger. By the time the New Testament era came, the infamous tax collectors were notorious for charging outrageous amounts of interest. Therefore they were hated by the people of that day. Now the borrower was charged usury. The term means "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." 

In Matthew Poole's Commentary, he explains why the Jews were allowed to charge "usury" to strangers. He writes as follows:
 

"Ver. 20.  Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds. And though the word brother is ofttimes used in a general sense for every man, yet I think I may affirm that wheresoever the words brother and stranger are opposed in the Jewish law, the brother signifies the Israelite only, and the stranger signifies any person of what nation or religion soever, whether proselyted to the Jewish religion or not, and so it seems to be meant here. And the reason why usury is permitted to a stranger, not to an Israelite, may seem to be this, because the Israelites generally employed themselves in the management of land and cattle, and therefore could not make any advantage of borrowed money to balance the use they should pay for it; and consequently it may be presumed that they would not borrow money upon use, but for want and poverty, and in that case, and principally for that reason, usury seems to be forbidden to them, as may be thought from Le 25:35,36. But the strangers made use of their money in way of trade and traffic with the Israelites, which was more gainful, and could much better bear the burden of usury, and reap advantage from money so borrowed; and these strangers here spoken of are supposed to be competently rich, and not poor, as may plainly appear by comparing this place with Le 25:35,36, where they are no less forbidden to take usury of a stranger than of a brother, in case of poverty."[2]
 

Authors Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe puts it this way for why Jews could be exempt from being charged usury, whereas Jews could charge usury to strangers.
 

"Of course, usury was not forbidden with strangers (non-Jews), but only with brothers (other Jews). If this seems partial, it is only because the laws forbidding usury on the poor (or one's brothers) were a divinely enjoined act of benevolence, not strictly a matter of business. When it comes to doing business, one is entitled to a reasonable profit on his investment. Since the risk of loss (from non-payment) must be covered, it is just to pay the investor an appropriate amount for his risk."[3]
 

After reading through all 17 passages of Scripture on "usury" in context with Deuteronomy 23: 20 there is nothing indicating unjust partial treatment of Jews over non-Jews. Unless Calvin is able to present indisputable evidence to support his case against the so called accusation he is leveling Against God's Word, he really doesn't have a valid case at all.   

My heart goes out to Calvin in the struggles he is going through in regards to his disability, but that does not in no way excuse him from attacking God's Word without warrant. The only other argument he tried to present was that the Book of Revelations was full of God's wrath and vengeance. That God was a mean tyrant. He fails to understand why the Book of Revelations speaks of God's judgment and wrath. He doesn't realize that God's judgment and wrath comes upon mankind in the last day because of their sin and rebellion against God.




[1] Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Complete Concordance, (Dugan Publishers Inc., Gordonsville, TN, Revised 1986), pg. 717.
[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5. 2), Deut. 23: 20.
[3] Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), pgs. 128-129.