Moses, writer of the Torah

I saw Patterns of Evidence: the Moses Controversy in the theater recently.  Like it's predecessor, Patterns of Evidence: the Exodus, it was masterfully made.  A quote from one of my favorite pastors comes to mind very quickly: a lot of wisdom is just connecting the dots.  The movie pointed out many connections I'd not made myself.  One of them was with the way God introduced Himself to Moses and to the Israelites.

• Exodus 3:2: Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (WEB)
• Exodus 19:16-18: On the third day, when it was morning, there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain, and the sound of an exceedingly loud trumpet; and all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lower part of the mountain. All of Mount Sinai smoked, because Yahweh descended on it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. (WEB)

And interestingly, Hebrews 12:29 NIV reminds us that "our 'God is a consuming fire,'" (which is quoting Deuteronomy 4:24).  None of this fire stuff is important revelation, but it's an interesting connection.

I only remember being taught by mainstream sources that God taught Moses, and Moses taught the people, and it wasn't until hundreds of years later that it was written down.  But this understanding actually contradicts a straight­forward reading of scripture.

• Exodus 17:14: Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book... (WEB)

Remember Exodus 14 is when they crossed the Red Sea, Exodus 16 is when they were introduced to Manna, and Exodus 20 is when the 10 commandments were first given by God.  Including the one above, there were 9 times Moses recorded God as having told him to write down what he was hearing or they were doing:

• Exodus 34:27
• Numbers 5:23
• Numbers 17:2-3
• Deuteronomy 6:9
• Deuteronomy 11:20
• Deuteronomy 27:3
• Deuteronomy 27:8
• Deuteronomy 31:19

In Exodus 24:4, Moses is recorded as writing God's word, then in Exodus 24:7, Moses read to the people what he had written.  And in Deuteronomy 17:19 he says when they someday decide to rebel against God and pick a king (see Deuteronomy 17:14-15) that king should read what Moses wrote every day.  And after Moses gave the law to the Levites (the priests) he said they should read the whole thing to the people [at least once] every seven years: Deuteronomy 31:9-11.  Then, hundreds of years later, but still pre-exile, there was 2 Kings 22:8, when they found the book of the law in the temple.

Jesus endorsed Moses as a leader of Israel, such as in:

• Matthew 23:2
• Mark 7:10
• Mark 9:4-5 / Luke 9:30-33
• Mark 12:26 *
• Luke 16:29-31
• Luke 20:37
• Luke 24:27, 44
• John 1:17
• John 1:45 *
• John 5:45-46 *
• John 7:19

(asterisked verses mention Moses's writing)

If Moses didn't write the original text, then there are a lot of problems with both the gospels and the whole Bible.  And that's of course the point.  People who want the Bible to be wrong (and people who just learned from them) want to believe that Moses didn't write anything, or at least what we have today isn't anything close to what he wrote.  But the movie makes an excellent case that Moses indeed wrote the Torah.  While it's true the Dead Sea scrolls are only from around 200 BC, and Moses would have lived hundreds of years before that, this doesn't mean Moses didn't write this stuff down himself.

A second connect the dots I'd never made myself, until seeing this movie, was...

• The printing press (wiki) was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz, Germany, in 1440 and the Protestant Reformation (wiki) began with Marin Luther's 95 Thesis on the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517.  (Just over 75 years later, and less than a 6 hour drive by modern car & roads.)
• Use of an alphabet (wiki) began in the Egyptian area, and not long after, the revelation from God came (namely the teachings of Moses) beginning in the Egyptian area.

Which then begs the question.  What does God have in mind with the digital age, or the Internet?  Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (wiki) in 1989.  Could Craig Groeschel's Life.Church (link) with it's 100,000 viewers per week from around the world, and their YouVersion (link) Bible mobile app which gives out free (and advertisement free) over 1,000 translations in over 100 languages, be some examples of great revolutions God had in mind?  Maybe, and surely God has countless plans.

These are not even the most profound connections the movie makes, but I don't want to steal its main thunder, but I wanted to record some notes because the movie was so inspiring. Check it out at patternsofevidence.com.

By the way, where pray tell would Moses's first and immediate successor, Joshua, get the "Book of the Law" in Joshua 1:7-8, if Moses hadn't already written it? Then again in Joshua 8:34-35.

Jesus wept - why?

In the Bible, the book of John chapter 11 has many takeaways.  However, many people I've heard over the years give commentary on this chapter seem to travel the beaten path.  I'm going to present an alternative interpretation as to why Jesus wept.

John 11:35 is often cited as the shortest verse in the Bible.  As a technicality, it's one of five verses (in the NIV translation) that have only two words:

• Job 3:2 NIV - He said:
• Luke 20:30 NIV - The second
• John 11:35 NIV - Jesus wept.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:16 NIV - Rejoice always,
• 1 Thessalonians 5:17 NIV - pray continually,

(And arguably, since some translations like NIV only have a footnote for Matthew 23:14, Mark 9:44, 46, Luke 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4, without actual text, these might be considered the shortest verses. Did you know that Psalm 117 is the shortest chapter in the Bible, with only 2 verses (link)

Shortest verse or not, it's always fascinating when God shows obvious emotion.  (Like when "the father" ran in Luke 15:20.)  So why did God weep (cry) in John 11:35?  Context is critical.  Taking the Bible literally would inform us that the very next verse has the answer.

John 11:36 NIV - Then the Jews said, "See how He loved him!"

But I prefer to take the Bible seriously.  Remember Nicodemus from a few chapters earlier?  He took Jesus literally and we all benefit from the response he got, including the most famous verse in the entire Bible: John 3:16.  But Nicodemus's attitude is not presented as a role model for the rest of us.  Their conversation almost sounds like it was included sarcastically, like, "this religious leader didn't even get it" (John 3:10).  So let's use our forensics and dig a little deeper than simply taking that one verse (John 11:36) literally.

First, look at all the times in the first 3/4 of this chapter alone that Jesus is doubted by the people around Him.

• John 11:11-12 NIV - He went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better."
• (Implication: the disciples essentially said "we're going where??  Why bother?  Whatever you're thinking, we're better off right here.")
• John 11:16 NIV - Then Thomas... said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
• (Implication: Jesus, you're crazy, but you're the boss.)
• John 11:21 NIV - "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if You had been here, my brother would not have died.
• (Implication: because you took so long to get here, my brother is dead.)
• John 11:23-24 NIV - Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
• (Implication: yeah, that's what you say, and I guess after we're all dead we'll be reunited again, thanks for nothing.)
• John 11:32 NIV - When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw Him, she fell at His feet and said, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died."
• (Implication: same as verse 21 above.)
• John 11:37 NIV - But some of them said, "Could not He who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
• (Implication: I guess even He has limitations.)
• John 11:39 NIV - "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."
• (Implication: are you crazy, you think we're all joking about his death and you want proof he's not just hiding out in there? Aren't you God? Don't you know these things?)

It's also important to note that we can't see body language nor hear the tone of voice (attitudes).  So we can only make inferences from what we can read.  But if I was clearly the biggest hero in the room, and the biggest hero ever, and people had just criticized my intelligence and skill 7 times in a pretty short window, my mood would not be it's best.  There are 3 verses that reveal Jesus's response to these implied (or explicit, whether intended or not) criticisms.

• John 11:14 NIV - So then He told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
• John 11:33 NIV - When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
• John 11:38 NIV - Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb.

I don't speak for the author of this text, but when I read "then He told them plainly," I think I can "hear" the exasperation in the air.  Then in verses 33 and 38 we see Jesus was "deeply moved."  So many of us would love to take verse 36 literally.  But there are passages in the Bible where it accurately records people who said inaccurate things, like in John 10:20 and Acts 12:21-23.  It's an important possibility that Jesus wept because He was actually so disappointed in us, and maybe even so ticked, that we made Him cry.  Because it also says He was "troubled."  What makes more sense, if we have no preconceived desire for what this story should lead us to?  Does it make more sense that He was troubled because:

1. they had to grieve, or
2. they were grieving (mourning) even in His presence, as if they'd given up on Him doing anything, or worse, being able to do anything?

Remember what He said another time about grieving in His presence:

Matthew 9:15 NIV - Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will [grieve].”

And remember what He said of His own disciples when they failed to cast a demon out on their own:

Matthew 17:17a NIV - “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?”

Right before the first time He was deeply moved and troubled (in verse 33), He was criticized (in verse 32).  The first thing He said after He was troubled was "where have you laid him?"  He didn't say "you're going to love this," nor "I'm so sorry this had to happen, but watch this" nor "don't you just hate sin, which leads to death?"  No, He was recorded as being short and to the point, which is more characteristic of frustration than love.  Pay attention to when exactly He wept:

John 11:33-35 NIV - When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. “Where have you laid him?” He asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied. Jesus wept.

What it didn't say was "When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, He wept too."  It does say when He saw them weeping, "He was deeply moved in spirit and troubled." So then He asks them a question, and it wasn't until after their response that He cried.  This is where it's too bad body language and tone don't come through.  It's only after they replied "Come and see, Lord," that He broke into tears.  My guess is their comment was filled with resignation and remorse, showing how devastatingly they had given up on Jesus being able to do anything.  Because notice what they didn't say when Jesus showed up.  They didn't say "thank God you're here! Now everything is going to be ok. :)"  They didn't say "yeah, you're here!  Come right over here, here's his body.  What are you waiting for?  I'm getting sick of these mourners making such a fuss."  No, instead they said "if You had been here, [but now it's too late, woe is me.] :("  I'm not trying to criticize, because I'm not confident I'd be any smarter than they were.  I'm just making a contrast.

Right before the second time He was deeply moved (in verse 38), He was criticized (in verse 37).  And then notice what Jesus didn't say after it was done.  He did say "take off the grave clothes and let him go." To me, this seems anticlimactic, which would be aligned with how a person would speak if they were disappointed and annoyed with the people around them.  Notice the tone wasn't "take off those rags and let's celebrate!" nor was it "hey man, give me a hug."  Not that those statements couldn't have been said, but they weren't recorded.  With the end result in mind now, let's go back to the beginning of the chapter and read the setup.

John 11:3-7 NIV - So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one You love is sick." When He heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it." Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when He heard that Lazarus was sick, He stayed where He was two more days, and then He said to His disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."

Let's assume Mary and Martha weren't stupid.  They had surely heard about those two times when their friend, Jesus, had done two long-distance healings, both of which were not only for complete strangers, but for gentiles.

1. That Roman centurion in Capernaum, who said "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed."  (Matthew 8:5-13 / Luke 7:1-10)
2. Then there was that Syrian woman's daughter.  When the mother asked for Jesus's help, He responded with that "dogs" comment, and the woman countered with "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table."  (Matthew 15:21-28 / Mark 7:24-30)

Mary and Martha knew Jesus could heal Lazarus without lifting a finger, and the minute their brother died, they knew He had chosen not to.  And they would have known how far away Jesus was by how fast their messengers had returned.  (Whether the messengers returned immediately after delivering the message or even if they'd returned with Jesus, either way, the ladies would have found out that Jesus had delayed returning for two whole days.)  But Jesus knew what was going to happen, and He wanted to make a huge demonstration.  Remember He said this "is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified."  For this awesome opportunity to prove Himself in an unprecedented, spectacular way, He probably would have liked it if His friends would have had a little faith.  Remember how He felt when others failed to take Him seriously in Matthew 11:20?  And who knows, by verse 35, He may have already felt the weight of the intense criticism He was about to get in the very next verses (John 11:45-46 and 53).  Knowing you're going to be condemned to die for bringing someone back to life might just put a dampener on your day, and He just might have appreciated more support from His friends.

In other words, this was a test, and His friends failed.  He even said what He was about to do flat out, twice. First He told His disciples "this sickness won't end in death," and there was no recorded response.  Then He told Martha "your brother will rise again," and she just responded "[Yeah,] I know," but that doesn't seem to have been an entirely sincere "I know."  This terribly disappointed Jesus, so He cried about it.  We made Him cry.  That was why He preceded His spectacular miracle by saying:

John 11:41-42 NIV - Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

He wasn't trying to butter the Father up by saying "hey, You're listening right?  Because I'm about to ask for something big."  He was driving home the point that even though we made Him cry, even though we didn't believe in Him, He knew His Heavenly Father did, and He was grateful to The Father for that, regardless of our failures.  He was saying "at least you believe in Me, Father, so let's go ahead and do this for these ungratefuls anyway."  God laments about our failures.  One of the earliest was Genesis 6:5-7, and returning to the gospels there was Matthew 23:37 / Luke 13:34.  His earthly friends let Him down other times, like that after-dinner visit to the garden with Peter, James, and John (Matthew 26:40-41), and the time with Peter and that rooster (Matthew 26:74).  But He still loves us, He still died for us (Romans 5:8), and He still wants us to be with Him forever.  May we be intentional not to disappoint our Creator so much we make Him cry.

This wasn't the only time God cried because of us. He was also moved to tears that time He approached Jerusalem in Luke 19:41-44. On the surface we can say He cried because He was prophesying that Jerusalem would soon fall, but more importantly was why it would fall. They were going to fall because God was going to punish them, His chosen and favorite people, for their lack of faith and obedience.

By the way, a couple chapters later, when He said He is the only way (John 14:6), He wasn't just being arrogant.  He wasn't being exclusive nor conceited and saying "join my club or be left out."  He's saying "no one else is coming for you.  There is no other God who loves you and passionately pursues you and longs to forgive you of your sin and to heal you from your brokenness."  What an awesome God we have, who deserves our obedience (Matthew 7:21).

In the end, only God will be able to definitively explain to us why He wept. And while there was probably a very specific reason He did it, there can still be numerous lessons to learn.

How valuable was that wine Jesus made?

Remember when Jesus turned water into wine?  He did it in John 2:1-11.  It's both quantitatively and qualitatively described in the text:

• John 2:6-7 NIV - Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
• John 2:9-11 NIV - Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

It says there were 6 jars, each holding 20-30 gallons and filled to the brim, which makes somewhere between 120-180 gallons of wine.  When we remember that a typical bottle of wine holds 750 ml (or 0.2 gallons), that's a lot of wine (600-900 bottles).  The volume of wine alone speaks to the generosity of God (especially the same God who gave us the 10 Commandments and is so hated in the world for supposedly saying "no" so much).  There are not many miracles recorded that were so seemingly trivial we can put a dollar value on them, so I'm curious what that wine would be worth today?

I'm no wine connoisseur, so I went to www.wine.com to price check.  They have a lot of bottles for less than $100, but if you search right, they do have a couple dozen options for $3000-4000 each.  (FYI, the $4,300 bottle has a 4.7 out of 5 average rating.)  At $3K per bottle, 5 bottles per gallon, and 120 gallons, that's $1,800,000, and 180 gallons would be $2,700,000.  At $4K per bottle that'd be $2.4 - 3.6M.  This doesn't count delivery and storage in an age when there was no 2 day Amazon Prime shipping and no air conditioning.

When Jesus miraculously made somewhere around a million dollars or more of wine, He was demonstrating a bunch of things.  I'll just point out one for now, He was living out the 5th commandment (honor your father and mother) even though Mary was smart enough not to command Jesus to do anything (all she said to Jesus was "they have no more wine" and then to the servants, "do whatever he tells you" in verses 3-5).  God told us through the prophets that we should trust Him, and we should put our money where our mouth is by giving Him our full tithe (Malachi 3:10).  Jesus turning water into a million dollars or more worth of wine is a great (small) example of the power of God to live up to His promises.

Love people, abhor sin

I was recently sent an article by a well-meaning Christian friend. The article ripped into the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin," claiming it was a bad idea.  It was a long article, and not surprisingly, had zero Bible quotes.

To start with a point of alignment with the article, I'll admit there are two quotes on my website from Tommy Sparger of North Point Church: "Jesus was never defined by what he was against... I think the church (Christianity) has fallen into the trap of being defined by what it's against..." And "if we knew anything about 'the lost' surely we'd know enough not to call them 'lost'." (Jesus did in Luke 19:10 and Matthew 18:11, but He's God and we're not.) As a whole, surely the Church has earned this criticism. But that doesn't mean we drop the baton of telling the world what God has told us (in the Bible) and helping everyone have a better understanding of God's character.  (All Bible quotes in this post are from the World English Bible.)

John 1:14: The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

If we emphasize grace and ignore truth, we get relativism (chaos). If we emphasize truth and ignore grace, we get legalism. We must be both light and salt to the world, not one without the other (Matthew 5:13-16). I'm going to offer an alternative perspective from that laid out in the article (and by many well-meaning Christians). It seemed to be emphasizing grace (love) and, while not ignoring truth, was not leaning very heavily on it. It made a halfway decent point, but had illustrations which claimed: "it's not in the Bible" and "said Jesus never", but those aren't accurate claims.  Here are some succinct verses:

• Isaiah 61:8: For I, Yahweh, love justice. I hate robbery and iniquity.
• Amos 5:15: Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the courts...
• Hebrews 1:8-9: of the Son he says... You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
• Jude 1:22-23: On some have compassion, making a distinction, and some save, snatching them out of the fire with fear, hating even the clothing stained by the flesh.
• Revelation 2:6:  But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

In case you're not familiar, that Revelation quote is from Jesus. Remember how God treated Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, and Cain in Genesis 4. Did God seem to hate their sin? Did God love those sinners? I think the answer is yes to both questions. And those are the first two generations of humans, there are many more examples as we skim through the rest of the scriptures.

I specifically address love the sinner, hate the sin, in one of the most controversial sections of my Gender Identity feature (here).  This theme isn't something we should wear on our sleeve, but neither is it something we should dismiss, nor publicly write against.  I think the person who disapproves of "love the sinner, hate the sin" has either encountered too many Christians who abused this concept (for which I truly sympathize with the receiver and apologize on behalf of the offender) or they spend most of their time only rereading the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, plus possibly the token Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs.  But just to be clear, hating sin is there, too:

• Psalm 36:1-2: An inner sanctuary is within my heart about the disobedience of the wicked... he flatters himself in his own eyes, too much to detect and hate his sin.
• Psalms 45:7: You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
• Psalms 97:10: You who love Yahweh, hate evil. He preserves the souls of his saints. He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.
• Romans 12:9: Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil. Cling to that which is good.

I don't need to quote verses that God loves people.  The Bible is full of them, especially the New Testament.  That was the whole point of John 3:16 and the entire gospels, why God (Jesus) came to earth to live a pauper's life (by today's standards, and so much more so from His own) and to die a brutal death to prove how much He loved us, and that's why He said the second most important commandment was to love our neighbor as ourself (Matthew 22:36-40).  But let's look to the Old Testament, because that's often more colorful. Here's a quote showing God wants to love even the wicked (sinner), but He doesn't beat around the bush about His opinion on sin, or more specifically, unrepentant sin:

Ezekiel 18:20-23: The soul who sins, he shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him. But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? says the Lord Yahweh; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?

Just because Jesus didn't say "love the sinner, hate the sin" verbatim, doesn't mean He didn't speak that way. And just because He didn't always speak this way (and why would anyone) doesn't necessarily follow that He never did.

• Matthew 11:20: Then he began to denounce the cities in which most of his mighty works had been done, because they didn’t repent.
• John 5:14: Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "Behold, you are made well. Sin no more, so that nothing worse happens to you."
• John 8:11: Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more.”

There are many important theological concepts any good Christian should be aware of and live out. Whether you like it or not, when we take the Bible seriously, clearly "love the sinner, hate the sin" is one of them.  The trick is this makes us think.  It's not black and white, it's very gray.  At least, until we get practice, then it actually gains focus pretty easily.  It takes maturity to be able to isolate a human being from their actions, who a person is choosing to be now or has chosen to be in the past versus who they can choose to be in the future (2 Corinthians 5:17).  We are called to mature beyond just the true but rudimentary "Jesus only" slogan and it's equivalents, twice: Hebrews 5:13-6:1 and 1 Peter 2:2.  And what does a mature Christian look like?  Gordon MacDonald said "Self-sustaining in spiritual devotions. Wise in human relationships. Humble and serving. Comfortable and functional in the everyday world where people of faith can be in short supply. Substantial in conversation; prudent in acquisition; respectful in conflict; faithful in commitments."

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is just an expression, a terse, succinct articulation of a concept that says we should love people while not promoting, endorsing, nor normalizing choices that God specifically told us will make Him mad.  If you're just hung up on the terminology, possibly because The Left has ruined the word "hate" by overusing and demonizing it, then perhaps call it "love people, avoid sin," or "maximize people, minimize sin."  Or just skip it, but don't be insulted when another Christian says this.  If you're insulted then what's probably happening is you don't like their style.  You don't like the way they're presenting it, and I can only sympathize with that.  I'm just reminding us what the Bible says.  Accepting "love the sinner, hate the sin" as an even somewhat accurate theological concept doesn't mean we have to criticize people, but it does mean we don't entertain laws or other practices that normalize sin.  Just skim the writings of Paul for some summaries of sins (like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or Romans 1:28-32) and may God forbid we ever normalize any of them.  Even worse is protecting those sins and giving them marriage benefits for publicly bragging about it. All people deserve protection, but not all choices do.

I had lunch with that well-meaning Christian friend who sent me that article, a couple days later.  She shared that too many people in her life who used this phrase, used it in self-righteousness, pointing to the sins of others while ignoring or even denying the sin in themselves.  While that's still not a reason to say this isn't in the Bible, it's a valid disclaimer that we should never get self-righteous.  Jesus had compassion on sinners and condemned the self-righteous.  He used the word "hypocrite" 17 times, and 9 of those had an exclamation point in the NIV translation (here).  It's a dangerous trap to become self-righteous.  But we can remember Romans 3:10, Romans 2:19-22, and scenarios like Deuteronomy 9:4-6.  And of course, there's a difference between hating sin and judging (or condemning) people.  A mature Christian is able to politely, lovingly tell a friend (or stranger) that certain choices are defined as sin in God's word, yet keep it clear that people can still be accepted as human beings, and even friends.  Calling sin "sin" is (can be) noticeably different than judging people.  Perhaps that'll be a blog for another day (Matthew 7:1-5, John 7:24).  Loving people doesn't mean we allow anyone to pass laws protecting choices that God told us would make Him mad.  Remind this to your representatives and senators every chance you get (at least once a month).

The Bible is never criminal

The Bible must never be classified as hate speech or any other negative form by my country or my employer. A person's actions may or may not be appropriate in a given situation, but quoting the Bible with even a remotely honest intent to educate or remind people what it says should never, under any circumstance, ever be accepted (tolerated) as criminal.

Sound crazy that quoting the Bible could be responded to this way? It's already happening. Here are some results from a quick Google search (note, I didn't pick the wording in these titles):

• Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a 'Hate Crime' (2013)
• Man Arrested for Quoting Bible on Homosexual Sin (2013)
• The Bible as Hate Speech? Gays Win Big in Canada (2003)
• Street Preacher Arrested on Accusation He Made Homophobic Comments in London (2018)
• Preacher locked up for hate crime after quoting the Bible to gay teenager (2017)
• Minnesota Pastor: Mall Shook up (removed)
• 84-Year-Old Widow to Be Evicted for Bible Study (2019)

I'm fine with protecting people from persecution and related acts of discrimination. (Everyone deserves freedom and protection from persecution.) But telling someone how their choices (or their lifestyle) is characterized in the Bible, must never be outlawed, penalized, reverse discriminated, or otherwise officially condemned.

A person should never be required by law with threat of penalty to do something that is explicitly frowned upon by the official text of a long established world religion they unabashedly claim membership to. Similarly, a person should never be penalized for turning down a business opportunity because it would involve them in ways they don't want to be involved in something their religious text explicitly frowns upon, so long as it's an established world religion (as opposed to a religion we make up as we go to suit our ever-changing needs).

As a reminder, here's what the first amendment to the USA Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (source: archives.gov/founding-docs)

If we say for argument's sake the notion of "separation of church and state" (Wikipedia) was in our founding documents at all, then let's be clear what it would have meant. It would mean the church should not run the government. It would mean the current Pope (or some equivalent) should never be considered a government leader, and should not compete on legal issues with the President. No bishop, imam, priest, or other religious position should be considered a government official unless they go through the same process as everyone else. It would also mean the government shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the church. Neither the President, a congressman, judge, etc. should pretend to have influence over what the church teaches, if and when it teaches, nor what it means to be an honest person of faith. The reason this separation would exist is two-fold:

1. All too often in human history we have blurred the lines and put religious leaders in seats of political power, or likewise, political leaders claimed religious power (thought police/ political correct police). Separating church and state isn't meant to make either subordinate to the other, it's meant to keep them distinct, and it's absolutely not a pretension that we can have freedom from religion. Everyone has religion, even atheists.
2. To prevent non-Christians who happen to get in political power (whether executive, legislative, or judicial) from doing exactly what some are attempting to do right now: criminalize Christianity (beginning with but not limited to the Bible).

An extreme example of this would be that the government has the jurisdiction (in the eyes of man, if not the eyes of God) to pass a law that promotes/ protects/ rewards sin. But when there is a separation of church and state, that same government has no jurisdiction to tell Christians (or Jews or Muslims) that they cannot speak against that law and even against that sin, reminding the public (from their homes, over the internet, from the street corner, in their businesses, or from the pulpit) that the law is anti-Biblical, and what God has to say about that as revealed in the Bible. Similarly, in a nation with a separation of church and state, religious people don't have jurisdiction to take matters into their own hands and criminally penalize sinners, that's the government's job. Nothing says the two can't be informed by the other, but the church and state are distinct organizations that aren't supposed to bully each other.

By the way, the reason the provision of free speech was explicitly spelled out in the first amendment in the first place was to protect speech the government and the majority of the populace didn't like. Speech that is deliberately and obviously going to result in imminent physical injury or death, or exposes information that is legitimately confidential, is all we can justify censoring. (Though being justified is different than actually doing it.) This would not include quoting passages of any book that was written a great many years ago. Which ideas you listen to and agree with is up to you, but in a country that has freedom of speech written into its constitution, whether you silence any ideas is not.