April 27, 2016

From Gary... Give me the TRUTH!!!


Yesterday was a day of organization- for my Kindle. And among my efforts, one of the more important tasks was choosing the right dictionaries and encyclopedias.  Among the more unusual were slang, American Sign Language and idioms. But I never found a program that had a definition like this. 

Fact is, that this definition is fine for someone who wants to deceive themselves, but I prefer the truth- no matter how hard it is to swallow. WHY? One simple reason...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 10 (WEB)
 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands be careful that he doesn’t fall. 

Truth- THE TRUTH will get one to heaven. Nothing else. Face it!!!

From Roy Davison... What is the work of the church?


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/workofch.html

What is the work of the church?
In his letter to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2) Paul told the brethren to be “always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58). Christ is not satisfied with a congregation that does not work (Revelation 2:2-5; 3:2). To each of the seven churches of Asia He says: “I know your works” (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15).
Christ is the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23).
The church is guided by the word of God (2 Timothy 3:14-17). It is not a human institution with man-made rules. It is not free to do anything it wants.
In his letter to Timothy, Paul explained: “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14, 15). The Corinthian church needed to learn not to go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
The work of the church is done by its members.
The church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22, 23). “For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another” (Romans 12:4, 5).
Christians are always members of the body of Christ. All that we do is to be done in the name of the Lord (Colossians 3:17). Our whole lives are to be directed by the word of God. We are to present our bodies as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1).
In a sense, then, all that we do as Christians is being done by the church, the body of Christ. But not all that we do is done by a congregation. Some things are done individually and some things are done at the congregational level.
An individual Christian, for example, is free to place an ad in a newspaper offering to study the Scriptures with people. He does not have to ask anyone’s permission to do this if he is doing it in his own name, with his own address, and is paying for it himself.
He is not free, however, to do something in the name of a congregation without having been authorized by the congregation. He may not, for example, put the address of the congregation on his personal ad or expect the congregation to pay for it.
Things done in the name of a congregation must be authorized by the congregation.
This also applies to preachers. They are free to preach the gospel whenever and wherever they wish. But they may not do things, or incur expenses, in the name of a congregation that have not been authorized by the congregation.
Because all the work of the church is done by its members (either in their own name or in the name of a congregation) New Testament letters addressed to churches deal both with congregational matters and with the faith and activities of individual members.
A clear-cut distinction is not always made between individual and congregational responsibilities because in many cases they overlap. One must exercise discernment on the basis of the context to distinguish between what applies only to congregations or only to individuals, and what applies to both.
There is a distinction between individual and congregational activity.
Under the New Covenant, individual believers and congregations have certain tasks to perform. These tasks are often parallel, but sometimes they are distinct.
Christians as individuals have responsibilities that are different from the responsibilities of a congregation.
Individual Christians, for example, are to earn money to support themselves and their families (1 Thessalonians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 12; Ephesians 4:28). “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Lydia was a seller of purple (Acts 16:14). Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers (Acts 18:2).
A church of Christ, however, has not been authorized to go into business or to engage in commercial enterprises. This is not among its intended purposes.
Jesus condemned the money changers who had set up shop in the temple: “Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” but you have made it a “den of thieves”’” (Matthew 21:12, 13). Jesus objected to their dishonest practices, but also to the temple being used for something other than its intended purpose! This principle also applies to the church. It should not be used for unauthorized purposes.
Congregational resources result from free-will offerings on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 9:7) and from special contributions (Acts 4:34, 35). These resources may be used to accomplish all tasks God has given the local congregation.
Individuals administer their own resources. Referring to the land Ananias had sold, Peter said: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?” (Acts 5:4).
Congregational funds are administered by the elders: “Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29, 30).
Individuals are to care for their own relatives if possible, so the church will not be burdened. “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Timothy 5:4). “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Timothy 5:16).
What are the tasks of a local congregation?
The responsibilities God has given the church are so extensive and diverse that one must read the entire New Testament to get a complete picture.
Here are some of the main tasks of the local congregation:
1. The church is to assemble.
A congregation assembles on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:18, 26, 33; 14:23; Hebrews 10:25). It can also assemble for other purposes, for example, to pray all night for a brother in prison (Acts 12:5, 12) or to hear a report given by missionaries (Acts 14:27). Everything must be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40).
Of the Jerusalem congregation we read: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). This fellowship included association and helping one another: “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:44-47).
The believers came together both as a large group (in the temple) and in smaller groups (in homes). The expression ‘ate their food with gladness’ refers to regular meals, not to the Lord’s supper as in verse 42. They enjoyed being together and they enjoyed eating together.
Where a congregation is to meet is not specified. We read of congregations meeting in the temple at Jerusalem (Acts 2:26; 5:12), in an upper room (Acts 20:8); in someone’s home (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2), and in their own synagogue: “For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring...” (James 2:2). Many translations have ‘assembly’ for ‘synagogue’ here, but it is synagogue in Greek. In the New Testament the word usually refers to a meeting house. The construction ‘come into your synagogue’ suggests a building, as does the reference to seating arrangements. Compare with Mark 1:21; Luke 4:16; Acts 18:19; 19:8.
The commands to assemble and the above examples authorize a congregation to make arrangements for a place to meet. Since no specific instructions are given, they may use their judgment as to what is most suitable.
The place of meeting has no special meaning for Christians because under the New Covenant the believers themselves are the temple of God (1 Peter 2:4, 5).
When people have special rules about what may or may not be done in ‘the church building,’ such rules have no Scriptural foundation because as far as the Bible is concerned, ‘the church building’ does not exist as a defined entity. A congregation can just as easily meet in a field, under a tree, in a cave, or in someone’s home. What one may or may not do in the assembly is a Scriptural question, also what one may or may not do with congregational resources.
Discord is sometimes sown by people claiming that Christians may not eat a regular meal in a building that belongs to the church. To support this they usually appeal to Paul’s statement: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Corinthians 11:22). In that context, however, Paul is discussing a situation where the Lord’s table was being degraded to a regular meal. In the assembly it is indeed true that one may not have a regular meal rather than the Lord’s supper!
Paul himself ate in the meeting place at Troas. In Acts 20:7 the believers came together in an upper room on the first day of the week to break bread, which refers to the Lord’s supper. Paul preached until midnight. After he raised Eutychus from the dead, he went back upstairs. Then we read, “Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed” (Acts 20:11). This refers to a regular meal since it says only that ‘he’ ... ‘had broken bread and eaten’. If it referred to the Lord’s supper, it would have said when ‘they’ had broken bread and eaten. The informality of the situation makes it clear that this was not a part of the regular assembly “and talked a long while, even till daybreak.”
2. The church receives gifts from its members.
A collection is taken on the first day of the week. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2).
Some have suggested that these Christians were to lay something aside at home. This is not reasonable, however, because then a collection would still be required when Paul arrived, which he wanted to avoid. Also, why would it have to be on the first day of the week if it were not in the weekly assembly?
This instructs congregations to have a collection on the first day of the week and also to form a treasury from which needs can be met that are too large to be met by a one-time collection.
Notice that this was not a local arrangement. Paul commanded the churches in Galatia to do the same.
Special contributions can also be given: “Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34, 35).
A congregation may agree to give something in the future (2 Corinthians 9:5). A congregation may appoint a brother and give him letters to take a gift to its destination (1 Corinthians 16:3). One brother may be chosen for this by several congregations, and accountability should be maintained (2 Corinthians 8:18-23). Paul made these arrangements so no one could question his integrity in financial matters. In church finances, high accounting standards should be maintained, providing for what is honorable “not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Corinthians 8:21).
3. The church is to preach the gospel.
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature’” (Mark 16:15).
Although these words were spoken to the apostles, they apply to all believers collectively. No single congregation or individual can accomplish this alone. Each Christian and each congregation participates according to opportunity and ability. Together we obey the command.
Some have claimed that these words do not apply to them since they were spoken to the apostles. But Jesus’ statement in Matthew 28:20, “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” shows that the command was for all Christians of all ages.
Exactly how the gospel is to be preached, is not said. Thus Christians and congregations may decide within the framework of God’s word how they will carry out this assignment. They are free, for example, to go on foot, by boat, by train, or by airplane, because they have the general command to go.
They also make use of available means of proclamation (sermons, tracts, newspapers, radio, TV, Internet) because they have been given the general command to preach.
They preach both in their own vicinity and in other parts of the world. Some go and others support those who go (Romans 10:11-15).
Churches have an obligation to support preachers and missionaries (1 Corinthians 9:6-14; Philippians 4:15-18). When Paul preached at Corinth, he received support from the churches in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 11:8, 9), and he suggested that the church at Corinth might “help him on his way” at a later time (2 Corinthians 1:16).
Churches also sent men to serve Paul on their behalf (Acts 19:22; Philippians 2:25; Philemon 12-14).
4. The church is to teach disciples to observe all that Christ has commanded.
“Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20).
Although this was said to the apostles, it is a general assignment for all believers and all congregations of all times (“to the end of the age”).
Christ gave apostles and prophets in the first century as a foundation for the church (Ephesians 2:20) and evangelists, elders and teachers for all times to build up the church (Ephesians 4:11-16). There can be several brethren in one congregation who are teachers (Acts 13:1). Not everyone is a teacher in this sense (James 3:1). Elders and teachers can be supported (1 Timothy 5:17, 18; Galatians 6:6).
Teaching disciples to observe all that Christ has commanded includes combating false doctrine (Ephesians 4:14; Titus 1:9). When false teachers from Judea came to Antioch, the church sent Paul and Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to discuss the problem (Acts 15:1-4).
A congregation can send someone to help build up a congregation in another place (Acts 11:22).
Although each congregation has its own responsibility, evangelists sometimes give instruction in more than one congregation. Titus taught several congregations on Crete (Titus 1:12-14; 2:6, 8, 15; 3:1, 2, 8). This does not mean that Titus exercised authority over these congregations, as is sometimes claimed, but simply that he provided instruction in more than one congregation.
To teach disciples to observe all that Christ has commanded, each congregation will have a program of instruction according to their needs, abilities and opportunities.
Exactly how the instruction is organized is not prescribed. Such details may be decided by each congregation according to their own circumstances.
Many congregations, for example, have special classes for children of various ages, for women, to train men for leadership, and such-like.
A new Christian must be fed with ‘milk’ until he is able to digest ‘solid food’. “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able” (1 Corinthians 3:1, 2). “However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age” (1 Corinthians 2:6).
In time, Christians are to advance in knowledge. The Hebrews were reprimanded because they had not grown: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14).
To fill the need for advanced instruction, some congregations set up a program of concentrated or even full-time Bible study with teachers from their own congregation and teachers who are invited from other congregations. The instruction is given to people in the area, some of whom may have moved there to study. A congregation is authorized to do this by the commission of Christ: “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) and the brethren who teach are authorized by Paul’s command to Timothy: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).
When some other congregation helps someone financially to attend a Bible study program, they are authorized by the same commands. They are helping him learn what Christ has commanded. They should of course be persuaded that the instruction given is sound (Titus 1:9).
A Bible study program may not be confused with a Christian school or a Christian camp. Although they also teach Bible classes, they provide general education and recreation as well, which are not among the intended purposes of the church. Christian schools and camps should be supported by individual Christians rather than congregations.
5. The church is to do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
In connection with the gift collected by the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2) Paul says they shared with the saints and with all men. “For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men” (2 Corinthians 9:12, 13).
In the letter “To the churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2) Paul wrote: “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:9, 10).
In the second letter “To the church of the Thessalonians” (2 Thessalonians 1:1) Paul wrote: “But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good” (2 Thessalonians 3:13).
Jesus is our example in this for He “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). One of His distinctive teachings is that we should do good to all men. “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). “And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same” (Luke 6:33).
This command to do good is to be carried out by a congregation according to its ability and opportunity. In the Scriptures we find several examples.
The church at Jerusalem (with more than 5000 members - Acts 4:4) distributed food daily to the widows (Acts 6:1-4). The church is to support older, godly widows, who have insufficient help from their own family (1 Timothy 5:3-16).
Congregations help brethren in other places who are in need because of famine (Acts 11:28-30; 1 Corinthians 8:1-4, 12-15; 9:12, 13; Romans 15:25-28; Acts 24:17). Such help is also given “to all men” (2 Corinthians 9:12, 13).
6. The church is to appoint elders and deacons.
After they had been “sought out” by the church (Acts 6:3), the apostles appointed seven men to take care of the daily distribution of food to the widows. The appointment of elders and deacons is done with the help of an evangelist (1 Timothy 3:1-15; Titus 1:5-9).
7. The church is to withdraw from Christians who are disorderly.
A congregation may not allow its members to bring reproach on the church by their conduct or by false teaching. After a loving attempt to bring the person to repentance, such a one must be excluded from the fellowship if he refuses to repent (Matthew 18:15-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 5, 13; Romans 16:17; 2 Corinthians 2:6).
A congregation can give letters of recommendation to traveling Christians to confirm that they may be accepted as fellow believers (2 Corinthians 3:1).
Summary
We have examined several tasks God has given the church. The church is to assemble for worship and for other suitable purposes. A collection is to be taken on the first day of the week and special contributions may be given. With the resources thus obtained, the gospel is to be preached and believers are to be edified. The church is to do good to all, especially to believers. The church is to appoint elders and deacons, and is to withdraw from the disorderly.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Jim McGuiggan... The Suffering Question


The Suffering Question

It would be a mistake to say that the world's great suffering must be answered adequately or everyone will become an atheist. That just isn't so! Believe it or not, it's a modern idea that wholesale suffering must mean there is no God. You only have to read through the Hebrew-Christian scriptures (and others as well) to see that down the centuries people lived with passionate faith in God (or gods) despite suffering. The Bible is filled with the "why?" question but the question is always addressed to God! It's never, "Since this is so you can't exist" and always, "You exist and your reputation is that you care for us so why is this happening?"
Of course even that is something of an overstatement because sometimes the prophets knew exactly why the peoples were suffering. "We have sinned and you have turned your face from us," they will often say. But that's only one face of suffering in the Bible because we find "undeserved" suffering recorded all over the place.
In life as in scripture we find blessing and curse, pain and pleasure sitting side by side. It isn't all pain and it isn't all pleasure. So while it's a nonsense (and anti-Christ as we can see from Matthew 25) to ignore or airily dismiss all the agony it's a serious mistake for the heart and head to ignore all the wonder and loveliness and blessing.
What if it's true that there is a cosmic "power" that Christians call sin that God is redeeming us from? What if there is something beyond the physical that makes sense of all suffering (undeserved and deserved)? What if the fully developed complex biblical Story is true and that the suffering of the innocent (like the suffering of Jesus Christ) is part of God's redeeming work? What if the completion of that holy, gracious and glorious purpose is so grand and glorious that it makes all the pain worth it? What if in this case "the end justifies the means"? What if even the worm that bores into the eye of a little child serves a purpose so marvellous that God himself had to come in Jesus Christ to tell us about it? What if all these parasites and all this trouble are part of a great tragedy involving both God and us? What if this a tragedy that he is working to serve his own holy and gracious purpose? A purpose which is to bless the cosmos and save us from our sin as well as our suffering and to bring us to eternal life that is brimful of life?
(You might find Celebrating the Wrath of God helpful.)
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Does God Dwell in Light or Darkness? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2659&b=Psalms

Does God Dwell in Light or Darkness?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the February 12, 2009 Butt/Barker Debate on the existence of the God of the Bible, atheist Dan Barker spent nearly two-thirds of his opening 15-minute speech alleging that the Bible’s portrayal of God is contradictory. Barker alleged several discrepancies (most all of which we have answered elsewhere on our Web site), including that God cannot logically dwell in light and darkness. Twelve minutes and five seconds into his first speech, Dan Barker asserted:
Does God live in light or does God live in darkness? First Timothy 6: “The King of kings, Lord of Lords dwelling in the light which no man can approach.” James 1:17: He’s “the Father of lights” and on and on we see God is light. There’s no darkness in him at all. However, in 1 Kings 8: “Then spake Solomon: “The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.” First Samuel 22: “He made darkness pavilions round about Him, dark waters and thick clouds of the sky.” Psalm 18:11: “He made darkness his secret place.” So, God lives in light. God lives in darkness.
Do these verses paint a contradictory picture of God? Not at all.
First, the Bible uses the terms “light” and “darkness” in several ways and in a variety of contexts. God’s dwelling place in the spiritual realm of the heaven of heavens is filled with “unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16), because His unrestrained glory illuminates it (Revelation 21:23). God made light in the physical Universe during the six-day Creation and “called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night” (Genesis 1:5). He made the Sun, Moon, and stars on day four of Creation, thus making Him the “Father of lights” (James 1:17). Jesus was miraculously transfigured before three of His apostles and “His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2). The psalmist referred to light in the sense of divine instruction: “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (119:130). Conversely, the psalmist referred to those who “do not know, nor...understand,” as those who “walk about in darkness” (82:5). While addressing the subjects of sin and righteousness, the apostle John used the terms light and darkness symbolically: “God is light (i.e., holy) and in Him is no darkness (i.e., sin)” (1 John 1:5). This same apostle referred to Jesus as “the Light” throughout his gospel account (1:4-9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:34-36,46), and Matthew recorded that Jesus spoke of His disciples as “the light of the world” (5:14-16), reflectors of His righteousness.
Notice that Barker never hinted at the different ways in which the word “light” and “darkness” are used in Scripture. He simply positioned a phrase like that found in James 1:17 regarding God being the Creator (“Father”) of lights against the poetic statement found in Psalm 18:11 (“He made darkness his secret place”) and expected his listeners to believe they are contradictory. But the fact is, God being the Father of the Sun, Moon, and stars made on day four, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether God dwells in darkness or light. What God has created and where God dwells are two different things. One cannot fault Scripture when a critic compares apples and oranges. For there to be a legitimate contradiction, the same thing must be under consideration.
Second, the passage in 1 Kings 8:12 that Barker noted (“The Lord said that he would dwell in thick darkness”—KJV) is not discussing God’s dwelling place in the heaven of heavens. First Kings 8:12-13, along with 2 Chronicles 5:13-14, discuss God’s presence in the physical temple of God in Jerusalem. Just as “the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” in the days of Moses (Exodus 40:34), so “the house of the Lord [the temple], was filled with a cloud” (2 Chronicles 5:13). Similarly, the highly poetic wording in Psalm 18 and 1 Samuel 22 (a quotation of Psalm 18) pictures God, not on His majestic, glorious throne in heaven, but as One Who “came down” from heaven (Psalm 18:9), “flew upon the wings of the wind” (18:10), and delivered his servant David from his enemies while making “darkness His secret place” and “His canopy...dark waters” (18:11). As H.C. Leupold commented:
The picture is that of a violent storm—a figure so frequently used in the Scriptures to furnish the accompaniment of God’s approach, He Himself being as it were housed in the storm. From the time of Sinai onward these figures become standard (cf. Exod. 19:16-18; Judg. 5:4,5; Ps. 68:7;77:16-18; Is. 29:6; 30:27ff.; etc.). As the storm sweeps near, He is in it. The thick storm clouds are the material upon which He rides (1959, pp. 166-167).
Once again, when a person takes the time to carefully inspect Dan Barker’s allegation that the Bible paints a contradictory picture of God, the sincere truth seeker will discover the vacuousness of his charges. Time and again, both in his debate with Kyle Butt on the existence of the God of the Bible and in his writings, Barker has disregarded the fact that for a legitimate contradiction to exist, one must be referring to the same person, place, or thing, at the same time, in the same sense (for more information, see Lyons, 2003 and 2005).
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Leupold, H.C. (1959), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lyons, Eric (2003), The Anvil Rings: Volume 1 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2005), The Anvil Rings: Volume 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Did John the Baptizer Know Jesus or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1599&b=Matthew

Did John the Baptizer Know Jesus or Not?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Early on in Jesus’ ministry, John the Baptizer made one of the most beautiful and powerful declarations in all of Holy Writ about Jesus of Nazareth: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Following this glorious, redemptive statement, however, John makes two claims that have been problematic for some. He said about Jesus:
I did not know Him [previously—EL] but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water…. I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’” (1:31-33, emp. added).
Some wonder how John could not have known Jesus, if (1) he was a relative of the Messiah (Luke 1:36,57-60), and (2) he tried to deter Jesus from letting him baptize Him, saying “I need to be baptized by You, and You are coming to me?” (Matthew 3:14). Why would John say this if he did not already know Who Jesus was? Furthermore, why did John send disciples later in his ministry to ask Jesus, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3, emp. added)? Did John the Baptizer know Jesus or not?
First, simply because Jesus and John’s mothers (Mary and Elizabeth) were relatives (Luke 1:36; see Lyons, 2008) does not necessarily mean that John had ever met Jesus prior to baptizing Him. I have first and second cousins that I never recall meeting, though I have heard my parents talk about them for many years. Just because people are related doesn’t mean they “know” each other. What’s more, when John “grew and became strong in spirit,” he was “in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80, emp. added). Thus, John may have never met Jesus prior to His baptism. But, this does not mean he did not know various things about Jesus.
John obviously knew something about Jesus, or he would not have been hesitant to baptize Him. To “not know” Jesus then, likely had much more to do with not knowing him “officially, as the Messiah” (Vincent, 1997), than anything else. John seemed to believe that Jesus was the Messiah already, but, as J.W. McGarvey noted, “he did not know it” (n.d., p. 107).
His language to the people shows this (John i.26). Many of the people must have known Jesus, but none of them knew him to be the Messiah. Moreover, when John denied that he knew Jesus as Messiah we must not take it that he was ignorant of the past history of Jesus. No doubt he knew in a general way who Jesus was; but as the official forerunner and announcer of Jesus, and as the heaven-sent witness (John i.6,7), it was necessary that the Baptist should receive, by personal revelation from God, as here stated, an indubitable, absolute knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus. Without this, John would not have been truly qualified as a witness. That Jesus is the Son of God must not rest on hearsay evidence. John kept silent till he could testify of his own knowledge (McGarvey, n.d., 107, emp. added).
Still, since it was “officially” declared to John at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry that He was “the Son of God” (John 1:34), many wonder why (much later) John sent disciples to ask Jesus, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). Why would John ask this question if he already knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God? Is this not contradictory as skeptics allege (cf. McKinsey, 2000, p. 73)?
By supposing that John’s question to Jesus later in His ministry (Matthew 11:3) is somehow a discrepancy, skeptics unjustifiably assume two things. First, they assume that all questions are asked in order to obtain knowledge. But that simply is not the case (see Lyons, 2009). Questions can be asked for a variety of reasons. They may be asked to awaken someone’s slumbering conscience (e.g., “Did you do that?”). They may be asked to bring attention to something (e.g., “What are you wearing?”). They may be asked for the benefit of others (e.g., “What is the right answer to this problem?”). Etc. The fact is, we cannot know for sure exactly why John sent disciples to ask Jesus this question, but there are legitimate possible explanations that exonerate John and the Bible writers.
Skeptics also assume that John’s faith never wavered. They fail to recognize (or accept) that, like other great men of faith who occasionally had doubts (e.g., Moses, Gideon, Peter, etc.), John may have asked this question to Jesus out of momentary unbelief. McGarvey appropriately reminded us that John’s “wild, free life was now curbed by the irksome tedium of confinement…. Moreover, he held no communion with the private life of Jesus, and entered not into the sanctuary of his Lord’s thought. We must remember also that his inspiration passed away with the ministry, on account of which it was bestowed, and it was only the man John, and not the prophet, who made the inquiry” (p. 279, ital. in orig.). John may also have wondered why, if Jesus was a worker of all manner of miracles, was he still in prison. Could Jesus not rescue His forerunner? Could He not save him from the sword of Herod? Jesus’ response to John: “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (Matthew 11:6). John (or John’s disciples) may have needed to be reminded to stay the course, even if they did not understand all of the reasons why certain things happened the way they did (cf. Job 13:15). Whether having a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7) or suffering distressing imprisonment, God’s grace is sufficient. His “strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Even when, yes, especially when, we are suffering, Jesus reminds His servants, “Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”
Did John the Baptizer know Jesus? Certainly he did. The statements John made that some consider conflicting have simply been misunderstood. John came to know Jesus officially as the Son of God when he baptized Him. John declared this Heaven-approved message throughout his ministry. Though John’s faith in the Coming One may have wavered momentarily during his imprisonment, such questioning by the prophet is in no way evidence of discrepancy. Remember: the Bible writers penned a flawless, inspired book (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. John 10:35), which includes brief accounts of many faithful, but imperfect, men. Though “among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11), even he was not perfect.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2008), “How Were Mary and Elizabeth Related?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=2532.
Lyons, Eric (2009), “Does God Really Know Everything?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=787.
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1610

Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

There is a right way to rear children, and there is a wrong way. Abraham chose the right way. He commanded his children to “keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19, emp. added). Some 2,000 years later, the inspired apostle Paul made sure to tell the Ephesians to bring their children up “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, emp. added). The Lord’s way is the right way (Psalm 119:75). The right way includes diligently teaching young people to be (among other things) sensible, modest, discreet, and chaste (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). It also includes warning today’s youth of the dangerous works of the flesh, including the impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions (Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 13:13).
Sadly, the instruction of children in the ways “of the Lord” has diminished significantly in America, and yes, even in the Lord’s Church. Consequently, as the ways of the Lord are forgotten, many are promoting and partaking in the heartbreaking sexualization of children. Though many adults in this country will condemn (and rightly so) pedophilia, child pornography, etc., many of these same individuals have contributed to the sexualizing of children. It may start very young when parents purchase their four-year-old daughters baby dolls that look more like the seductress harlot described in Proverbs 7 than an innocent little bundle of joy. Some of the Bratz Babyz manufactured by MGA Entertainment, for example, sell dolls wearing midriff tops, mini skirts, tiny bikinis, and sparkly panties. The dolls are painted to look more like a seductive, grown woman—with large, glossy lips, and long, painted eyelashes. One manufacturing company a few years ago went so far as to make a “Pole Dance” doll. So outrageous was this product that evenThe Huffington Post ran a story titled “The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010). Number one on the list was the “Pole Dance” doll, which had on it’s box keywords such as “Flash,” and “Up and Down”—words that The Huffington Post said “sound like they were written by the happiest pedophile in playland.”
What seems to be contributing even more to the sexualization of children in America are the clothes that retail stores are selling—that parents are purchasing. Livescience.com published a story in 2011 about a study regarding children’s clothing (toddlers to pre-teen children) from 15 national retail stores. The researchers found that of the 5,666 items of clothing that were reviewed, “31 percent had sexualizing features” (i.e., “they revealed or emphasized a sexualized body part such as the chest or buttocks and…had sexy characteristics such as slinky material;” Pappas, 2011, emp. added). Add to this the skin-tight, short shorts that retailers sell and that parents buy, and the problem is compounded. Parents, you might be contributing to the sexualizing of your own children (1) if your daughter’s shirts are longer than her shorts, (2) if your daughter’s shorts are tighter and shorter than a pair of boxer briefs, or (3) if the pockets of your daughter’s shorts hang lower than the shorts themselves.
Some parents have even taken this a step further, by entering their young, innocent daughters (some as young as three years old) into beauty pageants that reward young girls for dressing and acting like anything but the modest and discreet girls the Lord desires parents to rear (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). Some mothers and fathers accessorize their five- and six-year-old daughters with spray tans, hair extensions, and fake eyelashes and fingernails. Some even remove the hair from their prepubescent bodies, followed by a layer of make-up that might give Dolly Parton a run for her money. It is as if the parents are trying to turn their daughters into the previously mentioned, sexualized Bratz Babyz dolls. Promoting this behavior is the exact opposite of teaching the important value to young ladies that “charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30).
These little girls, who in many ways are made to look more like grown women, are then paraded in front of an audience like eye candy. They are asked to sing and dance and take people’s breath away. I recently saw a clip of a talk show where one woman was critical of the pageants, saying, “You said it’s not sexualizing the kids…and there is nothing mature about the performance. Yet one of the little ones is shaking her backside, shaking her booty, and she said so.” One mother’s sad defense: “What does that have to do [with anything]? That’s having fun” (emp. added). Another defensive mother added: “If people are looking at a child in a sexy way, then there’s something wrong with them” (“Toddlers…,” 2011). Perhaps, but when a mother intentionally makes her five-year-old look, act, talk, flirt, and dance like a harlot, we should not be surprised that some men will find this satisfying to their sexual senses. In fact, one woman responded to the show on-line, saying, “When you dress a child up like a [prostitute], have her act like one, shaking her [bottom], etc., you are just asking for trouble. Every pedophile out there is watching getting their [thrills] at your child’s expense” (“Toddlers…,” 2011).
Only the naïve or the immoral will not admit to the obvious sexualization of children in America. It is so obvious that even liberal organizations such as The Huffington Post and Livescience.com recognize it. Question: Are you submitting to the Lord’s will to rear sensible, humble, modest, and discreet children who are letting their “Christian lights” shine? Are you teaching about the sinfulness and danger of impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions? Or, are you working hand in hand with Satan in the sexualizing of children by what you purchase and allow your own kids to wear?

REFERENCES

Pappas, Stephanie (2011), “30% of Girls Clothing is Sexualized in Major Sales Trent,”Livescience.com, May 20, http://www.livescience.com/14249-girls-clothing-sexualized.html.
“The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010), March 12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/the-7-most-inappropriate_n_286223.html.
“Toddlers & Tiaras’ Moms Defend Child Beauty Pageants” (2011), Anderson Live, October 19, http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/10/18/toddlers-and-tiaras-tlc-moms-defend-child-beauty-pageants/.

Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2784

Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers
by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

If it were not so serious, the situation would be comical. Every few months a media blitz raves about a new “half-and-half” creature that is unlike anything ever seen. Supposedly, tiny features about this novel beast give modern humans cutting-edge insights into how primate ancestors evolved into us. The incisors are larger or smaller than most apes, the cranium has a bigger (or smaller) capacity, the tiny toe bone fragments offer amazing information about how the creature walked on all fours most of the time, except when it was being chased by a specific kind of predator on Tuesdays in the Fall, the small scraps of finger bones tell us that the creature swung from branches for the majority of its life, except for brief periods of time when it descended to the ground to walk upright for elaborate mating rituals that occurred once every 10 years during the Summer equinox, etc. And we know all this from bone fragments that are supposedly millions of years old.
The troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no matter how many times creationists prove it to be false, and no matter how many times specific “creatures” like Piltdown Man, Lucy, or Ida are discredited, people continue to be shaken in their belief in the Bible by every “latest” find. With each new creature, frantic readers contact their favorite Christian apologists and demand that this new find must be answered within two days, or the Genesis account of creation is going to be jeopardized and its validity seriously compromised. It is as if the history of the numerous evolutionary foibles is forgotten by the masses every time the media adopts another evolutionary poster child.
The remedy to this is simple. Let us all stop, take a deep breath, and systematically go through a few of the reasons why the “latest find” is nothing more or less than all the other evolutionary “breakthroughs” that have gone before it. First, the entire concept of any life arising from non-living chemicals through random, evolutionary processes has been proven to be scientifically impossible (Thompson, 1989). Every legitimate experiment that has been done for the entirety of human history that has any bearing on the subject has shown that in the natural Universe, life comes only from previously existing life of its own kind. No research team has ever found an evolutionary link between humans and lower animals for the simple, yet profound reason, that evolution is impossible and humans could not evolve from lower life forms. Furthermore, specific human traits, such as consciousness, sexual reproduction, varying blood types, spoken language, and the complexity of the human brain, pose insurmountable barriers to the false theory of human evolution (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003).
Second, the dating methods that are used to render “accurate” dates of millions of years are fraught with irreconcilable difficulties that prove them to be useless (see DeYoung, 2005; Snelling, n.d.; Morris, 1994). In truth, the evolutionary community concocts whatever dates it wants, jettisons any that do not match its preconceived notions, and massages dates arbitrarily. Numerous fossil finds have supposedly added hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary time, even though the rejected time frame was “known” to be accurate (see Butt, 2005; Butt, 2006;Butt, 2008a). When an article begins with a statement like, “4.4 million years ago...,” it might as well be saying, “Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away....” Accurate dating methods that render dates in the millions do not exist.
Third, how many alleged human ancestors must be debunked before the world views these false evolutionary claims with appropriate incredulity. Chapters one and two of the Apologetics Press book The Truth About Human Origins deals definitively with Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man (2003). In addition, Hobbit Man has been debunked (see Harrub, 2004; Harrub, 2005) and “Lucy’s Baby” is no longer viable (see Harrub, 2006).
In more recent news, a lemur fossil named Ida was hailed as not just “a discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009), but the “most significant scientific discovery of recent times” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Some scientists claimed that it would “finally confirm irrefutablySir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, emp. added). Dr. Jens Lorenz Franzen of Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally, 2009), and confidently proclaimed: “When our results are published, it will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth” (“The Link”). Google was so enamored with the find that on May 20, 2009 the search engine mogul incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo. So what was all the hoopla about? “Our earliest ancestor,” of course (“The Link”). At least, that is what some evolutionists and their friends in the media were telling everyone, until these claims were reduced to ashes by opponents within the evolutionary camp (see Lyons and Butt, 2009;Lyons, 2009b; Butt, 2009).
Enter the most recent newcomer to the long list of evolutionary losers—Ardi. Just five months after Ida—“the most significant scientific discovery of recent times, the eighth wonder of the world, our earliest ancestor”—we are introduced to Ardi—“the closest we have ever come” to the common ancestor we allegedly share with chimps (see Schmid, 2009). Ardi supposedly takes human evolution back to 4.4 million years ago. It is hyped as so significant that the journalScience contains 11 papers on it in the October, 2009 edition. David Pilbeam boldly stated: “This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution” (as quoted in Schmid, 2009, emp. added). Sounds remarkably like the announcement of Ida. Sample said “experts have described the find as the most important regarding human evolution in the past century” (2009). Amazing how quickly the “eighth wonder of the world” was replaced by Ardi.
One of the ironies surrounding Ardi’s heralded success is that if the evolutionary community was right in 2001, then our newest Ardi is much less significant than an earlier Ardi. You see, in the July 23, 2001 issue of Time, staff writers Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorman introduced their readers to Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Supposedly, “Ardi” kadabba lived between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago, more than a million years before the current reigning media champion. Furthermore, kadabba allegedly evolved “very close to the time when humans and chimps first went their separate ways” (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 29-33). In addition, kadabba“almost certainly walked upright” according to the evolutionists who wrote about the find. We still have the bones of kadabba that were displayed in Time. So why are we not still hearing about this unprecedented evolutionary victory? For the simple reason that it is not the “Johnny-come-lately” that can generate media hype.
The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard, run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity and, more basically, a foundation of truth. Already, we are being treated to “qualifying” statements such as, “it may take years to confirm exactly where Ardi fits in the history of human evolution” (Sample, 2009). Yale paleontologist Andrew Hill said: “We thought Lucy was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn’t” (as quoted in Sample). Would that we could fast-forward a few years (or a few weeks as in Ida’s case) and see what discrediting remarks Ardi will elicit “in retrospect.” In addition, the stories being spun are already contradictory. For instance, Schmid says that Ardi’s anatomy shows that “the development of their arms and legs indicates that they didn’t spend much time in the trees” (2009, emp. added). While, on the other hand, Sample stated: “Though Ardi would have spent much of her time in the trees, her pelvis was adapted to walking upright...” (2009, emp. added).
In other places, we have documented admissions from evolutionists, showing examples of the fabrication and exaggeration so prevalent in the field of evolutionary paleontology (see Butt, 2008b; Lyons, 2009a). And a close look at paleontological efforts to find “human ancestors” offers some keen insight into why we are treated to a new “relative” every few months. After all, Ardi was discovered in 1992. Following the original find, “a total of 47 researchers then spent a further 15 years removing, preparing and studying each of the fragments” (Sample, 2009). Somehow the paleontological world must justify spending 705 man-years of research on Ardi. So instead of calling it what it truly is, an ape, they are forced to justify their prodigal, vain years of research by claiming that they have stumbled upon the latest, greatest “wonder of the world.” Oh, that thinking people would have the wisdom to view Ardi, and all similar outlandish evolutionary claims, in light of real scientific facts. How many Lucys, Hobbits, Piltdowns, Nebraskas, and Idas will it take for people to see what is happening here? Add Ardi to the ever-growing heap of dead-ends piled high in the mass grave of alleged human evolution.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2005), “Reconsideration of Many Long-standing Assumptions,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2769.
Butt, Kyle (2006), “One Little Beaver Demolishes a Hundred Million Years,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2878.
Butt, Kyle (2008a), “Complex Jellies Jump 200 Million Years,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3580.
Butt, Kyle (2008b), “‘So We Make Up Stories’ About Human Evolution,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3641.
Butt, Kyle (2009), “Following Up on a Messy, and Still Missing, Link,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240171.
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Harrub, Brad (2004), “Hobbit Heresy,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2641.
Harrub, Brad (2005), “Hobbit Hubbub,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/703.
Harrub, Brad (2006), “Lucy’s Baby?”.
Leonard, Tom (2009), “Scientists Unveil Stunning Fossil,” Telegraph, [On-line], URL:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5351315/Scientists-unveil-stunning-fossil.html.
“The Link” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.revealingthelink.com/.
Lyons, Eric (2009a), “Confessed Conjectures and Contradictions of Paleoartists,” [On-line],URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240213.
Lyons, Eric (2009b), “Ida, One More Time,” [On-line]: URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240233.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160.
Morris, John D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Sample, Ian (2009), “Fossil Ardi Reveals the First Steps of the Human Race,” The Guardian, [On-line], URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race.
Scally, Derek (2009), “Fossil Ida a Crucial Finding for the Understanding of Early Human Evolution,” Irish Times, May 21, [On-line], URL:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0521/1224247034331.html.
Schmid, Randolf (2009), “Before Lucy Came Ardi, New Earliest Hominid Found,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy.
Snelling, Andrew (no date), “The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks: Basalt Lava Flows in Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line],URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.

The Real Mary Magdalene by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1803


The Real Mary Magdalene

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The name “Mary” appears 54 times in the New Testament. There is Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:18), Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40), who is likely the same as the “other” Mary (Matthew 27:56,61; 28:1) and “the wife of Clopas” (John 19:25). Also mentioned are Mary of Bethany (John 11:1), Mary, the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12), and Mary of Rome (Romans 16:6). Obviously, Mary (Greek Maria or Mariam) was a popular name in New Testament times. It still is today (see “The Most Popular...,” 2006).
No Mary has been more popular in recent days, however, than Mary Magdalene. A plethora of new books feature her, including Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, which is based on the false notion that she gave birth to the heir of Christ, whose descendants supposedly survive to this day. Mary Magdalene, a name likely indicating affiliation with the Galilean city of Magdala (see “Mary,” 1986), has been the focus of talk shows, movies, books, magazines, and more. Sadly, modernists have greatly misunderstood, exaggerated, and distorted her role in the life of Jesus and the early church. The prevailing idea is that Mary Magdalene has finally been released from the male-dominated, “anti-sexual” religious world (see Carroll, 2006, 37[3]:119), and that the real Mary has finally been revealed. Is this true? Was Mary Magdalene Christ’s secret lover? Did she erotically wash His feet with her hair? Did she eventually become His wife and bear His child? Was she a former prostitute? Just who was Mary Magdalene, really?
Those who have heard only of the newly made-over Mary Magdalene might be disappointed to find that the real Mary of Magdala does not fit the modern-day, dramatized version. Mary Magdalene is mentioned a total of 12 times in the New Testament—the oldest historical record mentioning her name. All 12 occurrences appear in the gospel accounts, wherein we learn the following:
  • Jesus cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9).
  • She was one of many who provided for Jesus out of her own means (Luke 8:1-3).
  • She witnessed the crucifixion of Christ (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25).
  • She was present at His burial (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47).
  • She arrived at Jesus’ tomb on the Sunday following His crucifixion to find His body missing (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:1).
  • She saw the risen Lord, spoke with Him, and later reported the encounter to the apostles (Matthew 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
Where are the passages about her physical relationship with Christ? Where are the hints of erotic behavior? Where is the sexualized version of Mary Magdalene? In truth, the new version of Mary Magdalene is a figment of someone’s imagination.
First, the notion of Mary Magdalene being a former prostitute, apparently made popular as early as the sixth century by Pope Gregory I (see Van Biema, 2003), simply is unfounded. Luke did record an occasion during Jesus’ ministry when a woman “who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37, emp. added) and of poor reputation among the Pharisees (7:39) washed His feet with her tears and hair, and anointed them with oil (7:36-50). And, Luke did place this event in his gospel account just two verses before he introduces Mary Magdalene, “out of whom had come seven demons” (Luke 8:2). But Luke never specifically stated that the woman of disrepute was a prostitute, or that her name was Mary Magdalene. Other than the juxtaposition of the “sinner” at the close of Luke 7 and Mary at the commencement of Luke 8, no connection between the two women exists. What’s more, if one argues that the proximity of the two women is what links them together, one wonders why “Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others” (Luke 8:3) could not also be considered candidates, since they are mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.
Second, Scripture never hints that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married or romantically involved in any way. Did He exercise His power over demons by casting seven of them from her? Yes (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9). Did she (along with “many others”) financially support His ministry? Yes (Luke 8:2-3). Did she cling to Him momentarily following His resurrection? Yes (John 20:17). Was she a dedicated follower of Christ? From all that we can gather in the New Testament, we must assume that she was. Still, nothing in the Bible suggests that she was Jesus’ wife or secret lover.
Even the so-called Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), which unbelievers freely admit was not written until the second century A.D. (cf. Cockburn, 2006, 209[5]:88-89), says nothing about a sexual relationship with Christ. This non-inspired text does contend that Peter told Mary, “Sister, we know the savior loved you more than any other woman” (Meyer, 2005a, p. 38). Furthermore, in this text Levi described Jesus as loving Mary “more than us” (p. 41). Still, however, nothing sexual is mentioned. The New Testament records how Jesus “loved” Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (John 11:5); the Jews even marveled at His love for Lazarus (John 11:36). Mark wrote of how He “loved” the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21). And John repeatedly testified of one particular unnamed disciple whom “Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). [NOTE: Proof that this beloved disciple was not Mary Magdalene is found in John 20:2 where she spoke to Peter and the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2).] When we read the uninspired statements from The Gospel of Mary in light of the fact that the New Testament specifically states that Jesus loved certain individuals, one can see more clearly the lack of sexual overtones.
Anyone who has read Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is aware that his entire novel revolves around the alleged historical fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child together (2003, pp. 244-245). Brown bases his claim on the following brief statements from the non-inspired, gnostic Gospel of Philip, which apparently was penned during the second or third century (cf. Meyer, 2005b, p. 63; Isenberg, n.d.). [NOTE: Brackets indicate missing words.]
Three women always walked with the master: Mary his mother, [] sister, and Mary of Magdala, who is called his companion. For “Mary” is the name of his sister, his mother and his companion (Meyer, 2005b, p. 57).
The companion of the [] is Mary of Magdala. The [] her more than [] the disciples, [] kissed her often on her []. The other []...said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (Meyer, 2005b, p. 63).
Brown alleges that “any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse” (p. 246, emp. added). Thus, Mary Magdalene and Jesus must have been married, right? Wrong! The Gospel of Philip was not even written in Aramaic, but in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language. What’s more, the Coptic word for “companion” is synonymous with neither “wife” nor “spouse.” Ben Witherington III, writing in Biblical Archaeological Review, addressed this very point:
The word here for companion (koinonos) is actually a loan word from Greek and is neither a technical term nor a synonym for wife or spouse. It is true the term could be used to refer to a wife, since koinonos, like “companion,” is an umbrella term, but it does not specify this fact. There was another Greek word, gune, which would have made this clear. It is much more likely that koinonos here means “sister” in the spiritual sense since that is how it is used elsewhere in this sort of literature. In any case, this text does not clearly say or even suggest that Jesus was married, much less married to Mary Magdalene (2004, 30[3]:60).
How sad to think that millions of people have been deceived about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus because The Da Vinci Code’s fiction is consumed as historical fact.
One might assume that The Gospel of Philip hints at a sexual relationship between Mary and Jesus, since Brown alleges that it states Jesus “used to kiss her often on her mouth” (p. 248, emp. added). The word “mouth,” however, is not in the text. Several words are missing from the Coptic manuscript, including those that would designate where He allegedly kissed her. Perhaps the missing word is hand, head, cheek, or nose. When the woman of Luke 7 kissed Jesus’ feet, He responded by telling Simon, “You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in” (7:45). Jesus’ statement implied that even though the woman wept at His feet, washed them with her hair, anointed them with fragrant oil, and kissed them repeatedly (7:36-39), she did not act erotically. On the contrary, she honored Jesus with humble service and adoration, unlike Simon and the others.
Finally, if Jesus did kiss Mary Magdalene, as The Gospel of Philip alleges, it hardly would justify a case for marriage. This so-called “gospel” mentions elsewhere that the followers of Christ “also kiss each other” (Meyer, 2005b, p. 57). And, according to Scripture, Christians were in the habit of greeting “one another with a holy kiss” since the church began (Romans 16:16, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; see Miller, 2003). In short, kissing is not equivalent to marrying and having children.
Mary Magdalene apparently was a devout, faithful follower of Christ. Not a shred of solid biblical or extrabiblical evidence suggests she played the role of harlot, wife, mother, or secret lover. The New Testament, as the oldest, most reliable (and only inspired!) witness to her identity, testifies loudly and clearly about her genuine faithfulness to the Lord, and keeps silent about those things which twenty-first-century sensationalists allege. As in so many instances, we must learn to respect the Bible’s silence! And, there is a deafening silence concerning Mary Magdalene as our Lord’s wife or the mother of His child.

REFERENCES

Brown, Dan (2003), The Da Vinci Code (New York, NY: Doubleday).
Carroll, James (2006), “Who Was Mary Magdalene?,” Smithsonian, 37[3]:108-119, June.
Cockburn, Andrew (2006), “The Gospel of Judas,” National Geographic, 209[5]:78-95, May.
Isenberg, Wesley W. (no date), The Gospel of Philip, [On-line], URL: http://www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/philip.shtml.
“Mary” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Meyer, Marvin, ed. (2005a), The Gospel of Mary, in The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco).
Meyer, Marvin, ed. (2005b), The Gospel of Philip, in The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2322.
“The Most Popular Names Chosen for Baby Boys and Girls over the Past 120 Years” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.thenewparentsguide.com/most-popular-baby-names.htm.
Van Biema, David (2003), “Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner,” Time, 162[6]: August 11, [On-line],URL: http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html.
Witherington, Ben (2004), “Reviews,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 30[3]:58-61, May/June.