November 3, 2016

The heart first by Gary Rose


Christians are to be different from the world; we are to be like Christ. We are to have his heart, his attitudes and his commitment to others. Our first priority is following Jesus. This requires a major lifestyle change.
Interested? Read on...
Ephesians, Chapter 4 (World English Bible)
    Eph 4:15, but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ;
    Eph 4:16, from whom all the body, being fitted and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in measure of each individual part, makes the body increase to the building up of itself in love.
    Eph 4:17, This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
    Eph 4:18, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts;
    Eph 4:19, who having become callous gave themselves up to lust, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
    Eph 4:20, But you did not learn Christ that way;
    Eph 4:21, if indeed you heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:
    Eph 4:22, that you put away, as concerning your former way of life, the old man, that grows corrupt after the lusts of deceit;
    Eph 4:23, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
    Eph 4:24, and put on the new man, who in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.
    Eph 4:25, Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak truth each one with his neighbor. For we are members of one another.
    Eph 4:26, ”Be angry, and don’t sin.”* Don’t let the sun go down on your wrath,
    Eph 4:27, neither give place to the devil.
    Eph 4:28, Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need.
    Eph 4:29, Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for building up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.
    Eph 4:30, Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
    Eph 4:31, Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, outcry, and slander, be put away from you, with all malice.
    Eph 4:32, And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God also in Christ forgave you. (emp. added, GDR)


The things listed here are not easy, but they are the highest standard I know about. If you haven't mastered them all yet- not to worry; concentrate on where your heart is!!! The rest will follow. After all, a disciple is being a learner. BE ONE; IT IS THE STUFF OF COURAGE!!!

Bible Reading November 3 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  November 3 (World English Bible)

Nov. 3
Isaiah 29-32

Isa 29:1 Woe to Ariel! Ariel, the city where David encamped! Add year to year; let the feasts come around;
Isa 29:2 then I will distress Ariel, and there will be mourning and lamentation. She shall be to me as an altar hearth.
Isa 29:3 I will encamp against you all around you, and will lay siege against you with posted troops. I will raise siege works against you.
Isa 29:4 You will be brought down, and will speak out of the ground. Your speech will mumble out of the dust. Your voice will be as of one who has a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and your speech will whisper out of the dust.
Isa 29:5 But the multitude of your foes will be like fine dust, and the multitude of the ruthless ones like chaff that blows away. Yes, it will be in an instant, suddenly.
Isa 29:6 She will be visited by Yahweh of Armies with thunder, with earthquake, with great noise, with whirlwind and storm, and with the flame of a devouring fire.
Isa 29:7 The multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all who fight against her and her stronghold, and who distress her, will be like a dream, a vision of the night.
Isa 29:8 It will be like when a hungry man dreams, and behold, he eats; but he awakes, and his hunger isn't satisfied; or like when a thirsty man dreams, and behold, he drinks; but he awakes, and behold, he is faint, and he is still thirsty. The multitude of all the nations that fight against Mount Zion will be like that.
Isa 29:9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
Isa 29:10 For Yahweh has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes, the prophets; and he has covered your heads, the seers.
Isa 29:11 All vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is educated, saying, "Read this, please;" and he says, "I can't, for it is sealed:"
Isa 29:12 and the book is delivered to one who is not educated, saying, "Read this, please;" and he says, "I can't read."
Isa 29:13 The Lord said, "Because this people draws near with their mouth and with their lips to honor me, but they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught;
Isa 29:14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and the understanding of their prudent men will be hidden."
Isa 29:15 Woe to those who deeply hide their counsel from Yahweh, and whose works are in the dark, and who say, "Who sees us?" and "Who knows us?"
Isa 29:16 You turn things upside down! Should the potter be thought to be like clay; that the thing made should say about him who made it, "He didn't make me;" or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding?"
Isa 29:17 Isn't it yet a very little while, and Lebanon will be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field will be regarded as a forest?
Isa 29:18 In that day, the deaf will hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind will see out of obscurity and out of darkness.
Isa 29:19 The humble also will increase their joy in Yahweh, and the poor among men will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 29:20 For the ruthless is brought to nothing, and the scoffer ceases, and all those who are alert to do evil are cut off--
Isa 29:21 who cause a person to be indicted by a word, and lay a snare for the arbiter in the gate, and who deprive the innocent of justice with false testimony.
Isa 29:22 Therefore thus says Yahweh, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: "Jacob shall no longer be ashamed, neither shall his face grow pale.
Isa 29:23 But when he sees his children, the work of my hands, in the midst of him, they will sanctify my name. Yes, they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Isa 29:24 They also who err in spirit will come to understanding, and those who grumble will receive instruction."

Isa 30:1 "Woe to the rebellious children," says Yahweh, "who take counsel, but not from me; and who make an alliance, but not with my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin,
Isa 30:2 who set out to go down into Egypt, and have not asked my advice; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt!
Isa 30:3 Therefore the strength of Pharaoh will be your shame, and the refuge in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.
Isa 30:4 For their princes are at Zoan, and their ambassadors have come to Hanes.
Isa 30:5 They shall all be ashamed because of a people that can't profit them, that are not a help nor profit, but a shame, and also a reproach."
Isa 30:6 The burden of the animals of the South. Through the land of trouble and anguish, of the lioness and the lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they carry their riches on the shoulders of young donkeys, and their treasures on the humps of camels, to an unprofitable people.
Isa 30:7 For Egypt helps in vain, and to no purpose; therefore have I called her Rahab who sits still.
Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever.
Isa 30:9 For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of Yahweh;
Isa 30:10 who tell the seers, "Don't see!" and to the prophets, "Don't prophesy to us right things. Tell us pleasant things. Prophesy deceits.
Isa 30:11 Get out of the way. Turn aside from the path. Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us."
Isa 30:12 Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel, "Because you despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and rely on it;
Isa 30:13 therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking comes suddenly in an instant.
Isa 30:14 He will break it as a potter's vessel is broken, breaking it in pieces without sparing, so that there won't be found among the broken piece a piece good enough to take fire from the hearth, or to dip up water out of the cistern."
Isa 30:15 For thus said the Lord Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, "You will be saved in returning and rest. Your strength will be in quietness and in confidence." You refused,
Isa 30:16 but you said, "No, for we will flee on horses;" therefore you will flee; and, "We will ride on the swift;" therefore those who pursue you will be swift.
Isa 30:17 One thousand will flee at the threat of one. At the threat of five, you will flee until you are left like a beacon on the top of a mountain, and like a banner on a hill.
Isa 30:18 Therefore Yahweh will wait, that he may be gracious to you; and therefore he will be exalted, that he may have mercy on you, for Yahweh is a God of justice. Blessed are all those who wait for him.
Isa 30:19 For the people will dwell in Zion at Jerusalem. You will weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry. When he hears you, he will answer you.
Isa 30:20 Though the Lord may give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your teachers won't be hidden anymore, but your eyes will see your teachers;
Isa 30:21 and when you turn to the right hand, and when you turn to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, "This is the way. Walk in it."
Isa 30:22 You shall defile the overlaying of your engraved images of silver, and the plating of your molten images of gold. You shall cast them away as an unclean thing. You shall tell it, "Go away!"
Isa 30:23 He will give the rain for your seed, with which you will sow the ground; and bread of the increase of the ground will be rich and plentiful. In that day, your livestock will feed in large pastures.
Isa 30:24 The oxen likewise and the young donkeys that till the ground will eat savory provender, which has been winnowed with the shovel and with the fork.
Isa 30:25 There shall be brooks and streams of water on every lofty mountain and on every high hill in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.
Isa 30:26 Moreover the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven days, in the day that Yahweh binds up the fracture of his people, and heals the wound they were struck with.
Isa 30:27 Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from far away, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke. His lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is as a devouring fire.
Isa 30:28 His breath is as an overflowing stream that reaches even to the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction; and a bridle that leads to ruin will be in the jaws of the peoples.
Isa 30:29 You will have a song, as in the night when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one goes with a flute to come to Yahweh's mountain, to Israel's Rock.
Isa 30:30 Yahweh will cause his glorious voice to be heard, and will show the descent of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and the flame of a devouring fire, with a blast, storm, and hailstones.
Isa 30:31 For through the voice of Yahweh the Assyrian will be dismayed. He will strike him with his rod.
Isa 30:32 Every stroke of the rod of punishment, which Yahweh will lay on him, will be with the sound of tambourines and harps. He will fight with them in battles, brandishing weapons.
Isa 30:33 For his burning place has long been ready. Yes, for the king it is made ready. He has made its pyre deep and large with fire and much wood. Yahweh's breath, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it.

Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they don't look to the Holy One of Israel, and they don't seek Yahweh!
Isa 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring disaster, and will not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of those who work iniquity.
Isa 31:3 Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When Yahweh stretches out his hand, both he who helps shall stumble, and he who is helped shall fall, and they all shall be consumed together.
Isa 31:4 For thus says Yahweh to me, "As the lion and the young lion growling over his prey, if a multitude of shepherds is called together against him, will not be dismayed at their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them, so Yahweh of Armies will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its heights.
Isa 31:5 As birds hovering, so Yahweh of Armies will protect Jerusalem. He will protect and deliver it. He will pass over and preserve it."
Isa 31:6 Return to him from whom you have deeply revolted, children of Israel.
Isa 31:7 For in that day everyone shall cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold--sin which your own hands have made for you.
Isa 31:8 "The Assyrian will fall by the sword, not of man; and the sword, not of mankind, shall devour him. He will flee from the sword, and his young men will become subject to forced labor.
Isa 31:9 His rock will pass away by reason of terror, and his princes will be afraid of the banner," says Yahweh, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.

Isa 32:1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in justice.
Isa 32:2 A man shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the storm, as streams of water in a dry place, as the shade of a large rock in a weary land.
Isa 32:3 The eyes of those who see will not be dim, and the ears of those who hear will listen.
Isa 32:4 The heart of the rash will understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers will be ready to speak plainly.
Isa 32:5 The fool will no longer be called noble, nor the scoundrel be highly respected.
Isa 32:6 For the fool will speak folly, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice profanity, and to utter error against Yahweh, To make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
Isa 32:7 The ways of the scoundrel are evil. He devises wicked devices to destroy the humble with lying words, even when the needy speaks right.
Isa 32:8 But the noble devises noble things; and he will continue in noble things.
Isa 32:9 Rise up, you women who are at ease! Hear my voice! You careless daughters, give ear to my speech!
Isa 32:10 For days beyond a year you will be troubled, you careless women; for the vintage shall fail. The harvest won't come.
Isa 32:11 Tremble, you women who are at ease! Be troubled, you careless ones! Strip yourselves, make yourselves naked, and put sackcloth on your waist.
Isa 32:12 Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.
Isa 32:13 Thorns and briars will come up on my people's land; yes, on all the houses of joy in the joyous city.
Isa 32:14 For the palace will be forsaken. The populous city will be deserted. The hill and the watchtower will be for dens forever, a delight for wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks;
Isa 32:15 Until the Spirit is poured on us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is considered a forest.
Isa 32:16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness; and righteousness will remain in the fruitful field.
Isa 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence forever.
Isa 32:18 My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in safe dwellings, and in quiet resting places.
Isa 32:19 Though hail flattens the forest, and the city is leveled completely.
Isa 32:20 Blessed are you who sow beside all waters, who send out the feet of the ox and the donkey.

 

Nov. 3
1 Timothy 3

1Ti 3:1 This is a faithful saying: if a man seeks the office of an overseer, he desires a good work.
1Ti 3:2 The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;
1Ti 3:3 not a drinker, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man doesn't know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of God?)
1Ti 3:6 not a new convert, lest being puffed up he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have good testimony from those who are outside, to avoid falling into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Servants, in the same way, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for money;
1Ti 3:9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 Let them also first be tested; then let them serve if they are blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives in the same way must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let servants be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who have served well gain for themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 3:14 These things I write to you, hoping to come to you shortly;
1Ti 3:15 but if I wait long, that you may know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1Ti 3:16 Without controversy, the mystery of godliness is great: God was revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, and received up in glory.

What unseen things are eternal? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/En02JC-EternalThings.html
“Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever”
(Hebrews 13:8).

What unseen things are eternal?

“We do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).

There is a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The physical realm is finite. The universe had a beginning and will have an end. The spiritual realm is infinite.

Science deals with the physical realm. Philosophy and religion deal with the spiritual realm.

Philosophically, if something exists now, something must have always existed. According to scientific observations, the physical realm has not always existed. Thus, it must be something spiritual that has always existed.

Intelligence is the most exalted phenomenon we observe. The intelligence of one person is more amazing than all the physical things of the universe combined. Thus to conclude that an intelligent, Spiritual Being has always existed, is logical and consistent with scientific observations and philosophical principles.

Paul's statement that “the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18) is scientifically and philosophically sound.

What unseen things are eternal? First, and foremost:


God is eternal.

Moses was raised by Pharaoh's daughter and had access to all the wealth of Egypt. Yet, beyond the vanity of visible things, he saw the Unseen God: “By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible” (Hebrews 11:24-27).

How could Moses 'see' the unseen God? The same way all men and women of faith are conscious of God's presence. God has made Himself known. Paul explains: “What may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful” (Romans 1:19-21).

The story is told of an atheist who sneeringly asked a little girl if she believed in God. When she replied that she did, he said: “I'll give you a euro if you can show me where God is.” She replied, “Sir, I'll give you 5 euros if you can show me where God isn't!”

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isaiah 6:3).

God is self-existent, He always has existed and always shall exist.

When God told Moses to rescue His people from Egypt, Moses asked: “When I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you”'” (Exodus 3:13, 14).

The one true God does not need a proper name to distinguish Him from other gods. He is God. He is the Lord. He is 'I AM', Infinite Being.

Among the people of Israel this became a sacred designation for God. The Hebrew word, sometimes transliterated as Jehovah or Jaweh, is called the Tetragrammaton because it consists of four consonants. Ancient written Hebrew did not include vowels. The vowels had to be inserted mentally when the text was read. Thus, many written words could have different meanings depending on which vowels were added.

I once asked a rabbi why Jews do not pronounce the Tetragrammaton. His explanation was that the written word could mean 'I am', 'I was' and 'I shall be' depending on the vowels added. Thus, to pronounce the word would limit its meaning.

This designation for God appears more than 6000 times in the Old Testament. When the text was read aloud, however, the word for 'Lord' was read. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the New Testament writers used the Greek word for 'Lord' to translate Old Testament quotations containing the Tetragrammaton except in a few instances where the Greek word for 'God' appears.


Jesus is I AM.

When the writer of Hebrews says: “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), he is ascribing this trait to Christ.

That Jesus is the same, relates to what is said of God in the Psalms: “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (Psalm 102:25-27).

This Psalm is addressed to God (verse 24). The designation 'Jehovah' is used seven times (in verses 1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 22). God does not change. With the “Father of lights” “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:16). “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

In Hebrews 13 it says that Jesus Christ is always the same. In Hebrews, chapter 1, Psalm 102 is applied to Christ (preceded by Psalm 45:6, 7).
“But to the Son He says:
'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.'
And:
'You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail'”
(Hebrews 1:8-12).

This text proclaims the deity, eternity and changelessness of Christ.

The immutability of Christ is contrasted with the continually changing universe that will pass away. Jesus said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

“They will perish, but You remain. . They will be changed, but You are the same” (Psalm 102:26, 27). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). The two words 'LORD' in this verse are translations of the Tetragrammaton. The I AM is the first and the last.

In Isaiah 48 the Lord says: “I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last” (Verse 12).

In the Revelation to John, Jesus says: “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:17, 18). “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last” (Revelation 22:13). Thus, the designation, the First and the Last (which can only apply to God, the I AM) also applies to Christ.

Jesus told the unbelieving Jews: “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). If Jesus had said 'I was' He would have only stated that He existed before Abraham. By saying “Before Abraham was, I AM” He declares Himself to be Jehovah.

“We do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).

We endure as seeing Him who is invisible.

God is eternal, He is I AM. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is also I AM with the Father. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8).

“The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary” (Isaiah 40:28). “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).

Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

When Did Satan Enter Judas? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2025&b=John

When Did Satan Enter Judas?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

On the evening before His crucifixion, Jesus met with His disciples in Jerusalem to eat the Passover meal. According to John’s gospel account, “Satan entered” Judas during the meal (13:27). Luke, however, recorded that “Satan entered Judas” prior to the Passover meal (22:1-7). Is this a contradiction?

A.

If the Bible writers had indicated that Satan only entered Judas once during his lifetime, and that occasion was mentioned in the Bible as being at two different times, then skeptics would have a reasonable argument. The truth is, however, Satan easily could have entered Judas more than once, just as evil spirits and demons entered people in the past multiple times. [NOTE: We are not informed exactly what is meant by Satan “entering” Judas. It could simply mean that Satan had a strong influence on Judas and filled his heart with evil passions, similar to how he “filled” Ananias’ heart to lie to the Holy Spirit—Acts 5:3.]
The Old Testament reveals that King Saul was overcome with an “evil spirit” at various times throughout his reign. After Samuel anointed David to be the future king of Israel, “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him” (1 Samuel 16:14, NASB). Then, following David’s battle with Goliath, “an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house” (1 Samuel 18:10, NASB; cf. 19:9). Also, “[w]henever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him” (1 Samuel 16:23, NASB, emp. added).
If an evil spirit could “come upon Saul” and “depart from him” at various times throughout his reign, and if, as Jesus indicated in the first century, unclean spirits or demons could go in and out of someone (Luke 11:24-26), then it is logical to conclude that Satan could have “entered” and “departed” from Judas on more than one occasion. In fact, that is exactly what happened. Prior to John’s mention of Satan entering Judas, he noted how the devil had “already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him [Jesus]” (John 13:2, emp. added). Luke explained how, prior to the Passover meal, Judas met with Jesus’ enemies and made an agreement with them to betray Jesus at some secluded location (22:1-7). Later, during the Passover meal, “Satan entered Judas” again (John 13:27).
There is no contradiction here, just accounts of two different occasions when Satan entered Judas.

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=233

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I]

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On April 25, 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a scientific paper describing for the first time the intricacies of the DNA molecule. For their attainment, they received the Nobel Prize—and initiated a biological revolution. The elucidation of the molecular biology of the gene clearly ranks among the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Because of this discovery, a new age has dawned—the Genetic Age.
In the opinion of many scientists, the last great revolution in science was the coming of the Nuclear Age. Nuclear technology tends to be viewed as either the most powerful industry for human benefit—or the most dangerous tool for human destruction—ever available for mankind’s use. With the development of genetic engineering, the potential for controversy is even greater because in their experiments scientists no longer are dealing with merely inanimate nature, but instead with human subjects—and the consequences are far-reaching indeed. Some have made comparisons between current advances and those that led, little more than a generation ago, to the dropping of the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science fiction writers have created, in the true tradition of Dr. Frankenstein, modern-day monsters ranging from potentially killer microorganisms to duplicates of Adolf Hitler. Some among us see the immediate demise of the human race; others see, and tremble before, the prospect of a Huxlian Brave New World that promises the complete and utter dehumanization of mankind. What, then, is the truth of the matter?
Today the citizens of most civilized countries are better fed, better clothed, and healthier than they have ever been. Transportation, educational, medical, industrial, and even recreational facilities are vastly improved, compared to those of previous generations. Prospects for the future, then, should be brighter than ever. But are they?
While no one knows exactly what the future will hold, there are growing indications that much of it may not be for good. The fact is that mankind has become more smug as scientific knowledge has increased. Humanity has drifted farther and farther from God, and progressively attempts to cut itself loose from the moral and ethical standards found within God’s Word. It certainly is safe to say that the average person of our day knows far less about the Bible than the common man of a half-century ago. What will happen, then, as science accelerates, while man’s relationship with, and knowledge of, his Creator degenerates? The possibilities are staggering. And the frightening thing is that now we are confronting situations we thought only future generations would have to face.

GENETIC ENGINEERING—AN OVERVIEW

In the past, genetic engineering generally was looked upon as an area of science dealing with the substitution of new (“improved”) genes for old (damaged) ones. But to the man on the street today, it means far more than that—something like conjuring up DNA monsters, or cloning world-renowned figures such as Hitler, Churchill, or Stalin. In this article, the term will be used in its broadest sense to include any form of artificial reproduction or genetic manipulation. Among some of the questions to be considered are these: (a) how extensive is our current reproductive technology; (b) how is it being employed presently; (c) what are the scientific and biblical ramifications; and (d) what should be the Christian’s response to the use of this technology?
The motivation behind much genetic engineering research is commendable. Scientists are anxious to alleviate human suffering by the correction of genetic or behavioral defects, therapeutically control and rehabilitate those who are dangerous to society, and improve the general functioning and future potential of the human race. Few would argue with the goal of helping people function better. Even opponents of human genetic engineering would concede that most scientists are not attempting to be malicious or oligarchical elitists.
We must remember, however, that even scientists are not completely free of the desire for power. Further, some scientists work on underlying assumptions that suggest: (a) we can do better than nature (or as the Christian would say, better than God); (b) we are responsible to no higher Being than ourselves; (c) economic value is the final test in considering what should or should not be done; and (d) the end justifies the means. Clearly, the potential for a very real and very serious problem exists. Should this attitude become dominant, there may be no effective barrier against irresponsible uses of genetic engineering.
As we examine the concepts behind genetic engineering, we must distinguish between various types of genetic research. The first has to do with modification, which involves making minor changes in an existing structure by splicing in new genetic material, or by altering the material already present. Generally, this type of procedure has as its goal the improvement of an organism, or the prevention or cure of disease. Few would oppose such uses of genetic engineering, as long as scientists follow proper guidelines.
A second type of genetic research relating to both animals and humans centers on procreation. Currently, for example, technology that once was available only for use in animals now can be employed in humans, allowing people to reproduce when previously they were unable to do so.
A third, more controversial, type of genetic engineering centers on the creation of new life forms. Some scientists see the day approaching when we shall go beyond small-scale genetic modification to produce more novel living beings. This is a drastic departure from conferring a specific trait on an existing organism, or genetically modifying an organism so as to give it a healthier or longer life. One writer has referred to this as “engineering the engineer,” as opposed to “engineering his engine” (Kass, 1971, p. 779).

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Historically, experiments intended to alter human life began in 1970 when Stanford Rogers, a physician and biochemist, attempted to introduce into his patients a gene for production of the enzyme arginase. The patients’ systems were incapable of manufacturing the enzyme—a factor that eventually would cause their deaths. Dr. Rogers injected his subjects with a virus that can produce the enzyme, in the hope that the virus would infect their DNA. Subsequently, the host’s immune system would destroy the virus, yet leave behind the gene for arginase production. The experiment failed, resulting in a swift outcry of criticism from the scientific community.
In July of 1980, a more extensive experiment was attempted by Martin Cline, then head of hematology and oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles. Working with him was a team of Israeli medical doctors, headed by Eliezer Rachmilewitz of the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. Patients under the care of Dr. Rachmilewitz had a rare but fatal disease known as beta zero thalassemia. Dr. Cline injected their bone marrow with a new gene, in the hope that it would be able to correct the defect in the patients’ immune systems.
Such was not to be, however. This experiment failed as well, and cost Dr. Cline his job and research grants. Few in the scientific community, at this early stage in the history of genetic experiments, were willing to put their professional careers on the line. With human lives at stake, the risk was too great. Fewer scientists still were willing to forgive those who tried—and failed.
It appeared, then, that whatever benefits might accrue to humanity from biotechnology would come only indirectly. Indeed, early successes in the field of genetic engineering seemed to confirm that fact. By the early 1980s, business ventures had been formed for the specific purpose of advancing and investing in various kinds of genetic research, the offshoots of which certainly would benefit mankind. Compounds such as interferon, and even insulin intended for use in humans, soon were being produced by genetically altered bacteria. Eventually, human growth hormone was added to that list. People were benefiting, indirectly, from genetic engineering.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, the benefits derived from genetic engineering no longer were indirect. Advances in the field were arriving at breakneck speed. Hardly a day passed that scientists from one corner of the globe or another did not announce yet another breakthrough that conferred additional genetic blessings on humanity. For example, an article on “Conquering Inherited Enemies” in Time magazine announced:
Genetic engineers at a handful of U.S. laboratories are getting ready to embark on the first trials of human gene therapy, a revolutionary approach to conquering inherited ailments. Employing the subtlest available techniques of recombinant DNA, the scientists will attempt to inject healthy copies of the affected gene into the bone marrow cells of a victim of a genetic disorder. If all goes well, the good genes will begin producing enough of the missing enzyme to cure the disease. That will be cheering news for the hundreds of thousands of patients who suffer from the 3,000 known genetic disorders (Angier, 1985, p. 59).
Just five years later, another article in Time reported the epochal events surrounding the treatment of a little 4-year-old girl.
Last week, on the 10th floor of the massive Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, the still unidentified child assumed a historic role. In the first federally approved use of gene therapy, a team of doctors introduced into her bloodstream some 1 billion cells, each containing a copy of a foreign gene. If all goes well, these cells will begin producing ADA, the essential enzyme she requires, and her devastated immune system will slowly begin to recover (Jaroff, 1990, p. 74).
No longer, then, are the potential benefits to humanity from genetic engineering merely indirect in nature. We have moved past the point where people enjoy longer, healthier lives simply because they can take insulin or interferon produced by genetically altered bacteria. Now people themselves are part and parcel of intricate laboratory experiments—experiments that, we are told, will bode well for humanity in both the near and distant future.

THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY OVER CLONING

Genetic engineering (in animals or in humans) potentially can take place: (a) before conception; (b) at conception; (c) prenatally; and (d) postnatally. I have dealt with each of these in an in-depth fashion elsewhere (see Thompson, 1995). For the purposes of this article, however, I would like to restrict the discussion to genetic engineering that occurs at conception.
Discussions of reproductive technologies occurring at conception usually include: (1) cloning; (2) artificial insemination; and (3) in vitro fertilization (IVF). Of these, I will limit my comments here only to cloning.
The English word “clone” derives from the Greek klon, meaning a sprout or twig, and in science refers to an asexual process of reproduction resulting in an exact genetic duplicate of the original. Cloning is quite natural for many of Earth’s life forms. For example, when the amoeba reproduces by splitting into two parts, it is cloning itself. In essence, then, cloning is a way to grow many identical cells or organisms from a single ancestor. However, most plants and animals reproduce sexually—a process that requires a contribution of genes from both the male and female of the species. Therefore, any attempt to clone such organisms, including humans, must involve sophisticated technology. In the science fiction version of cloning, a body cell (also known as a somatic cell) is used to make a copy of an individual. But cloning of relatively complex creatures, such as mammals, for example, usually must begin with an egg, or perhaps even a fertilized egg. Only then can scientists make copies of one unique set of genes.
In one technique known as nuclear transfer, an unfertilized egg is taken from the female, and its nucleus is either destroyed (e.g., by radiation) or removed. The nucleus from a body cell then is placed in the egg, which, when implanted in the uterus, behaves as if it has been fertilized, except that all of its genetic information has been derived from a single individual rather than a pair of parents.
This type of cloning possesses potential benefits. Its greatest value, however, is not as an alternative means of reproduction, but as a powerful laboratory research tool, especially in developmental biology. Cloning can aid in the study of nuclear differentiation by helping scientists to better understand how an embryonic cell becomes a nerve cell, a blood cell, etc. It also can be very helpful in the study of immunology and organ rejection. Additionally, cloning can be used with great benefit in medical research. For example, it can be used in the study of cancer, and also can be used in the study of the aging process.
During the 1950s, F.C. Steward of Cornell University demonstrated how to clone certain plants, and produced carrots by the thousands through such a procedure (see Steward, 1970). In 1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas King of the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia cloned a leopard frog (see Briggs and King, 1952). Since then, carrots, tomatoes, fruit flies, and even frogs have been cloned. The successes (and there were many) were the result of painstaking research carried out using embryonic or neonatal somatic cells (viz., non-adult cells). By the late 1970s, scientists lamented that, in spite of numerous attempts in laboratories around the world, “...no one has yet shown that it is possible to clone a mammal by using a body cell nucleus from an adult” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). Something—no one quite knew what—seemed to make the somatic cell of the adult an unlikely candidate for cloning procedures. However, investigators did not abandon their efforts, and attempts to clone organisms using adult somatic cells continued at an unprecedented pace.
Clement Markert of Yale University perfected a method that allowed researchers to remove one set of chromosomes—either those from the sperm or those from the egg—just after fertilization. Through biochemical means, the remaining set could be made to double, producing an egg with a double set of the sperm’s (or egg’s) chromosomes. Since the same number of chromosomes as found in a fertilized egg then was present, embryonic development could begin. Peter Hope and Karl Illmensee at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine employed this technique in mice, and produced seven offspring, all females. While it is true that none of the seven was a clone of the genetic parents, if the same procedure were repeated on those seven mice (retaining the chromosomes of their eggs), their offspring would be clones.
The first clones of large animals were produced by S.M. Willadsen (1986), who transferred a single cell from an 8-cell sheep embryo to an unfertilized egg whose nucleus had been destroyed. Three of the four reconstituted embryos transferred to ewes’ oviducts developed into lambs that were genetically identical.
But what about attempts at human cloning? Landrum Shettles reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that he personally had cloned human embryos to the blastocyst stage (the point in early development where the whole embryo has the appearance of a hollow sphere; see Clark, 1979, p. 99). As one writer summarized the experiment:
According to the report, he had removed the genetic material from a human egg cell and replaced it with the nucleus of a human spermatogonium, the precursor of the sperm cell. Because the spermatogonium contains a double set of chromosomes, it is a complete blueprint for the individual. The egg was fertilized, cell division began, and three days later the embryo was at the morula stage, its cluster of cells ready for implantation. If the paper was true, then it meant that the first glimmering of a human being had already been cloned (Kahn, 1988, p. 164, emp. added).
The operative phrase here, of course, is “if the paper was true.” Most scientists working in this field did not believe that it was, and remained skeptical of Dr. Shettles’ experiment. Why? “Shettles never presented evidence that the egg was enucleated, ...nor did he use genetic markers that would have proved that the sole parent of the embryo was indeed the transplanted spermatogonium” (Kahn, 1988, p. 164).
In 1978, science writer David Rorvik authored, and the J.B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia published, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man. The book reportedly told the story of a 67-year-old eccentric millionaire who had himself cloned successfully, and spawned a serious scientific controversy since it was published as nonfiction. Most scientists dispute claims such as those made by Rorvik and others in regard to the cloning of humans. In its publication, ASM News, the American Society for Microbiology stated:
Four eminent cell biologists have testified before congress that adult cloning of humans has not been and may never be achieved because of biological barriers. They also called David Rorvik’s book, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man, a fictional work replete with scientific errors (1978, p. 334).
One scientist suggested concerning Rorvik’s work: “His book sets new standards for the label ‘nonfiction’ ” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). In 1981, U.S. District Court judge John Fullam ruled the book to be fiction (Fullam, 1981, p. 2-F) and, several years after its publication, Lippincott publicly acknowledged the book as a hoax.
To some, however, the idea of human clones is not beyond the realm of possibility. Several years ago, Kimball Atwood, professor of microbiology at the University of Illinois, stated that humans could be cloned “within a few years” (as quoted in Rorvik, 1969, p. 9). Nobel laureate James Watson later predicted:
...if the matter proceeds in its current nondirected fashion, a human being born of clonal reproduction most likely will appear on the earth within the next twenty to fifty years, and even sooner, if some nation should actively promote the venture (1971).
To date, there is no credible evidence that humans have been cloned, in the traditional sense of the word.
But who can know what the future may hold in this regard? For example, in October 1993, at a meeting of the American Fertility Society, two Americans, Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman, touched off an unexpected controversy when they presented a research paper on IVF procedures. At the time, Dr. Hall was the director of the in vitro laboratory at George Washington University; Dr. Stillman headed the University’s IVF program. Starting with 17 human embryos ranging from the two-cell to the eight-cell stage, Hall and Stillman used new technology to multiply the embryos from 17 to a total of 48. News magazines and major city newspapers heralded the landmark event with feature articles. The New York Times published a front-page article under a headline that screamed, “Scientist Clones Human Embryos, and Creates an Ethical Challenge.” Newsweek and Time both prepared cover stories on the Hall/Stillman experiments (see Adler, 1993; Elmer-Dewitt, 1993).
The controversy caused by the Hall/Stillman experiment was due, in large part, to the fact that human embryos were involved. However, it is important to note what the experiment did, and did not involve. First, the experiment did not involve the type of cloning of science fiction fame—in which genetic material from a mature individual is nurtured and grown into a replica of the original. Second, the experiment did not involve the cutting and splicing procedures by which DNA strands from cells are mixed and matched. In some instances, to mention just one example, molecular biologists have inserted human genes into the DNA of bacteria to produce insulin in large quantities. But the Hall/Stillman experiment did not involve this kind of genetic engineering.
Hall and Stillman were searching for a way to make IVF more successful. A woman in which only a single embryo is implanted has somewhere between a 10 and 20% chance of becoming pregnant, if all goes well. But if that single embryo could be cloned into three or four, the chances of a pregnancy would increase dramatically. These two researchers were not trying to produce cloned embryos that would be implanted into a potential mother. Instead, they were working with abnormal embryos resulting from fertilization of an egg by multiple sperm cells, and which therefore would not live more than a few days at best.
 Method by which Stillman and Hall produced twin embryos from a single embryo (after Kolberg, 1993)
The experiment involved allowing the single-cell embryos to divide into two cells, and then separating them. To do this, the outer coating around the cells (known as the zona pellucida) that is essential to the embryo’s proper development had to be removed. Once the cells had been separated, an artificial zona pellucida had to be created to take the place of the original one that had been destroyed. Hall and Stillman developed an artificial zona pellucida from a gel derived from seaweed. Once the artificial coating was replaced, the cells began to grow.
The experiment, so far as Hall and Stillman were concerned, had been a success, and was repeated numerous times, producing 48 clones in all. But none of the clones lived more than six days. A detailed description of the process used by Hall and Stillman was published in Science News (see Fackelmann, 1994a). While many praised the novel experiment, criticism from some in the academic and scientific communities was quite strong (see Fackelmann, 1994b). Unfortunately, the headlines in newspapers and magazines were not always representative of the actual facts. Humans had not been cloned. While we cannot condone the manner in which the Hall/Stillman research was carried out (i.e., accepting the inevitable death of living human embryos as the by-product of a scientific experiment), at the same time it is important that we understand exactly what the new technology allowed scientists to do, and that we not overstate the case regarding what was accomplished.
[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (1993), “Clone Hype,” Newsweek, pp. 60-62, November 8.
Angier, Natalie (1985), “Conquering Inherited Enemies,” Time, pp. 59-60, October 21.
ASM News (1978), (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology), p. 334, July.
Briggs, Robert and Thomas J. King (1952), “Transplantation of Living Nuclei from Blastula Cells into Enucleated Frog Eggs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 38:455-463.
Clark, Matt (1979), “Clones Again,” Newsweek, February 12.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,” Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.
Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994a), “Cloning Human Embryos,” Science News, 145[6]:92-93,95, February 5.
Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994b), “University Probe Faults ‘Cloning’ Research,” Science News, 146[25]:406, December 17.
Fullam, John (1981), as quoted in “Clone Deemed a Hoax,” Dallas Times Herald, p. F-2, March 22.
Jaroff, Leon (1990), “Giant Step for Gene Therapy,” Time, pp. 74-76, September 24.
Kahn, Carol (1988), “Double Takes,” Omni, 11[1]:58-65,164, October.
Kass, Leon (1971), “The New Biology: What Price Relieving Man’s Estate?,” Science, 174:779-788.
Kolberg, Rebecca (1993), “Human Embryo Cloning Reported,” Science, 262:652-653, October 29.
Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).
Rorvik, David (1969), “Cloning: Asexual Human Reproduction,” Science Digest, pp. 7-9, November.
Rorvik, David (1978), In His Image: The Cloning of a Man (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).
Steward, F.C. (1970), “From Cultured Cells to Whole Plants: The Introduction and Control of Their Growth and Differentiation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society [B], 175:1-30.
Thompson, Bert (1995), The Christian and Medical Ethics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Watson, James (1971), “Moving Toward the Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?,” Atlantic, 227:50-53.
Willadsen, S.M. (1986), “Nuclear Transplantation in Sheep Embryos,” Nature, 320:63-65.

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part II] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=236

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part II]

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
As a result of the success of recent experiments in genetic engineering, the cloning of humans is on the minds of many, both among the general populace and with in the scientific community. In the past, the cloning of humans was a subject best discussed within the genre of science fiction novels, not scientific journals. When scientists, or science writers, did discuss the possibility of human cloning, their comments usually went something like this:
This is far beyond the reach of today’s science. There is a vast difference between cloning an embryo that is made up of immature, undifferentiated cells and cloning adults cells that have already committed themselves to becoming skin or bone or blood. All cells contain within their DNA the information required to reproduce the entire organism, but in adult cells access to parts of that information has somehow been switched off. Scientists do not yet know how to switch it back on (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993, p. 66).
In this statement, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, a writer for Time magazine, echoed what seemed to be a commonly-shared view among the researchers involved in genetic engineering. No one had been able to clone mammals using adult somatic cells, because for some unknown reason a great portion of the DNA in those cells had been “switched off.” But, as the old saying goes, “That was then; this is now.”

“HELLO, DOLLY!”—
THE STORY OF AN “UDDERLY INCREDIBLE” LAMB

What a difference four years makes in science! In the Table of Contents of the February 27, 1997 issue of Nature (the official organ of the British Association for the Advancement of Science), there appeared what seemed at first glance to be an innocuous article titled “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells” (Wilmut, et al., 1997). That article, however, announced the results of scientific research so significant that it not only would make history, but change forever the way scientists viewed cloning in both animals and humans.
Researchers from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland had accomplished what almost everyone in the scientific community thought to be impossible. Headed by embryologist Ian Wilmut, Scottish scientists produced a lamb using genetic material from the mammary cell of an adult ewe. The young lamb, named Dolly, did not owe her existence to a procreative act occurring between a ram and a ewe. Instead, Dolly was the result of a laboratory exercise in cloning. When her existence was announced, the entire world gasped—first in disbelief, then in amazement! As Time put it, the Scottish researchers had succeeded in
...scoring an advance in reproductive technology as unsettling as it was startling. Unlike offspring produced in the usual fashion, Dolly does not merely take after her biological mother. She is a carbon copy, a laboratory counterfeit so exact that she is in essence her mother’s identical twin (Nash, 1997, p. 62).
Technique used by Wilmut, et al. to clone a sheep. Their breakthrough involved starving body cells of nutrients, thus interrupting the normal cycle of growth and division. In this quiescent stage, the cell can be “reprogrammed” to function as a newly fertilized egg (after Travis, 1997, 151:215).
Here is what Dr. Wilmut did to make Dolly a reality. As noted earlier, embryonic cells are easier to use in cloning experiments than adult somatic cells because they are, for the most part, undifferentiated. In other words, they have not matured to the point where they have been able to carry out the instructions contained in the DNA within their nucleus that direct them to become skin cells, brain cells, eye cells, etc. In its young, embryonic state, an undifferentiated cell can become any other cell in the body, because it has the capacity to activate any given gene on any given chromosome. Non-embryonic somatic cells, however, already have carried out their DNA instructions, and as a result are differentiated (i.e., in their mature state, they have become hair cells, muscles cells, nerve cells, etc.). As a result, huge portions of the DNA instructions have been “deactivated,” so that mature cells can carry out their particular function(s). Thus, much of the information coded within the DNA of adult cells no longer is accessible, having been “turned off ” at maturity because it no longer is needed by the cell.
In the past, most scientists involved in the broad area of genetic engineering thought that the differentiation process was irreversible. However, Dr. Wilmut and his coworkers disproved that idea by devising a way to “reactivate” the portions of the DNA molecule that previously had been deactivated, thus making adult somatic cells candidates for cloning.
First, the team of Scottish scientists searched for a mechanism that would allow them to arrest the normal cell cycle (i.e., the process through which all cells go as they mature and prepare to reproduce themselves). They surmised that this might be accomplished by starving cells of the nutrients they normally would need to grow. Some of the cells chosen for the experiment were from the udder of a Finn Dorset ewe. Once deprived of these critical nutrients, the mammary gland cells fell into a sort of “suspended animation” (what, in live animals, would resemble hibernation), a state in which they remained for one week.
Second, using the procedure (discussed previously in this series of articles) known as “nuclear transfer,” Dr. Wilmut took an unfertilized oocyte (i.e., an egg cell) from a Scottish Blackface ewe and carefully removed its nucleus, leaving the remainder of the cell (cytoplasm, cell membrane, etc.) completely intact (see Stewart, 1997). Then, he took the quiescent mammary gland cell, placed it next to the oocyte, and gently applied short bursts of electrical current, which prompted the egg cell to bond with the somatic cell and absorb its nucleus (containing a full complement of chromosomes) as its own. As a result, the egg cell possessed the number of chromosomes it would contain if it had been fertilized by the male’s sperm. The biochemical activity usually associated with a zygote (the cell that results when sperm and egg combine) then began to occur.
Third, after one week of carefully-monitored growth, the laboratory-engineered embryo then was inserted into the uterus of a surrogate ewe, to see if it would implant successfully and grow to term.
All of this may sound quite simple, but it is not. Dr. Wilmut’s success came only after a long string of failures. In fact, he reported in his article in Nature that out of 277 eggs fused with udder cells, he and his team were able to produce only 29 embryos that survived more than six days. Of those 29, all died before birth except Dolly.

CLONING—WHY BOTHER?

To the uninitiated, all of this may seem at best much ado about nothing, or at worst a complete waste of time, effort, and money. Why go to all the trouble and expense to clone an animal, when normal reproductive processes can produce an animal without all the fuss? “Just let nature take its course,” some might say.
There is much more to it than that, however. Cloning has the potential to make animal husbandry more effective and efficient. Imagine (to use just one example) the plight of the dairy farmer searching for a way to breed cattle that produce better milk in greater quantities. If he could isolate one or more cattle that consistently produced more, and better, milk than all the others, he could have them cloned, thus guaranteeing whole herds of the highest quality milk-producing animals.
In addition, cloning has the potential both to reduce human suffering, and to extend human life. Suppose (again, to choose just one hypothetical example) that scientists were able to discover a mechanism by which they could genetically alter chimpanzees so that portions of their immune systems, or products manufactured by those immune systems, were indistinguishable from those found in humans whose own immune systems were diseased or damaged, and thus incapable of fighting off disease to sustain life. These chimpanzees then could be cloned so that as many copies as needed could be produced, thereby ensuring life-saving animal products in an endless supply for use in humans.
Further, cloning has the potential to enlarge our knowledge about how cells differentiate and reproduce. Using the information gleaned from the study of the cell during cloning, scientists believe they could learn more about why cancer cells grow out of control, or why birth defects occur. In short, cloning does hold forth immense potential in many different areas and, used properly, could offer tremendous benefits to mankind (see Scientific American, 1997).
The operative phrase, here, however, is “used properly.” With cloning, as with many of the technologies offered by modern science, there can be serious scientific and biblical ethical implications. Rarely is the technology, in and of itself, morally objectionable; instead, it is the use of the technology that makes it so. Part of the problem is the fact that science itself is not equipped to deal with moral issues. There is nothing within the scientific method, for example, that can dictate whether nuclear energy should be used to destroy cancer cells, or entire cities. That is a judgment far beyond the scope of science to make.
Unfortunately, once the technology is made available, there are those who are prepared to employ it, regardless of any ethical problems that might be associated with it. Since many within the scientific community either do not believe in God, or do so only accommodatively, they neither are interested in, nor restricted by, the guidelines and principles set forth in His Word. As a result, in their eyes the simple fact that the technology is available is reason enough to use it. Within the scientific community, this is referred to as the “technological imperative”—whatever can be done should be done!

WILL WE BE ABLE TO CLONE HUMANS?

In regard to cloning, the most pressing questions on almost everyone’s mind are: (a) why would anyone want to clone a human in the first place; (b) if attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an exact duplicate of the original; (c) will we eventually be able to clone humans; and (d) most important, would humans produced by cloning possess a soul?
Why would anyone want to clone a human? First, parents might want to clone a child as a “replacement” for one that had died. Second, parents might want to clone a child to provide compatible organ transplants for a diseased relative. [There have been cases of women wanting to become pregnant so they could abort the child to provide fetal brain cells for transplantation into a relative (e.g., a parent suffering from Parkinson’s Disease).] Third, individuals might want to have themselves cloned to guarantee immortality—if not in soul, at least in body. Fourth, some may desire to clone a human simply for the prestige and adulation that inevitably will result from having accomplished what no one else has been able to do. A Nobel Prize can provide a very strong incentive indeed!
If attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an exact duplicate of the original? A clone would be an exact genetic duplicate of the original—the word “genetic” providing a critical distinction. Merely possessing identical genes does not guarantee identical people. Ask anyone with identical twins. In fact, twins would be more alike than clones for the simple reason that the twins would have shared the same environment, upbringing, etc. People are more than merely a “bag of genes.” Each of us is the end-product of many different external forces that influence us from cradle to grave. Our personalities and attitudes are formed by parents, friends, teachers, daily routines, societal interactions, and many other factors that affect us during our lifetimes.
Will we be able to clone humans eventually? That remains to be seen. No scientist can answer that question, for to do so would be to possess the ability to predict the future—something neither a scientist, nor science, is equipped to do. Furthermore, there are too many unknowns. We do not know if human adult somatic cells will respond the same way adult somatic cells from sheep responded. We do not know if the process used to produce Dolly (nuclear transfer) would work in humans. And so on.
However, if the question were reworded so that it asked, “Will scientists attempt to clone humans?,” I think the answer would be “yes.” An analogy might be helpful. When mountaineers are asked why they ascend a challenging (and often life-threatening) mountain, they routinely respond: “...because it’s there.” Some scientists likely will take the same approach. When asked why current technology should be used to clone humans, they will respond: “...because it’s there.” One writer has suggested:
...it is not a question as to whether we will attempt to clone a human being or not. Many technical hurdles will have to be overcome first before we can attempt to produce cloned humans, so they say. But if the moral and ethical scientists want to wait, or even shrink in fear from such an undertaking, there are many in the world who have the financial means, who do not have any scruples or reservations about cloning humans. What about them? (Sinapiades, 1997, p. 6, emp. in orig.).
I believe it no longer is a matter of if attempts will be made to clone humans using this new technology, but only when. Eventually some scientist, or group of scientists, will yield to the temptation to apply the Scottish scientists’ methodology to the human race.
If (and this is a big “if ”) scientists are successful in cloning humans, the most pressing question then becomes—will the people so produced possess a soul? Much of the debate occurring today (especially in religious circles) centers on this question. For example, three staff writers for U.S. News & World Report posed the question, “Would a cloned person have its own soul?,” and answered it as follows: “Most theologians agree with scientists that a human clone and its DNA donor would be separate and distinct persons. That means each would have his or her own body, mind, and soul” (Herbert, et al., 1997, p. 63).
In addressing what at the time was the unlikely possibility of the cloning of humans, Gish and Wilson asked: “What do we say, then? Would a clone be truly human? The answer is that, indeed, he would be human, for its life came from human life even though in a manner different than is usually the case” (1981, p. 174). In addition, they noted, the cloned human “is already alive, responsible to God for his actions, needing to preserve his own body against sickness, to see that he is properly fed, and all the rest. Each clone would have its own individual responsibility, its own soul” (p. 172).
I concur with such an assessment. In James 2:26, James made this observation: “The body apart from the spirit is dead.” The point, of course, was that when the spirit departs the body, death results. But there is an obvious, and important, corollary to that statement. If the body is alive, it must be the case that the spirit is present. This is a biblical principle that cannot, and must not, be ignored—especially in light of the present controversy. The simple fact of the matter is that if (again, a very big “if ”) scientists succeed in cloning living humans, those clones would possess a soul.
But only God can instill a soul. It is He Who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). It is only “in Him” that “we live, and move, and have our being...” (Acts 17:28). The real issue is not whether man is intelligent enough to clone a human, but whether or not—should that eventually happen—God will choose to instill the lifeless creature in the laboratory with a soul. This is a question no one can answer.

SHOULD WE CLONE HUMANS?

Very often it is the case that with increased knowledge also comes increased power. And with increased power comes the potential for misuse or abuse of that power. The question, “will we be able to clone humans?” is not the same question as “should we clone humans?” The first is a question to be answered by an appeal to science; the second is a question to be answered by an appeal to the Word of God.
Oddly, at times those who do not believe in God or His Word as an objective moral standard seem to understand the ethical/moral issues better than some Christians. For example, long before the technology was available that could lead to human cloning, evolutionist Gunther Stent of the University of Southern California stated: “The idea of cloning humans is morally and aesthetically completely unacceptable” (as quoted in Howard and Rifkin, 1977, pp. 125-126). Compare that with the comment of Christian ethicist Randy Harris of David Lipscomb University: “Although there has been a good deal of rhetoric on the evils that are just ahead, I have yet to hear a cogent ethical argument as to why even the cloning of a human would be wrong” (1997, p. 16).
There are, in fact, several “cogent ethical arguments” that can, and should, be made against the cloning of humans, only two of which I would like to mention here.

Cloning’s “Failures” Represent Dead Human Beings

It is one thing to attempt—and fail—277 times using sheep cells in an attempt at cloning. Sheep are animals that do not possess souls, and that are not made in the “image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). But it is quite another thing to try—even once—and fail in an attempt to clone a human. Embryos are living human beings! [On occasion, pro-abortion forces often argue that embryos within the womb are “not living.” If that is the case, then leave them alone. This, of course, is hardly an option, because in nine months the end-result is a human baby—something impossible to explain if the embryo was “not living” to begin with.] A laboratory littered with dead and dying sheep embryos is one thing; a laboratory littered with dead and dying human embryos is quite another!
Ask any knowledgeable ethicist, Christian or otherwise, and he or she will confirm that basic medical ethics requires that in any experiment, the subject must know the risks and give “informed consent.” In the case of cloning, however, the tiny embryo being produced (and that more often than not will die) can do no such thing. With cloning—if the success rate of the Scottish scientists is taken at face value—the failure rate will be staggering.
Basic medical ethics also requires that the experiment be to the subject’s benefit. Laboratory procedures for cloning humans scarcely would be to the benefit of the cloned embryos. Scottish scientist Wilmut and his colleagues saw 277 of the embryos they had produced perish before they saw a single one live. What if the same failure rate held true for the cloning of humans? Or, for the sake of argument, suppose that somehow the failure rate could be cut in half (in other words, out of 277 attempts, “only” 139 human embryos died in the process)? Would that then be ethically and morally acceptable? It would not! Producing human embryos—with the full knowledge that many more of them will die than will live—is indeed (to quote evolutionist Stent) “morally and aesthetically completely unacceptable.” Medical ethicist Paul Ramsey has suggested that we cannot even develop the kinds of reproductive technologies being discussed here “without conducting unethical experiments upon the unborn who must be the mishaps (the dead and retarded ones) through whom we learn how” (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p. 65).
Human life, as a gift from God (Acts 17:25), is sacred. The Proverbs writer observed that “there are six things which Jehovah hateth; yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (6:16-17). Yet there is a tendency to ignore these divine principles, and to view human life as that which may be destroyed capriciously. Should Christians consider laboratories teeming with the dead and dying human embryos that resulted from failed attempts at cloning to be a “cogent ethical argument” against such procedures? Or should they instead, to use Leon Kass’ words, simply “leave it so that discarding laboratory-grown embryos is a matter solely between a doctor and his plumber” (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p. 65)?
Further, in examining the ethical issues surrounding procedures such as these, the implications of the various technologies must be acknowledged. For example, if cloning were possible:
  1. It could be used to provide children for unmarried people.
  2. Parents could pre-select the sex (and many other attributes) of their child(ren).
  3. Women’s liberation would be complete, since no male would be needed. The old Cockney saying, “It takes a man to make a girl,” no longer would be true.
  4. Large batches of human clones could be made for statistical studies.
  5. Clones could be produced in order to harvest “spare parts” for transplants (e.g., bone marrow, organs, etc.).
  6. People enamored of their own importance could ensure that exact genetic replicas of themselves were brought into existence via cloning—by tens or hundreds if they so desired.
If we scrutinize the alleged benefits of human cloning, there is less here than at first meets the eye. Producing people for spare parts, or to use as guinea pigs, is repugnant. David Lygre wrote: “The current risks of abnormality and our reverence for human life should rule these experiments out” (1979, p. 44). Indeed they should.

Cloning Circumvents God’s Plan for Reproduction

In a series of articles authored some years ago, Wayne Jackson remarked that these scientific experiments “strike at the very heart of God’s arrangement for human reproduction within the circle of the family unit and all that this involves” (1979, 15:3; see also Jackson, 1994, pp. 27-36). The use of such things as donor sperm, donor eggs, surrogate mothers, and cloning stand in stark contradistinction to God’s divinely designed plan for the home. While many things, biblically, could be said about God’s design of the home, one thing is clear. It is through the family unit (which includes both a husband and wife in the procreative act) that God intended for children to be brought into this world. According to divine design, marriage is to precede the bearing of children (1 Timothy 5:14). And it is not by accident that Moses recorded: “And the man [Adam—BT] knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived...” (Genesis 4:1; emp. added). Jack Evans correctly observed that God’s
...spiritual law says the oneness of the flesh can be approved only by Him in the marriage of the male and female who are producing another part of their flesh (Hebrews 13:4; I Corinthians 6:16; 7:1-5). Thus, the Bible teaches that the male and female producing the offspring of the one flesh, according to spiritual law, must be married to each other. ...It is obvious that marriage precedes bearing children. Thus, if the female bearing the child is not married to—is not one flesh with—the male in the reproduction process, they violate God’s spiritual law (1987, p. 358).
God’s plan is that children be produced through the husband and wife via their “one flesh” covenant. The world often forgets that childbearing never was intended to be an end within itself, but is part of a much larger plan.
Any action that ignores, or nullifies, God’s plan for the home, and reproduction within the framework of the home, must be avoided and opposed. Cloning does just that. It circumvents the principle of a husband and wife becoming “one flesh,” and through that procedure bringing children into the world. The family unit was planned to provide an atmosphere of love and trust (Proverbs 15:17; 17:1), which would create an ideal environment for spiritual growth. To ignore these truths is to miss the real meaning of the divinely planned family, and the procreative acts that God placed within that family unit.

CONCLUSION

Each day brings exciting new scientific discoveries. Improved techniques block pain and prevent suffering. New medicines cure or prevent diseases. Advancements in knowledge and methodology continually work to mankind’s benefit. As Suzuki and Knudtson concluded:
There is no reason to fear the stunning new conceptions of human hereditary disease now emerging from genetics research. In fact, we can rejoice that this new genetic knowledge is certain to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of many previously untreatable genetic disorders. At the same time, each of us shares responsibility for ensuring that techniques allowing the manipulation of the human genome are never exploited for arbitrary and self-serving ends or in ways that fail to consider the potential long-term consequences of large-scale genetic repair on human populations (1989, pp. 206-207).
Certainly, the faithful child of God may support many scientific advances that cure disease, alleviate suffering, and make life better. But the Word of God is the criterion against which every advance must be measured. The end does not always justify the means.

REFERENCES

Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,” Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.
Evans, Jack (1987), “Is Surrogate Motherhood Sinful?,” Gospel Advocate, 129:358, June 18.
Gish, Duane T. and Clifford Wilson (1981), Manipulating Life: Where Does It Stop? (San Diego, CA: Master Books)
Harris, Randy (1997), “Will There Ever Be Another You?...Ewe?,” Christian Chronicle, 54[5]:16-17, May. [Harris is one of several scientists, theologians, and philosophers whose positions on cloning are presented in a special two-page spread, edited by Lindy Adams.]
Herbert, Wray, Jeffrey L. Sheler, and Traci Watson (1997), “The World After Cloning,” U.S. News & World Report, 122[9]:59-63, March 10.
Howard, Ted and Jeremy Rifkin (1977), Who Should Play God? (New York: Dell).
Jackson, Wayne (1979), “Ancient Ethics in a Modern World,” Christian Courier, 14:41-47; 15:2-4,6-8, May/June.
Jackson, Wayne (1994), Biblical Ethics & Modern Science (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).
Nash, J. Madeleine (1997), “The Age of Cloning,” Time, 149[10]:62-65, March 10.
Restak, R.M. (1975), Pre-Meditated Man (New York: Viking).
Scientific American, “Special Report: Making Gene Therapy Work,” 276[6]:95-106.
Sinapiades, Mike (1997), “Cloning, Clowning, or What?,” First Century Christian, 19[2& 3]:6, February/March.
Stewart, Colin (1997), “An Udder Way of Making Lambs,” Nature 385:769,771, February 27.
Suzuki, David T. and Peter Knudtson (1989), Genethics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Travis, John (1997), “A Fantastical Experiment,” Science News, 151:214-215, April 5.
Wilmut, Ian, A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, and K.H.S. Campbell (1997), “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells,” Nature, 385:810-813, February 27.