February 9, 2017

Earth and beyond by Gary Rose



























"Blue Marble" 2017

What a wonderful time to be alive; just think of all the technological advancements that humanity has made over just the last 100 years! Then, consider what our species just might accomplish over the next 100 or so time period! Even now, we can communicate from one side of the globe to another via a land-line, cell phone, video conferencing, fax, orbital satellite. We even have 3-D printers that can put ideas into reality, right before our eyes. And I can only guess what advances will be made in computers??
For all our prowess, we fall abysmally short of the power of our creator, for just consider the opening verse of the Bible for a moment...



Genesis, Chapter 1 (World English Bible)
  1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.


In one verse, ALL CREATION is explained. Just fact, without bragging. What POWER, what character, what He must really be like!!!  We will find out, someday. I pray that everyone will seek him and find him before their lives on Earth are ended!!

Truly, there aren't enough words in any human being's vocabulary to fully address the totality of God as revealed in the Bible, but for the sake of brevity, lets use just one- JESUS!!!

Bible Reading February 9 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading February 9 (World English Bible)
Feb. 9
Genesis 40
Gen 40:1 It happened after these things, that the butler of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord, the king of Egypt.
Gen 40:2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker.
Gen 40:3 He put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound.
Gen 40:4 The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he took care of them. They stayed in prison many days.
Gen 40:5 They both dreamed a dream, each man his dream, in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison.
Gen 40:6 Joseph came in to them in the morning, and saw them, and saw that they were sad.
Gen 40:7 He asked Pharaoh's officers who were with him in custody in his master's house, saying, "Why do you look so sad today?"
Gen 40:8 They said to him, "We have dreamed a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it." Joseph said to them, "Don't interpretations belong to God? Please tell it to me."
Gen 40:9 The chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, "In my dream, behold, a vine was in front of me,
Gen 40:10 and in the vine were three branches. It was as though it budded, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes.
Gen 40:11 Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand."
Gen 40:12 Joseph said to him, "This is its interpretation: the three branches are three days.
Gen 40:13 Within three more days, Pharaoh will lift up your head, and restore you to your office. You will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, the way you did when you were his cupbearer.
Gen 40:14 But remember me when it will be well with you, and show kindness, please, to me, and make mention of me to Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house.
Gen 40:15 For indeed, I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon."
Gen 40:16 When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said to Joseph, "I also was in my dream, and behold, three baskets of white bread were on my head.
Gen 40:17 In the uppermost basket there was all kinds of baked food for Pharaoh, and the birds ate them out of the basket on my head."
Gen 40:18 Joseph answered, "This is its interpretation. The three baskets are three days.
Gen 40:19 Within three more days, Pharaoh will lift up your head from off you, and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh from off you."
Gen 40:20 It happened the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants, and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants.
Gen 40:21 He restored the chief cupbearer to his position again, and he gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand;
Gen 40:22 but he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.
Gen 40:23 Yet the chief cupbearer didn't remember Joseph, but forgot him.
 
Feb. 8, 9
Matthew 20
Mat 20:1 "For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
Mat 20:2 When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
Mat 20:3 He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace.
Mat 20:4 To them he said, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went their way.
Mat 20:5 Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.
Mat 20:6 About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, 'Why do you stand here all day idle?'
Mat 20:7 "They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' "He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.'
Mat 20:8 When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his manager, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.'
Mat 20:9 "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius.
Mat 20:10 When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius.
Mat 20:11 When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household,
Mat 20:12 saying, 'These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!'
Mat 20:13 "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn't you agree with me for a denarius?
Mat 20:14 Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you.
Mat 20:15 Isn't it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?'
Mat 20:16 So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen."
Mat 20:17 As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them,
Mat 20:18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death,
Mat 20:19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to mock, to scourge, and to crucify; and the third day he will be raised up."
Mat 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, kneeling and asking a certain thing of him.
Mat 20:21 He said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Command that these, my two sons, may sit, one on your right hand, and one on your left hand, in your Kingdom."
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to him, "We are able."
Mat 20:23 He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father."
Mat 20:24 When the ten heard it, they were indignant with the two brothers.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus summoned them, and said, "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Mat 20:26 It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
Mat 20:27 Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your bondservant,
Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Mat 20:29 As they went out from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.
Mat 20:30 Behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Lord, have mercy on us, you son of David!"
Mat 20:31 The multitude rebuked them, telling them that they should be quiet, but they cried out even more, "Lord, have mercy on us, you son of David!"
Mat 20:32 Jesus stood still, and called them, and asked, "What do you want me to do for you?"
Mat 20:33 They told him, "Lord, that our eyes may be opened."
Mat 20:34 Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and immediately their eyes received their sight, and they followed him.

Let us be sober by Roy Davison


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

Let us be sober
“Let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober” (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8).
What does it mean to be sober? Sobriety is the opposite of intoxication or drunkenness. In the New Testament, the word for ‘be sober’ means to be free from all forms of intoxication, both physical and spiritual. Someone who is intoxicated is befuddled in his thinking. He does not think straight, and he underestimates risks and dangers. There are degrees of intoxication, but being sober is absolute. Sobriety is an absence of intoxication.
“Gird up the loins of your mind, be sober” (1 Peter 1:13). The expression ‘gird up your loins’ means ‘be ready for action’. Thus, we must be ready for mental action, we must be mentally alert, which requires sobriety.
The command to be sober is part of sound doctrine. Paul wrote to Timothy: “But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things” (Titus 2:1-3).
Older men must be sober and older women may not be enslaved to much wine. Although this verse is directed to the elderly, it applies for all. To be enslaved, is to be overpowered by something. Someone who is enslaved to alcohol must have a certain amount each day. Alcohol is a habit-forming drug that depresses bodily functions and dulls the mind.
To be appointed as an elder, a man may not be addicted to wine (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7). With addiction there is an overpowering urge to use the drug because the body has developed a chemical dependence on it, often accompanied by a psychological dependence. Painful and distressing withdrawal symptoms occur if the habitual amount is not obtained.
A habit-forming drug causes changes in body chemistry which trigger compensating reactions in an attempt to restore the degraded facilities. Alcohol depresses the central nervous system and slows down bodily functions, including heart-rate and general sensitivity. Thus, the body counteracts this by speeding up the heart and increasing sensitivity. Even after the alcohol is removed by the liver, the compensation remains for some time. This causes the person to be tense, anxious and hypersensitive. Thus, he craves alcohol to counteract the hypersensitivity.
Alcohol is also a mood-changing drug. It has a calming effect, reduces inhibitions and causes an artificial feeling of security and well-being. Because of the body’s compensation, however, one must continually have more alcohol to get the same buzz. Since the pleasant effect only occurs while the alcohol content in the blood is rising, and reverses as the alcohol level drops, the use of alcohol can easily become a vicious circle of increasing compulsive use. “Wine and new wine enslave the heart” (Hosea 4:11). Different substances have different levels of addictiveness, and different people react to addictive substances in a different way.
Christians are commanded to be sober, thus we must avoid intoxication and addiction to alcohol. Does this mean that a Christian may never drink something that contains even a small amount of alcohol?

According to the New Testament, Jesus drank wine: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Luke 7:33-35 // Matthew 11:18, 19). These accusations were, of course, false. Jesus was neither a glutton nor a tippler, but He did drink wine.
Wine was a staple food in Biblical times. The word ‘wine’ described both fermented and unfermented grape juice. Grape juice was preserved both by fermentation and by boiling down to half or one third its original volume to obtain an unfermented concentrated juice that would keep for years.
In our day, most wines have the alcohol content artificially increased by adding sugar during fermentation, and fortified wines (such as Port and Sherry) have extra alcohol added outright.
In Biblical times it was customary to decrease the strength of wine by adding two or three parts water to one part wine. By doing this, Jews observed Old Testament warnings against strong drink (Proverbs 20:1; Isaiah 5:11).
The wording in Revelation 14:10 relates to this practice: “He himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation.” The original has “poured out unmixed”.
The wisdom of diluting wine is substantiated by modern research. Alcohol damages the skin, brain, liver, heart and other parts of the body, and causes death when the alcohol content in the blood reaches 0.4 percent.


Mnesitheus, an Athenian medical doctor in the forth century BC, wrote of wine*: “In daily life, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer. But if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness! Unmixed, bodily collapse!” Eubulus, an Athenian writer and statesman who lived about the same time, wrote that harm comes to those who drink wine stronger than three parts wine to nine-parts water.
Thus, the wine that Jesus used had much less alcohol than most wine sold today.
They who wish to follow Jesus’ example must remember that He never sinned: “We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Since we are told to be sober, and both drunkenness and addiction are condemned in Scripture, Jesus  never drank too much, not even once, and He was not addicted to wine.
Timothy, who previously drank no wine, was encouraged by Paul to use a little wine for medicinal purposes: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities” (1 Timothy 5:23).
From this, we may conclude that it is not a sin to drink small amounts of wine as long as one remains completely sober and is not addicted.
The Scriptures also teach, however, that there are circumstances under which one should not drink at all. Priests under the Old Covenant were to drink no wine when they were on duty. “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean, and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses” (Leviticus 10:9-11). “No priest shall drink wine when he enters the inner court” (Ezekiel 44:21).
Although this no longer applies as law, we should consider the extent to which the reasoning and principles behind this Old-Testament restriction might still apply to church leaders under the New Covenant.
People in important positions should not drink. “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink; lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted” (Proverbs 31:4, 5).
In our age, this applies to anyone who operates a vehicle. Even worldly people encourage drivers not to drink at all with the slogan: “If you’ve had a drink, let someone else drive.”
There are also health considerations. The American Medical Association advises expectant mothers not to drink alcoholic beverages at all because even small amounts of alcohol in the mother’s blood can cause brain damage to an unborn child. It must also be taken into consideration that because of the lower blood volume, women are more sensitive to alcohol than men. On average, half a glass of wine puts the same percentage of alcohol into a woman’s blood as a whole glass for a man. Some studies indicate that alcohol-use by a father can cause brain damage to his children.
Because their brains are still developing, alcohol can also cause brain-damage to children and adolescents. Thus, the American Medical Association recommends that no one under 21 should drink alcohol at all.
Certain medications, including many pain killers, may not be combined with alcohol. Even small amounts of alcohol trigger migraines and panic attacks in some people, after the alcohol wears off.
An alcoholic may not drink alcohol at all. Anyone can become addicted to alcohol. Certain people, however, are extremely susceptible to alcohol addiction. This incurable condition is called alcoholism. It is estimated that from 5 to 7% of the population are active alcoholics. The percentage that are latent alcoholics is difficult to estimate, but it is believed to also be from 5 to 7%. Although latent alcoholics have never used alcohol, because of their make-up, they would become enslaved if they did.
It has been discovered that an alcoholic’s body quickly compensates for alcohol, which means that he can drink alcohol without appearing drunk. But precisely because his body adjusts to alcohol so fast, he also becomes quickly dependent and enslaved, and cannot get along without alcohol once he starts drinking. He gradually needs more and more to keep from having distressing withdrawal symptoms. Thus he is locked into a vicious circle, and alcohol eventually destroys his health and ruins his life unless he can accept the reality that for him the only solution is not to drink at all.
Alcoholism manifests itself in different ways. Compulsive use of alcohol can be either continuous or periodic.
Some alcoholics start by drinking a small amount of alcohol every day, and although they never appear drunk at first, the amount they need daily gradually increases until the alcohol in their blood finally starts disrupting their personal, family, social and professional activities.
Other alcoholics do not drink every day, but are unable to stop after one drink: one drink leads to another, and another. After drinking too much, the bad consequences can cause them to refrain from drinking for a while. But the next time they have an alcoholic beverage, the same thing happens.
The causes of alcoholism are complex. The various underlying factors include a genetic element. Studies have shown that (whereas in the general population the chance of being an alcoholic is between 10 and 15%) the child of an alcoholic has a 25% chance of being highly susceptible to alcohol addiction. It is not dishonorable to have this hereditary susceptibility, but someone who does, must be able to accept the fact that he must avoid alcohol entirely to keep from becoming enslaved.
Some of the early warning signs of alcoholism are: needing a certain amount of alcohol every day; planning to take just one drink but ending up taking several; having a craving and enthusiasm for alcoholic beverages; having a drink before stressful situations; having a drink to calm one’s nerves; drinking alone; having a drink in the morning; neglecting responsibilities to buy alcohol; becoming more accident prone; hiding the amount drunk from family and friends; denying that there is a problem when others suggest that too much is being drunk.
Denial is common even in extremely advanced stages of alcoholism! The addict does not think straight about his use of alcohol. Even close family members can also be in denial and make excuses for the alcoholic!
Christians must be sober. We may not befuddle our minds with alcohol or be addicted to alcohol.
“Thus be alert in your thinking, be sober” (1 Peter 1:13 RD).
Avoidance of alcohol-abuse is a matter of life and death, both physically and spiritually. Through alcohol, Satan destroys many lives, and turns many homes into hell on earth. In addition to the thousands of deaths each year from alcohol poisoning and alcohol-related illnesses such as liver failure, alcohol is involved in 50% of arrests, in 40% of traffic fatalities, in 30% of fire fatalities, in 30% of drownings and in 20% of suicides. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).
Let us be sober. “Let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober” (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8). Amen.
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)
Footnote

* Quoted by Athenaeus in The Deipnosophists or The Banquet of the Learned. The original, in a different translation, can be found on page 59 at this web address of the University of Wisconsin, followed by a quotation from Eubulus with similar content:
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Literature/Literature-idx?type=goto&id=Literature.AthV1&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=59

The Holy Place, or the Most Holy Place? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=736&b=Hebrews

The Holy Place, or the Most Holy Place?

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In Exodus 40:26, the Bible states that the “golden altar” was in the holy place of the tabernacle, in front of the veil. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews (9:3-4) indicates that the altar of incense was in the most holy place. How can these passages be harmonized?
In responding to this question, some background information is in order. When the children of Israel came into the desolate region of Sinai following their exodus from Egypt, Jehovah ordained a regulated system of worship that was designed to accommodate their sojourn in that wilderness. A part of that order was the tabernacle—a movable, tent-like structure that was to serve as the house of the Lord under those temporary conditions. In the construction of the tabernacle, Moses was “warned of God” that he make all things “according to the pattern” that was shown to him at Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 8:5).
The tabernacle was divided into two rooms, the holy place and the most holy place (or holy of holies). Within the former, according to the account in Exodus 40, three items of furniture were located. On the northern side was the table of showbread, while the golden lampstand was on the south. Finally, to the west, just “before the veil” that separated the holy place from the holy of holies, was the golden altar of incense (Exodus 30:6; 40:26).
Here, then, as indicated above, is the problem. In the book of Hebrews, the writer, in describing the same circumstance, stated that “behind the second veil” there was a compartment “called the holy of holies; having a golden altar of incense...” (Hebrews 9:3-4).
Some critics have not hesitated to declare that the author of Hebrews made a mistake. James Moffatt observed that “the irregularity of placing it [the golden altar—WJ] on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies” (1957, p. 115). Such a declaration, however, not only is inconsistent with a respectable view of biblical inspiration, but also is wholly unnecessary.
As I have emphasized in previous discussions (Jackson, 1986, 2:51ff.), no legitimate contradiction can be charged against statements that superficially appear to conflict unless every conceivable possibility of reconciliation has been exhausted. One must approach the controversial text(s) and ask: Is there any feasible way to harmonize these passages? If there is, no allegation of a real discrepancy can be made. Now, what are the facts of this case? Several solutions to the difficulty have been proposed. Some of these, however, are less than totally convincing. Let us reflect upon a few of them.
(1) Some have argued that the golden altar of incense was not in the holy place, as evinced by the fact that in Exodus 26:35 only the table of showbread and the lampstand are mentioned as items of furniture in that room. The conclusion thus is drawn that the altar of incense must have been in the holy of holies. This logic is not persuasive. First, neither is the altar of incense mentioned in Exodus 26:33-34 as being found in the most holy place. Hence, silence cannot be the deciding factor. Second, the golden altar clearly is located in the holy place in other passages (Exodus 30:6; 40:26). Besides that, if the golden altar was in the holy of holies, how could the priests burn incense thereupon each day (cf. Luke 1:9), since the most holy place could be entered only yearly—on the day of atonement—and then by the high priest alone (Hebrews 9:7)?
(2) The Greek text of Hebrews 9:4 speaks of a golden thumiaterion for the burning of incense. The original word denotes either a place, or a vessel, used in burning incense. Thus, thumiaterion is rendered “censer” (KJV) or “altar” (ASV). Some argue, therefore, that the inspired writer of this passage did not allude to the altar of incense, but rather to a censer that was kept within the holy of holies, but which was employed annually to convey coals from the altar into the most holy place according to the instructions of Leviticus 16:12-13. This represents the view of scholars like Albert Barnes, James MacKnight, and S.T. Bloomfield. An objection to this theory would be that if the writer refers only to a censer, then there is no mention at all of the golden altar. True, but then there is no reference to the laver or brazen altar that stood just before the tabernacle, and that likewise were an integral part of the priestly service. It is possible that only the censer was mentioned “because it was the principal part of the furniture which the high priest used on the day of expiation” (Bengal, 1877, 3:418). Still, it seems odd that the lesser object, the censer, would be mentioned, while the greater, the golden altar, was ignored completely.
On the other hand, there is no mention at all in the Old Testament of a “golden” censer. Moreover, when the high priest entered the holy of holies on the day of atonement, he took the censer with him, thus implying that it was not already within the most holy place. A defense of this view appears to require considerable speculation.
(3) The most popular opinion among conservative scholars argues that Hebrews 9:4 refers not to a censer, but to the golden altar of incense. It is carefully pointed out, though, that this passage does not actually say that the altar was within the most holy place. The text literally reads: “...behind the second veil was a room which is called the holy of holies, having [echousa, present participle] a golden altar of incense” (Hebrews 9:3-4). The verb echo can be employed in the sense of “belonging to,” i.e., in close “association with” something (cf. Hebrews 6:9). Marcus Dods observed that “the change from en he [within] of ver. 2 to echousa [having] is significant, and indicates that it was not precisely its local relations he had in view, but rather its ritual associations” (1956, 4:328). Theodor Zahn stated that the Hebrew writer was describing an “ideal relation” of the altar to the most holy place (1973, 2:364). John Ebrard contended that one is not required to interpret echousa “in a local sense” in this verse. As an example, he cited verse one of this very chapter: “Now even the first covenant had [echein] ordinances...” (1859, 6:492).
That there was a very strong connection between the altar of incense and the most holy place is evinced by several suggestions in the Old Testament. Note the following. (1) There was a ritualistic association between the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense in that the high priest sprinkled blood upon both of them on the annual day of atonement (Exodus 30:10). (2) Also, on the day of atonement, the high priest carried live coals from the golden altar, along with incense, into the holy of holies (Leviticus 16:10). Thus, on that day, once a year, the firepan, in which the coals were transported, became an extension of the altar. In that sense, it might be said that the altar “belonged to” the most holy place. (3) In a religious sense, the altar of incense actually was said to stand “before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12) and “before the ark of the testimony” (Exodus 40:5). In fact, the author of First Kings states that the altar of gold “belonged to” the oracle, i.e., the inner sanctuary (see 1 Kings 6:22). Of this passage, R.D. Patterson noted that even though the altar was materially in the holy place, “functionally and symbolically it was associated with the Most Holy Place” (1988, 4:67). Another scholar observed that while the altar was locally situated in the holy place, “in its nature and idea” it pertained to the most holy place (Kay, 1981, 10:69). Professor William Milligan argued, on the basis of inference, that on the day of atonement the veil between the holy and most holy places was opened so that the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant stood in close proximity, and that it was from this vantage point that the author of Hebrews wrote (n.d., 3:230).
Thus, a strong case can be made for the fact that the writer of Hebrews (9:3-4) was not stressing the location of the altar of incense; rather, he was emphasizing its theological connection with the most holy place of the tabernacle.
In view of this, let us remind ourselves of the Law of Contradiction. This logical maxim affirms that a thing cannot both be, and not be, if one is speaking of the same thing, employing the same time reference, and using his terms in an identical sense. In the case before us, one should not charge that there is a contradiction between Exodus 30:6 and Hebrews 9:3-4, for the distinct possibility exists that: (a) two different objects are in view, i.e., the golden altar and a censer; or (b) what is more likely, two different senses are employed, i.e., the altar was described in a spatial sense in the Exodus passage, and a theological sense in the Hebrews context. It is thus wholly unwarranted to suggest that a biblical contradiction must exist with reference to the location of the golden altar of incense.
REFERENCES
Bengal, J. A. (1877), Gnomon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dods, Marcus (1956), “Hebrews,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ebrard, John Henry Augustus (1859), “Hebrews,” Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Hermann Olshausen, Ed. (New York: Sheldon & Company).
Jackson, Wayne (1986), Essays in Apologetics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc.).
Kay, William (1981 reprint), “Hebrews,” The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Milligan, William (no date), The Bible Educator, ed. E.H. Plumptre (London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin).
Moffatt, James (1957), The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Patterson, R. D. (1988), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F.E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Zahn, Theodor (1973 reprint), Introduction to the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock).

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5007

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In little more than half a century, American culture has experienced a massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards. One facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values has been dramatically altered gender roles. The feminist agenda has penetrated the American social landscape. Indeed, the onset of the feminist movement in the turbulent 1960s sparked a significant adjustment of societal norms resulting in the transformation of virtually every sphere of American culture—from the home and the church to the business world and beyond. Women now routinely serve in historically male capacities, including the military, politics, sports, and a host of community services including fire, police, ambulance, etc.
Make no mistake, a number of changes with regard to gender have emerged that may be deemed beneficial and positive. Nevertheless, the overall impact on American civilization has been negative, and the erosion of femininity has ushered in a host of evils that are hastening America’s moral implosion (e.g., abortion and homosexuality). Concomitant with the effort to eradicate gender differentiation has been the degradation of masculinity and the restructuring of the family unit (the fundamental building block of humanity—Genesis 1:27; 2:24). As womanhood has been devalued and her function altered, the rest of society has suffered dramatically. After all, women inevitably exert a profound influence on culture and society—for good or ill. Virtuous femininity is the glue that holds human civilization together. In the words of American poet William Ross Wallace’s immortal poem, “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Rules the World” (1865). Sadly for America, feminism has overturned the rocker, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, punched Dad in the face, and stomped away from the house in a huff.

the bible still has the correct perspective

Amid this polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who wish to conform to Bible protocol and those who wish to modernize, update, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say we are the product of a male-dominated society and have consequently misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
The underlying catalyst for this social turmoil, and resulting gender confusion, has been the rejection of the Bible as the authentic Word of the divine Being Who created the Universe and humans. Even among those who continue to profess their allegiance to Christianity, large numbers have capitulated to political correctness and abandoned the traditional, i.e., biblical, depiction of gender roles as defined by the Creator. In their quest to maintain relevance among the shifting sands of secular culture, they have imbibed the spirit of the age, been infected by humanistic philosophy, and consequently have compromised the clear teaching of Scripture on the role of women (cf. “Gender Inclusive…,” 2013; “Believe It…,” 2006; Pauls, 2013; “The Role of…,” 2006; Stirman, 2010).
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as engaging in “fresh scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is guilty of prejudice and being unduly influenced by “Church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of American society?
Nevertheless, Bible teaching on this subject is not that difficult to ascertain. Recent attempts to redefine gender roles fall flat, not only before a sensible assessment of relevant Bible passages on the subject, but in the face of the 2,000 year history of Christianity which has, for the most part, demonstrated a generally accurate grasp of the basic parameters of God’s will on this matter. Such has certainly been true in America where the Founders and 18th century men and women embraced the Christian worldview, and believed that “family integrity was indispensable for the public safety and happiness” (West, 1997, p. 85).

Relevant Bible Passages

A detailed study of the relevant biblical texts in one article is impossible. However, God’s Word is essentially simple on any significant subject in the Bible [NOTE: For useful discussions see Hicks and Morton, 1978; Piper and Grudem, 1991; Cottrell, 1992; Highers, 1991; Laws, 1994; Warren, 1975; Miller, 1994; Miller, 1996.] In fact, it is the more recently emerging “scholars” with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (e.g., Osburn, 1993). Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). Is such a cavalier attitude to be allowed to so easily dismiss the historical and biblical distinction between the sexes? The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.

1 Corinthians

Chapters 11 and 14 of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men. [NOTE: The equality of male and female in Galatians 3:28 pertains to salvation status, not role.] Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter 14. In chapter 11, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an authoritative act of leadership. They recognized that to wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated explicitly in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted in the created ordernot culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
Later in the same context (in chapter 14), Paul addresses further the confusion over spiritual gifts and returns specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasizes the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence.” Cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word, and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters 11 and 14 address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts are no longer available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see Miller, 2003a), and veils, in Western society, are no longer a cultural symbol of female submission (see Miller, 2003b; cf. Moore, 1998). Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.

1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).
The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.
In this passage, Paul affirms that adult males (andras) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech, metonymy, in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth from holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus on appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast framed in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text. Authentein should be translated “to have (or exercise) authority” (NKJV, ESV, NIV, RSV, NASB). Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.
Why? Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment, stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum, until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not. The Holy Spirit gives the reason for the limitations, and that reason transcends all culture and all locales. Paul states that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because Adam was created before Eve. Here we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate. But what does the chronological priority of Adam have to do with the interrelationship of male and female?

Grounded in Creation—Not Culture

Paul is saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male first as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate—though not inferior—assistant. God could have created the woman first, but He did not. He could have created both male and female simultaneously,but He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created to be “an help meet for him,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that in a unique sense, the woman was created for the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating “the woman whom You gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued in the Corinthian letter on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of naming the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evidenced by the practice of primogeniture—the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission arrangement of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborates on this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with and act in violation of divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership, thereby circumventing the divine arrangement of male-female relations.
Paul concludes his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God, undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11 suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church—but then permit single women to lead?

Deaconesses

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word diakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office is under consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. “Our sister” designates her church membership and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2 translated “help” implies a technical usage. It is true that prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that diakonos does in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun prostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun prostatis means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.
The second passage that some have appealed to in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since gunaikas (from gune) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy: “female” in 2:9-12,14 and “wife” in 3:2,12; 5:9.
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in a discussion of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual to switch in the middle to female deacons for one verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could simply mean that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with gunaikas (“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two ministrae (female ministers). This term has the same ambiguity within it that diakonos has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian Didascalia do we find reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women would hardly be content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.

unequal or inferior?

A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women are often superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of all human beings to the will of God (Ephesians 5:21). It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing am I to fit myself into God’s arrangement?”

Conclusion

The role of gender, like most of the values of Western civilization, is in the throes of confusion and redefinition. Those who resist unbiblical redefinitions are considered tradition-bound, narrow-minded, chauvinistic misogynists, as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters; as if the Bible has been misunderstood all these years. If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today.
Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible will remain unaffected by and disinterested in the teaching of the Bible regarding gender. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words we will be judged (John 12:48). For those who respect the Bible as the Word of God, Bible teaching is fatal to the notion of female leadership in the church and home. May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of Heaven.

References

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
“Believe It Or Not” (2006), Christianity: Then and Now, ed. John Waddey, 5[11], July, http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com/PDF/CTN%20July%2006.pdf.
Cottrell, Jack (1992), Feminism and the Bible (Joplin, MO: College Press).
“Gender Inclusive and Egalitarian Churches in the Church of Christ Heritage” (2013), http://www.wherethespiritleads.org/gender_inclusive_churches.htm.
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Hicks, John, and Bruce Morton (1978), Woman’s Role in the Church (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).
Highers, Alan, ed., (1991), “Role of Women in the Church,” The Spiritual Sword, 22[2], January.
Laws, Jim, ed. (1994), Women To The Glory of God (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ).
Lewis, Jack (1988), Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (1994), “An Exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (Part 1) & (Part 2),” The Restorer, 14[3]:12-16 & 14[4]:9-14, March & April.
Miller, Dave (1996), “Feminist Attitudes Toward the Bible,” The Spiritual Sword, 27[2]:3-6, January.
Miller, Dave (2003a), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0303b.htm.
Miller, Dave (2003b), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1275&topic=379.
Moore, Kevin (1998), We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui, NZ: Kevin Moore).
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993), Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994), Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Pauls, Dale (2013), “Good news!: Naomi Walters Named Minister in Residence at Stamford Church of Christ,” Reflections on Announcement, July 7, http://gal328.org/category/good-news/.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. (1991), Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books).
“The Role of Women in the Church” (2006), Cole Mill Road Church of Christ, http://www.colemillroad.org/.
Stirman, Sarah (2010), “Women in the Church: Moving Toward Equality,” Abilene Report-News, February 25, http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/25/women-in-the-church-moving-toward-equality/
Wallace, William Ross (1865), “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World,” Poets’ Corner, http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/wallace1.html.
Warren, Thomas, ed. (1975), “Woman—In the View of God,” The Spiritual Sword, 6[4], July.
West, Thomas (1997), Vindicating the Founders (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).
Woods, Guy N. (1986), Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Divine Design and the Pine Tree by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1557

Divine Design and the Pine Tree

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The naturalistic explanation given by evolutionists for the existence of the created order cannot meet the dictates of logic that characterize the unencumbered, unprejudiced human mind. The more one investigates the intricacies and complexities of the natural realm, the more self-evident it is that a grand and great Designer is responsible for the existence of the Universe. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming and decisive.
Take, for example, the pine tree. Some 120 species and subspecies of the pine tree exist worldwide (“What Are...?,” n.d.). The Ponderosa pine tree (pinus ponderosa) is one of America’s abundant tree species, covering approximately 27 million acres of land (“Ponderosa Pine,” 1995). A young Ponderosa pine has brownish-black bark that changes to a distinctive orange-brown color as the tree grows older. The bark is segmented into large plate-like structures whose appearance has been likened to a jigsaw puzzle. This unusual design has a purpose. If the tree catches fire, these plates pop off as the bark burns. The tree, in effect, sheds its burning bark! This design, along with the great thickness of the bark, allows the tree to be very resistant to low intensity fires (“Ponderosa Pine,” n.d.). Since design demands a designer, who is responsible for this intricate design?
Ponderosa bark
Ponderosa bark
Courtesy sxc.hu and Jesse Adams
Another species of pine tree is the Lodgepole Pine (pinus contorta), so named since Native Americans used Lodgepole pine for the “lodge poles” in their tepees. This amazing pine tree grows cones that are slightly smaller than a golf ball, are tan when fresh, but turn gray with age. These serotinous cones remain closed until the heat of a forest fire causes them to open. After the fire, the cones open and reseed the forest. The species thus regenerates itself—even though the forest fire kills the tree itself (“Lodgepole Pine,” n.d.). Since such design demands a designer, who is responsible for this ingenious design?
Yet another species of pine tree is the Whitebark Pine (pinus albicaulis). This tree possesses a symbiotic relationship with a bird species known as the Clark’s Nutcracker. The tree is dependent on this bird for reproduction, while the seed of the tree is a major source of food for the bird. This mutualistic relationship is further seen in the fact that Whitebark pinecones do not open and cast seed when they are ripe. The cones remain closed until the Nutcracker comes along, pries the cone open with its bill, and stores the seed within a pouch beneath its tongue. The bird then caches the seed to be used later as a food supply. Some of these seed caches are forgotten, or are not needed, thus enabling the tree to reproduce (“Whitebark Pine,” n.d.). Such amazing design—with no Mind behind it? Illogical!
Ponderosa bark
Ponderosa pine tree
Courtesy bigstockphotos.com and Angela McElroy
The interdependent, interconnected, interpenetrating features of God’s Creation are beyond the capability of man to trace out—let alone to “manage” or “assist.” Neither a pine tree nor a pinecone is sentient. They have no thinking capacity or consciousness. They possess no personhood, soul, or spirit. Pine trees did not get together and discuss the threat of forest fires to their future survival, and then decide to produce pinecones that would remain closed during a fire only to open afterwards. The standard explanations by evolutionists for such wonders of creation are incoherent and nonsensical. Elihu reminded Job: “Behold, God is exalted in His power; Who is a teacher like Him? Who has appointed Him His way, and who has said, ‘You have done wrong’? Remember that you should exalt His work, of which men have sung. All men have seen it; man beholds from afar” (Job 36:22-25—NASB).
Indeed, the realm of nature literally shouts forth the reality of the all-powerful Maker Who alone accounts for the intelligent design of the created order. As the psalmist so eloquently affirmed: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.... There is no speech, nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Indeed, “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). Only a foolish person would conclude there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

“Lodgepole Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/LodgepolePine.shtml.
“Ponderosa Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/PonderosaPine.shtml.
“Ponderosa Pine” (1995), Western Wood Products Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm.
“What Are Pine Trees?” (no date), The Lovett Pinetum Charitable Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.lovett-pinetum.org/1whatare.htm.
“Whitebark Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/WhitebarkPine.shtml.

If Cornelius Had the Holy Spirit, Doesn’t That Mean He Was Saved? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1693

If Cornelius Had the Holy Spirit, Doesn’t That Mean He Was Saved?

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Acts 10 contains the exciting story of Peter preaching the first Gospel sermon to the Gentiles. Until this time, many of the Jewish converts believed that the Gospel was for the Jews, and they thought that those who obeyed the Gospel were also supposed to keep the Law of Moses. That was not God’s plan, however, and through several miraculous visions and angelic appearances, God orchestrated events so that Cornelius, a devout Gentile, and all the members of his household, were able to hear Peter preach the good news about Jesus Christ.
God knew, however, that many of those in the Jewish nation would have difficulty accepting the truth that the Gentiles were just as eligible to obey the Gospel as the Jews. Thus, the Bible tells us that while Peter was preaching to Cornelius and his family, “the Holy Spirit fell upon those who heard the word” (Acts 10:44). The result of this was that the Gentiles could speak in tongues just as the apostles did on the Day of Pentecost. When Peter saw what had happened, he said: “Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” He then “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48).
This episode in the book of Acts has been used by some to teach that Cornelius and his family were saved before they were baptized. Their reasoning is this: If the Gentiles had been given the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, then they must have already been saved, because only those who are saved can be “filled with the Spirit.” Sometimes, those who use this argument will go to Ephesians 1:14 and contend that the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of our inheritance,” and if anyone has “the Spirit,” that proves he or she is saved. Is this line of argument correct? Is it true that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit prove that a person is saved? When we explore the entirety of the Bible, we see that this reasoning cannot be sustained.

Those Who Had Miraculous Gifts, But Were Not Saved

Throughout the Bible, we see that the miraculous powers bestowed by the Holy Spirit were not used to prove an individual’s salvation. On several occasions, we see people that were not saved being given such powers. For instance, in the book of 1 Samuel, we learn about the first king of Israel—King Saul. When he was chosen, Saul was the ideal candidate to be king. And yet because of a series of poor decisions that resulted in disobedience to God’s commands, he was rejected by God. In 1 Samual 16:14, the text explains that “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.” Due to Saul’s hardened, disobedient heart, he began to chase David in an attempt to kill him. Saul’s debased mind even led him to bring about the death of an entire city of the Lord’s priests. On one occasion, as he was chasing David, he heard that David was with Samuel in the city of Ramah. Saul sent messengers to capture David, but when they arrived, “the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they prophesied. And when Saul was told, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. Then Saul sent messengers a third time, and they prophesied also” (1 Samuel 19:20-21). Notice that the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon the messengers was not an indication of their being saved, but instead was a miraculous intervention on God’s behalf to save David. Finally, Saul himself went to Ramah in an attempt to capture and kill David. When he got there, “the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah” (1 Samuel 19:22-24). The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were a sign from God, but not one meant to indicate Saul’s salvation. Instead, it was a sign to show that God was with Samuel and was protecting David.
In the New Testament, we see another instance of a person who was not saved being given miraculous power by the Holy Spirit. In John 11:45-57, the Pharisees and chief priests had gathered together to form a plan to eliminate Jesus. Some of their party were distraught because so many people were following Jesus. They opined: “If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Caiaphas, who was the High Priest that year, calmed the group and said: “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). Where did Caiaphas get such keen insight? The text explains: “Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.” If he “prophesied” that Jesus would die, where did he get such accurate information? Only the Holy Spirit could have supplied him with such an accurate prophetic utterance.

The Gifts of the Spirit or the Fruit of the Spirit

Furthermore, the Bible clearly explains that miraculous gifts say nothing about whether a person is saved or lost. In the book of 1 Corinthians, the church in Corinth was having problems with some of their members. Some were bragging about the miraculous powers they had been given. Others were wishing they had different powers. Some in the church were using their miraculous powers in the assembly to draw attention to themselves. In chapters 12-14, Paul gave instructions that would help Christians use the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit in the best way. Chapter 13 is one of the most famous chapters in all the Bible. It is often called the love chapter. In this chapter, Paul explains that miraculous powers given by the Holy Spirit do not prove salvation. In fact, if those powers are being used by a person who does not have love in his or her heart, then that person is lost. Paul said: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-2). Notice that Paul’s statement shows that an amazing display of the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit would indicate nothing about a person’s salvation, since such a display could be done without love.
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13 also helps us to understand something else about the Holy Spirit. There is a difference between the miraculous powers bestowed on people by the Holy Spirit, and the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in saved Christians. Ephesians 1:14 says that if the Holy Spirit dwells in a person, that fact verifies that he or she is saved. We read a similar statement in 1 John 3:24: “And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.” In 1 Corinthians we read, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (6:19). Notice, however, that in Galatians 5:22 we read that the fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” Thus we can see that Paul stated that a person could have the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit without having love. But from Galatians 5:22 we understand that the true fruit of the Spirit, that indicates that the Spirit lives in a person and that shows that person is saved, begins with love. Therefore, it was possible for a person to have the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit and be able to speak in tongues, and yet not have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside him in the sense that the person was saved (see Miller, 2003).

CONCLUSION

Throughtout the Bible, we can see that God used the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit to accomplish many things. This miraculous power was not an indication of the spiritual status of the one being empowered by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was sometimes the case that those who were empowered with such abilities were wicked enemies of God. Thus, we can see that the story of Cornelius and the fact that the Gentiles received the miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit does not show that the Gentiles were saved before they repented or were baptized. On the contrary, the apostle Peter understood God’s message perfectly. The miraculous powers were bestowed upon the Gentiles to show that God accepted them as candidates for salvation just as He accepted the Jews. Peter, in accordance with the Gospel message he had preached in Acts 2, instructed the Gentiles to be baptized in water just as he instructed those on the Day of Pentecost to be baptized. The reason in Acts 10 for baptism was the same as that in Acts 2:38—“for the remission of sins.”

REFERENCE

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=264.