February 24, 2017

The heart of the matter is... by Gary Rose


I really like the caption on this picture! I know, dogs don't talk, but still this is a very powerful message!!  And, for Christians, a very important one!!!

The apostle James says...

James, Chapter 3 (World English Bible)
Jas 3:1  Let not many of you be teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.
Jas 3:2  For in many things we all stumble. If anyone doesn’t stumble in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.
Jas 3:3  Indeed, we put bits into the horses’ mouths so that they may obey us, and we guide their whole body.
Jas 3:4  Behold, the ships also, though they are so big and are driven by fierce winds, are yet guided by a very small rudder, wherever the pilot desires.
Jas 3:5  So the tongue is also a little member, and boasts great things. See how a small fire can spread to a large forest!
Jas 3:6  And the tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by Gehenna.
Jas 3:7  For every kind of animal, bird, creeping thing, and sea creature, is tamed, and has been tamed by mankind;
Jas 3:8  but nobody can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
Jas 3:9  With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the image of God.
Jas 3:10  Out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (emp. added vs. 10, GDR)


Make every effort to watch what you say; pray for help, God will listen and really will aid you in overcoming your speech. And, its not just "swear" words that I am referring to. Gossip, mean speech and anything that puts another "down" unjustifiably would fit into this category.

Truth is, I am still working on my own heart, which is ultimately the source of what I say. I pray that you will do the same!!!

Bible Reading February 24-26 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading February 24-26 (World English Bible)


Feb. 24
Exodus 5

Exo 5:1 Afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said to Pharaoh, "This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says, 'Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.' "
Exo 5:2 Pharaoh said, "Who is Yahweh, that I should listen to his voice to let Israel go? I don't know Yahweh, and moreover I will not let Israel go."
Exo 5:3 They said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to Yahweh, our God, lest he fall on us with pestilence, or with the sword."
Exo 5:4 The king of Egypt said to them, "Why do you, Moses and Aaron, take the people from their work? Get back to your burdens!"
Exo 5:5 Pharaoh said, "Behold, the people of the land are now many, and you make them rest from their burdens."
Exo 5:6 The same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying,
Exo 5:7 "You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick, as before. Let them go and gather straw for themselves.
Exo 5:8 The number of the bricks, which they made before, you require from them. You shall not diminish anything of it, for they are idle; therefore they cry, saying, 'Let us go and sacrifice to our God.'
Exo 5:9 Let heavier work be laid on the men, that they may labor therein; and don't let them pay any attention to lying words."
Exo 5:10 The taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers, and they spoke to the people, saying, This is what Pharaoh says: "I will not give you straw.
Exo 5:11 Go yourselves, get straw where you can find it, for nothing of your work shall be diminished."
Exo 5:12 So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble for straw.
Exo 5:13 The taskmasters were urgent saying, "Fulfill your work quota daily, as when there was straw!"
Exo 5:14 The officers of the children of Israel, whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, "Why haven't you fulfilled your quota both yesterday and today, in making brick as before?"
Exo 5:15 Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried to Pharaoh, saying, "Why do you deal this way with your servants?
Exo 5:16 No straw is given to your servants, and they tell us, 'Make brick!' and behold, your servants are beaten; but the fault is in your own people."
Exo 5:17 But he said, "You are idle! You are idle! Therefore you say, 'Let us go and sacrifice to Yahweh.'
Exo 5:18 Go therefore now, and work, for no straw shall be given to you, yet you shall deliver the same number of bricks!"
Exo 5:19 The officers of the children of Israel saw that they were in trouble, when it was said, "You shall not diminish anything from your daily quota of bricks!"
Exo 5:20 They met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way, as they came forth from Pharaoh:
Exo 5:21 and they said to them, "May Yahweh look at you, and judge, because you have made us a stench to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to kill us."
Exo 5:22 Moses returned to Yahweh, and said, "Lord, why have you brought trouble on this people? Why is it that you have sent me?
Exo 5:23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has brought trouble on this people; neither have you delivered your people at all."



Feb. 25
Exodus 6

Exo 6:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh, for by a strong hand he shall let them go, and by a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land."
Exo 6:2 God spoke to Moses, and said to him, "I am Yahweh;
Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.
Exo 6:4 I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their travels, in which they lived as aliens.
Exo 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant.
Exo 6:6 Therefore tell the children of Israel, 'I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments:
Exo 6:7 and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Exo 6:8 I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage: I am Yahweh.' "
Exo 6:9 Moses spoke so to the children of Israel, but they didn't listen to Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.
Exo 6:10 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Exo 6:11 "Go in, speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land."
Exo 6:12 Moses spoke before Yahweh, saying, "Behold, the children of Israel haven't listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, who am of uncircumcised lips?"
Exo 6:13 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and gave them a command to the children of Israel, and to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 6:14 These are the heads of their fathers' houses. The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel: Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi; these are the families of Reuben.
Exo 6:15 The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman; these are the families of Simeon.
Exo 6:16 These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari; and the years of the life of Levi were one hundred thirty-seven years.
Exo 6:17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, according to their families.
Exo 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel; and the years of the life of Kohath were one hundred thirty-three years.
Exo 6:19 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their generations.
Exo 6:20 Amram took Jochebed his father's sister to himself as wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty-seven years.
Exo 6:21 The sons of Izhar: Korah, and Nepheg, and Zichri.
Exo 6:22 The sons of Uzziel: Mishael, and Elzaphan, and Sithri.
Exo 6:23 Aaron took Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, as his wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
Exo 6:24 The sons of Korah: Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph; these are the families of the Korahites.
Exo 6:25 Eleazar Aaron's son took one of the daughters of Putiel as his wife; and she bore him Phinehas. These are the heads of the fathers' houses of the Levites according to their families.
Exo 6:26 These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom Yahweh said, "Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies."
Exo 6:27 These are those who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt. These are that Moses and Aaron.
Exo 6:28 It happened on the day when Yahweh spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt,
Exo 6:29 that Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "I am Yahweh. Speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I speak to you."
Exo 6:30 Moses said before Yahweh, "Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh listen to me?"



Feb. 26
Exodus 7

Exo 7:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exo 7:2 You shall speak all that I command you; and Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Exo 7:3 I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
Exo 7:4 But Pharaoh will not listen to you, and I will lay my hand on Egypt, and bring forth my armies, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.
Exo 7:5 The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I stretch forth my hand on Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them."
Exo 7:6 Moses and Aaron did so. As Yahweh commanded them, so they did.
Exo 7:7 Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh.
Exo 7:8 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
Exo 7:9 "When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Perform a miracle!' then you shall tell Aaron, 'Take your rod, and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it become a serpent.' "
Exo 7:10 Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and they did so, as Yahweh had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
Exo 7:11 Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers. They also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their enchantments.
Exo 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
Exo 7:13 Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he didn't listen to them; as Yahweh had spoken.
Exo 7:14 Yahweh said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is stubborn. He refuses to let the people go.
Exo 7:15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning. Behold, he goes out to the water; and you shall stand by the river's bank to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent you shall take in your hand.
Exo 7:16 You shall tell him, 'Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to you, saying, "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness:" and behold, until now you haven't listened.
Exo 7:17 Thus says Yahweh, "In this you shall know that I am Yahweh. Behold, I will strike with the rod that is in my hand on the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
Exo 7:18 The fish that are in the river shall die, and the river shall become foul; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water from the river." ' "
Exo 7:19 Yahweh said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Take your rod, and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.' "
Exo 7:20 Moses and Aaron did so, as Yahweh commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and struck the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
Exo 7:21 The fish that were in the river died; and the river became foul, and the Egyptians couldn't drink water from the river; and the blood was throughout all the land of Egypt.
Exo 7:22 The magicians of Egypt did in like manner with their enchantments; and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he didn't listen to them; as Yahweh had spoken.
Exo 7:23 Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this to heart.
Exo 7:24 All the Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they couldn't drink of the water of the river.

Exo 7:25 Seven days were fulfilled, after Yahweh had struck the river.

Feb. 24, 25
Matthew 28

Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
Mat 28:2 Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Mat 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.
Mat 28:4 For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men.
Mat 28:5 The angel answered the women, "Don't be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying.
Mat 28:7 Go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.' Behold, I have told you."
Mat 28:8 They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
Mat 28:9 As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" They came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.
Mat 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Don't be afraid. Go tell my brothers that they should go into Galilee, and there they will see me."
Mat 28:11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guards came into the city, and told the chief priests all the things that had happened.
Mat 28:12 When they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave a large amount of silver to the soldiers,
Mat 28:13 saying, "Say that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mat 28:14 If this comes to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and make you free of worry."
Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were told. This saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continues until this day.
Mat 28:16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them.
Mat 28:17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Feb. 26, 27
Mark 1

Mar 1:1 The beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord! Make his paths straight!' "
Mar 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins.
Mar 1:5 All the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem went out to him. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins.
Mar 1:6 John was clothed with camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist. He ate locusts and wild honey.
Mar 1:7 He preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and loosen.
Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
Mar 1:9 It happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mar 1:10 Immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens parting, and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
Mar 1:11 A voice came out of the sky, "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Mar 1:12 Immediately the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness.
Mar 1:13 He was there in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals; and the angels were serving him.
Mar 1:14 Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand! Repent, and believe in the Good News."
Mar 1:16 Passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
Mar 1:17 Jesus said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you into fishers for men."
Mar 1:18 Immediately they left their nets, and followed him.
Mar 1:19 Going on a little further from there, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, who were also in the boat mending the nets.
Mar 1:20 Immediately he called them, and they left their father, Zebedee, in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.
Mar 1:21 They went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.
Mar 1:22 They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.
Mar 1:23 Immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out,
Mar 1:24 saying, "Ha! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, you Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!"
Mar 1:25 Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be quiet, and come out of him!"
Mar 1:26 The unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.
Mar 1:27 They were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching? For with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!"
Mar 1:28 The report of him went out immediately everywhere into all the region of Galilee and its surrounding area.
Mar 1:29 Immediately, when they had come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
Mar 1:30 Now Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.
Mar 1:31 He came and took her by the hand, and raised her up. The fever left her, and she served them.
Mar 1:32 At evening, when the sun had set, they brought to him all who were sick, and those who were possessed by demons.
Mar 1:33 All the city was gathered together at the door.
Mar 1:34 He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. He didn't allow the demons to speak, because they knew him.
Mar 1:35 Early in the morning, while it was still dark, he rose up and went out, and departed into a deserted place, and prayed there.
Mar 1:36 Simon and those who were with him followed after him;
Mar 1:37 and they found him, and told him, "Everyone is looking for you."
Mar 1:38 He said to them, "Let's go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because I came out for this reason."
Mar 1:39 He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons.
Mar 1:40 A leper came to him, begging him, kneeling down to him, and saying to him, "If you want to, you can make me clean."
Mar 1:41 Being moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand, and touched him, and said to him, "I want to. Be made clean."
Mar 1:42 When he had said this, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.
Mar 1:43 He strictly warned him, and immediately sent him out,
Mar 1:44 and said to him, "See you say nothing to anybody, but go show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony to them."
Mar 1:45 But he went out, and began to proclaim it much, and to spread about the matter, so that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was outside in desert places: and they came to him from everywhere.

Is This Message for You? by J. C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/isthisme.html

Is This Message for You?

This message is not for the unbeliever. There is plenty of evidence to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I firmly believe that any man who will examine the evidence that is available will be convinced that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but we are not attempting to produce that evidence now.
This message is not for the man who does not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. I believe the evidence is such that any man of honest heart would be a believer in the inspiration of the Bible if he would carefully examine the evidence that is available, but I do not propose to do that now.
You do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Then let us proceed.
Jesus prayed that His followers might be one: “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe in me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (John 17:20,21). Did Jesus pray for an impossibility?
The greater part of the world does not believe in Jesus Christ as the resurrected Son of God. Their souls are in danger. For Jesus alone saves: “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We learn then from the Word of God that salvation is in the Name of Christ and in none other.
God through the prophet Isaiah said: “And the nations shall see thy righteousness, and kings thy glory, and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name” (Isaiah 62:20). What is that new name? “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Here is the new name -- Christian. No one had ever been called a Christian before that time. The Holy Spirit confirms this name: “But if any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (I Peter 4:16). We can be one in Christ with this name but we cannot be one and wear any other name, at least not in Christ.
The house of God is the church of the living God (I Timothy 3:15). God told us by Isaiah that in the latter days God's house would be established and all nations would flow unto it (Isaiah 2:2). So God prophesied that there would be one church for all nations.
Paul tells us that this one church would be for all time: “... unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever. Amen” (Ephesians 3:21). Nothing could be plainer than the fact that God gave us Jesus who said He would build His church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Notice again the teaching of Holy Writ: As a husband is the head of the wife so is Christ the head of the church. It is one. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it. He cleansed it. It should be holy and without spot (Ephesians 5:25-27).
In marriage the husband and wife become one flesh. So Christ and His church are to be one (Ephesians 5:31,32). God has left us without excuse if we do not believe there is only one Church that is ordained by God. There is one body (Ephesians 4:4). The body is the church (Ephesians 1:22,23).
We have learned that we have one name and one church. Now we learn that there is one Lord (Ruler), one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Christ is the One who has all authority (Matthew 28:18). We may not submit to any other rulership but His.
There is one faith. That faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). There is one baptism. That baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). We are baptized into one body (I Corinthians 12:13). We have already learned that the one body is the church.
We have division when we have an unscriptural name (I Peter 4:16). We have division when we have more than one church (Ephesians 4:4, 1:2,23). When we have two churches we must of necessity have more than one Lord, we must have more than one faith and we have more than one baptism. People who have another faith also have another baptism.
Let us examine now the day the church was born, that church that Jesus said He would build. The gospel is God's power to save (Romans 1:16). The Holy Spirit by Paul declared that the gospel was the facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:1-4). These facts were first proclaimed to the world on the day of Pentecost and this is recorded in Acts 2. After Peter had preached of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, he said: “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified” (Acts 2:36). Recognizing the authority of Jesus: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).
As we began this lesson we learned that people in order to be one must believe the word as given by the apostles (John 20:30,31). Listen now as Peter speaks: “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Note God's plan: “They then that received his word were baptized and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” Who added them? The Lord added them (Acts 2:47).
Let us note what these people did, whom the Lord added to the church, after they had heard and obeyed the words of the apostles: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42).
Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). We invite you to join with us in serving the Lord Jesus Christ according to the plain pattern that we have discovered in this study. Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6).
Division is sinful (Romans 16:17). If we follow the way left us in the Bible, we shall walk in the light as He is in the light and we shall fellowship with one another (I John 1:7).
I am willing to serve God according to the plan as revealed in his word. Are you? We must have fellowship if the blood of Christ is going to cleanse us from all iniquity (I John 1:7). 
Will the world believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
J. C. Bailey, 1982, Dauphin, Manitoba

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

Elijah and the Drought by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1444&b=James

Elijah and the Drought

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Twice in the New Testament one can read of the drought of Eljiah’s day that lasted for three and a half years. Jesus once referred to this famine while addressing fellow Jews in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:25-26), while James mentioned it near the end of his epistle (5:17-18). Some have a problem with the drought of “three years and six months,” because 1 Kings 18:1 says: “The word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, ‘Go, present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the earth’” (emp. added). Soon thereafter, “there was a heavy rain” (18:45; cf. 18:15). The question is, did the rain come “in the third year” (1 Kings 18:1, emp. added) or after “three years and six months” (Luke 4:25; James 5:17)?
Previously, in 1 Kings 17:1, Elijah had prophesied to Ahab that “there shall not be dew nor rain these years, except at my word.” Afterward, God instructed Elijah to “turn eastward and hide by the Brook Cherith” (17:3). There he lived, eating the bread and meat that ravens brought him twice a day, until “the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land” (17:7). God then sent Elijah to Zarephath to live with a widow and her son. After the child became sick and died, Elijah raised him from the dead (17:17-24). Immediately following this event, the inspired historian wrote: “And it came to pass after many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, “Go, present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the earth” (18:1, emp. added).
Those who contend that Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 contradict 1 Kings 18:1 (cf. Matheney and Honeycutt, 1970, 3:210)assume that “in the third year” refers to the drought. Yet, no proof exists for such an interpretation. First Kings 18:1 does not say, “...in the third year of the drought,” but only “in the third year.” Considering both the immediate context and the fact that originally there was no chapter break separating 1 Kings 17:24 and 18:1, the most natural reading is that Elijah was “in the third year” of his residence in Zarephath. Elijah, the widow, and her household ate of the miraculously replenished flour for “(many) days” (17:8-15, ASV). Some time later Elijah revived the widow’s son. Then, “it came to pass after many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah” (18:1, emp. added). It is reasonable to conclude that Elijah spent more than two years in Zarephath, since it was “in the third year” that God sent Elijah away from Zarephath to confront Ahab.
The “three years and six months” to which Jesus and James referred includes the two-plus years Elijah was in Zarephath and the several months Elijah lived at Brook Cherith. Although skeptics would rather assume guilt on the part of the inspired historian, Jesus, and/or James, once again they are unable to present real evidence for a genuine Bible contradiction.

 

REFERENCES

Matheney, M. Pierce and Roy L. Honeycutt, Jr. (1970), Broadman Bible Commentary: 1 Samuel-Nehemiah, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).

One Code of Morality by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2274

One Code of Morality

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The social turbulence of the 1960s created a revolution in societal mores among the baby boomer generation. The stated philosophy of “do your own thing” literally has “gone to seed” in American society. The result is that many Americans live their lives and make their day-to-day moral decisions on the basis of a hodge-podge of values drawn from a variety of sources. Situation ethics is the order of the day, and the average person simply acts on his feelings and personal opinions. Morality is now individualistic—with each person formulating his own belief system and then measuring his behavior against that subjective, personal, moral framework. Concomitant with the development of this circumstance is the corresponding sentiment that no one should “judge” anyone else’s beliefs or actions, and everyone should be “tolerant” of the diversity of viewpoints that permeate society. When such a state of affairs holds sway, one should not be surprised to encounter jurors who are lenient with a woman who murdered her husband in cold blood. One should not be surprised when millions of law-breaking, illegal immigrants are tolerated and even excused. One should not be surprised that repeat offenders who rape, maim, and murder are allowed to circumvent the criminal justice system and perpetuate their atrocities on innocent citizens.
The Founding Fathers of the American Republic would be deeply saddened to see the extent to which our civilization has slumped from its original high moral ground. In a letter from Paris dated August 28, 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison: “I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively” (1789). He was simply expressing the widespread view of the Founders as well as the populace of the United States at the time. Indeed, he merely articulated biblical reality, in which moral value, good, and evil, are defined by the Creator in His Word, the Bible. By that Word and by that standard, every human being’s life will one day be measured. In the words of Jesus Christ: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Indeed, the day is coming when
the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).

REFERENCE

Jefferson, Thomas (1789), “Letter to James Madison,” The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit (tj050135)).

Ethics and Darwinism [Part I] by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=96

Ethics and Darwinism [Part I]

by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Charles Darwin never lived to enjoy the popularity of his own theory. It would take another few decades for “descent by modification” to dominate the biological sciences. Certainly, he won some important victories. The Origin of Species (1859) gave impetus to the growing naturalism of the day. It devastated the prevailing religious dogma of species fixity, and thus undermined ecclesiastical authority on scientific matters. This success attracted a host of social and political reformers who wished to attack the conservative influence of the Anglican church. If evolution could challenge the status quo in science, then perhaps it could challenge the status quo in fields as far flung as law, economics, social policy, and ethics. Yet Darwin, who shared the reformers’ liberal leanings, saw no application of his theory outside biology.
The willingness to appropriate evolution, and the motivations behind it, has changed little in the last hundred years. Darwinism continues to attract an enthusiastic bevy of supporters who see the work of natural selection in every part of the Universe, from physics to psychology, and from genes to human culture.
As I hope to show in this article, the attempt to derive ethics from Darwinism is flawed fundamentally, and the implications certainly are not consistent with a Christian world view. Also, I would like to look at a relatively new idea that attempts to extend biology into the realm of sociology via an extremely bad analogy. Darwin, it seems, was right to be suspicious: even he would not condone the subjecting of all human endeavor to the workings of natural selection.

SOCIAL DARWINISM

The Obsession with Progress

It is easy to underestimate the social and historical context in which Darwin operated. This is not to say, in the spirit of relativism, that natural selection, like any theory of science, is true only for a certain time and place. However, we have to remember that Darwin wrote during the Victorian era—a time in which Englishmen and women were enamored with the ideal of progress (Gregory, 1986, p. 379). This, really, was a carryover from the Enlightenment. It was an optimistic view that humanity would improve itself through education and liberty.
The beneficiaries of England’s spreading empire and booming industry could see how far they had come, how “right” it seemed that their nation should be so great, and how this exalted condition must be written into the course of “nature.” The liberals of that day wanted government to step out of nature’s way. They thought that an individual could improve his lot in life only by greater personal freedoms and less government interference (Desmond and Moore, 1991, pp. 217,294-295).
When putting on its kindest face, this view seemed to express a hope that God was working providentially through some sort of natural process to bring about a better world or, what really mattered, a better England. There was hope for the poor after all, but God, not man, would see to it. In its grimmest form, progress came by blind, ruthless competition. Nature had sorted society into the privileged few and the starving masses. Laws that favored the poor were futile because they ran contrary to the what the forces of nature had wrought. One day, the poor might find themselves in a better position, but only if the conditions of nature changed accordingly.
Serious proposals along these lines existed long before Darwin’s views on the natural world took shape. For instance, the seventeenth century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, described humanity as being in a “war of all against all.” As far as he could tell, a properly organized society was just a convenient way to rise above that constant struggle. In 1798, Thomas Malthus put forward his “principle of population,” which argued that strife and famine occurred when the rate of population growth exceeded available resources. It was in this period that Europe was starting to experience a population boom, mainly through a decrease in mortality. In 1800, the world’s population numbered perhaps one billion; it doubled in the next 130 years. Celibacy was about the only form of population control entertained at that time, although it was no more practiced than it is today. This left only two possibilities: either provide more resources, or allow war, disease, and starvation to run their course.
The work of Malthus attracted Darwin’s attention, too, although more for its scientific applications. Darwin realized that the descendants of a single pair of mice, or humans, or elephants, would overrun the world in a few generations. Yet this was not happening. Why? Because, Darwin concluded, nature preserves only those individuals that have the instincts, behaviors, and physical traits necessary for survival. Producing more offspring than can possibly survive “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms” (Darwin, 1859, p. 63). This suited some of Darwin’s readers just fine. Seeing the Malthusian principle in all of nature served only to reinforce their belief that large “adjustments” in population were a fundamental feature of the world, and not something to be avoided by social welfare.
English philosopher, Herbert W. Spencer, became the most famous proponent of this reading. His utter commitment to the inevitability of progress led him, on principle, to adopt a strongly evolutionary outlook. In his view, progress permeated everything; nothing could stay the same. Matter, animals, and human societies began in an indistinguishable, homogenous form, and progressed to a state of increasing specialization and individuation. Just as there were many types of bees, and many types of deer, each adapted to its own special place in nature, so an advanced human society was one in which there was a “division of labor.” Of course, this just happened to describe industrialized Britain of the nineteenth century. If this were the latest stage of development, then it must be the highest stage of evolutionary progress. Those individuals who survived this stage would be “the select of their generation.” When Spencer penned these words in an article on Malthus in 1851, the Great Famine in Ireland had taken a million lives, and blindness due to malnutrition was becoming widespread. But for Spencer, Ireland’s misfortunes merely showed what happened when people multiplied beyond their means of support (Desmond and Moore, 1991, p. 394). The best course of action, Spencer argued, was an extremelaissez-faire economy and government. Individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want. Let them exercise restraint or multiply at will—nature would determine the outcome.
After reading Darwin, Spencer came to adopt natural selection as the force behind this progress, but the exchange of ideas went both ways. Spencer convinced Darwin to adopt his own phrase, “survival of the fittest,” in place of Darwin’s cherished “natural selection.” According to Spencer, and others, Darwin’s phrase left the impression that nature might have some sort of intelligence or mind that was doing the selecting. Darwin agreed only grudgingly, and the evolutionist never had a high opinion of Spencer’s work. Ironically, the volatile mix of inevitable progress and Malthusian theory came to be known as “social Darwinism.”
Spencer garnered respect both at home and in the United States. The momentum grew in this country with the work of sociologist William Graham Sumner. As in England, social Darwinism was seen to endorse the uneven distribution of wealth and power, and lend credence to ruthless business practices. Not surprisingly, the famous tycoons of the late 19th century adopted Spencer and Sumner as their intellectual guides. After reading Spencer, Andrew Carnegie “remembered that light came as a flood and all was clear.” James J. Hill proclaimed: “The fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest.” Similarly, John D. Rockefeller concluded: “The growth of the large business is merely survival of the fittest.... This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely working out of a law of nature.” Both Hill and Rockefeller ran operations that were found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Apparently, competition was good, but no competition was even better! After making their fortunes, Rockefeller and Carnegie won renown as philanthropists, donating hundreds of millions of dollars to education, museums, and research, but rarely if ever to the poor directly.
As a popular doctrine, Spencer and Sumner’s social Darwinism fell out of favor on both sides of the Atlantic. Several horrifying events, such as the American Civil War, and certainly the First World War, dashed the romantic, Victorian illusion of inevitable progress. Also, scientists—the people who handled Darwin’s theory on a day-to-day basis—came to realize that the biological process of evolution had little or nothing to do with the organization of human society. It was impossible to judge that one form of society, or one group of individuals within a society, was “more evolved” than any other.

Arguments Against Social Darwinism

Apart from going out of fashion, social Darwinism made a number of critical errors. First, the people most in tune with Darwinism consciously rejected the idea of progress toward fixed goals or ideals. In the process of evolution, there must be no design or purpose. Bertrand Russell diagnosed this obsession with progress as a “human conceit” first staggered by its kinship with the ape, and then recovered through a “philosophy” of evolution (1981, p. 24).
As Darwin envisioned it, a species may appear to make progress one moment, only to become extinct the next, depending on the whims of nature. In an early notebook, Darwin wrote: “In my theory there is no absolute tendency to progression, excepting from favourable circumstances.” His young disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, took pains to get this message across. In his view, the idea that evolution leads to perfection is a fallacy that pervades “the so-called ‘ethics of evolution’” (1896, p. 80). Huxley drew a distinction between the “natural process” of change at the biological level, and the “ethical process” of change in society. Progress in human societies would come by resisting, not following, our natural desires. Although he denied it at first, Darwin eventually came to believe that humans were able to rise above their “natural” states. He even sent money to the South American Missionary Society so that they could “civilize” the natives of Tierra del Fuego (Desmond and Moore, 1991, pp. 574-575).
Huxley’s distinction highlights a second and fatal weakness in social Darwinism. From the process of natural selection, people like Spencer wanted to derive an ethical system. They wanted to suggest what was right and wrong, or good and bad, based on Darwin’s observations. Yet such a move from nature to morality always has proved highly problematic. How, exactly, do you get from is to ought? We may be able to describe the actions of the majority, for instance, but why should this prescribe the standards of morality? Many people may find a certain activity pleasurable. Does this make the activity good or right? One law may benefit more people than another. Does this make that law good or right? Most people traveling on a particular stretch of highway may be going 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limits. Should we now condone the actual average speed?
So, even if natural selection works in nature by changing the size of finch beaks or preserving antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, how can it be right or wrong in a moral sense? If a lioness attacks and kills a baby zebra, is that right or wrong? If a late snow storm kills a newborn lamb, in what way is this good or bad—morally speaking? Human sensitivities aside, we understand that this is “nature’s way.”
Is that not the whole point, though? We cannot put our sensitivities aside. We imagine ourselves in the place of the zebra or the lamb, and we cringe because we would not want to be in their place. Yet, despite these feelings, we cannot hold nature responsible for what it does.
This is what makes recent talk of extending human rights to animals, such as great apes (gorillas, chimps, and orangutans), seem fundamentally confused. Since these animals appear to have a consciousness or self-awareness like humans, so the argument goes, we ought to include them in the moral sphere. Other activists feel that this is too narrow: we need to extend the moral sphere beyond ourselves and great apes to any sentient creature that can suffer or feel pain. But is this enough? What about fears, beliefs, or hopes? By reasonably good analogy we extend our own knowledge of such mental states to other people. But the analogy begins to break down as we go further afield. What does suffering really mean for a chimp? a sparrow? a trout? a newt? These questions are not just rhetorical. The fact is, we don’t know what it’s like to be a newt, and vice versa.
And why stop at consciousness or sentience? People who advocate bringing animals into the moral sphere have a name for their opponents: “speciesists.” It’s a mouthful, but the comparison to “sexist” or “racist” is supposed to be obvious. So why don’t we call these advocates “consciousnessists” or “sentientists” or some other equally unpronounceable slur, depending on where they happen to draw the line of admissibility into the moral sphere? The problem with all these suggestions is that they are just as arbitrary as any attempt to draw the line based on skin color or sex. The boundary of the moral sphere is drawn, not by brain functions or biology, but by the potential for moral agency. Being a moral agent means being able to choose between right and wrong, and being able to act on that choice. Only then can the results of our choosing be judged worthy of blame or praise, yet judging involves others deciding whether we could have acted differently. As far as we know, humans are the only earthly creatures capable of being moral agents. This is not to say that animals could not be the recipients of moral concern, but this makes them moral patients, not moral agents. As agents, we hold other agents responsible for their actions, regardless of whether those actions are directed toward plants, animals, people, property, or whatever. If a man acted cruelly toward an animal, it is not the animal that judged those acts to be cruel, but other moral agents. The animal may have experienced pain or suffering, but we have no idea whether it could grasp the concept of cruelty in any moral sense.
This is not intended to be the last word on the animal rights movement. What I hope to have shown, however, is that all sorts of difficulties arise when we go to nature for our morality. Animal rights advocates make comparisons between animal and human suffering, and leap from there to a demand for moral equality, ignoring the significant question of what it is to be moral. Social Darwinism makes the same sort of mistake. As Huxley saw so clearly, you cannot leap from evolution (which has little if anything to do with human social relationships) to morality (which has everything to do with human social relationships). The processes working on human biology, and the processes working within human society, operate at two different levels.

Social Darwinism and the Bible

At the risk of stating the obvious, the teaching of Christ is incompatible with social Darwinism. This is not to say that the Christian life does not include competition and struggle. After all, it was Paul who said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7). He assured the Ephesians that we wrestle, not “against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (6:12). And the apostle Peter, perhaps more than any other New Testament writer, reinforced the inevitability of suffering for one’s faith, and encouraged watchfulness and strength in the face of adversity (e.g., 1 Peter 1:6-7,13; 2:19-21; 3:14,17-18; 4:1,12-16,19; 5:8-9).
In Christianity, however, competition and struggle are means to an end, not an end in itself. For someone who believes he lives in a dog-eat-dog world, the aim is to be top dog. But for Christians, the ultimate goal is to spend eternity in heaven with God, the highest good is to love God, and the second highest good is to love our neighbor (Mark 12:29-31). When an argument broke out among the disciples, Christ assured them that if “anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35). And it was Christ Who left us the greatest example by putting the whole of humanity ahead of His own life (John 3:16-17). In this world, at least, an ethic that always puts the interests of others above the interests of self is not the best survival strategy.
As we have seen, the better course of action for the social Darwinist is to allow “nature” to take its course. At most, like the great American philanthropists mentioned earlier, he would allow the poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. We may think this has a parallel in a famous biblical passage: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (1 Thessalonians 3:10). However, the Bible shows a great deal of compassion toward the poor. Under the Mosaic law, for example, the poor were granted the following provisions: they were not to pay interest on loans (Exodus 22:5); they were allowed to use a field, vineyard, or olive grove that was left at rest every seventh year (Exodus 23:11); they were allowed to gather from the corners of the field, and to pick up any grain, grapes, and olives left over after the harvest (Leviticus 19:9-10); they were not to be discriminated against, and the rich were not to be favored, in judicial matters (Leviticus 19:15); their labor was not to be abused or exploited (Leviticus 25:34ff.; Deuteronomy 24:12-15); and when in need, they were to receive loans (interest-free) or outright gifts (Deuteronomy 17:7-11; cf. 17:1).
We should note, also, that Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonians applied to those who could work, and chose not to. It did not apply, for example, to orphans and widows without any means of support (James 1:27; 1 Timothy 5:3-16). Finally, there were times when the will and ability to work were not enough, and direct donations were needed (as we see in the relief sent to Judea; Acts 11:28-29).
A critic might allege that such examples prove that we are, in the end, selfish brutes. Human society has adapted by inventing rules that keep our overwhelming desires for self-preservation and self-gratification in check. Did Paul not say, “with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin” (Romans 7:25)? Actually, this seems to be a classic chicken-and-egg problem. In other words, which came first: the desire to lie, wage war, steal, and murder in a peaceful society, or the desire for harmony, love, and compassion in a dangerous, violent society? Evolution would have us believe that the second scenario is true—that ethics came along after the emergence of the human species from an ape-like ancestor. However, the Bible comes down on the side of the first scenario—that it was man’s initial condition to be peaceful, and then came Satan. If the rules had not been violated—if there had been no sin—then Adam and Eve would have remained in paradise (Genesis 3:22-24). God’s laws exist, not to stop us from being who we are (rational creatures able to make choices both good and bad), but to judge the choices we make (2 Corinthians 5:10).

SOCIOBIOLOGY

Social Darwinism, in the form advocated by Spencer, has not survived to the current era as a viable intellectual idea. You still may hear people mention “survival of the fittest” to justify some particularly ruthless business practice or political strategy. Unfortunately, in cases like these, any justification will do, including an appeal to Scripture (this is one reason why I wanted to lay out the biblical view).
Nonetheless, new Darwinian views of society arise on occasion. A few paragraphs earlier, I took sides with Huxley in arguing that the process of natural selection has little if any application to human social relationships. Today, there is a view that the course of evolution has everything to do with human society. This is a subtle shift. It is not a case of going back to Spencer. No one would be foolish enough to bring up social Darwinism—at least not in so many words.
Let me begin by casting this new approach in a generous light: Rather than trying to inventan ethical system based on evolution (as did Spencer), these new ideas attempt to explainmorality in evolutionary terms. Usually these ideas fall under the heading of sociobiology—a term coined by Harvard entomologist Edward O. Wilson. As he defined it, sociobiology is “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior” (1980, p. 4). The “all” here refers to all animal societies, and not just human society. According to evolutionary theory, humans are just animals descended from other animals. There is no comfortable divide, not even in morality. Regardless of quaint words such as “marriage” or “adultery,” what we find in the mating strategies of chimps, rats, or fruit flies applies directly to human practices and conventions.
Yet, is it reasonable to reduce morality to biology? As we saw in the case of animal rights, there does seem to be a fundamental divide between humans and animals. This is not because they have feathers or scales and we don’t, but because they lack the capacity for moral agency. Is there something, therefore, about our “quaint” morality that we can explain away as nothing more than animal urges? Is the propagation of our genes our sole mission in life?
Sociobiology nearly always seems to answer, “Yes.” For example, a survey among university students in Australia found that women were more attracted to slim men. There does not seem to be much of a story there, so medical reporter Melissa Sweet (1997) went digging for something more interesting to say. She ended up consulting Dr. Tim Flannery, of the Australian Museum, who simply dismissed this trend as a “passing fad.” In reality, women could care less about appearance. To ensure “evolutionary success,” all women really care about is their prospective mates’ “status, power and money.” So, wives think mistakenly that they came to love their husbands, perhaps attracted initially by a sense of humor, or strength of character, or even good looks. But no, when a wife tells her husband, “I love you,” she really is saying “I value your ability to pass my genes on to the next generation.” What, then, could cause these young Australian women to disregard their evolutionary dispositions? Is this a behavior that will prove evolutionarily unsuccessful and, as a result, a whole generation of Australians will have less chance of survival? Will those women who desire status, power, and money in a man, and ignore “less important” features such as kindness or good looks, pick the best mates, and in so doing pass this “superior” sense of survival on to their daughters? Eventually, will the behavior trait of preferring-slim-men go the way of the dodo? Perhaps there are a number of “cuddly” young men who hope so.
The strongest, and most sobering examples can be found in the area of marriage and family. There is, for example, the “Cinderella effect,” which shows that stepchildren occupy a dangerous position in society (Daly and Wilson, 1988). In the U.S., according to homicide statistics from 1976, infants (aged 0-2 years) living with one or more substitute parents are 100 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse than infants living with natural parents. Similarly, statistics from Canada for 1974-1983 show that children in this same age group are 70 times more likely to die at the hands of stepparents.
The explanation for this effect, according to Daly and Wilson, is that evolutionary selection has favored such homicidal behavior. It is in the interests of the stepfather to withhold parental support from offspring who do not carry his genes. He does this by killing any stepchildren, especially babies that require a long-term commitment of resources. As proof, scientists cite similar behavior among nonhuman populations. In the case of the Hanuman langurs (a type of monkey that lives in India), males eventually lose their harem to a challenger. The new male frequently will kill his predecessor’s infant offspring. Theoretically, the mothers would stop nursing, thus making them available to mate and produce the successor’s own offspring. This behavior would ensure that a new male would make as many living copies of his genes as possible before he, too, was chased out of the harem (Zimmer, 1996, pp. 73-74).
If similar behavior occurs in humans, so the argument goes, then culture does not exempt us from such evolutionary forces. How, then, do we explain the “Brady Bunch” effect? That is to say, why is it that most stepparents get along quite well with their stepchildren without murdering them? According to Daly and Wilson, this is a matter of reciprocity, otherwise known as “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” Or, to put it in evolutionary terms, “I’ll not get in the way of your genetic legacy if you’ll not get in the way of mine.” What we interpret as love or altruism becomes a cultural mask for genetic self-interests.
However, the evidence does not demand this interpretation, even in those few cases where stepparents mistreat their stepchildren. The statistics seem to show no more than the following: (a) people are more likely to be in conflict with someone nearby that they know (i.e., a family member), than with someone further away whom they do not know (i.e., a perfect stranger); and (b), when family conflict occurs, the most defenseless members are vulnerable to a person with the least parental attachment. It is quite a leap to conclude that unknown genes from some unknown past are predisposing men to kill other men’s babies.

GENES AND BEHAVIOR

Where, in fact, is the proof that evolution has selected a trait for wiping out one’s stepchildren? Another way of posing this question is to ask, “Where is the gene for infanticide?”
The point is this: genes store the code that a cell uses to make proteins. These proteins may have one or more roles to play in forming structure (hair, bone, etc.), regulating functions (hormones), transporting substances, defending against intruders (antibodies), or catalyzing chemical reactions (enzymes). So, what proteins incite a man to kill his stepchild? Does a child emit some sort of chemical, like a pheromone, that causes a violent reaction among all genetically unrelated people in close proximity? [We may have met some children like that, but it would be nice to see the evidence supporting those feelings!] Would it not be evolutionarily more advantageous to preserve a gene for something (again, like a pheromone) that endears a child to both its parent and stepparent? Does a human adult male really benefit from infanticide? If he murders the children of his wife’s former marriage, would the reciprocity principle not go by the way side? Could the wife trust her infanticidal husband if they had children of their own?
These questions, and their lack of answers, highlight the problem of applying natural selection to features of human populations. In this case, it is very difficult to say how or why natural selection would have preserved a genetic trait for infanticide. This especially is true given the relatively low incidence of infanticide in human societies when compared to animals such as the Hanuman langurs. Thankfully, infanticide remains an abnormal behavior, and cannot be an important survival strategy in our own species.
A comment by Stephen Jay Gould seems appropriate at this point. While he admits that evolution could have programmed humans to, say, distinguish between members of our own group and members of other groups, this in itself does not compel us to wipe them out. Here is an outspoken evolutionist who rejects the idea that genes determine behavior. His comments relate to genocide, but they could apply to infanticide, rape, adultery, or other behaviors attributed to our supposed evolutionary heritage:
An evolutionary speculation can only help if it teaches us something we don’t know already—if, for example, we learned that genocide was biologically enjoined by certain genes, or even that a positive propensity, rather than a mere capacity, regulated our murderous potentiality. But the observational facts of human history speak against determination and only for potentiality (Gould, 1996).
Stepfathers have the potential to murder their stepchildren. Ethnic groups have the potential to wipe out other groups. Spouses have the potential to be unfaithful. As crime statistics and news stories show, humans seem to be capable of nearly unlimited wickedness and cruelty. However, we know that most humans for the majority of history have survived quite well without engaging in these activities on a widespread, consistent basis. It is very difficult, therefore, to invoke natural selection—a supposed regularity of nature—to preserve such traits.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article was extracted, and has been significantly revised, from a chapter I wrote for inclusion in Dangerous ’Isms, edited by B.J. Clarke (Southaven, MS: Power Publications, 1997).]

REFERENCES

Daly, Martin and Margo Wilson (1988), “Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide,” Science, 242:519-524, October 28.
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, reprint of first edition).
Desmond, Adrian and James Moore (1991), Darwin (New York: Warner Books).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1996), “The Diet of Worms and the Defenstration of Prague,” Natural History, 105[9]:18-24,64,66-68, September.
Gregory, Frederick (1986), “The Impact of Darwinian Evolution on Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century,” in God & Nature, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 369-390.
Huxley, Thomas H. (1896), “Evolution and Ethics: The Romanes Lecture, 1893,” Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays (New York: D. Appleton).
Russell, Bertrand (1981 reprint), Mysticism and Logic (Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble).
Sweet, Melissa (1997), “Size Does Count, but for All the Wrong Reasons,” Sydney Morning Herald, May 12.
Wilson, Edward O. (1980), Sociobiology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), abridged edition.
Zimmer, Carl (1996), “First, Kill the Babies,” Discover, 17[9]:72-76,78, September.