February 5, 2018

Too perfect by Gary Rose


Camellia Flower

Camellia is a genus of flowering plants in the family Theaceae. They are found in eastern and southern Asia, from the Himalayas east to Japan and Indonesia. There are 100–300 described species, with some controversy over the exact number. There are also around 3,000 hybrids. The genus was named by Linnaeus after the Jesuit botanist Georg Joseph Kamel, who worked in the Philippines and described a species of camellia (although Linnaeus did not refer to Kamel's account when discussing the genus).[1] Camellias are famous throughout East Asia; they are known as cháhuā (茶花, 'tea flower') in Chinese, tsubaki (椿) in Japanese, dongbaek-kkot (동백꽃) in Korean, and as hoa trà or hoa chè in Vietnamese.
Of economic importance in the Indian subcontinent and Asia, leaves of C. sinensis are processed to create the popular beverage, tea. The ornamental C. japonicaC. sasanqua and their hybrids are the source of hundreds of garden cultivarsC. oleifera produces tea seed oil, used in cooking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia

I enjoy the wide variety of posts that is found on facebook and while I was causally viewing them today, I saw this flower. I liked it so much that I read all the comments on the post (something I rarely do) and found a strange statement: "too perfect". This roused by curiosity, so I  looked at the picture again and noted the title "Japanese Camellia". So I went to Wikipedia and confirmed that there is a Japanese variation of the flower. So, the picture may in fact be real and not just a manipulated jpeg picture.

But, something still bothered me and after awhile I realized that it was a question that kept coming back to me again and again: Can anything be too perfect?  And with it another one: Can a Christian be too perfect?

I had errands that HAD to be done (which is why I am so late in posting today) but even though I was in the car for quite awhile, I just couldn't get this off my mind. On the way home, I thought of some thing from the Bible that seemed appropriate....


Mat 19:13-26 WEB
13  Then little children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14  But Jesus said, “Allow the little children, and don’t forbid them to come to me; for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to ones like these.”
15  He laid his hands on them, and departed from there.
16  Behold, one came to him and said, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”
17  He said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18  He said to him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’
19  ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20  The young man said to him, “All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?” 
21  Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”  (emphasis added vss. 16-21)
22  But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.
23  Jesus said to his disciples, “Most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
24  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into God’s Kingdom.”
25  When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26  Looking at them, Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”



Someone came to Jesus with a problem: Although he had done everything he thought was necessary to enter into eternal life something bothered him; he felt like something was lacking. In other words, he was looking for perfection. It is obvious that merely keeping God's law seemed insufficient, so he asked Jesus: “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”

Jesus in response told him to sell what he had and give to the poor and follow him. He loved his riches and turned down Jesus' invitation. He didn't have an obedience problem he had a heart problem.

Jesus gave him the perfect solution and it was for his heart and not his head!

Jesus defines perfection and it is the heartfelt application of Matthew 5:2-12 ff.

In other words...

48  Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.  Mat 5:48 WEB

Bible Reading February 5, 6 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading February 5, 6
(World English Bible)
Feb. 5
Genesis 36

Gen 36:1 Now this is the history of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).
Gen 36:2 Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon, the Hittite; and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite;
Gen 36:3 and Basemath, Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebaioth.
Gen 36:4 Adah bore to Esau Eliphaz. Basemath bore Reuel.
Gen 36:5 Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. These are the sons of Esau, who were born to him in the land of Canaan.
Gen 36:6 Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, with his livestock, all his animals, and all his possessions, which he had gathered in the land of Canaan, and went into a land away from his brother Jacob.
Gen 36:7 For their substance was too great for them to dwell together, and the land of their travels couldn't bear them because of their livestock.
Gen 36:8 Esau lived in the hill country of Seir. Esau is Edom.
Gen 36:9 This is the history of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir:
Gen 36:10 these are the names of Esau's sons: Eliphaz, the son of Adah, the wife of Esau; and Reuel, the son of Basemath, the wife of Esau.
Gen 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.
Gen 36:12 Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau's son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah, Esau's wife.
Gen 36:13 These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. These were the sons of Basemath, Esau's wife.
Gen 36:14 These were the sons of Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau's wife: she bore to Esau Jeush, Jalam, and Korah.
Gen 36:15 These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: chief Teman, chief Omar, chief Zepho, chief Kenaz,
Gen 36:16 chief Korah, chief Gatam, chief Amalek: these are the chiefs who came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah.
Gen 36:17 These are the sons of Reuel, Esau's son: chief Nahath, chief Zerah, chief Shammah, chief Mizzah: these are the chiefs who came of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Basemath, Esau's wife.
Gen 36:18 These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau's wife: chief Jeush, chief Jalam, chief Korah: these are the chiefs who came of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife.
Gen 36:19 These are the sons of Esau (that is, Edom), and these are their chiefs.
Gen 36:20 These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah,
Gen 36:21 Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. These are the chiefs who came of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom.
Gen 36:22 The children of Lotan were Hori and Heman. Lotan's sister was Timna.
Gen 36:23 These are the children of Shobal: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam.
Gen 36:24 These are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father.
Gen 36:25 These are the children of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah.
Gen 36:26 These are the children of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.
Gen 36:27 These are the children of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan.
Gen 36:28 These are the children of Dishan: Uz and Aran.
Gen 36:29 These are the chiefs who came of the Horites: chief Lotan, chief Shobal, chief Zibeon, chief Anah,
Gen 36:30 chief Dishon, chief Ezer, and chief Dishan: these are the chiefs who came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir.
Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel.
Gen 36:32 Bela, the son of Beor, reigned in Edom. The name of his city was Dinhabah.
Gen 36:33 Bela died, and Jobab, the son of Zerah of Bozrah, reigned in his place.
Gen 36:34 Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.
Gen 36:35 Husham died, and Hadad, the son of Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place. The name of his city was Avith.
Gen 36:36 Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.
Gen 36:37 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the river, reigned in his place.
Gen 36:38 Shaul died, and Baal Hanan, the son of Achbor reigned in his place.
Gen 36:39 Baal Hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place. The name of his city was Pau. His wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
Gen 36:40 These are the names of the chiefs who came from Esau, according to their families, after their places, and by their names: chief Timna, chief Alvah, chief Jetheth,
Gen 36:41 chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon,
Gen 36:42 chief Kenaz, chief Teman, chief Mibzar,
Gen 36:43 chief Magdiel, and chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession. This is Esau, the father of the Edomites.

Feb. 6
Genesis 37

Gen 37:1 Jacob lived in the land of his father's travels, in the land of Canaan.
Gen 37:2 This is the history of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father's wives. Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father.
Gen 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age, and he made him a coat of many colors.
Gen 37:4 His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and couldn't speak peaceably to him.
Gen 37:5 Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers, and they hated him all the more.
Gen 37:6 He said to them, "Please hear this dream which I have dreamed:
Gen 37:7 for behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright; and behold, your sheaves came around, and bowed down to my sheaf."
Gen 37:8 His brothers said to him, "Will you indeed reign over us? Or will you indeed have dominion over us?" They hated him all the more for his dreams and for his words.
Gen 37:9 He dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, "Behold, I have dreamed yet another dream: and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me."
Gen 37:10 He told it to his father and to his brothers. His father rebuked him, and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves down to you to the earth?"
Gen 37:11 His brothers envied him, but his father kept this saying in mind.
Gen 37:12 His brothers went to feed their father's flock in Shechem.
Gen 37:13 Israel said to Joseph, "Aren't your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them." He said to him, "Here I am."
Gen 37:14 He said to him, "Go now, see whether it is well with your brothers, and well with the flock; and bring me word again." So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.
Gen 37:15 A certain man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, "What are you looking for?"
Gen 37:16 He said, "I am looking for my brothers. Tell me, please, where they are feeding the flock."
Gen 37:17 The man said, "They have left here, for I heard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.' " Joseph went after his brothers, and found them in Dothan.
Gen 37:18 They saw him afar off, and before he came near to them, they conspired against him to kill him.
Gen 37:19 They said one to another, "Behold, this dreamer comes.
Gen 37:20 Come now therefore, and let's kill him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'An evil animal has devoured him.' We will see what will become of his dreams."
Gen 37:21 Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand, and said, "Let's not take his life."
Gen 37:22 Reuben said to them, "Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him"--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father.
Gen 37:23 It happened, when Joseph came to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him;
Gen 37:24 and they took him, and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty. There was no water in it.
Gen 37:25 They sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.
Gen 37:26 Judah said to his brothers, "What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?
Gen 37:27 Come, and let's sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not let our hand be on him; for he is our brother, our flesh." His brothers listened to him.
Gen 37:28 Midianites who were merchants passed by, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They brought Joseph into Egypt.
Gen 37:29 Reuben returned to the pit; and saw that Joseph wasn't in the pit; and he tore his clothes.
Gen 37:30 He returned to his brothers, and said, "The child is no more; and I, where will I go?"
Gen 37:31 They took Joseph's coat, and killed a male goat, and dipped the coat in the blood.
Gen 37:32 They took the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father, and said, "We have found this. Examine it, now, whether it is your son's coat or not."
Gen 37:33 He recognized it, and said, "It is my son's coat. An evil animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces."
Gen 37:34 Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son many days.
Gen 37:35 All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, "For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning." His father wept for him.
Gen 37:36 The Midianites sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard.


Feb. 4, 5
Matthew 18

Mat 18:1 In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?"
Mat 18:2 Jesus called a little child to himself, and set him in the midst of them,
Mat 18:3 and said, "Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 18:5 Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me,
Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.
Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world because of occasions of stumbling! For it must be that the occasions come, but woe to that person through whom the occasion comes!
Mat 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire.
Mat 18:9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.
Mat 18:10 See that you don't despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:11 For the Son of Man came to save that which was lost.
Mat 18:12 "What do you think? If a man has one hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, doesn't he leave the ninety-nine, go to the mountains, and seek that which has gone astray?
Mat 18:13 If he finds it, most certainly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 Most certainly I tell you, whatever things you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever things you release on earth will have been released in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."
Mat 18:21 Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?"
Mat 18:22 Jesus said to him, "I don't tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven.
Mat 18:23 Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants.
Mat 18:24 When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!'
Mat 18:27 The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
Mat 18:29 "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!'
Mat 18:30 He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me.
Mat 18:33 Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?'
Mat 18:34 His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
Mat 18:35 So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."

Feb. 6, 7
Matthew 19

Mat 19:1 It happened when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan.
Mat 19:2 Great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there.
Mat 19:3 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?"
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?'
Mat 19:6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart."
Mat 19:7 They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.
Mat 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."
Mat 19:10 His disciples said to him, "If this is the case of the man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
Mat 19:11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but those to whom it is given.
Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Mat 19:13 Then little children were brought to him, that he should lay his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to ones like these."
Mat 19:15 He laid his hands on them, and departed from there.
Mat 19:16 Behold, one came to him and said, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mat 19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder.' 'You shall not commit adultery.' 'You shall not steal.' 'You shall not offer false testimony.'
Mat 19:19 'Honor your father and mother.' And, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Mat 19:20 The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Jesus said to his disciples, "Most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
Mat 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
Mat 19:25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
Mat 19:26 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Mat 19:27 Then Peter answered, "Behold, we have left everything, and followed you. What then will we have?"
Mat 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on the throne of his glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mat 19:29 Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, will receive one hundred times, and will inherit eternal life.
Mat 19:30 But many will be last who are first; and first who are last.

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given Isaiah 9:6 by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/018-childisborn.html

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given
Isaiah 9:6
The birth of a child is a grand occasion. Each child is a gift from God with immense potential and an eternal destiny. Every child is special, but this Child would be unique!

“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this”
(Isaiah 9:6, 7).

This birth announcement was written rather early, more than 700 years before the birth!
This can refer to no other than the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Christ, the Great King predicted by the prophets. And there is only one person in history who has fulfilled these predictions, Jesus of Nazareth.
Isaiah had already written: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
The Hebrew word can mean either ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, made 300 years before Christ, Hebrew scholars translated this word with the Greek word for ‘virgin’ (παρθένος) that does not have another meaning. When this text is quoted in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit also used the Greek word for virgin (Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:31). The alternate meaning in Hebrew leaves room for a double fulfillment, one as a regular sign for king Ahaz, plus a deeper meaning relative to the Messiah. The Messiah would indeed be born of a virgin.
The virgin’s Child will be called ‘Immanuel’, which means ‘God with us’. His name will be called “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6), a designation that is used for Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21, “The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.”
The titles of this Child are based on His deity.
The Child is called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor’. The Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, the father of Samson: “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?” (Judges 13:18). In Isaiah 28:29 we read: “This also comes from the LORD of hosts, Who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in guidance.”
The Child is also called ‘Eternal Father’.
In what sense can the Messiah be called ‘Father’? A son can also be a father. The word does not always have exactly the same meaning. Joseph said, for example, that God had made him a father to Pharaoh (Genesis 45:8). The Messiah would be a Father for His followers. In Hebrews 2:13, Isaiah 8:18 is quoted and applied to the Messiah: “Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” Jesus calls His followers ‘children’ (Mark 10:24; John 21:5) and ‘little children’ (John 13:33).
It will be a kingly Child, “the government will be upon His shoulder.” His name will be called ‘Prince of Peace’. Among the thousands of monarchs who have ruled, how many can be called ‘a prince of peace’?
“Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom” because He will “establish it with judgment and justice.” How many rulers establish their kingdom with judgment and justice?
How long will His government last? “From that time forward, even forever.”
The farther we read, the more amazing it becomes! An eternal kingdom! How is such a thing possible? We receive the answer: “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:6).
A hundred years later, king Nebuchadnezzar is informed by the prophet Daniel: “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). This would happen during the third great kingdom after the Babylonian kingdom, the Roman Empire.
In the New Testament we find the fulfillment of these remarkable predictions.
The Romans are in power. The angel Gabriel appears to a virgin and says: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:30-33).
“Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’ And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God’” (Luke 1:34, 35).
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins’” (Matthew 1:18-21).
“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS” (Matthew 1:24, 25).
“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
“Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!’
“So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.’ And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them” (Luke 2:1-20).
“So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel , which is translated, ‘God with us’” (Matthew 1:22, 23).

“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this”
(Isaiah 9:6, 7).
Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

America, the Ten Commandments, and the Culture War by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1294


America, the Ten Commandments, and the Culture War

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


No one can doubt that the United States of America is in the midst of a culture war. This war has been going on for over forty years. The war is between two opposing forces. On the one hand, there is the “politically correct” crowd—those who embrace pluralism, atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. They generally reject the God of the Bible and the principles of morality contained therein. They define “liberty” as the right to believe in and practice whatever they choose. “Freedom” to them means freedom from restraint. They wish to be left free to indulge their fleshly appetites fully. This indulgence has manifested itself most clearly in what was referred to in the 1960s as the “Sexual Revolution.” Many people have insisted on being unhampered in their engagement in illicit sexual activity, i.e., pre-marital, extra-marital, and homosexual sex. (The United States Supreme Court, in an unprecedented action—in direct contradiction to the stance that has completely dominated American civilization since its inception—has single-handedly struck down state sodomy laws—see Supreme Court, 2003). This sexual anarchy has naturally resulted in two critical cultural catastrophes: (1) widespread divorce and the breakdown of the home and family; and (2) the legalization of abortion. After all, illicit sexual activity inevitably destroys marriage, and it has, in turn, led to the destruction of children—either by killing them in the womb or neglecting to rear them properly. Most of the ills of society, and the core of the present culture war, is traceable to this lack of sexual restraint.
On the other hand, there are still those in America who understand that God exists, i.e., the God of the Bible, the Creator of humanity and the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. They recognize that the Bible is His communication to humanity to instruct people how to be successful and happy in this life and how to prepare for the life to come in eternity. They recognize that American civilization must maintain its Christian foundation if it expects to survive and flourish—as it has done for the 150 years preceding the current culture war.
One way to view these two opposing forces is in terms of the generational shifting that has occurred in America. The World War II generation represents the previous social atmosphere when Americans were encouraged to be “God-fearing citizens” who lived according to unchanging Christian values and the standard of the Bible. The “Babyboomer” generation is largely responsible for orchestrating change and igniting the culture war. The mottos of the 1960s illustrate this defiant rejection of the past: “do your own thing,” “make love, not war,” “if it feels good, do it,” and “the devil made me do it.” Such slogans exposed the underlying intent: “I want to be left free to do whatever I want to do with no restrictions and no one telling me what I can and cannot do.” The “generation gap” of the 1960s was simply a rebellion against authority. The present culture war is the result of the continuing attempt to be free from authority and restraint. It is the attempt to rewrite law to make lawlessness legal!
That is what the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is all about. It’s not about that particular monument. It’s not really even about the Ten Commandments themselves. After all, the Bible teaches that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses to govern the Israelites (Exodus 20:1-17). Christians have never been under the Ten Commandments per se (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15-17). They are under New Testament law brought by Christ and His apostles. Is there considerable overlap between the laws given by Moses (which included the Ten Commandments) and the laws given by Christ? Certainly. In fact, nine of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath) are repeated in one form or another in the New Testament as being a part of New Testament Christianity. What Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has said is that the Constitution endorses the acknowledgment of the God of the Bible in public life (see “Transcript,” 2003). Note carefully what Justice Moore explained:
Anytime you deny the acknowledgment of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists. Rights come from God, not from government. If government can give you rights, government can take them away from you. If God gives you rights, no man and no government can take them away from you. That was the premise of the organic law of this country, which is the Declaration of Independence. Because, if there is no God, then man’s power is the controlling aspect, and therefore power will be centralized (quoted in Wright, 2003).
The Founding Fathers intended for the Bible to be recognized as the foundation of American civilization. They never envisioned the government being allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion in public life (see Barton, 1996). They would surely view as insane the generation that would remove from government premises a monument that celebrates Bible law, only to install a monument celebrating homosexual war veterans (see Limbacher, 2003).
For over forty years now, the Christian foundations of American civilization have been undergoing gradual, incessant erosion. The non-Christian forces of society, assisted in large measure by an unrestrained, leftist judiciary, have been systematically dismantling the nation’s ties to the Bible, removing one by one the public symbols of America’s Christian roots. The recent brouhaha over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is simply one more example among a long series wherein the liberal forces, under the guise of “civil liberties” and “separation of church and state” (a phrase not even found in the Constitution) are attempting to expunge all traces of America’s Christian heritage. Make no mistake: the nation has embarked upon a slippery slope that will guarantee its downward spiral into the abyss of godless hedonism. The attack upon external symbols of attachment to God—Bible monuments, the Pledge, “In God We Trust” on coinage, Leviticus 25:10 on the Liberty Bell, and a host of other ties—is simply part of the larger conspiracy to act out hostility toward the God Who places restraints upon human behavior.
Many who have embraced the myth of a “religionless” society and government (interpreting “freedom of religion” to mean “freedom from religion” rather than “freedom for religion” as the Founding Fathers intended) have naively presumed that humans will automatically choose to do “right” (whatever “right” is), and that humans can be their own authority without any outside interference from a higher power imposing an objective standard upon them. They dispute the historical evidence that unrestrained freedom results in moral chaos and social anarchy. Whereas Hinduism posits millions of gods (like all the pagan religions that have existed in human history—gods conjured up by their human creators and, hence, flawed like their creators), Buddhism removes humanity from the notion of higher powers “out there” to whom humans ought to look for guidance, and places divinity within each individual. Hence, every human has within himself/herself sufficient insight into “right” if he/she can just “get in touch” with the inner self. To fail to do so is to be subjected to a virtually endless cycle of reliving earthly existence through an infinite number of life forms (animal and plant) until one learns his/her lesson and “gets it right.” American civilization has been the victim of serious encroachment by this secular “New Age” philosophy.
Please excuse the bluntness, but such thinking is irrational, nonsensical, and, well, absurd. The only rational perspective is the biblical one, the one upon which this nation was founded—that one Supreme Being exists Who is nonphysical (i.e., spirit—John 4:24), transcendent of the physical realm, and infinite in all of His attributes. No other rational explanation exists for what we observe all round us. Evolution certainly does not account for it. No atheist, mystic, or existential philosopher has come up with an adequate explanation. The evidence points to the existence of God—the God described on the pages of the Bible. As the Creator, He has communicated to humans regarding their origin, their purpose in life, and their eternal destiny. Those who wish to be free from restraint in order to indulge their fleshly appetites may invent complex, convoluted alternate explanations for human existence, they may insist that moral behavior is subjective and susceptible to the whim of human inclination, but no such evasions will alter the facts. Those who remain rational, objective, and unbiased are forced to conclude that spiritual reality is within the grasp of every accountable human being. But the individual must decide to seek the truth.
If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14).
The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:10-12).
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

REFERENCES

Barton, David (1996), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders Press).
Limbacher, Carl (2003), “Monument to Homosexuals Is OK; Monument to Ten Commandments Isn’t,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/8/27/142215.shtml.
Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus (2003), “Lawrence, et al. vs. Texas,” [On-line], URL: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf.
“Transcript: Justice Moore on His Monumental Battle,” Fox News, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95342,00.html.
Wright, Wendy (2003), “Citizens Organize Events to Support Chief Justice Moore,” [On-line], URL: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4428/CWA/freedom/index.htm.

In Defense of...the Genesis Flood [Part I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=130


In Defense of...the Genesis Flood [Part I]

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


A careful study of biblical history reveals that God always has provided man with the information required for both his physical and spiritual well-being. In every age, God ensured that men possessed the rules, regulations, guidelines, and injunctions necessary for happiness and success in their earthly pilgrimage. At the same time, however, He endowed mankind with a precious gift. Men were not created as robots to serve God slavishly without any personal volition. Rather, they were created as free moral agents who possessed the ability to choose the path they would follow, and the eternity they would inhabit.
Throughout the ages, human responses to God’s gift of personal volition have been many and varied. Some—humbly desiring to comply with God’s directives—have accommodated their lives to His wishes, and have done their best to live as He had instructed. Others—thumbing their nose at their Creator—have ignored His commands, and have lived in stubborn rebellion to divine law.
Sadly, mankind has not been content merely to disobey God. Along the way, the tenets of God’s law systems (Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Christian) not only were indifferently ignored, but vigorously ridiculed as well. The precepts that composed those law systems have been denigrated, vilified, and attacked. No divine concept escaped unscathed. Great spiritual truths such as God’s infinite nature, His workings in His creation, the inspiration of His written Word, His mercy and grace as extended through the virgin-born, crucified, and resurrected second member of the Godhead, and many more, were broadsided by infidelity. None was immune to man’s desecration and disobedience. Humankind, so it seems, resolved with a vengeance to set its face against God.

MANKIND’S RESPONSE TO THE GENESIS FLOOD

One example of man’s determination to oppose that which God has decreed can be seen in the variety of responses pertaining to the Great Flood of Genesis 6-8. It would be difficult to find an account from any period of biblical history that has been ridiculed more frequently, or with greater derisiveness, than the story of the Flood. Such a response from those who do not believe in God hardly is surprising, since by all accounts the concept of a recent global Flood is incompatible with the naturalistic system of origins espoused by unbelievers. For more than a hundred years the Flood has been under accelerated attack by infidels within the scientific community who have chosen to support such concepts as uniformitarianism and organic evolution. In fact, atheistic writers have admitted that one of the main forces behind the rise of uniformitarianism was the desire to eliminate God as Creator, and as Initiator of the Great Flood (see Gould, 1965, 1987).
In the case of the Flood, however, it is not just unbelievers who fervently have opposed the biblical account. Some who claim to profess a belief in God likewise have attacked—in a similarly vitriolic fashion—the concept of a universal Flood. Harold W. Clark has observed:
The period from the Reformation to the middle of the 19th century has been called the “Golden Age of Creationism.” Many fundamental discoveries in science were made, and there was a genuine spirit of recognition of the validity of the Genesis story of creation and the Flood as a background for science. However, as geological knowledge grew rapidly in the 18th century, theologians found it increasingly difficult to adjust the new knowledge to the short chronology of Genesis. With increasing favor they began to turn to notions that were being propounded by scientists, not all of whom were sympathetic toward the Scriptural account of the past (1968, pp. 17-18).
Religionists of both the past and the present have compromised, or attacked, the global nature of the Flood. Among those of the past, several prominent writers spring to mind. In the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (1870), Robert Jamieson presented a lengthy defense of the local Flood theory. John Pye Smith, in his work, The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (1854), strongly advocated a limited, local Flood. Edward Hitchcock, in his text, The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences(1852), and Hugh Miller in his work, The Testimony of the Rocks (1875), also defended the local Flood theory, asserting that the biblical account of a global Flood simply was not acceptable.
Within the past several decades, a number of prominent religionists also have opposed a global Flood. In the 1950s, evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm championed the view of a local Flood in his book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), as did anthropologist Arthur C. Custance in The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (1958; see also Custance’s 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global?).
In the late 1960s, John N. Clayton of South Bend, Indiana, a frequent lecturer on Christian evidences, made his views known regarding the unlikely possibility of a universal Flood when he said:
There is no way geologically of supporting the idea that there was a worldwide flood.... On the North American continent, for example, there is no place, no real conclusive evidence that there has ever been a flood over this continent.... You cannot go to geology and find evidence to support the idea of the worldwide flood.... The Bible does not maintain positively that this was a worldwide flood.... It seems to me plausible that possibly the flood was confined to the known earth at that time (1969).
In the 1970s, John Warwick Montgomery defended a local Flood in his book, The Quest for Noah’s Ark (1972). That same decade, Davis A. Young (who at the time was serving as a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington) authored Creation and the Flood, in which he espoused the view that “arguments can be adduced to suggest that the flood was a gigantic local deluge.... The flood was fundamentally a judgment of God and not a major geological event, certainly not an event which reshaped the globe” (1977, p. 212). Later, as a professor of geology at Calvin College, Young would reiterate and expand his views on a local Flood in a 1995 volume, The Biblical Flood (pp. 309-310).
In the early 1980s, Neal D. Buffaloe, a biology professor at the University of Central Arkansas, and N. Patrick Murray, an Episcopalian minister, authored Creationism and Evolution, in which they wrote: “By contrast [to the literal, historical view of Genesis—BT], the mainstream of Biblical scholarship rejects the literal historicity of the Genesis stories prior to Chapter 12, and finds the literature of parable and symbol in the early chapters of Genesis.” Later, in referring to the events of these chapters, including the Flood, the authors stated that “these things never were...” (1981, pp. 5,8).
In the 1990s, perhaps the most outspoken defender of a local Flood is progressive creationist Hugh Ross, who has commented regarding Genesis 6-8:
I kind of read through the text and it seemed obvious to me that it had to be a local flood, not a global flood, and I was shocked to discover that there are all these Christians, and even Christian scholars, that held to a global flood. And I wanted to figure out, you know, how did this happen? You know, how did people get off track like this? (1990).
Ross repeated these sentiments regarding his belief that the Genesis Flood was local, rather than universal, in his 1994 book, Creation and Time.
Why has the Flood become such a lightning rod for controversy? And why do those who profess to believe other areas of Scripture oppose so vehemently the concept of a global Flood? In short, the answer is this. Those who oppose a worldwide Flood (like the writers referenced above) have defended publicly the standard geologic timetable inherent in the evolutionary model of origins. They understand all too well that they cannot advocate an ancient Earth based upon that timetable, and consistently maintain a belief in a universal Flood. Prominent creationist Henry Morris addressed this point when he wrote:
The Biblical Flood in the days of Noah has become a great divide between two watersheds of belief. On the one hand there are those who say it is either a purely mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. This group includes practically all evolutionists, but it also includes the “old-earth creationists.”
These all accept the so-called geological ages as the approved record of Earth history, recognizing that a global hydraulic cataclysm would have destroyed any evidence for such geological ages. The geological ages concept and a worldwide devastating Flood logically cannot coexist.
On the other hand, “young-earth creationists” accept the Biblical record of the Flood as a literal record of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide Flood, but also great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah.
Those of us who hold this view are commonly ridiculed as unscientific and worse, so it would be more comfortable and financially rewarding if we would just go along with the evolutionist establishment, downgrade the Flood, and accept the geological ages (1998, p. a, emp. added).
Dr. Morris is correct in his assessment. The simple truth of the matter is that the Genesis account of the Great Flood has been, and is being, attacked because it provides a formidable obstacle to a comfortable belief in the geologic timetable espoused by evolutionists and those sympathetic with them. Rehwinkel has remarked:
Every student of the Bible and of geology knows there exists today a seemingly irreconcilable conflict between Genesis and geology. This conflict dates back about 125 years and had its origin in the rise of evolutionary geology. Up to that time, theologians and scientists were generally in agreement with the Biblical teachings concerning creation and the Flood. But that is no longer the case.... Now and then there are still those who try to harmonize Genesis and the theories of geology by juggling language and extending the six days of creation into six periods of unlimited time, each measured by millions, or possibly billions, of years. Still others preserve an outward reverence for the Bible and speak of Genesis patronizingly as a beautiful but poetical conception of the origin of things (1951, pp. xvi, xvii).
Theodore Epp stated concerning the local Flood view: “This concept seems to have gotten its greatest support from Christians attempting to harmonize the Bible with science. For the most part, the result has been a compromise between the Bible and historical geology, which is based on evolutionary thinking” (1972, p. 138). In the final analysis, however, the central issue is not what current “evolutionary geology” decrees. It is not what “modern science” mandates. Nor is it what those intent on compromising the Bible “wish” God’s Word has to say. Rather, the issue is what the Bible actually says. As Edwin Jones has written:
...the account of the flood that we have does not contain all of the details necessary for a full understanding of how things were done. To judge a general account by rules governing a specific, detailed explanation is simply not fair. There is nothing that cannot be accounted for by plausible argumentation in defending the concept of a universal flood. The main concern, as always, should be what do the Scriptures teach? (1996, pp. 60-61, emp. added).
Since it is the biblical Flood that is under consideration, it is appropriate, in mounting a defense of the Flood, to consider first and foremost the Bible’s position on this topic.

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD

Even its detractors admit (albeit begrudgingly) that the subject of the Flood is a prominent story in the Bible, with more attention being given to it than even Creation. Four of the first eleven chapters of Genesis are devoted to the record of the great Flood. In fact, next to Creation, the Flood of Noah’s day is the greatest single physical event in the history of our Earth; nothing comparable to it has happened since, nor will anything comparable happen again—until the final destruction of this Universe in the fiery judgment yet to come (2 Peter 3). There are repeated references to the Flood account in numerous books within the Old Testament. Further, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament often alluded to Noah and the Flood as if both were historical in nature (cf. Matthew 24:36-39; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 3:5-7). Alfred Rehwinkel wrote that:
The flood marks the end of a world of transcendent beauty, created by God as a perfect abode for man, and the beginning of a new world, a mere shadowy replica of its original glory. In all recorded history there is no other event except the Fall which has had such a revolutionary effect upon the topography and condition of this Earth and which has so profoundly affected human history and every phase of life as it now exists in its manifold forms in the world. No geologist, biologist, or student of history can afford to ignore this great catastrophe (1951, p. xv).
Truth be told, many of the great scientists of the past firmly believed in, and accepted as factual, the biblical account of a universal Flood. Oard has suggested: “More than 150 years ago, many scientists believed the rocks on the earth’s surface were laid down and fashioned by the Genesis Flood” (1990, p. 24). Robert L. Whitelaw has commented: “Long before anyone knew of the carbon 14 clock and up until Darwin’s day, the scientific world recognized the abundant evidence of a worldwide watery catastrophe such as the Genesis Flood” (1975, p. 41). Indeed, in previous centuries both scientists and theologians attributed many of the Earth’s features to the Flood of Noah, and generally were in agreement with the Bible’s teachings on Creation and the Flood. Now, however, that no longer is the case. In our day and age, young people often are subjected to what may well represent one of the greatest possible threats to their faith—the challenge of the conflict between evolutionary geology and the Word of God. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to correlate the Bible with evolutionary geology (see Jackson, 1984, pp. 296-297; 1990), even though there have been those who have attempted such a compromise (Clayton, 1976; Ross, 1994; Young, 1982, 1995; see Jackson and Thompson, 1992, for documentation and refutation of this kind of compromise). As our youngsters study under those who delight in ridiculing the Flood account, or who attempt to effect a compromise of evolutionary thinking with the biblical record, this challenge to their faith will become all the more real. As Rehwinkel stated:
The shock received by the inexperienced young student is therefore overwhelming when he enters the classroom of such teachers and suddenly discovers to his great bewilderment that these men and women of acclaimed learning do not believe the views taught him in his early childhood days; and since the student sits at their feet day after day, it usually does not require a great deal of time until the foundation of his faith begins to crumble as stone upon stone is being removed from it by these unbelieving teachers. Only too often the results are disastrous. The young Christian becomes disturbed, confused, and bewildered. Social pressure and the weight of authority add to his difficulties. First he begins to doubt the infallibility of the Bible in matters of geology, but he will not stop there. Other difficulties arise, and before long skepticism and unbelief have taken the place of his childhood faith, and the saddest of all tragedies has happened. Once more a pious Christian youth has gained a glittering world of pseudo-learning but has lost his own immortal soul (1951, p. xvii).
An in-depth study of the Flood is essential if we wish to prepare our children, and ourselves, to deal with these conflicts. Generally, it is not a matter of if such conflicts will arise; it is only a matter of when.

THE REASON FOR THE FLOOD

According to the Bible, God created the Universe in six literal days of approximately 24 hours each. After that Creation (and the seventh-day rest), mankind was given three positive commands and one negative command. The three positive commands were: (1) be fruitful and multiply—fill the Earth (Genesis 1:28); (2) subdue the Earth and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28); and (3) tend the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). The one negative command was to avoid eating the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). As every student of Bible history knows, however, Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God and ate the forbidden fruit. For this sin, they were evicted from their garden paradise, and a curse was placed upon them (Genesis 3:16-19; cf. Romans 8:20-22).
Outside the garden, Adam and Eve began their family. The first two sons they named Cain and Abel. Cain murdered Abel, and eventually went into exile, separating himself from the main family group (Genesis 4:16ff.). Like two distinct streams, the two family groups flowed side-by-side, and for somewhat more than a thousand years apparently remained separate. Eventually, however, the righteous began to commingle with the unrighteous. The Bible observes “that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose” (Genesis 6:2). Out of these intermarriages came a generation of men and women in almost total rebellion against God. Genesis 6:5-7 states:
And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them (emp. added).
That these unions resulted in such a shameful condition should not be all that surprising. Paul spoke of the evil consequences of such in 1 Corinthians 15:33 when he said, “Be not deceived: evil companionships corrupt good morals.”
At this point, it might be prudent to point out that the period from Creation to the Flood was not merely “a few short years.” In fact, the time span was approximately 1,656 years (see Rehwinkel, 1951, pp. 24-25). A millennium and a half represents a long span in human history. During that time, people (especially those who lived to the advanced ages of most of the patriarchs—see Thompson, 1992) would have proliferated, and spread to many areas around the globe. Man was endowed with far greater vitality of body and mind than he is now (a point that may be inferred from the great ages to which he lived), and inhabited a pristine world of almost unlimited, unspoiled natural resources. Living longer under such conditions, of course, also would mean that man was much more prolific than he now is. Yet even in our age, when life spans are shortened considerably, 1,656 years would be enough time to grow an enormous population. Between 1830 and 1930, for example, the world population doubled in number (i.e., it increased by about 850 million people within a single century). Imagine—given the proposed antediluvian setting of a mild climate worldwide, improved vitality, longer life spans, and impressive resources—the potential increase in global population that could occur, not in 100 years, but in 1,656 years.
The stage, then, was set for God’s wrath upon a sin-sick world. His decree was that He would destroy man, beast, and bird from the face of the Earth. There was, however, something that prevented God from carrying out that decree immediately. It was the fact that a man named Noah had remained faithful to God. Noah, the text makes clear, was an island of righteousness in a sea of iniquity. His character is described in Genesis 6:9 by three expressions. (1) “Noah was a just man” (i.e., honest—likely an unusual trait in day). (2) Noah was “perfect in his generations.” Edwin Jones has suggested that “Noah’s being perfect refers to his being blameless because of his wholehearted, complete loyalty to God. Noah did what was right because he had a complete, well-rounded relationship with God” (1996, p. 58). (3) Noah “walked with God” (cf. James 2:23, where this same phrase is applied to Abraham).
Because of Noah’s faithfulness, a “probationary period” of a maximum of 120 years was established by God (Genesis 6:3). During that time, Noah preached to the people of his generation (1 Peter 3:18-20), all the while carrying out the commands of God regarding the building of the ark (Genesis 6). After approximately 100 years, Noah’s work was completed (Genesis 5:32 indicates that Noah was 500 years old prior to the events of Genesis 6-8; Genesis 7:6 indicates that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the ark. It appears from a straightforward reading of the text that, of the probationary period of 120 years imposed by God, Noah used 100 years or less). However, for all his preaching Noah’s only “converts” were members of his own family group. People no doubt grew accustomed to the large hulk of the great ark, and at the same time grew apathetic to Noah’s message of salvation from impending doom. Sin continued as the probationary period drew to a close. The decree had been made; the grace of God had been extended; the time for action was at hand. Mankind’s sin now would result in God sending a worldwide Flood.

IN DEFENSE OF...THE GENESIS FLOOD

Was the Flood universal in scope, or was it merely a local, Mesopotamian inundation limited to the then-known world? Is the account in Genesis 6-9 of the Flood the record of an actual historical event, or is it simply an allegory, myth, or legend? The answers to these questions form an important part of the defense of the biblical record of the Flood.

The Extent and Duration of the Flood

Genesis 7:11 provides a clear indication of the devastating nature of the Genesis Flood when it states that “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” This was no gentle afternoon shower. Rather, it was the final judgment of an angry God on a sin-sick, destined-to-die world. Water came down (“the windows of heaven were opened”) and water rose up (“all the fountains of the great deep were broken up”), until finally Genesis 7:19-20 records: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” In assessing these passages, Whitcomb and Morris have written: “One need not be a professional scientist to realize the tremendous implications of these Biblical statements. If only one (to say nothing of all) of the high mountains had been covered with water, the Flood would have been absolutely universal; for water must seek its own level—and must do so quickly!” (1961, pp. 1-2, emp. in orig.).
Critics, however, have argued that the phrase “all the high mountains” need not necessarily mean all high mountains, for the word “all” can be used in a relative or distributive sense. H.C. Leupold, however, has dealt a deathblow to that argument.
A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not merely a few but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e.g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood (1942, p. 301).
How deep, then, was this water that covered “all the high mountains”? The text says it was “fifteen cubits upward” that the water “prevailed.” This phrase obviously cannot mean that the waters went only fifteen cubits (approximately 22½ feet) high, for the phrase is qualified by the one that immediately follows: “and the mountains were covered.” The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing Genesis 7:19-20 with Genesis 6:15, where the statement is made that the ark was thirty cubits high. The phrase “fifteen cubits” must refer to the draught of the ark which, in a boat like the ark, generally is half the height (i.e., when fully loaded it sinks in the water to a depth equal to half its height). If the ark were thirty cubits high, and sank half of that, it would sink fifteen cubits. If the waters then prevailed upward “fifteen cubits,” such a depth would be adequate to protect the ark as it floated on the waters all over the Earth for a little more than a year. Therefore the ark would not hit any mountaintops during its journey. [Since Psalm 104:8 speaks of God “raising up new mountains” after the Flood, it is likely that the mountains of Noah’s day were not nearly as high as the mountains that exist today.] A careful reading of the Genesis text indicates that the Flood lasted approximately a year. By way of summary, Whitcomb and Morris have written:
The order of events as set forth in the first part of the eighth chapter of Genesis would seem, then, to be as follows; (1) After the waters had “prevailed upon the earth” 150 days, the waters began to assuage. (2) The Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat the same day that the waters began to assuage, for the 17th day of the 7th month was exactly 150 days after the Flood began. (3) The waters continued to subside, so that by the 1st day of the 10th month (74 days later), the tops of various mountains could be seen. This would suggest a drop of perhaps fifteen or twenty feet a day, at least during the initial phase of this assuaging period. (4) The Flood level continued to fall for forty more days, so that Noah, no longer fearing that the Flood would return, sent forth a raven to investigate the conditions outside the Ark (1961, p. 7).

The Testimony of the Apostle Peter

One of the most important, and most convincing, passages relating to the magnitude and significance of the Genesis Flood is found in 2 Peter 3:3-7:
...knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
In this stirring passage, Peter speaks of some who—because of a fatal adherence to uniformitarianism—did not take seriously Heaven’s promise of the Second Coming of Christ. Nor did they seem to understand that His return would be a cataclysmic, universal intervention by God in the affairs of men. These “mockers” lamented that all things were continuing as they had “from the beginning of the creation.” In response, Peter discussed two events that simply cannot be explained on the basis of uniformitarianism, and in so doing he destroyed forever infidelity’s arguments.
The first of these events was the creation of the world: “there were heavens from of old, and an earth...by the word of God.” The second of these events was the Great Flood of Noah: “The world (Greek, kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” Peter used the account of the Noahic Flood to draw a comparison with Christ’s Second Coming and the subsequent destruction of the world. For, said Peter, as “the world that then was” perished by water, so the “heavens that now are, and the earth” have been “stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” From Peter’s straightforward language, it is impossible logically for men to suggest that Peter meant a coming destruction by fire of only part of the Earth. Peter’s terms—“the heavens that now are, and the earth”—obviously are universal in nature. Peter portrayed one event that brought about a transformation not just of the Earth, but also of the heavens as well. That event, according to the inspired apostle, was the Noahic Flood!
It was the Flood that constituted the line of demarcation between “the heavens from of old” and “the heavens that now are” in the thinking of the apostle Peter. It was the Flood that utilized the vast oceans of water out of which and amidst which the ancient Earth was “compacted,” unto the utter destruction of the kosmos “that then was.” It was the Flood to which Peter appealed as his final and incontrovertible answer to those who chose to remain in willful ignorance of the fact that God had at one time in the past demonstrated His holy wrath and omnipotence by subjecting “all things” to an overwhelming, cosmic catastrophe that was on an absolute par with the final day of judgment, in which God will yet consume the earth with fire and cause the very elements to dissolve with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10) [Whitcomb, 1973, pp. 57-58].
British scholar Derek Kidner has observed that
...we should be careful to read the [Flood—BT] account wholeheartedly in its own terms, which depict a total judgment on the ungodly world already set before us in Genesis—not an event of debatable dimensions in a world we may try to reconstruct. The whole living scene is blotted out, and the New Testament makes us learn from it the greater judgment that awaits not only our entire globe but the universe itself (II Peter 3:5-7) [1967, p. 95].
If the New Testament “makes us learn” from the Noahic flood account that the coming judgment of which Peter spoke so eloquently will involve “not only our entire globe but the universe itself,” how can this lesson be learned from a Flood that was merely local in extent? There can be no doubt that Peter’s argument (that there is a coming universal destruction awaiting this world—an argument framed from the fact of the Flood of Noah) provides inspired testimony as to the universal destruction of the Genesis Flood.

REFERENCES

Buffaloe, Neal D. and N. Patrick Murray (1981), Creationism and Evolution (Little Rock, AR: The Bookmark).
Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).
Clayton, John N. (1969), Questions and Answers: Number 1 [audio lecture], (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).
Clayton, John N. (1976), The Source (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).
Custance, Arthur C. (1958), The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (Ottawa, Canada: Privately published by author). [NOTE: This material by Custance also was included in his 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).]
Custance, Arthur C. (1979), The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Epp, Theodore (1972), The God of Creation (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1965), “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?,” American Journal of Science, 263:223-228.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1987), Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Hitchcock, Edward (1854), The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences (Boston, MA: Phillips, Sampson).
Jackson, Wayne (1984), “Evolution and Creation: Are They Compatible?,” Christian Bible Teacher (Abilene, TX: Quality), 28:296-297, July.
Jackson, Wayne (1990), The Mythology of Modern Geology (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin: A Review of the Teachings of John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert (1948 reprint), Critical & Experimental Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jones, Edwin S. (1996), Studies in Genesis (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Kidner, Derek (1967), Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press).
Miller, Hugh (1875), The Testimony of the Rocks (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers).
Montgomery, John Warwick (1972), The Quest for Noah’s Ark (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).
Morris, Henry M. (1998), “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood,” Back to Genesis (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:a-c, August.
Oard, Michael J. (1990), An Ice Age Caused by the Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Ross, Hugh (1990), The Flood—Part II [audio lecture], (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe).
Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress).
Smith, John Pye (1854), The Relation between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London: Henry G. Bohn).
Thompson, Bert (1992), “The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs,” Reason & Revelation, 12:17-20, May.
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Whitelaw, Robert L. (1975), “The Testimony of Radiocarbon to the Genesis Flood,” Symposium on Creation, ed. Donald W. Patten (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 5:39-50.
Young, Davis A. (1977), Creation and the Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Young, Davis A. (1982), Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Young, Davis A. (1995), The Biblical Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).