From Gary... A key to the heart of the matter

The Bible is a very big book and in some places it is difficult to understand, but when I saw this picture, I realized that if you look at it with the right attitude, it can be easily comprehended. And the key is both the key and the message.

First, look at the key. It is one of those keys that are meant to be carried with you (probably on a key ring, as indicated by the semicircle at its top) Next, notice that it is meant to be turned with the area that forms a heart. Also, that little key has to be put in the right place for the unlocking mechanism to activate. 

And what is the result?

The message it is pointing to, of course...

Matthew, Chapter 16 (WEB)

 12  Then they understood that he didn’t tell them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

  14  They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 

  15  He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 

  16  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 

The Bible is the history of God bringing back human beings to himself and ultimately HE does this through his son Jesus.  And this little key points the way. When the heart and the head are used together and someone points the way (with a key, a word or something else)- the conclusion is obvious. Jesus is truly God and should be both loved and obeyed.

Think of the implications for your life, if verse 16 above is really true.  (And it is) 

From Gary... Bible Reading February 15

Bible Reading  

February 15

The World English Bible

Feb. 15

Genesis 46

Gen 46:1 Israel traveled with all that he had, and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac.

Gen 46:2 God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, "Jacob, Jacob!" He said, "Here I am."

Gen 46:3 He said, "I am God, the God of your father. Don't be afraid to go down into Egypt, for there I will make of you a great nation.

Gen 46:4 I will go down with you into Egypt. I will also surely bring you up again. Joseph will close your eyes."

Gen 46:5 Jacob rose up from Beersheba, and the sons of Israel carried Jacob, their father, their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him.

Gen 46:6 They took their livestock, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt--Jacob, and all his seed with him,

Gen 46:7 his sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and he brought all his seed with him into Egypt.

Gen 46:8 These are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn.

Gen 46:9 The sons of Reuben: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi.

Gen 46:10 The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman.

Gen 46:11 The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.

Gen 46:12 The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. The sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.

Gen 46:13 The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puvah, Iob, and Shimron.

Gen 46:14 The sons of Zebulun: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel.

Gen 46:15 These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, with his daughter Dinah. All the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty-three.

Gen 46:16 The sons of Gad: Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli.

Gen 46:17 The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, and Serah their sister. The sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel.

Gen 46:18 These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah, his daughter, and these she bore to Jacob, even sixteen souls.

Gen 46:19 The sons of Rachel, Jacob's wife: Joseph and Benjamin.

Gen 46:20 To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Gen 46:21 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard.

Gen 46:22 These are the sons of Rachel, who were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen.

Gen 46:23 The son of Dan: Hushim.

Gen 46:24 The sons of Naphtali: Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem.

Gen 46:25 These are the sons of Bilhah, whom Laban gave to Rachel, his daughter, and these she bore to Jacob: all the souls were seven.

Gen 46:26 All the souls who came with Jacob into Egypt, who were his direct descendants, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were sixty-six.

Gen 46:27 The sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob, who came into Egypt, were seventy.

Gen 46:28 He sent Judah before him to Joseph, to show the way before him to Goshen, and they came into the land of Goshen.

Gen 46:29 Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel, his father, in Goshen. He presented himself to him, and fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while.

Gen 46:30 Israel said to Joseph, "Now let me die, since I have seen your face, that you are still alive."

Gen 46:31 Joseph said to his brothers, and to his father's house, "I will go up, and speak with Pharaoh, and will tell him, 'My brothers, and my father's house, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me.

Gen 46:32 These men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock, and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have.'

Gen 46:33 It will happen, when Pharaoh summons you, and will say, 'What is your occupation?'

Gen 46:34 that you shall say, 'Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we, and our fathers:' that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians."

Feb. 15

Matthew 23

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

Mat 23:2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat.

Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do.

Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.

Mat 23:5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments,

Mat 23:6 and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,

Mat 23:7 the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men.

Mat 23:8 But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers.

Mat 23:9 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Mat 23:10 Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ.

Mat 23:11 But he who is greatest among you will be your servant.

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mat 23:13 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

Mat 23:14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.

Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves.

Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.'

Mat 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?

Mat 23:18 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obligated?'

Mat 23:19 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?

Mat 23:20 He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it.

Mat 23:21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who was living in it.

Mat 23:22 He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone.

Mat 23:24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel!

Mat 23:25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness.

Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that its outside may become clean also.

Mat 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mat 23:28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Mat 23:29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,

Mat 23:30 and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'

Mat 23:31 Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are children of those who killed the prophets.

Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

Mat 23:33 You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna?

Mat 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city;

Mat 23:35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.

Mat 23:36 Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I would have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.

Mat 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!' " 

From Roy Davison... Walk humbly with your God

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/030-walkhumbly.html

Walk humbly with your God

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

Worldly people do not humble themselves before God.
God sent Moses to Pharaoh with the message: “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before Me? Let My people go, that they may serve Me” (Exodus 10:3). When Moses first asked Pharaoh to let the people go, he had replied: “Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2).
God warns: “The one who has a haughty look and a proud heart, Him I will not endure” (Psalm 101:5). “I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible” (Isaiah 13:11).
“The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the LORD of hosts shall come upon everything proud and lofty, upon everything lifted up, and it shall be brought low” (Isaiah 2:11, 12).

When the wicked repent and humble themselves before God, He blesses them.
Because he refused to listen to the advice of older men, King Rehoboam had lost most of the kingdom Solomon had passed on to him (1 Kings 12:1-16). In the fifth year of his reign, because he and all Israel “forsook the law of the LORD” God allowed Shishak, king of Egypt, to conquer the fortified cities of Judah and to come as far as Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 12:1-4).
“Then Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah, who were gathered together in Jerusalem because
of Shishak, and said to them, 'Thus says the LORD: “You have forsaken Me, and therefore I also have left you in the hand of Shishak.”' So the leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, 'The LORD is righteous.' Now when the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the LORD came to Shemaiah, saying, 'They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance. My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they will be his servants, that they may distinguish My service from the service of the kingdoms of the nations'” (2 Chronicles 12:5-8).
Although God allowed Shishak to conquer Jerusalem and require tribute, Rehoboam was allowed to remain king. “When he humbled himself, the wrath of the LORD turned from him, so as not to destroy himcompletely; and things also went well in Judah” (2 Chronicles 12:12).

God exalts the humble and humbles the haughty.
This principle is taught throughout the Old Testament.
“The humble He guides in justice, and the humble He teaches His way” (Psalm 25:9).
“The LORD lifts up the humble; He casts the wicked down to the ground” (Psalm 147:6). “He will beautify the humble with salvation” (Psalm 149:4).
“Surely He scorns the scornful, but gives grace to the humble” (Proverbs 3:34).
“When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the humble is wisdom” (Proverbs 11:2).
“Before destruction the heart of a man is haughty, and before honor is humility” (Proverbs 18:12).
“For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: 'I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones'” (Isaiah 57:15).
Various examples are given.
“Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3).
He told Israel: “And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 8:2, 3).
God promised Solomon that He would forgive the people when they repented and humbled themselves: “When I shut up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among My people, 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 7:13, 14).
King Hezekiah restored correct worship in Judah. He also encouraged the ten tribes of Israel to return to the Lord. Most of them laughed his messengers to scorn, but a few listened: “Nevertheless some from Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 30:10, 11).
After reigning for 14 years, Hezekiah had become proud and God decided to end his life. But when he humbled himself, God extended his life for 15 more years. “But Hezekiah did not repay according to the favor shown him, for his heart was lifted up; therefore wrath was looming over him and over Judah and Jerusalem. Then Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the LORD did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah” (2 Chronicles 32:25, 26).
Ezra and the people, when returning from Babylonian captivity, humbled themselves before God and asked for His protection: “Then I proclaimed a fast there at the river of Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from Him the right way for us and our little ones and all our possessions. For I was ashamed to request of the king an escort of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy on the road, because we had spoken to the king, saying, 'The hand of our God is upon all those for good who seek Him, but His power and His wrath are against all those who forsake Him.' So we fasted and entreated our God for this, and He answered our prayer” (Ezra 8:21-23).

The New Testament also instructs us to walk humbly with God.
“Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).
Jesus said: “Whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:4). “And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12).
“Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 'Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank You that I am not like other men - extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.” And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14).
Paul wrote: “Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion” (Romans 12:16).
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, andcoming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:5-11).
“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering” (Colossians 3:12).
Peter admonishes: “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for 'God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.' Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:5, 6).
Worldly people do not humble themselves before God. If they repent, however, and humble themselves, He blesses them. God's people humble themselves before God and submit to His will. God exalts the humble and humbles the haughty.

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

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)

From Jim McGuiggan... LETTER TO STEVE

LETTER TO STEVE

Ach Steve, we're both growing old and it isn't fun. 2015 without a doubt has been the toughest year of my life health-wise and it has continued on into 2016 with no let up. Back pain, infections, rashes, respiratory trouble, insomnia, bone-deep weariness, teeth/mouth trouble, vision difficulties. Old? I think now and then I'm going to take out whatever mirrors there are in this apartment of mine so I won't see my aged self.

But we didn't ask for exemption from human ills and disappointments and we aren't getting it. We're two of the multiplied millions living in a world that's too big for us to handle. But we won't be here much longer. One of these days you won't hear from me at all and then on the wind the word will come to you that I have died—suddenly and yet not suddenly for it was creeping up on me and will one day pounce.

But Steve, I wouldn't have it any other way. I hate what is happening to me as I hate what is happening to you and all the millions around us—all of them—without exception. I'm a human and have known pleasant days, better than pleasant, some glorious days, delirious days, with love and friendship, little things achieved and projects begun that couldn't be finished and with slumped shoulders thought I'd not be able to move on but did. Looked for praise here and there and got none, expected criticism and instead I got a smile and a handshake. Healthy days when I felt unstoppable and indestructible, rejoicing in energy and feeling that it was great to be alive in this big round teeming world.

I have many regrets, screwed up over and over and over again, found myself in near despair, tears flowing, wanting to die, a sense of unworthiness that I felt as soon as I opened my eyes in the morning. In a host of ways I've been trusted again and again and again when it was clear I couldn't be trusted and then there were days when I did and thought and said lovely things, truthful things; times when I was generous and kind and I could hardly believe it was me, doing things that if I'd seen others do them I would have thought they were so like Jesus Christ.

Now and then just to stay on my feet I'd take one of these lovely moments out and examine it with care and tell myself that I was the one who did or thought or said this. These weren't self-glorifying moments, they were moments of profound need where I had to be sure that the entire story about me wasn't and isn't: "Bad. Simply bad!" I've never made my mark in the world nor will I and like the billions before me and around me I will die and be remembered for a while by those who love me before they too lie down to sleep and then I will be forgotten—as it should be, as it is with everyone else. But it's okay. It's true I can't change things so I must, like everyone else, put up with them as they are, and I do, but I'm now content to do it and as RL Stevens would put it, "I lay myself down with a will" and as Robert Browning would have it, I don’t want a cover for my eyes when the end here comes—I want to see it all.

The one unwavering reality—a Person—who's always there, the one I can see clearly when my eyes are not fogged over with some worry or other, some brawl or other, some looming fear or other. This note has that haze of gloom hanging over it but as I write it I don't feel gloomy—I don't understand at this moment how to explain that but I'm not going to edit it. There He is and if he is the truth of things—the truth of the entire human story—with its sins and righteousness, its joys and sorrows, it fears and its assurances, its suffering and its glory, its present and its future then I can rejoice in the throbbing hope he generates and finish my race here knowing I have the best possible reason to think and live in noble thoughts of God and that must bode well for all the untold millions who were born into the darkness and raised in squalor of many kinds and who’ve never had the chance to know Him.

always,

jim

[This note is to a very dear friend who lives isolated in a far away country. He said he felt old, he is greatly burdened by life. I haven't changed the note, just corrected typos and such. It's a genuine expression of where I'm at in life. He's in Christ Jesus so all is well. A very close reading of Psalm 117 comes to my mind now. God is good] 

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabdiding word.com.

Jacob's Journey to Egypt by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=808&b=Deuteronomy

Jacob's Journey to Egypt

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Three times in the Old Testament, it is stated that seventy people from the house of Jacob went down into Egypt. According to Genesis 46:27, “All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy.” In the first few verses of the book of Exodus, Jacob’s sons are named, and then again we are told, “All those who were descendants of Jacob wereseventy persons” (Exodus 1:1,5). The third Old Testament reference to this number is found in Deuteronomy 10:22, where Moses spoke to the Israelites about the “great and awesome things” that God had done for them (10:21). He then reminded the children of Israel of how their “fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons,” which Jehovah made “as the stars of heaven in multitude” (Deuteronomy 10:22). The difficulty that Christians are challenged to resolve is how these verses can be understood in light of Stephen’s statement recorded in Acts 7:12-14. Being “full of the Holy Spirit” (7:55) with a “face as the face of an angel” (6:15), Stephen reminded the Jews of their history, saying, “When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to the Pharaoh. Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:12-14, emp. added). Skeptics, as well as concerned Christians who seek to back their faith with reasonable answers, desire to know why Acts 7:14 mentions “seventy-five people,” while Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22 mention only “seventy persons.” Exactly how many of Jacob’s household went to Egypt?

Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the boiling point of water (100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit), different figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacob’s family members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the following:

• In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacob’s wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure.
• Despite the mention of Jacob’s “daughters and his son’s daughters” (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the “seventy” was Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17).
• The wives of Jacob’s sons are not included in the seventy (46:26).
• Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the Septuagint, Joseph’s descendants are calculated as being nine.

Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from “the seventy persons” mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus, when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14), realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.

A second possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that Stephen quoted from the Septuagint. Although Deuteronomy 10:22 reads the same in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (“seventy”), Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 differ in the two texts. Whereas the Masoretic text says “seventy” in both passages, the Septuagint says “seventy-five.” As R.C.H. Lenski concluded, however: “This is a mere matter of counting” (1961, p. 270).

The descendants of Jacob that went to Egypt were sixty-six in number (Gen. 46:26), but counting Joseph and his two sons and Jacob himself (Gen. 46:27), the number is seventy. In the LXX [Septuagint—EL] all the sons of Joseph who he got in Egypt were counted, “nine souls,” which, with the sixty-six, made seventy-five (Lenski, p. 270).

Thus, instead of adding the nine living wives of Joseph’s brothers (as proposed in the aforementioned solution), this scenario suggests that the number seventy-five is the result following the reading from the Septuagint—which includes the grandchildren of Joseph (cf. 1 Chronicles 7:14-21). [NOTE: The Septuagint and the Masoretic text may differ, but they do not contradict each other—the former simply mentions some of Joseph’s descendants who are not recorded by the latter.] In Albert Barnes’ comments concerning these differences, he appropriately noted:

Why the Septuagint inserted these [Joseph’s descendants—EL], it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us (1949, p. 123, emp. added).

One of the more “inexplicable” things regarding the 70 (or 75) “of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt,” revolves around the mention of some of Jacob’s descendants who apparently were not born until sometime after the journey to Egypt was completed. If one accepts the Septuagint’s tally of 75, including the grandchildren of Joseph, he also must conclude that Manasseh and Ephraim (Joseph’s sons) fathered these children sometime after Jacob’s migration to Egypt, and possibly before Jacob’s death seventeen years later (since Ephraim and Manasseh still were very young when the house of Jacob moved to Egypt). If one excludes the Septuagint from this discussion, there still are at least two possible indications in Genesis 46 that not all “seventy” were born before Jacob’s family arrived in Egypt. First, Hezron and Hamul (the sons of Perez) are included in the “seventy” (46:12), yet the evidence strongly leans toward these great-grandsons of Jacob not being born until after the migration. Considering that Judah, the grandfather of Hezron and Hamul, was only about forty-three when the migration to Egypt took place, and that the events recorded in Genesis 38 (involving his family) occurred over a number of years, it seems logical to conclude, as did Steven Mathewson in his “Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” that “Judah’s sons Perez and Zerah were quite young, perhaps just a few months old, when they traveled to Egypt. Therefore it would have been impossible for Perez to have fathered Hezron and Hamul, his two sons mentioned in Genesis 46:12, before the journey into Egypt” (1989, 146:383). He went on to note:

A close look, however, at Genesis 46:12 reveals a variation in the mention of Hezron and Hamul. The end of the verse reads: “And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.” Yet throughout Genesis 46, the listing of descendants was done without the use of a verbal form. For example, verse 12a reads, “And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah” (146:383).

Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto commented on this “special phraseology,” saying, “This external variation creates the impression that the Bible wished to give us here some special information that was different from what it desired to impart relative to the other descendants of Israel” (1929, 1:34). Cassuto also explained what he thought was the intention behind this special use of the verb “were.”

It intended to inform us thereby that the sons of Perez were not among those who went down to Egypt, but are mentioned here for some other reason. This is corroborated by the fact that Joseph’s sons were also not of those who immigrated into Egypt, and they, too, are mentioned by a different formula (1:35).

A second indication that all “seventy” were likely not born before Jacob’s family migrated to Egypt is that ten “sons” (descendants) of Benjamin are listed (46:21). If Joseph was thirty-nine at the time of this migration (cf. 41:46), one can figure (roughly) the age of Benjamin by calculating the amount of time that passed between their births. It was after Joseph’s birth that his father, Jacob, worked his final six years for Laban in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. In fact, Benjamin was not born until after Jacob: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates—31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacob’s separation from Laban in Padan Aram, and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem. Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was thirteen years younger than Joseph (1997). Biblical commentator John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about fourteen years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Also, considering Benjamin was referred to as “lad” (“boy”—NIV) eight times in Genesis chapters 43 and 44, which record events directly preceding Jacob’s move to Egypt, one would not expect Benjamin to be any more than 25 or 26 years of age at the time of the migration. What is somewhat perplexing to the Bible reader is that even though Benjamin was by far the youngest son of Jacob, more of his descendants are named in Genesis 46 than any other son of Jacob. In fact, some of these descendants of Benjamin apparently were his grandsons (cf. Numbers 26:38-40; 1 Chronicles 8:1-5).

But how is it that ten of Benjamin’s descendants, along with Hezron and Hamul, legitimately could appear in a list with those who traveled to Egypt, when all indications are that at least some were yet to be born? Answer: Because some of the names are brought in by prolepsis (or anticipation). Although they might not have been born by the time Jacob left for Egypt, they were in his loins—they “came from his body” (Genesis 46:26). Renowned Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch stated: “From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum” (1996). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agreed, saying:

The natural impression conveyed by these words [“these are the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt”—EL] is, that the genealogy which follows contains a list of all the members of Jacob’s family, of whatever age, whether arrived at manhood or carried in their mother’s arms, who, having been born in Canaan, actually removed along with him to Egypt…. A closer examination, however, will show sufficient grounds for concluding that the genealogy was constructed on a very different principle—not that of naming only those members of Jacob’s family who were natives of Canaan, but of enumerating those who at the time of the immigration into Egypt, and during the patriarch’s life-time, were the recognized heads of families, in Israel, though some of them, born after the departure from Canaan, could be said to have “come into Egypt” only in the persons of their fathers (1997, emp. added).

While all seventy mentioned in Genesis 46 may not have literally traveled down to Egypt, Moses, writing this account more than 215 years later (see Bass, et. al., 2001), easily could have used a figure a speech known as prolepsis to include those who would be born shortly thereafter, and who eventually (by the time of Moses) would have been “the recognized heads of families.”

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Bass, Alden, Bert Thompson, and Kyle Butt (2001), “Questions and Answers,” Reason & Revelation, 21:49-53, July.

Cassuto, Umberto (1929), Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 reprint).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Mathewson, Steven D. (1989), “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 146:373-392, October.

Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press), orig. published in 1979 by Sweet Publishing Company, Austin, Texas.

“Sundays Excepted”? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2405

“Sundays Excepted”?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Did the Founders of American civilization believe in the God of the Bible? More specifically, did the vast majority of them embrace the Christian worldview? Even though they advocated freedom of worship, and opposed any persecution instigated against those who sought to practice divergent religious views, did they, themselves, approach life from the perspective of the Christian religion? A mountain of evidence exists to prove that they did. Consider just one.

Though the Founders intentionally omitted an extensive treatment of religion in the federalConstitution, since they intended for the federal government to stay out of the religious arena and leave such matters to the States and local communities, they nevertheless implied their religious orientation in that seminal document. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution reads:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law (Constitution of the United..., emp. added).

“Sundays excepted”? Indeed, to this day, the U.S. government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitutionwould have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitutionwould have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any particular religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving that America was Christian in its orientation, that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview, and that they were determined to give political recognition to and accommodation of that fact by making allowance for the Christian day of worship. Their decision reflects a respect for Bible teaching on the matter (Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10).

This respect for the Christian worship of God on Sunday has been perpetuated throughout American history. The vanishing “Blue Laws” verify this fact. For example, in the 1846 South Carolina court caseCity Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, the court declared:

The Lord’s day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us, who are called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birth day of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord—its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected (2 Strob. L. 508 [S. C. 1846], emp. added).

Many other examples exist (cf. Miller, 2006). America was founded on Christian principles. The future of the Republic is endangered in direct proportion as those principles are abandoned. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

REFERENCES

City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1846), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1846).

Constitution of the United States, [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/ constitution.html.

Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, June 2006 - 26[6]41-47, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.

"I'm Not Guilty, I'm Just Sick" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1344

"I'm Not Guilty, I'm Just Sick"

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

During the 1970s, one of the most popular comedians on television was Flip Wilson. In his repertoire of fictional characters, he often portrayed an outspoken housewife by the name of Geraldine. When Geraldine misspoke, let slip with an insult, or committed some other faux pas (as she often was known to do), her standard retort when challenged was to shout with a loud, shrill voice, “The Devil made me do it!”

As a comedian in possession of innate talent, great costumes, and stunning make-up, Flip Wilson was able to parlay Geraldine’s plight into an award-winning laugh routine. Nothing was ever Geraldine’s fault, because she always had someone on whom she could blame her predicament, regardless of how dire that predicament might have been. Her refrain, “The Devil made me do it,” absolved her of any guilt whatsoever—or so she wanted the audience to believe.

Truth be told, Flip Wilson had hardly invented “original” material for his comedic sketch. Since the dawn of creation, man has sought to lay the blame for his own wrong actions at someone else’s feet. Man has always needed a scapegoat to bear his burden of guilt, and his inexorable shame—the responsibility of which he had no intention of bearing himself. Eve, the very first human to bear guilt and shame, sought to excuse herself from her violation of God’s commandments by suggesting, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (Genesis 3:13). Or, to use Geraldine’s words, “The Devil made me do it!”

As his march through history progressed, however, man learned that he could fare somewhat better if he blamed something—or better yet, someone—that had a corporeal nature. It became passé to suggest that a mere invisible spirit being could cause so much trouble, or bear enough responsibility to in any way atone for that trouble. Thus, it became popular for man to blame his failings not on the Devil, but instead on his fellows.

Israel’s first king tried this ploy. The prophet Samuel had relayed to Saul God’s specific instructions regarding the destruction of the Amalekites and all that they possessed (1 Samuel 15:1-3). Eventually, Saul went to battle against the Amalekites, and was victorious. But instead of obeying God’s commands, he spared Agag, the Amalekite king, and portions of the livestock. When Samuel asked him why he had disobeyed God’s directives, Saul’s response was that “the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto Jehovah thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed” (1 Samuel 15:15, emp. added). Not only did Saul attempt to shift the blame for his error to others, but simultaneously he attempted to explain his disobedience by suggesting that he acted as he did for God-honoring reasons. So far as he was concerned, he could spare some of the livestock in order to sacrifice them in worship to Jehovah. In other words, the end justified the means.

Both profane and sacred history are replete with examples of men and women who sought to shift the blame for their own mistakes, misjudgments, or misdeeds to someone else. Anna Russell portrayed this sentiment in her “Psychiatric Folksong”:

At three I had a feeling of
Ambivalence toward my brothers
And so it follows naturally
That I poisoned all my lovers.
But now I’m happy; I have learned
The lesson this has taught,
That everything I do that’s wrong
Is someone else’s fault
(as quoted in Zacharias, 1994, p. 138).

Eventually, however, just as at one point in the distant past it no longer became desirable or permissible to suggest that “the Devil made me do it,” it appears that the time has now come when it is no longer popular merely to suggest that our fellows (“the people,” to use King Saul’s words) should bear the burden of our guilt and shame. Apparently “the people” have tired of playing the part of the scapegoat. Perhaps it was because there was simply too much blame, too much guilt, and too much shame to go around. Everyone already had their fair share, and someone else’s as well. A new repository of blame, guilt, and shame was needed. Thus was born the refrain, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick!”

“NOT GUILTY, JUST SICK”

At almost exactly the same time Flip Wilson was making famous Geraldine’s plaintive cry, “the Devil made me do it!,” serious thinkers among us were beginning to notice that something in the human moral code had gone seriously awry. One by one, slowly but surely, they called our attention to the fact that a singular word, and the concept of personal responsibility that it represented, seemingly had vanished from our vocabulary. That one word—conspicuously missing from the descriptions given above of people who had committed “mistakes,” “misjudgments,” or “misdeeds”—was sin. In the process of finding someone else to blame, we simultaneously divested ourselves of the ability to admit that we had actually sinned.

One of the first voices to try to restore a recognition of the concept of sin, and the acknowledgment of personal responsibility it required, was renowned psychiatrist, Karl Menninger. In 1973, Dr. Menninger authored his now-famous work, Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he wrote:

Human beings have become more numerous, but scarcely more moral. They are busy, coming and going, getting and begetting, fighting and defending, creating and destroying.... They now communicate with one another in a thousand ways, swift and slow; they transport themselves rapidly on land, sea, and through the air.... It became the epoch of technology, rampant and triumphant. We boasted of our inventions, innovations, and gadgets. Rugged individualism, acquisition, thrift, boldness, and shrewdness were acclaimed as the great national virtues. Although hard work was admired, luxury and ease were inordinately esteemed. And as we appropriated and accumulated, we bragged and braved.... Suddenly, we awoke from our pleasant dreams with a fearful realization that something was wrong....

In all of the laments and reproaches made by our seers and prophets, one misses any mention of “sin,” a word which used to be a veritable watchword of prophets. It was a word once in everyone’s mind, but now rarely if ever heard. Does that mean that no sin is involved in all our troubles—sin with an “I” in the middle? Is no one any longer guilty of anything?... Wrong things are being done, we know; tares are being sown in the wheat fields at night. But is no one responsible, no one answerable for these acts? Anxiety and depression we all acknowledge, and even vague guilt feelings; but has no one committed any sins? Where, indeed, did sin go? What became of it? (1973, pp. 4,5,13, emp. in orig.).

Dr. Menninger began his book with the thesis that “the disappearance of the word ‘sin’ involves a shift in the allocation of responsibility of evil” (1973, p. 17). Following Webster’s definition, he observed that “Sin is transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine will; moral failure. Sin is failure to realize in conduct and character the moral ideal, at least as fully as possible under existing circumstances; failure to do as one ought toward one’s fellow man” (1973, pp. 18-19). He then lamented:

It is surely nothing new that men want to get away from acknowledging their sins or even thinking about them. Is this not the religious history of mankind? Perhaps we are only more glib nowadays and equipped with more euphemisms.... Disease and treatment have been the watchwords of the day and little is said about selfishness or guilt or the “morality gap.” And certainly no one talks about sin! (1973, pp. 24,228).

The assessment of the problem made by Menninger in 1973 not only was correct, but also foreboding. We were running out of both devils and fellows upon whom we could heap the blame for our wrongs. The wrongs had become too many, and the scapegoats too few. It was time for “a shift in the allocation of responsibility of evil,” to use the doctor’s words. What was needed was a way to completely escape the blame, without having to heap it on someone else. Such a procedure would make unnecessary the unpleasant task of finger-pointing, while at the same time absolving the guilty of any personal responsibility. And so, we decided to blame our shortcomings not on an incorporeal spirit, or even on those around us. Rather, we simply declared ourselves “sick,” and as Dr. Menninger correctly observed, “disease” then became the watchword of the day.

Rare were those who could not find a “sickness” that guaranteed them absolution, in whole or in part. Richard Berendzen, the president of American University, was caught making obscene phone calls. He claimed that he had been a victim of child abuse, and checked himself into a hospital for “treatment” (another word, as Dr. Menninger noted, that has become a “watchword” of our day). Robert Alton Harris, a convicted murderer of two sixteen-year-old boys, explained to the court that he was not the culprit, but the victim, due to the fact that he was programmed in utero—as a result of fetal alcohol syndrome—to be violent. Dan White, a San Francisco supervisor (a position akin to a city councilman), killed the city’s mayor and another supervisor. After being apprehended, he claimed that he was not responsible for his actions since his steady diet of, and addiction to, junk food made him a victim whose judgment had been clouded, thereby causing him to turn violent in ways he could not control (interestingly, this became known in legal circles as the “Twinkie” defense). Lyle and Erik Menendez, planned the premeditated shotgun murders of their parents in their own living room, admitted to the crime, and then claimed the mantle of victim, suggesting that they had acted out of fear for their own lives as a result of continual abuse doled out by their unloving parents (see related article: “Wrong Must be Explained”).

As the list of alleged “sicknesses” continued to grow, it began to take on a life of its own, covering not just illegal acts such as murder and child abuse, but practically every other facet of human existence. People, we discovered, were “sick” because they had been discriminated against for practically everything—from being overweight to being too old. Or they were “sick” because of something their parents did even before they were born. Or they were “sick” because their environment made them so. In his brilliantly-written book, A Nation of Victims, Charles J. Sykes, a former reporter for theMilwaukee Journal and editor of Milwaukee Magazine, addressed this concept:

As it becomes increasingly clear that misbehavior can be redefined as disease, growing numbers of the newly diseased have flocked to groups like Gamblers Anonymous, Pill Addicts Anonymous, S-Anon (“relatives and friends of sex addicts”), Nicotine Anonymous, Youth Emotions Anonymous, Unwed Parents Anonymous, Emotional Health Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Workaholics Anonymous, Dual Disorders Anonymous, Batterers Anonymous, Victims Anonymous, and Families of Sex Offenders Anonymous....

In place of evil, therapeutic society has substituted “illness”; in place of consequence, it urges therapy and understanding; in place of responsibility, it argues for a personality driven by impulses....

Celebrities vie with one another in confessing graphic stories of abuse they suffered as children, while television talk shows feature a parade of victims ranging from overweight incest victims to handicapped sex addicts.

Dysfunction is, in every respect, a growth industry.... From the addicts of the South Bronx to the self-styled emotional road-kills of Manhattan’s Upper East Side, the mantra of the victims is the same: I am not responsible; it’s not my fault (1992, pp. 9,13,12, 11, emp. in orig.).

Everyone—not just murderers and rapists—now could claim to be a victim. We are “sick,” we are not responsible, and we are not to blame. So suggests the current, politically correct common perception.

As Sykes continued his examination of this thesis, he suggested:

American life is increasingly characterized by the plaintive insistence, I am a victim.... The National Anthem has become The Whine.... Now enshrined in law and jurisprudence, victimism is reshaping the fabric of society, including employment policies, criminal justice, education, urban politics, and, in an increasingly Orwellian emphasis on “sensitivity” in language. A community of interdependent citizens has been displaced by a society of resentful, competing, and self-interested individuals who have dressed their private annoyances in the garb of victimism. Victimism obviously worked... (1992, pp. 11,15,80, emp. in orig.).

Indeed, victimism does work—for at least two reasons. First, if people can be portrayed convincingly as being the victim of a disease, illness, or addiction, it can, suggests Stanton Peele in his book, The Diseasing of America, “legitimize, reinforce, and excuse the behaviors in question—convincing people, contrary to all evidence, that their behavior is not their own. Meanwhile, the number of addicts and those who believe they cannot control themselves grows steadily” (1989, p. 28). Second, generally speaking it is human nature to look kindly on those who cannot prevent or correct their own pitiful condition. As Sykes has suggested: “Americans, of course, have a long tradition of sympathy for the downtrodden; compassion for the less fortunate has always been a mark of a nation’s underlying decency and morality” (1992, p. 12).

As a result of these factors, and others, we find ourselves in an era where practically every human action can be accounted for by the plea, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick.” Unfortunately, on occasion, the scientific/medical community has exacerbated the situation (although not always intentionally) by lending credibility to the idea that an alleged victim is not responsible for his/her actions due to factors—sometimes physical, sometimes mental—over which he/she ultimately had no control.

On the physical side, it is becoming increasingly common to hear the suggestion that alcoholism is an inherited condition that produces results completely beyond the control of the person it affects. This has significant personal, as well as societal, implications. Few would ever suggest, for example, that a person should bear responsibility, or blame, for the fact that he was born with an extra number twenty-one chromosome, thereby producing Down’s Syndrome. Such an occurrence is not that person’s “fault.” Nor should personal responsibility be assigned to the alcoholic, it is now being suggested, due to the fact that there may be, and most likely is, an underlying genetic cause.

The battle in the scientific community over whether alcoholism should be categorized as a “disease” has been long and loud. Some researchers advocate the view that certain individuals possess a “genetic predisposition” to alcoholism; others deny any such genetic predisposition. As Sykes has noted:

At best, the scientific search for a definitive physical or biological cause of uncontrollable drinking has been inconclusive. Although some experts insist that alcoholism is indeed genetically based, others, equally adamant, either deny the biological link or insist that it has been greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the definition of alcoholism as a disease, trumpeted by a growing network of helping professionals, alcoholic-treatment institutions, and related lobbies, has won widespread acceptance.... If someone who drinks excessively is sick, then the notion of moral responsibility becomes highly problematic. Perhaps for that reason, alcoholism-as-disease has proven an attractive model in the new self-help culture (1992, pp. 136,147).

The same line of reasoning applies to other physical or mental illnesses. In addition to the examples mentioned earlier that purport to absolve a person of individual responsibility (e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome, the “Twinkie” defense, etc.), it has now become popular to explain a person’s problems through the use of “repressed memories.” The idea behind repressed memory syndrome is that a person acts as he does due to events that transpired long ago, the memories of which have been “hidden” or “repressed” in his mind. Through the use of psychological therapy, a counselor “releases” these formerly-repressed memories, thus providing the answer to present-day actions or situations, and possibly providing the basis for a cure or solution.

However, genuine cases of repressed memories causing psychological problems may be fewer than fashionable opinion suggests. Elizabeth Loftus, an outspoken critic of the misuse of repressed memory therapy, has suggested that “the pressure to find memories can be very great” (1995, 19:25). Loftus also observed:

A recent survey of doctoral-level psychologists indicates that as many as a quarter may harbor beliefs and engage in practices that are questionable. That these kinds of activities can and do sometimes lead to false memories seems now to be beyond dispute. That these kinds of activities can create false victims, as well as hurt true ones, also seems now to be beyond dispute (1995, 19:24).

While Loftus, and others like her, do not desire to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by suggesting that there are no such things as genuine repressed memories, they urge caution at every turn so that neither the therapist nor the patient is tempted to “invent” memories merely for the sake of “feeling better.” As Loftus has noted about various kinds of claims based on repressed memories, “...not all claims are true” (1995, 19:28; see also Bower, 1993a, 1993b).

THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE

The increasing use of the excuse, “I’m not guilty, I’m just sick,” to absolve one of moral responsibility for his own actions should be of concern to every Christian, as should the idea that people cannot be held accountable due to the fact that they are a “victim” of their upbringing, their environment, or their genetic predispositions. The idea that the blame must always be placed somewhere else, Sykes has remarked,

...is a formula for social gridlock: the irresistible search for someone or something to blame colliding with the unmovable unwillingness to accept responsibility.... If everyone is a victim, then no one is. But it is increasingly obvious that victimization has become the too plausible, too pat explanation for all that ails us. Tragically, its evocation has the effect of distracting attention from actual causes and from legitimate policy response to those problems. The science of victimization is the quackery of our times (1992, pp. 15,18).

Sykes has suggested, therefore, that it is time for a “moratorium on blame” because “blame has become the all-purpose excuse to do nothing. It is time to drop the crutch” (1992, p. 253). But how might that be accomplished. And what should be our response to the concept of “not guilty, just sick”?

First, Christians must accept the idea of personal moral responsibility (Romans 14:12), despite the trends in society to the contrary. In this regard, Winford Claiborne has asked: “When are we going to awaken to the truth that we are products of our own choices and must pay the consequences?... What has happened to human responsibility in America?” (1995, p. 100). Sykes suggested the same cure when he wrote: “Recognizing our own responsibility and the need to stop blaming others is the first step toward dismantling the culture of victimization” (1992, p. 253).

Second, we cannot, with impunity, overlook the fact that each accountable person was created by God with freedom of choice. The adage that we are “free moral agents” is true; the Scriptures are clear on that point. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees in John 5:39-40, He told them: “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” The Pharisees could have come to Christ in humble obedience, but they freely chose not to. When Joshua addressed the Israelites shortly before his death, he urged them to “choose you this day whom you will serve...” (Joshua 24:15). The Israelites, possessing freedom of choice, were now being instructed on the use of that freedom of choice. That we are creatures made in God’s image, and possessing freedom of choice in our actions, is affirmed throughout Holy Writ.

Third, since we were created with the ability to make our own choices, each accountable person has a responsibility to choose wisely and correctly. And most people know that from simple common sense, as Sykes has noted:

At some level of our being, we all know that something is required of us, however much we may try to shake it off. Instinctively and rationally, we know our responsibilities; we know that we are not sick when we are merely weak; we know that others are not to blame when we have erred; we know that the world does not exist to make us happy (1992, p. 255).

Choices have consequences, which is why it is so important that our choices be circumscribed by the Word of God. It is useless to continually blame the Devil, our fellows, our genes, or the environment of our youth for the problems that we cause ourselves through our own bad choices. For example, even if it were true that there exists some kind of biological causative factor for predisposition to alcohol, no one forces the alcoholic to take the first drink, or to continue to drink. While the choice not to drink might be difficult, and even require medical assistance, that choice is available, nevertheless. Furthermore, treatment and counseling are available to assist the alcoholic with his problem.

Regardless of whether “genetic predispositions” toward certain conditions do exist, and regardless of whether evil things happened to us in our “forgotten” past, the fact nevertheless remains that not a day passes that we do not have to make personal choices. Sometimes those choices are quite easy; sometimes they are terribly difficult. And more often than not, it is the choices we make that affect our lives the most. No one has to live in sin. In fact, the apostle Paul, after enumerating several sinful conditions, wrote of the Christians in Corinth in the first century: “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:11; emp. added). It may be difficult, but it is not impossible, to transform our lives into the image of Christ. Genetic predispositions (if they do, in fact, exist), or environmental conditions, may make our choices more difficult, but they do not rob us of the ability to make the correct choice.

CONCLUSION

Professor Hobart Mowrer taught at both Harvard and Yale, and was a one-time president of the American Psychological Association. In an article in the official organ of that society, the American Psychologist, Dr. Mowrer lamented the demise of the concepts of sin and personal responsibility when he wrote:

For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in existentialism, which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking, “Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?” (as quoted in Zacharias, 1994, p. 138).

Humans have always sought a way to shift the blame for their sinful actions. They have shifted the blame onto Satan, they have shifted the blame to those around them, and now it is popular to find a medical or environmental scapegoat, thus relieving the sinner of any personal responsibility. These attitudes, however, ignore Christ’s admonishment that “the Son of man shall come in glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27; emp. added).

REFERENCES

Bower, Bruce (1993a), “Sudden Recall,” Science News, 144[12]:184-186, September 18.

Bower, Bruce (1993b), “The Survivor Syndrome,” Science News, 144[13]:202-204, September 25.

Claiborne, Winford (1995), “Charles J. Sykes’ A Nation of Victims: A Book Review,” Family, Church, and Society Restoration and Renewal, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).

Loftus, Elizabeth (1995), “Remembering Dangerously,” Skeptical Inquirer, 19[2]:20-29, March/April.

Menninger, Karl (1973), Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books).

Peele, Stanton (1989), The Diseasing of America (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).

Sykes, Charles J. (1992), A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Character (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Zacharias, Ravi (1994), Can Man Live Without God (Dallas, TX: Word).