Philippians, Chapter 4 (WEB)
Today, a simple question came to my mind:
What do you really, really, need ????
I wonder- How many out there are willing to ask themselves the same question Today?
April 14, 2016
From Gary... Bible Reading April 14
Bible Reading
April 14
The World English Bible
Apr. 14
Numbers 19, 20
Num 19:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
Num 19:2 This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without spot, in which is no blemish, and on which never came yoke.
Num 19:3 You shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her forth outside of the camp, and one shall kill her before his face:
Num 19:4 and Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle her blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.
Num 19:5 One shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn:
Num 19:6 and the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
Num 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.
Num 19:8 He who burns her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.
Num 19:9 A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up outside of the camp in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: it is a sin offering.
Num 19:10 He who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be to the children of Israel, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them, for a statute forever.
Num 19:11 He who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days:
Num 19:12 the same shall purify himself with water on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he doesn't purify himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
Num 19:13 Whoever touches a dead person, the body of a man who has died, and doesn't purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet on him.
Num 19:14 This is the law when a man dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent, and everyone who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
Num 19:15 Every open vessel, which has no covering bound on it, is unclean.
Num 19:16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
Num 19:17 For the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the sin offering; and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
Num 19:18 and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, and on all the vessels, and on the persons who were there, and on him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave:
Num 19:19 and the clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify him; and he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
Num 19:20 But the man who shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of Yahweh: the water for impurity has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean.
Num 19:21 It shall be a perpetual statute to them: and he who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes, and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until even.
Num 19:22 Whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the soul that touches it shall be unclean until evening.
Num 20:1 The children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month: and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there.
Num 20:2 There was no water for the congregation: and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.
Num 20:3 The people strove with Moses, and spoke, saying, Would that we had died when our brothers died before Yahweh!
Num 20:4 Why have you brought the assembly of Yahweh into this wilderness, that we should die there, we and our animals?
Num 20:5 Why have you made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in to this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.
Num 20:6 Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and fell on their faces: and the glory of Yahweh appeared to them.
Num 20:7 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 20:8 Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink.
Num 20:9 Moses took the rod from before Yahweh, as he commanded him.
Num 20:10 Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring you water out of this rock for you?
Num 20:11 Moses lifted up his hand, and struck the rock with his rod twice: and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock.
Num 20:12 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, Because you didn't believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.
Num 20:13 These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Yahweh, and he was sanctified in them.
Num 20:14 Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel, You know all the travail that has happened to us:
Num 20:15 how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we lived in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers:
Num 20:16 and when we cried to Yahweh, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt: and behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of your border.
Num 20:17 Please let us pass through your land: we will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go along the king's highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed your border.
Num 20:18 Edom said to him, You shall not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against you.
Num 20:19 The children of Israel said to him, We will go up by the highway; and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then will I give its price: let me only, without doing anything else, pass through on my feet.
Num 20:20 He said, You shall not pass through. Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.
Num 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border, so Israel turned away from him.
Num 20:22 They traveled from Kadesh: and the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came to Mount Hor.
Num 20:23 Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, by the border of the land of Edom, saying,
Num 20:24 Aaron shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the waters of Meribah.
Num 20:25 Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor;
Num 20:26 and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered to his people, and shall die there.
Num 20:27 Moses did as Yahweh commanded: and they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.
Num 20:28 Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them on Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there on the top of the mountain: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain.
Num 20:29 When all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel.
Apr. 14, 15
Luke 9
Luk 9:1 He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
Luk 9:2 He sent them forth to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
Luk 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey-neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luk 9:4 Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there.
Luk 9:5 As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
Luk 9:6 They departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the Good News, and healing everywhere.
Luk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him; and he was very perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead,
Luk 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen again.
Luk 9:9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this, about whom I hear such things?" He sought to see him.
Luk 9:10 The apostles, when they had returned, told him what things they had done. He took them, and withdrew apart to a deserted place of a city called Bethsaida.
Luk 9:11 But the multitudes, perceiving it, followed him. He welcomed them, and spoke to them of the Kingdom of God, and he cured those who needed healing.
Luk 9:12 The day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said to him, "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and farms, and lodge, and get food, for we are here in a deserted place."
Luk 9:13 But he said to them, "You give them something to eat." They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we should go and buy food for all these people."
Luk 9:14 For they were about five thousand men. He said to his disciples, "Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each."
Luk 9:15 They did so, and made them all sit down.
Luk 9:16 He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to the sky, he blessed them, and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude.
Luk 9:17 They ate, and were all filled. They gathered up twelve baskets of broken pieces that were left over.
Luk 9:18 It happened, as he was praying alone, that the disciples were with him, and he asked them, "Who do the multitudes say that I am?"
Luk 9:19 They answered, " 'John the Baptizer,' but others say, 'Elijah,' and others, that one of the old prophets is risen again."
Luk 9:20 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
Luk 9:21 But he warned them, and commanded them to tell this to no one,
Luk 9:22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up."
Luk 9:23 He said to all, "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever will lose his life for my sake, the same will save it.
Luk 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits his own self?
Luk 9:26 For whoever will be ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed, when he comes in his glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you the truth: There are some of those who stand here, who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:28 It happened about eight days after these sayings, that he took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up onto the mountain to pray.
Luk 9:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became white and dazzling.
Luk 9:30 Behold, two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah,
Luk 9:31 who appeared in glory, and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
Luk 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men who stood with him.
Luk 9:33 It happened, as they were parting from him, that Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah," not knowing what he said.
Luk 9:34 While he said these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered into the cloud.
Luk 9:35 A voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him!"
Luk 9:36 When the voice came, Jesus was found alone. They were silent, and told no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
Luk 9:37 It happened on the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, that a great multitude met him.
Luk 9:38 Behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.
Luk 9:39 Behold, a spirit takes him, he suddenly cries out, and it convulses him so that he foams, and it hardly departs from him, bruising him severely.
Luk 9:40 I begged your disciples to cast it out, and they couldn't."
Luk 9:41 Jesus answered, "Faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here."
Luk 9:42 While he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him violently. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.
Luk 9:43 They were all astonished at the majesty of God. But while all were marveling at all the things which Jesus did, he said to his disciples,
Luk 9:44 "Let these words sink into your ears, for the Son of Man will be delivered up into the hands of men."
Luk 9:45 But they didn't understand this saying. It was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
Luk 9:46 There arose an argument among them about which of them was the greatest.
Luk 9:47 Jesus, perceiving the reasoning of their hearts, took a little child, and set him by his side,
Luk 9:48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me. Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is least among you all, this one will be great."
Luk 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."
Luk 9:50 Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."
Luk 9:51 It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem,
Luk 9:52 and sent messengers before his face. They went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him.
Luk 9:53 They didn't receive him, because he was traveling with his face set towards Jerusalem.
Luk 9:54 When his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, "Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from the sky, and destroy them, just as Elijah did?"
Luk 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them, "You don't know of what kind of spirit you are.
Luk 9:56 For the Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." They went to another village.
Luk 9:57 As they went on the way, a certain man said to him, "I want to follow you wherever you go, Lord."
Luk 9:58 Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Luk 9:59 He said to another, "Follow me!" But he said, "Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father."
Luk 9:60 But Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and announce the Kingdom of God."
Luk 9:61 Another also said, "I want to follow you, Lord, but first allow me to bid farewell to those who are at my house."
Luk 9:62 But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God."
From Sandra F. Cobble ... Courage
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Cobble/Sandra/Fontaine/1933/courage.html
Courage
This is not the final word on courage, although it may be my final word that you will see published, for my medical prognosis is not what the doctor calls encouraging.
Courage is not a veiled death wish as seen in the lifestyles that defy all reasonable expectations. Courage is not the instantaneous acts that most persons think of as heroic. Though many such acts are to be lauded, there is seldom much thought given to the consequences of one's actions.
Do not the Scriptures teach that we are to exercise wisdom, good judgment, and prudence? Courage analyses all known factors then decides upon a course of action based on that analysis. Yes, one may be fearful of the unknown. He may even be more fearful of known potentials. But courage acts even though harm may be to one's self. When David is talking about the person who will abide in God's presence, he says in Psalm 15:1-4, "LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." Note that even when a person swore to his own hurt and yet had the courage to keep his oath, David pronounced him blessed.
Courage is preparing to live in such a way as to glorify God despite having been pronounced terminally ill. We are born terminally ill. "For it is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment" (Heb. 9:27). As we begin to mature and become aware of death we may begin to make some type of arrangements for expiration, even though the idea of our own death seems unreal. We buy insurance. We make wills. And the more mature among us begin thinking about making peace with God, with our neighbor, and with ourselves.
But then comes the announcement, "Your form of cancer has no known cure." "The symptoms can be treated to some extent with radiation and chemotherapy. But you are dying. You should make arrangements to enter a nursing home so someone can care for you."
Generally persons tend to react in one of two ways. Many do not accept what their doctors have told them. They search every where for that elusive cure. Others simply give up. They take to their beds and lie there bemoaning their fate and waiting for death. Some may begin to enjoy the extra attention they are getting. They act in such a way as to evoke the sympathy of others.
But there is a better alternative, one that will glorify God. Even a smile can do wonders for another. So can a simple 'please' or 'thank you.' Taking time to just listen to another's problems of the day can ease his burdens. These simple things glorify God. And a person who is terminally ill can feel freer to ask, "How about a hug?" Both persons will feel better and will glorify God. And when a person comes to cheer up one who is terminally ill and leaves feeling better than when he came, then God has been glorified.
True courage does not ignore obstacles. True courage recognizes obstacles but goes on to glorify God despite all obstacles. Mark Twain put it this way, "Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear -- not absence of fear." William Cullen Bryant said, "So live, that when thy summons comes to join the innumerable caravan which moves to that mysterious realm, where each shall take his chamber in the silent halls of death, thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night, scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave, like one that wraps the drapery of his couch about him, and lies down to pleasant dreams."
However, Paul's inspired statement gives more comfort and encouragement than any and all the writings of ordinary men, and he said in Philippians 1:23, "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better." Those of us who have put our trust in the Lord and accepted His grace through an obedient faith can accept the statement of Paul at face value, and face the future with courage.
Sandra F. Cobble
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
From Jim McGuiggan... Indisputable Proof
Indisputable Proof
The Christian faith is reasonable, of course, but it isn't a series of rational propositions that we establish by the laws of logic. Our faith is what is called a "revealed" religion. No one could look at the young man dying on a cross and deduce from it that this was God being a man and dying to reconcile the world to himself. But that's what we have been asked to believe. You don't test such a faith with microscopes, chemical solvents or mathematical equations. But then you can't use these means to test the most important realities of our lives, like love, loyalty, honour and integrity. Relationships and the profound truths connected with them are out of the range of the telescope. Nobody (not anybody!) lives simply by measures, weights or carbon14 dates.
Things are revealed to them ("I love you, daddy!") and the tests tubes and laser equipment are left in the lab where they belong while a satisfied heart and mind enjoys the truth of a child's self-revelation. This is all the most of us ask for: enough evidence to make a reasonable case and we'll work through the difficulties as they arise. We don't demand "indisputable proof" for a child's confession or a husband's whispered love. Give us enough to make the assurances believable and we'll gladly wrestle with the times when they're called into question.
Our acceptance of the Christian faith works on similar lines at many points (though, as you might expect, there are differences in places). The Christian faith is historical as well as revealed. It isn't "a view of life" philosophy that was dropped into the minds of some ancient men. It revolves around events that took place in time and space. It centres in Jesus of Nazareth whom we believe was God being Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian faith says God created us, we rebelled against him and in Jesus Christ he came to reconcile his creation to himself. Jesus Christ is the centre of the self-revealing and redeeming acts of God.
Christians don't deny that other men and women were out-standing characters. Nor do they deny that others also taught some of the truths that came from the lips of Jesus Christ. No, but they do say that Jesus of Nazareth and only Jesus of Nazareth was God being a man. Only in and as him did God come to save the world by overcoming humanity's sin and darkness. The "proofs" of all this aren't the kind that appeal to taste, smell, sight or sound. And they aren't "indisputable" in the strict sense. (Because Christians are so committed to the faith they sometimes speak as if it's literal insanity to argue against the faith. I'm one of those who think God hasn't structured it that way. I think our "inability" to believe is more than an intellectual problem. I think sin has hurt our vision.) Many things point to Jesus of Nazareth being unique and together the pointers make an "irresistible" "argument".
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Jesse's Missing Son by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=799&b=1%20Chronicles
Jesse's Missing Son
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Some time ago, I received a letter from a woman who was seeking an answer to a question that an unbeliever had presented to her. The question that gave her so much trouble, and that seemed to plant a seed of doubt in her mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, was this: “Did Jesse (the father of David) have seven sons or eight?” This question arises from a comparison of the information about Jesse’s family in 1 Samuel 16-17 with the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles chapter two.
First Samuel 16 states that Jesse made seven sons pass before the prophet Samuel, in hopes that God would anoint one of them as the next king of Israel (16:10). Samuel then informed Jesse that God had not chosen any of these seven sons that passed before him, but was looking for another. Of course, that other son was David, “the youngest” (16:11) of Jesse’s “eight sons” (17:12). The “problem” with this information is that the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 specifically states that David was “the seventh” son of Jesse. How is it that David could be both the seventh son and eighth son of Jesse? Some are eager to call this a legitimate Bible contradiction. Even many Bible students (like the one who wrote me about this question) read these statements for the first time and wonder if this is an “inconsistency in the Word.” What is the answer? How many sons did Jesse have? And was David Jesse’s eighth son or seventh?
The answer is really quite simple. It seems that one of Jesse’s sons shown to Samuel at Bethlehem must have died while young and without posterity. Thus, at one time David was the youngest of eight sons, and at another time he was the youngest of seven sons. We must keep in mind that Hebrew genealogies often included only the names of those who have some significance for future generations (Richards, 1993, p. 106; Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986). It makes sense that if one of David’s brothers died before marrying and begetting children (or before doing something extraordinary), he would not have been mentioned.
Lest you think this situation sounds too bizarre, consider the following. Fifty years ago, whenever my father engaged in a discussion about his family, he would tell people that he had five brothers and two sisters. Today, when he converses with others about his family he often speaks of his four brothers and two sisters. Is he being dishonest when he does so? No. Sadly, when my dad was 19 years old, one of his younger brothers died in a tragic accident. Although this brother was loved deeply and is missed greatly, usually when my father is asked about his siblings he simply says: “I have four brothers and two sisters.” If he has time or feels there is a need, he then will mention his other brother who died at a very young age. The point is, whether my dad tells someone that he is the oldest of eight children or the oldest of seven children, he is telling the truth.
Admittedly, the Bible does not say specifically that one of David’s brothers died at a young age. But, it most likely is implying such a thing when one less son is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15. [And considering David’s three oldest brothers were warriors in Saul’s army (1 Samuel 17:13ff), one certainly would not be surprised if one of David’s other brothers also became a soldier and died in battle.]
To say that one of David’s brothers dying at a relatively young age is not an option is to assert that the Bible does not teach by implication. [Yet, as anyone who has studied the Bible knows, it most certainly does teach by implication (cf. Acts 8:35-36).] Furthermore, if people today who have lost children or siblings can speak legitimately about their family number in two different ways, should we not also give Bible writers the same freedom in their recording of historical families?
REFERENCES
“Genealogy,” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson Publishers).
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).
Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3591&b=Matthew
Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Q.
Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”?
A.
Approximately 700 years before the birth of the promised Messiah, Isaiah prophesied about a virgin who would “conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (7:14). Years later, the apostle Matthew referred to Isaiah’s prophecy, specifying once again that, “they shall call His name Immanuel” (1:22-23). Many have wondered why, if the promised Son of Mary was supposed to be called “Immanuel,” this name is never used in the New Testament aside from Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14. Why do we never read of Mary, Joseph, John the Baptizer, Peter, Paul, or others calling the Messiah “Immanuel”?
Thankfully, as so often is the case with God’s Word, the Bible is its own (and best!) commentary. To better understand what Isaiah meant by the name Immanuel, it is helpful to consider what the prophet wrote two chapters later. In prophesying about the Messiah, Isaiah wrote: “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). Did Isaiah mean by this that the Messiah would literally have as His given name “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” or “Everlasting Father”? Surely, to ask is to answer. These names were given to describe the nature of the Messiah, not serve as literal, given names. As commentator Albert Barnes noted:
Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”?
A.
Approximately 700 years before the birth of the promised Messiah, Isaiah prophesied about a virgin who would “conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (7:14). Years later, the apostle Matthew referred to Isaiah’s prophecy, specifying once again that, “they shall call His name Immanuel” (1:22-23). Many have wondered why, if the promised Son of Mary was supposed to be called “Immanuel,” this name is never used in the New Testament aside from Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14. Why do we never read of Mary, Joseph, John the Baptizer, Peter, Paul, or others calling the Messiah “Immanuel”?
Thankfully, as so often is the case with God’s Word, the Bible is its own (and best!) commentary. To better understand what Isaiah meant by the name Immanuel, it is helpful to consider what the prophet wrote two chapters later. In prophesying about the Messiah, Isaiah wrote: “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). Did Isaiah mean by this that the Messiah would literally have as His given name “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” or “Everlasting Father”? Surely, to ask is to answer. These names were given to describe the nature of the Messiah, not serve as literal, given names. As commentator Albert Barnes noted:
His [the Messiah’s—EL] attributes shall be such as to make all these applications appropriate descriptions of his power and work. To be called, and to be, in the Hebrew, often mean the same thing.... Such a use of a verb is not uncommon in Isaiah. ‘One calls him,’ is, according to the usage in Isaiah, as ranch as to say [the equivalent of saying—EL], he will justly bear this name; or simply, he will be (1997).
By nature, the son of Mary was “Immanuel” (John 1:1-3; 10:30,33; 20:28), but by name, He was “Jesus.”
A similar distinction between one’s nature and name is found as early as Genesis chapter two. Following God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the first man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23, emp. added). Although Adam said, “she shall be called woman,” one chapter later Moses recorded how “Adam called his wife’s name Eve” (3:20). Obviously, Adam meant that by nature the one whom God created from his rib was a female human, “a helper comparable to him” (though with noticeable differences and roles—3:18-23), but by name, she would be known as “Eve.”
Gabriel’s conversation with Mary prior to her miraculous conception is also helpful in gaining a proper understanding of Jesus’ name and nature. Although Gabriel did not use the term “Immanuel,” notice how he distinguished between Jesus’ given name and the titles by which He would be known as a result of His divine nature:
A similar distinction between one’s nature and name is found as early as Genesis chapter two. Following God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the first man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23, emp. added). Although Adam said, “she shall be called woman,” one chapter later Moses recorded how “Adam called his wife’s name Eve” (3:20). Obviously, Adam meant that by nature the one whom God created from his rib was a female human, “a helper comparable to him” (though with noticeable differences and roles—3:18-23), but by name, she would be known as “Eve.”
Gabriel’s conversation with Mary prior to her miraculous conception is also helpful in gaining a proper understanding of Jesus’ name and nature. Although Gabriel did not use the term “Immanuel,” notice how he distinguished between Jesus’ given name and the titles by which He would be known as a result of His divine nature:
Then the angel said to her, “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.... 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 1:30-35, emp. added).
Finally, Matthew further clarifies God’s use of the “name” Immanuel in the very passage he quotes—Isaiah 7:14. Immediately before and after Matthew reminds his readers of the prophecy regarding the Messiah’s name being “Immanuel” (1:23), he noted how Joseph would call (1:21) and did call (1:25) the Messiah by “His name Jesus.” The fact that Matthew wrote of the Messiah’s “name” being “Immanuel” in verse 23, but “Jesus” in verses 21 and 25, clearly shows that Matthew understood that one name (Jesus) was a given, literal name, while the other (Immanuel), similar to Jesus’ title “Christ,” characterized His essence.
REFERENCE
Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Apple® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God by Kyle Butt, M.Div.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5053
Apple® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God
| by | Kyle Butt, M.Div. |
On October 30, 2014, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple®, announced to the world that he is a homosexual. Admittedly, high-profile millionaires, CEOs, athletes, and movie stars “come out” as homosexuals on a regular basis, so this declaration is not surprising. Cook made one statement, however, that is so outlandish and inaccurate that it simply cannot go unanswered. He said: “So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me” (2014, emp. added). According to Tim Cook, his homosexuality is a blessing from God.
Tim’s misunderstanding of God and His Word cannot be further from the truth. We have discussed in numerous other places the fact that homosexuality is a sin, just like other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, and pedophilia. And we have shown that there is no genetic link to homosexuality (Miller and Harrub, 2004). It is a choice—a sinful way of life. It is not something that a person is; it is something that a person chooses to do.
As an analogy, suppose that a person who practices bestiality were to contend that his sexual choice is a gift from God. His bestiality has put him in the minority and allowed him to see things from a minority perspective. His bestiality helped him to develop thick skin and made him a stronger person. In addition, he looks forward to the day when our country recognizes the rights of people to legally marry animals.
While those who practice homosexuality do not appreciate such comparisons, the same arguments can be made in favor of bestiality as are made in favor of homosexuality. A person could claim that there is nothing he can do about his sexual preference for animals. He was made that way. He loves animals, and that is his way to show it. He can’t believe people are so judgmental and unloving as to claim that his choice is sinful or wrong. He is being persecuted by “bigots” who hate minorities such as those who practice bestiality.
One could make the same case for pedophilia. The person who engages in this sexual practice could claim she can’t help it. God created her as a pedophile. She is glad that God made her this way, because it helps her understand other minorities such as those who practice bestiality or homosexuality. It has given her thick skin and helped her learn to be herself. She looks forward to the day when our country understands that 12 year olds know what they want and should be allowed to give their consent.
I hope that you can see the problem with Tim Cook’s statement. It is one thing to blatantly live a sinful life of rebellion against God. It is another thing to claim that God is “blessing you” by endowing you with a sinful behavior. That is the equivalent of a thief claiming that “being” a thief is the greatest thing God ever did for him; or a habitual liar claiming that He is thankful God made him a liar; or an adulterer claiming that God blessed him with three girlfriends in addition to his wife; or a teenage boy thanking God for making him promiscuous and giving him the chance to have sex with scores of girls.
Has our “Christian” nation wandered so far from what God actually says in the Bible that it can swallow the proclamation that a person’s homosexual lifestyle is a gift from God? Have even New Testament Christians lived so long outside the Word of God that they can’t recognize such a blasphemous statement for the twisting of the truth that it is? Homosexuality is a sin, like any number of other sins such as lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, fraud, malicious gossip, etc. God loves all sinners and wants them to be saved. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 2:15). Jesus Christ died on the cross to save Tim Cook from his choice to be a homosexual, just as Jesus died to save each and every one of us from our sins. But Jesus commands, yes demands, that we recognize that we are sinning and stop—repent of—our sins. Jesus clearly said “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
It may be true that our culture no longer recognizes that sex before marriage is sin, or that adultery is sinful, or that homosexuality is a violation of God’s Law. But to claim that not only are these actions not sinful, but they are gifts from God, shows an ignorance of the nature of God and of His Will that is startling. As the apostle John wrote: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). The haunting words of the prophet Isaiah, written over 2,700 years ago remind us that Cook’s tactic is nothing new: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).
REFERENCES
Cook, Tim (2014), “Tim Cook Speaks Up,” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay.
Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1401&topic=36.
Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1409
Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?
| by | Caleb Colley, Ph.D. |
The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italianaltrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).
The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:
In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).
As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).
Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).
Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
Group Selection
Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).
Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:
[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).
By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.
Kin Selection
Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).
Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).
Furthermore,
cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).
Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.
Game Theory
A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).
Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).
Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.
CONCLUSION
Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.
REFERENCES
Appleyard, Bryan (1998), Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future (New York: Viking).
“Certificate Program in Mathematical Modeling in Political Science and Economics,” (2006), University of Rochester, College Center for Academic Support, [On-line], URL:http://www.rochester.edu/College/CCAS/certificates/cert_mathmodel.html.
Coltrane, Scott (2001), “Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood: 2001 Presidential Address to the Pacific Sociological Association,” Sociological Perspectives, 44[4]:387-418, Winter.
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avanel, 1979 reprint).
Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), second edition.
“Hurricane Katrina One Year Later: Where Did the Money Go?” (2006), Charity Navigator, [On-line], URL: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/katrina.article/cpid/452.htm.
Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1213.
Lipe, David L. (no date), “The Foundations of Morality,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf.
Major, Trevor (1999), “Ethics and Darwinism [Part II],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73.
McFadden, Johnjoe (2004), “The Kindness of Animals,” The Hindu: On-line Edition of India’s National Newspaper, [On-line], URL:http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/14/stories/2004121401511000.htm.
“Mother Dog Adopts Litter of Kittens” (2006), WNBC, [On-line], URL:http://www.wnbc.com/news/9927844/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news#.
Okasha, Samir (2003), “Biological Altruism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [On-line],URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.
Porter, Eduardo (2005), “Putting Charity Through the ‘What’s in It for Me?’ Test,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10814FF3B540C718C DDA90994DD404482.
Rhode, Debora L. (2005), “Altruism and Hurricane Katrina: Lesson For and From the Public’s Response to Social Needs,” Stanford Center on Ethics, [On-line], URL:http://ethics.stanford.edu/newsletter/December%2005/Altruism.htm.
Thompson, Bert (no date), “Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic Mechanism of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf.
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.
Thompson, Bert, and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)