April 13, 2017

Doing because of thinking by Gary Rose

I believe in The Bible and Jesus and follow God to the best of my ability. I try to follow the pattern laid down by the new testament and all these things have produced very positive results in my life. Habits like drinking alcohol, smoking, and using disgusting language are things of the past. However, I am still working on being a better disciple of Christ, so please be patient with me.


One way to know me is to listen to what I say and watch what I do. If you spot something inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible and specifically those things taught by Jesus, then kindly bring it to my attention and I will consider changing my life. And please, do it in a nice way- my hearing seems to improve when people are kind.

The picture discusses Islam by listing common actions of some of its adherents. Are the people who do such things following God?


Please consider just two passages of Scripture...


Matthew, Chapter 7 (World English Bible)
15  “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.   16  By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?   17  Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.   18  A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.   19  Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.  20  Therefore by their fruits you will know them.  (emp. added vss 15-20) 21  Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.   22  Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’  23  Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’
 Philippians, Chapter 4 (WEB)
 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report: if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think about these things. (emp. added, vs. 8)
You can tell what people are really like by what they do, which is a reflection of what they think. Consider what Christianity encourages us to think about (Philippians verse above) compared to the actions of Islam. I can only wonder at the depths of depravity that some followers of Islam can sink to?? Please note that I am NOT SAYING ALL MUSLIMS ARE DEPRIVED!!!
One last thing. Christianity teaches one to hate sin, but NOT THE SINNER!!! So, pray for those of all religions- that they might turn from all forms of violence and follow the true God. 

Bible Reading April 13 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading April 13 (World English Bible)


Apr. 13
Numbers 17, 18

Num 17:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 17:2 Speak to the children of Israel, and take of them rods, one for each fathers' house, of all their princes according to their fathers' houses, twelve rods: write every man's name on his rod.
Num 17:3 You shall write Aaron's name on the rod of Levi; for there shall be one rod for each head of their fathers' houses.
Num 17:4 You shall lay them up in the Tent of Meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you.
Num 17:5 It shall happen, that the rod of the man whom I shall choose shall bud: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you.
Num 17:6 Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and all their princes gave him rods, for each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods.
Num 17:7 Moses laid up the rods before Yahweh in the tent of the testimony.
Num 17:8 It happened on the next day, that Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and put forth buds, and produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds.
Num 17:9 Moses brought out all the rods from before Yahweh to all the children of Israel: and they looked, and took every man his rod.
Num 17:10 Yahweh said to Moses, Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the children of rebellion; that you may make an end of their murmurings against me, that they not die.
Num 17:11 Moses did so. As Yahweh commanded him, so he did.
Num 17:12 The children of Israel spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone.
Num 17:13 Everyone who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of Yahweh, dies: shall we perish all of us?

Num 18:1 Yahweh said to Aaron, You and your sons and your fathers' house with you shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.
Num 18:2 Your brothers also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, bring near with you, that they may be joined to you, and minister to you: but you and your sons with you shall be before the tent of the testimony.
Num 18:3 They shall keep your commands, and the duty of all the Tent: only they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary and to the altar, that they not die, neither they, nor you.
Num 18:4 They shall be joined to you, and keep the responsibility of the Tent of Meeting, for all the service of the Tent: and a stranger shall not come near to you.
Num 18:5 You shall perform the duty of the sanctuary, and the duty of the altar; that there be wrath no more on the children of Israel.
Num 18:6 I, behold, I have taken your brothers the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are a gift, given to Yahweh, to do the service of the Tent of Meeting.
Num 18:7 You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood for everything of the altar, and for that within the veil; and you shall serve: I give you the priesthood as a service of gift: and the stranger who comes near shall be put to death.
Num 18:8 Yahweh spoke to Aaron, I, behold, I have given you the command of my wave offerings, even all the holy things of the children of Israel; to you have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to your sons, as a portion forever.
Num 18:9 This shall be your of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every offering of theirs, even every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render to me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons.
Num 18:10 You shall eat of it like the most holy things. Every male shall eat of it. It shall be holy to you.
Num 18:11 This is yours, too: the wave offering of their gift, even all the wave offerings of the children of Israel. I have given them to you, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as a portion forever. Everyone who is clean in your house shall eat of it.
Num 18:12 All the best of the oil, and all the best of the vintage, and of the grain, the first fruits of them which they give to Yahweh, to you have I given them.
Num 18:13 The first-ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to Yahweh, shall be yours; everyone who is clean in your house shall eat of it.
Num 18:14 Everything devoted in Israel shall be yours.
Num 18:15 Everything that opens the womb, of all flesh which they offer to Yahweh, both of man and animal shall be yours: nevertheless you shall surely redeem the firstborn of man, and you shall redeem the firstborn of unclean animals.
Num 18:16 You shall redeem those who are to be redeemed of them from a month old, according to your estimation, for five shekels of money, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs).
Num 18:17 But you shall not redeem the firstborn of a cow, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat. They are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar, and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma to Yahweh.
Num 18:18 Their flesh shall be yours, as the wave offering breast and as the right thigh, it shall be yours.
Num 18:19 All the wave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer to Yahweh, have I given you, and your sons and your daughters with you, as a portion forever: it is a covenant of salt forever before Yahweh to you and to your seed with you.
Num 18:20 Yahweh said to Aaron, You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them: I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.
Num 18:21 To the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, even the service of the Tent of Meeting.
Num 18:22 Henceforth the children of Israel shall not come near the Tent of Meeting, lest they bear sin, and die.
Num 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the Tent of Meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations; and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Num 18:24 For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as a wave offering to Yahweh, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance: therefore I have said to them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Num 18:25 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 18:26 Moreover you shall speak to the Levites, and tell them, When you take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall offer up a wave offering of it for Yahweh, a tithe of the tithe.
Num 18:27 Your wave offering shall be reckoned to you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress.
Num 18:28 Thus you also shall offer a wave offering to Yahweh of all your tithes, which you receive of the children of Israel; and of it you shall give Yahweh's wave offering to Aaron the priest.
Num 18:29 Out of all your gifts you shall offer every wave offering of Yahweh, of all its best, even the holy part of it out of it.
Num 18:30 Therefore you shall tell them, When you heave its best from it, then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floor, and as the increase of the winepress.
Num 18:31 You shall eat it in every place, you and your households: for it is your reward in return for your service in the Tent of Meeting.
Num 18:32 You shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have heaved from it its best: and you shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that you not die.

Apr. 12, 13
Luke 8

Luk 8:1 It happened soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the Kingdom of God. With him were the twelve,
Luk 8:2 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out;
Luk 8:3 and Joanna, the wife of Chuzas, Herod's steward; Susanna; and many others; who served them from their possessions.
Luk 8:4 When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable.
Luk 8:5 "The farmer went out to sow his seed. As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.
Luk 8:6 Other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.
Luk 8:7 Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.
Luk 8:8 Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit one hundred times." As he said these things, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Luk 8:9 Then his disciples asked him, "What does this parable mean?"
Luk 8:10 He said, "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables; that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.'
Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Luk 8:12 Those along the road are those who hear, then the devil comes, and takes away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.
Luk 8:13 Those on the rock are they who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; but these have no root, who believe for a while, then fall away in time of temptation.
Luk 8:14 That which fell among the thorns, these are those who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
Luk 8:15 That in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold it tightly, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Luk 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light.
Luk 8:17 For nothing is hidden, that will not be revealed; nor anything secret, that will not be known and come to light.
Luk 8:18 Be careful therefore how you hear. For whoever has, to him will be given; and whoever doesn't have, from him will be taken away even that which he thinks he has."
Luk 8:19 His mother and brothers came to him, and they could not come near him for the crowd.
Luk 8:20 It was told him by some saying, "Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you."
Luk 8:21 But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God, and do it."
Luk 8:22 Now it happened on one of those days, that he entered into a boat, himself and his disciples, and he said to them, "Let's go over to the other side of the lake." So they launched out.
Luk 8:23 But as they sailed, he fell asleep. A wind storm came down on the lake, and they were taking on dangerous amounts of water.
Luk 8:24 They came to him, and awoke him, saying, "Master, master, we are dying!" He awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water, and they ceased, and it was calm.
Luk 8:25 He said to them, "Where is your faith?" Being afraid they marveled, saying one to another, "Who is this, then, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?"
Luk 8:26 They arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee.
Luk 8:27 When Jesus stepped ashore, a certain man out of the city who had demons for a long time met him. He wore no clothes, and didn't live in a house, but in the tombs.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, "What do I have to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torment me!"
Luk 8:29 For Jesus was commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For the unclean spirit had often seized the man. He was kept under guard, and bound with chains and fetters. Breaking the bands apart, he was driven by the demon into the desert.
Luk 8:30 Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He said, "Legion," for many demons had entered into him.
Luk 8:31 They begged him that he would not command them to go into the abyss.
Luk 8:32 Now there was there a herd of many pigs feeding on the mountain, and they begged him that he would allow them to enter into those. He allowed them.
Luk 8:33 The demons came out from the man, and entered into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and were drowned.
Luk 8:34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country.
Luk 8:35 People went out to see what had happened. They came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus' feet, clothed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.
Luk 8:36 Those who saw it told them how he who had been possessed by demons was healed.
Luk 8:37 All the people of the surrounding country of the Gadarenes asked him to depart from them, for they were very much afraid. He entered into the boat, and returned.
Luk 8:38 But the man from whom the demons had gone out begged him that he might go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying,
Luk 8:39 "Return to your house, and declare what great things God has done for you." He went his way, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.
Luk 8:40 It happened, when Jesus returned, that the multitude welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him.
Luk 8:41 Behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. He fell down at Jesus' feet, and begged him to come into his house,
Luk 8:42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. But as he went, the multitudes pressed against him.
Luk 8:43 A woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her living on physicians, and could not be healed by any,
Luk 8:44 came behind him, and touched the fringe of his cloak, and immediately the flow of her blood stopped.
Luk 8:45 Jesus said, "Who touched me?" When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, "Master, the multitudes press and jostle you, and you say, 'Who touched me?' "
Luk 8:46 But Jesus said, "Someone did touch me, for I perceived that power has gone out of me."
Luk 8:47 When the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared to him in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
Luk 8:48 He said to her, "Daughter, cheer up. Your faith has made you well. Go in peace."
Luk 8:49 While he still spoke, one from the ruler of the synagogue's house came, saying to him, "Your daughter is dead. Don't trouble the Teacher."
Luk 8:50 But Jesus hearing it, answered him, "Don't be afraid. Only believe, and she will be healed."
Luk 8:51 When he came to the house, he didn't allow anyone to enter in, except Peter, John, James, the father of the child, and her mother.
Luk 8:52 All were weeping and mourning her, but he said, "Don't weep. She isn't dead, but sleeping."
Luk 8:53 They were ridiculing him, knowing that she was dead.
Luk 8:54 But he put them all outside, and taking her by the hand, he called, saying, "Child, arise!"
Luk 8:55 Her spirit returned, and she rose up immediately. He commanded that something be given to her to eat.
Luk 8:56 Her parents were amazed, but he commanded them to tell no one what had been done.

Will Good Works Save Me? by Richard Mansel


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/works.html

Will Good Works Save Me?

I was speaking to a non-Christian who had not attended in a long time and he said, "I'm hoping good works will save me." This person certainly is not alone in their wish. Millions harbor the same desire to be saved without any commitment or change in lifestyle. Spending any time with Scripture will show this is certainly wishful thinking. God called us to live for Him through dying to self (Romans 6:1-11).
We ask, "What are good works?" They are considered to be kind deeds done to others. What would this include? How far should this go? If I go to the grocery store and a lady in front of me drops her grocery list and I pick it up for her, have I earned heaven? What if I help a child across the parking lot? Will that earn me heaven? What if I offer to carry someone's case of beer and cigarettes to the car? Will that earn me heaven? What if I go to a crack den and offer to hold the spoons and mix the drugs? Will that earn me heaven? What if I offer to feed the fish while an assassin goes across the country to execute someone? Will that earn me heaven since it is a good deed? What if I offer to sweep up for free at a brothel? Will that good deed earn me heaven? What if I volunteer to keep the supplies ready for satanists to worship Satan? Will that good deed earn me heaven?
My point is that "good deeds" are terribly subjective. Everyone will have their own definitions. There won't be any standard. What if I hold the coats while a Christian is executed in China? Will that good deed earn me heaven? Paul certainly did not think so.
In Acts 7:58, Saul (whose name would later be changed to Paul) held the coats of those who executed Stephen for preaching the gospel. In the next chapter he hunted down Christians and had them executed. Of the entire ordeal he later said he was the chief sinner of all men (1 Timothy 1:15). Paul by no means felt good deeds where going to save him. They won't save us either. If so, there was no point in Jesus coming to this earth to die for our sins.
God could have had a prophet tell us that good deeds will save us and saved millions of martyrs for the Cross. There would have been no use to spend the blood and pain of men getting the Bible into our hands. There would have been no reason to start the church because anyone could do good works without the church.
Jesus said we must do good works toward other men if we will be saved (Matthew 25). But, they are to be extensions of our faith and not in place of it (Ephesians 2:10). In fact, the previous two verses say, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
If we will be saved by good works then we will be lost by bad works. So, do we get merits for good works and demerits for bad works? Does that mean if you help ten old ladies across the street then you can push two down the steps? Won't it just be a mathematical equation? And who decides what are bad works? And what if some decide they are good while others decide they are bad? How do we solve that dilemma? Why didn't God just give us an exhaustive list?
It all becomes very messy. It won't matter though as it is not true anyway. Praise the Lord.
Richard Mansel

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

Love is not Jealous, so Why is God? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=777&b=Exodus

Love is not Jealous, so Why is God?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The argument goes something like this: (1) 1 John 4:8 indicates that “God is love;” (2) 1 Corinthians 13:4 says that “love is not jealous” (NAS); and yet (3) Exodus 20:5, along with several other passages, reveals that God is “a jealous God.” “How,” the skeptic asks, “can God be jealous when several verses say God is love and 1 Cor. says love is not jealous?” (McKinsey, 1992). Simply put, if love is not jealous, and God is love, then God logically cannot be called jealous. Or conversely, if love is not jealous, and God is jealous, then God cannot be considered loving. Right? How can these verses be anything but contradictory?
The term “jealousy” most often carries a negative connotation in twenty-first-century America. We pity the man who is jealous of his coworker’s success. We frown upon families who react to a neighbor’s newly found fortune by becoming overcome with jealously. And we are perturbed to hear of a jealous husband who distrusts his wife, and questions every possible wrong action that she might make, even going so far as demanding that she never leave the house without him. Add to these feelings about jealousy what various New Testament passages have to say on the subject, and one can understand why some might sincerely question why God is described at times as “jealous.” The apostle Paul admonished the Christians in Rome to “behave properly,” and put off “strife and jealousy” (Romans 13:13, NAS). To the church at Corinth, Paul expressed concern that when he came to their city he might find them involved in such sinful things as gossip, strife, and jealousy (2 Corinthians 12:20). And, as noted above, he explicitly told them that “love is not jealous” (1 Corinthians 13:4). James also wrote about the sinfulness of jealousy, saying that where it exists “there is disorder and every evil thing” (3:16; cf. Acts 7:9). One religious writer described such jealousy as “an infantile resentment springing from unmortified covetousness, which expresses itself in envy, malice, and meanness of action” (Packer, 1973, p. 189). It seems, more often than not, that both the New Testament and the “moral code” of modern society speak of “jealousy” in a negative light.
The truth is, however, sometimes jealously can be spoken of in a good sense. The word “jealous” is translated in the Old Testament from the Hebrew word qin’ah, and in the New Testament from the Greek word zelos. The root idea behind both words is that of “warmth” or “heat” (Forrester, 1996). The Hebrew word for jealousy carries with it the idea of “redness of the face that accompanies strong emotion” (Feinberg, 1942, p. 429)—whether right or wrong. Depending upon the usage of the word, it can be used to represent both a good and an evil passion. Three times in 1 Corinthians, Paul used this word in a good sense to encourage his brethren to “earnestly desire (zeeloúte)” spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1,39). He obviously was not commanding the Corinthians to sin, but to do something that was good and worthwhile. Later, when writing to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul was even more direct in showing how there was such a thing as “godly jealousy.” He stated:
I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it (2 Corinthians 11:2-4, emp. added).
Paul’s burning desire was for the church at Corinth to abide in the love of God. As a friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul used some of the strongest language possible to encourage the “bride” of Christ at Corinth to be pure and faithful.
In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them with anthropomorphic language. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people. Sadly, during the period of the divided kingdom, both Israel and Judah were guilty of “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:6-10). God called Israel’s idolatrous practice “adultery,” and for this reason He had “put her away and given her a certificate of divorce” (3:8). This is not the “lunatic fury of a rejected or supplanted suitor,” but a “zeal to protect a love-relationship” (Packer, p. 189). Jehovah felt for Israel “as the most affectionate husband could do for his spouse, and was jealous for their fidelity, because he willed their invariable happiness” (Clarke, 1996, emp. added). Song of Solomon 8:6 is further proof that love and jealousy are not always opposed to each other. To her beloved, the Shulamite said: “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord” (NAS). In this passage, love and jealousy actually are paralleled to convey the same basic meaning (see Tanner, 1997, p. 158)—that (aside from one’s love for God) marital love is “the strongest, most unyielding and invincible force in human experience” (NIV Study Bible, 1985, p. 1012). In this sense, being a jealous husband or wife is a good thing. As one commentator noted, married persons “who felt no jealousy at the intrusion of a lover or an adulterer into their home would surely be lacking in moral perception; for the exclusiveness of marriage is the essence of marriage” (Tasker, 1967, p. 106).
Truly, love has a jealous side. There is a sense in which one legitimately can be jealous for what rightfully belongs to him (see Numbers 25). Such is especially true in the marriage relationship. Israel was God’s chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6). He had begun to set them apart as a special nation by blessing their “father” Abraham (Genesis 12:1ff; 17:1-27). He blessed the Israelites with much numerical growth while living in Egypt (Exodus 1:7,12,19; Deuteronomy 26:5; cf. Genesis 15:5; 46:3). He delivered them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 3-12). And, among other things, He gave them written revelation, which, if obeyed, would bring them spiritually closer to Jehovah, and even would make them physically superior to other nations, in that they would be spared from various diseases (see Exodus 15:26). Like a bird that watches over her eggs and young with jealousy, preventing other birds from entering her nest, God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (see Exodus 20:3-6; Joshua 24:14-16,19-20). Such “godly jealousy” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2) was not what Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:4.

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Feinberg, Charles Lee (1942), “Exegetical Studies in Zechariah: Part 10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 99:428-439, October.
Forrester, E.J. (1996), “Jealousy,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1992), [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/chas1222/bepart56.html.
NIV Study Bible (1985), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Packer, J.I. (1973), Knowing God (London: Hodder and Stoughton).
Tanner, J. Paul (1997), “The Message of the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 154: 142-161, April.
Tasker, R.V.G. (1967), The Epistle of James (London: Tyndale Press).

The Bible and Female Leadership by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3656

The Bible and Female Leadership

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who wish to conform to Bible protocol and those who wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to secular society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say we are the product of a male-dominated society and have consequently misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages. As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. At least some of this propensity for compromise is due to the skeptic’s insistence that God, the Bible, and Christians suffer from misogyny.
The central passage in the New Testament that indicates gender role in the home is Ephesians 5:22-33. The premier passage that treats gender roles in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Both passages indicate that men, i.e., adult males (andras), are to be holy, spiritual leaders in the home and in worship, while women are admonished to be modest and unassuming, and to fulfill the critical responsibilities assigned to them by God. What conceivable reason would the inspired writer (Paul) have for placing any limitations on either men or women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment, or asserting his own chauvinistic tendencies? The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations, and that reason transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that men are to be kind, loving, nurturing leaders, and women are to submit to that leadership in the home and the church, because Adam was created before Eve. Here is the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.
God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male first as an indication of the man’s responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home and the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though not inferior) assistant. This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created to be “an help meet for him,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that in a unique sense, the woman was created for the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22)—not vice versa—again, as if she was made “for him.” Adam confirmed this understanding by stating “the woman whom You gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of naming the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evidenced by the practice of primogeniture (“firstborn” male). God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission principle for ordering the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8). Indeed, the evolutionists, skeptics, atheists, feminists, and theological liberals who disdain this reality are faced with the stubborn reality that gender distinction is inherently built into the created order via a host of clear cut emotional, psychological, and physiological differences between men and women—from chromosomes, to life span and muscle strength (cf. Jacobsen, 2007). Paul pinpoints perhaps the most prominent and distinguishing feature: the ability of females to bear children (1 Timothy 2:15).
Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women are often superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men anymore than Christ the Son is inferior to God the Father, citizens are inferior to the President, or students are inferior to teachers. The role of women in the home and in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of all human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The tragic mistreatment of women through the centuries in countries and cultures around the world by men who have abused and misused their authority in no way discredits the biblical principle.
A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over 50 years now. The dismantling of scriptural gender differentiation is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted. To the extent that God’s will for the proper functioning of the human race deteriorates, to that extent we will continue to see the unraveling of America’s foundational values and increasing social confusion and disorientation.
Many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words we will be judged (John 12:48). May all people bow humbly and submissively before the God of Heaven in conformity to His perfect will for people.

Reference

Jacobsen, Joyce (2007), The Economics of Gender (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing), third edition.

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3870

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


[NOTE—For updates to this article, see Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update) and Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (2nd Update)]
The Higgs Boson particle, presumptuously called the “God Particle” by some physicists, is a theoretical elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, but which has yet to be observed by physicists through experimentation. It is “thought to be the fundamental unit of matter” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). In theory, the particle could explain how other elementary particles have mass. But why do some call it the “God Particle”? To Big Bang-believers, the Higgs Boson is “a theoretical energy particle which many scientists believe helped give mass to the disparate matter spawned by the Big Bang” (“Scientists Close in…,” 2010). Big Bang theorists consider its existence “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Therefore, the particle is god-like to such sadly deluded individuals.
Recently, in an article titled, “Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?,” Fox News reported on a “controversial rumor…based on a leaked internal note from physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)” that began circulating in the public eye (“Has Quest...”). The rumor suggests that the LHC, a particle accelerator located in Switzerland, may have run across proof of the Higgs’ existence. The leaked note “details an unexpected ‘bump’ in emissions that may be proof of the long-sought particle” (“Has Quest...”). Wait a minute. A “bump” could be proof of the Higgs Boson? Surely such an occurrence, which could be the result of any number of possibilities, would not constitute valid proof of anything to scientists. Although many scientists these days would consider such a vague incident enough proof to satisfy their longings, James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research responsible for building the LHC, admitted that “the leaked note faces several layers of scrutiny before it could be submitted for publication [in a scholarly scientific publication—JM].” He explains: “Things such as this show up quite frequently in the course of analysis…. It’s way too soon to get excited, I’m afraid. It’s not the physics find of the millennium, unfortunately” (“Has Quest...,” emp. added). So, atheistic evolution still stands as scientifically impossible.
As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this theoretical particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence would not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by Big Bang Theory. Its existence would not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence would not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence would not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang to even get started. And its existence would certainly not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know the Big Bang could not happen. Thus, discovery of its existence would not prove anything in the end, but only allow evolutionists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It still lies firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that matches the scientific evidence.

REFERENCES

“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/25/quest-elusive-god-particle-succeeded/?test=faces.
“Scientists Close in on God Particle” (2010), Fox News, July 27, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/27/scientists-closing-god-particle/.

Jesus: Truly God and Truly Human by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=353

Jesus: Truly God and Truly Human

by  Brad Bromling, D.Min.

One day Jesus asked His friends, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Matthew 16:13). They gave a variety of answers: “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (vs. 14). Different people saw different things in Jesus. Herod heard about the miracles Jesus was performing and decided that He must be John the Baptist (whom he beheaded) raised from the dead (Mark 6:14). Others saw something in Jesus’ disposition that led them to believe He was the incarnation of the prophet Jeremiah (maybe they had seen Jesus weep and remembered how Jeremiah wept over the fall of Jerusalem). Still others had seen enough of Jesus to conclude He was the embodiment of one of the ancient prophets, although they were not sure which. This variety of answers reflects a level of confusion that seems surprising to us 2,000 years later. After all, they had the living, breathing, human person of Jesus to behold, and yet they still were confused. In the decades and centuries since, that confusion has not abated. A plethora of Christologies has been devised. Although there is great variety among them, generally they fall into three main categories: (1) Jesus was truly human, but not truly God; (2) Jesus was truly God, but not truly human; and (3) Jesus was both truly human and truly God.

EARLY HERESIES

In the second century, groups arose in the church that championed the first two categories. On the one hand, the Ebionites taught that Jesus was only a man who became the Christ by His perfect observance of the Law of Moses. On the other hand, the Docetics taught that Jesus was truly God in the flesh, but not really a human being; He only “seemed” to be a man. Both positions were opposed by the early church because neither was in agreement with the New Testament. The Ebionite heresy contradicted passages like John 1:1-14 and John 20:28, which emphasize the deity of Jesus. The Docetics’ position contradicted passages like Hebrews 4:15 and 1 John 1:1-3, which emphasize the humanity of Jesus.

EARLY CONFESSIONS

Although these positions were rejected as heresies, they did not die completely. Nor did their rejection result in complete unanimity of opinion about the identity of Jesus. Confusion over how Jesus could be truly God and truly human at the same time persisted. The Catholic Church struggled with this question, which subsequently became the focus of some of its Ecumenical Councils. In A.D. 325 the Council of Nicea issued its creed, which stated:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended to heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead... (Percival, 1899, p. 3).
So, it was the Council’s conviction that Jesus was both “very God” and “made man.” But how can the same person be both God and man? Nicea had not adequately answered this. It remained to be addressed by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). The 150 members of the Council declared that Jesus was one person with two natures.
...we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.... This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union... (Percival, 1899, pp. 264-265).
It is significant to note that the Council chose to clarify the meaning of the two natures in negative terms. In a sense, they, “put up four fences (without confusion, without change, without division, without separation) and said: The mystery lies within this area” (Runia, 1984, pp. 12-13). Although this confession did not really answer the question as to how Jesus could have both natures at the same time, it respected both aspects of Jesus’ identity and stood as the fundamental statement of Christology for Catholics and Protestants alike for many centuries.

THE IMPACT OF SKEPTICISM

With the rise of skepticism and deism, this ancient creed came under fire. Beginning with Hermann S. Reimarus (1694-1768), scholars began to suggest that the “historical Jesus” was a very different person from the “Christ of faith” described in the Gospels (and subsequent human creeds). Reimarus made a “sharp distinction between the intention of Jesus during his life and the intention of his disciples after his death” (see Borg, 1994, p. 42). Reimarus believed that Jesus’ intentions (rebellion against Rome) were thwarted by His death and that the disciples invented the resurrection story and deified their Teacher as a way of keeping His movement alive.
Liberal scholarship of the last 200 years has largely adopted as paradigmatic this distinction between the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Christian faith.” The claim is that the historical Jesus may be discovered in a fragmentary way by subjecting the Gospels to the rigors of the historical-critical method (see Brantley, 1994). The Christ of the Christian faith is the version of Jesus presented by the New Testament writers and the confessions of Christendom. Much of the recent discussion in Christology, then, centers on whether one should shape one’s understanding of Jesus by the Christ of faith or the Jesus of history.
Often, liberal scholars begin with the Jesus of history and move from there to decide what of the Christ of faith is worthy of belief (e.g., Edward Schillebeeckx, Piet Schoonenberg, Hans Kung, John A.T. Robinson, et al.). Typically the answer is, “not much.” This is also the presupposition behind the work of the Jesus Seminar (see Bromling, 1994), as well as works from a variety of authors (Marcus Borg, Barbara Thiering, Geza Vermes, John Dominic Crossan, et al.). A.N. Wilson’s popular book, Jesus: A Life, is typical. In it, he opened with this line: “The Jesus of history and the Christ of Faith are two separate beings, with very different stories” (1992, p. vii). Wilson rejected the latter, and wrote an entire book describing the former. His historical Jesus, however, “is a pale and distorted version of the real thing” (Wright, 1992, p. 63). Wilson described the Jesus of history as “the great apocalyptic prophet, the visionary teacher, the widely popular healer and exorcist” Whose life was a “total failure” and Whose “mission, whatever its original purpose may have been, ended on the Cross” (Wright, 1992, pp. 167-168). Wilson contended that Jesus never would have approved of Christianity; on the contrary, had Jesus known what would be done in His name, He probably would have wished He never had been born (pp. 255-256).
By way of summary, two hundred years of liberal scholastic inquiry into the question of the identity of Jesus have resulted, essentially, in a revival of the Ebionite heresy. The new portraits depict a Jesus Who is no more than a man and Who was nothing like the Christ preached by Paul and worshipped for nearly two millennia by faithful Christians. This is the price one pays for rejecting the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

COMING TO PETER’S CONCLUSION

Returning to Caesarea, however, we hear Jesus ask a second (and more personal) question: “But, who do you say that I am?” To this Peter boldly replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16). In this one confession, Peter expressed two aspects of His Master’s identity. First, he said Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the ancient Jewish prophets (“Christ” is the Greek word for Messiah, meaning “anointed” by God). Second, he said Jesus possessed the divine nature. “Son of ” was the idiomatic way of saying that a person possessed the nature or traits of another person or thing. For instance, because Joses was an encouragement to others, the apostles called him Barnabas, which means “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36). So, when Peter said Jesus was the “Son of God,” he was saying that Jesus had the very same nature as God. That was a powerful statement. Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God resulted in His death (John 5:18; Matthew 26:63-65). And it was upon this fundamental confession of the unique God/man nature of Jesus that the church was built (Matthew 16:18).
What led Peter to make that confession? The answer is found in Jesus’ reply: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is heaven” (vs. 17). Peter’s view of Jesus was based upon information provided by God, rather than upon the uncertain ideas of people. That information came to Peter in the form of Old Testament prophesies that he was beginning to see fulfilled in Jesus, and that were being confirmed by the miracles Jesus was performing. The same information has been preserved for all ages in the four Gospels, and will lead us to the same conclusion if we give it a fair hearing.

FULFILLED PROPHECY

Unlike most people who have their biographies written after they are dead, much of Jesus’ life was reported hundreds of years before He was born. Over three hundred prophecies relating to the Lord were made in the Old Testament (Lockyer, 1973, p. 21). This number is astounding in itself. From Genesis to Malachi, the story of Jesus is foretold in minute detail (see Luke 24:27). Not only are the major facets of His life predicted, but seemingly trivial things (such as that men would gamble for His clothing—Psalm 22:18) also are foretold by the prophets. His family lineage and birthplace were predicted (cf. Genesis 21:12; Galatians 3:16; Matthew 1:1; 2:1; Micah 5:2). He died and was raised—exactly as had been predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53; Psalm 16:8-11). By the word of prophecy He even was called Jehovah—the special name reserved only for God (Isaiah 40:3). The fulfillment of these prophecies by Jesus of Nazareth is powerful evidence that He was exactly Who Peter claimed He was.

MIRACULOUS CONFIRMATION

In addition, it is important to recall that Jesus backed up His claims by working miracles. Although God empowered other people to perform miracles, Jesus’ miracles were different. Their works confirmed that they were servants of God; Jesus’ works proved He was one with God (John 10:37-38). The Gospel of John records several of those amazing works. John tells us why: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).
While imprisoned, John sent some of his followers to Jesus to ask, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). Jesus responded: “Go tell John...the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached unto them” (Matthew 11:4-5). Over seven hundred years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted that those very things would be done by the Messiah (see Isaiah 35:5-6; 61:1). Jesus wasn’t merely saying, “Look at all the good things I am doing.” He was saying, “Look, I am doing exactly what the Coming One is supposed to do!”
Although not eager to admit it, Jesus’ critics were often brought face-to-face with the truth that no one could do what He did unless God was with Him (John 3:2). One example of this is seen in John 9, where it is recorded that Jesus gave sight to a man who had been born blind. Some of Christ’s enemies tried to deny that a miracle had occurred, but they were unsuccessful. Then they tried to draw attention away from the miracle by attacking Jesus’ character. They said to the man whom Jesus healed: “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner” (John 9:24). This plan did not succeed either. Notice how the man answered them:
Why this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God hears not sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears Him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing (John 9:30-33).
His point was the very thing the Pharisees were unwilling to accept—Jesus’ miraculous works supported His claim to be the Son of God! It is not surprising, then, that the man accepted Jesus as his Lord.

THE RESURRECTION

Just as He promised, Jesus came forth from the tomb three days after His brutal crucifixion (Matthew 16:21; 27:63; 28:1-8). That He had been raised from the dead was witnessed by many different types of people: the soldiers who guarded His tomb; the women who came early in the morning to anoint Him with spices; eleven apostles; and more than 500 other witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:4-8). Seeing the living, breathing Jesus again was concrete proof that He was all He claimed to be. Little wonder, then, that when Thomas saw the resurrected Jesus he exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Christ’s resurrection was the central point of Peter and Paul’s preaching (see Acts 2:23-36; 3:15; 17:31; etc.). The reason is obvious—it was by the resurrection that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4).
The evidence for the deity of Christ is both sufficient and compelling. There is a temptation, however, to emphasize the Lord’s deity to the exclusion of His humanity. In a sense, the modern church can become guilty of practical Doceticism. In other words, Christians can become so focused upon establishing that Jesus is the Son of God that they fail to acknowledge that He also is the Son of Man. Yet, time and again Jesus applied that term to Himself (e.g., Matthew 1:20; 9:6; et al.). As a human, He learned (Hebrews 5:8), became hungry (Matthew 4:2), experienced thirst (John 19:28), grew tired (John 4:6), and slept (Matthew 8:24). He felt anger (Mark 3:5), frustration (Mark 9:19), joy (John 15:11), and sadness (John 11:35). He was “in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), and significantly, He was able to die (Mark 15:44). These human traits are as important to our understanding of the person of Jesus as are the traits He shared with deity.

CONCLUSION

Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Clearly, He is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. Like the ancient creeds tried to explain, Jesus is both truly God and truly human. We must avoid not only the error of the ancient Ebionites and modern liberals of seeing Jesus as merely a man, but we also must be on guard against the Docetic over-emphasis of Jesus’ deity. How can one person be both truly God and truly human? This is something we have not been called to understand fully—only to confess confidently.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3,14).

REFERENCES

Borg, Marcus (1994), “Profiles in Scholarly Courage: Early Days of New Testament Criticism,” Bible Review, 10[5]:40-45, October.
Brantley, Garry K. (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason & Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Bromling, Brad T. (1994), “A Look at the Jesus Seminar,” Reason & Revelation, 14:81-87, November.
Lockyer, Herbert (1973), All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Percival, Henry R., ed. (1899), “The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint).
Runia, Klaas (1984) The Present-Day Christological Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Wilson, A.N. (1992), Jesus: A Life (New York: Fawcett Columbine).
Wright, N.T. (1992), Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).