April 25, 2017

B & B by Gary Rose

Nice meal, and a place to sleep equals contentment.  Enjoy life, its too short (especially if you are a dog)! But, I wonder how many of us spend our lives in the eternal quest for more and more and more MONEY?

Then, one day, something happens; sickness, death in the family, we file bankruptcy or one of the thousands of maladies that can happen to a human being. Then, we wake up. Its not about money or things or the lust to have any of the stuff we thought was so important. Its about life and not just living; I mean real life!!
Paul says to Timothy...


1 Timothy, Chapter 6 (World English Bible)
  6 But godliness with contentment is great gain 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we certainly can’t carry anything out 8 But having food and clothing, we will be content with that. (emp added vss. 6-8) 9 But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation, a snare, and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction.  10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Now, I am not suggesting that you fall asleep at the dinner table with your face on that plate you just ate from, but I am suggesting that a life lived with God yields content (vs.6 above).

Think about it today, OK? I am- and will!!!

Bible Reading April 25 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  April 25 (World English Bible)

Apr. 25
Deuteronomy 5, 6

Deu 5:1 Moses called to all Israel, and said to them, Hear, Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and observe to do them.
Deu 5:2 Yahweh our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 Yahweh didn't make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Deu 5:4 Yahweh spoke with you face to face on the mountain out of the midst of the fire,
Deu 5:5 (I stood between Yahweh and you at that time, to show you the word of Yahweh: for you were afraid because of the fire, and didn't go up onto the mountain;) saying,
Deu 5:6 "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Deu 5:7 You shall have no other gods before me.
Deu 5:8 "You shall not make an engraved image for yourself, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Deu 5:9 you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me;
Deu 5:10 and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Deu 5:11 "You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain: for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Deu 5:12 "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Yahweh your God commanded you.
Deu 5:13 You shall labor six days, and do all your work;
Deu 5:14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God, in which you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
Deu 5:15 You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Yahweh your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Deu 5:16 "Honor your father and your mother, as Yahweh your God commanded you; that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.
Deu 5:17 "You shall not murder.
Deu 5:18 "Neither shall you commit adultery.
Deu 5:19 "Neither shall you steal.
Deu 5:20 "Neither shall you give false testimony against your neighbor.
Deu 5:21 "Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife; neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Deu 5:22 These words Yahweh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. He wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to me.
Deu 5:23 It happened, when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;
Deu 5:24 and you said, Behold, Yahweh our God has shown us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God does speak with man, and he lives.
Deu 5:25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of Yahweh our God any more, then we shall die.
Deu 5:26 For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Deu 5:27 Go near, and hear all that Yahweh our God shall say: and tell us all that Yahweh our God shall tell you; and we will hear it, and do it.
Deu 5:28 Yahweh heard the voice of your words, when you spoke to me; and Yahweh said to me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken to you: they have well said all that they have spoken.
Deu 5:29 Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!
Deu 5:30 Go tell them, Return to your tents.
Deu 5:31 But as for you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
Deu 5:32 You shall observe to do therefore as Yahweh your God has commanded you: you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Deu 5:33 You shall walk in all the way which Yahweh your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.

Deu 6:1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances, which Yahweh your God commanded to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you go over to possess it;
Deu 6:2 that you might fear Yahweh your God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, you, and your son, and your son's son, all the days of your life; and that your days may be prolonged.
Deu 6:3 Hear therefore, Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with you, and that you may increase mightily, as Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has promised to you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.
Deu 6:4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one:
Deu 6:5 and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
Deu 6:6 These words, which I command you this day, shall be on your heart;
Deu 6:7 and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Deu 6:8 You shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for symbols between your eyes.
Deu 6:9 You shall write them on the door posts of your house, and on your gates.
Deu 6:10 It shall be, when Yahweh your God shall bring you into the land which he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you, great and goodly cities, which you didn't build,
Deu 6:11 and houses full of all good things, which you didn't fill, and cisterns dug out, which you didn't dig, vineyards and olive trees, which you didn't plant, and you shall eat and be full;
Deu 6:12 then beware lest you forget Yahweh, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Deu 6:13 You shall fear Yahweh your God; and you shall serve him, and shall swear by his name.
Deu 6:14 You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are around you;
Deu 6:15 for Yahweh your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of Yahweh your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.
Deu 6:16 You shall not tempt Yahweh your God, as you tempted him in Massah.
Deu 6:17 You shall diligently keep the commandments of Yahweh your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he has commanded you.
Deu 6:18 You shall do that which is right and good in the sight of Yahweh; that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which Yahweh swore to your fathers,
Deu 6:19 to thrust out all your enemies from before you, as Yahweh has spoken.
Deu 6:20 When your son asks you in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which Yahweh our God has commanded you?
Deu 6:21 then you shall tell your son, We were Pharaoh's bondservants in Egypt: and Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand;
Deu 6:22 and Yahweh showed great and awesome signs and wonders on Egypt, on Pharaoh, and on all his house, before our eyes;
Deu 6:23 and he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he swore to our fathers.
Deu 6:24 Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as at this day.
Deu 6:25 It shall be righteousness to us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Yahweh our God, as he has commanded us.


Apr. 24, 25
Luke 14

Luk 14:1 It happened, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a Sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him.
Luk 14:2 Behold, a certain man who had dropsy was in front of him.
Luk 14:3 Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
Luk 14:4 But they were silent. He took him, and healed him, and let him go.
Luk 14:5 He answered them, "Which of you, if your son or an ox fell into a well, wouldn't immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
Luk 14:6 They couldn't answer him regarding these things.
Luk 14:7 He spoke a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the best seats, and said to them,
Luk 14:8 "When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, don't sit in the best seat, since perhaps someone more honorable than you might be invited by him,
Luk 14:9 and he who invited both of you would come and tell you, 'Make room for this person.' Then you would begin, with shame, to take the lowest place.
Luk 14:10 But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes, he may tell you, 'Friend, move up higher.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you.
Luk 14:11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Luk 14:12 He also said to the one who had invited him, "When you make a dinner or a supper, don't call your friends, nor your brothers, nor your kinsmen, nor rich neighbors, or perhaps they might also return the favor, and pay you back.
Luk 14:13 But when you make a feast, ask the poor, the maimed, the lame, or the blind;
Luk 14:14 and you will be blessed, because they don't have the resources to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous."
Luk 14:15 When one of those who sat at the table with him heard these things, he said to him, "Blessed is he who will feast in the Kingdom of God!"
Luk 14:16 But he said to him, "A certain man made a great supper, and he invited many people.
Luk 14:17 He sent out his servant at supper time to tell those who were invited, 'Come, for everything is ready now.'
Luk 14:18 They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.'
Luk 14:19 "Another said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I must go try them out. Please have me excused.'
Luk 14:20 "Another said, 'I have married a wife, and therefore I can't come.'
Luk 14:21 "That servant came, and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor, maimed, blind, and lame.'
Luk 14:22 "The servant said, 'Lord, it is done as you commanded, and there is still room.'
Luk 14:23 "The lord said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
Luk 14:24 For I tell you that none of those men who were invited will taste of my supper.' "
Luk 14:25 Now great multitudes were going with him. He turned and said to them,
Luk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doesn't first sit down and count the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it?
Luk 14:29 Or perhaps, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, everyone who sees begins to mock him,
Luk 14:30 saying, 'This man began to build, and wasn't able to finish.'
Luk 14:31 Or what king, as he goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an envoy, and asks for conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So therefore whoever of you who doesn't renounce all that he has, he can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 Salt is good, but if the salt becomes flat and tasteless, with what do you season it?
Luk 14:35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile. It is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

The Book was Better by Richard Mansel


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

The Book was Better

When a film is made from a novel, people who have read the novel often exclaim, "The book was better!"
One reason, I think, is that we interact with books and we see them visually. We form our own images of the characters. The film-maker can never recreate the pictures in our heads. Even worse, film-makers often presume to make significant changes to the story. Therefore, disappointment occurs when the screen version does not match the template in our head.
In religion we have a similar situation. People rarely read the Bible anymore, except in brief devotional snippets. So, when they hear something about the Bible they don't know whether it is true or not. Thus, they can be lead astray very easily. The message can be changed and because of ignorance, the listener thinks it is actually in the Bible.
When we study the Bible we interact with it and absorb it so that it becomes very real to us, like a great novel. Then, when we hear men talk about it, we can check their words by making a comparison with Scripture. We can "Test the spirits to see whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1).
This knowledge enables us to listen to men with discretion. When their teachings are not consistent with Scripture we can fall back on truth and refute their errors.
We can say, "Your teaching may be interesting, but I like the Book better." Because only in the Book do we find Jesus from whom all blessings flow (John 14:6).
Richard Mansel

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

The Holy Place, or the Most Holy Place? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=736&b=Exodus

The Holy Place, or the Most Holy Place?

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In Exodus 40:26, the Bible states that the “golden altar” was in the holy place of the tabernacle, in front of the veil. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews (9:3-4) indicates that the altar of incense was in the most holy place. How can these passages be harmonized?
In responding to this question, some background information is in order. When the children of Israel came into the desolate region of Sinai following their exodus from Egypt, Jehovah ordained a regulated system of worship that was designed to accommodate their sojourn in that wilderness. A part of that order was the tabernacle—a movable, tent-like structure that was to serve as the house of the Lord under those temporary conditions. In the construction of the tabernacle, Moses was “warned of God” that he make all things “according to the pattern” that was shown to him at Mt. Sinai (Hebrews 8:5).
The tabernacle was divided into two rooms, the holy place and the most holy place (or holy of holies). Within the former, according to the account in Exodus 40, three items of furniture were located. On the northern side was the table of showbread, while the golden lampstand was on the south. Finally, to the west, just “before the veil” that separated the holy place from the holy of holies, was the golden altar of incense (Exodus 30:6; 40:26).
Here, then, as indicated above, is the problem. In the book of Hebrews, the writer, in describing the same circumstance, stated that “behind the second veil” there was a compartment “called the holy of holies; having a golden altar of incense...” (Hebrews 9:3-4).
Some critics have not hesitated to declare that the author of Hebrews made a mistake. James Moffatt observed that “the irregularity of placing it [the golden altar—WJ] on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies” (1957, p. 115). Such a declaration, however, not only is inconsistent with a respectable view of biblical inspiration, but also is wholly unnecessary.
As I have emphasized in previous discussions (Jackson, 1986, 2:51ff.), no legitimate contradiction can be charged against statements that superficially appear to conflict unless every conceivable possibility of reconciliation has been exhausted. One must approach the controversial text(s) and ask: Is there any feasible way to harmonize these passages? If there is, no allegation of a real discrepancy can be made. Now, what are the facts of this case? Several solutions to the difficulty have been proposed. Some of these, however, are less than totally convincing. Let us reflect upon a few of them.
(1) Some have argued that the golden altar of incense was not in the holy place, as evinced by the fact that in Exodus 26:35 only the table of showbread and the lampstand are mentioned as items of furniture in that room. The conclusion thus is drawn that the altar of incense must have been in the holy of holies. This logic is not persuasive. First, neither is the altar of incense mentioned in Exodus 26:33-34 as being found in the most holy place. Hence, silence cannot be the deciding factor. Second, the golden altar clearly is located in the holy place in other passages (Exodus 30:6; 40:26). Besides that, if the golden altar was in the holy of holies, how could the priests burn incense thereupon each day (cf. Luke 1:9), since the most holy place could be entered only yearly—on the day of atonement—and then by the high priest alone (Hebrews 9:7)?
(2) The Greek text of Hebrews 9:4 speaks of a golden thumiaterion for the burning of incense. The original word denotes either a place, or a vessel, used in burning incense. Thus, thumiaterion is rendered “censer” (KJV) or “altar” (ASV). Some argue, therefore, that the inspired writer of this passage did not allude to the altar of incense, but rather to a censer that was kept within the holy of holies, but which was employed annually to convey coals from the altar into the most holy place according to the instructions of Leviticus 16:12-13. This represents the view of scholars like Albert Barnes, James MacKnight, and S.T. Bloomfield. An objection to this theory would be that if the writer refers only to a censer, then there is no mention at all of the golden altar. True, but then there is no reference to the laver or brazen altar that stood just before the tabernacle, and that likewise were an integral part of the priestly service. It is possible that only the censer was mentioned “because it was the principal part of the furniture which the high priest used on the day of expiation” (Bengal, 1877, 3:418). Still, it seems odd that the lesser object, the censer, would be mentioned, while the greater, the golden altar, was ignored completely.
On the other hand, there is no mention at all in the Old Testament of a “golden” censer. Moreover, when the high priest entered the holy of holies on the day of atonement, he took the censer with him, thus implying that it was not already within the most holy place. A defense of this view appears to require considerable speculation.
(3) The most popular opinion among conservative scholars argues that Hebrews 9:4 refers not to a censer, but to the golden altar of incense. It is carefully pointed out, though, that this passage does not actually say that the altar was within the most holy place. The text literally reads: “...behind the second veil was a room which is called the holy of holies, having [echousa, present participle] a golden altar of incense” (Hebrews 9:3-4). The verb echo can be employed in the sense of “belonging to,” i.e., in close “association with” something (cf. Hebrews 6:9). Marcus Dods observed that “the change from en he [within] of ver. 2 to echousa [having] is significant, and indicates that it was not precisely its local relations he had in view, but rather its ritual associations” (1956, 4:328). Theodor Zahn stated that the Hebrew writer was describing an “ideal relation” of the altar to the most holy place (1973, 2:364). John Ebrard contended that one is not required to interpret echousa “in a local sense” in this verse. As an example, he cited verse one of this very chapter: “Now even the first covenant had [echein] ordinances...” (1859, 6:492).
That there was a very strong connection between the altar of incense and the most holy place is evinced by several suggestions in the Old Testament. Note the following. (1) There was a ritualistic association between the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense in that the high priest sprinkled blood upon both of them on the annual day of atonement (Exodus 30:10). (2) Also, on the day of atonement, the high priest carried live coals from the golden altar, along with incense, into the holy of holies (Leviticus 16:10). Thus, on that day, once a year, the firepan, in which the coals were transported, became an extension of the altar. In that sense, it might be said that the altar “belonged to” the most holy place. (3) In a religious sense, the altar of incense actually was said to stand “before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:12) and “before the ark of the testimony” (Exodus 40:5). In fact, the author of First Kings states that the altar of gold “belonged to” the oracle, i.e., the inner sanctuary (see 1 Kings 6:22). Of this passage, R.D. Patterson noted that even though the altar was materially in the holy place, “functionally and symbolically it was associated with the Most Holy Place” (1988, 4:67). Another scholar observed that while the altar was locally situated in the holy place, “in its nature and idea” it pertained to the most holy place (Kay, 1981, 10:69). Professor William Milligan argued, on the basis of inference, that on the day of atonement the veil between the holy and most holy places was opened so that the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant stood in close proximity, and that it was from this vantage point that the author of Hebrews wrote (n.d., 3:230).
Thus, a strong case can be made for the fact that the writer of Hebrews (9:3-4) was not stressing the location of the altar of incense; rather, he was emphasizing its theological connection with the most holy place of the tabernacle.
In view of this, let us remind ourselves of the Law of Contradiction. This logical maxim affirms that a thing cannot both be, and not be, if one is speaking of the same thing, employing the same time reference, and using his terms in an identical sense. In the case before us, one should not charge that there is a contradiction between Exodus 30:6 and Hebrews 9:3-4, for the distinct possibility exists that: (a) two different objects are in view, i.e., the golden altar and a censer; or (b) what is more likely, two different senses are employed, i.e., the altar was described in a spatial sense in the Exodus passage, and a theological sense in the Hebrews context. It is thus wholly unwarranted to suggest that a biblical contradiction must exist with reference to the location of the golden altar of incense.
REFERENCES
Bengal, J. A. (1877), Gnomon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dods, Marcus (1956), “Hebrews,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ebrard, John Henry Augustus (1859), “Hebrews,” Biblical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Hermann Olshausen, Ed. (New York: Sheldon & Company).
Jackson, Wayne (1986), Essays in Apologetics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, Inc.).
Kay, William (1981 reprint), “Hebrews,” The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Milligan, William (no date), The Bible Educator, ed. E.H. Plumptre (London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin).
Moffatt, James (1957), The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Patterson, R. D. (1988), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F.E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Zahn, Theodor (1973 reprint), Introduction to the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock).

The Founders Wanted the Gospel Preached? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4

The Founders Wanted the Gospel Preached?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

If one were to make a listing of what America stands in dire need of, the listing would differ dramatically from person to person—and politician to politician. Nowadays, the list would most certainly include concerns over the economy, illegal immigration, the price of oil, taxes, and a host of other issues. Would anyone today place on such a list the need for the Gospel of Christ to be preached and promoted throughout the nation and the world? Incredibly, the Founders of America did just that.
On October 20, 1779, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the entire nation:
Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise for the wonders which his goodness has wrought...above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel,whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory: therefore, Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, to appoint Thursday, the 9th of December next, to be a day of public and solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States (Journals of..., 15:1191-1193, emp. added).
“The glorious light of the gospel” is an allusion to 2 Corinthians 4:4, and “heirs of his eternal glory” is a reference to 2 Timothy 2:10. Diffusing the Gospel of Christ was of paramount importance to the Founders. However imperfectly they conceptualized the pure, nondenominational, New Testament Gospel, they thanked God that the Gospel had been thoroughly diffused throughout America.
One year later in October of 1780, they issued another proclamation to the country’s population in which they thanked God for “continuing to us the enjoyment of the gospel of peace” (Journals of…, 18:950-951)—an expression taken from the New Testament books of Romans (10:15) and Ephesians (6:15). And then on October 18, 1783, with the Revolutionary War drawing to a close, they again proclaimed to all Americans their gratitude for numerous blessings bestowed by God, “and above all, that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the blessed gospel [an allusion to 2 Corinthians 4:4—DM], and secured to us in the fullest extent the rights of conscience in faith and worship” (Journals of…, 25:699-701, emp. added).
America has drifted so far from her moorings that the average citizen no longer sees the critical need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be disseminated throughout the population. Indeed, Americans have, in fact, become so enamored with the innocuous and inane notions of political correctness and celebrating diversity that many are openly hostile to Christianity and its vital historical role in the founding and perpetuation of our nation. (Ironically and hypocritically, all other religions are encouraged and affirmed by the same citizens. Cf. the U.S. House resolution commending Islam, H. Res. 635, 2007). Elias Boudinot, president of the Continental Congress (1782-1783), expressed his “anxious desire” that “our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies to the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be introductive of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society” (1801, p. xxii, emp. added). The Founders would be heartsick that American society has gone from vibrant respect for Gospel precepts, to indifference, to being ashamed, and now to outright rejection. The apostle Paul’s declaration ought to be deeply imprinted on every true American’s heart and soul: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16). Indeed, only the Gospel can save our souls—and only the precepts of that same Gospel of Jesus Christ can rescue our nation.

REFERENCES

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
U.S. House (2007), “Recognizing the Commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic Holy Month of Fasting and Spiritual Renewal, and Expressing Respect to Muslims in the United States and Throughout the World on This Occasion, and For Other Purposes,” H. Res. 635, October 2, Sponsor Eddie Johnson [D-TX].

Human Evolution: Beyond Preposterous by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=998

Human Evolution: Beyond Preposterous

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We know what a human is. Scientists have defined our kind with precision. With that precise definition of what constitutes a human, we can know that everything either is or is not a human. There is no middle ground. This principle of logic is known as the Law of Excluded Middle.1 If Darwin was right, then at some point in history, a non-human had to give rise to a human, either by transforming into a human or giving birth to a human.2 And yet there is absolutely no evidence of such an event occurring. Instead, we find that in nature, life comes from life of its own kind—a truth known as the Law of Biogenesis.3 Finches give birth to finches. Peppered moths have peppered moths. Horses have horses. Whales have whales. Bacteria have bacteria.
It has always intrigued me that the evolutionary side of the aisle seems to be notably silent about the fact that at the beginning of the human species, not merely a single human had to come into existence from a non-human—an impossible feat on its own. Neither is it the case that merely two human beings had to evolve onto the scene, either. Rather, at least one male and one distinctly different human being—the female; equipped with a significantly different anatomy—had to evolve simultaneously on the Earth in order for the human species to propagate itself. In other words,one male human could not have randomly come into existence one day, and a female two hundred years later. No, there had to be representatives of both genders on the Earth simultaneously, doubling the impossibility of the event.
Further, those male and female human bodies had to also contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. And even further, those male and female human beings had to accidentally run into each other on planet Earth—a sphere with a surface area of 196,900,000 square miles. They had to find each other in what is thought to have been a very hostile and primitive Earthly environment as well—without first starving or being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray.
They had to find each other while they were in the childbearing years, as well—not too old or young to reproduce before the other individual died. Assuming the two were able to find each other at the right time (and were willing and able to reproduce with each other), mother and child then had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances.
Running into any one of these significant barriers to success would have killed off humans before we got started. If the accidental emergence of a single human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous to you, surely the other requirements necessary to make the species stick shows the evolutionary proposition to be beyond preposterous.

Endnotes

1 W. Stanley Jevons (1888), Elementary Lessons in Logic: Deductive & Inductive (New York: MacMillan), p. 119.
2 Antony G.N. Flew and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
3 Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1],” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4779&topic=296.

Reasoning About the Resurrection of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3689

Reasoning About the Resurrection of Christ

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The resurrection of Christ is central to the faith of every Christian. Without a firm belief that “God has raised Him from the dead” (Romans 10:9), salvation from sin is impossible. Paul wrote: “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Without the good news of Jesus’ defeat of death, the Gospel is void of its power to save mankind (cf. Romans 1:16). If Christ was not “raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,” there would be no “newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Rather, every accountable person would lie “dead in trespasses” (Ephesians 2:1,5) without hope of becoming “a new creation” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Truly, the resurrection of Christ provides the substance for the Christian’s hope and the solid foundation on which to build his faith.
Is it any surprise, then, that first-century evangelists put so much emphasis on Jesus’ resurrection? Peter specifically mentioned how the apostle chosen to take the place of Judas was to become a witness of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:22). A short while later, Peter preached to thousands of Jews in Jerusalem a sermon that hinged on the empty tomb of Christ (Acts 2:24,31-32). He then spoke in the temple about the Lord’s resurrection (Acts 3:15,26), and afterward witnessed to this fact before the highest court of the Jews (4:10; 5:29-32). The apostle similarly witnessed to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:30). Paul repeatedly spoke of the resurrection of Christ in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:30,33,34,37), reasoned from the Scriptures about it in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), and then gave testimony of this fact before both Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:22-25).
First-century Christians frequently discussed the resurrection of Christ and were prepared to defend it using logical arguments comprised of sufficient evidence (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Acts 1:3; 26:22-23). Christ’s resurrection was fundamental to their faith and prominent in their preaching. It should be no less today. Hundreds of millions of people on Earth disbelieve in Jesus’ death-defying power. Skeptics scoff at the idea of Jesus coming back to life. Infidels in classrooms and media outlets throughout the world adamantly argue against it, alleging that “the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not happen on good biblical grounds,” and it certainly “did not happen on good historical grounds” (Barker, 1996).
In the past, we have discussed various irrefutable proofs for the resurrection of Christ (see Butt, 2002). In this issue of Reason & Revelation, we respond to four questions that skeptics are fond of asking as they attempt to discredit the Bible’s portrayal of this earth-shaking event (Matthew 28:2).

WHAT’S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT JESUS’ RESURRECTION?

Most anyone who has spent much time reading the Scriptures knows that the Bible writers mentioned several individuals who rose from the dead. After the widow’s son of Zarephath died, Elijah prayed to God, “and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived” (1 Kings 17:22). A few years later, the prophet Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32-35). Then, after Elisha’s death, a dead man, in the process of being buried in the tomb of Elisha, was restored to life after touching Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21). While on Earth Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:21-24,35-43), as well as the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16), and Lazarus—who had been buried for four days (John 11:1-45). Matthew recorded how after Jesus’ death and resurrection “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (27:52-53, emp. added). Then later, during the early years of the church, Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-43), while Paul raised the young man Eutychus, who had died after falling from a third-story window (Acts 20:7-12).
All of these people died and later rose to live again. Although some of the individuals arose very shortly after death, Lazarus and (most likely) the saints who were raised after the resurrection of Jesus were entombed longer than was Jesus. In view of all of these resurrections, some have asked, “What is so important about Jesus’ resurrection?” If others in the past have died to live again, what makes His resurrection so special? The former editor of Biblical Errancy, Dennis McKinsey, once mockingly asked:
Why would it [Jesus’ resurrection—EL] be of any consequence since...many others rose before Jesus? By the time he rose this was a rather common occurrence. I would think it would have been met by a resounding yawn rather than surprise followed by: So what else can you do? Adam’s act of coming into the world as a full grown adult is more spectacular (n.d.).
Given the fact that Jesus is not the only person ever to come back to life, what is it that makes His resurrection unique? Why is the resurrection of Jesus more significant than any other?
First, the resurrection of Jesus is more significant than any other resurrection simply because the inspired apostles and prophets said that it was. Critics may sneer at this response, but it is a valid point. Jesus did certain things that others did, including being raised from the dead, but His actions were more significant because of the statements attached to them. Consider the miracles Jesus performed in order to set Himself apart as the Son of God and promised Messiah. Many people throughout the Bible worked miracles in order to confirm their divine message (cf. Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:1-4), but only Jesus did them as proof of His divine nature. Once, during the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, a group of Jews surrounded Jesus and asked, “How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24)? Jesus responded to them saying, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.... I and My Father are one” (John 10:25,30). These Jews understood that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh (cf. 10:33,36), and Jesus wanted them to understand that this truth could be confirmed by the miracles that He worked.
The miracles testified to His deity (John 20:30-31). Why? Because He said they did (10:25,35-38; cf. John 5:36). The miracles that Jesus performed bore witness to the fact that He was from the Father (John 5:36), because He said He was from the Father. A miracle in and of itself did not mean the person who worked it was deity. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, and a host of others worked miracles, with some even raising people from the dead. But none did so for the purpose of proving they were God in the flesh. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message that Jesus was the Son of God, not to prove that they were God (cf. Acts 14:8-18). Jesus, on the other hand, performed miracles to bear witness that He was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be (cf. John 9:35-38).
Similarly, one fundamental reason that Jesus’ miraculous resurrection is more important to a Christian than the resurrections of Lazarus, Tabitha, Eutychus, or anyone else who was raised from the dead, is simply because the Bible writers explained that it was more important. There is no record of anyone alleging that Lazarus was God’s Son based on his resurrection, nor did the early church claim divinity for Eutychus or Tabitha because they died and came back to life. None of the aforementioned individuals who was resurrected ever claimed that the resurrection was proof of deity, nor did any inspired prophet or apostle. On the other hand, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power...by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). His resurrection was different because of Who He was—the Son of God. Thus, just as the miracles He worked during His earthly ministry testified of His divine message, and hence His divine nature, so did His resurrection.
A second reason why Jesus’ resurrection stands out above all others is because it alone was specifically foretold in the Old Testament. In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter affirmed that God had raised Jesus from the dead because it was not possible for the grave to hold Him. As proof, he quoted Psalm 16:8‑11 in the following words:
I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence (Acts 2:25-28).
Peter then explained this quote from the book of Psalms by saying:
Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses (Acts 2:29-32).
The apostle Paul also believed that the psalmist bore witness to Christ, and spoke of His resurrection. In his address at Antioch of Pisidia, he said:
And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: “I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Therefore He also says in another Psalm: “You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:32‑39).
Where is the prophecy for the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter? When did the prophets ever foretell of Eutychus or Tabitha’s resurrection? They did not. No resurrected person other than Jesus had his or her resurrection foretold by an Old Testament prophet, nor did any inspired apostle or prophet in the first century apply Old Testament prophecies to them. This certainly makes Jesus’ resurrection unique.
Third, Jesus’ resurrection is more significant than any other because He prophesied numerous times that He would rise from the dead, even foretelling the exact day on which it would occur. Jesus told some scribes and Pharisees on one occasion, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, emp. added). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded how Jesus “began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day (Matthew 16:21, emp. added; cf. Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:22). While Jesus and His disciples were in Galilee, Jesus reminded them, saying, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 17:22-23, emp. added).
cave
Christians do not serve a lifeless lord, but a Risen Redeemer Whose tomb was found empty nearly 2,000 years ago.
Just before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus again reminded His disciples, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again” (Matthew 20:18-19, emp. added). Jesus’ prophecies concerning His resurrection and the specific day on which it would occur were so widely known that, after Jesus’ death, His enemies requested that Pilate place a guard at the tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day...” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). They knew exactly what Jesus had said He would do, and they did everything in their power to stop it.
Where are the prophecies from the widow’s son of Zarephath? Did he prophesy of his resurrection prior to his death? Or what about the son of the Shunammite woman that Elisha raised from the dead? Where are his personal prophecies? Truly, no one who rose from the dead except Jesus prophesied about his or her own resurrection. And certainly no one ever prophesied about the exact day on which he or she would rise from the dead, save Jesus. This prior knowledge and prophecy makes His resurrection a significant event. He overcame death, just as He predicted. He did exactly what he said He was going to do, on the exact day He said He would do it.
Fourth, the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He is the only resurrected person ever to have lived and died without having committed one sin during His lifetime. He was “pure” and “righteous” (1 John 3:3; 2:1), “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). He was “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19), “Who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). No one else who has risen from the dead ever lived a perfect life, and then died prior to his or her resurrection for the purpose of taking away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). Because Jesus lived a sinless life, died, and then overcame death in His resurrection, He alone has the honor of being called “the Lamb of God” and the “great High Priest” (Hebrews 4:14). “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many,” and because of His resurrection, “those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
Finally, and perhaps most important, the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. Since no one who has risen from the dead is still living on Earth, and since there is no evidence in the Bible that God ever took someone who had risen from the dead into heaven without his dying again, it is reasonable to conclude that all who ever rose from the dead, died in later years. Jesus, however, never died again. He rose from the grave to live forevermore. All others who previously were raised from the dead, died again, and are among those who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection. Only Jesus truly has conquered death. Only His bodily resurrection was followed by eternal life, rather than another physical death.
Skeptics have argued that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again” (see McKinsey, 1983, p. 1, emp. added). However, the inspired apostles said otherwise. Paul actually linked the two together while preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, saying, God “raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption.... He whom God raised saw no corruption” (Acts 13:34,37, emp. added). Paul also impressed upon the minds of the Christians in Rome how Jesus, “having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Romans 6:9, emp. added). [Is it any wonder Paul testified before Agrippa and Festus how Jesus was “the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23)? “[H]e was the first who rose again from the dead to return no more into the empire of death” (Clarke, 1996).] Jesus said of Himself: “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:17-18, emp. added). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews argued for a better life through Jesus on the basis of His termination of death. One reason for the inadequacy of the old priesthood was because “they were prevented by death.” Jesus, however, because He rose never to die again, “continues forever” in “an unchangeable priesthood,” and lives to make intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:23-25). As so often is the case, skeptics comment on the Bible without really knowing what the Bible says. To say, that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again” (McKinsey, 1983, p. 1), is to deny (or ignore) what the apostles and prophets actually stated.
Whether or not Eutychus, Tabitha, Lazarus, etc., rose from the grave, our relationship with God is not affected. Without Jesus’ resurrection, however, there would be no “Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Without Jesus’ resurrection, no suitable High Priest would be able to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25). Without Jesus’ resurrection, we would have no assurance of His coming and subsequent judgment (Acts 17:31). Without Jesus’ resurrection, “we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Corinthians 15:19).
Jesus’ resurrection is significant—more so than any other resurrection. Only Jesus’ resurrection was verbalized by inspired men as proof of His deity. Only Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament. Only Jesus foretold of the precise day on which He would rise from the grave—and then fulfilled that prediction. Only Jesus’ resurrection was preceded by a perfect life—a life lived, given up, and restored in the resurrection for the purpose of becoming man’s Prince, Savior, and Mediator. And, only Jesus rose never to die again.

WHY IS CHRIST CALLED THE “FIRST FRUITS”?

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul wrote at length concerning the resurrection of the dead because some of the Christians in Corinth taught “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (vs. 12). As one of his proofs for the Christian’s eventual resurrection, Paul pointed to the fact that Christ rose, and showed that the general resurrection stands or falls with Christ’s resurretion, saying, “if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile” (vss. 16-17)! After hypothetically arguing from the absurd in an attempt to help the Corinthian Christians to see that their stance on the final resurrection completely undermined Christianity, Paul proceeded to demonstrate that Christ had risen, making the resurrection of the dead inevitable. It is in this section of Scripture that some find a difficulty. Beginning with verse 20, Paul wrote:
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, emp. added).
In view of the fact that Jesus was not the first person ever to rise from the dead (as previously discussed), some have questioned why Paul twice described Jesus as “the firstfruits” from the dead. Did Paul err? Was he ignorant of all of the previous resurrections? In what sense did Paul speak of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”?
One could respond reasonably to these questions by pointing out the aforementioned fact that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead—never to die again. In this sense, Christ is “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). Another (and perhaps better) explanation to the question surrounding 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 and Paul’s use of the word “firstfruits” (Greek aparche) is to recognize the metaphor Paul employed. Under the old law, the firstfruits were the earliest gathered grains, fruits, and vegetables that the people dedicated to God in recognition of His faithfulness for providing the necessities of life. The Israelites were to offer to God a sheaf of the first grain that was harvested on the day after the Sabbath following the Passover feast (Leviticus 23:9-14). Paul used the term “firstfruits” in this letter to the Corinthian church to reinforce the certainty of the resurrection. Just as the term “firstfruits” indicates that “the first sheaf of the forthcoming grain harvest will be followed by the rest of the sheaves, Christ, the firstfruits raised from the dead, is the guarantee for all those who belong to him that they also will share in his resurrection” (Kistemaker, 1993, p. 548). Jesus is God’s “firstfruits” of the resurrection. And, like the Israelites, God will gather the rest of the harvest at the final resurrection. Paul seemingly wanted the Corinthians to understand (by way of metaphor) that Christ’s resurrection is a pledge of our resurrection. It is inevitable—a full harvest guaranteed by God Himself.

ON WHAT DAY DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4, emp. added). And while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp. added). Skeptics are quick to contend, however, that these scriptures contradict various other passages. For example, Jesus predicted that He would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). On another occasion, Jesus told His apostles how His enemies would “mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again” (Mark 10:34, emp. added, NASB). In addition, He informed the Pharisees that He would be in the heart of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish—for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). How can a person be expected to believe that Jesus rose from the grave if Jesus and the Bible writers could not even decide whether He rose from the grave on the third day or the fourth day?
In an attempt to solve this difficulty, some seemingly well-meaning individuals have espoused the idea that Jesus must have been crucified on Wednesday or Thursday, rather than on Friday (eg., Scroggie, 1948, pp. 569-577; Rusk, 1974, pp. 4-6). Because Jesus could not possibly have been in the grave for three nights if He died on Friday and rose on Sunday, some believe He must have died a day or two earlier. However, this is highly improbable. First, Mark 15:42 states that the evening of Christ’s crucifixion “was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,” and “[b]oth the Scriptures (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14,31,42) and Josephus indicate the day of preparation is the day before the weekly Sabbaths, namely, Friday” (Hoehner, 1974, 131:245; cf. Josephus, 16:6:2). Second, if Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on Sunday then He must have risen from the grave on the fourth day rather than “the third day.” What’s more, all attempts to place Jesus’ crucifixion and burial on Wednesday or Thursday instead of Friday are based more on a misunderstanding of a Hebrew idiom concerning time than actual evidence.
While statements such as “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” may appear contradictory at first glance, in reality they harmonize perfectly if one understands the more liberal methods ancients used to reckon time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, 131:248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a twenty-four hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, in Jesus’ time one would have been correct in teaching that Jesus’ burial would last “three days and three nights,” even though it was not three complete 24-hour days.
Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day.
  • According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse seventeen of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Obviously, “forty days” and “forty days and forty nights” refer to the same time period in this context.
  • During the reign of King Ahab, Israel and Syria “encamped opposite each other for seven days” (1 Kings 20:29, emp. added). Yet, “on the seventh day the battle was joined” and Israel killed 100,000 Syrian foot soldiers (20:29). Clearly, the two armies did not occupy their camps for a full seven days, but for six days and a part of the seventh. The remainder of day seven was spent in battle.
  • When Joseph’s brothers came to visit him for the first time since selling him into Egyptian bondage more than a decade earlier (Genesis 37:12-36), Joseph incarcerated them for “three days” (Genesis 42:17). The text then reveals that he spoke to them “the third day,” and 42:18-24 represents them as being released that day—i.e., the third day. If Joseph’s brothers (with the exception of Simeon, 42:24) were released on day three of their imprisonment, then the “three days” they spent in the prison (42:17) are not equivalent to three 24-hour periods, but rather parts of three days.
  • When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (10:5, emp. added). Verse twelve of that chapter indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
  • When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before King Ahasuerus uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating or drinking “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16, emp. added). Yet, the text then tells us that Esther went in to the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).
By studying these and other passages, one can see clearly that the Bible uses expressions like “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time. Again, “[a]ccording to the Oriental mode of reckoning, three consecutive parts of days were counted three days” (Jamieson, et. al., 1997, emp. added).
From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour...” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.
Even though in 21st-century America some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions are used frequently today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Think about the college student who explains to his professor that he worked on a research project “day and night for four weeks.” He obviously does not mean that he worked for a solid 672 hours (24 hours x 7 days x 4 weeks) without sleeping. It may be that he worked from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. for four weeks on the project, but not 672 sleepless hours. If he only slept five or six hours a night, and worked on the project nearly every hour he was awake, we would consider this person as one who truly did work “day and night for four weeks.” Finally, consider the guest at a hotel who checks in at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 3:30 p.m. Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients were in calculating time.
Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.
The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.

DID JESUS HAVE THE SAME PHYSICAL BODY
AFTER HIS RESURRECTION AS BEFORE?

A gentleman once e-mailed our offices at Apologetics Press, questioning whether Jesus had the same body after His resurrection as He did before being raised from the grave. According to this man, Jesus “appeared to people He knew but nobody recognized Him.... It’s as though He had a different body”—and possibly one that was not physical.
At the outset, it is incorrect to assert that “nobody recognized Him,” because Matthew 28:9,17 clearly implies that at least some of Jesus’ disciples knew Who He was and worshiped Him. Moreover, that Jesus had essentially the same body after His resurrection that He had when He died on the cross is evident from at least three different passages. In Luke 24:39, Jesus stated: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Jesus expected His disciples to observe His physical body. Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus ate a meal with His disciples (24:42-43; cf. Acts 10:41). And then in John 20:25-29, which is the most frequently cited passage in defense of Christ having a physical body, Jesus asked Thomas to touch His nail-scared hands and reach into His side that had been pierced with the Roman spear.
But what about those occasions when some of His disciples did not recognize Him? Do such verses as Luke 24:31,37 and John 20:10-16 represent a contradictory element in the resurrection story? First, just because the text says that the disciples thought they had seen a spirit when they actually saw Jesus (Luke 24:37), does not indicate that He looked different. Since they knew He had been killed, seeing His resurrected body caused them to think that He was in spirit form rather than physical. On one occasion, before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, His disciples were startled at His appearance, supposing He was a ghost (Mark 6:49). A similar thing happened to Peter when some thought his unexpected presence must have been an indication that it was “his angel” (Acts 12:15).
Second, the reason the two disciples who were traveling on the road to Emmaus failed to recognize Jesus initially was not because Jesus had a different body, but because God miraculously prevented them from recognizing Him. Luke 24:16 indicates that at the beginning of their conversation with Jesus “their eyes were restrained,” but then just before Jesus vanished from their sight, “their eyes were opened and they knew Him” (24:31). Thus, the disciples’ recognition ability failed, not because Jesus possessed a different body, but because their eyes were miraculously restrained.
A final person often mentioned as not having recognized the Savior (allegedly because Jesus had a different body) is Mary Magdalene. John 20:11-18 certainly testifies of her initial inability to identify Jesus. The question is: Was Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus her fault, or the result of Jesus having a different body? As with the above cases, there is no indication in John 20:11-18 that Jesus had anything other than His risen crucified body (cf. 20:25-29). There are at least four possibilities, however, as to why Mary failed to recognize Jesus right at first.
  1. The Sun may not have risen all the way yet, thus making it difficult to see (cf. 20:1).
  2. Mary was engaged in deep weeping that likely obscured her vision (20:11,13). In fact, the first words Jesus said to Mary were, “Woman, why are you weeping?” (vs. 15).
  3. Considering Jesus’ clothes were taken from Him when He was crucified (John 19:23-24), and that the linen cloths which were used in His burial were lying in the tomb (John 20:6-7), Jesus likely was wearing clothes that made His exact identity less conspicuous at first glance. Perhaps His post-resurrection attire was similar to what a gardener or watchman would wear (cf. John 20:15).
  4. It also is possible that Mary’s eyes were restrained miraculously, as were the eyes of the disciples with whom Jesus conversed on the road to Emmaus.
Once all of the Scriptures are taken into account, one can see that Jesus physically rose from the grave in essentially the same body that was crucified on the cross. The fact that some of Jesus’ disciples did not immediately recognize Him in no way contradicts His physical resurrection.

CONCLUSION

The inspired accounts of the risen Redeemer have been the focus of much criticism through the years (cf. Barker, 1992, pp. 178-184; McKinsey, 2000, pp. 447-454). However, when the honest, open-hearted student of the Bible looks carefully at the evidence, he will come to realize that these criticisms are actually the result either of insufficient knowledge or hardened hearts. Truly, the more one studies the passages of Scripture in which Jesus’ resurrection is discussed, as well as the historical context in which this momentous event occurred, the more he will see how incredibly accurate and trustworthy the Bible writers were.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (1996), “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” Debate with Michael Horner at the University of Northern Iowa, April 2, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?,” Reason & Revelation, 22[2]:9-15, February.
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Hoehner, Harold W. (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), “Antiquities of the Jews,” The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Kistemaker, Simon J. (1993), Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “The Bible is God’s Word?,” [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/pamphlets.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, February.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Rusk, Roger (1974), “The Day He Died,” Christianity Today, March 29.
Scroggie, W. Graham (1948), A Guide to the Gospels (London: Pinkering & Inglis).