How Rude!? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=770

How Rude!?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Imagine your mother asking you to do something for a neighbor, and you responding to her by saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with me?” If your mother is anything like mine, she probably would have given you “the look” (among other things) as she pondered how her son could be so rude. Responding to a mother’s (or any woman’s) request in twenty-first-century America with the refrain, “Woman…,” sounds impolite and offensive. Furthermore, a Christian, who is commanded to “honor” his “father and mother” (Ephesians 6:2), would be out of line in most situations when using such an expression while talking directly to his mother.

In light of the ill-mannered use of the word “woman” in certain contexts today, some question how Jesus could have spoken to His mother 2,000 years ago using this term without breaking the commandment to “[h]onor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12; cf. Matthew 15:4; Matthew 5:17-20). When Jesus, His disciples, and His mother were at the wedding in Cana of Galilee where there was a depletion of wine, Mary said to Jesus, “They have no wine” (John 2:3). Jesus then responded to His mother, saying, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). Notice what one skeptic has written regarding what Jesus said in this verse.

In Matt. 15:4 he [Jesus—EL] told people to “Honor thy father and thy mother”; yet, he was one of the first to ignore his own maxim by saying to his mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 44).

Imagine someone talking to his own mother is such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as “woman.” Talk about an insolent offspring! (1995, p. 134).

Jesus needs to practice some parental respect… (2000, p. 251).

Apparently Jesus’ love escaped him (n.d., “Jesus…”).

Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother? In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus. Surely the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn’t he, (and she was the mother of God—Ed.) not to mention the fact that the son of God would never be rude? (n.d., “Problems…”, parenthetical comment in orig.).

As one can see, Mr. McKinsey is adamant that Jesus erred. He used such words to describe Jesus as disrespectful, insolent, unloving, and rude. Is he correct?

As with most Bible critics, Mr. McKinsey is guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in twenty-first-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in its proper first-century setting. It was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman (gunai)….” This “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address” (Vincent, 1997) “with no idea of censure” (Robertson, 1932, p. 34). The New International Version correctly captures the meaning of this word in John 2:4: “ ‘Dear woman, why do you involve me?’ ” (NIV, emp. added). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith (Matthew 15:28), when affectionately addressing Mary Magdalene after His resurrection (John 20:15), and when speaking to His disconsolate mother one last time from the cross (John 19:26). Paul used this same word when addressing Christian women (1 Corinthians 7:16). As Adam Clarke noted: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers” (1996).

As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (gunai) instead of “mother” (meetros) when speaking to Mary (which even in first-century Hebrew and Greek cultures was an unusual way to address one’s mother), Leon Morris noted that Jesus most likely was indicating

that there is a new relationship between them as he enters his public ministry…. Evidently Mary thought of the intimate relations of the home at Nazareth as persisting. But Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but “the Son of Man” who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51). A new relationship was established (Morris, 1995, p. 159).

R.C.H. Lenski added: “[W]hile Mary will forever remain his [Jesus’—EL] mother, in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men. The common earthly relation is swallowed up in the divine” (1961, p. 189). It seems best to conclude that Jesus was simply “informing” His mother in a loving-yet-firm manner that as He began performing miracles for the purpose of proving His deity and the divine origin of His message (see Miller, 2003, pp. 17-23), His relationship to His mother was about to change.

Finally, the point also must be stressed that honoring fathers and mothers does not mean that a son or daughter never can correct his or her parents. Correction and honor are no more opposites than correction and love. One of the greatest ways parents disclose their love to their children is by correcting them when they make mistakes. Similarly, one of the ways in which a mature son might honor his parents is by taking them aside when they have erred, and lovingly pointing out their mistake or oversight in a certain matter. How much more honorable would this action be than to take no action and allow them to continue in a path of error without informing them of such. We must keep in mind that even though Mary was a great woman “who found favor with God” (Luke 1:30), she was not perfect (cf. Romans 3:10,23). She was not God, nor the “mother of God” (viz., she did not originate Jesus or bring Him into existence). But, she was the one chosen to carry the Son of God in her womb. Who better to correct any misunderstanding she may had had than this Son?

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Jesus, Imperfect Beacon,” Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#issref113.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus,” Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,”Reason & Revelation, 23:17-24, March.

Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1447

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5). Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms. A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....

These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37). Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle. Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.

Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895. At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas. According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.

There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible. A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)

On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today). Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued. Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.

Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.

Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.

Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.

Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.

Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).

Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.

Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.

Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Contents of the Ark of the Covenant by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2851

Contents of the Ark of the Covenant

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Following Israel’s exodus from Egypt, God instructed them to make a small wooden ark (box) overlaid with gold. The ark was 2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and 1.5 cubits high (or about 3.75 x 2.25 x 2.25 feet) and was called the “Ark of the Testimony” or the “Ark of the Covenant” because it contained the tablets of stone whereon the Ten Commandments were written (Exodus 25:16). According to 1 Kings 8:9, “Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone” (emp. added; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:10). The writer of Hebrews, however, indicated that the ark contained “the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” (9:4). How can both of these passages be correct?

First, it may be that the Hebrews writer was indicating that the pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets were in close proximity to the ark, but not necessarily that all three were “in” the ark. Although most English translations refer to what was “in” (NKJV; Greek en) the ark or what the ark “contained” (NIV, RSV), the uses of the Greek preposition en “are so many and various, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible” (Danker, 2000, p. 326). Greek lexicographers give numerous definitions for this word, including: among, within the range of, near, before, in the presence of, etc. (Danker, pp. 326-330). Perhaps the writer of Hebrews only intended to communicate that Aaron’s rod, the container of manna, and the tablets of stone were all in close proximity to the ark in the Most Holy Place (the tablets being in the ark, while the manna and rod were “before” the ark; cf. Exodus 16:33-34; Numbers 17:10).

Second, it is also very possible that all three items were literally inside of the ark at one time, but not all of the time. Whenever comparing two or more Bible passages that might initially appear contradictory, one must be sure that the same time frame is under discussion. Such is not the case with Hebrews 9:4 and 1 Kings 8:9. In Hebrews 9, the inspired writer refers to the time of Moses, when “a tabernacle was prepared” (vs. 2; cf. Exodus 25-40). The statement in 1 Kings 8:9 (as well as 2 Chronicles 5:10) is from the time of Solomon, when he built the Temple, approximately 500 years after the tabernacle was constructed. Is it possible that the Ark of the Covenant once contained the tablets of stone, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, while at another time (i.e., five centuries later) the ark contained only the tablets of stone? Most certainly (cf. 1 Samuel 4-5).

What about the allegation that “Aaron’s staff could hardly have fit anyway, since the ark was a box only 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits” (Wells, 2009)? The fact is, no one knows the length of Aaron’s rod. Rods served many purposes (e.g., for support, for administering punishment, as a symbol of authority, etc.; see Allen, 1996, p. 1022) and came in various sizes. In Aaron’s case, it appears that his rod was more of a symbol of his God-given authority than just a mere walking stick. What’s more, even if Aaron had used his rod for support, he may have only been five feet tall and needed a walking stick that was just 3½ feet long. Considering that an average walking cane today is only about three feet long, it should not be surprising that Aaron’s rod could have fit into a box that was nearly four feet long.

Indeed, the wording of 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are different. But reasonable explanations exist for the variation. There is no doubt that two different time periods are under discussion. Furthermore, as with many Hebrew and Greek words, it may be that the Greek en (in Hebrews 9:4) should be understood in a broader sense. Whatever the precise contents of the Ark of the Covenant at any given time in history, rest assured, 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are not contradictory.

REFERENCES

Allen, L.C. (1996), “Rod,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.

Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition.

Wells, Steve (2009), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL:http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/.

Submit to God by Alden Bass, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=931

Submit to God

by	Alden Bass, Ph.D.

For the Muslim, submission is a way of life. The very name of their religion, Islam, means “to submit.” In Islam, religion rules every aspect of life—the food that is eaten, the clothes that are worn, even the time taken for breaks at work. Nearly every phrase uttered regarding future plans begins with “Glory to Allah” and ends with “If Allah wills,” and any activity is interrupted if necessary for the five daily prayers. This is one reason that certain Islamic fundamentalist groups view the United States as they do. They see it as a “Christian nation,” yet a terribly inconsistent one. Christians claim to be religious, they say, but it shows only on Sundays. Instead of allowing Christianity to control their lives, they govern when and where God will be involved. God does not reign in every aspect of their lives, just certain spheres. Christians “turn on the religious button” at times, but then turn it off and flip on the entertainment switch, the vacation switch, etc., and leave God out. Muslims accuse Christians of partitioning their lives, and of not giving God the key to certain rooms. It is not so much the immorality that Muslims find distasteful, but the inconsistency.

It seems that, at least in some respect, Muslims may be onto something here. Despite their many errors, they are a model for Christians in this regard. The Qu’ran teaches: “The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say ‘We submit,’ for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts” (Surah 49:14). Is this not the essence of New Testament teaching? The Lord said while on this Earth: “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). If this is not a call to submission, what is? It is not enough to believe in God. The demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). Belief is essential, but without submission, it means nothing.

While the idea is a simple enough concept to grasp, it can be very difficult to submit. We understand Christ’s command to mean that we must put away our own personalities, desires, and hopes, and take on His personality, desire, and hopes. This submission is not limited to certain aspects of our life either. It is not enough to submit to Christ only under certain circumstances or in certain crowds. It’s all or nothing. Christ wants nothing less than our whole person. We must not divide our lives into different spheres as the postmodernists assert we all inevitably do. Our life is knit together, and is unified by our submission to Christ.

This submission is one of action, not just of words. Muhammad’s problem with his fellow Arabs 1400 years ago was that they gave an oral profession of faith, but failed to demonstrate that faith in their lives. This is the same problem modern Muslims have with most Americans—we say one thing, but live another. Christ, our example, asks us to do no more than He Himself has done. “He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). He submitted to the Father wholly, and He expects us to do the same.

One of the great differences between Islam and Christianity, however, is the result of godly submission. The Muslim submits himself in the hope that Allah one day will pardon him and allow him a place in glory. There is no assurance in this life though, because Allah, unlike the God of the Bible, is a transcendent deity so far above man that there is no interaction. He is not a personal God, nor is he ever called “father.”

After encouraging Christians to submit to God, James gave these comforting words: “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8). The Muslim has no assurance of salvation, but Christians have a God Who is near, and by following His will and submitting to His Son we may know that we have been saved. Let us therefore submit.

From Mark Copeland... "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD" The Christian And Good Works

                        "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD"
                      
                      The Christian And Good Works

INTRODUCTION

1. In a previous lesson we discussed the matter of devotion or worship
   to God, especially in our public assemblies

2. One objective of such activities is to stir us up to "good works"
   - He 10:24-25

3. In this short but important lesson, we shall examine the matter of
   "good works" which Christians are to do...

I. CHRISTIANS ARE TO DO "GOOD WORKS"

   A. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND THE "PURPOSE" OF GOOD WORKS...
      1. They are not done to "buy" or "earn" our way into heaven
      2. God saves us by His GRACE, not by our WORKS - Ep 2:8-9;Tit 3:4-7
      3. Yet, as God's People, we have been created in Christ Jesus to
         do good works! - Ep 2:10; Tit 2:11-14; 3:1,8,14

   B. WHY, THEN, ARE WE TO DO GOOD WORKS?
      1. They bring glory to God! - Mt 5:16; 1Pe 2:11-12
      2. They can prepare unbelievers to be more receptive to the
         gospel - 1Pe 2:12; 3:1-2
      3. They demonstrate the living nature of our faith - Jm 2:14-17
      4. They are necessary if we are to be like Jesus - cf. Lk 6:46
         with Ac 10:38

II. WHAT "GOOD WORKS" CAN WE DO?

   A. SOME GOOD WORKS ARE "SPIRITUAL" IN NATURE...
      1. Telling others of God's grace - 1Pe 2:9-10
         a. We may not all be "teachers" in a formal sense - 1Co 12:27-31; Jm 3:1-2
         b. But all of us can share with others the wonderful grace of
            God available in Christ Jesus!
      2. Encouraging other Christians - He 3:12-13
         a. We can be a "Philemon" or a "Stephanus" - Phm 7;1Co 16:15-18
         b. For example, through cards, calls, visits, Bible studies
      3. Restoring weak brethren - Ga 6:1-2
         a. We can be a "Barnabas" (who helped John Mark)
         b. The importance of this work is seen in light of Jm 5:19-20

   B. OTHER GOOD WORKS ARE MORE "PHYSICAL" IN NATURE...
      1. Jesus did not limit His good works to things spiritual
         - Lk 7:22
      2. Nor did He expect His disciples to so limit their good works
         a. Cf. the "Limited Commission" - Mt 10:7-8
         b. Cf. the "judgment scene" - Mt 25:34-40
      3. Just as some may be gifted in talent and opportunities to
         "teach", so others are gifted to "serve" in areas of physical
         service - Ro 12:3-8
         a. Such as "giving"
         b. Such as "showing mercy"
      4. Women can be especially fruitful in this area...
         a. For they often have a more flexible use of their time
         b. Why not be a "Dorcas"? - Ac 9:36-39

CONCLUSION

1. No matter how we may serve the Lord, "good works" are a MARK OF PURE
   RELIGION - cf. Jm 1:27

2. It is also A KEY TO SPIRITUAL BLESSEDNESS (happiness) - Jm 1:25;
   Ac 20:35

3. So let's be sure to keep in mind the admonition of Paul to Titus...

     "Those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain
      good works." (Tit 3:8)

SOME QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE YOUR THINKING...

1. What kind of "spiritual" good works are you doing, or are preparing
   yourself to do?

2. What kind of "physical" good works are you doing, or hope one day to do?

3. Who should get the glory when you are praised for good works?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

From Gary... Your name is...

This post is more involved than most, so I would ask for your patience and understanding...

How intelligent are you? Are you good at math or science but can't hammer in a nail? Frankly, some of the smartest people I have ever known never even graduated from high school. How about the person who can barely write, but can build a house or repair a car with ease? With all this there is the matter of choice. Consider the uni bomber: He was a math whiz, but anti-social in the extreme. I wonder, were his parents proud of him? Would they be ashamed to call him their son? Then, there is the matter of religion- does it matter what you call yourself? Good question!!! Your children go by your name and not just any name, so someone who claims allegiance to God should also claim the name that would be appropriate to following The God of Heaven. Today, I have listed a lot of verses from the Bible and if you are in a hurry, just start with the ones that are quoted and read the references later. However, I recommend reading everything, as it is worth it. Read on....

Isaiah, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 16 but Yahweh of Armies is exalted in justice,

and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness.  See also... Mark 1:24, Lk. 1:35

Isaiah, Chapter 8 (WEB)

13 Yahweh of Armies is who you must respect as holy. He is the one you must fear. He is the one you must dread.  14 He will be a sanctuary, but for both houses of Israel, he will be a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.  15 Many will stumble over it, fall, be broken, be snared, and be captured.”  16 Wrap up the testimony. Seal the law among my disciples.  17 I will wait for Yahweh, who hides his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.  18 Behold, I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Yahweh of Armies, who dwells in Mount Zion.  See also... Rev. 3:7-13; Rev. 19:11-16

Isaiah, Chapter 37 (WEB)

 16 “Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, who is enthroned among the cherubim, you are the God, even you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. See also...  John 1:1-3

Isaiah, Chapter 44 (WEB)

6 This is what Yahweh, the King of Israel,

and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies, says:

“I am the first, and I am the last;

and besides me there is no God.

  7 Who is like me?

Who will call,

and will declare it,

and set it in order for me,

since I established the ancient people?

Let them declare the things that are coming,

and that will happen.

  8 Don’t fear,

neither be afraid.

Haven’t I declared it to you long ago,

and shown it?

You are my witnesses.

Is there a God besides me?

Indeed, there is not.

I don’t know any other Rock.”  see also... Matt. 25:31;1 Cor. 10:1-4; John 1:49

Isaiah, Chapter 47 (WEB)

4 Our Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies is his name, the Holy One of Israel.  See also... Tit. 2:13, 1 Pet. 1:18-21

Isaiah, Chapter 54 (WEB)

 5 For your Maker is your husband; Yahweh of Armies is his name: and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.  6 For Yahweh has called you as a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, even a wife of youth, when she is cast off,” says your God. 

See also... Eph. 5:23-27

John, Chapter 8 (WEB)

31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.   32  You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

See also... Matt. 28:16-20; Acts 1:15; Isaiah 62:2

Acts, Chapter 4 (WEB)

 8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “You rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,  9 if we are examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed,  10 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand here before you whole.  11 He is ‘the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.’  12 There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”  See also... Acts 11:26, Matt. 28:16-20

There is but one God. He is known by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Other names found in the above verses are...  Yahweh of Armies, God the Holy One, The God of Israel, Redeemer, Rock, The Holy One of Israel, etc.. At first glance, this all sounds a bit confusing, but this sort of thing happens all the time.  I am Gary, when I was young and did something wrong, my mother referred to me by my full name. Later I was labeled as a boyfriend, then husband, then father, then grandfather and soon I will be a great-grandfather. But I am the same person, not matter what you call me. For what you call me is dependent upon your relationship to me.

Since God has many names, we have to narrow down what HE should be called before we can understand our correct name(s). 

Hebrews, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,  2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.  3 His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 

So, as followers of God, we should be adhere to a name referring to HIS Son and not by some religious leader, or something other than what is found in the Scriptures. Isaiah 62:2 says that those who follow God will be known by a NEW NAME, which the Lord will utter. It seems to me that from John 8:31 that we should be known as Disciples (of Christ). But in the first century, these people were referred to as Christians. Could you use other names from the Bible? Possibly, but why would you want to? Remember, Isaiah 8:13 and fear Yahweh of Hosts (Armies), after all, there is only one name that we will be saved by- and that is JESUS (Acts 4:12).

Rev. 19:11ff (WEB)

 11  I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it is called Faithful and True. In righteousness he judges and makes war.  12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has names written and a name written which no one knows but he himself.  13 He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called “The Word of God.”  14 The armies which are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in white, pure, fine linen.  15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod. He treads the wine press of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.  16 He has on his garment and on his thigh a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Whatever you decide to do, ask yourself if God would be pleased at your choice????

PS.  I think the answer to the graphic question is Mr. Sixty Two.