Are Songs and Prayers Sometimes One and the Same? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3765 

Are Songs and Prayers Sometimes One and the Same?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Are songs and prayers sometimes one and the same?

A.

Ask any five year old if there is a difference between singing and praying and you will likely receive the “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” look. “Everyone knows there is a difference between singing and praying.” A song is composed of words and music. Its words are “uttered in musical tones and with musical inflections and modulations” (“Sing,” 2010). A prayer is “an address (as a petition) to God…in word or thought” (“Prayer,” 2010; cf. 1 Samuel 1:12-13). Prayers are without musical tones and inflections, right?

Although praying and singing are often two distinct acts of worship (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:15), sometimes they are one and the same. That is, occasionally (or perhaps oftentimes) petitions to God are sung to Him. The Greek word most frequently translated “prayer” in the New Testament is proseuche. It is defined simply as a “petition addressed to deity, prayer” (Danker, 2000, p. 878, emp. in orig.). In the Old Testament, the English word “prayer” is derived most frequently from the Hebrew word te pillâ. This word is found 76 times in the Old Testament. Interestingly, this word for prayer occurs most often (32 times) in the book of Psalms. Psalms are songs that were (and are) sung (cf. Psalm 105:2; 1 Chronicles 16:9; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13). The Israelites titled this collection of inspired poems tehillim, meaning “songs of praise or hymns” (“Psalms,” 1988).

Admittedly, simply because a song contains the word “prayer” (or “pray,” “praying,” etc.) does not make the song a type of prayer. However, as Harris, Archer, and Waltke observed in their Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, “five Psalms are specifically called ‘prayers’ in their superscription (Ps 17, 86, 90, 102, 142)” (1980, p. 726). Bible publishers often add headings to each of the psalms in an attempt to help the reader easily recognize the subject matter. Thomas Nelson Publishers added the word “prayer” to the subject headings of some 25 psalms in their New King James translation of the book of Psalms. They also used prayer terminology (e.g., “a plea” or “an appeal”) to label several other psalms. Obviously, both the ancients (who gave us Psalms’ superscriptions) and certain modern-day Bible publishing companies have seen many of the psalms for what they are: prayers.

Consider a few of the psalms in which David and others prayed.

• “Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have relieved me in my distress; have mercy on me, and hear my prayer. How long, O you sons of men, will you turn my glory to shame? How long will you love worthlessness and seek falsehood? Selah” (4:1-2). [NOTE: “Selah” is found 71 times in the book of Psalms. Although its precise import is unknown, “it is generally agreed that Selah must be a musical or liturgical sign” (Wiseman, 1996, p. 1074).]
• “Hear a just cause, O LORD, attend to my cry; give ear to my prayer which is not from deceitful lips” (17:1).
• “And now, Lord, what do I wait for? My hope is in You...Selah. Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear to my cry” (39:7,11-12).
• “Save me, O God, by Your name, and vindicate me by Your strength. Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth...Selah (54:1-3).
• “Give ear to my prayer, O God, and do not hide Yourself from my supplication. Attend to me, and hear me” (55:1-2).
• “Hear my cry, O God; attend to my prayer.... I will sing praise to your name forever” (61:1,8).
• “O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer; give ear, O God of Jacob! Selah” (84:8).
• “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me.... Give ear, O LORD, to my prayer” (86:1,6).
• “Hear my prayer, O LORD, and let my cry come to You…. Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (102:1,25). [NOTE: According to Hebrews 1:8-12, the psalmist was actually speaking (i.e., praying) to Jesus, “the Son”.]

Consider also Habakkuk three. The prophet begins the chapter with these words: “A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, on Shigionoth” (emp. added). It is evident, however, that Habakkuk’s prayer is also a type of song. First, the musical/liturgical term Selah is repeated three times (vss. 3,9,13). Second, when the prayer was repeated it was to be accompanied with “stringed instruments” (vs. 19). What’s more, though the exact meaning of “Shigionoth” in verse one is unknown, commentators are confident that it has some connection to music. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown believe it is “a musical phrase ‘after the manner of elegies,’ or mournful odes” (1997). Barnes concludes that the term probably “means a psalm with music expressive of strong emotion, ‘erratic’ or ‘dithyrambi’ ” (1997).

Generally speaking, songs and prayers are distinguished by songs being uttered with musical tones and inflections, and prayers being worded without musical accompaniment. However, one lesson learned from the inspired book of Psalms, the ancient hymnbook of the Jews, as well as from Habakkuk three, is that prayers may also be sung. That is, a song that petitions our Heavenly Father and Savior is both a song and a prayer.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

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

“Prayer” (2010), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prayer.

“Psalms” (1988), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

“Sing” (2010), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sing?show=0&t=1284488817.

Wiseman, D.J. (1996), “Selah,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.

Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse” by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3795

Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and Those Who Are “Without Excuse”

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

In Paul’s discussion of the sins of the Gentiles, the apostle explained that those Gentiles who refused to acknowledge the existence of a higher power (one that is responsible for the origin of the natural order) had no excuse for their failure in this regard:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18-21).

If it is the case that those who refuse to believe in God (despite evidence He has presented in the material world) are without excuse, then we would expect to learn of people who, while perhaps lacking special revelation from God, nonetheless applied their God-given rationality to develop belief in a being that is responsible for the physical world. We find just such an example in one of the most famous and important philosophers, Aristotle.
In Aristotle’s Physics, the philosopher addresses the question of motion. After a lengthy discussion on the nature of motion and the immediate causes for motion, Aristotle addresses the remote cause for motion:

If everything that is in motion is moved by something that is in motion, either this is an accidental attribute of the things (so that each of them moves something while being itself in motion, but not because it is itself in motion) or it belongs to them in their own right. If, then, it is an accidental attribute, it is not necessary that that which causes motion should be in motion; and if this is so it is clear that there may be a time when nothing that exists is in motion, since the accidental is not necessary but contingent.... But the non-existence of motion is an impossibility (1984, 1:428, parenthetical item in orig.).

Aristotle, exemplary in his philosophical quest at this juncture, simply asks himself why there is motion. His conclusion, after a lengthy discussion, is essentially this: Because it is undeniable that motion exists, then there must be a first cause for the motion—an unmoved mover, whose movement (or causing of movement) is not an accidental property of His, but rather a necessary component of His being. Whereas each item in the created order is in motion because it has been moved by a distinct mover, the unmoved mover must possess the quality of motion (or the causing of motion). Aristotle lived prior to the Christian age, and was not a Hebrew; yet in his quest to understand the natural order, he was not prejudiced against belief in the supernatural.
Thomas Aquinas would adapt Aristotle’s argument to formulate what we know as part of the cosmological argument for the existence of the God of the Bible (see Maurer, 2010; cf. Jeffcoat, n.d.):

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.... For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.... It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

Peter Kreeft summarizes Aquinas’ argument: “Since no thing (or series of things) can move (change) itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, source of all motion” (1990, p. 63, parenthetical items in orig.).
The necessity of the unmoved Mover is obvious. Yet, Paul recognized that some had become so calloused by worldly concerns as to prejudice their hearts against the Creator. So, God “gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness” (Romans 1:28-30). Despite the forceful clarity with which God has revealed Himself to His creation, some will misuse their intellectual freedom and reject Him. May we, on the other hand, willingly receive a simple, yet critical, lesson from Aristotle and Aquinas concerning the necessary existence of our Creator.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).
Aristotle (1984), Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Jeffcoat, W.D. (no date), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Cosmological-Argument-for-Exist.pdf.
Kreeft, Peter (1990), Summa of the Summa (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).
Maurer, Armand (2010), “Medieval Philosophy,” Encyclopaedia Brittanica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1350843/Western-philosophy/8653/Thomas-Aquinas?anchor=ref365766.

BLOOD—The Liquid of Life by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=843

BLOOD—The Liquid of Life

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Blood always has been a curious substance whose vast mysteries and capabilities have yet to be fully explored. Doctors in the twenty-first century transfuse it, draw it, separate it, package it, store it, ship it, and sell it. And, although modern-day scientists have not uncovered completely all of the wonders of blood, they have discovered that it is the key to life. Without this “liquid of life,” humans and animals would have no way to circulate the necessary oxygen and proteins that their bodies need in order to survive and reproduce. Hemoglobin found in the red blood cells carries oxygen to the brain, which in turn uses that oxygen to allow it to control the entire body. A brain without oxygen is like a car without gas or a computer without electricity. Blood makes all of the functions in the body possible.
In the past, ignorance of blood’s value caused some “learned” men to do tragic things. For instance, during the middle ages, and even until the nineteenth century, doctors believed that harmful “vapors” entered the blood and caused sickness. For this reason, leeches were applied to victims of fever and other illnesses in an attempt to draw out blood containing these vapors. Also, the veins and arteries located just above the elbow were opened, and the patient’s arms were bled to expunge the contaminated blood. George Washington, the first President of the United States, died because of such misplaced medical zeal.
Maybe you have seen a red and white striped, twirling pole at the entrance to a barbershop. In the middle ages, barbers did much more than cut hair. They also performed minor surgeries (such as tooth extractions). One of their most frequent feats was bloodletting. Barbershops generally kept on hand a fresh supply of leeches—stored in a basin on top of the pole.
But what does all this have to do with the Bible? Thousands of years before the lethal practice of bloodletting was conceived, mankind had been informed by God that blood was indeed the key to life. In Leviticus 17:11, Moses wrote: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” Because red blood cells carry oxygen (due to hemoglobin in the cells), life is made possible. In fact, we know today that human red blood cells carry approximately 270,000,000 molecules of hemoglobin per cell. If there were any less, there would not be enough residual oxygen to sustain life after, say, a hard sneeze or a hefty pat on the back.
Today, we understand completely the truthfulness of Moses’ statement that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” But how did an ancient shepherd like Moses come to know such information? Just a lucky guess? How could Moses have known almost 3500 years ago that life was in the blood, while it took the rest of the scientific and medical community thousands of years (and thousands of lives!) to discover this truth? That answer, of course, is that Moses was guided by the Great Physician—and therein lies the difference between life and death.

Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=731

Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The politically correct climate of American culture is characterized by a host of self-contradictory and nonsensical viewpoints. One example is the way the left is vociferous in its support and defense of the spread of Islam via the construction of mosques and permission to teach about Islam in public schools. The left quickly steps forward and loudly condemns anyone who would dare to raise a finger of concern about the impact of Islam on the American way of life.
Yet, ironically, the social liberal, who disdains Christian morality, gives a “free pass” to Islam on some of the very issues for which it has viciously opposed the Christian moorings of American society. The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960s is a glaring example. The fight for “women’s rights” and the equal status of women in the home and on the job has been a hallmark of the liberal establishment. And yet, incredibly, the Islamic world has been known since its inception to consign women to an inferior status and to exert a degrading influence on them. How many female advocates of “women’s lib” would be willing to wear what Muslim women are required to wear around the world? How many “liberated women” in America would be willing to be subjected to a polygamous husband who relegates her to one among several other of his wives? And how many American women would be in favor of implementing the Quran’s teaching regarding the right of the husband to beat his wife? Read it for yourself in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great (Surah 4:34, emp. added; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).

A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold above are rendered in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Abul A’la Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Muhamad Abib Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” The Saheeh International translation reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Hassan Qaribullah and Ahmed Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Ali Quli Qarai’s rendering reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).
As if these instructions were not enough to awaken the sensibilities of the political/moral left, consider further the penalty enjoined by the Quran for the adulterer, keeping in mind that the practice of adultery is commonplace among the anti-Christian establishment of our nation (Bonewell, 2012).

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).

Are those who believe Islam ought to be accommodated and encouraged to participate fully in the political and educational framework of the nation willing to allow Sharia law to become the law of the country?

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint.
Bonewell, Kelly (2012), “Adultery: Just the Statistics,” The End of All Our Exploring, http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/.
Brooks, Geraldine (1995), Nine Parts of Desire (New York, NY: Anchor Books).
Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.
Trifkovic, Serge (2002), The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).

"THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Introduction by Mark Copeland

                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Introduction

What was the early church like?  We know a lot about its early leaders,
such as apostles Paul and Peter; but what about the average Christians
themselves?  Were they more spiritual than Christians today?  Did they
experience the kind of problems seen so often in churches today?

Several books of the New Testament reflect the life of the early church,
and this is especially true of The Third Epistle of John.  It is a
private letter, between "The Elder" and a Christian named Gaius.  It
provides portraits of three different men, and in so doing gives us a
glimpse of 1st  century life in local churches.

When one examines the portraits found in this letter, we learn that
there is not much difference between people back then, and in the church
today. Therefore this epistle is very relevant, though we may live
almost 2000 years later.

AUTHOR

"The Elder" (3Jn 1:1) is believed by most conservative scholars to be
the apostle John.  The internal evidence for the third epistle is
similar to that of the second:

   *  The three epistles of John utilize much the same language and ideas

   *  All bear similarity to concepts and language to the Gospel of John

   *  The term "elder" would be a fitting description of John as the
      author, writing in his old age

The external evidence is slight, but Dionysius of Alexandria, living in
the third century A.D., credits John with being the author.

RECIPIENT

The epistle is addressed to "beloved Gaius".  Gaius was a common Roman
name, and appears five times in the New Testament (Ac 19:29; 20:4; Ro
16:23; 1Co 1:14; 3Jn 1:1).  Whether he is one of those mentioned by Luke
or Paul cannot be determined.  He was evidently a dear friend of John,
known for his hospitality (more below).

PLACE AND DATE

Ephesus is usually suggested as the location from which John wrote this
epistle, as he was known to live there in the later years of his life.
Estimation of the date of writing varies widely, some placing it before
the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).  Most however place it around
90-95 A.D.

PURPOSE AND THEME

The purpose of the epistle is threefold, related to the three men
mentioned by name:

   *  To confirm that Gaius did right in supporting those teachers who
      came his way, encouraging him to continue this hospitality - 3Jn
      1:5-8

   *  To express his condemnation of Diotrephes for rejecting John and
      others whom he should had received - 3Jn 1:9-10

   *  To encourage Gaius to imitate what is good, commending Demetrius
      as a good example - 3Jn 1:11-12

As for the theme, with the examples of the three men preserved for us in
this letter, let me suggest one based on the words of John in verse 11:

             Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

OUTLINE

Here is a simple outline of the book...

Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
Concluding remarks (13-14)

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Who is author of The Third Epistle Of John?
   - The Elder, likely John the apostle who wrote the gospel of John

2) Who was the recipient of this epistle?
   - The beloved Gaius, identity otherwise unknown

3) When was it written?  From where?
   - Most date it from 90-95 A.D.; Ephesus

4) What has been suggested as its threefold purpose?
   - To confirm Gaius did right
   - To condemn Diotrephes for doing wrong
   - To commend Demetrius as a good example

5) What has been suggested as its theme?
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

6) What are the main divisions of this epistle as outlined above?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
   - The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
   - The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
   - Concluding remarks (13-14)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Chapter One by Mark Copeland

                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Chapter One

John greets Gaius, praying for his prosperity and health, rejoicing to
hear that he is walking in truth (1-4).  John approves his hospitality
toward brethren and strangers, especially those serving the Lord (5-8).
John condemns the deeds of Diotrephes (9-10), commends the testimony of
Demetrius (11-12), and concludes with a hope to see Gaius soon (13-14).

POINTS TO PONDER

   *  The joy of seeing one’s converts growing in Christ

   *  The importance of hospitality in the spread of the gospel

   *  The contrast between spirituality and carnality among Christians

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy - 3Jn 1:1-4
   - The confirmation of Gaius - 3Jn 1:5-8
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes - 3Jn 1:9-10
   - The commendation of Demetrius - 3Jn 1:11-12
   - Concluding remarks - 3Jn 1:13-14

2) To whom is this epistle addressed? (1)
   - The beloved Gaius

3) For what does John pray in behalf of Gaius? (2)
   - That he may prosper and be in health, just as his soul prospers

4) What gave John his greatest joy? (4)
   - To hear that his children walk in truth

5) For what does John praise Gaius? (5-7)
   - His kindness toward brethren and strangers, especially those
     serving the Lord

6) What benefit do we receive when we support those who serve the Lord?
   (8)
   - We become fellow workers for the truth

7) Of what was Diotrephes guilty? (9-10)
   - Seeking preeminence, refusing to receive John
   - Prating against him with malicious words
   - Refusing to receive brethren, putting out of the church those who
     do

8) What exhortation does John give to Gaius?  Who does he commend?
   (11-12)
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good; Demetrius, for his
     good testimony

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

What's not to love? by Gary Rose

Recently, I started using a computer with Windows 10 on it- and I liked it!!!  Frankly, I was a little hesitant about EVER using ANY Windows operating system after my horrible experience with Windows 8, but I am quite glad I chose to take-a-chance.  

If I had to describe Windows 10, I would say- "What's not to love"?  Humm, the same could be said about Jesus...

John, Chapter 14 (WEB)

 ²³ Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.

He said and did marvelous things while on this earth; he offered himself as a sacrifice for the things I have done wrong (The Bible calls it sin) and loved me till his dying breath and beyond. And, Oh, yes- Jesus is the only way to God the Father!!!  

Again, What's not to love? 

Computer programs and operating systems come and go, but eternity with God completely overshadows anything that a mere human could dream up.

Eternity with God-- Humm, What's not to love?  FOREVER!!!!

Bible Reading September 5 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  September 5 (WEB)

Sept. 5

Psalms 40-42

Psa 40:1 I waited patiently for Yahweh. He turned to me, and heard my cry.

Psa 40:2 He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay. He set my feet on a rock, and gave me a firm place to stand.

Psa 40:3 He has put a new song in my mouth, even praise to our God. Many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in Yahweh.

Psa 40:4 Blessed is the man who makes Yahweh his trust, and doesn't respect the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

Psa 40:5 Many, Yahweh, my God, are the wonderful works which you have done, and your thoughts which are toward us. They can't be declared back to you. If I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire. You have opened my ears. You have not required burnt offering and sin offering.

Psa 40:7 Then I said, "Behold, I have come. It is written about me in the book in the scroll.

Psa 40:8 I delight to do your will, my God. Yes, your law is within my heart."

Psa 40:9 I have proclaimed glad news of righteousness in the great assembly. Behold, I will not seal my lips, Yahweh, you know.

Psa 40:10 I have not hidden your righteousness within my heart. I have declared your faithfulness and your salvation. I have not concealed your loving kindness and your truth from the great assembly.

Psa 40:11 Don't withhold your tender mercies from me, Yahweh. Let your loving kindness and your truth continually preserve me.

Psa 40:12 For innumerable evils have surrounded me. My iniquities have overtaken me, so that I am not able to look up. They are more than the hairs of my head. My heart has failed me.

Psa 40:13 Be pleased, Yahweh, to deliver me. Hurry to help me, Yahweh.

Psa 40:14 Let them be disappointed and confounded together who seek after my soul to destroy it. Let them be turned backward and brought to dishonor who delight in my hurt.

Psa 40:15 Let them be desolate by reason of their shame that tell me, "Aha! Aha!"

Psa 40:16 Let all those who seek you rejoice and be glad in you. Let such as love your salvation say continually, "Let Yahweh be exalted!"

Psa 40:17 But I am poor and needy. May the Lord think about me. You are my help and my deliverer. Don't delay, my God.

Psa 41:1 Blessed is he who considers the poor. Yahweh will deliver him in the day of evil.

Psa 41:2 Yahweh will preserve him, and keep him alive. He shall be blessed on the earth, and he will not surrender him to the will of his enemies.

Psa 41:3 Yahweh will sustain him on his sickbed, and restore him from his bed of illness.

Psa 41:4 I said, "Yahweh, have mercy on me! Heal me, for I have sinned against you."

Psa 41:5 My enemies speak evil against me: "When will he die, and his name perish?"

Psa 41:6 If he comes to see me, he speaks falsehood. His heart gathers iniquity to itself. When he goes abroad, he tells it.

Psa 41:7 All who hate me whisper together against me. They imagine the worst for me.

Psa 41:8 "An evil disease," they say, "has afflicted him. Now that he lies he shall rise up no more."

Psa 41:9 Yes, my own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who ate bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me.

Psa 41:10 But you, Yahweh, have mercy on me, and raise me up, that I may repay them.

Psa 41:11 By this I know that you delight in me, because my enemy doesn't triumph over me.

Psa 41:12 As for me, you uphold me in my integrity, and set me in your presence forever.

Psa 41:13 Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, from everlasting and to everlasting! Amen and amen.

Psa 42:1 As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants after you, God.

Psa 42:2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?

Psa 42:3 My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually ask me, "Where is your God?"

Psa 42:4 These things I remember, and pour out my soul within me, how I used to go with the crowd, and led them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, a multitude keeping a holy day.

Psa 42:5 Why are you in despair, my soul? Why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God! For I shall still praise him for the saving help of his presence.

Psa 42:6 My God, my soul is in despair within me. Therefore I remember you from the land of the Jordan, the heights of Hermon, from the hill Mizar.

Psa 42:7 Deep calls to deep at the noise of your waterfalls. All your waves and your billows have swept over me.

Psa 42:8 Yahweh will command his loving kindness in the daytime. In the night his song shall be with me: a prayer to the God of my life.

Psa 42:9 I will ask God, my rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?"

Psa 42:10 As with a sword in my bones, my adversaries reproach me, while they continually ask me, "Where is your God?"

Psa 42:11 Why are you in despair, my soul? Why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God! For I shall still praise him, the saving help of my countenance, and my God.

 

Sept. 5

1 Corinthians 1

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

1Co 1:2 to the assembly of God which is at Corinth; those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours:

1Co 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:4 I always thank my God concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;

1Co 1:5 that in everything you were enriched in him, in all speech and all knowledge;

1Co 1:6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

1Co 1:7 so that you come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ;

1Co 1:8 who will also confirm you until the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

1Co 1:10 Now I beg you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are from Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ."

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius,

1Co 1:15 so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.

1Co 1:16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don't know whether I baptized any other.)

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Good News--not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn't be made void.

1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing."

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co 1:21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom didn't know God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.

1Co 1:22 For Jews ask for signs, Greeks seek after wisdom,

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks,

1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble;

1Co 1:27 but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;

1Co 1:28 and God chose the lowly things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are:

1Co 1:29 that no flesh should boast before God.

1Co 1:30 But of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:

1Co 1:31 that, according as it is written, "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord."

Are we a church of Christ? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/arewethechurch.html

Are we a church of Christ?

When Roman Catholics assemble, it is called a Roman Catholic Church. Baptists assembled are called a Baptist Church; Lutherans, a Lutheran Church; Methodists, a Methodist Church; Pentecostals, a Pentecostal Church; etc.

What do you call it when Christians assemble?

We call ourselves a ‘church of Christ’. What does this mean? When people hear this, they often mistakenly think: “Oh, a denomination called the Church of Christ.” Simply being a church of Christ is so foreign to most people’s thinking that they have difficulty comprehending the concept.

Why do we call ourselves a church of Christ?

We wish to indicate that we are a local congregation of the church that Jesus built (Matthew 16:18). Jesus promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). We want Jesus to be in our midst, so we assemble in His name as a church of Christ.

As Christians, how can we be anything other than the church of Christ? Biblically speaking, there is only one church, the one that belongs to Christ. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4, 5).

But are we a church of Christ?

It is easy for us to call ourselves a church of Christ, but is it true? How can we know whether we are really a church of Christ? The core of the answer is given in the passage we just read.

If we are in subjection to the one Lord, if the Spirit of the one true God dwells within us, if we hold to the one faith and have been baptized with the one baptism, then we are in the one body of Christ, His church! The one faith is the faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The one baptism is Christian baptism as defined in the New Testament. The one body is the church of Christ as defined in the New Testament.

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13 RSV).

Are we being presumptuous when we call ourselves churches of Christ?

When we define ourselves as churches of Christ we are sometimes asked: “Is that not arrogant to call yourselves the church of Christ? Do you think that only members of the church of Christ will be saved?”

If we are not the church of Christ, it is indeed arrogant. If by the grace of God we accomplish our purpose of being churches of Christ, it is not arrogant. If we belong to Christ we must confess that we are His!

All the saved are added to the church of Christ.

The church Jesus built consists by definition of all the saved. No one will be saved without being a member of the church of Christ because God adds everyone who is saved to His church (Acts 2:47). When one understands what we mean by church of Christ, no offense may be taken when we say that only members of the church of Christ will be saved.

Is it possible to be a church of Christ?

Of course, most who accuse us of being arrogant, do not believe that we really are the church of Christ. We must examine their criticisms carefully and heed Paul’s admonition: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

In many cases, however, their accusation is merely the result of their own sectarian view of the church. Although Jesus prayed for unity among His followers on the basis of God’s word in John, chapter 17, they mistakenly believe that it is acceptable to God for believers to be divided into many conflicting denominations.

If they admit that it is possible to simply be Christians and churches of Christ, they condemn themselves for being something other than a church of Christ! In New Testament times it was possible to be churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), so it is possible now if we accept the New Covenant as the prescriptive standard.

What are distinguishing marks of the church of Christ?

We already saw that we must confess the one faith and be baptized with the one baptism to be in the one body of Christ. What does this entail?

Christ is the only head of His church.

“He is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). God “put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). He is the one shepherd of the one flock (John 10:16). We must submit to the one Lord. Submission to centralized ecclesiastical organizations is rejection of the headship of Christ.

Leadership positions must be limited to those Christ has given to His church.

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11, 12 ESV).

The apostles and prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, form the foundation of the church of Christ: “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20).

We build on this foundation - not by falsely appointing modern-day apostles and prophets - but by continuing steadfastly in the doctrine of the original apostles (Acts 2:42; Revelation 21:14).

The doctrine of Christ (revealed to the apostles and prophets in the first century) is now made known to all nations through the Holy Scriptures. The church is now established by “the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith” (Romans 16:25, 26).

For building up the church, Christ has given us evangelists, shepherds and teachers. To be a church of Christ, our leadership must comply with the New Testament. If we have unscriptural offices, or if we appoint leaders who do not meet the Biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), how can we be a church of Christ?

To be a church of Christ we must remain within the doctrine of Christ.

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). We must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We must continue “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42).

The most common cause of apostasy is a rejection of the normative nature of the doctrine of Christ by using some of His teachings to concoct a sauce to flavor and disguise teachings and traditions of men.

There is no excuse for going astray since God has informed us in the Scriptures how we are to conduct ourselves “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

By definition, a church of Christ must be a bulwark of the truth. We are “sanctified by the truth” (John 17:19). To be saved we must “love the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), “believe the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:12) and “obey the truth” (Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:1). We must “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). How can we be a church of Christ if we preach something other than the truth?

To be a church of Christ we must bear fruit.

Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). We must bear the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22, 23).

To be a church of Christ we must worship acceptably.

We must worship the Father “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). We must “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28).

If we worship according to our own preferences or according to the traditions of men, we are not the church of Christ but are under the same condemnation that God pronounced on Israel: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8, 9). How can we be the church of Christ if our service and worship are built on the sand by following the teachings and traditions of men?

Let us glorify God as churches of Christ.

Let us submit to Christ as our only head. Let us hold to the one faith and practice the one baptism so we can be in the one body of Christ. Let us abide in the doctrine of Christ and have leadership that complies with the word of God. Let us bear the fruit of the Spirit and worship acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Then God will recognize us as His church. No other recognition is required!

Ephesians 3:21 - “To Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2567&b=Luke

What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 testify that Jesus was the “Son of David.” In fact, the book of Matthew begins with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (1:1, emp. added). The New Testament is also abundantly clear that this Son of David is “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” When the Samaritan woman at the well said to Jesus, “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (John 4:25-26, emp. added). What’s more, just before Jesus’ crucifixion, when the Jewish high priest asked Him directly, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-62, emp. added). Thus, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was both “Christ” and the “Son of David.” [NOTE: The term “Christ” is transliterated from the Greek term Christos, while “Messiah” is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic term Meshiach. Both have as their meaning, “the anointed One.”]
In the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl alleged that Mark 12:35-37 (cf. Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44) “blatantly clashes” with New Testament references of Jesus being “the Son of David” (2008, 34[5]:61). When Jesus asked, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?” (Mark 12:35), Jesus supposedly “rejects the idea that the Messiah is the son of David” (Knohl, p. 61). Knohl claimed:

To demonstrate that the Messiah is not the son of David, Jesus quotes Psalm 110, attributed in the Hebrew Bible to David himself. As the text of Mark (12:36) recites, David speaks in the psalm: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared...” Jesus then recites a passage from the psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.” Jesus then uses this passage to prove his point: “David himself calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ so how is he his son?” That is, David speaks of the Messiah as “my Lord,” rather than as “my son.” The Messiah therefore cannot be a son of David. Using Psalm 110 as his proof text, Jesus here refutes the scribes’ view that Christ, the Messiah, should be a son or descendant of David (p. 61, emp. added).

Knohl went on to state that Psalm 110 is “historically reliable,” and Mark 12:35-37 “must be authentic.” The implication is that those Bible passages which designate Jesus as the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) are unreliable.
Knohl is correct that Psalm 110 and Mark 12:35-37 are “historically reliable” and “authentic,” but he has failed miserably in his interpretation of Mark 12:35-37 (and parallel passages in Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44). When Jesus asked the Pharisees “how is He [the Messiah] then his [David’s] Son,” if David calls Him “Lord,” He was neither denying His credentials to be the Messiah nor the fact that the Messiah would be a “Son of David.” On the contrary, Jesus was trying to get His hearers to understand that the Messiah, though David’s Son, is greater than David, for King David called Him “my Lord.” It was self-evident to first-century Jews that the Messiah would be a descendant of David (Psalm 89:3-4; 132:11-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:1-16; 12:23; 21:9,15; Luke 3:23-38). Jesus was not denying that fact. Rather, He wanted his hearers to reach the same conclusion that Peter previously reached after Jesus asked a similar question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, NASB). Peter confessed to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). How could the Messiah be a descendant of David as well as be the One to whom David 1,000 years earlier called “Lord”? Answer: He was deity Who put on flesh. This is the truth with which Jesus confronted the Pharisees, and “no one was able to answer Him a word” (Matthew 22:46), because

they believed not in the divinity of Christ. They supposed that he would be only a man.... By propounding the question, Jesus gained two important points: he showed that the promised Christ was to be divine, and he showed that his own claim to be the Son of God was in perfect harmony with his claim to be the Christ. If he is the Christ, then he is David’s Lord (McGarvey, 1875, p. 194).

Jesus, the Son of David, is greater than any man who ever lived, including the greatest king Israel had ever known. He was his “Lord.” Jesus is superior. Interestingly, even the writer of Hebrews referred to Psalm 110:1 as he impressed upon his readers Jesus’ superiority over the angelic realm (1:13).
Knohl’s alleged contradiction, between Jesus’ reference to Psalm 110 in the synoptic gospels and the biblical references of the Messiah being the “Son of David,” is easily resolved when the Bible is “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus rejected neither His being the “Son of David,” nor “the Messiah.” In truth, He was both.

REFERENCES

Knohl, Israel (2008), “The Messiah: Son of Joseph,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 34[5]:58-62, September/October.
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).