From T. Pierce Brown... Dispensations

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/dispens1.html

Dispensations

If you ask the average person in the Lord's church what is meant by the term "dispensation" in the Bible, if he is a preacher or a person who has done personal evangelism, he will probably tell you that it refers to one of the three dispensations or time periods in the Bible, called the Patriarchal Age, the Mosaic Age and the Christian Age. That probably does very little damage, but is an indication of how most of us are accustomed to hear some idea that catches our fancy, and assume that we have learned some valuable Biblical truth. 

Many of us have done this with such words as "atonement," "justification" and various other terms. It is said that the basic meaning of atonement is "at-one-ment" showing that we are now "at one" with God. Justification is said to mean, "just as if I had never sinned." Neither of these statements is accurate. It is true that the result of atonement is that we are "at one" with God. If a sinner is justified from his sins theresult is that he is treated as if he had never sinned. But the word "justification" does no mean that, for one may "justify God." To justify simply means "to reckon righteous." These errors are not serious enough to accuse anyone of teaching false doctrine nor will they cause some soul to be lost. However, they are a symptom of a serious disease. That disease is a widespread satisfaction with mediocrity and partial truths that come from cursory or indifferent Bible study, or no study at all.

Today, let us examine the word "dispensation." It is found in the following scriptures:1 Cor. 9:17, "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me." Eph. 1:10, "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Eph. 3:2, "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." Col. 1:25, "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God." It is from the Greek word "oikonomia" which comes from "oikos," a house" and "nomos," a law," and its basic meaning was therefore "the law of the house." However, its derived meaning is seen in its usage where it is translated "stewardship" in Luke 16:2, 3 & 4, which starts, "And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward." The word "oikonomos" is translated by such words as "chamberlain," "governor" and "steward." 

It can be seen, therefore, that the word has to do with the type of administration or method of dealing with an individual or group. Of course if one person deals with another in a certain way, he does it for a certain period of time, but the period of time has nothing to do with the meaning of the term. 

It is appropriate for us to talk of the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian dispensations if we understand that we are talking in a broad general way of how God dealt with persons at certain times. However, if we assume that those divisions of history are the only way we can talk about how God dealt with mankind, we lose sight of some important truths. 

For example, in Matthew 10:5-10 Jesus sent His twelve disciples out to preach. He told them not to enter any Samaritan city, but to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They were to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, and raise the dead. They were not to take any money with them. The fact that this took place under what we, in the Lord's church, commonly call "The Mosaic Dispensation" does not prove that the command was to everyone who lived in that era. It is certain that we cannot apply those commands to what we call "The Christian Dispensation." The truth is that there was what we commonly call "The Limited Commission" which was a special dispensation or way God dealt with certain people in that circumstance. 

The effort of some leading men in the brotherhood to try to make the gospel records a part of the Mosaic dispensation so they can make certain passages inapplicable to Christians today is a misapplication of the truth. If they do not apply to Christians today it is not because they were spoken during the Mosaic dispensation, but because we can show that the thing spoken was limited to a certain person or group. To love the Lord with all the heart and soul is not a command that applied to one dispensation and not another. There are many principles that are eternal. However, the statement of Paul to Timothy to "bring the cloak and parchments" was made during the Christian dispensation, but was limited to that person.

This age is sometimes spoken of as a dispensation of grace, as if God did not act graciously toward people in Adam's day, or during the Mosaic period. God has always been a God of grace. The statement of Paul that "We are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14) does not mean that we are under no law at all, for Paul says, "We are under law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21). There are those who teach that when Jesus comes back to earth, He will set up His kingdom and reign for 1000 years in a dispensation of justice. The truth is that the whole plan of salvation is a result of the fact that God must always be a God of grace as well as justice. If God were merely gracious, then He would forgive everyone and save everyone. If He were merely just, He would be forced to condemn everyone. In His present kingdom, His grace is predominant, for as we think of our salvation, we should properly praise and magnify that grace. However, if we forget that He also has to be always just and condemn sin, we do disservice to His revelation and His nature. The fact that He is not now bringing all sin into judgment, and punishing it immediately is not strange. He never did under any broad dispensation. In Noah's day His grace was evident for hundreds of years. In the case of Israel, His grace was evident on thousands of occasions over thousands of years. 

It would be correct for us to say that during the days when the Apostles were on the earth, and God was dealing with His people with signs, miracles and direct revelation from their mouths, rather than through the written word, that they lived under a different dispensation than we do. We may still classify it in broad terms as "The Christian Dispensation," but if we do not realize that God had a special way of dealing with individuals and groups then that was somewhat different from what He does now, we will be hopelessly confused. 

We recognize that the so called tongue-speakers and miracle-workers of today do not understand that, but we have probably added to their confusion because we have sometimes insisted that there are three and only three dispensations. It is true that in a broad sense God's way of dealing with mankind in general was different in what we call "The Patriarchal dispensation," "The Mosaic Dispensation" and the "Christian Dispensation." However, in each of those broad divisions, there were special ways of dealing with special groups, and that way of dealing with a person or group could properly be called a dispensation. Each one of us is a steward of what God has given us, and in that context, the method of God's dealing with us will be the dispensation under which we live. Small children and mentally incompetent persons living today, though in what we may classify as a broad division of how God deals with mankind, are under a different "house law" than others, and in that sense are under a different dispensation.

T. Pierce Brown

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

From Jim McGuiggan... Trust Christ

Trust Christ

Jesus could upset people and he could say things that offended them. You couldn't always trust him to be soft and tender but you could always depend on him--as C.S. Lewis would put it--you could always depend on him to be good. If he said it was so then it was so! And if it weren't so he would tell you. That's how he is.

When he spoke he knew what he was talking about and what he talked about all the time was his Holy Father. He knew his Father well not only because he was with him always, before the world was, but because he lived in joy-filled and holy fellowship with him through the Holy Spirit. His profound understanding of his Father was the result of that loving communion and he showed his love for his Father in doing his Father's will. He talked about that a lot.

If I were beginning my life with God all over again I'd give Jesus himself my vote as the one to be trusted when all others might be doubted. So I suggest that you steep yourself in the mind and ways and words of Christ because he will definitely show you the Father. He wasn't boasting when he said that anyone who saw him saw the Father and that if they knew him they would know the Father (John 14). He was assuring them and he gives us that assurance also.

Christ is the visible image of God so we can trust him to bring us to the Father. God is like Christ, somebody said, and in him is no unChristlkeness at all. I think that's a great way to put it. If you hear smart people say strange things about God; things that unsettle you, just say to yourself, "God is like Jesus Christ!" and then ask yourself if what they said would be true of Christ. I know that's too simple but it'll do to begin with.

Trust Christ when he says he is one with his Father. If we asked someone to teach us about music we'd be happy if Bach or Beethoven or Mozart said, "I will." If we asked someone to teach us about literature we'd be pleased if Shakespeare or Dickens or Hugo said, "I will." If we asked someone to teach us about God we should be thrilled beyond measure when Jesus stands up and says, "I'll be happy to do that." Trust Christ to teach you about God.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=714&b=1%20Kings

The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When King Solomon built his magnificent temple, he constructed two 18-cubit-high bronze pillars and set them by the vestibule in the front of the temple (2 Chronicles 3:15; NOTE: A cubit is approximately 18 inches). He even gave them names: Jachin on the right, and Boaz on the left (1 Kings 7:21). On the top of each hollow pillar was a five-cubit-high capital (called chapiter in the KJV), covered with “nets of network,” “twisted threads of chainwork,” and rows of pomegranates (1 Kings 7:17-18,20, NASB).

When one compares the various biblical accounts that address the temple pillars and capitals (1 Kings 7; 2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 3; Jeremiah 52), two questions immediately come to mind. First, why does 2 Chronicles 3:15 indicate that the two 18-cubit-high pillars (1 Kings 7:15; 2 Kings 25:17; Jeremiah 52:21) were “thirty-five cubits” high? Second, were the pillar capitals “five cubits” high, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22, or “three cubits,” as recorded in 2 Kings 25:17?

First, one must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to a particular question in order to exonerate a Bible writer of an alleged mistake. Just as Christians do not have to know every detail about Jesus obtaining a donkey (Matthew 21:1-7) in order to acquit Him of an alleged theft charge, Bible believers can reasonably defend the Bible’s integrity without pinning down the exact solution to a problem. Over a century ago, J.W. McGarvey commented on this point as follows:

We are not bound to show the truth of the given hypothesis; but only that it may be true. If it is at all possible, then it is possible that no contradiction exists; if it is probable, then it is probable that no contradiction exists.... It follows, also, that when there is an appearance of contradiction between two writers, common justice requires that before we pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. The better the general reputation of the writers, the more imperative is this obligation, lest we condemn as false those who are entitled to respectful consideration (1886, 2:32).

Truly, the apologist need show only one or more plausible possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that an inspired penman erred. We abide by this principle in the courtroom, in our treatment of various historical books, as well as in everyday-life situations. It is only fair, then, to show the Bible the same courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony between passages before pronouncing one or both accounts false. Although it may be that no one knows for sure why differences exist for the pillar and capital heights, we can offer more than one logical possibility.

At least three feasible explanations exist for the variation in the heights of the temple pillars. First, it is possiblethat one or more ancient scribes confused the Hebrew numeral letters גה (35) for יח (18). Similar to how printing companies today can make slight errors when printing copies of the Bible, and just as copyists’ errors can be found in various historical works (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) without corrupting the overall integrity of the text, occasionally Bible readers will come across numbers, names, etc. that are the result of a copyists’ errors—not mistakes by the original inspired writers. (To read our foundational essay on this subject, see Lyons, 2007).

Second, it may be that whereas 1 Kings 7:15, 2 Kings 25:17, and Jeremiah 52:21 give only the height of the pillars, the chronicler also included the heights of the base, the capitals, and all other decorations on the pillars. Consider a somewhat parallel illustration of two people measuring the height of a modern church building. One person climbs the steps and measures from the floor of the porch to the underside of the roof, and obtains a measure of 25 feet. Another person, however, measures from the base of the building, up the seven steps, over the roof, to the top of the steeple. He calculates the height at 55 feet. Is it possible for both calculations to be accurate? Indeed. They are accurate measurements of what the inspectors chose to include in the “height of the church building.” Regarding the temple pillars, it may be that the figure in 2 Chronicles simply includes more materials than the number recorded in 1 and 2 Kings and Jeremiah.

Third, it is also possible that the height of each pillar was more specifically 17½ cubits, or that a half of a cubit of each pillar was hidden in the roundness of the capitals, and that the number 35 represents the length of both pillars added together. Interestingly, 2 Chronicles 3:15 does not indicate that “each” pillar was 35 cubits high, but simply that the “two pillars” were “thirty-five cubits high.” Translators of the New International Version believed this explanation was probable, and actually inserted “together” (in brackets) into their translation of 2 Chronicles 3:15. Thus, “in the front of the temple he made two pillars, which [together] were thirty-five cubits long.”

So what about the capital heights? Why does 2 Kings 25:17 refer to them as being three cubits high, rather than five? As with the pillar heights, it is possible that the numeral “three” represents a copyist’s error. The Hebrew numeral letter ג (3) in 2 Kings 25:17 may have been mistakenly put for ה (5), as is found in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22. However, another explanation, which John Wesley postulated in the 18th century, also exists. In his commentary on 1 Kings, he suggested “the word chapiter is taken either more largely for the whole, so it is five cubits; or, more strictly, either for the pommels..., 2 Chronicles 4:12, or for the cornice or crown, and so it was but three cubits, to which the pomegranates being added make it four cubits..., and the other work upon it took up one cubit more, which in all made five cubits” (n.d.). Thus, both “three” and “five” could be correct, depending on exactly what the writers were including in the measurement of the capitals.

What are the correct answers to the questions at hand? Why exactly do differences exist in the numbers given for the pillar and capital heights? No one can be certain. But reasonable answers can be offered without assuming the original penmen erred.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2007), “Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3268.

McGarvey, J.W. (1886), Evidences of Christianity (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Wesley, John (n.d.), Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, [On-line], URL:http://bible.crosswalk.com/commentaries/WesleysExplanatory Notes/wes.cgi?book=1ki&chapter=007.

America, the Ten Commandments, and the Culture War by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1294

America, the Ten Commandments, and the Culture War

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

No one can doubt that the United States of America is in the midst of a culture war. This war has been going on for over forty years. The war is between two opposing forces. On the one hand, there is the “politically correct” crowd—those who embrace pluralism, atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. They generally reject the God of the Bible and the principles of morality contained therein. They define “liberty” as the right to believe in and practice whatever they choose. “Freedom” to them means freedom from restraint. They wish to be left free to indulge their fleshly appetites fully. This indulgence has manifested itself most clearly in what was referred to in the 1960s as the “Sexual Revolution.” Many people have insisted on being unhampered in their engagement in illicit sexual activity, i.e., pre-marital, extra-marital, and homosexual sex. (The United States Supreme Court, in an unprecedented action—in direct contradiction to the stance that has completely dominated American civilization since its inception—has single-handedly struck down state sodomy laws—see Supreme Court, 2003). This sexual anarchy has naturally resulted in two critical cultural catastrophes: (1) widespread divorce and the breakdown of the home and family; and (2) the legalization of abortion. After all, illicit sexual activity inevitably destroys marriage, and it has, in turn, led to the destruction of children—either by killing them in the womb or neglecting to rear them properly. Most of the ills of society, and the core of the present culture war, is traceable to this lack of sexual restraint.

On the other hand, there are still those in America who understand that God exists, i.e., the God of the Bible, the Creator of humanity and the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. They recognize that the Bible is His communication to humanity to instruct people how to be successful and happy in this life and how to prepare for the life to come in eternity. They recognize that American civilization must maintain its Christian foundation if it expects to survive and flourish—as it has done for the 150 years preceding the current culture war.

One way to view these two opposing forces is in terms of the generational shifting that has occurred in America. The World War II generation represents the previous social atmosphere when Americans were encouraged to be “God-fearing citizens” who lived according to unchanging Christian values and the standard of the Bible. The “Babyboomer” generation is largely responsible for orchestrating change and igniting the culture war. The mottos of the 1960s illustrate this defiant rejection of the past: “do your own thing,” “make love, not war,” “if it feels good, do it,” and “the devil made me do it.” Such slogans exposed the underlying intent: “I want to be left free to do whatever I want to do with no restrictions and no one telling me what I can and cannot do.” The “generation gap” of the 1960s was simply a rebellion against authority. The present culture war is the result of the continuing attempt to be free from authority and restraint. It is the attempt to rewrite law to make lawlessness legal!

That is what the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama is all about. It’s not about that particular monument. It’s not really even about the Ten Commandments themselves. After all, the Bible teaches that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses to governthe Israelites (Exodus 20:1-17). Christians have never been under the Ten Commandments per se (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15-17). They are under New Testament law brought by Christ and His apostles. Is there considerable overlap between the laws given by Moses (which included the Ten Commandments) and the laws given by Christ? Certainly. In fact, nine of the Ten Commandments (excluding the Sabbath) are repeated in one form or another in the New Testament as being a part of New Testament Christianity. What Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has said is that the Constitution endorses the acknowledgment of the God of the Bible in public life (see “Transcript,” 2003). Note carefully what Justice Moore explained:

Anytime you deny the acknowledgment of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists. Rights come from God, not from government. If government can give you rights, government can take them away from you. If God gives you rights, no man and no government can take them away from you. That was the premise of the organic law of this country, which is the Declaration of Independence. Because, if there is no God, then man’s power is the controlling aspect, and therefore power will be centralized (quoted in Wright, 2003).

The Founding Fathers intended for the Bible to be recognized as the foundation of American civilization. They never envisioned the government being allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion in public life (see Barton, 1996). They would surely view as insane the generation that would remove from government premises a monument that celebrates Bible law, only to install a monument celebrating homosexual war veterans (see Limbacher, 2003).

For over forty years now, the Christian foundations of American civilization have been undergoing gradual, incessant erosion. The non-Christian forces of society, assisted in large measure by an unrestrained, leftist judiciary, have been systematically dismantling the nation’s ties to the Bible, removing one by one the public symbols of America’s Christian roots. The recent brouhaha over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is simply one more example among a long series wherein the liberal forces, under the guise of “civil liberties” and “separation of church and state” (a phrase not even found in the Constitution) are attempting to expunge all traces of America’s Christian heritage. Make no mistake: the nation has embarked upon a slippery slope that will guarantee its downward spiral into the abyss of godless hedonism. The attack upon external symbols of attachment to God—Bible monuments, the Pledge, “In God We Trust” on coinage, Leviticus 25:10 on the Liberty Bell, and a host of other ties—is simply part of the larger conspiracy to act out hostility toward the God Who places restraints upon human behavior.

Many who have embraced the myth of a “religionless” society and government (interpreting “freedom of religion” to mean “freedom from religion” rather than “freedomfor religion” as the Founding Fathers intended) have naively presumed that humans will automatically choose to do “right” (whatever “right” is), and that humans can be their own authority without any outside interference from a higher power imposing an objective standard upon them. They dispute the historical evidence that unrestrained freedom results in moral chaos and social anarchy. Whereas Hinduism posits millions of gods (like all the pagan religions that have existed in human history—gods conjured up by their human creators and, hence, flawed like their creators), Buddhism removes humanity from the notion of higher powers “out there” to whom humans ought to look for guidance, and places divinity within each individual. Hence, every human has within himself/herself sufficient insight into “right” if he/she can just “get in touch” with the inner self. To fail to do so is to be subjected to a virtually endless cycle of reliving earthly existence through an infinite number of life forms (animal and plant) until one learns his/her lesson and “gets it right.” American civilization has been the victim of serious encroachment by this secular “New Age” philosophy.

Please excuse the bluntness, but such thinking is irrational, nonsensical, and, well, absurd. The only rational perspective is the biblical one, the one upon which this nation was founded—that one Supreme Being exists Who is nonphysical (i.e., spirit—John 4:24), transcendent of the physical realm, and infinite in all of His attributes. No other rational explanation exists for what we observe all round us. Evolution certainly does not account for it. No atheist, mystic, or existential philosopher has come up with an adequate explanation. The evidence points to the existence of God—the God described on the pages of the Bible. As the Creator, He has communicated to humans regarding their origin, their purpose in life, and their eternal destiny. Those who wish to be free from restraint in order to indulge their fleshly appetites may invent complex, convoluted alternate explanations for human existence, they may insist that moral behavior is subjective and susceptible to the whim of human inclination, but no such evasions will alter the facts. Those who remain rational, objective, and unbiased are forced to conclude that spiritual reality is within the grasp of every accountable human being. But the individual must decide to seek the truth.

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14).

The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:10-12).

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

REFERENCES

Barton, David (1996), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders Press).

Limbacher, Carl (2003), “Monument to Homosexuals Is OK; Monument to Ten Commandments Isn’t,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/8/27/142215.shtml.

Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus (2003), “Lawrence, et al. vs. Texas,” [On-line], URL: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf.

“Transcript: Justice Moore on His Monumental Battle,” Fox News, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95342,00.html.

Wright, Wendy (2003), “Citizens Organize Events to Support Chief Justice Moore,” [On-line], URL: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4428/CWA/freedom/index.htm.

A Glimpse of Encouragement by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2157

A Glimpse of Encouragement

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Those who labor in the Lord’s Kingdom understand that God deserves all the credit for any good work that is done. As Paul stated about his own labors: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6). In fact, in ministry situations, the far-reaching results of the labors are rarely even brought to the attention of those doing the work. But every now and then, workers in the Lord’s Kingdom are shown a tiny glimpse of the impact that the Lord is making with their materials. Such heartwarming glimpses have the potential to encourage workers in the church to “keep on keeping on.” Recently, we at Apologetics Press were blessed with the opportunity to catch such a glimpse. The following text is from an e-mail sent to our offices.

About a year ago I ordered 30 copies of the Truth Be Told to give to my son’s first grade class at a discounted price. After asking the school administration, they allowed me to deliver them on the last day of school and present it as a “present” from my son. This way every student got a copy. I also gave a copy to the school library, the principal, and my son’s teacher. Since then several other teachers have asked where to purchase these books....

The exciting part of this story just occurred a couple of weeks ago. One of the students, now in second grade, brought his copy of the book to school to discuss something in class about fossils. From my son, the teacher told the student that your book could not be true, but the student (who does not attend a church of Christ) informed him that “the book made more sense” than what the teacher had been teaching. It made me feel good that at least one child has been reading the book and that it seemed to be making an impact on his life. I happen to still have an extra copy of the book that I plan to give this teacher. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be able to afford the books to give to the students. It has made me and my son very proud of what has and may still come of that effort.

To God be the glory for all the good that is being done in His Kingdom. It thrills us to know that God is using our efforts to encourage others to stand for the truth.

Is there a way that you could use our materials to further the cause of Christ? Could you donate them to your child’s class? Could you send some books, tracts, or videos to the library down the street, or mass-mail them to those in your neighborhood? Could you putA.P. tracts on the racks in your church building, or send them in-bulk to summer camps?

It is our prayer that we can multiply our efforts so that “one child” reading our materials will become thousands of children and adults across the globe.

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

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

Jesus: Truly God and Truly Human

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

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

EARLY HERESIES

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

EARLY CONFESSIONS

Although these positions were rejected as heresies, they did not die completely. Nor did their rejection result in complete unanimity of opinion about the identity of Jesus. Confusion over how Jesus could be truly God and truly human at the same time persisted. The Catholic Church struggled with this question, which subsequently became the focus of some of its Ecumenical Councils. In A.D. 325 the Council of Nicea issued its creed, which stated:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended to heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead... (Percival, 1899, p. 3).

So, it was the Council’s conviction that Jesus was both “very God” and “made man.” But how can the same person be both God and man? Nicea had not adequately answered this. It remained to be addressed by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). The 150 members of the Council declared that Jesus was one person with two natures.

...we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.... This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union... (Percival, 1899, pp. 264-265).

It is significant to note that the Council chose to clarify the meaning of the two natures in negative terms. In a sense, they, “put up four fences (without confusion, without change, without division, without separation) and said: The mystery lies within this area” (Runia, 1984, pp. 12-13). Although this confession did not really answer the question as to how Jesus could have both natures at the same time, it respected both aspects of Jesus’ identity and stood as the fundamental statement of Christology for Catholics and Protestants alike for many centuries.

THE IMPACT OF SKEPTICISM

With the rise of skepticism and deism, this ancient creed came under fire. Beginning with Hermann S. Reimarus (1694-1768), scholars began to suggest that the “historical Jesus” was a very different person from the “Christ of faith” described in the Gospels (and subsequent human creeds). Reimarus made a “sharp distinction between the intention of Jesus during his life and the intention of his disciples after his death” (see Borg, 1994, p. 42). Reimarus believed that Jesus’ intentions (rebellion against Rome) were thwarted by His death and that the disciples invented the resurrection story and deified their Teacher as a way of keeping His movement alive.

Liberal scholarship of the last 200 years has largely adopted as paradigmatic this distinction between the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Christian faith.” The claim is that the historical Jesus may be discovered in a fragmentary way by subjecting the Gospels to the rigors of the historical-critical method (see Brantley, 1994). The Christ of the Christian faith is the version of Jesus presented by the New Testament writers and the confessions of Christendom. Much of the recent discussion in Christology, then, centers on whether one should shape one’s understanding of Jesus by the Christ of faith or the Jesus of history.

Often, liberal scholars begin with the Jesus of history and move from there to decide what of the Christ of faith is worthy of belief (e.g., Edward Schillebeeckx, Piet Schoonenberg, Hans Kung, John A.T. Robinson, et al.). Typically the answer is, “not much.” This is also the presupposition behind the work of the Jesus Seminar (see Bromling, 1994), as well as works from a variety of authors (Marcus Borg, Barbara Thiering, Geza Vermes, John Dominic Crossan, et al.). A.N. Wilson’s popular book, Jesus: A Life, is typical. In it, he opened with this line: “The Jesus of history and the Christ of Faith are two separate beings, with very different stories” (1992, p. vii). Wilson rejected the latter, and wrote an entire book describing the former. His historical Jesus, however, “is a pale and distorted version of the real thing” (Wright, 1992, p. 63). Wilson described the Jesus of history as “the great apocalyptic prophet, the visionary teacher, the widely popular healer and exorcist” Whose life was a “total failure” and Whose “mission, whatever its original purpose may have been, ended on the Cross” (Wright, 1992, pp. 167-168). Wilson contended that Jesus never would have approved of Christianity; on the contrary, had Jesus known what would be done in His name, He probably would have wished He never had been born (pp. 255-256).

By way of summary, two hundred years of liberal scholastic inquiry into the question of the identity of Jesus have resulted, essentially, in a revival of the Ebionite heresy. The new portraits depict a Jesus Who is no more than a man and Who was nothing like the Christ preached by Paul and worshipped for nearly two millennia by faithful Christians. This is the price one pays for rejecting the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

COMING TO PETER’S CONCLUSION

Returning to Caesarea, however, we hear Jesus ask a second (and more personal) question: “But, who do you say that I am?” To this Peter boldly replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16). In this one confession, Peter expressed two aspects of His Master’s identity. First, he said Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the ancient Jewish prophets (“Christ” is the Greek word for Messiah, meaning “anointed” by God). Second, he said Jesus possessed the divine nature. “Son of ” was the idiomatic way of saying that a person possessed the nature or traits of another person or thing. For instance, because Joses was an encouragement to others, the apostles called him Barnabas, which means “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36). So, when Peter said Jesus was the “Son of God,” he was saying that Jesus had the very same nature as God. That was a powerful statement. Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God resulted in His death (John 5:18; Matthew 26:63-65). And it was upon this fundamental confession of the unique God/man nature of Jesus that the church was built (Matthew 16:18).

What led Peter to make that confession? The answer is found in Jesus’ reply: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is heaven” (vs. 17). Peter’s view of Jesus was based upon information provided by God, rather than upon the uncertain ideas of people. That information came to Peter in the form of Old Testament prophesies that he was beginning to see fulfilled in Jesus, and that were being confirmed by the miracles Jesus was performing. The same information has been preserved for all ages in the four Gospels, and will lead us to the same conclusion if we give it a fair hearing.

FULFILLED PROPHECY

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

MIRACULOUS CONFIRMATION

In addition, it is important to recall that Jesus backed up His claims by working miracles. Although God empowered other people to perform miracles, Jesus’ miracles were different. Their works confirmed that they were servants of God; Jesus’ works proved He was one with God (John 10:37-38). The Gospel of John records several of those amazing works. John tells us why: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).

While imprisoned, John sent some of his followers to Jesus to ask, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). Jesus responded: “Go tell John...the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached unto them” (Matthew 11:4-5). Over seven hundred years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted that those very things would be done by the Messiah (see Isaiah 35:5-6; 61:1). Jesus wasn’t merely saying, “Look at all the good things I am doing.” He was saying, “Look, I am doing exactly what the Coming One is supposed to do!”

Although not eager to admit it, Jesus’ critics were often brought face-to-face with the truth that no one could do what He did unless God was with Him (John 3:2). One example of this is seen in John 9, where it is recorded that Jesus gave sight to a man who had been born blind. Some of Christ’s enemies tried to deny that a miracle had occurred, but they were unsuccessful. Then they tried to draw attention away from the miracle by attacking Jesus’ character. They said to the man whom Jesus healed: “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner” (John 9:24). This plan did not succeed either. Notice how the man answered them:

Why this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God hears not sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears Him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing (John 9:30-33).

His point was the very thing the Pharisees were unwilling to accept—Jesus’ miraculous works supported His claim to be the Son of God! It is not surprising, then, that the man accepted Jesus as his Lord.

THE RESURRECTION

Just as He promised, Jesus came forth from the tomb three days after His brutal crucifixion (Matthew 16:21; 27:63; 28:1-8). That He had been raised from the dead was witnessed by many different types of people: the soldiers who guarded His tomb; the women who came early in the morning to anoint Him with spices; eleven apostles; and more than 500 other witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:4-8). Seeing the living, breathing Jesus again was concrete proof that He was all He claimed to be. Little wonder, then, that when Thomas saw the resurrected Jesus he exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Christ’s resurrection was the central point of Peter and Paul’s preaching (see Acts 2:23-36; 3:15; 17:31; etc.). The reason is obvious—it was by the resurrection that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power” (Romans 1:4).

The evidence for the deity of Christ is both sufficient and compelling. There is a temptation, however, to emphasize the Lord’s deity to the exclusion of His humanity. In a sense, the modern church can become guilty of practical Doceticism. In other words, Christians can become so focused upon establishing that Jesus is the Son of God that they fail to acknowledge that He also is the Son of Man. Yet, time and again Jesus applied that term to Himself (e.g., Matthew 1:20; 9:6; et al.). As a human, He learned (Hebrews 5:8), became hungry (Matthew 4:2), experienced thirst (John 19:28), grew tired (John 4:6), and slept (Matthew 8:24). He felt anger (Mark 3:5), frustration (Mark 9:19), joy (John 15:11), and sadness (John 11:35). He was “in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), and significantly, He was able to die (Mark 15:44). These human traits are as important to our understanding of the person of Jesus as are the traits He shared with deity.

CONCLUSION

Who is Jesus of Nazareth? Clearly, He is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. Like the ancient creeds tried to explain, Jesus is both truly God and truly human. We must avoid not only the error of the ancient Ebionites and modern liberals of seeing Jesus as merely a man, but we also must be on guard against the Docetic over-emphasis of Jesus’ deity. How can one person be both truly God and truly human? This is something we have not been called to understand fully—only to confess confidently.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3,14).

REFERENCES

Borg, Marcus (1994), “Profiles in Scholarly Courage: Early Days of New Testament Criticism,” Bible Review, 10[5]:40-45, October.

Brantley, Garry K. (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason & Revelation, 14:33-38, May.

Bromling, Brad T. (1994), “A Look at the Jesus Seminar,” Reason & Revelation, 14:81-87, November.

Lockyer, Herbert (1973), All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Percival, Henry R., ed. (1899), “The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint).

Runia, Klaas (1984) The Present-Day Christological Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Wilson, A.N. (1992), Jesus: A Life (New York: Fawcett Columbine).

Wright, N.T. (1992), Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Can a Person Live in Adultery? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4181

Can a Person Live in Adultery?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Confusion exists in the mind of some concerning the status of those who commit the sin of adultery. It is generally recognized that a couple becomes guilty of adultery when they form a sexual relationship in violation of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19:9. But what is a church to do when one or both of those marriage partners present themselves for church membership, expressing their regret for their sin, but their intention to continue their relationship? Some argue that the couple can be forgiven, if they say they are sorry, on the grounds that people cannot live in adultery. They were guilty of committing adultery when they first came together, but they cannot be guilty of living (in an ongoing state) in adultery, and so may continue their marriage without being guilty of further sin.

Meanwhile, the church tends to shy away from dealing with the matter, permitting the couple fellowship but, amid vague feelings of uncertainty, keeping them at arm’s length. In the midst of this inconsistency, the church unwittingly brings itself under the same indictment leveled at the churches in Pergamum (Revelation 2:14) and Thyatira (Revelation 2:20-22) for their unholy “tolerance.” We must permit God’s words to give us guidance rather than be influenced by our human inclinations, sympathies, or emotions. God’s Word speaks very clearly to this matter.

It is true that sin may be viewed as the practice of isolated acts that are contrary to God’s will. But it does not follow that individuals cannot live in sin. A “liar” is one who is involved in separate acts of lying. What makes him a liar, and therefore guilty of living a life of lying, is his refusal to cease telling lies. A person is a “murderer” if he has killed one or more persons and continues to entertain the possibility of repeating such behavior. A person is an “adulterer” because he has formed a sexual relationship which violates God’s law and refuses to cease that illicit relationship. Simply saying he is sorry for the existence of this adulterous union will not and cannot alter what, in God’s sight, is “not lawful” (Matthew 14:4). As long as that marriage is continued, the parties involved are adulterers (Romans 7:3). Only by terminating that relationship can the parties involved put an end to their adultery. Otherwise, they “continue to commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9—the present tense continuous action), “live in fornication” (Colossians 3:5-7), and “live in [sin]” (Romans 6:2). When Paul reminded Christians at Corinth of their conversion day, he noted that some had previously been fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Who could possibly doubt the fact that their salvation would have been impossible unless these sexual unions were terminated? Indeed, how could they “that are dead to sin, live any longer therein” (Romans 6:2)?

Biological Clocks: Evidence for a Clockmaker by Will Brooks, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1125

Biological Clocks: Evidence for a Clockmaker

by	Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]

If one were to ask a clockmaker, “Could this device have constructed itself?” the reply would most certainly be “No.” Clocks are complex instruments designed to accurately and repeatedly keep time to the millisecond. The complexity reaches all the way down to the system of gears and shafts which drive the instrument. It would be inconceivable even to consider the idea that such an instrument would evolve naturalistically over time, eventually reaching a point when it is ready to keep accurate time without missing a single second. Yet, this is exactly what evolutionists would have us to believe regarding an even more complex instrument, the cell division cycle—our own biological clock. [NOTE: The following discussion of cell division is based on Alberts, et al., 2002.]

The cell division cycle is a coordinated sequence of events that drives the division and reproduction of all cells from the single-celled amoeba to cells in the human body. The complexity and coordination of this cycle is staggering. The cell cycle is divided into four primary phases: G1, S, G2, and M.

G1, or the Gap 1 phase, is the time in which cells carry out all of the normal processes of the cell. Some cells remain in this phase for very long periods of time. But, when appropriate stimuli are encountered by a cell, a round of cell division is triggered. This point of no return is known as the restriction point. Once a cell passes this point, it must complete the entire cell cycle and return once more to G1. After a cell reproduces, it must prepare for the next phase of the cell cycle: S-phase or DNA synthesis phase. This preparation requires activating countless genes and making many new proteins that are used only during this one phase of the cell cycle. Once every component is ready, S-phase may begin.

During the DNA synthesis phase, the cell must make an exact copy of its nuclear DNA. This duplication is important because both new cells that will result from cell division must contain equal and identical copies of the parental cell DNA. One human cell contains roughly four billion base pairs of DNA. Copying all of this DNA without error is no small task, yet the cell does so incessantly.

Following completion of DNA synthesis, the cell enters the second gap phase, G2. During this period, the cell prepares for physical division, which involves the production of a whole new set of proteins. At the same time, all those proteins used during S-phase are degraded, since they are no longer needed, and their presence would only promote more DNA synthesis. After all the proper proteins are made and degraded, the cell is ready for physical separation, which takes place during mitosis or M-phase.

Mitosis involves the separation of chromosomes, followed by the separation of the cell. Human cells have 46 pairs of chromosomes when they enter mitosis. Each pair must be separated in the appropriate way in order for each daughter cell to have two copies of the 23 human chromosomes. Once again, this is no small feat. Even one mistake leads to abnormal chromosome numbers in the daughter cells and is harmful—often lethal—to the cell. Yet, the cell achieves this separation without error over and over. At the conclusion of mitosis, two cells result, each identical to the other. Both cells are now once more in G1-phase, able to enter another round of cell division. This cycle is repeated time after time, like clockwork.

In a physical clock or watch, a system of gears and shafts are designed to keep the clock moving, keeping precise, accurate time. What are the driving forces, the gears and shafts if you will, of the cell division cycle? Our cells have their own mechanism for keeping things moving. Two families of proteins lie at the heart of cell cycle progression. They are called cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks). These two groups of proteins work in a cooperative manner to promote each action that takes place during the cell cycle. How they work to keep the biological clock ticking is amazing!

Cyclin-dependent kinases function as enzymes, with the ability to link a small phosphate group (-PO4-3) onto a variety of proteins. This linkage serves as an “on” switch for the targeted protein. By phosphorylating (linking a phosphate) to proteins in the cell, Cdks work to turn on and off other proteins that play roles in the cell cycle. But, Cdks themselves need an “on switch,” which comes from the cyclin proteins. Cyclins are able to bind to cyclin-dependent kinases in order to form a stable protein complex between the two. Once bound together, Cdks are free to phosphorylate their repertoire of targets to promote all the activities of the cell cycle.

It might seem, then, that all cyclins and Cdks are active all of the time and throughout the cell cycle, but they are not. This is where the clockwork activity of the cell is truly seen. During each phase of the cell cycle (G1, S, G2, and M), a different set of cyclin and Cdk proteins are active. Therefore, each pair of proteins is able to promote only those activities which should occur during a phase. For example, during the DNA synthesis phase (S-phase), only those proteins that play a role in making new DNA are activated. This action prevents the phases from occurring out of order or at the wrong time. But, how is only one pair of cyclin-Cdk proteins active at a time? The answer comes in the form of another cyclical event.

Unlike the Cdk proteins, which are always present in the cell, cyclin proteins come and go in a cyclical manner—which accounts for the name cyclin. Production of these proteins is coordinated with the cell cycle phases. When a cell receives signals to undergo division, the G1-cyclins are expressed by the cell. They then partner with G1-Cdks, which already are present to promote those G1 activities of the cell. Additionally, G1 cyclin-Cdks initiate expression of the next group of cyclins—the S-phase cyclins. Once expressed, S-phase cyclin-Cdk partners promote activities of S-phase and turn on the G2-cyclins. This cycle continues for each phase of the cell cycle. Figure 2 illustrates this feature by showing the levels of S-phase cyclin throughout the cell cycle.

This amazing process of cyclin expression is also coupled with cyclin destruction. Once a new cyclin is present in the cell, the previous cyclin is destroyed, which effectively ends the previous cell cycle phase. This constant repetition of cyclin protein production and destruction is the driving force behind every event in the cell division cycle.

Together, the cell cycle and the cycle of cyclin protein production/destruction are an amazingly designed system of events. Such complexity is inexplicable on the basis of naturalism. In this case, the clockmaker is the intelligent Designer, God. It would be impossible for a six-foot-tall grandfather clock or even a small watch to construct itself gradually and start ticking. Equally impossible, the cell could never appear, ready to “tick” through the highly coordinated process of cell division. Just as clocks are constructed by an intelligent designer, the cell cycle is clear evidence for intelligent design in the Universe.

REFERENCE

Alberts, Bruce, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell (Oxford: Garland Science).