From Roy Davison... The church of Christ is one body: unique, indivisible, exclusive and real

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

The church of Christ
is one body:
unique, indivisible, exclusive and real By 'church of Christ' we mean the church that Jesus built (Matthew 16:18), also called 'the body of Christ' (Ephesians 1:22,23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18,24).
Christ's church is unique, one of a kind, incomparable.
The foundation of the church is unique: "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11).
Christ is "the only begotten Son of God" (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Hebrews 1:5; 1 John 4:9). He is one Shepherd of one flock (John 10:16). "He is the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22,23). "Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23).
"There is one body" (Ephesians 4:4). "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another" (Romans 12:5). We are reconciled to God "in one body through the cross" (Ephesians 2:16). "For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). The one body has "one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:5,6).
The church of Christ has a unique identity with unchangeable distinguishing marks.
A diamond can be identified on the basis of unique characteristics. Diamond is the hardest known material. It consists of pure carbon, but not all carbon is diamond. The carbon atoms in diamond form a crystal lattice with each atom connected to four other atoms. Diamond is hard because these bonds are short and strong. Diamond is a good electrical insulator, has the lowest coefficient of expansion, and is the best thermal conductor at room temperature. Diamond is transparent in the whole spectrum from ultraviolet to infrared and has a refractive index of 2.42 for yellow light with a wavelength of 589 nanometers. Diamonds repel water, but attract grease. They are not harmed by acids and bases, but are attacked by some salts such as melted potassium nitrate.
The average person cannot recognize diamond with certainty because he lacks knowledge. Someone who has the required knowledge, can recognize diamond beyond any doubt.
The church of Christ can also be identified on the basis of unique characteristics described in the holy Scriptures. The average person cannot tell the difference between the church of Christ and an imitation because he lacks knowledge. Someone who has the required knowledge, who knows the revealed characteristics, can identify the church of Christ with certainty.
The church is unique, one of a kind.
Christ's church is indivisible, not susceptible to subdivision.
Jesus said: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand" (Matthew 12:25).
When Jesus prayed for His apostles, He said: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me" (John 17:20-23).
The church is indivisible. Paul asked "Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). "Now I plead with you, brethren, by 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 perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). Like the atoms of diamond, members of Christ's body are solidly joined together.
Followers of Christ may have nothing to do with 'subdivisions' in Christendom, groups that sail under the flag of some human founder, doctrine or institution. When a religious group claims to be a 'subdivision' among Christians, by definition they cannot possibly be the church of Christ. Whoever establishes, maintains or participates in such a denomination, is in rebellion against Christ who prayed for unity. We must shun people who cause division through departures from the original doctrine: "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple" (Romans 16:17,18). "These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit" (Judas 19).
The church of Christ is indivisible. Christians must take their stand only as the church of Christ.
Christ's church is exclusive, set apart, sanctified.
The church of Christ is by definition the church that is of Christ, in contrast with all denominations, groups and associations that are not of Christ.
The church of God has been purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). Jesus "gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).
God's people must separate and sanctify themselves: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
'I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.'
Therefore
'Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.
I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty'" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
God's people do not remain in 'Babylon', a representation of false religion. "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4).
The church is exclusive in the good sense of the word. This exclusiveness is based on God's word, not on human judgment. Salvation by grace is offered to all people (Mark 16:15,16; Matthew 28:19; Revelation 22:17), but there are conditions: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).
A person is added to the church by God Himself. We read about the establishment of the church: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them" (Acts 2:41). Peter had commanded: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Only those who believe, repent and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, are added to the church. "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). The church consists of those who are saved, who have been added by God Himself.
This is not simply 'joining a group'. It involves a spiritual cleansing, a rebirth, a new creation, a new citizenship. "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever" (1 Peter 1:22,23). "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). "For our citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20).
Those who have not fulfilled the revealed conditions, are not added to the church and are not accepted into the fellowship. "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14). Only those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, belong to the church.
About the church at Jerusalem we read further: "And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women" (Acts 5:12-14).
The church is exclusive. One cannot simply 'join'. One must be added by the Lord.
Christians who walk disorderly, are excluded from the fellowship. "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person" (1 Corinthians 5:11). "Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person'" (1 Corinthians 5:13).
Someone who teaches false doctrine is also avoided: "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17). "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. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 John 9-11).
John writes about some who had gone astray: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us" (1 John 2:19).
The church is exclusive on the basis of revealed conditions. Paul explained to the Corinthians: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you" (1 Corinthians 11:19). When people turn away from God's word in their lives or doctrine, they are not approved, they separate themselves from the fellowship.
The church of Christ is unique, indivisible and exclusive on the basis of God's word.
Christ's church is real, substantial, visible.
The church has an observable presence and identity. Paul wrote letters to the church of God at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1). He sent greetings from churches of Christ (Romans 16:16). Were these churches invisible?
Some claim that the church of Christ is only an ideal that can never be accomplished in reality. They speak about an "invisible church of Christ" that supposedly consists of the true believers in the various denominations, and about a "visible church" that according to them can never be more than a human, historical and cultural phenomenon.
This false proposition is used as an excuse for the perpetuation of denominations -- based on human traditions and teachings -- that are not equivalent to the church of Christ.
Stones are sold for loaves with the claim that real bread is invisible! Hungry souls must break their teeth on stones because real loaves do not exist. Paste is palmed off with the claim that real diamonds do not exist, that diamond is only an 'ideal'.
The church is precisely Christ's visible presence on earth! Christians are living, functioning, performing, active members of the body of Christ (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:30).
The church also shares in the suffering of Christ. Paul persecuted the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13). Did he persecute an invisible church?
Paul said to Timothy: "These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14,15). Through what is written we can known how we must conduct ourselves substantially and observably in the church. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth because we have God's word in our heart and mouth. "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach)" (Romans 10:8).
We may not be impious like Esau "who for one morsel of food sold his birthright" (Hebrews 12:16). The church of Christ is one body: unique, indivisible, exclusive and real. Let us be thankful for this matchless church, and like Paul, continue to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ "to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:10,11).
Roy Davison

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

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

From Jim McGuiggan... No Heavenly Sweetheart

No Heavenly Sweetheart

God's no heavenly sweetheart we're to ceaselessly croon romantic ballads about. (Don't you get tired of this saccharin God that fills so much of Western inspirational literature?) He means to redeem us from sin and fill us full of life and it doesn't matter to him that many of us don't want that. He wants it! If we spurn his love and persist in holding him in contempt we lose eternally but he gets no joy out of our loss (Ezekiel 18:23,32).

Furthermore, God may well use our sinfulness to gain his holy and generous purposes and still hold us accountable for our sins (see Romans 3:5-8). It isn't to our credit that God can make our wickedness serve glorious ends. He would rather that we serve him and our fellow-humans in righteousness but if he can't get that he will use our evil to bring about his good and still hold us accountable for our wickedness.

This truth holds true at the individual, national or international level.

If God chooses to chastise rebellious Israel to bring them back to himself and to life (see Amos 4:6-13) this is a generous and holy work of God. But if the instrument God uses to chastise wicked Israel is a wicked nation (Assyria, in Israel's case) then there are two purposes being carried out in the one event. Assyria doesn't mean to do God's holy and generous will but intends to do its own cruel will (see Isaiah 10:5-7). But in Assyria's evil purpose of self-service God carries out his own generous and holy act of redemptive chastisement. Assyria is accountable for her evil and God is accountable for his glorious goodness in restoring rebellious Israel.

The same is true in regard to Christ's cross. In our first century "fathers" and "mothers" we carried out our wicked will against God in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23b) and we are accountable for it. But in our very act of evil God was carrying out his own glorious and generous will to redeem us all (Acts 2:23a and 4:25-28).

So when we say the suffering in the world is of God, we're not saying that God rises in the morning and, with a yawn, decides, "Think I'll hurt a lot of people today." No, much of the suffering in the world has man's evil stamp on it. But (and this is an important but) the suffering also has the gracious and generous holy hand of God in it. The wicked human intention doesn't mean there is no divine hand in it. Think again of the preceding paragraph and wonder at the wonder of it all.

You might find my Celebrating the Wrath of God, Waterbrook Press, of interest to you.)

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

Was Shealtiel or Pedaiah the Father of Zerubbabel? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=465&b=Nehemiah

Was Shealtiel or Pedaiah the Father of Zerubbabel?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If a teenage boy whom you just met told you that his parents were “David and Marie,” but then a few minutes later you overheard him tell a county clerk that he was the son of “John and Joanne,” you might assume that the teen had lied either to you or to the county clerk. The fact of the matter is, however, the teen could be telling the truth. It may be that most people recognize his parents by their middle names—David and Marie, but for more official business his parents use their first names—John and Joanne. Or, perhaps the boy had been reared by his grandparents because his parents had died in a tragic car accident when he was an infant. The boy may refer to his grandparents as “mom” and “dad” since they were the only “mom” and “dad” he ever really knew (experientially). In turn, the grandparents may refer to him as their “son.” In most all unofficial documents and casual conversations the terms “mom,” “dad,” and “son” are used. For nearly all official documents and in most formal conversations, the terms “grandparents” and “grandson” are used. These are two very real possibilities as to why a teenage boy may refer to his parents by different names. Assuming and alleging the worst about the teen without knowing all of the facts would be unfair and inappropriate.

The fact is, family ties are often complicated (and especially confusing to outsiders who are unaware of others’ family history). I met two teenage girls a few years ago who informed me that their mother was also their grandmother. I was puzzled initially. Then they told me (if I recall correctly) that their mother had abandoned the family several years earlier and that their dad eventually married their birth mother’s mother. In time, the girls began calling their grandmother “mom.”

There are many names and family ties in Scripture that can be confusing—even in the genealogy of Jesus. Abraham married Sarah, his half-sister (Genesis 20:12; cf. 17:15-16; 22:17). Their son, Isaac, married Rebekah, his second cousin (Genesis 22:20-23; 24:4,15). Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, married his first cousins, Rachel and Leah, who were sisters (Genesis 24:29; 29:15-30). Years later, Jacob’s son, Judah, committed sexual immorality with his own daughter-in-law (thinking she was a prostitute), and she subsequently gave birth to two sons—Perez and Zerah. In one sense, these boys were his sons; in another sense, they were his grandsons (Genesis 38:12-30).

Zerubbabel is another historical figure in the genealogy of Christ around whom there is some confusion. While the books of Ezra (3:2,8; 5:2), Nehemiah (12:1), Haggai (1:1,12,14; 2:2; 2:23), Matthew (1:12), and Luke (3:27) all indicate that Zerubbabel was the “son of Shealtiel,” the chronicler noted the following about his immediate ancestry: “[T]he sons of Jeconiah, the prisoner, were Shealtiel his son, and Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Simei” (1 Chronicles 3:17-19a, NASB, emp. added). The obvious question is: “Why does 1 Chronicles indicate that Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s father, if everywhere else in Scripture his father is said to be Shealtiel?”

Skeptics are quick to list 1 Chronicles 3:19 as a contradiction. The truth is, however, there are reasonable, potential solutions to this conundrum. First, it may be that Zerubbabel was sired by one brother and reared by another. Recall that Mordecai was a father figure to Queen Esther (he “had brought up” the future queen of Persia; Esther 2:7), though he was actually her cousin. Jesus, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,” was, in reality, “of God,” not of man (Luke 3:23). Joseph helped to rear Jesus, and was perceived to be His biological father (Matthew 13:55), but in no way was he Jesus’ father in the normal sense. The fact is, sometimes a “son” is reared by a “dad,” who is not his father in the strictest sense of the word.

Another legitimate, possible explanation to the differences in the aforementioned verses involves a Law of Moses with which many are unfamiliar—the levirate marriage law. According to Deuteronomy 25:5-6,

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel (emp. added; cf. Matthew 22:24-26).

If Shealtiel had been married, yet died prior to siring a son, his brother Pedaiah may have taken Shealtiel’s wife to be his wife. If such was the case, their firstborn son (Zerubbabel) would be called after Shealtiel, not Pedaiah (even though, in the strict biological sense, Zerubbabel would be Pedaiah’s son).

Admittedly, the Bible does not explain why 1 Chronicles 3:19 differs from the other passages in Scripture that refer to Zerubbabel as Shealtiel’s son. What can be established, however, is that logical possibilities exist for the differences. In truth, without more information, it would be just as unfair to accuse the chronicler of lying about Zerubbabel’s father as it would be to disparage a teenager we meet in the community who refers to his grandfather as his “dad.” Surely we can see the rationality of restraint and the foolishness of jumping to unproven conclusions.

Suggested Resources

Where Was Jesus Called a Nazarene? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3582&b=Matthew

Where Was Jesus Called a Nazarene?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In addition to the unfounded criticism surrounding Nazareth’s existence early in the first century, skeptics are also fond of denying the fulfilled prophecy of Jesus being called a Nazarene. At the close of Matthew chapter two, the inspired tax collector recorded that Jesus’ family “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’” (2:23, emp. added). The fact of the matter is, however, the words “He shall be called a Nazarene” are nowhere found in the Old Testament, nor is Jesus ever called “a Nazarene” in the New Testament apart from Matthew 2:23. For these reasons, Bible critics often include Matthew 2:23 in lists of Bible “contradictions” or “inconsistencies” that supposedly disprove the inspiration of the Bible (cf. McKinsey, 1995, pp. 167,293; Morgan, 2010).

So what are Christians to do with Matthew 2:23? Do we concede it as a contradiction, or is there a reasonable response? How could Matthew truthfully write that Jesus’ family moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’”?

First, Bible students must keep in mind that quotation marks were foreign to the Bible writers, as well as all authors of antiquity. As Wayne Jackson noted: “[A]ncient writers did not use the same literary devices employed today. Quotation marks, colons, ellipsis marks, brackets, etc., were unknown to them. In view of this, we may not always know just how they were utilizing the language of the former Scriptures” (1988). Could it be that Matthew did not intend for His readers to understand this statement as a direct quotation from the Old Testament, but rather a more generalized truth?

What underlying truth could Matthew possibly have been trying to convey by the statement, “He shall be called a Nazarene”? Before answering this question, consider how the names of cities have occasionally been used to represent a particular idea. From a negative standpoint, a homosexual may be referred to as a sodomite (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10, NKJV, RSV). In the first century, the inhabitants of Corinth were so sexually immoral that the verb korinthiazo (“toCorinthianize” or “act like Corinthians”) meant to commit sexual immorality (Foster, 1974, pp. 6-7). In regards to Nazareth, the city had a reputation of being rather insignificant. It was in a partially Gentile-settled region (Galilee) that the Pharisees looked down upon, as is evident by their erroneous assertion that “no prophet has arisen out of Galilee” (John 7:52). [NOTE: Jonah was from Gath Hepher in the southern part of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).] What’s more, recall that when Philip informed Nathanael that he had found the Messiah, “Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1:45), Nathanael responded: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (vs. 46). “To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as to be despised, or to be esteemed of low birth” (Barnes, 1997). The fact is, the Old Testament prophets foretold that the Messiah would be a “despised...root out of dry ground” with “no form or comeliness” (Isaiah 53:2-3; cf. Psalm 22:6-7). Similar to how cities such as Sodom and Corinth have been used to describe a particular activity (albeit wicked), Matthew likely assigned the term Nazarene to Jesus to adequately express the prophets’ predictions of His lowly, despised origins (cf. Acts 24:5).

Still, some might wonder why Jesus was never actually “called” a Nazarene anywhere in the New Testament (outside of Matthew 2:23). The answer is quite simple (though perhaps foreign to many in the 21st century): in Scripture, to “be called” often meant the same as “shall be” (see Lyons, 2010). When God said that Eve would “be called woman,” He did not mean that “woman” would be her name, but that by nature she was a woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). When Matthew quoted the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 and testified that the people “shall call His name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23), he meant that by nature the son of Mary was Immanuel, meaning “God with us” (whereas the literal name He wore was “Jesus”—1:1:25; Luke 1:30-35; cf. Isaiah 9:6). Likewise, when Matthew used the word “Nazarene” one chapter later, he was most likely describing the lowliness of Jesus’ life (i.e., He “made Himself of no reputation”—Philippians 2:7).

REFERENCES

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

Foster, Henry (1974), The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jackson, Wayne (1988), “Principles of Bible Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 8[7]:27-30, July, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2001.

Lyons, Eric (2010), “Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus Immanuel?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3591.

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

Morgan, Donald (2010), “Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html.

Are Christians Guilty of “Brainwashing” Their Children? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=694

Are Christians Guilty of “Brainwashing” Their Children?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The more worldly and ungodly American society becomes, the more devout Christians will be criticized and persecuted for their beliefs and actions. One popular criticism that has been levied against Christians in recent years involves the Christian home. Allegedly, Christian parents are guilty of brainwashing their kids. Before children are old enough to digest for themselves all of the evidence for God’s existence, the Bible’s inspiration, or Jesus’ deity, some Christians (though sadly not near enough) are ingraining these beliefs into their children. Faithful Christian parents regularly and systematically teach their children fundamental Christian teachings without apology. Is this not a form of brainwashing? Is it not “forcible indoctrination”? How do Christians respond to the “brainwash” accusation?

First, we freely and unashamedly admit that we instruct our children in the ways of God from the time that they are born until they leave home. We sing to them about God. We talk to them about Jesus. We read to them from the Holy Spirit’s inspired Word. Moses instructed the Israelites:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:5-9).

Just as “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52), so the children of Jesus’ followers should be brought up “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

But is this really the right thing to do? Is it not arrogant to teach kids that atheists and agnostics are wrong and that theists are right? Should we not let kids decide on their own if they want to believe in God? Is it not cultish to say Jesus “is the way, the truth, and the life”—that no one will live eternally in heaven except through Him (John 14:6)? Shouldn’t children be allowed to think for themselves?

The fact is, all parents (even atheistic and agnostic parents) teach their children that certain things are true and certain things are false; that some things are right and other things are wrong. Think about it: Can parents teach their children that 2 + 2 = 4, or must they allow their children to learn this for themselves? Can a mother teach her children that they are not ever to crawl into a freezer and close the door, or must she allow her children to risk suffocation and “learn on their own”? Can a father forbid his son from touching his guns and knives, or should he just leave them on the floor for the child to discover on his own what he should or should not do with such things? Can parents teach their children that they are to be kind to one another, and if they bite and hit each other they will be punished? Can parents teach their children that lying is wrong? Or, must parents simply allow the children to lie whenever they want, and to make up their own minds if lying is wrong for them when they become 18? Most rational adults would never sanction such foolish “parenting.” All parents “brainwash” their children about certain things. [Furthermore, we also understand that children grow up and ultimately decide for themselves what they want to believe and how they want to act, regardless of past influences (cf. Joshua 24:15; Revelation 22:17).]

In truth, Christians teaching their children that God exists or that the Bible is God’s Word is as logical, truthful, and fundamental as teaching them that 2 + 2 = 4. If parents can teach their children laws of science, such as the Law of Causality, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Biogenesis, then they are implicitly teaching their children that God exists, because all of these laws point to a Creator. If parents can teach children that no mere man knows the future, and then read from the Bible dozens of examples of fulfilled prophecies, they have simply taught the fundamental fact that the Bible is a book of Supernatural origin. Indeed, God exists and the Bible is His Word.

God wants us to teach our children about Him and His Word because it is the right thing to do. If it is acceptable to teach our kids about reading, writing, and arithmetic, about the laws of science, and about how bad lying and murder are, it most certainly is rational to teach children about the evidence for God’s existence and the reliability of His Word. After all, we would not even have reading, writing, arithmetic, laws of science, truth, the value of human life, etc. without God. He is the foundation of every good and true thing. He “is true” (John 3:33). His “Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6). His “word istruth” (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). And the truth will set men free (John 8:32). Nothing is more important to teach children.

*If Apologetics Press may help you effectively “brainwash” (i.e., instruct) your children in the ways of God, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Another Case of Man Mimicking God’s Design by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2101

Another Case of Man Mimicking God’s Design

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The year was 1966. My classmates and I were herded aboard buses by our grade school teachers in Phoenix, Arizona for a “field trip” to see a newly released science fiction movie titled, Fantastic Voyage. The story line: Russian scientist, Jan Benes, who held the secret of how to shrink soldiers for an indefinite period, escaped from behind the Iron Curtain with the help of a CIA agent. While being transferred, their motorcade was attacked and Benes’ head was struck, causing a blood clot to form in his brain. A group of scientists then were miniaturized, along with a submarine, injected into his bloodstream, and had one hour to travel to his brain and remove the clot and get out before the immune system recognized them as a foreign body. As I remember, the teachers wanted us to see the internal marvels of the human body as the crew made their way from the arm, through the heart, and on to the brain. A similar concept was explored in the 1990s by the popular PBS children’s television program based on the Magic School Buschildren’s books by Joanna Cole (“The Magic School...,” n.d.).

Discounting the idea of shrinking people, reality can be stranger than fiction. Australian scientists are developing a miniature robot that they hope will be able to propel itself through human arteries to perform delicate medical procedures. With a width of two human hairs, the 250-micron microrobot will transmit images and perform microscopic tasks in areas of the body where current surgical procedure is risky. Once inserted by means of a syringe, the microrobot will be guided by remote control to the target site to perform its assigned tasks, and then returned to the point of entry for extraction (Cole, 2007).

One of the obstacles researchers have faced for years is how to design the propulsion system (e.g., Philipkoski, 1999; Lurie, 2004). Since electromagnetic motors have been found to be impractical, this “microrobot’s design is based on the E. coli bacterium, complete with flagella that will propel it through the body,” with the flagella made from human hair (Cole, 2007).

Once again, men turn to God and His creation in order to solve their problems. The Creator built into His creation the principles necessary for the Universe to operate for His purposes. Within that divinely designed framework, intelligent men tap into the intelligent designs of the Master Designer to produce amazing technology that aids the human race. “Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).

REFERENCES

Cole, Emmet (2007), “Fantastic Voyage: Departure 2009,” Wired News, January 18, [On-line],URL: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72448-0.html.

“The Magic School Bus®: Inside the Human Body” (no date), [On-line], URL:http://www.scholastic.com/magicschoolbus/home.htm.

Lurie, Karen (2004), “Smallest Robot,” ScienCentral News, July 15, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id =218392303.

Philipkoski, Kristen (1999), “Will Robots Sail Your Veins?” Wired News, January 16, [On-line],URL: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,17376-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1.

The Miracles of Jesus by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=556

The Miracles of Jesus

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In John 20:31, we learn why Jesus performed miracles—so “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” The miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospels proved that Jesus had been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Trustworthy men documented that He had power over the human body and could heal sickness and disease with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4). On other occasions, He proved that He had power over the spiritual world by forgiving sins (Luke 5:20-24) and casting out demons (Luke 6:18). He also had power to control the physical world by calming storms and walking on water (Matthew 14:25-43). And His power over death was shown through His glorious resurrection three days after His crucifixion (John 20:24-29).

Jesus’ miracles were designed to prove that He was the Son of God. Even the Pharisees, His worst enemies, admitted: “This man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him” (John 11:47-48). Yet they steadfastly refused to believe that He was God’s Son. Many of them even saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead, heal the sick, and cause the blind to see. Yet they would not admit to His deity.

Why should it be any different today? Anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence should see that this world must have had a Creator. The Bible is inspired by that Creator, and informs us that Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God. Yet many people will brush aside all the evidence—just as the Pharisees did—and deny Christ’s divinity. The Judgment Day will find those people hearing the words of Christ: “Woe unto you!… For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matthew 11:21).

CONCLUSION

Miracles are only impossible in a world with no God. Throughout history, God has used miracles to create the Universe, to add credibility to the men who had been entrusted with His message, and to accomplish His divine purposes. Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly performed miraculous deeds in order to prove to His followers (and to His enemies!) that He was indeed the Son of God. Sadly, many people during Christ’s day refused to believe in Him as God’s Son. And, just as sadly, many today stubbornly refuse to believe in the Sonship of Christ. As Christ told the unbelieving Pharisees of His day, so will He tell the modern-day disbelievers, “Woe unto you!"

Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=120

Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

As one begins a perusal of the New Testament, he encounters an unusual phenomenon known as “demon possession.” The first Gospel writer recorded these words: “And the report of him [Jesus] went forth into all Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them” (Matthew 4:24, ASV). From this point on, there are numerous references to “demons” or “demon possession” in the New Testament. [NOTE: “Devils,” as found in the KJV, is an incorrect rendition. The Greek word for devil is diabolos. Other terms, diamon (found once) anddimonion (63 times), are transliterated as “demon(s)” in the ASV. There is only one devil, but there are many demons.]

Critics of the Bible, of course, allege that this is an example of the sort of gross superstition that characterizes the ancient volume. The following quote represents a typical atheistic approach to this matter:

Mark 5:1-13 relates an incredible story wherein Jesus casts out the “devils” from an unfortunate man. He then causes the devils to enter, instead, a herd of swine, and the swine, thus bedeviled, race over a cliff, fall into the sea and drown. Fundamentalists would have us believe that this is a true story. That tells us a lot about fundamentalists. Belief in demons and fairies and goblins and dragons ended, for most people, ages ago, and is remembered only in some Fairy Tales. Such primeval superstitions should be left behind, in our colorful past, where they belong (Hayes, 1996, pp. 129-130).

Even religious modernists are prone to dismiss the biblical accounts of demon possession. William Barclay wrote:

We need not argue whether demons were realities or not. One thing certain is that in the time of Jesus people believed in them with terrified intensity. If a man believes he is ill, he will be ill. If a man believed that he was demon-possessed, then, illusion or no, he was definitely ill in mind and body (1976, p. 26).

The Scottish scholar went on to concede that Jesus may have believed in demons, but that “He did not come into this world to give men medical knowledge, and there is no reason to think that his medical knowledge would be any more advanced than that of the people of his day” (p. 27).

To suggest that such a comment is a reflection upon the deity of Christ is an understatement. The New Testament does not represent Jesus merely as believing in demons, but depicts Him actually speaking to these beings, and being spoken to by them. He even commanded demons to do certain things. Either these evil spirits were a reality, or else the biblical record is entirely wrong. There is no other way to view the matter.

This sort of a priori dismissal of the historical record is typical of unbelief. The skeptic, and even those religionists who have been influenced by the rationalistic mode of thought, repudiate anything that is not consistent with current human experience. But such an ideology simply is not an intelligent basis upon which to establish conclusions. There is validity in the credibility of historical testimony. The reality of demon activity, therefore, is not to be determined upon the basis of twentieth-century experiences; rather, it is grounded in whether or not the New Testament documents are credible.

While I do not have the space to explore this matter in depth, I would like to make this observation. In 1846, Simon Greenleaf, Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University, produced a work titled The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Greenleaf was the greatest authority in the history of legal procedure on what constitutes evidence. His massive three-volume set, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842-53), is, to this very day, a standard on the topic of evidence. Greenleaf argued in The Testimony—with dramatic authority—that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John passed the strictest tests of authenticity, and thus may be regarded as dependable (1903, pp. 1-54). And without controversy is the fact that these writers described cases of demonic activity during the ministry of Jesus.

THE ORIGIN OF DEMONS

The etymology of the term “demon” is rather obscure, but some have suggested that it comes from a Greek root meaning “to know,” hence probably means “a knowing one” (Vine, 1991, p. 203). Vincent noted that Plato derived the term from daemon, signifying “knowing” or “wise” (1972, p. 92). Ancient Greek writers suggested that the genesis of the term is to be found in the fact that these entities were considered to be “intelligent beings” (McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:639). I will not concern myself with a detailed discussion of how demons were perceived in the ancient world, except to say that they were seen as evil spirits “somewhere between the human and the divine” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 168).

Unlike the speculative literature of antiquity, the New Testament makes no attempt to explain the origin of demons or to describe any materialized features (cf. Reese, 1992, 2:141). This appears to be significant; the restraint, I believe, is a subtle evidence of the divine inspiration of the narratives (see Jackson, 1996). Scholars, however, have speculated as to the origin of demons. I will consider briefly some of the prevalent ideas.

(1) Some claim that demons were the disembodied spirits of a pre-Adamic race of men who lived upon the Earth in a “gap period” that allegedly fits between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There are two things wrong with that notion: (a) There is absolutely no evidence that there ever was a historical “gap” between the first two verses of Genesis (see Fields, 1976). (b) There were no people before Adam. He came directly from God (Luke 3:38), and was the “first” man (1 Corinthians 15:45).

(2) Others trace the origin of demons to a supposed cohabitation between angels and certain women of the pre-Flood world (Genesis 6:1-6). This theory is negated by the fact that Christ taught that angels are sexless beings, incapable of such unions (Matthew 22:30; see also Kaiser, 1992, pp. 33-38).

(3) It has been argued that first-century demons may be identified with the fallen angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, some of whom, consistent with the divine plan, were permitted to leave temporarily that sphere of confinement for the purpose of inhabiting certain people. Charles Hodge argued this theory (1960, p. 643), which probably is the most popular idea regarding this matter.

(4) Another view is that demons were the spirits of wicked dead men who were allowed by God to leave the Hadean realm to accommodate the implementation of the divine plan of redemption. Josephus claimed that demons were the “spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them” (Wars 7.6.3). Alexander Campbell delivered a lecture in Nashville, Tennessee on March 10, 1841, in which he, in rather persuasive fashion, argued the case that the “demons” of the ancient world were the spirits of the dead. The printed form of that presentation is well worth studying (Campbell, n.d., pp. 379-402).

In the final analysis, no dogmatic conclusion can be drawn with reference to the origin of demons. That they existed admits of no doubt to anyone who takes the Bible seriously; as to their origin, the Scriptures are silent.

THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF DEMONS

The nature of demons is spelled out explicitly in the New Testament. They were “spirit” beings. This, of course, creates a problem for the skeptic, who denies that there is anything beyond the material. But consider the testimony of Matthew. “And when evening was come, they brought unto him [Christ] many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word” (8:16). Note that the terms “demons” and “spirits” are used interchangeably. Since it is known also that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), one must conclude that demons were not physical beings.

As spirit entities, demons could exercise both volition (“I will return...”) and locomotion (“Then goeth he...”) (Matthew 12:44-45). Moreover, they could assimilate factual information. A demon once spoke to Christ and said: “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Luke 4:34; cf. Mark 1:24). Too, they possessed a religious sensitivity. “Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well, the demons also believe and shudder” (James 2:19). “Shudder” suggests to “be struck with extreme fear, to be horrified” (Thayer, 1958, p. 658). The fact is, they tremble in prospect of their ultimate doom (see Matthew 8:29).

As to their character, demons are depicted as “unclean” and “evil.” In describing the vile nature of the Jewish nation of His day, the Lord gave an illustration regarding a man who was possessed of an “unclean” spirit (Matthew 12:43); the spirit left the man, but eventually re-entered the gentleman, taking with him other spirits “more evil” than himself (vs. 45). This passage reveals the “unclean” (Greek akathartos—“not pure”) or “evil” (kakos—that which not only is morally malignant, but injurious as well; cf. Vine, 1991, p. 272) disposition of demons. From this text it is observed also that there were degrees of vileness (“more evil”) in demons.

THE EFFECTS OF DEMON POSSESSION

The physical and/or mental effects occurring in certain individuals as a consequence of being possessed by a demon or demons (more than one could indwell a person; Mary Magdalene had once been inhabited by seven demons—Luke 8:2) were varied. Some demoniacs were afflicted with blindness and/or the inability to speak (Matthew 9:32; 12:22). Some thus possessed might be prone to violent convulsions. A case recorded by all three synoptic writers tells of a young man who was “epileptic.” He suffered grievously, frequently falling into the fire or into water (Matthew 17:15). He was dashed to the ground and bruised badly (Mark 9:18; Luke 9:39); he foamed at the mouth, ground his teeth, and “pineth away” (Mark 9:18). This final descriptive may suggest that the boy’s body became rigid so that he was incapable of motion (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 550). A demon-possessed man who lived among the tombs on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee had excessive strength. He often had been bound with chains and fetters, but he had broken these restraints into pieces, and no one had the power to tame him (cf. also Acts 19:16). Further, he was characterized by both emotional illness and antisocial behavior (e.g., he wore no clothes—Luke 8:27), but when Christ purged the demon from the poor fellow he was observed “clothed, and in his right mind” (Mark 5:15).

It is important to distinguish between cause and effect in these cases. The cause was that of demon possession; the effects were physical and/or emotional maladies. The Scriptures never confuse the two. In other words, “demon possession” was not just an ancient, unenlightened attempt to explain physical and/or mental problems. Rather, a clear distinction is made between being inhabited by an unclean spirit and being sick. Demon possession could produce illness, but not all illness was attributed to the indwelling of evil spirits. Note the distinction that is drawn in the following passage. “And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him [Jesus] all that were sick, and them that were possessed with demons” (Mark 1:32). The double use of the definite article (tous), together with the conjunction, reveals that two distinct classes are under consideration—those who were merely sick, and those who were demon possessed and may or may not have had attending problems. Lenski has commented: “Two classes are markedly distinguished; those suffering from ordinary diseases and those possessed with demons. The distinction shows that the latter cannot be classed with the former in spite of modern attempts in that direction” (1964, p. 84).

THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN ALLOWING DEMON POSSESSION

The New Testament clearly indicates that demons were under the control of divine authority. Jesus, for example, could command them to leave a person (Matthew 8:16), or even to keep quiet (Mark 1:34). The demons that tormented the man in the country of the Gerasenes could not enter the nearby swine herd except by the Lord’s concession (Mark 5:13-14). Since it is the case that demons could do nothing except by divine permission, the intriguing question is: Why did God allow these malevolent beings to enter into people?

The truth of the matter is, the Bible does not give a specific answer to this question—as much as our curiosity wants to be fed. I believe, though, that a reasonable case can be built to help shed some light on the subject.

If the mission of Jesus Christ, as the divine Son of God, was to be effective, the Lord’s absolute authority had to be established. No stone could be left unturned. Accordingly, we see the Savior demonstrating His authority in a variety of ways. (1) Christ exhibited power over diseases and physical ailments (Matthew 9:20-22; John 4:46-54; 9:1-41). (2) The Lord exerted His authority over material objects (Matthew 14:15-21; 17:24-27; John 2:1-11; 21:1-14). (3) Jesus showed that He could control the elements of nature (Matthew 8:23-27). (4) The Master even suspended the force of gravity with reference to His own body when He walked upon the waters of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 14:22-23). (5) The Lord released certain ones who had been captured by death (Matthew 9:18-26; John 11:1-45). (6) Finally, it is not unreasonable to assume that, just as the Savior had displayed His marvelous power in all these realms, it likewise was appropriate that He be able to demonstrate His authority in the spirit sphere as well. Satan is not in full control! In fact, note this interesting passage. When the seventy disciples returned from an evangelistic trip (Luke 10:1), they joyfully proclaimed to Christ: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy name.” Jesus responded: “I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:17-18). The significance of that statement is this: the disciples’ power over demons, under the aegis of Christ’s name (authority), was but a preview of the ultimate and complete fall of the devil. One scholar has expressed the matter in the following way.

Jesus viewed the triumph of these [disciples] as being symptomatic of ever so many other victories over Satan throughout the course of the new dispensation, triumphs accomplished through the work of thousands of other missionaries. He was looking far into the future (cf. Matt. 24:14). He saw the ultimate discomfiture of the ugly dragon and all his minions (Hendriksen, 1978, p. 581).

Consider another reference. Christ said: “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man?, and then he will spoil his house” (Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 11:20-22). The Savior’s argument is: I have cast out demons, the servants of Satan. I could not have done so if I were not stronger than he is. My power thus is superior to his.

These passages, I believe, help us to understand the purpose of demon possession in the first century. It established the comprehensive and supreme authority of the Son of God.

Why demons entered particular individuals is not explained in the Scriptures. Unger speculated that “in the great majority of cases possession is doubtless traced to yielding voluntarily to temptation and to sin...” (1952, p. 95). However, in the instance of the epileptic boy, the lad had been tormented “from childhood” (Mark 9:21), which suggests, at the very least, that personal sin was not necessarily a causative factor in demon possession.

CASES IN THE GOSPEL RECORDS OF JESUS’ EXPELLING DEMONS The demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33-36). The Gerasene demoniac (Matthew 8:8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39). The Syrophoenician girl (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). The epileptic boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43). The mute demoniac (Matthew 9:32-34). The blind/mute demoniac (Matthew 12:22ff.; Luke 11:15).

A CONTRAST WITH PAGANISM

It is worthwhile to make this brief observation. The ancient world abounded with superstition relative to demons (where the genuine exists, the counterfeit will be as well). But there is a vast chasm between the accounts of demons in the New Testament and that of the pagan world and, in fact, even among some of the Hebrew nation. For instance, as mentioned earlier, there are no accounts in the New Testament of any visual descriptions of demons. Such characterizations, however, were common in the heathen world. A bronze statue from ancient Babylon contains the image of the demon Pazuzu. The figure has the wings and feet of an eagle, a human body with claws for hands, and a misshapen head (Aune, 1979, 1:920). Josephus tells of a demon expulsion whereby the exorcist “put a ring which had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon, to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils...” (Antiquities 8.2.5). The New Testament contains no such absurd concoctions.

DEMON POSSESSION TODAY?

Do evil spirits enter into human bodies and afflict people today? I confidently affirm they do not. Unfortunately, though, some modern writers have argued that demon activity is still a part of Earth’s environment. Charles Ryrie contended that certain “fallen angels” are “still free to roam the earth as demons carrying out Satan’s designs” (1959, p. 296). Merrill Unger, a respected scholar, subtitled his book, Biblical Demonology, “A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest.” Several years ago a book titled UFOs, Satan and Evolution enjoyed a limited circulation in the evangelical community. Therein the author claimed that hundreds ofUFO visits to Earth represented an invasion of demons. He cited one “example” where a demon raped a woman (an interesting feat for a spirit!). The fact that a prominent creationist wrote the Foreword for this literary fiasco remains an inexplicable mystery.

The position that demon possession does not exist today can be argued from a twofold base. First, a thoughtful study of the details associated with the so-called modern examples of demon habitation reveals that these cases bear no resemblance to the genuine examples of spirit possession described in the New Testament. The contrast is dramatic. Second, a consideration of certain data set forth in the New Testament leads only to the conclusion that demon possession was a first-century experience; it was allowed for a very specific reason, and the divine concession was suspended near the end of the apostolic era.

THE MODERN EXORCISM MANIA

When the movie, The Exorcist (based upon William Blatty’s novel of the same name), made its appearance in December 1973, a wave of mystical excitement that has been dubbed “the exorcism frenzy,” swept the nation. (By the time the movie had been out for 5 weeks, Blatty’s book had sold 9 million copies.) Scores of people began to surmise that they were possessed of evil spirits—or that they knew someone else who was! Numerous articles regarding these alleged experiences appeared in mainline newspapers and magazines. A careful consideration of the details involved in these alleged episodes highlights some startling contrasts to the New Testament (cf. Woodward, 1974). Reflect upon the following differences.

(1) The “exorcisms” of today are performed almost invariably in dark, secluded environments, only to be publicized later. When Jesus cast out demons, the episodes were public, and therefore subject to critical examination (cf. Luke 4:31-37).

(2) The Lord could expel evil spirits with but a word, and the effect was immediate (Luke 4:36; Matthew 17:18). The Jesuit Priest who supposedly “exorcised” a demon from the youngster who served as the subject of Blatty’s book, The Exorcist, confessed that it took him two months of preparation (fasting on bread and water), and twenty ritual ceremonies to purge the child.

(3) The demoniacs of the New Testament era were afflicted, either physically or mentally, by a malfunction of what were otherwise normal human traits. Those cases involved no grotesque details. However, according to Roman Catholic priest Luigi Novagese (the official exorcist for the papal diocese in Rome), “A man’s skin turned white like paper, his teeth became transparent, his eyes bulged with balls of flame and fire issued from his mouth.” One priest claimed that a demon took a bite out of his sandwich. The February 11, 1974 issue of Newsweek magazine carried a photo of the burglarized delicacy, displaying perfect, human-like teeth prints! (I wonder—do demons get cavities?)

(4) Modern demoniacs frequently are described as uttering “fierce curses” and “bursts of blasphemy.” In the New Testament record, demons always were very respectful of deity (Mark 1:24; 3:11). There is not a solitary case of a demon blaspheming either God or Christ in the biblical narratives.

(5) Two cases of demon possession in the New Testament reveal that the unclean spirits could empower their hosts with supernatural strength (Mark 5:1-20; cf. Acts 19:13-16). The demoniac described in Mark 5 could not be bound even with a “chain.” A respected university professor posed this interesting query: “If we have demon-possessed people today, why in my travels in over forty countries of the world have I never seen a person who is so strong that you can’t bind him with chains (cf. Mk. 5:3)?” (Edwards, 1996, p. 135).

(6) The ability to cast out demons in the first century was given in order to confirm the truth of the Gospel message (Mark 16:17-20). Modern “exorcists” preach everything but the Gospel.

A REASONABLE ARGUMENT

A powerful case can be made for the proposition that demon possession was not allowed to continue beyond the apostolic age—i.e., the era of miracles.

I first must mention that when the prophet Zechariah foretold the coming of the Messianic dispensation, and the blessings that would accompany the spread of the Gospel, he suggested that the Lord would “cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (13:1-2). Some feel that the expression “unclean spirit” may hint of, or at least include, the cessation of demonic activity. Hailey sees this as a prediction of the eventual termination of prophetic activity (on the part of God’s people) and the curtailing of the power of unclean spirits.

Likewise, unclean spirits, the antithesis of the prophets, would cease. In the conquest of Christ over Satan and his forces, unclean spirits have ceased to control men as they did in the time of the ministry of Christ and the apostles... (1972, p. 392).

While this is not a common view of Zechariah’s prophecy, and certainly not one upon which an entire case could be built, it is not without possibility. A firmer proposition can be argued as follows.

With the close of the first century, the age of the supernatural came to a close. God is not empowering men to operate in a miraculous fashion today. This is evinced in the following way:

(1) Nothing duplicating the miracles of the first century is apparent today. No one can walk upon water, raise the dead, calm a raging storm, turn water into wine, instantly heal an amputated ear, extract tax money from a fish’s mouth, etc. Miracles are self-authenticating phenomena that cannot be denied, even by hostile critics (cf. John 11:47; Acts 4:14-16); clearly, they are not occurring today.

(2) The purpose of supernatural gifts was to confirm the authenticity of divine revelation being received from heaven (Mark 16:9-20; Hebrews 2:1-4). Since the revelatory process was completed when the last New Testament book was written, miracles no longer are needed, hence, have ceased. They were like the scaffolding that is removed once the building is finished.

(3) The New Testament explicitly argues that the day was on the horizon when miracles would cease. Paul defended that position both in Ephesians 4:8-16 and in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. During the early days of the apostolic era, divine revelation had been “in part,” i.e., piece-by-piece. The apostle said, however, that when “the perfect” or “the complete” arrived, the partial revelation, which came by means of the various “gifts” (e.g., supernatural knowledge and prophecy), would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8ff.). Prominent Greek scholar, W.E. Vine, summarized the matter well.

With the completion of Apostolic testimony and the completion of the Scriptures of truth (“the faith once for all delivered to the saints”, Jude, 3, R.V.), “that which is perfect” had come, and the temporary gifts were done away. For the Scriptures provided by the Spirit of God were “perfect”. Nothing was to be added to them, nothing taken from them. This interpretation is in keeping with the context (1951, p. 184).

Elsewhere this writer has discussed the theme of miracles and their duration in much greater detail (Jackson, 1990, pp. 114-124).

Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that miraculous powers have been removed from the church’s possession, including the ability to cast out demons (Mark 16:17-20), does it stand to reason that God would allow demons to supernaturally assault people today, thus granting Satan an undue advantage over the human family? How would this square with the promise that “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4)? In other words, if the gift of expelling demons no longer is extant, is it not a reasonable conclusion that demon possession is obsolete as well?

CONCLUSION

Certainly Satan exerts great influence today. However, as God does not work miraculously in this age, but influences through his Word and through the events of providence, so also, the devil wields his power indirectly, and non-miraculously, through various media. Current cases that are being associated with demon possession doubtless are the results of psychosomatic problems, hysteria, self-induced hypnosis, deception, delusion, and the like. They have natural, though perhaps not always well understood, causes.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Aune, D.E. (1979), “Demonology,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Barclay, William (1976), And He Had Compassion—The Healing Miracles of Jesus (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press).

Campbell, Alexander (no date.), Popular Lectures and Addresses (Nashville, TN: Harbinger Book Club).

Edwards, Earl (1996), “Powers of Darkness—Demon Possession,” Settled in Heaven, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).

Fields, Weston W. (1976), Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Greenleaf, Simon (1903 edition), The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (Newark, NJ: Soney & Sage).

Hailey, Homer (1972), A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Hayes, Judith (1996), In God We Trust: But Which One? (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Hendriksen, William (1978), An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Hodge, Charles (1960 edition), Systematic Theology (London: James Clarke).

Jackson, Wayne (1990), “Miracles,” Giving a Reason for Our Hope, ed. Winford Claiborne, (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).

Jackson, Wayne (1996), “The Silence of the Scriptures: An Argument for Inspiration,” Reason & Revelation, 16:17-22, March.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. (1992), More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1964), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

McClintock, John and James Strong, eds. (1968 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Reese, David G. (1992), “Demons,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, (New York: Doubleday).

Ryrie, Charles C. (1959), Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Thayer, J.H. (1958 edition), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark).

Unger, Merrill F. (1952), Biblical Demonology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press).

Vincent, Marvin (1972 edition), Word Studies in the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and Authors).

Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians—Local Church Problems (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Vine, W.E. (1991), Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers).

Woodward, Kenneth L. (1974), “The Exorcism Frenzy,” Newsweek, 83:60-66.