Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
"Love Attacks"
I am having a "Love Attack." We have love attacks around here. I will try to describe it if I can. There are different kinds of "love attacks." I am presently writing an article and just had an extreme "love attack." I call our Creator God "My Heavenly Father" because I never knew my real father. When I also discovered that He is a Father to the Fatherless; I had perfect love and He has never let me down. When I think of the blessings He has given to us I become completely overwhelmed with a "Love Attack." He is here, there and everywhere! He sees what is going on in my heart as I write and yet knows if a leaf falls on an island in Bora Bora across the ocean! I have to say that I consider myself one of the most blessed people on this earth, not because of material wealth; but because I can say I hear God's voice and see Him everywhere in my life. I say this only in praise to God and brag upon who He is in my life!
Then, when my husband and I hug; we have a "love attack." He is the one who started this "love attack" along time ago. He'd look into my eyes and say "Oh, I'm having a love attack." He always makes me smile! It is pretty nice to know that after over 30 years of marriage (through the thick and thin) that he would propose again! These attacks are blessings from God!
"When I think of my sons and grandchildren I have "love attacks."
When I reach down and pet my old cat buddy "Marco" of 20 yrs I have this "love attack." I think of how I would miss him if he weren't here. He is so faithful. Funstable as well, he is a very young 19 yrs and has taken it upon himself to oversee Marco.
This was supposed to be short .
I receive a love attack when I walk the beach and watch the rhythm of the waves and meditate about the synchronization of the timing of the sea! I have a "love attack." God really cares for us !! It is all Him !!
Think! How powerful God is! Smile! Get excited ! Have a "love attack!"
I dig in the earth and become excited to find bunches of healthy earthworms and I think to myself: "Yay! I am going to put these guys to work in my Kale and Collard patch." I see it all "as from God!"
Love attacks come from God, because God is love. I am having a "Love Attack." We have love attacks around here. I will try to describe it if I can. There are different kinds of "love attacks." I am presently writing an article and just had an extreme "love attack." I call our Creator God "My Heavenly Father" because I never knew my real father. When I also discovered that He is a Father to the Fatherless; I had perfect love and He has never let me down. When I think of the blessings He has given to us I become completely overwhelmed with a "Love Attack." He is here, there and everywhere! He sees what is going on in my heart as I write and yet knows if a leaf falls on an island in Bora Bora across the ocean!
I have to say that I consider myself one of the most blessed people on this earth, not because of material wealth; but because I can say I hear God's voice and see Him everywhere in my life. I say this only in praise to God and brag upon who He is in my life!
Then, when my husband and I hug; we have a "love attack." He is the one who started this "love attack" along time ago. He'd look into my eyes and say "Oh, I'm having a love attack." He always makes me smile! It is pretty nice to know that after over 30 years of marriage (through the thick and thin) that he would propose again! These attacks are blessings from God!
"When I think of my sons and grandchildren I have "love attacks."
When I reach down and pet my old cat buddy "Marco" of 20 yrs I have this "love attack." I think of how I would miss him if he weren't here. He is so faithful. Funstable as well, he is a very young 19 yrs and has taken it upon himself to oversee Marco.
This was supposed to be short .
I receive a love attack when I walk the beach and watch the rhythm of the waves and meditate about the synchronization of the timing of the sea! I have a "love attack." God really cares for us !! It is all Him !!
Think! How powerful God is! Smile! Get excited ! Have a "love attack!"
I dig in the earth and become excited to find bunches of healthy earthworms and I think to myself: "Yay! I am going to put these guys to work in my Kale and Collard patch." I see it all "as from God!"
Love attacks come from God, because God is love.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Small Prayer
A
Salvation Prayer for you to Pray
Many times we want to come to the Lord and talk to
Him and admit our failings but we do not know where to begin or have the
words.
Here is a very small prayer for those who are
ready to change their lives and pray to the God of your salvation. If you pray
this prayer sincerely from your heart and earnestly wish to repent, God
will hear your prayer and heal your life. In fact, the Bible says, He makes all
things new.”
If you haven’t been born-again, the Bible further
says “Except a man be born-again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3
Holy Father,
I have tried to fix my life and nothing has
worked. I keep repeating the same old things. My life is a mess and I did it to
myself. I need your help.
Your word says that Your Son Jesus died on the
cross for me and that He was a blood sacrifice for me so I could have forgiveness
of my sins and be set free. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God! I believe!
I surrender my life to you; I give myself to you
totally. Please forgive me for (name sins). I repent.
I want to be born again. Precious Jesus, come into
my heart. Help me.
Amen
After you have
prayed this prayer, make sure you get a
good study Bible and search out a good Bible believing church and attend Bible
study classes. Strength will come through these new friends and they will see
you through the rough times by praying for you and helping in any way they are
able.
God Bless You.
Think about the Blood
There isn't any other way to be cleansed.
http://thebloodofjesus.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/10-power-scriptures-on-the-blood-of-jesus-monday-september-1-2008/
Monday, April 21, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Do Not Buy the Lie
What is the main lie
that the spirit of darkness says to those who have fallen away from God because
of giving into the ways of the world?
Please remember first, these lies speak through your conscience
and your memories. The biggest lie they
say to you is:
“I cannot return to God until I clean up my life. I
cannot return to God until I get my act together. I have gone too far and He
will never accept me the way I am now; the way I have gone. The things I have
done and still do. I could never walk into any church, I would be a hypocrite.
I must clean up myself first.
Those are his Biggest LIES !
For a very long time I thought those very words. In my
heart I knew I was going to come back to God the Father of my childhood someday, but
how could He accept me now? According to the church I’d been raised, I was a
fallen woman (divorced at the time) and they would never accept me. And, that is when I got into the
Bible and sought the truth for myself and was born-again. That was many many years ago.
Long ago when we were living in Canada I knew a single young
man who went up to the altar on every occasion. I knew he was struggling with
something because he stayed at the altar for a lengthy time and he was
determined to overcome whatever he was dealing with. He cried while he prayed.
Eventually, he did overcome his obstacles and
continues to stay in church today, along with his wife and children.
This is the truth! You are going to have temptations;
you will fall at times and again. You may even stay in the demise of your
thirst, but let me tell you; we cannot clean up our own act. We can make the decision
to do it, but do not have that power, until we come back to God. The whole
situation is a heart thing. You may be struggling with all sorts of addictions
and thinking to yourself “Who do I think
that I am? What in the world am I thinking? I cannot go to church.”
Did you ever think that it is these very people that
the Body of Christ is made up with? Ex prostitutes, ex addicts, ex thieves, ex
abusers, ex adulterers, ex murderers, ex ex ex’s!! And, not one of us are
perfect; just on a journey in that direction. Do we mess up? Definitely! The
Bible says that when you break one commandment, you’ve broke them all. If we
think of murder, we have done it. If we look upon another in lust, we have done
it. It still goes back to a heart thing. This is why we need a Savior and need His forgiveness.
That means humbling ourselves and admitting that we
cannot straighten things out ourselves. It means admitting that we need a
higher power, we need God.
No matter what knee deep thing you’ve gotten yourself
into, return to Jesus Christ. Let the Holy Spirit soften your heart. Give Him a chance by trusting His Word, give
Him a chance by allowing Him to love you.
I urge you not to believe the lie anymore and come back
home to the God of your childhood. He will take your hand and little by little
begin to deliver you of your worst fears and addictions. Trust Him today, this
Easter and allow His Spirit to love you. Become resurrected into a new you by
coming back home and let the Holy Spirit do the work inside of you that needs
to be done.
Not one of us have arrived, this is why we will always
need Jesus.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
There were those who wrote more details of the Bible
“Extra, Extra, Read all about it”
| by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
One of the most commonly neglected rules of interpretation that Bible critics overlook when attacking Scripture is that extra information is not necessarily contradictory information. When one Bible writer offers more details than another on a particular subject, it is inappropriate to assume that one of the writers is mistaken. When a journalist in the 21st century writes about a man on the side of the road who has just escaped death following a particular catastrophe, while another journalist writes how this same man andhis wife (standing next to him) are suffering survivors of the devastating disaster, it does not mean that the first journalist was dishonest in his representation of truth. Similarly, countless times throughout Scripture, and especially within the gospel accounts, extra information is given that critics cannot justifiably prove to be contradictory.
Consider how Matthew, Mark, and Luke all wrote about how a man named Joseph took the body of Jesus following His crucifixion, “wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock” (Luke 23:53; cf. Matthew 27:59-60; Mark 15:46). The apostle John, however, noted that Joseph actually had help in burying Jesus. He wrote: “Joseph of Arimathea...took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night,also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury” (19:38-40, emp. added). Are the accounts of Jesus’ burial contradictory? Such could never be proven by skeptics. This simply is an example of extra information being given by one of the Bible writers. Had Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated that Joseph was theonly person involved in Jesus’ burial, then skeptics would have a valid point to argue. But as it stands, John simply added facts to the story.
When Mark and Luke recorded how the Jews petitioned Pilate for the release of Barabbas, they both called him a murderer (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:18-19; Acts 3:14). Yet when John wrote about Barabbas, he omitted all discussion about his homicidal past and simply indicated that “Barabbas was a robber” (John 18:40). Is it possible that Barabbas was both a murderer and a thief? Of course. How many prisons around the world today house individuals who have committed both murder and burglary?
The Bible writers may not have worded things exactly the way some may think they should have, but such personal (or cultural) preferences do not invalidate their writings. Throughout the gospel accounts, statements are supplemented. Extra evidence frequently is given. And, the truth is, such supplementation should be expected from inspired, independent writers who did not have to participate in collusion in order to convey accurately the Good News of Jesus Christ. When one recognizes that supplementation cannot inherently be equated with a contradiction, many of the so-called “Bible contradictions” are easily (and logically!) explained away.
The Prophet Isaiah foretold the sufferings of Christ
"He Opened Not His Mouth"
| by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
In what many consider to be the most well-known prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the sufferings that Christ would endure amid His trial and crucifixion, saying (as if it had already happened):
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.... He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth (53:5,7, emp. added).
According to Isaiah, not only was the Messiah going to suffer cruel punishment on His way to the grave, but He also would do so without opening His mouth. He would be as silent as a sheep is before its shearers.
The problem that some have with this passage is that the gospel writers indicate that Jesusdid open His mouth before His accusers, and also later while hanging on the cross. After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, the high priest questioned Jesus, saying, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus responded, not with silence, but with two statements that infuriated the Jewish council. He said: “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Jesus then was sent to Pilate, where He was asked another question about His identity, “Are You the King of the Jews?” As he had done earlier that night, He did not keep silence, but answered Pilate with these words: “It is as you say” (Mark 15:2). Even while hanging on the cross a few hours later, Jesus made several statements, including, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34), and “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34). So how could the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 be referring to Jesus, since He did, in fact, “open His mouth,” both during His trial, and while hanging on the cross?
Obviously, if the phrase, “He opened not His mouth,” meant that the Messiah would never speak one word while being oppressed and afflicted, then Jesus could not have been the prophesied suffering servant, and the inspired writers, preachers, and prophets of the first century who applied this passage to Him were mistaken (cf. Acts 8:32-33). A proper understanding of this phrase, however, reveals that it does not literally mean the accused “did not open his mouth.” First, not even the skeptic would interpret this verse to mean that the suffering servant literally kept his mouth closed—that if he ever separated his lips so as to allow air, water, or food to enter his mouth, then the prophecy would be annulled. Such would be a ridiculous interpretation of the phrase “He opened not His mouth,” because in this passage Isaiah clearly used the word “mouth” to refer to what the mouth does—it aids in speaking—a figure of speech known as metonymy (where one name or word is employed for another). Second, the phrases “open the mouth” and “do not open the mouth” are Hebrew idioms (appearing both in the Old and the New Testaments), which frequently are used to refer more to the length, freedom, and/or kind of speech, rather than whether one or more words actually are (or are not) spoken.
When Jephthah (the ninth judge of Israel listed in the book of Judges) spoke to his daughter following the victory that the Lord had given Israel over the Ammonites, He said: “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the Lord, and I cannot go back on it” (Judges 11:35, emp. added). The phrase “I have given my word to the Lord” in the New King James Version is literally “I haveopened my mouth unto the Lord” (NKJV, emp. added; see ASV). Jephthah had earlier made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31). The reason that Jephthah was so distraught after returning home from war and seeing his daughter was not simply because he “opened his mouth” and prayed to God, but because included in this prayer was a promise to God—one that caused himself and his daughter great sadness (see Miller, 2003). Jephthah could have spoken to God all day without making such a significant and life-changing statement, and it not have been described as a time in which Jephthah “opened his mouth.” The phrase “opened my (thy) mouth” (Judges 11:35-36) meant that something extremely noteworthy was stated; a promise to God was made that could not be broken.
Notice also how the idea of “opening one’s mouth” is used on occasion in the New Testament. Sometime after Philip had spoken with the eunuch from Ethiopia about the passage of Scripture from which he was reading (Isaiah 53 ironically enough—see Acts 8:30-33), the text states: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to Him” (Acts 8:35, emp. added). Notice that Philip already had been speaking with the eunuch (8:30), and most likely had made other introductory comments to this stranger that are not recorded by Luke in the book of Acts. However, it was not until Philip began to speak at length to the eunuch, and to preach to him the good news of Jesus, that Philip was described as one who “opened his mouth.”
In chapter ten of the book of Acts, Luke recorded Peter’s visit with a Gentile named Cornelius. After being summoned by the Spirit of God (10:19-20) to travel to the city of Cornelius (i.e., Caesarea), Peter departed on the next day. Upon his arrival, Peter spoke to Cornelius about several things (Acts 10:25-29). He first rebuked Cornelius for worshipping him, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (10:26). He proceeded to speak with him about other things not specifically mentioned in the text (10:27). And then he revealed to Cornelius and his household that God had shown him (a Jew) that Gentiles should no longer be considered unclean. After several minutes (or perhaps even a few hours) of conversation between Peter and Cornelius (10:24-33), Luke then recorded that “Peter opened his mouth” (10:34) and gave a defense of the Christ and the Christian faith. Had Peter’s mouth been “open” before this time? Yes. Had he already spoken to Cornelius about several things? Certainly. Now Peter really begins to speak. He had already been speaking, but now he “opens his mouth.” Now he preaches the Gospel of Christ.
In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul once made the comment: “Our mouth is open unto you, O Corinthians” (2 Corinthians 6:11, ASV, emp. added). This statement obviously carries more meaning than simply, “Paul spoke to the Corinthians.” Certain modern versions translate this verse using such words as “openly” (NKJV) or “freely” (NIV) to describe how Paul and Timothy spoke to the Corinthians. Rather than suppressing various truths that would be beneficial to the church at Corinth (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2-3), they spoke openly and without restraint. They unreservedly commended themselves and their ministry to the Corinthians in order that they might accept their message (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1-2; see Jamieson, et al., 1997). This is how Paul used the phrase “to open the mouth.”
When the prophet Isaiah wrote that the suffering Servant “opened not His mouth” while being oppressed and afflicted (Isaiah 53:7), he did not mean that Jesus never uttered a word from the time He was arrested in the garden until His death on the cross. The thought behind this phrase is that the Jesus would not speak freely and unreservedly in defense of Himself. Whereas Jesus could have responded to His accusers with “an open mouth” and given a strong, lengthy defense of His innocence (similar to how Philip, Peter, and Paul testified of both Christ and their own ministry with “an open mouth”), Jesus chose to restrain Himself before His accusers and tormentors. Rather than calling twelve legions of angels to fight this battle for Him (cf. Matthew 26:53), Jesus humbly submitted to His enemies. Rather than performing some notable miracle before Herod so as to gain His freedom (cf. Luke 23:8), and instead of striking the high priest with blindness in an attempt to convince the Sanhedrin that He truly was the Son of God, Jesus suppressed His powers. Less than twenty-four hours earlier, Jesus had healed Malchus’ severed ear, yet Jesus did nothing to lighten His own affliction during His trial and crucifixion—not even mentioning this miracle so as to defend His deity. In light of what Christ could have done to His accusers and what oral defense He could have given before them on His own behalf, Christ’s passive submission before them is remarkable. Truly, “[w]hen He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter 2:23).
To prophesy that the Suffering Servant “opened not His mouth,” is to use a Hebrew idiom and hyperbolic expression which means that Jesus refrained from giving an exhaustive legal defense on His own behalf. During much of His affliction and oppression He was completely silent (cf. Matthew 26:62-63; 27:12-14). At other times He spoke only a few words—none of which comes close to being the kind of defense He could have offered on His own behalf had He been trying to avoid persecution and crucifixion.
REFERENCES
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Jephthah’s Daughter,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Age of the Earth
Terah Begot Abraham—When?
| by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
Two of the messages that “ring out” from Bible genealogies are that man has been on the Earth since the sixth day of Creation, and that his creation was not very long ago. Although many would have us believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that man has been on the Earth for only a few million years, the lengthy biblical genealogies that extend from Jesus all the way back to Adam reveal that man was created only a few thousand years ago. Some assert that since various biblical genealogies contain gaps, they are worthless when attempting to determine how long man has been upon the Earth. The fact is, however, the only reason we know of these gaps is because the Bible fills them in elsewhere. The claim that the genealogies are worthless in approximating the length of man’s time on the Earth (and thus the age of the Earth—Genesis 1; Mark 10:6) is completely without foundation (see Custance, 1967, p. 3).
While recognizing that biblical genealogies are trustworthy, we nevertheless must use caution when speaking about the exact age of the Earth. Unfortunately, in an attempt to defend the strict chronology of biblical genealogies, some read them without taking into account that certain Hebrew phrases possess a wider connotation than what might be perceived in English. One of these phrases is found several times in Genesis 11. In this chapter, we learn of various Messianic ancestors who lived a certain age and begot sons. For example, verse 16 of that chapter reads, “Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg.” Later, we read where “Nahor lived 29 years, and begot Terah” (11:24). The sons listed in this chapter generally are thought to be the firstborn sons, yet the evidence shows that this was not always the case. There was not always a father-to-firstborn-son linkage.
One might assume that because Genesis 11:26 states, “Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” Abram (also known as Abraham; cf. Genesis 17:5) was Terah’s firstborn and that he was born when Terah was 70. The truth is, however, Abraham was not born for another 60 years. When Stephen was delivering his masterful sermon recorded in Acts 7, he stated that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine “after the death of his father [Terah—EL]” (7:4). Yet if Terah was 205 years old when he died (Genesis 11:32), and Abraham departed Haran when he was 75 (Genesis 12:4), then Terah was 130, not 70, when Abraham was born. In light of this information, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris have helped us better understand Genesis 11:26 by paraphrasing it as follows: “And Terah lived seventy years and begat the first of his three sons, the most important of whom (not because of age but because of the Messianic line) was Abram” (1961, p. 480).
Lest one think this is an isolated incident (where the son mentioned was not the firstborn son), consider another example. Genesis 5:32 states: “And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Like the situation with Terah begetting Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, here we read that at age 500, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Was Shem the firstborn? Were the three sons of Noah triplets? Or was Shem mentioned first because of his Messianic connection? In all likelihood, the evidence seems to indicate that Shem was not the firstborn, but was born two years later. Consider the following passages:
“Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters were on the earth” (Genesis 7:6).
“And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry” (Genesis 8:13, emp. added).
“Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood” (Genesis 11:10, emp. added).
These verses seem to suggest that Shem was not born when Noah was 500, but when Noah was 502. A comparison of Genesis 11:10 with 10:22 may suggest that Shem’s son, Arphaxad, was not the firstborn son in his family. Likely, Shem, Arphaxad, and others are mentioned first for the same reason Abraham is—because they are Messianic ancestors, not because they were the firstborn sons of their fathers. Interestingly, numerous other Messianic ancestors, such as Seth, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez, were not firstborn sons. Lest someone accuse Moses of dishonesty when recording these genealogies, we must remember that
the year of begetting a first son, known in the Old Testament as “the beginning of strength,” was an important year in the life of the Israelite (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Psa. 78:51; and Psa. 105:36). It is this year…and not the year of the birth of the Messianic link, that is given in each case in Genesis 11 (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 480).
For this reason (and perhaps others), a limited number of additional years may be added to the genealogical records. Thus, trying to “peg” an exact date for Creation is futile. It may be that several hundred years could be added to the 6,000 years that many creationists give for the age of the Earth. It is important to remember, however, that even though the genealogies may leave room for a limited amount of additional time, it is impossible to fit tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years in them.
REFERENCES
Custance, Arthur (1967), The Genealogies of the Bible, Doorway Paper #24 (Ottawa, Canada: Doorway Papers).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
A gentleman who was struggling with his beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible recently contacted our offices questioning why Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that “no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12; cf. Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29). Since other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus worked “many signs” (John 12:37; 20:30-31; 3:2; Acts 2:22), how could Jesus truthfully and consistently say, “no sign shall be given to this generation”? According to certain Bible critics, Jesus was a false prophet since His “prediction that no sign would be given to that generation is clearly false” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 114; cf. Wells, 2010). How can a Christian reasonably and biblically respond to such an assertion? Sadly, Bible critics (and some Christians) are fond of disregarding the context in which biblical statements are found. Yet, no statement can be understood properly without some kind of background or contextual information. Words mean different things depending on how, when, and where they are spoken. Figures of speech abound in all cultures around the world (cf. Lyons, 2010). Truthful people, for example, have been joking, exaggerating, and using sarcasm for millennia (cf. Job 12:2; Psalm 58:3), all the while rightly expecting their listeners to interpret their language accurately, and without accusation of lying. Unfortunately, skeptics of the Bible’s inspiration often ignore much of the necessary information needed to properly understand Scripture.
When Jesus first made the statement, “no sign will be given” to this generation (Matthew 12:39; Luke 11:29), He had just healed a person who was blind, mute, and demon-possessed (Matthew 12:22; Luke 11:14). Notice that, rather than acknowledging that the great miracle Jesus worked was proof of His deity (John 20:30-31), the hard-hearted Pharisees alleged that His power came from the devil (Matthew 12:24). They did not simply turn away from Jesus; they turned 180 degrees away from the direction that such miracles led the honest and good-hearted truth-seekers. And Jesus’ enemies had not simply seen one miracle. Earlier in Matthew 12, Jesus had healed a man with a withered hand (vss. 9-13).
How did the Pharisees react then? Rather than acknowledge the power of Christ, they “plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him” (vs. 14). The fact is, by this time in Jesus’ ministry He had already worked a number of miracles (Matthew 11:4-5), and many of the scribes and Pharisees absolutely refused to believe in Him (cf. Matthew 9:32-34). Regardless of what Jesus did or said, some of His enemies would never be convinced (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; see Butt, 2003). So what did Jesus mean when He said on two different occasions that “no sign” would be given to “this generation” except “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29)?
Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ desire to see a sign. But they had already witnessed and heard about many of Jesus’ miracles. They wanted something “more.” They sought “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16; Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11, emp. added). Exactly what Jesus’ enemies meant by this, we may not know. What we do know is that while on Earth Jesus manifested His power over nature, disease, demon, and death (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), yet the Pharisees said they wanted more. It seems, as Burton Coffman noted, they “meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to man’s curiosity” (Coffman, 1984, p. 179). Jesus, however, always rejected doing such miracles. He refused to turn stones to bread or to jump from the temple’s pinnacle simply because Satan challenged Him to do so (Matthew 4:1-7). Jesus could have performed any miracle that He wanted—whether when tempted by Satan, prodded by Herod (Luke 23:8-12), or tested by the Pharisees. He could have pulled rabbits from hats for the sole purpose of amusing people. He could have turned His Jewish enemies into stones or given a person three eyes. He could have commanded that it literally rain cats and dogs. He could have lit the robes of the Pharisees on fire with the snap of his fingers and told them that hell would be ten times as hot. He could have done any number of wonders. But the insincere Pharisees would see none of that (i.e., “no sign [like these] will be given”).
What sign would be given? Other than the kinds of miracles that Christ’s enemies had already rejected, the only other sign Jesus prophesied was “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29)—Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Most certainly, Jesus performed miracles. And though Jesus “humbled himself...taking the form of a bondservant” (Philippians 1:7-8), He refused to get on the lowly, perpetually defiled spiritual level of His enemies. He worked no miracle of the kind that the Pharisees wished to see. But make no mistake, He worked plenty of the kind that provide honest-hearted people sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that He is, indeed, “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-31).
REFERENCES Butt, Kyle (2003), “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The Unpardonable Sin,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2272. Coffman, Burton (1984), Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Lyons, Eric (2010), “The ‘Twelve,’” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240449. Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “The Very Works that I Do Bear Witness of Me,” Reason & Revelation, 26[3]:17-23, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2857. McKinsey, Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). Wells, Steve (2010), “Did Jesus Perform Many Signs and Wonders?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/signs.html. Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Good Article about Capital Punishment
Does Exodus 20:13 Prohibit Capital Punishment?
| by | A.P. Staff |
Despite God commanding the use of capital punishment for more than sixteen offenses (seeMiller, 2002), some people still allege that there is a discrepancy between the biblical commands to execute certain offenders, and the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13. The classical translation of Exodus 20:13, and the one used in many versions of the Bible, reads: “Thou shalt not kill.” This rendering is most familiar, and leads many to believe that Exodus 20:13 prohibits all killing.
A clarification of this alleged discrepancy lies in a proper understanding of the Hebrew word rendered “kill” in Exodus 20:13—ratsach. It is used forty-three times in the Old Testament (Wigram, 2001, p. 1190), and often is translated as “murder.” Koehler and Baumgartner defined ratsach as “kill,” “murder,” or “slay” in the verbal forms, and as “manslayer” in the participle form. In the participle, there appears to be no difference between intentional and accidental killing (Holladay, 1988, p. 346). Brown, Driver, and Briggs defined ratsach as “murder, slay,” and noted also that the distinction between unintentional and intentional killing does not seem to be carried by this word (2001, p. 953). Domeris spoke of the use ofratsach in Exodus 20:13:
As it stands, it is a blanket prohibition against the taking of a person’s life by an individual or by a mob, who target an individual, with all the attendant savagery. In the wider context of the OT, the prohibition may be defined more narrowly as the taking of a life outside of the parameters (as in the case of war or capital punishment), laid down by God… (1997, 3:1188-1189, parenthetical item in orig.).
The lexicons give the meaning of ratsach as killing someone outside of the grounds set by God, which included warfare and executions.
However, it appears that another nuance of the word could be killing by striking a blow. In the passages concerning the cities of refuge, the definition of ratsach is narrowed to one who strikes a death blow against another person, usually motivated by feelings of anger or hatred:
But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer [participle of ratsach, “one who murders”]; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, buy which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him (Numbers 35:16-21, emp. added).But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die (Deuteronomy 19:11-12, emp. added). [NOTE: Ratsach does not appear in verses 11-12, but is used earlier in the context.]
One also may ratsach without intent or hatred:
However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait, or uses a stone by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments (Numbers 35:22-24).And this is the case of the manslayer [participle of ratsach] who flees there, that he may live: whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past—as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live; lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and kill him, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated the victim in time past (Deuteronomy 19:4-6).
Therefore, it appears that the proper translation and understanding of ratsach would be: “to kill by striking or pushing, usually in malice, but sometimes unintentionally.”
Many of the forty-three occurrences of ratsach support this meaning. It is used thirty-two times in reference to the one who strikes and kills his brother, and then flees to the city of refuge, and is used twice as one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). Deuteronomy 22:26 commands the execution of any man who raped a betrothed girl in the country, and compares the sentence he is to receive with the sentence of one who commits ratsach against his neighbor. This may support the translation of killing by striking, since Deuteronomy 22:26 uses the phrase “rises against his neighbor,” perhaps denoting a violent action involved in the killing.
Ratsach in Judges 20:4 refers to a concubine who was murdered in Gibeah. Judges 19:22-28 records that she was raped and abused, which probably included striking her in such a way as to cause mortal injury. Thus, she was referred to as haniretsachah, literally “the woman who was murdered” by the injuries sustained. In 1 Kings 21:19, Elijah is told to ask Ahab if he had ratsach Naboth in order to take his vineyard. According to 1 Kings 21:10, Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, ordered, in Ahab’s name, that Naboth be stoned to death—thus the king is questioned about the ratsach of Naboth. Both of these passages support ratsach as a murder by striking, as does 2 Kings 6:32, where the son of Ahab is called the “son of a murderer.”
Job 24:14, Psalm 62:3, Psalm 94:6, Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 7:9, and Hosea 4:2 do not support any further refinement of ratsach, but they do not prohibit a refinement either. Proverbs 22:13 refers to a man being ratsach by a lion, which could refer to a lion striking and killing a person. In speaking of the sins of God’s people, the prophet Hosea compares robbers lying in wait to priests murdering: “As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man, so the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem; surely they commit lewdness” (6:9). Usually, robbers would beat their victims to death, so it is probable that the ratsach committed by the priests carried the same connotation—of murder by beating.
Numbers 35:30 brings an interesting understanding to the word ratsach: “Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death [ratsach] on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.” It appears that God was allowing a retributive punishment in the case of one who killed, with malice aforethought, by striking. As he gave, so he got—this being in agreement with the “eye for an eye” principle of Exodus 21:23-25: “But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
In Exodus 20:13, God prohibited a person from striking and killing another person in anger. However, since God elsewhere commanded capital punishment, with a proper understanding of the word ratsach in Exodus 20:13, there is no discrepancy in the Old Testament between capital punishment and the Ten Commandments.
REFERENCES
Brown, Francis, et al. (2001), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Domeris, W.R. (1997), “רצח,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Holladay, William L. (1988), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.
Wigram, George V. (2001), The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Love is not Jealous, so why is God?
Love is not Jealous, so Why is God?
| by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
The argument goes something like this: (1) 1 John 4:8 indicates that “God is love;” (2) 1 Corinthians 13:4 says that “love is not jealous” (NAS); and yet (3) Exodus 20:5, along with several other passages, reveals that God is “a jealous God.” “How,” the skeptic asks, “can God be jealous when several verses say God is love and 1 Cor. says love is not jealous?” (McKinsey, 1992). Simply put, if love is not jealous, and God is love, then God logically cannot be called jealous. Or conversely, if love is not jealous, and God is jealous, then God cannot be considered loving. Right? How can these verses be anything but contradictory?
The term “jealousy” most often carries a negative connotation in twenty-first-century America. We pity the man who is jealous of his coworker’s success. We frown upon families who react to a neighbor’s newly found fortune by becoming overcome with jealously. And we are perturbed to hear of a jealous husband who distrusts his wife, and questions every possible wrong action that she might make, even going so far as demanding that she never leave the house without him. Add to these feelings about jealousy what various New Testament passages have to say on the subject, and one can understand why some might sincerely question why God is described at times as “jealous.” The apostle Paul admonished the Christians in Rome to “behave properly,” and put off “strife and jealousy” (Romans 13:13, NAS). To the church at Corinth, Paul expressed concern that when he came to their city he might find them involved in such sinful things as gossip, strife, and jealousy (2 Corinthians 12:20). And, as noted above, he explicitly told them that “love is not jealous” (1 Corinthians 13:4). James also wrote about the sinfulness of jealousy, saying that where it exists “there is disorder and every evil thing” (3:16; cf. Acts 7:9). One religious writer described such jealousy as “an infantile resentment springing from unmortified covetousness, which expresses itself in envy, malice, and meanness of action” (Packer, 1973, p. 189). It seems, more often than not, that both the New Testament and the “moral code” of modern society speak of “jealousy” in a negative light.
The truth is, however, sometimes jealously can be spoken of in a good sense. The word “jealous” is translated in the Old Testament from the Hebrew word qin’ah, and in the New Testament from the Greek word zelos. The root idea behind both words is that of “warmth” or “heat” (Forrester, 1996). The Hebrew word for jealousy carries with it the idea of “redness of the face that accompanies strong emotion” (Feinberg, 1942, p. 429)—whether right or wrong. Depending upon the usage of the word, it can be used to represent both a good and an evil passion. Three times in 1 Corinthians, Paul used this word in a good sense to encourage his brethren to “earnestly desire (zeeloúte)” spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1,39). He obviously was not commanding the Corinthians to sin, but to do something that was good and worthwhile. Later, when writing to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul was even more direct in showing how there was such a thing as “godly jealousy.” He stated:
I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it (2 Corinthians 11:2-4, emp. added).
Paul’s burning desire was for the church at Corinth to abide in the love of God. As a friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul used some of the strongest language possible to encourage the “bride” of Christ at Corinth to be pure and faithful.
In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them with anthropomorphic language. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people. Sadly, during the period of the divided kingdom, both Israel and Judah were guilty of “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:6-10). God called Israel’s idolatrous practice “adultery,” and for this reason He had “put her away and given her a certificate of divorce” (3:8). This is not the “lunatic fury of a rejected or supplanted suitor,” but a “zeal to protect a love-relationship” (Packer, p. 189). Jehovah felt for Israel “as the most affectionate husband could do for his spouse, and was jealous for their fidelity, because he willed their invariable happiness” (Clarke, 1996, emp. added). Song of Solomon 8:6 is further proof that love and jealousy are not always opposed to each other. To her beloved, the Shulamite said: “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord” (NAS). In this passage, love and jealousy actually are paralleled to convey the same basic meaning (see Tanner, 1997, p. 158)—that (aside from one’s love for God) marital love is “the strongest, most unyielding and invincible force in human experience” (NIV Study Bible, 1985, p. 1012). In this sense, being a jealous husband or wife is a good thing. As one commentator noted, married persons “who felt no jealousy at the intrusion of a lover or an adulterer into their home would surely be lacking in moral perception; for the exclusiveness of marriage is the essence of marriage” (Tasker, 1967, p. 106).
Truly, love has a jealous side. There is a sense in which one legitimately can be jealous for what rightfully belongs to him (see Numbers 25). Such is especially true in the marriage relationship. Israel was God’s chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6). He had begun to set them apart as a special nation by blessing their “father” Abraham (Genesis 12:1ff; 17:1-27). He blessed the Israelites with much numerical growth while living in Egypt (Exodus 1:7,12,19; Deuteronomy 26:5; cf. Genesis 15:5; 46:3). He delivered them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 3-12). And, among other things, He gave them written revelation, which, if obeyed, would bring them spiritually closer to Jehovah, and even would make them physically superior to other nations, in that they would be spared from various diseases (see Exodus 15:26). Like a bird that watches over her eggs and young with jealousy, preventing other birds from entering her nest, God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (see Exodus 20:3-6; Joshua 24:14-16,19-20). Such “godly jealousy” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2) was not what Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:4.
REFERENCES
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Feinberg, Charles Lee (1942), “Exegetical Studies in Zechariah: Part 10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 99:428-439, October.
Forrester, E.J. (1996), “Jealousy,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1992), [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/chas1222/bepart56.html.
NIV Study Bible (1985), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Packer, J.I. (1973), Knowing God (London: Hodder and Stoughton).
Tanner, J. Paul (1997), “The Message of the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 154: 142-161, April.
Tasker, R.V.G. (1967), The Epistle of James (London: Tyndale Press).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)