Does the Quran Encourage Violence? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=3800

Does the Quran Encourage Violence?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q.

Does the Quran encourage violence?

A.

Yes. The Quran—the holy book of Islam that 1.3 billion Muslims believe to be the word of God—is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam. Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

An Interview With Israel Finkelstein by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3814

An Interview With Israel Finkelstein

by	Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

For the May/June 2010 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks interviewed Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director (with archaeologist David Ussishkin) of the excavations at the biblical site of Megiddo since 1994. Finkelstein is a prominent Israeli archaeologist who has authored or co-authored several books that are highly critical of the traditional reading of Scripture. These include The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts and David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.

Finkelstein has a well-deserved reputation as a critic of the Bible. He has long been accused of being a biblical minimalist, someone who believes that only a bare minimum of the Bible is historically trustworthy. Prominent minimalists in modern academia include Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies, and Niels Peter Lemche, all of whom have authored works highly critical of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Finkelstein is not as radical as the minimalists, who approach the Bible with a level of skepticism that borders on outright hostility. At the same time, Finkelstein expresses his belief that the story of David contains mere “historical germs” (Shanks, 2010, p. 51). He admits that there was a group of people called “Israel” as early as the late 13^th century B.C. and that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem, but disagrees that the Bible is historically accurate.

Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.

Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).

From Finkelstein’s comments throughout the interview, it seems that by having “greater sophistication” in reading the Bible he really means “greater skepticism.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a common way of looking at the Bible. For many critics, it is read not to be understood, but to be condemned. Modern critics assume they are more advanced than the ancient authors, and approach Scripture with an air of chronological arrogance. In reality, those archaeologists and scholars who read the Bible “very literally” are in many ways interpreting Scripture just as the ancient authors intended. They are also interpreting the Bible just as scholars would interpret texts from other cultures. The biblical authors intended their work to be read so that the reader understands that their work is presenting facts that took place in real time. Few scholars in other areas of ancient history would read ancient texts with the same skepticism as Finkelstein and others view the Bible.

It has long been the case that those who read the Bible hold it to a much higher standard—it would not be unfair to call it a double standard—than other sources of information. For instance, when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings (Finkelstein, et al., 2007). When the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was discovered, Finkelstein warned against the “revival in the belief that what’s written in the Bible is accurate like a newspaper” (Friedman, 2008). In other words, he argues that we cannot expect the Bible to report factual details with any great degree of certainty. For the last two hundred years scholars have mined ancient texts, including mythological texts, for details that might help with locating ancient sites. Finkelstein apparently believes that this cannot be done with the Bible.

Finkelstein has a brilliant mind, and is witty, engaging, and humorous in his interview with Shanks. At the same time, he also possesses a level of skepticism that finds no place among mainstream scholarship. Experts usually approach the ancient evidence with a degree of confidence, assuming that the literary and material evidence are generally trustworthy unless there is reason for suspicion. Minimalists approach the biblical evidence with an extreme degree of skepticism that they often do not employ elsewhere. They hold the biblical text to an extreme double standard, and disregard the Bible unless incontrovertible extrabiblical evidence is found that corroborates the text. If the same method were applied to reading the daily paper, minimalists would never get past the first paragraph of the lead article.

The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).

As for non-Christian scholars, there are several who would oppose Finkelstein’s treatment of the Bible. One of these is William Dever, who has often described himself as an agnostic at best. Dever’s battle with Finkelstein is well-known to those in archaeological circles, as well as to readers of Biblical Archaeology Review. The two have feuded publicly in print, although Dever generally commands more respect than Finkelstein. [NOTE: In a personal conversation, a Canadian archaeologist from the University of Toronto told me in 2006 that not only does Finkelstein have a reputation for criticizing other archaeologists’ conclusions without examining their evidence, but other Israeli archaeologists have been critical and almost dismissive of him and his methods.]

Both believers and nonbelievers view Finkelstein’s approach as unwarranted. His point of view has won very few converts in archaeological circles. His skepticism borders on extremism not only because of the way he approaches the biblical text, but also because of the way he treats other scholars who disagree with him. In the end, Finkelstein may be a respected archaeologist in some circles, but he is spectacularly incorrect in his conclusions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

REFERENCES

Finkelstein, Israel, et al. (2007), “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” Tel Aviv, 34[2]:142-164.

Friedman, Matti (2008), “Archaeolgist Says He Found Oldest Hebrew Writing,” http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-10-30-424395593_x.htm.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Mazar, Eilat (2006), “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32[1]:16–27,70, January/February.

Shanks, Hershel (2010), “The Devil is Not So Black as He is Painted,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 36[3]:48-58, May/June.

A Lesson From the Sophists by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3525

A Lesson From the Sophists

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The ancient Sophists occupied the period in Greek philosophical history just after the physical philosophers had posited various explanations concerning the substance of the material world (ca. 450 B.C. [Kahn, 2005]). Sophists are often dismissed as charlatans or hypocrites, and to some degree this charge is just. Our purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the Sophists’ project, but rather to learn a lesson from the circumstance in which the Sophists found themselves and from the major question they posed. As the answer to this question highlights the value of special revelation, it is relevant to Christian apologetics.

The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics. Consider the following summary:

The basis [of the Sophists’] work was apt to be rhetorical, but with the abler Sophists, this was broadened out to cover the field of an all-round and liberal culture. Any knowledge that was available of the workings of the human mind, of literature, history, language, or grammar, of the principles underlying the dialectic of argument, of the nature of virtue and justice, was clearly appropriate to the end in view.... Now all this seems innocent enough.... In reality, however, there were some grounds for...suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends.... Apart, however, from such chances for abuse, which no doubt were often taken advantage of, there was a more fundamental reason for the popular distrust. The habit of unrestricted inquiry and discussion which was crystallized by the Sophistic movement, the free play of the mind over all subjects that interest men, meant the overthrow of much in the existing civilization.... (Rogers, pp. 42-43).

While some of the Sophists had high ideals (e.g., Protagoras [see Plato, 1997, pp. 746-790]), nonetheless the legacy of the Sophists is that of a general ethical relativism.

Greek culture was at a crossroads. At issue was whether the traditions of previous generations of society would be maintained, or the desires of each present individual would be accepted as his own standard. Should the individual or society take prominence? The Sophists, exposing at times the lack of rational support for tradition, essentially offered the solution of “Every man for himself.” In so doing, they posed the following philosophical question: Is man the measure of all things (as modern secular humanists allege; see Colley, 2007), or is there some external, objective standard to guide human action? Some philosophers, such as Socrates, were rightly concerned that any solution whatever be subjected to the test of human reason, and that the solution be applied to all humanity. Yet, even a Platonic solution, such as that presented in the Republic, has aspects that are unsatisfactory to many (especially its communistic aspects [Plato, 1997, pp. 971-1223]).

This quandary is ancient, yet bears a strikingly current application. Our present culture is largely divided concerning the validity of divine authority and religious tradition. At least two lessons present themselves for the Christian apologist. The first, general lesson to be learned from this Greek predicament is that man needs divine guidance in order to flourish (Jeremiah 10:23). Anytime man rejects an objective standard concerning what is good, relativism threatens. “Someone who holds that nothing is simply good, but only good for someone or from a certain point of view, holds a relativist view of goodness,” and has invited revolution, as did the Greeks (Craig, 2005, p. 894). Yet, even a universally accepted standard, if not grounded in objective truth, is not desirable (it could happen to be philosophical pessimism, Nazism, etc.).

It is interesting to note that within a few generations of the Sophists, the greatest theophony Jesus Christ would appear, providing the way to human fulfillment and peace in the fullness of time (see John 10:10; 14:6; Galatians 4:4). The Greek-speaking world would be influenced heavily by Christianity, and many philosophers throughout the centuries would come to appreciate Christian principles, even developing philosophical systems involving biblical teaching (see Rogers, pp. 185ff.).

The second, specific lesson to be learned from the Greek situation during the Sophistical age is that Christianity provides grounds for perfect balance between emphasis upon the individual person and deference to his community. The individual is uniquely responsible for his own obedience and righteous lifestyle (Acts 2:40; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 11:6; Jude 21-23). The individual’s own rationality is central, but not for the purpose of originating religious truth. Rather, the individual uses his rationality to examine evidence for the validity of revealed truth, and to apply revelation properly. At the same time, he is divinely situated in the church, a community of believers who bear each others’ burdens (Philippians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 John 4:7), exercise godly discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 5:5), and appeal to a single standard for conduct (2 Samuel 22:31; Romans 10:13-17; Colossians 3:17). Christianity is not designed in such a way that its adherents exercise faith in isolation. No one Christian is more valuable or more important than another (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).

CONCLUSION

The Bible contains the answers to philosophical questions—even those asked by the ancients. The Sophists indirectly raised the question of the degree to which such a source should be consulted when philosophers develop ethical and metaphysical arguments. To defend the affirmative answer is the task of the Christian apologist, who considers philosophy in light of divine revelation in order to develop the most effective response.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2007), “Secular Humanism and Evolution,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3336.

Craig, Edward (2005), “Relativism,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Kahn, Charles H. (2005), “Sophists,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Rogers, Arthur Kenyon (1923), A Student’s History of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Christ Emptied…Himself! by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=432

Christ Emptied…Himself!

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Through the years, some theologians have used Philippians 2:6-7 to defend the idea that the second Person of the Godhead, at the time of the incarnation (when “the Word became flesh”—John 1:14), “emptied Himself” of deity. It has been alleged that whereas Christ existed in the “form of God” prior to the incarnation, He “emptied” himself of that status while on Earth.

Despite the popularity of such ideas in some religious circles, they cannot be proven by citing Philippians 2:6-7 or any other passage in the Bible. In Philippians 2:7, Paul wrote that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Exactly what did the apostle mean by the phrase, “emptied himself”? Because it is assumed that the verb “emptied” (Greekekenōsen) requires an object (a genitive qualifier), then Christ must have “emptied himself” of something. However, as Gordon Fee has mentioned in his commentary on Philippians, “Christ did not empty Himself of anything, the text simply says that He emptied himself, He poured Himself out” (1995, p. 210, emp. added). The NIV seems to have captured this sense by stating that He “made himself nothing” (emp. added). The Greek word kenόō literally means “to empty; to make empty; or to make vain or void.” This word is rendered “made void” in Romans 4:14, where Paul stated that “faith is made void.” Faith did not empty itself of anything, rather faith emptied itself. Similarly, commenting on Jesus death as if it had already occurred, Isaiah wrote: “He [Jesus—EL] poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). What did Christ pour out? Himself.

But how does Philippians 2:7 say Christ emptied Himself? “Grammatically, Paul explains the ‘emptying’ of Jesus in the next phrase: ‘Taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men’” (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), humbled Himself and obediently accepted the role of the bondservant. As N.T. Wright stated: “The real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross is that the one who was himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God, could embrace such a vocation” (1986, p. 346).

Although this text does not instruct us regarding of what Christ emptied Himself, we can be assured that there was no change in His divine nature. While Jesus was on Earth, He claimed equality with God the Father (John 10:28) and allowed others to call him “God” (John 20:30; Matthew 16:16). He also accepted worship, even though He plainly taught that only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 4:10). If one contends that Jesus was not divine while upon the Earth, then they make Him either a fraud or a madman.

Philippians 2:7 does not teach that Christ emptied himself of His deity. Rather, to His divinity He added humanity (i.e., He was “made in the likeness of men”). For the first time, He was subject to such things as hunger, thirst, pain, disease, and temptation (cf. John 19:28; Hebrews 4:15). In short, He came to Earth as a God-man.

REFERENCES

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

Fee, Gordon D. (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1986), Electronic Database, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Biblesoft.

Wright, N.T. (1986), “αρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11,” Journal of Theological Studies, 37:321-52, April.

"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=161

"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists"

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

The attack is on. It’s not the first time. And if history teaches us anything, it will not be the last. Evolutionists are mad. But they do not intend to just “get angry”; they intend to “get even.” The walls of their Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around them. They know it. They’ve known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people! The time to act has come. Take off the gloves. Get down. Get mean. Get dirty. Win—at all cost!

Creationism has been making far too much headway, in far too many places—with far too much favorable publicity. Sound the battle call. Rally the troops. Call out the reserves. Enlist the allies. Engage the enemy. Press forward. Refuse to retreat!

What enemy? The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to that enemy as the “militant fundamentalists who label themselves with the oxymoron ‘scientific creationists,’ and try to sneak their Genesis literalism into high school classrooms under the guise of scientific dissent.” Dr. Gould complained: “I’m used to their rhetoric, their dishonest mis-and half-quotations, their constant repetition of ‘useful’ arguments that even they must recognize as nonsense.” Yet, he explained to his fellow evolutionists, “our struggle with these ideologues is political, not intellectual.” And last, he said he refused to engage in dialog with creationists, but rather chose instead to deal with “our allies among people committed to reason and honorable argument”—a description that, from Gould’s vantage point, apparently would exclude creationists by definition (1987, 8[1]:64, emp. added).

And it gets worse. Richard Dawkins, the enraged evolutionist of Oxford University, put it this way: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” [1989, p. 3, emp. added].

Now comes John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, to enter the fray. In the July 2002 issue, Mr. Rennie penned an article titled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” in which he caricatured creationism, while feebly attempting to bolster the increasingly faltering theory of organic evolution. Joining Mr. Rennie is Thomas Hayden, a staff writer for U.S. News & World Report who authored the cover story of the magazine’s July 29, 2002 issue (“A Theory Evolves”)—a feature plainly intended to “strike back” at creationists, as Hayden made clear when he echoed the evolutionists’ party line: “The evidence against evolution amounts to little more than ‘I can’t imagine it.’ That’s not evidence. That’s just giving up” (133[4]:50).

Well, gentlemen, I have news for you. We are not giving up! You have thrown down the gauntlet; we will not hesitate to pick it up. You have drawn the line in the sand; we will not shrink from crossing it. Your bullying tactics and name calling may intimidate some and impress others. It accomplishes neither with us. We know what you are trying to do, and we know why you are trying to do it. We know about your “hidden agenda.”

Your compatriot, geneticist Richard Lewontin of Harvard, let it slip in his 1997 review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (1997, p. 31, emp. added).

Just as we thought all along! You must find a way—organic evolution—to rid yourself of that “Divine Foot in the door.” Nice to see you finally admit it. Well, once again, gentlemen, I have news for you. God’s foot is in the door, whether you like it or not—all your attempts to prevent it notwithstanding. And there is nothing you can say or do to stop it, because neither He, nor we, will be going “quietly into the night.” Not now. Not ever. Yes, the attack is on. But we are at the vanguard of that attack. You are losing the battle—and you will lose the war! Truth always triumphs over error.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9.

Gould, Stephen J. (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,” Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.

Hayden, Thomas (2002), “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, 133[4]:42-50, July 29.

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

[NOTE: Our responses to both U.S. News & World Report and Scientific American in this issue ofReason & Revelation are the abbreviated versions. To view or download the complete, uncut versions, please click here for the U.S. News & World Report refutation, or click here for the Scientific American rebuttal.] — Bert Thompson

A Mind to Work by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1645

A Mind to Work

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Recently I spoke with a kind, contrite gentleman who confessed that, up to this point in time, he had lived a slothful life. He admitted that he had never had a real job in 33 years (three years of which were spent in prison). In fact, he had never even filled out a single job application. He begged, borrowed, stole, and sold drugs to get by day after day, year after year. Thankfully, all of that changed only a few weeks ago as he began his first work at a fast-food restaurant.

Many hard-working Americans currently find themselves unemployed and searching for jobs. A number of sincere Christians may be seeking employment as they petition God for opportunities to work and provide for their families and others. These individuals are serious about their search for work, understanding God’s desire for them to be as self-sufficient as possible (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). But, it is also true that many Americans (even some who call themselves Christians) seem to care less about work. They have a flippant attitude toward having a job.

Many willfully choose to live lazy lives. They seem to work harder at getting out of work, or at finding ways for others to take care of them, than actually performing a worthwhile job. I once heard a group of pregnant teenage girls say that they deserved to be taken care of (by the government) financially. Why? Because they had children out of wedlock. I know one small business owner who has several employees on “disability,” and yet most of them are more than capable of performing physically demanding construction jobs, much less jobs that require relatively little physical prowess. I spoke with a physical therapist recently who confessed having major frustration with so many patients who are in the process of filing for disability, yet are clearly capable of performing all sorts of jobs. Certainly, many Americans are genuinely disabled and unable to perform basic tasks that are necessary in order to make a normal living, but no doubt thousands, and perhaps even millions, of the 8.7 million disabled Americans are more than capable of working for a living (Jeffrey, 2012). [NOTE: 15% more Americans (1,264,808) are on federal disability than there were just three years ago (Jeffrey).]

The Good Book says to help those in need (Proverbs 28:27; Ephesians 4:28; Luke 3:11). Jesus expects His faithful followers to help the destitute (Matthew 25:34-46). Notice, however, that Jesus’ powerful discourse regarding helping the needy was taught following a story about a “lazy servant” who was cast into outer darkness for his unprofitable slothfulness (Matthew 25:26,30). The same apostle who reminded the Ephesian elders of Jesus’ statement, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” wrote to the church of the Thessalonians, saying, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, nor working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). The inspired wise man candidly rebuked the lazy man, saying,

Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep—so shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, and your need like an armed man (Proverbs 6:6-11).

Indeed, “He who gathers in summer is a wise son; he who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame” (Proverbs 10:5). “The desire of the lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to labor” (Proverbs 21:25).

Depending on the situation, the next time that a healthy, able-bodied person asks you for money, it might be appropriate for you to kindly ask him if he would like to mow your lawn, wash your car, weed your garden, etc. Are you really helping a lazy man if you give him anything more than what the Bible says he needs—the Gospel and an opportunity to work?

“Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28, emp. added).

“And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men” (Colossians 3:23).

REFERENCE

Jeffrey, Terence (2012), “8,733,461: Workers on Federal ‘Disability’ Exceed Population of New York City,” July 2, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8733461-workers-federal-disability-exceed-population-new-york-city.

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" The Nature Of Worship In The Church

                        "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

                  The Nature Of Worship In The Church

INTRODUCTION

1. Our previous lessons examined the organization of the church, in
   which...
   a. A clear pattern emerges that illustrates its simplicity and 

      Divine Wisdom
   b. A congregation, when completely organized, consisted of:
      1) Bishops to oversee the local congregation

        (also called elders, pastors)
      2) Deacons to serve the congregation in its work
      3) Saints, i.e., the members of the congregation
                                                 -- As indicated in Paul's address to the church at

                                                    Philippi - Ph 1:1
  

 c. Authority was carefully limited
      1) A plurality of bishops in each church prevented one-man rule
      2) Charged to shepherd the flock of God among them, bishops were
         prevented from exercising authority over more than one congregation
      -- Thus the potential spread of error was severely hindered

2. In this lesson and the one to follow, we shall examine the worship of the church...
   a. For this too can help us identify "The Church Jesus Built"
   b. For certainly those who "continue steadfastly in the apostles'
      doctrine" today will worship in the same manner as did the early
      Christians under the instruction of Christ and His apostles

3. Now, it is important to appreciate that not all worship is acceptable to God...
   a. There is vain worship - Mt 15:7-9
   b. There is ignorant worship - Ac 17:22-23
   c. There is will (self-imposed) worship - Col 2:20-23
   d. We should seek to offer what Jesus described as true worship (see below)

[What can we learn about the worship of the church?  Consider some
thoughts regarding the nature of worship in the church...]

I. THEIR WORSHIP WAS IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH

   A. THE TIME HAD COME FOR A NEW KIND OF WORSHIP...
      1. As Jesus explained to the Samaritan woman at the well - Jn 4:23-24
      2. In which people are to worship the Father "in spirit and truth"
      3. In which those who seek to worship Him "must worship in spirit and truth"

   B. WORSHIPING GOD 'IN SPIRIT'...
      1. Some understand this to mean "to do so with sincerity, from the heart"
         a. But this does not fit in with the idea that Jesus is making
            a contrast between OT and NT worship - cf. Jn 4:19-24
         b. And sincerity was required under the OT - Deut 6:4-7; Isa 1:10-18
      2. I suggest that to worship in spirit means to offer 'spiritual worship'
         a. I.e., in contrast to worship that is physical or fleshly
         b. This contrast is in harmony with the context
            1) Jesus began by saying "God is Spirit"
            2) Therefore the worship of Him is to be 'spiritual', that
               is, in keeping with His nature
         c. This interpretation is in harmony with what we learn
            elsewhere about the contrast between OT and NT worship
            1) He 9:1-10 teaches that OT worship consisted of fleshly
               ordinances; e.g.:
               a) A physical structure (tabernacle)
               b) Special clothing for priests
               c) Lampstands
               d) Burning of incense
               e) Instruments of music
               f) Animal sacrifices
               -- All of which appealed to the physical senses
            2) But NT worship is focused toward the spiritual side of man:
               a) God's temple is spiritual, made up of Christians
                  - 1Co 3:16; Ep 2:19-22
               b) All Christians are priests, offering up spiritual
                  sacrifices - 1Pe 2:5,9; Ro 12:1; He 13:15
               c) Our prayers are as sweet incense - Re 5:8
               d) Our music is making melody with the heart - Ep 5:19
            3) Physical ordinances of the OT were to last until a "time
               of reformation" - He 9:9-10 (which has occurred with the
               coming of the New Covenant)
      -- To "worship in spirit", then, is to offer up spiritual worship
         as taught in the NT and not the physical worship as found in the OT

   C. WORSHIPING GOD 'IN TRUTH'...
      1. Some understand this to worship according to the commands of God
         a. Certainly we should do this
         b. But again, this is no contrast to what God expected in the
            OT - cf. Deut 5:32-33
         c. Jesus admitted that the Jews had been right in their worship
            - Jn 4:22
         -- So the contrast is not between true and false worship
      2. The contrast is between that which is true (or real), and that
         which had been a shadow (or type) pointing toward the true!
         a. Many elements of OT worship were simply a 'shadow' of what
            was to come
            1) The Tabernacle was a symbol or type - He 9:8-9
            2) The Law with its worship was only a 'shadow' of that
               which was to come - He 10:1
         b. Christ is now in the true tabernacle (heaven)- He 9:11-12,24
            1) Therefore we should expect the worship of the true to be
               different from that of the shadow
            2) And we have already seen that to be the case:
               a) The OT worship, which was but a shadow, was physical
                  in nature
               b) But NT worship, which God now expects of "true
                  worshipers", is according to the true realities (God
                  is Spirit, Christ in heaven) and is therefore
                  spiritual in nature
      -- To "worship in truth", then, is to offer up the true, spiritual
         worship as taught in the NT, and not the physical worship in
         the OT which was but a shadow

[When we consider the elements of worship in our next lesson, I trust we
shall see that the worship in the early church was indeed spiritual in
its focus.  But before we conclude this study, two more things can be
said about the nature of worship in the church...]

II. THEIR WORSHIP WAS FOR EDIFICATION

   A. WORSHIP WAS CERTAINLY DIRECTED TO GOD...
      1. As we will see later, they sang 'hymns' - cf. Ep 5:19
      2. The definition of 'hymn' is a song of praise to God
      -- As God's creatures, especially those created in His image and
         redeemed by His Son, the Creator is the primary focus of any
         worship service - e.g., Re 4:9-11

   B. WORSHIP WAS ALSO TO BUILD UP EACH OTHER...
      1. As Paul instructed the church in Corinth - 1Co 14:26
         a. All things were to be done "for edification"
         b. That is, for the purpose of "building up"
      2. Note that in regards to singing...
         a. They were "speaking to one another..." as well as to the
            Lord - Ep 5:19
         b. They were "teaching and admonishing one another" - Col 3:16
      3. Note the true source of their edification...
         a. Not the music or melody of the songs themselves
         b. But the words of the songs which taught and admonished them
         c. For spiritual worship is designed to impact the spiritual
            side of man, not his fleshly side
      -- Worship in the church should therefore edify or build up those
         engaged in it, not by what may sound good to the ears (the
         flesh), but by words that impact the heart of man (the spirit)

[Sadly, it is easy for us to be more interested in the melody and beat
of a song, than the actual words!  But those seeking true edification
will be careful to note the difference.  Finally...]

III. THEIR WORSHIP WAS DONE DECENTLY AND IN ORDER

   A. THE CHURCH IN CORINTH HAD A PROBLEM...
      1. At a time in which Christians enjoyed the gifts of tongues
         (speaking in a foreign language), those in Corinth were misusing them
         a. Tongues were designed to be a sign for unbelievers - 1Co 14:22
         b. They were speaking without interpreters, and all at once
            - 1Co 14:23
      2. Therefore Paul commanded them to do things decently and in
         order...
         a. They were to speak one at a time, and no more than three
            - 1Co 14:27
         b. If there were no interpreter, they were to remain silent
            - 1Co 14:28
      -- Thus they were to do things "decently and in order" - 1Co 14:40

   B. WORSHIPING DECENTLY AND IN ORDER...
      1. Worship that is 'decent' is that which...
         a. Is done "in a seemly manner"; i.e., fitting for the occasion
         b. Glorifies God by offering up "spiritual worship" (worship in
            keeping with His nature; not necessarily what we want) - cf.
            Jn 4:23-24
         c. Edifies the brethren by teaching and admonishing them - cf.
            1Co 14:26
      2. Worship that is 'in order' is that which...
         a. Follows "a fixed arrangement"; i.e., not totally spontaneous
            - e.g., 1Co 14:27
         b. Contributes to peace, not confusion - cf. 1Co 14:33

CONCLUSION

1. When we consider the elements of worship in our next lesson...
   a. We will see how they are consistent with the nature of worship
   b. That what the worship of the early church was indeed done:
      1) In spirit and truth
      2) For the purpose of edification
      3) Decently and in order

2. Remember, not all worship is acceptable to God.  Worship based upon...
   a. The doctrines of men is vain worship - Mt 15:7-9
   b. A lack of understanding of God's nature is ignorant worship - Ac 17:22-23
   c. What we think is best is will worship (self-imposed religion), and
      of no true value in overcoming the flesh - Col 2:20-23

Let those who seek to be a part of "The Church Jesus Built" listen
closely to the Master...

   "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers
   will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is
   seeking such to worship Him.  God is Spirit, and those who
   worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
                                                     (Jn 4:23-24)

Are we "true worshipers" of the Father?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

From Gary... Jesus: From A to Z

This graphic reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago....

JESUS: MY EVERYTHING

INTRODUCTION

A. WHO IS JESUS TO THE WORLD??  Answer: MANY DIFFERENT THINGS

B. WHO IS JESUS TO THE CHURCH? EVERYTHING FROM A TO Z  Rev. 1: 17-18

BODY

A. Jesus is our ALL  Phil. 1:21

B. Jesus is our BROTHER  Rom. 8:29

C. Jesus is our CHOICE (personal) Josh. 24:15 ; 1 kings 18:21

D. Jesus is our DEFENSE against eternal death--Heb. 9:27 ; 1 Jn. 2:1

E. Jesus is our EXAMPLE of a perfect life  Jn. 14:6 ; Heb. 5:8-9

F. Jesus is our FRIEND   Jn. 15:10-14

G. Jesus is our GREAT HIGH PRIEST  Heb. 4:14-15

H. Jesus is our HOPE 1 Peter 1:3

I. Jesus is our IMAGE OF GOD  Heb. 1:1-3

J. Jesus is our JUSTIFICATION  Ehp. 1:3; Rom. 8:1-2

K. Jesus is our KIND COMPANION Heb. 13:5

L. Jesus is our LIFE  Jn. 14:6

M. Jesus is our MIGHTY GOD Matt. 17:1-5;  Jn. 1:1-5

N. Jesus is our NEWS  Lk. 2:10 ; Rom. 10:16

O. Jesus is our ONE AND ONLY WAY  Jn. 14:6

P. Jesus is our PROPITIATION Heb. 9:14-16; Rom. 3:21-26

Q. Jesus is our QUESTION What will you do with Jesus????   Jn. 18:40

R. Jesus is our REDEMPTION 1 Pet. 1:18--20 ; Jn. 10:10 ;Lk. 19:10

S. Jesus is our SAVIOR Titus 3:3-4 ; Lk. 19:10

T. Jesus is our TESTIMONY  Matt. 28:18-20 ; Acts 4:20

U. Jesus is our ULTIMATE COMPANION Rev. 21:3-4

V. Jesus is our VICTORY OVER DEATH   1 Cor. 15:54-55

W. Jesus is our WITNESS BEFORE GOD THE FATHER  Rev. 1:5

X. Jesus is our XTRA SOURCE OF STRENGTH  Phil. 4:13

Y. Jesus is our YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW  Heb. 13:8

Z. Jesus is our ZENITH  Matt.17 & Heb.1:1-4  (peak, highest goal)

CONCLUSION: SONG: READ "HE IS MY EVERYTHING"

You will find the lyrics at...

https://hymnstudiesblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/quothe-is-my-everythingquot/

SIMPLE INVITATION: LET JESUS BE YOUR EVERYTHING....

From a worldly perspective, the advice in the graphic will lead to happiness.  For a follower of Jesus- we think of HIM, emulate HIM and rejoice in HIM.  HE IS OUR EVERYTHING!!!