4/22/15

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" The Work Of The Church



"THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"
The Work Of The Church
INTRODUCTION 1. Having considered the organization and worship of "The Church Jesus Built", what about the work of the church...? a. What does the Lord intend for His church to do in this world? b. Are we free to involve the church in whatever work we deem suitable? 2. In asking such questions, we should continue to note the distinction between the church universal and the church local... a. The church universal has no earthly organization in which to do its work; what work it does is done as individuals who live and work in the world b. The church local has organization as we have seen, and as such is capable of some sort of corporate (as opposed to individual) work -- It is the work of the church local that I am addressing in this study 3. The work of the church can be gleaned in some respects from what is revealed about the organization and worship of the church... a. For the Lord organized His church to effectively carry out its work b. And the worship ordained would certainly complement the church in its work -- Look at the organization and worship of the church, and that begins to tell one what the work of the church is! [With that in mind, and turning now to the Scriptures, let me first stress that the work of the church includes...] I. EDIFICATION (PREPARING THE SAINTS FOR SERVICE) A. IMPLIED BY ITS ORGANIZATION AND WORSHIP... 1. The local church when completely organized will have bishops (elders, pastors) a. Their function is to feed and oversee the flock - Ac 20:28; 1Pe 5:1-2 b. As they carry out their responsibilities, the church will be built up (edified) 2. The activities of their worship are designed to edify a. E.g., singing designed to exhort and admonish, as well as praise God - Ep 5:19; Col 3:16 b. E.g., preaching and teaching which certainly edifies the church B. EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SCRIPTURES... 1. Speaking of the gifts which Christ gave His church - Ep 4:11 2. Such gifts (including that of evangelists, pastors and teachers) are designed: a. For the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry b. For the edifying of the body of Christ - Ep 4:12 3. As each person in the church does their part, the end result will be the "growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love" - Ep 4:15-16 [When one looks at how the local church is organized, what it is called to do in worship, and the purpose of the gifts that Christ gave His church, I believe it is fair to say that the primary work of the local church is edification, i.e., the spiritual development of its members! But clearly there is more. The work of the local church certainly includes...] II. BENEVOLENCE (PROVIDING FOR NEEDY SAINTS) A. THE EARLY CHURCH CARED FOR ITS MEMBERS... 1. We see it in the church at Jerusalem for its own - Ac 4:32-37 2. We see it in the church at Antioch for their brethren in Judea - Ac 11:27-30 3. We see in the churches of Macedonia and Achaia for their brethren in Jerusalem - Ro 15:25-26 B. ITS ORGANIZATION AND WORSHIP ACCOMMODATED SUCH WORK... 1. Deacons were appointed - cf. Php 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8-13 a. They served the congregation b. If the seven selected in Acts 6 were prototypes of the work of deacons, they would certainly serve in providing assistance for widows and other needy members - Ac 6:1-6 2. The collection for needy saints was made a part of the weekly assembly - 1Co 16:1-2 C. THERE WERE LIMITATIONS TO ITS BENEVOLENCE... 1. In Paul's instructions to Timothy - 1Ti 5:9-16 a. Widows with believing family members were not to be supported b. Their own families should support them, that "the church not be burdened" 2. Examples of church benevolence are limited to needy saints a. In every case of church benevolence, i.e., where money was taken from the church treasury, the recipients were believers in need - cf. Ro 15:25-26; 1Co 16:1-2; 2Co 8:1-4;9:1 b. Of course, individually Christians are expected to be "good Samaritans" and help those in the world as they have opportunity and ability -- This implies that the local church was not intended to be a social agency to cure all the social ills in the world. It has neither the organization nor resources to do so! [The work of benevolence, while important, appears to take a back seat to the primary work of the church, which was edification. But there is another work of the church, which is a natural outgrowth of equipping the saints for ministry...] III. EVANGELISM (PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL) A. THE EARLY CHURCHES WERE INVOLVED IN EVANGELISM... 1. They sent out preachers to spread the word in new places - cf. Ac 13:1-3 2. They provided support for such preachers - e.g., 2Co 11:8,9 B. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE LORD EXPECTS... 1. For His disciples were to make more disciples - Mt 28:19-20 2. For His people are to proclaim the praises of God - 1Pe 2:9-10 3. And among the gifts He gave to His church was the function of "evangelists" - Ep 4:11 CONCLUSION 1. The work of the church can be summarized as: a. Edification (preparing the saints for service) b. Benevolence (providing for the needy saints) c. Evangelism (proclaiming the gospel) 2. For such work the Lord designed His church, especially in the local sense... a. As reflected in its organization b. As reflected in its worship 3. When we let the local church do its proper work, it will... a. "equip saints for the work of the ministry" b. "edify the body of Christ" c. "grow up in all things into Him who is the head, Christ" 4. If we are to truly be "The Church Jesus Built"... a. Let's be sure to understand what the work of the church is b. Let's make sure that we carry out that work in the local church as taught in the New Testament May we today let the church be "The Church Jesus Built", in its nature, its organization, its worship, and its work! In this way we can do our part to fulfill the prayer of Paul: "to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen." (Ep 3:21)


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4749

Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Islamic apologists have attempted to bolster the credibility of their beliefs by claiming that the Bible, itself, makes reference to the coming of the prophet Muhammad. Ironically, this claim comes even in the face of the prevailing Islamic contention that the Bible has been corrupted, and thus cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of God’s Word. Nevertheless, Muslim polemicist Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Hebrew text of Song of Solomon 5:16. The reader is urged to weigh this claim in light of the exegetical evidence surrounding the passage.
In English, the verse reads: “His mouth is most sweet, yes, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem!” (NKJV). A phonetic transliteration of the underlying Hebrew text reads: Kheeco mahm-tah-keem vuh-coollo ma-kha-madeem zeh dodee veh-tseh ray-ee beh-note yerushalayim. Muslims claim that the bolded word, though translated “altogether lovely,” is the name of Muhammad (Naik, n.d.). Consider six linguistic evidences that dispute Naik’s claim:
  1. The second syllable (kha) utilizes the Hebrew letter heth which has a hard initial sound like the “ch” in the Scottish word “loch.” It is to be distinguished from the Hebrew letter he which is the same as the English letter “h.” If Muhammad was being referred to, the simple “h” would have been more linguistically appropriate.
  2. Muslims claim that the eem (or im) in ma-kha-madeem in the Hebrew language was “added for respect” (Naik). This claim is untrue and unsubstantiated. The letters constitute the standard form for changing a singular to a plural—like adding “s” or “es” in English (cf. Weingreen, 1959, pp. 35ff.). As the eminent Emil Rödiger (who was professor for oriental languages at the University of Halle and the student of the well-known German Orientalist, H.F.W. Gesenius) noted in his editorial comment in the prestigious Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar: “The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew” (Gesenius, 1898, p. 418).
  3. The meaning of the Hebrew ma-kha-madeem is different from the meaning of the word “Muhammad” in Arabic. According to Sheikh Abd al-Azîz, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the word “Muhammad” is derived from the Arabic root word hamd meaning “praise.” It is the emphatic passive participle of that root and can be translated as “the Oft-Praised One” (n.d.). However, the Hebrew term (makh-mahd) in the passage under consideration has a completely different meaning. It refers to “grace, beauty” (Gesenius, 1847, p. 464), “a desirable thing, delightfulness” (Brown, et al., 1906, pp. 326-327), “a pleasant thing” (Payne, 1980, 1:295), or “precious” (Holladay, 1988, p. 190). English translations render the term “altogether lovely” (NKJV, NIV), “wholly desirable” (NASB), and “altogether desirable” (ESV, RSV). No reputable English translation would render the underlying Hebrew as “praised one,” let alone as “Muhammad.” All Muslims have done is happen upon a Hebrew word that phonetically sounds somewhat like “Muhammad” and have erroneously concluded the word must be referring to him. Such handling of linguistic data is irresponsible—if not deceptive.
  4. Further, the claim that Muhammad is intended in the verse completely disregards the context and message of the book of Song of Solomon. The book consists of a dialogue between Solomon, his Shulamite bride-to-be, and the “daughters of Jerusalem,” with perhaps even God interjecting His comment (5:1b), as well as the Shulamite’s brothers (8:8-9). The term used in 5:16 that Muslims claim refers to Muhammad is also used in 2:3 to refer to the Shulamite’s beloved—“Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade withgreat delight.” “Great delight” is the Hebrew word also used in 5:16; in both cases the words of the Shulamite refer to her beloved—not Muhammad.
  5. Forms of the same Hebrew word are used elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet Muslims do not claim that those passages refer to Muhammad. Rightly so, since those verses cannot be forced to fit the notion that Muhammad is under consideration. For example, Isaiah 64:11 mourns the destruction of Jerusalem: “Our holy and beautiful temple, where our fathers praised You, is burned up with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste.” “Pleasant things” is a form of the same word in Song of Solomon 5:16. Would the Muslim contend that Muhammad was “laid waste” in Jerusalem? Additional occurrences of the same word—which dispel the misuse of the term by Muslims—are seen in 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10,11; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25; Hosea 9:9,16; Joel 3:5; et al. (Wigram, 1890, p. 687).
  6. Even if the Hebrew word “lovely/desirable” in Song of Solomon were the Hebrew equivalent of the Arabic word “praised one” (which it is not), it still would not follow that Muhammad is being referred to in the Bible. Instead, it would simply be an indication that the underlying word stands on its own as a term used for other applications. For example, the Hebrew word for “bitter” is mah-rah. It is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the concept of bitter. Yet, due to her unpleasant circumstances in life, Naomi (whose name means “pleasant”) requested that her name be changed to “bitter” (mah-rah) to reflect her bitter predicament. It does not follow, however, that when the Hebrew word “bitter” appears in the Old Testament, it refers to Naomi. If parents today were to name their child John, it would not follow that they intended to reflect an association with others in history who have worn the name John—nor would references to John in the Bible constitute prophecies pointing to their son. Muslims have the cart before the horse. Their claim is equivalent to parents naming their child “wonderful” or “special”—and then claiming that an ancient writer had their child in mind when the writer used the word “wonderful” or “special” in referring to another person contemporary to the writer.
The truth of the matter is that the Bible nowhere refers to Muhammad. All other biblical passages purported to do so may likewise be shown to be misinterpreted and misapplied (Miller, 2003). The Bible contains within itself evidence that all non-Christian religions are false and contrary to the will of the God of the Universe (for more, see Miller, 2005).

REFERENCES

Al-Azîz, Sheikh Abd (no date), “The Meaning of the Prophet’s names ‘Muhammad’ and ‘Ahmad,’” Islam Today, http://en.islamtoday.net/quesshow-14-738.htm.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Gesenius, William (1898), Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Holladay, William (1988), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=88&topic=46.
Miller, Dave (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Naik, Zakir (no date), “Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible,” Islam 101,http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/mBible.htm.
Payne, J. Barton (1980), hamad in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Weingreen, J. (1959), A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Clarenden Press), second edition.
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Babylon the Great Has Fallen by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=821

Babylon the Great Has Fallen

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Babylon was one of the richest cities in the world during the years 740 B.C. to 680 B.C. During these “glory days,” the city prospered like it had the Midas touch; everything it touched seemed to turn to gold. It was located between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers—a strip of land so agriculturally productive that today it is known as the “fertile crescent.”
But its agriculture and well-watered plains were not the reason it was famous. Babylon gained its reputation because of its high, massive walls and its strong defensive battlements. In fact, ancient writers described walls that were 14 miles long on all four sides of the city and that reached heights of over 300 feet—taller than most building today. Not only were the walls long and high, but in some places they also were 75-feet thick. But the wall was not the only form of defense. The Euphrates River surrounded the city, making a perfect moat that ranged anywhere from 65 to 250 feet across. This wall/moat combination appeared to make the city unconquerable.
Yet in spite of the strong military and defensive strength of the city, God’s prophets foretold its destruction. In Jeremiah 50:9, the prophet declared that God would “raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country.” This prediction probably seemed unfounded at the time it was made, because none of the countries in the north came close to having enough strength to defeat Babylon. But years after the prophecy, Cyrus, king of the Medo-Persian Empire, mounted a huge force of many different nations and marched southward against Babylon.
The details of the fulfillment are amazing. Jeremiah recorded that God had declared: “I will dry up her sea and make her springs dry” (51:36). Again the prophet foretold: “A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is a land of carved images” (50:38). Also, the prophet promised that the Lord had spoken: “I will prepare their feasts; I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep and not awake” (51:39).
Now listen to the story as history unfolds. The Euphrates River ran underneath the great walls of Babylon. After a siege of two full years, Cyrus was able to divert the river to make it flow into a huge marsh on the western side of the city. By doing this, he “dried up the rivers” of Babylon and provided an easy way for his soldiers to enter under the city walls where the water used to flow. But the Babylonians inside the city had no idea what was taking place. They could have defended the city, but instead they were feasting and getting drunk. Cyrus ordered his men to act like drunken revilers, and by the time the Babylonians knew what had hit them, the city was filled with enemy troops and who ultimately conquered it.
Even though the above circumstances would be enough to prove the accuracy of the prophecy of Jeremiah (and thus the Bible), the prophet’s predictions do not stop there. Chapters 50-51 of Jeremiah’s book are filled with more futuristic condemnations of Babylon, all of which were fulfilled in the smallest detail. Truly, the words spoken by the prophet did come to pass.
Time after time, the Bible has been “dead on” when it has predicted the future. Secular records document the facts about Babylon. So what does this prove? It proves one simple thing—that God Himself inspired the words written between the covers of the Bible. And because that is the case, every human being should welcome the Bible “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

A Personal Note About the Darwin Day Debate by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2663

A Personal Note About the Darwin Day Debate

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

As most of our readers are aware, I participated in a debate February 12, 2009 in which I defended the existence of the God of the Bible. My opponent was Dan Barker, the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest atheistic organization in North America. The debate took place on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. The venue for the debate held 550 people. It was filled to capacity, and several came that could not get in due to fire regulations. From what I can gather, there were probably about 650-700 who showed up. The entire debate lasted about two hours with alternating speeches from Dan and me and an audience question segment that lasted about 30 minutes.
We don’t have any precise records as to the make-up of the audience, but in my estimation, it looked as though there were about 400 members of the Church in attendance, with another 50 or so Christians who could not get in due to seating limitations. Many of the Christians traveled several hundred miles, driving for 6-8 hours to be in attendance. Several congregations brought bus loads of people, some even chartered buses. It was truly energizing to see so many Christians who cared enough to spend their valuable time and money to be there to support the Lord’s cause.
Months before the debate, Christians all over the world had been including the debate in their personal prayers as well as congregational prayers. From what I have been able to gather, literally thousands of Christians, some from other countries, were praying for the success of the debate. As the debate got closer, many Christians fasted and spent hours praying specifically for the truth to be obvious and God’s name to be glorified.
We arranged for Apologetics Press to have a table set up at the debate, from which we distributed material. We passed out information about A.P., as well as articles and books that addressed the specific arguments that were part of the debate. In all, we gave away about $5,000 worth of materials (of course, this was only possible through the generous donations of our supporters). We also gave people the opportunity to sign-up for weekly e-mail updates, and we made hundreds of personal contacts with other members of the church, those in denominations, and those in the skeptical community. We have already been involved in several e-mail, postal mail, and phone exchanges that stemmed from the debate, and we anticipate many more opportunities in the upcoming months and years to spread the truth because of the networking done at the debate.
I had about six months to prepare for the debate. During that time, I tried to watch each of Dan’s debates on the subject, as well as read all his books and many of his articles or other writings. I also found various Web sites that addressed Dan’s specific arguments. Thomas Baxley, a senior at Faulkner University who was interning with us at the time, also watched the Barker debates and helped me tremendously in narrowing down the material to be used during the debate. For the six months of preparation, my co-workers Eric Lyons, Dave Miller, and Caleb Colley, picked up most of my other writing responsibilities for our monthly journals and our Web site. I am extremely grateful for their extra effort that allowed me to stay focused on the debate.
My overall assessment of the debate is that it was a huge success on several different levels. First, I believe it invigorated the Lord’s Church, and reminded our people that New Testament Christianity is founded on truth and reason, and can stand against and defeat the best that the atheistic, unbelieving world has to offer. Second, it also manifested what the Lord’s Church can do when we work together. The prayers offered up to God, the financial support given to Apologetics Press, and the personal presence of so many Christians were an overwhelming testimony to the fact that the church of Jesus Christ is alive and well in the United States of America and is not afraid to stand up and be counted for His cause. Third, the debate helped show some of those in the skeptical community that rational, logical arguments undergird the Christian faith, and that those arguments are powerful and respect the dignity and God-given freedom of choice for all humanity.
Finally, and most important, it needs to be stressed to the point of redundancy that anything good that has been or will be accomplished by the debate must be attributed to the God of the Bible Whose existence I defended. It is His truth that was presented, His providential hand worked out the arrangements for the debate to transpire, and His strength and power, accessed by the prayers of thousands of faithful Christians, support those who are employed in defending His cause. We must always remember, that no matter what part we play in furthering the Lord’s Kingdom, at the end of the day, we are merely servants of the Most High who are doing what it is our duty to do (Luke 17:10). To God be the glory, great things He has done!

Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God While on Earth? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=354


Did Jesus Christ Exist in the Form of God While on Earth?

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Some conservative writers have attempted to defend the idea that the second Person of the Godhead, at the time of the “incarnation” (i.e., when “the Word became flesh”—John 1:14), laid aside “the form of God.” They contend that the concept of an infinite God being clothed within a human body is illogical. Though these authors undoubtedly mean well, their position is quite erroneous as to the nature of the incarnate Christ.
Several arguments have been employed in attempting to buttress this position. For example, it has been argued: (a) God cannot be tempted (James 1:13); but (b) Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 2:18). The conclusion is thus supposed to be: Jesus did not exist in the form of God.
The logical consequence of this position is that Jesus Christ was not deity in the flesh. Advocates of this view usually do not mean to affirm explicitly that conclusion, but that is where such reasoning leads. What these writers have failed to realize, with reference to James 1:13, is that God the Father—not Christ the Son—is in view in that context. James was not discussing the nature and/or role of Christ. Thus, it is improper to generalize regarding the nature of the Lord from this brief reference.
The text commonly appealed to as proof that Jesus did not exist on Earth in “the form of God” is Philippians 2:6. Here is the full context of what Paul wrote:
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (Philippians 2:5-8, ASV).
But the position advocated is incorrect for the following reasons.
In Philippians 2:6, Paul spoke of Christ as “existing in the form of God.” The term “existing” is not a past tense form. It translates the Greek term huparchon, a present tense participle. The present tense reveals that the Savior’s existence, in the “form of God,” is a sustained mode of being, not one that was interrupted by the incarnation. A.T. Robertson called attention to the difference between the present tense, huparchon (denoting “eternal existence in the morphe [form] of God”), and the Lord’s “becoming” (aorist tense) in the likeness of man (1931, 4:445). There was a time when the second Person of the Godhead did not exist as man; there never has been a time when He was not in “the form of God.”
W.E. Vine commented that this grammatical form denotes “an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it” (1991, p. 279). Another scholar noted that the word expresses “continuance of an antecedent state or condition” (Abbott-Smith, 1923, p. 457). Hendriksen was quite correct when he asked: “[O]f what did Christ empty himself? Surely not of his existence ‘in the form of God’ ” (1962, p. 106). Wuest amplified the present tense form of the participle by suggesting that Jesus “has always been and at present continues to subsist” in the form of God (1961, p. 462). It is unnecessary to multiply additional examples.
Contrary to the evidence, however, it has been alleged that whereas Christ existed in the form of God prior to the incarnation, He divested himself of that status while on Earth. Finally, according to the theory under review, Jesus resumed the form-of-God nature when He returned to heaven. There is no biblical support for this concept, which violates the explicit testimony of Scripture.
The Greek word for “form” is morphe. This term denotes that which is “indicative of the interior nature” of a thing (Green, 1907, p. 384), or as Kennedy observed, morphe “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (1956, 3:436). Trench commented that “none could be en morphe theou [in form of God] who was not God” (1890, p. 263). All of this simply means that if Jesus gave up the “form of God” when He became incarnate, then He ceased being God at that time. This is equivalent to the doctrine advocated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, that Christ was “nothing more than a perfect man.” I must say, in the kindest way possible, that the position under review is unrepresentative of the teaching of the New Testament.
But it is alleged that Jesus could not have existed in “the form of God” because the New Testament speaks of the Lord being led of the Spirit, protected by angels, etc. Obviously, therefore, Christ was not “infinite God.”
The thing that seems to be at the root of this misunderstanding is a failure to recognize that the Lord’s earthly limitations were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will. Of what did Christ “empty” Himself when He became flesh?
A.H. Strong expressed it well when he noted that, by means of the incarnation, Jesus “resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the independent exercise, of the divine attributes” (1907, p. 703). To say the same thing in another way, the Lord’s incarnate status involved, not a divestiture of divine form/essence or attributes, but rather a subordination of those attributes to the Father in terms of role function. When Jesus affirmed, “[T]he father is greater than I” (John 14:28), He was not disclaiming divine nature; rather, He was asserting that He had subjected Himself voluntarily to the Father’s will.
Think about this for a moment: How could Christ be void of the divine attributes, and still be divine? A thing is the sum of its attributes. This is an insurmountable difficulty for those who argue that the incarnate Christ was not in the “form of God.”
If Christ was not fully God, i.e., existing in the “form of God,” exactly what was He? Quasi-God? Half-God? Merely appearing to be God (as certain Gnostics held)? Only perfect Man? What?
Moreover, if Jesus did not exist in the “form of God” while He lived on Earth, how could He claim to be “one” (neuter gender, suggesting unity of nature) with the Father (John 10:30)? Why did the Lord allow Thomas to call him “God” (John 20:30)? Why did Jesus accept worship (Matthew 8:2), when He plainly taught that only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 4:10)?
Finally, if it is to be argued that Christ laid aside His status of being in “the form of God” by virtue of His humanness and His subordination to the Father, then one must contend, to be consistent, that Jesus does not possess the “form of God” now, because as our Mediator He is “the man, Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5), and He still is in subjection to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:27).
Some may feel that this is simply a matter of inconsequential semantics. However, sometimes semantics is quite important. Gospel truth is a message of words, and the Christian teacher needs to be accurate in the language he employs. May the Lord help us to be precise in the expression of biblical truth.

REFERENCES

Abbott-Smith, G. (1923), A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Green, Samuel (1907), Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: Religious Tract Society).
Hendriksen, William (1962), Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Kennedy, H.A.A. (1956), “Philippians,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W.R. Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Strong, A.H. (1907), Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).
Trench, R.C. (1890), Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.).
Vine, W.E. (1991), Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers).
Wuest, Kenneth (1961), The New Testament—An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

"Why Do You Use Illustrations of People Taming Dinosaurs?" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1605

"Why Do You Use Illustrations of People Taming Dinosaurs?"

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Kyle Butt, M.A.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and when it comes to dinosaurs, that certainly is the truth. Thousands of children across the globe have learned more about dinosaurs by flipping through picture books or graphic-laden magazine articles than they will ever learn by reading articles about these amazing creatures. Since we know this to be true, those of us at Apologetics Press often utilize graphics, pictures, and illustrations to teach the truth that dinosaurs and humans lived together in the past. In the process, we sometimes appropriate illustrations that portray humans and dinosaurs interacting with each other in various ways. We might have a picture of a person fighting a T-rex, watching an Apatosaurus run through the yard, or chasing a herd of Iguanodons. These illustrations, just like Bible pictures or many scientific illustrations, are not presented to say exactly how things were, but instead to illustrate, based on what we know, how things could have been.
For instance, when a scientific illustrator paints a picture of a dinosaur, he will often use different colors. But the color of a dinosaur is anybody’s guess. Would we accuse the illustrator of “error” simply because he painted a Stegosaurus with a red and yellow neck, even though such a detail is unknown? Of course not. We all understand that some aspects of an illustration are plausible, educated guesses, not facets designed to dogmatically demand that something was exactly a certain way. When a Bible illustrator draws a picture of David and Goliath and includes certain types of bushes or grass in the picture, is there any way to know that there was grass on the hillside if the text does not mention it? No. Nor are we suggesting that we know exactly what David and Goliath looked like. But we would not accuse an artist of “lying” because he painted grass in a realistic fashion on the side of a hill that most likely had some kind of vegetation on it.
The Apologetics Press poster of Lewis Lavoie's painting, "Deers in the Forest"
Coming to the point, recently Apologetics Press produced a poster of Lewis Lavoie’s painting “Deers in the Forest” (http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=450). The poster is a beautiful illustration of a child leading a plant-eating dinosaur through the woods with a rope and harness. Some who have seen the picture have questioned our use of such illustrations. They suggest that while we can know that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the past (see Lyons and Butt, 2008), we cannot know that a child ever pulled one with a rope. Thus, they contend that we are, at least in a minor way, “misleading” people who see the picture. If we have no record of a person ever pulling a dinosaur, why would we use such an illustration?
While we appreciate the conscientious nature of such a question, there is a good reason to use such illustrations. In James 3:7, the Bible says: “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea is tamed and has been tamed by mankind” (emp. added). The original Greek term that is translated “reptile” is the word herpeton, from which we get the English word “herpetology” which is the study of amphibians and reptiles. Thus, it is saying that all kinds of animals, including reptiles have been tamed by mankind. [NOTE: The text is not saying that every animal has been tamed—not every individual grizzly bear has been tamed, or is even tamable. Rather, the text is giving a general statement that the different kinds of animals can be and have been tamed.] When we explore the book of Genesis, we discover that God had Adam name all the different kinds of animals (Genesis 3:20), including dinosaurs. In addition, God created humans with the ability to have dominion over all the animals (Genesis 1:26), including dinosaurs as well.
We can see mankind’s dominion over the animal world quite clearly. Trainers can teach vicious killer whales to perform tricks, they can teach lions to jump through fiery hoops, elephants to stand on tiny stumps, and bears to dance in the circus ring. If we know that mankind was given dominion over all the beasts from the beginning of creation, and we know that all kinds of animals, including reptiles, have been tamed by mankind, is it reasonable to conclude that humans tamed dinosaurs in the same way that other animals have been tamed? It certainly is. Of course, we are not suggesting that we know for a fact that a nine-year-old boy pulled a dinosaur through the woods during a harvest of exotic white flowers. Just as we are not saying that the boy had brown hair as a matter of factual history, or that the child was actually barefooted, or that the dinosaur that he pulled had the exact number of spots as the one in the picture. What we are saying is, given what we know, this is a plausible scenario that could describe a similar past event.
While many people mentally acknowledge the truth that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the past, they are often taken aback when an artistic illustration actually portrays that truth. Many Christians are, understandably, still being unconsciously affected by the standard portrait that evolutionists paint concerning the nature of dinosaurs. Evolutionists have long had a monopoly on dinosaur images in the marketplace. Secular children’s pictures, shows, and books about dinosaurs rarely depict humans in the presence of dinosaurs. When they do, it is projected as a humorous, unbelievable scenario such as in the Flintstones. The evolutionary propaganda often leaves the impression that dinosaurs were all gigantic, ferocious, carnivorous beasts—a description which is inaccurate. Furthermore, such a description does not lend itself to the idea that dinosaurs could co-habit the Earth in a peaceful way with humans. But the average size of a dinosaur was that of approximately a large cow or rhinoceros and many species were herbivores. Many people simply have not stopped to think through all of the implications of the available evidence concerning dinosaurs and mankind. If an elephant or a cow can be subdued, why not a dinosaur? Especially a medium-to-small sized herbivore like the one painted in our most recent poster.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, why not use that form of teaching to get across the truth that humans and dinosaurs lived in the past, and humans have tamed every kind of “beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea”? It is time to reclaim the minds of young people and paint a more accurate picture of history for them. Just think, one such illustration has the potential to accomplish as much or more than all the 1,120 words in this article you just read!

REFERENCE

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery: AL: Apologetics Press).

A&E, “Duck Dynasty,” GQ, & Homosexuality by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4776

A&E, “Duck Dynasty,” GQ, & Homosexuality

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

No doubt you’ve heard the brouhaha over the remarks of a member of the “Duck Dynasty” cast concerning homosexuality. Though we do not agree with all of the religious views of the Robertson family, the Christian cannot help but be encouraged by the forthright stand made by the Robertson family's patriarch. Phil Robertson told his interviewer that homosexuality is “sin,” “not logical,” and “not right” (Magary, 2013). Leading homosexual organizations and other “politically correct” advocates have been quick to condemn and spew hate speech against him (e.g., Sacks and Kaplan, 2013; “‘Duck Dynasty’ Family…,” 2013). The incident merely highlights the full-blown culture war that has been raging for a number of years in the United States.
Apart from the issues of “free speech,” the self-contradiction and utter inconsistency of the left, and the determination of anti-Christian forces to bully, intimidate, and silence those who oppose their agenda, the entire matter actually distills into a single, all-encompassing issue: Does the God of the Bible exist and is the Bible His inspired, decipherable Word to which all human beings are amenable and for which they will be held accountable? For those who still believe the Bible, the issue is clear and decisive.
Homosexual intercourse is condemned as immoral sexual behavior in every period of Bible history. It was condemned implicitly at the beginning of human history in the creation of a man and a woman to form marriage and the home (Genesis 2:24). It was condemned as “wicked and sinful” and “very grievous” in Sodom and Gomorrah during the pre-Mosaic age (Genesis 13:13; 18:20; 19:1-11; cf. 2 Peter 2:7-8; Jude 7). It was condemned under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13), even to the point of being described as “wickedness,” “outrage,” “vileness,” “lewdness,” and “evil” (Judges 19:23-24; 20:3,6,10,12,13). With the arrival of Christ and Christianity on the planet, the New Testament is equally definitive in its uncompromising and unquestioned condemnation of same-sex activity (Matthew 19:9). Paul summarized the “unrighteous” and “ungodly” behavior of the Gentile nations, and declared:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:26-32, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
So the Bible is clear.
What’s more, science is equally definitive. For all the reckless claims of a genetic link to homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that no scientific evidence has been discovered that establishes the existence of the alleged “gay gene.” The Human Genome project found no proof for a genetic connection ("Human Genome...," 2003), and the studies conducted many years ago, that are largely responsible for perpetrating the myth of a genetic origin for homosexuality in the minds of most Americans (LeVay, 1991; Bailey and Pillard, 1991, Hamer, et al., 1993), have been discredited (see Miller, et al., 2004).

CONCLUSION

It is more than hard to believe that a sizable segment of the population of the United States of America has come to believe that homosexuality—recognized by the bulk of Western civilization as sexually aberrant behavior—should be tolerated and even encouraged. The Father of our country expressed the sentiment of the vast majority of Americans which prevailed for most of American history when he expressed his “abhorrence and detestation” for homosexuality (“George…,” 1778). The Creator of the Universe, Who also created human sexuality, was equally vehement in His condemnation of same-sex behavior. America would do well to consider soberly the divine declaration regarding the eventual outcome for the nation that sanctions it: “For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

REFERENCES

Bailey, Michael J., and Richard C. Pillard (1991), “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,”Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-1096, December.
“‘Duck Dynasty’ Family, Conservatives Defend Phil Robertson” (2013), Chicago Tribune, December 20, http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-20131220,0,1685719.story.
George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).
Hamer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci (1993), “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science, 261:321-327, July 16.
Human Genome Report Press Release” (2003), International Consortium Completes Human Genome Project, http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/50yr.html.
LeVay, Simon (1991), “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science, 253:1034-1037, August 30.
Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[9], September,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1388&topic=36.
Sacks, Ethan and Don Kaplan (2013), “‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Suspended From Show After Equating Homosexuality With Bestiality,” New York Daily News, December 19,http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-equates-homosexuality-bestiality-article-1.1551556.

From Jim McGuiggan... James 5: Robbed

James 5: Robbed

In chapter 5 James turns on those who prosper through the labor of others but who refuse to pay wages to those workers. The issue is fundamentally practical because it concerns food and clothing, shelter and dignity and these are being kept from those who have earned them. This is robbery, however explained or explained away or however skillfully the employer talks his way out of his obligation. He might as well be mugging the worker as far as concrete results are concerned because in the end he is robbing the worker of what is rightfully his. Down the years countless workers have made the rich and powerful richer and more powerful and for sheerly self-serving reasons, with no sense of debt, the rich and powerful walked away and left the workers stunned, jobless and in dire straits.
The reverse is true! There is more than enough of those who prey on the elderly, the ignorant and the disadvantaged. He comes to fix a leak under the sink or a faulty switch in the bedroom or a few loose slates on the roof and the sly crook gouges the poor woman for work he has never done. A recent case here in the UK involved the life’s savings of an elderly gentleman. A carpenter/joiner came to fix some windows, as I recall, but ending up building a whole new staircase and putting in some new flooring. I say that as though he had finished the job but he never had. What made it especially galling was that the sweet-natured old man continued to speak of the crook as "a nice man, very kind and helpful," certainly words to that affect. He said it took all his savings but at least his house was fixed up, or nearly so. Some time after the television interview the man fell down the stairs and died. The matter is still being pursued. In James the employers took advantage of and robbed the workers and in this case—as in so many others—the worker took advantage of and robbed the vulnerable old man.
And there are those in unions who go far beyond the sometimes essential work that they do to ensure that the workers are not prey to predatory wealth and power. They become the predators and honest businessmen and women are intimidated into agreements that are near impossible, straight-jacketed by union rules and policies that claims rights to the point where community is lost and everyone loses.
The principles involved here are far-reaching because while there’s more than one way of robbing someone there are many things we can steal from people. There are those who have made us rich in freedom and education and health and we refuse to give them what is due them. I’m think immediately of parents that have spent their lives providing for and protecting their children and their due is withheld—robbed! Teachers have devoted their lives to give us a shot at a better life in spirit as well as in other ways and their due is withheld—robbed! Wives and husbands have given the best years of their lives in faithfulness and devotion and their due is withheld—robbed! Little and growing children came to us for shaping and protection, came to us because we invited them into our lives and made them dependent on us and their due is withheld—Robbed!
James had a word of consolation: the Lord is near! Yes, that’s all very well, but what about those who’ve already suffered the loss? The Lord is not only near he will right all wrongs! Think noble things of God. Don’t rob him of his due because he has shown himself worthy of it all in Jesus Christ.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Gary... Bible Reading April 22



Bible Reading  

April 22

The World English Bible

Apr. 22
Numbers 35, 36

Num 35:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying,
Num 35:2 Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and You shall give suburbs for the cities around them to the Levites.
Num 35:3 The cities shall they have to dwell in; and their suburbs shall be for their livestock, and for their substance, and for all their animals.
Num 35:4 The suburbs of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits around it.
Num 35:5 You shall measure outside of the city for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the midst. This shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.
Num 35:6 The cities which you shall give to the Levites, they shall be the six cities of refuge, which you shall give for the manslayer to flee to: and besides them you shall give forty-two cities.
Num 35:7 All the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be forty-eight cities together with their suburbs.
Num 35:8 Concerning the cities which you shall give of the possession of the children of Israel, from the many you shall take many; and from the few you shall take few: everyone according to his inheritance which he inherits shall give of his cities to the Levites.
Num 35:9 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 35:10 Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan,
Num 35:11 then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person unwittingly may flee there.
Num 35:12 The cities shall be to you for refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer not die, until he stands before the congregation for judgment.
Num 35:13 The cities which you shall give shall be for you six cities of refuge.
Num 35:14 You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan, and you shall give three cities in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge.
Num 35:15 For the children of Israel, and for the stranger and for the foreigner living among them, shall these six cities be for refuge; that everyone who kills any person unwittingly may flee there.
Num 35:16 But if he struck him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:17 If he struck him with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:18 Or if he struck him with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death: when he meets him, he shall put him to death.
Num 35:20 If he thrust him of hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait, so that he died,
Num 35:21 or in enmity struck him with his hand, so that he died; he 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.
Num 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled on him anything without lying in wait,
Num 35:23 or with any stone, by which a man may die, not seeing him, and cast it on him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm;
Num 35:24 then the congregation shall judge between the striker and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances;
Num 35:25 and the congregation shall deliver the manslayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, where he was fled: and he shall dwell therein until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.
Num 35:26 But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the border of his city of refuge, where he flees,
Num 35:27 and the avenger of blood find him outside of the border of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the manslayer; he shall not be guilty of blood,
Num 35:28 because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return into the land of his possession.
Num 35:29 These things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Num 35:30 Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die.
Num 35:31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:32 You shall take no ransom for him who is fled to his city of refuge, that he may come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
Num 35:33 So you shall not pollute the land in which you are: for blood, it pollutes the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed it.
Num 35:34 You shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell: for I, Yahweh, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.
Num 36:1 The heads of the fathers' houses of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the heads of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel:
Num 36:2 and they said, Yahweh commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by Yahweh to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters.
Num 36:3 If they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong: so will it be taken away from the lot of our inheritance.
Num 36:4 When the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then will their inheritance be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong: so will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.
Num 36:5 Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of Yahweh, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks right.
Num 36:6 This is the thing which Yahweh does command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them be married to whom they think best; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married.
Num 36:7 So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall cleave everyone to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
Num 36:8 Every daughter, who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers.
Num 36:9 So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave everyone to his own inheritance.
Num 36:10 Even as Yahweh commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad:
Num 36:11 for Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to their father's brothers' sons.
Num 36:12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.
Num 36:13 These are the commandments and the ordinances which Yahweh commanded by Moses to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.


Apr. 22, 23
Luke 13
Luk 13:1 Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Luk 13:2 Jesus answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, on whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them; do you think that they were worse offenders than all the men who dwell in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, no, but, unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way."
Luk 13:6 He spoke this parable. "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, and found none.
Luk 13:7 He said to the vine dresser, 'Behold, these three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and found none. Cut it down. Why does it waste the soil?'
Luk 13:8 He answered, 'Lord, leave it alone this year also, until I dig around it, and fertilize it.
Luk 13:9 If it bears fruit, fine; but if not, after that, you can cut it down.' "
Luk 13:10 He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath day.
Luk 13:11 Behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and she was bent over, and could in no way straighten herself up.
Luk 13:12 When Jesus saw her, he called her, and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your infirmity."
Luk 13:13 He laid his hands on her, and immediately she stood up straight, and glorified God.
Luk 13:14 The ruler of the synagogue, being indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the multitude, "There are six days in which men ought to work. Therefore come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day!"
Luk 13:15 Therefore the Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each one of you free his ox or his donkey from the stall on the Sabbath, and lead him away to water?
Luk 13:16 Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound eighteen long years, be freed from this bondage on the Sabbath day?"
Luk 13:17 As he said these things, all his adversaries were disappointed, and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.
Luk 13:18 He said, "What is the Kingdom of God like? To what shall I compare it?
Luk 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and put in his own garden. It grew, and became a large tree, and the birds of the sky lodged in its branches."
Luk 13:20 Again he said, "To what shall I compare the Kingdom of God?
Luk 13:21 It is like yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened."
Luk 13:22 He went on his way through cities and villages, teaching, and traveling on to Jerusalem.
Luk 13:23 One said to him, "Lord, are they few who are saved?" He said to them,
Luk 13:24 "Strive to enter in by the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter in, and will not be able.
Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house has risen up, and has shut the door, and you begin to stand outside, and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' then he will answer and tell you, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'
Luk 13:26 Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.'
Luk 13:27 He will say, 'I tell you, I don't know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity.'
Luk 13:28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets, in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves being thrown outside.
Luk 13:29 They will come from the east, west, north, and south, and will sit down in the Kingdom of God.
Luk 13:30 Behold, there are some who are last who will be first, and there are some who are first who will be last."
Luk 13:31 On that same day, some Pharisees came, saying to him, "Get out of here, and go away, for Herod wants to kill you."
Luk 13:32 He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I complete my mission.
Luk 13:33 Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the next day, for it can't be that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.'
Luk 13:34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, like a hen gathers her own brood under her wings, and you refused!
Luk 13:35 Behold, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!' "