From Gary... Bible Reading July 13

Bible Reading  
July 13

The World English Bible

July 13
1 Chronicles 1-3

1Ch 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,
1Ch 1:2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
1Ch 1:3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech,
1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1Ch 1:5 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
1Ch 1:6 The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Diphath, and Togarmah.
1Ch 1:7 The sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.
1Ch 1:8 The sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
1Ch 1:9 The sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raama, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan.
1Ch 1:10 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
1Ch 1:11 Mizraim became the father of Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
1Ch 1:12 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whence came the Philistines), and Caphtorim.
1Ch 1:13 Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
1Ch 1:14 and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite,
1Ch 1:15 and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
1Ch 1:16 and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
1Ch 1:17 The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.
1Ch 1:18 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah, and Shelah became the father of Eber.
1Ch 1:19 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
1Ch 1:20 Joktan became the father of Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
1Ch 1:21 and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,
1Ch 1:22 and Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
1Ch 1:23 and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
1Ch 1:24 Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah,
1Ch 1:25 Eber, Peleg, Reu,
1Ch 1:26 Serug, Nahor, Terah,
1Ch 1:27 Abram (the same is Abraham).
1Ch 1:28 The sons of Abraham: Isaac, and Ishmael.
1Ch 1:29 These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
1Ch 1:30 Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema,
1Ch 1:31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
1Ch 1:32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bore Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan: Sheba, and Dedan.
1Ch 1:33 The sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah.
1Ch 1:34 Abraham became the father of Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau, and Israel.
1Ch 1:35 The sons of Esau: Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jalam, and Korah.
1Ch 1:36 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek.
1Ch 1:37 The sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
1Ch 1:38 The sons of Seir: Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan.
1Ch 1:39 The sons of Lotan: Hori, and Homam; and Timna was Lotan's sister.
1Ch 1:40 The sons of Shobal: Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. The sons of Zibeon: Aiah, and Anah.
1Ch 1:41 The sons of Anah: Dishon. The sons of Dishon: Hamran, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
1Ch 1:42 The sons of Ezer: Bilhan, and Zaavan, Jaakan. The sons of Dishan: Uz, and Aran.
1Ch 1:43 Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there resigned any king over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
1Ch 1:44 Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:45 Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:46 Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.
1Ch 1:47 Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:48 Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:49 Shaul died, and Baal Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place.
1Ch 1:50 Baal Hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai: and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1Ch 1:51 Hadad died. The chiefs of Edom were: chief Timna, chief Aliah, chief Jetheth,
1Ch 1:52 chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon,
1Ch 1:53 chief Kenaz, chief Teman, chief Mibzar,
1Ch 1:54 chief Magdiel, chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom.
1Ch 2:1 These are the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun,
1Ch 2:2 Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.
1Ch 2:3 The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born to him of Shua's daughter the Canaanitess. Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of Yahweh; and he killed him.
1Ch 2:4 Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.
1Ch 2:5 The sons of Perez: Hezron, and Hamul.
1Ch 2:6 The sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara; five of them in all.
1Ch 2:7 The sons of Carmi: Achar, the troubler of Israel, who committed a trespass in the devoted thing.
1Ch 2:8 The sons of Ethan: Azariah.
1Ch 2:9 The sons also of Hezron, who were born to him: Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai.
1Ch 2:10 Ram became the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;
1Ch 2:11 and Nahshon became the father of Salma, and Salma became the father of Boaz,
1Ch 2:12 and Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse;
1Ch 2:13 and Jesse became the father of his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third,
1Ch 2:14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
1Ch 2:15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh;
1Ch 2:16 and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. The sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.
1Ch 2:17 Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.
1Ch 2:18 Caleb the son of Hezron became the father of children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon.
1Ch 2:19 Azubah died, and Caleb took to him Ephrath, who bore him Hur.
1Ch 2:20 Hur became the father of Uri, and Uri became the father of Bezalel.
1Ch 2:21 Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he took as wife when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub.
1Ch 2:22 Segub became the father of Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead.
1Ch 2:23 Geshur and Aram took the towns of Jair from them, with Kenath, and its villages, even sixty cities. All these were the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.
1Ch 2:24 After that Hezron was dead in Caleb Ephrathah, then Abijah Hezron's wife bore him Ashhur the father of Tekoa.
1Ch 2:25 The sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were Ram the firstborn, and Bunah, and Oren, and Ozem, Ahijah.
1Ch 2:26 Jerahmeel had another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam.
1Ch 2:27 The sons of Ram the firstborn of Jerahmeel were Maaz, and Jamin, and Eker.
1Ch 2:28 The sons of Onam were Shammai, and Jada. The sons of Shammai: Nadab, and Abishur.
1Ch 2:29 The name of the wife of Abishur was Abihail; and she bore him Ahban, and Molid.
1Ch 2:30 The sons of Nadab: Seled, and Appaim; but Seled died without children.
1Ch 2:31 The sons of Appaim: Ishi. The sons of Ishi: Sheshan. The sons of Sheshan: Ahlai.
1Ch 2:32 The sons of Jada the brother of Shammai: Jether, and Jonathan; and Jether died without children.
1Ch 2:33 The sons of Jonathan: Peleth, and Zaza. These were the sons of Jerahmeel.
1Ch 2:34 Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha.
1Ch 2:35 Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant as wife; and she bore him Attai.
1Ch 2:36 Attai became the father of Nathan, and Nathan became the father of Zabad,
1Ch 2:37 and Zabad became the father of Ephlal, and Ephlal became the father of Obed,
1Ch 2:38 and Obed became the father of Jehu, and Jehu became the father of Azariah,
1Ch 2:39 and Azariah became the father of Helez, and Helez became the father of Eleasah,
1Ch 2:40 and Eleasah became the father of Sismai, and Sismai became the father of Shallum,
1Ch 2:41 and Shallum became the father of Jekamiah, and Jekamiah became the father of Elishama.
1Ch 2:42 The sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were Mesha his firstborn, who was the father of Ziph; and the sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron.
1Ch 2:43 The sons of Hebron: Korah, and Tappuah, and Rekem, and Shema.
1Ch 2:44 Shema became the father of Raham, the father of Jorkeam; and Rekem became the father of Shammai.
1Ch 2:45 The son of Shammai was Maon; and Maon was the father of Beth Zur.
1Ch 2:46 Ephah, Caleb's concubine, bore Haran, and Moza, and Gazez; and Haran became the father of Gazez.
1Ch 2:47 The sons of Jahdai: Regem, and Jothan, and Geshan, and Pelet, and Ephah, and Shaaph.
1Ch 2:48 Maacah, Caleb's concubine, bore Sheber and Tirhanah.
1Ch 2:49 She bore also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbena, and the father of Gibea; and the daughter of Caleb was Achsah.
1Ch 2:50 These were the sons of Caleb, the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim,
1Ch 2:51 Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth Gader.
1Ch 2:52 Shobal the father of Kiriath Jearim had sons: Haroeh, half of the Menuhoth.
1Ch 2:53 The families of Kiriath Jearim: The Ithrites, and the Puthites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites.
1Ch 2:54 The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Atroth Beth Joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites.
1Ch 2:55 The families of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.
1Ch 3:1 Now these were the sons of David, who were born to him in Hebron: the firstborn, Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the second, Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess;
1Ch 3:2 the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;
1Ch 3:3 the fifth, Shephatiah of Abital; the sixth, Ithream by Eglah his wife:
1Ch 3:4 six were born to him in Hebron; and there he reigned seven years and six months. In Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years;
1Ch 3:5 and these were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel;
1Ch 3:6 and Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet,
1Ch 3:7 and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia,
1Ch 3:8 and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine.
1Ch 3:9 All these were the sons of David, besides the sons of the concubines; and Tamar was their sister.
1Ch 3:10 Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
1Ch 3:11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
1Ch 3:12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,
1Ch 3:13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
1Ch 3:14 Amon his son, Josiah his son.
1Ch 3:15 The sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
1Ch 3:16 The sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
1Ch 3:17 The sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son,
1Ch 3:18 and Malchiram, and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
1Ch 3:19 The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei. The sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah; and Shelomith was their sister;
1Ch 3:20 and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab Hesed, five.
1Ch 3:21 The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah; the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah.
1Ch 3:22 The sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. The sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Igal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.
1Ch 3:23 The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, and Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three.
1Ch 3:24 The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, and Eliashib, and Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Delaiah, and Anani, seven.

Jul. 12, 13
Acts 9

Act 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
Act 9:2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Act 9:3 As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him.
Act 9:4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Act 9:5 He said, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Act 9:6 But rise up, and enter into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
Act 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one.
Act 9:8 Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no one. They led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Act 9:9 He was without sight for three days, and neither ate nor drank.
Act 9:10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias!" He said, "Behold, it's me, Lord."
Act 9:11 The Lord said to him, "Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judah for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying,
Act 9:12 and in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight."
Act 9:13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he did to your saints at Jerusalem.
Act 9:14 Here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name."
Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel.
Act 9:16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake."
Act 9:17 Ananias departed, and entered into the house. Laying his hands on him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me, that you may receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Act 9:18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight. He arose and was baptized.
Act 9:19 He took food and was strengthened. Saul stayed several days with the disciples who were at Damascus.
Act 9:20 Immediately in the synagogues he proclaimed the Christ, that he is the Son of God.
Act 9:21 All who heard him were amazed, and said, "Isn't this he who in Jerusalem made havoc of those who called on this name? And he had come here intending to bring them bound before the chief priests!"
Act 9:22 But Saul increased more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.
Act 9:23 When many days were fulfilled, the Jews conspired together to kill him,
Act 9:24 but their plot became known to Saul. They watched the gates both day and night that they might kill him,
Act 9:25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.
Act 9:26 When Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.
Act 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
Act 9:28 He was with them entering into Jerusalem,
Act 9:29 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus. He spoke and disputed against the Hellenists, but they were seeking to kill him.
Act 9:30 When the brothers knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him off to Tarsus.
Act 9:31 So the assemblies throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, and were built up. They were multiplied, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit.
Act 9:32 It happened, as Peter went throughout all those parts, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.
Act 9:33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden for eight years, because he was paralyzed.
Act 9:34 Peter said to him, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed!" Immediately he arose.
Act 9:35 All who lived at Lydda and in Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
Act 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which when translated, means Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and acts of mercy which she did.
Act 9:37 It happened in those days that she fell sick, and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in an upper chamber.
Act 9:38 As Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, imploring him not to delay in coming to them.
Act 9:39 Peter got up and went with them. When he had come, they brought him into the upper chamber. All the widows stood by him weeping, and showing the coats and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them.
Act 9:40 Peter put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, "Tabitha, get up!" She opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
Act 9:41 He gave her his hand, and raised her up. Calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive.
Act 9:42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.
Act 9:43 It happened, that he stayed many days in Joppa with one Simon, a tanner.

From Mark Copeland... "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT" Which Shall We Serve?

                      "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT"

                         Which Shall We Serve?


1. As Christians, we enjoy wonderful freedom in Christ...
   a. There is freedom from sin - Jn 8:31-34
   b. There is freedom from the Law of Moses - Ro 7:6
   c. There is freedom from the traditions of men - Ga 4:9

2. It is truly the desire of Christ that we be free - cf. Ga 5:1
   a. But we must not allow freedom to become "license" (i.e., freedom
      without any restraint)
   b. If we are not careful, desires of the flesh can wreak self-
      destruction - Ga 5:13-15

3. To prevent this, the apostle Paul commands us to walk in the Spirit
   - Ga 5:16
   a. If we do so, we will not succumb to the desires of the flesh
   b. And whatever dangers there might be in fulfilling the lust of the
      flesh are thereby diminished

4. To encourage us to walk in the Spirit and not carry out the desire
   of the flesh, we will spend several lessons examining this section
   of scripture:  Ga 5:16-26

5. Perhaps a good place to begin is by asking these questions:
   a. Why make any effort to walk in the Spirit?
   b. Why not just succumb to the desires of the flesh?

[At least five reasons are given in our text, and the first one we 
shall consider is this...]


      1. They are in opposition against each other - Ga 5:17a
      2. Is "the Spirit" referring to the Holy Spirit, or the human
         a. I believe it has reference to the Holy Spirit
         b. The context of the epistle certainly suggests this to be 
            the case
            1) Through "the Spirit" we eagerly wait for the hope of
               righteousness- Ga 5:5
            2) Paul's argument "If we live in the Spirit, let us also
               walk in the Spirit" would not make sense if the human
               spirit is meant - Ga 5:25
            3) Reaping everlasting life "of the Spirit" must refer to
               the Holy Spirit - Ga 6:8
      3. So while the flesh pulls us in one direction, the Spirit of
         God would have us go in another!

      1. If you follow the lusts of the flesh, you can not do the will
         of the Spirit - Ga 5:17b
      2. Like the dilemma described in Ro 7:14-23, following the flesh
         will enslave
      3. But with the help of Spirit, the flesh can be overcome! - cf.
         Ro 8:12-14

[So we must choose who will be our master:  the lusts of the flesh, or
the Spirit of God; we cannot serve both!

As we continue, we are given more reasons to serve the Spirit...]


      1. In the context, "the law" has primary reference to the "Law of
         Moses" - cf. Ga 4:21
      2. The purpose of the law was primarily two-fold:
         a. To reveal sin - cf. Ga 3:19a; Ro 3:20
         b. To condemn the sinner as guilty - cf. Ro 3:19
      3. To be "under the Law", then, is to be under a state of 
         a. For the law does not provide forgiveness
         b. It only provides condemnation!
      THE LAW...
      1. Because obedience to the gospel revealed by the Spirit results
         in freedom
         a. Freedom from condemnation - Ro 8:1
         b. Freedom from the law of sin of death - Ro 8:2; 6:17-18
         -- Made possible through the sacrifice of Christ! - Ro 8:3-4
      2. Because those walking according to the Spirit (cf. Ro 8:4) do
         things against which there is no law to condemn them! - cf. 
         Ga 5:22-23

[If we desire to be free from the condemnation of sin under the law of
God, then we must "walk in the Spirit".

There is another reason why we should seek to "walk in the Spirit" and
not "fulfill the lust of the flesh"...]

     KINGDOM OF GOD 5:19-21

      1. Spoken of by Christ - Mt 25:34
      2. Looked forward to by Paul - 2Ti 4:18
      3. Referred to by Peter - 2Pe 1:10-11

      1. A double warning!
      2. "of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in 
         time past..." - Ga 5:21
      3. He wants to be sure they don't miss it!
      1. They have no inheritance in the kingdom of God - Ga 5:21; Ep 5:5
      2. Indeed, the wrath of God will come upon them - Ep 5:6-7

[Which shall it be?  Walk in the Spirit, or fulfill the lusts of the
flesh?  The choice should be clear:  one offers freedom from 
condemnation, and the other offers no hope of the heavenly kingdom!

But Paul gives us two more reasons to make the right choice...]


      1. Our old man was crucified with Him, that we might no longer be
         slaves of sin - Ro 6:1-6
      2. We died with Christ (in baptism) that we might be free from
         sin and live a new life with Him! - Ro 6:7-10

      1. We continue to "put to death" the "members which are on earth"
         - Col 3:5-7
      2. We must be involved in the process of "putting off" the old 
         man - Col 3:8-11
      3. If we are not doing this, there is no hope - cf. Ro 8:13

[Putting off the works of the flesh, therefore, is fundamental to the
Christian life.  We started the process when we were baptized into 
Christ, and we are to continue the process as we grow in the Lord.

We are not alone in this effort.  As Paul indicated in Ro 8:13, it is
by the Spirit we are able to put to death the deeds of the body.  That
leads back to a fifth and final reason we ought to walk in the Spirit
and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh...]


      1. It was the Holy Spirit who made the Gospel known to mankind
         a. As Jesus said He would - Jn 16:7-13
         b. The apostles attributed the gospel message to the Holy
            Spirit - 1Co 2:9-13
      2. When one responds to the gospel of God's grace, they are 
         renewed by the Holy Spirit - cf. Tit 3:5
      3. It is the Spirit in us who gives us new life! - Ro 8:11-13

      1. It is by the Holy Spirit that God has made our new life
      2. It is only proper that we should live out our new life...
         a. Being led by the Spirit - Ga 5:18; cf. Ro 8:14
         b. Walking in the Spirit - Ga 5:25; cf. Ro 8:1-2


1. We have these five reasons why we should walk in the Spirit and not
   fulfill the lusts of the flesh:
   a. The Spirit and the flesh are contrary to one another
   b. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law
   c. Fulfill the lusts of the flesh, and you will not inherit the 
      kingdom of God
   d. Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh
   e. Since we live in the Spirit, we should also walk in the Spirit

2. But lest anyone remain unconvinced, consider another point made by
   a. We reap what we sow! - Ga 6:7-8
   b. And the type of corruption reaped by those who give into the 
      works of the flesh is varied:
      1) It is physical, mental, social and spiritual
      2) Look around you and you can see the truthfulness of this; only
         the foolish do not see it

3. But also seen is the type of life which is enjoyed both now and in
   heaven by those who follow the Spirit (as suggested in 1Ti 4:8)

The question we each face is this...

            The flesh or the Spirit:  Which shall we serve?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

How Humble Could Moses Have Been? by Kyle Butt, M.A.


How Humble Could Moses Have Been?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

In an attempt to discredit the idea that God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Old Testament, many skeptics and liberal Bible scholars have taken it upon themselves to hyper-analyze any and all “questionable” statements in the Pentateuch. One of the statements frenquently used to bolster the idea that Moses could not have written these five books is found in Numbers 12:3, which reads: “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.” After reading this statement, the question arises: “How could Moses be the meekest or most humble man in the world, and proceed to tell everyone that he is?” According to Tod Billings, the president (in 1999) of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, “if Moses really said this in reference to himself, he is vain and arrogant, not ‘very meek!’ ” (1999). Statements like those of Mr. Billings could be multiplied many times over from the pen of countless “freethinkers,” skeptics, and liberal Bible scholars. And, in all honesty, a cursory look at this statement might take even the most sincere Bible student somewhat by surprise.
Could Moses have been very meek, and still have written this statement about himself? Yes. First, if God was informing Moses what to write, then Moses had little choice in the wording of the description concerning himself. It is clear from the scope of the statement, which included “all the men that were upon the face of the earth,” that only God had the ability to know who was the meekest man living at the time of Moses (Coffman, 1987, p. 365). Does it not make sense that God would have chosen only the most humble man to bring His chosen people out of Egypt and through the wilderness?
Second, the phrase is added so that the reader can understand the narrative more fully. In the context, Moses’ brother Aaron, and sister Miriam, had spoken against Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman. They said to Moses, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also” (Numbers 12:1-2)? These statements amounted to a direct attack upon the authority that God had given Moses. Had Moses’ siblings been permitted to continue with such sentiments, the entire authoritative structure established by God (i.e., establishing Moses as the primary leader of the Israelites) might have been jeopardized. However, because Moses was such a meek and humble man, He refused to take it upon himself to squelch this rebellious attitude. Therefore, God had to step in and speak directly to Moses’ siblings, informing Miriam and Aaron that God had a special relationship with Moses, and that his brother and sister should have been “afraid to speak against My [God’s—KB] servant Moses” (Numbers 12:8). Without the statement concerning Moses’ meekness, this narrative is somewhat incomplete. With the statement included, however, we see that Moses refused to exalt himself and set his siblings straight, so God stepped in and exalted Moses.
Third, many of the Bible writers were inspired to make comments about themselves that sound arrogant to some, yet in actuality, they are not arrogant statements, but simply documentation of a fact that God wanted those who read the Bible to know. For instance, on several occasions in the gospel of John, we read a description about a particular disciple “whom Jesus loved.” At the end of the book, the writer informs his readers that he is that disciple (John 21:20-25). Is it arrogant of John to single himself out more than the other apostles as one whom Jesus loved? Or is it the case that God wanted that information included for the benefit of the readers? Another example comes from the apostle Paul. When Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin to defend himself, he opened his speech with the statement, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1, c.f. Mark 13:11). Because Ananias, the high priest, considered this statement to be out of line, he commanded one of the soldiers who stood by Paul to strike him on the mouth. Paul’s statement, however, was a simple statement of fact that contained neither arrogance nor conceit.
During Moses’ life, God considered him to be the meekest man living. God wanted the readers of the Bible to know this fact, therefore He inspired Moses to record it. The fact helps the reader understand God’s action in Numbers 12, and it is congruent with similar statements recorded by other Bible writers. The statement cannot legitimately be used to argue against the inspiration or Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.


Billings, Tod (1999), “Moses Wrote the Torah?” [On-line], URL: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/billings_torah.html.
Coffman, James Burton (1987), Commentary on Leviticus and Numbers (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Eyeballing Design in the Vampire Squid by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Eyeballing Design in the Vampire Squid

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

In January 2007, Science magazine posted an article titled, “Loopy Lens Proteins Provide Squid with Excellent Eyesight,” by Elizabeth Pennisi. The article comments on the work done by graduate student Alison Sweeny who “wanted to learn about eye evolution” (Pennisi, 2007, 315[5811]:456). In order to do that, Sweeny dissected the eyeballs of a deep-water squid known as the Vampire squid.
To see underwater, an animal needs a special lens system. Pennisi wrote: “Seeing clearly underwater requires a special spherical lens with a high refractive index in the center but a lower index toward the edge” (315[5811]:456). The intricate lens structures in the eye of the Vampire squid were discovered to be extremely efficient for seeing clearly underwater. In fact, the caption to a picture in the article states: “Near-perfect eyes. Vampire squid lenses are designed for seeing details, even in virtual darkness” (315[5811]:456, emp. added). Jonathan Henry, biologist at the University of Illinois, stated: “It’s amazing how finely tuned the squid’s lens is to do its job” (315[5811]:456). In the concluding remarks of the article, Pennisi quoted Sweeney as saying that the lens of the Vampire squid “has a visual acuity better than in a state-of-the-art Zeiss dissecting microscope” (315[5811]:456).
Interesting, is it not, that Sweeney and the other researchers were attempting to learn more about “eye evolution”? Yet, they discovered exactly the opposite. They found a lens that is designed, finely tuned, and works better than a state-of-the-art microscope. Unfortunately, they missed the obvious implication that such statements demand: evolution cannot account for design or fine tuning. And how is it that all recognize that a Zeiss dissecting microscope has intelligent designers, but many miss the fact that the superior squid lens also has a designer? The biblical writer summarized this situation perfectly when he wrote:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22, emp. added).


Elizabeth Pennisi (2007), “News Focus Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Meeting: Loopy Lens Proteins Provide Squid With Excellent Eyesight,” Science, 315[5811]:456, January 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5811/456a.

Behemoth and Leviathan--Creatures of Controversy by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Behemoth and Leviathan--Creatures of Controversy

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Many have heard of Hercules, the Greek hero remembered for his strength, courage, and numerous legendary exploits. In his journeys, he encountered, among other things, the multi-headed monsters Geryon (whose oxen he ultimately captured) and the Hydra (whom he killed). Still others may recall the Greek hero Odysseus (Ulysses in Latin) in Homer’s work, The Odyssey. His adventures came to life as he found himself face to face with the man-eating giant, Polyphemus, and then with the goddess Calypso, who offered him immortality if he would abandon his quest for home. Such adventurous stories always are entertaining to read. They allow a person to dream about what it would be like to live in a world with such fantastic beings.
In Job 40 and 41, God describes two amazing creatures that some have compared to the monsters of pagan mythology. Behemoth and leviathan are so famous that an ocean liner was named after one, while the other has become a synonym for objects of enormous size. Are these two animals—as described in God’s last speech to Job—simply mythological monsters that should be considered in the same light as those beasts conquered by Hercules and Odysseus? Are they simply fictitious creatures of an extraordinary time when pagan gods allegedly ruled the world? Or, are the two beasts God described in Job 40-41 real flesh-and-blood animals? Furthermore, if it can be established that these creatures are real, what are their identities?


Over the last several centuries, many have attempted to mythologize the inspired Word of God. Atheists vigorously attack the Genesis account of creation, calling it nothing more than a fictitious story that should be placed alongside (or even “behind”) myths like the Babylonian creation account. Liberal theologians similarly labor to make Scripture conform to secular sources, claiming that the Israelite religion is a mere “Yahwization” of pagan religions (i.e., attributing to Yahweh what pagan religions attributed to their gods) [see Brantley, 1993, 13:50]. Such attempts to mythologize Scripture represent a blatant attack upon God’s Word.
But even though the Bible is not based on pagan mythology, on occasion it does contain unmistakable allusions to it. Consider, for example, Isaiah 27:1: “In that day Jehovah with his hard and great and strong sword will punish leviathan the swift serpent, and leviathan the crooked serpent; and he will slay the monster that is in the sea.” Here, the inspired writer makes reference to leviathan in a prophetic passage depicting the future victory of God over His foes. As Pfeiffer has observed:
Isaiah was, of course, a strict monotheist. He did, however, draw upon the common stock of poetic imagery known to his people just as contemporary writers allude to mythology to illustrate a point without thereby expressing or encouraging faith in the story so used (1960, 32:209).
Among the clay tablets found in ancient Ugarit (present-day Ras Shamra), there was one that described with similar words a creature called Lotan: “When thou hast smitten Lotan, the fleeing serpent [and] hast put to an end the tortuous serpent, the mighty one with seven heads...” (as quoted in Pfeiffer, 32:209). In explaining the language of Isaiah and other Bible writers, John Day commented:
Canaanite mythic imagery was the most impressive means in that ancient cultural milieu whereby to display the sovereignty and transcendence of Yahweh, along with His superiority over Baal and all other earthly contenders. Although the Hebrews did not borrow the theology of Canaan, they did borrow its imagery—here the imagery of Baal’s enemy, Sea/Dragon/Leviathan (1998, 155:436, emp. added).
Day believes the problem is not one of borrowed mythology, but one of borrowed imagery. In summarizing his view on this subject, R. Laird Harris wrote: “We may conclude that mythological symbols are used in the Bible for purposes of illustration and communication of truth without in the least adopting the mythology or approving of its ideas” (1992, p. 165, emp. added). To suggest that the godly men and writers of the Old Testament believed in these mythological creatures is to make an abrasive and completely unwarranted assumption. In the words of Old Testament scholar, J. Barton Payne, such a view should be “roundly denied” (1980, 1:472). Elmer Smick noted:
Reading primitive meaning into a piece of monotheistic literature where the idiom can be viewed as a result of simple observation or the use of quaint expressions is poor methodology. On the other hand, we must be cautioned against the rejection of all mythological usage in a strained attempt to remove the writers of Scripture from such contamination (1970, p. 222).
In the book of Job, there no doubt are allusions to mythology (cf. 3:8; 26:12), but Job itself is not a mythological book. Rather, Job is presented as a devout monotheist who rejected then-popular mythological concepts (cf. 31:26-28). It is quite possible that a mythological element can be seen in the poetic language of Job 3:8: “Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to rouse up leviathan” (Job 3:8; see Hailey, 1994, p. 49). [The KJV rendering “who are ready to raise up their mourning” misses the reference to leviathan, which is obvious in the original language.] Many scholars identify the leviathan of this verse with a mythological creature described in Ugaritic myths. According to such mythology, a marine monster named Lotan was capable of altering the entire world order by eclipsing the Sun or Moon with its body (Payne, 1980, 1:472). Smick has suggested, then, that in the context of chapter 3, “Job, in a cursing mood, employs the most vivid, forceful, proverbial language available to call for the obliteration of that day” (1978, 40[2]:215). In his commentary on Job, Roy Zuck made the following observation concerning mythology and its relation to the book.
Was Job indicating belief in a creature of mythology? No, he was probably doing nothing more than utilizing for poetic purposes a common notion that his hearers would understand. This would have been similar to modern adults referring to Santa Claus. Mentioning his name does not mean that one believes such a person exists (1978, p. 24).
Thus, even though the Bible may make allusions to mythology, “neither the book of Job nor any of the Old Testament has the slightest hint of belief in any such mythology” (Smick, 1970, p. 229).


For centuries, students of the Bible have questioned the identity of behemoth and leviathan. “In the Middle Ages, some theologians, like Albert Magnus, conceived of behemoth as a symbol of sensuality and sin. Others, like Thomas Aquinas, equated behemoth with the elephant, and leviathan with the whale” (Gordis, 1978, p. 569)—both being natural monsters in the literal sense, but representing diabolical power in a figurative sense. In 1663, Samuel Bochart published a two-volume work identifying the two animals under consideration as the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Then, as additional extrabiblical literature came to light in the middle-to-late nineteenth century (most notably from Mesopotamia), the mythological interpretation was revived and comparative mythology became very popular among biblical scholars.
By the closing of the nineteenth century, some scholars began to see mythology as the solution to the “identification problem” of the creatures described in Job 40-41. That problem was stated by T.K. Cheyne as early as 1887 when he observed that “...neither Behemoth nor Leviathan corresponds strictly to any known animal” (p. 56). In 1892, C.H. Toy argued that behemoth and leviathan were water animals associated with the “primeval seas Apsu and Tiamat as they appeared to be presented in the emerging Babylonian Epic of Creation” (as quoted in Wilson, 1975, 25:2). In his commentary on Job, Tur-Sinai dismissed behemoth altogether, and suggested instead that the passage of Scripture from Job 40:15 through the end of the chapter is concerned with only one powerful figure—the mythological leviathan (1967, p. 558). Marvin Pope probably is the most recent well-known supporter of the mythological view. Using the Ugaritic texts as support for his theory, Pope has proposed that behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are the same mythological creatures found in the ancient Jewish writings of Enoch, IV Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.

Arguments for the Mythological View

Some scholars believe behemoth and leviathan are mythological monsters due largely to the fact that similar creatures are mentioned in pagan myths. Those holding to this view do admit that the plural form behemot occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament without any hint of mythological implications (cf. Psalms 8:8; 50:10; Joel 1:20; 2:22; Habakkuk 2:17). Generally speaking, for example, in Scripture behemoth often refers to ordinary cattle. But those same scholars quickly point out the instances in which behemoth is used in some of the ancient Jewish writings that echo ancient pagan mythology. By citing extrabiblical texts such as 1 Enoch 60:7-9, 4 Ezra 49-52, and 2 Baruch 29:4, Pope has suggested that behemoth had a prototype in pre-Israelite mythology that was connected in some ancient myth, or played similar roles in different myths (1965, p. 269).
Scholars also allude to the Ugaritic texts where, they point out, the violent goddess ‘Anat boasts of having conquered along with Leviathan a bovine creature called ‘glil’tk that may be rendered “the ferocious bullock of El” (Pope, p. 269). Pope believes that this bullock of El very well may correspond with the behemoth of Job 40. He further suggests that the monstrous bullock of the Ugaritic myths and behemoth both are connected with the Sumero-Akkadian “bull of heaven” that was slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu (Gilgamesh’s foe-turned-friend) from the Gilgamesh Epic. The “bull of heaven” is said to have brushed Enkidu “with the thick of his tail” (as quoted in Pope, p. 272). Pope likens this description to that of the massive tail of the behemoth in 40:17 where God said that “he moveth his tail like a cedar.”
Perhaps the mythological theory rests mostly on the simple evidence of leviathan’s name and its use elsewhere in biblical and pagan literature. The name “leviathan” (liwyatan) appears six times in the Bible (Job 3:8, 41:1; Psalms 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1 [twice]; Lipinski, 1995, p. 504). Excluding Job 41, leviathan occurs once in the meaning of a natural sea-monster (Psalm 104:26), and three times in the meaning of a mythological creature (Job 3:8; Isaiah 27:1; Psalm 74:14). In commenting on the name leviathan and its use both within and without Scripture, James Williams stated:
The mythological significance of Leviathan is well known. Appearing as the Lothan of seven heads that Baal destroys in the Ugaritic myths, he is likewise the sea-serpent of many heads that Elohim defeated in the beginning (Ps. 74.12-14). One mythical tradition of the eschaton represents a final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan (Isa. 27.1). This Leviathan is doubtless the mythical origin of the dragon of seven heads in Rev. 17. Leviathan, as well as Behemoth, appears with eschatological significance in Enoch 60.7-9, IV Ezra 6.49-52, and Apoc[ryphal] Baruch 24.4 (1992, p. 367).
Unlike Williams (who understands these as mythological creatures in some texts but as real animals in Job 40-41), others have proposed that the leviathan in Job 41 might possibly be equated with the “leviathan with seven heads” found within Ugaritic mythology. Mythologizers frequently cite Ugaritic passages as “proof ” that the leviathan in Job 41 is, in fact, a mythological monster. In the following portion of the Ugaritic myth, a discussion is taking place between Baal and Mot (Death), wherein Mot gives Baal the credit for having slain Lotan.
When you smote Lotan the fleeting serpent,
Annihilated the tortuous serpent,
The tyrant with seven heads.
(as quoted in Pope, p. 276)
In another section of this Canaanite myth, the goddess ‘Anat (Baal’s sister and the most active goddess in Ugaritic mythology) claims to have destroyed the seven-headed dragon along with other assorted monsters.
What enemy rises up against Baal,
What adversary against Him who Mounteth the Clouds?
Have I not slain Sea, beloved of El?
Have I not annihilated [the] River, the great god?
Have I not muzzled the Dragon, holding her in a muzzle?
I have slain the Crooked Serpent,
The Foul-fanged with Seven Heads,
I have slain the beloved of earth-deities.
(as quoted in Gray, 1961, p. 129)
After quoting various Ugaritic passages like the ones above, those who support the mythological view seek to make a connection with Psalm 74:12-14 and its allusion to the tradition of a leviathan with many heads once smitten by the Almighty long ago. The psalmist wrote:
Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces; Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness (Psalm 74:12-14, emp. added).
Marvin Pope takes the view that the supernatural character of leviathan can be seen quite clearly in this passage, as well as from the myths mentioned above (pp. 276-277). He thus concluded that the leviathan of Job 41 is identical to the one spoken of in the Ugaritic citations.
Mythologizers “see” numerous similarities between the leviathan of Job 41 and the creatures mentioned in pagan myths. Pope has compared God’s rhetorical question of whether Job could put a rope into leviathan’s nose or a hook in his jaw (41:2) to the following mythical passage from the Babylonian Creation Epic: “Ea (father of Marduk) liquidated or neutralized his foes, he laid hold on Mummu (counselor of Apsu), holding him by the nose-rope” (p. 279, emp. added). Then, in commenting on the teeth of leviathan (Job 41:14), Pope compared them to the “formidable dentition of the monsters engendered by Tiamat” (p. 284). And finally, Pope expressed how the beasts’ invincibility is one more reason to view these beings as mythological: “In the Ugaritic myth of the conflict between Baal and Prince Sea, the terrible messengers of the Sea-god intimidate the entire divine assembly, except Baal, by their fiery appearance” (p. 285, emp. added). Supporters of the mythological view make all these comparisons, and many more.
A final reason why many scholars hold to the mythological view is simply because they believe (correctly) that behemoth and leviathan cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile. It is obvious that the animals in Job 40-41 are represented as being beyond the power of men to capture. Yet it is known that ancient Egyptians hunted and captured both the crocodile and the hippopotamus (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Also, if the animals really are the hippopotamus and the crocodile, one wonders why there is a shift from the Palestinian animals of the previous chapters to Egyptian animals in chapters 40-41? Mythologizers suggest that the animals described in Job 40-41 are neither crocodiles, hippopotamuses, nor any other known creature. Thus, they conclude the animals described in these two chapters must be imaginary monsters.

Arguments for the Literal View

What evidence is there to suggest that the behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are, in fact, real, literal, historical creatures? First, of course, it is evident that certain Old Testament passages speak clearly of leviathan and behemoth in various contexts without any hint whatsoever of mythological or symbolic implication. Even though leviathan seemingly refers to a mythological creature in three passages of Scripture (Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1), there is at least one passage (other than Job 41) that speaks of it as a real animal. In expressing his thoughts that the great sea monsters were created by Yahweh, the Psalmist wrote: “There go the ships; there is leviathan, whom thou hast formed to play therein” (Psalm 104:26). Furthermore, every time behemoth is mentioned outside of Job 40, it refers to real animals (Cansdale, 1996, p. 43). In differentiating between whether the passage is speaking of an imaginary or a literal creature, one must be guided by the thrust of the context, not by what similarities might be found between pagan mythology and the Bible (Smick, 1978, 40[2]:214). In the context of Job 38-41, God is in the midst of asking Job a lengthy series of questions—the entire purpose of which was to show the patriarch that he did not know nearly as much as he thought he did when he charged God foolishly. If the creatures in Job 40-41 were, in fact, mythological, Job then could (and likely would!) have turned to God and asked, “Lord, what’s your point? These creatures are mythological!” God’s argument would have collapsed of its own weight. The context (which also refers to other real animals such as horses, hawks, and ostriches) becomes critical, especially considering the purpose and intent of God’s questions to Job. That the leviathan was referred to in ancient mythological literature is beyond question. But this does not prove that mythological creatures are under consideration in Job 40 and 41.
Second, behemoth is not described as horrifying and predatory, as is the “ferocious bullock of El” in the Ugaritic texts. On the contrary, he is portrayed as a herbivorous animal (40:20) that even allows other animals to graze nearby without harm (20), lies peacefully in the shadow of the rushes of the rivers (21-22), and leisurely laps up its waters (26) [see Gordis, 1978, p. 571]. As John Hartley noted in his excellent commentary on Job:
In contrast to mythological thought, Yahweh did not have to defeat Behemoth to gain control over the forces of chaos. Rather Behemoth obeyed him from the first moment of origin.... Unafraid, Yahweh can approach Behemoth with his sword. Such an act symbolizes his complete mastery of this beast (1988, p. 525).
Similarly, the leviathan of Job 41 poses no threat to God (contrary to what ancient myths depict), regardless of how unmanageable and terrifying he may appear to puny Job.
Third, neither description is close to being identical with that of such monsters as depicted in any ancient Near Eastern mythology (see Wharton, 1999, p. 175). No mythical creature called behemoth, nor anything like it, is seen in pagan mythology (despite Marvin Pope’s attempt to identify the behemoth with “the ferocious bullock of El”). In fact, one of leviathan’s most impressive characteristics—the ability to breathe fire—is not even mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. It also is interesting to note that in Job 41, God does not mention leviathan having multiple heads, as is stated in the mythopoetic language of Psalm 74:14: “Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces.” Mythology speaks of leviathan as having seven heads, but in the description of Job 41 we read that he has only one head (v. 7), one tongue (v. 1), one nose (v. 2), and one jaw (v. 2). There is absolutely no hint of Job’s leviathan having multiple heads. Surely, if the leviathan of Job 41 were a mythological creature, God would not have excluded such vital characteristics as these.
Fourth, instead of attempting to prove that these are mythological creatures, some mythologizers try to reason in a somewhat reverse fashion. They argue that since these creatures cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile, then they must be mythological (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 351). This kind of logic is faulty, however, as it closes its parameters to another very real possibility—extinct creatures.
Fifth, although the poems in Job 40-41 are longer and are placed into the context of a separate speech, essentially they are the same as the earlier poems which deal with familiar birds and animals that the reader would have been expected to know (Anderson, 1974, p. 289). From the existence of these animals, God obviously intended Job to draw important conclusions regarding the nature of the world and man’s place in it. Robert Gordis commented: “The same consideration supports the idea that Behemoth and Leviathan are also natural creatures, the existence of which heightens the impact of God’s argument” (1978, p. 571). Descriptions of these creatures are critical in regard to the intent of God’s speeches to Job. “They are surely to be taken...as variations on the theme that God is God and Job is not” (Wharton, p. 174). Job is overwhelmed by the “sheer power and terror of these beings, but even more so by the fact that they exist as signs of God’s overarching power” (Wharton, p. 174). In contemplating taking up his case with God, Job has been concerned with being overcome by terror (cf. 9:32-35; 13:20-21). Now Yahweh is showing Job that his apprehensions were not misplaced. If he would have to retreat in terror before a literal animal like leviathan, he certainly was unfit to contend in court with Almighty God!
Sixth, poetic use of hyperbole, including the possible utilization of traits from mythology, is characteristic of poetry in general and of the book of Job in particular (Gordis, 1978, p. 571). Quite fanciful imagery and hyperbole already had been used in earlier poems to describe living animals. We no more are required to believe that behemoth’s bones were made of metal (40:18) than that God has water-bottles in the sky (38:37) or that a horse “swallows the ground” (39:24, RSV). Thus, embellishment is to be found in both of God’s speeches. To conclude that leviathan and behemoth are mythological creatures based upon the use of hyperbole (and possible mythopoetic language) is a very poor methodology of interpretation. As Wayne Jackson commented in regard to the poetry of Job 41:19-21: “It must not be assumed that this language implies a mythological creature. It may simply be poetic hyperbole...” (1983, p. 87). The other possibility, of course, is that there was a real animal at one time that breathed fire. This certainly is not impossible physiologically, as various scientists have pointed out (see, for example: DeYoung, 2000, pp. 117-118; Morris, 1984, p. 359).
Seventh, allowing for the use of highly poetic language at times, the book of Job remains realistic throughout (Anderson, 1974, p. 288). Job was a real person (cf. Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11) who experienced real pain. He challenged a real God that was (and is) alive. Jehovah described real creatures in Job 38 and 39. And so there is no legitimate reason for rejecting behemoth and leviathan as real animals.
Eighth, unlike the mythology in the Babylonian and Ugaritic creation epics (where the writers described alleged cosmic events of the distant past), God was concerned in His discussion with Job with the appearance and habits of these creatures in the present. God “is not interested in imaginary creatures from the dim mythological past—he is concerned with the actual present, with the vast universe as it is governed by its Maker” (Gordis, 1965, p. 119).
Ninth, God’s purpose in glorifying His creation would not be served by describing mythological creatures derived from a polytheistic background. In his commentary on Job, Gordis elaborated on this point:
A passing mythological reference, such as we encounter in Isa. and Ps., is conceivable, but not an extended description of primordial beasts the reality of which the exalted monotheism of the author of Job had rejected. The point need not be labored that an uncompromising monotheism is the indispensable religious background for the book of Job and for the discussion of the issue of evil which it raises. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that Job parts company with Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian Wisdom precisely here—the book is not a lament on suffering, nor even a complaint to the gods, but a challenge to the one God, whose hallmark is justice and who is being charged with having violated His own standard (1978, p. 571).
Finally, that these creatures are real would seem to be quite conclusive, for Job 40:15 states explicitly that behemoth and Job are equally God’s creatures (Anderson, 1974, pp. 288-289). Speaking to Job, God said, “Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee” (40:15, emp. added).
Scholars who take the mythological approach when interpreting Job 40-41 simply are making comparisons to their liking. They have been so captivated by “apparent” parallels in ancient literature that they have lost sight of the basic exegetical test—the relevance and appropriateness of the interpretation within the context of the book of Job (Gordis, p. 569).


What are these flesh-and-blood creatures that Jehovah employed to impress upon Job his puniness when compared with God’s omnipotence? Older expositors like Thomas Aquinas thought that perhaps behemoth was the elephant, while leviathan was the whale (e.g., Gibson, 1905, p. 220). But since Samuel Bochart’s two-volume work Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae was published in 1663, most modern critics have labeled the animals in question as the hippopotamus and the crocodile (Wilson, 1975, 25:1). Their basic claim is that the hippopotamus fits many of the characteristics of behemoth, while the crocodile aligns itself very closely with leviathan. This position has become so popular in modern times that few commentators have bothered to challenge the proposed identification of these beasts. In fact, even some versions of the Bible identify these creatures in the marginal notes or chapter headings as the hippopotamus and the crocodile.
When commenting on behemoth and leviathan, modern scholars who do not hold to the mythological view choose to make a general statement like, “Most identify these beasts as the hippo and the crocodile.” But then they give little if any evidence to support such a claim. Another disturbing trend is how “certain” many of the critics sound when identifying these animals. For example, Gordis confidently stated: “Behemot is to be identified as the hippopotamus and Leviathan as the crocodile” (1978, p. 571). Edgar Gibson wrote: “...there can be little doubt that” behemoth corresponds with the hippopotamus, and “there can be no doubt here leviathan means the crocodile” (1905, p. 223). In his practical book on Job, Theodore Epp confidently affirmed: “The first animal mentioned is the behemoth or the hippopotamus” and the leviathan “was a large crocodile” (1967, p. 175). Again, however, after making such definite statements, little evidence is offered, except for making a few comparisons between the animals. Actually, in more than one commentary the reader will find ample time spent answering objections, but little to none laying out concrete evidence supporting the author’s particular theory.

The Hippopotamus and the Crocodile?

While it is true that a few similarities do exist between the behemoth and the hippo, and between the leviathan and the crocodile, many of the descriptive details do not seem to fit either creature. These differences are so numerous and significant that they cannot be overlooked.
1. It has been suggested by some scholars that the word behemoth itself derives from a hypothetical Egyptian compound p’-ih-mw (pehemu), meaning “the ox of the water” (Mitchell, 1996, p. 127). But, as Marvin Pope observed, “no such word has yet been found in Coptic or Egyptian and no known Egyptian designation of the hippopotamus bears any close resemblance to the word Behemoth” (1965, p. 268).
2. God described the behemoth as a creature that “moveth his tail like a cedar” (40:17). The tail of a hippopotamus “would surely not have been compared to a cedar by a truthful though poetic observer like the author of chapters 38-39” (Cheyne, 1887, p. 56). The hippopotamus hardly could be described—with its little 6-8 inch stubby appendage—as having a stiff or large tail. The tail of the hippo is short and small like that of a pig, and is a mere twig in comparison with a cedar tree. But that fact has not prevented commentators from attempting to avoid the obvious. Edgar Gibson wrote: “The comparison of the short, stiff, muscular tail, to the strong and elastic cedar branch (which is probably intended) seems really to be perfectly natural, and need cause no difficulty” (1905, p. 221, parenthetical comment in orig.). Keil and Delitzsch also concluded that the tail should not be compared to the cedar tree, but the cedar branch (1996). Hartley has advocated the view that the tail (zanab) is being compared to a cedar tree, rather than to a branch, but that God really was referring to the genitals of the hippopotamus (1988, p. 525). However, there is no credible evidence that zanab was used euphemistically in Hebrew (e.g., as in regard to the genitals), while referring only to analogies in English or other languages (Pope, 1965, p. 324). It appears that Hartley and others have rejected the logical rendering of the passage in order to force a comparison between the behemoth and the hippopotamus.
3. The behemoth is said to be “chief [i.e., largest] of the ways of God” (40:19). Surely this would rule out the hippo, since at full size it is but seven feet high (Thompson and Bromling, n.d., p. 5). An elephant is twice the size of a hippopotamus, and yet even it was dwarfed by certain extinct creatures. For example, the creature once popularly referred to as Brontosaurus (now known more accurately as Apatosaurus) grew to weigh more than 30 tons, whereas the hippo weighs in at only around 4 tons (Jackson, 1983, p. 86).
4. The text indicates that no man could approach the behemoth with a sword (40:19), nor was he able to capture him (40:24). Yet as mentioned earlier, the hippopotamus was hunted frequently and captured successfully by the Egyptians (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Hartley observed:
Egyptian pharaohs took pride in slaying a hippopotamus. There are numerous pictures in which the pharaoh, hunting a hippopotamus from a papyrus boat, is poised to hurl his harpoon into the animal’s opened mouth, thereby inflicting a fatal blow (1988, p. 524).
Egyptians even celebrated festivals known as “Harpooning the Hippopotamus” (Hartley, 1988, p. 524). Additionally, Egyptian monuments frequently picture single hunters attacking the hippo with a spear (McClintock and Strong, 1968, 1:728). How could one accurately compare the unapproachable and unseizable behemoth with the hippopotamus?
5. The leviathan also is represented as unapproachable and too mighty to be apprehended by men. The Lord said:
Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a rope into his nose? Or pierce his jaw through with a hook?... If one lay at him with the sword, it cannot avail; Nor the spear, the dart, nor the pointed shaft (41:1-2,26).
It is clear that the leviathan is represented as “too powerful and ferocious for mere man to dare to come to grips with it” (Pope, p. 268). He is “beyond the power of men to capture” (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Leviathan is “peerless and fearless” (Strauss, 1976, p. 437). Contrariwise, the crocodile—like the hippopotamus—was hunted and captured by Egyptians. Herodotus discussed how they captured crocodiles (Rowley, 1980, p. 259), and how that, after being seized, some even were tamed (Jackson, 1983, p. 87). Such a scene hardly depicts the animal of Job 40:15ff.
6. According to Jehovah, the leviathan’s “sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning torches, and sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils a smoke goeth, as of a boiling pot and (burning) rushes. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth forth from his mouth” (Job 41:18-21). Some, such as Driver and Gray, have suggested that perhaps God did not intend to use literal imagery in these verses (1964, p. 366). However, as Henry Morris observed:
It is presumptuous merely to write all this off as mythological and impossible. To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea serpents). Fire flies produce light, eels produce electricity, and bombardier beetles produce explosive chemical reactions. All of these involve complex chemical processes, and it does not seem at all impossible that an animal might be given the ability to breathe out certain gaseous fumes which, upon coming in contact with oxygen, would briefly ignite (1984, p. 359).
7. When leviathan “raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid: By reason of consternation they are beside themselves.... He beholdeth everything that is high: He is king over all the sons of pride” (Job 41:25,34). True, crocodiles are frightening creatures. Yet they are no more frightening standing up than when sitting, because their legs are so short. How could it thus be said of the crocodile that “he beholdeth everything that is high”—when he himself is so close to the ground?
8. God also described leviathan as an animal that cannot be availed by swords, spears, or darts (41:26). In fact, leviathan “laugheth at the rushing of the javelin” (41:29) and “his underparts are (like) sharp potsherds” (41:30). In commenting on these verses, Thompson and Bromling wrote:
Although the hide that covers the crocodile’s back is extremely thick and difficult to penetrate, this is not true of his belly. The crocodile is most vulnerable to spears and javelins on his underside; hence, it could not be said of him that “his underparts are like sharp potsherds” (n.d., p. 7).
The problem of identifying these two creatures was acknowledged by T.K. Cheyne long ago. Even though his mythological interpretation of Job 40-41 is faulty, he and others have observed correctly that neither the behemoth nor the leviathan corresponds well to the hippopotamus or the crocodile. If Edwin Good was speaking of present-day animals, he was correct when he wrote: “There is simply no plausible natural counterpart to Leviathan” (1990, p. 361). Plus, “Eating grass like the cattle, having a tail in any way comparable to a cedar, having any contact with the mountains, and relating to the Jordan River, are all incompatibilities between Behemoth and the hippopotamus” (Wolfers, 1995, p. 191). Actually, the only support for identification of the behemoth as the hippopotamus is the biblical description “not of the animal but of its habitat” (Good, 1990, p. 358).
Concerning leviathan, Wolfers wrote: “Underside like sharpest potsherds, swimming in sea rather than river, and breathing fire and smoke, are incompatibilities between Leviathan and the crocodile” (p. 191). Job 41 is dominated by the idea of the beast’s utter invincibility. As Driver and Gray admitted: “There is nothing, unless we should so regard 41:7, that points necessarily or at all striking to the crocodile, and one or two points seem inconsistent with it” (1964, p. 353). In reality, there are more than just “one or two points” that are inconsistent with the suggestion that the leviathan is little more than a crocodile.

Behemoth as a Dinosaur; Leviathan
as a Water-Living Reptile?

The evidence documents overwhelmingly that the behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are flesh-and-blood animals, not imaginary creatures. Furthermore, the description of these creatures does not fit that of any known animal present in the world today, regardless of attempts to equate them with the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Thus, they must be some type of extinct creature. But what kind? God’s descriptions of behemoth and leviathan are compatible in every way with the descriptions we have of dinosaurs and dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles that roamed the Earth, not millions of years ago as some have suggested, but only a few thousand years ago. Moses wrote: “For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is (Exodus 20:11, emp. added). Man, according to Christ, existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10.6; cf. Matthew 19:4). So did the dinosaurs.
This conclusion is supported by the available scientific evidence as well. In the early 1920s, distinguished archaeologist Samuel Hubbard uncovered Indian petroglyphs in the Hava Supai area of the Grand Canyon. Among them were representations of easily recognizable creatures, including the ibex, the buffalo—and the dinosaur. In fact, a reproduction of the dinosaur petroglyph graced the front cover of the scientific monograph authored by Dr. Hubbard and published under the auspices of the Oakland, California Museum of Natural History (where Dr. Hubbard served as the honorary curatory of archaeology, and which had sponsored the expedition as a result of funding by the highly respected philanthropist E.L. Doheny; see Hubbard, 1925). Upon seeing the petroglyph of the dinosaur, Dr. Hubbard remarked:
Taken all in all, the proportions are good. The huge reptile is depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see it—reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding or in fighting position, possibly defending itself against a party of men (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.).
In the book, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, there is a reproduction of the Hava Supai dinosaur petroglyph, side-by-side with a representation from the evolutionists’ texts of the dinosaur known as Edmontosaurus (see Taylor, 1989, p. 39). The two are indistinguishable. And that, in this context, raises an important question: How could Indians draw such accurate pictures of a creature they never had seen? It is evident that both biblical and scientific evidence support the coexistence of man and dinosaurs at some point in the not-too-distant past.


There are three possible explanations as to the exact identity of the biblical creatures known as behemoth and leviathan: (1) they are unreal, mythological monsters; (2) they are real animals that exist somewhere in the world today; or (3) they are some kind of real, yet extinct creature. The biblical and scientific evidence makes it clear that the third choice is the only correct option. Yet, sadly, as Henry Morris has observed:
Modern Bible scholars, for the most part, have become so conditioned to think in terms of the long ages of evolutionary geology that it never occurs to them that mankind once lived in the same world with the great animals that are now found only as fossils (1988, p. 115).


Anderson, Francis I. (1974), Job (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Brantley, Garry (1993), “Pagan Mythology and the Bible,” Reason & Revelation, 13:49-53, July.
Cansdale, G. S. (1996), “Animals of the Bible,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Cheyne, T.K. (1887), Job and Solomon (New York: Thomas Whittaker).
Day, John N. (1998), “God and Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 155:423-436, October-December.
DeYoung, Donald B. (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Driver, S.R. and G.B. Gray (1964), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Epp, Theodore H. (1967), Job, A Man Tried as Gold (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible Publications).
Gibson, Edgar C.S. (1905), The Book of Job (London: Methuen).
Good, Edwin (1990), In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Gordis, Robert (1965), The Book of God and Man (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Gordis, Robert (1978), The Book of Job (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America).
Gray, J. (1961), “Texts from the Ras Shamra,” Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas (New York: Harper).
Hailey, Homer (1994), A Commentary on Job (Louisville, KY: Religious Supply).
Harris, R. Laird (1992), “The Doctrine of God in the Book of Job,” Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hartley, John E (1988), The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hubbard, Samuel (1925), The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona (Oakland, CA: Oakland Museum of Natural History).
Jackson, Wayne (1983), The Book of Job (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament [Electronic Database] (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lipinski (1995), “Liwyatan,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Botterweck, Ringgren, and Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968), Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Mitchell, T.C. (1996), “Behemoth,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Morris, Henry M. (1984), Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1988), The Remarkable Record of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Payne, J. Barton (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1960), “Lotan and Leviathan,” Evangelical Quarterly, 32:208-211.
Pope, Marvin H. (1965), Job (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Rowley, Harold Henry (1980), Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Smick, Elmer (1970), “Mythology and the Book of Job,” Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Smick, Elmer (1978), “Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job,” The Westminster Theological Journal, 40[2]:213-228, Spring.
Strauss, James D. (1976), The Shattering of Silence (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Taylor, Paul S. (1989), The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor).
Thompson, Bert and Brad Bromling, (no date), Dinosaurs and the Bible [Research Article Series] (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Tur-Sinai, N.H. (1967), The Book of Job (Jerusalem: Sivan Press).
Verrill, A.H. (1954), Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their History (Boston, MA: L.C. Page).
Wharton, James A (1999), Job (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).
Williams, James G. (1992), “The Theophany of Job,” Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Wilson, J.V. Kinnier (1975), “A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan,” Vetus Testamentum, 25:1-14, January.
Wolfers, David (1995), Deep Things Out of Darkness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Zuck, Roy (1978), Job (Chicago, IL: Moody).