12/18/15

From Mark Copeland... "LIFE AFTER DEATH" Are The Souls Of The Redeemed Conscious?



                           "LIFE AFTER DEATH"

                 Are The Souls Of The Redeemed Conscious?

INTRODUCTION

1. In the previous study, I suggested that the spirits of believers go
   to be with the Lord during the "intermediate state" between death and
   the resurrection
   a. Implied was the idea that the souls of the redeemed are conscious
      during this interim
   b. But are they?

2. In this lesson, we shall consider the doctrine of "soul-sleeping",
   and make some observations concerning it

I. THE DOCTRINE OF "SOUL SLEEPING"

   A. THE THEORY...
      1. That the souls of the departed continue to exist, but are in an
         unconscious state until the resurrection
      2. This is not to be confused with the doctrine held by JW's, who 
         believe there is no consciousness until the resurrection 
         because until then there is no existence at all

   B. THE ARGUMENTS...
      1. The Scriptures often represent death as a "sleep"
         a. Mt 27:52 - ...bodies of the saints who had "fallen asleep"
         b. Jn 11:11-14 - Jesus says of dead Lazarus, "our friend
            sleeps"
         c. Ac 7:60 - As Stephen is stoned to death, it is said "he 
            fell asleep"
         d. 1Co 15:6,18 - Those who were dead are spoken of as 
            "fallen asleep"
         e. 1Th 4:13-15 - Brethren who were dead "sleep in Jesus"
      2. Other passages come very near to saying that the dead have no
         consciousness
         a. Ps 30:9 - The psalmist asks, "...when I go down to the
            pit? Will the dust praise you?"
         b. Ps 115:17 - The psalmist declares, "The dead do not 
            praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence."
         c. Ec 9:5,10 - Solomon, in his search for meaning, observes:
            1) "...the dead know nothing..."
            2) "there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the
               grave where you are going."
         d. Isa 38:18-19 - King Hezekiah says concerning God that 
            "Sheol cannot thank You, Death cannot praise You, those who 
            go down to the pit cannot hope for Your truth."

[Such is the theory and the arguments presented by those who believe in 
"soul sleeping."  At face value, the doctrine appears very convincing.  
But let's take a closer look at it...]

II. EXAMINING THE DOCTRINE OF "SOUL SLEEPING"

   A. ARGUMENT #1:  DEATH IS CALLED "SLEEP"...
      1. Nowhere do the Scriptures say that the SOUL of the departed one
         fell asleep
         a. It was the PERSON who "fell asleep"
         b. Thus it can have reference to the body, not the SOUL
      2. The term "SLEEP" can be a figurative reference, and a very 
         appropriate one:
         a. For sleep implies REST...
            1) When one sleeps literally,  there is rest from one's 
               labor
            2) So it is that the dead also "rest from their labors",
               cf. Re 14:13
         b. For sleep implies a CEASING OF PARTICIPATION...
            1) In literal sleep, one ceases in the activities pertaining 
               to the sphere in which one has been busy during the hours
               of wakefulness
            2) So it is with the dead, they are no longer active in the 
               world which they left
         c. For sleep is generally a PRELUDE TO AN AWAKENING...
            1) In literal sleep, it is followed by an "awakening"
            2) So it is with death:
               a) Though the souls may be conscious during the 
                  intermediate state...
               b) ...at the resurrection there will be the "awakening" 
                  of the glorified and transformed bodies in which to 
                  house our souls
      3. Perhaps it can also be said that the term "sleep" became a 
         euphemism for death because of the sleep-like appearance of the
         body
         
   B. ARGUMENT #2:  PASSAGES WHICH SUGGEST THE DEAD HAVE NO 
      CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH...
      1. Notice first that these passages are in the OLD TESTAMENT, when
         revelation of God's truth was not yet complete
         a. The passages in Psalms and Isaiah are the expressions of 
            faith and understanding by those who knowledge of God's 
            revelation was incomplete
         b. I.e., their concept of "life after death" was not as 
            complete and developed as that found in the New Testament
         c. We should be cautious, therefore, against developing a 
            doctrine of life after death which does not take into 
            account what is ultimately revealed when revelation is 
            complete
      2. In some cases, the statements are made solely from an earthly 
         perspective
         a. This is especially true in Ecclesiastes
         b. Where the theme is "Life Under The Sun"
         c. When one looks at things purely from an earthly 
            perspective...
            1) It does not appear the dead know anything
            2) It does not appear the dead praise God
         d. Thus, Ec 9:10 is saying nothing more than that when we 
            die, we are no longer conscious of things in THIS life

   C. FINALLY, THE DOCTRINE OF "SOUL SLEEPING" IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH 
      PASSAGES THAT CLEARLY TEACH CONSCIOUSNESS OF SOULS AFTER DEATH...
      1. Lk 16:22-26 - Abraham, the rich man, and Lazarus
         a. Some believe that this is only a "parable"
         b. Highly unlikely in my opinion, but even if so, parables used 
            "true to life" experiences as a basis for comparison, not 
            science fiction or fantasy!
      2. Lk 23:43 - How can Paradise be a state of unconsciousness?
      3. Re 6:9-11 - Can souls cry out if they are not conscious?
      4. Re 7:9-17 - Can souls praise God and serve Him if they are 
         not conscious?
      5. Re 20:4-6 - Can souls reign with Christ if they are not aware
         of what is going on?

CONCLUSION

1. In view of such passages...
   a. Describing the condition of souls during the "intermediate" state
   b. Where they are very much awake, praising and serving God, reigning
      with Christ
   ...The doctrine of "soul sleeping" does not hold up

2. We can best harmonize the Scriptures if we view the term SLEEP in
   reference to death as only a figure of speech...
   a. Naturally drawn from how the body appears at death
   b. Pertaining to our relationship to this earthly realm
      1) We are at rest from labors IN THIS LIFE
      2) We are not aware of what goes on IN THIS LIFE
      3) But one day, there will be an "awakening" (the resurrection), 
         in which we will be rejoined with those who are still IN THIS 
         LIFE (of course, they too will be changed)

3. In the next study, we shall consider the question:  "Shall we know
   each other in the life after death?"

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

The Stirring of the Water and Bible Integrity by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2103

The Stirring of the Water and Bible Integrity

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Though skeptics have leveled many charges against the integrity of the Bible through the centuries, proof of its divine origin remains self-evident. Nevertheless, some claim that the Bible endorses the common superstitions that characterized the primitive peoples of antiquity. One such case pertains to the sick man who lay beside the pool of Bethesda. The NKJV reads:
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, [waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.] Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked (John 5:2-9, emp. added).
Observe that the man (and “a great multitude” of others) believed the popular conception regarding the alleged periodic appearance of an angel to stir the water of the pool. The Bible is not to be blamed as giving sanction to this idea merely on the basis of the personal sentiments held by the people of the day, since the Bible merely reports their beliefs—as indicated by the sick man’s own remarks. Jesus certainly said nothing to give that belief credibility. However, the words indicated above by the bracketed bold type are couched in authorial narration, which would imply that the inspired writer of the book of John also believed the superstition. Does the Bible, in this instance, give credence to an outlandish notion, thereby casting suspicion on its inspiration?
In the first place, granted, the idea of God sending an angel to stir the water of a pool, at which point the water is invested with miraculous healing properties, is a nonsensical notion that would be uncharacteristic of the God of the Bible (in contrast to the "God" of the Quran—see Miller, 2005b, pp. 60-61). Jesus might have helped the man get to the water, but He did not do so. Second, nor would God place poor sick folk in competition with each other, allowing only one individual to benefit from the healing, since He shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11). Third, such an occurrence would contradict the Bible’s own explanation for the purpose of miracles—the miracle of healing not being simply to heal or relieve suffering (see Miller, 2003, 23[3]:17-23).
The ultimate answer to this challenge to the Bible’s integrity is found in the fact that the last part of John 5:3 and the entirety of verse four were not a part of the original inspired autograph by John. The oldest, most reliable manuscripts omit the words, and with near unanimity scholars agree that the preponderance of the evidence shows its spurious status to be “virtually certain” (Metzger, 1971, p. 209). Renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson observed: “It is a relief to many to know that the verse is spurious” (1932, 5:79). Most English versions omit the words from the text altogether, relegating them to a footnote, including the ASVESV, et al. Among churches of Christ, J.W. McGarvey (n.d., p. 195), Guy N. Woods (1989, p. 95), David Lipscomb (1962, p. 74), George DeHoff (1981, 5:297), Frank Pack (1975, pp. 84-85), Burton Coffman (1974, p. 138), and B.W. Johnson (1886, p. 86) acknowledged the words are not a part of the original. [NOTE: Those who are fearful that the integrity of the text of the Bible is compromised by the reality of textual variants need to be reminded that the world’s foremost textual critics have demonstrated that currently circulating copies of the New Testament do not differ substantially from the original (see Miller, 2005a, “Is Mark...,” 25[12]:89-95;Miller, 2010).]

REFERENCES

Coffman, James B. (1974), A Commentary on John (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House).
DeHoff, George (1981), DeHoff’s Commentary (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Christian Bookstore).
Johnson, B.W. (1886), The New Testament Commentary: John (Des Moines, IA: Christian Publishing).
Lipscomb, David (1962 reprint), Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Reason & Revelation, 23[3]:17-23, March, [On-line]: URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Miller, Dave (2005a), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780.
Miller, Dave (2005b), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Telling People What to Think by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=941

Telling People What to Think

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Dan Barker, the ex-preacher who deconverted to atheism, is most famous for his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. In this treatise against God and religion, Barker discussed a book that he wrote for children that contained these words: “No one can tell you what to think. Not your teachers. Not your parents. Not your minister, priest, or rabbi. Not your friends or relatives. Not this book. You are the boss of your own mind. If you have used your own mind to find out what is true, then you should be proud! Your thoughts are free!” (1992, p. 47). Noble sentiments indeed!
But, as one digs deeper into Barker’s book, it quickly becomes clear that those sentiments do not find a willing practitioner in the person of Dan Barker. In his chapter on prayer, Barker wrote:
Don’t ask Christians if they think prayer is effective. They will think up some kind of answer that makes sense to them only. Don’t ask them, tell them: “You know that prayer doesn’t work. You know you are fooling yourself with magical conceit.” No matter how they reply, they will know in their heart of hearts that you are right (1992, p. 109, emp. in orig.).
From Barker’s statement about what should be “told” to those who believe in prayer, it is easy to see that he does not necessarily believe his previous statement that “no one can tell you what to think,” or that a person should use his own mind “to find out what is true.” In fact, what Barker is really trying to say is that a person should only think for himself if such thinking will lead him to believe that there is no God, or that prayer does not work, or that all religion is nonsense. If thinking for himself leads a person to believe in the efficacy of prayer or the existence of God, then that person should be “told” what to believe.
In truth, the Bible demands that each person weigh the evidence for himself or herself. First Thessalonians 5:21 states: “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Among those things that should be tested are the writings of skeptics like Barker. When blatant inconsistencies pepper their pages like so many spots on a Dalmatian, then those writings should not be “held fast.”

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Evolution, Textbooks, and Homeschooling by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3594

Evolution, Textbooks, and Homeschooling

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Day after day, week after week, year after year, an estimated 55 million U.S. public school students open their science textbooks to learn about Big Bang theory, spontaneous generation, and man’s alleged evolution from toads (“Back to School...,” 2009). Although various scientific laws defy the General Theory of Evolution (e.g., the Law of Biogenesis, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; see The Scientific Case..., 2004), and even though nearly half of Americans still believe God created humans in our present form (cf. “Poll: Creationism...,” 2004; see also Gallup and Lindsay, 1999, pp. 36-37), multiplied millions of tax-payer-funded textbooks espouse man’s alleged animal ancestry as fact. Christians might hold out hope for their public-schooled children having teachers who do not believe in evolution, however, the odds are stacked against them. A 2007 nationwide survey revealed that only “16% of US science teachers are creationists” (Holmes, 2008). [NOTE: Similar to how atheists are annoyed that “only” 85% of the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences are atheists (see Brooks, 2006, p. 10), many militant evolutionists are bothered because “only” 84% of U.S. science teachers are evolutionists; see “Comments,” 2008).]
Hundreds of thousands of creationists in the U.S. have chosen to homeschool their children partly because they do not want their most precious God-given gifts (Psalm 127:3) sitting year after year at the feet of evolutionists, reading evolutionary textbooks, especially without critical analysis. These homeschooling parents still provide their children with training in Earth science, biology, chemistry, etc. In fact, many religiously motivated homeschoolers (which comprise at least 83% of homeschooling families in the U.S.; see Lovan, 2010) provide countless more hands-on, operational science experiences for their children than a lot of young people receive in public schools (where funding is limited and where classrooms are often shared with 20-30 other students). Some individuals, however, are extremely critical of the various textbooks many homeschoolers use.
Associated Press writer Dylan Lovan recently penned an article wherein he interviewed three non-religious homeschooling families and two evolutionary scientists, all who expressed disappointment over the available homeschooling science textbooks. After reviewing two of the best-selling biology textbooks homeschoolers frequently use, Virginia Tech biology professor Duncan Porter said “he would give the books an F” (Lovan, 2010). Ecology and evolutionary professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago stated: “If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they’re being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology” (as quoted in Lovan). “These books are promulgating lies to kids,” said Dr. Coyne (as quoted in Lovan), and allegedly are not scientifically credible. What is so terrible about the science books produced by Apologia, Bob Jones, and other publishers that frequently sell to homeschooling families? The textbooks “dispute Charles Darwin’s theory” of evolution (Lovan, 2010).
And why shouldn’t the theory of evolution be disputed? Why shouldn’t it be assessed critically and debated? Why shouldn’t students learn that all evolutionary dating methods are based upon various assumptions (see Butt and Lyons, 2009, pp. 94-100; see also DeYoung, 2005)? Why shouldn’t they be taught scientific laws that contradict evolution? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to explore the scientific case for Creation and ask whether non-intelligence can reasonably explain complex, functional design, like that in a living, human cell? As Dr. Jay Wile, textbook writer for Apologia, said: “We definitely do not lie to the students. We tell them the facts that people like Dr. Coyne would prefer to cover up.” In truth, it is evolutionists like Jerry Coyne who feel “compelled to lie in order to prop up a failing hypothesis (evolution)” (as quoted in Lovan).
Furthermore, regarding Coyne and Porter’s concerns that homeschoolers are being “shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology” because of their use of science textbooks that do not blindly embrace Darwinian evolution, consider how well the average homeschool student scores in standardized science tests. Two different studies (from 1998 and 2009), which included a total of more than 30,000 homeschool students from all 50 states, revealed that, on average, homeschoolers score 30 to 36 percentile points higher than the average student on standardized science tests (see Slatter, 2009). What’s more, many of these same homeschoolers go on to attend universities around the country where they excel in science classes, rather than being hindered because of their religious homeschooling heritage.
The facts speak for themselves: (1) Evolution is not a proven fact (so why should it be the only theory of origins presented to students?); (2) Studies show that, on average, homeschoolers outperform public school students by a wide margin on standardized tests, including science tests, despite most homeschoolers being taught that life on Earth was created and designed by an intelligent, infinite, eternal Mind. Evolutionists may give creationist homeschooling families an “F” on their choice of science curriculum, but in reality, it is the theory of evolution that deserves the “F.”

REFERENCES

“Back to School: 2006-2007” (2009), U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_ features_special_editions/007108.html.
Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11.
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2009), Truth Be Told (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Comments” (2008), The Richard Dawkins Foundation, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2609-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.
DeYoung, Donald B. (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Gallup, George Jr. and Michael Lindsay (1999), Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S.Beliefs (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing).
Holmes, Bob (2008), “16% of US Science Teachers are Creationists,” New Scientist, May 20, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html.
Lovan, Dylan (2010), “Top Home-School Texts Dismiss Darwin, Evolution,” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3x1DHDjafMujXt9RNwwH6ugU9NgD9E9AOV80.
“Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution” (2004), CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml.
The Scientific Case for Creation (2004), (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/scfc.pdf.
Slatter, Ian (2009), “New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement,” August 10, http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200908100.asp.

Our Republic Depends on Christianity? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2195

Our Republic Depends on Christianity?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Much disagreement exists regarding the foundations of civil government and the perpetuation of civilization and society. The current “politically correct” viewpoint insists that the strength of America lies in its pluralism—the acceptance and celebration of differing religions, ideologies, and philosophies. The widespread attempt to sanitize American schools, courts, and government by eradicating all references to God, Christ, and the Bible are a manifestation of this belief. The thought is that the stability and continuance of the nation lies in its willingness to embrace diversity, toleration, and acceptance. In stark contrast, the architects of American civilization stated just the opposite.
Jedidiah Morse was born in Woodstock, Connecticut on August 23, 1761, the son of a Congregationalist minister. After being homeschooled, he graduated from Yale in 1783—the year the Revolutionary War ended. Morse published the first American textbook on geography, Geography Made Easy, in 1784. His work in that field earned for him the title “Father of American Geography.” His works were adopted widely in schools, colleges, and libraries and were used in thousands of homes. His eldest son, Samuel F.B. Morse, became a famous inventor, even developing the Morse Code (“Morse, Jedidiah,” 2007).
In an election sermon given at Charlestown, Massachusetts on April 25, 1799, this American patriot offered the following chilling warning—an observation not unlike many of the Founders:
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. All efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them (1799, p. 9, emp. added).
If Morse was correct, America is in a dire predicament—literally teetering on the brink of national disaster and destruction. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

REFERENCES

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford, CT: Hudson and Goodwin), [On-line]: URL:http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.
“Morse, Jedidiah” (2007), Encyclopædia Britannica, [On-line]: URL:http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053833.

Confused Critics, Not God by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=507&b=Genesis

Confused Critics, Not God

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the many criticisms that skeptics have levied against the Bible writers is that the Scriptures paint a contradictory picture of God, specifically regarding whether or not God “authors confusion.” Since God confused the language of man at Babel (11:1-9; apparently in the days of Peleg—Genesis 10:25), then, allegedly, Paul’s claim that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) must be erroneous. How could He purposefully confuse mankind, while at the same time not be the “author of confusion”?
Certainly, God punished mankind for his disobedience at Babel by confusing their language (i.e., He brought into existence additional languages). After the Flood, God had instructed man to “[b]e fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, emp. added). At Babel, however, humanity rebelled against God’s will, saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens...lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4, emp. added). What’s more, the descendants of Noah at Babel also were guilty of attempting to “make a name” for themselves (11:4; cf. 1 John 2:16). Thus, God chose to “confuse their language” that they might be “scattered...over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).
This kind of confusion, however, was not the same kind that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians. When Paul wrote, “God is not the author of confusion” (14:33), he was addressing problems that the Corinthian Christians were having in the worship assembly. He gave specific instructions about how those with spiritual gifts (e.g., tongues, prophecies, interpretations) were to conduct themselves in the assembly. Those with the gift of tongues were to speak “in turn” (14:27), and if no interpreter was present they were to “keep silent in the church” (14:28). Those with the gift of prophecy were to “prophecy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged” (14:31, emp. added). Paul concluded this section of his letter by encouraging the church to “[l]et all things be done decently and in order” (14:40). In short, God desires worship that is free from the kind of chaos and confusion caused when (among other things) various individuals are speaking at the same time.
Consider the teacher who tells his class that he is not a person of confusion (i.e., he likes order and wants an orderly class). Later, however, this same teacher coaches a football team and desires to “cause confusion” among the opposing team’s players by implementing a complex game plan on both offense and defense. Might this man still be considered a man of integrity, whose personality is one that others would describe as the antithesis of chaotic? Certainly. Simply because a person initiates confusion in one particular setting does not mean that his very nature is chaotic.
Attempting to equate the dispersion God caused among sinful people at Babel with the confusion God condemned in Corinth is both unjustified and unreasonable. Remember, for there to be a legitimate contradiction, one must make sure that the words (or concepts) under discussion are used in the same sense. In Genesis 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 14:33, they are used in totally different senses.

From Wayne Jackson... The Allegory of the Vine and the Branches



http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/vineandbranches.html


The Allegory of the Vine and the Branches

The Holy Scriptures are supremely rich. The Christian who does not plumb the depth of these treasures is poorer indeed.
There is a brief context in John’s Gospel record that we would like to explore briefly, not only for the instruction and edification that it imparts on its own, but also for the opportunity of illustrating how one may reap great rewards in surveying a biblical text analytically, though we do not mean to suggest that this study exhausts all possibilities.
Near the end of his earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus, speaking to his disciples, declared: (Note: The following rendition employs more contemporary language for those not versed in ancient, agricultural vocabulary.)
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he takes away: and every branch that bears fruit, he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word I have spoken unto you. Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it remains in the vine; so neither can you, unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches: He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit: for away from me you can do nothing. If a man does not remain in me, he is thrown away as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, ask whatsoever you will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:1-7; with supplementary instruction following).
In the following study we wish to explore these elements: the contextual background, the literary format, the characters in the illustration, some verbal forms, along with some vocabulary points of emphasis and interest.

The Background

Jesus and his disciples had concluded the meeting in the upper room in Jerusalem where they celebrated the Passover. Apparently they had just left that event, and were making their way eastward toward the garden of Gethsemane situated on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives (John 14:31b; 18:1). Undoubtedly, the disciples were exceedingly anxious (cf. 14:1), and perplexed as to what loomed ahead.
The discourse in chapters 15-17, therefore, was calculated to calm, to instruct, and to strengthen these courageous (though somewhat fragile — at least at this point) men. They needed some crucial preparation for the ordeal that would follow in the next twenty-four hours.

Literary Format

The literary format of the narrative is that of the “allegory.” An allegory is an expanded metaphor. The metaphor is a figure of speech where a comparison is made between two objects for the purpose of illustration. It constitutes a more dramatic mode of teaching than by means of a simple prosaic narrative.
The allegory draws the comparison, but without the use of common comparative terms (e.g., as, like, such like, even as, etc.). This format allows for a more potent form of expression than that of the simile. A good example, comparing these two figures, is found in Jacob’s prophecy concerning the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49). He says on the one hand that Judah “is a lion’s whelp” (v. 9a; metaphor); then again, Judah “crouched as a lion and as a lioness” (v. 9b; two similes).
In this allegory, the Savior sets forth some wonderful truths in the motif of the agricultural environment of his day. A good Bible class teacher will do some research in this area, in preparation for his/her presentation. Background details can add real “sparkle” to a class.

The Characters in the Illustration

There are four characters in the Lord’s illustration.
(1) There is the “husbandman.” This term is rather obscure in our modern culture. “Husbandman” does not signify a “husband,” but rather a tiller of the ground, a vinedresser, or, in our vernacular, a farmer. He is the one in charge of the vines and to whom ultimate accountability is to be rendered. He does everything within his power to see that the plant bears fruit. If it does not, the fault is not his.
Jesus identifies the “husbandman” as “my Father,” i.e., God, the Father. Of special notice should be the singular pronoun “my,” rather than “our.” As the Son of God, Christ entertained a very unique relationship to his heavenly Father, and that is emphasized several times in John’s Gospel (5:17-18; 20:17; cf. also Luke 2:49). The expression is a subtle affirmation of the Savior’s deity.
(2) There also is the “vine.” The vine is the source of life for the branches. It provides the water and nutrients by which the grapes are produced. Without the vine, no fruit could ever result. Branches are utterly dependent upon the vine. Without Christ, of course, there is no spiritual life or hope of eternal reward (John 14:6; Acts 4:11-12).
It is interesting that Christ designates himself as the “true” vine. The Greek term denotes that which is genuine; the word stands in contrast to that which is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretentious (Thayer, p. 27). Inasmuch as the Israelite nation was portrayed on occasion as a “vine” by the Old Testament prophets (see Isaiah 5:1-7; cf. Matthew 21:33ff), one can scarcely avoid thinking that this is a rebuke aimed at a considerable segment of the Hebrew family; the nation largely had failed in its mission, and was on the precipice of murdering its Messiah (cf. John 10:7ff).
(3) The “branches” are identified explicitly as the Lord’s “disciples” (v. 8). How anyone can possibly contend that Christ is the vine, and various denominational churches are the branches, is an unfathomable mystery; it is an example of the most irresponsible scholarship imaginable.
(4) Finally, there is that ambiguous “they,” to which reference is made in verse 6. These will be responsible for gathering the withered/pruned branches, and committing them to fire for burning. One might surmise that these individuals correspond to the “reapers” mentioned in the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), identified later as the Lord’s “angels” (v. 39). They will “gather out” of God’s kingdom those who cause others to stumble, and who themselves practice iniquity (v. 41).

Verbal Actions and Vocabulary Emphases

Grammar is very important in a book, the words of which are inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Within this context, there are at least ten significant verbal actions set forth. Some have a positive emphasis; others are adverse. Let us consider the positive first, and then the negative. We will survey five actions in each category.
(1) Christ spoke of the necessity of the branches “bearing (i.e., producing) fruit.” The term is used eight times in this chapter. The present tense form indicates a sustained productivity. The unfruitful branch is considered worthless. The fruit, in the immediate context, consists of the converts one personally makes, or is instrumental in helping to bring to the Lord (see vv. 8,16; cf. Romans 7:4). Elsewhere in the New Testament, however, there is also the admonition to produce the “fruit” of Christian character (Galatians 5:22-23).
(2) There is a “cleansing” or “purging” that takes place even with reference to productive branches. The purpose in the cleansing (an allusion to trimming) is to enhance branch production. Every disciple should attempt to be wise enough to be grateful to God for whatever disciplinary procedures are necessary for the development of his service to Christ (see Hebrews 12:7ff). Just as the farmer uses the cutting knife to sever dead branches, even so he “often cuts back the living wood so far that His method seems cruel [to the spiritually dull]. Nevertheless, from those who have suffered the most there often comes the greatest fruitfulness” (Tenney, pp. 227-228).
(3) The Lord emphasized the necessity of “abiding” (i.e., remaining) joined to him. Seven times in this general context there is stressed the urgency of “remaining” with the vine (Christ). The verb meno (118 times in the NT; 67 times in John’s writings) carries the idea of sustaining a union with, continuing with, being steadfast, or enduring. The exhortation assuredly implies the possibility of not doing so!
(4) For those who abide in the Lord, there is the promise that they may “ask” God for those things necessary for their personal spiritual development and the conversion of others (v. 7). Of course many of us have insufficient faith to “ask,” hence, we do not receive (James 4:2). The Christian life is one of trust; and trusting, we petition our Father for heavenly-oriented needs.
(5) In response to unselfish requests (cf. James 4:3), there is Heaven’s pledge that “it shall be done,” i.e., God will respond to our prayers. This promise, of course, is not without limitation. The “whatsoever” of the text must be qualified by other passages that bear on the same theme. See Paul’s requests, and the Lord’s response, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Even Jesus, when praying that “the cup” pass from him, qualified the request, “your will be done.” This is the most selfless request of all!
(6) But there are verbals of a different tone. Every branch that does not bear fruit is to be “taken away” (v. 2). In this context, the Greek word aireo signifies to “take off” that which is attached to something else — to rend or cut off (Thayer, p. 16). Practically speaking, it is the equivalent of being “severed from Christ,” the expression used by Paul to depict certain Judaizers who were corrupting the gospel (Galatians 5:4). It is utterly incredible that any scholar could suggest: “We should not regard this as proof that true believers may fall away” (Morris, p. 594). What else could have been said to make it plainer? What lengths men will go to, in order to preserve their cherished doctrines!
(7) Those who choose not to remain with Christ are to be “thrown away” (v. 6). They are trash; unfit for further use.
(8) The “cast off” state is said to be subject to “withering.” The original word suggests the idea of simply “drying up.” Interestingly, the verb is in the passive voice; the thrown-away branches “are withered” (as a result of forces exercised upon them). Could this hint of the removal of divine blessings? Or might it be the accelerated influences of the world in a spiritually impoverished environment?
(9) There is reference to the withered branches being “gathered” in preparation for final disposal. As noted earlier [see “Characters in the Illustration,” (4)], this could have to do with the work of angels at the time of the Judgment.
(10) Finally, there is the verb “burned” (v. 6). Dead branches are thrown into the “fire” where they are burned (literally, being burned — present tense). There can hardly be any doubt but that Christ is here warning about the danger of eternal punishment in the hell of fire (Matthew 13:41-42; 25:46). And, as Lenski observes, the verb “affords no support for the annihilation of the wicked — the cast off branches are burning” (p. 1038). Calvinists, of course, would emasculate this context of any reference to hell, because they do not believe that a child of God can fall from grace (cf. Beasley-Murray, p. 273).

Conclusion

In concluding this summary of John 15:1-7, one other word-combination should be stressed. Six times in this context the Lord used the expression “in me.” The term is employed of those who are in “union” with Christ. It initially referred to those “disciples” to whom he was giving instruction on that occasion; later, though, the application would be to those who have become “disciples” in a more technical sense (Matthew 28:19), and thus have entered into the “in Christ” relationship by means of obedience to the gospel (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27). These became known formally as “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).
Wayne Jackson
Sources/Footnotes
  • Beasley-Murray, G.R. (1987), John – Word Bible Commentary (Waco: Word).
  • Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg).
  • Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John — Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  • Tenney, Merrill C. (1948), John — The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
  • Thayer, J.H. (1958), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).
Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.


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

From Gary... A smile can say a lot!!!


This week I ordered Terminator Genisys on pay-per-view and loved it. I thought the twists brought about by all the time line shifts made the movie intriguing. Beyond that, there was that bit with the old Arnold Schwarzenegger smiling.  That smile put the movie over-the-top for me and made me remember that different things make different people smile like that. This kitty-picture has the same smile and made me think.

I wonder- what could make me smile like this...???? 

And then there is this following passage from 2nd Chronicles...

2 Chronicles, Chapter 9 (WEB)

 1 When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very great train, and camels that bore spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones: and when she had come to Solomon, she talked with him of all that was in her heart.  2 Solomon told her all her questions; and there was not anything hidden from Solomon which he didn’t tell her.  3 When the queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that he had built,  4 and the food of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their clothing, his cup bearers also, and their clothing, and his ascent by which he went up to Yahweh’s house; there was no more spirit in her. 

  5  She said to the king, “It was a true report that I heard in my own land of your acts, and of your wisdom. 6 However I didn’t believe their words, until I came, and my eyes had seen it; and behold, the half of the greatness of your wisdom was not told me: you exceed the fame that I heard.  7 Happy are your men, and happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you, and hear your wisdom.  8 Blessed be Yahweh your God, who delighted in you, to set you on his throne, to be king for Yahweh your God: because your God loved Israel, to establish them forever, therefore made he you king over them, to do justice and righteousness.” 


When the God of Heaven puts a Godly man in charge of our country once again- I will smile like that until my face hurts!!! 

God bless America!!!