From Mark Copeland... "MORAL ISSUES CONFRONTING CHRISTIANS" The Institution Of Marriage


                      The Institution Of Marriage


1. Another moral issue that confronts Christians today relates to the
   institution of marriage...
   a. Many people are clamoring to redefine marriage
   b. Governments are responding with laws that redefine who may marry
   c. Same-sex marriage is becoming legal; polygamy and other forms of
      marriage will likely follow

2. As Christians are confronted with this issue, we do well to ask...
   a. What did Jesus and His apostles reveal about marriage?
   b. What do they say about same-sex marriage?
   c. How should we respond to those in same-sex marriages?

[We begin therefore by looking at...]


      1. Marriage was instituted by God at the beginning - Mt 19:3-4
         a. Weddings may be a social custom, and variously defined by
         b. But marriage itself is ordained by God, not by society or
            the state
      2. Marriage was designed for those created male and female 
         - Mt 19:4
         a. From the beginning this was God's design
         b. Beginning with Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve)
      3. Marriage is for man and wife, who become 'one flesh' - Mt 19:5
         a. A man is to leave his family to start a new one
         b. Man and woman are biologically designed to complement each
      4. Marriage is a union that God joins, not the state - Mt 19:6
         a. Note well:  only God does the joining
         b. The state cannot force God to do something by passing laws
      5. States may therefore declare marriages that are unlawful in
         God's sight - cf. Mk 6:17-18
         a. Herod had "married" Herodias, i.e., approved by the state
         b. But in God's sight it was "not lawful" for him to have her
      -- Jesus defined marriage as instituted and regulated by God, not
         the state

      1. Sex in marriage is honorable, sex outside marriage is not 
         - He 13:4
         a. God will judge fornicators (any who practice sexual
            immorality, see previous lesson)
         b. God will judge adulterers (any who violate the bond
            involving those married )
      2. To avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife and each
         woman her own husband
         a. The solution to sexual immorality is heterosexual marriage
            - 1Co 7:1-5
         b. The only alternative is self-control - 1Co 7:6-9
      -- The apostles taught marriage is regulated by God and His Word

[Both Jesus and His apostles have important things to say about divorce
as it relates to the institution of marriage, but we will discuss that
in another lesson.  Let's now turn our attention to...]


      1. Again we note what the Bible clearly teaches:
         a. Sex outside of marriage is sinful (see previous lesson)
            1) Whether heterosexual or homosexual
            2) It falls into the category of "sexual immorality"
         b. The solution to sexual immorality is clearly stated
            1) Either heterosexual marriage - 1Co 7:1-5
            2) Or self-control - 1Co 7:6-9
         c. Marriage is a divine institution, not a civil one
            1) God determines what constitutes a proper marriage, not
            2) Marriage throughout the Bible is always between a man and
      2. We now note the following:
         a. There is not one mention regarding same-sex marriage
            1) Even though the practice was  known among the Gentiles
            2) Emperor Nero himself had two same-sex marriages
               (Pythagoras, Sporus)
         b. There is no Biblical teaching on how same-sex marriages are
            to work
            1) Who is to be the head?  Who is to submit?
            2) All discussions pertaining to marriage describe
               husband-wife (male-female) relationships - 1Co 7:10-40;
               Ro 7:1-4; Ep 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1Ti 3:2,11-12; 5:14;
               Tit 1:6; 2:4-5; 1Pe 3:1-7
      -- At best, the Bible is silent regarding same-sex marriage; of
         course, there is the issue of homosexuality itself (to be
         discussed later)

      1. Same-sex marriage is on par with other unscriptural marriages
         a. Divorce and remarriage can lead to adulterous marriages (see
            next lesson)
         b. Governments have sanctioned adulterous marriages for years
         c. Many Christians have friends and family involved in such
         d. As same-sex marriages become common, so will our
            acquaintance with such
         e. We must stand firm in support of truth concerning the
            institution of marriage
      2. As with all people engaged in sinful behavior, we should:
         a. Love the sinner while hating the sin
         b. Speak the truth in love, not hate - Ep 4:15
         c. Reach out with gentleness, patience, humility - 2Ti 2:24-26
         d. Convert them to Jesus as Savior and Lord (willing to obey in
            all things) - Mt 28:18-20
         e. We should certainly not fault the children - cf. Eze 18:20
      3. As "citizen saints" living in a free society, we should:
         a. Pray for our leaders, that we may live peaceable, godly
            lives - 1Ti 2:1-4
         b. Live as sojourners and pilgrims, setting honorable examples
            - 1Pe 2:11-12; Ro 12:1-2
         c. Vote for those who respect God's Word on such issues, for it
            can only "insure domestic tranquility...promote the general
            welfare" of one's country - cf. Pr 14:34
      -- Our response should be no different than with any other sin


1. The institution of marriage has long been under attack...
   a. Divorce and remarriage for any reason has undermined it for
   b. Same-sex marriage is only the latest attack; it probably won't be
      the last
   c. Many choose to simply cohabitate rather than marry at all

2. As Christians confronted with such attacks, let us...
   a. Remain true to the teachings of Christ and His apostles
   b. Illustrate by way of example that God's way is good, acceptable
      and perfect
   c. Reach out to all who are lost in sin with both the truth and love
      that is in Jesus Christ

Always remembering that when it comes to the institution of marriage...

   Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but
   fornicators and adulterers God will judge.  - Heb 13:4

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

Why Did God Postpone the Writing of the New Testament? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Why Did God Postpone the Writing of the New Testament?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Why did God wait approximately 20 years after the church was established to begin writing the New Testament? Why such a long span of time?


Normally when we discuss the penning of the New Testament, we do so in view of the fact that God inspired men to write about Jesus and His will for the church within only about 20-65 years of the Savior’s death and resurrection. Perhaps even more impressive is the abundant amount of evidence for the New Testament’s first-century origin. Due to the volume of ancient manuscripts, versions, and citations of the New Testament documents, even many liberal scholars have conceded that the New Testament must have been completed by the end of the first century. Whereas the extant copies of Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, and many others are separated from the time these men wrote by 1,000 years, manuscript evidence for the New Testament reaches as far back as the early second century, which has led most scholars to rightly conclude that the New Testament is, indeed, a first-century production (cf. Lyons, 2007; Bruce, 1953, p. 16; Geisler and Nix, 1986, pp. 408,475; Comfort and Barrett, 2001). As Irwin H. Linton stated regarding the gospel accounts: “A fact known to all who have given any study at all to this subject is that these books were quoted, listed, catalogued, harmonized, cited as authority by different writers, Christian and Pagan, right back to the time of the apostles” (1943, p. 39).
Still, some wonder why God chose to wait approximately 20 years to begin writing the New Testament. Why didn’t the first-century apostles and prophets begin penning the New Testament as soon as the church was established?
The simple, straightforward answer is that we cannot say with certainty why God waited two decades to begin penning the New Testament. [NOTE: Conservative scholars generally agree that the earliest written New Testament documents, including Galatians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, were likely written between A.D. 48-52.] We could ask any number of questions regarding why God did or did not do something: Why did God wait some 2,500 years after Creation and some 1,000 years after the Flood to write a perfect, inspired account of these events? Why did God only spend 11 chapters in the Bible telling us about the first approximately 2,000 years of human history and 1,178 chapters telling us about the next 2,000? Why did God discontinue special, written revelation for over 400 years (between Malachi and the New Testament)? There are many questions, even specific ones about the makeup of God’s written revelation, that remain unanswered, yet God simply has not revealed this information to us.
Having made that disclaimer, we can suggest a few logical reasons why God waited to inspire first-century apostles and prophets to pen the New Testament. First, the early church had the treasure of the Gospel “in earthen vessels” (2 Corinthians 4:7), meaning the apostles were miraculously guided by the Spirit in what they taught (Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). The Spirit of God guided them “into all Truth” (John 16:13). Also, those on whom the apostles chose to lay their hands in the early churches received the miraculous, spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, etc. (Acts 8:14-17; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Even though the church lacked the inspired writings of Paul, Peter, and John for a few years, God did not leave His new Christians without direction and guidance. In a sense, they had walking, living New Testaments. When the miraculous age ended (1 Corinthians 13:8-10; see Miller, 2003), however, the church would need some type of continual guidance. Thus, during the miraculous age, God inspired the apostles and prophets to put in permanent form His perfect and complete revelation to guide the church until Jesus’ return (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Second, it was necessary for God to delay the writing of the New Testament, instead of penning it immediately following the church’s establishment, because the books and letters that make up the New Testament were originally written for specific audiences and for specific purposes (though they are applicable to all Christians). For example, the epistles that Paul wrote to the church at Corinth could not have been written until there was a church at Corinth. If the church at Corinth was not established until the apostle Paul’s second missionary journey (ca. A.D. 49-52), then Paul obviously wrote to the Christians in Corinth after this time. Furthermore, since in 1 Corinthians Paul dealt with specific problems that had arisen in the church at Corinth (e.g, division, immorality, etc.), he could not have explicitly addressed these matters in detail until after they had come to pass. Thus, there was a need for time to pass before the New Testament documents were penned.
Although some may be bothered by the fact that God waited approximately 20 years to begin penning the New Testament through His inspired writers, we can rest assured that He had good reasons for this relatively brief postponement. Admittedly, God did not explicitly indicate why He delayed putting His last will and testament in written form. Yet logical reasons exist—most notably, the fact that the documents that make up the New Testament were written to specific peoples and for specific purposes.


Bruce, F.F. (1953), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fourth edition.
Comfort, Philip W. and David P. Barrett (2001), The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Linton, Irwin H. (1943), A Lawyer Examines the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), sixth edition.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists,” Reason & Revelation, 27[3]:17-23,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=587#.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

The Jackhammer in Your Backyard by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


The Jackhammer in Your Backyard

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

If evolution were true, there would be no woodpeckers. Yet there they are, brightly colored birds, daily chipping away at bark on our backyard trees (“Downy Woodpecker,” 2003; “Pileated Woodpecker...,” 1981). Though evolutionists suggest that the woodpecker’s uncommon characteristics are merely adaptations resulting from natural selection (Fergus, n.d.; Ryan, 2003), they cannot satisfactorily explain why these small birds have the ability to drive their beaks powerfully into the side of a tree, and survive to do it again less than a second later.
“Woodpecker” is the common name for just over 200 species (45 in America, 13 in Canada) of animals that are unique among fowl because they frequently cling to, and excavate, tree trunks (see “Woodpecker,” n.d.; “Downy Woodpecker,” 1999; Fergus, n.d.). They “drill” into trees for three distinct purposes: (1) to find food; (2) to attract potential mates; and (3) to build nests (Eckhardt, 2001). The woodpecker’s suspension system allows it to absorb the force of lightning-fast, repetitive strokes on tree trunks. In fact, the bird can peck bark an estimated 20-25 times per second, and strike an estimated 8,000-12,000 times in a day (“Woodpeckers,” 2009; “How Many...?,” 2007).
No other bird can do this. If the kind of force withstood by woodpeckers on a daily basis were applied to the cranium of any other bird, its brain would quickly turn to mush (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002). Moreover, if a human once smacked his head against a tree as hard as woodpeckers do repeatedly, he would suffer serious brain damage, even if he lived through the impact (“Knock on Wood,” 2004).
How do woodpeckers withstand such pressure? What prevents the force applied by the woodpeckers’ mighty neck muscles, and the sudden, swift impact, from literally beating the birds’ brains out? The answer is that their skulls are reinforced with bone, to keep their heads from shattering. David Juhasz wrote:
The forces involved in the woodpecker’s hammering away at trees are incredible, for the suddenness with which the head is brought to a halt during each peck results in a stress equivalent to 1,000 times the force of gravity. This is more than 250 times the force to which an astronaut is subjected in a rocket during liftoff.... In most birds, the bones of the beak are joined to the bones of the cranium—the part of the skull that surrounds the brain. But in the woodpecker the cranium and beak are separated by a sponge-like tissue that takes the shock each time the bird strikes its beak against a tree. The woodpecker’s shock-absorber is so good that scientists say it is far better than any that humans have invented (2001, emp. added).
Consider how the woodpecker takes his position on the tree. Chuck Fergus described this process:
To grip trees, a woodpecker has short, muscular legs and sharply clawed feet. On most species, two toes point forward and two backward. This opposed, “yoke-toed” arrangement lets a woodpecker climb with ease. Stiff, pointed tail feathers catch on the rough bark to brace the hammering body. During molt, the two middle tail feathers (the strongest ones) do not fall out until the other 10 have been replaced and can support the bird’s weight (n.d.).
Most birds have three toes in the front of the foot and one in the back, but the woodpecker’s X-shaped (zygodactyl) feet are perfect for climbing, allowing the woodpecker to move in any direction on a tree trunk (see “Wondrous Woodpeckers...,” 2002; Bassett, n.d.; “The Malayan Woodpecker,” 2002 ). In addition to the amazingly well-designed X-shaped feet, the woodpecker needs its stiff—yet elastic—tail feathers to press against the tree in order to support its weight while it drills the trunk (“Woodpecker,” n.d.).
Next, consider the woodpecker’s tongue. Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating. The ants’ defense mechanism is no problem either, because the tongue comes complete with a system that negates ant poison (see Yahya, 2004). Juhasz commented:
How does the woodpecker know it has caught the insects? The Creator has given it a tongue with a hard spearhead with bristles pointing rearward, which is attached by tiny fibres of the protein collagen. As the tongue probes a tunnel, the impact of the spearhead on any object jams the head back along the shaft. Nerve endings are precisely located in the fluid-filled spaces between the collagen fibres. They provide the brain with information about the type of material contacted; thus, the woodpecker knows whether it has secured an insect or hit the hard wood of a tree. Once the insects stick to its tongue, the woodpecker pulls them from the tree, then pulls in its long tongue and scrapes the insects off into its mouth (2001).
Consider the beak itself. Like a chisel, it is capable of penetrating even the hardest of wood, and, unlike manmade saws, its point never needs sharpening.
It is argued, however, that because some woodpeckers are different from others (some find their prey on the ground instead of in trees, for example), they all must have evolved from a common ancestor, and that some woodpeckers are merely at different stages of evolution. For example, Juan Garelli wrote concerning the Galapagos:
There are, on the different islands of that archipelago, 14 different species of finch. The 14 species fill many of the roles we should expect—on another continent—to be played by other, unrelated birds. One of them, for instance, is a woodpecker finch. It has evolved a long woodpecker-beak but not a long tongue; it therefore makes use of a twig, held in its beak, to extract insects from bark.
If all the 14 species had been created separately, why are they all finches? If a woodpecker would serve as a woodpecker in the rest of the world, why should it be a finch that acts as a woodpecker on the Galapagos? But the facts make sense if the species all evolved from a common ancestor. If a single finch colonized the Galapagos and then speciated into the present 14 forms, we should expect them all to be finches: they all descended from a finch. The fact that they are finches is known from the homologies that define a finch. If they had been created separately, we should not expect them to share all the finch-homologies. The woodpecker would be the same woodpecker as anywhere else in the world; it would not have finch-defining traits. The Galapagos finches, therefore, provide evidence of evolution (n.d.).
Ryan adds:
The genetic changes necessary for such a modification are quite minor. No new structures are required, merely an extended period of growth to lengthen an existing structure. It is likely that in ancestral woodpecker species which began to seek grubs deeper in trees, those woodpeckers with mutations for increased hyoid horn growth had a fitness advantage, as they could extend their tongue farther to reach prey. Some woodpeckers have no need for long tongues, and thus genes which shortened the hyoid horns were selected for. The sapsucker, for example, drills tiny holes in trees and then uses its short tongue to eat the oozing sap on the tree’s surface (and insects which stick to it) [2003, parenthetical item in orig.].
Garelli and Ryan wrote about microevolution (small-scale changes that result in minor biological variations, but not new kinds of animals), which is responsible for much of the diversity among animals (see Butt, 2005). But Garelli and Ryan did not document macroevolution, which is necessary for Darwinian evolution to be true. Some species of woodpeckers have changed over time, but they all remain woodpeckers. Woodpeckers do not “evolve” into other kinds of animals. To better comprehend this distinction, consider some questions to which evolutionists cannot provide adequate answers:
  • Even though woodpeckers possess powerful mechanisms for drilling, they prefer trees that have visible signs of internal decay (“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities...,” n.d.). At what point did naturalistic evolution “grant” the woodpecker capability to “shop around” for the most suitable tree for excavation?
  • Inherent in the suggestion that the woodpecker is the result of random mutations that took place over millions of years, is that there was a time when the bird possessed some, but not all, of its capabilities. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that mutations are positive and that, given enough time, evolution could produce entirely new biological structures (concessions we do not grant), then what need motivated a woodpecker to “mutate” or “evolve” new traits that it did not possess? Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpeckerknow that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?
  • Could a woodpecker decide to evolve a new trait in the first place? If so, what motivated it to make such a decision? Why does the woodpecker not make such decisions now?
  • If a woodpecker, of a species that eats insects from trees, had a tongue that had not yet evolved, but needed to access food deep inside a tree trunk, would the bird have survived for long? If it had not yet “discovered” that it needed a highly specialized tongue to pull the ants into its mouth (and to keep the ants from hurting him), what would it have done, since it surely did not have enough time to “evolve” a totally different, entirely unique, specialized tongue before it died?
  • If a woodpecker ran out of food on the ground, why would its appetite for ants have been so strong that it required the bird to overlook the danger of eating ants, and motivated it to evolve a special tongue for ingesting them? Would it not have preferred only less
    dangerous insects?
  • What about the beak? If a woodpecker’s beak were not sharp and sturdy, would not the fir
    st woodpecker have been doomed to death or permanent injury on the first attempt to hammer a hardwood tree?
  • How did the first full-fledged woodpecker know that food (and a suitable location for nesting) was available inside trees, when the woodpecker’s ancestors had
    not a clue?
  • How did the woodpecker learn that effective communication can be performed by hammering its 
    beak on bark?
  • What animal gave birth to the first woodpecker?
  • How did the immediate descendant of the first full-fledged woodpecker know that it also shoul
    d look for food in trees?
Juhasz added:
[H]ow could the woodpecker have evolved its special shock-absorbers? If it had started without them, then all the woodpeckers that were alive would have beaten out their brains long ago. Therefore, there should be no woodpeckers left. And if there had ever been a time when woodpeckers did not drill holes in trees they would not have needed the shock-absorbers anyway (2001).
Finally, we should also address the claim that woodpeckers are pests, and in no way beneficial. Woodpeckers help control insects (one woodpecker can eat up to 2,000 ants in one day) and limit the spread of tree diseases by destroying insect carriers. Also, the roosting holes created by woodpeckers are frequently used by birds of many other species (Clench and Austin, 1995, 15:90).
The fact is, woodpeckers are here, and they do things that defy Darwinism. Unlike evolutionists, creationists can adequately explain the woodpecker without contradicting their convictions concerning origins: God created the woodpecker with unique characteristics, and endowed it with particular instincts that cause it to do what it does. Woodpeckers are strong evidence for a divine Designer, as are all other
living organisms.


Bassett, David V. (no date), “The Wonderful Woodpecker: Jehovah’s Jaw-Jarring Jackhammer,” [On-line], URL: http://www.creationevidence.org/ cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/qustn_mon/ qustn_mon.html.
Butt, Kyle (2005), "What Do the Finches Prove?," [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3051.
Clench, Mary Heimerdinger and Oliver L. Austin, Jr. (1995), “Birds,” Encyclopaedia Britannica(Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica), 15:1-112.
“Downy Woodpecker” (1999), Canadian Wildlife Services, [On-line],URL:http://www.britishcolumbia.com/Wildlife/wildlife/birds/cw/cw_ downywoodpecker.html.
“Downy Woodpecker” (2003), Nature of New England, [On-line], URL:http://www.nenature.com/DownyWoodpecker.htm.
Eckhardt, Liesl (2001), “Melanerpes carolinus,” ed. Phil Myers, [On-line], URL:http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/ accounts/information /Melanerpes_carolinus.html.
Fergus, Chuck (no date), “Woodpeckers,” Pennsylvania Game Commission, [On-line], URL:http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/w_notes/woodpeck.htm.
Garelli, Juan (no date), “Social Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://attachment.edu.ar/socialevl.html.
“How Many Pecks Can a Woodpecker Peck?” (2007), Wild Bird Centers, [On-line], URL:http://www.wildbird.com/species-w.html.
Juhasz, David (2001), “The Incredible Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/woodpecker.asp.
“Knock on Wood” (2004), National Wildlife Federation, [On-line], URL:http://www.nwf.org/gowild/kzpage.cfm?siteid=3&departmentid= 76&articleid=188.
“The Malayan Woodpecker” (2002), PageWise,[On-line], URL:http://mama.essortment.com/malayanwoodpeck_rizb.htm.
“Pileated Woodpecker Cavities: Master Builders of the Forest” (no date), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, [On-line], URL: http://www.fmf.ca/PW/PW_report8.pdf.
“Pileated Woodpecker: Dryocopus pileatus” (1981) [On-line], URL:http://www.otterside.com/htmfiles/woodp5.htm.
Ryan, Rusty (2003), “Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker’s Tongue,” [On-line], URL:http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm.
“Woodpecker” (no date), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL:http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/woodpecker.html.
“Woodpeckers,” (2009), Defenders of Wildlife, [On-line], URL:http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/woodpeckers.php.
“Wondrous Woodpeckers: The Design of a Birdbrain” (2002), Project Creation, [On-line], URL:http://www.projectcreation.org/Spot
Yahya, Harun (2004), “The Design of the Woodpecker,” [On-line], URL:http://harunyahya.com/70wood

Frauds in Science by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


Frauds in Science

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

With a cultic-like aura surrounding them, these men and women are seen as the paragons of virtue in the intellectual community. They are a priesthood, arrayed in white apparel, tinkering with test tubes and peering through microscopes in a sophisticated “holy of holies.” I am speaking, of course, of the twentieth century scientist. He is not to be questioned as he pontificates upon matters that have baffled the intellects of the ages. His dogmatic theories are sacrosanct, and never are his motives suspect. Though this is quite a common notion in today’s world, it is woefully inaccurate. While it is true that there are many honest people working in the various fields of science, it also is only fair to point out that there have been, and likely will continue to be, some real charlatans in the scientific community. Consider, for example the following.
Exalted views of the objectivity of science and scientists were shattered recently when theNew Scientist reported in its November, 1976 issue on the results of a survey it conducted on the subject of “Cheating in Science.” Out of 204 scientists replying to the journal’s questionnaire, 197 reported they were aware of cheating by their colleagues. They judged that 58% of the cheating was intentional, and they reported that only 10% of these intentional cheaters were dismissed; most of them, in fact, were promoted (Koshy, 1977, p. 86).
Two of the more notorious instances of scientific fraud provide an interesting and valuable case study in this regard.


Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919) was a German biologist and philosopher who asserted that the entire Universe (including the human mind) was the result of solely material processes—a mere machine in motion. He was a devoted follower of Charles Darwin—so much so, in fact, that he was dubbed “the apostle of Darwinism in Germany.”
Haeckel received most of his fame as a consequence of his popularization of the so-called “theory of embryonic recapitulation.” This is the now-defunct notion that successive stages of individual embryonic development repeat the evolutionary stages of one’s animal ancestry. The argument is entirely specious, as even evolutionists have admitted. Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote, for example: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual—WJ] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race—WJ]” (1957, p. 352).
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit “to show their similarity” (Bowden, 1977, p. 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed (as quoted in Bowden, 1977, p. 128).
Not only did Haeckel misrepresent evidence in his own drawings, but even “went so far as to alter pictures of embryos drawn by others. A professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos that he (Bass) had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should be accused of the same thing...” (Davidheiser, 1969, p. 76).
Evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did more harm than good to Darwinism” (1932, p. 30). Yet in spite of the fact that Haeckel’s drawings proved to be an embarrassment to the evolutionary establishment, they still are employed in some modern writings as a “proof” of the accuracy of the theory of evolution (e.g., see Asimov, 1981, p. 83).


In December of 1912, Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist, and Sir Arthur Smith-Woodward of the British Museum of Natural History, announced that they had discovered a man-like skull in a pit near Piltdown, England. Along with the skull was a jawbone that appeared to be very ape-like except for the teeth—which were more flattened, as would be expected in humans. Working with Dawson and Smith-Woodward was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest in his late 20s who labored incessantly to harmonize evolution and the biblical record of creation.
Although a few scientists questioned the association of the skull with the jaw, most evolutionists were convinced that Eanthropus dawsoni (or, as he was more commonly known, “Piltdown Man”) was an authentic link in human evolution. It has been estimated that some 500 publications appeared on this subject. It is a curious thing, however, that the bones were kept under tight security—even from evolutionists. Sir Arthur Keith, an eminent British authority in this field, was allowed to view the fossils for only twenty minutes, and was forced henceforth to work with plaster casts of the originals (see Weiner, 1955, p. 121). The famous anthropologist, L.S.B. Leakey also complained that he was denied access to the fossils (Leakey, 1960, p. vi.).
By 1950, a dating method [that employed fluorine] had become available for assigning a relative age to fossil bones. In 1953, after a series of tests, it was determined that the Piltdown skull and jaw were of completely different ages. The skull was a few thousand years old (not one million as formerly alleged), and the jaw bone was that of a modern ape! As a consequence of this startling revelation, a careful study of the bones was begun. Eventually, it was discovered that the teeth had been ground down artificially to appear human—and that it had been a sloppy job at that. Abrasion marks were still evident, the surfaces were flattened at different angles, etc. Moreover, as a result of chemical tests, it was determined that the jaw bone had been stained chemically with potassium bichromate and iron salts for the purpose of making it appear ancient. Actually the “fossil” turned out to be nothing more than a human skull with an ape’s jaw attached. Someone had really been “monkeying” (forgive the pun) with the evidence.
But who was the perpetrator of this elaborate fraud? S.J. Weiner of Oxford University, who was instrumental in the exposure of the hoax, suggested (without making any formal accusation) that the weight of the evidence pointed in the direction of Dawson—although he did allow that perhaps Dawson himself was a victim of this devious scheme. The renowned United Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, though again making no formal charge, commented:
It does strike one as remarkable that Professor Smith-Woodward allowed very few other scientists to study the original skull or even to handle it. Plaster casts were always made and the studies carried out with their aid. Plaster casts, however, do not give the very fine details needed for study, nor can one determine with their help whether a find is a fossil or not. Even more important, no one can analyze a skull chemically with only a plaster cast to work with! (1968, p. 133).
More recently, in a scholarly investigation of the available data, Malcolm Bowden concluded that Teilhard de Chardin was likely the culprit (1977). Teilhard certainly had the motive because, as far as he was concerned, all views should bow to evolution which he viewed as “the light illuminating all facts” (1963, p. 44). Moreover, he had the the opportunity, since several of the fake finds were “discovered” by him. Also, he had the technical expertise to pull off such an elaborate ruse. He had taught chemistry (a knowledge of which would be essential in staining the fossils) at Cairo University.
Perhaps as embarrassing as the fraudulent nature of the Piltdown affair, however, was the fact that a number of the world’s leading evolutionary experts were fooled by the hoax for over 40 years. Dogmatic, sweeping statements that had been made with an air of absolute confidence ultimately required public retraction. Such was the concern in England that a motion was made (and tabled) in the House of Commons “that the House has no confidence in the Trustees of the British Museum...because of the tardiness of their discovery that the skull of the Piltdown man is a partial fake” (see Bowden, 1977, p. 8). Duane T. Gish no doubt expressed the sentiments of many when he wrote: “The success of this monumental hoax served to demonstrate that scientists, just like everyone else, are very prone to find what they are looking for whether it is there or not” (1973, p. 92).
There is an important lesson that many Christians need to learn from situations such as these. There is no need to be intimidated by the so-called “discoveries” of an unbelieving world. Not all these discoveries are fraudulent, of course, but they nevertheless are subject to the interpretation placed on them by the discoverer. This, at the very least, should suggest caution in accepting the claims that evolutionists make from time to time.


Asimov, Isaac (1981), “The Genesis War,” Science Digest, 89[9]:82-87, October. [NOTE: This is a written debate with creationist Duane T. Gish.]
Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution And Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).
de Chardin, Teilhard (1963), Saturday Evening Post, October 12.
Gish, Duane T. (1973), Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Kosh, George (1977), A Challenge to Biology (Minneapolis, MN: Bible-Science Association).
Leakey, L.S.B. (1960), Adam’s Ancestors (New York: Harper & Brothers).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.).
Weiner, S.J. (1955), The Piltdown Forgery (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1968), Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw).

Quran Okay—but not Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Quran Okay—but not Bible

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

You are aware of the systematic cleansing of America’s public schools and government buildings by the elimination of references to God and the Bible. This conspiratorial departure from the nation’s origins has been illustrated once again—but in a rather unexpected place: the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The politically correct crowd saw to it that every Muslim had access to a Quran. Oh, yes, inmates who want a Quran are carefully accommodated. But when a Pakistani Muslim inmate (detained for alleged ties to Osama bin Laden) requested a copy of the Bible—no can do.
Though the Quran is preeminent to the Muslim, Islam nevertheless acknowledges the Bible as Scripture from God. So, when he requested that his lawyer ship him a copy of the Bible, prison officials promptly confiscated the package. U.S. government lawyers said the detainee had not shown that the practice of his religion had been “substantially burdened” by being deprived of a Bible.
Unbelievable! Our own people no longer see the Bible as necessary, or its unavailability as adverse and creating a hardship. Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, an honest Muslim would have the opportunity to see the stark difference between the Bible and the Quran. He might repent of his terrorist bent and pursue “the peace that passes understanding” (Philippians 4:7). But we can’t have that!
We live in a time warp far removed from America’s origins. The Founders clearly believed that the initial existence and future survival of the Republic was heavily, if not exclusively, dependent on the successful diffusion of the Bible throughout society. While abundant evidence for this assertion exists, consider just one example. A year after declaring independence from England, the Colonies began to feel the effects of the British embargo. Consequently, the Continental Congress directed a committee to investigate ways by which Bibles could be secured. The committee made its report on September 11, 1777, stating “that the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great...your Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.” Congress promptly ordered the importation (Journals of..., 1907, 8:734-745). Four years later, as the shortage continued, importation became sufficiently impractical that Congress was again petitioned for approval, this time to print Bibles in America rather than purchase them abroad. The request was approved and upon completion of the printing, on September 12, 1782, the full Congress not only approved the edition, but their endorsement was given in the front of the Bible: “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States” (Journals of..., 1914, 23:574). Who today would believe that the original Congress of the United States considered the Bible so important to national existence that they would expend effort—even in wartime—to make certain that Bibles were available to the American population? The present widespread loss of respect for and interest in the Bible, if continued, will spell our national doom.
By the way, government lawyers representing prison officials at Guantanamo Bay also argued that letting the Islamic detainee have a Bible would “set off a chain reaction among the other 170 detainees” and “incite them” (Serrano, 2005). Oh, but don’t you see? That’s precisely what needs to be done.



Journals of the Continental Congress (1904-1937), (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).
Serrano, Richard A. (2005), “Guantanamo Bay Prisoner Sues U.S. to Get a Bible,” Los Angeles Times, November 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.algeria-watch.org/pdf/pdf_en/press_21_27_11_05.pdf.

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Seeing God “Face to Face”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”
Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, evenplainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.
The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”


Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

From Roy Davison... “Love your enemies”


“Love your enemies”
These amazing words were spoken by Jesus on a mountainside in Galilee some 2000 years ago.

What is an enemy?

An enemy is hostile: he hates you, wants to harm you, and actively seeks ways of damaging you and your interests.
In open warfare an enemy tries to kill you, or failing that, to destroy your livelihood.
In mutual warfare, both sides are enemies of each other and try to kill each other and to destroy each other’s infrastructure. Both sides use the hostile acts of the other to justify their own hostilities.
Most of us can thank God that we have never lived in a war zone. We cannot even understand how thankful we should be that we were not in Nanking in December of 1937 when foreign solders murdered 200,000 civilians, or in London during the blitz of 1940 and 1941, or in Dresden in February of 1945, or in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in August of 1945.
Yet, everyone must deal with enemies.
It might be hostility at work or at school. It might be hostility from neighbors or from people of a different race, tribe, social group or religion. It might be hostility among relatives.

Enemies are not easy to love!

Yet Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48).

Did Jesus have enemies?

The Messiah would be “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3). “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him” (John 7:1). Jesus told His followers that enemies would “mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him” (Mark 10:34). “Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him” (Matthew 26:3, 4).
While dying on the cross, Jesus prayed: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Yes, Jesus loved His enemies.

Actually, He loved us while we were His enemies: “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:6-10).

Who was victorious at the cross, Jesus or His enemies?

Followers of Christ “do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). 
Being a Christian is not for cowards. To follow Christ, we must be willing to fight to the death. But “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4).
In carnal warfare generals are appointed who know how to win battles. Soldiers must obey orders. They hope their general knows what he is doing. A worldly soldier tries to stay alive by killing.
We have a General who really does know what He is doing. His strategy is simple, but it requires tremendous bravery: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). A soldier of Christ loves his enemies and “Love does no harm to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10).

There is one enemy we may not love!

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world” (1 Peter 5:8, 9).
“Love your enemies” is a command to attack, to conquer evil with good!
When the devil throws hatred at us, it is a trick. He wants us to pick it up and throw it back.

Jesus issues His soldiers good weapons.

First, we protect ourselves with the shield of faith, which enables us “to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Ephesians 6:16). Hatred bounces off the shield of faith.
Then we attack! We wield “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17).
We use the ‘stun gun’ of love. Jesus loved His enemies. And the words of the Roman centurion who crucified Him, reverberate through the centuries, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39).

Our Commander knows how to be victorious!

“Love your enemies!” Overcome evil with good! “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5).
“Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” (Revelation 19:11-16). 

Our King is victorious over evil.

How are we to treat enemies according to the Word of God?
Even the old covenant commands kindness to enemies.
“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it” (Exodus 23:4, 5). It is acknowledged that you may not want to help him, but that you must anyway.
“If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for so you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the LORD will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21, 22).
Paul quotes this passage when he tells us how to treat enemies. After saying: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2), he lists ways to do this, including: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (Romans 12:14). “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. Therefore ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).

What does the King of kings say about treatment of enemies?

“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on theone cheek, offer the other also” (Luke 6:27-29).
Jesus says this to those ‘who hear’. Many refuse to listen.
A Jewish rabbi, who was quite familiar with the New Testament, said to a Christian: “Jesus taught many good things, but I can never accept that I must offer the other cheek when someone hits me. That’s not human!” The Christian replied: “I agree. That’s not human, that’s divine!”
“Love is of God” (1 John 4:7). Christians are empowered to love the humanly unlovable because “the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Romans 5:5).
“But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back” (Luke 6:32-34). 
Jesus wants our love to be altruistic. The genuineness of love is proven when it is undeserved. Its power is stunning when it is unexpected. Repeatedly showing God’s love to an enemy may undermine his hatred and draw him to the light. Even if it does not, good vanquishes evil in the end.
“Love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6:35, 36).
Jesus wants us to be like the Father who sent His Son to rescue His enemies. Jesus loved us when we were His enemies. Following His example, we love our enemies, and with His help, triumph over evil by doing good. Amen.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive