9/15/16

"THE BOOK OF RUTH" Ruth's Marital Joy: "She Bore A Son" (4:1-22) by Mark Copeland

                           "THE BOOK OF RUTH"

             Ruth's Marital Joy:  "She Bore A Son" (4:1-22)

INTRODUCTION

1. Our brief survey of the book of Ruth has thus far revealed...
   a. Ruth's noble choice:  "I will go..." - Ru 1:1-22
      1) Expressing great love for her mother-in-law, Naomi
      2) Willing to forego home and religion, and adopt Israel and the
         true God
   b. Ruth's lowly service:  "Let me glean..." - Ru 2:1-23
      1) Exercising her right as a widow to glean after the reapers
         during the harvest
      2) Providing sustenance for herself and her mother-in-law
   c. Ruth's tender plea:  "Take your maidservant..." - Ru 3:1-18
      1) Made to Boaz, a near kinsman
      2) As part of a careful plan proposed by her mother-in-law, Naomi

2. Noteworthy throughout this story has been the character of Boaz...
   a. A kind man, with a strong sense of propriety
   b. A hospitable man, with a concern for duty and reputation
   c. A man Naomi knew "will not rest until he has concluded the matter
      this day" - Ru 3:18

3  As we come to the fourth and final chapter...
   a. We see how Boaz fulfills "Ruth's marital joy"
   b. Resulting in the birth of a son who became David's grandfather

[As the chapter opens, Boaz begins the process promised to Ruth earlier
(cf. Ru 3:12-13)...]

I. BOAZ CONFRONTS A CLOSE RELATIVE

   A. AT THE TOWN GATE...
      1. Boaz meets the close relative at the gate - Ru 4:1
         a. Where people would travel in and out of the town
         b. Where business transactions were often made
         c. Where judges and officers were to be found - cf. Deut 16:18
      2. Boaz calls together ten elders of the city - Ru 4:2
         a. Who were frequently gathered at the gate - cf. Pr 31:23
         b. Such elders would serve as witnesses - cf. Ru 4:9

   B. REGARDING NAOMI'S LAND...
      1. Naomi had sold the land which belonged to her husband,
         Elimelech - Ru 4:3
         a. Some translations (NIV, NASB, etc.) indicate she was about
            to sell it - cf. Ru 4:9
         b. Within her right as one who was poor - cf. Lev 25:25
      2. Boaz encourages the close relative to redeem it, or Boaz will
         - Ru 4:4
         a. It was important that land stay within the family - cf. Lev
            25:23-28; Num 27:1-11
         b. At first, the close relative is willing to redeem it

   C. WHO REFUSES TO REDEEM THE LAND...
      1. Boaz points out the obligation involving Ruth the Moabitess
         - Ru 4:5
         a. To buy (or acquire) Ruth (cf. NRSV, NASB) - cf. also Ru 4:10
         b. To marry her and perpetuate the name of her dead husband by
            giving him a son - cf. Deut 25:5-6
      2. Prompting the close relative to refuse to redeem it - Ru 4:6
         a. Concerned about ruining his own inheritance
            1) Perhaps because he knew the land would belong to
               Elimelech's family
            2) Thus spending money for land that would not long be his
         b. Who then gave the right (and responsibility) of redemption
            to Boaz

[With the refusal of redemption by the close relative...]

II. BOAZ REDEEMS NAOMI AND RUTH

   A. THE TRANSACTION FOR NAOMI'S LAND...
      1. Confirmed by the removal of a sandal - Ru 4:7-8
         a. A custom "in former times"
            1) Evidently not when the book of Ruth was written
            2) Possibly traced to the practice of taking possession of
               land by walking on the soil of the land being claimed
               (F. B. Huey, Jr., Expositor's Bible Commentary)
         b. Similar to another custom involving the removal of a sandal
            - cf. Deut 25:7-10
            1) Regarding the refusal to marry the widow of one's brother
            2) An expression of shame for such refusal to accept
               responsibility
         c. Yet such shame does not appear to be the purpose in this
            case
      2. Witnessed by the ten elders and all the people - Ru 4:9
         a. They witnessed that Boaz purchased all the land of Elimelech
            and his sons
         b. That he bought it from the hand of Naomi

   B. THE ARRANGEMENT FOR RUTH'S HAND...
      1. Boaz has acquired Ruth as wife - Ru 4:10
         a. To perpetuate the name of the dead (Mahlon, Ruth's dead
            husband)
         b. To maintain Mahlon's (family?) position at the gate
      2. Witnessed and blessed by townspeople and the elders - Ru 4:11-12
         a. The people proclaim themselves witnesses
         b. They bless Ruth and Boaz
            1) That the Lord make her like Rachel and Leah
            2) That Boaz prosper and be famous in Bethlehem Ephrathah
            3) That their house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar
               bore to Judah - cf. Gen 46:12; Num 26:20-22

[With the transaction for the land witnessed, and their union as husband
and wife blessed by the people at the gate...]

III. BOAZ MARRIES RUTH

   A. THEY HAVE A SON NAMED OBED...
      1. With conception given by the Lord - Ru 4:13
         a. Fertility and barrenness were sometimes attributed to the
            Lord - cf. Gen 29:31; 30:2
         b. Perhaps in this way the writer was implying God's acceptance
            of the union of Boaz and Ruth
      2. With praise and prayer offered by the women - Ru 4:14-15
         a. Praise to the Lord for His kindness to Naomi through her
            daughter-in-law
         b. Prayer that the child be a restorer and nourisher to Naomi
            in her old age
      3. With nursing by Naomi - Ru 4:16
      4. With his name "Obed" (servant) given by the neighbor women - Ru 4:17

   B. WHO WILL BE GRANDFATHER TO DAVID...
      1. As mentioned at the close of Ru 4:17
      2. As illustrated in the genealogy of Perez - Ru 4:18-22
         a. Perez (son of Judah)
         b. Hezron
         c. Ram
         d. Amminadab
         e. Nahshon
         f. Salmon
         g. Boaz
         h. Obed
         i. Jesse
         j. David

CONCLUSION

1. At the beginning of our study, we noted that the book of Ruth serves
   two purposes...
   a. To illustrate how God rewards those who make wise spiritual
      choices and show steadfast filial loyalty
   b. To explain how Ruth, a Moabitess, came to be an ancestor of David,
      and ultimately, of the Messiah - cf. Ru 4:21-22; Mt 1:5-6

2. The book also reveals examples of commendable character...
   a. Nobility of character in Ruth, who proved to be better to Naomi
      than seven sons!
   b. Nobility of character in Boaz, as an employer, and believer in
      God's promises and commands

Remember that such character was manifested during a dark period in
Israel's history...

   "In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what
   was] right in his own eyes." (Judg 21:25)

May their example of character encourage us to do what is right when we
live among people who seem to be little different than those in the days
of the Judges...!
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE BOOK OF RUTH"Ruth's Tender Plea: "Take Your Maidservant" (3:1-18) by Mark Copeland

                           "THE BOOK OF RUTH"

         Ruth's Tender Plea:  "Take Your Maidservant" (3:1-18)

INTRODUCTION

1. So far our study in the book of Ruth has revealed...
   a. Ruth's noble choice:  "I will go..." - Ru 1:1-22
      1) Expressing great love for her mother-in-law, Naomi
      2) Willing to forego home and religion, and adopt Israel and the
         true God
   b. Ruth's lowly service:  "Let me glean..." - Ru 2:1-23
      1) Exercising her right as a widow to glean after the reapers
         during the harvest
      2) Providing sustenance for herself and her mother-in-law

2. Our previous study reviewed how Ruth came to meet Boaz...
   a. Ruth "happened" to be gleaning in the field of Boaz - Ru 2:1-3
   b. Boaz inquired of his workers about the strange woman - Ru 2:4-5
   c. Learning Ruth's identity, Boaz encouraged her to continue - Ru
      2:8-9
   d. Ruth was permitted to glean in the fields of Boaz throughout the
      harvest - Ru 2:21
   e. Naomi was thrilled, because Boaz was a close relative - Ru 2:20

[With advice from her mother-in-law, Ruth will make a "tender plea" that
will prompt Boaz to fulfill an obligation that was due the family of
Elimelech.  Thus chapter three begins with...]

I. NAOMI'S ADVICE TO RUTH

   A. MOTIVATED BY MOTHERLY CONCERN...
      1. Naomi loves her daughter-in-law as a daughter - Ru 3:1
      2. Naomi is concerned for Ruth's security and well-being - Ru 3:1
         a. Security (rest, KJV) implies benefits found in marriage
            - cf. Ru 1:9
         b. It was customary for parents to arrange marriages - cf. Judg
            14:1-2

   B. PROMPTED BY PROVIDENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES...
      1. Boaz, with whose women Ruth gleaned in the fields, was a
         relative - Ru 3:2
         a. He could fulfill the levirate law of marriage - cf. Deut
            25:5-10
         b. Perhaps Naomi had interpreted his kindness as interest in
            Ruth
      2. Boaz would be winnowing barley at the threshing floor - Ru 3:2
         a. Threshing floors were located on a hill; this one outside
            the city - cf. Ru 3:15
         b. Naomi knew that Boaz would spend the night there - cf. Ru
            3:4

   C. DEVISED TO PROMPT A RESPONSE...
      1. Ruth is told to wash, anoint herself, and put on her best
         garment - Ru 3:3
      2. Ruth is told to wait until Boaz has eaten and fallen asleep
         - Ru 3:-4
      3. Ruth is told to uncover Boaz' feet and lie down, and await his
         response - Ru 3:4
         a. Some interpret "uncover his feet" and "lie down" as
            euphemisms for sexual activity - cf. Eze 16:25 (KJV); Gen
            19:32-35
         b. Yet for Naomi to encourage Ruth to commit such an act of
            boldness and immorality is completely counter to what we
            know of Ruth - cf. Ru 3:11
         c. The actual text suggests that nothing indecent happened
            - cf. Ru 3:7-8

[Ruth consents to follow the advice given by Naomi (Ru 3:5), and so we
read of...]

II. RUTH AT THE FEET OF BOAZ

   A. RUTH FOLLOWS NAOMI'S ADVICE...
      1. Ruth goes down to the threshing floor - Ru 3:6
      2. Ruth does according to her mother-in-law's instructions - Ru
         3:6
         a. She waits until Boaz had eaten and gone to sleep - Ru 3:7
         b. She softly uncovers his feet and lies down - Ru 3:7

   B. BOAZ STARTLED BY RUTH'S PRESENCE...
      1. At midnight Boaz is startled by a woman lying at his feet - Ru
         3:8
      2. Upon inquiry, Ruth identifies herself and makes her plea - Ru
         3:9
         a. "Take your maidservant under your wing"
            1) Or "spread your cloak over your maid" (NRSV)
            2) In that region, a symbolic action denoting protection,
               marriage (JFB)
         b. "For you are a close relative (near kinsman)"
            1) He could fulfill the levirate law of marriage - cf. Deut
               25:5-6
            2) But he was not the nearest of kin - cf. Ru 3:12

   C. BOAZ RESPONDS WITH GRATITUDE, HONOR AND KINDNESS...
      1. Boaz is grateful for her kindness - Ru 3:10
         a. She showed more kindness at the end than at the beginning
         b. In that she did not just go after any young man (implying
            that Boaz was older)
      2. Boaz is concerned about preserving her honor - Ru 3:11-14
         a. He would fulfill her request, for everyone knows of her
            virtue
         b. Yet there was a kinsman nearer to her than he
            1) Boaz must give him the opportunity to do his duty
            2) Boaz swears to perform the duty, if the other person does
               not
         c. Boaz preserves her reputation
            1) By having her stay until morning, rather than leaving
               during the night
            2) By instructing his workers to tell no one
      3. Boaz gives Ruth six ephahs of barley - Ruth 3:15
         a. So she might not go empty-handed to her mother-in-law - cf.
            Ru 3:17
         b. The significance of this gift is uncertain
            1) A gift of grain as the bridal price?
            2) A message intended for Naomi, recognizing her part or to
               secure her consent?
            3) A "cover" for Ruth, should anyone see her, implying that
               she had been at work
               gathering grain?
            4) Simply a gift from a man for the woman he hoped to marry?

[With such a large gift in hand...]

III. RUTH RETURNS TO NAOMI

   A. RUTH REPORTS TO NAOMI...
      1. Ruth tells all that Boaz had done for her - Ru 3:16
      2. Ruth explains the six ephahs of barley - Ru 3:17

   B. NAOMI ADVISES RUTH...
      1. To wait to see how things turn out - Ru 3:18
      2. Confident that Boaz will act immediately - Ru 3:18

CONCLUSION

1. It is tempting to caricature Naomi as a "matchmaker"...
   a. She certainly had given her plan some thought
   b. She correctly anticipated Boaz' response
   -- But it was definitely "a risky proposition" that could have easily
      gone awry!

2. Scholars debate whether anything improper took place between Ruth and
   Boaz; I appreciate the following observation:

   "Those who interpret a sexual relation in the events reflect their
   twentieth-century cultural conditioning of sexual permissiveness.
   They fail to appreciate the element of Ruth's trust that Boaz would
   not dishonor her whom he wanted for his wife. They fail to appreciate
   the cultural taboos of Ruth's time that would have prevented a man of
   Boaz's position from taking advantage of Ruth, thereby destroying her
   reputation and perhaps endangering his own.  Biblical writers were
   not squeamish about describing sexual encounters, but the writer of
   Ruth has deliberately refrained from saying there was a liaison
   between Ruth and Boaz.  If read carefully and with sensitivity, it
   becomes clear that he was saying just the opposite.  Both Ruth and
   Boaz acted virtuously in a situation they knew could have turned out
   otherwise.  Chastity was not an unknown virtue in the ancient world."
   - F. B. Huey, Jr. (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

3. Again we are struck by the noble character of Boaz...
   a. We saw his kindness and sense of propriety in the previous chapter
   b. We see his kindness and concern for duty and reputation in this
      chapter

The integrity of Boaz made it possible for Naomi to plan her "risky
proposition" with a strong likelihood that he would respond in the
proper manner.  The benefit of having integrity is that people know how
we will respond in a given situation.

Would we have responded like Boaz...?
 

Should the Quran be Taken Literally? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=5301

Should the Quran be Taken Literally?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Political correctness, like a narcotic, renders victims mindless and biased in the ability to see the obvious. In an attempt to evade the teachings of the Bible, theological liberals have long insisted that Bible statements are not to be taken literally. We have been told that we must not be “a literalist” when it comes to Bible interpretation and, when we read the Bible, we must not take it literally. Sadly, many Americans have been duped by over a century of propaganda perpetrated by higher critics who seek to undermine confidence in the inspiration of the Bible. Nevertheless, the evidence is decisive: the Bible possesses the attributes of inspiration that prove its divine origin.1 And its meanings, as originally intended by God, can be understood.
To suggest that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsensical. True, the Bible contains much figurative language, i.e., it includes figures of speech (e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, etc.)—just like our own English language (e.g., “quit cold turkey,” “stretch my legs,” “died laughing”). But figurative language still communicates meaning that can be comprehended. Do those who allege that the Bible is not to be literalized want us to interpret their allegation literally? Of course. Even if a few metaphors are “thrown” into the discussion, can we “grasp” what is being communicated? Yes, even as that question can be understood, though it contains two figurative expressions. Likewise the Bible may also be understood. It communicates literal truth. Any diligent student can ascertain the original intent of the divinely guided writers.
Though its divine origin has been decisively disputed,2 the same may be said of the Quran. It was written with a view to being understood. The host of passages that advocate violent jihad are unquestionably conveyed in contexts that demonstrate their literality. No figurative language alters the very plain meanings evident in the admonitions pertaining to physical warfare. For example, Surah 3 alludes to two literal battles fought by Muslim armies—the battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud. Consider Surah 47 in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation—
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).3
No Muslim would deny that “those who disbelieve,” “actions,” and “Garden” (i.e., Paradise) are literal. Likewise, no true Quran-made Muslim would deny that “battle,” “slain,” and “smiting of the necks” are literal as well. This Surah is calling for Muslims to engage in literal violent warfare with unbelievers (i.e., those who do not accept Islam) by severing their heads. The sooner the politically correct, multicultural mindset faces reality, the sooner the threat posed by terrorists can be addressed in a meaningful manner.

Endnotes

1   Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Jackson, Wayne (1982), “The Holy Scriptures—Verbally Inspired,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/holyscri.pdf.
2   See Dave Miller (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
3   Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).


Critics and the Cosmos by Eric Lyons, M.Min.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=829

Critics and the Cosmos

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some believe the Bible contains notions about the Cosmos that create a natural world which is completely foreign to reality. Because the inspired writers spoke of the heaven’s being “rent asunder” after Jesus was baptized (Mark 1:10, ASV) and the “windows of heaven” opening to allow rain to fall upon the Earth (Genesis 7:11), Bible critics have suggested that the writers believed the sky to be the same old blue, solid wall that uninspired men from so many other cultures professed.
Modern-day liberalism frequently has employed this type of argument to indicate the Bible writers’ alleged “unscientific view” of the Universe. Does the Bible imbibe ancient mythological misrepresentations? Is its information on the Cosmos “unscientific”? What is the truth of the matter?
The fact is, the Bible no more teaches that the heavens were a “solid wall” than modern day weathermen believe the Sun literally “rises” in the morning and “sets” in the evening. The Bible no more indicates that there are literal windows in heaven than doctors believe that a woman’s water can literally break. Technically, it is not correct to refer to a woman’s amniotic fluid as water; nor is it correct to refer to the water as “breaking.” Yet doctors frequently employ this kind of language. It is not scientifically correct to speak of the Sun “rising” and “setting,” but everyone understands weathermen to mean that the Earth is turning on its axis. Surely, if modern man, with all his advanced technology, can use such phenomenal language as “sunrise and sunset” in reference to the dawn and dusk of his day, the Bible writers can be afforded the same luxury.
Why do skeptics not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as they themselves employ? No doubt it is because they take extreme measures—by ignoring the type of language used in different parts of Scripture (i.e., literal or figurative)—in an attempt to find some kind of error in the Bible. Such arguments are destined to fail because common sense has been omitted from the interpreting “equation.”

Bat “Vision” by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1450

Bat “Vision”

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Bats often fly speedily through stalactite-filled caves and seemingly impenetrable wooded areas. For bats, one wrong move or turn can mean serious injury or death. Contrary to popular opinion, most bats possess at least decent vision. However, bats’ hearing is so sensitive that, for navigational purposes, bats use their ears more than their eyes. Bats are capable of emitting a sound that humans cannot hear. Some species use this very high-pitched, shrill tone when flying to determine what is in front of them (see “Echolocation,” n.d.). The sound bounces off objects in a bat’s path, and the bat hears the echo. Amazingly, the bat is able to determine precisely the direction he should fly in order to avoid smashing into the looming object. This process is referred to as “echolocation.” Bats also use echolocation to find food, especially flying insects.
Bats make this sound from a few, to two hundred, times per second. Do not confuse this sound with the squeaky noise you hear when you stand next to the bat exhibit at your local zoo. That noise is made by bats when they are frustrated, excited, or mating. Bats use different sounds, along with their large ears, to perform echolocation. Scientists use bat detectors to transpose the sounds to a lower frequency—one that humans can hear (see “California Underground...,” 1999). Not all bats, however, use echolocation; approximately 200 species of fruit bats in Africa, Asia, and Australia have larger eyes and are able to use their sharp vision to quickly negotiate obstacles.
Other animals, including dolphins and orca and beluga whales, use echolocation under water, like sonar signals (see “Echolocation”). The process of echolocation also has been observed in terrestrial mammals such as rodents, insectivores, Megachiroptera, and in nocturnal cave-dwelling oil birds and cave swiftlets (see Uy, 1994, p. 1; Blackshear, n.d., p. 1.). In addition, scientific research over the past fifty years has revealed that the auditory system is a major tool employed by blind humans as a means of perception.
Did the complex auditory and navigation systems of bats evolve, as many would have us believe?

REFERENCES

Blackshear, Jim (no date), “A Research Proposal: Echolocation—How Can We Best Teach It?,” Stephen F. Austin State University, [On-line], URL: http://hubel.sfasu.edu/courseinfo/SL02/jb2echolocation.htm.
“California Underground: Bat Echolocation Station” (1999), Oakland Museum of California, [On-line], URL: http://www.museumca.org/caves/onli_echo.html.
“Echolocation” (no date), National Parks Conservation Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.eparks.org/wildlife_protection/wildlife_facts/bats/echolocation.asp.
Uy, Christine (1994), “ ‘Seeing’ Sounds: Echolocation by Blind Humans,” ed. Bridget Wagner, Tony Chen, Harvard Undergraduate Society for Neuroscience, [On-line], URL: http://hcs.harvard.edu/husn/BRAIN/vol1/echo.html.

Be Fair When Interpreting the Bible by Eric Lyons, M.Min.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2123

Be Fair When Interpreting the Bible

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Twenty-first-century Americans think very little about how contradictory our communication sounds to those unfamiliar with modern American English. Driving on parkways and parking on driveways seems very illogical given the definitions of parking and driving. Receiving shipment from trucks and cargo from ships sounds equally bizarre, though not to Americans. We have feet that smell and noses that run. We eat hamburgers made of beef and hotdogs made of pigs. What’s more, we drive on interstate highways that never cross into other states (e.g., Hawaii’s interstate H1), and we are programmed to read speed “limit” signs as speed “minimum” signs.
One of the most awkward questions Americans ask is, “You didn’t do that, did you?” How are we supposed to answer such a question? We generally say “No,” but mean “Yes,” and if we mean “No,” we say “Yes.” Recently I asked my two young sons a similar question. One said “No” and the other said “Yes,” but they meant the same thing. They simply were confused as to how to answer such a question. When one pauses to consider the many figures of speech Americans use in communication, he is overwhelmed with the number of paradoxes we regularly invoke.
It is essential for students of the Bible to recognize that the inspired writers also used many figures of speech. If we fail to identify these idioms, we may ignorantly draw the same conclusion that so many Bible critics have drawn—that the Bible writers made mistakes. In actuality, the “mistakes” are on the interpreter’s part, not God’s or His penmen’s. When skeptics allege that Jesus lied when He stated He would rise from the grave “after three days” (Mark 8:31), because on other occasions He indicated that He would rise “the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; cf. Acts 10:40), they fail to recognize a common figure of speech in ancient times. “After three days” and “on the third day” frequently meant the same thing (cf. 2 Chronicles 10:5,12; Genesis 42:17-18; Esther 4:16-5:1; see Lyons, 2004). Even Jesus’ first-century enemies used these expressions synonymously (Matthew 27:63-64).
One critic of Christ has condemned Jesus for calling His mother “woman” in John 2:4 (see McKinsey, 1995, p. 134). Allegedly, the Son of God would not use such an impersonal noun in such a disrespectful way. In truth, however, though this expression may sound rude in the 21st century, 2,000 years ago it was used in a most respectful manner (cf. Matthew 15:28; John 19:26; 20:15).
If Bible critics would pause to think of the plethora of figures of speech we use everyday (which to some sound perplexing at best, and contradictory at worst), likely far fewer alleged discrepancies would be levied against the Bible. A fair approach to Scripture is one that takes into account its many figures of speech, rather than simply assuming the worst of its writers.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Three Days and Three Nights,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/570.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Jesus Was Logical by Dave Miller, Ph.D.




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=653

Jesus Was Logical

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The view of Jesus that prevails in popular culture is one that portrays Him as unconcerned with logic and correct attention to doctrinal detail. Diluted Christendom has conjured up a Jesus that is non-confrontational, “politically correct,” and would never be “judgmental” or “intolerant.” Nevertheless, the New Testament—the only source for ascertaining the identity of Jesus—depicts Him in a completely different light.
Take, for example, the occasion in John 7 when the Jews were critical of Jesus for having healed on the Sabbath a man who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment (John 5:2-9). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that Jesus would chide the Jews for their nit-picky, legalistic approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. Unfortunately, this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely-intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His persecutors on this occasion illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to it, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.
Calling attention to the miracle He performed, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:
  1. If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
  2. The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath.
  3. Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally.
This one incident in the life of Christ is typical of His behavior on other occasions, proving that Jesus was logical in His approach to life. It demonstrates the high respect He had for law. It spotlights Deity’s concern for careful compliance with law. All who desire to be like Christ must emulate these same concerns. As Jesus Himself stated: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

A Bird, a Plane... Nope, Just a Dinosaur by Kyle Butt, M.Div.





http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2615

A Bird, a Plane... Nope, Just a Dinosaur

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For several years, the mainstream scientific community has been trying to dupe the public into believing that dinosaurs evolved into birds. The dinosaur-to-bird theory is patently false, and the “evidence” for it continues to be, not only extremely tenuous, but oftentimes fraudulent.
Recently the public was introduced to Epidexipteryx hui. The Live Science article described this creature as a “bird-like dinosaur” that “sported bizarre tail feathers” (Bryner, 2008). This little six-ounce, pigeon-sized creature supposedly gives us new insight into the fact that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Yet a cursory look at the article describing the find shows the uncertainty and faulty assumptions packed into such a conclusion. Bryner, the author of the article, noted that the scientists “are not positive about the dates.” She further noted that researcher Zhonghe Zhou said the creature “cannot be the direct ancestor of birds.”
In addition, Bryner wrote that the “tail feathers” sported by this creature are unlike any feathers any person has ever seen. In fact, Mark Norell, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, commented on the alleged tail feathers: “These seem to lack that main shaft down the middle and are just a really long collection of very long, filamentous-like structures” (as quoted in Bryner, 2008). Norell added: “Things more primitive than this [dinosaur] have fully formed feathers. This is just some weirdo kind of thing this animal has” (2008).
In summary, then, a dinosaur that scientists cannot accurately date, which cannot be an ancestor to birds, has some strange filaments unlike any feathers that any scientist has ever seen protruding from its tail. Other creatures supposedly older than this animal have fully formed feathers, yet this little guy allegedly “fills in the gaps about the transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds” (2008). With all due respect, that is ridiculous. The cold, hard truth of the matter is scientists have never found an animal that is part-dinosaur/part-bird, and they never will. Not only does the biblical record prove that land-living dinosaurs were created after birds (Genesis 1), but the law of Biogenesis precludes the possibility of a “transitional” creature.

REFERENCES

Bryner, Jeanna (2008), “Bird-Like Dinosaur Sported Bizarre Tail Feathers,” LiveScience, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443581,00.html.

Animals, Abortion, and the Absurd by Eric Lyons, M.Min.





http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1241

Animals, Abortion, and the Absurd

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

I have always loved dogs. I am thankful that God chose to create the dog kind. In my 33 years I have owned nine different dogs and have fond memories of them all. My dogs kept me company when I was alone. They calmed me when I was stressed. They picked me up when I was down. Even as a happily married husband and father of three, I still enjoy walking into the back yard to greet the family mutts—Bear and Suzy.
In August 2007, many people, including myself, were disappointed to learn that a well-known professional football player (Michael Vick) plead guilty to sponsoring, financing, and participating in the brutal sport of dog fighting. Vick even admitted that he was partly responsible for hanging and drowning a number of dogs that did not perform well in certain “test” fights (see United States v. Michael Vick, 2007). For his crimes, Vick was sentenced to 23 months behind bars, most of which were served in a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.
I certainly believe that Vick’s actions (i.e., the drowning of dogs, etc.) can be described as appalling and somewhat sadistic. What’s more, he knowingly participated in a sport which has been outlawed in every state in America. He deserved some kind of punishment for his actions. But, we must recognize that Vick’s acts were done against animals. Though dogs may be “man’s best friend,” they still are just animals, not humans. They are every bit as much an animal as cows, crows, chickens, deer, monkeys, horses, and pigs are animals.
How absurd, inconsistent, and immoral is the United States judicial system when a person must serve nearly two years in prison for fighting, hanging, and drowning animals, yet, if that same person slaughters a 20-week-old unborn human, he supposedly is blameless. The fact that doctors in the United States can legally rip unborn babies to pieces with plier-like forceps, chop them up with knife-like devices, or puncture their skulls with a pair of scissors before sucking out the babies’ brains, is atrocious (cf. Proverbs 6:16-17). Are we to believe that Vick’s actions against dogs were “inhumane,” but what happens to approximately one million innocent, unborn babies every year in America is not? What could be more inhumane than willfully, selfishly, arrogantly, and brutally taking the life of a human—one of God’s image-bearers (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)? Baby murderers freely walk the streets of America everyday, but dog fighters are jailed for inhumane acts...against animals? How absurd! How atrocious!
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:20-24).
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

REFERENCE

United States v. Michael Vick (2007), 3:07CR274, [On-line], URL: http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0824/vicksummary.pdf.

What was the Inscription on the Cross? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.







 http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=650&b=Luke

What was the Inscription on the Cross?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Controversy has surrounded the death of Christ on the cross for almost two millennia. In the days of the apostle Paul, it served as a “stumbling block” to the Jews and “foolishness” to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). Throughout the past 2,000 years, men and women of all ethnicities have rejected—for many objectionable reasons—the story of the crucified, resurrected Savior. Sadly, for some today, even the physical cross itself has become a stumbling block. Because of an alleged contradiction surrounding the actual words written on the cross of Christ, some believe that the message of the cross once preached by John, Paul, Peter, Philip, and others simply cannot be trusted. According to skeptics, the Gospel writers disagreed regarding what the title read that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head.
  • Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37).
  • Mark: “The King of the Jews” (15:26).
  • Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38).
  • John: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19).
Question: Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John disagree on what was written on the cross, or did these four independent writers record trustworthy statements?
Before answering the above question, consider the following illustration. Tonight after getting home from work, I inform my wife (Jana) about an accusation I read on a billboard on the way home regarding one of our friends who is running for city council. I proceed to tell her that the accusation read: “John Doe is a thief.” The following day, our niece (Shanon) comes by the house and mentions to Jana that she just saw a billboard (the same one that I had mentioned a day earlier) that read: “City council candidate John Doe is a thief.” Finally, the next day, a friend (Rhonda) visits Jana and informs her about the same sign, saying it reads: “Montgomery City Council candidate John Doe is a thief.” Question: Would anyone have justification for saying that Shanon, Rhonda, and I disagreed regarding what the billboard said? Certainly not! We all three reported the very same accusation (“John Doe is a thief ”), except that Shanon mentioned the fact that he was a “city council candidate,” and Rhonda added that he was a candidate from “Montgomery.” All three of us reported truthfully the allegation we saw on the billboard. Similarly, the accusation above Jesus on the cross is the same in all four narratives—“the King of the Jews.”
  • Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37, emp. added).
  • Mark: “The King of the Jews” (15:26, emp. added).
  • Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38, emp. added).
  • John: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19, emp. added).
The only variation in the inscription is in the personal name of Jesus. This alleged contradiction is easily explained by acknowledging that John recorded the full inscription, while the other writers assumed all to understand the personal name, and therefore simply focused on the accusation on which the crucifixion was based. The accusation was not that this man was Jesus of Nazareth, since there was no controversy regarding His name, nor His hometown. It was a known fact that the man crucified between the two thieves was indeed “Jesus of Nazareth.” Somewhat like the controversial accusation mentioned above regarding John Doe, the key charge levied against Jesus was that He was “the King of the Jews,” and this title was mentioned by all four Gospel writers.
Also involved in this alleged problem regarding the accusation that appeared on the cross is the fact that the superscription was written in three different languages, and translation may have been involved in some instances. According to John, the title was “written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin” (John 19:20; cf. Luke 23:38). Pilate is said to have written the inscription (John 19:19), and he (or whomever he ordered to write the inscription—cf. John 19:1) could have written a slightly different wording in each of the languages according to his proficiency in each language, or according to how much time he wanted to spend writing each one. Furthermore, as Bible commentator Albert Barnes noted: “One evangelist may have translated it from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, a third from the Latin, and a fourth may have translated one of the inscriptions a little differently from another” (1997).
The inscription on the cross of Christ mentioned by all four Gospel writers proves yet again, not that the Bible contains discrepancies, but that the narrators wrote independently. They did not rely upon one another to ensure that their facts were exactly correct. Rather, their accurate accounts of Jesus’ life stand solidly upon the “inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Do you long to be with Christ? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/061-withchrist.html
 
Do you long to be with Christ?

We want to be with those we love.
One of the saddest things in life is to be separated from loved ones. If we cannot be with them all the time, we want to be with them when we can.

During holidays large sums are spent visiting those we love. Much automobile and air traffic is generated by those who travel great distances to spend some time with loved ones.

When I was very small, I travelled with my mother by train half way across the United States to visit my grandmother.

The saddest separation of all is death. That was the last time we saw her. She had a stroke and died shortly thereafter. She was a faithful Christian, however, so we look forward to seeing her again.

How can we have this assurance? Through the resurrection of Christ! He is the Redeemer in whom Job believed as he longed to be with God (Job 19:25-27).

Jesus came to restore our broken relationship with the Father so we may have an eternal relationship with Him. Jesus longs to be with His loved ones, and they long to be with Him.


Jesus wants His followers to be with Him forever.

He prayed: “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

Knowing that he would be leaving His beloved disciples shortly, He assured them: “A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me” (John 16:16). “I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you” (John 16:22).

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:1-3).


How can we be with Christ forever?

We must have a good relationship with Him now to be with Him forever.


Christ died for us that we might live with Him.

“For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him” (1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10).


We must deny ourselves and follow Christ.

Because Jesus gave His life for us, we give our life to Him.

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it’” (Matthew 16:24, 25).

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him” (John 14:23).

If we want to be with Jesus forever, we must be willing to suffer with Him: “and if children, then heirs - heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (Romans 8:17).


We must die with Christ to live with Him.

“This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him” (2 Timothy 2:11). By sharing in His death, we have His life in us as a foretaste of eternal life.

“Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:8-11).

“For though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you” (2 Corinthians 13:4).

As Paul wrote: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-6).


We die with Christ through baptism.

We are united with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection through baptism.

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Romans 6:3-6).

At baptism our sinful man is crucified with Christ. Through the power of the Holy Spirit and by the blood of Christ, our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), and we rise from baptism to “walk in newness of life.” We have been “born again,” “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3, 5).

Previously, we were outside of Christ. Now we are in Him, a member of His body, the church: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Paul reminds Christians: You were “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12); “knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus” (2 Corinthians 4:14).


Christians commune with the body and blood of Christ.

Jesus gives this loving invitation: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with Him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20).

When we break bread on the first day of the week, we have fellowship with His body and blood: “Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16 NET).

In the Lord’s supper we encounter the body and blood of Christ. We meditate on what He has done for us. In our mind we hear the blows of the hammer and feel the pain from the spikes that were driven into His hands and feet, knowing that He was bearing the punishment for our sins. Yet, we also rejoice when we think about the stone being rolled away and the triumphant Christ emerging from the tomb. We feel extremely close to Him and surrounded by His love. This fellowship with the body and blood of Christ is spiritual, intimate and profound.


Christians long to be with Christ.

As long as we are still in the flesh, our fellowship with Christ is limited, but we look forward to being with Him forever.

Although Paul wanted to serve his fellow saints, he longed to be with the Lord: “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Philippians 1:23 ESV). “So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).


He who remains faithful may walk with Christ in white.

“You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels” (Revelation 3:4, 5). “To overcome,” as used in Revelation, means to remain faithful until death.


After Christ returns, we will be with Him forever.

When Jesus comes again, we will be like Him: “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).


We will appear with Christ at His coming.

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).

“If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory” (Colossians 3:1-4).


We will reign with Christ.

“This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (2 Timothy 2:11, 12).

“He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful” (Revelation 17:14).
“To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Revelation 3:21).


What have we learned?

We want to be with those we love. Jesus wants His followers to be with Him. How can we be with Christ forever? He died for us that we might live with Him. We must deny ourselves and follow Jesus. We must die with Him to live with Him. We die with Christ through baptism. We commune with the body and blood of Christ at His table. Christians long to be with Christ. He who remains faithful may walk with Christ in white. When He returns, we will appear with Him, we will be with Him, and we will reign with Him forever.

We long to be with Christ! “O Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22). “The Lord be with you all” (2 Thessalonians 3:16). Amen.

Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Bible Reading September 15 by Gary Rose





Bible Reading  September 15  (WEB)



Sept. 15
Psalms 71-73

Psa 71:1 In you, Yahweh, I take refuge. Never let me be disappointed.
Psa 71:2 Deliver me in your righteousness, and rescue me. Turn your ear to me, and save me.
Psa 71:3 Be to me a rock of refuge to which I may always go. Give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.
Psa 71:4 Rescue me, my God, from the hand of the wicked, from the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man.
Psa 71:5 For you are my hope, Lord Yahweh; my confidence from my youth.
Psa 71:6 I have relied on you from the womb. You are he who took me out of my mother's womb. I will always praise you.
Psa 71:7 I am a marvel to many, but you are my strong refuge.
Psa 71:8 My mouth shall be filled with your praise, with your honor all the day.
Psa 71:9 Don't reject me in my old age. Don't forsake me when my strength fails.
Psa 71:10 For my enemies talk about me. Those who watch for my soul conspire together,
Psa 71:11 saying, "God has forsaken him. Pursue and take him, for no one will rescue him."
Psa 71:12 God, don't be far from me. My God, hurry to help me.
Psa 71:13 Let my accusers be disappointed and consumed. Let them be covered with disgrace and scorn who want to harm me.
Psa 71:14 But I will always hope, and will add to all of your praise.
Psa 71:15 My mouth will tell about your righteousness, and of your salvation all day, though I don't know its full measure.
Psa 71:16 I will come with the mighty acts of the Lord Yahweh. I will make mention of your righteousness, even of yours alone.
Psa 71:17 God, you have taught me from my youth. Until now, I have declared your wondrous works.
Psa 71:18 Yes, even when I am old and gray-haired, God, don't forsake me, until I have declared your strength to the next generation, your might to everyone who is to come.
Psa 71:19 Your righteousness also, God, reaches to the heavens; you have done great things. God, who is like you?
Psa 71:20 You, who have shown us many and bitter troubles, you will let me live. You will bring us up again from the depths of the earth.
Psa 71:21 Increase my honor, and comfort me again.
Psa 71:22 I will also praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, my God. I sing praises to you with the lyre, Holy One of Israel.
Psa 71:23 My lips shall shout for joy! My soul, which you have redeemed, sings praises to you!
Psa 71:24 My tongue will also talk about your righteousness all day long, for they are disappointed, and they are confounded, who want to harm me.

Psa 72:1 God, give the king your justice; your righteousness to the royal son.
Psa 72:2 He will judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.
Psa 72:3 The mountains shall bring prosperity to the people. The hills bring the fruit of righteousness.
Psa 72:4 He will judge the poor of the people. He will save the children of the needy, and will break the oppressor in pieces.
Psa 72:5 They shall fear you while the sun endures; and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
Psa 72:6 He will come down like rain on the mown grass, as showers that water the earth.
Psa 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
Psa 72:8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, from the River to the ends of the earth.
Psa 72:9 Those who dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him. His enemies shall lick the dust.
Psa 72:10 The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute. The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
Psa 72:11 Yes, all kings shall fall down before him. All nations shall serve him.
Psa 72:12 For he will deliver the needy when he cries; the poor, who has no helper.
Psa 72:13 He will have pity on the poor and needy. He will save the souls of the needy.
Psa 72:14 He will redeem their soul from oppression and violence. Their blood will be precious in his sight.
Psa 72:15 They shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba. Men shall pray for him continually. They shall bless him all day long.
Psa 72:16 There shall be abundance of grain throughout the land. Its fruit sways like Lebanon. Let it flourish, thriving like the grass of the field.
Psa 72:17 His name endures forever. His name continues as long as the sun. Men shall be blessed by him. All nations will call him blessed.
Psa 72:18 Praise be to Yahweh God, the God of Israel, who alone does marvelous deeds.
Psa 72:19 Blessed be his glorious name forever! Let the whole earth be filled with his glory! Amen and amen.
Psa 72:20 This ends the prayers by David, the son of Jesse.

Psa 73:1 Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart.
Psa 73:2 But as for me, my feet were almost gone. My steps had nearly slipped.
Psa 73:3 For I was envious of the arrogant, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
Psa 73:4 For there are no struggles in their death, but their strength is firm.
Psa 73:5 They are free from burdens of men, neither are they plagued like other men.
Psa 73:6 Therefore pride is like a chain around their neck. Violence covers them like a garment.
Psa 73:7 Their eyes bulge with fat. Their minds pass the limits of conceit.
Psa 73:8 They scoff and speak with malice. In arrogance, they threaten oppression.
Psa 73:9 They have set their mouth in the heavens. Their tongue walks through the earth.
Psa 73:10 Therefore their people return to them, and they drink up waters of abundance.
Psa 73:11 They say, "How does God know? Is there knowledge in the Most High?"
Psa 73:12 Behold, these are the wicked. Being always at ease, they increase in riches.
Psa 73:13 Surely in vain I have cleansed my heart, and washed my hands in innocence,
Psa 73:14 For all day long have I been plagued, and punished every morning.
Psa 73:15 If I had said, "I will speak thus;" behold, I would have betrayed the generation of your children.
Psa 73:16 When I tried to understand this, it was too painful for me;
Psa 73:17 Until I entered God's sanctuary, and considered their latter end.
Psa 73:18 Surely you set them in slippery places. You throw them down to destruction.
Psa 73:19 How they are suddenly destroyed! They are completely swept away with terrors.
Psa 73:20 As a dream when one wakes up, so, Lord, when you awake, you will despise their fantasies.
Psa 73:21 For my soul was grieved. I was embittered in my heart.
Psa 73:22 I was so senseless and ignorant. I was a brute beast before you.
Psa 73:23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you. You have held my right hand.
Psa 73:24 You will guide me with your counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
Psa 73:25 Who do I have in heaven? There is no one on earth who I desire besides you.
Psa 73:26 My flesh and my heart fails, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
Psa 73:27 For, behold, those who are far from you shall perish. You have destroyed all those who are unfaithful to you.
Psa 73:28 But it is good for me to come close to God. I have made the Lord Yahweh my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.

 
Sept. 15
1 Corinthians 11

1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man;
1Co 11:9 for neither was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord.
1Co 11:12 For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled?
1Co 11:14 Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God's assemblies.
1Co 11:17 But in giving you this command, I don't praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
1Co 11:20 When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken.
1Co 11:22 What, don't you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God's assembly, and put them to shame who don't have? What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don't praise you.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread.
1Co 11:24 When he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord's cup in a manner unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he doesn't discern the Lord's body.
1Co 11:30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
1Co 11:31 For if we discerned ourselves, we wouldn't be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are punished by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
1Co 11:33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another.
1Co 11:34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come.