7/18/16

Were the Popes Really Celibate? by Moisés Pinedo


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2618

Were the Popes Really Celibate?

by Moisés Pinedo

Although the Bible clearly does not support the doctrine of celibacy as a requisite to any office of the church (see Pinedo, 2008), the Catholic Church has established celibacy as a distinctive mark of the papacy and other Catholic offices. In fact, the current pope, Benedict XVI, affirmed that celibacy (imposed by Pope Gregory VII in the Council of Rome in 1074) “is really a special way of conforming oneself to Christ’s own way of life” (“Pope Pens...,” 2007). Therefore, whoever wants to serve as a priest, and finally as the Universal Bishop of the Catholic Church (the pope), must be celibate.
According to Catholic doctrine, Peter was the “first pope.” And, since popes are considered to be Peter’s successors and keepers of Petrine tradition, one would expect them to follow Peter’s example in every aspect—including the acceptance or rejection of celibacy. Matthew 8:14-15 records that Jesus healed one of Peter’s relatives. This relative was none other than his mother-in-law. The text states, “Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s motherlying sick with a fever” (emp. added). Some have tried to argue that this lady was the mother-in-law of another disciple—not Peter. However, the grammar of the text in Matthew (and in the parallel records of Mark and Luke) is very clear when it says that Jesus came to Peter’s house and saw his mother-in-law (cf. Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38). The only conclusion from a straightforward reading of the text is that if Jesus saw Peter’s mother-in-law, then Peter had a wife!
The apostle Paul also confirmed that Peter was married when he wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5, emp. added). Paul identified Peter (also called Cephas; cf. John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12) as someone who already had taken advantage of his right to be married. Additionally, in the first epistle that bears his name, the apostle Peter identified himself as an elder of the church (cf. 1 Peter 5:1). And, as the New Testament teaches, one of the qualifications of elders of the church is to be “the husband of one wife, having faithful children” (Titus 1:5-6). Every piece of biblical evidence on this subject points to the fact that Peter was a married man.
While Catholics appeal to Peter for support of the papacy, ironically, they will not appeal to Peter to argue in favor of papal celibacy for one important reason: Peter was not celibate! Here Catholics exalt Paul, who opted to be celibate. But if popes are the alleged successors of Peter (not Paul), should they not follow Peter’s example?
Like many other teachings of the Catholic Church, celibacy is a man-made doctrine. Though many consider it as a sign of purity, celibacy, imposed on those who aspire to ecclesiastical office, is simply a sign of apostasy (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Consider, for example, the immoral things many “celibate” popes did during their papacies.
Pope Sergius III served as pope from A.D. 904 to 911. History records that he began a “shameful succession” of immoral popes (Schaff, 1910, 4:285). He “owed his elevation [to the papacy—MP] to the influence of the shameless Theodora [a Roman noblewoman—MP] and her no less shameless daughters Marozia and Theodora.... He was grossly immoral, and lived in licentious relations with Marozia, who bore him several children, among them the future pope John XI” (McClintock and Strong, 1867-1880, 9:570).
Pope John XII served as pope from A.D. 955 to 963. He is considered “one of the most scandalous popes of history” (“John XII,” 1997). Philip Schaff noted that “[h]e was one of the most immoral and wicked popes, ranking with Benedict IX., John XXIII., and AlexanderVI. He was charged by a Roman Synod, no one contradicting, with almost every crime of which...human nature is capable, and deposed as a monster of iniquity” (1910, 4:287). Writing around A.D. 1000, a Catholic monk recorded that “John XII loved hunting, had vain thoughts, liked women reunions more than liturgical and ecclesiastical assemblies, was pleased by tumultuous insolences of young people and, concerning lasciviousness and audacity, he surpassed even the pagans” (quoted in Hernández, n.d.). It is recorded that he died “of a stroke while in bed with a married woman” (Walsh, 2001, p. 663).
Pope John XXIII served as pope from A.D. 1410 to 1415. It is said that “he was destitute of every moral virtue, and capable of every vice” (Schaff, 1910, 6:145). He was accused “on seventy charges, which included almost every crime known to man. He had been unchaste from his youth,...committed adultery with his brother’s wife, violated nuns and other virgins, was guilty of sodomy and other nameless vices” (Schaff, 6:158). Finally, he was removed from office by the Council of Constance and erased from the official list of the papacy.
Pope Innocent VIII served as pope from A.D. 1484 to 1492. “His conduct was disgracefully irregular: he had seven illegitimate children by different women, and was, besides, married when he took orders” (McClintock and Strong, 1867-1880, 4:593). It is said that his children numbered “16, all of them children by married women” (Schaff, 1910, 6:438). It also is said that “the success of Innocent VIII in increasing the population of Rome was a favorite topic with the wits of the day” (McClintock and Strong, 4:594).
Pope Alexander VI served as pope from A.D. 1492 to 1503. In their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, McClintock and Strong point out that Alexander is considered “the most depraved of all the popes” (1867-1880, 4:594). They explained: “His youth was a very dissolute one; and he early formed a criminal connection with a Roman lady living in Spain with her two daughters. He soon seduced the daughters also; and one of them, Rosa Vanozza, became his life-long mistress.... His pontificate of eleven years was a stormy one, as he made every thing subordinate to the purpose of raising his bastard children above the heads of the oldest princely houses of Italy” (1:145-146). A Roman Catholic historian says that he was “one of the greatest and most horrible monsters in nature that could scandalize the holy chair. His beastly morals, his immense ambition, his insatiable avarice, his detestable cruelty, his furious lusts, and monstrous incest with his daughter Lucretia, are, at large, described by Guicciardini Ciaconius, and other authentic papal historians” (as quoted in Barnes, 2005b, p. 82). The following words summarize Pope Alexander’s life: “To Alexander nothing was sacred,—office, virtue, marriage, or life” (Schaff, 1910, 6:462).
Pope Paul III served as pope from A.D. 1534 to 1549. Before his pontificate, he had four children—Pier Luigi, Paolo, Ranuccio, and Costanza—by a Roman mistress (see “Paul III,” 1997, 9:205). History summarizes his life as “largely given up to pleasure and frivolity. He kept low company, supported mistresses, became a father, and in many ways gained an unenviable notoriety” (McClintock and Strong, 1867-1880, 7:831).
More examples could be given, since papal history is characterized more by its sins than by its “holiness.” But the examples listed above clearly prove that many “celibate” popes were anything but celibate, and moreover, anything but chaste.
When men departed further from the truth of God’s Word, they deified themselves, choosing an earthly representative (the pope) to usurp the place of God. Many immoral men, thirsty for glory and power, desired the human office (i.e., the papacy) that apostasy promoted. These men fought for this office, hating each other and killing their fellow man. And, in their zeal, they pretended to fulfill the demand for celibacy imposed by human tradition, while giving free rein to their carnal passions.
What sacrifice did these “selfless” popes endure by being “celibate” (i.e., unmarried) if they had the lovers they desired? What altruism did these popes exhibit by disallowing themselves to have only one wife, yet diving into indescribable immoralities with many lovers, including relatives, nuns, prostitutes, and other men’s wives during nights of “celibate solitude”? The truth is, this kind of “celibacy” has produced many illegitimate children in the history of Catholic religion!
The Catholic who points to 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 in order to provide biblical support to papal celibacy, should read the advice of Paul in the following verse in order to see that celibacy is not demanded, nor should it be sought in order to institute a certain ecclesiastical order: “[B]ut if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9, emp. added). Many popes, as well as many local bishops, priests, monks, nuns, etc., have burned with passion for centuries, and many are adding logs to the fire today. The Bible warns: “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (2005), Notes on the New Testament: 1 Thessalonians to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hernández, Jesús (no date), “A Shameful Pontificate” [“Un Pontificado Vergonzoso”], [On-line],URL: http://www.luxdomini.com/JuanXII.htm.
“John XII” [“Juan XII”] (1997), Espasa Universal Chronology [Cronología Universal Espasa] (Espasa Calpe, S.A.: Microsoft Corporation).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1867-1880), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1968-1970 reprint.
“Pope Pens Exhortation on the Eucharist” (2007), Zenit, March 13, [On-line], URL:http://www.zenit.org/article-19138?l=english.
“Paul III” (1997), Encyclopaedia Britannica (London: Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Pinedo, Moisés (2008), “Should the Pope Be Celibate?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3852.
Schaff, Philip (1910), History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Walsh, Michael, ed. (2001), Dictionary of Christian Biography (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press).

Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5085

Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The inspired penman of Hebrews reminds us repeatedly throughout his epistle of the preeminence of Christ. The Lord Jesus is greater than angels; He is superior to Moses; He is higher than the Jewish high priesthood. His sacrifice is better; His everlasting covenant is better; His ministry is better. The eternal Savior (not expired Judaism) reigns supreme.
Jesus is preeminent for countless reasons. He is Divine and thus worthy of worship (Hebrews 1:5-9). He is the creator and sustainer of the Universe (1:2-3). His reign is “forever and ever” (1:12,8). He is without blemish (4:15; 9:14). He defeated death (13:20). He alone is the “author of eternal salvation” (5:9).
Jesus’ excellency is further established in Hebrews by appealing to the Lord’s amazing immutability. Near the end of the epistle, after an exhortation to remember one’s spiritual leaders (13:7), and prior to giving a warning against “strange doctrines” (13:9), the Hebrews writer reminds his readers of the precious, faith-building truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8).

JESUS’ CONSISTENT CHARACTER

Society benefits greatly from the dependable and consistent character of its citizens. The steady marriage of a faithful husband and wife will only strengthen the foundation of civilization. The stable, strong, and reliable father gives his family a backbone upon which to lean that will not easily degenerate in difficult times. Faithful, spiritual leaders help keep churches grounded in the Truth, rather than led astray by false doctrine. But such dependable leadership is only found among those who genuinely strive to imitate the consistency of Christ (Hebrews 13:7-9).
By the very fact that Jesus is Divine, He is changeless. God said, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). With the Father of lights, “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Though the material universe will grow old and be changed, God said to Jesus, “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12; Psalm 102:25-27).
Christians should rejoice in the fact that, though “time is filled with swift transition,” our High Priest is perpetually dependable. Our Savior is endlessly steadfast. Christ revealed Himself as the perfectly consistent One. Though He “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus never once broke the old law, nor was His purpose to destroy it. He came to fulfill it perfectly and completely (Matthew 5:17-19), and through His unblemished sacrifice He established the new covenant (Hebrews 9:14-15).
Even the most difficult of circumstances never caused Jesus’ perfect character to change. Neither 40 days of fasting nor a face-to-face confrontation with the deceitful devil broke His resolve to live consistently with the Will of God. He did not use hunger, homelessness, or weariness as an excuse to become bitter and fickle. Jesus is the perfect foundation of the church because nothing could break His will to build her. Not torture or tears, not the betrayal of friends or the shadow of death, could shake Jesus’ resolve to offer salvation to a fallen world in desperate need of a steadfast Savior.

JESUS’ CONSISTENT TEACHINGS

Jesus’ preeminence is further seen in His perfectly reliable instruction. Unlike the father of lies in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44), Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Unlike the contradictory and “strange doctrines” of false teachers, Jesus’ teachings are beautifully and powerfully dependable. His witness is true. His judgments are true. His counsel is perfectly consistent.
Though the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees came to Jesus with phony flattery in hopes of entangling Him in His talk, truer words could actually never be spoken of Jesus: “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men” (Matthew 22:16). Proof of Christ’s genuineness and consistency on this occasion is seen in the fact that He immediately called out their hypocrisy before briefly and powerfully answering their question (22:18-22).
Jesus preached a consistent message that was so often about the importance of being consistent. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on authentic righteousness in which Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. Praying, fasting, making judgments, doing charitable deeds, etc. are important, but without the proper attitudes and motivations behind these actions—without being righteous on the inside—they profit us nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Jesus would later rebuke the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you…, ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matthew 15:7-8). Outwardly many of the scribes and Pharisees appeared righteous, yet inwardly they were “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28). Jesus refused to overlook the inconsistency among the religious leaders of His day. His unchanging nature and consistent message were then, and are today, the greatest tools to fight the “various and strange doctrines” that so often carry men away from the Truth (Hebrews 13:9).

CONCLUSION

Meditating upon the magnificence of the Messiah is faith building and inspiring. In the book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit has given us a gold mine of motivation to lift up and serve Jesus as the Son of God. He reigns supreme, and His unwavering, unchangeable nature and message are to be loved and lauded. Praise God that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!”

*Originally published in Gospel Advocate, December 2014, 156[12]:17-19.

Uniformitarianism, Microevolution, and Speciation by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=261

Uniformitarianism, Microevolution, and Speciation

by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

We know that certain variations within a species that prove more able to survive the various natural stresses will, over time, cause certain genetic characteristics to proliferate through simple reproductive numbers. Is this modern version of evolution attempting to replace Darwin’s original ideas about cross-species evolution with something that is actually observable (yet not at all proof of the general theory)?

A.

Charles Darwin’s research proved conclusively that species can change. He knew this contradicted the prevailing view that God had created every individual species. One of the problems with this doctrine of the fixity of species, apart from being easily disproved by experiment and observation, was that it compelled its adherents to make the secondary claim that God had placed each species in its allotted place. In other words, it was inconceivable that the big-eared elephant in Africa and the little-eared elephant in India descended from a common ancestor. This would have involved change, and change violates the doctrine of species fixity. The simple expedient was to have God put the little-eared elephants in India and the big-eared elephants in Africa.
Darwin’s response was one of incredulity: How could anyone possibly believe that two very similar species were individually created and placed in different parts of the world? It made a lot more sense, Darwin thought, to say that they had a common ancestor, and that one or both of the descendants had migrated to their current locations. Through data collected on the Beaglevoyage, in his own breeding experiments, and information culled from experts all around the world, Darwin was able to show that appeals to fixity of species and independent creations simply were unnecessary. In their stead he was able to offer a mechanism—natural selection—whereby changes could arise within species leading, ultimately, to the origin of new species.
However, Darwin went considerably further in arguing that all life was descended from one or a few ancestral forms. He assumed that if puny man could bring about dramatic changes in domesticated species then nature, with all the power at its disposal, could bring about massive transformations. The only way he could prove this was to look at the fossil record—only in the rocks, he thought, could we find evidence for long-term, large-scale change. He recognized, of course, that innumerable transitional forms would have to be found, although he admitted that such was not the case in his day. For this reason, a great part of the origins debate today centers on the interpretation of the fossil record.
As a mechanism, natural selection does appear to work on a small scale (i.e., at the level of microevolution or special evolution). What Darwin desperately needed was a way to prove that such a mechanism could work on a large scale (i.e., at the level of macroevolution or general evolution). Despite modern refinements, this fundamental problem persists because it strikes most people as being profoundly contrary to common sense. Our experience suggests that cows have baby cows, cats have baby cats, dogs have baby dogs, etc. Selective breeding of such domesticated species shows a capacity for deriving dramatic new varieties within a few generations. Careful observations of wild populations occasionally reveal hybrid species. A wider cast of the net may catch a new species in the process of becoming reproductively isolated from its known relatives. But it is quite a different matter to say that we, along with cows, cats, and dogs, all are descended from slime.
So, the answer to this question is that modern evolutionists continue to assert that observed small-scale changes may be translated into supposed large-scale changes over long periods of time.

Q.

The person I am debating has indicated that evolutionists no longer are fixated on uniformitarianism. But, isn’t the modern allowance for catastrophic change (as advocated by Gould and Eldredge) just a convenient waffle on the part of the evolutionists? How can I counter someone who has no problem allowing for catastrophism in evolutionary theory?

A.

Uniformitarianism came to dominate geology, thanks in large part to Charles Lyell. This naturalist-cum-lawyer extended and popularized the work of James Hutton, who is considered the “father” of uniformitarianism. Charles Darwin absorbed Lyell’s two-volume set during his trip on the H.M.S. Beagle. Taking his cue from uniformitarianism, Darwin concluded that species not only had unlimited capacity for change, but that this change occurred uniformly through time (he used the Latin phrase, natura non facit saltum, or “nature never makes leaps”).
However, Hutton and Lyell were reacting in part to catastrophism gone wild. Naturalists at the turn of the nineteenth century were willing to see many catastrophes in the geological record, with Noah’s flood simply being the last of them. Just as the pendulum soon would swing from absolute species fixity to infinite species transformation under Darwin, so the pendulum swung from ultra-catastrophism to extreme uniformitarianism under Lyell. Only in the last two decades has the pendulum swung away from that extreme, with geologists now recognizing that processes can happen at different rates. For the most part, however, when geologists go out into the field with geological hammer in hand, gathering samples and measuring slip/strike angles, they practice uniformitarianism. They are not likely, for instance, to entertain the idea that a five-thousand-foot sequence of sandstone rock is the product of a single, relatively brief event.
But this debate over geological rates is nowhere near as heated as the present debate overevolutionary rates. Over twenty years ago, Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge initiated a controversy by suggesting, contrary to Darwin, that nature does make leaps. Their theory, known as punctuated equilibrium, suggests that species often remain fairly constant in form, only to be followed by daughter species that appear to emerge within a relatively short period of time. One motivation for proposing such an idea seems to have been the remarkable absence of transitional forms from one fossil species to the next. Such a proposal admits that stability, not change, is the dominant feature of the fossil record. Rather than being a “convenient waffle,” punctuated equilibrium represents a substantial alternative to the concept of gradualism.
The main problem with allowing rapid, large-scale change in biological evolution is that it is only an interpretation of the fossil record. Orthodox Darwinists believe they have a mechanism—natural selection acting on mutations—but when they go looking for gradual, steady change in the fossil record, they find gaps between species and species stability. The punctuationists see these same contrary data and conclude that evolution over the long term has proceeded in leaps and bounds separated by long periods of very little change at all. Hence, one version has a partial mechanism and little evidence, while the other has observational support but no particular mechanism. The sum total of the argument for macroevolution is very nearly zero.

The Founders Wanted the Gospel Preached? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4

The Founders Wanted the Gospel 

Preached?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

If one were to make a listing of what America stands in dire need of, the listing would differ dramatically from person to person—and politician to politician. Nowadays, the list would most certainly include concerns over the economy, illegal immigration, the price of oil, taxes, and a host of other issues. Would anyone today place on such a list the need for the Gospel of Christ to be preached and promoted throughout the nation and the world? Incredibly, the Founders of America did just that.
On October 20, 1779, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the entire nation:
Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise for the wonders which his goodness has wrought...above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel,whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory: therefore, Resolved, That it be recommended to the several states, to appoint Thursday, the 9th of December next, to be a day of public and solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States (Journals of..., 15:1191-1193, emp. added).
“The glorious light of the gospel” is an allusion to 2 Corinthians 4:4, and “heirs of his eternal glory” is a reference to 2 Timothy 2:10. Diffusing the Gospel of Christ was of paramount importance to the Founders. However imperfectly they conceptualized the pure, nondenominational, New Testament Gospel, they thanked God that the Gospel had been thoroughly diffused throughout America.
One year later in October of 1780, they issued another proclamation to the country’s population in which they thanked God for “continuing to us the enjoyment of the gospel of peace” (Journals of…, 18:950-951)—an expression taken from the New Testament books of Romans (10:15) and Ephesians (6:15). And then on October 18, 1783, with the Revolutionary War drawing to a close, they again proclaimed to all Americans their gratitude for numerous blessings bestowed by God, “and above all, that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the blessed gospel [an allusion to 2 Corinthians 4:4—DM], and secured to us in the fullest extent the rights of conscience in faith and worship” (Journals of…, 25:699-701, emp. added).
America has drifted so far from her moorings that the average citizen no longer sees the critical need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be disseminated throughout the population. Indeed, Americans have, in fact, become so enamored with the innocuous and inane notions of political correctness and celebrating diversity that many are openly hostile to Christianity and its vital historical role in the founding and perpetuation of our nation. (Ironically and hypocritically, allother religions are encouraged and affirmed by the same citizens. Cf. the U.S. House resolution commending Islam, H. Res. 635, 2007). Elias Boudinot, president of the Continental Congress (1782-1783), expressed his “anxious desire” that “our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies to the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be introductive of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society” (1801, p. xxii, emp. added). The Founders would be heartsick that American society has gone from vibrant respect for Gospel precepts, to indifference, to being ashamed, and now to outright rejection. The apostle Paul’s declaration ought to be deeply imprinted on every true American’s heart and soul: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16). Indeed, only the Gospel can save our souls—and only the precepts of that same Gospel of Jesus Christ can rescue our nation.

REFERENCES

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
U.S. House (2007), “Recognizing the Commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic Holy Month of Fasting and Spiritual Renewal, and Expressing Respect to Muslims in the United States and Throughout the World on This Occasion, and For Other Purposes,” H. Res. 635, October 2, Sponsor Eddie Johnson [D-TX].

A Donkey and Her Colt by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=773&b=Mark

A Donkey and Her Colt

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Although most Christians would rather not concern themselves with some of the more minute details of Jesus’ life reported in the New Testament, when challenged to defend the inerrancy of The Book that reports the beautiful story of Jesus, there are times when such details require our attention. Such is the case with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life. People who wear the name of Christ enjoy reading of the crowd’s cries of “Hosanna!,” and meditating upon the fact that Jesus went to Jerusalem to bring salvation to the world. Skeptics, on the other hand, read of this event and cry, “Contradiction!” Allegedly, Matthew misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, and thus contradicted what Mark, Luke, and John wrote regarding Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem (see van den Heuvel, 2003). Matthew recorded the following:
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ” So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Hosanna in the highest!” (Matthew 21:1-9, emp. added).
Skeptics are quick to point out that the other gospel writers mention only “one colt,” which the disciples acquired, and upon which Jesus rode. Mark recorded that Jesus told the two disciples that they would find “a colt tied, on which no one has sat” (11:2). The disciples then “went their way, and found the colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it…. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (Mark 11:4,7, emp. added; cf. Luke 19:29-38; John 12:12-16). Purportedly, “[t]he author of Matthew contradicts the author of Mark on the number of animals Jesus is riding into Jerusalem” (“Bible Contradictions,” 2003). Can these accounts be reconciled, or is this a legitimate contradiction?
First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.
Consider the other parts of the story that have been supplemented by one or more of the synoptic writers.
  • Whereas Matthew mentioned how Jesus and His disciples went to Bethphage, Mark and Luke mentioned both Bethphage and Bethany.
  • Mark and Luke indicated that the colt they acquired for Christ never had been ridden. Matthew omitted this piece of information.
  • Matthew was the only gospel writer to include Zechariah’s prophecy.
  • Mark and Luke included the question that the owners of the colt asked the disciples when they went to get the donkey for Jesus. Matthew excluded this information in his account.
As one can see, throughout this story (and the rest of the gospel accounts for that matter), the writers consistently supplemented each other’s accounts. Such supplementation should be expected only from independent sources—some of whom were eyewitnesses. It is very possible that Matthew was specific in his numbering of the donkeys, due to the likelihood that he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem. (Bear in mind, Matthew was one of the twelve apostles; Mark and Luke were not.)
Second, regarding the accusation that Matthew wrote of two donkeys, instead of just one, because he allegedly misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, it first must be noted that Zechariah’s prophecy actually mentions two donkeys (even though only one is stated as transporting the King to Jerusalem). The prophet wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkeycolt, and foal all designate the same animal—the young donkey upon which the King (Jesus) would ride into Jerusalem (Mark 11:7). Interestingly, even though the colt was the animal of primary importance, Zechariah also mentioned that this donkey was the foal of a female donkey. One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence. However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road.
The focal point of the skeptic’s proposed problem to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is how He could have ridden on two donkeys at once. Since Matthew 21:7 states, “They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them” (NKJV), some have concluded that Matthew intended for his reader to understand Jesus as being some kind of stunt rider—proceeding to Jerusalem as more of a clown than a king. Such reasoning is preposterous. Matthew could have meant that Jesus rode the colt while the other donkey walked along with them. Instead of saying, “He rode one donkey and brought the other with Him,” the writer simply wrote that He rode “them” into Jerusalem. If a horse-owner came home to his wife and informed her that he had just ridden the horses home a few minutes ago from a nearby town, no one would accuse him of literally riding both horses at once. He merely was indicating to his wife that he literally rode one horse home, while the other one trotted alongside or behind him.
A second possible solution to this “problem” is that Jesus did ride both donkeys, but He did so at different times. However unlikely this possibility might seem to some, nothing in Zechariah’s prophecy or the gospel accounts forbids such. Perhaps the colt found the triumphant procession that began on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives near the towns of Bethphage and Bethany (about 1¾ miles from Jerusalem—Pfeiffer, 1979, p. 197) too strenuous. Zechariah prophesied that Jesus would ride upon a colt (9:9), which Jesus did. He also easily could have ridden on the colt’s mother part of the way.
Perhaps a more likely answer to the question, “How could Jesus sit ‘on them’ (donkeys) during His march to Jerusalem?,” is that the second “them” of Matthew 21:7 may not be referring to the donkeys at all. Greek scholar A.T. Robertson believed that the second “them” (Greek αυτων) refers to the garments that the disciples laid on the donkeys, and not to the donkeys themselves. In commenting on Matthew 21:7 he stated: “The garments thrown on the animals were the outer garments (himatia), Jesus ‘took his seat’ (epekathisen) upon the garments” (1930, 1:167). Skeptics do not want to allow for such an interpretation. When they read of “them” at the end of Matthew 21:7 (in the New King James Version), skeptics feel that the antecedent of this “them” must be the previous “them” (the donkeys). Critics like John Kesler (2003) also appeal to the other synoptic accounts (where Jesus is said to have sat upon “it”—the colt), and conclude that Matthew, like Mark and Luke, surely meant that Jesus sat upon the donkeys, and not just the disciples’ clothes (which were on the donkeys). What critics like Kesler fail to acknowledge, however, is that in the Greek, Matthew’s word order is different than that of Mark and Luke. Whereas Mark and Luke indicated that the disciples put their clothes on the donkey, Matthew’s word order reads: “they put on the donkeys clothes.” The American Standard Version, among others (KJV, RSV, and NASB) is more literal in its translation of this verse than is the NKJV. It indicates that the disciples “brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon” (Matthew 21:7, ASV; cf. RSV, KJV, NASB). When Matthew wrote that Jesus sat “onthem,” he easily could have intended for his readers to understand this “them” to refer to the clothes, and not to the donkeys. If the disciples’ clothes were placed on both donkeys (as Matthew indicated), and then Jesus mounted the colt, one logically could conclude that Jesus sat on the clothes (which were placed upon the colt).
One of the fundamental principles of nearly any study or investigation is that of being “innocent until proven guilty.” Any person or historical document is to be presumed internally consistent until it can be shown conclusively that it is contradictory. This approach has been accepted throughout literary history, and still is accepted today in most venues. The accepted way to critique any ancient writing is to assume innocence, not guilt. If we believe the Bible is innocent until proven guilty, then any possible answer should be good enough to nullify the charge of error. (This principle does not allow for justany answer, but any possible answer.) When a person studies the Bible and comes across passages that may seem contradictory at first glance (like the verses explained in this article—Matthew 21:1-9, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:29-38), he does not necessarily have to pin down the exact solution in order to show their truthfulness. The Bible student need only show the possibility of a harmonization among passages that appear to conflict, in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. We act by this principle in the courtroom, in our treatment of various historical books, as well as in everyday-life situations. It is only fair, then, that we show the Bible the same courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony among passages before pronouncing one or more accounts false.
Finally, in an attempt to leave no allegation unanswered regarding the passages discussed in this article, one more point must be made. Although Jesus and His disciples have been accused of stealing the donkeys used in the procession to Jerusalem (see Barker, 1992, pp. 165-166), the text never indicates such thievery. Jesus may well have prearranged for the use of the animals. However, since the donkeys’ owners did not know who the disciples were, there was a need to tell the owners what Jesus said to them. It was after the disciples stated, “The Lord has need of them,” that the owners let the disciples take the donkeys (Luke 19:32-35). It was voluntary. Jesus certainly did not advocate stealing on this occasion, or any other (Matthew 19:18; 1 Peter 2:22; cf. Exodus 20:15). Remember, we are not told all of the facts in the story—the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event. If it did, “I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
“Bible Contradictions,” Capella’s Guide to Atheism, [On-line], URL: http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/contrad.htm#num%20animals%20Jesus%20rode.
Kesler, John (2003), “Jesus Had Two Asses,” [On-line], URL: http://exposed.faithweb.com/kesler2.html.
Pfeiffer, Charles (1979), Baker’s Bible Atlas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), revised edition.
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
van den Heuvel, Curt (2003), “Matthew Misunderstood an Old Testament Prophecy,” New Testament Problems, [On-line], URL: http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/ntprob.shtml.

Think on These Things by J. C. Bailey


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/thinkon.html

Think on These Things

The apostle Paul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, said “if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Philippians 4:8). Two people within the same congregation may tell about the same event, and leave very different impressions of what happened.
One is a pessimist. One is an optimist. The one man paints a gloomy picture. The optimist paints a rosy picture. This text that we have used, suggests that a Christian should be an optimist. We need to be careful that we do not carry our optimism too far, but we do need to be optimists.
If we obey the command given here, we shall be optimists. We must have faith that truth shall eventually triumph. Christ reigns until He has put all his enemies under his feet (I Corinthians 15:25). If we are to succeed we must do as Paul did. He forgot the things that were behind and he pressed forward to the things that are ahead. We press on to the mark of the high calling which is in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:13,14). Let us be assured that He who rides the white horse is King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11-16).
True, we may fall by the wayside. We may fail, but He will not fail. His cause will prevail. We may refuse to endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus (II Timothy 2:3). There are many preachers today who make me wonder if this command has any part in their thinking. However, my concern along this line will not make me a pessimist. I shall rather think about those who are enduring hardship as good soldiers of Christ Jesus.
God is no respecter of persons. To some people it is no marvel when a preacher in this country refuses to endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, but they are the first to criticize the citizen of another country who does not endure the same hardship. We need to learn the validity of what Peter said by the power of the Holy Spirit, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). If it is wrong for a man overseas to make Christianity a way of gain, then it is wrong here. Why do we expect a different standard from a preacher in a foreign land than we do from preachers here? We sometimes demand more of them, at least in some respects. 
Let me give you a concrete example. I was talking to a young man who had been overseas and he mentioned a certain native preacher whom we both knew.
He told me how this native preacher had interpreted for him and another young preacher. Any one would know that it is a harder job to interpret than it is to preach. (Many times I have used two interpreters during a series of meetings.) Yet, this very young man took part in the dismissing of this native preacher for failure to work. Another native preacher was let go who was one of the most diligent men I have ever met. It seems that he had paid too much for one bundle of paper that he bought. We would be enraged in this country if a man of the world dismissed someone for a thing like that. Why do we not protest when a brother in Christ is used that way: Why? Think on these things.
A man who had never been overseas at that time said at a workshop where I was one of the speakers, that things looked different overseas than they do here. I think I have been overseas long enough to assess the value of that statement. I do not believe that is the difference. I think there are restraints here that we do not have overseas. When McHenry was asked why he turned to the Seventh Day Adventists after he went to India, it is reported that his was, “I never did believe in eternal punishment.” In all probability, if he had stayed in the U.S.A. he would have died in the church; that is, to all outside appearances he would have continued as a member of the church. The Lord knoweth them that are His.
Let me assure you that there is no doctrine that looks different to me in India than it looks here. I oppose instrumental music the same there as I do here. I oppose pre-millennialism the same there as I do here. Let me state further that I oppose denominationalism the same there as I do here. A preacher may go overseas and fraternize with the sects in a way that the church would not permit here. Why is this permitted? Is it true that God is no respecter of persons? I do not believe that God has one law in a foreign country, but another law here. Think on these things.
At one time there were many people in this country who believed that a preacher should not receive any regular support. In fact, when I was editor of the Gospel Herald, I had more than one article submitted along this line. This idea has pretty well died down as far as supporting preachers in this country is concerned. It is now considered right to support a preacher if he is a Canadian or an American any place in the world. Let us suppose that a man goes from Canada or the United States to some foreign country to labor. He has a native helper who can do more work in that country than he can. (This is not to disparage the work that is done by the Canadian or the United States citizen.) This helper makes his work possible. The man from America can be paid. He can be paid every month. According to some, that native cannot be paid with funds from overseas. I ask: Where is the golden rule? If this teaching be true then God is a respecter of persons. Think on these things.
A young Indian got acquainted with a church in this country. The church sent him to a Christian school. Then they sent him back to India. He told the congregation that you could not convert the Indian just by preaching. You had to have a project of some kind. The favorite project of the Indian is an orphan home. What has been the result? This Indian obtained seven acres of good agricultural land. There is no orphan home and no one was ever converted to Christ. The young Indian has gone back to his denomination. Tens of thousands of dollars of the Lord's money have been squandered. Should we not expect such a result when neither the preacher nor the congregation believed that the gospel was God's power to save? Think on these things.
Would you accuse me of a pessimistic attitude? I admit that some of what I have said would seem to point that way, but I have not finished. Despite our failures, think of what has happened in the world in this generation. Think of the hundreds of thousands who have obeyed the gospel in the various countries of the world. Think of the host of native preachers who now carry the gospel to their own people. At the end of World War II we probably had no more than 5,000 members of the church who were not in the United States. Today that number would be nearly half a million souls. It is growing daily.
So while we look at our mistakes, we shall not let them overshadow the great work that is being done. We shall accentuate the positive. Yes, I believe with all my heart that He who rides the white horse is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. I believe that He who is with us is greater than he who is against us. The church is growing. It has foes within and without, but it is growing. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all true believers (Romans 1:16).
J. C. Bailey, 1979

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

Turn, Turn, Turn, before its too late to TURN by Gary Rose


My heart goes out to the victims of evil in Baton Rouge!!!  Isn't it coincidental that so much violence has happened since the rise of Islam? Further, does anyone else out there see a correlation between the attitudes of our current president and the rise of violent behavior? I have listened to him as respectfully as I can, but his words reflect his heart- he hates both this country and those who protect it, whether they be the military or the police.

Unfortunately, things will not change until we as a nation return to God. This was true in ancient Israel and applies to us today!!!

The prophet Isaiah has said:

Isaiah, Chapter 59 (WEB)

  1 Behold, Yahweh’s hand is not shortened, that it can’t save; neither his ear heavy, that it can’t hear:  2 but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.  3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness.  4 No one sues in righteousness, and no one pleads in truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and give birth to iniquity.  5 They hatch adders’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he who eats of their eggs dies; and that which is crushed breaks out into a viper.  6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.  7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their paths.  8 The way of peace they don’t know; and there is no justice in their goings: they have made them crooked paths; whoever goes therein does not know peace.  9 Therefore is justice far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us: we look for light, but, behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity.  10 We grope for the wall like the blind; yes, we grope as those who have no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the twilight; among those who are lusty we are as dead men.  11 We roar all like bears, and moan bitterly like doves: we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. 
  12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them:

  13 transgressing and denying Yahweh, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.  14 Justice is turned away backward, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and uprightness can’t enter.  15 Yes, truth is lacking; and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.  (emp added GDR) Yahweh saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice.  16 He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation to him; and his righteousness, it upheld him.  17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; and he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle.  18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, wrath to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompense.  19 So shall they fear Yahweh’s name from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come as a rushing stream, which the breath of Yahweh drives. 
  20 “A Redeemer will come to Zion,
and to those who turn from disobedience in Jacob,” says Yahweh. (emp added GDR)


Israel needed a redeemer, so does America- get it?  

Remember the words above...

1 Behold, Yahweh’s hand is not shortened, that it can’t save; neither his ear heavy, that it can’t hear:  2 but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Turn to God before this nation is destroyed!!!