7/14/17

Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4832

Did Jesus Deny Deity and Moral Perfection in Mark 10:18?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The New Testament writers repeatedly testified to the fact that, though Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Paul claimed that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Peter said that Christ “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”—that He was the perfect sacrificial Lamb, “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 2:22; 1:19). Likewise, John wrote that in Christ “there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Jesus was supremely “pure,” “righteous,” and “good” (1 John 3:3; 2:1; John 10:11,14).

Additionally, the New Testament has much to say about the divine nature of Christ. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62; John 4:25-26), Whom Isaiah prophesied would be “Mighty God” and “Jehovah” (Isaiah 9:6; 40:3). Jesus accepted worship while in the form of a man (John 9:38)—implying that He, too, was Deity (Matthew 4:10; cf. Acts 12:21-23; 14:14-15). Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-10). The apostle John said that Jesus “was God” (John 1:1). Jesus claimed to be “one” with God (John 10:30), leading His hearers to believe that He made Himself “God” (10:33). And, after the apostle Thomas called Jesus “Lord” and “God” (John 20:28), Jesus immediately acknowledged Thomas’ faith, rather than deny the deity that Thomas had just professed. In his letter to the Philippians Paul wrote that Christ Jesus “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). In fact, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

In light of the fact that the Bible claims repeatedly that Jesus was both “good” and “God,” some contend that in Mark 10:18 (and Matthew 19:17) Jesus said just the opposite. In an article titled “New Testament Contradictions,” Paul Carlson stated that Mark 10:18 (among other passages) is “an embarrassment to the church,” as it indicates “Jesus did not consider himself sinless” (1995). By saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18), allegedly “Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God,” and, according to Muslims, Matthew and Mark “believed that Jesus was not God” (“The Bible Denies…,” 2014, emp. added). According to skeptic Dennis McKinsey, in Mark 10:18, “Jesus is not only admitting that he is not perfectly moral but that he is not God” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 247).

Does Jesus actually admit not being “good” and “God” in Mark 10:18? How did Jesus respond to the wealthy young ruler who asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Did He deny being perfectly moral and Divine? The simple fact is, Jesus never denied being good or God.

So what did Jesus mean? Before answering this question, one must keep in mind that Jesus often responded to questions in unexpected, masterful ways. He offered thought-provoking, soul-searching answers (often in the form of questions) that, unfortunately, many people have misinterpreted. [Consider, for example, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about why His disciples allegedly broke the law of Moses and plucked heads of grain as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath. Rather than explicitly deny that the apostles were disregarding the Law of Moses, Jesus asked His accusers two very appropriate (and very perceptive) questions:

Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Matthew 12:3-5).

Although many have misinterpreted Jesus’ response on this occasion to justify situation ethics, Jesus did nothing of the sort. The only “law” that Jesus’ disciples broke while going through the grain fields (Matthew 12:1-8) was the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law (see Lyons, 2003 for more information; see also Miller, 2004).]

The rich young ruler was confident in his keeping of various commandments (Mark 10:20), but he surely never thought that Jesus would instruct him to sell whatever he had and give it to the poor—to leave everything and follow Him (10:21). Similarly, when the young ruler initially came to Jesus, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” he never expected Jesus to say, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (10:17-18).

The young man seems to have regarded himself as “good” (since he professed to have kept all of the commandments that Jesus mentioned—Mark 10:20). Perhaps the gentleman simply wanted to know—from one good man to another good man (a “good teacher”)—what do I need to do to inherit eternal life. Rather than immediately answer the young man’s question, however, it seems Jesus first wanted (1) to humble him, by highlighting that he was not as “good” as he considered himself to be, and (2) for him to realize Who exactly he was questioning. He wasn’t merely petitioning a “good” (Greek agathos) man.

The Bible records various (mere) human beings who were called “good” (agathos). Luke recorded that “Barnabas was a good man” (Acts 11:24). Paul indicated that Christians are to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10). (Are Christians who do good, “good” Christians?) Even Jesus stated previous to His encounter with the rich young ruler that “a good man out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things” (Matthew 12:35). Thus, clearly when Jesus spoke to the wealthy ruler He was not using “good” in the sense of a man being “good.” Rather, He was using it in the sense of God being absolutely, supremely good. The kind of goodness to which He referred belonged only to God. The only way man can objectively call someone “good” is if there is an ultimate standard for goodness—the supreme, unblemished, good God.

Jesus never said what skeptics, Muslims, and others allege He said—that He was not good, or that He was not God. Instead, Jesus attempted to get the rich young ruler to see the implications of calling Him “good teacher.” Do good (merely) human teachers claim to be the Messiah? Do good men accept worship and honor due only to God (John 5:23)? Do good men claim to have the power to forgive sins? Absolutely not! But Jesus had the power to forgive sins. He actually claimed to be the Messiah and accepted worship. So what was Jesus implying when He asked the young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God”? As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed:

Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”… Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination (1992, p. 350).

To contend that Mark 10:18 proves that Jesus thought Himself to be neither morally perfect nor God is (1) to disregard the overall context of the Bible, (2) to twist the Scriptures like untaught and unstable people do—“to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), and (3) to take a superficial reading of the text. Far from denying the deity of Christ, Mark 10:17-22 actually affirms it. The young ruler “called Christ a ‘good teacher,’ with no indication that he understood Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus seized on the word ‘good,’ pointed out that if the man thought He was good, then He must be God” (Roper, 2:203), because only God is innately and supremely good.

REFERENCES

“The Bible Denies the Divinity of Jesus” (2014), A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10-1.htm.

Carlson, Paul (1995), “New Testament Contradictions,” The Secular Web, http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html.

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276.

McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1064.

Roper, David (2003), The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).

"You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4546

"You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy. For instance, Mark Isaak, the editor of The Index to Creationist Claims, stated that “for every creationist who claims one thing, there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite” (2005, emp. added). Others assert that creationists make “the elementary mistake of trying to discuss a highly specialized field…in which they have little or no training” (Holloway, 2010). Do these assertions have any merit?

First, such assertions are ironic in light of other statements by some in the evolutionary community. For example, in the “General Tips” section of the article, “How to Debate a Creationist,” the Creationism versus Science Web site tells its followers,

you don’t need to become a qualified expert [in relevant evolutionary subject matters—JM]…but you should endeavour to know as much or more about these subjects than your opponent does (which is often a surprisingly easy task, since most creationists learn only the barest superficialities of any given scientific principle before feeling confident enough to pontificate on it) (2007, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added).

It seems that some do not wish to hold all participants to the same standards. It is clear that the author wished for his audience to be able to win a debate, rather than consider the validity of the arguments being posed by creationists.

It is important to realize that when a person wishes to discuss a certain matter, it is not always necessary for the individual to have the relevant experience or credentials (as deemed necessary by the atheistic evolutionary community) in that area. Consider: Are certain qualifications needed before an individual can quote or paraphrase others who are considered “experts” on a certain matter, as do many creationists and evolutionists (especially in the media)? Does one need a B.A. degree in English before he would be considered qualified enough to be able to cite references? And would that degree be enough to prove qualification? Perhaps a graduate leveldegree in English would be necessary? Such a proposition would be preposterous. Even if a person had such qualifications, it would not guarantee that the person is credible, and it certainly would not prove that the person is infallible. The key, of course, is to determine whether or not the quotations and/or paraphrases are done correctly, regardless of whom the commentator is. Creationists and evolutionists, as well as individuals in every professional field, often cite others who are considered “experts.” This is a reasonable and acceptable practice.

Follow this line of reasoning even further. How far are the evolutionists willing to go in their demand for credentials? Should scientists have direct experience in every field in which they make an assertion? If not, why not? If a biology professor’s doctoral research dealt primarily with the characteristics of St. Augustine grass, is he/she qualified to speak about the evolution of apes and humans? If an atheist only received a B.A. degree in religion, would such a person be qualified to speak on the most notable, alleged, atheistic mechanism for the origin of man—namely the General Theory of Evolution? If not, then atheistic debater Dan Barker has no business speaking out about it and should be silenced (see Butt and Barker, 2009). Even Charles Darwin, the “father” of the General Theory of Evolution, only had a degree in theology, having dropped out of the only other fields of formal education he at one time pursued—the medical and law professions (Thompson, 1981, p. 104). Based on the standards being imposed by some in the evolutionary community, he had no business speaking out about matters pertaining to biology and should not have been taken seriously. And yet his free-lance work as a naturalist was considered substantial enough to gain him credibility upon writing The Origin of Species. We would argue that his qualifications were irrelevant. His ideas should be scrutinized to determine their worth, rather than castigating him for his lack of a science degree. However, in order to be consistent, the evolutionary community must deem him unqualified to discuss evolution, and his theory should be rejected. Consider further: should an atheist be required to have credentials in theology in order to be able to speak against God? Should an atheist have credentials in Bible matters to be able to speak against the Bible? A lack of “qualifications” in religious matters does not seem to stop rabid atheists from attacking Christianity. Clearly, a double-standard in the atheistic evolutionary community is at work.

And how much experience is required before a person can be considered qualified? Who defines where the imaginary line is that distinguishes between the “qualified” and the “unqualified”—whose thoughts and research should be considered and whose should be ignored? Who will be the qualifications policemen? Who determines what qualifications the qualifications policemen must have to be able to deem others qualified? And what credentials do those who ordain qualifications policemen have to have? If scientists were held to such standards, progress into new realms could never be made, since by definition, there are no experts in such areas! Thomas Edison received no higher education (“The Life of…,” 1999), and yet he invented the light bulb, founded General Electric Company, and filed 1,093 successful U.S. patent applications for his inventions (“Edison’s Patents,” 2010). In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers saw fit to establish the “Thomas A. Edison Patent Award” in his honor, again, in spite of his lack of higher learning (McKivor, 2010). Sir Isaac Newton received a bachelor’s degree, but without honors or distinction (Hatch, 2002). Should his work be disregarded? Consider also that his area of study was mathematics. How was he qualified to discuss physics, mechanics, dynamics, and other mechanical engineering concepts that are taught in engineering schools today? The Wright brothers did not even receive high school diplomas, much less receive a college education (Kelly, 1989, p. 37). The Encyclopedia of World Biography notes that Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, “was a poor student. He never learned to spell or to read well. Ford would write using only the simplest of sentences” (“Henry Ford,” 2010). However, that did not stop people from buying his Model T. Nearly 15,500,000 were sold in the United States alone (“Henry Ford [1863-1947],” 2010). Jesus Christ, Himself, would not have had the credentials deemed necessary by the religious elites of His day to speak on theological matters. And yet, Jesus emphasized that truth is truth, regardless of one’s credentials, and the truth will set men free (John 8:32).

Another relevant point should be considered in this discussion as well. Creationists often speak about various fundamental, non-technical problems with evolution, such as the fact that life cannot come from non-life, the Universe must have a cause, nothing lasts forever or pops into existence, and macroevolution does not happen. These, the creationist rightly contends, disprove atheistic evolution. The evolutionist often attempts to dodge these arguments by claiming that “creationists aren’t qualified” to discuss these matters. But there is a fundamental problem with that assertion. Since no one has ever witnessed, much less been able to study, abiogenesis; or witnessed an effect without a cause; or witnessed kinds of creatures giving rise to other kinds of creatures (e.g., apes giving rise to humans); there is no such thing as being “qualified” in such areas. How can one be qualified to discuss things that do not happen? One person is just as qualified as the next person to discuss such things. If someone has spent his entire life trying to find evidence that fairies fly around inside of children’s eyeballs, all to no avail, does that mean that he is more qualified to discuss that matter than someone else? Of course not. All he has done is waste his time coming to the same conclusion everyone else already intuitively knew. Everyone on Earth has the same amount of experience witnessing the fact that such things as abiogenesis and macroevolution do not happen. So any person is just as qualified as the next person to discuss them. Darwinian evolution is founded on principles for which there is no such thing as “being qualified” enough to discuss them. Conjecture and speculation—not proof—characterize evolutionary theory.

Bottom line: Anyone is eligible to take part in a discussion as long as he or she is not speaking error. That is the critical issue. Consider: does one have to be qualified to speak the truth? Of course not. Truth is truth! It does not matter who speaks it. Unfortunately, many critics of creationists fail to address the creationist’s argument, but instead attack the speaker (e.g., the speaker’s credentials). This sidesteps the argument and attempts to distract hearers from analyzing the argument’s validity, which is a classic example of the ad hominem logical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2007). Anyone who is able to speak correctly concerning a scientific matter due to personal work or experience, direct study, or through research into the work of others is eligible to take part in scientific discourse on the subject, given that the person is handling the matter accurately. As long as the laws of science are used correctly, anyone can teach their truths and should not be restricted from doing so through the silencing techniques being attempted by the evolutionary community.

As was mentioned above, some evolutionists assert that “there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications” than creationists (Isaak, 2005)—quite a bold statement, to say the least. It may be true that most scientists have bought into the hoax of evolution, as was the case when scientists believed in geocentricity, or that blood-letting was an appropriate prescription for curing ailments, but appealing to numbers proves nothing, and using such an argument causes one to fall victim to yet another logical fallacy—the ad populum fallacy (i.e., appeal to the majority) (“Fallacies,” 2007).

Although numbers ultimately mean nothing in regard to truth, creationists can certainly come up with an impressive list of “qualified” scientists who have examined the scientific evidence and concluded that the atheistic evolutionary model falls short in explaining our existence. Johannes Kepler, the father of modern astronomy and modern optics, was a firm Bible believer. Robert Boyle, the father of chemistry, was a Bible believer. Samuel F.B. Morse, who invented Morse Code, was a believer. Wernher Von Braun, the father of the space program at NASA, was a strong believer in God and creation, as well as Louis Pasteur, the father of biology, Lord Kelvin, the father of thermodynamics, Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, and Faraday, the father of electromagnetism. Dozens of other well-known scientists from history could be cited (see Morris, 1990). Creation Ministries International posted a list of some 187 scientists alive today (or recently deceased) who believe in the biblical account of creation (“Creation Scientists…,” 2010). The scientists who are listed all possess a doctorate in a science-related field. Over 90 different scientific fields are represented in the list, including several types of engineers, chemists, geneticists, physicists, and biologists. Astronomers and astrophysicists; geologists and geophysicists; physicians and surgeons; micro-, molecular, and neurobiologists; paleontologists and zoologists are represented, and the list goes on. Jerry Bergman amassed a list of more than 3,000 individuals. Most have a Ph.D. in science, and many more could be added, according to Bergman.

On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners, but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers (2006).

For over 30 years, we at Apologetics Press have conducted numerous seminars and published hundreds of articles by “qualified,” credentialed scientists who speak out in support of the biblical account of creation as well—scientists with graduate degrees in geology, astrophysics, microbiology, neurobiology, cell biology, medicine, biochemistry, aerospace engineering, nuclear engineering, and biomechanical engineering. Creationists can certainly speak with credibility in scientific matters. However, again, the ultimate question is not how many scientists are standing on either side of the battle line. Majority or “consensus” is not the deciding factor (cf. Miller, 2012). The question is who is speaking the truth? Who is taking the scientific evidence and drawing reasonable, accurate conclusions from the facts? The answer is clear to the unbiased observer. Science supports creation—not evolution.

There is certainly something to be said about the value of having credentials and experience in the area in which one is speaking, because that person will often have a broader perspective about a subject than the next person. But it is also true that that person should not be blindly accepted without critical thinking. Regardless of one’s credentials, the audience must still consider the validity of the argument being offered. When all is said and done, the theory—not the person discussing it—should be where the emphasis lies. As always, we challenge the audience to disprove our contentions. Truth will always win. It will set us free.

REFERENCES

Bergman, Jerry (2006), “Darwin Skeptics,” http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Creation Scientists and Other Specialists of Interest” (2010), Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creation-scientists.

“Edison’s Patents” (2010), The Thomas Edison Papers, Rutgers University, http://edison.rutgers.edu/patents.htm.

“Fallacies” (2007), Handouts and Links, http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html.

Hatch, Robert (2002), “Sir Isaac Newton,” Professor Robert A. Hatch: The Scientific Revolution Homepage, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm.

“Henry Ford” (2010), Encyclopedia of World Biography, http://www.notablebiographies.com/Fi-Gi/Ford-Henry.html.

“Henry Ford (1863-1947)” (2010), About.com, Inventors, http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/a/HenryFord.htm.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,” http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm.

“How to Debate a Creationist” (2007), Creationism versus Science, Arguments, http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/DebatingTips.xhtml.

Isaak, Mark (2005), “Claim CA118,” The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA118.html.

Kelly, Fred C. (1989), The Wright Brothers: A Biography (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company).

“The Life of Thomas A. Edison” (1999), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edbio.html.

McKivor, Fran (2010), “Thomas A. Edison Patent Award,” ASME: Setting the Standard, http://www.webcitation.org/5umTifXDW.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4518.

Morris, Henry M. (1990), Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed in the Bible(El Cajon, CA: Master Books), third printing.

Thompson, Bert (1981), The History of Evolutionary Thought (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Abortion & Mental Health by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1724

Abortion & Mental Health

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As the abortion debate continues to rage in America, the evidence continues to mount—not only that the pre-born infant is human—but that abortion is also harmful to the mother. For example, University of Oslo researchers conducted a study in which they compared the psychological after-effects of miscarriage and abortion (“Abortion ‘Leaves...,’” 2005). While miscarriage was associated with more mental distress in the six months after the loss of a baby, abortion had a much longer lasting negative effect. Anne Nordal Broen, the leader of the team of researchers, said the responses of the women in the miscarriage group were similar to those expected after a traumatic life event. But the abortion group had more complex responses. Anna Pringle, spokesperson for the anti-abortion charity Life, observed: “This confirms years of experience with women who come to us for counseling after abortion. The emotional suffering can be massive” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”). Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agreed: “It has always been considered, and this study also shows, that the decision to terminate may bring with it long-standing feelings of anxiety and guilt” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”).

Additional evidence comes from New Zealand—a country where abortion is legal. Researchers for the Christchurch Health and Development Study conducted a 25-year longitudinal study on the long-term effects of abortion on the mental health of young women ages 15 to 25. Reporting their results in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the scientists found that those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, and drug-use disorders. Their conclusion: “The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems” (Fergusson, et al., 2006, 47[1]:16).

These findings are congruent with the Bible’s insistence that abortion, like other sins, is not only spiritually destructive (Miller, 2003), but psychologically and emotionally damaging as well (Proverbs 15:13-15; Isaiah 57:20-21). Those who are acquainted with the God of the Bible and His Word are aware that when His directives are violated, adverse consequences inevitably ensue. Since the Creator has provided His creatures with insight regarding how life is to be lived and how happiness may be achieved, going against His will results, not only in spiritual destruction, but in physical, emotional, and psychological devastation as well. The pagan nations that killed their own children were denounced by God as evil, committing abomination, and engaging in an action that He would never think of commanding them to do (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). When Christian ethics are abandoned, the negative ramifications are extensive and far-reaching. Indeed, “[t]he fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). It is He Who insists that we recognize that “children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3). Conformity to His instructions will result in positive mental health and the peace that “surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).

REFERENCES

“Abortion ‘Leaves Mental Legacy’” (2005), BBC News, December 12, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4520576.stm.

Fergusson, David M., L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder (2006), “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47[1]:16, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2005.01538.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28abortion%29.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

Jashobeam—David’s Mighty Man by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=749&b=1%20Chronicles

Jashobeam—David’s Mighty Man

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Encountering differences between two parallel texts in the Old Testament is not such a rare occurrence. Inevitably, when these differences arise a red flag marking a possible contradiction pops up in the mind of the reader. However, once any plausible solution presents itself that can reconcile the difference, then the red flag is dropped. For a case in point, consider 2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 11:11.

2 Samuel 23:8: “These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb- basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite, against eight hundred slain at one time.”

1 Chronicles 11:11: “And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.”

These two verses have striking similarities, as well as obvious differences. They both talk about David’s primary mighty man, but his name is Josheb-basshebeth in 2 Samuel and Jashobeam in 1 Chronicles. This difference amounts to little more than a slight name variation. For instance, if you were to say that Robert Butt wrote this article and another person said that Kyle Butt wrote this article, both of you would be correct since the author’s name is Robert Kyle Butt. Often parallel passages in the Old Testament offer different spellings of a name or different names altogether when discussing the same individual.

The real difference between these verses resides in the number of men Jashobeam killed at one time. It seems that the verse in 2 Samuel tells us he killed 800 men at one time, while the verse in 1 Chronicles mentions only 300.

Upon further contemplation and study, several possible solutions to this “difference” become evident. One of the most obvious is that of a copyist’s error. Even in the English language, only a small portion missing from the front of the numeral 8 would make it look like a 3. In similar fashion, the Bible Knowledge Commentary states: “The difference may be due to a scribal error in copying Chronicles for the Hebrew numerical symbols 300 and 800 look much alike” (see Walvoord and Zuck, 1985, 1 Chronicles 11:11). [For a general background on copyists’ errors, please see our foundational essay on that subject, Lyons, 2007.]

However, even though a copyist’s error poses a quality explanation for the differences, others exist. One of those deals with the possibility that the verses could be discussing two separate occasions where Jashobeam defeated a multitude each time—on one occasion 300, and on another 800. This does not seem the most likely explanation, but it is a possible explanation. Along these lines, a spear is mentioned in the verse in 1 Chronicles, but no weapon is mentioned in 2 Samuel. It could bethat different weapons were used in his attacks.

After studying these two parallel verses, and contemplating their obvious differences, it becomes apparent that no contradictions exist. And the two verses easily can be reconciled.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2007), “Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists,” Reason and Revelation, 27[3]:17-23.

Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck (1985), The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press).

Jesus is the true light that enlightens every man. by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/light.html

Jesus is the true light that enlightens every man.

We need spiritual enlightenment.

Our society is bathed in artificial light and submerged in spiritual darkness. There is no lack of light except in the hearts of the people.

Two thousand years ago John the Baptizer condemned the spiritual darkness of his time. He warned people to repent.

Thousands turned away from sin to serve God. They were immersed in water, baptized, for the forgiveness of their sins (Mark 1:4).

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world” (John 1:6-9 RSV).

John the Baptizer was the forerunner of God’s Messiah, the Christ, who would bring spiritual enlightenment and forgiveness of sins to all mankind.

Jesus is the morning star,¹ who has come “to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death” (Luke 1:79). “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:4, 5 RSV).

To be enlightened spiritually, one must find the light, believe in the light, come to the light, put on the armor of light, and walk in the light.

Where can light be found?

Can you find spiritual light in a disco? I have never been to one, but I understand that they often have hypnotic flashing lights, and loud, deafening music. No, definitely not. Discos and dance halls are dens of darkness, places to avoid if you want spiritual enlightenment. The flashing lights blind you and the loud music deafens you.

When a former teacher of mine, Cecil T. Bailey, was a young man, worldly young people kept trying to get him to go to a dance hall. Finally he agreed to go, but he took his Bible along and sat in a corner reading his Bible. Soon, he was asked to leave!

Can you find spiritual light in the universities? Paul wrote: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Corinthians 3:19). Not much spiritual light can be found in the universities. Philosophy and theology are human endeavors of limited value, but they are not significant sources of spiritual enlightenment.

A professor asked his class, “How many of you believe in prayer?” My father and two girls raised their hands. The professor continued, “You three, pray then that this glass beaker will not break.” He dropped it and it broke. He then smirked, “How many stillbelieve in prayer?” This time, only my father raised his hand. The professor said, “Well, Davison. How can you still believe in prayer?” My father replied, “I didn’t pray. Without God’s permission, your experiment was not valid.”

Can you find spiritual light in the traditional churches? Some light is there, but it is hidden under a basket of human dogmas, ecclesiastical politics and financial interests.

To the pious traditionalists² of His time, Jesus said: “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:6-9).

To the religious liberals³ of His time, Jesus said: “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mark 12:24).

Can you find spiritual light in a sect? Some are attracted to sects because they require extreme devotion. A sect, however, is a human system based on social pressure, brain-washing and mind control, rather than spontaneous personal faith in God. A sect usually has one powerful leader. He is sometimes called ‘father’. He is often considered to be infallible, and members must alwayssubmit to his authority. A sect usually uses hierarchical, army-like control.

Jesus said: “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you” (Mark 10:42, 43).

All hierarchical religious systems are anti-Christian. Beware of people who try to dominate you in the name of religion. Your service to God must come from your heart. It may not be based on social pressure, coercion or hierarchical control.

Jesus said: “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:8-10). God is our spiritual Father and we may not have any other father in a spiritual sense. Jesus is our spiritual Leader, and we may not have a spiritual guide, mentor or ‘discipler’ other than Christ.

Jesus Himself is our source of light. We must go directly to Him for spiritual enlightenment, and not allow the divine light to be obscured by traditions and denominations of human origin.

Jesus said: “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12).

Do we really want to find the light?

Although Jesus brought light, there is still much spiritual darkness because most people prefer darkness: “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (John 3:19-21).

Someone who wants to hid his sin, shuns the light. To find the light we must admit our need for enlightenment.

But just finding the light is not enough.

We must believe in the Light.

Jesus is the light of the world, He is our God-given source of spiritual enlightenment. But we must believe in that light. Jesus said: “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light” (John 12:36). And: “I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness” (John 12:46).

Many people stumble along in spiritual darkness because they do not believe in the light. Paul wrote: “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

But just believing in the light is also not enough.

We must come to the Light.

Many people have been deluded into thinking they can be saved by faith alone. It is not true: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” ... “For as the body without the spirit is dead; so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:24, 26).

Faith in the Light is the first step, but we must also come to the Light. This means that we must turn away from sin and dedicate our lives to God. This is called ‘repentance’ in the Scriptures.

“For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:20).

Many people have a superficial, standoffish faith. They know exactly where the light is! But they keep their distance, to hide their sin. We must come to the Light so God’s word can correct our lives.

Jesus sent Paul to the nations “to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18).

On the basis of our faith in the Light, we must turn away from evil and come to the Light.

We must put on the armor of light.

“The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in licentiousness and lewdness, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Romans 13:12-14).

We must “put on the armor of light” and “put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” How do we put on Christ? “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:26, 27). We put on the armor of light, we put on Christ, by being baptized into Christ.

This must be our own, personal decision. The so-called baptism of babies is contrary to the word of God.

Just as John the Baptizer told people to repent and be baptized, we too must repent, turn away from the works of darkness, come to the Light, and be baptized. Peter said: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

When we put on Christ in baptism, God removes us from darkness. We can then rejoice “giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:12-14).

We must walk in the light.

After finding the light, believing in the light, coming to the light, and putting on the armor of light, we must walk in the light.

Obviously, we may not walk in darkness. Paul warned: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), proving what is acceptable to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:8-10).

We must expose works of darkness.⁴ “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,⁵ but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. Therefore He says: ‘Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light’” (Ephesians 5:11-14).

Jesus is our source of light. We learn about Him, we learn to be like Him, not via some tradition or some sect, but through the Scriptures: “We also have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:19-21).

The Holy Scriptures are a beacon of light in a dark world. Through the Scriptures we learn about God. “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:5-7). God has called us “out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).⁶ Christians are “sons of light and sons of the day” (1 Thessalonians 5:5).⁷

It is not easy to walk in the light, surrounded by a world of darkness. We shine as lights in the world: “Do all things without murmuring and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life” (Philippians 2:14, 15).

To be a church of Christ, we must be a congregation of believers who have found the light, who believe in the light, who have come to the light, who have put on the armor of light, and who walk in the light.

By the grace of God, you can walk in the light. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that He died for your sins, that He rose from the dead the third day, if you are willing to turn your back on the works of darkness and come to the Light of God, if you desire to put on the armor of light, to put on Christ in baptism, let us know, and we will help you.

Roy Davison

Endnotes:

¹ Revelation 22:16.

² The Pharisees.

³ The Sadducees.

⁴ “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).

⁵ “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).

⁶ “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy” (1 Peter 2:9, 10).

⁷ “But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation” (1 Thessalonians 5:4-8).

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

Transformed! by Gary Rose

To view this picture: first, turn your head horizontally to the left (to view the younger person) and then, turn your head to the right (to view the older person). Same person, just aged.

Whether male or female, we all age. Sooner or later, we all get wrinkles, age spots and all the other things that go along with aging. But, what would it be like if we NEVER AGED?

In a word- HEAVEN! Consider these two passages from the Bible...

Philippians, Chapter 3 (WEB)

¹⁷ Brothers, be imitators together of me, and note those who walk this way, even as you have us for an example. ¹⁸ For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, as the enemies of the cross of Christ, ¹⁹ whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who think about earthly things. ²⁰ For our citizenship is in heaven, from where we also wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ who will change the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working by which he is able even to subject all things to himself. (emp. added vs.21)

AND

1 Corinthians, Chapter 15 (WEB)

³⁵ But someone will say, “How are the dead raised?” and, “With what kind of body do they come?” ³⁶ You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. ³⁷ That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind. ³⁸ But God gives it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. ³⁹ All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. ⁴⁰ There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial differs from that of the terrestrial. ⁴¹ There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. ⁴² So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown perishable; it is raised imperishable. ⁴³ It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. ⁴⁴ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body. (emp. added, vss. 41-44)

⁴⁵ So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶ However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. ⁴⁷ The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. ⁴⁸ As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. ⁴⁹ As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly. ⁵⁰ Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit God’s Kingdom; neither does the perishable inherit imperishable.

⁵¹ Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. ⁵³ For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

⁵⁵ “Death, where is your sting?

Hades, where is your victory?”

(emp. added, vss. 54f.)

A new body that never ages is one of the perks of being a faithful Christian! We will just have to wait until we get to heaven to see it. I don't know exactly what age we will appear to be, but I feel quite sure that we will be happy about it!

Beyond the appearance of our existence, there is the blessing of never having to die again, being with others who love God and enjoying the fellowship with God.

What more could one possible hope for???