The Passion and Antisemitism: Who Murdered Jesus? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1084

The Passion and Antisemitism: Who Murdered Jesus?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The furor surrounding Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ preceded by many months the release of the movie on February 25. The official Web site states: “Passion is a vivid depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life” (Passion Web site). Special emphasis is placed on the physical suffering Christ endured. Throughout the film, the language spoken is the first-century Jewish language, Aramaic, except when the Romans speak their language, i.e., Latin (Novak, 2003). Gibson, who both produced and directed the film, sank $25 million of his own money into the venture.

Much of the stir over the film stems from the role of the Jews in their involvement in Christ’s crucifixion. In fact, outcries of “anti-Semitism” have been vociferous, especially from representatives of the Anti-Defamation League. Their contention is that Jews are depicted in the film as “bloodthirsty, sadistic, money-hungry enemies of God” who are portrayed as “the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus” (as quoted in Hudson, 2003; cf. Zoll, 2003). The fear is that the film will fuel hatred and bigotry against Jews. A committee of nine Jewish and Catholic scholars unanimously found the film to project a uniformly negative picture of Jews (“ADL and Mel…”). The Vatican early avoided offering an endorsement of the film by declining to make an official statement (“Vatican Has Not…”; cf. “Mel Gibson’s…”). This action is to be expected in view of the conciliatory tone manifested by Vatican II (Abbott, 1955, pp. 663-667). Even Twentieth Century Fox decided not to participate in the distribution of the film (“20^thDecides…”; cf. “Legislator Tries…”; O’Reilly…”).

Separate from the controversy generated by Gibson’s film, the more central issue concerns to what extent the Jewish generation of the first century contributed to, or participated in, the death of Christ. If the New Testament is the verbally inspired Word of God, then it is an accurate and reliable report of the facts, and its depiction of the details surrounding the crucifixion are normative and final. That being the case, how does the New Testament represent the role of the Jews in the death of Christ?

A great many verses allude to the role played by the Jews, especially the leadership, in the death of Jesus. For some time prior to the crucifixion, the Jewish authorities were determined to oppose Jesus. This persecution was aimed at achieving His death:

So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff (Luke 4:28-30, emp. added).

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:18-19, emp. added).

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him… “Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” (John 7:1-2,19, emp. added).

“I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by (John 8:37-41,59, emp. added).

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him…. Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand (John 10:31-32,39, emp. added).

Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death…. Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a command, that if anyone knew where He was, he should report it, that they might seize Him (John 11:53, 57, emp. added).

And He was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people sought to destroy Him, and were unable to do anything; for all the people were very attentive to hear Him (Luke 19:47-48, emp. added).

And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people (Luke 22:2, emp. added).

Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him (Matthew 26:3-4, emp. added).

These (and many other) verses demonstrate unquestionable participation of the Jews in bringing about the death of Jesus. One still can hear the mournful tones of Jesus Himself, in His sadness over the Jews rejecting Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:37-39). He was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the demise of the Jewish commonwealth at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70. Read carefully His unmistakable allusion to the reason for this holocaustic event:

Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:41-44).

He clearly attributed their national demise to their stubborn rejection of Him as the predicted Messiah, Savior, and King.

Does the Bible, then, indicate that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of the Jews of first century Palestine was “collectively guilty” for the death of Jesus? The inspired evidence suggests so. Listen carefully to the apostle Paul’s assessment, keeping in mind that he, himself, was a Jew—in fact, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5; cf. Acts 22:3; Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22). Speaking to Thessalonian Christians, he wrote:

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, emp. added).

This same apostle Paul met with constant resistance from fellow Jews. After he spoke at the Jewish synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia, a crowd of people that consisted of nearly the whole city gathered to hear him expound the Word of God. Notice the reaction of the Jews in the crowd:

But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles….” But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region (Acts 13:45-46,50-51).

Paul met with the same resistance from the general Jewish public that Jesus encountered—so much so that he wrote to Gentiles concerning Jews: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake” (Romans 11:28). He meant that the majority of the Jews had rejected Christ and Christianity. Only a “remnant” (Romans 11:5), i.e., a small minority, embraced Christ.

What role did the Romans play in the death of Christ? It certainly is true that Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. First-century Palestine was under the jurisdiction of Rome. Though Rome permitted the Jews to retain a king in Judea (Herod), the Jews were subject to Roman law in legal matters. In order to achieve the execution of Jesus, the Jews had to appeal to the Roman authorities for permission (John 18:31). A simple reading of the verses that pertain to Jewish attempts to acquire this permission for the execution are clear in their depiction of Roman reluctance in the matter. Pilate, the governing procurator in Jerusalem, sought literally to quell and diffuse the Jewish efforts to kill Jesus. He called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and stated plainly to them:

“You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast). And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”—who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder. Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:14-25).

It is difficult to conceptualize the level of hostility possessed by the Jewish hierarchy, and even by a segment of the Jewish population, toward a man who had done nothing worthy of such hatred. It is incredible to think that they would clamor for the release of a known murderer and insurrectionist, rather than allow the release of Jesus. Yes, the Roman authority was complicit in the death of Jesus. But Pilate would have had no interest in pursuing the matter if the Jewish leaders and crowd had not pressed for it. In fact, he went to great lengths to perform a symbolic ceremony in order to communicate the fact that he was not responsible for Jesus’ death. He announced to the multitude: “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it” (Matthew 27:24). Technically, the Romans cannot rightly be said to be ultimately responsible. If the Jews had not pressed the matter, Pilate never would have conceded to having Him executed. The apostle Peter made this point very clear by placing the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on the shoulders of Jerusalem Jews:

Men of Israel…the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses (Acts 3:12-16, emp. added).

Notice that even though the Romans administered the actual crucifixion, Peter pointedly stated to his Jewish audience, not only that Pilate wanted to release Jesus, but that the Jews (“you”)—not the Romans—“killed the Prince of life.”

Does God lay the blame for the death of Christ on the Jews as an ethnic group? Of course not. Though the generation of Jews who were contemporary to Jesus cried out to Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25, emp. added), it remains a biblical fact that “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20). A majority of a particular ethnic group in a particular geographical locale at a particular moment in history may band together and act in concert to perpetrate a social injustice. But such an action does not indict all individuals everywhere who share that ethnicity. “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11), and neither should there be with any of us.

In fact, the New Testament teaches that ethnicity should have nothing to do with the practice of the Christian religion—which includes how we see ourselves, as well as how we treat others. Listen carefully to Paul’s declarations on the subject: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham's seed” (Galatians 3:28-29, emp. added). Jesus obliterated the ethnic distinction between Jew and non-Jew:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-17).

In the higher sense, neither the Jews nor the Romans crucified Jesus. Oh, they were all complicit, including Judas Iscariot. But so were we. Every accountable human being who has ever lived or ever will live has committed sin that necessitated the death of Christ—if atonement was to be made so that sin could be forgiven. Since Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), every sinner is responsible for His death. But that being said, the Bible is equally clear that in reality, Jesus laid down His own life for humanity: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:11,17-18; cf. Galatians 1:4; 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 3:16). Of course, the fact that Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself on the behalf of humanity does not alter the fact that it still required human beings, in this case first-century Jews, exercising their own free will to kill Him. A good summary passage on this matter is Acts 4:27-28—“for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.”

CONCLUSION

The movie is, indeed, graphic. Despite various inaccuracies and additions that usually come with an attempt to transfer a biblical narrative to the screen, The Passion of the Christ nevertheless does a credible job of reenacting the excruciating torment that Jesus endured by undergoing Roman scourging and crucifixion. The film fosters a renewed appreciation of the suffering that Jesus subjected Himself to in behalf of sinful humanity.

Anti-Semitism is sinful and unchristian. Those who crucified Jesus are to be pitied. Even Jesus said concerning them: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). But we need not deny or rewrite history in the process. We now live in a post-Christian culture. If Gibson would have produced a movie depicting Jesus as a homosexual, the liberal, “politically correct,” anti-Christian forces would have been the first to defend the undertaking under the guise of “artistic license,” “free speech,” and “creativity.” But dare to venture into spiritual reality by showing the historicity of sinful man mistreating the Son of God, and the champions of moral degradation and hedonism raise angry, bitter voices of protest. The irony of the ages is—He died even for them.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966), The Documents of Vatican II (New York, NY: America Press).

“ADL and Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.adl.org/interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.

Hudson, Deal (2003), “The Gospel according to Braveheart,” The Spectator, [On-line], URL: http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue= 2003-09-20&id=3427&searchText=.

“Legislator Tries to Censor Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/8/27/124709.shtml.

“Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion’ Makes Waves,” [On-line], URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/entertainment/main567445.shtml.

Novak, Michael (2003), “Passion Play,” The Weekly Standard, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/014ziqma.asp.

“O’Reilly: Elite Media out to Destroy Mel Gibson,” [On-line], URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/223513.shtml.

Passion Web site, [On-line], URL: http://www.passion-movie.com/english/index.html.

“20th Decides Against Distributing Gibson’s ‘The Passion,’ ” [On-line], URL: http://www.imdb.com/SB?20030829#3.

“Vatican Has Not Taken A Position on Gibson’s Film ‘The Passion,’ Top Cardinal Assures ADL,” [On-line], URL: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4355_96.htm.

Zoll, Rachel (2003), “Jewish Civil Rights Leader Says Actor Mel Gibson Espouses Anti-Semitic Views,” [On-line], URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/ national1505EDT0626.DTL.

Are Blind Cave Fish a Good Example of Organic Evolution? by Branyon May, Ph.D. Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=166

Are Blind Cave Fish a Good Example of Organic Evolution?

by	Branyon May, Ph.D. Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

Evolutionists often use as a proof of their theory the intriguing case of fish that live in deep-water caves and that have lost their sight permanently, yet still function quite well. Are blind cave fish a good example of organic evolution in action?

A.

Found in the subterranean caverns of the world are rare, unique, and sometimes exotic creatures. Numerous varieties of bats, spiders, insects, and other curious creatures populate these damp, cool environments. Hidden from the Sun, weather, and intrusion of man, these caverns represent a truly intriguing habitat. Another animal also dwells in these cavernous environments—the cave fish. Restricted to the dark confines of the globe, cave fish possess unique qualities that differ from the surface varieties generally seen. The most remarkable distinction between cave fish and their surface counterparts is a loss of visionary processes. There are several other interesting differences, but this particular disparity is the most commonly referenced in support of evolutionary theory. How did this difference come into existence? And why has it continued? These are the underlying questions that need to be answered.

Lamarckianism (as it is known today) was the most prominent theory preceding Darwinian evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is remembered most notably for his theory of the “inheritance of acquired variations” (Ruse, 1979, p. 8). This theory holds that the acquired physiological traits of the parent are passed down to the offspring. This proposal, however, has been known to be false for more than a century. The classic evolutionary example of this theory is the giraffe. Supposedly, as the scarcity of food increased, the giraffe was forced to extend its neck higher and higher to reach diminishing food sources. Over the ensuing generations, the giraffe subsequently developed a longer neck, due to constant straining and stretching—a ridiculous idea, to be sure.

Yet some in the past attempted to apply this same type of “reasoning” to the cave fish situation in a Lamarckian scenario which suggested that through a natural event (such as a flood or terrain upheaval), a population of creatures, including fish, found itself geographically separated and isolated in a new environment—specifically, a cave. As they continued to live in this cave, the fish physically lost the use of their eyes, perhaps through injury or muscle atrophy. When the fish eventually spawned, the young possessed the same physical defects that the parents had acquired. Although such an explanation made for a good “just-so” story, the Lamarckian theory eventually was rejected by the scientists after Darwin’s day because it did not fit the available facts.

A convenient and rather enlightening illustration to better relate the absurdity (if it is not already apparent) of Lamarck’s theory can be made by comparing your father, your siblings, and you. If, for some unfortunate reason, your father were to lose an appendage (a finger or an arm, for instance), this loss would not be passed along to either your siblings or to you. While the accident would affect your father’s life significantly, it would not have any bearing on the physical appearance of his future offspring. But the question then springs to mind, “Exactly how dochildren obtain their appearances?”

Certainly, children do possess both maternal and paternal characteristics. Why is this the case? Through the study of DNA and its genetic coding, the process of inheritance and expression of traits can be described scientifically. The physical appearance of a child is ultimately the result of his or her genetic makeup, which itself is the product of the combined genes received from the parents. An old saying correctly expresses the matter: “It’s in your genes.” Technically, a gene is defined as a “self-replicating unit of heredity; a portion of DNA (i.e., a sequence of nucleotide units) that encodes a protein” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 406, parenthetical item in orig.). As the definition states, genes are portions of the DNA strand. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) contains the genetic coding that forms a sort of “blueprint” for the design of the organism. On a single strand of DNA, there can be numerous portions (known as genes), each of which assists in the design of the body plan. Gene expression is responsible for the visible attributes of an organism (known as the phenotype), which is the end result of the expression of one’s DNA. Likewise, in cave fish, the resulting blindness among the populations is an effect of genetic mutations, and not a simple transference of an injury or organ loss.

The importance of understanding the role of genetics in this situation is obvious. First, we need to be accurate scientifically. Second, such accuracy lays the groundwork for understanding the true progression that is taking place in this example of cave fish. Any genetic mutation can be classified into one of three groups: good, bad, and neutral. Bad mutations, as the name plainly implies, are detrimental to the affected organism. As long ago as 1950, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, observed: “The great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way” (1950, 38:35). Fifty years later, nothing much had changed. The renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, who is head of the International Human Genome Diversity Project, wrote: “Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one” (2000, p. 176, emp. added).

Such harmful mutations affect their host, leading almost exclusively to its demise. For an epigean (surface-dwelling) organism, the loss of sight would be considered a bad mutation. But for a hypogean (underground) organism, this does not present the same problematic scenario. In complete darkness, eyesight is basically a moot point, and at worst would be considered simply a neutral mutation. Neutral mutations, however, are of no use to the evolutionist since they (to use Dr. Cavalli-Sforza’s words) “have no effect.” Occasionally, mutations do occur that are beneficial to survival. But those are rare indeed. Almost thirty-five years ago, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous evolutionary geneticist of the Rockefeller University, admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (as quoted in Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Once again, not much has changed. The man who is arguably the world’s most eminent evolutionary taxonomist, Ernst Mayr (professor emeritus at Harvard), discussed this very point in his 2001 book, What Evolution Is, when he wrote (with a bit of understatement): “...[T]he occurrence of beneficial mutations is rather rare” (p. 98). Rare indeed!

Furthermore, the point must be stressed that although these mutations may be beneficial to the survival of the organism, they are still defects in the genetic code—a corruption that represents loss of information. Evolution does not require “just” mutations; it requires mutations that produce new information. As Dr. Cavalli-Sforza remarked: “Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child)” [p. 176, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.]. In theory, beneficial mutations add “new information.” But in practice that is not the case. As Jonathan Sarfati noted: “If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one” (2002, emp. in orig.).

To further establish the genetic mechanism by which cave fish lose their eyesight, it is interesting to point out that a similar result can be obtained experimentally. Through the manipulation of a group of genes known as the homeobox or Hox cluster, scientists can induce the mutation of ectopic (abnormally positioned) eyes. The eye structures have been found to grow in antenna, leg, and wing tissues. These eyes, like the eye structures of the cave fish, are non-functioning entities. These laboratory-induced structures are practically complete, and are “morphologically normal with normal photoreceptors, lens, cone and pigment cells,” according to Walter Gehring, an evolutionary expert in Hox gene mutations (see Gould, 2002, pp. 1124-1125). Although the physical structures are constructed successfully, the eye fails to possess the necessary neural “wiring” to function properly (Gould, p. 1125). Yet, the mutational precedence for such an occurrence is well documented.

Two scientists, Yoshiyuki Yamamoto and William Jeffery, have been involved in specialized research on the eye formation of the cave fish specimen, Astyanax mexicanus. This particular species of teleost (bony fish) possesses both epigean and hypogean forms that enabled the team to perform experiments on the blind cave fish, using the surface form as the control specimen. Yamamoto and Jeffery have begun to establish some of the steps in the formation of the fish’s eye, from the embryonic stage to the adult stage. “Although adult cave fish lack functional eyes, eye formation is initiated during embryogenesis. The lens vesicle is formed but later degenerates, and the cornea, iris, and other optic tissues are absent or rudimentary” (2000, 289:631). The apoptosis (programmed death) of the lens cells occurs prior to the degeneration of any other tissue. Yamamoto and Jeffery observed:

The optic cup and neural retina are formed in cave fish, but the retinal layers are disorganized, growth is retarded, and photoreceptor cells do not differentiate. The degenerate eye sinks into the orbit and is covered by a flap of skin (289:631).

As a result of their research, these two scientists have concluded that the lens plays a dominant role in the subsequent development of the eye’s entire structure. To prove their hypothesis, a lens from the “eyed” variety was transplanted into the eye of the blind variety. After 8 days “a larger eye was detected on the transplant side,” and after 2 months “a large eye (restored eye) with a distinct pupil was present.... Sections of the restored eye showed an anterior chamber, cornea, iris, and lens” (289:631, parenthetical item in orig.). In the final analysis, Yamamoto and Jeffery concluded: “[T]he results show that the cave fish lens has lost the ability to promote eye development” (289:632). In other words, the data show that the blindness found in cave fish is a product of a genetic mutation affecting the fish’s lens. Peter Mathers, a developmental biologist, summed up the results well when he said: “It’s possible you are looking at a single gene defectthat has caused a drastic developmental change” (as quoted in Pennisi, 2000, 289:523, emp. added).

But that has not kept some evolutionists from claiming that the concept of blind cave fish supports their theory. As one news report stated: “Millions of years ago it had eyes; but now, soon after it starts growing in the egg, the eyes start to degenerate and the fish are born blind” (see “Blind Fish...,” 2000, emp. added). However, nowhere in the scientific experiments is there evidence that lends itself to an ancient timeline of descent. The small genetic changes (microevolution) that can be observed are wrongly assumed to be the foundation from which macroevolution emanates.

First, notice that no new speciation has occurred due to this mutation: the species Astyanax mexicanus can be either the “eyed” form or the “eyeless” form. It is refreshing to note that even biological taxonomy plainly supports the fact that the fish with which we began is still a fish. Neither the genus nor the species has changed between the epigean and hypogean forms. Second, there is the principle of progression versus regression. Here, information is the key. Evolution demands progression, and with it there must accompany an increase of new information. Regression can be described by the loss or corruption of genetic information. Harvard’s Ernst Mayr defined macroevolution as the “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures” (2001, p. 287). He included in his definition the requirement for the “production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.” The question then becomes, “What new structures has the cave fish evolved?” Here is where progression comes to a screeching halt. The cave fish actually falls into the category known as “devolution,” which is a category of regression on a downhill slope, where information is being lost—not gained (Wieland, 2001, p. 47). Organic evolution cannot be sustained using examples of “downhill” change. The basic tenets needed by evolutionists are not met, and thus cave fish cannot be touted as an example of evolutionary hypotheses.

Organisms are affected greatly by the habitats in which they live. Within their specific environments, they perform all the functions of life—feeding, procreating, etc. Thus, environmental changes and fluctuations have the potential to affect every aspect of their lives. Above ground, the sense of sight is a widely used, extremely beneficial trait. Underground, however, sight takes on a completely different role. Whereas above ground the loss of sight very likely would spell doom for most creatures, beneath the earth it is far less detrimental. When viewing the hypogean populations, mutated eyes characterize the vast majority. How can the mutation spread (and spread quickly) if it is completely neutral? In this setting and environment, the loss of sight for the cave fish could be beneficial, presenting itself as a good mutation.

According to Yamamoto and Jeffery, Astyanax has undergone certain changes, “including enhanced lateral line [sense of touch—BM/BT] and gustatory systems [sense of taste—BM/BT]” (289:631). These enhancements are part of a well-documented occurrence known as plasticity. Plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to change. For instance, take the example of the father who lost his limb. Emotionally, this would be an extremely tragic situation that would require some mental adjustment to overcome. Neurologically, there also would be some adjustments that would have to take place. To use a somewhat simplified explanation, the human brain contains “maps” of the body. When something is lost, like a limb or even a digit on the hand, the brain adjusts the neural network and the mental “map” accordingly. For the hand, the adjacent digits’ representative image will expand to include the missing finger. This process works on varying timescales, but nowhere near an evolutionary timescale. According to the textbook, Neurobiology, “these changes take place over varying time scales; in some cases the shifts in representations are slow, developing over weeks, but in other cases they may be surprisingly rapid, beginning within a day or so, or even a few hours” (Shepherd, 1983, p. 290, emp. added). For amputee patients, this is an established fact, and provides an extraordinary example of the amazing adaptive nature (and incredible design!) of the human brain.

This neurological process applies to the cave fish, as evinced by Yamamoto and Jeffery’s aforementioned conclusion regarding enhanced touch and taste. For a fish in complete darkness, the lateral line (which is the sensory network for touch) would be essential, since it would guide the fish through the cavern. The gustatory system (which is primarily responsible for taste) would aid in the location of food. As scientific studies have documented, there are “compensatory improvements of the sense of taste in the blind, cave-dwelling fish” (Boudriot and Reutter, 2001, p. 428). These enhancements, due to a mutation, would confer an advantage for the blind cave fish over the non-mutated variety. However, notice that this is an advantage only to this highly specific environment, and would become of ill effect outside of these parameters.

In conclusion, blind cave fish are just that—blind (by mutation) and isolated to a caveenvironment. As they have been from the beginning, they are still just fish.. Genetic mutations and variations are found throughout nature, occurring in all populations. In many cases, they represent a defect—i.e., the corruption or loss of valuable genetic information that results in a “downhill” change or devolution, which is in direct opposition to the required demands of macroevolution. The incredible design and complexity of life is seen by its ability to survive. Whether changing behavior due to environmental strain, or re-networking a neural interface, life is dynamic, and is filled with remarkable intricacies. One cannot help but wonder: whence came such design?

REFERENCES

“Blind Fish Show Eyes Can Grow Back,” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.cnn.com/2000/Nature/07/28/blind.cavefish.reut/.

Boudriot, F. and Klaus Reutter (2001), “Ultrastructure of the Taste Buds in the Blind Cave Fish Astyanax jordani (‘Anoptichthys’) and the Sighted River Fish Astyanax mexicanus (Teleostei, Characidae),” Journal of Comparative Neurology, 434:428-444, June 11.

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).

Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Gould, Stephen J. (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).

Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” American Scientist, 38:33-50,126, January.

Pennisi, Elizabeth (2000), “Embryonic Lens Prompts Eye Development,” Science, 289:522-523, July 28.

Ruse, Michael (1979), The Darwinian Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Sarfati, Jonathan (2002), “15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp.

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. (1999), Sudden Origins (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Shepherd, Gordon M. (1983), Neurobiology (New York: Oxford University Press).

Wieland, Carl (2001), “Blind Fish, Island Immigrants and Hairy Babies,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 23[1]:46-49.

Yamamoto, Yoshiyuki and William R. Jeffery (2000), “Central Role for the Lens in Cave Fish Eye Degeneration,” Science, 289:631-633, July 28.

Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1538

Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For some fifty years now, the “politically correct” crowd has used strong-arm, Gestapo-like tactics to deprive Americans of the right of self-government so paramount in a Republic. Implementing their agenda of secularism through judicial coercion and social intimidation, they have literally bullied the Moral Majority into silence and spiritual paralysis. Their objective continues to be to drive all vestiges of the Christian religion and Christian morality from the public square. Especially in regard to moral issues, like abortion, school prayer, and same-sex marriage, social and political liberals have sought to overturn the rules under which the nation lived for 180+ years. Observe that this aggressive assault on religious expressions in the public sector is as intolerant and monolithic as those extremist elements that seek to bring America down by violence and terrorism. The will of the majority of Americans (for the moment) on a whole range of moral issues is being trumped by a leftist judiciary, politically liberal legislators, secularist educators, and morally bankrupt entertainers.

Even as America seeks to export its singular brand of “democracy” to other countries (e.g., Iraq), sinister forces within are chipping away at America’s foundations to bring about her demise. In the process, the very reason for America’s success and prosperity has been overlooked. Do you remember the euphoria created by the collapse of communism in Russia? The prevailing view was that the way had been cleared for Russia to achieve for its people what America has achieved for its own people, i.e., “freedom” and “economic prosperity.” Has it happened? No. Why? Why is alcoholism rampant in Russia (Brissenden, 2003)? Why is drug addiction soaring there (Koshkina, 2003; “Drug Intelligence...,” 2003)? Why have crime, poverty, and mortality rates continued to increase (Walberg, et al., 1998)?

The average American appears to believe that America’s prosperity was the inevitable result of our democratic approach to governing. We seem to think that since we possess personal freedom, engage in free elections, and engage in the free enterprise of capitalism, it was inevitable that our country should come into being and flourish. When our leaders speak of exporting the American brand of democracy to other parts of the world (e.g., “Elections in Iraq,” 2005), they appear to share the widespread notion that the cause and source of America’s unprecedented success is the direct result of our democratic institutions of government. So if we can just get dictators out of the way (e.g., Saddam Hussein), and give the people a chance to express themselves at the ballot box, presto, little America’s will spring up all over the world that will soon manifest the same prosperous, secure, free way of life that American’s have enjoyed for so long. Right? Wrong! There are two reasons why this rationale is dead wrong: (1) the Bible says it is wrong, and (2) the Founding Fathers said it is wrong.

The Bible claims that national existence is dependent on commitment to the instructions, directives, and moral principles of God’s Word (Psalm 33:12). The Bible claims, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). The Bible maintains that “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17). God said to the nation of Israel, “if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, then I will uproot them from My land” (2 Chronicles 7:19-20). The Bible claims that national security, economic prosperity, civil order, and personal happiness are centered solely in the population’s spiritual commitment: “Happy are the people whose God is the Lord!” (Psalm 144:15). This concept is emphasized over and over again throughout Scripture. America owes its incredible progress to its historic commitment to the one true God to the exclusion of all other gods, religions, ideologies, and religionless philosophies.

What about the Founders? Did they claim that national success was dependent on “democracy,” “free enterprise,” “free elections,” and “freedom?” Absolutely not. In the first place, they did not claim to be establishing a “democracy.” For example, our second President, John Adams, wrote in an 1814 letter to John Taylor: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide (1850, 6:484). Signer of the federal Constitution and two-time President of the United States, James Madison, explained: “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Hamilton, et al., 1818, p. 53).

Why did the Founders have such disdain for a “democracy”? Because the source of authority for a democracy is simply the whims, opinions, and fluctuating feelings of the majority. The people are essentially a law to themselves and the sole source of ascertaining right and wrong. In a democracy, homosexuality may be deemed wrong today—but right tomorrow. The Bible frequently alludes to this very negative social circumstance (e.g., Exodus 23:2; Jeremiah 10:23; Judges 21:25).

In stark contrast, the Founders claimed to have established a republic. A republic differs from a democracy in that it operates on the basis of set laws that transcend the will of the people—unchanging moral principles that apply to all people, in all places, in all times. Where did the Founders believe the source of that law lay? The Creator—the God of the Bible. Specifically, the Founders and Framers insisted that the American republic rests on the foundation of the laws and moral principles of the Christian religion. In the words of Founder Noah Webster: “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion” (1832, p. 6). In 1775, Alexander Hamilton, a signer of the Constitution, observed that human laws must be aligned with God’s laws: “[T]he law...dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this” (1961, 1:87).

This means that the Founders believed that freedom, free enterprise, and economic prosperity rise solely from the foundation of Christian morality. Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, insisted: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added). In an 1829 letter to James Madison, Noah Webster declared: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government....and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, maintained; “Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation” (1893, 4:52, emp. added). George Washington proclaimed to the entire nation in his farewell address that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of political prosperity, the great pillars of human happiness, and a necessary spring of popular government (1796).

Shortly after America had its revolution, France had theirs. They, too, claimed to establish a “republic.” But did they? They could not have established a republic like America’s—because a sizable percentage of the French population was amoral and atheistic. America’s Founders recognized this fact, as did the Courts at the time. The State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made this very point in 1824 in the case Updegraph v. the Commonwealth:

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Christianity is part of the common law of this state.... Its foundations are broad, and strong, and deep: they are laid in the authority, the interest, the affections of the people. Waiving all questions of hereafter, it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws (Updegraph..., 1824, emp. added).

Patrick Henry declared: “[T]he great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible” (1891, 2:592, emp. added). Samuel Adams said: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness” (1905, 4:74, emp. added). Benjamin Franklin asserted that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (1840, 10:297, emp. added). Signer of the Declaration, John Hancock, insightfully observed:

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.... Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion (as quoted in Brown, 1898, p. 269, emp. added).

Even Thomas Jefferson weighed in on the same point, in an 1809 letter to James Fishback:

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He [God—DM] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses (1904, 12:315, emp. added).

Signer of the federal Constitution, and Secretary of War under both Washington and Adams, James McHenry affirmed:

The Holy Scriptures....can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Observe that McHenry insisted that the Bible—not the Quran, the Hindu Vedas, or Buddhist Pitakas—is indispensable to American society, courts, and government.

A good summary statement of the views of the Founders and Framers of American institutions is found in the words of Joseph Story, one of two men who share the title “Father of American Jurisprudence,” who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison, and who served on the High Court for 34 years:

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions; founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a Divine revelation, to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects (1833, 3:722-723, emp. added).

Many other Founders could be cited that express the same viewpoints. According to both the Bible and the Founders of the American republic, can countries like Iraq reproduce the freedom and democratic institutions historically enjoyed by America? No, they cannot. Iraq is built upon Islam—not Christianity. Its values are firmly embedded in Islamic values. While there is someoverlap, Islam is not Christianity.

CONCLUSION

Consider these sobering thoughts from the Bible that so clearly express the sweeping scope of human history:

Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day? Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren.... Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. You shall therefore keep His statutes and His commandmentswhich I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the Lord your God is giving you for all time (Deuteronomy 4:5-9,39-40, emp. added).

In uncanny anticipation of the liberal social forces in America today, with their agenda of abortion, homosexuality, and hostility toward Christian values, the second President of the United States, in articulating the degeneration that occurs when a republic shifts to a democracy, issued a solemn warning that ought to haunt every American—since it closely resembles the very direction America has taken:

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few (1977, 1:83).

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1850), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Charles Little & James Brown).

Adams, John (1977), The Papers of John Adams, ed. John Taylor (Cambridge: Belknap Press).

Adams, Samuel (1905), The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Brissenden, Michael (2003), “Russia—Alcoholism,” ABC News Foreign Correspondent, [On-line], URL: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s932631.htm.

Brown, Abram (1898), John Hancock, His Book (Boston, MA: Lee & Shepard).

“Drug Intelligence Brief: Heroin Trafficking in Russia’s Troubled East” (2003), U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, [On-line], URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/03053/03053.html.

“Elections in Iraq” (2005), The White House, [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/elections/.

Franklin, Benjamin (1840), The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Tappen, Whittemore and Mason).

Hamilton, Alexander (1961), The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold Syrett (New York, NY: Columbia University Press).

Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison (1818), The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia, PA: Benjamin Warner).

Henry, Patrick (1891), Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, ed. William Henry (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Jay, John (1893), The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry Johnston (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Jefferson, Thomas (1904), The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Koshkina, E. (2003), “Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Among the Russian Population,” [On-line], URL: http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC9364.htm.

Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York, NY: University Press of America).

Steiner, Bernard (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: Burrow Brothers).

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: The Maryland Bible Society).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hillard, Gray, & Co.).

UpDegraph v. the Commonwealth (1824), 11 Serg. & Rawle 394; 1824 Pa. LEXIS 85.

Walberg, Peder, Martin McKee, Vladimir Shkolnikov, Laurent Chenet, David A. Leon (1998), "Economic Change, Crime, and Mortality Crisis in Russia: regional analysis," PovertyNet Library, [On-line], URL: http://poverty.worldbank.org/library/view/12740/.

Washington, George (1796), Farewell Address, [On-line], URL: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html.

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Genealogies and the Virgin Birth of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=862&b=Matthew

Genealogies and the Virgin Birth of Christ

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Rarely (if ever) have I read the words “genealogy” and “exciting” in the same sentence. It seems most people consider the genealogies of Christ as some of the Bible’s dullest reading. They frequently are described as boring, dry, and monotonous—full of “begets” that many would just as soon “forget.” In reality, however, exciting pearls of truth often are overlooked. One of these truths that escapes the reader who simply skims (or skips) the genealogies is the virgin birth of Christ.

In Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, it may be that one fails to see how the verb “begot” is used 39 times between Abraham and Joseph (verses 2-16a). And yet, instead of claiming that Joseph begot Jesus, Matthew wrote: “…and Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (1:16, emp. added). This wording stands in stark contrast to the format in the preceding verses (“Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, etc.”). Joseph did not beget Jesus; rather, he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” The Holy Spirit was emphasizing the fact that Jesus was not conceived as the result of anything Joseph did. Rather, Mary “was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). An angel even informed Joseph that he was not the father of Jesus, rather that which was conceived [literally, “begotten”] in her was “of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).

Matthew gave us a second “hint” of the virgin birth of Christ when he wrote: “…and Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (1:16, emp. added). One might assume that the “whom” in this verse refers to Joseph as Jesus’ father. Others may think it is talking about both Joseph and Mary as His parents. An English teacher likely would point out that we cannot tell to whom the word “whom” belongs in this verse, because when the English word “whom” is used in a sentence it can refer to either men or women; or, it can refer to both. Though usually we can tell the meaning by the context in which the word is found, such is not the case in Matthew 1:16. Our English translations simply do not reveal the marvelous truth concealed in this verse. In order to unveil this “Gospel gem,” one must consult the language in which the New Testament was written originally—Greek. The English phrase “of whom was born Jesus” is translated from the Greek relative feminine pronoun (hes). In this verse, the feminine gender can refer only to Mary. Biblical genealogies regularly emphasize the fathers who sire a child, but here Matthew indicates that Jesus received His humanity only from His mother. Thus, Joseph is excluded from any involvement in the birth of Christ, the Son of God.

While Matthew’s genealogy clearly establishes Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel all the way to Joseph the carpenter (and to Jesus), he still emphasizes Mary as the biological parent “of whom” Jesus was born. What accuracy! What precision! What a wonderful truth found within a genealogy so often overlooked.

Hallowed be Your name Is there no respect? by Eugene C. Perry

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/hallowed.html

Hallowed be Your name
Is there no respect?

Man’s failure to respect that which is sacred has, through the ages, been detrimental to the culture of the day as well as being displeasing to God. God’s name represents His person just as your name represents you. The scriptures in both Testaments are replete with instructions and examples emphasizing the sacredness of the names of the divine.

Personally, I am old enough to have experienced the days when mothers who heard their children use God’s name as an expletive or use other “swear words” and unbecoming language would threaten with “I’ll wash out your mouth with soap and water.” Using the name of Jesus and using substitutes for God’s name such as “gosh” or “golly” was also punishable. Things have changed since then. We now hear mothers themselves using such expressions in casual and otherwise wholesome conversations in front of their children and in public. Women, in their push for equality, it seems, feel that the use of such language is one way of being equal.

Perhaps my mother’s early efforts contribute to my reaction to the now so commonly heard, “Oh My God.” My involuntary reaction to hearing this phrase, especially from unexpected sources, is similar to the chills that run up my spine when a student playfully causes hard chalk to screech on the chalk board. The popular TV program, “Extreme Makeover, Home Edition,” serves as an example. For me, a very fine program that encourages the Biblical concept of helping the less fortunate is ruined by the frequent and, I fear, deliberate use of the “Oh My God” phrase. The frequency suggests that these people must be coached to use this expression. I have renamed this show “The OMG Show” and avoid viewing it. I am startled, shocked, to hear this expression freely flowing from unexpected sources such as the tongues of “ladies”, mothers, teachers. 

In bygone days this type of language was commonly heard from the worldly, those who were not making any effort to be God’s people. It is shocking to hear it in casual conversation among parents, teachers and church leaders. Recently, individual articles in religious journals as well as a couple of special issues (See Gospel Herald, March 2010 – God the Father for one) have highlighted the greatness of God and the importance of giving Him due respect. Similar emphasis has been noted in recent worship service themes. The contrast between these and what is being heard in daily conversation has prompted me to compose this article on a topic that has been on my mind for a long time.

It is clear that God’s names have always borne special significance and that He has expected such to be recognized by those who would please Him. This should not surprise us. Our own names are important to us. We are pleased and complimented when people remember our names and use them in addressing us and when they, in general, show respect for our names. The opposite is also true. We are demeaned and displeased if our names are used in careless and disrespectful ways.

An interesting item entitled “Blasphemers of Ireland Beware” appeared in the January 18^th edition of MacLean’s Magazine. It begins, “Be careful how you invoke the name of god . . . any god . . . in Ireland.” and tells us of legislation which bans the publication of material, “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” Surely the names of God and Jesus Christ should be held sacred by all Christians.

Ireland’s 1937 constitution already outlawed blasphemy. Its 1961 Defamation Act included the possibility of both a fine and up to seven years in prison. These laws recognize, in fact, require that language usage show respect for what others hold sacred. They are primarily geared to avoid our offending each other. This reminds us of the workmen who adjust their speech when their minister drops by. They may be concerned about offending his sensitivities or, perhaps, more about hiding their true character from him. Being careful not to offend others is important but how much more careful ought we to be not to offend almighty God by our careless, casual and disrespectful use of His name? We cannot hide our true character from Him.

Number three of the Ten Commandments reads, “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Ex.20:7 NRSV). An online Reader’s Digest service has an item entitle, “If God Had Texted the Ten Commandments” that the reader will find interesting. For number three we find “no omg’s”. When Ezra led the people of Israel in national confession, he instructed them to stand up and “bless the Lord our God” and declared, “Blessed be your name, and may it be exalted above all blessing and praise.” (Neh.9:5) 

The title of this article is the words used by Jesus in the beginning of the “model prayer”, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .” (Mt.6:9). We often include this or similar phrases in our prayers. These are “empty words” if we do not show respect for God’s name in our everyday communications. We sing hymns such as, “We Trust in the Name of the Lord our God,” “Glorify the Lord” and “Exalt His Holy Name.” Do we mean what we sing and pray?

There was a time when God’s name was held so holy by the Hebrew people that they were afraid to speak it. The scribes, whose occupation was to hand copy the scriptures would stop copying and ritually purify themselves with water before transcribing God’s names. (You are encouraged to google “scribes, God’s names” and read more about the extremes to which the scribes were required to go when transcribing God’s names.) How would one of them react to the casual ways that His name is used today by many? How, indeed, does God feel about this?

To those whose response to these comments is, “God knows that I don’t mean any disrespect,” we ask, “What do you mean? Using the name of God as an exclamation (punctuation point) in a slang way has meaning or does not have meaning. If it has meaning, it is disrespectful to God and His people. If it does not have meaning, it is being used in a vain, empty way which cannot be pleasing to God.

The Psalmist, after declaring several verses expressing praise for God’s wonderful works, concluded, “Holy and awesome is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practise it have a good understanding.” (Ps.111:9,10) 

Let us demonstrate at least “the beginning of wisdom” and some “good understanding” in the use of the name of our Holy God. We fear that the casual way that we vocalize God’s name in our culture is evidence of a growing disrespect for God Himself and hence in the way we respond to His word and apply it in our daily living.

Let us show a very high respect for God, His name and His word.

Eugene C. Perry

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

Be a victor, not a victim by Gary Rose

Kids can be cruel. Fact is, the playground can be a rough place. "Kidding" can go too far and wind up hurting someone. Words can hurt as much as a thrown stone, with longer lasting effects. Why? Because human beings tend to believe what is said to them is the truth.

How do we know the truth?  In a word, Jesus. So, listen up...

John, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 ⁴⁸  He who rejects me, and doesn’t receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke will judge him in the last day.   ⁴⁹  For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.   ⁵⁰  I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.” 

Religiously, we all tend to think we are right and if someone disagrees with us, then THEY ARE WRONG. How do we know truth from error? Again, in a word- JESUS. Jesus' words are the standard of truth. Why? Because God, the father, sent him to tell us the truth and if don't listen, we will be judged. Call yourself a Christian? Then, do what Jesus tells you to do. So simple, but people miss it all the time. I hope that you don't!!!