12/9/16

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Beware Of Leaven (16:5-12) by Mark Copeland

                        "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

                       Beware Of Leaven (16:5-12)

INTRODUCTION

1. In the course of His public ministry, Jesus was often challenged by
   the Pharisees, along with the Sadducees...
   a. They questioned why He ate with sinners - Mt 9:11
   b. They accused His disciples of breaking the Sabbath - Mt 12:1-2
   c. They accused His disciples of violating the traditions of the
      elders - Mt 15:1-2
   d. They sought to test Him by asking for a sign - Mt 16:1

2. Jesus therefore warned His disciples concerning these religious
   leaders...
   a. They were "blind leaders of the blind" - Mt 15:12-14
   b. The disciples were to beware of their doctrine - Mt 16:5-12

3. Jesus described their doctrine as "leaven" (yeast)...
   a. Used in the making of bread, leaven gradually spreads through
      the dough, making it rise
   b. Jesus used the figure of leaven to describe the spread of His
      kingdom - Mt 13:33
   c. But in Mt 16:6, He uses it to depict the pernicious doctrines of
      the Pharisees and Sadducees - Mt 16:11-12

[What were the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus
warned about?  Are there modern Pharisees and Sadducees that we should
beware of today?  To answer these questions, let's begin by taking a
look at...]

I. THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES

   A. THE PHARISEES IN JESUS' DAY...
      1. A religious and political group noted for its conservatism
         a. They were strict observers of the Law of Moses
         b. They also adopted "the traditions of the elders", 
            interpretations of the Law that had been handed down 
            - cf. Mk 7:1-5
      2. Jesus described them as "blind leaders of the blind" - Mt 15:
         12-14
         a. They made the commandments of God of no effect by their
            traditions - Mt 15:3-6
         b. They were hypocrites, teaching one thing and practicing
            another - Mt 15:7-8; 16:3; 23:1-4, 27-28; cf. Lk 12:1
         c. They did their works to be seen of men - Mt 23:5
         d. They loved the attention and special treatment by others 
            - Mt 23:6-7
         d. They wore religious titles - Mt 23:8-10
         e. They prevented others from finding the way to the kingdom
            of heaven - Mt 23:13
         f. They used their religion to make money and impress others
            - Mt 23:14
         g. They didn't make people better, they made them worse! - Mt23:15
         h. They made distinctions where God did not - Mt 23:16-22
         i. Though sticklers for some commandments, they ignored others
            - Mt 23:23-24
         j. They honored men of God who went before them, but were more
            like those who persecuted the people of God - Mt 23:29-31

   B. PHARISEES IN OUR DAY...
      1. Many people accuse those who stress the keeping of God's 
         commands as legalists, and therefore "Pharisees" today - but 
         consider:
         a. The words legalism, legalist, are not found in the 
            Scriptures - they are labels often used to defame those who
            seek to encourage the keeping of God's commands
         b. Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for strict adherence to
            the Law itself
            1) Only for making the commands of God of no effect by 
               their traditions!
            2) Only for leaving some commands of God undone while doing
               others!
         c. If calling for strict observance of God's commandments 
            makes one a legalist, then Jesus was a legalist!
            1) While the Law was in force, He expected it to be taught
               and observed down to its smallest detail - Mt 5:17-19
            2) He expected His disciples to surpass the Pharisees in
               their righteousness - Mt 5:20
            3) He called for His disciples to express their love for
               Him by keeping His commandments - Jn 14:15,21,23
            4) He promised His love and friendship to those who would
               keep His commandments - Jn 15:10,14
            5) He expected disciples from all nations to observe 
               whatever He commanded His apostles - Mt 28:19-20
         d. If calling for strict observance of God's commandments
            makes one a legalist, then the apostles were legalists!
            1) Paul stressed the keeping of commandments - 1Co 7:19;
               1Th 4:1-2
            2) John stressed the keeping of commandments - 1Jn 2:3-5;
               3:22-24; 5:2-3
      2. The true Pharisees today are those who:
         a. Teach and practice traditions of men, instead of the 
            commands of God
         b. Teach one thing, while practicing another
         c. Do things to be seen of men, wearing special garments and
            asking to be called by religious titles
         d. Do not truly show people the way to the kingdom of heaven
         e. Use religion to make money and impress others
         f. Make distinctions where God has made none
         g. Stress some commands, but neglect others as unnecessary

[Such are the Pharisees of today, who often condemn others as
"legalists" (as a way to deflect the charge that their lives and 
teachings are contrary to the commandments of our Lord).

Now let's take a look at...]

II. THE LEAVEN OF THE SADDUCEES

   A. THE SADDUCEES IN JESUS' DAY...
      1. A religious and political group noted for its liberalism
         a. Included many powerful members of the priesthood - Ac 5:17
         b. They insisted only the laws found in the Pentateuch (first
            five books of the OT) were binding
         c. They rejected "the traditions of the elders", 
            interpretations of the Law that had been handed down
         d. They did not believe in the resurrection, spirits, angels 
            - Ac 23:8; Mt 22:23
         e. They did not believe in rewards or punishment after death,
            nor in heaven or hell
      2. Jesus charged them with two faults - Mt 22:23-29
         a. They did not know the Scriptures
            1) Even those scriptures they held to be true!
            2) For Jesus used a statement in the Pentateuch to show
               their error - Mt 22:31-32; Exo 3:6
         b. They did not know the power of God
            1) Like many liberals, they were influenced by rationalism
            2) They assumed that if they could not conceive or 
               comprehend something, it could not be
            3) They failed to believe what Gabriel and Jesus both knew:
               that with God, nothing is impossible! - Lk 1:37; 
               Mt 19:26

   B. SADDUCEES IN OUR DAY...
      1. Those who take some portions of God's word, but reject the 
         rest; such as:
         a. Those who heed only the "red-letter" words of Jesus
         b. Those who will accept the words of Jesus, but not His 
            apostles
         c. Those who accept the words of His apostles, but hold that
            all of Jesus' teachings in the gospels are Old Covenant 
            teaching
         -- The apostles' words are just as authoritative (Jn 13:10;
            Ac 2:42; 1Co 14:37), and so were the words of Jesus 
            spoken during His earthly ministry (Mt 28:20; Ac 20:35;
            1Ti 5:18b; Lk 10:7)
      2. Those who accept human reason over divine revelation
         a. Many will not accept a Biblical doctrine unless it "makes 
            sense" to them
         b. A dangerous position to hold, since God has chosen to 
            confound the wise and arrogant with the foolishness of the
            gospel message - cf. 1Co 1:18-31
         c. Some doctrines revealed may contain elements beyond man's
            ability to fully comprehend (such as the mystery of 
            godliness:  God manifested in the flesh - 1Ti 3:16; or the
            nature of the Godhead itself)
         -- A child-like trust is more becoming of a Christian - cf. 
            Mt 18:3; Ps 131:1-3
      3. Those who rule out the power of God
         a. Who reject any doctrine, any promise, of the Scriptures if
            conceived as not being physically possible
         b. Such as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, the
            miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead
         -- Once we accept the premise that with God all things are
            possible, we cannot reject Biblical testimony or doctrine
            just because it does not fit our preconceived ideas of what
            is possible

CONCLUSION

1. Is there a need to "Beware Of Leaven" today?
   a. Are there modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees?
   b. Are there doctrines that can permeate and spread through the 
      Lord's church like leaven?

2. The answer to such questions is a resounding "Yes!"
   a. Such doctrines abound in the denominational world around us
   b. Much error that makes its way into the church usually falls into
      one of two categories:
      1) Traditions of men proclaimed as doctrines (like the Pharisees)
      2) Doctrines of the Bible rejected as impossible (like the
         Sadducees)

And so the warning by Jesus is just as great today:

 "...beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Mt 16:11)
 

"THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW" Blind Leaders Of The Blind (15:12-14) by Mark Copeland

                        "THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW"

                 Blind Leaders Of The Blind (15:12-14)

INTRODUCTION

1. Who can you trust regarding religious matters today?
   a. Many people trust their preacher, priest, or pastor
   b. They assume that "a man of God" must be trustworthy

2. Yet the Bible does not always speak highly of religious leaders...
   a. Paul warned about "savage wolves" not sparing the flock of God
      - Ac 20:29-30
   b. Peter wrote of "false teachers" bringing in destructive heresies
      - 2Pe 2:1-2
   -- Such men would knowingly destroy the people of God

3. Not all those who mislead do so knowingly...
   a. Jesus told His disciples about "blind leaders of the blind"
      - Mt 15:12-14
   b. Being "blind" themselves, they may not be aware of how they
      mislead others

4. The end result is still the same, however...
   a. Those misled still "fall into the ditch" and are destroyed -
      Mt15:14; Isa 9:16
   b. Whether led by a "false teacher", or by a "blind leader"

5. That we ourselves might not blindly follow a blind leader...
   a. What are some of the characteristics of a blind leader?
   b. How can we be sure not to be misled by a blind leader?
   -- These are the questions we hope to answer in this study

[While Peter had much to say about false teachers (cf. 2Pe 2), Jesus
had much to say about blind leaders...]

I. CHARACTERISTICS OF A BLIND LEADER

   A. HOLDING TO THE TRADITIONS OF MEN...
      1. This was the case of the Pharisees in Mt 15
      2. They were willing to put their traditions above God's word 
         - Mt 15:3,6,9
      3. Blind leaders today will do the same
         a. Teaching as doctrine their traditions
         b. Not knowing that what they teach comes from man, not God

   B. MAKING DISTINCTIONS WHERE GOD HAS MADE NONE...
      1. This was the case of the Pharisees in Mt 23, where they are
         called "blind" five times
      2. They made fine distinctions between the types of oaths one
         could swear - Mt 23:16-22
      3. Blind leaders will often do the same today
         a. Making fine distinctions so that one need not keep God's
            word
         b. Saying some commands of God are essential to salvation, and
            others not

   C. LEAVING COMMANDS OF GOD UNDONE...
      1. Again, the Pharisees were guilty of this, for which they were
         called "blind guides"
      2. They left undone the "weightier" matters of God's law - Mt 23:
         23-24
         a. They stressed tithing, but neglected justice, mercy, faith
         b. Thus they would strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel
      3. Blind leaders today often do the same, but in reverse...
         a. They are quick to stress the "weightier" matters, and leave
            what they consider the "lighter" things undone
         b. But Jesus said we should do both, leaving neither undone!

   D. FOCUSING ONLY ON THE OUTER MAN...
      1. The "blind Pharisee" worked only on the outside - Mt 23:25-28
         a. Concerned with keeping the traditions of ritual cleansing
         b. Willing to put up with extortion, self-indulgence,
            hypocrisy and lawlessness
      2. Today, blind leaders are happy with the appearance of 
         success...
         a. Big buildings, large crowds
         b. Accepting people into the church without challenging them
            to true repentance

   E. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS...
      1. From this passage (Mt 23) in which Jesus assails the 
         Pharisees, we glean some other characteristics of those who
         were blind leaders
      2. Summarizing these quickly...
         a. They say and do not, binding heavy burdens on others - Mt23:1-4
         b. They do their works to be seen of men - Mt 23:5
         c. They love the attention and special treatment by others 
            - Mt 23:6-7
         d. They wear religious titles, though Jesus condemned it - Mt23:8-10
         e. They fail to truly show the way to the kingdom of heaven 
            - Mt 23:13
         f. They use their religion to make money and impress others 
            - Mt 23:14
         g. They don't make people better, they make them worse! - Mt23:15
         h. They honor the men of God who went before them, but are
            more like those who persecuted the people of God - Mt 23:
            29-31

[Sadly, this sounds like many religious leaders today, especially some
on TV!  If we are not careful, we can easily be led astray by them.  
This leads to our next point...]

II. HOW NOT TO BE MISLED BY BLIND LEADERS

   A. LISTEN TO THEM CAREFULLY...
      1. We need to have the same attitude as the Bereans - Ac 17:11
         a. When Paul came to town, they "received the word with all
            readiness"
         b. This describes how they listened to Paul - paying close
            attention to the things he was teaching
      2. We must first give all teachers a fair and careful hearing
         a. Seek to understand exactly what they are saying
         b. It requires that we be good listeners
      -- Many are misled because they have never learned to listen
         carefully to what is being taught them! (How well do you
         listen?)

   B. SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES DAILY...
      1. This was another noble quality of the Bereans - Ac 17:11
         a. Having listened carefully, they then went home and compared
            what Paul said to the Scriptures
         b. They did not simply accept whatever Paul said
      2. Unfortunately, many today are Biblically illiterate...
         a. They do not follow along in their Bibles when someone is
            teaching or preaching
         b. They do not read their Bibles daily
      -- Failure to do these things leaves one in a blind condition,
         unable to discern what is the word of God, or some teaching
         and tradition of man!

CONCLUSION

1. What will be the end of blind leaders, and those who follow them?
   a. Like plants, they will be "uprooted" by the Heavenly Father - Mt 15:13
   b. Together they will both "fall into a ditch" - Mt 15:14
   c. Though very religious, thinking that they serve the Lord, Jesus
      will tell them:  "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who
      practice lawlessness!" - cf. Mt 7:21-23

2. Who are to blame, if people are misled by blind leaders?
   a. The blind leader will be held accountable, but not totally
   a. If people are blind, it is only because they have closed their
      own eyes - Mt 13:15

May the example of the Bereans remind us of what is necessary not to be
misled by blind leaders, and may we so see and hear that what Jesus
said will be true of us:

   "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they
   hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous
   men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear
   what you hear, and did not hear it."  (Mt 13:16-17)
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Jehoiachin, the Bible, and Archaeology by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1406

Jehoiachin, the Bible, and Archaeology

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For centuries, God had warned the sinful nation of Judah to turn from its wicked, idolatrous ways. Judah refused, and strayed farther from the true God. Due to Judah’s immoral, rebellious behavior, God sent His prophets to foretell the nation’s destruction and exile at the hands of the Babylonians. Just as God had predicted, the Babylonians crushed the forces of Judah and took them into exile.
The ruling king of Judah at the time of the Babylonian invasion was an 18-year-old young man named Jehoiachin. His brief reign of three months is chronicled in 2 Kings 24:12-15. The text states that he did evil in the sight of the Lord and that the Babylonian king (Nebuchadnezzar) came against the capital city of Jerusalem and besieged it. In response to this siege, the text states: “Then Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his servants, his princes, and his officers went out to the king of Babylon; and the king of Babylon, in the eighth year of his reign, took him prisoner” (2 Kings 24:12).
Jehoiachin’s miserable state of affairs lasted over thirty years, throughout the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, when Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he took pity on Jehoiachin and released him from prison. The biblical text mentions that the Babylonian king “spoke kindly” to Jehoiachin, and “gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon” (2 Kings 25:28). In addition to releasing him from prison, the Bible says that Evil-Merodach gave Jehoiachin a set amount of provisions: “And as for his provisions, there was a regular ration given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life” (2 Kings 25:30).
These rations given to Jehoiachin have become increasingly important in light of an interesting archaeological discovery. Several administrative documents have been found in ancient Babylon that record events and transactions that took place during the reign of Evil-Merodach. These documents were preserved on clay cuneiform tablets, of which many have been found broken into several pieces. Jehoiachin’s name, however, is clearly legible on the tablets. Not only is he mentioned, but documentation for an allotment of grain, oil, and foodstuffs also is also provided. Alfred J. Hoerth mentions the find in his book Archaeology and the Old Testament and includes a picture of the cuneiform tablet that mentions Jehoiachin (1998, pp. 378-379).
The significance of this find is not lost on the observant reader. The Bible mentions Jehoichin’s captivity and subsequent elevation and daily rations at the hand of Evil-Merodach. The secular record uncovered in the ruins of ancient Babylon verifies the facts to an exacting degree. Biblical accuracy is unparalleled by any ancient or modern book in existence. Only due to the superintending of a divine hand could a book as extensive, exhaustive, and historically infallible as the Bible have been produced.

REFERENCES

Hoerth, Alfred J. (1998), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

God’s Ceramics Are More Than Pottery by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1234

God’s Ceramics Are More Than Pottery

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Scientists all over the world are constantly looking for better materials with which to build things. Companies need stronger metals, more flexible nylon, and tougher fabrics. This intense demand for better “building blocks” often makes it difficult for scientists to originate new ideas fast enough to keep pace. One approach that has greatly enhanced scientists’ ability to supply fresh, practical ideas has been to turn to nature and copy the structures found there. Copying design in nature has become so prevalent that the scientific community has named the field of study “biomimicry.” From the research done in this field, it has become obvious that nature’s Designer is possessed of far more creative ability than anything humanity has been able to produce.
Specific examples of excellent design in nature abound. In an article for Technology Review, Katherine Bourzac recently detailed one such example. In her article, titled “Ceramics That Won’t Shatter,” she mentioned the challenge that materials scientists face when working with ceramics. Ceramics can be an excellent construction material since they are hard and lightweight. One major drawback of using ceramics, however, is the fact that they fracture and break, much like a flower pot or dinner plate. Bourzac summarized this difficulty by saying that scientists are trying to find ceramics “that combine strength (a measure of resistance to deformation) with toughness (a measure of resistance to fracture)” (2008). Interestingly, researchers have discovered exactly what they are looking for in “the porous but resilient material called nacre that lines abalone shells.”
Bourzac explained the marvelous design of nacre, also known as mother-of-pearl. It is a combination of calcium carbonate, which breaks very easily, and special natural glue. Combined, these two substances are “3,000 times tougher than either constituent.” The efficiency of this composite material is amazing. Robert Ritchie, a scientist from the University of California who co-led the research and development of the new biomimetic ceramic, said: “When nature makes composites, the properties are better” (as quoted in Bourzac). The list of possible applications for the new ceramic is virtually endless. The new material could be used to make lightweight automobile frames, airplane hulls, bulletproof vests, and military vehicle armor.
Ritchie and his team are still working to perfect the new ceramic that is based on the natural mother-of-pearl structure. He noted that in nature, the ceramic has structures that are “smaller and closer together,” qualities that the team hopes to mimic in newer versions of their ceramic. The researchers are optimistically hopeful that they can come even closer to designing a ceramic that can be mass-produced, and that combines the strength and toughness of the natural material.
While the discovery of a new, efficient ceramic is interesting, it pales to insignificance in light of the necessary implication that should be drawn from such a discovery. If brilliant scientists have only recently discovered this technological wonder of the natural world, and they cannot mimic the structure as effectively as nature constructs it, then it must be admitted by the honest observer that nature’s Designer possesses superior mental abilities to those of the scientists. And yet, as clear and straightforward as this implication is, millions of people will utilize technology based on God’s original designs, but claim that random, chance processes of evolution should be given the credit.
In the Old Testament book of Job, the Bible records one of the most interesting verbal exchanges in all of human history (chapters 38-42). Job wanted an answer from God about why he was suffering. God spoke to Job with a series of questions that Job could not possibly answer. God asked where was Job when God hung the foundation of the world on nothing (38:4)? Could Job command the morning to occur or cause the dawn to break (38:12)? Could Job count the clouds (38:37) or cause the hawk to fly (39:26)? After God’s intense questioning, Job realized that he could not begin to answer God’s questions, much less possess the power to accomplish the things that are necessary for the Universe to continue to exist. Job responded to God by saying: “I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.... Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me which I did not know” (42:2-3, emp. added). We in the 21st century would do well to learn from Job’s wise response. The fact that we are just now scratching the surface of the technology found in a “simple” abalone shell should force us to humble ourselves and worship nature’s divine Designer.

REFERENCE

Bourzac, Katherine (2008), “Ceramics That Won’t Shatter,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21767/?nlid=1561&a=f.

Elders, Deacons, Timothy, and Wine by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1208

Elders, Deacons, Timothy, and Wine

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Paul’s instructions pertaining to the qualifications of elders and deacons have created misunderstanding regarding the use of alcoholic beverages. Elders are not to be “given to wine” (1 Timothy 3:3), while deacons are not to be “given to much wine” (1 Timothy 3:8). Translations further obscure the matter by their variety of terminology. The ASV has “no brawler” (vs. 3) and “not given to much wine” (vs. 8). The NIV has “not given to much wine” (vs. 3) and “not indulging in much wine” (vs. 8). The NASB has “not addicted to wine” (vs. 3) and “not addicted to much wine” (vs. 8). So the question is: does 1 Timothy 3:8 sanction moderate alcohol use?
The phrase in verse three consists of two Greek words (me paroinos) and, literally translated, means “not beside, by, or at wine” (Vine, 1966, p. 146; Robertson, 1934, p. 613). The phrase is enjoining abstinence, and perhaps even the act of situating oneself in the presence of people and places where the consumption of alcoholic beverages is occurring. The ASV translated the expression “brawler” to emphasize the violent behavior that proceeds from the use of alcohol. Calling for elders to be abstinent is consistent with other terms used in the same listing: nephalion (1 Timothy 3:2)—“free from intoxicants” and “abstinent in respect to wine” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 284), and sophrona (Titus 1:8)—“of a sound mind, temperate” (Perschbacher, p. 400), “soberminded” (Moulton and Milligan, 1930, p. 622), “self-controlled” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 810). Elders must refrain from the use of intoxicants, and they must not associate with places and people who do use them.
In verse eight, the four words used to qualify deacons on this point (me oino pollo prosechontas) are literally translated “not wine much occupied with” (cf. Perschbacher, p. 352; Spain, 1970, p. 64). Does the use of the word “much” mean that deacons may imbibe a moderate amount of wine? At least three alternative interpretations are possible.
First, when Solomon said, “Do not be overly wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17—NKJV [“overwicked”—NIV; “overmuch wicked”—ASV]), did he mean to imply that a person can, with God’s approval, be moderately wicked? When Peter noted that pagans do not understand why Christians do not engage in the “same excess of riot” (1 Peter 4:4), did he mean moderate rioting was appropriate? In other words, language can forthrightly condemn an excessive indulgence or great amount of an action without implying that the action is permissible in a lesser amount or to a lesser degree. One cannot assume that what is unlawful in excess is lawful in smaller amounts. We can refer to a person’s frequent involvement in a certain activity (e.g., adultery) without intending to leave the impression that a more moderate participation in the action would be proper. Albert Barnes addressed this point succinctly:
It is not affirmed that it would be proper for the deacon, any more than the bishop, to indulge in the use of wine in small quantities, but it is affirmed that a man who is much given to the use of wine ought not, on any consideration, to be a deacon (1977, p. 148).
The word in verse eight translated “given to” (KJV, NKJV, ASV), or “indulging in” (NIV), or “addicted to” (RSV), is prosecho. It is used elsewhere in 1 Timothy (1:4) and in Titus (1:14) to refer to those who “give heed to” (KJV), or “occupy themselves with” (RSV), or “pay attention to” (NASB) Jewish myths. Who would draw the conclusion that Paul intended to encourage Christians to give some attention to Jewish myths, just not too much attention?
Consequently, Paul was spotlighting an individual who is known for drinking freely of alcoholic beverages. He was saying that no such person should be put into the eldership. A parallel would be to make an observation about a person who carouses and parties every night—“do not put such a man into the eldership!” But the speaker hardly would mean that one who parties less frequently, say on weekends only, would be acceptable. Paul no more intended to suggest that leaders in the church who use small amounts of alcohol are suited to their role than Mosaic law would have permitted priests to do so (Leviticus 10:9). Barnes commented: “The way in which the apostle mentions the subject here would lead us fairly to suppose that he did not mean to commend its use in any sense” (1977, p. 144).
A second possibility is that the terminology that Paul used was a loose form of speech (Bacchiocchi, 1989, p. 250). Both Greek and Hebrew manifest such tendencies. For example, “three days and three nights” was a loose form of speech used in antiquity to refer to two days and a portion of a third (Bullinger, 1898, pp. 845-847; Robertson, 1922, pp. 289-291). Later in the same letter, Paul instructed Timothy to “use a little wine” for his stomach and infirmities (5:23). It is not a foregone conclusion that the “wine” Paul commended to Timothy was inebriating, since evidence from antiquity exists to suggest that he was referring to the addition of grape juice to Timothy’s drinking water for medicinal purposes (see Lees, 1870, p. 374). Even if, however, Paul meant for Timothy to add fermented (i.e., intoxicating) juice to his diet, he nevertheless implied: (1) that Timothy had been abstinent up to that point; (2) that the quantity he was now to add to his diet was to be “a little”; (3) that the juice was to be diluted with water; (4) that its use was strictly medicinal in nature—not social, casual, or recreational; and (5) that it took the directive of an apostle for Timothy to introduce its use into his life and body. [Incidentally, one must not automatically assume that it was the wine that possessed medicinal properties. The wine may have simply been the antiseptic means to purify the polluted water that Timothy had been drinking by killing germs and bacterial organisms, thereby reducing their ill effect on Timothy’s fragile stomach—in which case, Paul was not commending wine; he was commending a method for cleansing contaminated water]. If Paul sanctioned the use of alcohol only on the qualifications that it was in small quantities, and that it was for medicinal purposes, why would he then turn right around and sanction deacons drinking alcohol in larger amounts—avoiding only excess?
The inconsistency of this viewpoint becomes exceedingly apparent when one compares Paul’s instructions to different Christians:
Elders (1 Timothy 3:2-3)—abstain (nephalios); don’t even be near it (me paroinon)
Deacons (1 Timothy 3:8)—drink moderately (me oino pollo)
Wives (1 Timothy 3:11)—abstain (nephalious)
Aged men (Titus 2:2)—abstain (nephalious)
Aged women (Titus 2:3)—drink moderately (me oino pollo)
In view of these inconsistencies, “much wine” must be a loose form of speech intended to express complete restraint in the use of wine.
A third possible interpretation of this verse concerns the meaning of the term “wine.” Unlike the English word (which always connotes an alcoholic beverage), the Greek word oinos is a generic term that includes all forms of the grape (cf. Lees, 1870, pp. 431ff.). The term oinos was used by the Greeks to refer to unfermented grape juice every bit as much as fermented juice. Consequently, the interpreter must examine the biblical context in order to determine whether fermented or unfermented liquid is intended. In light of this realization, some have suggested that Paul instructed the elders to refrain completely from alcoholic beverages, while deacons, on the other hand, were being instructed to engage in a moderate use of nonalcoholic grape juice. At least three lines of argumentation are evident for this interpretation.
First, in the Old Testament, the generic Hebrew term that is equivalent to oinos is yayin. Some passages praise the ingestion of yayin (Song of Solomon 5:1; Psalm 104:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7), while others condemn it (Proverbs 20:1; 31:4). The only plausible explanation is that the former is a reference to grape juice, while the latter is a reference to grape juice that has been transformed into an alcoholic beverage.
Second, only in Timothy and Titus is the word “much” used—as if the secret to pleasing God lies in the quantity of liquid ingested. If fermented juice were intended, the same distinction surely would have been made in the Old Testament. No such distinction is made. But if nonalcoholic grape juice is intended in Timothy and Titus, the intent of the qualification shifts from the level of intoxication to the matter of liquid gluttony. In that case, Paul intended to require moderation in the intake of nonalcoholic liquids.
Third, biblical warnings against the excessive intake of food and liquid are legion (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:20; 1 Corinthians 11:21-22; Titus 1:12). Solomon even applied the principle to honey (Proverbs 25:27). To understand Paul to be enjoining moderate use of a good gift from God (i.e., grape juice) is consistent with the context that is riddled with references to self-control, temperance, and moderation (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:2,11). It also fits the social conditions extant in Greco-Roman culture in which intemperance was rampant.
In addition to the above considerations, one must keep in mind that even if it could be proved that God sanctioned moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages in the Bible, it does not follow that God sanctions drinking modern “wine,” since the wine referred to in the Bible was unlike the wine of our day. Wine in antiquity was far less potent. One would have had to ingest large quantities in order to receive even minimal alcoholic content. The ancients typically had to add drugs to their drinks to increase their intoxicating potency. In light of all these considerations, the view that maintains that deacons may drink moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages is precarious, dangerous, and biblically unsubstantiated.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bacchiocchi, Samuele (1989), Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives).
Barnes, Albert (1977 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Lees, Frederic R. (1870), The Temperance Bible-Commentary (New York: Weed, Parsons, and Co.).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint).
Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Spain, Carl (1970), The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

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


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=862

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.

Combating Evolution Education by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1616

Combating Evolution Education

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

There is no doubt that for several years, there has been a battle being waged for the minds of the young people of this nation with regard to the matter of origins. Will they accept the atheistic General Theory of Evolution or believe in the Creation account as detailed in Genesis chapter one? Or will they compromise between the two? Or just try to ignore the debate and stick their head in the sand? The side that each person chooses to take in the debate could have long-lasting ramifications for them and the next generation. The atheistic choice will send them to hell, and affect the lives of all whom they influence along the way. The approach of compromise leads to an interpretation of the Bible which pits it against itself and has the potential of watering down a person’s view of a host of biblical doctrines—all ultimately boiling down to a lack of faith in “God said.” The apathetic, ostrich-like approach boils down to a person sitting on the sideline while the forces of Satan flood society uncontested. And yet Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
In light of ongoing debate over teaching the General Theory of Evolution in various public school systems, which we have been documenting for several years (e.g., Warren, 2011; Brooks, 2011; Deweese and Brooks, 2009), some have rightly asked what Christians can do to combat the forces of pseudoscience in this critical area. This question has compelled us to give a few suggestions to that end.
  1. Encourage individuals in your church/community to run for office where they can make a difference. Sheila Butt, mother of our very own Kyle Butt, was elected to office in Tennessee where she serves as a state representative. She is, therefore, in a position of potentially significant influence in this debate.
  2. Flood decision makers with letters from people all over your area expressing your opinions on the matter. Contact other churches to assist in a concerted effort to that end. Perhaps write several versions of letters that can be used in bulk so that people will be more likely to send them in. The more letters that lawmakers receive every day, the more likely they will feel pressure to hear our voices. Try sending DVDs of our Truth Be Told and Silencing of God seminars and related books (see http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=101; http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=97; http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=421; http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=49; http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=51). Books, especially, are hard for any of us to throw away.
  3. Get the local media involved. We all know how much the politicians are affected by the media.
  4. Host Creation/Evolution, as well as Silencing of God seminars all over the state and publicize them heavily (see http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/Seminar_flyers/APSeminarList4Speakers.pdf). I recently spoke in South Carolina, where the hosting congregation used highway billboards to advertise the seminar. In fact, they spent several thousand dollars in advertising the event, including saturating their area with postcards and radio spots about the seminar. If local churches come together to host a seminar, more money could be pooled for advertising.
  5. Engage in consistent, fervent prayer. Host weekly Tuesday night or Thursday night prayer gatherings with Christians for the sole purpose of fighting the evolutionists’ agenda in the school system. Be sure to remember the coming elections in your prayers as well. God can easily raise up individuals who can make a significant difference in this fight if we have the zeal to plead with Him for assistance.
  6. Donate Creation/Evolution materials to local community and school libraries. If the next generation is taught the truth, the future will look much more promising. Hitler certainly championed effectiveness of indoctrinating youth with his agenda and such is the position of the homosexual community today, as well.
  7. Make sure that Christian public school teachers are equipped with materials to hand out to students who ask for information on the controversy (see http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1314).
  8. More prayer.
  9. Encourage everyone at your church (and others) not only to have a subscription to Christian evidences journals, such as our very own Reason and Revelation (for adults) and Discovery (for children), but to order subscriptions for friends, neighbors, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc. who could also benefit from the information. Some elderships have even chosen to purchase subscriptions to Discovery magazine for every young family in their congregation.
  10. Devote at least one quarter of Bible classes each year specifically on preparation to defend the truth (i.e., about the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, the importance of God in government and society, Creation/Evolution, etc.). The focus would be, not simply learning the material for themselves, but to prepare them to teach it to others. Perhaps even pair members of the congregation during the Bible class and have one person play the atheist and the other play the Christian to see if members are prepared to teach the truth at a moment’s notice—especially when caught without notes (cf., 1 Peter 3:15). Our Christian Evidences and Creation/Science bookmark reference cards would be beneficial for this option (see http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=281; http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=282).
  11. Encourage parents to consider homeschooling their children or sending them them to private Christian schools. Thousands of parents throughout the country have pulled their kids out of the public school system in order to ensure that their children are being trained in the way they should go—in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, rather than of monkeys. Some families simply cannot take advantage of this possibility (especially many single parent families). And some areas of the nation are handling the subject in an appropriate way, thus eliminating the necessity of this option. However, many areas have been so infiltrated by Satan’s forces that children are being adversely affected in ways that parents do not know and have not anticipated. Yet it is still their responsibility to train and nurture their children. All parents will be held accountable for rearing their children. It is not the duty of their teachers.
  12. Even more prayer. Encourage your church to set their phones to remind themselves to pray every two hours of every day.
  13. Encourage individuals and churches as possible to support A.P. financially on a monthly/yearly basis. Combating atheism, evolution, humanism, etc. is what we do, but as a non-profit organization that relies heavily on donations, we simply cannot do it without financial support. In spite of the state of the economy, our Web page had over 8.1 million hits last year from people in more than 180 countries. It is undeniable that your financial support will directly affect the lives of millions!
Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have other ideas that would be effective in combatting atheism and macroevolution (contact our offices at 334-272-8558 or e-mail us at mail@apologeticspress.org). As always, thank you for your interest in and support of Apologetics Press.

REFERENCES

Brooks, Will (2011), “Does Evolution Belong in Biomedical Curricula?” Reason & Revelation, 31[3]:18-20, March, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3796.
Deweese, Joe and Will Brooks (2009), “A Response to the 21st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education,” Reason & Revelation, 29[6]:41-47, February, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=610.
Warren, Jim (2011), “Hart Schools Chief: Evolution is Viewed as Fact in State Test,” Kentucky.Com: State, http://www.kentucky.com/2011/12/12/1992514/kentuckys-plan-for-biology-tests.html.

General Pace and General Washington by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=790

General Pace and General Washington

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—America’s top military figure—recently evoked a storm of angry protests from gay-rights advocates and liberal politicians (Jelinek, 2007). The reason? He made the following statement: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way” (Madhani, 2007).
General Pace is in good company. After all, when serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army. The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:
Courtesy Library of Congress: www.loc.gov
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George...,” underline in orig., emp. added).
Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes.” All General Pace said was that “we should not condone immoral acts”—and many want to hang him!
The nation continues its headlong plunge into the abyss of perversity, immorality, and degradation. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy implemented under the Clinton presidency would be viewed by the Founders of the Republic as a mockery of morality, decency, and military decorum. The Commander-in-Chief of America’s first military would be aghast if he were here today to witness the moral decline that has infiltrated the military and the nation. He was simply reflecting the nation’s commitment to the Christian moral framework on which the Republic was based. He embraced God’s own assessment of the sin of homosexuality: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...will inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

REFERENCES

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw110081)).
Jelinek, Pauline (2007), “No Apology From Gen. Pace for Gay Stance,” Fox News, March 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar14/0,4670,MilitaryGays,00.html.
Madhani, Aamer (2007), “Top General Calls Homosexuality ‘Immoral’,” Chicago Tribune, March 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070312pace,1,4954133.story? ctrack=1&cset=true.

What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=997&b=Acts

What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

As Saul journeyed toward Damascus in hopes of persecuting more followers of Jesus Christ, “suddenly a light shone around him from heaven” (Acts 9:3). Saul “fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ Then the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting’” (9:4-5). Interestingly, Luke, the penmen of Acts, records how those who journeyed with Saul, “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no one” (9:7, emp. added). Critics of the Bible’s divine inspiration allege, however, that Saul contradicted Luke when he recounted these events in Jerusalem years later. As Saul (whose name by that time had been changed to Paul) gave his defense before the Jewish mob, he mentioned that “those who were with me indeed saw the lightbut they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me” (22:9, emp. added). Skeptics contend that Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are contradictory. After all, how could Saul’s companions hear but not hear, and see but not see?
The fact is, whether skeptics want to admit it or not, people regularly (and honestly) talk of “seeing” and “not seeing,” as well as “hearing” and “not hearing”—even in reference to the same things at the same time. The justifiable difference, however, is in the sense in which the words are used. A man with rather poor vision and without glasses may not be able to “see anything.” But the same man with the same blurry vision may technically be able to “see something.” He can see light and darkness. He can see the blue sky. He can see fuzzy figures. He might even be able to read a document held close to his eyes. But could he make out a person’s face from 15 feet away? Could he effectively work as a night watchman? Could he safely drive a car? Certainly not with, say, 20/80 vision. Thus, in one sense the man can “see,” while in another sense “he’s blind.” Likewise, those accompanying Saul to Damascus “saw the light” (Acts 22:9), but they saw “no one” (9:7).
But what about Luke and Saul’s different details regarding what the men heard? Did they stand speechless, “hearing (akouo) a voice” (9:7) as Luke recorded, or did they “not hear (akouo) the voice of Him who spoke,” as Paul informed the Jerusalem mob in Acts 22:9? If it could be proven that the Bible writers never used words figuratively and/or in different senses, then skeptics would certainly have a valid criticism. But as we’ve already seen, and as could be pointed out throughout Scripture (e.g., two different uses of the word “day” in one verse in Genesis—1:5), the Bible writers (and those whom they quoted) often used words in a variety of ways—just as mankind has for millennia. A husband may “hear” everything his wife says, but really not “hear” anything she says. A distracted high school student can “hear” everything his algebra teacher has taught during a given class period. But how will he answer his mother that evening when she sees him struggling with simple algebra equations and asks, “Did you not hear anything your teacher said today?” In a strictly literal sense, he could say, “I heard every word my teach said.” However, in an appropriate, but figurative sense, he could say, “I didn’t hear anything she said.”
Interestingly, Jesus once spoke of those who, “seeing (blepo) they do not see (blepo), and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniemi)” (Matthew 13:13). To whom was Jesus referring? Those individuals who could literally see and hear Him, but who did not understand Him—they did not see and hear Him in the deeper, more meaningful way that He desired. Of particular interest is the fact that Jesus used the Greek terms for seeing and hearing in different senses. If Jesus could use these words differently, pray tell, what would keep Luke and Saul from using them thusly?
Regarding Acts 9:7 and 22:9, Saul’s men obviously heard something (a sound of some kind; see Robertson, 1930, pp. 117-118), yet they did not hear (i.e., understand) the voice of the Lord as did Saul. What fair and just jury could not easily come to this same conclusion were Luke and Saul put on trial for their differences in the accounts of Jesus appearing to Saul and his men on the road to Damascus?

REFERENCE

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Jesus called them sons of thunder by Roy Davison


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/024-sonsofthunder.html


Jesus called them sons of thunder
What would you expect from two brothers who were called ‘sons of thunder’?

“Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons: Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter; James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, ‘Sons of Thunder’” (Mark 3:14-17).

The following incident might indicate why Jesus called them sons of thunder. “When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’ But He turned and rebuked them, and said, ‘You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And they went on to another village” (Luke 9:51-56 NASV).

These sons of thunder, James and John, wanted to call down fire from heaven to destroy those people who had refused hospitality to Jesus.

Through the ages many have destroyed others in the name of religion. During the crusades people who falsely claimed to be Christians murdered thousands of Moslems. In the middle ages the Catholic church murdered Protestants who dared to reject the authority of the Pope. Some Protestants murdered other Protestants they considered to be heretics.

Much grief is caused in the world today by this same godless attitude. Deceived, warped souls blow themselves up along with innocent men, women and children in the name of their religion.

Followers of Christ are of a different spirit, “For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” Jesus rebuked James and John. They still had much to learn.

They also showed that they did not yet understand the spirit of the Messianic reign when they wanted to rule at the right and left hand of Jesus.

“Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.’ And He said to them, ‘What do you want Me to do for you?’ They said to Him, ‘Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ They said to Him, ‘We are able.’ So Jesus said to them, ‘You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared.’ And when the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, ‘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; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’” (Mark 10:35-45).

What do we know about James and John? With their father, Zebedee, they were fishermen who worked together with Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18, 21; Luke 5:10). Their mother, Salome, was a witness of the crucifixion and visited the tomb (Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; Mark 16:1).

James and John, along with Peter, were with Jesus when He raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:37) and also when He was transfigured on the mountain (Mark 9:2). Peter, James, John and Andrew asked Jesus privately for clarification about the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:3, 4). In Gethsemane Jesus took Peter, James and John with him when He went farther into the garden to pray (Mark 14:32, 33). After Jesus was arrested, John went with Him into the courtyard of the high priest (John 18:15).

No details are known about the activities of James in the early church, but he must have served prominently since he was the first martyr among the apostles. He was killed with the sword by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). This was probably about ten years after the church was established.

John and Peter are often mentioned together in the early days of the church (Acts 3:1, 3, 4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14; Galatians 2:9).

John lived to an old age. According to tradition he was the only apostle who was not martyred. He served churches in Asia Minor (currently Turkey) and for a time was exiled to the island of Patmos (Revelation 1:9)

John penned the Gospel of John, the three Letters of John and the Revelation, which are the later books of the New Testament. He wrote the most New Testament books other than Paul.

This ‘son of thunder’ who at one time wanted to call fire down from heaven to destroy people, is now known as the apostle of love because He emphasizes love in his writings. “For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11). He calls himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20) and he admonishes his fellow believers, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11).

Are we improving as followers of Christ? Are we becoming more like Him? Are we growing up in all things unto Him? (Ephesians 4:15). Are we growing up to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ? (Ephesians 4:13). Are we farther along than we were a year ago?

Do we know what kind of spirit we have?

Through the influence of Christ, two sons of thunder learned to have a different spirit: a “spirit of faith” (2 Corinthians 4:13), “a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1), a “spirit of wisdom” (Ephesians 1:17), “a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:4).

Following their example, let us learn to have “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16): a spirit of faith, gentleness, wisdom and love. Amen.

Roy Davison

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

Big by Gary Rose

 Who among us knows the future, and if we did, would we dream big enough?  I doubt it. God is able to use us in ways that are beyond comprehension. Isaiah the prophet says...

   Isa 55:8, ”For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” says Yahweh.
    Isa 55:9, ”For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
    Isa 55:10, For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky, and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
    Isa 55:11, so shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing I sent it to do.

Is there anything to hard for God to accomplish? Any obstacle too big? Any problem to complex? Any time too long? Any power to strong for God to overcome?

I think NOT!!!

Consider the letter from the imprisoned apostle Paul to the Christians at Phillippi...


Philippians 1 World English Bible
1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ; To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and servants:
2 Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 I thank my God whenever I remember you,
4 always in every request of mine on behalf of you all making my requests with joy,
5 for your partnership in furtherance of the Good News from the first day until now;
6 being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.
7 It is even right for me to think this way on behalf of all of you, because I have you in my heart, because, both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the Good News, you all are partakers with me of grace.
8 For God is my witness, how I long after all of you in the tender mercies of Christ Jesus.
9 This I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment;
10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ;
11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
12 Now I desire to have you know, brothers, that the things which happened to me have turned out rather to the progress of the Good News;
13 so that it became evident to the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest, that my bonds are in Christ;

14 and that most of the brothers in the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.
15 Some indeed preach Christ even out of envy and strife, and some also out of good will.
16 The former insincerely preach Christ from selfish ambition, thinking that they add affliction to my chains;
17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the Good News.
18 What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed. I rejoice in this, yes, and will rejoice.



Even while imprisoned, God could work through this little Jewish convert to Christianity to change the WORLD!!! Think BIG, God does!!! With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!!! So, aim high and look for the BIGGEST CHALLENGE OUT THERE!!! Who knows, you may just be the person God has chosen to perform what other may think is beyond the realm of possibility!!!